Is it rational (for an athiest) to believe in religion?

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

You do know my post was of a humerous nature I hope ?

Nope.

[beecee]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It doesn't as far as I'm concerned, being an atheist as I've said many many time's; this thread isn't about God, it's about the rationality of religion.

And any aspect of religion, the supernatural in any form, and the paranormal, is unscientific at best. I often seem to read/interprete that in your posts.

Atheist= a  person who does not believe in a creator/deity/ID/god

Religion = The belief in a super duper omnipotent being/god

Rational = A belief based on reason, logic and evidence. 

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Because we are human.

Yes we are. But you failed to answer my question as I put it...I'll shorten it for you to make it easier and simply ask again, do you have any evidence at all that shows those that reject the ID myth, have any more life struggles and problems, then those that prefer unscientific nonsense for whatever reason. 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Which truth is this? You see, like your use of the word create, or creation, truth is often used when religion or philosophy raises their ugly heads. Science isn't about any search for any so called "absolute truth" if it at all exists. Science reaches provisional conclusions, based on current observational and experimental evidence, and agreed upon by consensus. So obviously Neitzsche was wrong on that score. He was also wrong about the peace of mind propaganda. The never ending progressive nature of science, gives me all the peace of mind I require.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Because I think he had a point and you haven't explained why I'm wrong.

See above.

Edited April 9, 2022 by beecee

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, beecee said:

And any aspect of religion, the supernatural in any form, and the paranormal, is unscientific at best. 

 

14 hours ago, beecee said:

I often seem to read/interprete that in your posts.

You don't read my posts, that's the problem, you just assume you know better, because that's common sense and the alternative is ugly and frightening, so you don't bother to think about it properly.

14 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes we are. But you failed to answer my question as I put it...I'll shorten it for you to make it easier and simply ask again, do you have any evidence at all that shows those that reject the ID myth, have any more life struggles and problems, then those that prefer unscientific nonsense for whatever reason.

Like I've said "if you want me to answer off topic question's start a topic"; I've never claimed an atheist has any more struggles than a christian/buddhist, just that some people want to believe and as in my tax/tythe analogy, it can help society.

14 hours ago, beecee said:

Which truth is this? You see, like your use of the word create, or creation, truth is often used when religion or philosophy raises their ugly heads. Science isn't about any search for any so called "absolute truth" if it at all exists. Science reaches provisional conclusions, based on current observational and experimental evidence, and agreed upon by consensus.

The truth you refuse to see, that some people are scientists and happy with their search, even if that search disagrees with the consensus and some people are happy to believe what their teachers teach; the scientific method has nothing to say about our moral compass, and everything to say about a ship's compass.

15 hours ago, beecee said:

So obviously Neitzsche was wrong on that score. He was also wrong about the peace of mind propaganda.

Obviously 🙄.

 

And before we descend down this road to hell, again; I will be ignoring everything you say that doesn't directly address the topic properly and civilly. 🙏

[beecee]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You don't read my posts, that's the problem, you just assume you know better, because that's common sense and the alternative is ugly and frightening, so you don't bother to think about it properly.

Au contraire my friend....I don't assume anything different to what others are expressing about what you think you know, particularly this thread. And I don't necessarily agree the alternative is ugly and frightening either. In essence, I believe you are trying to be something you aint. 🙄

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Like I've said "if you want me to answer off topic question's start a topic"; I've never claimed an atheist has any more struggles than a christian/buddhist, just that some people want to believe and as in my tax/tythe analogy, it can help society.

Essentially, what you have claimed/proposed is irrational as I showed in my first reply.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The truth you refuse to see, that some people are scientists and happy with their search, even if that search disagrees with the consensus and some people are happy to believe what their teachers teach; the scientific method has nothing to say about our moral compass, and everything to say about a ship's compass.

Much of what you say is what I have already said in different words...😏

23 hours ago, beecee said:

Which truth is this? You see, like your use of the word create, or creation, truth is often used when religion or philosophy raises their ugly heads. Science isn't about any search for any so called "absolute truth" if it at all exists. Science reaches provisional conclusions, based on current observational and experimental evidence, and agreed upon by consensus. So obviously Neitzsche was wrong on that score. He was also wrong about the peace of mind propaganda. The never ending progressive nature of science, gives me all the peace of mind I require.

