Faith

[JediJohnnie]

"  The intolerant part was the inherently arrogant assumption that one must "be saved in order for someone else's god to hear them." 

God hears all,saved or unsaved.I don't recall anyone saying otherwise.The objection was to "tempting" God to strike them dead,and considering it proof of His Non-existence when He does not do so.

"By the way, your phrase "militant atheist" emphasizes your intolerance of those who are not of your insidious belief system by using a derrogatory adjective."

Considering that you yourself have called Christians "delusional" and  "primitive" you'll understand if I don't take your chiding over the term "militant" very seriously.

[JediJohnnie]

Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy. Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.

This logic is beyond broken-
1.) Your assertion that a belief in a non-belief is irrational. It's much like someone who collects bugs and someone who does not- your logic is that the person who does not collect bugs has a hobby of not collecting bugs.

You are substituting belief in God for belief in speculative theory.The absence of belief in God is not the total absence of belief in something.

2.) There is no religious faith within scientific theories. They are based upon evidences with things you or I can (usually) interact with in the real world. Your one-of-a-million popular religious belief system with thousands of contradictions is based furthest from concrete evidences and moreso based upon social myopia and emotional validation. You and others have failed to show any shred of evidence for a god (much less your own personalized god), so therefore comparing both on the same spectrum is ludicrous reasoning. Granted scientific reasonings can be faulty (which can actually be a wonderful thing for the world-- see chart below), atleast there's a visible foundation to rest on.

You have failed to show that no faith is involved in belief in speculative theory.There are numerous leaps of logic in all scientific attempts to explain Creation.As I said before,your belief's are as dependent upon "faith" as anyone.

[falcon9]

You cannot "box" God in a corner.  You are requesting:
1. A bolt of lightning
2. A cloudless sky
3. Weather anomalies are accounted for
4. Now: "If you exist, strike me dead, only using numbers 1 through 3."

Yes, the parameters should not be constricting for the 'powers' attributed to such a deity.

You are demanding God to answer your requests with stipulations. 

Nope, still requesting, (as you mentioned above in "You are requesting ..." - followed by 3 parameters).
 

That is not using logic. 

On the contrary, it is far more logical to stipulate an experiment's parameters than to loosely attribute any effect to the speculative 'powers' of some alleged deity.

To you, faith is not logic. 

More accurately, "faith" is not, according to its meaning, logical in that acceptance of a "belief" without evidence isn't logical.

We will not, at this point, agree with each other about this, and that's fine.  But, I do say that God will not be boxed for you, George Carlin, or anyone, just so you have absolute proof. 

They were simply parameters for the bolt of lightening experiment, established to reduce false attributions.  As far as a 'god in a box' goes, that's subtely sublime.

I also want to clarify that faith is believing in something or someone you cannot see. 

There is a distinct difference between being unable to see something which is nonetheless visible given the proper equipment and that which remains an invisible conceptualization.  It isn't a subtle difference.

Christians, in this forum, in several threads, have consistently laid out evidence of God existing, and yet you (and others) never fail to call their evidence irrational and delusional. 

No conclusive evidence has been presented by xtians on any thread in this forum.  Conclusive evidence is evidence which is incontrovertible, rather than vaguely ambiguous hearsay.

Yet, you have no evidence, on your side, on what or who actually created man and the world from the beginning. 

Stardust.

The kind of perfection in this creation has to have a higher mind to put together everything with such knowledge. The man and the earth/world could not evolve from nothing without someone having a cause to create in the first place.  [/color]

Your conclusion does not follow since it contains the premise assumption of 'intelligent design', (circular and without substantiation).

[falcon9]

Considering that you yourself have called Christians "delusional" and  "primitive" you'll understand if I don't take your chiding over the term "militant" very seriously.

Considering centuries of murder under the inglorious banner of religion, your objections are mere dust in the wind.  (note that I no longer bother asking you to substantiate any of your religious claims because, you never do.  On the other hand, the reasoning behind characterizing the unsubstantiated claims of xtians as primitively and delusionally-based has been extensively presented).

[JediJohnnie]

"Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition."

Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy.I think that's what gets to the very heart of this topic.Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.

Absolutely! Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system.

Very True.That's one of the main reasons Agnosticism is usually considered to be the more "reasonable" choice among skeptics,unlike Atheism,which attempts to make the unreasonable claim of being able to dis-prove the existence of God.  

[SurveyMack10]

Do you not believe that all occurences can be explained by science?

I do not consider "belief" to be a factor; either a phenomenon can be "explained" by the scientific method or, it cannot.  Any "belief" eitehr way has no affect on the outcome.  If a phenomenon cannot be currently explained by the scientific method, this does not preclude a forthcoming explanation in the future.  Regardless, "belief" is neither necessary nor, required while obtaining or awaiting evidence.

Are you admitting that there are things that science cannot explain?

Of course there are phenomenon which the scientific method cannot _currently_ explain.  This does not mean one should revert to the primativism of a "leap of faith" that some imagined 'deities' would explain what the scientific method does not.  There is a boatload of nonsense which the scientific method is not applied to because scientists are too busy applying it to observed phenomenon.

When did I try to convince you that it should be applied to "imagined dieties?"

That would be when you'd previously, (and recently), insisted upon a "belief" in an entity's existance for which you've no evidence, (thus the conclusion that there is no more evidence for an imaginary deity as there is for an imaginary unicorn in Falconeer's garage).

 

I merely asked a yes or no question and you attempted to apply statements to me that I never made.

Not exactly; you asked a leading question.  I can see where that was leading, (and so can Falconeer, apparently).  As to the statements you have made; those consisted of a belief in a deity whose existance lacks even a shred of evidence therefore, it was logically concluded that such a belief was in a non-existant entity, (imaginary one).

Ohh I didn't realize you knew what I was going to say. I was actually going to ask if you think that science will EVENTUALLY explain every single thing that has ever occured and will ever occur. However, according to you that is not what I was going to ask.

[SurveyMack10]

"Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition."

Of course it's a belief.You believe God doesn't exist.And since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist,you are also relying on "faith" in man-made speculative theory for your philosophy.I think that's what gets to the very heart of this topic.Both sides most adhere to faith in their beliefs,only one sides refuses to concede that fact.

