Are atheists irrational?

[BilliardsBall]

What about the faith of people who don't believe the Bible? Doesn't that mean that their faith is evidence leading them to the logical conclusion that a different religion is correct?

Biblical faith is evidence of unseen things, e.g. "Because X has been predicted and proven, Y must also be true". Biblical faith is akin to the faith I have in my parents (they have been reliable in the past and will be reliable in the future) as opposed to blind faith (I lack evidence but will believe by will).

I have studied the major texts of the non-Christian faiths and have concluded those adherents and others have blind faith.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Biblical faith is evidence of unseen things, e.g. "Because X has been predicted and proven, Y must also be true". Biblical faith is akin to the faith I have in my parents (they have been reliable in the past and will be reliable in the future) as opposed to blind faith (I lack evidence but will believe by will).

Then it isn't faith. It's a reasonable expectation based on evidence. Can you give an example of the Bible being reliable? Are you aware that there are millions of people who believe in different holy books and hold them to be just as, if not more, reliable than the Bible?

I have studied the major texts of the non-Christian faiths and have concluded those adherents and others have blind faith.

Based on what?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You ignored the post you quoted and instead told me what the Bible says.

Incidentally, the biblical god cannot survive a reasoned assessment of the claims made about it.

Also, faith is evidence of nothing except the willingness to believe without justification. There is n way for faith to lead to a logical conclusion:

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

Presumably, he could choose to believe that 2 + 2 = 14, 76, or 2034 if he wanted to. That's faith.

Do you not understand every quote in the world from every pastor no more applies to me than it does you?

If I found a Bible passage that said 2+2=5, I would absolutely question what I'm reading, and investigate it.

If I were to explore Pastor laRuffa's statement in context, however, it can be equated to how people feel about the gospel, "what do you mean, Christ died for my sin?" until they likewise question their assumptions and worldviews.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Biblical faith is evidence of unseen things, e.g. "Because X has been predicted and proven, Y must also be true". Biblical faith is akin to the faith I have in my parents (they have been reliable in the past and will be reliable in the future) as opposed to blind faith (I lack evidence but will believe by will).

I think it's rather different: I'd bet you can provide pretty conclusive evidence that your parents exist. The question that's a matter of faith in that case is whether they'll continue their pattern of behaviour in the past (which you probably also have good evidence for) into the future.

When it comes to God, it would be generous to say that God's mere existence is an open question. Making assumptions about God's future behaviour comes after establishing a pattern of past behaviour, which comes after establishing that God exists at all.

BTW: what's that "X" that you say is predicted and proven? What's the "Y" that you think the "X" supports?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Biblical faith is akin to the faith I have in my parents (they have been reliable in the past and will be reliable in the future) as opposed to blind faith (I lack evidence but will believe by will).

Faith in the Bible is blind faith, or unjustified belief. Your expectation that your parents are likely to behave in the future as they did in the past is justified belief. As their names imply, they are opposites, not akin.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you not understand every quote in the world from every pastor no more applies to me than it does you?

Sure. Why do you ask?

If I found a Bible passage that said 2+2=5, I would absolutely question what I'm reading, and investigate it.

I would expect your reaction to be the same as laRuffa's you might scratch your head, but in the end, I wouldn't expect you to tell me that your bible contains any nonsense or error. It's not credible that any zealous believer would walk away from Christianity any faster than laRuffa did if he also encountered "2 + 2 = 5" in the Bible.

What would you do? Find another religion?

If I were to explore Pastor laRuffa's statement in context, however, it can be equated to how people feel about the gospel, "what do you mean, Christ died for my sin?" until they likewise question their assumptions and worldviews.

I don't understand what you are saying. How is 2 + 2 = 5 related to questioning that Christ died for our sins?

What context can you imagine that would salvage laRuffa's comment?

 

[Sha'irullah]

sure!

And neither is amaterialism. As an amaterialist, I make no claims, I believe nothing, I simply refuse to believe in materialistic, naturalistic, unguided processes creating the universe and life, until proven otherwise

Anyone can play that game, framing one's belief as a disbelief of the alternative does nothing to alter the belief, it only betrays a desire to avoid trying to defend it!

Yet again another theist lying about being a former atheist. Ask any atheist how much he or she puts into thoughts about god and you would get an astonishing zero. It just doesn't pop into our heads at all.

 

[stevevw]

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 it all comes down to personal belief and that is why some become defensive on their position whether they are athisists or theists. Several studies have shown that belief in divine concepts is a natural default position for humans and we are born believers. Though religion can be programed into people when they are young or old which is more about a particular religions teachings the opposite actually happens where people have to continually supress and replace those natural devine thoughts with worldly ideas to deny their natural position of belief.

Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study
Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then it isn't faith. It's a reasonable expectation based on evidence. Can you give an example of the Bible being reliable? Are you aware that there are millions of people who believe in different holy books and hold them to be just as, if not more, reliable than the Bible?


Based on what?

1. I appreciate that you feel a reasonable expectation based on evidence isn't "faith" and you are agreeing with the dictionary definition of faith, but that isn't the Bible definition of faith. Note: Hebrews 11:1 - “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

2. There are hundreds of examples of the Bible being reliable. For example, it has been to me such a reliable predictor of human nature that I take it's advice as proverbial in navigating life.

3. Yes, I'm aware that some people believe in different holy books. Only about one dozen major religions have holy texts. I've reviewed them and testify to you that the Bible exceeds them all in reliability.

