The Irrational Atheist

[HydrogenBond]

An atheist does not believe in god or religion. One can argue that God and religion are irrational, since they are not subject to reason or scientific proof. But not having that one aspect of human irrationality, does not imply all atheists are immune to other forms irrationality, since there are dozens more.

 

Say you had two irrational people, one who believes in God and the another, who claims to be an atheist. How would their irrationality differ? For example, let us look at killing for some irrational reason or impulse. It happens all the time. The religious person might kill for god or for their religion. If the irrational atheist decided to kill, what would be their motivation? Theoretically, it could be anything, as long as it doesn't include God. That would be irrational.

[freeztar]

An atheist does not believe in god or religion.

 

Actually, an atheist is someone who does not believe in god or gods. It says nothing about religion.

 

Atheism Definition | Definition of Atheism at Dictionary.com

 

One can argue that God and religion are irrational, since they are not subject to reason or scientific proof.

 

It's not much of an argument really.

 

But not having that one aspect of human irrationality, does not imply all atheists are immune to other forms irrationality, since there are dozens more.

 

Indeed.

Say you had two irrational people, one who believes in God and the another, who claims to be an atheist. How would their irrationality differ? For example, let us look at killing for some irrational reason or impulse. It happens all the time. The religious person might kill for god or for their religion. If the irrational atheist decided to kill, what would be their motivation? Theoretically, it could be anything, as long as it doesn't include God. That would be irrational.

 

And your point is...

 

Of course if someone kills someone for no rational reason, it is irrational (regardless of whatever beliefs that person has). :eek_big:

[Boerseun]

I'm an atheist, and see myself as a generally rational person.

 

Yet, when putting on my shoes, I always have to put on the left one first. Putting on the right one first, is simply 'not right', even if I happen to have the right one in my hand first. I will put it down and pick up the left one.

 

There is no good reason for that. If I put on my right shoe first, my day is screwed up.

 

It's completely irrational.

 

What's your question/point?

[lawcat]

I think the premise is: killing is irrational.

 

The conclusion is: both a theist and atheist who kill are irrational.

[Qfwfq]

I have my own quirks too, plenty of them. One of my old pals from physics, a guy who unlike meself went on for a Ph. D. and was a researcher for a while, is highly superstitious and even gets very edgy if you tease him about it. Otherwise he'll even joke about it and he once said that at least it helps him avoid having even worse beliefs, such as God...:eek_big:

 

A young researcher at that dep't told a few folks about the more elderly professor he was sharing study with. He had noticed this guy performing a little ritual, not too noticeably, just before going to hold each lecture; he did it at the room's window and it involved polishing the brass handle a few times. So, one morning, the young guy waited for the right time and very casually took a break, chatting his colleague up and pacing the room before (very casually :doh: for no reason at all) leaned against the window. Right on the brass handle! He just kept chatting, without showing his amusement at watching the old guy get more and more agitated. When it was a good quarter hour past the schedule time of the lecture, the man had a fit and went huffily marching out of the room to deliver his lecture, and I bet he found a window along the way where not too many folks were around to witness his little ritual.

[lemit]

Say you had two irrational people, one who believes in God and the another, who claims to be an atheist. How would their irrationality differ?

 

That's easy. The irrationality of the one who actually believes something is contained in the belief system, while the irrationality of the one who only claims to believe something (or nothing) is contained in some carefully guarded part of the psyche and works as a defense mechanism.

 

Did I get it right? It was a trick question, wasn't it?

 

--lemit

[johngetup]

Quite simply, irrationality is a human trait, or rather a factor of an emotional state. It is a response to an individuals emotions convincing them to defy reason. With out emotion only logic is left.

 

In relation to God, the reason why people tend to think of this as irrational is because there is no logic that exists in the physical world that can 'prove' such a being. Science is based around logic in relation to our present understanding, that being what can be seen and tested, or works to a mathematical foloumer. The notion of God is based on faith which can defy scientific reason and does not mathematical add up.

 

The western world is based around mathematical equations in the form of technology that performs to a predictable outcome, so westerns tend to lose their faith in God and gain faith in science. The eastern would is based more around religion that tends to use God as its technology.

 

Relation is simply another form of science that harnesses human emotion to explain aspects of the Universe that logic can not explain. Logical science neither disproves nor proves the existence of God; therefore Religion takes the leading role.

 

To call either irrational is wrong.

 

Hope this helps :)

 

John

[Kriminal99]

I think they are both irrational.

 

Theists make real life decisions based on information they do not have.

 

It's all about expected benefit. If something is 75% likely to be true, and planning for it to be so gives more than a third of the benefit of preparing of the opposite and it turning out to be true, then you should plan for it to be true. Doing this makes you better off on average.

 

If it was 50/50, unless one side gives much greater benefit than the other for recognition, you should just ignore it. Religion is probably less than 50% chance of being true, since it is in human nature to create such a thing if it didn't already exist.

