Rationality is a Human Contruct
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
The argument I was referring to was the Kalam cosmological argument, which contains several known common logical fallacies, thus it cannot be asserted as rational, and you made that assertion for it.
"You say then that one is rational if they adhere strictly to logic and Science."
The definition of rational is "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." So clearly if something adheres to the strict principles of validation within logic it is rational by definition, if it does not then it cannot be asserted as rational. Nothing that contains known logical fallacies can be asserted as rational.
"By what objective qualification based on the objective evidence that you thus far have (which is me the individual) have you ascertained the irrationality of my subjective faith?"
See above, your use of the cosmological argument as a "rational" argument for a deity, is by definition irrational as it contains known logical fallacies.
Nor would I agree that the church knows a deity exists, please demonstrate some objective evidence for this knowledge.
"Your position is B if I’m not mistaken"
My position is I do not believe any deity or deities exist, which is the dictionary definition of atheism. I don't believe the claim because no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for it.If you want me to make specific assertions about whether a deity can exist or not then you would need to start by accurately defining that deity, and then demonstrating what evidence you have for it, and you have so far refused to do this.
I have seen theists come on here and define deities in such vague terms as to make their existence unfalsifiable, so I must treat such claims as an agnostic, but also an atheist as they cannot evidence those deities.
I don't know, in the absolute sense you are implying, that unicorns or mermaids don't exist, but since they can't be evidenced I don't believe they do, why should I treat deities that no one can demonstrate any objective for any differently?
catholicray: "I am the objective evidence OF it not FOR it"
Unfortunately, you are neither. You are evidence for ONLY you. Nothing else. You are NOT evidence for or of any deity, nor for or of any beliefs. The only thing you may be, is just you. Nothing more. Nothing less.
rmfr
False
I am the objective evidence of my subjective faith. You can indeed study me and observe me and test me. I do indeed have faith. Therefore I am objective evidence of my subjective faith in relation to yourself.
However to clarify one detail, I may not qualify as objective evidence if for example someone believes that I am a construct of their own mind. But if I understand you correctly, that position would not qualify as rational.
Kind of a tangent: how exactly would someone preform an objective test for that?
@Nyarlathotep
Agreed
I don't know but people have tried to test the authenticity of subjective faith (i.e. questioning, torture, etc.)
I don't think an objective test has been developed unless you find the results of a lie detector test objective. I personally don't.
It seems you recently suggested the opposite:
LOL! I am starting to get the hang of the language barrier here.
Okay the statement:
I am the objective evidence of my subjective faith is: status unknown
I find it hilarious that you haven't developed an objective test for this though. That would mean that you have no way of objectively identifying me as a believer wouldn't it?
Yep.
@Nyarlathotep
LOL! Right on!
@ catholicray
I'll reiterate: You are NOT any kind of evidence of a human-created fantasy belief. The only thing you are evidence of the gullibility of some people to believe in something that cannot be substantiated.
And I shall repeat this. Since you are Catholic, and support Catholicism, you are no better than the worthless low lifes that helped to create the largest and wealthiest criminal syndicate on the planet Earth. It is time for the Catholic Church to be annihilated. It and its supporters no longer have any place in today's civilized society. And the same goes for Islam.
rmfr
"You can indeed study me and observe me a"
Since you have refused point blank to offer any objective evidence or even accurately define the deity you believe in, we quite demonstrably cannot observe or study your belief.
" I do indeed have faith."
could you give us a couple of examples of things that we could not believe on faith alone? Otherwise it's a vapid useless method that people use as an excuse to believe things they know they can't evidence. What makes all the other theist's faith wrong and yours right?
"Therefore I am objective evidence of my subjective faith in relation to yourself."
Christ that's the worst kind of vapid rhetoric, what does it even mean? Someone who believes the centre of the earth is made of chocolate has faith, are they "objective evidence of their subjective faith in relation to" chocolate earth centres?
"But if I understand you correctly, that position would not qualify as rational."
