This was brought up to me by a friend of mine... and I thought it would be worth sharing and talking about.

Before I begin, let me say that I myself am an atheist. My heart is solely devoted to the human race, and the here and now. The subject I bring up however, comes from a frightening trait I'm noticing among many fellow atheists... so I'll go ahead and share.

Whether it's here in totse, or in groups of friends in the real world... more and more I'm noticing atheists coming together for no reason other than the label, "atheist." What many of us are failing to remember... is that atheism is nothing more than a simple lacking. For whatever reason, we atheists lack a god. But unlike any faith system or religion... that's it! There are no doctrines to follow, no laws to live by. This label does not make us more rational or true than anyone else. And I really don't think that a simple lacking, should be what is bringing us together. (They don't have Non-Star-Trek Fan Conventions). It's not an idea... it's exactly the opposite. It's just a word to define the lack of a god.

We shouldn't be uniting under the label of atheism... but rather under the values or civic principles we commonly share. Most atheists would agree that there should be a separation between church and state. Most atheists believe that the bible holds no place in the classroom. Most atheists believe that churches should NOT be tax exempt, and that taxes/government money should NOT be spent on religious structures, etc. Most atheists believe that God not appear in our systems of laws. Most atheists put their faith in things like science and reason... and believe that these tools will somehow, someday, reveal the truth of our existence. Most atheists believe this is the life humans should focus on, not some unguaranteed "life eternal."

But out of all of these things... it is not "atheism" that brings us together. Atheism is no more than a simple "lacking". Sure... we're a bunch of atheists... and we're brought together here at totse, or at high school, real life... whatever. But this is not because of a lacking. We're united because we hold a strong belief in the above values. The above principles, are areas that we feel very passionately for. We shouldn't find comfort in being brought together because we're atheists.... that should be the last thing on our minds. What we should be brought together by, is the fact that we hold high and truly believe in the above principles.

With that said, there is another flaw that this friend of mine projected and brought into my eyes... and that is the fact that many atheists are blind to the fact that they're "stealing" rationality from the theists... and saying it's on our side. It is a common misconception, among atheists, that WE are more rational than the theists.

Now I imagine right now a lot of you, friends of mine even, are getting a little bit frustrated hearing this... but let me try to explain.

Only the craziest of Christians, or any theists... would say that their God can be proved through empirical evidence... numbers or science. The theists that do try to do this are fools, and usually do so out of their respect for science, but lack of an ability to let go of their god. But if you ask the common theist why they believe in God... they're not going to say it's because of the math. Their faith is based (usually) off of something else... something more aesthetic than epistemological or empirical. They say things like "life's too perfect" or "nature is too beautiful to happen by chance," whatever.

Saying these things are not irrational statements. In fact, they are actually very rational statements. Saying god is not proven through empirical methods, is a very rational statement.

We atheists... we put a lot of faith into rationality, or reason, or science... because we see it as more of a tool or instrument. Most of us realize that "we don't know" where we came from, how the universe came to exist... or anything like that. But most atheists do have a great deal of faith (very grounded in my eyes) that trusts that the tools of science and reason, will one day ultimately lead to the understanding of how everything came to be.

However just because we have faith in rationality, just because we're strong USERS of rationality... does not make us more rational beings. What many atheists fail to realize... is that we have already made one HUGE irrational movement, in denying a "First Cause". Now please, don't get me wrong... being an atheist myself this is something I have learned to become okay with. I do see it as a good thing... but rationality isn't exactly "on our side." All of science and reason is based on causality or necessity. Its all a series of cause and effect. Using these tools, tracing back to start... there is no way through rational means we can explain an effect, without their being a cause. For us to say that there is no creator, is an irrational choice. That's based on something else... something that is not rationality. These things we try to hold so highly on our side... rationality and what not... are the things we have ultimately rejected! (Once again, I see this in a very positive light, as negative as it sounds.) I do believe that God is more rational than atheism... yet this is not a bad thing for us. I am an atheist... but I cannot believe that I am more rational than a theist. I actually believe that I, and all atheists or deniers of theism, are less rational than most theists.

Hopefully the length of this will drive out the retarded responses. All serious minds, atheist or not, are free to elaborate on this and tell me what you think. Also... I think I should note that although my argument will ultimately rationally support a god (that I don't believe in)... I find this god very very very far from any Christian or Islamic God. The god that is rationally supported (and not believed in by myself) in my argument is nothing more than a higher being, and a creator of the universe. He is by no means the protagonist of a series of fairy tales.

Whatchya think?

I think the post makes a lot of assumptions, and I cannot speak for others who believe in God but only myself.

