Totalitarianist

An irrational atheist is one who actively denies the existence of God; every kind of God: sentient or non-sentient, Creator or first causer, Christian or non-Christian.

It's logical to denounce the existence of some of those, i.e., a sentient creator or the Christian God; but actively denying, say, a non-sentient first causer (which coule be considered God) is completely irrational.

Edit:
As I've said, the existence of a First Cauer (i.e., God) is beyond us on so many levels, that to simply deny its existence is irrational. It would be equally irrational to accept its existence. And so, in my opinion, weak atheism and agnosticism are the rational theological beliefs.

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>

Automaton

It couldbe called God, but I'd prefer to call it what it is; nature.

Automaton

And yes, there are irrational atheists. I know people who are atheists just because it is "cool".

Totalitarianist

And "nature" can be pantheistically synonymised with "God". It's not incorrect or irrational.

Many atheists here say "First cause theory is bunk" or "There can't be a first causer--that's ridiculous". The first cause theory conforms perfectly with modern logic, and the atheist who denies this is just as irrational as the one who believes in a personal God.

optimist

Pseudonym, yes, those are the only rationally tenable positions. However, I wouldn't say "it is beyond us on so many levels" because that makes it sound like there is something special about this particular possibility that makes it "beyond" us. 102 monkey creators are equally "beyond" us.

Another word issue, in common language it is acceptable to say "I don't believe in the Easter Bunny" it is just implied that the person still allows for the unlikely possibility of the existence of the Easter Bunny. The same goes for god(s). In normal discourse it is perfectly fine to say "I am an atheist, I do not believe in God" while the unlikely possibility of a God is simply implied. In our language, all empirical statements seem to automatically have the implicit disclaimer, "...I do allow for the possibility that X."

This careful attention to word useage might seem strange, but all too often wrong conclusions on this question are simply a result of sloppy language use.

___________________

Another underlying issue in all this is that of action: A theist all too often tries to get an atheist to admit the possibility of God, and then jumps to the conclusion that this somehow justifies the actions they partake in as a result of their theistic belief. To pray to a God because s/he is possible is as senseless as praying to 102 monkey creators because they are possible. To give money to a church, to require prayer in school, to teach creationism etc. cannot be justified on possibility. The possibility of God entails no actions on our part, just as the 102 monkeys do not entail any actions.

Clutch

Since the received scientific view is that there was in fact a first event, or something darn close to it, I am surprised to learn that "many atheists here" call the idea "ridiculous". Maybe you ought to give quotes from atheists here asserting that the Big Bang is ridiculous...

Or perhaps what you are trying to say is that many atheists reject the argument that necessarily there was a beginning to the universe. They are right to do so. There is no sound argument that I am aware of, to the effect that a first cause must exist.

But if you have such an argument, you should certainly contribute it to the current thread, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000284" target="_blank">Finite universe</a>. Otherwise your charge of irrationality appears deeply uninformed.

ShottleBop

Well, if God really cared about us . . . (you're not British, by any chance, are you?)

Totalitarianist

No, no, no. I meant that those who deny a first causer (God), even a non-sentient one, are irrational. A first causer, an unmoved mover, etc cannot yet be defined, unlike 102 monkey creators. Calling a first causer, an unmoved mover etc "God" or anything so long as its not God is irrational. The logic goes like this:

-I am completely ignorant of the beginning of the universe and/or what set the universe in motion.
-Therefore God does not, by any means, exist.

The rational one's logic:
-I am completely ignorant of the beginning of the universe and/or what set the universe in motion.
-Therefore I lack, and only lack, a belief in God.

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>

Totalitarianist

Originally posted by Clutch:
Since the received scientific view is that there was in fact a first event, or something darn close to it, I am surprised to learn that "many atheists here" call the idea "ridiculous". Maybe you ought to give quotes from atheists here asserting that the Big Bang is ridiculous...

I'm not going to search for quotes. Read all the First Cause arguments. Many blatantly deny the validity of it.

Or perhaps what you are trying to say is that many atheists reject the argument that necessarily there was a beginning to the universe. They are right to do so. There is no sound argument that I am aware of, to the effect that a first cause must exist.

Rejecting a beginning, though, seems somewhat irrational. Although believing in a beginning conforms to logic, it may be considered logical to think:

-I am ignorant of an ultimate beginning.
-Therefore I lack a belief in an ultimate beginning.

Edit: UBB

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>

Synaesthesia

Many atheists become theist or vice versa when they discover the irrationality of the basis of their belief.