|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
My complaints with Theism being irrational precept
Posted on: July 26, 2006 - 7:58am
 Offline
My complaints with Theism being irrational precept
Theism is NOT Irrational. This is coming from a strong Agnostic. I wont explain why here mainly because its essays for biased Atheists here. I am Republican. But I am not what you think that is.
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
What the fuck is a strong agnostic. Either you know or you don't know, there is no "I kind of know," or "I really really know." And, I'm sure we would all like to see a case for the rationality of theism, so I implore you to post an essay on it. Be prepared for much criticism, but if you're going to make the claim, we'd like to see your reasons.
"It's not so much staying alive. It's staying human that's important." - 1984
www.myspace.com/applesforadam
applesforadam.blogspot.com
Thanks for nothing then!
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I thought you would get mad if I did. Well then here goes:
I would first like to tell you I am agnostic. I would also like to tell you I am friends with many Atheists and one truely devout family. Theism is not irrational because without it I doubt many people would care about things such as death, morals, being fair or alot of life in general. Believing in God is one thing, but the concept of Theism to give people hope that maybe there is some good in others. Possibly you can live a happy life. Now maybe your Atheist because you hate organized things people follow. Maybe your an Atheist because you dislike the idea of an after-life. But if your willing to call the concept in believing that people can live a happy life than all I have to say is... for shame.
I am Republican. But I am not what you think that is.
Someone help me with the quote, but to say that a theist is correct and rational in his beliefs simply because they give him or her a warm fuzzy feeling of ignorant happiness does not make anymore sense than to say that a drunk man should be happier than a sober one.
"It's not so much staying alive. It's staying human that's important." - 1984
www.myspace.com/applesforadam
applesforadam.blogspot.com
I'd first like to tell you that agnosticism is NOT a position between atheism and theism. Gnosticism or Agnosticism has to do with KNOWLEDGE. Theism and atheism have to do with belief. If you do not have a POSITIVE belief in a god, no matter how weak, you are an atheist. Deal with it. Atheist = one who has no belief in gods. Do you have a belief in gods? If not, guess what....
That's a non-sequitor. EVERYBODY, regarless of belief, goes through and deals with death, morals and life in general. Atheists are no different. Nobody ever said dealing with such things was irrational.
I'm not an atheist for any of those reasons. And every point you've just made does NOT make belief in invisible magic deities in the sky who control the universe rational. Try again.
I honestly don't give a shit if delusions make people happy. Drugs do the same thing and I would confront a friend addicted to smack. As Sagan said:
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I have a policy of let idiots be idiots. So if they want to believe it WHY THE HELL STOP THEM! Since you dont seem to care at all for devout people than WHY BOTHER TRYING! And if agnostic isnt the position between the two than I dont know what the hell I am! AND YOU CANT HONESTLY EXPECT ME TO HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD AS TO WHY YOU CHOSE TO BE AN ATHEIST. Until you have proof that god is NOT there and that he has never been there than keep the hell on trying to convince me. It goes the same the other way. Until I see fucking Jesus telling me to be a good person or the fucking chariots of hell flying out of hole in the ground that is spitting out fire IM NOT GOING TO TAKE A DAMN SIDE! Im on my own. And I dont expect you could find that wrong. Or could you?
Oh and by the way. I wasnt trying to prove if God was there or not. I was trying to prove that the concept of Theism has that purpose of letting people be happy.
I am Republican. But I am not what you think that is.
The question being addressed here is whether or not theism is rational. This question seeks to discover the kinds and quality of evidence for and against theism. In this paragraph above you have not explained why belief in God is rational. At most, even if everything you said is true, you have only given us reasons to believe theism is practical or helpful in certain contexts. However, you never address the evidence for or against theism.
Happiness does not imply rationality. By any standards of logic. Except imaginary ones. Such as yours.
