Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you're rational
138 replies, posted
[video=youtube;jhQdYvz0VwQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhQdYvz0VwQ[/video]
[b]potholer54 has great content, check him out.[/b]
like TAA mind you I hope half of its just for show
well yeah, and being religious doesn't mean you are or aren't rational either
attributing intelligence or stupidity to a single belief someone has is dumb as fuck
[QUOTE=JesterUK;49794956]well yeah, and being religious doesn't mean you are or aren't rational either
attributing intelligence or stupidity to a single belief someone has is dumb as fuck[/QUOTE]
thank you captain obvious, your services are greatly appreciated though you might want to actually watch the video before trying to counter an argument never presented
[QUOTE=JesterUK;49794956]well yeah, and being religious doesn't mean you are or aren't rational either
attributing intelligence or stupidity to a single belief someone has is dumb as fuck[/QUOTE]
Actually believing in what a religion states despite it contradicting scientific laws does sound rather irrational.
And most of the time, if you take what the holy book/scriptures/oral tradition says literally, it ends up contradicting them. If you interpret it as just a metaphor, that's another matter entirely though. I guess that depends on what your definition of religious is.
[QUOTE=_Axel;49795060]Actually believing in what a religion states despite it contradicting scientific laws does sound rather irrational.
And most of the time, [b]if you take what the holy book/scriptures/oral tradition says literally, it ends up contradicting them. If you interpret it as just a metaphor, that's another matter entirely though.[/b] I guess that depends on what your definition of religious is.[/QUOTE]
I agree for the most part but this doesn't apply to everything in the Bible, or any other holy book for that matter.
There are things in them that are blatantly right, and there are things in them that are blatantly wrong, metaphor or not. This is the biggest hang-up I have with religion.
My views asides though this was a neat video. Thanks for sharing lucilk.
[QUOTE=JesterUK;49794956]well yeah, and being religious doesn't mean you are or aren't rational either
attributing intelligence or stupidity to a single belief someone has is dumb as fuck[/QUOTE]
You clearly didn't watch the video.
Oh wow, I've never heard of this guy before but I wish I had.
I wonder how much fp will love potholer once they find out he doesnt believe in climate change
[QUOTE=JesterUK;49794956]well yeah, and being religious doesn't mean you are or aren't rational either
attributing intelligence or stupidity to a single belief someone has is dumb as fuck[/QUOTE]
someone got triggered
[QUOTE=Kentz;49795183]I wonder how much fp will love potholer once they find out he doesnt believe in climate change[/QUOTE]
You sure about that? His quip about the dudes who didn't believe the ice caps were melting seems to indicate otherwise.
[QUOTE=Kentz;49795183]I wonder how much fp will love potholer once they find out he doesnt believe in climate change[/QUOTE]
I am pretty sure you pulled that out of your ass
[video=youtube;VUk0tm47yr8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUk0tm47yr8[/video]
Of course not.
With very specific exceptions, gnostic atheists by definition hold an indefensible position.
Also, ever met PZ Myers? Well known atheist... and complete moron.
[video=youtube;yU-RT6kJpZI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU-RT6kJpZI[/video]
In fact, the whole 3rd-wave tumblr feminism thing has affected the atheist community more than most, drawing in the [I]mindlessly [/I]liberal all the way to the regressive left.
For a while it was only Thunderf00t and TJ even pointing out the bullshit of the Atheism-Plus movement (now defunct) of Freethought Blogs, which attempted to actively police and shame the atheist community into conforming to the kind of Hyper-PC, "CISgender scum" crap you find in certain universities.
Thankfully, others have clued-in, but the Atheism-Plus movement pointed out the least rational of the herd.
[QUOTE=Vigilante2470;49795302]Of course not.
With very specific exceptions, gnostic atheists by definition hold an indefensible position.[/QUOTE]
This argument, while true on a technical level, has always annoyed me. Everybody is agnostic about every single thing you can think of. You don't know that you're not a brain in a vat, therefore you're agnostic about every single thing possible. So the word is basically useless because every time we say something is "true," it's always a tentative judgement. Obviously this doesn't mean we can't know some things more certainly than others, but this line between gnostic and agnostic is imaginary because the gnostic perspective doesn't exist.
So if somebody says "there is no god," it's not by definition irrational or indefensible just in the way that saying "there are no unicorns" isn't inherently indefensible.
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49795574]This argument, while true on a technical level, has always annoyed me. Everybody is agnostic about every single thing you can think of. You don't know that you're not a brain in a vat, therefore you're agnostic about every single thing possible. So the word is basically useless because every time we say something is "true," it's always a tentative judgement. Obviously this doesn't mean we can't know some things more certainly than others, but this line between gnostic and agnostic is imaginary because the gnostic perspective doesn't exist.
