Ouija board etc

MrStuffins

Jernal wrote: »

Yes, yes I do. If it was obvious to me I doubt I'd have asked it. Why does being an atheist mean you're more likely to think logically and critically?

Many Theists, for example Christians, by their nature, possess beliefs which fly in the face of logic.

There's a start!

(By the way, i'm not having a go at Christians. I doubt many Christians would tell you all of their beliefs are based in logic)

oldrnwisr

MrStuffins wrote: »

Eh? I don't agree with this statement at all.

Atheist doesn't necessarily mean you have absolutely no belief in the paranormal etc. It just means you are more likely to think about thinkgs critically and logically instead of jumping to stupid conclusions like "OMG!!! IT'S MY DEAD DOG CONTACTING ME FROM BEYOND THE BACK-GARDEN GRAVE!".

I'm with Jernal on this one. I don't see that there is any causative link between atheism and critical thinking. Correlative certainly but you know what they say about correlation and causation. People lose their faith for all kinds of reasons and only some of them ever have to do with logic and critical thinking. Three short examples to expand my point.


1. Work colleague A.

Read the DaVinci Code followed by Angels & Demons and some other out there stuff like Lynn Picknett. Bought into a slick narrative and is now convinced that everything the Catholic church claims is wrong. Because Catholicism was the only religion she had any practical knowledge of, she is now convinced that all religion is bull**** and therefore identifies as atheist.

2. Work colleague B.

Watched a couple of documentaries by Richard Dawkins on BBC and then bought the God Delusion. Now identifies as atheist. Not because they were convinced by the arguments propounded in the book but rather because they think Dawkins is awesome, so they've just made a really bad argument from authority.

3. Neighbour

Lifelong catholic disgusted by scandals in the Catholic Church. Stopped goijng to mass 2 years ago and now identifies as atheist. No idea whether what the Catholic church claims is true or not, just became an atheist because of their actions a la Red Hot Catholic Love ep of South Park.


The fact that somebody becomes an atheist doesn't in any way mean that they have done this for sound logical reasons. People might take issue with the behaviour of religious people, the morality of the doctrines, the requirements for salvation and many other things but very few connected with the actual validity of the soteriological or other claims made by a particular religion.

Improbable

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm sorry but I'm with Jernal on this one. I don't see that there is any causative link between atheism and critical thinking. Correlative certainly but you know what they say about correlation and causation. People lose their faith for all kinds of reasons and only some of them ever have to do with logic and critical thinking.

Is it possible that there are 2 different conversations taking place here? One that says "Being an atheist means you are more likely to think critically" and "Thinking critically makes you more likely to be an atheist"? Being an atheist isn't going to automatically make you a better critical thinker but I think there is some truth to the fact that if you think critically, you are more likely to be an atheist, given the fact that belief in a deity is an irrational position. It also depends on what one thinks the first statement is saying. "People who are atheists are more likely to be critical thinkers", which is a correlation versus "Being an atheist makes you more of a critical thinker", which is a causation.

It's a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.

1. if P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, P.

In our case, P is being a critical thinker. Q is being an atheist.

Obviously we don't deal in absolutes because as has been stated before, there are many reasons for why one might be an atheist but if we look at probabilities, I believe we can say that being a critical thinker makes you more likely to be an atheist. i.e.

1. if P, then Q.
2. P.
3. Therefore, Q.

But being an atheist does not automatically make you more likely to be a critical thinker. i.e.

1. if P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, P.

sponsoredwalk

Improbable wrote: »

but I think there is some truth to the fact that if you think critically, you are more likely to be an atheist, given the fact that belief in a deity is an irrational position.

All that's left is for you to be the first person in the history of humanity to actually make the case for why belief in a deity is an irrational position.

Improbable

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

All that's left is for you to be the first person in the history of humanity to actually make the case for why belief in a deity is an irrational position.

I and many others on this forum have already clearly expressed why we believe that to be the case. There is no valid evidence for the existence of a deity. The rational stance with regards to belief in any subject should be that you do not believe in something until evidence is presented which shows it to be true. Indeed, people adhere to this principle for most aspects of their lives. If your argument is that this should not hold true for belief in a deity, why is that? If your argument is that there is valid evidence for the existence of a deity, I'm sure that if you present it here, I or someone else would be more than glad to demonstrate to you why it is not valid.

Northclare

That's why I prefer to keep an open mind,I like Theology,Superstition,Mysticism,Folklore and other stuff thats a bit well hard to prove or convince people of.

I won't claim I'm right but I like it all the same.
I detach myself from the negative side of it all take what suits me or is appealing and leave the rest....

I wasn't brought up in.a strict catholic home,it said to me when I was 16 son its up to you now make your own mind up

Dave!

I did an Ouija board with a couple of friends when I was much younger. Myself and one of the lads believed that the other one was moving it, because he's very keen on the paranormal sh*t. We whipped our hands off at the same time, and sure enough it kept moving with on the one fella's hands still on it.

Maybe the spirits were acting through him alone, who knows...

sponsoredwalk

Improbable wrote: »

I and many others on this forum have already clearly expressed why we believe that to be the case. There is no valid evidence for the existence of a deity. The rational stance with regards to belief in any subject should be that you do not believe in something until evidence is presented which shows it to be true. Indeed, people adhere to this principle for most aspects of their lives. If your argument is that this should not hold true for belief in a deity, why is that? If your argument is that there is valid evidence for the existence of a deity, I'm sure that if you present it here, I or someone else would be more than glad to demonstrate to you why it is not valid.

There's no reason in the universe why reason has anything whatsoever to do with a question like this. You're telling us that it should when you argue that evidence should apply to these concepts, that evidence should apply to the creator of evidence. I'd love to see someone argue their way out of this paper bag in trying to tell me that it makes sense that evidence, or the supposed* lack thereof, should apply to the creator of evidence.

But no, you tell us it is irrational for people who tell us that they believe X, due to their faith-based decision, using this nonsensical argument that evidence should apply to the creator of evidence, that reason should apply to the creator of reason (& the very concept of reason) - & people think this is rational? On one side of a potentially unanswerable question we have people telling us they've taken a side on one side of the question on nothing more than faith, on another we have people telling us that because evidence apparently* doesn't exist for the creator of evidence that this has any relevance as to whether the creator of evidence exists (& some go further in claiming this implies those philistine out-groupers are just irrational... ).

*And as to the question of evidence, what kind of evidence could there possibly be? Assuming god did suddenly appear, how would you know he was legit? How would you know it wasn't a sub-god in a heirarchy of subgods? How would you know it wasn't a dream? How would you know it wasn't part of a hallucination? How would you know it wasn't part of a hallucination due to the real you being tortured/drowning/X/Y/Z/...? How would you know the laws of physics hadn't just failed & reality as it stands was just morphing into illogicality... How would you know that the mars bar creator of the universe hadn't just gotten fed up & felt it was time to play tricks? How would you know that the snickers bar creator of the universe hadn't just gotten fed up & felt it was time to play tricks? How would you know that the snuckers bar creator of the universe hadn't just gotten fed up & felt it was time to play tricks?

You'll notice how the concept of rationality applies in the above example, but that's merely a rhetorical ploy - there's no reason in the universe why reason has anything whatsoever to do with a question like this, it's just packed in to your assumptions. If we can get past that entirely faith-based assumption we then see that a claim like this is nothing but the product of unjustifiable bias & could very well be true. For all we know someone's lamp is all the evidence that will ever exist for the existence of god in the universe. For all we know existence itself is evidence of the universe. How do you know? How do you not know? How the hell do you decide either way? Again I see no reason why everything & nothing is evidence for the existence of god, that only makes sense to me once I accept all your assumptions about rationality etc... which there really isn't one omicron of justification for. I think the philistine's would refer to that as a faith-based claim.

So please, remind me again why lack of evidence says anything as to whether god exists or not, & why those others are just so irrational?

Improbable

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

There's no reason in the universe why reason has anything whatsoever to do with a question like this. You're telling us that it should when you argue that evidence should apply to these concepts, that evidence should apply to the creator of evidence. I'd love to see someone argue their way out of this paper bag in trying to tell me that it makes sense that evidence, or the supposed* lack thereof, should apply to the creator of evidence.

But no, you tell us it is irrational for people who tell us that they believe X, due to their faith-based decision, using this nonsensical argument that evidence should apply to the creator of evidence, that reason should apply to the creator of reason (& the very concept of reason) - & people think this is rational? On one side of a potentially unanswerable question we have people telling us they've taken a side on one side of the question on nothing more than faith, on another we have people telling us that because evidence apparently* doesn't exist for the creator of evidence that this has any relevance as to whether the creator of evidence exists (& some go further in claiming this implies those philistine out-groupers are just irrational... ).

*And as to the question of evidence, what kind of evidence could there possibly be? Assuming god did suddenly appear, how would you know he was legit? How would you know it wasn't a sub-god in a heirarchy of subgods? How would you know it wasn't a dream? How would you know it wasn't part of a hallucination? How would you know it wasn't part of a hallucination due to the real you being tortured/drowning/X/Y/Z/...? How would you know the laws of physics hadn't just failed & reality as it stands was just morphing into illogicality... How would you know that the mars bar creator of the universe hadn't just gotten fed up & felt it was time to play tricks? How would you know that the snickers bar creator of the universe hadn't just gotten fed up & felt it was time to play tricks? How would you know that the snuckers bar creator of the universe hadn't just gotten fed up & felt it was time to play tricks?

You'll notice how the concept of rationality applies in the above example, but that's merely a rhetorical ploy - there's no reason in the universe why reason has anything whatsoever to do with a question like this, it's just packed in to your assumptions. If we can get past that entirely faith-based assumption we then see that a claim like this is nothing but the product of unjustifiable bias & could very well be true. For all we know someone's lamp is all the evidence that will ever exist for the existence of god in the universe. For all we know existence itself is evidence of the universe. How do you know? How do you not know? How the hell do you decide either way? Again I see no reason why everything & nothing is evidence for the existence of god, that only makes sense to me once I accept all your assumptions about rationality etc... which there really isn't one omicron of justification for. I think the philistine's would refer to that as a faith-based claim.

So please, remind me again why lack of evidence says anything as to whether god exists or not, & why those others are just so irrational?

You're confusing the arguments. Your statements are about the existence of a deity, mine are about the belief in the existence of a deity. Two closely related but separate subjects. Stop trying to move the goalposts.

sponsoredwalk

Improbable wrote: »

You're confusing the arguments. Your statements are about the existence of a deity, mine are about the belief in the existence of a deity. Two closely related but separate subjects. Stop trying to move the goalposts.

Yes that somehow negates everything I've said, especially the part where I addressed the whole substance of your post, namely your argument about why it is irrational for the out-group to "believe":

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

But no, you tell us it is irrational for people who tell us that they believe X, due to their faith-based decision, using this nonsensical argument that evidence should apply to the creator of evidence, that reason should apply to the creator of reason (& the very concept of reason) - & people think this is rational? On one side of a potentially unanswerable question we have people telling us they've taken a side on one side of the question on nothing more than faith, on another we have people telling us that because evidence apparently* doesn't exist for the creator of evidence that this has any relevance as to whether the creator of evidence exists (& some go further in claiming this implies those philistine out-groupers are just irrational... ).

despite the fact that you & all the others on this forum see no evidence. If the argument upon which you base this claim of irrationality makes no sense then using your own rationality I think you'll see how you have no justification for saying the out-group are irrational (though apparently people think that logic makes sense since in this thread all we need to do is show that an atheist is more rational than a theist to somehow link atheism & rationality so maybe we are justified in calling theists irrational for believing despite evidence even though there's no reason in the universe why evidence should have any bearing on a question like this ).

After that I'm just exploring further the argument you're basing your elitism off of, this idea of evidence, just to show how irrational this argument is. But before that I specifically address how your argument does not imply the others are irrational, so had I known you were going to ignore that the first time I'd have originally posted with the word believe in red 5 times bigger. But I'll just say that my post is not at all about the existence of a deity it's about the idea that evidence has anything to do with a conversation like this & how nonsensical it is to use that idea to put the in-group above the philistines.

Daftendirekt

I'm generally pretty sceptical when it comes to paranormal claims, but there was a time when I believed in ghosts and things. I grew out of it eventually. That said, I'll tell you all something that happened to me once.

It was years ago. I was staying with my great aunt in her her house in Connemara. It was a big house, miles from anywhere.

Apparently, during the great famine, a cruel landlord and his daughter used to live there. The story is that he forbade the daughter from marrying a young soldier, broke her heart, and in her despair, she hung herself in her bedroom.

The room that I was staying in was that very bedroom.

I remember it was icy cold, lit by a single candle. I was drifting off to sleep when suddenly, I heard a strange creaking noise from the far corner of the room.

But no, I've never seen a ghost.

