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

[beecee]

17 hours ago, LazyLemonLucas said:

Being an atheist does not exactly entail being "rational". 

Correct of course. 

17 hours ago, LazyLemonLucas said:

Buddhists are the followers of the religious ascetic Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha. Buddhists may believe in deities but they do not hold positions about god (in the classical sense). Thus, they are atheistic. By the way, I do know that certain Buddhists have varying beliefs about the legitimacy and existence of God but the teachings of Buddha do not explicitly state so. Indeed, Buddhist teaching states that one who goes through the path of the Buddha can become an entity like Gautama Buddha did. 

Buddhists have different dogma and issues for themselves but aren't the kinds of atheists who proclaim odd rhetoric like my aforementioned Swolliw friend. 

To answer the question: Yes. it's entirely rational for an atheist to believe in religion because atheism and religion are completely compatible. Buddhists are the definition of a religious atheist.

All supernatural, paranormal, and  mythical overtones, re communion with nature, transcendence, karma and other such  concepts that invokes out of this world type of experiences, are unscientific concepts.

And of course the whole concept of this thread with regards to the title, remains irrational.

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

Religion = The belief in a super duper omnipotent being/god, and the supernatural and the paranormal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

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

https://www.google.com/search?q=rational+foundations+of+religion&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=rational&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0i67i131i433j0i67j0i67i131i433j69i60l3.2928j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

"Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching"

[LazyLemonLucas]

47 minutes ago, beecee said:

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

Religion = The belief in a super duper omnipotent being/god, and the supernatural and the paranormal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

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

https://www.google.com/search?q=rational+foundations+of+religion&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=rational&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0i67i131i433j0i67j0i67i131i433j69i60l3.2928j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

"Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching"

I think that atheism and religion are not mutually exclusive, which I probably should've mentioned in my original post.

[Genady]

22 minutes ago, LazyLemonLucas said:

I think that atheism and religion are not mutually exclusive, which I probably should've mentioned in my original post.

They are mutually exclusive to me.

[Phi for All]

25 minutes ago, LazyLemonLucas said:

I think that atheism and religion are not mutually exclusive, which I probably should've mentioned in my original post.

In which areas do they NOT exclude each another? 

[zapatos]

37 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

In which areas do they NOT exclude each another? 

I'm no expert, but as far as I know there is no God in Buddhism.

[Phi for All]

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm no expert, but as far as I know there is no God in Buddhism.

So I can be an atheist while practicing a non-theistic religion? I always defined at least part of my own atheism as a rejection of practiced religious beliefs.

[zapatos]

35 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So I can be an atheist while practicing a non-theistic religion?

I think the answer is yes. Kind of like being against sugar, but still eating candy as long as the candy is made with aspartame. 

[Genady]

IMO, atheists also don't believe in god-like humans, "teachings", holy books, sacred texts, etc.

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

IMO, atheists also don't believe in god-like humans, "teachings", holy books, sacred texts, etc.

Whenever a theist around here questions what atheists believe, of if they believe gods don't exist, the usual response of the membership is to say something along the lines of "atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods, no more, no less". 

So while you, Phi and others may have your own personal beliefs (sort of like most theists do), I am of the opinion that strictly speaking there is no contradiction in an atheist believing in or practicing religion, as long as they don't believe in the existence of a god or gods.

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Whenever a theist around here questions what atheists believe, of if they believe gods don't exist, the usual response of the membership is to say something along the lines of "atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods, no more, no less". 

So while you, Phi and others may have your own personal beliefs (sort of like most theists do), I am of the opinion that strictly speaking there is no contradiction in an atheist believing in or practicing religion, as long as they don't believe in the existence of a god or gods.

Yes, but I'm talking here only about believing in something, not about practicing something.

P.S. It is my opinion, not a belief.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I'm no expert, but as far as I know there is no God in Buddhism.

That maybe the case, but as I did mention aspects like mythical overtones, communion with nature, transcendence, karma and other such  concepts that invokes out of this world type of experiences, are also unscientific concepts.

[zapatos]

23 minutes ago, Genady said:

Yes, but I'm talking here only about believing in something, not about practicing something.

 

Yes, but the something is a god, not something like karma.

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

That maybe the case, but as I did mention aspects like mythical overtones, communion with nature, transcendence, karma and other such  concepts that invokes out of this world type of experiences, are also unscientific concepts.

They may be unscientific but you don't have to be scientific, or rational, to be an atheist. 

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes, but the something is a god, not something like karma.

Is karma a natural phenomenon?

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

Is karma a natural phenomenon?

No.

Is karma a god?

[Genady]

IMO, atheism is not restricted to not believing in a god, but also includes not believing in god-like humans... bla-bla. It includes not believing in a supernatural.

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

IMO, atheism is not restricted to not believing in a god, but also includes not believing in god-like humans... bla-bla. It includes not believing in a supernatural.