So if somebody says "there is no god," it's not by definition irrational or indefensible just in the way that saying "there are no unicorns" isn't inherently indefensible.[/QUOTE]
I'd say the distinction is a matter of necessity, because the gnostic position is always the one theists attack. Saying "there is no god" is a claim, and a theist will jump all over that to bolster their position. Saying, "I believe in no gods" makes no claim.
In a reasonable world, yeah, saying "there is no god" would be as easy as denying the existence of fairies, and intuitively a theist would know that to counter that, they'd have to prove one existed.
But since the world is predominately full of theists who don't understand or play by the rules, they'll turn it around on you and say, "nuh uh, PROVE it doesn't!"
And with asshats like ShockofGod basically using the strong position as a catchall "gotcha," in response atheists have to be VERY careful, and hold the most defensible position possible, even if it shouldn't be necessary.
It's telling how effective it is, as theists almost never even acknowledge the agnostic-atheist position most hold, let alone attempt to counter it. And that's because it's a position they CAN'T attack without making themselves look like credulous fools that have to accept everything they're told at face value until the entire Universe has been turned over to be sure.
[QUOTE=JesterUK;49794956]well yeah, and being religious doesn't mean you are or aren't rational either
attributing intelligence or stupidity to a single belief someone has is dumb as fuck[/QUOTE]
silly christfag, Im enlightened by my own intelligence, not some imaginary sky god V_ V
I don't think the title of the video suits it well.
He basically talks about people that don't trust science and can't do their research properly etc. but that's quite a different issue altogether. Atheism is just not believing in god, full stop. It doesn't hold any other characteristics, and atheism as itself is a rational postion, but the individual can hold other irrational beliefs and thoughts at the same time. There are atheists that believe in a spiritual realm and other supernatural and superstitious stuff.
I don't think anyone in their right mind seriously thinks that atheist person = person with 100% rational beliefs (including outside of the "god debate"). Sure, there might be some dumb people out there that do, but it's not some sort of widespread misconception or anything of the sort.
[QUOTE=KlaseR;49798818]I don't think the title of the video suits it well.
He basically talks about people that don't trust science and can't do their research properly etc. but that's quite a different issue altogether. Atheism is just not believing in god, full stop. It doesn't hold any other characteristics, and atheism as itself is a rational postion, but the individual can hold other irrational beliefs and thoughts at the same time. There are atheists that believe in a spiritual realm and other supernatural and superstitious stuff.
I don't think anyone in their right mind seriously thinks that atheist person = person with 100% rational beliefs (including outside of the "god debate"). Sure, there might be some dumb people out there that do, but it's not some sort of widespread misconception or anything of the sort.[/QUOTE]
i dont really think that atheism is a rational position through and through
agnosticism is more rational tbh
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;49799073]i dont really think that atheism is a rational position through and through
agnosticism is more rational tbh[/QUOTE]
atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive philosophical positions
it could be argued that atheism logically follows from agnosticism
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49799086]atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive philosophical positions
it could be argued that atheism logically follows from agnosticism[/QUOTE]
i gotta find a good word that embodies 'we have no fucking idea' rather than 'its impossible to have any fucking idea', cause i feel like that's the most rational possible mindset to have
being a total atheist is just as dismissive based on your own personal beliefs than totally believing in a god tbh
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;49799112]i gotta find a good word that embodies 'we have no fucking idea' rather than 'its impossible to have any fucking idea', cause i feel like that's the most rational possible mindset to have
being a total atheist is just as dismissive based on your own personal beliefs than totally believing in a god tbh[/QUOTE]
agnosticism states that no one can ever truly know whether or not god exists
this generally means that you don't believe that god exists and are therefor an atheist
disbelief is not the same as belief in the negative.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;49799112]i gotta find a good word that embodies 'we have no fucking idea' rather than 'its impossible to have any fucking idea', cause i feel like that's the most rational possible mindset to have
being a total atheist is just as dismissive based on your own personal beliefs than totally believing in a god tbh[/QUOTE]
If you have no idea about the existence of something then how can you possibly believe in it?
Extend this "agnosticism" to other propositions that are manifestly false. "We have no fucking idea" whether or not unicorns or pixies exist. So does that mean we can't say "I don't believe in unicorns"? Would that be "dismissive"?
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49799188]If you have no idea about the existence of something then how can you possibly believe in it?
