Identifying false religions.

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.

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).

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?

Rahvain writes:I asked for your criteria for labeling a belief "rational."

Rahvin writes:If I were you, how would I go about selecting which beliefs are rational, and which are not?

Rahvin writes: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?

Rahvin writes: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?

Rahvin writes:I'm asking you what criteria you use to determine which beliefs are rational, so that I can understand your reasoning.

subbie writes:Suppose it is described as producing effects in the real world and there is no credible evidence that such effects have ever been observed?

Rahvin writes:Would you agree that this is a good definition for the word "rational?" If not, why not?

bluegenes writes:Only if you're limited to them. I'd go to work on my magic carpet if I could. Only if you're limited to them. I'd go to work on my magic carpet if I could.

subbie writes:Now, please answer the actual hypothetical. If certain effects are predicted and those effects are not observed, is that evidence of non-existence?

subbie writes:I'm exploring the parameters of your general claim that if there's no evidence one way or another, it's rational to say "I don't know."

subbie writes:There's no evidence regarding Russell's teapot. Do you say "I don't know?"

subbie writes:Would you maintain an agnostic position if someone claimed that I had an 80 year old oak tree growing out of my left ear?