Are atheists irrational?

[Milton Platt]

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.

Atheism is simply the belief that the claims of gods existing do not have sufficient evidence to be believed.

What "creed"? That is virtually the only necessary thing required for one to be an atheist.

The only way for someone to call a secular "construct" a god is to redefine the word god to include ideas. This is not the normative use of the word god.

If you do not believe a god exists, you are still an atheist, no matter what you choose to call yourself.

how does not believing in a god for lack of evidence contain intellectual contradictions?

 

[IAmHeretic]

If atheism is a lack of belief or no belief in gods, then theism is a direct response to that.

=========================================================================

I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me. Theism was widespread for millenniums before there the first atheist realized it was all &^%&%&%.

Heretic

 

[Jon_Roland]

To be an "atheist" is to hold the position that "God does not exist. Since there is no way to know something like that does not exist, then yes it is irrational to be an atheist. But not to be a nonbeliever or agnostic. Or, as the lead character in my new novel puts it: "If God there be then I am His. If not then He is mine." The title if the novel (on Amazon) is "Wayward World".

 

[Milton Platt]

"Atheism, the word, wouldn't exist if there was no theism"

I thought it would be clear enough that I am not talking about the word itself.

If atheism is a lack of belief or no belief in gods, then theism is a direct response to that.

It's the other way around. Athist is a term coined be religious people. It just means "not theist". Just like atypical means not typical, and asymetrical means not symetrical.

 

[Milton Platt]

To be an "atheist" is to hold the position that "God does not exist. Since there is no way to know something like that does not exist, then yes it is irrational to be an atheist. But not to be a nonbeliever or agnostic. Or, as the lead character in my new novel puts it: "If God there be then I am His. If not then He is mine." The title if the novel (on Amazon) is "Wayward World".

You might ask an atheist or two what they mean by the term. Atheism is not usually the belief that gods do not exist. It is the rejection of the claim that they do. The door is still open to theists providing the necessary evidence to support the claim.

 

[Revoltingest]

To be an "atheist" is to hold the position that "God does not exist.

This isn't quite accurate.
You're describing the "strong atheist".
Most of us are "weak", claiming only that we don't believe gods exist.
After all, it cannot be proven they don't, so that claim is unsupported.

 

[IAmHeretic]

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.

The only thing atheists agree on is that there is no god. Everything else is up for grabs and we may retain some of our old beliefs. Atheism is just as much a journey as religions. The difference is that Atheists educate themselves whilst Religionists allow themselves to be indoctrinated (before they in turn indoctrinate others [indoctrinating others is the most powerful form of {self} indoctrination]).

Heretic

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In several cases, the mythical and religious heritage is more logical and rational than some of the modern speculations of cosmos.

Can you name any such cases of the ancients' stories being more logical and rational than modern cosmology?

As best I can tell, all creation myths are completely wrong except for one idea: that the universe had a beginning. The scientific account and these creation myths have nothing else in common. They all missed the singularity, the expansion of the universe, the inflationary epoch, symmetry breaking of the superforce into four components, particle condensation, nucleosynthsis, the decoupling of matter and radiation with the release of the the cosmic background radiation, the hundreds of millions of years before the first starlight, the 9 billion year delay before the formation of the sun and earth, the moon-creating impact event, the cooling of the earth with crust formation, and the evolution of life over deep time.

The Mesopotamians told themselves that, "The mighty Marduk took his club and split Tiamat's body in half. He placed half of her body in the sky and made the heavens. He created the moon to guard the heavens, and set it moving back and forth, on endless patrol. With the other half of Tiamat's body he made the land." http://mesopotamia.mrdonn.org/marduk.html

Would that be an example of the ancient wisdom to which you refer?

See that? They got exactly one thing right. The universe had a beginning. Everything else is wrong.

How about the wisdom of the Vikings:

"Odin, Vili, and Ve killed the giant Ymir. The sons of Bor then ... made the world from him. From his blood they made the sea and the lakes; from his flesh the earth; from his hair the trees; and from his bones the mountains. They made rocks and pebbles from his teeth and jaws and those bones that were broken. Maggots appeared in Ymir's flesh and came to life. By the decree of the gods they acquired human understanding and the appearance of men, although they lived in the earth and in rocks. From Ymir's skull the sons of Bor made the sky ... The sons of Bor flung Ymir's brains into the air, and they became the clouds. Then they took the sparks and burning embers that were flying about after they had been blown out of Muspell, and placed them in the midst of Ginnungagap to give light to heaven above and earth beneath." The Norse Creation Myth

Same thing. It's all wrong apart from the idea of a first instant for the universe.

One just has to interpret "gods and goddesses" as natural forces of creation ...

I find one needs to do a lot of that to validate religious and mythological claims. They have to be converted to modern ideas. Hence, many Christians tell us that the days of creation in Genesis were not literal days. Science told them that.

