Is being an atheist irrational?

[Kurieuo]

So, come again with how "you" have a will? And since when has a clump of particles or physics felt this or that about something. The questions isn't whether Atheists feel love, indeed that forms part of the modus tollens argument against materialism.

I think you need to bring yourself up to speed with your counterparts. The thing about irrationality, is that one never thinks they are, yet that doesn't mean they're not.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LJtP0Ep1_ds

[Hortator]

Hi, Audacity!

[Nessa]

Hi, Audacity!

Who is Audacity? kurieuo?

Now that would be an interesting twist

[Justhuman]

As Kurieuo wrote:

So, come again with how "you" have a will? And since when has a clump of particles or physics felt this or that about something. The questions isn't whether Atheists feel love, indeed that forms part of the modus tollens argument against materialism.

Modus tollens argument against materialism? Does that mean that my atheistic concept of love is a kind of contradictio in terminis with the atheistic believe?

I've read before that the brain already seems to have made a decision 'some' time before we realize it or utter it. A funny thought that someone else could know what I've decided before I know it myself. It seems the processing time of the brain is pretty slow.

Sam Harris states there is no free will, because everything we think and do is based on previous experiences and state of minds, that are based on previous... (If I've understood it correctly). So we are more or less bound to a series of consecutive events like a cause-and-effect principle, thus meaning that everything is predetermined like a path that is layed out before us, whatever we do or think is just some moment or event on that path. Free will is therefore just an illusion, because we do not realy have the true control over what happens, we are slaves of the 'system'.

Somewhere I agree that free will is an illusion, but only at the fundamental level. Does it also compute for the brain as a whole organ? The whole is more than all the individual parts combined together. To reduce the brain to the principle of only a cause-and-effect seems far too simple to me. Can I make independant decisions based on past experiences? Do I have a choice in those decisions? Can I 'steer' (the thoughts in) my brain into a direction I choose myself? Can I actively determine the path I take?
Maybe it ultimately comes down to whether one wants to accept the consequences. Every decision has it's consequences and it are these consequences that often prevent us from taking a certain decision.

[Kurieuo]

Sam Harris believes "our brain", a bunch or neurons firing and the like, decide for us even before we think we make a decision. He has presented studies of such, like what you alluded to, although studies can also be presented to counter. His argument could be framed as follows:

1) If our decisions are physically derived, then "free will" is an illusion.
2) Our decisions are purely physically derived (scientific evidence presented of tests on brain and people appearing to "make" choices already decided by their brain in advance)
3) Therefore, free will is illusory.

My argument is the other way around, because I believe "free will" is a self-evident truth to anyone (before they become all "rational" in rationalising it away to conform to their view of the world). Now consider the modus tollens form:

1) If our decisions are physically derived (A), then "free will" is an illusion. (B)
2) Free will isn't an illusion, but really does exist. (~B)
3) Therefore we aren't entirely physically derived. (~A)

Consider also "love". Love requires volition. To be truly had, a person must be free to either choose to love, love back, and must not be forced. At a bare minimum there must be an individual "will" involved. So then, if our decisions (including desires and like) are completely derived from physical events, then "love" does not exist either. And the same argument therefore applies:

1) If "free will" is an illusion, then "love" also is an illusion.
2) Free will is indeed an illusion on a purely physicalist accounting of human beings.
3) Therefore "love" for human beings is an illusion.

NOTE, you previously argued an Atheist can believe "love" exists, for you are one and you feel love. Damn straight they can, they're human like Christians and anyone else, so evidently will feel love. Yet, then if they believe the physical world is all there is, then rationally no matter what they "apparently" feel about such matters, they must foundationally believe such is all illusory. Now I argue that "love" is very self-evident to us all, a human quality that separates us from mere robots. Given the strong self-evident nature of "love", we must call for very powerful evidence if we are to believe love is illusory -- such evidence I don't believe is or even can be had. Therefore, if we embrace the existence of "love" we must deny the the truth of Physicalism (to be logically consistent).

1) If "free will" is an illusion, then "love" also is an illusion.
2) Love isn't an illusion but really does exist. (we all directly feel and experience it so intensely!)
3) Therefore free will isn't an illusion.

And then, we can extend this back to the "free will" argument against a Physical worldview, free will isn't an illusion but really does exist, therefore we aren't entirely physically derived.

In other words, Materialism is false. We have very strong evidence for an immaterial world, based upon consciousness and the like, and our own direct and immediate experience (the same that the whole of physical sciences rests upon). This doesn't prove Atheism wrong, as I've seen many adapt to believe such is actually part of the fabric of "Nature" which is comprised of stuff that is both physical and immaterial (i.e. consciousness).

