Thread: Only Theists Believe Irrational Things

An alien hat.

Many people believe irrational things; many theists do not.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Hello,

Only theists will believe irrational things. Here is why:

Atheists:
+ Are only left to employ science as their only foundation of understanding.
+ Science will not employ any irrational institution (eg. telepathy, telekinetics, ouija, etc.)

Theists:
+ Do not employ logic or rationality which allows an infinite of possibilities.
+ God exists on the basis of faith and unreason. It is necessary to suspend reason to allow faith to believe in God.
+ Because of this necessity, many other things can be accepted. (ie. telepathy).

Thus, only theists will believe irrational things.

What do you think...?

~

I think you're wrong.

Generalizing people is all you're doing.
I'm sure Theists employ logic and rationality on a daily basis.
Seeing things a different way does not make one Irrational.

You've got to see things to believe, you can live your life believing nothing whats it matter? I used to be an atheist when I was younger but I've seen the light so to speak... Not the light of Christianity, that we are all one. Just like science explains it as the big bang

We did communicate a long time ago without language, does anyone living back then remember how we did it?
Science is great, but science does not know everything, get over it.
Have a nice day sir.

Atheists can only believe in the scientific doctrine as there is nothinge else left to believe in. People often speak of what they do not believe in but completel ignore what they can believe in and the truth is that Atheists do not "believe" anything. As an atheist, I can only know what is true and exists as per scientific logic.

Because of this, a true Atheist who unviersally applies their beliefs can not believe in anything but the rationally deduced truths from scientific reasoning.

What is left is to debate over the subjective truth of scientific reasoning which is not the point.

As an atheist, all I can advocate is rationality as per subscribed by science. Because of this, I do not "believe" in anything. The only thing I can do is know of those systemtically observed things and then be skeptical to their change over time.

That is the most utility that can be derived from our pragmatic sciences. Anything else is random, arbitrary, and irrational or not-universal.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

a true Atheist who unviersally applies their beliefs can not believe in anything but the rationally deduced truths from scientific reasoning.

Stop right there.

This shows a misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism is lack of belief in a divine creator - nothing more and nothing less. The tenets of atheism say nothing about science or rationalism. One can completely reject the scientific method and all scientific knowledge, but if they also reject the idea of a god or gods, then they are atheist. Once again, the position you are referring to is materialism, a position which is part and parcel of the scientific method. It is an understandable position for an atheist to take (I myself am an atheist and materialist), but materialism does not automatically follow from atheism. (Atheism, on the other hand, does automatically follow from materialism.)

Are we getting through to you yet? Say what you will about the value or logic (or lack thereof) of other points of view, but atheists are perfectly capable of holding all sorts of irrational beliefs.

Originally Posted by DuB

This shows a misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism is lack of belief in a divine creator - nothing more and nothing less. The tenets of atheism say nothing about science or rationalism. One can completely reject the scientific method and all scientific knowledge, but if they also reject the idea of a god or gods, then they are atheist. Once again, the position you are referring to is materialism, a position which is part and parcel of the scientific method. It is an understandable position for an atheist to take (I myself am an atheist and materialist), but materialism does not automatically follow from atheism. (Atheism, on the other hand, does automatically follow from materialism.)

Are we getting through to you yet? Say what you will about the value or logic (or lack thereof) of other points of view, but atheists are perfectly capable of holding all sorts of irrational beliefs.

This is fringing on conjecture but let's define Atheism then.

Atheism - the non-belief in God.

This is touchy because we have to ask why?. Why doesn't the Atheist believe in God or are they outright rejecting the idea of God regardless of reason?

As an Atheist myself, the only reason I do not know of God is because I have no reason or proof of God. If there was a congruent and logical reason to believe in God, or empirical proof (lol), then I would know of God.

I avoid saying "believe" because it takes proof to make me know of God which is the antithesis of belief.

From this, I say that Atheism follows to an empirical venue as we must employ some sort of ethical doctrine - everyone must. However, if we employ some sort of ethical doctrine, then it ought to universal. Since the only thing I can employ as an atheist is science, then I ought to never believe in irrational or unjustified things.

Make sense..?

Edit:

I just wanted to clear something up.

It seems intuitive to say that what I am saying is stupid and irrational, and this is because you are aware of how dynamic and different each mind is. We all think so many things and believe so many things. The true atheist (which is basically impossible) ought not to believe anything irrational though because they ought not to due to their only value in empiricism.

The theist, however, is perfectly allowed to believe in the truth of nearly any statement.

