• While not all Atheist's are Naturalist's, all Naturalist's are Atheists. However, Naturalism slits it's own throat.

    Naturalism essentially states that nature is a closed system in which all events within the system are explainable (or are explainable in principle) in terms of the natural order. Thus, naturalism excludes any idea of “god” since the divine does not lie within the total system. If one accepts these presupposition then all events, including that of thought, must be explainable in purely natural/material terms. In short, all events must be the result of mechanical processes linked in a casual chain of events that could be traced back to the very beginning of the universe, if one were so inclined.

    The trouble for the Naturalist comes into play when one considers the event of human thought. Since thoughts are events, all of our thoughts should be fully explainable in mechanistic terms and not according to a person’s free-agency. But any thought which is not guided by what is “true” but guided rather by mechanistic, physical necessity is not rational. Hence, Naturalism, philosophically speaking, slits its own throat.

    Again, if our thoughts are the inevitable play of firing neurons in our brain set in motion by causal necessity then what we think would be the result of whatever the total system delivered to us and not because it accorded with “truth” necessarily. If the claims of Naturalism are held with consistency, one would have to concede that belief in Naturalism occurs only because nature has determined it (sort of an atheist’s equivalent of Calvinism). And if one arrives at his philosophy not because he chose it, but rather because it was all the total system would allow, then Naturalism is, philosophically, self-defeating.

    However, let it be clear. I am not claiming that Religious people are any more rational. I am just showing that Naturalism is self defeating.

  • Yes. Absolutely yes.

    There isn't much proof that a god (or at least the Christian religious figure as I am talking about) exists. There really isn't some guy who makes our wishes come true by us just speaking to him in a special building. There isn't a guy who sends us to either a beautiful or a bad place when we die, we just kind of lay there in the ground. And that's pretty freaking rational. Love, an atheist...Unicorn.

  • It's So sad!

    No, We do not all have a 'void' inside of us, But there's no doubt that some of us suffer from mental weaknesses & other disorders that may make us feel that way. The assumption that everyone has such a void is one indicative symptom & is evidence of classic denial.
    Evil clever people throughout history have exploited these weak victims & have used it to achieve power & wealth at their expense. For example, If you were an ancient King you could control your population by convincing them that they were being watched by an invisible god who would punish them after their death for eternity if they didn't behave.
    Fortunately education is conquering these ignorant ancient beliefs, Here in Europe at least.

  • Everyone must believe in something.

    We have a 'void' inside us that many have experienced having before becoming Christian. Therefore, I believe that everyone MUST believe in something: whether it is God or gods, other people, evolution. We must all rely upon something, an I choose to rely upon God, the King of the Universe.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
evangambit says2015-04-28T07:55:10.367
To some extent it is, mathematically, ridiculous to say that there is no probability that God exists, unless your prior distribution already set P(God exists) to zero (in which case I'd automatically view your priors with suspicion!). That being said, even with relatively bias priors, it seems quite rational to put the probability God exists near zero -- Atheists say "close enough". Is it rational? Eh, probably depends on your definition of rational. It probably helps academic discourse to dismiss P(God exists) as negligible, and I tend to like things that aid in productive discussion. That being said, it is a mathematical inaccuracy. With a proper definition of "rational" this question answers itself.