Anti-Intellectual Atheism

[jasonlfunk]

There is an attitude that permeates pop culture especially in academia that any belief in the supernatural is ignorant, misguided, and irrational. I categorically disagree with this position and indeed would argue for the exact opposite. Let me state though - I am not saying that there are no people who have irrational, misguided, or ignorant beliefs in the religious/supernatural community, because there most certainly are. But this is not the claim in academia - the claim is that it is impossible to be rational/intellectual and believe in God or the supernatural.

The purpose of this thread is not to argue for the rational/intellectual basis for the supernatural - that will most likely be a later thread.

My contention is that it is the materialist and atheist whose views are ultimately irrational and whose positions are ultimately anti-intellectual.

My challenge to the materialists and atheists in the group: Give a rational, intellectual argument as to why Materialism and Atheism are to be preferred over alternative positions.

[nosejam]

Atheism is as much a belief as anything else, I personally am an atheist and if there is a God I don't like him/her/it much so would much rather there not be one. I have no problem with people believing in God/s (I can see why people like the idea) I just disagree when the believers try to either shove it down your throat or try to show their "proof" and call it science. Religion is by definition not science as it is reliant on faith.

Edit: I know not giving an answer to your question, I'll have a think.

[-Chris-]

Arguing on Atheists behalf as a practicing Catholic:

Since the beginning of time, all humans were born atheists. The idea of God (or the lack of one) is given to us by our parents or those who raise us.

Point 1. contradiction

The three Abrahamic faiths believe relatively in the same God yet, all 3 contradict themselves. Christians believe that Jesus is the savior of the world and the son of God; Jews believe just as strongly that he is not. Muslims believe that the Qur'an was inspired by God, while Jews and Christians do not.

Point 2. All loving god hating?

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus. Why would such a loving God bring evil to the world, knowing what it would cause.

Point 3. Omniscience.

If God is all-powerful, then by right he could create a being more infinitely more powerful then himself, if so, does this no longer make him God? If humans have at every given moment the free will to choose, then how does God know the future. Are we slaves to his plans? A benevolent God would not have slaves.

Edit: missed the last part of your question. so I'm writing it now

You argue that Atheism is anti-intellectual yet is belief in something that cannot be proven just as irrational and anti-intellectual.
Would simply living a life of morals without the nonsense of God be the best thing to do?

[ranger2112]

there is a distinct difference between being religious, spiritual and morality.

Being religious is belief in a god and then going to a building on your chosen god's sabbath and worshiping him/her/it with fellow believers

being spiritual is LIVING your life as god intends, regardless of your affiliation or denomination

being moral is doing the right things for the right reasons regardless of doctrine. not because you are scared of a nasty place you may go to if you do not, but because you choose to make that decision.

having said that, i believe athiesm is like any other group of people in the religious community. you have some stronger and some so-so. a hard core athiest will argue and show his "proof" that there is no god while hoping he/she is right. an ultra-religious person does the same. it is your other groups that i believe have more reasonable arguments. no one should have anyone else's beliefs shoved in their faces, however, should be comfortable in their own skin and beliefs that they can have an intellectual conversation with diametric views and stay calm and civilized. I have found those with religious views tend to rely on "faith" as their cornerstone that they build their arguments with, while athiest attempt to use historical fact to back theirs up. i personally think its the agnostics that have the advantage. they believe there is a power greater than them that have helped to mold our universe from galaxies to grains of sand without being an ecclesiastical being who requires worship and head bowing, cash and the occassional sacrifice along the way in order to please him/her/it.

[nosejam]

i personally think its the agnostics that have the advantage. they believe there is a power greater than them that have helped to mold our universe from galaxies to grains of sand without being an ecclesiastical being who requires worship and head bowing, cash and the occassional sacrifice along the way in order to please him/her/it.

That's not what agnostics believe... I like the rest of your post though

[El Mestizo]

To discuss the rationality of atheism we would have to discuss the rationality of theism.

Theism, in nature, is irrational and even slightly delusional. It is not a rational thought to believe a woman could conceive as a virgin. Neither is it rational to believe a man was picked up by a chariot of fire and brought up to a city above the clouds. To call atheism is irrational is, well, irrational. It is a belief grounded in science. While most of the beliefs that an atheist would consider fact are actually theories, such as the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, there is much more backing these beliefs than faith alone.