~

So you believe all atheists don't believe in Ouija boards, spirits, telepathy, and other things of that sort? That's a pretty big statement to be making.

Originally Posted by O'nus

This is fringing on conjecture but let's define Atheism then.

Atheism - the non-belief in God.

This is touchy because we have to ask why?. Why doesn't the Atheist believe in God or are they outright rejecting the idea of God regardless of reason?

As an Atheist myself, the only reason I do not know of God is because I have no reason or proof of God. If there was a congruent and logical reason to believe in God, or empirical proof (lol), then I would know of God.

I avoid saying "believe" because it takes proof to make me know of God which is the antithesis of belief.

From this, I say that Atheism follows to an empirical venue as we must employ some sort of ethical doctrine - everyone must. However, if we employ some sort of ethical doctrine, then it ought to universal. Since the only thing I can employ as an atheist is science, then I ought to never believe in irrational or unjustified things.

Make sense..?

Edit:

I just wanted to clear something up.

It seems intuitive to say that what I am saying is stupid and irrational, and this is because you are aware of how dynamic and different each mind is. We all think so many things and believe so many things. The true atheist (which is basically impossible) ought not to believe anything irrational though because they ought not to due to their only value in empiricism.

The theist, however, is perfectly allowed to believe in the truth of nearly any statement.

~

I get it, but I'm confused about one thing. This is purely hypothetical to get me where I'm going, but if God did exist, and God came to you and said "Onus, I am God, and now that you have seen me you can believe in me." Say he let you touch him, and performed some miracle for you...would you then believe in God? Or would you require him to come back and repeat it for you in front of other people who could verify God as real for you?


Your post did help me understand how an atheist such as yourself can explain the existance of morals. I suspect it's just a respect for ultimate integrity of self...and I get that and respect it.

DuB pretty much summed up my response to the question.

Originally Posted by DuB

materialism does not automatically follow from atheism. (Atheism, on the other hand, does automatically follow from materialism.)

For example, I am an Atheistic Buddhist. I believe in all sorts of nonsense. I believe in things that fly in the face of logic and reason. In fact, I reject the very principles that logic and science are based upon (without, of course, rejecting their usefulness or reliability).

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

So you believe all atheists don't believe in Ouija boards, spirits, telepathy, and other things of that sort? That's a pretty big statement to be making.

lol this is my point - you can obviously find an atheist who believes in these things, but they ought not to because their advocacy of atheism should be universal to all things.

In truth, an Atheist should not "believe" in anything!

Originally Posted by zeneyes

I get it, but I'm confused about one thing. This is purely hypothetical to get me where I'm going, but if God did exist, and God came to you and said "Onus, I am God, and now that you have seen me you can believe in me." Say he let you touch him, and performed some miracle for you...would you then believe in God? Or would you require him to come back and repeat it for you in front of other people who could verify God as real for you?

I would then believe in God because I met it. It would be unfortunate if I could not prove it to others because then it would be as reasonable as my imaginary friend. I can see why people equate this with hallucinations and subjective reasoning, but to answer your question - yes, I would then know God existed.

Your post did help me understand how an atheist such as yourself can explain the existance of morals. I suspect it's just a respect for ultimate integrity of self...and I get that and respect it.

Oh.. morals and ethics are difficult to express.. in truth, Wittgenstein said it best when he said, "If anyone could write the logical truth on ethics, the book would be so powerful it would explode and encompass all other things." It's simply not really possible because of all the irrational and illogical contradictions that can be made ethics. It's an adaptive body, almost like an organism.

I'm not arguing for any ethical position here.. just saying that the best ethical thing I can do is employ the scientific method in anything that I can. Otherwise, it's immediately a bias.

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

For example, I am an Atheistic Buddhist. I believe in all sorts of nonsense. I believe in things that fly in the face of logic and reason. In fact, I reject the very principles that logic and science are based upon (without, of course, rejecting their usefulness or reliability).

Define Atheistic Buddhism for me.

~

So atheists shouldn't believe in evolution? Lol just kidding.

Atheistic Buddhism can be Theravada Buddhism, it doesn't require worshiping or believing in a personal God.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

So atheists shouldn't believe in evolution? Lol just kidding.

It only explains so much and what it does explain is done so empirically.

If you asked me what created everything, I can't answer because I don't know but I can tell you what I think/believe. That would then be breaching my boundaries of an Atheist and simply being a human because an Atheist ought not to believe anything.

By the way, evolution isn't a belief... *Grits teeth at those who don't take jokes*

~

Terms are important. Don't feel bad about having to define something

Originally Posted by O'nus

Atheism - the non-belief in God.

