Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clutch · 07-22-2002, 07:03 AM

Sincerely David Mathews,

You quoted me, correctly, as saying:

Quote:

There are billions of people around, so irrational everythings probably exist. But by the standards I've sketched, I expect that irrational atheism is very, very rare. By contrast, in my experience, irrational theism is virtually the only kind.

In short, you directly quote me saying, first, that I expect that there *are* irrational theists, though not many, and second, that "in my experience" almost all theism is irrational (By the standards I carefully defined, unlike you.)

In reply, David, you assert

Quote:

[Y]our characterization of all theism as irrational would seem to be an assumption on your own part.

And that's interesting, since you just quoted me as saying that this judgement was limited to my experience with theists -- hence, could hardly be taken as an unqualified statement about "all theism". Strange to quote me, and then immediately misrepresent me.

You then continue:

Quote:

I think it most important that you do acknowledge the potential existence of irrational atheists. I am certain that such atheists do exists and that they constitute a small percentage of the atheists at Internet Infidels.

Again, interesting. I do much more than "acknowledge the potential existence of irrational atheists"; I claim their actual existence, probably in small numbers. As do you, it seems. Perhaps simply agreeing with me, as opposed to disagreeing with something I did not write, would have been the more directly course of action.

Totalitarianist · 07-22-2002, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Synaesthesia:
Pseudonym,

The debate over "non-belief vs belief in non" can be very misleading. The distinction is very thin and is more useful to distinguish attitude than epistemic strength.

In short, both of those positions can be held within a largely irrational atheistic position, both can be held within a largely rational position.

I still do not understand how it is irrational for one who is completely ignorant of something to make no assumptions on the matter. We are completely ignorant of a beginning, creator and/or first causer, and so, in my perspective, there is no rational belief on the subjected.

Totalitarianist · 07-22-2002, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Mathews:
[QB]Hello Everyone,

Atheists can accept atheism -- strong or weak, passive or active -- for irrational reasons. Atheists are fallible just like everyone else.[QB]

We're talking about the irrational atheism itself--not what had the person arrive at such a belief.

Totalitarianist · 07-22-2002, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Devilnaut:
Strong Atheism is simply a label given to those who perceive the probability of a given God-concept to be below 50%. It has nothing to do with certainty.

It has to do with denying something you are completely ignorant of; perhaps without 100% certainty, but nevertheless....

Totalitarianist · 07-22-2002, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch:
 Oh, now I see: it seems irrational! Well, darn, I lose!

That's quite the argument you have there...

Okay, it is irrational. A beginning conforms perfectly with logic.

Clutch · 07-22-2002, 08:00 AM

Pseudo, please stop and think about this.

"A beginning conforms perfectly with logic."

If by the vague term "conforms" you mean "is consistent with", then of course a beginning is logically consistent -- meaning, not logically impossible. This is a remarkably trivial claim, since the currently received view is that the universe had a beginning, as I have pointed out to apparently no effect. Viz., yes, science is not advocating the logically impossible. [*Yawn*]

But that is not what the First Cause argument is, as the most passing acquaintance with it would make clear. The FC argument purports to show that there was, *necessarily*, a beginning. And this argument is unsound. That is, it's unsound quite apart from the inevitable howler that tries to move from a FC to a god...

The weight of current evidence may well make it irrational to deny that the universe had a beginning (though, again, it is not clear that the BB theory entails this, strictly speaking). That is why atheists are in no way concerned to deny this theory. But it is thoroughly rational to deny that the universe's having a beginning is a *logical* truth. Which is why both atheists and logically competent theists reject the FC argument. I recommend finding your way into one of these two categories.

Devilnaut · 07-22-2002, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by optimist:
Devilnaut, if "strong atheism" is simply holding that the God-concept is below 50%, then what is "weak atheism"? I would have to argue that "weak atheism" assigns the God-concept a below %50 probability, and strong atheism is when the God-concept is assigned a 0% probability.

Well, a weak atheist is supposed to be someone who does not actively disbelieve in said God concept. In my opinion it's somebody who considers the evidence both for and against a given God concept to be underwhelming, and has suspended their judgement. I think it's worth saying that many people are strong atheists with regards to certain God concepts, and weak atheists with regards to others (especially those they have not yet been introduced to or are familiar with).

Is this accurate?

Devilnaut · 07-22-2002, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pseudonym:


It has to do with denying something you are completely ignorant of; perhaps without 100% certainty, but nevertheless....

To suggest that I am "completely ignorant of" God, suggests that I am unwilling to consider any evidence that might point to his existence. Why don't you present what evidence you have for the existence of God and we will see if your charge is grounded in reality.

Totalitarianist · 07-22-2002, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch:
Pseudo, please stop and think about this.

"A beginning conforms perfectly with logic."

If by the vague term "conforms" you mean "is consistent with", then of course a beginning is logically consistent -- meaning, not logically impossible. This is a remarkably trivial claim, since the currently received view is that the universe had a beginning, as I have pointed out to apparently no effect. Viz., yes, science is not advocating the logically impossible. [*Yawn*]

But that is not what the First Cause argument is, as the most passing acquaintance with it would make clear. The FC argument purports to show that there was, *necessarily*, a beginning. And this argument is unsound. That is, it's unsound quite apart from the inevitable howler that tries to move from a FC to a god...

The weight of current evidence may well make it irrational to deny that the universe had a beginning (though, again, it is not clear that the BB theory entails this, strictly speaking). That is why atheists are in no way concerned to deny this theory. But it is thoroughly rational to deny that the universe's having a beginning is a *logical* truth. Which is why both atheists and logically competent theists reject the FC argument. I recommend finding your way into one of these two categories.

I can quite easily tell that you are not well acquainted with Atheists.

Totalitarianist · 07-22-2002, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Devilnaut:


To suggest that I am "completely ignorant of" God, suggests that I am unwilling to consider any evidence that might point to his existence. Why don't you present what evidence you have for the existence of God and we will see if your charge is grounded in reality.

My God! There isn't a trace of evidence whatsoever; everyone is "completely ignorant" of God, including myself. I've noticed that people tend to synonymise ignorance, in every context, with some sort of insult. It is not an insult. Please tell me how you're not ignorant of the beginning of the universe, or the cause of whatever began the universe etc.

Tell me how this is irrational, the one who claims that weak atheism is irrational:
-I, like everyone else, am completely ignorant of the beginning of the universe.
-And so I will not make any assumptions, without evidence, of the beginning of the universe.

Very much unlike the strong atheist who denies God, and the theist who accepts Him. Why jump to conclusions on a matter you are completely ignorant of?

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-22-2002, 08:00 AM	#46
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Pseudo, please stop and think about this. "A beginning conforms perfectly with logic." If by the vague term "conforms" you mean "is consistent with", then of course a beginning is logically consistent -- meaning, not logically impossible. This is a remarkably trivial claim, since the currently received view is that the universe had a beginning, as I have pointed out to apparently no effect. Viz., yes, science is not advocating the logically impossible. [Yawn] But that is not what the First Cause argument is, as the most passing acquaintance with it would make clear. The FC argument purports to show that there was, necessarily, a beginning. And this argument is unsound. That is, it's unsound quite apart from the inevitable howler that tries to move from a FC to a god... The weight of current evidence may well make it irrational to deny that the universe had a beginning (though, again, it is not clear that the BB theory entails this, strictly speaking). That is why atheists are in no way concerned to deny this theory. But it is thoroughly rational to deny that the universe's having a beginning is a logical truth. Which is why both atheists and logically competent theists reject the FC argument. I recommend finding your way into one of these two categories.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.