Believers: Why is Atheism Irrational?

reply to post by MamaJ


Thanks for your answer.

What it exactly is, you want me to prove isn't clear from your post. Please specification(s).

PS I never believed the Einstein citation to be anything BUT an Einstein citation. But as you used it as a support of something of your own, I took it for granted, that you sympathised with it.

I have only one preconceived notion. Love is the point of life. To find God, you must love. If you read your post below, you can hear bias coming out in your tone. Bias only builds ground against the other person. This amounts to hatred and prejudice. It is the same type of prejudice that manifests itself in race relations. Bias says to the other person, "I am higher than you and you are lower than me."

In reality, we are all equal before God. Equality does not judge the other person. Value can be found in any perspective if you are willing to test what is said. I think you are accusing me of having a fixed mindset form a platform of incredulity. I can assure you that my mind is very open. I have traveled the path from blind faith, disbelief and then assurance in my faith by loving God. I have traveled this path from beginning to this day with an open mind, testing all things. I am here for that very reason.

I can only speak to you in the manner in which you should be speaking for yourself. We each have a unique map of the territory. The best way to value the other person is to speak from the context of the subject. Try not stepping on the object. This makes for good discussion. If you have a good argument. Present it.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You wrote:

["My problem with his idea of a non-personal God is that it limits God in His love."]

Yes, it would be a problem for your kind of mindset, wouldn't it? You start with a preconceived idea of an answer, and it's inconvenient, if the facts and observations don't fit with this answer.

Then you'll have to go to all the trouble of re-arranging facts and observations, so they don't threaten your ideas.

Quote: ["God has no opposite, so He remains hidden to our view. We have nothing to compare Him to except the image of God (reality)."]

Sceptics to your rather incoherent pseudo-scientific theories would probably say, that there exist several reference-points to this alleged 'god' of yours. Starting with imagination out of control.

I don't think it's irrational. It's difficult to believe in something you can't see, feel, taste, touch, etc. And the whole "just have faith" thing is a bit difficult these days.

-Been a Christian ever since I can remember.

It's not irrational. Religion is there as a tool but men have used this to control people. A true "church" is any union of people to discuss things. This forum for example is a "church", and so is discussing such topics with family in a room, etc. Constructs and buildings are made by mankind, and it isn't important to God which "roof" you come under to spread love. Regardless, you can still read the texts of various religions - it's all there for you to learn and causes no harm to you. Only the people who are truly close-minded are depriving themselves of knowledge.

God's true "religion" is love, however. There are some atheists out there that are more in touch with God than some religious folk, they just don't realize it because it's one of many things that are not obvious to the eye. But as stated, love is the most important thing to keep - unconditional love.

I for example believe in evolution, but I also believe in creation. I believe in science, and I also believe in theology. I believe nature, and I believe in heaven. I believe in thinking, and I believe in believing.

Cheers.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


If we consider the mystical proposition that God can only be realized within oneself, then atheism may be regarded as irrational if it is based on lack of external evidence of God.

"A photo or it didn't happen"

Only joking...

Seriously though, what proof is there? I don't understand quite frankly, please show me some solid evidence other than"have faith" and a book that could of been put together by anyone, oh wait ... it was put together by man and we ALL know how f*ck*d up man can be

just an opinion.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["Love is the point of life. To find God, you must love."]

And after delievering this small all-encompassing set of doctrinal absolutes, which maybe fits you, .....but definitely not me, as your 'god' is a 'god' of hate and oppression no matter how sugar-coated he's presented ...... you switch to condescension, because I don't want to be part of what I consider a slave-religion

Quote: ["If you read your post below, you can hear bias coming out in your tone. Bias only builds ground against the other person. This amounts to hatred and prejudice."]

Actually I HAVE read it. I wrote it. Remember? So are you either building up for the standard scenario of christian persecution, or are we on our way to the equally common christian special-pedagogics model where the insane and bloodthirsty entity from OT miraculously is turned into a paragon of love and care. This in spite of your own from page one...