"It is no credit to the orthodox that they do not now believe all the absurdities that were believed 150 years ago. The gradual emasculation of the Christian doctrine has been effected in spite of the most vigorous resistance, and solely as the result of the onslaughts of freethinkers." - Bertrand Russell

... and connect the ancient mythical tellings to the correct celestial objects and motions.

And here you demonstrate that you agree that it is science that determines what are the "correct celestial objects and motions."

You seem to be implying that these ancient writings have value today as more than just snapshots of man's cultural evolution.

I ask you again, can you name any such cases of the ancients' stories being more logical and rational than modern cosmology? What did the Druids or the Australian aborigines, for example, have to tell modern cosmologists?

 

[raw_thought]

Atheism is irrational. Theism is irrational. The only truthful and rational approach is, " I don't know if there is a God."

 

[Grandliseur]

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.

Asking if atheists are irrational can only be answered with an 'affirmative'; however, the reason for this is that all humans are irrational to a great extend. This is the reason for our having so many Christian sects and so many different religious beliefs. Thus it is not about Atheists being irrational as such, but about humans being irrational in general.

As a fundamentalist OEC with strong beliefs that cannot be swayed, I have come to see how everyone is following the same programming in our beings. We are not very rational beings, but instead, we are like waves being blown about by personal agendas, peer groups, social circles that function like prisons since we do not dare loose them. This goes for the religious as well as for those who imagine being superior in their irreligion. It is rare to find an individual who can step away from their social circle's influence, their back-clapping, and support and perhaps even endure their scorn in the pursuit of a personal agenda of simple truths.

On an aside to you personally, Sha'irullah, please look at a video called "STREET MAGICIANS ESSENCE OF ANTI-CHRIST?" Ignore the texts and simple fast-forward to the views of the works being shown that the magicians do. This cannot be done in our reality. It is outside the limits of our physics, what we recognize as possible. Thus spirit beings do exist.

 

[osgart]

since the presence of a divine being is nowhere to be found I would say atheists are soberingly rational.

fantasy and wishful thinking won't change that fact.

There may be something out there but it isn't divine.

if you want to you can convince yourself of almost anything being real.

The real question is when we die do we cease to exist?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

It's the other way around. Athist is a term coined be religious people. It just means "not theist". Just like atypical means not typical, and asymetrical means not symetrical.

It says right in that post you quoted that I am not talking about the word.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As I see it, personal morals isn't rational. They are based on feelings, what you feel to be right. Feelings are very complicated. Some of it is genetic, some of it's experience, culture/upbringing. It's no wonder that you like Islamic philosophy.

Yes, feelings are irrational, and that's fine.

It might behoove us to take a moment and recognize that the irrational is not only not to be despised, but everything of value in the conscious experience is irrational. Rational thought has one useful application: trying to understand events and to predict (and when possible control) outcomes. The value of that is to optimize our irrational experiences - feelings. We want to feel comfortable, happy, satisfied, of value, and liked as much as possible while minimizing experiences like shame, regret, guilt, frustration, inferiority and the like. All of those are feelings, and as such, do not constitute reason or rational thought.

Reason is not an end in itself, but a tool to manage the passions, that is, the best use of rational thought is to optimize irrational experience.

As I see it, "irrational" is only undesirable in reasoning - problem solving - not other types of mental experiences.

Where would we be without our passions, all of which are irrational? Do we like one kind of music more than another for any rational basis. Did we reason it out that rock is better than opera or vice versa? If you play an instrument and have learned some of the underlying music theory, you may recall the rational hours as those learning the scales and the chords, which has no intrinsic value. It's value comes later when one is rapt in the experience of the music. The former facilitates the latter, and helps to maximize the irrational experience of enjoying or not enjoying a piece of music. Once again, it is in this second place that we find meaning in life - the Dionysian aspects of life.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Sha'irullah, atheism is just an absence of belief in a deity, we say theists have not met their 'burden of proof' when they assert a deity or deities exist, that's all. There is no "world view", their is no creed or atheist "pope" to worship, you seem to have taken a lot of your religious baggage in your transition to a rejection of theist claims. You can be an atheist and still believe in a load of old BS, you can be an atheist and belong to the Raëlian movement for example (Google it). Being an atheist doesn't mean you are necessarily more "rational" than theists, don't stress about labels, we are all human beings my friend. Well done for getting yourself extricated from Islam btw.

As for the other comments on the thread (haven't read them all, too many tedious fallacies on display, I got bored), atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, you can be an agnostic atheist in the same way you can be an agnostic theist. Agnosticism concerns knowledge - what you 'know', while atheism or theism concerns belief. I'm a strong atheist, but I wouldn't claim to know a deity doesn't exist (which makes me agnostic also). How could I know such a thing? How could anyone? I'd say anyone claiming to "know" a deity exists or doesn't exist is being irrational, unless they can produce compelling evidence for their claims (holy books are not compelling evidence I'd say, likewise the existence of a deity is not negated by the seemingly "undirected" world in which we live).

 

[rharris001]

What I have learned is that person "A's" viewpoint is different from person "B's" viewpoint - regardless of ones personal belief system - either person may view the other as irrational.

