• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why atheists are not as rational as some like to think

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hey, it's not my logic, it's yours...
According to you;



So do you think Athena exists? Ahura Mazda? Inti? Tiddalik the Frog?

Me, I don't.
You?
No, I have not committed the fallacy of false dilemma. I have not fallaciously concluded the existence of any God that you have named.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
No, I have not committed the fallacy of false dilemma. I have not fallaciously concluded the existence of any God that you have named.

Then I apologize for making incorrect assumptions about your beliefs. Let me explain my position.

Assertions about atheism made by non-atheists are commonly overstated, in my opinion. I live in a largely secular country, and have both lived and spent considerable time in other largely secular countries, or working with a lot of people from those countries (in particular New Zealand, also Sweden).

There is a lot more variance among atheists than you would believe if your exposure was limited to the internet, or to majority-theist locations. (Note: 'You' doesn't mean you personally...I'll try and make no further assumptions from that end, at least in this thread!)

Sure, we can call them agnostic (and I refer to myself as an agnostic atheist). I thought long and hard about how to label myself. Not so much because the label matters much, but that's just how I'm wired.

But these people don't believe in Gods, and are not theists. Unlike what I would think of as a 'pure' agnostic, they are not saying the whole question is indeterminable in a philosophical sense, although some (again, like myself) would say it's indeterminable in a scientific sense. Rather, on the balance of evidence...or lack thereof...they are saying that they don't believe in Gods...or even gods.

Again in a philosophical sense, not all Gods/gods can exist. Or, rather, if they do, they do not exist in the sense that people believe in them.

A simple contrast of monotheistic beliefs illustrates this. More than one god claims to be the one god, which means either;
Not all gods we believe in are real or
Not all gods we believe in are as we believe them to be.

So, can I prove Tiddalik doesn't exist? No. I'd go further and suggest such a thing isn't even possible.
If you wish, you can think of me as an agnostic for that reason. I do.

But I add 'atheist' to my label because I find it disingenuous to describe myself only as an agnostic. I think, on balance, it is very unlikely Tiddalik exists. I see no reason to believe Tiddalik exists. Calling myself an atheist gives a much better approximation of my lack of belief, although it says very little about what philosophies or world views I hold.

Sure, it bothers me even more when atheists pretend atheism is more than it is than when theists do it. But that' the thing about atheism...there is no entry requirements. They're just as atheist as me, even if I think their understanding of atheism is flawed and confused.

To whit...there is no 'thesis of atheism', but instead a whole raft of conflicting beliefs around it, most of which are horribly overstated. That is why most atheists would state that there is no thesis. What they really mean is that there is no commonly agreed thesis, and atheism doesn't require it. If you would then suggest that this means atheism doesn't hold any real value at all, then I'd completely agree. It doesn't.

As for distinguishing it from agnosticism...well, sure. That's one way of labeling the world. I prefer to combine the two labels, much as one might say they're an Italian-Australian or something. Does it provide definitive information on my beliefs? No...but is it slightly more informative than calling myself 'atheist' or 'agnostic'? I think clearly yes.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The problem with some of the atheists I see, not all, is that they have this notion theists are all kind of dumb or delusional and have lost there rational mind.

As a rational person, to make the conclusion that a belief in a theology has made you lose your rational or scientific mind or whatever must be done with a solid hypothesis and a good and extensive quantitative research. You cant just make an assumption and generalise it. That thought or position itself is not a rational position.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
The problem with some of the atheists I see, not all, is that they have this notion theists are all kind of dumb or delusional and have lost there rational mind.

As a rational person, to make the conclusion that a belief in a theology has made you lose your rational or scientific mind or whatever must be done with a solid hypothesis and a good and extensive quantitative research. You cant just make an assumption and generalise it. That thought or position itself is not a rational position.


It is irrational for anyone to believe that anything can exist or function outside of the known physical laws. But it is completely delusional to accept that belief as fact, without one shred of objective evidence.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
Thats not the point mate.


The problem with some of the atheists I see, not all, is that they have this notion theists are all kind of dumb or delusional and have lost there rational mind.

As a rational person, to make the conclusion that a belief in a theology has made you lose your rational or scientific mind or whatever must be done with a solid hypothesis and a good and extensive quantitative research. You cant just make an assumption and generalise it. That thought or position itself is not a rational position.

