Theists Are Irrational
Offline
After a weekend arguing with my brother and his gap-god blunderbus I have come to the conclusion christians, and by extension all theists, are irrational.
The correct position to take when considering matters like the moment before the moment of universal expansion or abiogenesis has to be open, waiting for conclusive evidence.
Sure, we can say as atheists that there might be a vanishing possibility of a god but there remains no positive evidence whatever for such a conclusion.
It's exceedingly challenging arguing with some one who insists on an end-to-end fossil record from archaens to higher orders or rejects evolution and insists on ascribing the concept of morality as having living properties.
Brother even admits that if science created conditions for RNA to form DNA strands this would have taken place in a contrived environment and would not impact on his belief in god.
Perhaps his indignation over my suggestions that a morality cult was not so bad was the straw that broke the camel's back and led to all the swearing.
This indignation came from a bloke who thinks god made humans and so he can do anything he likes with them, including torture them, and who are we to question and blah, blah, blah.
So are theists irrational? And why do they insist lack of belief in a human-derived supernatural god who cannot be known outside of imagination, is irrational?
Why is an argument from silence the answer to all their questions?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
I have absolutely no problem with your conclusion...
The only refinement I might consider is to recognise the ability of humans to compartmentalize their thinking, and we can level this at even people who appear clearly rational in other areas of discourse, like Ken Miller, the Roman Catholic defender of Evolution at the Dover Trial against Behe, etc.
I have heard his response when questioned about the communion wafer nonsense, and while he was polite and superficially reasonable in the manner of his response, it was logically, and rationally, pure dodging and equivocation.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
The correct position to take when finding a leaf on the ground, and looking around to see thousands of trees, is not to be exceedingly open to the idea that the leaf was magic'd into being by a ghost, or carefully crafted by elves with electron microscopes. The rational position to take is that it probably fell from one of the many thousands of trees around, or less likely blew there from a tree not terribly farther away, or even less likely that it was carried there by some kind of animal, such as a bird, and deposited.
Truly conclusive empirical evidence can not be had- we should not just generally be "open" pending that magical moment, because it won't come. Instead, we should be reasonably certain if fell from one of the trees nearby, and with a vague consideration of the vanishing possibility of trees farther away, with no notion of the idea that it originated from ghosts or elves.
No evidence for the conclusion that a god doesn't exist?
I beg to differ. The evidence is not empirical- which would be imperfect- but logical, and not mere evidence but sound proof. Such a thing as a god is not possible, ergo it does not exist.
No amount of empirical evidence will be conclusive to somebody who doesn't want to accept it- if may be irrational not to see the overwhelming probability, but if they do admit it, that's fine- it still could be possible, and as long as they recognize the probability but believe the admittedly improbable they aren't necessarily being totally irrational.
Rejecting evolution as following from the premises of DNA and natural selection without anything intervening is illogical- evolution follows from those simple notions. If, anywhere in the universe something isn't intervening to stop evolution, then evolution happens somewhere.
If they insist that there has been intervention, then in such cases they could reject the application of evolution (as long as they recognize that it logically follows without intervention). Otherwise, they could reject genetics (though even alternatives could result in Lamarckian evolution).
This is the point that is absolutely illogical, and is the one you should focus on. Absolute morality is impossible, anything that is defined in terms of it doesn't exist.
He could insist that some being or force stops this from happening "in the wild" and doesn't stop it in the lab. Focus on what you can prove- you'll never get him into a corner empirically, because he can deny anything given the slimmest possibility. Demolishing the concept logically leaves *no* possibility.
Depends on what they believe/know. The ideas have implications that are distinctly irrational, but they may be ignorant of those implications.
Because they don't understand the meaning of rationality.
Because they don't have to convince you in order to seek out other people who believe the same thing they do and can reinforce their beliefs with mutual self congratulation.
