Atheism is the only rational position to take
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-08-2017, 07:55 PM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
How can you claim there is sufficient reason to believe without it?

If you say "Do you believe in the flibbityjibbet?" and I ask you what it is and you won't tell me, am I justified in believing in it? No. I dismiss the proposition and move on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like natachan's post
06-08-2017, 08:01 PM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
The more you know:

https://www.theguardian.com/notesandquer...90,00.html

Hunh. I thought it was #6 in this list myself.

Where are we going and why am I in this hand basket?
"Life is not all lovely thorns and singing vultures, you know." ~ Morticia Addams
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2017, 08:04 PM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
Huh. Cool. Now I know a new thing.

Guess I'll have to find a new nonsense word.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
06-08-2017, 08:07 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2017 08:12 PM by nosferatu323.)
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(06-08-2017 02:58 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  the first atheist could only say "i dont believe in your god"
When someone makes a claim about the existence of a God, it'd be rational to ask what he means by a God. If he can give a definition, all is fine. But if he can't, it would be rational to ignore him. That's all. It would be irrational to make any claims about his God. Saying "I don't believe in your god" is irrational, since the theist failed to provide a definition. "Your God is indefinite, hence I ignore it" is all that can be said, I think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2017, 08:10 PM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
[Image: b46b2226ede75d08aec65828558b748c.jpg]

Where are we going and why am I in this hand basket?
"Life is not all lovely thorns and singing vultures, you know." ~ Morticia Addams
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like outtathereligioncloset's post
06-08-2017, 08:12 PM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(06-08-2017 07:55 PM)natachan Wrote:  am I justified in believing in it?
It'd be irrational to believe it.

Quote: I dismiss the proposition and move on.
That would be rational, I think. Any attempt to answer the question of "Do you believe in the flibbityjibbet? is irrational, as long as flibbityjibbet is not defined.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nosferatu323's post
06-08-2017, 09:45 PM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(06-08-2017 01:32 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
(02-08-2017 02:16 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  theism is incompatible with reason. Therefor atheism is the only rational position to take.

I don't think the conclusion follows from the premise in this proposition.

Some say "I believe unicorns are white", some say "I don't believe unicorns are white". Both are equally irrational. The ones that remain silent about unicorns' color and do not assert anything about it are the rational ones, I think.

If you claim that "I don't believe in any Gods" is a rational claim, you must take the burden of defining God, otherwise your claim hinges on an undefined and ambiguous term, therefore it is nonsensical, hence irrational.

I don't define a god because a) I don't think such a thing exists, and more importantly b) definitions are something that apply to abstractions, not concretes.

A unicorn, while it may be a made up, does not present a contradiction of known facts. It would be irrational to believe in such a thing in the absence of evidence. A god that is said to enjoy metaphysical primacy as a subject over any or all of its objects does, so yes if theism proposes that such a thing exists, then it endorses a principle which if it were true would negate reason, since reason involves a subject being aware of and identifying some object, the relationship between consciousness and its objects is front and center as an issue and since we can directly observe this relationship, we can see in all cases that the objects of consciousness hold primacy. Not only that but in order to consider such a subject of consciousness we are forced to imagine it, which means we've already departed from reason. And notice that when you say that "I don't think the conclusion follows from the premise in this proposition", you implicitly make use of the primacy of existence principle unless you are saying that this is the case because you wish it, want it, like it, would prefer it, ect. Same thing happens when theism claims that a god exists. It makes use of the primacy of existence in making the claim while in the content of the claim, it affirms the primacy of consciousness, resulting in a self contradictory claim. Totally incompatible with reason which can not be founded on negation of the law of non-contradiction. The principle of the primacy of existence is logically antecedent to conclusions following from premises. If one consciousness enjoyed metaphysical primacy over its objects then logical inference would be impossible.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2017, 01:20 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(06-08-2017 09:45 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I don't define a god because a) I don't think such a thing exists, and more importantly b) definitions are something that apply to abstractions, not concretes.

