Justhuman wrote:As being an atheist I don't feel like being irrational. At least I hope not. To presume that all atheists are irrational, as the post-title does suggets, is irrational in itself. There is no one atheist like another, as there is no one Christian like another, etc…
Wrong. Atheists don't believe in a God.
Yet there is no way currently to prove whether or not a God exists. Therefore it is irrational to take a position that you can't prove. Bottom line is that you are guessing that there is no God.
In fact many things like a fine-tuned universe point to a God, so really the only position you could take is one of agnosticism. That at least is rational.
Only when the blood runs and the shackles restrain, will the sheep then awake. When all is lost.
Justhuman wrote:As being an atheist I don't feel like being irrational. At least I hope not. To presume that all atheists are irrational, as the post-title does suggets, is irrational in itself. There is no one atheist like another, as there is no one Christian like another, etc…
Wrong. Atheists don't believe in a God.
Yet there is no way currently to prove whether or not a God exists. Therefore it is irrational to take a position that you can't prove. Bottom line is that you are guessing that there is no God.
In fact many things like a fine-tuned universe point to a God, so really the only position you could take is one of agnosticism. That at least is rational.
Like I said, it all depends on one's definition of "atheist". An atheist that says, "There is no God", is an irrational fool. An atheist who says, "I don't believe in God", isn't necessarily irrational. It just may be that he doesn't believe any evidence points to God.
I'm not sure I'd call the second, irrational.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
It isn't logical or reasonable to not believe in God, unless there was nothing (in which case it wouldn't be applicable). The reason people don't, I agree with Ravi Zacharias that it is firstly and primarily emotive.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Kurieuo wrote:It isn't logical or reasonable to not believe in God, unless there was nothing (in which case it wouldn't be applicable). The reason people don't, I agree with Ravi Zacharias that it is firstly and primarily emotive.
Like how people don't believe there's a god since evil happens in the world. Granted, this is hard even for theists, but we usually have answers for it.
Kurieuo wrote:It isn't logical or reasonable to not believe in God, unless there was nothing (in which case it wouldn't be applicable). The reason people don't, I agree with Ravi Zacharias that it is firstly and primarily emotive.
Like how people don't believe there's a god since evil happens in the world. Granted, this is hard even for theists, but we usually have answers for it.
Quite right. Rationally, that one's been long countered for a while now from all angles. Rather, it the emotive side to it that is powerful.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Kurieuo wrote:It isn't logical or reasonable to not believe in God, unless there was nothing (in which case it wouldn't be applicable). The reason people don't, I agree with Ravi Zacharias that it is firstly and primarily emotive.
Those who don't believe in God, may be blind to the evidence that we find obvious. I'm just not sure I'd call everyone who doesn't believe in God, irrational.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Kurieuo wrote:It isn't logical or reasonable to not believe in God, unless there was nothing (in which case it wouldn't be applicable). The reason people don't, I agree with Ravi Zacharias that it is firstly and primarily emotive.
Those who don't believe in God, may be blind to the evidence that we find obvious. I'm just not sure I'd call everyone who doesn't believe in God, irrational.
All humans are rational creatures, but not believing in God is irrational.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Kurieuo wrote:It isn't logical or reasonable to not believe in God, unless there was nothing (in which case it wouldn't be applicable). The reason people don't, I agree with Ravi Zacharias that it is firstly and primarily emotive.
Those who don't believe in God, may be blind to the evidence that we find obvious. I'm just not sure I'd call everyone who doesn't believe in God, irrational.
All humans are rational creatures, but not believing in God is irrational.
Irrational in what way?
If you mean not logical, I'd not necessarily agree.
If you mean not reasonable, I'd agree.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Kurieuo wrote:It isn't logical or reasonable to not believe in God, unless there was nothing (in which case it wouldn't be applicable). The reason people don't, I agree with Ravi Zacharias that it is firstly and primarily emotive.
Those who don't believe in God, may be blind to the evidence that we find obvious. I'm just not sure I'd call everyone who doesn't believe in God, irrational.
All humans are rational creatures, but not believing in God is irrational.
Irrational in what way?
If you mean not logical, I'd not necessarily agree.
If you mean not reasonable, I'd agree.
Irrational means not logical or reasonable. Just because someone is ignorant to the arguments, doesn't mean disbelief is logical or reasonable. It might be "understandable". And, fwiw, what I'm saying is quite tame compared to Scripture.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Kurieuo wrote:It isn't logical or reasonable to not believe in God, unless there was nothing (in which case it wouldn't be applicable). The reason people don't, I agree with Ravi Zacharias that it is firstly and primarily emotive.
Those who don't believe in God, may be blind to the evidence that we find obvious. I'm just not sure I'd call everyone who doesn't believe in God, irrational.
All humans are rational creatures, but not believing in God is irrational.
Irrational in what way?
If you mean not logical, I'd not necessarily agree.
If you mean not reasonable, I'd agree.
Irrational means not logical or reasonable. Just because someone is ignorant to the arguments, doesn't mean disbelief is logical or reasonable. It might be "understandable". And, fwiw, what I'm saying is quite tame compared to Scripture.
Maybe I'm thinking that it's possible that someone who doesn't believe in God, may logically come to that belief, because he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that God exists. And maybe I'm just confusing "understandable" with "logical".
