Atheism: new religion?

[danot]

I understand, but your terms are wrong - it is not irrational to believe you do not need a creator if you accept that infinity is not irrational.

 

But is irrational to apply logic to such a quandary. I accept what you're saying- the creator that created creation must have also been created, presumably, by a creator that created the creator that created creation........ which would become infinite.

 

Therefore, if logic can be used to discredit the creator argument, the creator argument can be used to discredit the logical theory, because it is illogical to attempt to claim that you have reached the conclusion that creation could have always existed logically. In other words, it's illogical to use elementary logic to discredit the creator argument then reach an equally illogical conclusion.

[onewheeldave]

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.

 

Well, you've directly answered the question, so thanks for that.

 

The thing troubling me about irrationality & the claim of some atheists that the very act of having religious belief is automatically irrational, is that I've always taken 'acting irrationaly' to mean acting/behaving in a way that goes against rationality.

 

For example, a person who buys lottery tickets as a way of making money and not realising that, due to the way the lottery is set up, they are onto a loser.

 

So, while of course it's always possible (though highly unlikley) to get one of the big wins- they are actually playing because they've, on a few occasions, won £50, and, with it being human nature to remember the occasional wins, more than the constant weekly drain of £1 tickets, they think they can come out with a profit.

 

Of course, statistically, the money you put into the lottery will far exceed that you get back from the rare wins.

 

So, while I'm not going to say that playing the lottery is necessarily irrational, it is fair to say that playing the lottery with the expection of coming out ahead, is irrational.

 

Irrational in the sense of all information necessary to see that you are onto a loser is available (the stats, the fact that, if a log was kept, it would be obvious that you were losing cash etc) and, in the fact of all those facts, to continue buying tickets with the intention of coming out with a profit, is clearly going totally against rationality.

 

That's what I understood by 'irrational'- actually doing something that actively goes against rationality.

 

Let's call than def(inition) 1.

 

I suspect that your vdef of rationality is any act done without reference to rationality?

 

i.e. not actively doing something that goes against rationality, but merely doing something with doesn't rely on rationality- I'll call that def 2.

 

(If you're read up to this point, it would be worth confirming or denying the above).

 

Now, bringing religious belief in- according to your definition of rationality, it's true to say that all religious belief is irrational (with the proviso that said belief is actually belief in a God for which there is no evidence).

 

Whereas, on def 1, religious belief would not be irrational, but, better described as non-rational i.e. it's not based on rationality, but neither is it actively in opposition to rationality (i.e. it's not 'stupid' behaviour')

 

Having read several online definitions, none seem to clearly indicate which of the 2 above definitions is the correct one.

 

In the context of this issue, I feel it is important to sort out which is being used, because, when talking to a believer, their is a big difference in saying

 

1 your belief is not based on rationality (many believers would simply agree with that and not be offended)

 

and

 

2 your belief is irrational i.e. it goes against rationality and is basically stupid (which would definitly be seen as insulting)

 

So, which definition is closest to yours?

[onewheeldave]

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

 

 

 

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.

 

As I've said before- I do very much approve of atheism, for two many centuries, the right to not believe in God has been brutally repressed by various churches.

 

I'm said at what some people are doing with atheism (Dawkins et al), but, regardless of my owm views of the actions and words of that minority, I still strongly support atheism (I like to think that rationalist who look at my words objectively would be able to see that, though accept I may be living in hope on that one )

 

(Incidently, in the early years of Dawkins quest to promote atheism, i was a supporter, up till he started to become, in his own words, a militant atheist-

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

 

In an interview with Thomas Bass for a book published in 1994 he described himself as a 'fairly militant atheist'.

 

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.

 

That's very reasonable- Dawkins often said the same thing.

 

Sentence 2 is the fly in the ointment though. Very similar to the arguments on recreational drug use i.e. 'I accept that any individual has the right to put into their body what they want- as long as it doesn't effect others adversely'.

 

Because, that rests on the definition of 'affecting others adversely'- after all, if a drug users overdoses it's easy to argue that that affects adversely his family (grief and loss) etc.

 

And, from there, the whole stupid, destructive and pointless 'war on drugs' is justified.

 

Similalry, with atheism, it's really not a case of live and let live with religious belief, because believers have children, and atheists are very much insisiting that not child should receive education in religious belief, from their parents.

 

The consequences of that, are potentially horrific, because the only practical way of enforcing it to the extent that some atheists seem to want, involves state intrusion at the levels of communist Russia.

 

(Or, even if you think that's way over the top, surely you can see there are real dangers there).

[onewheeldave]

Originally Posted by onewheeldave View Post

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

 

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

 

No, that point was in reply to an atheist who was insisting that atrocities committed by believers throughout history (of which there were many), were definitly not due to innate evil or mental health condition/psycotic tendencies, but, were due soley to their religious beliefs.