I know how you feel AE my brother was "reborn" about ten years ago and has been trying to "save" me ever since. To make it worse, he is the type that believes every word of the bible is to be taken literally and he tries to convert me every time I see him. Last time I was at his place I made the mistake of going to church and the sermon was on Abraham. We got in a big fight when I tried to point out the craziness of a religion that suggests you should kill your own kids if god tells you to (and the pastor suggested you should) and I told him to call me if he ever thought god was telling him to kill his kids. I love him but he is fucking crazy.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
My sister the JW is also fucking crazy. And after years of her craziness, I can say I no longer love her. Put up with her, don't hang up on her, but am very glad she lives over 1000 miles away. But our relationship as children wasn't very good. So I have never felt close to her. Funny, we are alike enough people can tell we are related by looking at us, but we never had anything in common but our parents.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Wow, harsh. My mom is still a bat shit crazy JW, no possibility for any real relationship between us, but I'd say I still love her. Define love, I can't stand talking to my mom, but I'd still jump in front of a bus for her. Is that how it is with your sister? Maybe your right and that is just the blood, love requires more than blood, and we don't have anything more than that really.
Sad what religion can do to families.
It's all about group acceptance. If there were no other believers around and your brother was socially scorned for being a fundy Christian, he wouldn't be one. That is why your brother isn't a Muslim or Hindu, there is no group around that rewards him for pretending to believe. He sees no social advantage in being atheist, only scorn. You are different in that you don't feel the need for the approval of a church/cult like group.
So I'd say he's not irrational. If he were irrational, he'd believe in Santa, Allah or that aliens abducted him, things that would cause social scorn or imperil his survival. He's just a guy that wants to belong to a group and seeks their approval, so he'll feign belief to get this social acceptance.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Except the parts about cutting out your own eye, drinking deadly poison and picking up poisonous snakes. They all have their limits.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
No, I wouldn't jump in front of a bus for her. My mom converted to JW about 10 years before she died. And I would have jumped in front of the bus for my mom. And my relationship with mom was very conflicted. My sister? No conflicts - largely, I am indifferent to her. And that is as far from love as you can get.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Like alot of other people on here, being an Atheist in a family that is a very strict religious one, has burned alot of bridges. I have found, that no matter how calmly I explained my position, no matter how many books and sources that I tried to quote, there just did not seem to be any real way to get around the total hysteria about it. I was even told that if I was an Atheist, that I should just shut up and keep it to myself. Well, I had to keep it fairly hidden, until I moved away, many years ago. Today, with most of my family, we may/may not see each other twice a year and sometimes that can be twice a year TOO many.
Even now, the subject will come up. Usually an elderly member of the family wants to say something like "Have you outgrown your anger at God yet ?,". or even worse, "Have you finally stopped being ignorant ?,".
It does not matter what answers I give, it doesn't matter how well I explain my position, it does no good. Discussions with Theists are possible, I have met many and talked to many that seemed accepting of my Atheism. But when it comes to family, that is another kettle of fish altogether.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
"Have you outgrown your anger at God yet ?,"
A long time ago. I was really angry at him until I realized that god doesn't exist. Why would somebody be angry at something that doesn't exist? That would just be silly.
By the way, have you outgrown your imaginary friend?
"Have you finally stopped being ignorant ?,"
I stop being ignorant of something new every day by learning- that's how we come to terms with reality.
By asking me that, if you mean to suggest that you aren't ignorant of anything, I'm afraid that your pride has kept you from the possibility of learning, and that's really unfortunate. I would pray for you, but I gave up that form of ignorance a long time ago.
If you ever change your mind and want to learn, I would be happy to share reality with you.
...Or, at least that would be my inclination to reply.
LOL, Pretty good points. I have tried similiar type responses in the past, but found that I had alot more luck discussing my viewpoint with a brickwall. Not that I am in the habit of conversing with brickwalls mind you, but if I had to choose between brick walls and some of my religious family members, the brick walls are far more appealing.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno