Is Atheism Irrational? - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

tjts1 · #76 02-12-2014, 08:20 PM

How can you say somebody has a "warped view" of something that doesn't exist? My imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend.

Botnst · #77 02-12-2014, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

In this context, I am using 'rational' as synonymous with 'logically valid and sound.'

There are many logical arguments whose soundness is up for debate. Like anthropogenic GCC, for example. Yet despite being of debatable soundness, many of us (including me) accept anthropogenic GCC as the best description of empirical events.

Much of Aristotle's natural philosophy is logically sound and vastly inadequate to explaining natural phenomena as compared to empirical scientific theory and so I choose one over the other, but not because of fallacious logic on Aristotle's part.

I believe that St Thomas' arguments are quite logically consistent and mostly complete yet are empirically unprovable. The same can be said of much of the Theory of Evolution.

There are many examples on both sides of the argument in which both sides are logical but it is highly unlikely that both are correct. There is also a possibility of both sides of an argument being correct and subsets of a greater explanation.

INSIDIOUS · #78 02-12-2014, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

There are many logical arguments whose soundness is up for debate. Like anthropogenic GCC, for example. Yet despite being of debatable soundness, many of us (including me) accept anthropogenic GCC as the best description of empirical events.

Much of Aristotle's natural philosophy is logically sound and vastly inadequate to explaining natural phenomena as compared to empirical scientific theory and so I choose one over the other, but not because of fallacious logic on Aristotle's part.

I believe that St Thomas' arguments are quite logically consistent and mostly complete yet are empirically unprovable. The same can be said of much of the Theory of Evolution.

There are many examples on both sides of the argument in which both sides are logical but it is highly unlikely that both are correct. There is also a possibility of both sides of an argument being correct and subsets of a greater explanation.

Nobody is right if everybody is wrong.

chilcutt · #79 02-12-2014, 10:05 PM

Iggy & The Stooges - Ready to Die - YouTube

Diesel911 · #80 02-12-2014, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?ref=opinion

I should make clear first that I don’t think arguments are needed for rational belief in God. In this regard belief in God is like belief in other minds, or belief in the past. Belief in God is grounded in experience, or in the sensus divinitatis, John Calvin’s term for an inborn inclination to form beliefs about God in a wide variety of circumstances.

I must admit that reading the interview made my head spin, but that could also have been the result of spray painting in an enclosed bathroom today too . . .

Atheism meets definition #3 therfore it is in itself a Religion.

re·li·gion [ri líjjən]
(plural re·li·gions)
n
1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life 2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine 3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by 4. obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by The danger is that you start to make fitness a religion.
5. christianity monk's or nun's life: life as a monk or a nun, especially in the Roman Catholic Church

Neither Atheism or the various Religions have sufficent explainations or proof.
Meaning it is not logical to believe or even not believe in somthing is null due to not have a logical answer to it.

Diesel911 · #81 02-12-2014, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

What list is that? Is there a prize? Money?

With one Religion you get Virgins.

With others you get reincarnated into another living creature.

Purgatory?

That is all I can think of.

Diesel911 · #82 02-12-2014, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Lets get the basics first. WTF are you and what can you give me would be my first question

If you ask someone a question like that here on Earth what do you get? Likely some hostile response.

aklim · #83 02-12-2014, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by INSIDIOUS

I got stuck on level 3, couldn't jump high enough from the puke pit even after eating it all up and using it as a propellant. Any ideas?

Dunno. Didn't play them game. My possibly senile parents would say "Pray for guidance".

aklim · #84 02-12-2014, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Many theists explicitly deny that God could be observed although there seem to be gazillions of Christians who actually expect to literally see god someday.

Why shouldn't they? I would think that is the attractiveness of faith. Much like the suicide bomber. This life is hard. If you die in the service of the sad faith, you will be rewarded IN THE NEXT LIFE. Only way you will "see" the deity in this life is via some signs interpreted in some way that is going to show what the religion wants you to see. Much like the con man who shows you "proof" that he will deliver what you want.

Diesel911 · #85 02-12-2014, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Is it irrational to say non-absolutely that there is no god?