I personally find these secular humanist clubs curiously strange. For me, they appear to be something of an ersatz church for atheists who have renounced God, therefore ousting themselves from the religious society they were in, and now need a purpose, something to believe in and something to belong to. Of course that’s generalizing on my part.

I do not deny the possibility of a first cause, or that cause being God, but I wont accept it as truth until I see evidence. I admit that to me personally, the idea of the universe always existing makes more sense than it having a beginning, I don’t tout this as an absolute truth though - which is what theists do, based off of not reason, but “aesthetics”.

Which leads me to my next point. I do not want to sound like a child, saying “we atheists are more rational than you theists” because there are extremely rational theists, such as Thomas Aquinas, and there are also extremely irrational atheists. Although it is highly rational to admit we cannot prove or disprove the concept of God, it is not rational to base belief in it off of how beautiful and perfect the world looks, since that does not imply design and can be explained in numerous ways, without depleting the beauty, including the current scientific theory of evolution.

It is also incredibly irrational to believe in ancient historical texts that have no evidence or reasoning and contain stories of men walking on water and turning water into wine, it is as irrational as basing your morality off of ancient Jewish folktales that encourage people to stone to death those who work on the Sabbath and say slavery is OK.

To say we are borrowing rationality from theists, or that theists are borrowing rationality from us, is simply bizarre. However, I agree with you about a lot of atheists putting a lot of trust into science - it was Shestov who said “The Pythagoreans assumed that the sun is motionless and that the earth turns round. What a long time the truth had to wait for recognition!” - and it worries me that they put too much value on objectivity, coldly detaching themselves from the world and therefore alienating themselves from it, which could possibly lead to nihilism since the objective world has no purpose or meaning.

First I'll reply to your second to last paragraph, which states religion being very irrational... and this I do completely agree with. At the end of my post I tried to throw that in there... and I totally do agree. My notion was that "god" is more RATIONAL than "no god"... not religion, but a creating GOD.

This brings me to the next defense of my argument... in saying that atheism is less rational than god. Rationality, specifically Descartian or Kantian rationality for the sake of this argument, is based on nothing more than a series of causes and effects. Causality and Necessity are what make up reason and rationality. Rationality was developed as an instrument to "break through" the apparent world and find the real world, and learn absolute truth. Well somebody like me, (and I will assume you) who does not believe in a "real world" or an absolute truth... would find that this same rationality, DOES in fact teach us a whole lot about this "apparent world". This is why many of us atheists, in my eyes at least, have clung so tightly onto science and reason. We have faith that it will eventually figure enough out to understand everything. This however, can only be done if we can use science and reason to explain something that is not measured by science and reason. (for example, the universe always existing, perhaps?)

Rationality does make sense to us... but I wouldn't say it's the only thing that makes sense, so much as it's the easiest thing to understand. I believe rationality has its limits. That is what allows me to be an atheist. (And I don't (yet?) understand how any atheist could be any other way.)

Because rationality is so rooted in causality, go back to start (in the atheist world view) and you're left with an effect, without a cause. The acceptance of this is by no means a rational method. Like you said, it makes more sense to you that the universe has "always been here" (and I'm the same way)... but in terms of rationality... this claim is very irrational. You know what I mean?

This is why I can say that god is a rational choice. Because you have a cause and effect, all the way from the start. Using rationality, god is more rational than no god. However I think me and you have actually talked about this before... there is a whole lot more out there than rationality, and I personally do not believe by any means that this is a rational universe that we are living in. (It just has a lot of nice patterns).

My notion was that "god" is more RATIONAL than "no god"... not religion, but a creating GOD.

If by God you mean a being who consciously created everything that came after it, then I would disagree. For me, that’s very odd because to explain something complex, which science does with slow gradual changes, you’re positing something even more complex and unexplainable that has no evidence.

. Rationality, specifically Descartian or Kantian rationality for the sake of this argument, is based on nothing more than a series of causes and effects.

I don’t fancy going into this too deeply, but if you remember, Descartes whole philosophy, just to know anything other than the Cogito, required proving the existence of God and he failed because it can’t be done. As for Kant, cause and effect for him don’t belong to the world as it is in itself, but the world as we experience it. For him, our knowledge doesn’t conform to the external world, but the external world conforms to our knowledge, based on the pure a priori forms of sensibility (time and space) and the categories of the understanding(which include causation). Because of this, our knowledge is restricted to the empirical only and we can’t prove or talk of things such as God and the beginning of the universe, because these would cause dialectical illusions known as the antinomies.

