Are atheists irrational?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Babylonian captivity ended in the spring of 536 B.C.E., 1st
Nisan.

I hope you - and everyone else - don't forget that you never gave any support for this claim after I asked several times.

Every reputable source I've seen for the date of this event gives a range of years, not a specific day. And most of the ranges I've seen don't include the specific day you're claiming.

So what's your source?

 

[VioletVortex]

I think that atheists are sort of in the middle ground when it comes to rationalism.

 

[Milton Platt]

Other way around.

There has to be a belief (theism) first before the belief can be rejected (atheism).

 

[Jeremiahcp]

There has to be a belief (theism) first before the belief can be rejected (atheism).

Rejection? Who is talking about rejection? I am talking about a lack of belief. Humans invented gods. People are not born believing in gods, they had to invent them then they had to teach them to other people. Theism is a response to a world they did not understand, a world without gods, so they invented gods in response to a world without gods.

This is not a difficult concept.

 

[Notanumber]

There has to be a belief (theism) first before the belief can be rejected (atheism).

I only believed because I was indoctrinated in my early life and was deprogrammed later by logical thought.

If I hadn’t been indoctrinated, I would never have been a god believer but I still call myself an atheist.

My background is probably the same as most atheists through no fault of their own making.

 

[LukeS]

I think that atheists are irrationally "hyper rational." Life's not that cut and dried.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I hope you - and everyone else - don't forget that you never gave any support for this claim after I asked several times.

Every reputable source I've seen for the date of this event gives a range of years, not a specific day. And most of the ranges I've seen don't include the specific day you're claiming.

So what's your source?

You have presupposed that archaeologists, who give a range of dates close enough to make the prophecy alarming to us, are the reputable sources, above the Bible writers, who help us isolate the date.

I have seen archaeologist's positions, for example, that place the prophecy off by three years.

I ask you again which is more likely:

The Bible writers got close with assumptive prophecies that Israel would be taken captive in 541 BCE and become a nation in 1945 CE or that archaeologists are off by three years, since that small shift on dates ASSUMED for 2,500 YEARS AGO would place the prophecies EXACTLY to 1948, when Israel rebirthed, uniquely in history?!

You are being unreasonable and not just "skeptical".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have presupposed that archaeologists, who give a range of dates close enough to make the prophecy alarming to us, are the reputable sources, above the Bible writers, who help us isolate the date.

I have seen archaeologist's positions, for example, that place the prophecy off by three years.

I ask you again which is more likely:

The Bible writers got close with assumptive prophecies that Israel would be taken captive in 541 BCE and become a nation in 1945 CE or that archaeologists are off by three years, since that small shift on dates ASSUMED for 2,500 YEARS AGO would place the prophecies EXACTLY to 1948, when Israel rebirthed, uniquely in history?!

You are being unreasonable and not just "skeptical".

This is the first time you've even mentioned that your dating comes from the Bible. Care to justify your claim?

 

[Sundance]

Other way around.

Uhhhh...that's right, actually

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not so much that I expect something different for the sake of it, I expect something different for the reason that @Nowhere Man said. If it is a response to the irrationality of theism then how can it be contradictory on secular concepts that mesh with atheism?

If atheists are rational then why are they so adamant on moral principles?

Those are secular humanists, generally. Not all atheists are secular humanists.

They laugh at those who value marriage, the sanctity of life, or actual gender yet are hellbent on the most silliest of issues like the word god being on money.

Objecting to references to God on money is about secularism, not atheism. Plenty of theists are secularists; it's just that the people who benefit from violations of secularism (and therefore often oppose secularism out of selfishness) belong to the theistic religions that have influence over governments.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Those are secular humanists, generally. Not all atheists are secular humanists.

Nope, atheists. Most atheists I encounter don't even know what Humanism is. I am primarily referring to the college age ones at least

Objecting to references to God on money is about secularism, not atheism. Plenty of theists are secularists; it's just that the people who benefit from violations of secularism (and therefore often oppose secularism out of selfishness) belong to the theistic religions that have influence over governments.