Perhaps it is you that isn't reading what I am saying?

Now again, what is this truth you are searching for? And how do you know it really exists? And what you need to understand is science is based on observational and experimental evidence at that time, and what you claim people are happy with being taught is unscientific at best, but hey!! that's OK as I have already stated many times. If that gives them that warm fuzzy inner feeling of contentment, all well and good. I'm OK and content with the scientific view that death is finality of life. 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And before we descend down this road to hell, again; I will be ignoring everything you say that doesn't directly address the topic properly and civilly. 🙏

And I will continue to point out the irrational such as "Is it rational (for an athiest) to believe in religion?" 😉

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Now again, what is this truth you are searching for? And how do you know it really exists?

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." ― Bertrand Russell

[Prometheus]

On 4/9/2022 at 9:29 PM, beecee said:

Religion = The belief in a super duper omnipotent being/god

That seems to be the common interpretation on this forum, but is it true? If so, you would have to exclude many belief systems that are generally called religions: Buddhism, Taoism even some forms of Hinduism and Neo-Paganism i've come across.

Not all even make ontological claims. Buddhism, for instance, describes the Ten Indeterminate questions, such as whether the universe is finite or infinite, whether the soul and body are the same - these questions are considered irrelevant.

Whether it's rational to believe in religion then may to a large extent depend on which religion (or set of beliefs within a religion). 

I would ask though why we value rationality so much. Many of the ethical decisions we make are not rational, or only rational once we might a value judgement of some sort. I do not believe our search for meaning, which is integral to being human, is ultimately one based in rationality.

[Genady]

25 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I would ask though why we value rationality so much. Many of the ethical decisions we make are not rational, or only rational once we might a value judgement of some sort. I do not believe our search for meaning, which is integral to being human, is ultimately one based in rationality.

For communication. We are irrational inside our heads, but to communicate successfully we need a rational representation of our thoughts. E.g. you've asked the question and I'm trying my best to give a rational answer. If communication is not rational, it is broken. (There are examples of such in some recent threads...)

[Prometheus]

21 minutes ago, Genady said:

For communication. We are irrational inside our heads, but to communicate successfully we need a rational representation of our thoughts. E.g. you've asked the question and I'm trying my best to give a rational answer. If communication is not rational, it is broken. (There are examples of such in some recent threads...)

I agree to an extent. I didn't mean imply that rationality has no value. Even in the context of religion i think it has great value - there are a certain class of problems, often involving the physical world, which religion simply need not concern itself. Science has it covered.

In terms of rationality for communication - yes, but i don't think there is much that is rational in our works of art, poetry and stories. Not to say rationality isn't an important feature of many forms of communication, i just don't think it is, or should be, the whole story.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Prometheus

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I agree to an extent. I didn't mean imply that rationality has no value. Even in the context of religion i think it has great value - there are a certain class of problems, involving the physical world, which religion simply need not concern itself. Science has it covered.

In terms of rationality for communication - yes, but i don't think there is much rational in our works of art, poetry and stories. Not to say rationality isn't an important feature of many forms of communication, i just don't think it is, or should be, the whole story.

Yes, certainly not the whole story.

[dimreepr]

45 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I agree to an extent. I didn't mean imply that rationality has no value. Even in the context of religion i think it has great value - there are a certain class of problems, often involving the physical world, which religion simply need not concern itself. Science has it covered.

In terms of rationality for communication - yes, but i don't think there is much that is rational in our works of art, poetry and stories. Not to say rationality isn't an important feature of many forms of communication, i just don't think it is, or should be, the whole story.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0015bdb

[Cognizant]

I think that atheism is also a kind of religion. It's something essential for people to believe. There are people who believe in God and people who believe in the absence of God))

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Cognizant said:

I think that atheism is also a kind of religion. It's something essential for people to believe. There are people who believe in God and people who believe in the absence of God))

Which is truer? 

[Genady]

10 minutes ago, Cognizant said:

I think that atheism is also a kind of religion. It's something essential for people to believe. There are people who believe in God and people who believe in the absence of God))

Religion is not just any belief. It has to include a belief in a supernatural to be a religion. That's why atheism is not a religion.

[dimreepr]

Just now, Genady said:

Religion is not just any belief. It has to include a belief in a supernatural to be a religion. That's why atheism is not a religion.

but it is a belief...