...Quote: ["PHILIPPIANS 2:13
…continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose."]

And I'm biased, because I want no part of this control-freakish system? You and I certainly have very, very different basic values on what's up and down in existence. Maybe with the main-difference being, that I'm not part of an ideology, parts of which have enforced this non-sense on a mostly unwilling mankind for 1.500 + years.

Quote: ["This amounts to hatred and prejudice. It is the same type of prejudice that manifests itself in race relations."]

The resistance against Hitler, was also a resistance to racism. Biased, maybe? A racism, which together with other atrocities, openly is ordered by your loving 'god' in OT. I'm a staunch supporter of liberal, egalitarian democracy, so don't get rhetorically tactical with me. In MY society there are no slaves or suppressed minorities, as there are in theocracies.

Quote: ["In reality, we are all equal before God."]

You just can't help it, can you? Dishing out your 'god' left and right as an undebatable absolute, whether people want him or not? But as you undoubtly are right because you're right, this is not being 'biased', as you are right, right?

Quote: ["I can only speak to you in the manner in which you should be speaking for yourself."]

You are not in any position of suggesting how "I should be speaking". I'm not the one shamelessly deforming a competing system (science) to my own purposes. Because while I certainly have a sharp tongue and can be rather grumpy, I do have some ethical standards which prevent me from fabulating forth supportive arguments allegedly coming from my opposition. Some intellectual honesty is a must, but obviously not for everybody wanting to push an extremist ideology.

As long as you reply to me, you take part in the "control-freakish system." You made that choice.

There is a great book by George Thompson called Verbal Judo. The quote I used, "speak to you in the manner in which you should be speaking for yourself." is straight from his book. His book takes the quote from the wisdom of the ancient Judo master. This represents the middle way of philosophy. It uses the energy and motion of the opponents words to throw them the direction they are already headed. When you speak to anyone with the style of biased words you use below, you only build ground for them to stand against you. If I make the choice to meet your aggression head on, then we demonstrate impenetrability. Nothing is accomplished as long as we are not speaking to the subject. Stepping on the object only builds ground for your opponent to stand against you.

If you have something to say about irrational atheists, reflect the image toward the subject. As long as you try reflecting it at me, you are only going to see yourself in the reflection. Give me something worth thinking about or you are providing no context of value for anyone here.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You wrote:

["Love is the point of life. To find God, you must love."]

And after delievering this small all-encompassing set of doctrinal absolutes, which maybe fits you, .....but definitely not me, as your 'god' is a 'god' of hate and oppression no matter how sugar-coated he's presented ...... you switch to condescension, because I don't want to be part of what I consider a slave-religion

Quote: ["If you read your post below, you can hear bias coming out in your tone. Bias only builds ground against the other person. This amounts to hatred and prejudice."]

Actually I HAVE read it. I wrote it. Remember? So are you either building up for the standard scenario of christian persecution, or are we on our way to the equally common christian special-pedagogics model where the insane and bloodthirsty entity from OT miraculously is turned into a paragon of love and care. This in spite of your own from page one...

...Quote: ["PHILIPPIANS 2:13
…continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose."]

And I'm biased, because I want no part of this control-freakish system? You and I certainly have very, very different basic values on what's up and down in existence. Maybe with the main-difference being, that I'm not part of an ideology, parts of which have enforced this non-sense on a mostly unwilling mankind for 1.500 + years.

Quote: ["This amounts to hatred and prejudice. It is the same type of prejudice that manifests itself in race relations."]

The resistance against Hitler, was also a resistance to racism. Biased, maybe? A racism, which together with other atrocities, openly is ordered by your loving 'god' in OT. I'm a staunch supporter of liberal, egalitarian democracy, so don't get rhetorically tactical with me. In MY society there are no slaves or suppressed minorities, as there are in theocracies.

Quote: ["In reality, we are all equal before God."]