[onewheeldave]

On the definition of 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'd say a delusion is a belief in something that rationality shows to be not there, yet the believer persists in it.

 

Believing in things for which there is no evidence is something routinely done by most in our society, religious or otherwise.

 

For example, the belief that earning more money will make you happy, leading to some having miserable lives, caused in part by their relentless pursuit of something for which there is not only no evidience that it will bring happiness, but, often, is the actual cause of that misery.

 

There's many, many other examples, you only have to look around you to see people who are living in a society where there's no starvation, good health care, education etc, yet so many are miserable and, due to their various delusions, themselves make that misery worse- while, many of those in the third world, despite, in comparison, having nothing, are actually happier.

[flamingjimmy]

The thing troubling me about irrationality & the claim of some atheists that the very act of having religious belief is automatically irrational, is that I've always taken 'acting irrationaly' to mean acting/behaving in a way that goes against rationality.

acting/behaving/ and I would put 'thinking' as well, which would include belief in a god.

 

So, while I'm not going to say that playing the lottery is necessarily irrational, it is fair to say that playing the lottery with the expection of coming out ahead, is irrational.

 

Irrational in the sense of all information necessary to see that you are onto a loser is available (the stats, the fact that, if a log was kept, it would be obvious that you were losing cash etc) and, in the fact of all those facts, to continue buying tickets with the intention of coming out with a profit, is clearly going totally against rationality.

 

That's what I understood by 'irrational'- actually doing something that actively goes against rationality.

No, to me (and to the definition I posted at your request earlier) it would also include thinking or saying something that goes against rationality.

 

Let's call than def(inition) 1.

 

I suspect that your vdef of rationality is any act done without reference to rationality?

 

i.e. not actively doing something that goes against rationality, but merely doing something with doesn't rely on rationality- I'll call that def 2.

 

I think your second definition is just plain silly, and does not apply to the lottery player. They are not 'going against rationality'. That would imply that they know what the rational choice is and have deliberately chosen to say 'screw you rationality' and that is one of their reasons for playing. I think the first definition applies to them, they are simply acting without reference to rationality.

 

Now, bringing religious belief in- according to your definition of rationality, it's true to say that all religious belief is irrational (with the proviso that said belief is actually belief in a God for which there is no evidence).

 

Whereas, on def 1, religious belief would not be irrational, but, better described as non-rational i.e. it's not based on rationality, but neither is it actively in opposition to rationality (i.e. it's not 'stupid' behaviour')

 

Having read several online definitions, none seem to clearly indicate which of the 2 above definitions is the correct one.

 

In the context of this issue, I feel it is important to sort out which is being used, because, when talking to a believer, their is a big difference in saying

 

1 your belief is not based on rationality (many believers would simply agree with that and not be offended)

 

and

 

2 your belief is irrational i.e. it goes against rationality and is basically stupid (which would definitly be seen as insulting)

 

So, which definition is closest to yours?

 

To me 'your belief is not based on rationality' and 'your belief is irrational' mean exactly the same thing. And I wouldn't add the 'and is basically stupid' part (unless it was a particularly stupid doctrine being discussed at the time, say for example, young earth creationism).

 

I think you're giving a special exemption for religion. I very much doubt you'd pull me up for calling moon landing conspiracy theorists irrational, or people who believe in the loch ness monster. Or would you? And if not, why not?

[quisquose]

Similalry, with atheism, it's really not a case of live and let live with religious belief, because believers have children, and atheists are very much insisiting that not child should receive education in religious belief, from their parents.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

I like to compare religion to a hobbies, within that framework it is perfectly reasonable to accept that many parents want to include their children in their passion. No reasonable a'theist would deny that.

 

But as with any hobby, if it begins to occupy every waking moment, if it becomes addictive then it becomes destructive. Any parent that forces a child to participate in a hobby to the exclusion of all others is being abusive.

 

Most a'theists don't want to sideline people's hobbies, far from it, even if that hobby is religion.

 

In fact most a'theists I know are vocal in their support of secular freedoms more than anything else, and I would fight for the rights of any person to practice his/her religion just as I argue for the rights of the non-religious. It's only because of the UK's secular fabric, even if not constitutionally so, that Muslims are able practice their religion, and Catholics theirs. (It's somewhat ironic that the previous Archbishop Of Westminster was one of the most vocal critics of secularism, perhaps forgetting that without it he wouldn't exist at all.)

 

But when the Pope, or the Archbishop Of Westminster, leads Catholic MP's to vote a certain way, to please their God, what is an a'theist supposed to do? There is only one response to that, and that is to shout loud and clear, "there is no freakin god!"