"It's not so much staying alive. It's staying human that's important." - 1984
www.myspace.com/applesforadam
applesforadam.blogspot.com
The question your asking could not possibly be answered. You would have to be able to prove things that happened 2,000 years ago. And your right I was trying to make it practical since its about the only thing I can do. Religion is just somthing like "faith". It cant be explained well and many of you may find that oddly convenient. People are VERY serious in their belief in god. Im sure some are out of fear, some are out of love and THOUSANDS of other reasons. Explaining the flaws and faults in this is alot easier. It would all be your opinion anyway since you cant pull physical evidence that god does not exist. So if you can understand that I will be happy.
I am Republican. But I am not what you think that is.
Because you care enough to tell your friend they are being an idiot.
We try, because we feel irrationality is a threat to a free way of life. And no, you're not an agnostic, sorry. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, but you cannot simply be an agnostic. Educate yourself.
Who said I CHOSE to be an atheist. Beliefs are NOT choices, they are the sum of your experiences.
Same goes for Bigfoot, leprechauns, unicorns on the moon and the Loch Ness Monster then, I suppose, right?
I don't find that wrong at all. You're an atheist, you have no positive belief in a god.
And like I said, heroine makes people happy too. That doesn't make the emotions and images they feel while on it real.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Yes you have good points but comparing Heroin to Religion i find really funny. And if you can believe that you want a free society than you cant stop people from doing what they want. Theists chose to go to church on sunday and like doing so. In a free society they should be allowed to do that.
Oh and I know what an agnostic is so DONT YOU DARE tell me to educate myself: Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the (truth) values of certain claims?particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities?are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, (some agnostics may go as far to say) irrelevant to life. The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion. The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (without) and gnosis (knowledge). Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism?these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism. Booyah.
I am Republican. But I am not what you think that is.
I agree. Never said they shouldn't be.
BLAH, blah, blah. You haven't refuted me. Believe me, I used to be as deluded as you and I HAVE studied this. You've just said YOURSELF and backed it with HUXLEY that agnosticism has to do with KNOWLEDGE. Fuck what you know. NOBODY KNOWS whether god exists or not. I'm asking what you believe. You HAVE to lean more one way than the other. Are you agnostic about Bigfoot?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Dude. I think its impossible to know if god exists or not. Thats it. I want proof one way or the other. There is physical evidence and visual evidence supporting Bigfoot and there is also evidence that turned out to be fake. So you can jump on either boat there without being partially wrong. If you have AIM I would love to dicuss these things in an easier way. Cant I have the knowledge to know nothing?
I am Republican. But I am not what you think that is.
Fine. Your an agnostic, but that's ONLY a modifier. Do you have a positive belief in God or not? You must lean one way or the other. You're not perfectly neutral and you know it. Agnosticism has to do with KNOWLEDGE. Theism and atheism have to do with BELIEF. They are VERY different things. Are you an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist?
So do I. That doesn't affect my BELIEF.
So which boat do you jump on? You have to pick one. You know you lean one way or the other, you simply won't admit it.
You can PM me if you feel it is necessary. I think this is pretty cut and dried though. You don't KNOW if there is a God of not, fine. I don't know either. However, I DON"T have a positive belief in god, even though I don't know he does not exist. Belief and knowledge are NOT the same thing. Deal with it.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
For the bigfoot thing I made a typo. I meant you can not jump on either boat without being partially wrong. If I had to chose I would say he doesnt exist simply because I havent seen him/it. And since your forcing me to chose I would go with agnostic atheist simply because I am more logical than spirtual and it seems unlikely that in the scientific world that its possible for somthing like that to exist. I KNOW that I havent seen anything convincing and cant BELIEVE that god exists at this time. I do not deny his existance since I dont have any proof against this. For all I know he could be there right now smiling since Im attempting to defend Him or he could not be there and this would be pointless. Its not like he would pay attention to forums if he did exist anyway. He would be in Isreal claiming souls.
I am Republican. But I am not what you think that is.