Improbable

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

despite the fact that you & all the others on this forum see no evidence. If the argument upon which you base this claim of irrationality makes no sense then using your own rationality I think you'll see how you have no justification for saying the out-group are irrational (though apparently people think that logic makes sense since in this thread all we need to do is show that an atheist is more rational than a theist to somehow link atheism & rationality so maybe we are justified in calling theists irrational for believing despite evidence even though there's no reason in the universe why evidence should have any bearing on a question like this ).

After that I'm just exploring further the argument you're basing your elitism off of, this idea of evidence, just to show how irrational this argument is. But before that I specifically address how your argument does not imply the others are irrational, so had I known you were going to ignore that the first time I'd have originally posted with the word believe in red 5 times bigger. But I'll just say that my post is not at all about the existence of a deity it's about the idea that evidence has anything to do with a conversation like this & how nonsensical it is to use that idea to put the in-group above the philistines.

I'm sorry but I'm actually having a hard time trying to understand exactly what you're saying. Maybe if you simplified it a little bit, I might be able to respond to specific, concise points that you make.

As to the argument that evidence shouldn't have anything to do with this discussion, that's just a case of special pleading. You're trying to make the case that reason and rationality don't have to apply to the creator of reason and rationality but you've not demonstrated why that should be the case, either on the basis of rationality or faith.

sponsoredwalk

Improbable wrote: »

I'm sorry but I'm actually having a hard time trying to understand exactly what you're saying. Maybe if you simplified it a little bit, I might be able to respond to specific, concise points that you make.

You: belief in a deity is an irrational position.

Me: make the case for why belief in a deity is an irrational position.

You: There is no valid evidence for the existence of a deity.

Me: What constitutes evidence for the existence of a deity? By what criterion are you evaluating this by? In fact, why should evidence even apply to a deity?

Improbable wrote: »

As to the argument that evidence shouldn't have anything to do with this discussion, that's just a case of special pleading. You're trying to make the case that reason and rationality don't have to apply to the creator of reason and rationality but you've not demonstrated why that should be the case, either on the basis of rationality or faith.

You're the one saying that it should, I've told you repeatedly there isn't a reason in the universe why this needs to be the case, it may or may not be true - you're the one whose constrained to only one choice in this quest to denigrate the out-group. Further I've told you that contradictory reasons can be reasons for the existence of the creator of reason, there's absolutely no reason why they can't (though it doesn't mean that this is the case). You can't pretend there's a rational way to justify the faith-based claim that evidence has anything to do with the question of a deity & expect others to pretend with you.

oldrnwisr

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You: belief in a deity is an irrational position.

Me: make the case for why belief in a deity is an irrational position.

You: There is no valid evidence for the existence of a deity.

Me: What constitutes evidence for the existence of a deity? By what criterion are you evaluating this by? In fact, why should evidence even apply to a deity?

Like Improbable I'm having a difficult time discerning your thought process in this thread.

As I see it, atheism is the null hypothesis, the position before proof. If someone makes a claim that deity X exists then it is reasonable to ask that person to support such an assertion with evidence and reasoned argument. If that person is unwilling or unable to do so and yet still holds to their belief in the existence of deity X then that is an irrational position.

As for the bolded section, are you serious? If someone makes a claim for the existence of anything why should they not be required to support it with evidence? Are we just supposed to take their word for it?

Sycopat

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You: belief in a deity is an irrational position.

Me: make the case for why belief in a deity is an irrational position.

You: There is no valid evidence for the existence of a deity.

Me: What constitutes evidence for the existence of a deity? By what criterion are you evaluating this by? In fact, why should evidence even apply to a deity?

Your first two questions are an attempt to shift the burden of proof. You hold the position. You make the hypothesis. You test it.

Your third question is meaningless. The argument is that it is an irrational position. If a deity existed without evidence then assuming the existence of that deity would still be irrational.

Evidence in this case doesn't apply to the deity, it applies to the state of rational/irrational.

But if a deity existed it would be easy for said deity to prove it. Depending on how we define "deity" of course. For now let's go with with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being of Judeo-Christian heritage. If you would like to move those goalposts, by all means do. Just tell us where you decide to put them.

But an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent being could do literally (And I use that word correctly here) anything it was asked to to prove it existed.

Anything that is, except nothing.

sponsoredwalk

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As I see it, atheism is the null hypothesis, the position before proof.

That is an entirely faith-based position, one that implicitly assumes questions of reason, logic & rationality even apply to questions such as this, something that in no way follows considering the nature of the question. Again I ask for a morsel of a hint as to why such concepts even apply - is it not blatantly obvious that you have absolutely no way to justify why such concepts should apply, that you could never possibly justify why such concepts should apply? Seriously? I've already mentioned some of the mindfcuk's that are possible with questions like this & the others should be immediately obvious, I'd think this & the mountain of other obvious problems would make it obvious that even assuming a null hypothesis is itself an inherently biased stance.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If someone makes a claim that deity X exists then it is reasonable to ask that person to support such an assertion with evidence and reasoned argument.

You know this is a caricature of the claims made by religious people who emphasize that faith is the fueling motivation behind it all. Forget about easy claims (infallibility of books etc... something I don't think we should discuss further without becoming clear about the basic assumptions thus far), take on the root of the question & tell me why anything you've said even addresses the question of someone using faith. I know people don't like the implications of such concepts but that doesn't mean they just go away due to our ideological biases not liking it, & that people who abhor such concepts aren't also themselves inextricably tied to such reprehensible assumptions (or maybe you can prove the ground will continue to exist as you read this & the next sentences & boards has become the first place in the history of humanity to settle all these age-old questions, let alone settle them in such a manner so as to put us above them).

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If that person is unwilling or unable to do so and yet still holds to their belief in the existence of deity X then that is an irrational position.

As fun as caricatures of the rational animal swayed by evidence are, I have yet to see how these caricatures even apply to this conversation. Thus far I see them applying only because people are so biased they don't even understand the nature of the question, a bit like answering "shoehorn" to 2 + 2.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As for the bolded section, are you serious?

Yes, & I've explained why multiple times. I'll just quote it:

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

There's no reason in the universe why reason has anything whatsoever to do with a question like this. You're telling us that it should when you argue that evidence should apply to these concepts, that evidence should apply to the creator of evidence. I'd love to see someone argue their way out of this paper bag in trying to tell me that it makes sense that evidence, or the supposed* lack thereof, should apply to the creator of evidence.

Now as to your implicit assumptions, are you serious? I know people take as fact that it's just obvious that evidence applies to these questions, but to a lowly philistine like me it's not at all obvious & thus far nobody has even tried to make it clear why...

