posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:37 AM
Atheism is NOT rational. Or at best it is a semi-rational conclusion based on skewed or poor logic.
Ultimately if you can not "prove" the existance or non existance of something, you can only say that you can not prove it's existance. You can
place it's existance only in doubt. As there is no rational way to "prove" god does not exist, it is not a rational view. Please show me the
experiemnt that "proves" otherwise. Pure rationalism instead at best could only support agnosticism. The intellectually honest person who has no
first hand experience with god might say "i simply can not say".
However the athiest takes on "faith" that God does not exist, with no proof to that effect. It is as much a religious leap as any I know..and I
would argue more so. It is almost always coupled with a bias against religion, often becuase of some percieved injustice, and is therefore colored
more by personal emotion and prejudice then any sort of "rational" logic.
Let me illustrate further,
Let's say it's say it is a time before photographs and videos, and I never had been to the Great Wall of China....(I have) but let's say i decided
that it was just too unlikely that such a wall over such an expanse could ever be built, and was likely a myth........now that would be a perfectly
rational conclusion if I had only heard of it as a tale....but now if I meet 5 people who have been to it and swear they have first hand experienced
the great wall.......well I would have to doubt my opinion. But I could chalk them up as delusional, crazy, or just plain liars.
But what if I meet hundreds and hundreds of people who have been there? If I still refused to beleive it existed, I would be nothing more then
willfully supporting my "faith" that it didn't exist, as all first hand reports would be telling me I was wrong. I could not disproove their
experiences. I could at best simply doubt it was possible, but ultimatley admit since I had not been able to go check myself, that unless I saw it
myself I could not be sure....even then I would be rather stubborn. How little any of us would know about anything if we only accepted first hand
knowledge. We wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING of scientific value if we had to reinvent every step that others have already done before we accepted
Millions if not a billion people have claims that they have experienced God first hand in a "religious" experience. To say you can say deffinitively
God does not exist, with so much of humanity saying they have experienced a higher power first hand, is to be willfully in denial of at the very least
the possibility you may be wrong, and simply can not say one way or the other.
When you consider how many people have had a religious experience in many different faiths, and you consider just how improbable life was formed on
our planet, how every planet had to be "just so", how every distance had to be just right, how we had to be shielded from the debris that would make
so many other solestial bodies uninhabitable....and more and more it becomes less and less probable, that we are but a random chance.......but all of
these arguments are only useful to those without a religious experience. Only useful for A priori discussion.
To the mystic, to those who have experienced God, and had that transcendent experience, that is more real then the computer screen in front of you, it
is beyond question, and doubt. For those it is not a matter of "faith" it is a matter of KNOWING. It is a posteriori truth.
I could surely beleive that all of that around me is but an illusion but that experience.
Athetism is a faith, it is not rational....only agnosticism has any sort of rational defense.....and given the millions of of humanity who have a
first hand account.....I wonder how they can be sure of anything if they will not take any value in so large a body of testimony.