5 ms·

Assuming for a moment that atheist are the friendlier folks in general, what makes you think that people become atheists after leaving christianity behind? Whe

Assuming for a moment that atheist are the friendlier folks in general, what makes you think that people become atheists after leaving christianity behind? When taking an atheist perspective (I'm not an atheist, but I hope I can fake it well enough for a moment for the purpose of this discourse), I'd describe the shift that happens in "Western" societies as "swapping one superstition for another", not "leaving superstition behind". Or did Tarot cards, miracle healers and summoning the dead (and the like) become atheist tools and practices recently?

pmarreck 9y ago
There is no such thing as the "atheist perspective." This is a misnomer and a straw-man used by the self-professed faithful. There is either the rational perspective, or the not-rational (baseless belief-based) perspective. Point me out a single thing an atheist claims that is not rational, and you will realize I'm correct. Point me out a single piece of human knowledge that was gained via pure belief instead of via evidence, and you will realize I'm correct. You know what other successful systems are rational? Our medical/scientific knowledge and methods, and our legal knowledge and methods. That also makes them atheist simply because they are empirically-based and not belief-based (regardless of whether practitioners thereof have any theism, Zeusism, Zoroastrianism, or any other belief).
- simula67 9y ago
  Define rational. Science takes many things for granted under faith : there is an observable universe, it operates under decipherable rules etc. So you seem confused
  - pmarreck 9y ago
    > there is an observable universe wait, this is not self-evident? > it operates under decipherable rules we already know this is not proven. taste, for example, has no discernible rules. therefore taste is irrational (for now). Rational: Agreeable to reason and based on objective empirical evidence and observation. Things outside the reach of this: The irrational. Subjective experience. Etc. The key here is, you can believe whatever you want, but to act against someone else, I think you need a rational basis. Rationality, where it exists, should be given a wide berth.
    - simula67 9y ago
      > this is not self-evident Self-evident is just a lazy term meaning I believe it without evidence. You could for example, be living in the matrix and the real world could operate under different art of rules or maybe no rules. Science puts these types of questions aside for expediency > taste, for example, has no discernible rules. therefore taste is irrational Not true. Some of what is called taste can be boiled down to rational analysis. For example, photogeaphers have rules which helps them take good photos On a fundamental level, science and rationality depends on premises unproven. It is a great tool to examine the universe and it nature, but that does not mean it can answer every question. It was never intended to
- pgeorgi 9y ago
  Just because societies become "less religious" according to some popular metric (for Europe mostly: "Christian, Jew or Muslim?") doesn't mean that people are more rationally minded. And I don't see any of that coming, it's merely newer beliefs supplanting established ones. Homeopathy is quite popular here, without any evidence. How rational is that? Finally, equating "atheism" with "rational" might be your personal short cut, but in my opinion it's incomplete: To pick a historically relevant example, Marxism-Leninism was (and is) quite sold on "atheism" - it was one of their major differentiators in the socialist spectrum - and I see quite a lot of irrational ideas there. And while these folks might not be your brand of atheism (no idea), claiming that they were not atheist seems to venture awfully close to a "no true Scotsman" kind of argument. (We might disagree on the level of their rationality, though).
- nsxwolf 9y ago
  You are my favorite kind of atheist, the one that comes along and lectures us that the word atheist essentially means "correct", and no one else has any business at the table of ideas. A fairly big irrational claim of atheists: The universe created itself from nothing.
  - pmarreck 9y ago
    I love how you pigeonholed me as atheist. I am not. I tend to side with them only because they seem more reasonable, but I'm fairly agnostic and believe in some things (based on experience) that most atheists would scoff at. Your open-minded doubting-Thomas, as it were. Probably "secular humanist" is the most apt description of my worldview. > The universe created itself from nothing. And yet it is an equally irrational claim that some entity did it, because there is no evidence of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps It is intellectually dishonest to explain away anything not understood as "God's creation". That is not to say there is no God, although the Abrahamic (judeo-muslim-christian) God is in fact illogical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil > that the word atheist essentially means "correct" You forgot "debatable". Unlike religious beliefs. I would agree that most atheists assume too much to be true without evidence (because their conclusions are rational, even if untrue... and that is where irrationality sets foot in the unfathomable equation...) > A fairly big irrational claim of atheists: The universe created itself from nothing. Actually, there may not even have been a Big Bang: https://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html https://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html There goes your God-proof, I guess...
- pgeorgi 9y ago
  Addendum: > Point me out a single piece of human knowledge that was gained via pure belief instead of via evidence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"
  - pmarreck 9y ago
    That's an interesting example, but you could rationally argue that since we're all members of the same species, we should treat each other as equals... In practice, of course, there's... complexity

