Originally posted by googlefudgeThere is no such thing as a rational atheist.
There is no such thing as a rational theist.
It is one of the very core principles of rationalism and skepticism that you don't believe in ANYTHING
without evidence that justifies that belief. You believe nothing based on faith.
Rationality and skepticism also sets standards for what constitutes evidence and how to get evidence
about how the wo ...[text shortened]...
have been nut just rebutted but refuted. Usually hundreds of years ago. (some by the Greeks)
It is one of the very core principles of rationalism and theism that you don't believe in
ANYTHING without evidence that justifies that belief,
for example the unobserved phenomena of life from non life, etc.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIgnoring for the moment whether or not it's rational to believe in abiogenesis...
There is no such thing as a rational atheist.
It is one of the very core principles of rationalism and theism that you don't believe in
ANYTHING without evidence that justifies that belief,
for example the unobserved phenomena of life from non life, etc.
Where does it say that you have to believe in abiogenesis to be an atheist?
Where does it say that you have to believe ANYTHING to be an atheist?
An atheist is just someone who doesn't have a belief in gods.
This says nothing about anything else they may or may not believe in.
There is no requirement in atheism to have any belief or opinion at all on how life came to
exist or anything else for that matter.
Except that you can't have a belief in gods... that's the only criteria.
Thus your reasoning fails utterly.
Atheism IS rational as it DOESN'T require belief in ANYTHING without evidence to support that belief.
Now it is of course perfectly possible to rationally believe it to be likely based on current evidence that
life did form 'spontaneously' from non-life however that is a separate argument that I am not frankly prepared
to try to have with you again given your propensity for lying and your complete inability to enter into
rational debate.
However your argument here that atheism is irrational because it requires belief in things without evidence
is refuted utterly. To be an atheist doesn't require belief in anything.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgewell put. I was about to respond to his crap but I cannot better your post.
Ignoring for the moment whether or not it's rational to believe in abiogenesis...
Where does it say that you have to believe in abiogenesis to be an atheist?
Where does it say that you have to believe ANYTHING to be an atheist?
An atheist is just someone who doesn't have a belief in gods.
This says nothing about anything else they may or ma hout evidence
is refuted utterly. To be an atheist doesn't require belief in anything.
Originally posted by googlefudgedid i say one must believe in abiogenesis to be an atheist, nope, pure straw! it was
Ignoring for the moment whether or not it's rational to believe in abiogenesis...
Where does it say that you have to believe in abiogenesis to be an atheist?
Where does it say that you have to believe ANYTHING to be an atheist?
An atheist is just someone who doesn't have a belief in gods.
This says nothing about anything else they may or ma ...[text shortened]... hout evidence
is refuted utterly. To be an atheist doesn't require belief in anything.
cited as an example of unobserved phenomena which many atheists cite as the cause
of the emergence and diversification of life, despite never having observed it. Did i say
that you need to actually believe anything to be an atheist, nope, more straw!
strawberries anyone, three for a pound!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have a real issue with truth don't you.
did i say one must believe in abiogenesis to be an atheist, nope, pure straw! it was
cited as an example of unobserved phenomena which many atheists cite as the cause
of the emergence and diversification of life, despite never having observed it. Did i say
that you need to actually believe anything to be an atheist, nope, more straw!
strawberries anyone, three for a pound!
you said and I quote...
There is no such thing as a rational atheist.
There is NO SUCH THING as a RATIONAL atheist...
having said that you then say this...
It is one of the very core principles of rationalism and theism that you don't believe in
ANYTHING without evidence that justifies that belief,
for example the unobserved phenomena of life from non life, etc.
Now ignoring that fact that it is emphatically not a core principle of theism that you don't
believe in anything without evidence to support that belief because in reality the exact opposite
is true...
What you are implicitly saying here is that "there is no such thing as a rational atheist" BECAUSE
atheists believe things like "unobserved phenomena of life from non life, etc.".
This is an argument you are implicitly making. [it's the argument you typed, if something else was
going through your head at the time that is irrelevant because as I say this is the argument you actually made]
This argument is fatally flawed because as I pointed out there is no requirement for any atheist
to believe anything and thus it is fallacious to argue that atheists are inherently irrational and that there
are 'no rational atheists' because atheists all believe something.
They don't all believe that thing and there is no requirement for them to do so.
It is not a straw man to refute the argument you actually made.
It IS lying to claim that I am attacking a straw man when I am in fact responding to the argument you actually typed.
If you meant something different then you should have said something different.
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
There is no such thing as a rational theist.
It is one of the very core principles of rationalism and skepticism that you don't believe in ANYTHING
without evidence that justifies that belief. You believe nothing based on faith.
Rationality and skepticism also sets standards for what constitutes evidence and how to get evidence
about how the wo
have been nut just rebutted but refuted. Usually hundreds of years ago. (some by the Greeks)
There is no such thing as a rational theist.
It is one of the very core principles of rationalism and skepticism that you don't believe in ANYTHING without evidence that justifies that belief. You believe nothing based on faith.
Of course as a believer in God I have evidence. Your wishful thinking is that I have none. Your wishful thinking is that all I have is blind faith.
All you are really indicating is that evidence is not persuasion with some people.
Rationality and skepticism also sets standards for what constitutes evidence and how to get evidence about how the world works (with scientific methodology).
The belief that only scientific method can yield truth is self defeating. Such a belief that only science can inform man of truth is self contradictory. It cannot be shown to be true itself by the scientific method.
Science rests upon a philosophy of science. So I believe there exists other disciplines by which man can arrive at truth. And this is not an anti-science argument. Science has its place. And science also has its limitations.