Absolutely! Atheism is definitely a belief system within itself, you are totally right....Agnostics are the only ones who haven't committed to a belief system.

Very True.That's one of the main reasons Agnosticism is usually considered to be the more "reasonable" choice among skeptics,unlike Atheism,which attempts to make the unreasonable claim of being able to dis-prove the existence of God.  

Exactly, agnosticism is admitting that there are things that cannot be explained- and admitting that the cause of such things is not certain. Atheism is asserting that the cause of such things is certainly NOT GOD, therefore they are claiming to be able to disprove his existence, which they never can.

[falcon9]

Ohh I didn't realize you knew what I was going to say.

I didn't.  I merely stated that you began with a leading question.  Given your level of hostility, the question was view dubiously.

I was actually going to ask if you think that science will EVENTUALLY explain every single thing that has ever occured and will ever occur. However, according to you that is not what I was going to ask.[/b]

There are too many undefined variables inherent in the second question to make even an educated guess.  It's possible however, it remains unknown how probable that event would be.

[falcon9]

Atheism,which attempts to make the unreasonable claim of being able to dis-prove the existence of God.

Atheism itself makes no such claim.  Instead, specific atheists and others have requested that those making unsupported religious claims provide evidence under the burden of proof requirement for initially making the claims.  It is not incumbent upon those who request such substantiation to "disprove" the religious claimant's claims.  Your assertion that "atheism ... attempts to make the unreasonable claim of being able to dis-prove the existence of God" is not only unsubstantiated, its a false attribution.

[Abrupt]

You have often said statements like: (so and so) "..just hit me for no reason...I didn't do anything" I would be willing to bet?

Your evident misinterpretation of what I actually did write, (as opposed to making statements "like"), indicates you've missed the jest here.

You are quite right, and my apologies in that regard.  It does seem -- at least to me anyways -- that whenever one of us assumes a lighter tone that the other misinterprets it.  Maybe we just aren't very funny (although I do like some of your sarcasm).

Irrational by your definition and a misleading way of putting things.

It isn't misleading since the parameters of the definition of 'irrational' have been demonstrated to apply to "faith".  You've already conceded this point, ("Any choice involving physical senses would certainly qualify as irrational as well as any choice based upon experience ..."), by way of your
ancedotal experience of "faith".

I didn't concede any point,  I am simply applying the logic you provided to cases other than the one you narrowly focused it upon.  Basically you have indicated that the inclusion of any 'irrational' element as a variable of any decision making process will disqualify the 'choice' as being rational.  Since we cannot make any decision without including emotion or experience (well we cannot prove that we can make any decision without involving emotion or experience -- thus irrational ipso facto by the very argument you make towards faith) then the decision is disqualified from being considered to be rational by default.  While we can all consider choices which would not rely upon experience or emotion, we would never be able to demonstrate to another that those elements were omitted, and we couldn't even be certain ourselves that they truly were omitted as the brain tends to consider any abstract concept in a prejudice fashion.

You are misleading the reader here in that you are presenting the argument as if people have the choice of removing emotion and experience from their decision making process.

On the contrary, it is you who are presenting a misleading strawman argument since I've stated nothing about "removing emotion and experience" from the decision-making process.  What I did present was an example where these factors were taken into account during a reasoning process.  

That isn't a strawman because the idea isn't presented as a substitute for your position and I haven't claimed any victory of an attack upon the position.  Your words of "some rely" denotes a choice in the matter, one way or the other.  Had you said something along the lines of "Some people have conditioned themselves to try and recognize and ignore emotional considerations", I would not have objected so.  You didn't present any example of where these factors were taken into account during a reasoning process -- you presented a generalization of what most people do day to day.

You clean it up a bit by adding that "few go about in a purely logical manner", but you fail to give the reason that such few would be people who are brain damaged ...

That's an absurd implication; the use of logical reasoning isn't possible given brain damage therefore, its usage does not require brain damage.  On the other hand, irrationality has often been linked to bran damage by medical professionals.

Logic is entirely possible with brain damage.  In fact the complete use of logic with no emotional considerations is only possible with a massively damaged amygdala or severe psychopathy.  I will let pass your appeal to authority regarding the medical professionals as the point of brain damage and irrationality is moot.
 

A more honest way of saying this would be to say that people always combine emotion and experience into their decision making process.

No, the use of the word "always" would be an assertion that this occurs in every instance and that there is conclusive evidence to support such an assertion.  What I did state was 'On a day to day basis, most people do combine irrational and rational thinking processes when making choices/formulating decisions.'  The alteration you suggested would be a dishonest one, unless you can provide the substantiating evidence to support it.

You are presenting the rule as a possibility to the exception and that is an attempt to minimize the rule and elevate the exception, it is inherently dishonest even though the exception might be true: 

"Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio studied people who had received brain injuries that had had one specific effect: to damage that part of the brain where emotions are generated. In all other respects they seemed normal - they just lost the ability to feel emotions.
The interesting thing he found was that their ability to make decisions was seriously impaired. They could logically describe what they should be doing, in practice they found it very difficult to make decisions about where to live, what to eat, etc.
In particular, many decisions have pros and cons on both sides. Shall I have the fish or the beef? With no rational way to decide, they were unable to make the decision.

So at the point of decision, emotions are very important for choosing. In fact even with what we believe are logical decisions, the very point of choice is arguably always based on emotion.
We talk about decisions that feel or seem right. When logical decisions are wrong, we will often feel that this is so. Emotions are perhaps signals from the subconscious that tell us a lot about what we really choose.

An even stranger factor is research where the subject's brain was wired up to recorders and the subject was asked to simply press a red button at any time. The notion was that if the conscious mind was in charge, then that part of the brain would be seen to change first, an if the decision started in the subconscious, then electrical activity in that part of the brain would work first.
And the answer was...that the subconscious started activity first. The shocking conclusion is that the subconscious is in charge of the bus, and that we are living an illusion of conscious choice. As emotions also stem from the subconscious, then this makes it even more likely that decisions have a strong emotional influence."

I don't agree to your position, I only agree that under your contention that such as you said would be true regarding faith and it would be true regarding the position of atheism as well though ...