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If someone makes a claim for the existence of anything why should they not be required to support it with evidence?

Yes if we're arguing against those who claims they have definitive evidence that their god exists, but if we're discussing these questions when people justify themselves ultimately with faith I see no necessity for the applicability of the reasoning of reasoning...

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Are we just supposed to take their word for it?

Who said you had to take their word for it?

sponsoredwalk

Sycopat wrote: »

Your first two questions are an attempt to shift the burden of proof. You hold the position. You make the hypothesis. You test it.

No it's not an attempt to shift the burden of proof since no burden of proof was put upon me - if you were paying attention to the conversation you'd see a claim was made & I asked these questions about it. If someone is going to say that they see no evidence for the existence of a deity & use this to call religious people irrational then I think it's perfectly fair to ask them by what criterion they are evaluating evidence & what could adequately constitute evidence, let alone how such apparently stellar & unquestionable logic fuels their worldview. Again if you were paying attention you'd see that to answer that you'd have to factor in some of the concerns I posted about such a response (if only to save me repeating myself & as a test of basic honesty as regards answering the questions rather than engaging in rhetorical games). If people are going to so blithely use deep philosophical questions to put the in-group above the out-group then surely the basic questions I've asked & concerns I've voiced must be trivially dismissible.

Sycopat wrote: »

Your third question is meaningless.

I honestly doubt you mean this, it's blatantly obvious what is meant by the question & if you seriously don't understand it then you're not thinking about it or even reading what I'm saying since I've said it multiple times.

Sycopat wrote: »

If a deity existed without evidence then assuming the existence of that deity would still be irrational.

To say something like this, using words like rationality:

In philosophy, rationality is the characteristic of any action, belief, or desire, that makes their choice a necessity. It is a normative concept about the reasoning in the sense that rational people should derive conclusions in a consistent way given the information at disposal.

assumes that a choice one way or the other should be made of necessity. Again, as is blatantly obvious, if it were possible to convincingly make the argument that a choice should be made of necessity either way philosophers long ago would have done so & such decisions would have permeated the zeitgeist of the time, let alone ours. But even if they hadn't & boards.ie is the first location in the history of humanity to deduce such conclusions, let us hear them.

In what way, shape or form is it irrational to make a statement one way or the other about a claim in which neither choice is a necessity? If there was any hint of necessity either way this age-old philosophical question would have been solved by people smarter than us, or are you claiming that boards.ie is the first place in the history of humanity to solve these issues?

Even looking at this word irrational:

Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking or acting without inclusion of rationality. It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason, emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency. The term is used, usually pejoratively, to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful, or more illogical than other more rational alternatives.

you guys still have your work cut out for you, to honestly argue that such words apply is to assume a definitive answer exists. So again I fail to see how this word applies. Again I think it rests on this null hypothesis nonsense, something that so ridiculously obviously assumes concepts such as logic & rationality definitively apply to a question like this - I mean you're well beyond the stage of faith-based decisions by then & are thoroughly grounded on one unjustifiable side of an argument in which neither side is justifiable, apparently it's so deep that people can't even see it & unsurprisingly we have deeply ingrained unjustifiable decisions at the root of an in-group insulting an out-group :rolleyes:

Sycopat wrote: »

But an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent being could do literally (And I use that word correctly here) anything it was asked to to prove it existed.

Anything that is, except nothing.

You say this in a way as if I'm somehow questioning this, the only people putting constraints on what god is capable of are the people who implicitly argue concepts such as logic & rationality apply so if an argument such as the above is to be directed at anyone the last person it should be directed at is me frankly...

Sycopat

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

No it's not an attempt to shift the burden of proof since no burden of proof was put upon me - if you were paying attention to the conversation you'd see a claim was made & I asked these questions about it. If someone is going to say that they see no evidence for the existence of a deity & use this to call religious people irrational then I think it's perfectly fair to ask them by what criterion they are evaluating evidence & what could adequately constitute evidence, let alone how such apparently stellar & unquestionable logic fuels their worldview. Again if you were paying attention you'd see that to answer that you'd have to factor in some of the concerns I posted about such a response (if only to save me repeating myself & as a test of basic honesty as regards answering the questions rather than engaging in rhetorical games). If people are going to so blithely use deep philosophical questions to put the in-group above the out-group then surely the basic questions I've asked & concerns I've voiced must be trivially dismissible.



I honestly doubt you mean this, it's blatantly obvious what is meant by the question & if you seriously don't understand it then you're not thinking about it or even reading what I'm saying since I've said it multiple times.



To say something like this, using words like rationality:

assumes that a choice one way or the other should be made of necessity. Again, as is blatantly obvious, if it were possible to convincingly make the argument that a choice should be made of necessity either way philosophers long ago would have done so & such decisions would have permeated the zeitgeist of the time, let alone ours. But even if they hadn't & boards.ie is the first location in the history of humanity to deduce such conclusions, let us hear them.

In what way, shape or form is it irrational to make a statement one way or the other about a claim in which neither choice is a necessity? If there was any hint of necessity either way this age-old philosophical question would have been solved by people smarter than us, or are you claiming that boards.ie is the first place in the history of humanity to solve these issues?

Even looking at this word irrational:
you guys still have your work cut out for you, to honestly argue that such words apply is to assume a definitive answer exists. So again I fail to see how this word applies. Again I think it rests on this null hypothesis nonsense, something that so ridiculously obviously assumes concepts such as logic & rationality definitively apply to a question like this - I mean you're well beyond the stage of faith-based decisions by then & are thoroughly grounded on one unjustifiable side of an argument in which neither side is justifiable, apparently it's so deep that people can't even see it & unsurprisingly we have deeply ingrained unjustifiable decisions at the root of an in-group insulting an out-group :rolleyes:



You say this in a way as if I'm somehow questioning this, the only people putting constraints on what god is capable of are the people who implicitly argue concepts such as logic & rationality apply so if an argument such as the above is to be directed at anyone the last person it should be directed at is me frankly...

Seeing as you can quote wikipedia so well, I will assume you can follow a link to evidence. Lets skip any potential 'nature of truth' argument also: Direct, objective evidence, preferably scientific, is evidence. Subjective evidence(Anecdotal(e.g. Holy book X), intuition etc.) is not, because it is subjective, more easily falsifiable, and unverifiable (Direct evidence is of course falsifiable also, but if falsified it will be unverifiable). Given the extraordinary claim that any deity would be the evidence would have to be extraordinarily strong.

So your concerns about what is evidence, trivially addressed.

