Atheism: new religion?

[onewheeldave]

I get the feeling that onewheeldave expects the few posters still active on the thread to be able to answer for all the 'vocal atheists' who he thinks make unsupportable statements though. Which is unfair and not possible.

 

I'm sure some atheists do make unsubstantiated or irrational statements, they're people, not logic robots. So what. Why should that matter on a thread about whether atheism can be considered to be a religion.

I might go back to where this part of the conversation and see what OWD said... But maybe at that point there was nothing more to say than "yes they do, but they're not me".

 

That was in reply to someone who had a go at me for saying that some vocal atheist make unsubstantiated or irrational statements.

 

I agree with you of course some atheists make mistakes (as do some believers and people in general)- but i was being accussed of 'generalising' in pointing out that truism.

 

If you do want to go back to that conversation, it's here-

 

(in reply to-

the generalisation is getting much more specific as the thread progresses. Now we are on some vocal atheists!

)

 

On the whole I've mainly been referring to 'some' vocal atheists- it is only a minority of atheists who do put forward those, what i see as, irrational or unsubstatiated points (and indeed are somewhat prone to generalisations).

 

You'll notice that i also take take to expalin why I consider those points to be irrational or unsubstatiated- I'm not just sniping at them.

 

You may not agree with the arguments I put forward, but that's to be expected.

 

I see that you're persistently accusing me of generalisations about atheists (or 'vocal' atheists, I'm not clear on which it is you have the issue with, you may want to clarify), isn't it time you point out a specific example, so I can either defend myself, or, admit that you are right?

 

When it comes to the part you highlighted in bold-

 

Just because I've argued (strongly) against what I see as faulty reasoning in (some) vocal atheists, should not lead anyone to conclude that I'm a beleiver.

 

I'm not saying anything other than some vocal atheists use faulty reasoning- what's the problem with that- do you believe that it's not the case that some vocal atheists use faulty reasoning? Because that would be saying that vocal atheists are somehow immune to making mistakes, which seems somewhat unlikely.

 

It also indicates that, if I am generalising, I'm not very good at it- a real generalisation would be-

 

"atheists are irrational"

 

Which, interestingly, if you substitute 'believer' for 'atheist', yields-

 

"believers are irrational", which, in this thread alone, has actually been stated by at least two atheists (though, in one case, in a stronger form i.e. claiming that believers were irrational by definition)- I didn't notice you pointing out to them that they were generalising.

[onewheeldave]

Well, that's your first post on the topic OWD.

Not at all sure what you mean by that.

 

You seem to object to anyone calling a belief in a religion a delusion.

I'm afraid I won't be changing my stance on that though as it meets the clinical definition of a delusion, which is good enough for me.

This doesn't automatically wreck the believers life, nor does not suffering that delusion somehow guarantee a great life, but then I haven't ever claimed either of those things to be true.

 

Just out of interest, what is, in your eyes, the clinical definition of a delusion?

 

I don't think objecting to calling a belief in a religion a delusion has been remotely the main thrust of my posts here.

 

But, when it comes to atheists debating with believers- what is their intention usually?

 

I mean, are they hoping to get their points of view across to the believer i.e. the importance of rational reason and maybe even the benefits of living a life according to rationally substantiated beliefs and the challenging of unsubstantiated beliefs.

 

Not to convert them, but to show them that there are tools available (science, rationality, evidence) that can enable them to think things through for themselves and come to their own conclusions, based on evidence?

 

In your opinion, is that the point?

[flamingjimmy]

OK.

 

Just so I'm clear on this, in this context, what definition of 'irrational' are you using?

 

(I have checked the online dictionary defs, but, they tend to give several- I'd like to get it pinned down to the one you've got in mind)

 

The first line of the wikipedia page on the subject I just glanced at will suit well:

 

"Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking or acting without inclusion of rationality."

 

EDIT: Thinking about it, that' probably inadequate, I'm going to have to do w a chain of definitions.

 

Rationality: The excercise of reason.

 

Reasoning: To determine or conclude by logical thinking

 

Now I know you know a fair bit of philosophy so hopefully I won't have to explain what logic is.

 

I'm not saying that all believers are less rational in all things than all atheists, or even that there's a general trend that way (although I suspect there might be). I'm simply pointing out that the act of belief in a deity itself is irrational, because there is no logically sound argument for the existence of a deity. Therefore anyone who does is being irrational, and could therefore be described themselves as irrational.