One thing is as evident to me as the Sun, becoming acquainted with all sorts of rational thoughts and arguments out there, Materialism is logically dead. It's just that many within science (and without) haven't caught up yet. But, the expertise of scientists isn't necessarily with logic and reason, but rather observation and experimentation of the physical world (and funded studies at that).

So then, returning to answer your question, Atheists who cling to Materialism (by far the majority in my experience) AND concepts such as "free will" and "love" as I see it hold to contradictory beliefs.

[Kurieuo]

Hi, Audacity!

Who is Audacity? kurieuo?

Now that would be an interesting twist

Oh! The audacity to even compare me!

[Kurieuo]

Does it also compute for the brain as a whole organ? The whole is more than all the individual parts combined together. To reduce the brain to the principle of only a cause-and-effect seems far too simple to me. Can I make independant decisions based on past experiences? Do I have a choice in those decisions? Can I 'steer' (the thoughts in) my brain into a direction I choose myself? Can I actively determine the path I take?

Maybe it ultimately comes down to whether one wants to accept the consequences. Every decision has it's consequences and it are these consequences that often prevent us from taking a certain decision.

I generally agree with you here.

While I often think it too simplistic an analysis i.e., there are many Christians who'd think Atheist vs. Theist ultimately comes down to whether or not one wishes to be responsible and held accountable for their actions, versus those who don't. So then, it isn't surprising there are a great many Atheists who want us, "free will", to be entirely physically derived. Yet, I feel such is too simple to be the sole reason.

Such thoughts seem similar to what you're saying, those who don't want to believe we have "a choice" may simply not want to accept the consequences thereof, and then those who do accept what seems most obvious to us (we do have a play in our decisions made) are either happy or brave enough to step up to the plate and take some ownership over their actions.

Seems simplistic, but no doubt if surveyed and with the right questions, many on one side would shy away from taking responsibility for their decisions, while on the other side many prefer it. I believe Harris for example has said if everyone understood their decisions were merely luck and chance, that then there would be no arrogant and self-important people. So he sees some positive aspects to denying free will. Yet, I don't believe the picture would be so bright if people truly believed they weren't responsible for anything. For then any action, no matter how evil, is acceptable once the chains of any responsibility and accountability are broken off. We have a constant convenient excuse, like "I was drunk and not all there", to cover everything.

[Justhuman]

A quick slept over it response: as an atheist I cannot 'feel' love, but only 'experience' love. Is that a difference like you mean it?

[Kurieuo]

No. I never said you don't feel love, quite the opposite.

[PaulSacramento]

Sam Harris is a very intelligent man, he just seems to have a problem with seeing the natural conclusion of his views.
Many people simply do NOT want free will to exists, so much better to be unburden by the responsibility to ones actions , to be unburdened from guilt by accepting that one is simply a by-product of genetics and the choices one makes are simply hardwired.
We go from "the devil made me do it" ( which was wrong)to "my genes made me do it".

How liberating.

[B. W.]

So are atheist irrational?

The answer would be clearly No.

Well, basically put in layman terms: Sam Harris was a materialist, philosophically, speaking and goes on a bit further with it.

Everything was based on materialism and chemicals and compounds and so forth and all thoughts are retaliative and thus relativism is the only objective truth there can be.

This is an over-simplification but the bottom line is that at the core of Harris is materialism, with no pun intended. A materialism mixed with self-transcending experiences from his past experiences with Buddhism. He was a Buddhist....and there are reports he used LSD and MDMA... So why would a rational person want to use these drugs?

Probably due to the Stupidity of youth so rational people can indeed become irrational.

So, at times, atheist can and do become irrational just as with all humanity. Problem is is when they cannot admit to their own human burst of irrationality and attempt instead to lord their relativistic moral snobbish elitist superiority over all humanity...

...Irrational - you decide?
-
-
-

[Justhuman]

I sense some frustration here...

[Hortator]

Hi, Audacity!

Who is Audacity? kurieuo?

Now that would be an interesting twist

Oh! The audacity to even compare me!

I thought this new guy was an Audacity sock puppet account at first. But looking at his stance on free will, I don't think he is after all.

That's something i've noticed with online comment boards:

[Nessa]

Hi, Audacity!

Who is Audacity? kurieuo?

Now that would be an interesting twist

Oh! The audacity to even compare me!

I thought this new guy was an Audacity sock puppet account at first. But looking at his stance on free will, I don't think he is after all.

That's something i've noticed with online comment boards:

Theres advantages to being odd and one of a kind...no one can be like you

[Justhuman]

Looked Audacity up in the posts history, did you think I was him?