Why atheism is irrational

[Zazzy]

So properly speaking you are not an atheist. You're more of an anti-theist. Or maybe more specifically, more of an anti-theocracist?

I am an atheist because I've never seen a reason to believe. I am without god-belief. I am not anti-theist- I think people should believe whatever helps them get through the day. Telling people what to believe or not believe doesn't work out very well, as we all know from these threads. I am definitely anti-theocratist. Religious law has no place in a diverse society. In addition to all these things, I also don't care if you do come up with some evidence of some god- it won't change my moral code or behavior.

Of course, what you consider hurtful dogma is an open-ended question.

Well, only open-ended to people who mutilate little girls' genitals and think their god wants them to. It takes some pretty twisty justification to say that that's just a cultural/religious thing that we can't judge. Of course we can judge it- it's objectively bad from every moral standpoint you take. If a god wants it, he's evil.

There can be firmer disagreement on things like sex ed in schools- how much, when, do we trust who's doing it, etc. But there are better reasons to discuss this than because there might be a pervert in the sky judging us for our sexual behavior.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

So properly speaking you are not an atheist. You're more of an anti-theist. Or maybe more specifically, more of an anti-theocracist?

I am an atheist because I've never seen a reason to believe. I am without god-belief. I am not anti-theist- I think people should believe whatever helps them get through the day. Telling people what to believe or not believe doesn't work out very well, as we all know from these threads. I am definitely anti-theocratist. Religious law has no place in a diverse society. In addition to all these things, I also don't care if you do come up with some evidence of some god- it won't change my moral code or behavior.

Of course, what you consider hurtful dogma is an open-ended question.

Well, only open-ended to people who mutilate little girls' genitals and think their god wants them to. It takes some pretty twisty justification to say that that's just a cultural/religious thing that we can't judge. Of course we can judge it- it's objectively bad from every moral standpoint you take. If a god wants it, he's evil.

There can be firmer disagreement on things like sex ed in schools- how much, when, do we trust who's doing it, etc. But there are better reasons to discuss this than because there might be a pervert in the sky judging us for our sexual behavior.

What would you call someone who saw no evidence for the hypothesis that "Everything in the world can be explained without appealing to the supernatural?"

What taxonomic bracket would you put them into?

[Bad Wolf]

I would imagine you can't properly be an atheist then. You're just someone who doesn't know or care about what you believe.

The sheer arrogance and irony in this statement. You're just someone who doesn't care about what you believe?
Firstly, I highly doubt that is true for any atheist and secondly, that is exactly what every christian is like. They believe the parts of the bible that they like and ignore the stuff they don't like. They don't care whether their beliefs are true or not, they only care that their beliefs feel good. In fact, the only denomination of christianity that i can't accuse of not caring about their beliefs is the westboro baptist church. If you want to know about the real bible, ask them. It and they are pure evil. Thats what every church would be like if secular organisations and people in general didn't drag christianity kicking and screaming into the twentieth century. It would be like places in the middle east where they stone women to death.
I think every atheist on here will agree with me when I say that I wan't to believe in as many true things as possible. Sure, i probably believe things that I have no evidence for. But you know what? If you point these things out to me, guess what is going to happen. I'll stop believing them.

[Zazzy]

What would you call someone who saw no evidence for the hypothesis that "Everything in the world can be explained without appealing to the supernatural?"

To stop looking for natural explanations is to die intellectually. I don't know what's out there. The Q continuum may exist. Zeus may exist. Allah may exist, and may really want us to mutilate little girls' genitals (sorry, Rayaan- I know this is NOT you). If something supernatural exists, then by definition I cannot understand it, study it, or predict it, which is pretty boring. I think I'll stick with genetics.

What taxonomic bracket would you put them into?

Probably Homo sapiens sapiens, although if you have evidence that other species could talk, I am dying to hear it.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

What would you call someone who saw no evidence for the hypothesis that "Everything in the world can be explained without appealing to the supernatural?"

To stop looking for natural explanations is to die intellectually. I don't know what's out there. The Q continuum may exist. Zeus may exist. Allah may exist, and may really want us to mutilate little girls' genitals (sorry, Rayaan- I know this is NOT you). If something supernatural exists, then by definition I cannot understand it, study it, or predict it, which is pretty boring. I think I'll stick with genetics.

What taxonomic bracket would you put them into?

Probably Homo sapiens sapiens, although if you have evidence that other species could talk, I am dying to hear it.