Can someone explain to me why theists, and religious apologists, are always starting sentences with the word but? it's endemic in the religious apologetics here, truly bizarre as if they don't know what a comma is for.
Yet you believe a god exists, despite lack of evidence, AND a preponderance of probability heavily, almost infinitely weighted otherwise. It is not reasonable to ignore that a god does not conform to the laws of the universe...therefore your belief, and your position is irrational. We use reason to establish this, and your reasoning fails you. There, we have reasoned that your position is irrational. You know, that "rational" and "reason" are not synonymous...but so do we.
I believe but I do not know. That is the qualifier you are failing to pay attention to.
Oh my, your mighty edicts come down from on high, like you are preaching from the pulpit.
To which I respond, "do you want sprinkles on your ice cream?"
Please if we are going to have reasonable discourse do not try to tell me what I believe without asking.
We do not bend over like compliant alter boys.
Then why are your pants pulled to your knees? Just asking.
@Cognistic:
Pantslessness is our legs' null hypothesis. Until you can demonstrate why I should wear pants, I stand by my right to discard them.
If God is real and is spying on me in my house, he's seen some stuff.
"If God is real and is spying on me in my house, he's seen some stuff."
Fair play that made me laugh out loud.
*Looking about* Well, um--- er--- This is about to go beyond anyplace I want to go. TMI. The thought rolling through my brain make me want to cringe...... *Shiver up the spine.*
Skeptical Kevin,
"If God is real and is spying on me in my house, he's seen some stuff."
The Israelites couldn't use steps on the altar because the guys would look up under the priests' robes and see their junk.
Exodus 20:26 (ERV) = "And you must not make steps leading up to the altar. If there are steps, when people look up to the altar, they will be able to see under your clothes.”
Exodus 20:26 (CEB) = "Don’t climb onto my altar using steps: then your genitals won’t be exposed by doing so.”
Oh my Cognostic, you got me. I am fortunate I did not have any liquids in my mouth because I woke up the dog laughing. Well played.
“It is not reasonable to ignore that a god does not conform to the laws of the universe”
Why would it be reasonable to think that a God would conform to the laws of the universe?
"Why would it be reasonable to think that a God would conform to the laws of the universe?"
I asked you if you were a practicing catholic, and you responded yes...do you not have a doctrine or text that details your god. I suggest you read/study it to answer your own question. Also, our entire known existence is defined by those laws...nothing has occurred measurable outside of those laws, ever. That is the reasoning failure that is so prevalent amongst the religious, and the one you are displaying with your argument. Which, as it turns out is a dishonest play on words. You can reason inclusive of belief, but that would not be a pathway to reality...and thus irrational.
catholicray: "Why would it be reasonable to think that a God would conform to the laws of the universe?"
Otherwise, it would not be able to do anything within this universe.
rmfr
"Why would it be reasonable to think that a God would conform to the laws of the universe?"
It wouldn't as we have no evidence for any such deity, but I think you may have missed the point of his remark. If someone claims a deity exists and has properties or characteristics that don't adhere to known physical laws, then what does that tell us about their claim? Think carefully now, and think objectively.
I have not claimed that a diety exists. That would be irrational. I only claim to believe a diety exists.
Please burn the straw man.
"I have not claimed that a diety exists. That would be irrational. I only claim to believe a diety exists."
Why would you believe a claim is true if you know it to be irrational?
@Sheldon
“Why would you believe a claim is true if you know it to be irrational”
You failed to burn the straw man. I do not believe the claim is true. That would be a positive affirmation that God exists.
I believe the claim in and of itself is status unknown.
I believe God exists because there is not objective evidence that verifies that God does not exist.
Mon, 03/18/2019 - 18:43
catholicray "I only claim to believe a diety exists."
Mon, 03/18/2019 - 19:58
catholicray "I do not believe the claim is true."
So you believe the claim (a deity exists) is irrational, and untrue, but you also claim you believe a deity exists?
That's hilarious fair play...you're going to have to explain that explanation I think.
Pages