Identifying false religions.

And (just to be clear here) I am relatively uninterested in what you irrationally believe. That is your business. What I do want to know is what you consider it rational to believe. And why. Yet you agree that it is rational to conclude that the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity is highly improbable. Huh? From where is it even possible to derive an unevidenced belief other than by means of personal preference?

That the existence of god(s) should be rationally considered improbable is the conclusion of every atheist taking part in this thread. A conclusion that you seem to wholly agree with. But a conclusion that RAZD has spent many threads and a monumental amount of time and effort in vehemently disputing.Yet you and RAZD claim to agree with each other. So something obviously doesn't add up here. Someone may prefer not to find certain people sexually attractive but the fact that they do remains a personal preference does it not?I am still struggling to find any difference between unevidenced belief and personal preference.

So you continue to insist that you are in agreement with RAZD?And that it is simply I who is incapable of seeing this agreement?

I understand that:You consider the rational position regarding the actual existence of any empirically un-evidenced entity to be that it is improbable.You do not consider any GOD/God/gods to be evidenced.

How can any stories about any empirically imperceptible being(s) be anything but made-up? (Blind random chance aside.) Are there any Gods/gods which you consider to be sufficiently evidenced to be anything other than "very unlikely". We could spend an eternity working what we would do if all sorts of improbable occurrances were to take place.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Depends which stories we are talking about.In the case of stories pertaining to entities which are wholly empirically imperceptible we can conclude that (blind random chance aside) they must be made-up. Yes? How can it be possibly be otherwise? No atheist here is arguing against the possibility.But on what rational evidential basis do you elevate the "Jesus as God" story to be more likely than any other?

Read what I write. There are plenty of religious stories and beliefs that pertain to entities which are considered entirely empirically imperceptible. For example the following definition of a deistic god "Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things" Message 225In the case of this story pertaining to an entity which is wholly empirically imperceptible we can conclude that (blind random chance aside) it must be made-up. Yes? How can it be possibly be otherwise? You "don't believe any of them are likely to exists" (sic) but you don't consider Jesus as God to be unlikely? These answers seem to be contradictory. Can you explain? So are your beliefs based on stories that are available to all?
Or are you citing evidence that is not in these stories? Yet again this seems contradictory.Can you explain?

Why? Is it evidenced? Is it "highly improbable"? And I have told you that I am relatively uninterested in your self proclaimed irrational belief in GOD.But you have suggested that Jesus as God is evidenced to the point that it is rational to consider Jesus as God to be a rational belief.I am asking how this belief is evidenced such that it is rational.

I am not debating your innate right to believe whatever you personally believe on whatever grounds you personally deem sufficient. Any more than I would debate what flavour ice-cream you should prefer. To do that would be absurd.I am asking you if it is rational to believe that a deistic god is anything other than improbable.I am asking you if it is rational to believe that "Jesus as God" is anything other than improbable.If you cannot seperate questions about what it is rational to believe from disputations of what it is you actually have a right to believe in then that says far more about the limitations of your arguments than it does mine. Why? Is it evidenced? Is it "highly improbable"? You have suggested that Jesus as God is evidenced to the point that it is rational to consider Jesus as God to be a rational belief.I am asking how this belief is evidenced such that it is rational.

Surely what is or is not rational can be agreed upon by rational minds?Can creationists rightfully consider themselves as rational? Simply by asserting themslves to be so?Because that is what you have been reduced, here, to doing.

I have certainly asked you what the rational position on certain god/God/GOD related subjects is - And you have replied in ways that indicate that you are able to seperate these from your irrational beliefs when your personal preferences don't get in the way. Well if you are going to insist on your unchallenged right to say anything regardless of how inconsistent or irrational then I guess you can justify any fucked-up wankery that springs into your mind and out of your mouth/pen/keyboard.But if persistently executed - It makes anything you say completely unworthy of further consideration does it not? There is no such thing as a complete vacuum of all objective evidence. All human claims are necessarily, inarguably and indisputably made in the objectively evidenced context of human psychology, history and culture.But the fact that you, just as RAZD has done, are reduced to the "absence of evidence" or "you cannot prove me wrong" position tells us everything we need to know about the evidential and logical paucity of your position.

So you clearly state your position and congratulate yourself on your consistency as you do so.But when you are asked about the improbability of un-evidenced entities which hold some personal appeal to you suddenly you throw a hissy fit about personal belief, proclaim yourself to be inconsistent and declare that whatever you believe to be rational is rational because you believe it to be so. And now you want to patronise me by making out that this was all some sort of masterplan on your part to reveal the true nature of discovery to those of us unblessed with your insight?Wow!

I really have little interest in your self confessed irrational personal beliefs. Please stop assuming that I am seeking to challenge your right to irrationally believe whatever you irrationally want.What I do dispute is your right to declare some un-evidenced beliefs as rational simply because you reserve the right believe them to be so. On what basis? Irrational personal belief? Or that which contradicts your previous statements regarding improbability (which were made as you basked in the glow of your own self-congratulatory consistency) I too am delighted to see that you are taking the first tentative steps on this road to enlightenment that we are embarking on together.

Yes the evidence favouring that fat jolly magically undetectable Santa is the product of the human mind rather than an entity that actually exists is overwhelming and compelling. Thus making the empirical falsification of this empirically un-falsifiable concept irrelevant to all practical intents and purposes. Are you genuinely incapable of distinguishing between someone pointing out the fact that the conception of any empirically imperceptible entity is necessarily solely a product of the internal human mind and someone absolutely denying that the empirically imperceptible entity in question can possibly exist?The imperceptible products of your imagination might exist. This is philosophically possible. They remain unfalsified. To the same extent that jolly magically undetectable Santa remains unfalisfied. But we know that, like Santa, these concepts have been arrived at NOT by means of perceiving external reality. But by the internal workings of the human mind. How can it possibly be otherwise?With regard to the likelihood of you having chanced upon some great imperceptible truth of nature - Which part of blind random chance do you not understand? Can you explain how the deistic notion of god as previously described by you - "Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things" Message 225 - Can possibly be empirically perceptible? Which of course means that your arguments necessarily require the same degree of agnosticism towards the pink fluffy buck toothed empirically imperceptible Easter Bunny as they do the existence of god(s). Go figure. Can you either quote me (in full context) as to where you think I have ever actually deployed any such statement of logical certitude? Or desist from relentlessly asserting that I have. Curiously ALL of your so called refutations refute the notion that gods have been falsified as impossible. Given that not a single person here, including myself, is advocating that position your refutation has been exposed as a giant straw-man and thus is itself refuted. Again.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am basing your position solely on what you have said your position is in this thread. Yes let's. You quite clearly stated that you deemed it both rational and logical to consider the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity to be "highly improbable". Message 317 and Message 321Is a Deist God "empirically unevidenced"?
Is a Deist God thus "highly improbable"? Is the form of evidence you speak of able to be demonstrated as leading to conclusions which can be verified as superior to the results obtained by blind random chance?If so can you give an example?