This is touchy because we have to ask why?

No - we don't. It's irrelevant. There are any number of reasons why someone might not believe in (or "know of," if you prefer) God.

Originally Posted by O'nus

From this, I say that Atheism follows to an empirical venue as we must employ some sort of ethical doctrine - everyone must. However, if we employ some sort of ethical doctrine, then it ought to universal. Since the only thing I can employ as an atheist is science, then I ought to never believe in irrational or unjustified things.

Make sense..?

It makes sense. Like I said, it's an understandable position for an atheist to take, and one that I take. But to say that this is the only possible conclusion to be reached is just false. (Most logical conclusion? Perhaps, but that's for each person to decide for him/herself...)

There are many things besides science that an atheist might use to give meaning to the world. After all, we have people believing in chakras and "energy" and all sorts of exotic things. Irrational beliefs such as astral projection and dream sharing are abundant here at Dream Views, and you can bet that it's not only theists who are espousing that garbage (no offense to all you night stalkers and dream walkers ). You really have to be turning a blind eye to the people around you if you believe that it's impossible for an atheist to arrive at some conclusion or belief other than through science and/or logic.

Coming back to the issue of terms - you're really trying to expand the definition of atheism to encompass rationalism, materialism, etc. I'm sorry, but atheism is simply atheism.

Originally Posted by DuB

Coming back to the issue of terms - you're really trying to expand the definition of atheism to encompass rationalism, materialism, etc. I'm sorry, but atheism is simply atheism.

I can't simply just say that an Atheist is someone who does not believe in God because this is too encapsulating. Would this mean I am equivalent to a Buddhist? I don't follow Buddhist doctrines, so no. So what's the differentiation?

Maybe I should ask you then, what do you name someone that I am referring to? A person who will never believe in anything, but will only know of things empirically proven and subject them to questioning. If you can tell me this, then that is likely what I am.

~

You're almost there, O'nus. I have a feeling you made it short to spur discussion, but you need a better definition of atheists.

Atheists:
+ Are only left to employ science as their only foundation of understanding.
+ Science will not employ any irrational institution (eg. telepathy, telekinetics, ouija, etc.)

This definition sounds more like the definition of "Skeptic." But skeptics are good people. They always question, even questioning their own scientific discoveries. Always seeking evidence, even if the evidence contradicts current opinion.

Atheists, on the other hand, are those who do not believe in God. Maybe they believe there is an afterlife, even though it is currently irrational to believe that. I know many atheists on this forum irrationally believe in "Astral Projection," instead of donning the more appropriate title of "Dreaming."

In short, you can say all theists are irrational, but you can't say that only theists are irrational. Or, you could say only skeptics are rational, but that's opening a whole other can of worms! (Is it really "rational" to have such an open mind? What is "rational" when applied to true skeptics?)

Originally Posted by O'nus

Define Atheistic Buddhism for me.

Well, Buddhism is, by definition non-theistic. Or if you stretch it, agnostic.

In relation to this argument, I would define it as a belief in the illusory nature of all things. A rejection of all beliefs, including god; including the belief in a logical and stable universe.

But, as I'm sure you can see, that is in itself a silly thing to believe. When all your senses and experiences point to a simple explanation to the universe, why reject it? Illogical, right?

*shakes head*

there is no such thing as logic

logic is someones point of view, that is all, its nothing and nothing more

according to science there is no such thing as ghosts because they have found no physical evidence for ghosts, thus it is illogical to believe in ghosts

according to believers, the overwhelming number of eyewitness *MILLIONS* makes it ILLOGICAL to completely ignore the phenomenon, and duh, ghosts aren't physical so you're not going to find physical evidence anyways!

logic logic logic logic logic logic logic is all in your head

considering the history of science IT IS NOT LOGICAL in my opinion to believe in it without questioning it. is mainstream science wrong? that is a valid and LOGICAL question, as much as it is to question religion

Skeptic only don't believe in God because there is no reason to. Can't we say the same about Atheists? Or are Atheists just the bias people who refuse to believe in God no matter what evidence is provided..?

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

Well, Buddhism is, by definition non-theistic. Or if you stretch it, agnostic.

In relation to this argument, I would define it as a belief in the illusory nature of all things. A rejection of all beliefs, including god; including the belief in a logical and stable universe.

But, as I'm sure you can see, that is in itself a silly thing to believe. When all your senses and experiences point to a simple explanation to the universe, why reject it? Illogical, right?

Let's avoid arguing over your beliefs and let me just say then - your personal belief in Atheism is obviously different than mine.