[quisquose]

I rather suspect that onewheeldave's opinion of a'theists comes from the same place as John Gray who frequently rants at them, and will be again on Radio 4 this Friday:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014gk72

 

John Gray argues that the scientific and rationalist attack on religion is misguided. Extreme atheists do not realise that for most people across the globe, religion is not generally about personal belief. Instead, "Practice - ritual, meditation, a way of life - is what counts." Central to religion is the power of myth, which still speaks to the contemporary mind. "The idea that science can enable us to live without myths is one of these silly modern stories." In fact, he argues, science has created its own myth, "chief among them the myth of salvation through science....The idea that humans will rise from the dead may be incredible" he says, "but no more so than the notion that humanity can use science to remake the world"

 

I think there is some conviction here that it is belief in belief that is good, even if that belief itself is irrational nonsense.

 

But myself, and every "vocal" a'theist that I know, don't take issue with people's beliefs where they are personally held. It's only when they are allowed to unfairly influence the lives of others when we complain.

 

Furthermore, double-standards are in play due to generations of religious power. The religious are allowed to preach & proselytize at my doorstep, indoctrinate children, have a political membership, restrict my end of life options, attempt to restrict my daughter's access to sexual health-care, restrict stem cell research etc etc. But if I attempt to refute their attempts to influence my life because they believe in a god, with "but I don't believe in your god", then I can be labelled "fundamentalist", "militant", "extreme", or "shrill".

 

At the heart of this (I suspect since I was once a Christian), is the deeply held suspicion held by every intelligent believer that what they believe in is nonsense. Believing in the nonsense makes them feel good, but a'theists not believing in it makes them feel bad for believing in it. An "extreme" a'theist is simply one that dares to speak.

[julado]

God doesn't believe in atheists ;-)

[Number Six]

God doesn't believe in atheists ;-)

 

He doens't need to, as there is evidence they exist (and he is apparently all knowing) If there is evidence of something it becomes not a matter of belief but of fact.

[llamatron]

Modern psychology has debated long over whether people are born evil or whether it's an enviromental thing- that question also remains unsettled.

 

Personally I believe evil has a cause, and i suspect that, in some cases, the cause is genetic, in others, environmental, and, in others, a mixture of the 2.

 

If you want to show that belief in a god, rather than genetic or environemtal factors, is the cause of evil in the example of historical figures who committed atrocties in the name of God, then produce evidence or reasons to substatiate it.

 

No amount of attacking me and accusing me of being a troll will substitute for reasoned evidence.

 

again you said this not the vocal atheists on this thread.

[danot]

But believers are irrational by definition..

 

That is not a generalisation, it is an absolute rule, that's kind of what the 'by definition' part means.

 

Believing in god is irrational, therefore anyone who believes in god is irrational.

But what about the flip-side Jimmy?

 

By using the logical argument that discredits claims of a creator having created creation then arguing that creation didn't necessarily require a creator but may have always existed, you are being equally as irrational, therefore, believing creation wasn't created but may have always existed would make you just as irrational. Not you personally of course.

[Cyclone]

Not at all sure what you mean by that.

 

I meant that it was your first post on this topic. It's from page 1.

 

Just out of interest, what is, in your eyes, the clinical definition of a delusion?

A persistent belief in something where there is no evidence to support that belief.

It might be a belief that Santa delivers presents, that the government is out to get you, that someone controls your mind using rays from a satellite or that a sky pixie made the universe

 

I don't think objecting to calling a belief in a religion a delusion has been remotely the main thrust of my posts here.

No, but it was one point that you raised.

But, when it comes to atheists debating with believers- what is their intention usually?

On this thread surely the main point was to dispute the point that atheism could be a religion.

 

I mean, are they hoping to get their points of view across to the believer i.e. the importance of rational reason and maybe even the benefits of living a life according to rationally substantiated beliefs and the challenging of unsubstantiated beliefs.

 

Not to convert them, but to show them that there are tools available (science, rationality, evidence) that can enable them to think things through for themselves and come to their own conclusions, based on evidence?

 

In your opinion, is that the point?

That would be a good point, but trying to challenge faith with a rational argument is a futile effort, faith is not amenable to rational discussion, that's why it's faith and that's why it's delusional.

[danot]

If infinity were irrational, you would be correct. But it isn't irrational, either mathematically or logically.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying infinity is irrational, I'm saying those that believe creation didn't necessarily need a creator as it might have always existed are being just as irrational as those that believe creation was created by a creator because it would be irrational to claim you made a conclusion such as that logically.

 

Do you understand?