You just can't help it, can you? Dishing out your 'god' left and right as an undebatable absolute, whether people want him or not? But as you undoubtly are right because you're right, this is not being 'biased', as you are right, right?

Quote: ["I can only speak to you in the manner in which you should be speaking for yourself."]

You are not in any position of suggesting how "I should be speaking". I'm not the one shamelessly deforming a competing system (science) to my own purposes. Because while I certainly have a sharp tongue and can be rather grumpy, I do have some ethical standards which prevent me from fabulating forth supportive arguments allegedly coming from my opposition. Some intellectual honesty is a must, but obviously not for everybody wanting to push an extremist ideology.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You know, they sort of had this same system in ancient Greece...they called the people like you sophists. You're the sort of person who cares about winning an argument rather than actually having a good argument.

Please, show me how atheism is irrational. That is what this thread is supposed to be about.

reply to post by mysticnoon


Yeah, it's easy enough to define God in vague ways so that disbelief seems unwarranted. Again, the evidence you talk of is subjective; being an observer to reality is not evidence of God, nor evidence of a "maker, creator, igniter" - And an infinite regress would follow that assumption anyway.

I find defining reality as God to be a tiresome escapade, Pantheism is simply a labelling game.

I have presented my case in the posts above. Just respond to those thoughts first. My first post in this thread presents my view.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You know, they sort of had this same system in ancient Greece...they called the people like you sophists. You're the sort of person who cares about winning an argument rather than actually having a good argument.

Please, show me how atheism is irrational. That is what this thread is supposed to be about.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["As long as you reply to me, you take part in the "control-freakish system." You made that choice."]

I'm aware of that. I'm not yet (if I ever will be) at the non-dualistic level, where I dispassionately can observe existence.

Quote: ["There is a great book by George Thompson called Verbal Judo. The quote I used, "speak to you in the manner in which you should be speaking for yourself." is straight from his book. His book takes the quote from the wisdom of the ancient Judo master."]

Sounds nice and sensible. But personally I have a rather welldefined border between getting inspiration from outside sources and zombie-like parrotting them. If you have noticed it, I do my best to avoid pushing 'absolutes', I try to let the momentum in other peoples' 'absolutes' do the job. Hopefully getting closer to a world without enforced or pushed one-size-fits-all 'absolutes'.

Quote: ["When you speak to anyone with the style of biased words you use below, you only build ground for them to stand against you."]

What a cute and sophisticated way of trying to immobilize my opposition to the preaching YOU initiated. That 'ground to stand on', expressed as an invasive and not quite housebroken extremism, existed already before my appearance on this thread.

So sorry, your efforts of shaming me into sharing your divine love, tolerance and big smiles don't function on me. I'm grumpy, querulous and irritating by character, which in usual social contexts is countered by a meticulous respect for honesty, reliability and respect for 'live and let live'.

And maybe prematurely and un-necessarily preventative: What some christians call being persecuted (oppressed), I have no sympathy for. I see it as oppressors being obstructed in their own oppression.

Quote: [" If I make the choice to meet your aggression head on, then we demonstrate impenetrability"]

Tha's as much your choice as mine.

Quote: ["Nothing is accomplished as long as we are not speaking to the subject. Stepping on the object only builds ground for your opponent to stand against you."]

I'm uncertain as to, what you in this context mean with subject and object. Do you refer to thread topic as 'subject'?

Quote: ["If you have something to say about irrational atheists, "]

On the assumption, that we speak about agnostic atheism, I find the position extremely rational, as opposed to gnostic theism, which is not only irrational, but also potentially dangerous for mankind and the planet we live on.

And as my own position is that of 'metaphysics', acknowledging the likely reality of extra-mundane existence, I'm not even 'biased' on this point. Where I'm biased is against extremist pushing of their own absolutes (that includes hard-core commies, nazis etc).

Quote: [" As long as you try reflecting it at me, you are only going to see yourself in the reflection."]

Oh boy. Try your mind-manipulation on somebody else.

Quote: ["Give me something worth thinking about or you are providing no context of value for anyone here."]