Your qualifier is nonsensical; atheism employs skeptical reasoning, not irrationality.  Your attempts to conflate the two opposing terms under irrationality are illogical.

Prove that atheism employs skeptical reasoning, and not irrationality.  Since irrationality includes emotion then prove that emotion is not included in the reasoning process of atheism.  Since neuroscience and psychology deny the ability to eliminate emotion from reason I find your task a most daunting and unenviable one.

... so do not try to put words into my mouth without finishing the sentence in the context I would use it.

Again, your qualifier, (" ... it would also be true regarding the position of atheism ..."), doesn't apply to the context.  As far as trying to put words in the mouth of another, you've attempted that twice in this post alone so far.  A pattern of your previous attempts at this continues to manifest.

Indicate where I have committed this offense or retract the charge.

Practically the only choices or thought processes that could have a chance to qualify as rational under those terms would be purely mental computations and they as well could not invoke images as the minds eye links emotion unavoidably to imagery.

Not quite.  There are several modes of logical reasoning, (inductive, deductive, abduction, inference, etc.), which do not necessitate being restricted to purely mental computations.  These methods of reasoning can even take emotions and observed irrationalities into account during the process.

They cannot take emotion or experience or mental imagery into account and hold to the position of not including irrational elements -- under your definition.

Unless you're being intentionally obtuse, you've managed to miss the point once again.  Taking observed irrational phenomenon into account has two aspects.  One applies to accounting for external phenomenon and the other involved self-awareness of internal phenomenon.  In the former instance, someone else's emotions can be taken into account, (or not, as the case may be), without incorporating those emotions themselves  into one's own decision-making process.  In the latter instance, it is possible to be aware of one's own internal emotions to such a degree as to either be aware of incorporating them or, to intentionally choose to not include them as aspects of a decision-making process.  Not only does this _not_ require "brain damage" to accomplish but, such damage would preclude it.

It isn't that I am being deliberately obtuse, so perhaps I am just plain obtuse (been called a lot worse).  You have previously employed the use of emotion as a sort of "fruits of the poisonous tree" in regards to any rational thinking.  I cannot see how considering someone else's emotions, logically, can serve any purpose unless you use the considerations of these emotions to some end.  What I mean is you are making a choice or coming to a conclusion based on a perception of an emotion -- you are making a choice or coming to a conclusion based on the perception of an irrational element.  That would have to disqualify any outcome if such were the case under the strict definition you provided.

You are justifying (rationalizing) your own tolerance of what sort of irrationality (by your definition) is allowed and this is prejudice.

I said nothing about what "is allowed" and therefore, there was no prejudice involved, (either implicit or, explicit), and no rationalizing.  That's the third time so far in this post you've attempted a strawman argument by misinterpreting what I actually wrote.

This isn't a strawman because it isn't presented as a substitution for what you said.  Had I said something like "You cannot use an irrational bases as a means of a rational choice", I would have been making a strawman against you (and a particularly damaging one since it is your words, but a substitute for your words in another area).

In fact a belief in atheism would certainly be considered irrational under such a set of rules (although you never said it wasn't so I cannot use this as a 'gotcha', but I could infer it odd to be so critical of a 'faith' based belief system knowing the atheistic one meets the same implied faults).  Agnosticism is about the only belief system that could reasonably pass the muster of being 'rational' under the definition of 'rational' you supplied.
 

Well, no; atheism is a skeptical rejection of beliefs which does not require "faith" or a 'belief in atheism', (as being some sort of belief system itself).  Nominally, if atheism were a belief, it would have to reject itself - by definition.  Agnosticism, on the other hand, purports a belief that "certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge ... "  - while also holding the belief that "there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist."  This is why I'm not an agnostic.
-- http://www.answers.com/topic/agnosticism#ixzz1avQ59H77

Atheism is irrational by your definition.  It is a rejection without positive proof ...

False.  It is a rejection of claims made without those claims having substantiating proof.  Your implication is that atheism is required to 'prove a negative assertion', (e.g., 'prove that x does not exist'), by framing it as "a rejection WITHOUT positive proof".  Requirement of a negative proof is a logical fallacy.  Nothing in my prior statements confers irrationality to atheism.

I get a mix of negative and positive atheism out of you.  The negative being more along the lines of 'rejects without substantiating proof' and the positive claiming there is no God (a statement which would require proof by the rules of justification reciprocated).  The agnostic atheist isn't irrational by your definition, but the gnostic atheist certainly is as the later owns the burden of proof when advocating his position.  If you have only said you "don't believe God exists" and not "God doesn't exist" then I am wrong in my description of your atheism (based solely on burden of proof), but if you said the other then I am absolutely correct in my labeling of atheism as irrational (based on burden of proof).  Now I can't remember offhand whether you have specifically said that "there is no God", but I am well aware of your willingness to lend an offensive remark in any thread mentioning religion or faith or God.  That tendency to insult certainly belongs more to the positive atheist so I wasn't rash to reach that conclusion (I will look closer at some of your posts when I get more time but you can also clarify your position here in replay as well).

Notice your indication of "if atheism were a belief".

Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition.

Please explain yourself here.  You make a charge implying something underhanded by me ("Since you snipped the context of the comment") by doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.  Your attempt at slight of hand would be especially hilarious to any reader that wishes to go back and read the full paragraph where I said 'Notice your indication of "if atheism were a belief"'.  That is one of those "can't make that stuff up" moments.

You try to both take an empty compromising position that is effectively a "failure to state" ...

False.  My position regarding the irrationality of "faith" has been elaborately stated.

The "failure to state" I speak of is where you put yourself in the position of not having to defend anything or being required to have burden of proof because your position doesn't state a finality on whether something is or isn't.  When being asked "Does God exist?" and replying with "I don't have any proof that God exists" is a "Failure To State", for example.  You try to sit on the fence of allegiance but consistently attack one side, never having to show fealty and attempting argument in a manner of ad absurdum.

... and then you indicate your difference to agnosticism indicating that you have fully realized the situation and somehow collected facts enough to disprove agnosticism.

