|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Identifying false religions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Is atheism towards this GOD irrational?
NOTE: By atheism I don't mean absolute denial of existence. I mean the conclusion that the actual existence of this creator of "all that is seen and unseen" is highly improbable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Straggler writes: Is atheism towards this GOD irrational? Not at all, in fact until evidence is presented, really strong evidence sufficient to convince you fully, I would say that it is both the rational and logical position. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Than it appears that we agree. Wholeheartedly.
Now perhaps you can explain all this to RAZ (I wish you more succes than I have had) who continues to operate under the bewildering misapprehension that un-falsifiability somehow makes his own assertions immune from such reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I don't think he does. Have you asked him about those specific questions?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Which specific questions do you mean?
Frankly I would appreciate your advice on how to reach agreement on any of this with RAZD. If you do indeed think agreement is possible. And if you think his answers will be little different to yours - Can I ask that you ask him the appropriate questions in such a way as to definitively find out? Let's just say that questions on this subject are likely to be better received coming from you than me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I can try to explain MY positions but you have to understand, it is just my position.
I am NOT RAZD. The specific questions related to YOUR beliefs though as well. Did you ask him whether he considered some of his beliefs to be irrational? Note: I used GOD. Had you asked me about God or gods I might have answered differently. I would likely tell you my beliefs about God or god to be rational and logical. HOWEVER...we are still only talking about personal beliefs. Beliefs are irrelevant to the actual existence or non existence of the critter. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4040 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1
|
HOWEVER...we are still only talking about personal beliefs. Beliefs are irrelevant to the actual existence or non existence of the critter. I don't think you'd ever see disagreement from me, Straggler, or RAZD on that point. The map is not the territory. What's been rankling Straggler for months now (and prompted me to limit participation in threads that start down this road) is that RAZD claims that it is rational to hold any unfalsified logically valid position - that tentative belief or disbelief is a matter of personal opinion. As it related to deities, RAZD says that the only truly logical position is total agnosticism, but that it is perfectly rational to slightly believe or disbelieve in gods according to one's own opinion. Straggler and I (and others) disagree rather strongly. We think that there are several reasons to believe that the existence of gods is less likely than the nonexistence of gods, and so the only rational belief is that gods tentatively do not exist, pending additional evidence. We don't think "opinion" has anything to do with it, that it's simply the only rational conclusion (ie, the most likely amongst all logically valid hypotheses).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Rahvin writes:
What's been rankling Straggler for months now (and prompted me to limit participation in threads that start down this road) is that RAZD claims that it is rational to hold any unfalsified logically valid position - that tentative belief or disbelief is a matter of personal opinion. I would agree with RAZD.
Rahvin writes: As it related to deities, RAZD says that the only truly logical position is total agnosticism, but that it is perfectly rational to slightly believe or disbelieve in gods according to one's own opinion. Straggler and I (and others) disagree rather strongly. We think that there are several reasons to believe that the existence of gods is less likely than the nonexistence of gods, and so the only rational belief is that gods tentatively do not exist, pending additional evidence. We don't think "opinion" has anything to do with it, that it's simply the only rational conclusion (ie, the most likely amongst all logically valid hypotheses).
I'd disagree with you. I would say that Agnosticism is equally rational, perhaps even more rational than atheism. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4040 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1
|
I'd disagree with you. I would say that Agnosticism is equally rational, perhaps even more rational than atheism. Why? What are your criteria for being labeled "rational?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, if there is neither evidence something exists or does not exist I would think it was rational to say..."I don't know."
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I guess it depends on what you consider evidence it does not exist. Suppose it is described as having attributes that are inconsistent with the laws of physics?
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4040 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1
|
Well, if there is neither evidence something exists or does not exist I would think it was rational to say..."I don't know." But that's not what I asked. I asked for your criteria for labeling a belief "rational." You've given basically a single example of a belief you would identify as rational, but not why. If I were you, how would I go about selecting which beliefs are rational, and which are not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
subbie writes: I guess it depends on what you consider evidence it does not exist. Suppose it is described as having attributes that are inconsistent with the laws of physics? Well, by definition a god would have powers that are inconsistent with the laws of physics I would imagine. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Rahvain writes: I asked for your criteria for labeling a belief "rational." I thought I gave it. When there is no evidence either for or against I think it perfectly rational to say "I don't believe that" or "I don't know either way".
Rahvin writes: If I were you, how would I go about selecting which beliefs are rational, and which are not? You're not me and I can't really tell you how YOU will make your selections. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4040 Joined: Member Rating: 8.1
|
I thought I gave it. When there is no evidence either for or against I think it perfectly rational to say "I don't believe that" or "I don't know either way". That's a single example. Let me put this into perspective: Imagine you've never seen another human being before, and I tell you "Jimmy is tall." Would you have any way to tell if Jonny is also tall, or short, or what the difference is? So far you've told me that, in the absence of any evidence, "I don't know" or "I don't believe that" are both rational answers to a mysterious question. But why are those rational answers? Would "I think so" be irrational then? If so, why? What about when there is evidence? Suppose there is very slight evidence that bigfoot exists. Is belief in bigfoot rational? Is continued disbelief in bigfoot rational due to the weak support of the evidence? Does uncertainty convey rationality to any logically valid position?
You're not me and I can't really tell you how YOU will make your selections. I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you what criteria you use to determine which beliefs are rational, so that I can understand your reasoning. Would it help if I gave my own criteria for identifying rational vs. irrational beliefs?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024