Accepting/Rejecting "Atheism" as a label.

[Gilgamesh]

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.

[Violet]

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.

---

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

[Aardverk]

........ 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.

[genkaus]

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.

[Aardverk]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Confused Ape]

[Ben Davis]

[Mister Agenda]

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.

[Aardverk]

[Confused Ape]