I neither stated nor implied that I've "collected enough facts to disprove agnosticism".  I simply stated that I'm not an agnostic, as a follow-on comment to the agnostic premise of a fence-sittingbeleif system, (that they have no evidence, one way or the other - not that I do have such evidence). Under your conditions, everyone would be an agnostic.  Since your conditions are illogical, everyone isn't agnostic.  By the way, that's the fourth strawman you've tried to promulgate in this post.  You're on a roll, man!

That wasn't a strawman either.  By the way, the 'indicating' I use is a consequential indication from the results of a direct comparison, and not a deliberate indication on your behalf.  You probably know that but that is the only thing that was even close to being presented as a strawman that I could see and that would rely on you misunderstanding it to mean that I said you made such a claim.

[Abrupt]

I think, though, that you cannot insist to hold your position on a belief in 'faith' being irrational ...

Since I do not insist upon my position being "a belief in faith being irrational", I decline your offer for me to take such an unreasonable position.  What I've consistantly argued, using logical reasoning, (rather than "a faith" or "belief"), is that "faith" is an irrational basis for making decisions and further, that such "faith" not only lacks substantiation but, that it actually _requires_ a lack of substantiating evidence.

It doesn't require a lack of substantiating evidence, it merely doesn't require absolute confirmation of evidence and that is a huge difference.

What a load of bovine feces; are you actually suggesting that there's any substantial evidence or, just spliting tiny hairs?  The common definition, (as opposed to your selective one), of "faith" includes a lack of supporting evidence for whatever is 'believed' in.  A "leap of faith" is therefore jumping to a conclusion for which there is a lack of supporting evidence.

What I am suggesting is that evidence isn't even considered or required, regardless of its existence or absence.  You define it in a way that suggests those of us with faith measure something when we don't.  I have faith, and unless you are willing to call me a liar, you must believe me when I tell you that I don't weigh any amount of evidence in relation to my faith.  While the "leap of faith" does indeed suggest that empirical evidence was found to be lacking and consciously realized, it is not synonymous with 'faith'.
 

You are rationalizing by degree, trying to find the worst case scenario and presenting it as the minimum condition to qualify ...

Your accusation is false because the worst case wasn't whaat was presented, (excepting that your biased view of it as the worst case is noted); the minimum requirement of "faith" was presented - not needing evidence to 'believe'.  This minimum has been previously presented by others holding to irrational faith in various comments to this thread, (and others).  So, you're objecting to other xtians not requiring evidence to have 'faith' as well as those who aren't xtian?

What?  Your conditional of "that it actually _requires_ a lack of substantiating evidence" isn't an attempt by you to put the requirements of faith into as narrow a field as possible?  That is vastly different from what you now present as the minimum requirement of "not needing evidence to 'believe'".  To be fair, I observed in your post that there was a dangling quote and it may have made it difficult for you to follow the paragraphs (these forums are not friendly to deep replies).  I tried to correct it above in my reply so you can observe it and I will not accuse you of being dishonest as I concede that the dangling quote could have confused you.

Atheism isn't skeptical inquiry.  Skeptical inquiry doesn't reject without confirmation ...

Atheism rejects unsubstantiated claims and often includes the skeptical inquiry that those making such religious claims support them.  Since those making such unsupported claims remain unable to substantiate them, atheism is a statement of a lack of belief, (not a confirmation of proving a negative condition).

First I must make aware to the readers that the above indicated quote of mine is not an accurate quote of what was posted.  There is information missing between the two sentences in addition to the information that was indicated to be missing from the end by the included ellipses.  Again I invite the reader to go back to my original post and enjoy the humor in the relevancy of the missing words in relation to the response given above.

Once again I observe that you are aligning yourself as a negative atheist and I will more closely monitor your posts in other threads to see if you hold to such a position.

... yet your skeptical inquiry rejects unless it is given absolute proof.  Such a contrasting position to the claim I find quite 'irrational'.

It isn't irrational to require the burden of proof from those who are making the claim, (that would be those claiming that a 'belief' in some

Again when put into context with the missing information from my quote, the relevance of what I said will become clearer.  I know that I am not such a skilled debater that you can only muster the ability to reply to half of my sentences at any given time so what gives?  (bit of a ribbing but an honest question, is it my verbosity is it the clumsiness of the forum, the word limit, what?)

I cannot see where you can reduce the amount of logic required by your definition to allow for atheism to fit without also allowing for 'faith' or without appearing to be 'rationalizing' your own definition of 'rational' and that is something you say disqualifies as being 'rational'.  So where does that leave us?

No reduction in logic is necessary to allow for atheism, (a skeptical/critical process, rather than a 'belief' itself which requires 'faith' to sustain it).  I have no problem with examining any assertion/contention, (including atheism, as commonly defined), using logical reasoning methods.  Until some evidence, (a line of reasoning would do), is presented that atheism is an irrational basis itself, I cannot concur with an unsupported opinion that it is.  That either leaves us arguing about atheism in order to take the heat off of "faith" as an irrational basis or, starting a new thread with that subject.

I realize the inherent vested interest held by those who profess "faith" would cause discomfort in conceding that "faith", (in general), cannot be accurately asserted to be a rational basis for choice, (since that would mean tacitly admitting that it is an irrational basis).  You see, I can account for illogical emotions, (especially since I've got 'em too), in concluding this.

You cannot hold the position that "no reduction in logic is necessary" without  also including "..because we are not considering the question in the first place".  But you cannot include that extension and also have taken a position on what entails a 'belief'.

I have considered that the question 'faith' as an irrational basis for an equally irrational 'belief' without any "reduction in logic."  Perhaps you haven't been paying attention within the constrictions of your 'beliefs'?

My beliefs don't constrict me, they expand what I am capable of considering.  By your own tacit admissions I can consider far more than is possible for you as I extend beyond the mere physical and logical into the spiritual as well.

You have presented all the evidence that atheism is irrational.

Now you're simply lying; I presented no such evidence, (regardless of your irrational misinterpretations of what I actually did state).

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention within the constrictions of your 'beliefs'?

Your deliberate and insulting posts in any thread you can find that relates to faith and especially Christianity shows your prejudice and prejudice immediately rejects a position as rational.