This is why many of us atheists, in my eyes at least, have clung so tightly onto science and reason. We have faith that it will eventually figure enough out to understand everything.

Absolutely. This very need to understand everything is what drove the rationalists to mistakenly use reason to transcend experience to get to things in themselves we can’t possibly have any experience of. This, I believe, is what caused Spinoza and Leibniz to construct such grand systems that are totally useless and we have no way of telling whether or not they refer to objects outside of us or not. The truth is, I think, that there are simply some things we cannot know but there is a wealth of things we can and that it is those we should be focussing on, although for beliefs that transcend experience, it is good to use a little reason. This is also why I love and think Kant was so important and why I loathe the German Idealists, such as Hegel, because Kant pointed us in the right direction and showed us things we'd never even contemplated before, whilst Hegel and them tried to drive philosophy back to Rationalism and came out with pseudo-drivel hidden under esoteric language.

Rationality does make sense to us... but I wouldn't say it's the only thing that makes sense, so much as it's the easiest thing to understand. I believe rationality has its limits. That is what allows me to be an atheist. (And I don't (yet?) understand how any atheist could be any other way.)

I agree with you absolutely about reason having it’s limits. You get to certain bounds and then you can either retreat and stay in objectivity, risking nihilism, or you can transcend what Kant called the “phenomenon” and accept things such as a purpose in life or a belief in God.

I feel that replying to these segments has covered my response to everything you’ve said about rationality and causality, etc., although I fear I may not have explained Kant and the rationalists very well.

I personally find these secular humanist clubs curiously strange. For me, they appear to be something of an ersatz church for atheists who have renounced God, therefore ousting themselves from the religious society they were in, and now need a purpose, something to believe in and something to belong to. Of course that’s generalizing on my part.


That truly is some pretty broad generalizing.

Ersatz church for atheists? I chuckled.

Wouldn't the term "humanist" be more accurate for what you describe than "atheist"?

...and say slavery is OK.



Just as a side note, slavery was sometimes used to pay off a person or a family members debt. It was not always a forced servitude and was not always a permanent indenture. This is also why it was important to treat your slaves or servant well. It was for the best interest of the slave holder as well as the slave.

Belief in a god is not any more rational than not believing. On the one hand you have a god that has no cause and created the universe; on the other you have a universe without cause. In both cases you have existence without cause.

Gods (the very attribute that makes them a god!) have this nifty attribute called 'transcendence'...allowing it to be paradoxical (irrational in order to be rational).

Find anything in the empirical realm that is truly paradoxical and I'll rescind that statement.

Edit: In response to Blip.

Wouldn't the term "humanist" be more accurate for what you describe than "atheist"?

exactly. People who get togethor to promote a secular world view, human rights morals etc. Are HUMANISTS, not atheists. They may be atheists also, but thats beside the point.

To get togethor for atheism alone is retarded, something i would never do. What the fuck would the cause be. Educating people why religion is a pile of shit? well ya, that is pointless in real life. People dont listen, the internet would be a far more powerfull tool to get people to think about there belief system. Give people the chance to change over time, saying why religion is shit in a public speach to a group of theists would get you absolutly nowhere.

Theres nothing wrong with humanists groups either, they promote a set of values I agree with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism_%28life_stance%29

I dont know why people would choose to say were atheist's instead of saying were humanists. Especially in the states where the word atheist generally makes you into a demon.

. What the fuck would the cause be. Educating people why religion is a pile of shit?
That sounds good to me. Banding together because you're one of the few who don't believe in some sort of higher power seems to be reasonable; it wouldn't make sense if you were one of billions, but atheists are still in the minority.

If we made psychedelic use mandatory there would be no problem.

It is perfectly normal for atheists to organize in defense of their rights and liberties. There needs to be an organization that makes sure that there is no prayer in school, proper materials taught in school, no indoctrination, no tax money spent on religion. Without an organized group it's impossible to lobby and defend those rights

Segregation of church and state, that's fucking why. But I'm not an american so, it's not really a problem here.

It is perfectly normal for atheists to organize in defense of their rights and liberties. There needs to be an organization that makes sure that there is no prayer in school, proper materials taught in school, no indoctrination, no tax money spent on religion. Without an organized group it's impossible to lobby and defend those rights

There is a group like that... and it's called American Atheists. A friend of mine is a pretty predominant member, and he's actually the person I was having this conversation with that caused me to post this thread.

Once again, in that scenario you're not gathering to defend your atheism. You want a group that gathers, because of your strong value of certain civic principles (separation of church and state, tax money on religion, etc.) You didn't speak that sentence right there because of your atheism.... you really didn't. It was your high value placed on those civic duties that said it. That's what is/should be uniting us atheists. And maybe your lack of a god, allows for you to hold high those certain civic principles... none the less, it's all due to those principles. All atheism is, is simply a lacking.

