Atheist v. Christian or Rational v. Irrational?

Question

Could it be that the fight really isn't between atheists and christians but rather individuals with who have rationalized their beliefs and those who accept blindly (on both sides)?

Personally, I'm a Christian and according to my logic, I've arrived at my answer and many atheists have done the same, even though the answer is different.

I'm more prone to agree with a lot of the atheists on YA that display a rational, logical progression in their decision (instead of replying with the ever popular "God=magical Easter bunny" or pseudo-logical, strawman answers). I'm also more prone to disagree with Christians who answer questions with "because God told me/us so" and "God created everything so evolution can't exist"

What I'm saying here is shouldn't we be fighting irrationality and strawman fallacies (both sides are guilty) instead of belief schematics?

I'm not trying to make you believe God exists (I personally think it's a matter of faith supplimented with suggestions but certainly not cut and dry evidence). I'm simplying saying that as long as you actually thought about your decision before you made it, chances are your answers are okay by me

I personally see science and religion working together perfectly to explain the universe...science explains the "how's" of the universe while religion explains the "why's"

Answer 1

I would say that what is missing most from Christian teaching today and from Christian life is critical thinking skills. What is wrong with saying "why should I believe that God's word is infallable?" If God is who we believe He is does He fear man's questions?
Absolutely there are areas where faith without proof is required in order to be a Christian, but the teachings of Christ and of all scripture ought to also be able to stand up to tests of logic and history as well. I believe that they do, more and more all the time.

Answer 2

1) Atheism is NOT a religion, dear - and it never will be. It's no more a religion than bald is a hairstyle. 2) Those of us who know perfectly well that there is no God are getting pretty sick and tired of having deluded idiots try to force their fantasies into laws and classrooms. It is for THIS reason alone that atheists are becoming more outspoken. Enough is enough. 3) I couldn't give a shite what brand of delusion you buy into. Why do you think anyone cares what you think you are? 4) Science is the greatest of all human endeavors. The very, very greatest. It has given more to the world than any poxy religion ever could or has. So, no, it has not gone "too far". 5) Next time, keep your "question" shorter. You might find yourself fascinating....but you're the only one who does.

Answer 3

Sociobiologists believe that rationality arose to control the emotions. There is substantial evidence that in the absence of emotion, rationality cannot exist. If you damage the amygdala of a person (please do not try this at home), or if it becomes damaged by disease, you cannot feel your emotions. It turns out people who cannot feel their emotions cannot make rational choices either, because they cannot feel what they prefer.

Rationality is not achieved by all people either and it is acheived in varying degrees. Research on causal logic in the 80's showed that only 40% of undergraduates ever achieved it, the rest learned algorithms that mimicked rationality so they could operate in their chosen profession. It is presumed the percentage is lower among the general population, however I am cautious about how much less it is prevelant.

Blind acceptance is a survival algorithm, it is a special form of copying or mimetic behavior. We teach children to copy adults in order for them to learn. We encourage copying everywhere. When you reject "blind faith," you are rejecting a person's survival mechanism. You can see the strong responses that occur on YA because people are attacking basic surivival mechanisms.

This does mean that careful choice of belief systems by the rational is very important, because it will be copied diligently. Fanaticism is really just diligent copying. Francis of Assisi, Luther, Mohammed, Anthony of the Desert, Buddha, Marx, Confucius and so forth are really dangerous because they were rational fanatics. Rationality is not a guarantee of a positive outcome. Even bin Laden is a rational fanatic. He is more dangerous because people dismiss him as a nut. That is extremely dangerous because he isn't. Within his framework, he is eminently correct in his actions.

In the absence of strong belief, rationality likely leads to moderation and moderate behavior, but religions demand strong belief and human character fills that desired need naturally. In a sense, that is what is so dangerous about religions and I include atheistic philosophies such as communism in that group.

We periodically get street preachers on campus, they travel around the country and set up shop. It has increased quite a bit over the decades, it used to be limited to one per year. As such, he actually had a better audience and was granted a better location. Now no one gets a location, nor an audience. One of them recently lost out to a person who debated him using the magical sphaghetti god arguments. The preacher wasn't up to an assault by rationality. I ignore these things, but I was walking with someone, a Christian as it happened, and they asked me if it even matters one way or the other.

My answer was this, "If you believe in the tooth fairy, it would be easy to think of that as a harmless belief, even a positive one. However, if you pulled your teeth out in expectation of receiving money, or worse pulled out other peoples' teeth for their benefit, then it is clearly harmful. The real problem with that preacher was that he could be doing something valuable for society. He could be useful, but his extreme fanaticism makes him at best a detriment to the world."

Beliefs are not harmless because they are acted upon. Someone will diligently act on them.

We should not be arguing against irrationality as it is an essential component of being human. It is a key component to what makes us distinct. It is deadly valuable.

We should be arguing about belief schematics. Failure to do so could result in the needless extinction of the species. We are in a time of great danger to our species. We could easily convert the world into one giant Easter Island where all the resources are consumed, the planet melts and you have death in the billions. The world is too fragile at this point to allow poor decision making systems to survive.

Answer 4

I agree with you, everyone must decide for themselves. Following blindly is like being told 2+2 = 4, but not how you get the answer. Some people need to believe, and I have no problem with that, as long as they made a conscious decision. Mine is different than yours, but I can respect you because you made that decision, it wasn't from being forced on you.

Answer 5

well for proclaimed christians whoever so believe simply because of what they are told instead of studying themselves, i can't hold to give them much credit. For they base thier faith on what they dont really know. In that facet, they follow along the same lines as many atheists. I have to agree with logic. But with my beliefs, i hold in having a foundation on what the bible says and how it interprets itself, rather that how man interprets it. And with that, why we can put trust in the bible, and not just believe that its just another book written by man's hands with man's thoughts in it. Besides, Our creator would only accept a certain worship, that which he sets forth. As a true christian, we have to have knowledge and not blind faith (John 4:24; 17:3;Hebrews 11:1)

Answer 6

I was saying to an individual last night: if I never heard of God before and heard a debate between an atheist and a Christian, I would tend to lean more to the atheist' side.

Answer 7

Agreed on so many counts!

People also make a severe Reductionist fallacy on R&S, by trying to reduce everything to the Lack of/Possession of religious belief - much to the exclusion of other factors like political agendas, socio-economic status, etc.

Answer 8

Christian apologetics gets absolutely no traction at all without straw man tactics and irrationality. It's a slam dunk for atheists. Theists can hold their own in a debate about the origins of the universe. But when it comes to evolution, human nature, and tryoing to prove that their religion is the one true religion they fail utterly, and anyone who is not deeply brainwashed can see that.

Answer 9

I'd be willing to concede that god exists, if there was any evidence to suggest he did.
I've been a christian, and I've studied science. The science wasn't compatible with my beliefs, and after some time, I realized that my beliefs were erronious.

Answer 10

God gave us a brain and He expects us to use it. People who blindly believe something are little more than robots. All must find their own paths to God.