No doubt a xtian would find such things as pointing out that their religion is directly responsible for millions of deaths, an entire "dark age" and a massive amount of cultural theft/suppression & absorbtion of other 'religions' as "insulting."  Too bad; such despicable actions under the banner of religion, (including xtianity), is insulting to me.  Doubtless this doesn't matter to you either, as an adherent to a belief system which perpetrated such crimes against humanity.

You have poisoned your own well.

On the contrary, xtianity beat me to their own well centuries ago.

You cannot dismiss emotion so readily either.  It is likely the most important part of being human and allows us to extend within and beyond the outlines of the drawing.  Emotion supplies relevance and without it all things are equally valuable and thus by extension equally worthless.

I didn't "dismiss" it; I expressly stated it could be accounted for.  Accounting for something is the opposite of dismissing or, disregarding it.  It was further stated that I have emotions, (rather than being an AI program sent to vex you).  Although I suppose I could question your contention that "emotion supplies relevance ..." etc., though I somehow doubt that what you'd supply as 'evidence' would be conclusive, (that's skepticism, not a dismissal in advance).

When you purposely described emotions as "illogical emotions" (which is true but the added emphasis of double stating by you with the stipulation of 'illogical') makes it appear as if you find them distasteful.  I realize you have emotions, but I have noticed that with many analytically prone thinkers that they will have a crossing point in their lives from where they go from an angry Spock Lite to the complete person they are to become (a person who has finally surrendered to the inevitability that we are in many ways of two minds and not meant to hold such a tight grip upon ourselves).  I previously posted above the relevance of emotion in decision making and it is an interesting topic to read up on, especially in areas of neuroscience.  Some of the examples about being unable to decide what to drink or what to eat I find fascinating.  I did wonder if part of it was from the complete loss of the other form of choosing but then I realized that that alone would be enough though to make the emotional relevance valid.

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 04:59:56 pm
Christians, in this forum, in several threads, have consistently laid out evidence of God existing, and yet you (and others) never fail to call their evidence irrational and delusional.

Quote from: falcon9:
No conclusive evidence has been presented by xtians on any thread in this forum.  Conclusive evidence is evidence which is incontrovertible, rather than vaguely ambiguous hearsay.

The claim an atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an "*untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint."  Legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler stated, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.”

{*Untenable - "Not able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection"; Dictionary.com} 

There have been atheists such as Karl Marx, philosopher Frederick Nietzsche,  Freud, and others, who claim that those believing in God have a "mental disorder," being "delusional" and "irrational," and even having a "*wish-fulfillment desire."  When you think about it, maybe it is really that these 3 and their followers are the one's who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: "the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment;"  I already know this will be rejected, but what's "good for the goose, is good for the gander" as some people say.....


 *Wish-fulfillment also means in the "Medical Dictionary" - "In psychoanalytic theory, the satisfaction of a desire, need, or impulse through a dream or other exercise of the imagination. ..." ; 
"Wikipedia" - " in psychology is the satisfaction of a desire through such involuntary thought processes such as dreams, daydreams, an neurotic symptoms. In Freudian psychoanalysis, it is when desires of the unconscious are unacceptable to the ego and superego because of feeling of guilt or societal or cultural restrictions such as taboos, giving rise to dreams.[1] For Sigmund Freud, dreams result from attempts by the unconscious to resolve a conflict of some sort, whether something recent or something from the recesses of the past.[2] In the ethics of belief, wish fulfillment can come out as a bad faith self delusion."

[Wikipedia and FreeDictionary.com]}

[Falconer02]

Exactly, agnosticism is admitting that there are things that cannot be explained- and admitting that the cause of such things is not certain. Atheism is asserting that the cause of such things is certainly NOT GOD, therefore they are claiming to be able to disprove his existence, which they never can.

There are specific labels for agnostics though and atheists aren't going "THERE IS NO GOD AND I DONT CARE WUT U BELEEV!" *fold arms*. They are definitely willing to listen to any "proofs", but obviously (as these threads present countless times) those proofs can't even break through the most elementary of skepticism. Atheists are generally agnostic-atheists when it comes to logically explaining things and argumenting with people of religious belief systems. Considering the amounts of religious foul ups and contradictions throughout history, it tends to pave a good argumentative path to show that a religious belief system has faults and it's highly probable that the metaphysical descriptions are false and imaginary from more primitive times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

When you think about it, maybe it is really that these 3 and their followers are the one's who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: "the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment;"  I already know this will be rejected, but what's "good for the goose, is good for the gander" as some people say.....

That's an insane statement and I gotta shoot it down! lol those sane people who don't believe in any deity or specific afterlife savor reality much more than any religious person ever could hope to-- they believe in civilization and part of that foundation is educating one that they are accountable for their own actions while interacting with the world around them. The freethinkers tend to concentrait on the here-and-now rather than a one-in-a-trillion shot at their chosen afterlife idea and they writhe at the thought of wasting this life hoping to earn points with some randomly chosen god(s) they were raised to believe in or for whatever other emotional reason. This applies to the majority of religions- not just christianity.

To turn the argument around- what of the truckloads of people that use religion as an excuse to do evil deeds and get away with it because of the false shielding it provides (Catholics Priests and little boys? Ted Haggard and the whole gay prostitute thing?)? I mean with Ted Haggard, rather than authentically apologizing for his bigoted hypocrisy, he just said Satan got the best of him and people fell for it.

[falcon9]

You have often said statements like: (so and so) "..just hit me for no reason...I didn't do anything" I would be willing to bet?

Your evident misinterpretation of what I actually did write, (as opposed to making statements "like"), indicates you've missed the jest here.

You are quite right, and my apologies in that regard.  It does seem -- at least to me anyways -- that whenever one of us assumes a lighter tone that the other misinterprets it.  Maybe we just aren't very funny (although I do like some of your sarcasm).

Humor is a subjective experience, (although it could be said that all experiences are).

Irrational by your definition and a misleading way of putting things.

It isn't misleading since the parameters of the definition of 'irrational' have been demonstrated to apply to "faith".  You've already conceded this point, ("Any choice involving physical senses would certainly qualify as irrational as well as any choice based upon experience ..."), by way of your
ancedotal experience of "faith".

