Can atheists be rational? (not a parody thread)

It's a great thread BTW. It's always good to go back to first principles and question why we believe what we believe (yes I used the word "believe" in conjunction with atheism :)).

Some people believe they are regularly abducted by aliens and are analy probed. I suppose my skepticism in such could be argued to be irrational but I'm not sure how.

There are an infinte number of things that could be believed without evidence but why should we believe them and is failing to believe in any or all of them irrational?
 
Why does atheism have to be a rational proposition?

It doesn't. I was really responding to the "are theists irrational?" thread as follows --

1. For theism to be irrational, it must be demonstrable that theism is somehow flawed
2. So we have to prove there is no God, or have a rational basis for that claim
3. I therefore set about trying to think of a rational case that disproves the existence of God.
4. I could not (perhaps unsurprisingly) think of one

My aim is simple - to prove theism irrational, you would set out to falsify the theistic hypothesis?

So that is what I have done. :)

cj x
 
Not if you are allowed to redefine your wife to include the trait of being able to turn herself invisible.
I was going to retort that if she was at that moment standing outside so I could see her but then I would have to prove that was really her and not an imposter. I concede.

Is it an invisible ghost?
Yes.
 
It doesn't. I was really responding to the "are theists irrational?" thread as follows --

1. For theism to be irrational, it must be demonstrable that theism is somehow flawed
2. So we have to prove there is no God, or have a rational basis for that claim

There's your problem, right there. To prove that theism is an irrational position, it is not necessary to prove that atheism is a rational position. It's equally possible that the only rational position is to be undecided. Therefore, to prove that theism is irrational, it's only necessary to show that there is no rational basis for the claim that there is a God, rather than to show that there is a rational basis for the claim that there is not a God.

Dave
 
It's a great thread BTW. It's always good to go back to first principles and question why we believe what we believe (yes I used the word "believe" in conjunction with atheism :)).

Some people believe they are regularly abducted by aliens and are analy probed. I suppose my skepticism in such could be argued to be irrational but I'm not sure how.

There are an infinte number of things that could be believed without evidence but why should we believe them and is failing to believe in any or all of them irrational?


Thanks Randfan that is kind of you. And here i think you have really hit the nail on the head, and bring us back to the key problem with most apologetic claims --

I can't logically demonstrate that people are not being anally probed by little grey men from space. I could argue a good case they were, based on the Roper Report (where as I recall up to 4 million Americans believed they might have been abducted?), and from witness testimonys. Hell there may have been some physical proof offered - I don't know

Pastor: Yes dear brethren, Gary did see me at the Bathhouse -- I went in to use the john, but honestly, the injury for which I was treated arose when on the way home I was abducted by aliens and they did unspeakbale things to my bottom, without lube! Aliens are agents of Satan I tell you!

but as you may have guessed i find the evidence less than compelling.

I can't actually say there is no evidence - there is. Any argument from own lack of tantalizing anal adventures with the starfarers of Alpha Centauri is doomed by the induction problem which faces all inference.

Still, the definition of space aliens and probing does allow us a good chance of calling nonsense on ths hypothesis. We can't be certain it's rational to discount space laiens, but because of the way we define space aliens we can probably discount it unless really strong evidence arises.

Ditto the ghost under the bed - if we can't measure, interact with or in any way prove it's existence, at least in theory. Now us theists aren't dumb - we tend to hide behind very nebulous definitions of god, and even if we define Him/Her precisely, the supernatural nature of the deity and the problem of interaction between nature and supernature renders the whole question so problematic that it may be unresolvable So sure, it's quite natural and reasonable, even if not strictly rational, to discount the possibility - hence my belief atheism is rational. It does not by any means follow that theism is irrational, or unreasonable. So we are left here, wondering what the hell we do know. :)

cj x
 
Not if you are allowed to redefine your wife to include the trait of being able to turn herself invisible.
I was going to retort that if she was at that moment standing outside so I could see her but then I would have to prove that was really her and not an imposter. I concede.

Is it an invisible ghost?

Okay, I think we can cut to the chase here. If the ghost under your bed has any physical qualities at all, then it is potentially detectable. If not, then you've essentially used the word "ghost" without giving any sort of definition for it.

It works the same for gods. Give us a definition, like "He hurls thunderbolts", then we can see if that definition is rational.

The claim "something undefined exists" is meaningless, and therefore irrational.