What I see in persons - whether they are Christians, Atheists or whatever - is "emotionalism" rather than rationale. Some may call this emotionalism being "passionate about what one believes." Yet, it is emotionalism. Emotionalism has the effect of a powerful mind-numbing drug. Where there is such a degree of emotionalism, being rational goes out the back door. There is a closing of the eyes and hears and no understanding is achieved between the contending persons.

Oftentimes what is sought by persons with opposing viewpoints is "agreement" rather than an "understanding." When one cannot get agreement, then what usually follows are personal insults. That in itself is irrational and it shows immaturity.

One can understand another's viewpoint and not agree.

I am not an Atheist, but I do believe that religion has served up a large portion of this drug called "emotionalism" and it clouds clear thinking and reasonableness. I also believe that religion has been largely responsible for misleading the entire world away from it's Creator.

War is irrational. Killing and murder is irrational. Yet, religion has been - and still is - responsible for some of the most heinous crimes against the human family.

As the saying goes, "The real dichotomy is that in a world so full of a religion, it is a very dangerous place to live in."

While I do not agree, I fully understand why persons adhere to Atheism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Many if not most theists do not take it as a given that humans aren't born believing in gods, or that it ever was in human nature to not believe in gods and so it will always develop naturally.

I would assume that the reason for that is that they can't remember being without a god belief and see it as having been present in them from the beginning. My own story contradicts that. My parents didn't have to talk me out an inherent god belief. The subject never came up. At some point in life, I understood that there were people that believed in gods, that I was not one of them, and that this was called atheism. Did I become an atheist that day, or had I always been one?

Telling them 'nuh uh' is both ineffective and unproductive, which is why I stopped participating in those debates.

Wouldn't that depend on your purpose?

If your purpose is to use reason and evidence to convince a faith based thinker that ideas that he has embraced on faith are incorrect, then yes, you're wasting your time. That almost never happens. If that is one's purpose here, s/he will be repeatedly frustrated, and should either look for other reasons to make such arguments, or abandon them as you have done.

there's be nothing for atheists to speak about on the subject of atheism if theism didn't exist. So it is, in that sense, a response to theism.

I'm sure that you realize that an atheist responding to a theist is not the same thing as calling atheism a response to theism.

 

[suncowiam]

But atheism isn't a "view." It's a lack of a view.
"Rational" only makes sense when referring to a specific idea. Atheism isn't an idea.

That's more semantics than definition...

I'm not sure if there is a "lack of belief." Given any context, if we spent our mental capabilities in processing it, the output becomes a belief even if it is not definitive. So a lack of belief would be for something that has never occurred for that human.

 

[suncowiam]

I for example am not supportive of abortion although if somebody pays for it out of their own money I am fine with it. I do not believe it is a human right that should be paid for.

This alone was an issue that I was called a Christian for.

I also do not accept these redefining of gender considering its classical use in biology. This is something that has resulted in me being either shunned or compared to Hitler.

I also called religion a natural part of human existence and I expressed my enjoyment of Islamic philosophy and I was repeatedly called a questioning atheist or closeted Muslim.


I actually only have one atheist friend who either shares my views or accepts them. We disagree on veganism and cultural appropriation and that is about it.

Well, from what you're describing, it sounds like typical atheists and theist conflicts. I would consider some of what you mentioned as irrational but I wouldn't go as far as to use those derogatory names.

For someone that truly believes in God, anything that contradicts the belief in God should be considered irrational.

Irrationality does not have the same base for every belief. Each side is correctly using the term in accordance to their beliefs.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Atheism wouldn't even be around if the ideology of theism never surfaced.

If you asked a person if he or she believed in a god or gods, and the answer was, "No, I have rejected that claim for lack of evidence," you would probably call that person an atheist.

What would you call a person who responded with, "What's a god?" [please answer]

I call that person an atheist as well. You might need to tell him what atheism is, but as soon as you did, he would tell you that he's always been an atheist.

If you asked that same person if he is a vertebrate or invertebrate, he might also ask you what those are. Once you explained, and showed him an X-ray of his vertebrae, he would tell you that he is a vertebrate and likely has always been one even though he just learned the concept that day.

 

[Stevicus]

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 think much of it may depend on why one chooses not to believe. Some atheists may see religion as harmful, malicious, unjust, tyrannical, and too restrictive towards human rights and freedom. Some might see religion as being extremely unreasonable for pushing it on people and imposing their beliefs - which amount to nothing more than a wild guess about that which is unknowable.

Of course, people who are outraged at any form of injustice can become quite passionate about it, and sometimes their passions may get the better of them. They may come off as "irrational" from time to time...because they're human.

I don't see being an atheist as meaning that you're joining some kind of club or that there are a bunch of rules to follow. It also doesn't preclude having strong beliefs derived from secular concepts, even if it might seem "religious." They can do that; they have the right. Just as other atheists have every right to criticize those beliefs that might be held by other atheists. There's no "organizational loyalty" required among atheists.