And don't get me wrong... I think it's good to know other atheists, so that you can cope in times when shit hits the fan... but its not a lack of a god that brings me closer to a lot you people, so much as it is my respect for your life affirmation, or worldliness, or whatever.

Tribalism is deep rooted in the human mind and people tend to group together like that.

Tribalism is deep rooted in the human mind and people tend to group together like that.

That's one of the reasons for why I tend to see secular humanist clubs as ersatz churches for atheists.

Do you consider civic activities, such as party conventions - to be "ersatz churches for Republicans" or "ersatz churches for Democrats"?

Secular humanists "group together" as civic-minded individuals. They don't worship, they don't praise ... they don't even all adhere to the same principles!

I'm just not making the connection between that and a church, which is specifically designed for praise, worship, prayer and faith.

Edit: Club, maybe. Group, perhaps. Gathering - totally admissable. But church?! C'mon!

Well why does this particular group get together? Because of their belief in some positive concept of man, hence the term "humanism". But I wouldn't say it's really man (each varied individual) they're caring about, believing in and fighting for. I would say they're believing in Man with a capital "M", a glorified, generalized concept that they project onto every living human. In short, a deity.

I've spoken to humanists online, and they generally have this deep belief that man is a Cartesian rational being for who the sky is the limits. They say this, totally ignoring people in Africa who jump up and down on their children because they're convinced they're possessed, to release their child from the demon, often times trampling them to death.

Well why does this particular group get together? Because of their belief in some positive concept of man, hence the term "humanism". But I wouldn't say it's really man (each varied individual) they're caring about, believing in and fighting for. I would say they're believing in Man with a capital "M", a glorified, generalized concept that they project onto every living human. In short, a deity.

We'll have to agree to disagree about our concepts of humanism, then. I've never seen a humanist group or organization exalt "Man" into some glorified entity that is deserving of worship.


I've spoken to humanists online, and they generally have this deep belief that man is a Cartesian rational being for who the sky is the limits. They say this, totally ignoring people in Africa who jump up and down on their children because they're convinced they're possessed, to release their child from the demon, often times trampling them to death.

I wonder if any of these humanists you've spoken to online have graduated high school yet. My hunch is that they're internet armchair philosophers without a grasp on what humanism stands for.

Most humanists I know completely reject Cartesian dualism altogether. They tend to favor materialism. That is not to say that that is the standard for ALL humanists - but I'd venture to estimate that a great number of them do.

Are you familiar with the Humanist Manifesto? Here is a portion of it, listing their affirmations:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation — all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

I would have thought that you, of all people, could appreciate humanism - if only for what it has attempted to accomplish in regards to personal preferences of sexuality (among other things) being an unalienable right for human beings.

Humanism is not the ego-induced, self-glorifying practice of making it appear as though 'Man' is a deity to be feared and worshipped.

By Cartesian Rationalists, I didn't mean the dualism of mind and body. What I meant was Descartes concept of human beings as being rational by nature, that to be human is to be rational.

I just can't imagine how any person, self-professed humanist or not - could believe that it is just a "given" that all people will practice rationality.

Do we all have the potential to be rational? Yes. But to expect that every human being who is alive will actually put it into action is ridiculous. One would only have to look at the long history of irrational acts by humans to know better. Would adopting the humanist perspective instantly *rationalize* a person? No. We can't be "born" in a rational state no more than we could be "born" with a humanist perspective, or "born" feeling partial to one of the many Gods.

I'd love to meet/talk to the 'online humanist' who represented it to you that way. I mean, I'd really love to know what motivated him/her to interpret humanism in the way they did.

I'd love to meet/talk to the 'online humanist' who represented it to you that way. I mean, I'd really love to know what motivated him/her to interpret humanism in the way they did.

Do you have IRC? He used to go on #philosophy in dalnet under various names, normally Sisquo or Schopenhauer.

Would you believe that in the course of my internet adventures, I've never, ever IRC'd?

:eek:

I need to get out from underneath this rock one of these days.

There is some messy uses of the word "rational" here. To be rational means to use logic and sensory experiences to come to conclusions. How is belief in a universe without cause or beginning irrational? There is no sort of logical law which states that everything needs a cause, or even some law that says everything in life needs a beginning, middle, and end like a storybook. If the science supports a theory with a clear beginning to the universe than it is irrational to ignore it, but it seems like the only real reason people talk about the need for a first cause is a lack of imagination.