Huzzah! You get it. You are A-Bigfoot. Now be equally honest about your belief in god.
There you go. You were already aware you held this position. You don't KNOW if god exists, but you don't BELIEVE there is a god. This is a perfectly reasonable position, it corresponds in large part to mine. I'm simply trying to show you the difference between knowledge and belief.
Exactly, me too.
Well, for me, I'm agnostic on the concept of deities in general. I do think I can disprove SPECIFIC deity claims such as the Christian God.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
What about Odin, and Posideon and Thor. Alot of people have the view that since these Gods dont hold anybodies belief anymore that it proves that all Gods are created by people and there is none. But I think thats fruitless since the god being refered to in all monotheistic religious texts could be Odin, or Thor, or Gaia, or anybody.
I am Republican. But I am not what you think that is.
I'm not getting your point. One god is as ridiculous to me as the next. If I had to pick one though, it would be Loki..
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Thor is cooler. He has a giant Magic hammer. My point was if you can prove the christian god to be false why cant you prove all of them.
I am Republican. But I am not what you think that is.
You cannot really PROVE any of them false beyond doubt. I don't think such certainty exists. We can be 99.99999999999% sure of something, but we never get to 100% except with tautologies and definitions.
Oh, and Loki is the god of mischief and Odin's blood brother. He kicks Thor's ass.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Honey, if you did your homework before exploding into this childish rant, you'd know that the Rational Response Squad has answered your question many, many times.
Jumping in front of a car might "make someone happy", but it is irrtational because it endangers their life and does not have a logical foundation, unless the person was intending to kill or injure themselves.
Sorry for the poor analogy. However, Theism does not have a logical foundation based on proof and evidence, so therefore it is irrational. This is not a question of whether it makes the person happy or not. However, I agree strongly with the RRS that it ultimately causes more pain, stunted knowledge and confusion than simply accepting the truths of life.
Irrational: Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment
Belief in a god? Definitely fits that bill.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
Notice agnosticism pertains to knowledge.
Atheism pertains to belief. You are without a positive belief in a god... you're atheist.
Most of us are agnostic atheists.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Okay, we need a new definition.
Strong Agnosticism: Really, really, really not knowing anything.
That might fall under the heading of transcendentalism
"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I'd first like to tell you that agnosticism is NOT a position between atheism and theism"
then I guess all the agnostics who consider themselves in the middle are wrong, and you of course are right. so glad we all have you to tell us what we are since we dont' know ourselves.
Well if agnostic isn't an accurate term what would you use to describe a person who never lets the debate on any God/gods/supernatural spaghetti/unicorns/whatever enter their mind? Obviously in their daily life they would be exposed to it but what if they see no relavance and just flat out don't care either way? It's kind of a strange thing to consider on a site so involved in argument over theism but I do know people who just live their lives without hardly a thought as to why and wouldn't give a missionary or rational response squad the time of day.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
[Mod Edit: Double Post]
[Mod Edit: Triple Post]
and what the term for idiots who keep accidentally posting everything more than once...sry
There is a fundamental issue that is not being properly understood by some of the participants in this thread.
Gnosticism has to do with knowledge.
Theism/Atheism has to do with a belief. You either have a belief or you do not, that is Theism and Atheism. You can't not not have a belief and not not not have a belief. Necessarily such a position is simply not possible. You either believe in god(s) or you do not.
Whether you attest to know that god(s) exist or not has to do with gnosticism, or more specifically the truth value you assign to one of the claims.
Agnostic Atheist - Has no belief in god(s), but does not purport to know that the god claim has a false truth value; they don't know for sure that a god or gods don't exist, but live as though god or gods don't exist.
Agnostic Theist - Has a belief in god(s), but does not purport to know that the god claim has a true truth value; they don't know for sure that a god or gods do exist, but live as though god or gods do exist.
Gnostic Theist - Purports to know that a god or gods do exist.
Gnostic Atheist - Purports to know that a god or gods do not exist.
