atheism, philosophy and emotional immaturity

[catfish]

Have we discussed emotional immaturity yet? "Cause that'll be fargen awesome I'm sure.

[jstrodel]

Emotional immaturity is when you post a one sentence argument for a position that is a naked assertion that is completely radical, even by the standards of atheist approaches to knowledge, and you think you are automatically right because Christian beliefs are "irrational".

[Joel]

So you think it is acceptable for people to reject beliefs based on irrational considerations, so long as they say "I don't believe you"? You think that people can simply say "I don't believe you" and at that point, irrational rejection of a belief becomes permissible?

Why?

No, I believe that a belief - or rejection of - should always have some justification.
To reject a belief out of irrationality is just as bad as accepting an irrational belief.

[jstrodel]

Ok, that is what I believe. So what is the significance in saying that atheism is not a belief, atheism is rejecting belief? Isn't the intention to imply that atheism does not require any sense of justification for its rejection of theistic claims?

[Joel]

Ok, that is what I believe. So what is the significance in saying that atheism is not a belief, atheism is rejecting belief? Isn't the intention to imply that atheism does not require any sense of justification for its rejection of theistic claims?

I'm sure some people use it that way - as a kind of "get out of jail free card"
When I say that atheism isn't a belief; it's for a few reasons.

The primary reason is that I don't know if there's a God, and I'm open to the idea of accepting that there is - but I'm not saying there is no God.
I require justification (from what I mentioned above) but I don't need to provide - and can't provide - any form of 'evidence' because I'm not making a claim. If I said "There is no God." Then I should provide evidence to support that.
I'm sure there are more reasons, but I can't think of them all. Maybe continuance of the discussion will prompt them.

[catfish]

Emotional immaturity is when you post a one sentence argument for a position that is a naked assertion that is completely radical, even by the standards of atheist approaches to knowledge, and you think you are automatically right because Christian beliefs are "irrational".

All in one sentence, nice...

But seriously, let's discuss emotional immaturity. I would say an accurate description is one who doesn't yet have control over them. As opposed to an emotional basket case who at one time, had controll but is quite often prone to have a breakdown.

But I'm willing to bet that what you really meant was to insult those who are younger than you and set yourself up as an authority based on age and experience. Do I read you correctly?

[Mystic]

I don't think non-belief always requires justification. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

The same is true of beliefs. I don't think they always require justification. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

[catfish]

Beliefs or non-beliefs only require justification when they affect you directly.

[jstrodel]

I think you can believe things for non-rational reasons and it is not necessarily wrong, but you can't advance intellectual ideas for essentially non-rational reasons.

[Joel]

They don't require justification, but they should have justification.