For the record though, you didn't ask for a definition of acceptable evidence, you asked what would constitute such evidence. That's asking for an example of acceptable evidence. An example I can't give you because I am unaware of the existence of any. So perhaps it's possible for you to understand why asking what constitutes evidence is an attempt to shift the burden of proof? Although it's perhaps not the question you intended to raise.

As to rational vs irrational.

On Rationality:
Necessity in this context does not mean that an opinion one way or the other must be held, it is the requirement that an opinion held must have consistent reasoning behind it.

In the absence of any evidence for something is it consistent to believe that thing exists? Of course not. There is no reason to allow yourself to believe in such a thing, and so by necessity you shouldn't. Is there evidence for a deity? None that I am aware of. So should I believe in a deity? I should not. So I don't.

Irrational then:

opinion given through inadequate use of reason

If it is a necessity of rationality that reasoning must be consistent, inconsistent reasoning must be inadequate use of reason when determining rationality. Is there evidence for a deity? None that I am aware of. So should I believe in a deity? I should not. But I will anyway. That's not consistent is it?


On your final point: You haven't openly claimed any specific deity exists in what I've read of your posts. I clearly defined the type of deity I was talking about myself because of that. I was simply trying to demonstrate that such a deity as I had defined if it existed could very easily provide evidence if it chose to, making belief in it consistent and hence rational. But by doing nothing, belief in such a deity remains irrational because there is still no evidence for it.

I was trying to demonstrate why:

myself wrote:

Evidence in this case doesn't apply to the deity, it applies to the state of rational/irrational.

Oh, and your third question was meaningless. Evidence doesn't apply to the existence of a deity: Things can exist without our knowledge and often do (Coelacanth's for example were wrongly believed extinct for ages. This was rational, because at the time it was the prevalent belief the only known coelacanth's were fossilised examples millions of years dead.) Evidence does not 'decide' the existence of something, it decides which position is rational.

If there was strong evidence for the existence of a deity, philosophers and scientists would have long ago settled the matter. The fact that their isn't and humanity has been engaged in an astoundingly rapid rise from animalistic barbarism to modern times is what keeps the question open for debate in amateur circles such as boards.ie.

sponsoredwalk

Sycopat wrote: »

So your concerns about what is evidence, trivially addressed.

Really? All you did was tell us in most general terms that subjective evidence is is not evidence of something because it's subjective, easily falsifiable & unverifiable (which you should really tell any doctor, psychologist, social scientist etc...) & then tell us that objective evidence would constitute evidence without a tap of specifics... Furthermore you haven't even bothered to tell us why, say, a lamp isn't evidence for the existence of god. Just because you're hilariously obvious biases don't apparently lead to you concluding that a lamp is evidence for a deity (nor do I have any way to conclude that about the lamp) it may very well be the only evidence that will ever exist & our own biases are responsible for us not seeing the light... Repeating slogans about objective, verifiable, is fine but can you go any further without giving an inherently flawed & biased example that somehow nullifies the very fact that the evidence could potentially be totally & utterly wrong despite being repeatedly verifiable to the furthest extent of human cognition & further somehow accounts for the fact that there's no reason why a deity could not make contradictory evidence be evidence for it's existence.

Sycopat wrote: »

For the record though, you didn't ask for a definition of acceptable evidence, you asked what would constitute such evidence.

Correct the record because the very first thing I asked was:

"what kind of evidence could there possibly be?"

If you're going to argue that asking what "kind" of evidence is

Sycopat wrote: »

asking for an example of acceptable evidence

& not asking for a definition then frankly I see this as going nowhere.

Sycopat wrote: »

An example I can't give you because I am unaware of the existence of any.

Even playing this rhetoric game, if you could give a definition of the particular kind of evidence that wouldn't leave open the mindfcuk possibilities that this conversation creates then it would be an immediate consequence of the definition to be able to give an example - if you can't even come up with an example you have an inherently flawed definition of what constitutes evidence. If you could give me an example of evidence then we'd be able to derive a good definition quick enough. Quite frankly either way would be enough but thus far you're only attempt - objective or scientific evidence can't be taken seriously, it would not show the existence of a god who has allowed contradictory evidence to be evidence for it's existence, so if that is really the only true deity then you're form of evidence would mean we would be forever without the means to deduce the evidence necessary to know our creator Your claims implicitly assume the concepts of logic & rationality even apply - a constraint I think you're having a hard time shaking yourself of - when there's absolutely no need for this to be the case.

Sycopat wrote: »

So perhaps it's possible for you to understand why asking what constitutes evidence is an attempt to shift the burden of proof?

This is very simple, someone makes the claim that belief in a deity is inherently irrational because there is no evidence for it, I ask them what kind of evidence could there possibly be & then you tell me I'm shifting the burden of proof? Someone else has formed a crystalline opinion based on their conclusion of the lack of evidence & when I ask them how they got to that conclusion suddenly I'm shifting the burden of proof?

Sycopat wrote: »

On Rationality:
Necessity in this context does not mean that an opinion one way or the other must be held, it is the requirement that an opinion held must have consistent reasoning behind it.

The thing you said necessity doesn't mean is synonymous with what you said it does mean if you actually read it in the context it was posted, namely the context where necessity obviously means you necessarily follow where you're led in order to be rational. I can't see how to interpret that any other way & have it make sense in light of the conversation...

Sycopat wrote: »

In the absence of any evidence for something is it consistent to believe that thing exists? Of course not. There is no reason to allow yourself to believe in such a thing, and so by necessity you shouldn't. Is there evidence for a deity? None that I am aware of. So should I believe in a deity? I should not. So I don't.

Again, to repeat the question again, what in the universe could possibly consist of evidence? How can you justifiably tell us that the lack of evidence is reason enough to call the out-group irrational when you're own definition of scientific, objective evidence is so ridiculously flawed, so insanely biased as to what a deity should be like that it's laughable?

Sycopat wrote: »

Irrational then:

If it is a necessity of rationality that reasoning must be consistent, inconsistent reasoning must be inadequate use of reason when determining rationality. Is there evidence for a deity? None that I am aware of. So should I believe in a deity? I should not. But I will anyway. That's not consistent is it?

Why do you just assume, without a morsel of a tap of justification as to why, rationality or logic applies to a deity? Can you really not comprehend how major an assumption that is to make, let alone how bereft of serious justification it could possibly be?

Sycopat wrote: »

On your final point: You haven't openly claimed any specific deity exists in what I've read of your posts. I clearly defined the type of deity I was talking about myself because of that.