Giving YOU something to think of (which I btw already have done) MAY not be the criteria all readers of this thread use. Don't let a self-contained bubble of religious doctrines lead you to believe, there's no world outside it, running on lines very different from the inside of the bubble.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by mysticnoon

 

Yeah, it's easy enough to define God in vague ways so that disbelief seems unwarranted. Again, the evidence you talk of is subjective; being an observer to reality is not evidence of God, nor evidence of a "maker, creator, igniter" - And an infinite regress would follow that assumption anyway.

I find defining reality as God to be a tiresome escapade, Pantheism is simply a labelling game.

edit on 15/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Unasked for, I'll indulge with a possible mediation.

In many of the traditions concerning the direct 'mystical' experience, an alleged 'ultimate reality' often is called 'the nameless', 'the unknowable' etc.

And while this doesn't take away the concept per se, it at least removes the (for non-theists) unpleasant semantic overtones and implications included in the word 'god'. Especially when it's spelled 'God'.

There's a kind of judeo-christian copyright on 'God', and it's not unusual that extremist christians pushing their ideology start with 'establishing' the validity of just the word 'god' or 'God'.

And before you even can say "Jesus-save-us-from-original-sin", this 'god' or 'God' is suddenly and miraculously turned into the 'god' of the bible. So as scouts and individuals with loose morals say: Be prepared.

Lahwdy, joining a forum like this, watching every word for semantic traps, turns you either stone paranoid or let you out on the other side with the feeling of having had a spiritual enema.

reply to post by bogomil

There's a kind of judeo-christian copyright on 'God', and it's not unusual that extremist christians pushing their ideology start with 'establishing' the validity of just the word 'god' or 'God'.

It appears to me that people use God as replacement for what they don't understand, and i agree; on this forum it is a case of working out the semantics of it's use.

Another tool "GOD" is used for is to objectify morality (and thus polarizing it) Again, appears to me God is an easy answer for those who want definiteness, objectivism.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

Yeah, it's easy enough to define God in vague ways so that disbelief seems unwarranted. Again, the evidence you talk of is subjective; being an observer to reality is not evidence of God, nor evidence of a "maker, creator, igniter" - And an infinite regress would follow that assumption anyway.

Actually, I had not offered any definition of God in my post, I had only presented the mystical proposition that God (however God may be defined) can only be realized within oneself. While God, by most consensual definitions, is everywhere, both externally and internally, actual "evidence" of God may only be perceived within oneself, in the inner domain of experience.

If science restricts itself to evidence in the outer or exterior domain of experience, and if we consider the mystic proposition that evidence for God can only be found in the interior domain of experience, then it is irrational to make the assertion that no evidence of God exists based solely on the findings of exoteric science.

I find defining reality as God to be a tiresome escapade, Pantheism is simply a labelling game.

Isn't that what words are - labels? However anyone may define God, it may only ever be a label.

Anyway, I don't quite follow what you mean by God being reality, so if you care to elaborate, we may be able to have a more useful discussion.

reply to post by mysticnoon


To the best of my knowledge, I agree with you to such an extent on practically anything brought up on ATS, that it has given me no small pleasure to meet a related mindset.

But....

....quote:

["Isn't that what words are - labels? However anyone may define God, it may only ever be a label."]

Wouldn't it be a good idea then to change the label. Thus we could get rid of at least half of the problems originating from semantics (which is no small part of the 'pushers of absolutes' repertoire).

E.g.: It happens ever so often, that christian evangelists 'identify' buddhist 'reality-terms' with 'God', to create a semantic construction of a false foundation. The unravelling of that is plain waste of time.

reply to post by mysticnoon


Apologies, i misunderstood.

I'll try re-word what i mean

My point is that Atheism would be inherently irrational if we understand "GOD" to be the journey of understanding "within" which you describe it to be.

If we define "God" or a "deity" as "within" there is no need to call it "God".