 

It is funny how some religions attempt to address this by telling you bad things are going to happen after you die if you don't believe. When the benefit of not believing is nothing regardless of it's probability, and the benefit of believing is very large, you might as well go against the odds and hope religion is true. But by this reasoning you should join as many different religions as possible before dying, and the spaghetti monster is on about equal ground as jaweh and allah.

 

I suppose any kind of contemplation is useful relative to a complete absence of it, but I think people always contemplate their life at times, and it is better not to be misdirected and confused by a church when those times occur.

[HydrogenBond]

Although this is not true of all religions, many religions are strict with respect to avoiding and controlling animal impulses. Atheism, which uses science, is more likely to teach that one should integrate animal impulse, since science has shown similarity of behavior between animal and humans. But animals are not very rational. Does this mean atheism teaches one to integrate passe forms of irrationality that religion tried to downgrade.

 

On the one hand atheism may have removed one layer of irrationality (god) but it simply swapped that for other layers. Religion used one layer of irrationality (god) to help regulate other layers of irrationality, which prevent one from being very rational.

 

For example, religions might say eating too much is the sin of gluttony. To avoid this sin, one needs to control this irrational appetite. The atheist will say, this is not a sin, since sin does not exist. Without the irrational check on this irrationality, did this lead to increased irrationality as evident by obesity. Even if you assume fat genes, unless these genes just evolved in the past two decades, populations of the past should have the same fat genes in the same proportions. They should be as fatter on the average, if religion increased irrationality with respect to eating.

[Essay]

Although this is not true of all religions, many religions are strict with respect to avoiding and controlling animal impulses. Atheism, which uses science, is more likely to teach that one should integrate animal impulse, since science has shown similarity of behavior between animal and humans. But animals are not very rational. Does this mean atheism teaches one to integrate passe forms of irrationality that religion tried to downgrade.

 

On the one hand atheism may have removed one layer of irrationality (god) but it simply swapped that for other layers. Religion used one layer of irrationality (god) to help regulate other layers of irrationality, which prevent one from being very rational.

 

For example, religions might say eating too much is the sin of gluttony. To avoid this sin, one needs to control this irrational appetite. The atheist will say, this is not a sin, since sin does not exist. Without the irrational check on this irrationality, did this lead to increased irrationality as evident by obesity. Even if you assume fat genes, unless these genes just evolved in the past two decades, populations of the past should have the same fat genes in the same proportions. They should be as fatter on the average, if religion increased irrationality with respect to eating.

Thanks HB, always a unique perspective.... Lets not get into the genetic example... wrong assumptions and level of complexity... epigenetics, etc. But....

===

 

What to say about this thread in general....

 

...something about hanging too much on rationality....

...something about defining irrationality so solidly.

Doesn't context lend a lot to those definitions?

 

Could the best part of theism be that it keeps us from too highly exhalting rationality?

===

 

....Just looking for an excuse to post this quote, I'm equating "inconsistent moments" here - below - with irrationality.

 

"William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe": New Documentary Examines Life, Legacy of Famed Radical Attorney

 

We realized somewhere along the way that our search for consistency - looking for the black-and-whites, trying to find some sort of clear answer - was inherently flawed; and that it is our inconsistent moments that brings about change, and that makes us human. -EMILY KUNSTLER

 

...speaking about making the film, William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe.

[Rade]

I think the premise is: killing is irrational. The conclusion is: both a theist and atheist who kill are irrational.

I seem to recall God commanding lots of killing, sending angels to do the dirty work, also commanded the chosen people to kill often. So, if your premise is in fact true, sure seems like you provide a good argument that God is irrational.

[Rade]

.... If the irrational atheist decided to kill, what would be their motivation?....

At the root cause, it would be called greed. As an ideal person, the concept of the rational atheist would never decide to kill (another human), except in self defense. The philosophic system that explains how this is possible was developed by Ayn Rand. To Rand, the rational atheist would (as the ideal human) live without any desire of greed (for they are selfish in the sense of never having excessive desire for what the self cannot provide). Rand would also define reason as being the opposite of all forms of mysticism, thus by logical definition, all mystics (here just put in the name of your religion) are irrational.

[lawcat]

I seem to recall God commanding lots of killing, sending angels to do the dirty work, also commanded the chosen people to kill often. So, if your premise is in fact true, sure seems like you provide a good argument that God is irrational.

 

But Rade, I never implied or expressed that a theist or atheist kill on command; that is to say, that neither is being possessed. Both killings are voluntary. That is the implication.

 

Then, you express that God commanded lots of killings as a true premise. Implicit in that is that there is a God. And implicit in that is that theists were possessed by God to kill, but not atheist; meaning theists acted involuntarily. And if involuntary is without reason, then theists' killings are irrational.

 

I don't want to go that far because that invites a counterargument how some atheist have done irrational killings, or involuntary killings, such as in the army etc. I don't want to go there.

 

My post was simply a synopsis of the OP's argument.