Unlike you I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume a deity has to fit any preconceived mold [especially, though not exclusively, since this inherently assumes concepts such as rationality, logic etc... even apply (oh the unstated assumptions...) & the fact that you'd invoke such concepts really shows you weren't following what I'm saying]. I'm not interested in discussing a specific deity since knocking that one down (to use your words) just shifts the goalposts to the next possibility & on we go in this roundabout indefinitely all the while thinking concepts such as logic & rationality necessarily apply to the discussion, something I'm still waiting for a justification for...

Sycopat wrote: »

I was simply trying to demonstrate that such a deity as I had defined if it existed could very easily provide evidence if it chose to, making belief in it consistent and hence rational. But by doing nothing, belief in such a deity remains irrational because there is still no evidence for it.

I honestly don't know why you set this example up, it's blatantly obvious that this would be possible for the extremely anthropomorphic deity you've created but for some unjustified reason you
a) think rationality even applies,
b) think a deity would care whether people believe in it,
c) still fail to even begin to justify your use of the word irrational.
I don't know why you'd cite an example of an anthropomorphic deity as some kind of rebuttal to someone arguing that the very concepts of logic & rationality themselves have no justifiable reason for even applying to the concept of a deity...

Sycopat wrote: »

Oh, and your third question was meaningless. Evidence doesn't apply to the existence of a deity: Things can exist without our knowledge and often do (Coelacanth's for example were wrongly believed extinct for ages. This was rational, because at the time it was the prevalent belief the only known coelacanth's were fossilised examples millions of years dead.) Evidence does not 'decide' the existence of something, it decides which position is rational.

What did I say?

"In fact, why should evidence even apply to a deity?"

If you seriously & honestly took this question as me saying that a lack of evidence for a deity would mean the deity doesn't exist then yes what I've said appears meaningless, however you'd really have to wonder how I'd have the mental capabilities to get on the internet if I said something like that with a straight face. I mean really, what kind of person would make that argument? Putting aside the fact you'd think I'd make such a ridiculous argument, if you were following anything I was saying you'd see that this was the very last thing I could be saying... My entire argument is that the very concepts of logic & rationality have no justifiable reason for even applying to this discussion - how in the world could that argument simultaneously co-exist with me also saying that because evidence doesn't exist for a coelacanth or a deity it means that the coelacanth or a deity doesn't exist I mean the very question itself is asking why the lack of evidence should say anything about belief in a deity, why it should even apply? Does it not seem questionable that I'd post claims in complete contradiction to the rest of what I'm posting & that maybe I wasn't interjecting arguments that fly right in the face with the rest of what I'm posting?

Sycopat wrote: »

If there was strong evidence for the existence of a deity, philosophers and scientists would have long ago settled the matter. The fact that their isn't and humanity has been engaged in an astoundingly rapid rise from animalistic barbarism to modern times is what keeps the question open for debate in amateur circles such as boards.ie.

Thank you for repeating what I've already said, are you sure you're arguing with the right person here? The people (including yourself) here arguing that it is inherently irrational to pick the out-group side over the in-group side in this debate. Using your own words it implies you all have some form of consistent reasoning you're using. Could you please be the first person in the history of humanity to consistently argue for why choosing one side over the other is done so out of consistent reasoning & not as part of an inherently unjustifiable faith-based choice, especially using scientific evidence as justification for such elitism.

oldrnwisr

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You know this is a caricature of the claims made by religious people who emphasize that faith is the fueling motivation behind it all. Forget about easy claims (infallibility of books etc... something I don't think we should discuss further without becoming clear about the basic assumptions thus far), take on the root of the question & tell me why anything you've said even addresses the question of someone using faith. I know people don't like the implications of such concepts but that doesn't mean they just go away due to our ideological biases not liking it, & that people who abhor such concepts aren't also themselves inextricably tied to such reprehensible assumptions (or maybe you can prove the ground will continue to exist as you read this & the next sentences & boards has become the first place in the history of humanity to settle all these age-old questions, let alone settle them in such a manner so as to put us above them).

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Yes if we're arguing against those who claims they have definitive evidence that their god exists, but if we're discussing these questions when people justify themselves ultimately with faith I see no necessity for the applicability of the reasoning of reasoning...

I have restricted my response to just these two points of your post because your last post clarified your position and I realise where you're coming from now.

I think that previously we had been talking at cross purposes. I agree with you that there are two different propositions here. The first is someone who claims: "I believe in deity X and I do so on faith" and the second is someone who states that deity X exists as if it were factually true. The first position is for my money unassailable. A faith-based position is impervious to logic and evidence. However, it was the second position to which I was referring in my previous post. If someone believes something on faith then I don't have a problem, only when they cross the line into trying to convince me that this deity actually exists. Then I'm going to need evidence.

Dades

There is a simple reason why some religious people claim that the question of God's existence is subject to different rules of evidence - because there is no evidence.

But just because your contention requires a special dispensation from the rules in order to not fall at the first hurdle - doesn't mean it gets it. The rules apply to every other facet of life so you need to show (1) why your contention is outside of these rules, and (2) why you even believe another set of rules exist.

And I don't think you'll be able to answer either without reverting back to my first point.

Lastly, circular logic such as: "God exists without scientific evidence therefore other rules of evidence much exist..." make Baby Jesus cry.

Northclare

As you said before Dades, Science doesn't have all the answers and probably never will...

Sarky

That's no excuse for discounting everything science HAS answered.

oldrnwisr

Northclare wrote: »

As you said before Dades, Science doesn't have all the answers and probably never will...

As Dara O'Briain once said:

"Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop. Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean that you can fill the gap with whatever passing fairytale most appeals to you."


Of course science doesn't have all the answers because there are questions we haven't even discovered yet. Our ongoing progress in understanding ourselves, the planet we live on and the universe we inhabit is never likely to cease which means that there will always be questions to answer. However, science has provided us with incalculable knowledge about such things already, far more so than religion, for example. As AronRa so succintly put it:

"Science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything."

Northclare

Sarky wrote: »

That's no excuse for discounting everything science HAS answered.

I never discounted every thing science HAS answered.

I never made any excuses for anything in this discussion.

Sarky is able to do my thinking for me now...

