Is being an atheist irrational?

[RickD]

Getting back on topic, this is interesting.

[Justhuman]

Kurieuo wrote:

I wonder Justhuman, do you believe our decisions and actions are determined, or do you believe in some sense of free will?

Hmm... simple question, not an easy answer.

Recently I read an article about time. That time does not exist as a 'displacement through the 4th dimension', but is a state (condition, hope you know what I mean). That time as we perceive it as we do now is an illusion. There is only one everlasting moment and the only thing that changes is the arangement of matter in the universe, governed by all the laws of nature. We, as humans, perceive the tiny displacements of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc.. in our brains as a 'displacement in time',whereas it is a 'displacement in a state'. Not 'one moment' is the same because not 'one state' is the same.
It took me a while to grasp that concept, but then it actually made sense, seems even logical.

It takes a free will to do that.

I think that if you are bound to a specific belief/religion, which is and can be only true (like Abelcainsbrother does), your mind will block such other thoughts. You cannot freely think and ponder over an alternative like atheism.

Maybe it's not exactly what you meant, but I do believe our decisions and actions are free to our will. They are not determined by anything (but the forces of nature).

If it was not, f.e. because God determined a path for us, what's the point in going where we are going? Why would God send us on a path of which He already knows the outcome? Just to please Him? But then he already knows who will please Him, and who not. That doesn't make any sense for an omnipotent being. What possible use can human devotion mean to an omnipotent God?

I, as an atheist, am free to think/ponder about the possible existence of God, because the 'worst' that can happen is that it turns out God is there and I become a believer.

So, yes, I believe in free will.

[Justhuman]

Getting back on topic, this is interesting.[/quoute]

And from that interview...

Here’s why. If a belief is as likely to be false as to be true, we’d have to say the probability that any particular belief is true is about 50 percent. Now suppose we had a total of 100 independent beliefs (of course, we have many more). Remember that the probability that all of a group of beliefs are true is the multiplication of all their individual probabilities. Even if we set a fairly low bar for reliability — say, that at least two-thirds (67 percent) of our beliefs are true — our overall reliability, given materialism and evolution, is exceedingly low: something like .0004. So if you accept both materialism and evolution, you have good reason to believe that your belief-producing faculties are not reliable.

Except that I find that interview difficult to follow, I wonder where the .0004 comes from.

The reason why I'm an atheist and not an agnost is because the universe is too big for a God (yes, that may seem strange to a Christian). At least, that's my believe. In order for God to create the universe aswell as microbial life on Earth he would have to be enormous and tiny. And fast enough to outrun the Big Bang.

The only God I could believe in is an evolutionary evolved God(like) being/creature/entity. But that is not what is here meant with God.

[Kurieuo]

Kurieuo wrote:

I wonder Justhuman, do you believe our decisions and actions are determined, or do you believe in some sense of free will?

Hmm... simple question, not an easy answer.

Recently I read an article about time. That time does not exist as a 'displacement through the 4th dimension', but is a state (condition, hope you know what I mean). That time as we perceive it as we do now is an illusion. There is only one everlasting moment and the only thing that changes is the arangement of matter in the universe, governed by all the laws of nature. We, as humans, perceive the tiny displacements of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc.. in our brains as a 'displacement in time',whereas it is a 'displacement in a state'. Not 'one moment' is the same because not 'one state' is the same.
It took me a while to grasp that concept, but then it actually made sense, seems even logical.

It takes a free will to do that.

I think that if you are bound to a specific belief/religion, which is and can be only true (like Abelcainsbrother does), your mind will block such other thoughts. You cannot freely think and ponder over an alternative like atheism.

Maybe it's not exactly what you meant, but I do believe our decisions and actions are free to our will. They are not determined by anything (but the forces of nature).

If it was not, f.e. because God determined a path for us, what's the point in going where we are going? Why would God send us on a path of which He already knows the outcome? Just to please Him? But then he already knows who will please Him, and who not. That doesn't make any sense for an omnipotent being. What possible use can human devotion mean to an omnipotent God?

I, as an atheist, am free to think/ponder about the possible existence of God, because the 'worst' that can happen is that it turns out God is there and I become a believer.

So, yes, I believe in free will.

