I read about half of this article and it looked pretty bold.
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-atheists-rational.html
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-atheists-rational.html
-
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
- Thread starter robocop (actually)
- Start date
Altfish
Veteran Member
Haven't we already had this topic?
Hopefully you can link to it if you can find it.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Haven't we had most topics already. Seems like it, to me.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Like watching an old rerun of a movie you might have enjoyed.
The article says that rationality is overrated. Does that mean that atheists, by not using so much of something overrated, at least according to the article, might be on the right path?
Ciao
- viole
If they didn't dismiss those other things, it would help.
Yes and atheists passionately dusputed it or said, true but not as irrational and crazy as believers!!!! Which i said that was a low bar like on the ground low. No buried underground low hell not even a bar.
You mean some atheists, right?
We're not a collective, and we don't have an agreed position on things, no matter what some might want people to believe.
Of course they all are not yhe same but this is RF FOR PETES SAKE!!!!! What is this a nuanced thoughtful Crowd here in a general sense? Ha... Of course atheists are spectral and a lot of what they are about is totally and completely valid. And ues religion can be whacky and yes theology tends to be pretty stupid.My degree btw.
i have yet to hear an atheist quote John Muir so atheism has a lot to be desired in its capaity to grasp such writings. It really cant actually without yealding itself a bit to something other than itself... and guess what if ya wanna call it nature that does not make you an atheist just someone who understands nature like the religious understands the word god. It does not matter at the end of the day, they tend to be two words we fight over and try and control... Thats total nonsense in either case.
Hmm...I'd argue 2 things;
1)
Talking about nature in a spiritual sense is done by some atheists here. Quoting Muir directly seems quite beside the point.
As an example;
Any Atheists Ever Had A "Spiritual" Experience?
2)
Muir himself seems (to me) to be a pantheist, albeit one well versed in Biblical Christianity. His references to 'Nature' are virtually heretical in some ways, something he occasionally seems to recognize in his own writings on occasion.
Ultimately, quote-mining someone who litters his (no doubt poetic) prose with references to God or the Creator becomes problematic. What is it I'm arguing for? What point am I trying to make?
Talk of spirits and souls have meaning for atheists and theists alike, but I don't believe the meaning is universal.
Well suddenly we are starting down the belief path and thats pretty rooted in our religious tradition i just dont bother going there its intellectualizing as primary to experiences..
So I would say muir really is more experientialist and what he experiences and how he experiences really has nothing to do with belief. I think others will try and label that as this and that but i might caution on that. Soren kiekegaard a long time ago said "to label me is to negate me." And i am not sure i havent read a philosophy paper about kierkegaard that doesnt start "the existentialist philosopher soren kierkegaard,said....". How sharp are philosophers really at that level?
So you said that not all atheists are the same and i might say not everyone fits our labels we create. Muir never claimed to be anything except a keen observer a very very keen observer actually. .
I would agree that not everyone fits the labels we use. Seems like a good note to end this on (without derailing things).
*Tips hat*
The article votes a number of interesting references in support of its arguments. However I have recently concluded that the thesis of atheism does not make sense for this reason:. In order to distinguish the thesis of atheism from agnosticism, the former must be defined as the positive belief or conclusion that there is no God. The mere lack of belief or conclusion that God exists is no different from what an agnostic would espouse. But the positive belief or conclusion that God does not exist cannot be logically concluded (save for defining "God" in an overtly caricaturish way, e.g., God is a purple anteater that should have emerged from my cereal box last week, which didn't happen). In short, the nonexistence of stuff cannot be logically concluded short of having performed every possible empirical investigation, which is difficult to do even for the most concrete and objectively detectible phenomena. Thus I conclude the thesis of atheism isn't rational.
The same logic means you can't possibly believe Jehovah to be the one true God.
I guess you're a polytheist.
Any reasonably well informed person these days knows that human reasoning typically is at least somewhat irrational. I don't understand why it comes as news to some people that atheists don't always arrive at their position via wholly rational means.
Second, what difference does it make if a position is arrived at by rational or irrational means? Shouldn't the position be evaluated according to its own merits? Atheism and atheists are two very different things. Atheists could all be as irrational as loons, and yet atheism could still be a rational position.
Second, what difference does it make if a position is arrived at by rational or irrational means? Shouldn't the position be evaluated according to its own merits? Atheism and atheists are two very different things. Atheists could all be as irrational as loons, and yet atheism could still be a rational position.
Fallacy of false dilemma. Being unable to deduce that Jehovah is the one God does not imply that one is a polytheist.
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?