A person could hold a number of those positions listed above (I will explain how soon), but a person cannot hold an in between position on any of them. There is no position, 'I don't know that god does or doesn't exist so I'm going to live as though I don't know.' That is only a gnostic statement and has nothing to do with belief. In fact, unless you profess not to have a belief, it must be assumed that you don't have a belief as that's the only rational position to take concerning the extraordinary claim of the existence of god(s) for which there is no proof and for which there typically cannot be proof. It is simply the default position. Just as the default position is the non-belief in anything that can merely be imagined. A world contrary to that would be one in which people believed claims simply because they couldn't know that what had been claimed didn't exist when the claim is unfalsifiable.
Now, I wrote earlier that a person could hold a number of positions concerning belief and non-belief in god(s). This is due to the nature of some god claims and the nature of a positive belief in a god claim. I must be agnostic about certain deistic and pantheist god claims as I can't logically show that they can't be true, however, as there is no evidence to support them there is no reason to believe in them. There are, however, god claims that are internally incoherent (;self contradictory; illogical) and can thus be known not to exist because of their very nature. Any claim of a supernatural god can be known to have a false truth value. Supernatural things, for example, cannot exist by their very own definition. (The logic of this is expounded at length in an essay available on this site.) Thus an Atheist can hold a variety of positions regarding different god claims.
A theist can hold a number of positions too. An agnostic theist might not have a belief in any one god claim, but lives as though god(s) do exist. An agnostic theist may have a belief in just one god claim and purport to be agnostic regarding it. This theist could be agnostic Atheist regarding some of the other god claims and could also be gnostic Atheist regarding some of the other god claims. A gnostic theist would necessarily have to also be Atheist regarding all the other god claims and may employ logic to show how they cannot exist in some instances (though such a theist would risk being a hypocrite), or may simply employ faith in the god claim they accept as the necessary reason that the other god claims are false. After all, if you know your god claim is true you know the others are false.
To summarize, gnosticism is a position on knowledge, whether it can be had and what truth value can be asserted of a claim, while the theism/Atheism dichotomy regards belief. In some ways the dichotomy is not actually there as Atheism only needs to be identified because there are theists. To illustrate, there is no special term for one who does not believe in Santa Clause because there is no one (or not a significant number of people) who believes that Santa Clause is real. As a technicality, since we do have the idea of Santa Clause and we do not believe that it is real, we are all Asantaists. It wouldn't even be outside of our epistemological rights to be gnostic Asantaists, because Santa Clause, as defined (among other reasons), cannot exist.
To clarify, gnostic Atheist could also denote 'strong' Atheist and agnostic Atheist could also denote 'weak' Atheist. Gnostic theist would be a 'strong' theist and agnostic theist would be a 'weak' theist, though I'm aware that a distinction is not typically made. Theist refers to anyone with a god belief and Atheist refers to anyone with a non-belief in gods.
All this is to show you, pyrokidd, that if you have no belief in a god or gods, regardless of your gnostic position, you are Atheist. If you do have a belief in a god or gods you are theist. If you live as though it does not matter whether you have a belief or not and do not claim to know whether or not a god or gods do exist, you are Atheist unless you profess you are a theist.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
fundamentalist agnostic ? ,
Hey god fans and freaks, know Pat Condell ?
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=patcondell&p=r
Atheism Books.
Theism is rational because we cannot fully explain the cosmos. As long as one cannot disprove something beyond a shadow of a doubt by inductive reasoning, then to subscribe to such a theory is not irrational.
Have any of you acquired 100% of the knowledge in the universe? PM me once you have.
Everyone, sing along:
Here-we-go-again with the shift-the-burden-of-proof-fallacy...
Leprechans, Tea-Pots, and Zeus, OH MY!
Good fucking "lord", you theists are such jaw-dropping, irrational idiots!