Originally Posted by juroara

*shakes head*

there is no such thing as logic

Now there's a bold statement. Let's see where this goes.

logic is someones point of view, that is all, its nothing and nothing more

No, you are referring to "opinion" not logic. Please review Wittgenstein or Bertrand Russell as they formed formal logic at http://plato.stanford.edu

according to believers, the overwhelming number of eyewitness *MILLIONS* makes it ILLOGICAL to completely ignore the phenomenon, and duh, ghosts aren't physical so you're not going to find physical evidence anyways!

....

If I believe I am Napolean, everyone will call me a fool. But if everyone believes me to be Napolean, does that make it true? Sorry but just because many people believe in something, that does not make it true.

considering the history of science IT IS NOT LOGICAL in my opinion to believe in it without questioning it. is mainstream science wrong? that is a valid and LOGICAL question, as much as it is to question religion

How do you plan to prove or systematically question whether mainstream science is wrong or not? Please explain to me what ought to be employed in order to do this.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I can't simply just say that an Atheist is someone who does not believe in God because this is too encapsulating.

I am entirely unconcerned with what you can and can't accept as the definition of atheism. It isn't up for debate.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Maybe I should ask you then, what do you name someone that I am referring to? A person who will never believe in anything, but will only know of things empirically proven and subject them to questioning. If you can tell me this, then that is likely what I am.

I think Abra came up with the most appropriate term: a skeptic.

I consider myself a skeptic as well, so you're in good company - the best of company .

Originally Posted by DuB

I am entirely unconcerned with what you can and can't accept as the definition of atheism. It isn't up for debate.

Yes it is! You are too loosely defining Atheism so that it can encapsulate everyone but theists. Please realize there are more players in this and re-define your argument to be congruent with this.

I think Abra came up with the most appropriate term: a skeptic.

I consider myself a skeptic as well, so you're in good company - the best of company .

What's the difference?

~

Originally Posted by juroara

*shakes head*

there is no such thing as logic

logic is someones point of view, that is all, its nothing and nothing more

according to science there is no such thing as ghosts because they have found no physical evidence for ghosts, thus it is illogical to believe in ghosts

according to believers, the overwhelming number of eyewitness *MILLIONS* makes it ILLOGICAL to completely ignore the phenomenon, and duh, ghosts aren't physical so you're not going to find physical evidence anyways!

logic logic logic logic logic logic logic is all in your head

considering the history of science IT IS NOT LOGICAL in my opinion to believe in it without questioning it. is mainstream science wrong? that is a valid and LOGICAL question, as much as it is to question religion

That's too much. Science is a process, religion is definite. Science can bend to logic (defined below), while religion is brittle. Theories change entirely. Religion is composed of exceptions and add-ons whenever an opposing argument is brought forth (Evolution? That doesn't disprove God. God invented evolution.).

Logic is a web of ideas that support each other. The larger the web of connected ideas, the more logical that item is. In physics, every energy is related. In math, every process is proven. In religion, reasoning is invented when convenient.

Science is malleable, which means there is no objective truth. But that doesn't mean one should not take science seriously, because unlike religion, it becomes stronger over time.

I like Abra.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes it is! You are too loosely defining Atheism so that it can encapsulate everyone but theists. Please realize there are more players in this and re-define your argument to be congruent with this.

What's the difference?

I am not defining atheism in any manner - it is already defined. I formally invite you to look up the definition for yourself. (You'll notice it was not written by me.)

I'm not going to play this game with you. I've made my points, so you can take them or leave them.

Originally Posted by DuB

I am not defining atheism in any manner - it is already defined. I formally invite you to look up the definition for yourself. (You'll notice it was not written by me.)

I'm not going to play this game with you. I've made my points, so you can take them or leave them.

Since there is no plate that dictates the universal definition of everything, I will have to do my best to collect a few definitions.

http://plato.stanford.edu (The only thing on the internet I consider reliable besides electronic journals)
http://www.dictionary.com
http://www.wikipedia.com

Originally Posted by [URL

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#1[/URL]]
1. Atheism

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God

Article does not explore why the Atheists deny God. This is what I am asking.

Originally Posted by http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

a·the·ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Still not saying why the Atheist does not believe in God.

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism.

Still not explaining the reasoning of how the Atheist came to these conclusions. Based on what reasoning does the Atheist affirm that there is no existance of God..?

I say, this is because there is no proof or empirical evidence. Thus, they can never "believe" in God because if there were any reason to, then God would be a certainty, not a belief.

~