Is being an atheist irrational?

[abelcainsbrother]

Mostly I try and choose what I write carefully, not writing something that just came to my mind, but this popped up:
If one truth leads to so different and opposite conclusions, then why can't it be a bit or a mix of both? We are not living in a binary world, with only 0's and 1's. No, there are a zillion shades of colors. I mean, we, as humans, do not and cannot, as yet, know the real truth. We might think so, feel so, told so, have been teached so, etc...

Now, for many, it is and ever will be either 'this' or 'that', with no other possibilty, but I think that every point of view is worth thinking about, as long as it can be supported by valid and rational arguments. And as long as it stays whithin the boundaries, of the discussion. But has it with these polarised views become impossible to see another sollution?
There is a saying here in NL that says, "If two dogs fight over one bone, a third will take it and run home."

This also makes whats rational and irrational (in respect to this subject) somewhat academic, because the basis of the discussion is totally different. Maybe that is why it is so polarized.

I do not ignore everything that's argumented and explained here about what's right or wrong, possible or not possible, all the illogical contradictions between theistic and atheistic worldviews (at least I do now have a much better understanding about God). It all helped to clarify the misunderstandings I had, to better understand your point of views and believes.
Thus, I've learned by now that such a 'mix of both' is not possible whithin the current pure status of God, and also not with a pure materialistic universe. But to ignore the growing scientific knowledge that indicates that at least some parts of the evolutionary principles begin to make (evidential) sense and are explainable, is like closing one's eyes for any other alternative. That goes the other way too! To ignore all theistic knowledge and evidence is like ignoring half the human world. A mix would make the theistic universe a bit more evolutionary, and the materialistic universe a bit more fuzzy. Or is there really no other alternatives than either this or that?

Some may think my 'changing' ideas and insights is like a journey down a wild river, changing and adapting to wherever the water (thoughts) takes me, 'going all over the place'. "Searching for a truth that fits into the newly found arguments." Evidence for another irrational atheist.

Nerverthelss, the above is just another possibility and maybe utter irrational nonsense. Yet, I like to ponder over that, reject it afterwards or find further support for it.

I wonder sometimes, is a theist bound more to his believes than an atheist is to his? Does an atheist has more freedom to change his mind than a theist?

Can't you see that in order to reject God you are having to imagine a mysterious truth we don't yet know about,because of a lack of our knowledge,in otherwords imagining an alternative universe other than the reality we live in and know about and understand? It is normal for those who reject God to imagine up things that go outside of our known knowledge in order to reject God.I don't think atheists realize they do it,but they do and it is noticeable to those paying attention.

Why must you make up and assume there is some unknown truth out there that could one day be realized that goes against everything we know about in the reality we live in?It is common to see atheists imagining up alternative truths out there that are not yet realized in order to reject God.It is a state of limbo they remain in and it is even worse for them when it comes to science who atheists look up to instead of God for their answers because science is neutral when it comes to God and all they do is focus on understanding our universe as is and do not really address the question of how or why it got here.

I mean sure there are atheistic scientists that atheists look up to that put out these assumptions about how the universe got here but it is not peer-reviewed science and is just one man's opinion and it requires more faith to believe than to believe any miracle in the bible because God can do miracles easily if he chooses to.

So that they put their faith in non-peer-reviewed science all the while trying to get us to understand how important it is to have peer-reviewed science and because it does not address God they point this out and remove God from the discussion,because science does not address God,but only focuses on our universe itself and understanding it.

[Justhuman]

Can't you see that in order to reject God you are having to imagine a mysterious truth we don't yet know about,because of a lack of our knowledge,in otherwords imagining an alternative universe other than the reality we live in and know about and understand? It is normal for those who reject God to imagine up things that go outside of our known knowledge in order to reject God.I don't think atheists realize they do it,but they do and it is noticeable to those paying attention.

Why must you make up and assume there is some unknown truth out there that could one day be realized that goes against everything we know about in the reality we live in?It is common to see atheists imagining up alternative truths out there that are not yet realized in order to reject God.It is a state of limbo they remain in and it is even worse for them when it comes to science who atheists look up to instead of God for their answers because science is neutral when it comes to God and all they do is focus on understanding our universe as is and do not really address the question of how or why it got here.

I mean sure there are atheistic scientists that atheists look up to that put out these assumptions about how the universe got here but it is not peer-reviewed science and is just one man's opinion and it requires more faith to believe than to believe any miracle in the bible because God can do miracles easily if he chooses to.

So that they put their faith in non-peer-reviewed science all the while trying to get us to understand how important it is to have peer-reviewed science and because it does not address God they point this out and remove God from the discussion,because science does not address God,but only focuses on our universe itself and understanding it.

I think you forget that for me, as an atheist, there is no God, so I am not bound to God and cannot reject God. I am 'free' to ponder about alternatives, adapt to what scientific discoveries are made, 'choose whatever suits best possible'. Of course that is also bound to (some strict) rules, but whithin those rules there is at least some freedom of movement. And who knows, at the end of all those discoveries, maybe God awaits there, smiling over such human foolishness.

And miracles are only miracles if they are unexplainable (about how on earth is that possible!). If God is behind those miracles than it is 'just' God doing His kind of unmiraculous omnipotent thing (at a moment and a place He chooses fit to do so). I know a few people who would have wished A miracle didn't end their live or the live of their loved one. So, please don't introduce that kind of God-thing in this irrationality discussion.