[Genady]

Just now, dimreepr said:

but it is a belief...

It is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a thing to be a religion. Another necessary condition is, belief in supernatural. Atheism doesn't have that.

[Bufofrog]

12 minutes ago, Cognizant said:

I think that atheism is also a kind of religion.

I have heard theist say this often.  I don't see how the lack of belief or faith is a religion.

14 minutes ago, Cognizant said:

It's something essential for people to believe.

The lack of belief is not essential.  I never really think about it.  The only time I really think about is if somebody asks or I see a post like this.  It is like if someone asks me if I believe bigfoot exists, I would say no, but it certainly is not some belief that is important or somehow defines who I am.

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, Cognizant said:

I think that atheism is also a kind of religion. It's something essential for people to believe. There are people who believe in God and people who believe in the absence of God))

Incorrect. I don’t actively believe in the nonexistence of the tooth fairy. I don’t actively in the nonexistence of flying unicorns. I just lack belief they DO exist.

Same for your god and all of the countless other versions of god laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology. I simply don’t believe in them. I don’t actively believe in their nonexistence.

Saying that atheism is a belief system is like saying “not collecting stamps” is a hobby or “not playing golf” is a sport. It’s plainly silly and remedially false. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by iNow

[Prometheus]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

It is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a thing to be a religion. Another necessary condition is, belief in supernatural. Atheism doesn't have that.

Belief in the supernatural is certainly not a necessary condition for a religion. It might be common, but it's not necessary. What supernatural things is it necessary for Taoists to believe?

 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Saying that atheism is a belief system is like saying “not collecting stamps” is a hobby or “not playing golf” is a sport. It’s plainly silly and remedially false. 

I've come across people who don't believe in god in the same way some people do believe in god: that is they don't really care, haven't at all thought about but are happy to go along with whatever the prevailing thought is in their culture. We might quibble and say it's not really a belief then, but when the census comes round, there's only place for a tick in one box.

Belief is not a binary thing, humans are more complicated than that.

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Belief in the supernatural is certainly not a necessary condition for a religion. It might be common, but it's not necessary. What supernatural things is it necessary for Taoists to believe?

Sorry, can't say anything about Taoism, don't know. But I know a lot about Marxism. Is it a religion?

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Cognizant said:

I think that atheism is also a kind of religion. It's something essential for people to believe. There are people who believe in God and people who believe in the absence of God))

 

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Which is truer? 

As answered by wiser heads then myself....that is a nonsense.

 

4 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Belief in the supernatural is certainly not a necessary condition for a religion. It might be common, but it's not necessary. What supernatural things is it necessary for Taoists to believe?.

Both the supernatural and the paranormal are unscientific concepts. 

Taoism is described in WIKI as "Taoism (/ˈtaʊɪzəm/, /ˈdaʊɪzəm/) or Daoism (/ˈdaʊɪzəm/) refers to either a school of philosophical thought (道家; daojia) or to a religion (道教; daojiao); both share ideas and concepts of Chinese origin and emphasize living in harmony with the Tao (Chinese: 道; pinyin: Dào; lit. 'Way', 'Thoroughfare' or Dao).

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

To be kind to my Taoists friends, at best then a myth? in the same way as Camelot, Authur and Merlin? I loved those stories when I was a kid!

And as I have mentioned before, I don't really label my self as Atheist, or Agnostic for that matter, simply a lay person who sees the rationality in science and the scientific methodology. 

6 hours ago, Prometheus said:

there are a certain class of problems, often involving the physical world, which religion simply need not concern itself. Science has it covered.

More to the point "cannot rationally concern itself" with. The smart religions though, (Catholicism) then reluctantly agree with concepts like evolution and the BB, with their own biased "god of the gaps" reasoning.

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 Bertrand Russell

Not sure what that "quote" is supposed to illustrate, except as an excuse for brain washing kids?

Berty also said....."The world is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper". Bertrand Russell
 

Edited April 11, 2022 by beecee

[Prometheus]

16 hours ago, Genady said:

Sorry, can't say anything about Taoism, don't know. But I know a lot about Marxism. Is it a religion?

12 hours ago, beecee said:

To be kind to my Taoists friends, at best then a myth?

Maybe a thread on the definition of religion would be helpful.

