(January 23, 2013 at 8:43 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: How does someone being theistic automatically make them irrational?

They believe something without reason/evidence. No one ever became a theist through reason. It has everything to do with emotion.

(January 23, 2013 at 10:04 pm)TromboneAtheist Wrote: In my opinion, a Theist is irrational. Feel free to disagree, that's just what I think.

Well then: what makes them irrational? What *is* "rationality"?

I don't agree or disagree... I hold my position and ask others why they hold theirs. If I find an answer lacking, I inquire further.

---

(January 23, 2013 at 10:15 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote: They believe something without reason/evidence. No one ever became a theist through reason. It has everything to do with emotion.

Even if ones' reason for believing a thing is a book: there is still a reason for their belief(s). Even if ones' evidence in the truth of a thing is a book: there is still evidence, thusly are they confident.

What does belief have to do with emotion? 0.o I believe oranges are in my refrigerator downstairs... but I don't have to be in an emotional state to think that. Why would this be so for a belief in a "daddy in the sky"?

I find it unlikely that nobody has ever become a theist through reasoning... indeed: I notice that a great many theists are so as a result of their (occasionally sketchy) reasoning

(January 19, 2013 at 8:54 pm)Ryantology Wrote: ........ Believing you can win the lottery is definitely irrational, but it's also far from impossible. ..................

Can I just re-word that slightly - The existence of gods is extraordinary unlikely but it's also far from impossible.

Unless we can be 100% sure there is no god, and rationally we cannot be, a title which declares there are no gods cannot be defended any more than a theist's claims can be defended. We cannot provide proof, all we can do is critique the 'evidence' for gods presented by various religions. That is a very negative process and it is hardly surprising that atheists are generally seen by theists as hateful, rude and angry.

As a one-time atheist, now a 'born-again agnostic', the door is now open a crack to allow for the possibility of a god. That does not mean that I have any expectation of Him or Her pushing it any wider.

I must say that I like the term 'naturalist' given above but that is open to complete misunderstanding.

(January 24, 2013 at 5:32 am)Aardverk Wrote: Can I just re-word that slightly - The existence of gods is extraordinary unlikely but it's also far from impossible.

Unless we can be 100% sure there is no god, and rationally we cannot be, a title which declares there are no gods cannot be defended any more than a theist's claims can be defended. We cannot provide proof, all we can do is critique the 'evidence' for gods presented by various religions. That is a very negative process and it is hardly surprising that atheists are generally seen by theists as hateful, rude and angry.

As a one-time atheist, now a 'born-again agnostic', the door is now open a crack to allow for the possibility of a god. That does not mean that I have any expectation of Him or Her pushing it any wider.

I must say that I like the term 'naturalist' given above but that is open to complete misunderstanding.

The requirement of 100% certainty on your part is unreasonable because that would make acceptance or rejection of any title/label/claim indefensible.

You cannot be 100% certain that you don't know/believe whether god exists or not. Maybe somewhere deep within your ssubconscious you do believe one way or the other. So your agnostic label as indefensible as the theist's claims.

A scientist cannot be 100% sure that relying on evidence is the right way to judge reality. So the title of a scientist is as indefensible as the theist's claims.

What is required is not absolute certainty but reasonable certainty.

(January 24, 2013 at 5:57 am)genkaus Wrote: The requirement of 100% certainty on your part is unreasonable because that would make acceptance or rejection of any title/label/claim indefensible.

But that is the definition of an atheist.
Less than 100% certainty that there are no gods and you become an agnostic.

Quote:You cannot be 100% certain that you don't know/believe whether god exists or not. Maybe somewhere deep within your ssubconscious you do believe one way or the other. So your agnostic label as indefensible as the theist's claims.

Assuming for one moment that I have any, I can not talk for my sub-conscious beliefs only for my conscious beliefs and about that I can be 100% sure that I 'know' nothing about the existence of gods.

Quote:A scientist cannot be 100% sure that relying on evidence is the right way to judge reality. So the title of a scientist is as indefensible as the theist's claims.

