• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Is Atheism Irrational?

lol, yeah, all the nonbelievers are totally like, "cool, we have it figured out."
 
TWDeac said:
giant picture
Click to expand...

It's a funny picture, but I don't get the logic of the argument. What is it? Because the universe is so big, Christianity and Islam must be false? Or is it, Christianity and Islam assume that all there is of any importance to God in the universe is on Earth, and that is illogical given the size of the universe?

Because, candidly, I don't see the immense size of our universe as an argument for or against the Christian God, Muslim God, or any religion for that matter.
 
It's just a funny picture. If a supernatural being exists, they could have done something on another planet in another galaxy and we would never know.
 
Wrangor said:
You could use that same graphic from TW and apply it to the religion of atheism. That incredible expanse of space and we think it is inconceivable that a supernatural force could be involved. We think that we have figured out the laws of the universe. We .... the speck of sand in the ocean of the Milky Way .... which is its own speck of sand ... etc...

We have it figured out. There is no supernatural force. It can all be explained by humans. The speck of sand in a billion oceans.
Click to expand...

Not to any self respecting atheist.

We can observe the rest of the universe and from those observations create theories about its nature. How do you think we know where the edge of the observable universe is?

We can't observe a supernatural being and we have no evidence that one has ever existed. It isn't really that hard to figure out.
 
TWDeac said:
Not to any self respecting atheist.

We can observe the rest of the universe and from those observations create theories about its nature. How do you think we know where the edge of the observable universe is?

We can't observe a supernatural being and we have no evidence that one has ever existed. It isn't really that hard to figure out.
Click to expand...

Except the shroud.
 
TWDeac said:
Not to any self respecting atheist.

We can observe the rest of the universe and from those observations create theories about its nature. How do you think we know where the edge of the observable universe is?

We can't observe a supernatural being and we have no evidence that one has ever existed. It isn't really that hard to figure out.
Click to expand...

I thought the answer was either Mapquest or GPS.
 
TWDeac said:
Not to any self respecting atheist.

We can observe the rest of the universe and from those observations create theories about its nature. How do you think we know where the edge of the observable universe is?

We can't observe a supernatural being and we have no evidence that one has ever existed. It isn't really that hard to figure out.
Click to expand...

Scientists can make statements about the "observable" universe from observations they have made. That doesn't necessarily tell you much about the actual univserse, does it? A 2 -D being, for example, could not tell much about a universe of more than 2 dimensions. He would only know what he could glean from multidimensional things that happened to come through his 2-D space. He would have no evidence that people in 3-D were twisting his universe around into weird shapes and making fun of him.
 
TWDeac said:
Not to any self respecting atheist.

We can observe the rest of the universe and from those observations create theories about its nature. How do you think we know where the edge of the observable universe is?

We can't observe a supernatural being and we have no evidence that one has ever existed. It isn't really that hard to figure out.
Click to expand...

That is kind of my point. Reality is based upon a speck of sand's observation and comprehension. Any explanation that is supernatural is crazy (ie: we have it figured out).

Plus an atheist actively believes there IS no God. Which is an unprovable theory. If you leave room open for a God to exist you are no longer atheist, you are agnostic. Atheism makes a faith claim it cannot prove. Thus that chart would apply just as well to atheism.
 
Wrangor said:
That is kind of my point. Reality is based upon a speck of sand's observation and comprehension. Any explanation that is supernatural is crazy (ie: we have it figured out).

Plus an atheist actively believes there IS no God. Which is an unprovable theory. If you leave room open for a God to exist you are no longer atheist, you are agnostic. Atheism makes a faith claim it cannot prove. Thus that chart would apply just as well to atheism.
Click to expand...

This is the semantic nitpicking strawman I referred to on page 2. I think a majority of self-identifying atheists would state their opinion (as boards atheists have done over and over here) as some variant on "I think it is very unlikely there is a god," and live their lives accordingly. If that makes us all agnostics rather than atheists, fine. :noidea:
 
KickballDeac said:
This is the semantic nitpicking strawman I referred to on page 2. I think a majority of self-identifying atheists would state their opinion (as boards atheists have done over and over here) as some variant on "I think it is very unlikely there is a god," and live their lives accordingly. If that makes us all agnostics rather than atheists, fine. :noidea:
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I consider someone that calls themselves an atheist as someone who aggressively states "there is no God". If you leave room for the potential I have always put that in the agnostic category.
 
