Is Atheism irrational?

Originally posted by Coletti
There are only three possible answers to the question - does God exist: yes, no, and dunno. How you answer does not make your position irrational, although 2 out of 3 require faith.

If faith were irrational, then any unproven belief you have would be irrational - which would make 90% of everyone's beliefs irrational. Then again, maybe we are all mostly irrational beings. That would explain a lot.

People used to believe in Thor the Thunderer; was it irrational to hold that belief 1000+ years ago? Or, was the belief an attempt to make sense out of something inexplicable and therefore, rational?

Originally posted by KneverKnight
People used to believe in Thor the Thunderer; was it irrational to hold that belief 1000+ years ago? Or, was the belief an attempt to make sense out of something inexplicable and therefore, rational?

Since you provided a reason for it, the belief was rational. When people believed the earth was flat, that was rational. But to believe you can reach up and bite the moon is irrational - there is no deductive or inductive reasoning to support that belief.

Originally posted by Coletti
Since you provided a reason for it, the belief was rational. When people believed the earth was flat, that was rational. But to believe you can reach up and bite the moon is irrational - there is no deductive or inductive reasoning to support that belief.

So if the universe is constructed in such a way that it does not require a creator, then the belief in God is rendered irrational.
If that is the case, then atheism starts to look rational, yes?

Originally posted by KneverKnight
So if the universe is constructed in such a way that it does not require a creator, then the belief in God is rendered irrational.
If that is the case, then atheism starts to look rational, yes?

If your beliefs have have good reasons then they are rational. Both atheism and theism are rational - the question become which is more rational.

However, if you believed the evidence supported atheism over theism, and you still claimed to be a theist, then that might be irrational. Then you would be holding a belief counter to your reason. This would be true for any belief you have - and it may be the case your belief then is not genuine. (not you in particular but anyone)

Originally posted by KneverKnight
So if the universe is constructed in such a way that it does not require a creator, then the belief in God is rendered irrational.
If that is the case, then atheism starts to look rational, yes?

No.

If one belief is shown to be irrational, it doesn't neccessarily follow that its inverse is rational. Its a little more complicated than simple mathematics.

If there is no clear reason to believe in a creator, you could say that the belief in that creator is irrational. But a lack of reason to believe in a creator is just that - rationale to not profess a creator exists. It is not rationale to profess a creator doesn't exist.

The distinction is pretty subtle, but its there.

Originally posted by Pullhard
No.

If one belief is shown to be irrational, it doesn't neccessarily follow that its inverse is rational. Its a little more complicated than simple mathematics.

If there is no clear reason to believe in a creator, you could say that the belief in that creator is irrational. But a lack of reason to believe in a creator is just that - rationale to not ...[text shortened]... ionale to profess a creator doesn't exist.

The distinction is pretty subtle, but its there.

In other words, future discovery may uncover a Creator? We don't have the full picture yet?

Originally posted by Coletti
Atheism is simply the disbelief in God or any deity. That's it. It has not other doctrines or tenants. It is not a system or a philosophy.

I believe that God can not be absolutely proven by deductive reason or experience. Although there is much evidence, and good logical arguments, they will always fail at some point, no matter how small. And this ...[text shortened]... blem with atheism then is that is can offer no further help in understanding the world or man.

You started out well here, but contradicted yourself and ended up very poorly. You started off correctly by saying that, "atheism is simply the disbelief in God or any deity." That is true, and I will give you credit as being the rare breed of theist who recognizes (or even understands) that fact.

You say that in one breath, but then inexplicably fall back on the standard theistic misconception of claiming that atheism is a belief (in the non-existence of god). In fact, you contradict yourself within the same sentence by saying, "They (atheists) don't believe, Christians do believe - both are perfectly reasonable beliefs (!) because both are unprovable." You make the same blunder in your closing paragraph by claiming that both "beliefs" are reasonable.

You are savvy enough to give your argument some semblence of depth by introducing a correct definition of the atheist's position, but you then fail to incorporate that position into the body of your argument. For your benefit I will restate it for you: atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief in theism. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. An atheist is someone without theism.

The theist would have us believe that there are two competing beliefs on the table (theism and atheism) and that one is just as reasonable as the other. But this is completely false. There is only one belief up for consideration, namely the theist's. The theist is the one making the active claim that there is a god. As the one making the claim, the burden of proof lies entirely upon the shoulders of the theist. The atheist is merely one who has considered the theist's claims and who has found them to be lacking. So we are only considering how reasonable the theist's beliefs are. If his beliefs are unreasonable then that is the end of the story. There is no other belief to consider.

You are also correct in saying that atheism confines itself to one question only; which is whether theism can be justified or not. But then you try to insinuate that this is some kind of shortcoming for atheism; that atheism is somehow lacking because it offers no explanatory data. This is merely a function of the word itself. Atheism simply means to be without theism. It offers no other content. But atheists have access to as much explanatory data as theists do. Evolution or the Big Bang are explanatory hypotheses typically found in conjunction with atheism which are not logically contained within the definition of atheism itself.

So, to argue the relative merits of Evolution vs. "Intelligent Design" as explanatory systems might be an enlightening pursuit. But to argue the relative merits of atheism and theism as beliefs is neither enlightening nor even possible. Between the two, theism is the only belief being offered up for consideration. It has to sink or swim on its own merits.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
In other words, future discovery may uncover a Creator? We don't have the full picture yet?