Now are there atheists who are not what some would consider "intellectuals" (AKA dumbasses!)? Of course! Just like there are many intellectuals within the theistic community.

But to call atheism irrational or anti-intellectual defies logic.

[-Z-]

Jason is correct... I believe that organized religion is the most dangerous force on earth... perhaps not by its own choosing, by because of how humanity uses it.

belief in supernatural is the same as belief in God.

The only thing we need to agree on to make sense of all this is:

FAITH = BELIEVING IN SOMETHING YOU CAN NOT PROVE

THERE ARE THINGS THAT SCIENCE HAS NOT YET EXPLAINED


to believe in god is just as foolish or wise as to believe in aliens, or magic.


when it comes to spirituality, faith is a personal thing.


Z

[jasonlfunk]

Arguing on Atheists behalf as a practicing Catholic:

Since the beginning of time, all humans were born atheists. The idea of God (or the lack of one) is given to us by our parents or those who raise us.

Really? What reasons do you have for thinking this?

Point 1. contradiction

The three Abrahamic faiths believe relatively in the same God yet, all 3 contradict themselves. Christians believe that Jesus is the savior of the world and the son of God; Jews believe just as strongly that he is not. Muslims believe that the Qur'an was inspired by God, while Jews and Christians do not.

Disagreements between people who believe in a God does not therefore mean that there is no God. If I thought you had blonde hair and my brother thought you had black hair - does that mean you do not exist? No - simply that one (or both) of us are wrong. We both agree that you exist. (And when 2/3 of the world is made up of the three you mentioned - it seems unwise just to dismiss the belief entirely)

Point 2. All loving god hating?

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus. Why would such a loving God bring evil to the world, knowing what it would cause.

This is the only "good" argument against God that I know of.

Point 3. Omniscience.

If God is all-powerful, then by right he could create a being more infinitely more powerful then himself, if so, does this no longer make him God? If humans have at every given moment the free will to choose, then how does God know the future. Are we slaves to his plans? A benevolent God would not have slaves.

Omnipotence does not mean "can do anything" - it means "can do anything logically possible". Therefore it doesn't violate omnipotence to say taht God cannot create a more powerful being then himself or that he cannot create a rock that he cannot lift, or microwave a burrito so hot that he cannot himself eat it.

The second question is one that has been highly debated by theists for millennium - how does human free will interact with divine knowledge/sovereignty. It's a tough question - I'm pretty sure that the answer has something to do with time.

Edit: missed the last part of your question. so I'm writing it now

You argue that Atheism is anti-intellectual yet is belief in something that cannot be proven just as irrational and anti-intellectual.

I disagree with you that God cannot be rationally argued for. My contention is that the atheist has far more unproved presuppositions than the theist and even then his belief does not explain the world nearly as well as the theist.

Would simply living a life of morals without the nonsense of God be the best thing to do?

Explain to me what living a life of morals means outside of the context of God.

[jasonlfunk]

Theism, in nature, is irrational and even slightly delusional. It is not a rational thought to believe a woman could conceive as a virgin. Neither is it rational to believe a man was picked up by a chariot of fire and brought up to a city above the clouds.

Given your unquestioned presupposition of naturalism, these things are irrational. In the context of a supernatural universe - these things are completely possible and rational.

To call atheism is irrational is, well, irrational. It is a belief grounded in science. While most of the beliefs that an atheist would consider fact are actually theories, such as the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, there is much more backing these beliefs than faith alone.

Science does not equal atheism. Atheism has grabbed hold of science as it's love child which is completely not valid. Science has a scope of study that includes the natural world. It is a logical fallacy to then say - since science cannot tell us anything about the supernatural, it must not exist. Theories like Evolution and the Big Bang Theory do little for the case of atheism. God is bigger than you give him credit for.

[nosejam]

Explain to me what living a life of morals means outside of the context of God.

Even in animal systems you can see morals, do they have a God that has told them these?

Explain to me why not all the "morals" in the bible are abided by. Why is it ok to pick and choose which of God's words to follow, why can some bits be taken seriously and other bits as sarcasm, or written for thousands of years ago and not for today's world, if God wanted the rules to change wouldn't he have told you.

What does living a life of morals mean in the context of a God? Following the rules of something which you have never seen seem pretty irrational to me. Morals can simply be seen as values by which to live life to reduce the suffering of people.

And what of the people that believe there is a God but not the one written about in the Bible or any other Holy Scripture, they still live their life with "morals" but haven't received them from their God.