It was proposed in another question that atheism is not rational thinking. The reason behind this was that because religion had been around since the dawn of civilization and most people were inclined to believe in a creator in some form or another, it must be true.
***
This could be seen as relevant. An instinct to acknowledge that something greater than ourselves can actually be seen as a logical assertion that humans are by no means the most advanced beings in the universe, either physical or spiritual. A first cause or Creator is indeed a valid question to ask and the possibility exists. To think otherwise could indeed be seen as arrogant and close minded.
***
On the other hand, superstition is a toy for the primitive child's imagination, and most religions if not all have played on superstition and dogma to fill in gaps where factual knowledge is lacking. The instinct to choose to worship a deity could be seen as mental laziness and superstitious. For the people dedicated to critical thinking and empirical knowledge, anything less is seen as closed minded and arrogant.
***
What are your thoughts?
Absolutely.
If I were to tell you that Leprechauns created the universe, and that we should love and worship them or we will be sent to the worst place imaginable for all eternity (Detroit), would you think me a rational person? Or would you hope that I was put in a home for my own safety?
Now, simply replace 'Leprechauns' with 'God' and you see the problem.
People believed the Earth was the center of the universe since the dawn of civilization ... the evidence proves otherwise and there are many many more early beliefs just like that which have been demonstrated to be false. Why should a god be any different (considering the creative human mind)?
That's a ludicrous basis for an argument. The belief that the earth was flat and the cent re of the universe was also present for hundreds of thousands of years.
In no way is it rational. It takes alto more energy to prove that there is no Crater than it is to believe. Even do, what do you have to lose if it turns out that there is no Crater? Nothing at all, you just cease to exorcist. But lets say you are wrong, you spend an eternity in Hell. Think about it.
The sun is older then religion so it then must be much more important then religion. Also, since most people hundreds of years ago in-slaved blacks, it must have been a good thing by your logic.
Remember, you can't elect truth and truth has no age.
Your first paragraph makes no sense,atheism is not absence of religion but theism,there are hundreds of millions of religious atheists,mostly in S.E. Asia.
No, well positive atheism is not rational, it is a belief in a notion that cannot be verified or observed. It is as simple as that. I believe negative atheism is however quite rational, it is not a claim to a universal truth, only to that of the individual.
Well, the appeal to tradition is not a valid argument, and the explanation for people needing to believe in a creator stems from the fact that people have a need to understand the natural world.
Myths are created to explain these things.
Mommy, why do thunderstorms happen?
Well child, it is because the mighty Zeus is angry with us, so he is throwing lightning bolts down at us.
An empirically minded person is right to throw out theistic myths, as these myths do not seem to be supported by scientific observation.
However, I must add that as of yet, the idea of a first mover cannot be ruled out. That does not mean that any particular theistic tradition is correct. For the empirically minded person, the only two sane options remains deism or atheism (or for the truly empirically minded, agnosticism).
Granted, none of those groups (except for strong atheists) see any need to convert the others, as the way they see it, all humans will have the same fate after death.
So, given the fact that we do not see the activities of a deity in everyday life, it is perfectly rational to assume that they do not exist.
Your initial premise is illogical, an argument ad populism.
We're all born atheists. Religion is taught to us. Is it "rational" to believe in things that have no evidence to support them? Might as well believe in the tooth fairy while you're at it.
I think you are very close to the truth. I suggest you do not choose to worship a deity and agree with you that multiple choice is far from an educated fix.
I suggest you do your own research and after that identify what is closest to your own personal description of what God is based solely on logic. To get to what God is I studied what it would take to bring the world back to the perfectness and oneness it once was. This perfection is based on a Story in Genesis but I found it was also based on logic because if we are ever going to save this world from itself we need to deal with this reality.
God is love. also based on the Bible but through my studying I identified love and understanding as the tools we all can use to reach this goal. Think about it then email me with your own ideas. God bless.
Note---- I found the number of people who would miss represent the truth and the dictionary to nurse an irrational assumption in your answers fairly interesting. Good luck.
Atheism is rational. Religion is not. It is not a put down to say this, since coreligionists are proud of the fact that they do not rely on rational thought.
Atheism is not only rational, it is logically possible. Theism is also logically possible, but certain specific versions of Theism are not. To close ones mind to the possibility of being wrong is the most self-deluded and ignorant position one can take regarding religion and spirituality since, ultimately, faith boils down to nothing more than an opinion.
The claim that religion is somehow wired into humans has been shown to be false by the rapid rise of atheism in the developed world (it actually appears to be the case that religion is just a coping mechanism for a bad life).
As for whether or not atheism is rational, that depends on whether there is any evidence of a god, with no good evidence for a god (which happens to be the current situation) then it is the only rational position to hold.
The basis for this assertion is two logical fallacies:
1. Argumentum ad numeral--because lots of people believe something, therefore it must be true; --not so.
2. Argument from Authority;--because Kings, Chiefs, Popes and Bishops tell you something is true,-it ain't necessarily so.
1. Primitive Prue-scientific peoples believed all sorts of weird things; they did not do rational empirical Science, so they had no basis for their beliefs.
2.Arguments from Authority are made by those with vested interests, mostly to do with social control and the acquisition of wealth by conning the poor and superstitious.
Atheism is a rejection of these two logical fallacies in the light of modern knowledge of Science, history, and sociology, and is therefore rational.
Is atheism rational? Yes or no?
