Is being an atheist irrational?

[Justhuman]

As Kurieuo wrote:

1) If our decisions are physically derived (A), then "free will" is an illusion. (B)
2) Free will isn't an illusion, but really does exist. (~B)
3) Therefore we aren't entirely physically derived. (~A)

I took this Modus Tollens because it more-or-less holds the entire concept of 'sensations', like:

1) If our decisions are physically derived (A), then "immaterial sensations" are an illusion. (B)
2) Immaterial sensations aren't illusions, but really do exist. (~B)
3) Therefore we aren't entirely physically derived. (~A)

I can agree with that logical reasoning, but the indistintness/lack-of-clarity to me is whether the immaterial sensations are basically material sensations in itself.
Consider:

1) If a material universe is all there is, 'immaterial sensations' cannot exist.
2) We do however experience 'immaterial sensations'.
3) Therefore immaterial sensations are in fact material sensations.

[Kurieuo]

Do you have a say in any of your beliefs or actions, or are you merely experiencing sensations?

[abelcainsbrother]

I think some of ya'll are giving atheists too much benefit of the doubt. Because an atheist does not have any evidence behind atheism to know if it is true or not so no matter how they apply it to our world with their theories they will always end up wrong,in the end.You cannot start out with a world view you have no way of knowing is true,apply to a theory,etc and be right at the end. Instead you must start out with evidence behind your world view and then when you apply it to theories,our world,etc you will come up with the truth. No offense and this is not meant as an insult but atheism is irrational and so it should not be applied to theories,our world,etc.Not until it can be shown atheism is true based on evidence and they have none. Just because they might sound convincing does not make them right.

[Justhuman]

To Abelcainsbrother:

Just because they might sound convincing does not make them right.

It's not my intention to prove to be right, for who am I to state that my view is right? I cannot possibly know, as can not anyone else. Even you.
I only give my opinion on how I experience our world/universe and try to rationally answer it.

As for Kurieuo wrote:

Do you have a say in any of your beliefs or actions, or are you merely experiencing sensations?

Still thinking about that.

[Philip]

I only give my opinion on how I experience our world/universe and try to rationally answer it.

But only if one possesses the ability for truly rational thought that isn't just an illusion or that is merely the result of natural, unguided elements. When one engages in an attempt to rationally understand something, this tells me they believe things can be rationally discerned (to the extent there is proper data to analyze such). Funny, those who insist rational thought is a mere illusion and not empirically based, are using their own perceived rational ability to draw such a conclusion. So, the question becomes, is their rational evidence to believe there is something beyond us, or some intelligent Entity that is behind our universe's existence. I say the evidences are so massive so as to be irrational to deny.

[Justhuman]

There is no 'true evidence', for any humans point of view regarding our origin (existence?) (And many other things too). Only assumptions and opinions (and fuzzy feelings). What is deemed rational seems to depend on what one believes. Both can be rational whithin their own boundaries.
I didn't write that rational thought is an illusion, on the contrary. In a materialist universe there is no illusion, for everything is 'real'.

[B. W.]

There is no 'true evidence', for any humans point of view regarding our origin (existence?) (And many other things too). Only assumptions and opinions (and fuzzy feelings). What is deemed rational seems to depend on what one believes. Both can be rational whithin their own boundaries.

I didn't write that rational thought is an illusion, on the contrary. In a materialist universe there is no illusion, for everything is 'real'.

With the exception of the first act of creation...
-
-
-

[Justhuman]

I rest my case...

[Philip]

In a materialist universe there is no illusion, for everything is 'real'.