These are the types of questions I'm interested in any worldview explaining. Such explanations may not be entirely correct, but I think certain criteria can be fulfilled such as plausibility, whether a view of the world (which Atheism is, it's a view of the world without God) is coherent within itself to many things we just naturally assume and believe to be true, for example, that we a conscious beings, aware and are ultimately responsible for our own actions.

At least we can both agree on "free will" existing, and you'll be the first Atheist here perhaps that's even attempted to try provide an explanation for how it's going to be. Which, I think, is to be commended. Re: free will, I certainly accept that while we might be influenced by nature and nurture, "we" still remain, such that though it might at times be difficult and require a lot of self-control and strong will, "we" can rise above nature or nurture to make a decision on various matters, "we" really do believe certain things, heck "we" exist as an influencing force in our own lives.

On the other hand, the best Physicalism (the belief that everything is reduced to, to use your own words, "molecules, atoms, quarks, etc" and "the forces of nature") has to offer though, is epiphenominalism. That is, our bodies with all the molecules, atoms and physical stuff "vapours" off a consciousness. The parallel often given, is that our physical bodies are like fire, and consciousness (required foundation for any self will) the smoke. Our physical bodies (burning fire) gives off the smoke (consciousness), but then the smoke doesn't control the fire rather the fire gives off the smoke. The smoke (consciousness) is controlled by the fire (physical body), but not the other way around.

So then, logically, what determines whether we do 'A' or 'B' is based upon physical compositions of the way particles, chemicals and the like play out. In a certain arrangement, a strange effect is given off by this physical "fire" which causes consciousness smoke to be given off.

Now this is no different, I hope you can see, from what you've just described. I seriously ask you, is this "free will"? You appear to admit it's not the kind I'm after, and you're right, because there is no room left in what you describe for a "will". You might possibly get to "consciousness" however, although I don't see any physical explanation truly accounting for consciousness because it is clear to me that such is very much qualitatively different from the physical world (i.e., it has no shape, size, weight, taste or even colour -- although the last actually requires a mind to perceive such since colour is nowhere to be found in the physical world).

If "we" believe that we are in the drivers seat, possessing a will of our own that is to some degree "free", yet we're determined by particular arrangements whether such formed randomly and via necessity of how physical laws play out and interact, then such "free will" is simply a mirage built upon the arrangement of physical matter and energy.

Ergo, "free will" as we intuit we have, and along with it "responsibility", indeed even "the self" we believe exists and is largely driving our life, are all illusory. Illusion defined in the sense that there is a deceptive appearance or impression, or a false belief.

And this is why many Atheistic philosophers who have thought long and hard, have covered many thoughts and positions out there, indeed many embrace the position that we are "determined" and don't actually have free will. Others, like Thomas Nagel, reason that the natural world itself is actually inherently composed of "consciousness" and "physical" stuff. And, like we have physical laws which describe how the physical world work, there might some similar laws to be found around consciousness.

Now here I strongly think that any worldview which necessitates considering "myself" an illusion, denying the one axiom that seems most obvious to me: "I think, therefore I am.", that such deserves no attention of mine. It's too high a price to pay, to hang onto the belief that physicalism is true. This doesn't mean Atheism is not true, but it does mean there is more to the world than the mere physical one we experience. And, it could actually be, that the physical world bubbles out of consciousness rather than the other way around. Especially when at the quantum, we appear to see observation influencing matter rather than the other way around (e.g., double-slit experiment). Physicalism it seems is much too simple.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

How can babies and fetuses see evidence for God and act on it?

[RickD]

justhuman wrote:
The reason why I'm an atheist and not an agnost is because the universe is too big for a God (yes, that may seem strange to a Christian). At least, that's my believe. In order for God to create the universe aswell as microbial life on Earth he would have to be enormous and tiny. And fast enough to outrun the Big Bang.

1) if God created the universe, He had to be outside of what He created.

2) God does not have physical "size".

3) since God cannot logically be a part of something He creates, he's outside the universe, and doesn't need to outrun the Big Bang.

[Kurieuo]

Seems relevant to this thread:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0WT_s9-fZs

[Kurieuo]

How can babies and fetuses see evidence for God and act on it?

Seems a kind of left of field question, was it aimed at something in particular here?

My answer would be that they can't.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

How can babies and fetuses see evidence for God and act on it?

Seems a kind of left of field question, was it aimed at something in particular here?

My answer would be that they can't.

