Thread: Only Theists Believe Irrational Things

I read an article of how science is trying to make a telepathy helmet.

EDIT: What about atheists that do believe in Ouija boards? There are things that have seemed irrational more than likely and has been done by science to some degree, take invisibility, I'm sure they thought that was irrational, but they've made things that can appear to be invisible by reflecting rays and all that fun jazz.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

I read an article of how science is trying to make a telepathy helmet.

rotfl.

But really, assuming science is rational... okay, it just about always is, especailly the last few decades. So yeah, atheists, the ones that care to look into what is true, and thus know the basics of science, will be far far less irrational then theists.

If all people were perfect intellectually interested truth-seekers, (well, there wouldn't be theists then), all atheists would be completely rational (for as far we can trust science, and probably we can).

Or something.

I guess the proposition may be more of interest to agnostics or something. I am already convinces theists are irrational silly people.

Atheists can believe in supernatural silliness without believing in a deity.

Thus "only Theists Believe Irrational Things" is false.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Atheists can believe in supernatural silliness without believing in a deity.

Thus "only Theists Believe Irrational Things" is false.

yep, like clinically insane atheist, or the welfare junkie crackhead atheist.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Atheists can believe in supernatural silliness without believing in a deity.

Thus "only Theists Believe Irrational Things" is false.

Only theists believe irrationtal things to be true and valid.

Atheists will, at most, believe in an irrational thing, but know that it is invalid or untrue. Thus, belief in this case is more synonymous with patriotism or respect, not willful pontification or worship.

You won't see any hardline Atheists or Scientists talking about the wonders of their telekinetic abilities.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Only theists believe irrationtal things to be true and valid.

Atheists will, at most, believe in an irrational thing, but know that it is invalid or untrue. Thus, belief in this case is more synonymous with patriotism or respect, not willful pontification or worship.

You won't see any hardline Atheists or Scientists talking about the wonders of their telekinetic abilities.

~

one day you might, just as you hear them talking about computers growing a sense of self now.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Only theists believe irrationtal things to be true and valid.

Atheists will, at most, believe in an irrational thing, but know that it is invalid or untrue. Thus, belief in this case is more synonymous with patriotism or respect, not willful pontification or worship.

You won't see any hardline Atheists or Scientists talking about the wonders of their telekinetic abilities.

~

What you said was still false though, there are Atheists that believe in telepathy, Ouija boards, etc. etc. You could have a hardcore Atheist believe that all life on earth was created on a distant planet in a far off galaxy and sent to earth.

Army determined to build telepathy helmet.
http://www.disinfo.com/content/story...epathy-Helmets

We're in the age of X-Men folks, choose your superpower fast before they run out.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

What you said was still false though, there are Atheists that believe in telepathy, Ouija boards, etc. etc. You could have a hardcore Atheist believe that all life on earth was created on a distant planet in a far off galaxy and sent to earth.

Army determined to build telepathy helmet.
http://www.disinfo.com/content/story...epathy-Helmets

We're in the age of X-Men folks, choose your superpower fast before they run out.

The very beginning of that link says disinfo.

Originally Posted by zeneys

one day you might, just as you hear them talking about computers growing a sense of self now

My point is that telekinesis, as of right now, has no scientific grounding whatsoever. It has no rational support and is considered fantasy and pseudo-science at best. Thus, you won't see scientists bragging about their telekinetic ability.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

What you said was still false though, there are Atheists that believe in telepathy, Ouija boards, etc. etc. You could have a hardcore Atheist believe that all life on earth was created on a distant planet in a far off galaxy and sent to earth.

It is not false. As an atheist, I can only embrace science and validity. At most, I can believe in the possibility or be passionate about something, but I can't believe it to be valid or true.
However, a theist, who embraces irrationality, can easily believe in the truth and validity of irrational things (eg. telepathy) because they are consistent with their foundational beliefs.
They are not consistent with an Atheist's beliefs nor a scientists.
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Only theists believe irrationtal things to be true and valid.

Atheists will, at most, believe in an irrational thing, but know that it is invalid or untrue. Thus, belief in this case is more synonymous with patriotism or respect, not willful pontification or worship.

You won't see any hardline Atheists or Scientists talking about the wonders of their telekinetic abilities.

~

There are plenty of atheists who believe in spirits, telepathy, telekinesis, etc. Not all atheists are naturalists.

I agree that all theists believe something irrational, I disagree that only they can believe irrational things.

Atheism is not an ideology, it is just a discription of either no belief or disbelief of a diety.