GRRRR
... so theism is now agnostic ? the tao covered that long ago, da da , god is this, hellow, ? OK , god is great, it's like magic, .... wow , so pray ?
Atheism Books.
This is old! Stop it! You mean, that just because I can't disprove the thing you've made up and because I don't have all the knowledge of the universe (whatever that is), your belief (it's not a theory) is not irrational? So, I suppose you believe in fairies and elves, goblins, gnomes, trolls, Santa Clause and invisible pink unicorns? Or does your 'rational' belief in something for which you have no evidence and for which there can't be any evidence (do you know what unfalsifiable is?) extends only to your god claim? Do you realize how stupid your argument is? I assume not. If what you assert were true, you'd have to believe in any unfalsifiable claim anyone imagined merely because you couldn't prove otherwise and didn't possess all the knowledge in the universe. You apparently have no clue about epistemology, burden of proof or basic logic or you'd see exactly how stupid what you wrote is. Further, you seem to be unaware of how you've misused 'inductive reasoning' here which only stipulates that a premise should be adequate to support a conclusion but does not necessarily entail that conclusion. I don't understand how inductive reasoning as you suggest could be used to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt and it isn't pertinent to god claims in the first place. Stop writing stupid stuff, it's annoying.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I am not attempting to shift the burden of proof. I am just saying that until you can simply explain to me why God doesn't exist, you cannot call theism irrational.
This is not to say that all theism is rational, just that the concept of God is not irrational. There are plenty of reasons to believe in God.
For the concept of theism to be irrational, you would have to simply explain to me (in a few short paragraphs) how the universe holds the concepts of order without an orderly power to govern it.
Secondly, to call yourself an agnostic-atheist, or any other combination of the words, is a whoring of language. An agnostic might as well call himself an atheist-theist. And for you to call yourself an agnostic-atheist who is also an antitheist is an even bigger joke. (did you guys know your spell check doesn't catch "antitheist?"
Atheist="I claim to KNOW God doesn't exist," Theist="I claim to not KNOW God does exist," Agnostic="I claim that God's existence is unknowable." If you are going to coin new words, at least make sure they are definable.
BTW, If you claim to be an agnostic-whatever, you immediately disqualify yourself to say that theism is an irrational precept. You are also disqualified to be an antitheist, which is the very foundation of this website's existence.
The original poster was correct in his definition. Don't let them screw with you man. Check Webster's. And I'd like to discuss these things with you on AIM too.
I am god as you , are you suggesting there is more ? that I should bow ?
I AM GOD AS YOU, your posts are incoherent at best. Who are you directing them too? I haven't been this confused since playing Metal Gear Solid 2. And the Tao answers everything, because it answers nothing! Gosh, I am not sure if Taoism is rational. Geez, I don't even know how to categorize Taoism. I want to say Agnostic Philosophy, but they are so insistent they believe in a greater being. They just don't care to explain it.
No. This is shifting the burden of proof. Also, I expounded at length and directed anyone reading this thread to an essay on this site on the illogicalness of certain god claims and their necessary inability to actually exist.
No, not all theism is rational. There are lots of reasons that people do believe in god. None of them are rational. There is no god claim that is rational. Though I believe there is a thread by Starfio that is debating that exact notion. Perhaps you'd be interested in checking it out.
You're supposing here that the observed constants of the universe are necessarily the result of an 'orderly power' governing it. There is no evidence of this. Until you can present evidence the working model must simply allow for the constant to exist as they do. The universe does not hold any 'concepts of order'.
I don't know what you mean. Agnostic is not having knowledge of blank or claiming that knowledge of blank cannot be gained. No mere combination of words would result in what is understood as agnostic Atheist or agnostic theist.
An agnostic Atheist would not claim to know for certain that god did not exist but would live as though god did not. Are you incapable of reading?
This makes no sense. Agnostic is not a position of belief it has only to do with knowledge.