Sycopat

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Really? All you did was tell us in most general terms that subjective evidence is is not evidence of something because it's subjective, easily falsifiable & unverifiable (which you should really tell any doctor, psychologist, social scientist etc...) & then tell us that objective evidence would constitute evidence without a tap of specifics... Furthermore you haven't even bothered to tell us why, say, a lamp isn't evidence for the existence of god. Just because you're hilariously obvious biases don't apparently lead to you concluding that a lamp is evidence for a deity (nor do I have any way to conclude that about the lamp) it may very well be the only evidence that will ever exist & our own biases are responsible for us not seeing the light... Repeating slogans about objective, verifiable, is fine but can you go any further without giving an inherently flawed & biased example that somehow nullifies the very fact that the evidence could potentially be totally & utterly wrong despite being repeatedly verifiable to the furthest extent of human cognition & further somehow accounts for the fact that there's no reason why a deity could not make contradictory evidence be evidence for it's existence.

A lamp isn’t evidence for the existence of god because every lamp I’m aware of has been created by humans. They can exist without a god. Humans are not evidence for the existence of god, observation tells us they have been created by a mixture of chemistry and random permutation out of elements formed from stars. They can exist without a god. Stars are not evidence of god, observation tells us they are vast balls of simple elements fusing under their own massive weight.

Correct the record because the very first thing I asked was:

"what kind of evidence could there possibly be?"

If you're going to argue that asking what "kind" of evidence is



& not asking for a definition then frankly I see this as going nowhere.

The first question you asked which I addressed, and which I have consistently referred to as 'your first question' since, was ‘what constitutes evidence?’.

Even playing this rhetoric game, if you could give a definition of the particular kind of evidence that wouldn't leave open the mindfcuk possibilities that this conversation creates then it would be an immediate consequence of the definition to be able to give an example - if you can't even come up with an example you have an inherently flawed definition of what constitutes evidence. If you could give me an example of evidence then we'd be able to derive a good definition quick enough. Quite frankly either way would be enough but thus far you're only attempt - objective or scientific evidence can't be taken seriously, it would not show the existence of a god who has allowed contradictory evidence to be evidence for it's existence, so if that is really the only true deity then you're form of evidence would mean we would be forever without the means to deduce the evidence necessary to know our creator

I could come up with speculative, fictional and imaginary examples of acceptable evidence easily. That’s why I asserted that a deity could easily prove it’s own existence if it so wished. Example: The deity could manifest an avatar capable of performing miracles at whim. A talking lamp with the ability to redefine reality around it would be fine.

Your claims implicitly assume the concepts of logic & rationality even apply - a constraint I think you're having a hard time shaking yourself of - when there's absolutely no need for this to be the case.

I don't have a hard time accepting the concept of an argument devoid of logic or rationality, I encounter them all the time. I have a hard time accepting such arguments though, because they are nonsense.

This is very simple, someone makes the claim that belief in a deity is inherently irrational because there is no evidence for it, I ask them what kind of evidence could there possibly be & then you tell me I'm shifting the burden of proof? Someone else has formed a crystalline opinion based on their conclusion of the lack of evidence & when I ask them how they got to that conclusion suddenly I'm shifting the burden of proof?

People are going to tell you you're shifting the burden of proof, because asking for anything other than imaginary, non-currently existing examples is shifting the burden of proof. And imaginary non-currently existing things are not evidence.

The thing you said necessity doesn't mean is synonymous with what you said it does mean if you actually read it in the context it was posted, namely the context where necessity obviously means you necessarily follow where you're led in order to be rational. I can't see how to interpret that any other way & have it make sense in light of the conversation...

The thing you said necessity doesn't mean is synonymous with.

What does this actually mean?

Again, to repeat the question again, what in the universe could possibly consist of evidence? How can you justifiably tell us that the lack of evidence is reason enough to call the out-group irrational when you're own definition of scientific, objective evidence is so ridiculously flawed, so insanely biased as to what a deity should be like that it's laughable?

They are irrational because they make an assumption without any evidence to support the assumption. That is poor reasoning. That is, by definition, irrational. You don't assume no gods exist because there is no evidence. Because there is no evidence you cannot rationally assume gods exist.

Why do you just assume, without a morsel of a tap of justification as to why, rationality or logic applies to a deity? Can you really not comprehend how major an assumption that is to make, let alone how bereft of serious justification it could possibly be?

Unlike you I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume a deity has to fit any preconceived mold [especially, though not exclusively, since this inherently assumes concepts such as rationality, logic etc... even apply (oh the unstated assumptions...) & the fact that you'd invoke such concepts really shows you weren't following what I'm saying]. I'm not interested in discussing a specific deity since knocking that one down (to use your words) just shifts the goalposts to the next possibility & on we go in this roundabout indefinitely all the while thinking concepts such as logic & rationality necessarily apply to the discussion, something I'm still waiting for a justification for...

I honestly don't know why you set this example up, it's blatantly obvious that this would be possible for the extremely anthropomorphic deity you've created but for some unjustified reason you
a) think rationality even applies,
b) think a deity would care whether people believe in it,
c) still fail to even begin to justify your use of the word irrational.
I don't know why you'd cite an example of an anthropomorphic deity as some kind of rebuttal to someone arguing that the very concepts of logic & rationality themselves have no justifiable reason for even applying to the concept of a deity...

I have consistently tried to point out that evidence applies to rationality and rationality applies to human thought, not the existence of a deity. You have consistently ignored that point and instead lambasted and derided my reasoning for trying too hard to be reasonable.

One more time: A deity doesn't have to be logical or rational. The people arguing for it's existence do.

What did I say?

"In fact, why should evidence even apply to a deity?"

If you seriously & honestly took this question as me saying that a lack of evidence for a deity would mean the deity doesn't exist then yes what I've said appears meaningless, however you'd really have to wonder how I'd have the mental capabilities to get on the internet if I said something like that with a straight face.

I’m not sure what this even means. I do however wonder if your making your arguments with a straight face.

[/b]My entire argument is that the very concepts of logic & rationality have no justifiable reason for even applying to this discussion.[/b]

Logic and rationality apply to Discussion. Not ‘this’ discussion, not ‘a’ discussion.
Discussion.

Thank you for repeating what I've already said, are you sure you're arguing with the right person here? The people (including yourself) here arguing that it is inherently irrational to pick the out-group side over the in-group side in this debate. Using your own words it implies you all have some form of consistent reasoning you're using. Could you please be the first person in the history of humanity to consistently argue for why choosing one side over the other is done so out of consistent reasoning & not as part of an inherently unjustifiable faith-based choice, especially using scientific evidence as justification for such elitism.

I have demonstrated the consistency of my reasoning, you have just ignored it. I also didn't repeat what you had claimed. You claimed if the rational necessity for not believing in a deity was widely accepted it would have historically permeated human thought sometime in our past.