It has nothing to do with what it is about but who is doing it. I am a very secular person still and was more secular as a Christian than when I was an atheist. My only concern is the lack of virtue amongst a group and its ability to remain in cohesion with itself. This is something I do not find amongst atheists although it is to be expected. Atheists are not unifying on any grand scheme because there is nothing to unify over and there is no atheist ideology although atheists conform to multiple variations of ideology. I was no different of course but this makes it to be some really bizarre bickering amongst groups especially when atheists attack other atheists for being atheists or questioning their atheism as if it is somehow a "spy amongst their midst."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Nope, atheists. Most atheists I encounter don't even know what Humanism is. I am primarily referring to the college age ones at least

It has nothing to do with what it is about but who is doing it. I am a very secular person still and was more secular as a Christian than when I was an atheist. My only concern is the lack of virtue amongst a group and its ability to remain in cohesion with itself. This is something I do not find amongst atheists although it is to be expected. Atheists are not unifying on any grand scheme because there is nothing to unify over and there is no atheist ideology although atheists conform to multiple variations of ideology. I was no different of course but this makes it to be some really bizarre bickering amongst groups especially when atheists attack other atheists for being atheists or questioning their atheism as if it is somehow a "spy amongst their midst."

Hey mate,

Sorry, I missed this thread, somehow.
I may very well not be typical, and certainly I'm not 'college-aged', but as near as I can tell, you don't get to choose whether you're an atheist or not. Nor do others get to tell you whether you are a 'real' atheist, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

If you're not theistic, then you're an atheist, basically. Though what you claim, or label yourself as is of course up to you.
Atheists are actually not a group, and are not 'cohesive' in any real fashion. There is a slightly worrying trend to try and make something out of atheism that it's not. Whilst that has always been the case amongst some theists, I think it's a more recent thing for atheists to make the same mistake.

Anyway...I wouldn't look to the 'loudest' atheists to get any sort of clarity on what atheism actually is. Ultimately it's not much. Certainly not enough to have loud, self-righteous proclamations about.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope, atheists. Most atheists I encounter don't even know what Humanism is. I am primarily referring to the college age ones at least

Again: not all atheists share those views. Whether they're aware of the term "humanism" is irrelevant.

It has nothing to do with what it is about but who is doing it. I am a very secular person still and was more secular as a Christian than when I was an atheist.

You don't strike me as a "very secular person."

My only concern is the lack of virtue amongst a group and its ability to remain in cohesion with itself. This is something I do not find amongst atheists although it is to be expected. Atheists are not unifying on any grand scheme because there is nothing to unify over and there is no atheist ideology

That's right: "atheism" is not a group that would have cohesion. It's just a catch-all label for all the people who aren't theists.

although atheists conform to multiple variations of ideology.

There are ideologies that are incompatible with theism. There are no "variations of ideology" of atheism.

I was no different of course but this makes it to be some really bizarre bickering amongst groups especially when atheists attack other atheists for being atheists or questioning their atheism as if it is somehow a "spy amongst their midst."

Not sure what you're getting at here.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Again: not all atheists share those views. Whether they're aware of the term "humanism" is irrelevant.

I know, what about it?

You don't strike me as a "very secular person."

How am I not secular? You seem to be ignoring at least 85% of everything I say and interpret it as the opposite. Secularism is only defined as the ideal of the removal of religious or spiritual ideology or representation from government or public powers. It is not a hard concept.

I don't even have a religion yet alone have any desire to push my views toward theism which are not that much.

You are obviously conflating secular with atheist.

That's right: "atheism" is not a group that would have cohesion. It's just a catch-all label for all the people who aren't theists.

Not remotely true. Atheism is only defined as a lack of belief in a god although it can vary because explicity and implicit variations occur in that one can believe no god exist or have no belief in a god. This ranges from a variation of pragmatic atheism to highly functioning atheism with understanding of what a god is or could be.

There are ideologies that are incompatible with theism. There are no "variations of ideology" of atheism.

Atheism has no ideology and your need to insist it does baffles me. You are the reason I cannot take so many atheists seriously as they redefine an otherwise harmless and shallow word. It is like creating a lengthy ideology out of heterosexuality.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

You. You are acting as an atheist who is forcing atheism to be an ideology and questioning another person's atheism to delegitimize them as if it means something in a creedless idea.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Hey mate,

Sorry, I missed this thread, somehow.

DAMN YOU! I shall taketh my vengeance upon thou and smite ye with fury that shall echo in the heavens!

But moving along . . .

I may very well not be typical, and certainly I'm not 'college-aged', but as near as I can tell, you don't get to choose whether you're an atheist or not. Nor do others get to tell you whether you are a 'real' atheist, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

I know right!
I think a lot of it has to do with atheists or even theists unwilling to admit that somebody can leave either group. This is why atheists complain about Christians telling former Christians who are now atheists that they were never Christians. Atheists though have a tendency of doing the exact same thing though but the only issues is that it is exceedingly rare that a full blown atheist going back to theism.

Hence my embarrassment at this topic. I was the hardest of the hardest when it came to atheism hence my long held anti-theism. The only reason I softened up was because of my lengthy encounters with theists in conservative movements and my re-humanizing of them.