Absolutely. Similarly, the universe may be infinite in time, space or both. Information is the brother of rational thinking.

Originally posted by rwingett
You started out well here, but contradicted yourself and ended up very poorly. You started off correctly by saying that, [b]"atheism is simply the disbelief in God or any deity." That is true, and I will give you credit as being the rare breed of theist who recognizes (or even understands) that fact.

You say that in one breath, but then inexplica ...[text shortened]... is the only belief being offered up for consideration. It has to sink or swim on its own merits.[/b]

Or, in other words, people used to believe that thunderbolts came from some god, because what else could explain it? Later, people used lightning rods, knowing better.
Atheism is not a belief! It does not depend on the non-existance of some god for it's tenets, it is a view of how things are based upon what what we can see, measure and infer.
Whether it is true or not is another matter, which is what this forum is for eh?

Originally posted by Coletti
There are only three possible answers to the question - does God exist: yes, no, and dunno. How you answer does not make your position irrational, although 2 out of 3 require faith.

If faith were irrational, then any unproven belief y ...[text shortened]... be we are all mostly irrational beings. That would explain a lot.

Your set of options is not complete. You want to pigeonhole everyone into your three preconceived categories so you can try to demonstrate that atheism is a faith, just like christianity. But this pursuit is doomed to failure when we see that those are not the only options available to us.

The so called "strong" atheist, who claims definitively that god does not exist, is the darling of the theistic camp. He seemingly provides the theists with the opportunity of demonstrating that their belief is just as reasonable as anyone else's. But the strong atheist is almost entirely a strawman put up by the theists for their own purposes.

Almost every knowledgable atheist will reject strong atheism as being untenable and will adopt what is known as "weak" atheism, or agnostic atheism, as it is sometimes called. They add another option to your list by observing that it is extremely unlikely that god exists, but that it is still possible. Every knowledgable atheist will stop short of checking off the "no" box on your list.

We see quite clearly that this is not a competing "faith" at all. It is merely a reaction to the theistic claims for the existence of god based on the available evidence (or lack thereof). As there is only one belief up for consideration here, there is only one opportunity for faith to be employed.

Originally posted by Coletti
There are only three possible answers to the question - does God exist: yes, no, and dunno. How you answer does not make your position irrational, although 2 out of 3 require faith.

If faith were irrational, then any unproven belief you have would be irrational - which would make 90% of everyone's beliefs irrational. Then again, maybe we are all mostly irrational beings. That would explain a lot.

Rwingett is right. You can pigeonhole people into these three options, but you will find the "dunno" camp to be so huge and varied, full of people with such widely different perspectives...there would be more similarity between some "dunnos" and the "yes's" or other "dunnos" and the "nos" than there would be between "dunnos" who lean in opposite directions.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Or, in other words, people used to believe that thunderbolts came from some god, because what else could explain it? Later, people used lightning rods, knowing better.
Atheism is not a belief! It does not depend on the non-existance o ...[text shortened]... true or not is another matter, which is what this forum is for eh?

No, you too are incorrect. Atheism does not equal rationalism, even though there is an extremely high correlation between the two. Atheism is simply to be without theism and nothing more. You could find the evidence for god to be lacking for completely irrational reasons, but still be an atheist. Or you might simply lack an understanding of the concept of god. Atheism is not a belief, nor is it a view of anything.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your set of options is not complete. You want to pigeonhole everyone into your three preconceived categories so you can try to demonstrate that atheism is a faith, just like christianity. But this pursuit is doomed to failure when we see that those are not the only options available to us.

The so called "strong" atheist, who claims definitively that g ...[text shortened]... y one belief up for consideration here, there is only one opportunity for faith to be employed.

If a god is not needed for the universe as seen today, then why invent another one?

Originally posted by rwingett
You started off correctly by saying that, [b]"atheism is simply the disbelief in God or any deity." That is true, and I will give you credit as being the rare breed of theist who recognizes (or even understands) that fact.[/b]

I have to give you credit here because it was my debates with you the informed my understanding the atheism.

As far as being equally rational, I didn't mean to imply that. (Or I did at the and I recant.)

I think Christianity is the more rational - and that's open for debate. But I don't want to make the worse mistake in assuming anyone else's beliefs are irrational simply because I disagree with them.

And of most atheist I know are characteristically rational people - and do have other beliefs that fairly conform to their atheism. A very few atheist are better described as anti-Christians - evident by their vehement attacks on all ideas they consider Christian.

And there is a fair share of Christians I consider less rational the I on some of their beliefs, although I agree with them on basic principles.

What irks me is the Christan bashing I often see here. But I have to be honest and admit I've put in my share of sniping and sarcastic remarks. I have tried avoiding calling someone position BS or HS or CS - and I've resisted the ranks that are so easy to fall into.

But all in all, I think a degree of sarcasm and ridiculing can be helpful if it gets you opponents to express their true feeling. That is the point of a little goading.

But I want to avoid that and stick with the strong attacks against positions. Avoid personal attack on peoples intelligence. And lastly, ignore the snide remarks that are directed at me, and enjoy the joke whenever I can - some jokes are not so bad - something about not wanting to drive over and bridges.

And never post aafrt thaking a sleeping pill.

Thanks rwingett, you're alright for an atheist.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
If a god is not needed for the universe as seen today, then why invent another one?

Huh?