I didn't concede any point,  I am simply applying the logic you provided to cases other than the one you narrowly focused it upon.  Basically you have indicated that the inclusion of any 'irrational' element as a variable of any decision making process will disqualify the 'choice' as being rational. 

Close however, what I've argued is that inclusion of irrational elements in the _process_ of decision-making means that such a process has an irrational basis, (although the inference is that a conclusion stemming from an irrational basis is somewhat justified, if unstated).  While it can be postulated that every choice is made on the basis of both rational and irrational elements, conclusions are based on which of these elements is predominate.  If the irrational elements outweigh/outnumber/out-flumox the rational elements, there is a strong possibility that a conclusion drawn from them won't be rational.

Since we cannot make any decision without including emotion or experience (well we cannot prove that we can make any decision without involving emotion or experience -- thus irrational ipso facto by the very argument you make towards faith) then the decision is disqualified from being considered to be rational by default. 

See the above paragraph in response and note the last sentence, (which which an implicit inference that the more rational elements present in a decision-making process, the more rational the conclusion resulting tends to be).  Again, taking irrational elements into considered means that the decision-maker is not only aware of them, (rather than being unaware of subconscious input), but can choose to temper them with reason, (or not).  The same applies to being aware of rational elements of a decision-making process.  Subsequently, the result of a decision-making process can be rational or irrational, depending upon the influence rational and irrational elements have upon the resulting conclusion.

 

You are misleading the reader here in that you are presenting the argument as if people have the choice of removing emotion and experience from their decision making process.

On the contrary, it is you who are presenting a misleading strawman argument since I've stated nothing about "removing emotion and experience" from the decision-making process.  What I did present was an example where these factors were taken into account during a reasoning process.  

 

Logic is entirely possible with brain damage. 

Perhaps so, (pending evidence) however, the salient point was that it is not only possible _without_ brain damage but, that irrationality is often a sign of some mental impairment(s).


 

In particular, many decisions have pros and cons on both sides. Shall I have the fish or the beef? With no rational way to decide, they were unable to make the decision.

So at the point of decision, emotions are very important for choosing. In fact even with what we believe are logical decisions, the very point of choice is arguably always based on emotion.
We talk about decisions that feel or seem right. When logical decisions are wrong, we will often feel that this is so. Emotions are perhaps signals from the subconscious that tell us a lot about what we really choose.

Once again, I've already stated agreement the position that decisions are made on the basis of a mixture of logic and other non-logical factors.  I elaborated a bit more on this position within this posted response in order to clarify the difference between a decision-making process which incorporates predominately irrational elements to influence a conclusion/choice and a process which uses predominately rational elements to influence the subsequent conclusion/choice.  Our point of contention appears to rest with the process and only concerns the choice as a subsequrnt outcome of that process.  I could be extrapolating in error where your position is concerned, however.

"... the subconscious started activity first. The shocking conclusion is that the subconscious is in charge of the bus, and that we are living an illusion of conscious choice. As emotions also stem from the subconscious, then this makes it even more likely that decisions have a strong emotional influence."

While neural activity originates at a subsconscious level, the resultant 'macro-activity' manifests as thoughts and emotions that one can become consciously aware of, (or not), in order to incorporate such awareness into a decision-making process, (or not, as the case may be).

Prove that atheism employs skeptical reasoning, and not irrationality. 

I'll consider it right after you provide evidence supported your initially asserted qualifier that "I only agree that under your contention that such as you said would be true regarding faith and it would be true regarding the position of atheism as well ..."

Since irrationality includes emotion then prove that emotion is not included in the reasoning process of atheism.  Since neuroscience and psychology deny the ability to eliminate emotion from reason I find your task a most daunting and unenviable one.

That one has already been addressed by way of delineating the differences between a decision-making process which incorporates predominately irrational elements to influence a conclusion/choice and a process which uses predominately rational elements to influence the subsequent conclusion/choice.

 

Practically the only choices or thought processes that could have a chance to qualify as rational under those terms would be purely mental computations and they as well could not invoke images as the minds eye links emotion unavoidably to imagery.

Not quite.  There are several modes of logical reasoning, (inductive, deductive, abduction, inference, etc.), which do not necessitate being restricted to purely mental computations.  These methods of reasoning can even take emotions and observed irrationalities into account during the process.
[/quote]

They cannot take emotion or experience or mental imagery into account and hold to the position of not including irrational elements -- under your definition.

Unless you're being intentionally obtuse, you've managed to miss the point once again.  Taking observed irrational phenomenon into account has two aspects.  One applies to accounting for external phenomenon and the other involved self-awareness of internal phenomenon.  In the former instance, someone else's emotions can be taken into account, (or not, as the case may be), without incorporating those emotions themselves  into one's own decision-making process.  In the latter instance, it is possible to be aware of one's own internal emotions to such a degree as to either be aware of incorporating them or, to intentionally choose to not include them as aspects of a decision-making process.  Not only does this _not_ require "brain damage" to accomplish but, such damage would preclude it.
[/quote]

It isn't that I am being deliberately obtuse, so perhaps I am just plain obtuse (been called a lot worse).  You have previously employed the use of emotion as a sort of "fruits of the poisonous tree" in regards to any rational thinking.  I cannot see how considering someone else's emotions, logically, can serve any purpose unless you use the considerations of these emotions to some end.  What I mean is you are making a choice or coming to a conclusion based on a perception of an emotion -- you are making a choice or coming to a conclusion based on the perception of an irrational element.  That would have to disqualify any outcome if such were the case under the strict definition you provided.

Having seen where you've taken this tangent already within this post, I attempted to clarify the position that taking irrational elements into account during a decision-making process is not equivalent to incorporating such irrational elements into the process, (and subsequently, into the decision/choice resulting).  The tangential premise is inaccurate since a decision-making process which takes predominately rational elements into account, (while consciously choosing to minimize any irrational aspects of the process), only considers a process where the decision-maker succumbs to emotions/other irrational elements.  Generally, unless a person has little to no self-control and simply acts upon these irrational elements without regard to reason, there are at least fleeting moments of rationality envinced by their choices.


