"Irrationalism in atheism" [1/4]

• Part 2 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A0r5Q-j4YE
Arguments by VyckRo.
Recorded from the League of Reason Show: 004 - 18/7/2010
Subscribe at http://www.blogtv.com/people/LeagueOfReason

Hosts:
• dprjones : http://www.youtube.com/dprjones
• Thunderf00t : http://www.youtube.com/Thunderf00t
• DonExodus2 : http://www.youtube.com/DonExodus2
• AronRa : http://www.youtube.com/AronRa
• AndromedasWake : http://www.youtube.com/AndromedasWake

League of Reason (blog, forums, chat)
http://www.leagueofreason.co.uk

Category:

Education

Tags:

• League of Reason Show
• League of Reason
• LoR
• Irrationalism in atheism
• dprjones
• Thunderf00t
• DonExodus2
• AronRa
• AndromedasWake

[BacklTrack]

Can anybody make this into an article? I cannot stand his fucking voice.

[InfernalApocalypse]

Great little exchange at the end.

"THERE'S ANOTHER NAME FOR THAT: SPECULATION."

[daemonowner]

I think the argument that the brain shouldn't be trusted completely backfires when you consider that some theists believe because of emotional reasons and experiences, if your brain cannot be trusted, then why should you believe because of them? Surely they can't be trusted then.

[vryc]

I think the big issue here is not one of evidence but really one of persuasion. It seems to me that persuasion is actually the root of a vast majority of theist arguments. Evidence (or maybe more aptly, a lack of) makes little dent in a 'belief' wired brain because these things are held at a lower level than intuition, feelings and perhaps preference. As an example, intuitively, and simply by way of our limited lifespans, evolution makes very little sense because we cannot see it 'real time'.

[mellamosean]

Thank you don exodus for approaching this question the right way. The brain has proven to us it can be trusted to a significant degree. But then (I'm not sure who it was) brings that point about nobody really knowing things and that theists don't what they claim to know... I agree with that statement, but its the wrong way to go about this debate with a theist. The theist will just say, "but I do know." They usually won't accept their "spirituality" being called "speculation." Poor decision...

[mellamosean]

Andromedas makes a good point that he is trying to convince theists to "approach the position of belief not from the perspective of bias." Unfortunately I think its very hard to see something outside your own perspective of bias, especially for something like religion. Its like saying, "step away from your perception of the universe, and examine the universe." It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[mellamosean]

Continued

Although the French guy is wrong that they have to conform to his own requirements of evidence. They only need to offer what they believe is the necessary evidence to persuade someone of accepting their beliefs. But they must also convince the others why their standards may be too high or irrational.

[mellamosean]

I actually agree with the crazy french guy, in that the league of reason is there to convince people of atheism (well actually I think they are just trying to convince people of a naturalistic view of the world), and so they are required to give reasons and evidence of why they are right. If they don't want to convince anyone, they are not required to. They are required to by their own choice, which I guess andromedas doesn't get.

Continued

[mellamosean]

Continued....

You must trust your brain has certain capabilities. We must trust our perceptions and understandings, and also use our understandings of what our brain struggles with. The fact that our brains have led us to build the society we have seems to suggest we do a pretty good job with our scientific theories...

[mellamosean]

Once again andromedas makes the claim that atheists "don't need to demonstrate anything," but I disagree. Atheists need to show how the evidence supports evolution, and other naturalistic points of view; however, atheists are not require to answer the question "how can we trust our brains if we came from monkeys?." We all have the same brains (from monkeys or not). How can a theist trust his brain? If it is defective it could give him the illusion god exists.

Continued...

[eenger]

Please dont let them refer to athiests as militant, we clearly are not; athiestic violence or terrorism is non existant. Calling an athiest is nothing less than slander and shows a deep misunderstanding of both athiests and the meaning of the word militant. There wil be no way to become equals in society if we allow others to describe us with hyperbolic perjoratives.

[gooddarkjedi]

@CartesianTheist idiot. theology is study of belives, its not science of invetion or study of universe. its study of human belives and there are many athiest theologians. allso theology is philosophy, not science. and you dont have to belive in sertant philosophy in order to study it. read about it. validity of theology as a study has nothign to do if gods exist.