Your first statement was an appeal to pathos mate, stating that some atheists make an overgeneralized assumption that, "theists are all kind of dumb or delusional and have lost there rational mind". Some Atheist do make the assumption that Theists defending their beliefs, will use dumb, delusional, and irrational arguments to justify their position. This hasn't changed in thousands of years, so no epiphanies here. But demeaning the person's character, because of their beliefs NO. In other words, Atheists judge what a person is saying, and not who a person is.

The statements I made is a specific fact, not a generalized assumption. It is certainly rational to conclude that the physical laws, cause and effect, or the application of scientific inquiry, can't simply be ignored. Therefore having the belief in all things outside of this sphere of reality, certainly addresses the point. So, unless you can demonstrate something outside of the physical laws, or why the scientific method is overrated, then you are simply editorializing your opinion only.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Your first statement was an appeal to pathos mate, stating that some atheists make an overgeneralized assumption that, "theists are all kind of dumb or delusional and have lost there rational mind". Some Atheist do make the assumption that Theists defending their beliefs, will use dumb, delusional, and irrational arguments to justify their position. This hasn't changed in thousands of years, so no epiphanies here. But demeaning the person's character, because of their beliefs NO. In other words, Atheists judge what a person is saying, and not who a person is.

The statements I made is a specific fact, not a generalized assumption. It is certainly rational to conclude that the physical laws, cause and effect, or the application of scientific inquiry, can't simply be ignored. Therefore having the belief in all things outside of this sphere of reality, certainly addresses the point. So, unless you can demonstrate something outside of the physical laws, or why the scientific method is overrated, then you are simply editorializing your opinion only.

My comment was intended at those who do generalise with out any proper research. If you are not in that category, be it.

Just because someone believes in a supernatural being that you don't believe in, that does not make him or her stupid or dumb by default. Otherwise Newton and Al Khawarizmi must be seriously dumb.

Peace.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
My comment was intended at those who do generalise with out any proper research. If you are not in that category, be it.

Just because someone believes in a supernatural being that you don't believe in, that does not make him or her stupid or dumb by default. Otherwise Newton and Al Khawarizmi must be seriously dumb.

Peace.

Both Newton and Musa al-Khwarizmi used real facts to support their certainties. I doubt if anyone considered either of them dumb. I simply believe in certainty over the belief of certainty. A person that believes in the superstition, the paranormal, the spiritual, or the metaphysical, are not people that believe in certainty. They are people that believe that their certainties will someday be validated. I am not one of those people.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Both Newton and Musa al-Khwarizmi used real facts to support their certainties. I doubt if anyone considered either of them dumb. I simply believe in certainty over the belief of certainty. A person that believes in the superstition, the paranormal, the spiritual, or the metaphysical, are not people that believe in certainty. They are people that believe that their certainties will someday be validated. I am not one of those people.

The point is, you don't become dumb or unscientific just because you are part of a religion.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
The point is, you don't become dumb or unscientific just because you are part of a religion.


Intelligence is a relative term. To a fish, a bear is more intelligent. To a worm a bird is more intelligent. Religiosity does nothing to encourage scientific investigation. It provides no scientific learning incentives, or knowledge. It uses no scientific methods of inquiry to explain any natural phenomena, or to justify its beliefs. It discourages individuality, and encourages tribalism and elitism. It publishes no peer reviewed research, or contribute any practical technology. I'd say, that if you want to lose your natural sense of curiosity and your ability to excel(in science), then adhering to any religious dogma will eventually become a consuming dissonance, based only on faith.

I certainly disagree with you, but I wouldn't use the word "dumb". Unscientific is sufficient. Although Religions do contribute to the "dumbing down" of personal intellect in America.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Religiosity does nothing to encourage scientific investigation.
A person can believe that natural curiosity is a gift from God or if they are religious but not theist might see the instinct to uncover the workings of nature as a part of understanding the connections between all things.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
A person can believe that natural curiosity is a gift from God or if they are religious but not theist might see the instinct to uncover the workings of nature as a part of understanding the connections between all things.


