Which is more irrational: positive belief that there is a God that we can't see, or positive belief that there isn't? I'm not bashing in any way, I just want to know what people think.
2007-02-28 20:53:06 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Loathe thy neighbor ... the facts don't indicate that there ISN'T a God either.
2007-02-28 21:00:32 · update #1
Brendan ... actually, it rephrases my question in a much less intelligible way.
2007-02-28 21:01:38 · update #2
The Truth - they're really just both different ways of saying the same thing, aren't they? It's a little like saying that you shouldn't call subtraction "subtraction" because it's the addition of negative numbers.
2007-02-28 23:59:16 · update #3
when someone is possitive about something that has no proof .. either for or against
then they are both different sides of the same coin
2007-02-28 20:55:40 · answer #1 · answered by Peace 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Okay I'll answer your question before I eat my cookies and drink my milk before I go to bed.
Positive belief in God whom I don't see "with my eyes" is irrational Yes. This is called faith. And the "eyes" I see with are not my physical eyes, but what I feel deep down in my heart to know to be true. That's where my soul is and that I can see and believe in God by faith.
Atheistic thought is the recognition that man's knowledge and experience, today and throughout history,does not seem to indicate a real existence of any supernatural deity can be proven. There is no recognition of a soul or of a deeper underlying "layer" or level of man, beyond himself that does not exist in the atheistic viewpoint.
That's what I think about both worlds. I am a theist. After I change into my jammies I'm crashing!
2007-03-01 05:15:30 · answer #2 · answered by Uncle Remus 54 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a very minor error in your question. You assume atheists have a positive belief that there isn't a god. They don't. Atheism is not a belief but a disbelief.
This may sound rather petty but it is an important distinction. Believing in something without evidence requires faith and can easily be described as irrational. Disbelieving in something that has no evidence is rational.
Atheism is not a belief but an absense of belief. I don't 'believe' there is no god. Just as I don't 'believe' there is no santa and no tooth fairy. These aren't positions that require belief. There is no santa, no tooth fairy and there are no gods.
2007-03-01 06:31:02 · answer #3 · answered by The Truth 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?," commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell said the following:
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.
In his book A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins developed the teapot theme a little further:
The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.
(give this a thumbs-down if you can't understand it.)
2007-03-01 04:56:36 · answer #4 · answered by eldad9 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Both are just as irrational.
But here is the major difference : Theism ACCEPTS this; atheism does not and claim that their BELIEF is based on reason ONLY.
2007-03-01 05:10:24 · answer #5 · answered by flandargo 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Having a low level of logic, intelligence, and weakness resisting to not being able to figure out if something is true or not, or if it is even the right thing for you to believe in, is usually the best logic for the people pushing their religions to snare you in to their mind, money, and power presiding worldly affairs.
Hence, creating a world of irrationalities, in-decisions, and war!
2007-03-01 05:01:27 · answer #6 · answered by careercollegestudent69 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Theism is belief in God(s). Why do people always assume theists have to worship one God when they are many? Some people have too much time on their hands... why does it matter? Rationalizing things only works to a point.
2007-03-01 04:59:39 · answer #7 · answered by A-chan 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
which is more irrational? positive belief in an Invisible Pink Unicorn or positive belief there isn't.
That answers the question, I believe.
2007-03-01 05:00:36 · answer #8 · answered by Brendan G 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
WIshful thinking VS. reality?
Optimism about a myth VS. Facts?
2007-03-01 04:56:29 · answer #9 · answered by Loathe thy neighbor. 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I agree with Pangal. Absolute certainty on such things is irrational, either way it goes.
2007-03-01 04:57:48 · answer #10 · answered by Vincent 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