Are atheists irrational?

[BilliardsBall]

Your crappy argument laden with unsupported points doesn't become a syllogism just because you divide it into three blocks.

Calling an argument crappy is not a refutation. If you do not believe genetics contribute to religiosity, say so. But then that would of course imply the existence of the numinous. If even one person in human history has encountered the divine, your materialism is irrelevant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Calling an argument crappy is not a refutation.

It was a conclusion, not a refutation.

If you do not believe genetics contribute to religiosity, say so. But then that would of course imply the existence of the numinous.

How do you figure that?

I don't think your tangent about genetics has been relevant to anything we've been talking about, but I'm a bit puzzled why you think god-belief being a result of genetics (instead of, say, being a result of being convinced by compelling evidence) helps the case for God at all.

If even one person in human history has encountered the divine, your materialism is irrelevant.

Why are you shifting gears to materialism?

But if what you're getting at is that someone meeting a god would be evidence of that god... sure. So where's this person and how do we know that they encountered the divine?

 

[McBell]

You are unaware that atheists currently gripe that religiosity is traced to genetics? That people have a sense of the numinous due to a genetic marker--which makes all atheists genetically abnormal?

Source please.

Each time you refuse to present your source hurts YOUR credibility, not mine.

 

[McBell]

Atheists have said "God is not real, it's a genetic predisposition to worship," which leads me to believe IF they are correct that they are genetic aberrations. How is my statement illogical?

How do you account for all the theists who claim that the gods of other theists are not real?
Are they all also genetic aberrations?

Seems to me you have not thought this idea through very well.

 

[sayak83]

Most people talk to God/pray. It is the atheists who are abnormal along the bell curve/outliers.

Do Trump and Clinton and Sanders et al all need psychologists? How about most of the military and police? Etc.

It's actually an evangelical thing, the culturally reinforced interpretation of certain parts of internal dialogue created by one's own mind as God speaking.

It's especially easy to refute this. A careful study will reveal that none of these conversations lead to the person knowing any new information he/she did not know. Insights yes, inspiration yes... but no new information.

Also this,

Seeing And Believing

If you make the effort, you yourself can discover that the voice is created by yourself only and not by God. Challenge it. Ask it for specific and exact information. Then check if the information pans out. Keep a diary where you write down what was specifically said and score its accuracy as you check it out.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How do you account for all the theists who claim that the gods of other theists are not real?
Are they all also genetic aberrations?

Seems to me you have not thought this idea through very well.

Your point is a non-sequitur, since atheists claim the predisposition towards the numinous is genetic, not towards a specific deity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your point is a non-sequitur, since atheists claim the predisposition towards the numinous is genetic, not towards a specific deity.

Which atheists? All of them?

I'm an atheist and I sure haven't made that claim.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Source please.

Each time you refuse to present your source hurts YOUR credibility, not mine.

God gene - Wikipedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God gene - Wikipedia

Did you actually read the article?

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's actually an evangelical thing, the culturally reinforced interpretation of certain parts of internal dialogue created by one's own mind as God speaking.

It's especially easy to refute this. A careful study will reveal that none of these conversations lead to the person knowing any new information he/she did not know. Insights yes, inspiration yes... but no new information.

Also this,

Seeing And Believing

If you make the effort, you yourself can discover that the voice is created by yourself only and not by God. Challenge it. Ask it for specific and exact information. Then check if the information pans out. Keep a diary where you write down what was specifically said and score its accuracy as you check it out.

You are describing the process that led to my conversion--that, and reading the scriptures. My experience wasn't the "goosebumps" described in the New Yorker article you cited.

 

[sayak83]

You are describing the process that led to my conversion--that, and reading the scriptures. My experience wasn't the "goosebumps" described in the New Yorker article you cited.

You got new information?

 

[BilliardsBall]

It was a conclusion, not a refutation.


How do you figure that?

I don't think your tangent about genetics has been relevant to anything we've been talking about, but I'm a bit puzzled why you think god-belief being a result of genetics (instead of, say, being a result of being convinced by compelling evidence) helps the case for God at all.


Why are you shifting gears to materialism?

But if what you're getting at is that someone meeting a god would be evidence of that god... sure. So where's this person and how do we know that they encountered the divine?

Why, it's you! Jesus sent me to you to touch you with divine inspiration. Can you feel it?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Did you actually read the article?

Which article?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You got new information?

I don't believe I've ever shared with you how it is that God gives me unique knowledge.

 

[sayak83]

I don't believe I've ever shared with you how it is that God gives me unique knowledge.

Please share what new knowledge you got and how you verified it?

 

[Muffled]

As an avid atheist and to the greater degree anti-theist I have been trying for over a year to come to grips with what I believe and stand for. So many atheists prattle about reason and logic while even when I was a Muslim I did the exact same thing although with less intellectual contradictions. The more I speak to atheists and try to understand things that are valued to us like science and pragmaticism I find myself incapable of rationalizing my own atheism.

When I was a Muslim the primary reason I left Islam was because of other Muslims and also become of the ideology yet here I am in something that should be creedless and the minute I question something that is secular I am a public enemy amongst atheists. Just by questioned transgender issues I have been called a fake atheist and closet Christian. I used to cling to being a deist for this very reason as I could never understand the anger I witnessed by atheists, it made no sense to be angry at not religion but at secular ideas.

I witness conservatives, Christians, libertarians and pragmatic thinkers on religion criticize atheist for creating gods out of secular constructs and I can't help but wonder that this is the truth. As of now I am sure this is the truth as I am incapable of finding an atheist who is stringent with his principles and a fervent believer in safeguarding his own morals.

As of now I cannot call myself an atheist anymore. I do not believe in the supernatural yet all I have left is philosophy and all that emanates from it.

Atheism is a rational position to me yet every atheist I know is so irrational.

I believe atheism is irrational so it is no surprise that atheists would avoid being rational when discussing the existence of God.

I believe that puts you more in a position of agnosticism. Usually the way a person avoids accrediting the supernatural is to come up with a bogus natural explanation. For instance if a healing takes place the atheist will say the person just naturally recovered.

 

[Muffled]

You have to get specific and explain what irrationalities you are encountering.

A theist would view an atheist as irrational and vice versa. Opposing views tend to label others as the problem, right?

I believe an atheist I was debating did not like my logic but instead of being able to refute it reverted to name calling. I call that irrational.

 

[suncowiam]

I believe an atheist I was debating did not like my logic but instead of being able to refute it reverted to name calling. I call that irrational.

I think many people do that depending on their maturity and age. I don't think it's just an "atheist" thing.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please share what new knowledge you got and how you verified it?

God on occasion informs me regarding complete strangers of life circumstances. For example, I will be preaching publicly when someone is vehemently opposed. God tells me this person is distraught because they have a father dying with terminal cancer. I move to that arena of discussion and the person who was formerly hostile responds as I pray for their loved one. We end on a hug and a promise that they will pursue Bible reading and consider the gospel.

This happens on occasion with complete strangers, is specific, measurable, verifiable. I've never been given a false word from God, either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God on occasion informs me regarding complete strangers of life circumstances. For example, I will be preaching publicly when someone is vehemently opposed. God tells me this person is distraught because they have a father dying with terminal cancer. I move to that arena of discussion and the person who was formerly hostile responds as I pray for their loved one. We end on a hug and a promise that they will pursue Bible reading and consider the gospel.

This happens on occasion with complete strangers, is specific, measurable, verifiable. I've never been given a false word from God, either.

The one time in this thread when this claim was tested, it failed... remember?