I'm afraid that there are very few(10) of the 4200 religions, that are non-theistic or non-spiritualistic. Why would anyone consider any part of the human condition a gift from a God? Would they also consider the heart, lungs, and brain, also a gift of a God? Our natural curiosity was instilled through evolution, which gives our cognitive properties the ability to learn and reason. This was essential for our survival, as part of our three basic instincts(self-preservation, social, and sexual). Nothing to do with any culturally-created belief system. If one is indoctrinated early enough to believe that "God did it all", what would be the catalyst to incite them to uncover the nature of any natural phenomena? Let alone how they are interconnected.

Religious inspiration and dreams, are in hindsight of discoveries. It is the application and creation, that is the science. In other words, all religious inspirations and beliefs, should be left outside before you enter the lab.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
To whit...there is no 'thesis of atheism', but instead a whole raft of conflicting beliefs around it, most of which are horribly overstated. That is why most atheists would state that there is no thesis. What they really mean is that there is no commonly agreed thesis, and atheism doesn't require it. If you would then suggest that this means atheism doesn't hold any real value at all, then I'd completely agree. It doesn't.
The (commonly agreed) thesis of atheism is that "that there are god/gods is false."

It's pretty much common.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
I read about half of this article and it looked pretty bold.

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-atheists-rational.html
That atheism has a foundation in rational thinking is the end result of a movement from the 17th Century of a group that called themselves (literally) Freethought, and led to the European "Age of Enlightenment."

Freethought - Wikipedia

Rationality is not represented in all arguments an atheist might use, nor in all reasons one might have to deny gods. But it does, and always shall, support good reasons for being an atheist.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
The (commonly agreed) thesis of atheism is that "that there are god/gods is false."

It's pretty much common.

You can define thesis in those terms. My meaning was that stating anything about what atheists believe is fraught with inaccuracy and overstatement.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
I'm afraid that there are very few(10) of the 4200 religions, that are non-theistic or non-spiritualistic. Why would anyone consider any part of the human condition a gift from a God? Would they also consider the heart, lungs, and brain, also a gift of a God? Our natural curiosity was instilled through evolution, which gives our cognitive properties the ability to learn and reason. This was essential for our survival, as part of our three basic instincts(self-preservation, social, and sexual). Nothing to do with any culturally-created belief system. If one is indoctrinated early enough to believe that "God did it all", what would be the catalyst to incite them to uncover the nature of any natural phenomena? Let alone how they are interconnected
Religious inspiration and dreams, are in hindsight of discoveries. It is the application and creation, that is the science. In other words, all religious inspirations and beliefs, should be left outside before you enter the lab.
It's not unheard of for theists say that they consider learning as a method of discovering the God(s) that they seek to know.

Some people, in order to discover God, read a book. But there is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above and below, note, read. God whom you want to discover, did not make the letters with ink; he put in front of your eyes the very things that he made. Can you ask for a louder voice than that?

Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nature#Origins
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
It's not unheard of for theists say that they consider learning as a method of discovering the God(s) that they seek to know.

Some people, in order to discover God, read a book. But there is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above and below, note, read. God whom you want to discover, did not make the letters with ink; he put in front of your eyes the very things that he made. Can you ask for a louder voice than that?

Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Book of Nature - Wikipedia

Learning is a passive process, not an active methodology. It is the application of our reasoning(intuitive, inductive, and deductive), which is the method used in validating new discoveries. Why would a God need to be discovered? Is He hiding? Or, are you really saying that we need to find enough selective evidence to satisfy, and reinforce our confirmation biases? A book created things?
 

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
Skepticism is the dual opposite of faith. It's no more scientifically relevant than the later, if at all useful unlike the the positive force.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Atheism / Fundamentalism is not a black or white position. Rather, they are the opposite ends of a very broad spectrum.

On the one end are Atheists then Agnostics then Deists.

On the other end are people who take a literal reading of scripture: God said it, I believe it, end of story.

The vast majority of people fall somewhere between the two ends.

I have found that religious beliefs, even the far right fundamentalist beliefs, have no correlation to intelligence. Anecdotally, I actually know a religious fundamentalist who is a real rocket scientist.

The driving factor is the level of religious indoctrination a person has received, especially during infancy and early childhood.

The most basic evidence for this is that most people's religious beliefs are those of their parents.

There is another general correlation that I have found: Where a person falls on the scale of atheist to fundamentalist also reflects the person's belief in other things supernatural.

I have never encountered an atheist, in person or virtually, who believes in supernatural things like ghosts, telekinesis, precognition, ancient aliens, bigfoot, et al.
 
Top