(And obviously, I'm not trying to explain this to you, RF.:p)
 
There's your problem, right there. To prove that theism is an irrational position, it is not necessary to prove that atheism is a rational position. It's equally possible that the only rational position is to be undecided.

Yes: or both positions could be rational, because neither can be falsified (as I have always actually said.)

Therefore, to prove that theism is irrational, it's only necessary to show that there is no rational basis for the claim that there is a God, rather than to show that there is a rational basis for the claim that there is not a God.

It does not however demonstrate there is not a god, only that there is no rational basis to conclude such, which is by no means the same thing, leaving atheism irrational as well, unless you can make a positive case. As I think (by the definition of rationality I offered: a property of an argument where the argument is logically coherent and consistent) atheism, agnosticism and theism can be rationally argued, I do not face this problem.

cj x
 
Yes: or both positions could be rational, because neither can be falsified (as I have always actually said.)
Just because a theism in general can be rational does not mean that specific theisms are.
 
..., leaving atheism irrational as well, unless you can make a positive case. As I think (by the definition of rationality I offered: a property of an argument where the argument is logically coherent and consistent) atheism, agnosticism and theism can be rationally argued, I do not face this problem. cj x

I’m open to examining and evaluating any new evidence, but that seems qualitatively different than saying I’m open to the possibility there is a god. I’m not terribly open to hearing anyone’s arguments about their god view absent some accompanying and compelling evidence.

For me it’s a zero sum game. I stand with no beliefs, and I hope I’m able to form an opinion or have a notion of the validity of a religious theory based on available evidence. I stand where I started (figuratively) being unswayed by any argument or evidence I’ve seen or I’ve heard.

From where I sit (I’m not standing any more) I have neither the available knowledge, insight or capacity to make a blanket determination that there is no god/s. Nor do I feel compelled to do so for my own or anyone else’s sake.

So, do I believe there is/are no god/s ?? Well yes and no. I think the likelihood that there is a god is exceedingly small and leads to a reasonable presumption of god not existing. I have no plans to alter my thoughts or actions based on that unlikely probability. And given the apparent limitations of the species I find my self belonging to any more emphatic a statement than that seems somewhat speculative. On the other side of the coin the apparent small likelihood of there being a god would make a strong religious belief irrational I think.
 
Last edited:
OK, this is not a parody thread. Of course I believe atheists can be rational (I just took the title from the other thread) but what I want to see is a rational argument for atheism. I have always assumed such exist, and that atheism can be entirely rational, but following recent reading of Hume and various other writers I have come to seriously doubt if a rational argument outside of a cost/benefit analysis can be constructed for atheism. Yet I remain convinced there must be some - so go on atheists, if you feel like demonstrating the rationality of the atheistic hypothesis, go for it! :)

cj x

There is only one way to be right. There are many, many, many ways to be wrong. Evidence shows us what is necessary in order to be right. In the absence of evidence, any speculation on our part is almost surely wrong.

Linda
 
Last edited:
Theoretically, I know I must be a weak atheist, since it's impossible to know that god doesn't exist, "god" might be the universe, nothing is real, we might all be living in The Matrix etc etc. But since I know it to the same degree as any other claim based solely on assertion and anecdote, I live as though there is no god and as though I am certain of this. This doesn't mean to say that, in the face of evidence, I wouldn't re-evaluate my position.

I suppose I am a functional strong atheist. Or something.

I think we have to return to the question - "why do you disbelieve in Thor?" And not Thor as a condescending "they were worshipping MY god really - they misinterpreted all the thunderbolts and flying hammers". The documented Thor of earnest historical belief.
 
I think we have to return to the question - "why do you disbelieve in Thor?" And not Thor as a condescending "they were worshipping MY god really - they misinterpreted all the thunderbolts and flying hammers". The documented Thor of earnest historical belief.


Hullo! It's where I started - this is a post of mine in response to Dawkins on Thor :) It's from January 2nd 2007, the original is here
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5341

My personal journey to Athorism


I was amused by Prof. Dawkins little article on athorism. Athorism, for those who have not seen the piece, is lack of belief in Thor. Strangely enough, I think it was the closest thing to a religion my father ever attempted to teach me. I seem to recall that he, a heroic Dane, finds the idea of cowering before Gods odd, and I still recall once in a thunderstorm, aged perhaps eight or nine, him getting me to insult Thor, shaking my fist in defiance at the heavens. Closest to the blasphemy challenge I'll ever get, but quite a rush. Try it sometime you rationalists - go stand on a hill and do that. :) Apparently the old God's love those who can earn their respect.

