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.
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.
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Brave brave Sir Robin
No! Nothing needs to be 100% objective to work. Your argument is complete bullshit and rationality works. Rationality is rational by the results it produces. It is the best we have for understanding the world around us. To assert it is not rational, you must use rationality to prove your assertion, else we have no reason to believe anything you assert.
This is catholicray's argument in a nutshell, and we have seen it all before. the best methods we have for objectively understanding reality are science and logic, but because they can't provide absolute certainty, an epistemological impossibility anyway, he tries to claim they are no better than blind faith in bronze age superstition.
It's a risible idea, and the success of logic and science are the manifest evidence he is laughably wrong. Meanwhile we have exhausted pages of his nonsense and untold bandwidth and the much vaunted evidence for his beliefs are nowhere to be seen, quelle surprise, again.
Just post the single best piece of evidence you think supports your belief catholicray, what are you afraid of?
Just giving you a hint guys...don't you find it odd his use of the word "rationality"? "Rationality" is a state, where as "Reason/Logic" are a process. We confuse them, as you need reason or logic, to get to the state of rationality. Don't confuse the two. We can't use a "state" to measure things. We can however use logic/reason to measure things, and devise a rational or irrational state. Atheists use reason to not believe in a god,(lack of evidence) which is rational. Theists use faith (the supernatural) in place of reason/logic for their belief in god...which is irrational. Don't play his dishonest word game...which attempts to equalize both positions by incorrect use of the word "rationality"...when in actual fact, as I have just shown, Raynman's position as someone who believes in god, is irrational, and not equal to an atheists stance. So, worthy of respect for fair recorse, or, ridicule, for dishonest debate tactics. You decide.
@doG
I'm not trying to be dishonest. Certain aspects of logic are also human constructs. Problems of contradiction have arisen in logic for which there are currently multiple answers to rather than a single one. The term rational does not seem to have much objective value at all. We are both measuring with various systems of measurement. If I am a rational theist I do not cease to measure my faith. If you are are a rational atheist you do not cease to measure your own position.
Do you think? Are you willing to correct yourself? Those questions could qualify as perfectly meaningless. However I think if you can answer yes to those two questions then you are rational regardless of your current state.
Edit: corrected grammar
You have been exposed as dishonest...stop with the word gymnastics.
You are not rational, because you use faith instead of reason, faith not being a pathway to truth. You and your view, is irrational. Atheists are rational to disbelieve you, by reasoning that your lack of evidence contradicts your claim.
The two positions are not equivalent, as you suggest.
"Are you willing to correct yourself?"
I always do, when I am incorrect. However, apparently, dishonest apologists like you, do not have the moral standards to do the same.
Why do I expect morality from apologists. Dishonesty is ordained by their irrational view.
catholicray: "I'm not trying to be dishonest. Certain aspects of logic are also human constructs. Problems of contradiction have arisen in logic for which there are currently multiple answers to rather than a single one."
I'm not trying to be dishonest. Yes you are. By dodging requests for evidence and using your brain diarrhea to create useless, inane, and asinine contorted, anamorphic expressive deformations.
Problems of contradiction have arisen in logic for which there are currently multiple answers to rather than a single one. Yes it has, but almost ALWAYS from theology and religion. Why? Because ALL theology and religion are irrational, foolish, absurd, ridiculously stupid, and unreasonably invalid delusional fantasies created by fallable humans that cannot be substantiated. And as for the "multiple answers to rather than a single one," that is most obvious since amongst ALL Abrahamic based religions, there are over 45,000 different sects and interpretations of what constitutes "god."
To which I shall now quote (paraphrase) Christopher Hitchens: “Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong” (extra emphasis mine).
And a quote by me: “Ultimately, no matter how strongly you believe in the Delusion of the God Hypothesis, You could be wrong.”
rmfr
I don't know about others, but I start with the idea that humans don't often act out of reason and rationality, but rather out of emotion and irrationality. In that frame, lots of human actions make total sense.
Btw, the scientific method is the best set of guardrails we've ever given ourselves so that despite our best efforts, rationality can take over when it comes to developing an understanding of how our universe actually works.
Science is the scimitar that beheads religion. I thought it apropos to frame my conveyance using religious barbarism. Why do you think religious folk try and discredit science. Science seeks truth, and religion can't survive truth.
Religion is a human construct.
The gods humanity worship are human construct.
Catholicray is a human construct without objective reality, manifesting in inane assertions the fallacies of irrational avoidance to blur any real conversation. Catholicity is to debate as Cat is to 42.
We are not compliant alter boys.
And here is a thought:
Facts – truth that has been diligently sought after and found.
Faith – lies that have been diligently believed regardless of truth.
rmfr
Can it please be time to stop feeding the troll?
After he answers my questions:
Are you denying that objective truth exists or that we can know these? If so then I'm puzzled why anyone believing that would bother coming to a debate forum.
Do you deny that there is objective evidence that adhering to the principles of validation contained in logic increase the likelihood that your assertions will be true, whereas using irrational or fallacious reasoning increases the chances your assertions will be false?
Which has been shown to be better at objectively explaining reality, religion or science?
He seems fairly reticent for some reason.
Pages