And every real physical thing had a cause or is derived from something which previously existed. And the Cause of the universe had to be supremely intelligent and unfathomably powerful. No universe, no physical thing existed, and a moment later, it did - with unimaginable power, immediately obeying laws, with just the right element showing up, individually and interactively showing marvelous design and functions - all of these show great intelligence and could not evolve (they showed up immediately). The level of coincidences that would be necessary for these many things to be unguided is not a rational thing to believe. I don't believe in "Pop Metaphysics" - that an incredible physical universe just happened to instantly "pop" into existence all by itself. And wild theories about how that is possible is not science, but, well, wild, unproven theories. Plus, science doesn't measure metaphysical things, but physical ones. So, rewind the tape back to the moment in which there was no physical thing - not even space - and your beyond what science can tell us.

[Kurieuo]

As for Kurieuo wrote:

Do you have a say in any of your beliefs or actions, or are you merely experiencing sensations?

Still thinking about that.

It's an important point, as your words keep making you believe in many concepts not provided by materialism, and yet you affiliate yourself with such a philosophy of reality. There seems to be an internal conflict there, in your belief-set, that you need to work through.

As I stated some many posts back in this thread:

Finally, any position which logically says that I must reject my own conscious existence (i.e., "myself") as really being real, then well, either it doesn't matter what "I" apparently believe anyway (since such is caused by matters outside of "my" control), OR such positions ought to be rejected as entirely unreasonable and illogical aka foolishness.

And to further add to that, what then of the physical sciences which rest upon our experience of the world? That is, if we're not really responsible for our actions and beliefs (such being caused in a mechanistic physical manner), then how can we trust "our" experiences and cognitive faculties to not also be illusory? Nothing can be trusted if we can't even embrace an "I think, therefore I am", once we have discovered there really is no "I" doing any thinking.

[Philip]

One should be asking themself, how is it possible that I'm even here to begin with - much less whether thinking is rooted in the merely physical. Now I can see why some want to believe that reality is all merely an illusion - because they can convince themselves there's no ultimate accountability that exists, or that things are ultimately not discernible / that nothing truly matters beyond the moment - certainly beyond the moment of purely physical.

[Hosanna]

Jesus asked, "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?"

Why do you suppose the most famous carpenter in the history of mankind, from the dusty village of Nazareth, located in an insignificant corner of a mighty fine Earth, who most assuredly changed the course of history with His existence, would be so very concerned about a person's soul, including the soul of the atheist?

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Jesus asked, "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?"

Why do you suppose the most famous carpenter in the history of mankind, from the dusty village of Nazareth, located in an insignificant corner of a mighty fine Earth, who most assuredly changed the course of history with His existence, would be so very concerned about a person's soul, including the soul of the atheist?

Bc ultimately God loves us and created us in HIS image to be friends. We alone of all the creatures mentioned in the Scriptures were made this way. There's something unique and highly valuable about us.

I'm not sure if it's been talked about here but quantum physics seems to support the idea of a world consciences or god that would make the purely material worldview obsolete. Seems interesting too how toddlers naturally can understand there's a god out there and the evidence supports such an idea.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

For those who don't know there are atheists who believe there's a higher supernatural power, just not a god.

[abelcainsbrother]

There is no 'true evidence', for any humans point of view regarding our origin (existence?) (And many other things too). Only assumptions and opinions (and fuzzy feelings). What is deemed rational seems to depend on what one believes. Both can be rational whithin their own boundaries.
I didn't write that rational thought is an illusion, on the contrary. In a materialist universe there is no illusion, for everything is 'real'.

This is a prime example of what atheism is. It is a state of limbo a person remains in their whole life until they die,never knowing if they are right or wrong until they die.They don't want to know,don't ask questions as to how we got here,they apply dumb atheist philosophy to their world view and it causes a state of limbo.

It goes back to what I explained before atheists have no evidence athesm is true and they even explain to you why they are excluded and don't have to have any evidence to know they are right. So that they do not care if something is true or not,they go on what sounds good to them personally just like atheism. This prevents a person from getting to the truth about anything,it is a state of limbo they remain in. You cannot apply a world view you have no way of knowing is true and apply it to our world,theories,etc and get to the truth about it.It just causes you to be in a state of limbo never knowing you are right or not and accepting ideas that sound good to you.