Essay talk:Rational and irrational atheists

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Quote?

Isn't there a quote along the lines of 'Are you a Christian atheist, a Jewish atheist...? Anna Livia (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Rational reasons

How does "being convinced by the problem of evil," or, say, "being born into an atheist family" count as irrational reasons to not believe in a deity? — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem of evil is only evidence against one version of God - a good God. It offers no evidence against Zeus for example. So it is not a generalized argument against Gods.

If you are born into an atheist family - and that is the reason you are an atheist - then you are an atheist for the same reason that most Christians are Christians or most Muslims are Muslims. You should hold beliefs because you have worked through them - not because they belong to your family.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

In any event I have clarified those points.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This essay

Is quite thought provoking. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Might I ask what surprised you?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Saw you mention it on the Bar

This is an interesting essay. I'd also like to ask what you think about the proposition that we are "all born atheists" (it's not mentioned in the essay but it's worth bringing up)? I disagree with the proposition because infants aren't capable of conceiving of atheism or theism, or of the divine or the not-divine. Infants are not neurologically developed enough to be atheists. My cat isn't an atheist, because he doesn't understand what a god or atheism is. YMMV of course. Vee (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I would certainly maintain that we are all born without beliefs. But we are also (apparantly) born without the ability to reason. As "atheism" is generally a reasoned position then I doubt babies have it. Which puts me in agreement with you.

But it's really all about definitions. I can see that some would argue that babies having no beliefs would mean that babies are atheists. I wouldn't much care to argue it one way or the other as I think it's really more wordplay than anything else. But I will consider adding something, so thanks for mentioning it.

On the other hand I certainly think that religious beliefs are installed into children by their parents/society. The children of Christians tend to become Christians, the children of Muslims tend to become become Muslims - and, yes, the children of atheists tend to become atheists. So I am usually a a bit suspicious of anyone who claims that they have a great logical reason for believing that the belief framework they happened to get from their parents is the best and true one.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The religious framework that a person gets brought up with tends to become the "default" view of religion that all other religions and the concept of religion itself gets judged against, yes. A person who becomes disillusioned with their native religion, at least from my limited and indirect observations, is usually more inclined to reject religion altogether (thus becoming an atheist) than to seek out another religion that better suits their sensibilities. I actually wrote a note to that effect on Responding to Sam Burke's Argument That Christianity Entails Anti-Natalism a few months ago. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with your general point. However most (at least western) religions tend to have some fantastical elements which, if you are not brought up believing them, are pretty hard to swallow. So I would imagine that many people who reject their family religion won't find it easy to believe in some other magic-based belief system. Of course every individual is different and there certainly are some people who radically change belief from one religion to an other.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope! Not all atheists are evolutionists

I think, historically at least, Lysenkoism is a notably dogmatic non-religious anti-evolution perspective proposed by an apparent atheist. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I do not claim that all atheists are evolutionists.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do we mean by "anti-evolution" or "evolutionist" here? Lysenkoism was a variant of Lamarckism, which is a theory of evolution that was discredited by Darwin's research. Do we also include atheists who lived before Darwin introduced his theory, or no? Carthage (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not claim that all evolutionists are atheists, nor the reverse. My definition is in the essay.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I would argue that Lysenkoists were evolutionists, just not Darwinists. They were still anti-science, however. Carthage (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. I would agree. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I wrote however. Unless you are answering something else.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm responding to Ikranreed labeling Lysenkoism an anti-evolution movement, so yes. Carthage (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Then have at it guys! Your argument (if there is one) would seem to be tangential to the essay.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"Evolution" in a scientific context is shorthand for "Evolution by natural selection" and has been for 120 years minimum. Come on. Don't miss the forest for the trees. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem here, then. Carthage (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. Well that was easy. Shall we solve some major international crisis next?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Well I could go back and try to explain why I was saying this in the first place, because as you note, you don't say the opposite exactly. I was responding to the implications of "Are all atheists evolutionists? I must confess that I have never met one, but that certainly does not mean that they don't exist." And it just flipped a switch in my head, "Someone simply must tell bob of the nutty soviet guy". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah - but I never actually "met" him - though I know about him obviously. And I never said that such people couldn't exist. In fact, that's really the whole point!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

So re-reading the whole conversation and my original essay comments. I wrote about evolutionists: "Are all atheists evolutionists? I must confess that I have never met one, but that certainly does not mean that they don't exist. Maintaining that there is no good evidence for the existence of Gods does not automatically mean that an individual will then only believe things - like evolution - for which there is good evidence."

I guess you took that to be an ambiguous answer to my rhetorical question. So I will clarify it in the essay. I have put the entire original quote here so that that there can be no potential misunderstanding about this conversation at a later date.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)