Yeah the part in this thread that atheists are irrational since we can see God through creation, but I was wondering about those who don't have enough intellectual capacity to do so.

[Kurieuo]

How can babies and fetuses see evidence for God and act on it?

Seems a kind of left of field question, was it aimed at something in particular here?

My answer would be that they can't.

Yeah the part in this thread that atheists are irrational since we can see God through creation, but I was wondering about those who don't have enough intellectual capacity to do so.

They'd be without rationality or "a-rational". While they possess the capacity for rationality, their bodies just haven't developed enough yet to be able to think, or are functional enough to properly think, about God.

[abelcainsbrother]

Kurieuo wrote:

I wonder Justhuman, do you believe our decisions and actions are determined, or do you believe in some sense of free will?

Hmm... simple question, not an easy answer.

Recently I read an article about time. That time does not exist as a 'displacement through the 4th dimension', but is a state (condition, hope you know what I mean). That time as we perceive it as we do now is an illusion. There is only one everlasting moment and the only thing that changes is the arangement of matter in the universe, governed by all the laws of nature. We, as humans, perceive the tiny displacements of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc.. in our brains as a 'displacement in time',whereas it is a 'displacement in a state'. Not 'one moment' is the same because not 'one state' is the same.
It took me a while to grasp that concept, but then it actually made sense, seems even logical.

It takes a free will to do that.

I think that if you are bound to a specific belief/religion, which is and can be only true (like Abelcainsbrother does), your mind will block such other thoughts. You cannot freely think and ponder over an alternative like atheism.

Maybe it's not exactly what you meant, but I do believe our decisions and actions are free to our will. They are not determined by anything (but the forces of nature).

If it was not, f.e. because God determined a path for us, what's the point in going where we are going? Why would God send us on a path of which He already knows the outcome? Just to please Him? But then he already knows who will please Him, and who not. That doesn't make any sense for an omnipotent being. What possible use can human devotion mean to an omnipotent God?

I, as an atheist, am free to think/ponder about the possible existence of God, because the 'worst' that can happen is that it turns out God is there and I become a believer.

So, yes, I believe in free will.

I'm really concerned for you and how you can accept atheism without any evidence and yet think you can discover the truth.I'm not trying to make this personal but I'm just pointing out why atheism is irrational.It is because before you even start to try to discover what is true or not,you've already lowered your standard down below everything else that people believe and can present evidence for why they believe something. Not so with atheism because you have noway to know you are right until you die.Once a person starts out accepting things inwhich he/she knows they have no evidence it is true,it prevents a person from being able to look at evidence in order to discover the truth.They have lowered the bar so low and cannot be serious with themselves honestly when it comes to truly wanting to discover the truth.

You just presented a theory about free-will you seem to accept,but how can you know it is true when you are already looking at it from an atheistic view-point inwhich there is noway to know you are correct? It just leads you the wrong way like chasing pots of Gold at the end of a rainbow. Clearly you can understand what I'm getting at.So why go down the path you're on,never knowing whether or not you are right or wrong until you die?

You also have some strawman arguments when it comes to the God of the bible and so you cannot truly come to a correct concclusion about God when you're describing some other god,etc and not the God of the bible. We can reject things but we need to know about what we reject truthfully in order to not be rejecting it because of a flawed understanding out of ignorance.We should not reject things because of ignorance of it.

[Justhuman]

At Kurieuo:
I have to think about your answer…

At Abelcainsbrother:
Still waiting for your answer on the Gap Theory…

[Kurieuo]

At Abelcainsbrother:
Still waiting for your answer on the Gap Theory…

Oh no, please don't encourage him. (sorry ACB )

[abelcainsbrother]

At Kurieuo:
I have to think about your answer…

At Abelcainsbrother:
Still waiting for your answer on the Gap Theory…

This is not the thread to discuss it.But if you would like to know about and ask questions or discuss Gap Creationism? We can discuss it here.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=375

[Justhuman]

I already thought I shouldn't encourage Abelcainsbrother, but he was avoiding my question.
His answer that I first should become a true Christian was a non-answer. Why does he think I cannot understand/grasp what he believes? Is that solely reserved for do-believers?
How about if I would say "First become an atheist before you can fully understand the atheistic truth."?
As if some non-atheist cannot understand the arheistic viewpoint. That would be a pretty arrogant presumption.
Of course I cannot feel what he feels, but that is something entirely different.