[Cyclone]

Similalry, with atheism, it's really not a case of live and let live with religious belief, because believers have children, and atheists are very much insisiting that not child should receive education in religious belief, from their parents.

Didn't you claim not to use sweeping generalisations earlier?

[onewheeldave]

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

You've noticed then (as have I) that, vocal atheists, when they debate with believers, even backed by rationality and science, have almost zero success in getting their points across to them?

 

And your hypothesis is that it's down to the believers- their inability to be rational etc (and I expect their deluded state of mind doesn't help either )

 

Here's another hypothesis- the failure is due to the fact that, generally, atheists are hopeless at communicating with those who do not think like they do.

 

Because, it has long been established, that when it comes to communication and getting people to change their minds, rationality and reason are way down the list in terms of effectiveness.

 

Two things that are proven to being superior are propaganda and diplomacy.

 

Governments have long known that when it comes to motivating the population to go to war, reason is of limited value- they'll use it, but the bread and butter for motivationg populations is propaganda- bold imagery, graphic design- works on a subliminal level, the last thing you want is people thinking.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

 

Not that I'm suggesting atheists start using propaganda (it's a black art based on trickery and deception)- I'm just pointing out that reason a particulalry effective means of changing minds in comparison.

 

The other big one, and this is one I think atheists would do very well to study, is diplomacy.

 

When it comes to extreme opposing points of view, diplomacy is the tool of choice.

 

One of the basic tenets of diplomacy is to not offend the other side, to not wind them up.

 

Vocal atheists, on the whole, are utterly hopeless when it comes to talking to believers without offending them.

 

In some cases I suspect it's deliberate, there are atheists out there who've suffered due to religion in their past, and that bitterness can manifest as behaviour in which they, on some level, work out their frustration by getting into discussions with believers (preferably stupid ones- fundamentalists) and winding them up.

 

let me make clear that I'm not suggesting any of the atheists on this thread fall into that category- but, we all know that there are people like that (thankfully in a minority)

 

In others, it's a general lack of people skills and inability to communicate, which tends to be at a higher level with some of those that are highly intelligent/rationalistic.

 

With others, I believe they do sincerely intend to communicate effectively their views, but maybe just can't put themselves into the heads of the person they're talking to, and genuinely can't see that what they've just said will cause offence.

 

The thing is, once the person being talked to, becomes offended, or feels insulted- the opportunity to communicate ends- their ears will basically close as they go in 'defense' mode.

 

And it's important to realise that that happens when the other person feels offended, regardless of whether the first person (the atheist) feels that they said nothing offensive.

 

A fine example is one covered in a recent post-

 

'all religious believers are irrational'

 

Start a debate with that one, and any hope of communcation is ended. from then on, you're in a war.

 

Because, to many believers, to be accussed of being irrational, is deeply insulting (also of course, to many non-believers), because, to them, it is equivalent to being called 'stupid'.

 

Now maybe atheists would say, that's not what i meant, you've taken that the wrong way- but, I guarantee you, whatever your definition of 'irrational' is, a large percentage of the population will take it as meaning 'stupid'.

 

Atheists can choose to continue to disreagard that, and, if so, their failure to communicate constructively will also continue.

 

Or, they can think diplomatically, appreciate that the person in front of them is a human being with ideas of their own, and re-phrase to something that means the same, but that won't cause offence, such as-

 

'religious belief is not based on rationality' which not only is far less likely to offend, but also forms a useful starting point to a discussion that might actually lead somewhere.

 

(I think most intelligent believers are aware of the fact that their beliefs are not based on rationality)

[six45ive]

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

 

Do you think some people are born with a basic sense of morals (good and evil) and, if so, how would that work? Is somebody always going to be good or evil depending on their genetic make up or do you think good and evil works on a scale?

 

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.

 

I've already explained to you that the general consensus amongst genetic scientists is that there is a genetic predisposition which makes some people more vulnerable to acts of evil depending on the environmental influences that they find themselves in and the opposite is true for people with a different genetic predisposition.

 

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.

 

A belief in god is an environmental factor. Anything that has an effect on somebody outside of their genetic make up is an environmental factor and that includes religion.

The evidence is all around you in every war that's ever been waged in the name of religion. It's irrelevent whther these people actually believed in a deity or not, the fact that they claimed they were doing god's work and were prepared to kill and be killed is the environmental effect that religion has/had on millions of people with a wide range of genetic dispositions.

That's the power of religion.

 

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

 

I'm not attacking you, I, and many others, are simply highlighting the inconsistencies in your arguments and giving you friendly advice that it may be a good idea to go back to university and get an education in one of many different subjects that lead you to a plethora of objective facts rather than a 'subject' (philosophy) that appears to allow you to manipulate it to fit in with your own prejudicial/ideological mindset.