Extend this "agnosticism" to other propositions that are manifestly false. "We have no fucking idea" whether or not unicorns or pixies exist. So does that mean we can't say "I don't believe in unicorns"? Would that be "dismissive"?[/QUOTE]
but based on all accounts of what older civilizations considered to be 'fairies', we've found that they were designed from sightings of will-o-wisps and other light phenomena
the existance of some sort of extra-dimensional creator is something we have literally no concept of, to dismiss it entirely is just as foolish as believing it entirely. Sure, i dont mind people having their beliefs, that's not what im saying here. I'm saying that the most rational course of thought is to simply say that we cannot currently prove its existance and we have no way of disproving it.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;49799347]but based on all accounts of what older civilizations considered to be 'fairies', we've found that they were designed from sightings of will-o-wisps and other light phenomena
the existance of some sort of extra-dimensional creator is something we have literally no concept of, to dismiss it entirely is just as foolish as believing it entirely. Sure, i dont mind people having their beliefs, that's not what im saying here. I'm saying that the most rational course of thought is to simply say that we cannot currently prove its existance and we have no way of disproving it.[/QUOTE]
and therefor you don't believe that god exists and are an atheist
this was a solid video, but I feel the title was a bit too baity toward the theism vs atheism topic when it's mostly about self-centered science conspiracy twits. Granted, the people who'd get mad at the title could probably fall into the irrational category in the first place
I'd love to just watch this guy make a reaction video as he attempts to figure out the timecube website (which I think you need waybackmachine for now)
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;49799347]but based on all accounts of what older civilizations considered to be 'fairies', we've found that they were designed from sightings of will-o-wisps and other light phenomena
the existance of some sort of extra-dimensional creator is something we have literally no concept of, to dismiss it entirely is just as foolish as believing it entirely. Sure, i dont mind people having their beliefs, that's not what im saying here. I'm saying that the most rational course of thought is to simply say that we cannot currently prove its existance and we have no way of disproving it.[/QUOTE]
As mentioned, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism is simply "not believing", it doesn't hold the characteristic of entirely dismissing the concept of god or not. That's up to the individual. Most reasonable atheists are agnostic, and so are many religious people. "Agnostic" is a bogus term which unfortunately has become popularized too much, it's not something that is even worth talking about. By saying you're agnostic you're basically meaning "I don't know whether a god can or cannot exist since we have no proof", well duh.
It irritates me when by saying "I'm an atheist" people automatically think you believe it's completely out of the question and impossible for anything supernatural or divine to exist. That's completely not the case.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;49799347]but based on all accounts of what older civilizations considered to be 'fairies', we've found that they were designed from sightings of will-o-wisps and other light phenomena
the existance of some sort of extra-dimensional creator is something we have literally no concept of, to dismiss it entirely is just as foolish as believing it entirely. Sure, i dont mind people having their beliefs, that's not what im saying here. I'm saying that the most rational course of thought is to simply say that we cannot currently prove its existance and we have no way of disproving it.[/QUOTE]
but based on accounts of what older civilizations considered to be "gods," we've found that they were designed from numerous natural phenomena such as volcanoes, earthquakes, lightning, disease, intoxication, etc.
the existence of some sort of magical, winged creatures with wands is something we have literally no concept of, to dismiss it entirely is just as foolish as believing it entirely.
You can play this game with any other type of bullshit you want to. Ghosts, UFOs, other magical creatures, or just something you want to make up on the spot. The rainbow colored half-goat half-rhino that lives beneath Mt. Everest "is something we have literally no concept of, to dismiss it entirely is just as foolish as believing it entirely." No, it's unbelieveable nonsense with zero evidence. I don't believe in it. I'm an a-rainbowgoatrhinoist. The exact same thing applies to God, gods, a certain god, etc.
The only reason why you're making the exception for a creator being is because the belief is so widespread.
The idea of a first cause (or first mover) God goes back to at least Plato. So, no, they weren't just trying to explain natural phenomena.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49799524]The idea of a first cause (or first mover) God goes back to at least Plato. So, no, they weren't just trying to explain natural phenomena.[/QUOTE]
Sure but you could come up with a metaphysical claim about why fairies are real if you really wanted too.
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49799559]Sure but you could come up with a metaphysical claim about why fairies are real if you really wanted too.[/QUOTE]
I really don't think you could. To posit God as the first cause is a logical extrapolation. There must be some uncaused thing, and that uncaused thing must start the chain of causation.
Neither a machine or abstract idea can fill that space (the cause of a machine would necessarily have to exist alongside the machine at all points into infinity, therefore not solving the problem, and abstract ideas can't be causes). So people throughout history have posited some kind of sentient being.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.