Originally Posted by O'nus

It is not false. As an atheist, I can only embrace science and validity. At most, I can believe in the possibility or be passionate about something, but I can't believe it to be valid or true.
However, a theist, who embraces irrationality, can easily believe in the truth and validity of irrational things (eg. telepathy) because they are consistent with their foundational beliefs.
They are not consistent with an Atheist's beliefs nor a scientists.
~

So what's a person that lacks belief in God, but believes in Ouija boards? Is he defaulted to Theist?

Originally Posted by Sandform

The very beginning of that link says disinfo.

Discovery News:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/1...ht-helmet.html

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

So what's a person that lacks belief in God, but believes in Ouija boards? Is he defaulted to Theist?

An idiot.

I was considering leaving it at that, but it's only fair I elaborate, lol.

Consider Brian:
+ Does not believe in God (only because he has no empirical reason to)
+ Will only believe in empirical matters

Now I notice the issue, it is the word "believe".

Let's try this again. Believe = individual considers the relevant topic to be true and valid, regardless of no support or rationality.

Brian:
+ Does believes God to be a possibility, but has no empirical proof of God.
+ Believes in Ouija

This is oddly inconsistent. Someone who would use this logic for God would not not apply the same logic to other things. So this is why I call them an idiot. If they are open to empirical proof and rationality and that is their reason for not thinking God exists, then they ought not to believe in God.

If anything, it's called a biased Atheist towards topic X (eg. telepathy).

Obviously this isn't really fair though because humans obviously do not unviersally apply their logic and reasoning to all things in life.

However, they ought to be universal in their truths.

Thus, someone who believes in empiricism (not Theism) but believes in something irrational, is an idiot because they are contradicting themself.

*Shrugs*

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

An idiot.

I was considering leaving it at that, but it's only fair I elaborate, lol.

Consider Brian:
+ Does not believe in God (only because he has no empirical reason to)
+ Will only believe in empirical matters

Now I notice the issue, it is the word "believe".

Let's try this again. Believe = individual considers the relevant topic to be true and valid, regardless of no support or rationality.

Brian:
+ Does believes God to be a possibility, but has no empirical proof of God.
+ Believes in Ouija

This is oddly inconsistent. Someone who would use this logic for God would not not apply the same logic to other things. So this is why I call them an idiot. If they are open to empirical proof and rationality and that is their reason for not thinking God exists, then they ought not to believe in God.

If anything, it's called a biased Atheist towards topic X (eg. telepathy).

Obviously this isn't really fair though because humans obviously do not unviersally apply their logic and reasoning to all things in life.

However, they ought to be universal in their truths.

Thus, someone who believes in empiricism (not Theism) but believes in something irrational, is an idiot because they are contradicting themself.

*Shrugs*

~

Not all people are atheist because of logic. There are some "teachings" that deal with supernatural that are devoid of dieties, though I think some have angels and demons of (good or bad spirits whatever you want to call them).

You really are going downhill, O'nus. I can't tell if you are posting this tripe to get a rise out of people or if you are just being dense.

You've already proven yourself wrong by the very statements you have made. Obviously atheists can believe irrational things, because it is irrational and illogical to believe that they can't; which you say you believe. It is irrational and illogical to equate atheism to logic, rationality, science or empiricism. There is no empirical evidence for atheism, just as there is no empirical evidence for theism.

Whats more, many of the posts before this one have easily shown how atheists are perfectly capable of being irrational, and yet you doggedly deny that they refute your original claim; some might call this very irrational of you.

I'd also like to point out that it is possible to arrive at a conclusion supporting a theistic world view through rational and logical thought processes. Your thick headed and baseless attacks against people who don't believe the same things as you are getting old.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'd also like to point out that it is possible to arrive at a conclusion supporting a theistic world view through rational and logical thought processes.

I'm sorry but no it isn't...Unless you've met a diety or seen its influence...

Originally Posted by Sandform

I'm sorry but no it isn't...Unless you've met a diety or seen its influence...

What you are talking about is Empirical Evidence. I agree that it is impossible to decide that God exists based on empirical evidence, but the same can be said about the decision that god does not exist. There is no evidence for either belief, or rather; the existing evidence can be used to support both sides of the debate.

Logic and rationality do not require evidence, they only require deductive reasoning based on known circumstances.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What you are talking about is Empirical Evidence. I agree that it is impossible to decide that God exists based on empirical evidence, but the same can be said about the decision that god does not exist. There is no evidence for either belief, or rather; the existing evidence can be used to support both sides of the debate.