[Philip]

JustHuman:
And miracles are only miracles if they are unexplainable (about how on earth is that possible!). If God is behind those miracles than it is 'just' God doing His kind of unmiraculous omnipotent thing (at a moment and a place He chooses fit to do so). I know a few people who would have wished A miracle didn't end their live or the live of their loved one. So, please don't introduce that kind of God-thing in this irrationality discussion.

So, when we see the inexplicable that has no known physical cause - like what showed up and how at the moment of the universe's beginning, whereas the moment before, there was NOTHING physical, what do you call that? Miraculous is the only word that comes to mind.

Let's not forget, that the negative things that we so often see in this world are due to humans having free will and exercising it in evil ways - it's not God caused. He could have eliminated the possibility that humans could choose to do evil - but then they would have been mere robots. Choosing Him would have been forced through His programming to do so. But, Scripture repeatedly lets us know that THIS world is not the ultimate result or goal that we should have. It's not THIS world that will ever be peaceful. So, God represents a choice and a challenge to us - and if we choose Him He will guide us through the challenges of this world, but it does not mean we won't experience suffering. When God Himself came to earth to communicate directly with men, in Jesus' earthly body, He did not avoid the terrible things of this world - in fact, He freely subjected Himself to some of the most terrible things that most men will ever experience. So, while this world has a purpose, in that we might reach BACK to God's already outstretched hand, the agonies of it will not follow Christians into the blissful world to come.

[Justhuman]

A miracle is always miraculous, but miraculous is not always a miracle.

[Philip]

A miracle is always miraculous, but miraculous is not always a miracle.

That's a contradiction. It's because you define the miraculous by determination of its source. Yet, there is a reality that explains the miraculous, but whenever that reality still has produced what can only be described as miraculous - well, then it IS miraculous. What occured at the moment of The Big Bang's beginning is described by all manner of atheist and agnostic scientists as miraculous - and for good reasons. But then many of those will, almost in the same breath, deny there was an intelligence behind it - thus asserting a FAR-greater miracle that is beyond rational thinking to believe such a thing is possible. I'm a rationalist, as I don't believe such a universe merely "pops" into existence without an eternal, unfathomably powerful Superintelligence behind it - as it is irrational to think so. Funny how people who bow to science and its logical connections between the constant search for evidences and their prior causes, philosophically, throw all those dependent methodologies away when they look backwards to the characteristics of what had to precede all physical things. At that point they have emotionally abandoned logic as to what is possible without an intelligent, supremely powerful eternal cause. Because they don't want to truly consider the possibility of God, they embrace a mysterious, undefined logic of "Pop Metaphysics," of which standard logic apparently doesn't apply. Such people are not truly rational, though they assert to be ruled by logic.

[RickD]

A miracle is always miraculous, but miraculous is not always a miracle.

And who says you're irrational?!?!?

[Justhuman]

I didn't

[Hortator]

Man if Jac were still here, his forehead would be red from smacking it so hard

[thatkidakayoungguy]

http://blog.godreports.com/2016/06/note ... ds-matrix/
Even Michio Kaku acknowledges there's a possibility for god, as well as Dawkins, though he holds to a deistic possibility.

There are countless cases of brilliant scientists proving to be terrible philosophers. Hawking, Kaku, and yes, even Dawkins ( ) are but a few. So what is your point exactly?

That even highly educated people acknowledge there's a good chance for God being real.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Man if Jac were still here, his forehead would be red from smacking it so hard

When did he leave?

[Kurieuo]

A miracle is always miraculous, but miraculous is not always a miracle.

And who says you're irrational?!?!?

Don't worry JH we all have off days.

[Hortator]

Man if Jac were still here, his forehead would be red from smacking it so hard

When did he leave?

I feel like I'm gossiping, but he had a falling out with a mod about calling fascist tactics fascism. He thought the term was too common and vulgar. The mod thought it was accurate and appropriate. They just couldn't reconcile.

[Philip]

The mod thought it was accurate and appropriate. They just couldn't reconcile.

Actually, the truth is that Jac's pride prevented him from admitting he had gone way too far, as he had ruthlessly attacked a strawman construct of what the reality of the situation was, so he left in a hissy fit after showing great disrespect and doing his best to demonize the persons he disagreed with. He was warned to cease his behavior, but instead of complying, decided to double down. He's more than welcome back, as long as he can disagree without going bananas and showing people who have different opinions than he does such immense disrespect. Basically, the result of his behavior was that he was temporarily banned and afterward has apparently decided to not come back. It's really sad, was uncalled for, and was so avoidable. And truly tragic, as much of his input was of great value to both believers and non-believers.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Yes but when? Wasn't he around a month ago?

[Justhuman]

@ Philip...

I wrote (with a poetic freedom):

A miracle is always miraculous, but miraculous is not always a miracle.

To indicate 'miraculous' is not 'a miracle', in response to your:

So, when we see the inexplicable that has no known physical cause - like what showed up and how at the moment of the universe's beginning, whereas the moment before, there was NOTHING physical, what do you call that? Miraculous is the only word that comes to mind.

ACB (hope you don't me mind using that abbreviation?) mentioned a miracle, where in my opinion a miracle doesn't exist (a- or theistic). Miraculous is something very different.