 

12 hours ago, beecee said:

More to the point "cannot rationally concern itself" with. The smart religions though, (Catholicism) then reluctantly agree with concepts like evolution and the BB, with their own biased "god of the gaps" reasoning.

Yes, cannot rationally concern itself. Rationality isn't the only trait we want as humans though, is it?

But i think you are painting all religions based on the attitude of one religion. For instance Buddhism, Toaism and Bahá'í don't even have creation myths in their core teachings (although some communities have adopted various cultural myths), so how does the 'biased god of the gaps reasoning' fit them?

[beecee]

52 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Maybe a thread on the definition of religion would be helpful.

I gave my definition of religion in the second or third post, but here is the WIKI rundown.....

"Religion is usually defined as a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements;[1] however, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[2][3]

Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine,[4] sacred things,[5] faith,[6] a supernatural being or supernatural beings,[7] or "some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life".[8] Religious practices may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of deities and/or saints), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture. Religions have sacred histories and narratives, which may be preserved in sacred scriptures, and symbols and holy places, that aim mostly to give a meaning to life. Religions may contain symbolic stories, which are sometimes said by followers to be true, that may also attempt to explain the origin of life, the universe, and other phenomena. Traditionally, faith, in addition to reason, has been considered a source of religious beliefs".

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In other words, unscientific.

58 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Yes, cannot rationally concern itself. Rationality isn't the only trait we want as humans though, is it?

If people chose "irrational beliefs" for whatever reasons, like an inner warm comforting glow and avoiding the finality of death, That's there choice. I am not a religious person basher...some of my best friends (including the Mrs) are highly religious. But when we have religion science bashing, or irrational rhetoric as per the thread title, then I tell it the way I see it.

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

But i think you are painting all religions based on the attitude of one religion. For instance Buddhism, Toaism and Bahá'í don't even have creation myths in their core teachings (although some communities have adopted various cultural myths), so how does the 'biased god of the gaps reasoning' fit them?

I havn't made any study of religion, (other then my school days at a christian brothers college) but the highlighted bit by me, is worthy of note, and the "God of the gaps" is applicable to christianty in the main.

If I am painting all religions with the same brush, it is then the rationality brush as compared with science. Moral teachings and such, at least in any democratic westernised society, is not the exclusive right of religion, but that society in general.

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Genady said:

It is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a thing to be a religion. Another necessary condition is, belief in supernatural. Atheism doesn't have that.

Which is more rational to believe without evidence: Something that makes you happy or something that makes you laugh?

Dawkins can't prove that God doesn't exist, yet he's happy to point the finger and claim, they're delusional.

Not every religion claims the supernatural, karma for instance is practically Newtonian.

15 hours ago, beecee said:

Not sure what that "quote" is supposed to illustrate, except as an excuse for brain washing kids?

Berty also said....."The world is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper". Bertrand Russell

How does that quote contradict mine?

2 hours ago, beecee said:

But when we have religion science bashing, or irrational rhetoric as per the thread title, then I tell it the way I see it.

How is this thread an attack on science?

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Which is more rational to believe without evidence: Something that makes you happy or something that makes you laugh?

Dawkins can't prove that God doesn't exist, yet he's happy to point the finger and claim, they're delusional.

Not every religion claims the supernatural, karma for instance is practically Newtonian.

How does that quote contradict mine?

Generally you don't prove a negative, that's silly. The onus is on you to show evidence for any magical being, pink elephants on Mars, or fairies at the bottom of the garden......Dawkins dooesn't need to prove anything...Dawkins simply shows that no evidence exists for any magical or supernatural being, it's that simple.

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm#:~:text=One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim.&text=It is possible to prove,be capable of being proven.

Not sure where you got your quote from or whether it was out of context or not. But again, the onus is not on science to show there isn't any god.

The title of this thread though remains irrational.

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Generally you don't prove a negative, that's silly. The onus is on you to show evidence for any magical being, pink elephants on Mars, or fairies at the bottom of the garden......Dawkins dooesn't need to prove anything...Dawkins simply shows that no evidence exists for any magical or supernatural being, it's that simple.

And that's the point of my Berty quote, thanks...

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

Not sure where you got your quote from or whether it was out of context or not. But again, the onus is not on science to show there isn't any god.

It is if it's science that claims it...

But like I've said, in this thread, it's NOT about a god...