Zazzy, look up the easy and hard problems of consciousness. We're already forced to give up looking for natural explanations.

This doesn't mean all kinds of nonsense deities exist. Rather it means that a purely physical view of the world is fundamentally incomplete, and some would argue, impossible.

Perhaps a better option is to be cautiously open to the possibility of a non-materialistic account of the world, as carefully guided by rational and empirical principles as possible.

[Zazzy]

Zazzy, look up the easy and hard problems of consciousness.

No. I have enough reading to do (my project is veering into biophysics, which is making me unhappy). If you have something you want me to know, give me a brief synopsis.

We're already forced to give up looking for natural explanations.

It would be a shame if scientists all over the world bought into that. And they won't, because finding a good natural explanation for data is better than anything.

This doesn't mean all kinds of nonsense deities exist

This is every deity except yours, of course.

Rather it means that a purely physical view of the world is fundamentally incomplete, and some would argue, impossible.

Only an idiot would say that our physical view of the world is complete. Just think of all the homeless graduate students! Is it impossible? Maybe. There is so much to know, and such a limited amount of time to know it in.

Perhaps a better option is to be cautiously open to the possibility of a non-materialistic account of the world, as carefully guided by rational and empirical principles as possible.

Sure, I'm open. I want to believe in the rainbow bridge, hobbits, and ESP. I don't, but I want to. But why would I want to believe in the Christian god? Unless you hippie him up, he's a douche. Show me something to hang my hat on that doesn't involve tortured logic or word games, and I'll listen.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

---

No. I have enough reading to do (my project is veering into biophysics, which is making me unhappy). If you have something you want me to know, give me a brief synopsis.

It would be a shame if scientists all over the world bought into that. And they won't, because finding a good natural explanation for data is better than anything.

This is every deity except yours, of course.

Only an idiot would say that our physical view of the world is complete. Just think of all the homeless graduate students! Is it impossible? Maybe. There is so much to know, and such a limited amount of time to know it in.

Sure, I'm open. I want to believe in the rainbow bridge, hobbits, and ESP. I don't, but I want to. But why would I want to believe in the Christian god? Unless you hippie him up, he's a douche. Show me something to hang my hat on that doesn't involve tortured logic or word games, and I'll listen.

---

Sorry, these are the kind of things you have to be willing to do some casual independent reading on. Or youtubing, if you can't handle dam letterz.

Look here, if you're wondering if there are any challenges to science being the only source of knowledge: http://atheistforums.org/thread-21091.html The very second post is an astute observation. Natural explanations are not the only explanations out there.

For a start, you could try hanging your hat on being logical. We'll move on from there.

[Bad Writer]

No. I have enough reading to do (my project is veering into biophysics, which is making me unhappy). If you have something you want me to know, give me a brief synopsis.
It would be a shame if scientists all over the world bought into that. And they won't, because finding a good natural explanation for data is better than anything.
This is every deity except yours, of course.
Only an idiot would say that our physical view of the world is complete. Just think of all the homeless graduate students! Is it impossible? Maybe. There is so much to know, and such a limited amount of time to know it in.
Sure, I'm open. I want to believe in the rainbow bridge, hobbits, and ESP. I don't, but I want to. But why would I want to believe in the Christian god? Unless you hippie him up, he's a douche. Show me something to hang my hat on that doesn't involve tortured logic or word games, and I'll listen.

Sorry, these are the kind of things you have to be willing to do some casual independent reading on. Or youtubing, if you can't handle dam letterz.

Look here, if you're wondering if there are any challenges to science being the only source of knowledge: http://atheistforums.org/thread-21091.html The very second post is an astute observation. Natural explanations are not the only explanations out there.

For a start, you could try hanging your hat on being logical. We'll move on from there.

From the guy that came here telling atheists that they're being atheists the wrong way. Yup that's pretty logical. Not at all arrogant or stupid.

[Zazzy]

??? Why I am I seeing Sparty quoting this, but not seeing Vinny's disappointing response itself?

Vinny, if you're going to go there- I'm dumb, I can't read, I'm incurious, I think science is it- then that is too bad. Or you could try being honest about my responses. Or not. /shrug/

[Cato]

What would you call someone who saw no evidence for the hypothesis that "Everything in the world can be explained without appealing to the supernatural?"

Ignorant cunt.

Do you have any other questions begging simple answers?