pmarreck 9y ago

There is no such thing as the "atheist perspective." This is a misnomer and a straw-man used by the self-professed faithful. There is either the rational perspective, or the not-rational (baseless belief-based) perspective. Point me out a single thing an atheist claims that is not rational, and you will realize I'm correct. Point me out a single piece of human knowledge that was gained via pure belief instead of via evidence, and you will realize I'm correct. You know what other successful systems are rational? Our medical/scientific knowledge and methods, and our legal knowledge and methods. That also makes them atheist simply because they are empirically-based and not belief-based (regardless of whether practitioners thereof have any theism, Zeusism, Zoroastrianism, or any other belief).

simula67 9y ago
Define rational. Science takes many things for granted under faith : there is an observable universe, it operates under decipherable rules etc. So you seem confused
- pmarreck 9y ago
  > there is an observable universe wait, this is not self-evident? > it operates under decipherable rules we already know this is not proven. taste, for example, has no discernible rules. therefore taste is irrational (for now). Rational: Agreeable to reason and based on objective empirical evidence and observation. Things outside the reach of this: The irrational. Subjective experience. Etc. The key here is, you can believe whatever you want, but to act against someone else, I think you need a rational basis. Rationality, where it exists, should be given a wide berth.
  - simula67 9y ago
    > this is not self-evident Self-evident is just a lazy term meaning I believe it without evidence. You could for example, be living in the matrix and the real world could operate under different art of rules or maybe no rules. Science puts these types of questions aside for expediency > taste, for example, has no discernible rules. therefore taste is irrational Not true. Some of what is called taste can be boiled down to rational analysis. For example, photogeaphers have rules which helps them take good photos On a fundamental level, science and rationality depends on premises unproven. It is a great tool to examine the universe and it nature, but that does not mean it can answer every question. It was never intended to
pgeorgi 9y ago
Just because societies become "less religious" according to some popular metric (for Europe mostly: "Christian, Jew or Muslim?") doesn't mean that people are more rationally minded. And I don't see any of that coming, it's merely newer beliefs supplanting established ones. Homeopathy is quite popular here, without any evidence. How rational is that? Finally, equating "atheism" with "rational" might be your personal short cut, but in my opinion it's incomplete: To pick a historically relevant example, Marxism-Leninism was (and is) quite sold on "atheism" - it was one of their major differentiators in the socialist spectrum - and I see quite a lot of irrational ideas there. And while these folks might not be your brand of atheism (no idea), claiming that they were not atheist seems to venture awfully close to a "no true Scotsman" kind of argument. (We might disagree on the level of their rationality, though).
nsxwolf 9y ago
You are my favorite kind of atheist, the one that comes along and lectures us that the word atheist essentially means "correct", and no one else has any business at the table of ideas. A fairly big irrational claim of atheists: The universe created itself from nothing.
- pmarreck 9y ago
  I love how you pigeonholed me as atheist. I am not. I tend to side with them only because they seem more reasonable, but I'm fairly agnostic and believe in some things (based on experience) that most atheists would scoff at. Your open-minded doubting-Thomas, as it were. Probably "secular humanist" is the most apt description of my worldview. > The universe created itself from nothing. And yet it is an equally irrational claim that some entity did it, because there is no evidence of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps It is intellectually dishonest to explain away anything not understood as "God's creation". That is not to say there is no God, although the Abrahamic (judeo-muslim-christian) God is in fact illogical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil > that the word atheist essentially means "correct" You forgot "debatable". Unlike religious beliefs. I would agree that most atheists assume too much to be true without evidence (because their conclusions are rational, even if untrue... and that is where irrationality sets foot in the unfathomable equation...) > A fairly big irrational claim of atheists: The universe created itself from nothing. Actually, there may not even have been a Big Bang: https://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html https://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html There goes your God-proof, I guess...
pgeorgi 9y ago
Addendum: > Point me out a single piece of human knowledge that was gained via pure belief instead of via evidence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"
- pmarreck 9y ago
  That's an interesting example, but you could rationally argue that since we're all members of the same species, we should treat each other as equals... In practice, of course, there's... complexity