Quote:I don't define a god because a) I don't think such a thing exists, and more importantly b) definitions are something that apply to abstractions, not concretes.
Everything is an abstraction of the mind. Some abstractions match the perceived reality to some extents. Everything needs to be defined before it can be talked about within a logical framework.

Quote:A unicorn, while it may be a made up, does not present a contradiction of known facts. It would be irrational to believe in such a thing in the absence of evidence. A god that is said to enjoy metaphysical primacy as a subject over any or all of its objects does, so yes if theism proposes that such a thing exists, then it endorses a principle which if it were true would negate reason, since reason involves a subject being aware of and identifying some object, the relationship between consciousness and its objects is front and center as an issue and since we can directly observe this relationship, we can see in all cases that the objects of consciousness hold primacy. Not only that but in order to consider such a subject of consciousness we are forced to imagine it, which means we've already departed from reason. And notice that when you say that "I don't think the conclusion follows from the premise in this proposition", you implicitly make use of the primacy of existence principle unless you are saying that this is the case because you wish it, want it, like it, would prefer it, ect. Same thing happens when theism claims that a god exists. It makes use of the primacy of existence in making the claim while in the content of the claim, it affirms the primacy of consciousness, resulting in a self contradictory claim. Totally incompatible with reason which can not be founded on negation of the law of non-contradiction. The principle of the primacy of existence is logically antecedent to conclusions following from premises. If one consciousness enjoyed metaphysical primacy over its objects then logical inference would be impossible.

I think my argument does not depend on any of what you said. I'm simply saying the proposition "I don't believe in any Gods" hinges on an undefined term, therefore it lacks clarity that is essential for a logical proposition, therefore it is logically flawed. Thus, it's irrational to utter such propositions.

I think even your claim that "primacy of consciousness is wrong" is irrational. Since consciousness is equally undefined. It is not clear what you are talking about. Scientists have not figured out what consciousness is. Maybe consciousness and existence are the same thing, for example. There are no evidences to suggest otherwise, still.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2017, 01:48 AM
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
(06-08-2017 08:07 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
(06-08-2017 02:58 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  the first atheist could only say "i dont believe in your god"
When someone makes a claim about the existence of a God, it'd be rational to ask what he means by a God. If he can give a definition, all is fine. But if he can't, it would be rational to ignore him. That's all. It would be irrational to make any claims about his God. Saying "I don't believe in your god" is irrational, since the theist failed to provide a definition. "Your God is indefinite, hence I ignore it" is all that can be said, I think.

You might want to let sink in what you said here, and after a while you maybe realize what is wrong with your statement.
You are confused, and should read about what has been linked to you about russels teapot.

Quote:Saying "I don't believe in your god" is irrational, since the theist failed to provide a definition.

Again, the default position about ANYthing is: I dont believe.....until evidence is brought forward. Evidence can be brought forward after defining what the properties are of what we are going to look for. Without definition it is impossible to look for evidence, and wthout evidence i am completely rational in dismissing your (undefined) claim. When there is no clear definition of whatever, you are exactly at the default poistion of "well, then i am justified to not believe in what you cant define".

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Deesse23's post
07-08-2017, 02:04 AM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2017 02:10 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Atheism is the only rational position to take
An observation:

You're really saying I don't yet believe [claim] is true, as it stands. This leaves ample room for a change of position once the claim has been better defined.

Someone who refuses to say that they do believe it is implying they don't believe it. Silence is not more rational. Not believing is the sensible default position. If someone thinks believing claims by default is a better default position, be my guest to explain how this works. Not believing is not a statement of believing a claim is false. This is such a common mistake. It amounts to silence. A person can, of course, take the stronger position that they do also believe the claim is false.

I prefer the ignostic position, where I send the claim away before even commenting on it. "Get this shit out of here, bring it back when it makes sense." If pressed, do I believe the claim? No, because I don't understand it. I can't believe something I don't understand. Maybe I would believe it, if it was rephrased in a way I can understand. But that rephrasing is not for me to do, nor is there one "correct" way to redefine "God".

I discuss this more in this video.




I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: