Saw this question on r/atheism today.

[Hayabusa Rider]

One doesn't have to be Irrational to be religious, just as long as one doesn't apply Rational thought to their Religion.

I don't know anyone who is completely self consistent, but I agree that there are degrees. I don't get people who push the 6k stuff or think that evolution and dinosaurs are a hoax, but theres no sense in paying then much attention.

 

[Darwin333]

Ah, I see you're simply ignorant. Your belief that there is correlation must make it so. Please enlighten us what information "disproves" religion and how large portions of the world have missed it. By your definition, most of the world's people are irrational. Be afraid! We're coming for you.

Its not possible to disprove god and you know it. OTOH, anyone who looks at history without any bias would say there is enough indirect evidence to come to the conclusion that it is almost certain that all modern religions are bullshit. The fact that so many exist and how wildly different they are today and how much they have changed over history should be enough for a rational person to say "maybe this isn't set in stone "true" as my parents taught me as a young child".

Then you have the psychological part in which "faith" is actually taught. Its not a coincident that over 90% of the world are the same religion as their parents. It is also no secret that its quite easy to program children to believe in certain things or a certain way and that most people will not shake that programing.

Granted, the above is about religion and not "god".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nothing's guaranteed. It's just a matter of probabilities.

Give me person A, who's a weak atheist, and person B, who's a "born again" Christian, and force me to bet on which of them is the more rational, and I'll take A every time. I won't always be right, but I usually will.

There's a difference between probabilities and people, and what I dislike are those who apply generalizations without due consideration. That's fairly irrational. The atheist I love to hate is Dawkins. He's gone so overboard that other superior atheist intellects are embarrassed. He's a fire and brimstone preacher, self appointed priest. That's the kind of person to whom I object. We had someone at Dartmouth who gave a talk who was much like him, and the faculty who was atheist or agnostic chewed him up for his hubris. They were beyond him in knowing science and what they cannot know themselves. They were adults.

So no I don't have a problem with atheists or the religious per se, it's when those who cannot know claim to, and harass others for it. Personally I have dealt with that. There are things that I don't know and cannot. I understand what many other thinkers do, and that wer are inherently limited. I'm overly educated and woefully ignorant. There's no one who isn't the latter.

 

[disappoint]

Couple of videos of Neil DeGrasse Tyson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxff0k_TEzI

The first one is rebuking Richard Dawkins and is a short video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo

The second one is explaining why some scientists believed in a deity and is 41 minutes long, but a very good read. Why does it seem like reading when you watch Neil Tyson?


Some of my thoughts on the 1st video: Think of a kid, let's say 13 years old. He is clinging to his mom, and you think to yourself, he is too old to be clinging to his mom like that! So you take out your trusty chain saw, you fire it up and exclaim: "Stop clinging to your mom or I'll cut your arms off!"

What do you suppose he will do? Probably cling to his mom even more so.

Militant atheists like Richard Dawkins have probably never converted a religious person for this reason. He may get much applause from his base, but will make religious folks just cling to their religion even more.

____________________________________________________________

The second video summary: Scientists invoke a deity when they reach the limit of their understanding (for lack of a better word).

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There's a difference between probabilities and people, and what I dislike are those who apply generalizations without due consideration.

There's a difference between probabilities and individuals, but we talk about people all the time in terms of probabilities and statistics.

And the use of probabilities doesn't imply generalization. In my previous example, I'm not saying that all atheists are more rational than all born again Christians. Just that most are.

The atheist I love to hate is Dawkins. He's gone so overboard that other superior atheist intellects are embarrassed. He's a fire and brimstone preacher, self appointed priest. That's the kind of person to whom I object.

Didn't you just say that you "dislike those who apply generalizations without due consideration"? Wouldn't criticizing atheism based on the statements of one of its most outspoken adherents be exactly that?

Personally, I think most people who hate Dawkins do so exactly because he says things they don't want to hear. That may or may not be true of you, of course.

We had someone at Dartmouth who gave a talk who was much like him, and the faculty who was atheist or agnostic chewed him up for his hubris. They were beyond him in knowing science and what they cannot know themselves. They were adults.

And for every overbearing "preachy" atheist you can find, I can find a dozen Pat Robertsons. So what?

So no I don't have a problem with atheists or the religious per se, it's when those who cannot know claim to, and harass others for it. Personally I have dealt with that. There are things that I don't know and cannot. I understand what many other thinkers do, and that wer are inherently limited. I'm overly educated and woefully ignorant. There's no one who isn't the latter.

I find atheists generally far more willing to acknowledge that there are things we don't know than are Christians. As I said, the default atheist position is to not believe in that for which there is no evidence. That seems far more rational to me than saying I must believe in X god because of Y reasons written in Z books.

 

[sandorski]

There's a difference between probabilities and individuals, but we talk about people all the time in terms of probabilities and statistics.

And the use of probabilities doesn't imply generalization. In my previous example, I'm not saying that all atheists are more rational than all born again Christians. Just that most are.



Didn't you just say that you "dislike those who apply generalizations without due consideration"? Wouldn't criticizing atheism based on the statements of one of its most outspoken adherents be exactly that?

Personally, I think most people who hate Dawkins do so exactly because he says things they don't want to hear. That may or may not be true of you, of course.



And for every overbearing "preachy" atheist you can find, I can find a dozen Pat Robertsons. So what?



I find atheists generally far more willing to acknowledge that there are things we don't know than are Christians. As I said, the default atheist position is to not believe in that for which there is no evidence. That seems far more rational to me than saying I must believe in X god because of Y reasons written in Z books.

Bolded is pretty much the reason.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There's a difference between probabilities and individuals, but we talk about people all the time in terms of probabilities and statistics.

And the use of probabilities doesn't imply generalization. In my previous example, I'm not saying that all atheists are more rational than all born again Christians. Just that most are.



Didn't you just say that you "dislike those who apply generalizations without due consideration"? Wouldn't criticizing atheism based on the statements of one of its most outspoken adherents be exactly that?

Personally, I think most people who hate Dawkins do so exactly because he says things they don't want to hear. That may or may not be true of you, of course.



And for every overbearing "preachy" atheist you can find, I can find a dozen Pat Robertsons. So what?



I find atheists generally far more willing to acknowledge that there are things we don't know than are Christians. As I said, the default atheist position is to not believe in that for which there is no evidence. That seems far more rational to me than saying I must believe in X god because of Y reasons written in Z books.

Selecting specific portions of text is just about impossible with a phone is virtually impossible so I'll quote the whole thing.

First, you need to address the points I made instead of what you attribute on your own.

Look carefully and find where I generalize from Dawkins to all atheists? You'll not find that anywhere. I find him a middling intellect who's fame rests on his bullying of others because what he believes entitles him to do so. Others who do the same I also dislike because they are not justified in reality to do so. What that has to do with Pat Robertson I don't know since you won't find me backing him either. I hold him and others who bully on the name of religion in the same low regard. Now lets suppose there are 20 Robertsons for every Dawkins. Thats great. Thats 19 people I dont have to diss. Their view of religion is immaterial, as they aren't being asses. For that one numbers are meaningless. A dick is a dick.

Dawkins is about Dawkins. He's the metric, the legend of his own mind. He's the last person i'd choose to enlighten and educate anyone who has any religious or spiritual inclination to the wonders of the natural world. I'd be embarrassed. Oh if I were a dick it would be great to totally berate him or her, but I'll pass. He's a pit bull and not worthy of my respect at any level. If thats all he did I would ignore him, but once he deteriorated to such an irrational state of mind to attempt to slander others who do not bow to him, that was it. Let me be quite clear, it's not him being an atheist, as he could be equally horrid person who's a devout religious fundamentalist. I consider him despicable, and that has nothing to do with atheism or garden variety atheists who are just plain decent people.

 

[OCNewbie]

But seriously, it would be better put as. Does belief without evidence cause people to be irrational or are irrational people more likely to believe something without evidence.

I don't think that's the same.

I could reword the above by saying "Does being irrational cause people to be irrational? Or are irrational people more likely to be irrational?"

I believe religion is more likely the culprit, especially as religion is generally ingrained into people from birth.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

HR, I thought I was responding to your points. If I wasn't, you'll need to be more specific.

You seemed to indicate a general dislike for atheists, and then went on about Richard Dawkins and some other militant atheist. If the purpose of that wasn't to generalize about atheists, I don't know what its purpose was.

You say "Dawkins is the metric", but he isn't. He's the outlier. Most atheists just go about their business, and you don't even know they are atheists. They are one of the most despised groups in America, and many are "in the closet". Certainly, very few are like Dawkins.

Your statements are contradictory. If your hatred of Dawkins is not related to his being an atheist, then what exaclty is he the "metric" of?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

HR, I thought I was responding to your points. If I wasn't, you'll need to be more specific.

You seemed to indicate a general dislike for atheists, and then went on about Richard Dawkins and some other militant atheist. If the purpose of that wasn't to generalize about atheists, I don't know what its purpose was.

You say "Dawkins is the metric", but he isn't. He's the outlier. Most atheists just go about their business, and you don't even know they are atheists. They are one of the most despised groups in America, and many are "in the closet". Certainly, very few are like Dawkins.

Your statements are contradictory. If your hatred of Dawkins is not related to his being an atheist, then what exaclty is he the "metric" of?

Ahh I understand. Let me clarify. Dawkins is the metric in his own mind, he is "the" standard as far as HE is concerned. He's attacked a past president of the British Academy of Science, or whatever they've renamed themselve, not because he wasn't an atheist because he wasn't screaming at those who had a spiritual belief, and don't get me started on how he tried to sabotage Francis Collins.

Not every atheist is a Dawkins. Thank goodness most aren't.

Make more sense?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yes, though I am still not sure why you brought him up.

The biggest criticism of him from those who don't hate him because he disses their religion is that he's too "in your face" and thus won't "convert" religious people. I don't think that's his goal, however. I think he sees himself more like the leader of a gay pride march, wanting to be "in your face" deliberately, to encourage atheists to come out of their closet and stop being intimidated by the religious majority.

FWIW, I don't worship the guy but I do believe he has a brilliant mind and has come up with some very interesting stuff during his career. Many don't realize that he coined the term "meme", for example.

 

[LunarRay]

A very wise man once said, "When your interpretation of the scriptures is in conflict with science then it is wise to reevaluate your interpretation of the scriptures"

Moses Maimonides was a many things and a Rabbi as well....

I think irrationality occurs when we deny reality in favor of some interpreted dogma... Religion is people believing what people say is what God meant to say.

 

[klinc]

Some atheists are religious shitbags, and they are just as fanatical as Christian or Muslim shitbags.

Anyway, religion doesn't cause schizophrenia, but people with schizophrenia tend to be religious. If you talk to medical professionals about how you're hearing voices and seeing hallucinations, they will recognize it as schizophrenia and treat it appropriately. If you tell your story to religious people, they'll welcome you with open arms and claim you are a holy man.

It's odd that the word 'atheist' even exist. I don't play golf, is there a word for non-golf players?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, though I am still not sure why you brought him up.

The biggest criticism of him from those who don't hate him because he disses their religion is that he's too "in your face" and thus won't "convert" religious people. I don't think that's his goal, however. I think he sees himself more like the leader of a gay pride march, wanting to be "in your face" deliberately, to encourage atheists to come out of their closet and stop being intimidated by the religious majority.

FWIW, I don't worship the guy but I do believe he has a brilliant mind and has come up with some very interesting stuff during his career. Many don't realize that he coined the term "meme", for example.

I've read up on his scientific work and it's decent, but if it were his only claim to fame we would never have heard of him. Brilliant? That's my wife

Compared to Francis Collins he's really "B" class material. If you don't know that name you should. After you learn about his scientific accomplishments consider that Dawkins led a crusade against him because he couldn't possibly be a real scientist. That's irrational.

I brought him up because some (not all) look up to him as a paragon of rationality. I submit that particular emperor has no clothes and again some like him because he acts as he does.

Kind of annoys me, but thats me.

 

[klinc]

Selecting specific portions of text is just about impossible with a phone is virtually impossible so I'll quote the whole thing.

First, you need to address the points I made instead of what you attribute on your own.

Look carefully and find where I generalize from Dawkins to all atheists? You'll not find that anywhere. I find him a middling intellect who's fame rests on his bullying of others because what he believes entitles him to do so. Others who do the same I also dislike because they are not justified in reality to do so. What that has to do with Pat Robertson I don't know since you won't find me backing him either. I hold him and others who bully on the name of religion in the same low regard. Now lets suppose there are 20 Robertsons for every Dawkins. Thats great. Thats 19 people I dont have to diss. Their view of religion is immaterial, as they aren't being asses. For that one numbers are meaningless. A dick is a dick.

Dawkins is about Dawkins. He's the metric, the legend of his own mind. He's the last person i'd choose to enlighten and educate anyone who has any religious or spiritual inclination to the wonders of the natural world. I'd be embarrassed. Oh if I were a dick it would be great to totally berate him or her, but I'll pass. He's a pit bull and not worthy of my respect at any level. If thats all he did I would ignore him, but once he deteriorated to such an irrational state of mind to attempt to slander others who do not bow to him, that was it. Let me be quite clear, it's not him being an atheist, as he could be equally horrid person who's a devout religious fundamentalist. I consider him despicable, and that has nothing to do with atheism or garden variety atheists who are just plain decent people.

I am a very open minded person. This is a good one by him

"I once asked a distinguished astronomer, a fellow of my college, to explain the big bang theory to me. He did so to the best of his (and my) ability, and I then asked what it was about the fundamental laws of physics that made the spontaneous origin of space and time possible. 'Ah,' he smiled, 'now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand you over to our good friend, the chaplain'. But why the chaplain ? Why not the gardener or the chef ? Of course chaplains, unlike chefs and gardeners, claim to have some insight into ultimate questions. But what reason have we ever been given for taking their claims seriously?"
Richard Dawkins

 

[Lanyap]

I guess about 85% of the world's population is irrational.

 

[OCNewbie]

I guess about 85% of the world's population is irrational.

100% of the population is irrational to varying degrees

 

[WhipperSnapper]

When it comes to GOD the creator of the beginning I believe in this GOD 100% I know nothing about this God .

Who created the God? And who created the God that created the God? If something like human life is too complex to simply evolve on its own, then where did the God come from? How did it get here?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am a very open minded person. This is a good one by him

He has made some good points and writes well. If that was all there was to it I'd have no problem. His antics with Collins? Bordered on neurotic.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

My answer to OP's query is: Both.

 

[88keys]

Please use a modicum of logic in your arguments if you wish to be taken seriously. OTOH, wtf is this topic doing in P & N?

Then please enlighten me as to what is illogical in my arguments so I can be taken seriously on an internet forum

 

[schneiderguy]

If Atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby

Atheism is not a religion.

Reddit style "atheism" is.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Then please enlighten me as to what is illogical in my arguments so I can be taken seriously on an internet forum

Read my comments in red on post #39

 

[Sulaco]

It's odd that the word 'atheist' even exist. I don't play golf, is there a word for non-golf players?

Yeah, thanks Neil.

 

[Moonbeam]

Shh... He thinks he knows. Notice how irrational some get about some things? Never did understand the need for dominance displays.

Something I've said a few times could maybe help.