Wrangor said:
That is kind of my point. Reality is based upon a speck of sand's observation and comprehension. Any explanation that is supernatural is crazy (ie: we have it figured out).

Plus an atheist actively believes there IS no God. Which is an unprovable theory. If you leave room open for a God to exist you are no longer atheist, you are agnostic. Atheism makes a faith claim it cannot prove. Thus that chart would apply just as well to atheism.
Click to expand...

The onus is on you to prove to me the atheist that any supernatural creator of the universe exists or has existed. Of course, that evidence does not exist. Until the day it does, what reason do I have to believe in an all powerful supernatural being? Especially when yearly advances in science are pushing god into the gaps?
 
Wrangor said:
Fair enough. I consider someone that calls themselves an atheist as someone who aggressively states "there is no God". If you leave room for the potential I have always put that in the agnostic category.
Click to expand...

And that's cool :) FWIW I consider an agnostic someone closer to the middle of the spectrum who might believe there is a more equal balance of evidence/reason for and against God, but that's only my interpretation.
 
Wrangor said:
That is kind of my point. Reality is based upon a speck of sand's observation and comprehension. Any explanation that is supernatural is crazy (ie: we have it figured out).

Plus an atheist actively believes there IS no God. Which is an unprovable theory. If you leave room open for a God to exist you are no longer atheist, you are agnostic. Atheism makes a faith claim it cannot prove. Thus that chart would apply just as well to atheism.
Click to expand...

This is completely inaccurate. In the context of a "theory", an atheist would be holding the null hypothesis true (there is no God). That is actually the entire basis upon which scientific/logical research is conducted. Until proven otherwise, the null hypothesis is correct. It is those of faith purporting a "theory" (I cringe using that word in this context) which is unprovable. In the end though it doesn't matter because religious people aren't looking to science (for the most part) to substantiate their beliefs. Just want to point out that in the context of theory formation, atheists aren't really formulating a theory at all. Just holding the null hypothesis true until proven false, which is how science is conducted.

As to the agnostic/atheist distinction, for me it comes down to the level of "spirituality" a person has. My wife does not believe in any form of religious deity but does have a sense of spiritualism about nature/universe which makes her an agnostic in my book. I, on the other hand, have no such spirituality and thus I identify as an atheist. I do not sit around and vehemently deny there is any chance, no matter how implausible, that a deity exists. I think you are confusing the uber-militant atheists with most modern atheists. It is akin to using an evangelical Christian as the true definition of a Christian. The fact I don't believe any deity exists (the actual definition of a-theist) does not inherently mean I deny the potential for said deity to exist.
 
Last edited:
BigTreeDeac said:
This is completely inaccurate. In the context of a "theory", an atheist would be holding the null hypothesis true (there is no God). That is actually the entire basis upon which scientific/logical research is conducted. Until proven otherwise, the null hypothesis is correct. It is those of faith purporting a "theory" (I cringe using that word in this context) which is unprovable. In the end though it doesn't matter because religious people aren't looking to science (for the most part) to substantiate their beliefs. Just want to point out that in the context of theory formation, atheists aren't really formulating a theory at all. Just holding the null hypothesis true until proven false, which is how science is conducted.

As to the agnostic/atheist distinction, for me it comes down to the level of "spirituality" a person has. My wife does not believe in any form of religious deity but does have a sense of spiritualism about nature/universe which makes her an agnostic in my book. I, on the other hand, have no such spirituality and thus I identify as an atheist. I do not sit around and vehemently deny there is any chance, no matter how implausible, that a deity exists. I think you are confusing the uber-militant atheists with most modern atheists. It is akin to using an evangelical Christian as the true definition of a Christian. The fact I don't believe any deity exists (the actual definition of a-theist) does not inherently mean I deny the potential for said deity to exist.
Click to expand...

Pos rep
 
TWDeac said:
The onus is on you to prove to me the atheist that any supernatural creator of the universe exists or has existed. Of course, that evidence does not exist. Until the day it does, what reason do I have to believe in an all powerful supernatural being? Especially when yearly advances in science are pushing god into the gaps?
Click to expand...

The Shroud says otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top