Yes, I picked up on that from your previous comment. Just like the Catholic who thinks it is okay to take birth control. People tend to redefine words so that they encompass their own beliefs.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Yes, I picked up on that from your previous comment. Just like the Catholic who thinks it is okay to take birth control. People tend to redefine words so that they encompass their own beliefs.

It is not a belief. It is my understanding what it means to be an atheist. I don't think there is a clear-cut definition of it. Just like there is no clear-cut definition of religion. 

If I am wrong and by an accepted definition atheism is narrower than I thought, then I would like to know what is a correct word to define my attitude. I don't care about words and don't want to redefine anything.

P.S. ... unlike the aforementioned Catholic ...

[zapatos]

25 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't think there is a clear-cut definition of it

a·the·ist

/ˈāTHēəst/

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

 

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.^[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.^[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.^[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,^[9][10] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.^[10][11][12]

The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

29 minutes ago, Genady said:

P.S. ... unlike the aforementioned Catholic ...

I fail to see the distinction. You both either don't know or don't care what it means to be what you claim to be.

[Genady]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

a·the·ist

/ˈāTHēəst/

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

 

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.^[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.^[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.^[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,^[9][10] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.^[10][11][12]

The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I fail to see the distinction. You both either don't know or don't care what it means to be what you claim to be.

The distinction in this case is, that I don't claim it anymore. I'd say, I am more than atheist.

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

I don't claim it anymore

Cool.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

They may be unscientific but you don't have to be scientific, or rational, to be an atheist. 

True enough, but  we all prefer rationality. And I would argue that if one were atheist, and rejected religion as in belief in a creator/deity, then by reason the scientific explanation would be implied.

Not knowing that much about Budhism I found this, "Buddhism has no creator god to explain the origin of the universe. Instead, it teaches that everything depends on everything else: present events are caused by past events and become the cause of future events."

and...

"There are many examples throughout the Buddhist world of non-scientific worldviews, such as dogmatism, fundamentalism, clericalism, devotion to supernatural spirits and deities. Nevertheless, since the 19th century, numerous modern figures have argued that Buddhism is rational and uniquely compatible with science."

https://www.google.com/search?q=budhism+rationality&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=budhism+rationality&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i13j0i390l5.9568j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

So debatable at best.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15665399.2008.10819972

https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=phi_facpubs

The Way of the Dialetheist: Contradictions in Buddhism

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

So debatable at best.

Yeah, but people are also debating whether the earth is flat or whether the theory of evolution is correct. Zapatos is exactly right here. 

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yeah, but people are also debating whether the earth is flat or whether the theory of evolution is correct. Zapatos is exactly right here. 

He has a point as I said. Your point though, imo of course, goes from the sublime to the ridiculous. Perhaps you may like to try for another analogy? I mean that the evidence for a global world is conclusive without a doubt, the same way that evolution is also a fact.

I found this.....

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-i-dont-dig-buddhism/

 

One of Buddhism's biggest selling points for lapsed Catholics like me is that it supposedly dispenses with God and other supernatural claptrap. This claim is disingenuous. Buddhism, at least in its traditional forms, is functionally theistic, even if it doesn't invoke a supreme deity. The doctrines of karma and reincarnation imply the existence of some sort of cosmic moral judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with nirvana or rebirth as a cockroach.

Those who emphasize Buddhism's compatibility with science usually downplay or disavow its supernatural elements (and even the Dalai Lama has doubts about reincarnation, a philosopher who discussed the issue with him once told me). The mystical philosopher Ken Wilber, when I interviewed him, compared meditation to a scientific instrument such as a microscope or telescope, through which you can glimpse spiritual truth. This analogy is bogus. Anyone can peer through a telescope and see the moons of Jupiter, or squint through a microscope and see cells divide. But ask 10 meditators what they see, feel or learn and you will get 10 different answers.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

 

[iNow]

7 hours ago, beecee said:

Perhaps you may like to try for another analogy?

Nah. Already made my point clearly with those already shared. I’m not targeting perfection, just understanding. 

A*theist. Literally means not*theist, and theism is specifically about belief in god or gods.

Religion and ritual more broadly may get lumped into this by some speakers, but those speakers do so inaccurately. 

 

the·ist

noun

a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

adjective

denoting or relating to belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

 

Since you appreciate perfection in analogies, you should equally appreciate perfection in definitions, and here that lays with Zapatos’ position. 

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

And of course the whole concept of this thread with regards to the title, remains irrational.

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

Religion = The belief in a super duper omnipotent being/god, and the supernatural and the paranormal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

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

We know all the Bible's were written by people, all of which describe a different type of God/essence/way of life; it's rather silly to assume the author's were inspired by anything other than the thoughts of man.

It would be irrational to discount the thoughts of our elders anyway, let alone by invoking a God in order to do so; let's not forget, we all stand on the shoulders of giant's; Newton is just easier to understand, despite his belief in alchemy.