I claimed if there had been evidence of a deity this discussion would not be possible. And we are a young species. The corollary is there are still a lot of people who consider subjective, biased books written thousands of years ago by people whose education was little more comprehensive than a primary school infant's and whose imaginations were about as vivid, to be 'good enough'. As a result of that, the rational necessity for not believing in god hasn't been around long enough (without being suppressed) to have permeated human thought. Yet.

If it's still not clear, I was disagreeing with you.

Dades

Northclare wrote: »

As you said before Dades, Science doesn't have all the answers and probably never will...

I really don't know what this soundbyte has to do with my post.

Science doesn't have all the answers in the same way painting doesn't have all the pictures.

sponsoredwalk

Sycopat wrote: »

A lamp isn’t evidence for the existence of god because every lamp I’m aware of has been created by humans.

Spot the insanely obvious unjustifiable assumptions... Why in the world can a lamp made by humans not be evidence for a deity? I can't put up with you just stating things matter-of-factly as if they're unquestionable obvious when I've continually tried to point out how such things are in no way obvious. You're not listening to me at all if you're going to say something like this so brazenly, it's not worth my time...

Sycopat wrote: »

They can exist without a god. Humans are not evidence for the existence of god,

Spot the unjustifiable assumptions...

Sycopat wrote: »

observation tells us they have been created by a mixture of chemistry and random permutation out of elements formed from stars.

Spot the unjustifiable assumptions...

Sycopat wrote: »

They can exist without a god.

Said as if this had any relevance to what I'm saying...

Sycopat wrote: »

Stars are not evidence of god, observation tells us they are vast balls of simple elements fusing under their own massive weight.

Spot the unjustifiable assumptions...

Sycopat wrote: »

The first question you asked which I addressed, and which I have consistently referred to as 'your first question' since, was ‘what constitutes evidence?’.

You said:

"For the record though, you didn't ask for a definition of acceptable evidence, you asked what would constitute such evidence."


I correct you by telling you the very first thing I asked was

"what kind of evidence could there possibly be?"

which if you go back to my second post you'll see this is the very first thing I asked (I asked a rhetorical question first if you want to be pedantic but that actually wasn't a question, though for some reason I expect to be shown to be contradicting myself because of this irrelevant triviality for some reason...). Notice that at no point of this are we referring to the "first question" you asked me, & further I was unaware that you asking me questions somehow meant everything suddenly referred to you even if it makes absolutely no sense interpreting things that way.

Sycopat wrote: »

I could come up with speculative, fictional and imaginary examples of acceptable evidence easily. That’s why I asserted that a deity could easily prove it’s own existence if it so wished. Example: The deity could manifest an avatar capable of performing miracles at whim. A talking lamp with the ability to redefine reality around it would be fine.

But they are examples of specific gods, they don't provide evidence for any of the gods I've mentioned repeatedly & wont repeat again. Why not take one of the hard examples I mentioned at the start of my last post to you that you've ignored, or the earlier ones thus far ignored?

Sycopat wrote: »

I don't have a hard time accepting the concept of an argument devoid of logic or rationality, I encounter them all the time. I have a hard time accepting such arguments though, because they are nonsense.

Yes this has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying...

Sycopat wrote: »

People are going to tell you you're shifting the burden of proof, because asking for anything other than imaginary, non-currently existing examples is shifting the burden of proof. And imaginary non-currently existing things are not evidence.

Notice how not once have you even bothered to mention what burden of proof was on me, as if it's just obvious what the burden of proof on me is.
But still, what you've said in no way characterizes what I asked, & the rest of what you said is too much of a strawman to even bother...

Sycopat wrote: »

The thing you said necessity doesn't mean is synonymous with.

What does this actually mean?

It means that what I said is exactly the same thing you said if you were paying attention to the conversation & following the context in which I quoted what I quoted. Further I told you how I don't see how you could interpret what I said in any other way than the way in which I meant it so I'd say you're not even reading what I'm saying if you're just repeating what I'm saying as if it's some sort of rebuttal to me, i.e. you make the argument to me that I just made against you as if you were somehow rebutting what I was saying even though I'd just said what you said.

Sycopat wrote: »

They are irrational because they make an assumption without any *evidence* to support the assumption. *That is poor reasoning*. That is, *by definition*, irrational. You don't assume no gods exist because there is no evidence. *Because there is no evidence* you cannot rationally assume gods exist.

Spot the unjustifiable assumptions...

Sycopat wrote: »

I have consistently tried to point out that evidence applies to rationality and rationality applies to human thought, not the existence of a deity. You have consistently ignored that point and instead lambasted and derided my reasoning for trying too hard to be reasonable.

I would only be repeating myself quoting unaddressed sentences if I responded to this...

Sycopat wrote: »

One more time: A deity doesn't have to be logical or rational. The people arguing for it's existence do.

Spot the unjustifiable assumptions...

Sycopat wrote: »

I’m not sure what this even means. I do however wonder if your making your arguments with a straight face.

Okay.

Sycopat wrote: »

Logic and rationality apply to Discussion. Not ‘this’ discussion, not ‘a’ discussion.
Discussion.

Oh god, you know what I meant, this is a perfect example of this debasing into grammar/save-face games, you win...

Sycopat wrote: »

I have demonstrated the consistency of my reasoning, you have just ignored it.

So every time above I've mentioned "Spot the unjustifiable assumptions..." you seriously think you've demonstrated even a morsel of reasoning? Let alone the consistency of it? I can't waste my time dealing with this, I'm sorry...

Sycopat wrote: »

I also didn't repeat what you had claimed. You claimed if the rational necessity for not believing in a deity was widely accepted it would have historically permeated human thought sometime in our past.

I claimed if there had been evidence of a deity this discussion would not be possible. And we are a young species. The corollary is there are still a lot of people who consider subjective, biased books written thousands of years ago by people whose education was little more comprehensive than a primary school infant's and whose imaginations were about as vivid, to be 'good enough'. As a result of that, the rational necessity for not believing in god hasn't been around long enough (without being suppressed) to have permeated human thought. Yet.

If it's still not clear, I was disagreeing with you.

noddyone2

Northclare wrote: »

Have any Atheists tried the Ouija Board does that kind of game or being on your own in isolated so called haunted locations or hearing ghost stories and watching satanic movies etc freak any of you out ?

Ouija is French (oui - yes) and German (ja - yes). Enough said.

Northclare

Dades wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

As you said before Dades, Science doesn't have all the answers and probably never will...

I really don't know what this soundbyte has to do with my post.

Science doesn't have all the answers in the same way painting doesn't have all the pictures.

I re read your post I get it now....