Yes, it is impossible to prove with emperical evidence that some sort of diety exists. Because all you have to do is say some sort of diety exists and can't be proven.

Many dieties which are held to exist can be proven false.

I'm assuming you are trying to say "god doesn't exist" is the atheism tautology. It isn't, it is that there isn't enough evidence to say that a god does indeed exist. Atheism does state, as does theism I might add, that some gods HAVE to be false however, simply by their nature.
Many people frame atheism incorrectly just to try to say "your have just as little evidence as we do" or "you are just as dogmatic."

That is incorrect. Atheism is the stance that there is too little evidence to say that there is a God.

You can't say that there is both equal absence of evidence on each side when the side opposite theism is merely stating that there is not enough evidence.

So as long as I'm not a theist I can avoid being irrational?

Originally Posted by Sandform

Yes, it is impossible to prove with emperical evidence that some sort of diety exists. Because all you have to do is say some sort of diety exists and can't be proven.

Many dieties which are held to exist can be proven false.

I'm assuming you are trying to say "god doesn't exist" is the atheism tautology. It isn't, it is that there isn't enough evidence to say that a god does indeed exist. Atheism does state, as does theism I might add, that some gods HAVE to be false however, simply by their nature.
Many people frame atheism incorrectly just to try to say "your have just as little evidence as we do" or "you are just as dogmatic."

That is incorrect. Atheism is the stance that there is too little evidence to say that there is a God.

You can't say that there is both equal absence of evidence on each side when the side opposite theism is merely stating that there is not enough evidence.

If thats how you want to define it, okay, but what you are describing is what I call Agnosticism. I find the simplest way to communicate is to stick to standardized definitions so that we all know what is meant by what is said, since this is the purpose of effective communication. Typically, the dictionary is a good source for standardized definitions. On atheism, the dictionary says that it means, "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." and I tend to agree. Perhaps you should let me know what dictionary or regional dialect you are communicating in so I can better understand you.

irrational is a point of view. it is not necessarily false. what is most logical isn't always right or true

it was once irrational to think the world was round

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

So as long as I'm not a theist I can avoid being irrational?

Yes, just don't believe in anything irrational, you'll be an atheist if you don't. Although, if you deny that any God exists, yet believe in something like ghosts, or telepathy, or Ouija boards, any of that nonsense, then you're automatically thrown back into theism, SO WATCH YOURSELF! Because, "Only theists believe irrational things."

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If thats how you want to define it, okay, but what you are describing is what I call Agnosticism. I find the simplest way to communicate is to stick to standardized definitions so that we all know what is meant by what is said, since this is the purpose of effective communication. Typically, the dictionary is a good source for standardized definitions. On atheism, the dictionary says that it means, "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." and I tend to agree. Perhaps you should let me know what dictionary or regional dialect you are communicating in so I can better understand you.

(Straight from dictionairy.com)

Atheism -
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

(from american heritage)

Atheism -
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

(dictionairy.com)
Disbelief -
1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
2. amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.

(Dictionairy.com)
Agnostic -
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective 3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

Disbelief is something both agnostics and atheists have.

When it comes to religion however, all agnostics are atheists. You see, agnosticism is a stance on ultimate ability to know, atheism is a stance on theism, which is a stance on belief.

EDIT: That is assuming the agnostic only basis his beliefs off of what he can know, but if you don't believe in a god, then you are an atheist, by definition.

There was a thread not too long ago that dealt with this, I'm surprised no one has brought it up.

Atheists, are you materialists?

Anyway, while philosophical materialism and atheism may tend to go together, they are not mutually inclusive. If you are insinuating that they are, then you are indeed wrong - period.

?!?

Wow... Just wow... To assume that atheists aren't irational... Are you trolling? Are you dealing in a hypothetical absolute for the sake of argument?
Or do you really believe that all atheists are logical people. To assume that atheists are incapable of being irrational... What about those that believe that the world is flat, or that we are all dead in 2012 because we can predict some polar shift, or that we should... You know what, I'm not even going to list more examples.

Theists can be logical or illogical thinkers and the same is true for atheists or deists or agnostics.

You can be a religous person for personal evidences as well as evidences of unseen things without contradicting material evidence or stats. You can believe in evolution and the expansion/antimatter reactions of the universe, (big bang,) and deduce with logic but can still be stupid.

Just as an atheist who has had a crappy life and is emotionally charged against an idea of any higher power or forces in the world can say, "Shut up! You're just stupid. I'll kick your a** next time you bring that up!" when someone brings up God and wants to discuss it logically.