Who are you referring to? I never referred to myself as an antitheist and I don't recall reading it anywhere in this thread of any of the other posters. I believe I referred to myself as a necessarily agnostic Atheist in regard to some god claims and a 'strong' Atheist in regard to others.
It's your spellchecker not 'ours' you browser spell checks what you're typing and it uses the dictionary you set it to. I assume you have yours set to American English. Perhaps you should update the dictionary?
No one here has coined a new word, or term as you mean. An Atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves in a god or gods. Denies or disbelieves. We've covered this. The difference is between 'strong' (gnostic) or 'weak' (agnostic) Atheism. It is not difficult to understand. Please, the definition I gave is supported by the American Heritage Dictionary, the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Online Etymology, WordNet and other English language lexicon resources.
Do you care to explain what you mean here? What do you mean by 'disqualify'? Do you mean that a person cannot claim that theism is irrational if they do not purport to know for certain that all god claims are false?
I don't see how antitheist has anything to do with this. An Atheist is not necessarily antitheist in the way that antitheist is understood.
No, he wasn't. This has been pointed out.
I won't do this again!
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ag·nos·tic[Origin: < Gk ágnōst(os), var. of ágnōtos not known, incapable of being known (a- a-6 + gnōtós known, adj. deriv. from base of gign
—Synonyms 1. See atheist.
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
n.
Do you care to argue against that resource? I can cite others that will offer the same definition. Odd that I don't read anything about agnosticism being a position unto itself, expect pertaining to knowledge. In fact, as I've pointed out already, 1b corroborates and is referring specifically to 'strong' Atheists (termed here 'true' Atheism, which would be the denial of the existence of a god or gods in this case) as differentiated from 'weak' or agnostic Atheists who would claim that it is not possible to assign a truth value to a god claim. Is that clear enough for you?
Indeed, don't let us cite sources or produce evidence supporting our otherwise baseless assertions that you're misusing the term agnostic to describe a position on belief that doesn't and can't exist. Don't let us screw with you. We're just making this up as we go along. It is a good thing we've got IMs so that we can coordinate our conspiracy against your use of the term agnostic or else everything written here might seem as inane as what I'm replying to. Please, check Webster's. I happen to know that Webster's lists a similar definition of agnostic as the one I've supplied and it clearly has nothing to do with a belief in god and only to do with the nature of knowledge pertaining to god.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
it's all up to you, you are god ....
Order. The amount of order in the universe is unknowable. This is also an attribute of God. Interesting. Discussion?
And what is this truth you speak of? Have you based it on an understanding of the complexity of the universe? Is is fair for you to assume you know the truth considering theists purport a contrary truth?
incoherent ??? , now we are talking ... I believe god is great. ME .....
Here we go redefining words again. What boggles me is it looks like this kid cut-and-paste that from a dictionary, he even added an anthropology of the word, and you guys are still convinced he's not right.
No one has redefined a word. You can stop being dishonest at any point in time. Also, you mean etymology and not anthropology. There is no such thing as 'anthropology' of a word. Your continued ignorance of the most basic subject matter is frustrating. Further, the point made by T.H. Huxley's original use of the term would be Atheism, which, as has been pointed out, is only an explicite position because of the existence of theism. Infact, I would agree that the existence of a god or gods is irrelevant as they either don't exist or almost certainly don't exist and thus can necessarily be irrelevant to life. This shouldn't be taken to mean that the fact that people do believe is irrelevant as people willingly blow themselves up for their god beliefs or open creationist museums or take political action. In that way god belief is very relevant to life and it would be wilfully ignorant of someone to suggest otherwise.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I worship me , I am the everything, the center of the cosmos ME ..... ME ME ME , I am GOD, .... ALL and eveything, It's all me ..... only me .....
Atheism Books.
Thomathy, I'll address a few of your comments. . .
Until you can present a working model of an orderly machine with no orderly instructions, it must be assumed that order requires instructions. I'm waiting. . .
