Identifying false religions.

Asserted.......?How can any empirically imperceptible concept be conceived of by means other than the internal workings of the human mind? Are you actually disagreeing that the likelihood of this empirically imperceptible GOD actually existing is greater than random chance alone?If so on what basis?Do you consider it rational to believe that this "creator of all that is seen and unseen" GOD is more likely to have created the universe than the fart of a celestial cow?If so on what basis?

Is your belief in GOD irrational?

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.

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.

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.

On what evidential basis? Yet your belief in God or god is not? What is the evidential difference? Be specific. So how are God or god evidentially different to GOD such that atheism is not also rationally justified towards these differently "spelt" entities? Yet it is rational to conclude that any unevidenced entity is improbable is it not? And how is your un-evidenced belief any different from mere personal preference?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But neither fat jolly magically undetectable Santa Claus nor the empirically undetectable Easter Bunny have been empirically falsified. They cannot, by definition, be empirically falsified. Yet you quite sensibly accept that the actual existence of these entities has been refuted as the product of human invention in all all but the most pointless and pedantic of philosophical senses.The same must apply to any empirically imperceptible entity as there is no means by which it's human conception can have been arrived at but by the internal workings of the human mind.This is the fact you refuse to confront.

So belief in which Gods or gods are rational and logical - Based on which "stories" specifically? Then this is the fundamental difference betwen you and RAZD who claims that any statement of relative improbability regarding unfalsified gods is unfounded, irrational and illogical. In fact he bizzarrely believes that he has mathematically shown this to be the case!! Message 135OK. Then on what basis is agnosticism, beyond the trivial possible but improbable atheist position, not an irrational position?

Regardless of the fact that I wish I liked the taste of chocolate ice cream the fact is that I don't. I prefer strawberry.But my dislike of chocolate ice cream, whilst socially awkward and unwanted at times, remains a personal preference. No?How is your un-evidenced belief different?

Well if you have a personal prefererence for something your belief in that as true is just inarguable. This is a tautological. I believe that I personally dislike chocolate ice-cream. My dislike of chocolate ice-cream is true. How could it be any other way? Nor is my disliike of chocolate ice cream at all what I would wish. But that remains a personal preference does it not?How is your belief any different?

And I am asking you which specific god or Gods you consider your belief in as rational and on what evidential (i.e. story) basis you make this conclusion? OK. So tell me one of these stories and the god or God that you consider it to be evidence of. No atheist here claims to know. But is denying the improbability of unevidenced conclusions rational or irrational?

No. I am asking you how this irrational, illogical and unreasonable unevidenced belief is any different from mere personal preference. And I believe that I dislike chocolate ice-cream. And this belief is entirely unchosen and entirely synonymous with my personal preference.How is your belief in GOD different?

OK. So you rationally and logically believe that the actual existence of any god, God or GOD is unlikely.Is that correct? Why? Personal preference? You have also said "I would agree with RAZD." Message 263 but RAZD absolutely and vehemently denies that improbability is a remotely rationally justifiable conclusion.Have you actually read his posts in this thread (or a multitude of others on the same subject)? Well then how is it different? Your personal conviction would of course require you to insist that it is somehow more profound or different. But in what way is it actually different? Be specific. Well earlier I asked if your belief in GOD was derived from anything other than personal preference and you got quite uppity in insisting that it was. So obviously it matters to you.Why is that?

Yes. I am well aware of that. But that isn't what I asked is it? What do you consider to be the rational and logical conclusion? Everything you have said here indicates that you consider it rational and logical to believe that the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity is highly improbable.Is this correct? Or not? And absolutely nobody here either disagrees with you on that or is advocating a position of absolute certainty. So don't even bother replying to Bluegenes, myself, Phage or anybody else taking part in this thread on the basis that we are advocating absolute certainty about anything. Is that clear?The endless debate with RAZD is concerned with whether or not it is rational to consider the existence of GOD/God/god as highly improbable. On this you seem to fundamentally disagree with RAZD. Despite claiming to agree with him. As is the position of every atheist here. As I understand it after seeing their comments in numerous threads on this same related topic. Yet again - What is the actual difference? Of course not. But if you cannot explain what the diefference is between unevidenced beliefs and personal preferences to anyone else on what basis do you conclude that there is a difference?Beyond simply being unwilling to equate the two because you find that synonimity personally distasteful?

On jar's advice I am going to ask you two direct questions: 1) Is your belief in your god irrational?2) Is atheism towards your 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.