 
 

In fact a belief in atheism would certainly be considered irrational under such a set of rules (although you never said it wasn't so I cannot use this as a 'gotcha', but I could infer it odd to be so critical of a 'faith' based belief system knowing the atheistic one meets the same implied faults).  Agnosticism is about the only belief system that could reasonably pass the muster of being 'rational' under the definition of 'rational' you supplied.
 

Well, no; atheism is a skeptical rejection of beliefs which does not require "faith" or a 'belief in atheism', (as being some sort of belief system itself).  Nominally, if atheism were a belief, it would have to reject itself - by definition.  Agnosticism, on the other hand, purports a belief that "certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge ... "  - while also holding the belief that "there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist."  This is why I'm not an agnostic.
-- http://www.answers.com/topic/agnosticism#ixzz1avQ59H77
[/quote]

Atheism is irrational by your definition.  It is a rejection without positive proof ...

False.  It is a rejection of claims made without those claims having substantiating proof.  Your implication is that atheism is required to 'prove a negative assertion', (e.g., 'prove that x does not exist'), by framing it as "a rejection WITHOUT positive proof".  Requirement of a negative proof is a logical fallacy.  Nothing in my prior statements confers irrationality to atheism. [/quote]

I get a mix of negative and positive atheism out of you. 

I'm not aware of any mixed signals, unless that's simply a matter of subjective interpretation.  Although I appreciate the effort, I've never declared one brand of atheism or the other and remained amused at the assumptions made by others. No one actually asked and now, I'd decline to answer; that way, I get to watch you paint yourselves into corners.  Admittedly, a small vice but then, I don't smoke, drink, use drugs or enage in religious self-deceptions so one should have some hobbies.

Notice your indication of "if atheism were a belief".

Since you snipped the context of that comment, I'll just add that atheism isn't a 'belief'; it embodies a lack of belief, by definition.

Please explain yourself here. 

No.

You try to both take an empty compromising position that is effectively a "failure to state" ...

False.  My position regarding the irrationality of "faith" has been elaborately stated. [/quote]

The "failure to state" I speak of is where you put yourself in the position of not having to defend anything or being required to have burden of proof because your position doesn't state a finality on whether something is or isn't. 

Oh, that.  Yep, I do try to avoid making empty assertions which I cannot substantiate.  Mostly, I'm sucessful but sometimes, something slips past the filters and we get a floater in the pool.  In this instance, I deliberately have taken the position of the skeptic when it comes to requiring evidence to support the initial claims of opponents in an argument/debate.  They seem to enjoy that less than I do and struggle to shift the burden of proof onto me, (can't say as I blame them too much for that human behaviour after watching them squirm for awhile now).
 

When being asked "Does God exist?" and replying with "I don't have any proof that God exists" is a "Failure To State", for example. 

That isn't how it went down though.  Numerous assertions, (initially stating claims), were made by others that "god exists" and my consistent response has been to request substantiation of such claims.  None has been provided thusfar, (the typical response has been some non-evidentiary "faith" in lieu of evidence ... since "faith" specifically incorporates a lack of evidence by definition, it was rejected as evidence itself).
If you are now asking me whether or not I've determined some proposed deital being exists, I would have to consider any evidence presented to support cause.  This varies from dismissing the question out of hand and does not qualify specifically as a "failure to state", (although it may qualify as a general failure to state in that one could accuse any number of people of failing to state whether they believe in the existance of invisible purple unicorns in Falconeer)2's garage).  The argument is considered to be specious because deities and invisible unicorns either exist without benefit of my "belief" or, they do not and my "belief", (or lack of it), has no bearing on their existence.  On the other hand, if such proposed beings _do_ require "belief" in order to exist, what does that say about the nature of such an existance?


 

... and then you indicate your difference to agnosticism indicating that you have fully realized the situation and somehow collected facts enough to disprove agnosticism.

I neither stated nor implied that I've "collected enough facts to disprove agnosticism".  I simply stated that I'm not an agnostic, as a follow-on comment to the agnostic premise of a fence-sitting beleif system, (that they have no evidence, one way or the other - not that I do have such evidence). Under your conditions, everyone would be an agnostic.  Since your conditions are illogical, everyone isn't agnostic.

[falcon9]

I think, though, that you cannot insist to hold your position on a belief in 'faith' being irrational ...

Since I do not insist upon my position being "a belief in faith being irrational", I decline your offer for me to take such an unreasonable position.  What I've consistantly argued, using logical reasoning, (rather than "a faith" or "belief"), is that "faith" is an irrational basis for making decisions and further, that such "faith" not only lacks substantiation but, that it actually _requires_ a lack of substantiating evidence.

It doesn't require a lack of substantiating evidence, it merely doesn't require absolute confirmation of evidence and that is a huge difference.

What a load of bovine feces; are you actually suggesting that there's any substantial evidence or, just spliting tiny hairs?  The common definition, (as opposed to your selective one), of "faith" includes a lack of supporting evidence for whatever is 'believed' in.  A "leap of faith" is therefore jumping to a conclusion for which there is a lack of supporting evidence.

What I am suggesting is that evidence isn't even considered or required, regardless of its existence or absence.

 

As I understand your suggestion; your own "faith" doesn't require that you produce evidence in what you supposedly have "faith" in however, when making a claim to have "faith" in something which does lack conclusive evidence, you are retreating behind "faith" nonetheless?

I have faith, and unless you are willing to call me a liar, you must believe me when I tell you that I don't weigh any amount of evidence in relation to my faith.  While the "leap of faith" does indeed suggest that empirical evidence was found to be lacking and consciously realized, it is not synonymous with 'faith'.

To elaborate upon your premise then; you aren't weighing any evidence at all when embracing "faith" as a rationale, (not a "reason" per se since it lacks that process by lacking a requirement for supporting evidence), and instead are making a "leap of faith" over reasoning.  If this is the case then you've tactily admitted eschewing reason to choose to 'believe in a deity', (which means your decision-making process incorporated the irrational element of "faith"/lack of evidence to arrive at an irrational choice: not requiring evidence of what is being believed in).

 

You are rationalizing by degree, trying to find the worst case scenario and presenting it as the minimum condition to qualify ...

