Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Simple question.

This will weed out the realists and the rationalists from the rest.

[Angrboda]

Science and reason, both? That would be equivalent to saying you'd be an atheist even if you knew it was irrational to be one.


Let's cut to the chase. I'll stipulate that you will find few takers who would be atheists if they didn't think it was rational. What's your point, kemosabe?


I sense a strong contingent of atheists who, even if they do self-consciously embrace atheism for reasons that aren't rational, aren't likely to share that information with you just because you ask for it.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Derp. Yes. That question means what you think it means, and yes, I am asking it. Herp.

"Would you still be an atheist if it was irrational to be an atheist."

[Rayaan]

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

For the record, I think most here wouldn't care if atheism was irrational, they would still be atheists.

[Rayaan]

For the record, I think most here wouldn't care if atheism was irrational, they would still be atheists.

Explain why you think so.

[Zevaeros]

Alright, so let's say the Greco-Roman, Egyptian, Norse, and Asian pantheons manifest and come down for a big time battle royale (good subject for another thread of its own, no doubt). Yes, I'd likely stop being an atheist. Also, I'd watch it on pay-per-view.

Worship them? Eh, probably not.

[Something completely different]

Science isn`t supportive of anything, except for the persual of knowlege. Neighter atheism nore any religion, is to be supported by science as it`s cause.

Science is an independent institution.

Atheism is a personal conclusion reached by an individual.

The conclusions science has given only dispute certain religious claims such as the earth being 6000 years old.

But it does not directly persue to undermine religion.

It is very well possible to be religious and to accept scientific facts.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

For the record, I think most here wouldn't care if atheism was irrational, they would still be atheists.

Explain why you think so.

Because I see justifications for atheism boiling down into two categories:

a) Motivations that contain a lot of emotion.

b) Motivations that contain reason. Rationale. Thinking. Arguments.

I see almost no discussion of (b) on this forum.

But emotions? Anger? Hate? Tons of it. I do my fair share of trollerskating and mock the anger and hate with even more anger and hate.

But let's face facts. Most atheists here are driven by anger and hatred, not rationality and critical thinking.

JUS SAIYAN.

[Zen Badger]

Simple question.

This will weed out the realists and the rationalists from the rest.

For science to be against atheism it would've found verifiable evidence for god.

So I for one would accept the existence of said "god".

As to whether I would worship this entity, that's another thing.

---

But let's face facts. Most atheists here are driven by anger and hatred, not rationality and critical thinking.

JUS SAIYAN.

Yes, anger at blind acceptance of unverifiable claims and hatred of bigotry and oppression committed in the name of invisible sky bullies.