Can believing there is a God ever be rational?
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.
Only the third or fourth time I did. You understandably missed the others due to other longer replies.
No. ;-P But you done did. And I'll answer.
Empirical = facts that are provable or verifiable by experiment utilizing the Scientific Method and Peer Review.
For me being a Geologist/Volcanologist, there is NO other definition.
Logic and reasoning can be a way to find internal consistency within a philosophical idea. However, to find true truth, you need evidence and facts. And even then it is only to a level of confidence ranging from 0.00 to 1.00 with either end being literally impossible. Think Critically about that.
Reflection has nothing to do with determining truth.
Reflection = a thought occurring in consideration or meditation.
See, nothing to do with determining truth, facts, or evidence.
I think I see a possible source of confusion here. If we extend logic to include mathematics (which is not that far of a reach, really, as mathematics uses logic as its most basic building blocks, and would be useless without logic), one could argue that logic can be used to find mathematical truths. And mathematics is one of the corner stones of physics or other physical sciences (formerly called natural philosophy). So mathematics, and by extension logic, can be used to make predictions about the physical world. However, these predictions can only be considered truth (or fact) if they are supported by the other corner stone of physics, namely experiments and measurements.
So yes, logic can in a sense be a way to discover truth. It just depends on what you mean by truth. The Banach-Tarski paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86-Z-CbaHA), for example, challenges my ideas of what can be true.
Any objective evidence of your god(s) yet? No eh...huh.
Ok then...I am going to go enjoy life and positively affect others, to help humanity...without the aid of myth...and without the extortion tax of a deity.
The evidence of an almighty god, who rules creation, should not be difficult to provide evidence of! Why are we supposed to play an eternal game of “hide and never be found”? This idea of a god to me becomes laughable after awhile. There was a house fire on the news lately, the homeowner, appearing to be very poor, said “at least god spared my Bible”. That’s great lady... he said “fuck your family, already struggling, I’m gonna burn this shit to the ground! But I’ll save the book about ME! Fuck religion.
Conversely, another "claim" about god is rather easy to find evidence and proof for.
That being: evidence that man made up god. The evidence is pretty.. wait for it...
waaaiiiiiitt for it.....
damning. *puts on sunglasses*
Or is it damaging? Eh, eithir works.
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
Anthony Flew, Martin Gardner. Flew transitioned from atheism to a non-theistic deism of sorts. Gardner was a good example of being a skeptic and deist. Check out his book The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener.
I have a standard question that addresses creationism, and the oft used arguments from ignorance fallacies they use. What would a non-designed / created universe look like? It is obviously meant to highlight the fact that with one universe unevidenced claims about how it originated, like creationism, are entirely unfalsifiable.
Thus far no theists or religious apologist has come close to a rational cogent answer. Most don't even acknowledge the question has been asked.