Your accusation is false because the worst case wasn't what was presented, (excepting that your biased view of it as the worst case is noted); the minimum requirement of "faith" was presented - not needing evidence to 'believe'.  This minimum has been previously presented by others holding to irrational faith in various comments to this thread, (and others).  So, you're objecting to other xtians not requiring evidence to have 'faith' as well as those who aren't xtian?

What?  Your conditional of "that it actually _requires_ a lack of substantiating evidence" isn't an attempt by you to put the requirements of faith into as narrow a field as possible?

It wasn't conditional since others have given to understand that any evidence presented in lieu of "faith" would negate the rationale for  having "faith".  

That is vastly different from what you now present as the minimum requirement of "not needing evidence to 'believe'".

The other requirements were deemed as purely arbitrary religious ones, (even the 'don't need evidence-got faith' one is arbitrary and somewhat illogical).  If wished, we can address each of them as you present them or, not.

Atheism rejects unsubstantiated claims and often includes the skeptical inquiry that those making such religious claims support them.  Since those making such unsupported claims remain unable to substantiate them, atheism is a statement of a lack of belief, (not a confirmation of proving a negative condition).

Once again I observe that you are aligning yourself as a negative atheist and I will more closely monitor your posts in other threads to see if you hold to such a position.

You'll no doubt find no statements of "positive atheism" on my part however, what you choose to construe as "negative atheism" relies upon your interpretation of the actual statements made.  Given our debate thusfar, I'd estimate that disgreements have hinged upon such misinterpretations
far more than upon accurate inyerpretations.

... yet your skeptical inquiry rejects unless it is given absolute proof.  Such a contrasting position to the claim I find quite 'irrational'.

It isn't irrational to require the burden of proof from those who are making the claim, (that would be those claiming that a 'belief' in something.

Again when put into context with the missing information from my quote, the relevance of what I said will become clearer.  I know that I am not such a skilled debater that you can only muster the ability to reply to half of my sentences at any given time so what gives?  (bit of a ribbing but an honest question, is it my verbosity is it the clumsiness of the forum, the word limit, what?)

Looks like a character limit, thus the snipping of what was considered to be noncontextual to the replies.  Can't include the whole shebang in every response so, some judicious snippage is needed here.

I cannot see where you can reduce the amount of logic required by your definition to allow for atheism to fit without also allowing for 'faith' or without appearing to be 'rationalizing' your own definition of 'rational' and that is something you say disqualifies as being 'rational'.  So where does that leave us?

No reduction in logic is necessary to allow for atheism, (a skeptical/critical process, rather than a 'belief' itself which requires 'faith' to sustain it).  I have no problem with examining any assertion/contention, (including atheism, as commonly defined), using logical reasoning methods.  Until some evidence, (a line of reasoning would do), is presented that atheism is an irrational basis itself, I cannot concur with an unsupported opinion that it is.  That either leaves us arguing about atheism in order to take the heat off of "faith" as an irrational basis or, starting a new thread with that subject.

I realize the inherent vested interest held by those who profess "faith" would cause discomfort in conceding that "faith", (in general), cannot be accurately asserted to be a rational basis for choice, (since that would mean tacitly admitting that it is an irrational basis).  You see, I can account for illogical emotions, (especially since I've got 'em too), in concluding this.

You cannot hold the position that "no reduction in logic is necessary" without  also including "..because we are not considering the question in the first place".  But you cannot include that extension and also have taken a position on what entails a 'belief'.

I have considered that the question of 'faith' is an irrational basis for an equally irrational 'belief' without any "reduction in logic."  Perhaps you haven't been paying attention within the constrictions of your 'beliefs'?

My beliefs don't constrict me, they expand what I am capable of considering.  By your own tacit admissions I can consider far more than is possible for you as I extend beyond the mere physical and logical into the spiritual as well.

Since I haven't delineated the range or limits of what I do consider, your assumptions are limited to an inference that I only use logic.  This would be an inaccurate presumption.  

You have presented all the evidence that atheism is irrational.

Now you're simply lying; I presented no such evidence, (regardless of your irrational misinterpretations of what I actually did state).

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention within the constrictions of your 'beliefs'?

Which "beliefs" are you now assuming I have in regard to your claim that I "have presented all the evidence that atheism is irrational"?

Your deliberate and insulting posts in any thread you can find that relates to faith and especially Christianity shows your prejudice and prejudice immediately rejects a position as rational.

No doubt a xtian would find such things as pointing out that their religion is directly responsible for millions of deaths, an entire "dark age" and a massive amount of cultural theft/suppression & absorbtion of other 'religions' as "insulting."  Too bad; such despicable actions under the banner of religion, (including xtianity), is insulting to me.  Doubtless this doesn't matter to you either, as an adherent to a belief system which perpetrated such crimes against humanity.

You have poisoned your own well.

On the contrary, xtianity beat me to their own well centuries ago.

You cannot dismiss emotion so readily either.  It is likely the most important part of being human and allows us to extend within and beyond the outlines of the drawing.  Emotion supplies relevance and without it all things are equally valuable and thus by extension equally worthless.

I didn't "dismiss" it; I expressly stated it could be accounted for.  Accounting for something is the opposite of dismissing or, disregarding it.  It was further stated that I have emotions, (rather than being an AI program sent to vex you).  Although I suppose I could question your contention that "emotion supplies relevance ..." etc., though I somehow doubt that what you'd supply as 'evidence' would be conclusive, (that's skepticism, not a dismissal in advance).

When you purposely described emotions as "illogical emotions" (which is true but the added emphasis of double stating by you with the stipulation of 'illogical') makes it appear as if you find them distasteful.  

The reason, (since reasoning was used to determine this), that I stipulated emotions as illogical was due to considered that there may be a generalized case for 'logical emotions'.  That is, reasonable expectation of a certain emotion, given known parameters of stimulated response, may result in a predictable, (at least understandable, if not strictly logical), response.  It isn't that I find emotions particularly "distasteful", what I do happen to find distasteful is a reliance by others upon predominately irrational elements in their decision-making processes which directly impinge upon my environment.  In other words, they are euphemistically crapping in a public pool.  No one enjoys that.