No fricking duh! Observation #1: There is so much order in the Universe that the full extent of it is unknowable. Observation #2: There is no precedent for order without instructions. Observation #3: There is no precedent for instructions without an instructor. Conclusion: It is completely logical to believe there is an instructor behind the order of the universe.
Christian theology states that, 1. God's complexity is unknowable, 2. God holds all things together, 3. God commands all things to be orderly. Conclusion: Christian theology is logical.
The goal of this site is to "Cure Theism;" therefore, its adherents are assumed to be antitheists. I understand how this can be an unfair assumption, and I accept that you aren't an antitheist.
Yes. If one cannot verify the nonexistence of God by inductive reasoning, then he is disqualified to call theism irrational. To do so is to claim the irrationality of the claimant.
I understand that, and I no longer assume you are an antitheist; however, the founders of this site are either antitheists, or they are no better than sellers of indulgences.
1. Does not profess true atheism. 2. Noncommital.
Thomathy, you called me out on the "anthropology" thing before I was able to go back and change it. End of that. I will hear no more of it!
Thomathy,
Before I call it a night, I will respond to one more of your posts. You mentioned suicidal religiosity. . .
I do believe suicidal religiosity is irrational in most cases. Most suicidal religiosity is spurned by blind faith.
In the case of Christianity (and maybe others I am unfamiliar with), I disagree to a certain extent. It could be said that Jesus was suicidal; however, one must accept his word that he came "From the Father." So if his faith is true, then he really did come from the father and knew what he was doing. Martyrdom is the same. Why would one give up such a great hope for a few moments of pleasure? The Christian martyr believes with all his heart and mind that he is receiving a better abode. (AND I ONLY TERM THIS AS SUICIDAL, BECAUSE I BELIEVE YOU WOULD)
In the case of other religions, especially far eastern, it is not a rational decision, because A. one can only hope he receives a better abode, there is no guarantee by his gods, and B. one does not have to commit suicide in order to be blessed by the gods.
As faiths that are suicidal to bring harm to innocents, such as Islam, I cannot say it is rational, because A. If God gives wisdom, he loves mankind, B. if God loves mankind, he would not condone the killing of innocents. (I DON'T KNOW HOW TO QUALIFY THIS WITH SOME OF THE ATROCITIES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, BUT TO SAY I AM NOT CONVINCED OF THE INNOCENCE OF ANY OF THE TRIBES GOD COMMANDED THE ISRAELITES TO KILL. READ THE STORY OF ABRAHAM, MELCHIZEDEK, AND THE KING OF SODOM TO SEE MY POINT. OR WE MIGHT JUST AGREE TO DISAGREE)
False analogy. It is also unknowable whether or not my cat had an even number of cells in his body at 9:03:14 am today. Does this mean we should draw a parallel between his cells and god, or his cells and universal entropy measurements?
Instead of saying "God", be more honest and say "I don't know."
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
Please usefully define "orderly machine" and "instructions" in the above sentence and we can start working on it.
Since I'm not a physics guy, I don't know if observation 1 is accurate or not. Can you tell me how observations 2 and 3 are not countered by ice formation? It is an increase in order and all you need are the proper amount of heat and water.
Non sequitir. Christian theology also states that the moon gives off its own light, and an omnimax god exists. Neither of those things are true (the second isn't even possible).
This is flat-out wrong. Believers in the supernatural (whatever that would mean) are making a positive truth claim; they are stating a set of facts about how the universe works. In order for that belief to be rational, all the assumptions and conclusions made and reached must hold together logically. There is no theology demonstrated so far for which this is true. Therefore, theism is irrational. If you don't want to be told you're irrational, there is an easy fix: don't hold irrational beliefs.
For example: I believe that chimps hoot Puccini operas when no one is watching (this includes audiovisual recording equipment, which they can sense). Are you saying that it is not only rational for me to believe this, but irrational for anyone to tell me I'm being irrational? We all know chimps hoot, and that Puccini exists, so how about it? Yes or no?
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.