I just think there's a difference between what is commonly called hard atheism, and soft atheism. And maybe soft atheism is just agnosticism.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
I actually think the evidence is right before all of us, but many do willfully in their hearts turn away and bury such. To give some reasons why I believe this, rather than merely make another short declarative statements like I have been here...
Firstly, and perhaps least important to non-believers, is that the Apostle Paul, indeed most of Scripture from Genesis, supports our willful turning away from God. No one seeks God, we all start in such a deplorable state.
Second, the scientific research supports this view, that human nature appears wired for God-belief irrespective of parental beliefs. If this is true, then any turning away must be willful, an uphill affair.
Third, there are a whole lot of intuitive believes we hold to like right and wrong (deeply held beliefs of what is right and wrong that extend beyond mere social constructs), concepts like love, fairness, justice, that we have free will (a "self" or an "I" truly exists and isn't merely a mirage built upon atoms and chemicals playing out according to physical laws), and deeper questions set on our hearts are largely dismissed as irrelevant because they don't conform to an Atheistic worldview (their metaphysics necessarily entails ignoring many deeper ontological questions to do with reality itself, specifically teleological questions we all feel are important like real meaning in life, and purpose, does my life matter, what's the point to it all, etc).
And fourth, but it's more an observation. Many Atheists think the same of believers, and have gotten away with convincing a great majority of people that Atheism is indeed rational and logical and Theism isn't -- e.g., that we believe in an illusion, are delusional, or what-have-you. I'm not necessarily insulted by such, only one of us can be right on the question of God.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
An atheist - by the very definition of that self-identification, if accurately describing their own sensibilities, is a declaration that they have determined that there is no gods or God - that in their mind, the matter is settled. This would also mean that they don't think there is a possibility they could be wrong. Because if they believe in the possibility that they could be wrong, that their might be some unknown entity or God that explains the existence of things, then that automatically puts them in the category of being an agnostic.
So, for the true atheist, the matter of gods or a God is settled. But I also see that as an arrogant assessment, as how could they KNOW? They weren't there, when all physical things had their beginnings. So, they have no idea as to the truth of the matter - not to definitively declare that the universe requires no intelligence, gods or God. There is so much to explain, as to origins, so much observable complexity, design, necessary and dependent interconnectedness and necessary interaction that only unproven theory and wild speculations might explain. And these things are argued over and debated universally, and not just between theists and non-theists, but also only between non-theists, as to how such things, on so grand a scale, are possible. That there is no definitive proof for non-theism, the atheist simply cannot know the truth of the matter. So, to declare that they know about what is unproven and so debated, that's just arrogance. Again, because if they don't truly know, and realize they don't, then, automatically, that puts them in the camp of agnosticism.
As Rick said, there are hard and soft atheists. I would say the soft atheist is at least open to discovering that they might be wrong in their atheism. This soft atheist, truly open, would likely search out the related questions and possible answers, to get to the bottom of the issue. Or they might be passive, but open to any data that might change there mind. As for the hard atheist, however - that is a person who has totally closed off all possibility that they could be wrong. For them, the matter is settled, forever! They have set their mental filters to not allow in any new information through which will even remotely conflict with their atheism. They are often hardcore in their dislike and anger over those who have spiritual beliefs - and most particularly in response to Christians. Many want to spread their atheism to others. This type of atheist is often very vocal and aggressive in their unbelief. So, the soft atheist, still has a degree of openness. The hard one, not a bit.
Rationally seen I think that (a) (biblical) God does not and cannot exist. And thats no 'guessing'. To prove the non existance of God is as yet impossible, as it is as yet impossble to prove that God exists.
Rationally seen it does seem to me that it must be easier to prove the existance of something that does exist than something that doesn't exist.
Justhuman wrote:Rationally seen I think that (a) (biblical) God does not and cannot exist. And thats no 'guessing'. To prove the non existance of God is as yet impossible, as it is as yet impossble to prove that God exists.
Rationally seen it does seem to me that it must be easier to prove the existance of something that does exist than something that doesn't exist.
You seem to think that Atheism has some position of neutrality, but it doesn't. It too makes claims. Antony Flew redefined Atheism in his well-known paper to mean more an Agnosticism of sorts. He explicitly says as much. So then, if one asserts God doesn't exist, then it's not enough that they demand God be proven to their satisfaction. Rather, they must too present their case against God's existence, if such is what they believe. Especially since, the starting "default" position if you will of people is indeed towards God belief.
Furthermore, warranted belief, or justification, doesn't entail proving to absolutely everyone. Nothing ought to be believed if that were the case. I see ample logical reason and evidence for belief in God. Indeed, Flew himself moved from Atheism to belief in God more deistic in nature.
Finally, I'd agree with you that (a) (biblical) God (as) (you) (understand) doesn't exist.
PS. Welcome to the board by the way. (I think)
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Justhuman wrote:As being an atheist I don't feel like being irrational. At least I hope not. To presume that all atheists are irrational, as the post-title does suggets, is irrational in itself. There is no one atheist like another, as there is no one Christian like another, etc…
Hello human...
The question does not suggest anything one way or another. It opens up a discussion to talk about dfferent possibilities.