There was nothing neo-pagan, or even religious about that. Still I was brought up with eight legged horses, ravens and magic hammers, vast serpents, tricky salmon, wolves dwarves and at the end Ragnarok, the final battle, followed by the remaking of the universe. None of this was taught as true, but as myth, legend...

Unsurprisingly I was an atheist by the age of nine, and remained so for many years. Eventually I became a Christian, and remain so to this day. I think its my sympathy with and understanding of the atheist position that brings me here.

Still athorism is not as in vogue as you might think. I have one very respectable Fundamentalist something friend who as far as I can work out is actually henotheistic - he believes in all Gods, he just worships the Christian/Jewish one, as the biggest and best. He seem to think this is entirely in line with the Old Testament. He's a kind soul though who does a lot of work helping the local pagans sort stuff out, and giving old ladies lifts -- religious belief is central to him, but he never allows his different beliefs to get in the way. Late for a coven meeting, and need a lift? Call him. Odd -- I may actually misunderstand this theological stance, and he may be orthodoxly monotheistic, but whatever he is, he is rabidly religious and a bl**dy good bloke.

Anyway last year a friend died (with his boots on) and was cremated in a simple and moving ceremony. He was like his boyfriend a Norse pagan, and we had reading from the Edda's, and Wagner played as the coffin vanished. The funeral was conducted by the wonderful Humanist Association of the GB, who were happy to overlook our desire to introduce some religious elements. Christian and pagan alike we donated to the Humanist cause, then went and drank mead in memory of our fallen friend. I hope he's fighting and drinking in Valhalla today. :)

Now most Norse pagans I know are actually Odinists - which I find odd, as Odin always struck me as a God one would actually not want to worship much? "Sociopaths and magicians" as my fundie mate remarked, as we drank mead in a howling gale on top of Glastonbury Tor one dawn a decade or more ago "they are the folks who worshipped Odin." Personally Freya and Thor seem far more my types. I even rather like Loki, that mischievous Trickster and Betrayer, who ends up destroying the universe by bringing about Ragnarok as far as I can see.

Still, whatever you may think about these things, Athorism is not yet as prevalent as you might think.

Have fun
cj x
 
I believe people experience a divine reality, and that Zeus etc are reflections of that reality, just as my model is. To use a term from philosophy of science i'm an Objective Instrumentalist, and apply the same reasoning to theology as to science -"the map is not the territory: but different maps can closer approximate the ineffable reality".
That is an argument for the strong atheist position: You claim God exists, but you define "exists" to be indistinguishable from "does not exist".
 
Any unequivocal evidence the World was not created Last Tuesday? ;)

None at all: it's unfalsifiable and completely logically unassailable, as Bertrand Russell used to point out. Much like the existence of other minds, etc, etc. I'm a pretty intense sceptic so I do sometimes wonder, and often try to sell the idea to my Fundie friends. After all it was Gosse's wonderful idea in Omphalos!

cj x
 
That is an argument for the strong atheist position: You claim God exists, but you define "exists" to be indistinguishable from "does not exist".

Nope, i'm using the traditional Christian doctrine of Ineffability - that no religion, Christianity included, represents the reality of God adequately. Or as I often say "on God I'm wrong -- and so is everyone else" - though I admit it's an unevidenced assertion. To me the difference between Norse paganism and Christianity is one of utility as a model for understanding a divine reality I have reason to believe exists. It's like why I'm an Anglican - it correklates well with my reading of reality. IF I was applying cost/benefit I'd be a Mormon.

cj x
 
None at all: it's unfalsifiable and completely logically unassailable, as Bertrand Russell used to point out. Much like the existence of other minds, etc, etc. I'm a pretty intense sceptic so I do sometimes wonder, and often try to sell the idea to my Fundie friends. After all it was Gosse's wonderful idea in Omphalos!

cj x
Well then. Is it rational to think the World was created Last Tuesday?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will do.
 
Well then. Is it rational to think the World was created Last Tuesday?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will do.

Yes entirely. As I said it's completely unfalsifiable - I believe Bertrand Russell himself cited it as an example of a rational but unreasonable belief

cj x
 

Back
Top Bottom