There is presently NOTHING that meets the evidence standards that rationality and skepticism requires for the existence of any god or gods.
I'm skeptical of this statement.
The existence of the Bible argues for a knowledge of events before they occured. And a good candidate for such foreknowledge is God.
Prophecy is one of the evidences that Someone transcendent to Time is behind the writing of the Bible.
Then there is the power and personality of one Jesus Christ . Your skepticism aside, if ANYONE ever acted like God Almighty come as a MAN, Jesus of Nazareth is that man.
So we have evidence. But evidence is not persuasion. In fact even proof is not persuasion. As it stands we Christians have an great amount of adaquate evidence to encourage us that we are on the right track to believe in God's existence.
Thus it is by definition irrational to be a theist.
Nonsense.
Now you could I suppose be potentially rational about everything but your belief in the existence of a deity
or deities...
However you still can't claim to be a rational theist because theism is presently irrational by definition.
More nonsense.
Thus far every argument and claim you are making has been refuted over a century ago.
Even more nonsense.
Now go back to Anthomy Flew, world class Atheist scholar who decided intelligent design calls for the existence of a Theism of some sort.
Go see if you can get him to go back to being this "only rational" Atheist.
Googlefudge, to argue against God is to argue against the One who gave you the ability to argue at all.
"He who planted the ear, does He not hear ?
And He who formed the eye, does He not see ? " (Psalm 94:9)
I quite reasonably believe that the EFFECT is not greater than the CAUSE in life. Whatever had the capacity to bring about the effect of the seeing eye could not give something which was not in itself to give. The function of the seeing eye must reflect in some way the capacity of a similar consciousness.
God "beholds".
God "hears".
God "observes".
God is conscious of that outside of God.
Whoever designed the EYE must have given what was in Himself to bestow and not something beyond His own ability to bestow.
Its that New Atheism you have bought into that makes you think new athiests are the intelligencia of the human race. They're not. They're mostly just angry sounding.
"The New Atheists are not Intellectually "Bright" "
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillEvidence is a word that means different things to different people and what you are calling evidence I don't.There is no such thing as a rational theist.
It is one of the very core principles of rationalism and skepticism that you don't believe in ANYTHING without evidence that justifies that belief. You believe nothing based on faith.
Of course as a believer in God I have evidence. Your wishful thinking is that I have none. Your wishf ...[text shortened]... ctually "Bright" "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14YM7MP6HzY[/b]
It's not a matter of my not accepting your evidence as strong enough, it's that what you have doesn't actually
qualify as evidence by the standards I use.
Now we can have a discussion about what constitutes evidence and why if you like but my point here is this.
You and I have different definitions for evidence and we are probably unlikely to agree a mutual definition.
However when you talk about rationalism and whether or not something is rational then you MUST use the
meaning and standards of evidence REQUIRED by rationalism.
Otherwise you are talking nonsense.
Nothing you have mentioned here meets the standards for evidence required by rationalism and science.
I am happy to discuss why if you want.
But if you want to talk about whether or not something is rational then you must use the standards of evidence
required by rationalism.
If you don't agree with those standards then that's fine but you can't call yourself rational at the same time as not
agreeing with it's precepts and requirements.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillWould you like to stop telling me what I believe and telling me why I believe it?
Its that New Atheism you have bought into that makes you think new athiests are the intelligencia of the human race. They're not. They're mostly just angry sounding.
[b]"The New Atheists are not Intellectually "Bright" "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14YM7MP6HzY[/b]
I believe nothing of the sort.
Deal with my actual arguments not imagined ones please.
I am NOT and HAVE NEVER claimed that atheists are smarter than theists.
The evidence does seem to suggest that on average that atheists tend to have slightly
higher IQ's and are better educated however that doesn't mean or imply that atheists
are right (or more likely to be right) and it certainly doesn't mean that every atheist is
smarter than every theist or that the smartest atheist is smarter than the smartest theist.
All it means is that there is a slight correlation between IQ scores and education levels and
belief in god or gods.
The about to step down Archbishop of Canterbury (the Functional head of the Church of England)
is a highly intellectual man of considerable intellect.
And I know personally a woman with an IQ of 180+ (higher than mine and approx equal to Einstein)
who believes in the Christian god (and is a physicist).
I do not care one jot how smart the person is making the argument or how many people agree with
an argument or who the people are that agree with an argument.
I care only how good that argument is, and how well it matches up with reality based on the evidence
presented.
What you are claiming I believe, that I think that "...new athiests are the intelligencia of the human race..."
is both insulting to me, unfounded and unsupported, and untrue.
I emphatically don't believe that and that is emphatically not why I believe the things I do (and don't believe the
things I don't).
I would like a retraction and apology please.
This is a baseless ad hominem attack on my position that is beneath you.
Originally posted by jaywillLOL, an explanation of the explanation of the explanation.
Do was have to have an explanation for the explanation ?
Richard Dawkins' central thesis of [b]"The God Delusion" pgs. 157-158 examined by Dr. William Lane Craig:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=7V6B9D1S4xQ[/b]
Originally posted by googlefudgeyou have to admit that you do sound rather bitter and angry though.
Would you like to stop telling me what I believe and telling me why I believe it?
I believe nothing of the sort.
Deal with my actual arguments not imagined ones please.
I am NOT and HAVE NEVER claimed that atheists are smarter than theists.
The evidence does seem to suggest that on average that atheists tend to have slightly
higher IQ's and ...[text shortened]... logy please.
This is a baseless ad hominem attack on my position that is beneath you.