It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Believers: Why is Atheism Irrational?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
There could be many answers to reality. What is the cause? Is causation is a nessassary assumption to make? Could we live in an infinite paradigm, a loop, for example?

Some state there is a "deity" or "GOD" as the cause, as the "maker". Which implies causation.

Please explain why a disbelief in this "theory" is wrong or irrational. (Atheism)

Considering the theory has no empirical evidence; what's the logic route?

Thanks in advance.




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 

I don't believe in causation and I'm not Atheist.


Considering the theory has no empirical evidence; what's the logic route?

This would suggest Agnosticism, not Atheism

ETA:
My input is that I believe Atheism is irrational, because you don't have proof either way. There are a ton of accounts to suggest God does exist, and there are a ton to suggest God doesn't. Saying that you don't believe in God/causation because there is no proof is Agnostic, saying you don't believe God exits just because you don't is just being stubborn.

I look to science for answers, but science can't explain everything, so I attribute that to God... for now
edit on 5/14/2011 by scojak because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
it is simple really the opposite of logic = faith...



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Atheism isn't irrational. Faith is. Atheism is pure rationality. Faith says, "yes, but..."

(I believe in God.)

Arguing doesn't do any good. Proselytizing is wrong. Each person has the right to come to his or her own conclusions without angry (or any other kind) of interference.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by scojak
 


Interesting.

What's your perception of "GOD" if not "the maker, creator, beginner, igniter" of reality?

I'm aware of the position of Pantheism(reality or nature = God) but that appears to be nothing more than a labelling game, as soon as we learn more about reality we just label that God too.

Thanks for posting, i'm an Agnostic Atheist by the way.
edit on 14/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 
It depends on what we find out as our understanding of the universe develops. If we do determine conclusively that the universe had a beginning, then based on our current understanding of science, I would assume we have to infer that it has causality.

And as far as I can tell, atheism is illogical in that it tries to prove a negative. I'm not sure of any way you can prove that something DOESN'T existing in a ridiculously-large universe composed of multiple dimensions with elements, frequencies, etc. that we might not even yet be aware of it. It seems to me the agnosticism is the only intellectually-honest stance for non-believers, in that I can only see that not knowing for sure one way or the other is really the only valid point from a logical basis.

I'm not politicizing or debating anything there, that's just how I see it and if someone can clarify otherwise for me, I'd be much obliged.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Atheism is the most rational thing ever. Believing without proof is irrational.

This said, I have no problems with god believers I would believe it too if I wasn't 98% rational has a person.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
any extreme on any end of the scale is irrational. Having a belief or theory is not. As long as you are always open to new information, you cannot be irrational. You are making the best choice based on what you see.
It is when people develop an extreme point of view, most of the time with little knowledge, that is irrational.

Edit to add: I am not religious, but I wouldn't call myself an atheist either
edit on 14-5-2011 by Ghandi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Atheism is just as irrational as believing in a deity.

In terms of rational thought, to claim that one side is completely right in the argument of whether or not a God existed is to claim that you know the answer to a question that NO ONE does.

Rationally speaking, the only true position to take would be skeptical agnosticism.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Simply, atheism is irrational because it is essentially taking an unrewarded and unnecessary risk.

To explain:
If you believe in some sort of greater deity and you're wrong then you're in the same boat as before - no harm done.

If you DO NOT believe in a greater deity and you're right there is no benefit - you're in the same situation either way

However - if you DO NOT believe and you are WRONG - then suddenly you've unnecessarily screwed yourself when all you had to do was believe.
edit on 14-5-2011 by coldkidc because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Monts
 


Agnosticism/Gnosticism = What you know

Atheism/Theism = What you believe

"Skeptical agnosticism" =Agnostic Atheism

What do you think?

Peace



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by coldkidc
 


What you just described was "Pascal's Wager":-


Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that even if the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.


Compare that "wager" to that of the "Atheist's Wager"


The Atheist's Wager is an atheistic response to Blaise Pascal's Wager. While Pascal suggested that it is better to take the chance of believing in a god that might not exist rather than to risk losing infinite happiness by disbelieving in a god that does, the Atheist's Wager suggests that:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.[1]


Both wagers agree that there is no logical or empirical evidence that points to one possibility.

Peace
edit on 14/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by scojak
 


Interesting.

What's your perception of "GOD" if not "the maker, creator, beginner, igniter" of reality?

I'm aware of the position of Pantheism(reality or nature = God) but that appears to be nothing more than a labelling game, as soon as we learn more about reality we just label that God too.

Thanks for posting, i'm an Agnostic Atheist by the way.
edit on 14/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


My perception is more along the lines of Pantheism. My belief is that God is the collective consciousness of all living things. Everything that is living, yes including plants, has some level of consciousness, and we are all one split consciousness. When you reach enlightenment, your consciousness becomes part of the whole.

This is mostly what I believe, though I do have thoughts about life that don't fully coincide with this view. For example non living things that I could connect with mentally, even though they have no consciousness, or do they? That's why I don't adhere to a religion as my current view is always changing.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by scojak
 



My perception is more along the lines of Pantheism. My belief is that God is the collective consciousness of all living things. Everything that is living, yes including plants, has some level of consciousness, and we are all one split consciousness. When you reach enlightenment, your consciousness becomes part of the whole.


Interesting; would that mean that you become "GOD" when you reach "enlightenment"? Sounds similar to the enlightenment theory in Bhuddism through reincarnation?