1. A god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion): "a deity of ancient Greece".
2. Divine status, quality, or nature

If we take your definition of God - all humans are divine or of GOD-like quality - So what's the need to inferr to God, if we are all god? What's the need to be a mystic? There is no mystery; you've defined your "GOD".

Again, i bring up Pantheism, simply labelling God as everything, or as "a journey within" is simply a labelling game, God would just change as we discover more about the reality we exist in.

I've looked and i can find no definition as you described "GOD" to be. Again, i ask - Why is atheism irrational?

Some people's theory is that an omnipotent deity created everything that is and will be, why is a lack of belief in this "theory" irrational? There could be many possibilities as the OP stated.

reply to post by bogomil


bogomil, your comments and constructive criticism are always most welcome, as it is only through others highlighting the weaknesses and obscurities in my posts that I have the opportunity to refine my points.

Wouldn't it be a good idea then to change the label. Thus we could get rid of at least half of the problems originating from semantics (which is no small part of the 'pushers of absolutes' repertoire).

I follow what you are saying, and I do agree the word "God" can lead to misunderstanding in philosophical dialogues. What are your suggestions to overcome this problem?

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Your post does highlight the underlying problem of semantics and unclarified definitions relating to metaphysical concepts.

Atheists are generally quite well-informed about the Christian God and associated dogma, but they often make false assumptions on the matter of eastern mysticism.

My point is that Atheism would be inherently irrational if we understand "GOD" to be the journey of understanding "within" which you describe it to be.

If we define "God" or a "deity" as "within" there is no need to call it "God"

I apologize to you, also, that I have failed to clarify my definitions of God as I understand the term.

The "inner journey" of the mystic practice is not in itself God, it is a gradual process of self-realization through disciplined control of the mind and the development of the inner subtle senses of seeing and hearing. In time, this practice facilitates the progress through numerous inner stages of consciousness or dimensions, where the final and ultimate goal is to realize God.

The God of the mystics is a vast ocean of Love, Bliss, and Consciousness, and to cut a very long story short, the mystic God brought forth the multitudes of dimensions, as well as this creation, through the manifestation of Sound, (not to be confused with physical sound waves), interchangeably referred to as Logos, Word, Holy Spirit, Music of the Spheres, Tao, and so forth. All of creation is sustained by this Sound, and the only way to reach an awareness of the source (God) of this Sound is within oneself, by following the Sound from whence it arises. (Light is an aspect of this Sound, but Sound is primary).

If we take your definition of God - all humans are divine or of GOD-like quality - So what's the need to inferr to God, if we are all god? What's the need to be a mystic? There is no mystery; you've defined your "GOD".

Mystics do not regard humans as divine, but they do acknowledge that we all have a spark of the divine within us, in the form of Sound or Spirit.

I've looked and i can find no definition as you described "GOD" to be. Again, i ask - Why is atheism irrational?

I hope I have made things a little clearer, though I must confess that in order to do so, I have said more than I ever intended on this forum.

reply to post by mysticnoon

but they do acknowledge that we all have a spark of the divine within us, in the form of Sound or Spirit.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm just trying to narrow the semantics. Perhaps some questions will further my understanding for mysticism so that i can decide for myself whether Atheism is irrational:-

Do dogs have a "spark of the divine" within them? Or is this just the human species?

Do you consider humans superior than all known lifeforms because our neo-cortex evolved differently to other animals? (i.e. we are pattern seeking animals)

Do you consider volcano to have "sound" and "spirit" or consider them divine in nature?

Well before the age of enlightenment people used to consider volcanoes as "Gods" or "divine". Not so much now in the more educated parts of the world. Although, some fundamentals do consider geological events as punishments, even in the U.K here.

If it's not JUST humans that are "divine" - Then what is the need to call it divine? It's just another construct that has formed on earth - Whether it be a dog or a beatle, or a rose? It's life. It's not "magic" or anything, the pieces arn't magically put together, so what makes it divine? If it is divine, why isn't a rock divine? Why isn't water?