4. I base the statement that other religions have blind faith on the fact that other texts contain prophecies that are false, have been disproved by science/archaeology, etc.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. I appreciate that you feel a reasonable expectation based on evidence isn't "faith" and you are agreeing with the dictionary definition of faith, but that isn't the Bible definition of faith. Note: Hebrews 11:1 - “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

So faith is irrational or, at best, hopeful thinking.

2. There are hundreds of examples of the Bible being reliable. For example, it has been to me such a reliable predictor of human nature that I take it's advice as proverbial in navigating life.

That's not even remotely specific. Lots of books offer advice for "navigating life" - what makes you think the Bible's advice is so particular and special?

3. Yes, I'm aware that some people believe in different holy books. Only about one dozen major religions have holy texts. I've reviewed them and testify to you that the Bible exceeds them all in reliability.

I don't trust either of the statements in this paragraph.

4. I base the statement that other religions have blind faith on the fact that other texts contain prophecies that are false, have been disproved by science/archaeology, etc.

Just like the Bible.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So faith is irrational or, at best, hopeful thinking.


That's not even remotely specific. Lots of books offer advice for "navigating life" - what makes you think the Bible's advice is so particular and special?


I don't trust either of the statements in this paragraph.


Just like the Bible.

Well, you are countering my general statements (the Bible has proven prophecies) with general statements of your own (unproven prophecies).

I have the desire to be a good witness of what Jesus Christ has done for me and many others. You are not open-minded regarding the reliability of the Bible, I think. Is that correct?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

2. There are hundreds of examples of the Bible being reliable. For example, it has been to me such a reliable predictor of human nature that I take it's advice as proverbial in navigating life.

In what way?

Jeff Dee calls the Bible "The Big Book of Multiple Choice." I'm not surprised at all that you can find stuff in it to support views that you consider positive (since there's stuff in it to support pretty much any view). I question how useful it is as an actual navivation guide, though.

Are you talking about those motivational workshops where the speaker sprinkles Bible verses through his speech to support his position, or are you actually talking about reading the whole Bible and trying to discern its overall message?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sure. Why do you ask?





I would expect your reaction to be the same as laRuffa's you might scratch your head, but in the end, I wouldn't expect you to tell me that your bible contains any nonsense or error. It's not credible that any zealous believer would walk away from Christianity any faster than laRuffa did if he also encountered "2 + 2 = 5" in the Bible.

What would you do? Find another religion?



I don't understand what you are saying. How is 2 + 2 = 5 related to questioning that Christ died for our sins?

What context can you imagine that would salvage laRuffa's comment?

I'm not seeking to salvage laRuffa's comment. I'm asking you to weigh what I address to you personally and give me the benefit of the doubt.

If the Bible said something akin to 2+2=5 I would be honest and say the Bible contains error.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Faith in the Bible is blind faith, or unjustified belief. Your expectation that your parents are likely to behave in the future as they did in the past is justified belief. As their names imply, they are opposites, not akin.

Yes, faith in the Bible is blind if unjustified, reasonable if justified.

It is the dual nature of the issue and open-mindedness that led me to research for myself and to trust Christ for salvation some time ago. I hope you will also be open-minded.

You seem to want instead to accuse me, my mind and my logic, so that you have an excuse. You do not have one.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, you are countering my general statements (the Bible has proven prophecies) with general statements of your own (unproven prophecies).

Provide an example of a proven prophecy, then. One that no other religious text could have made.

I have the desire to be a good witness of what Jesus Christ has done for me and many others. You are not open-minded regarding the reliability of the Bible, I think. Is that correct?

Nope. I'm open-minded to anything, but the Bible has demonstrated the exact opposite of reliability throughout its history. If it were reliable, we would not have thousands of different Christian denominations contesting each other over the exact meaning and content of it. You can hardly claim such a text is reliable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the Bible said something akin to 2+2=5 I would be honest and say the Bible contains error.

What if it said that pi equals 3 exactly? Do you mean something like that?

 

[ChristineM]

You're officially the first atheist I've ever met to use that definition of "atheist." Generally, I only ever see it used by theists who are trying to portray atheists as foolish.

But if you say that you're an atheist and that atheism is a conviction that there are no gods, then you must know what a god is.

So what's a god? Can you give the whole definition? If you have a conviction that no gods exist, then you must have figured out a way to identify the entire set of gods and say "none of these things exist."

How did you do it? I've only ever been able to identify gods by a specific list of gods and non-gods that I realize is incomplete (e.g. Thor, Jehovah and Zeus are gods; Superman, angels and toasters aren't). I haven't been able to come up with any rhyme or reason for what is and isn't a god, so I've never been able to make any claims about "all gods" or "no gods." How did you solve this problem?

Gods are whatever deities the human mind can conjour

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Gods are whatever deities the human mind can conjour

Deity

noun

1. A god or goddess

deity - definition of deity in English | Oxford Dictionaries

I'm not sure how defining "god" in terms of "deities" is useful.

 

[ChristineM]

deity - definition of deity in English | Oxford Dictionaries

I'm not sure how defining "god" in terms of "deities" is useful.

There have been at least 4000 gods excluding the 30 million Hindu gods, each was/is a deity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There have been at least 4000 gods excluding the 30 million Hindu gods, each was/is a deity.

Since "deity" just means "god", I would think it was strange if you found a god that wasn't a deity.