Peace



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
those that profess a belief in god simply to "be safe" or "just in case" really have zero faith and are doing so out of fear and a misguided sense of self preservation.
that is the most irrational thing i can conceive.

people believed that the world was flat just in case it was and didn't want to sail off the edge... silly, no more silly than the god concept really.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I'm so sick of this debate.. It's VERY simple.. RELIGION IS A LIE!.. Religion is another form of control..responsible for mass murders, war, poverty..

Religion is the REAL terrorist..



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
It's often stated by Atheists that believers are delusional, and that belief in God is a fairytale without evidence. However, is this really the case? Consider this:

Einstein’s field equations tell us that space-time is both a singularity and infinity. From the believer’s perspective, God makes the claim that He is both Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. Science tells us that the vast majority of what is contained in the universe is invisible “Dark Matter.” This invisible dark matter makes up a full 90% of the universe, leaving visible matter—what is seen—to comprise all the substance we can perceive around us on a daily basis.

All material substance is essentially one thing: energy transmuted to what we see as substance, occupying a volume, expressed in its function and meaning to the whole. We know the 10% we see very well. The 90% that we do not see well is what Science attempts to explain. All of this substance and dark matter is made up of energy in movement. As stated in the opening verse of the Bible, "Let there be light." Light is both a wave and a particle. This duality is expressed in the first chapter of John where he says, "In the beginning was the word..." Light and word, both particle and wave.

All of this is interesting, but here is where we make the distinction between faith and reason; religion and science: By faith in a Creator, I examine the meaning behind the visible reality (10% of matter) and realize that it tells a story that can be defined. This story is not just expressed by religion, but also synchronistically by nature. Each tells the exact same story, like a mirror perfectly reflecting the truth of the other.

Science, by the same faith, attempts to observe the 90% of what cannot be observed directly. From this observation, science makes up grandiose claims of theory, believing its conclusions within a context of misplaced concreteness of imagined reality. This means rational Atheists base the totality of their belief within an unseen reality of imagined perception, with largely unproven theory. At best, anything concerning the 90% of unseen reality can only be ever-changing theory. Faith for all of us, then, is the substance of things hoped for, as indicated in Hebrews:

HEBREWS 11:1

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Our visible world tells the complete story to us: God places us in the story, as characters in the story, able to act out our unique part. The plot points in the production and the ending cannot change. Our unique performance is the good pleasure derived by God from the exercise.

PHILIPPIANS 2:13
…continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

Why are we here in this story of God?

We are being refined for the next step. Our inheritance is the kingdom of God (universe). We do not merit this favor from God. We were created for his good pleasure, as observers of His goodness and abundant mercy and truth.

Psalms 66:10-12
For You, O God, have tested us; You have refined us as silver is refined. 11 You brought us into the net; You laid affliction on our backs. 12 You have caused men to ride over our heads; We went through fire and through water; But You brought us out to rich fulfillment.

ROMANS 1:18-23
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Monts
Atheism is just as irrational as believing in a deity.

In terms of rational thought, to claim that one side is completely right in the argument of whether or not a God existed is to claim that you know the answer to a question that NO ONE does.

Rationally speaking, the only true position to take would be skeptical agnosticism.


Proper atheism is not a statement that there is no god...the people whom use atheism for their gnostic statements are using it improperly.

It simply is a statement that they do not believe in a deity...not that one doesn't exist
there is no evidence to suggest there is one

An atheist could actually have speculation that there may in fact be some sort of greater order or consciousness in the system...and may make it their lifes work to uncover it actually.

the noun agnostic is meaningless..the definition itself cancels itself out. agnostic should be considered only an adjective....agnostic atheism, agnostic theism, etc.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
You may be confusing Atheism for Agnosticism. Atheism is a strict disbelief in any form of God or deity. Atheism would never say there is a God. If an Atheist says there is the possibility of a God, then he is Agnostic and not Atheist.


Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Monts
Atheism is just as irrational as believing in a deity.

In terms of rational thought, to claim that one side is completely right in the argument of whether or not a God existed is to claim that you know the answer to a question that NO ONE does.

Rationally speaking, the only true position to take would be skeptical agnosticism.


Proper atheism is not a statement that there is no god...the people whom use atheism for their gnostic statements are using it improperly.

It simply is a statement that they do not believe in a deity...not that one doesn't exist
there is no evidence to suggest there is one

An atheist could actually have speculation that there may in fact be some sort of greater order or consciousness in the system...and may make it their lifes work to uncover it actually.

the noun agnostic is meaningless..the definition itself cancels itself out. agnostic should be considered only an adjective....agnostic atheism, agnostic theism, etc.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


"Agnostic Atheism"


Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism.[1] Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know with certainty whether any deity exists.[1][2] The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have absolute knowledge of such.



Bertrand Russell uses the example of the celestial teapot. He argues that although it is impossible to know that the teapot does not exist, most people would not believe in it. Therefore, one's view with respect to the teapot would be an agnostic "ateapotist", because while they don't believe in the existence of the teapot, they don't claim to know for certain.


Also, maddnessinmysoul has a thread regarding this issue:-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

NOTE:


He argues that although it is impossible to know that the teapot does not exist, most people would not believe in it.


I see that this could be concieved as Ad Populum, but, given the lack of evidence, anyone making the claim is doing so without knowing any possibility. It must be considered an "assumption" - I don't believe a disbelief at such unprovable positive claims is ignorant, or particularly irrational.
edit on 14/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join