A scientist follows 'scientific' method so can certainly be called a 'scientist'. Scientific method does not 'allow' one to 'believe' that you know anything with certainty, simply that your hypothesis has been proven or not - please excuse the shortened explanation.

Quote:What is required is not absolute certainty but reasonable certainty.

Strictly speaking, 'certainty' can not be qualified. What we are discussing is in reality 'doubt' - which can be qualified. I have little doubt that there are no gods, an atheist has no doubt that there are no gods.

(January 24, 2013 at 1:00 pm)Aardverk Wrote: What we are discussing is in reality 'doubt' - which can be qualified. I have little doubt that there are no gods, an atheist has no doubt that there are no gods.

It depends on the atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of...robability

Quote:6 De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7 Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

Only strong atheists have no doubt that there are no gods.

Atheism only refers to disbelief in one position therefore I reject it as a label because it doesn't tell what I do believe; it has no power to describe my values.

Further, I dislike recent attempts by popular mainstream figures to ascribe values to the word; being an atheist doesn't automatically make me rational, empirical, scientific, caucasian or a lover of albatross!

The only reason the word has gained any popularity as a label is because religious groups use it to define 'atheists' as the enemy and dehumanise them; all the easier for the clergy to fight opposition to their power if those opposing them are erroneously stereotyped.

(January 24, 2013 at 1:00 pm)Aardverk Wrote:

(January 24, 2013 at 5:57 am)genkaus Wrote: The requirement of 100% certainty on your part is unreasonable because that would make acceptance or rejection of any title/label/claim indefensible.

But that is the definition of an atheist.
Less than 100% certainty that there are no gods and you become an agnostic.

If your answer to the question of whether you know God exists is 'no', you're an agnostic. If your answer to the question of whether you believe God exists is 'no', you're an atheist. The terms are not exclusive and it makes perfect sense to refer to someone as an agnostic atheist. There is no requirement for certainty in either definition, which is why there are terms for the position of certainty for both. Hard agnosticism is being certain that it can't be known if God exists (I don't know and you don't either!), strong atheism is being certain that God does not exist.

(January 24, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Confused Ape Wrote:

(January 24, 2013 at 1:00 pm)Aardverk Wrote: What we are discussing is in reality 'doubt' - which can be qualified. I have little doubt that there are no gods, an atheist has no doubt that there are no gods.

It depends on the atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of...robability

Quote:6 De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7 Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

Only strong atheists have no doubt that there are no gods.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Ninth edition): "ATHEISM - the theory or belief that god does not exist" It would be a brave Englishman to challenge that dictionary. If you are not English ............ I understand your problem.

Your wikipedia link and quote is not a definition of atheism it is about theistic probability. If Richard Dawkins and/or Jack Smart write a world-class dictionary and define atheism that way, then you can reasonably cite them for definitions. It may be worth pointing out however that the very well educated Oxford Professor, Richard Dawkins, describes himself as an agnostic - so I don't think he is at all confused about the English language.

(January 24, 2013 at 2:24 pm)Aardverk Wrote: Your wikipedia link and quote is not a definition of atheism it is about theistic probability. If Richard Dawkins and/or Jack Smart write a world-class dictionary and define atheism that way, then you can reasonably cite them for definitions. It may be worth pointing out however that the very well educated Oxford Professor, Richard Dawkins, describes himself as an agnostic - so I don't think he is at all confused about the English language.

You're going to get different answers depending on whether the atheist concerned is going by the dictionary definition, the scale of theistic probability or how some philosopher defines atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Imp...._explicit

As for Richard Dawkins describing himself as an agnostic, he doesn't regard himself as one because of the definition of atheism that he goes by. The way he sees it, he's a De facto atheist. It's a long article so it will make life easier to use your browser search function to find John Bingham. This will take you to where RD starts arguing that he's not an agnostic.

EDIT: Forgot to give the link.

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/6...-in-polish