If you're not theistic, then you're an atheist, basically. Though what you claim, or label yourself as is of course up to you.

I an undoubtedly apathetic toward it all and don't care about the exist of a god anymore. To me it is silly considering that many deities are proven without a shadow of a doubt to be logically flawed and paradoxical and proven beyond the realm of logic to be nonexistent yet people still believe in their existence. They care not about evidence but emotion.

So this means there are millions of people who pray to something they cannot intellectually defend yet do it anyways. Even if I got to my knees and confessed with great sincerity that I am a Christian I will always hold intellectual aptitude to realize this deity does not exist. Meaning that even in such a circumstance I am an atheist that nobody would ever guess.

Atheists are actually not a group, and are not 'cohesive' in any real fashion. There is a slightly worrying trend to try and make something out of atheism that it's not. Whilst that has always been the case amongst some theists, I think it's a more recent thing for atheists to make the same mistake.

Atheist are a group if you are discussing atheists as a whole. A group is only distinguishable if compared to another set of people, like theist. Now if I said atheist are a party, organization of team then that is different because it assert cohesion, ideology and collective intent.

Anyway...I wouldn't look to the 'loudest' atheists to get any sort of clarity on what atheism actually is. Ultimately it's not much. Certainly not enough to have loud, self-righteous proclamations about.

I know atheism is not much. I have been one as a child without knowing it and have been one for quite some years. Of course the latter case was with greater sincerity and understanding.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheist are a group if you are discussing atheists as a whole. A group is only distinguishable if compared to another set of people, like theist.

Meh...technically you might be right, but it's not a helpful way of looking at things, imho. Theists aren't much of a group either. It's like lumping crocodiles and oak trees in a group called 'Not reality TV stars'. Sure you might be happier talking to that group than the alternative, but it's hardly informative.

Meanwhile, the atheist 'group' is used as a way to denote rationalism or deviance, depending which vested interest people are pushing.

Now if I said atheist are a party, organization of team then that is different because it assert cohesion, ideology and collective intent.

I get what you mean, and again...you're right. But even you have a tendency to talk about 'atheists' as if there is some coherence in that.

I know atheism is not much. I have been one as a child without knowing it and have been one for quite some years. Of course the latter case was with greater sincerity and understanding.

A point well made.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is the first time you've even mentioned that your dating comes from the Bible. Care to justify your claim?

Listen, if you feel proof of this prophecy will "do it" for you, to bring you to a saving relationship with Christ, why are you asking me? Why have you not already done the search online and examined the passages under discussion?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Listen, if you feel proof of this prophecy will "do it" for you, to bring you to a saving relationship with Christ, why are you asking me?

I don't think that. Not for a second. My first impression of it was that you were trying to sell me a bill of goods. Nothing you've said has inspired any more confidence.

Why have you not already done the search online and examined the passages under discussion?

Because that's not what I care about.

I think you may misunderstand what I'm doing here. I'm not out to prove the "prophecy" true or false; I've already satisfied myself that there's nothing to it.

What I'm out to do is see whether your brand of Christianity is rational. That can only come from you. Material on a website you haven't read or a line of argument you've never considered won't help with that question.

We have different starting points: you believe that God exists and the Bible is true; what I'm trying to see is whether, acknowledging this starting point, you have a rational path to the conclusion you're claiming... and so far, it isn't looking good.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't think that. Not for a second. My first impression of it was that you were trying to sell me a bill of goods. Nothing you've said has inspired any more confidence.


Because that's not what I care about.

I think you may misunderstand what I'm doing here. I'm not out to prove the "prophecy" true or false; I've already satisfied myself that there's nothing to it.

What I'm out to do is see whether your brand of Christianity is rational. That can only come from you. Material on a website you haven't read or a line of argument you've never considered won't help with that question.

We have different starting points: you believe that God exists and the Bible is true; what I'm trying to see is whether, acknowledging this starting point, you have a rational path to the conclusion you're claiming... and so far, it isn't looking good.

So . . . you are 1) not interested in salvation via fact-checking on prophecy 2) "fact-checking" on me without actually checking on the prophecies I'm citing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So . . . you are 1) not interested in salvation via fact-checking on prophecy

I would be if I though you had it - actually had it - to offer. I've seen no reason to think that you do.

2) "fact-checking" on me without actually checking on the prophecies I'm citing.

Not really fact-checking (since I don't think the facts are on your side); more like checking for internal consistency in your arguments to see if I can salvage respect for your brand of Christianity.