People have been saying that there is no proof of the Deity named God yet there is also no proof that there is no God; with out proof either way how can there be a rational decision.
So People pick the answer that to them seems closet to being rational.

aklim · #86 02-12-2014, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

You have a warped view of things.....The "god" you demand is one who exists only to do your bidding, and to do tricks for you.

In one of Jesus' parables he is talking with a man suffering torment in Hades. He pleads with Jesus to send a prophet to tell his brothers so they might avoid his fate. Jesus' reply was that " Even if One were to be raised from the dead they will not listen". I am afraid that describes you. You will not. It is not for lack of evidence that you fail to believe, but as a matter of choice--you WILL not to believe.

You ask for my allegiance and obedience. Sorry if I ask for something in return.

"Even if"? I can play that game too. Even if I were to put the sun in my pocket you would not X, Y or Z. You lack the hard evidence. If you had evidence, there is nothing to believe. The belief part comes in because there isn't hard evidence. Belief is about accepting something as true WITHOUT hard evidence. I cannot refuse to believe hard evidence because belief goes out the window with hard evidence.

Diesel911 · #87 02-12-2014, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I wouldn't limit it to physical evidence. I was using that word metaphorically. Look at all the evidence that people have put forward to prove there's a mega-person. If none of it does it's job, it's reasonable to say it's not there.

It's roughly analogous to sitting in a room with another person who has the same knowing abilities as you. The other person says there's a cat in the room. You look around carefully and don't see one. The appropriate response isn't, "I don't know if there's a cat in the room.", it is 'No there isn't."

Or you missed it; the Cat was seen by the other person and hid from view.

I can see Myself sitting at a Sporting event with someone else and looking in the same direction as a Person with Me and them saying look at the Guy with the Big Nose. Even when I had the description I could not see the Guy till he wad pointed out tome. So as long as I could not find that Guy in My mind that Guy would not exist.

The real question is that if Humans are really just a different Animal why are we even discussing this sort of thing.

The other for me is what causes life. Living things to me ar clearly more that just a bunch of electro chemical reactions going on.

aklim · #88 02-12-2014, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel911

With one Religion you get Virgins.

With others you get reincarnated into another living creature.

Purgatory?

That is all I can think of.

Only if you die in the service of the faith. In which case, I might trade the 72 virgins for a few sluts.

Problem if it is a sheep and the shepherd is horny.

Isn't that a movie?

You realize that with all of them "The check is in the mail" applies.

aklim · #89 02-12-2014, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel911

Or you missed it; the Cat was seen by the other person and hid from view.

I can see Myself sitting at a Sporting event with someone else and looking in the same direction as a Person with Me and them saying look at the Guy with the Big Nose. Even when I had the description I could not see the Guy till he wad pointed out tome. So as long as I could not find that Guy in My mind that Guy would not exist.

The other for me is what causes life. Living things to me ar clearly more that just a bunch of electro chemical reactions going on.

Or maybe there is no such thing as a cat.

What if I made up that guy? You could look all day and it might not be seen.

Maybe so but are you so desperate for an answer that any answer will do?

kerry · #90 02-12-2014, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

There are many logical arguments whose soundness is up for debate. Like anthropogenic GCC, for example. Yet despite being of debatable soundness, many of us (including me) accept anthropogenic GCC as the best description of empirical events.

Much of Aristotle's natural philosophy is logically sound and vastly inadequate to explaining natural phenomena as compared to empirical scientific theory and so I choose one over the other, but not because of fallacious logic on Aristotle's part.

I believe that St Thomas' arguments are quite logically consistent and mostly complete yet are empirically unprovable. The same can be said of much of the Theory of Evolution.

There are many examples on both sides of the argument in which both sides are logical but it is highly unlikely that both are correct. There is also a possibility of both sides of an argument being correct and subsets of a greater explanation.

We're talking by each other. The problems with Aquinas' arguments have nothing to do with empirical unprovability. He didn't care in the slightest about empirically proving God's existence. He would have thought any attempt to do so was nonsense since god was not an empirical thing. God was a metaphysical thing and was provable using metaphysical arguments.

I should add that most of Aquinas' arguments don't prove the existence of a mega-person and especially a mega-person of the Jewish-Christian-Muslim type.