Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cretinist · 07-25-2002, 04:47 AM

Many of the �Reveled� claims of Christianity are indeed not based on any sort of empirical evidence. Take for example, the doctrine that believing Jesus is the savior will get you into heaven. None of the events described in the Gospels support this doctrine in any empirical way.

Also take for example, the belief that Jesus is God himself. Even if you assumed all the events in the Gospels did indeed happen, they would be equally compatible with an infinite number of other hypotheses. Jesus could have been a minor deity from another religious pantheon trying to make a name for himself, an alien playing tricks on some dopey humans, Satan trying to trick the Jews into straying from Yahweh, etc ad infinitum. There is no empirical reason for accepting one hypothesis over any other.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Cretinist ]

WJ · 07-25-2002, 05:40 AM

Cretine!

That is an important miconception that I keep hearing. You are talking about apriori logic again, not Revelation. Doctrine (1+1 is universally true) has no real meaning in the sense that it is percieved as an objective truth to someone. So of course the alternative's there are either to accept it, or reject it (true or false are the only 'real' answers to that 'equasion'). Otherwise, the only way it 'means' something is that one has to already (make the choice)'believe' for it to impart a meaning or for someone to claim it is either/or. That leads to verification, which is another topic.

Again, revelation is revealed knowledge thru the aposterior; thru the phenomena of living and [B]being. Now I ask again, why are they incompatible if sense experience is common in both?

the apeman

madmax2976 · 07-25-2002, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Mathews:
Hello Atheists,

Beginning with the proposition that God does not exist what sort of rational, reasonable and defensible worldview do you have?

I am seeking an inclusive and complete worldview which takes into account 12 billion years of history, the whole Universe from subatomic particles to the forces of nature to superclusters to the variations in the cosmic background radiation, the whole of human identity including the meaning and purpose of life (if any), and finally the meaning, purpose and role of the individual self.

I know that it is a lot to ask but atheists have gone out of their way to claim that their viewpoint is rational, reasonable and logical.

Thanks,

David Mathews

A lot to ask? It borders on the absurd. You really expect to come to a website and get all of what you ask here? Volumes have been written on this stuff David. Go buy some books or go to a library. Check out the Sec Web library right here - it'll be a start.

If you have any specific topic in which you think that atheism is irrational, unreasonable or illogical, something concise enough to handle in this venue, then by all means present it.

Vorkosigan · 07-25-2002, 06:49 AM

I know that it is a lot to ask but atheists have gone out of their way to claim that their viewpoint is rational, reasonable and logical.

Let's imagine we find a murdered body in the road. You say "Smith did it." I say "Evidence indicates Smith did not do it." You argue that I need to propose an alternate theory of the murder in order to prove Smith did not do it. Logical error, Dave. I just need to show that Smith could not have done it. I don't need to prove who actually did it.

Likewise, atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It is not a worldview and entails no empirical or moral conclusions. All atheists have to do is demonstrate that it is rational, reasonable and logical to lack a belief in gods. We do not need to provide an account of any of those things you asked for in order to show that belief in god is irrational, unreasonable and illogical. That is true whether we are metaphysical naturalists, freethinkers, skeptics, Buddhists, Confucians, Wiccans, pantheists, or just plain tired of people who can't understand English.

Once again, atheism does not entail constructing an alternate theory of reality. It merely entails lacking a belief in certain aspects of your theory of reality; namely, the one that deals with Canaanite Sky Gods.

Vorkosigan

joedad · 07-25-2002, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Mathews:
Hello Atheists,

Beginning with the proposition that God does not exist what sort of rational, reasonable and defensible worldview do you have?

I am seeking an inclusive and complete worldview which takes into account 12 billion years of history, the whole Universe from subatomic particles to the forces of nature to superclusters to the variations in the cosmic background radiation, the whole of human identity including the meaning and purpose of life (if any), and finally the meaning, purpose and role of the individual self.

I know that it is a lot to ask but atheists have gone out of their way to claim that their viewpoint is rational, reasonable and logical.

Thanks,

David Mathews

Hello Theists,

Beginning with the proposition that a God does exist what sort of rational, reasonable and defensible worldview do you have?

I am seeking an inclusive and complete worldview which takes into account 12 billion years of history, the whole Universe from subatomic particles to the forces of nature to superclusters to the variations in the cosmic background radiation, the whole of human identity including the meaning and purpose of life (if any), and finally the meaning, purpose and role of the individual self.

I know that it is a lot to ask but theists have gone out of their way to claim that their viewpoint is rational, reasonable and logical.

What am I missing?

joe

David Mathews · 07-25-2002, 07:32 AM

Hello Everyone,

At the present moment I cannot perceive any evidence of rationality, reasonability and logic within the philosophy of these atheists. I propose the following principle:

1. A philosophy which is concisely and completely stated in a single negative propostion is not reasonable, rational nor logical.

Does anyone disagree?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

WJ · 07-25-2002, 07:34 AM

Joe!

"Beginning with the proposition that a God does exist what sort of rational, reasonable and defensible worldview do you have?'

While I can't speak for David, from a cosmological standpoint, God is a necessary being and free-will is an 'illusion'-one that causes the need for a daily walk in faith.

That's one method of how I use reason to support my belief in God.

Any holes in that one?

Walrus

AtlanticCitySlave · 07-25-2002, 07:37 AM

One hole is obviously that we cannot make sense of a "necessary being". Any "being" that we can think of, we can think of not existing.

John Page · 07-25-2002, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Mathews:
At the present moment I cannot perceive any evidence of rationality, reasonability and logic within the philosophy of these atheists.

Dear Hypocrites (of all persuasions):

See below on possible cause to believe that belief itself is caused and can be explained rationally:

Quote:

New Scientist 24 July 02

Whether or not you believe in the paranormal may depend entirely on your brain chemistry. People with high levels of dopamine are more likely to find significance in coincidences, and pick out meaning and patterns where there are none.

Peter Brugger, a neurologist from the University Hospital in Zurich, Switzerland, has suggested before that people who believe in the paranormal often seem to be more willing to see patterns or relationships between events where sceptics perceive nothing.

To find out what could be triggering these thoughts, Brugger persuaded 20 self-confessed believers and 20 sceptics to take part in an experiment.

Brugger and his colleagues asked the two groups to distinguish real faces from scrambled faces as the images were flashed up briefly on a screen. The volunteers then did a similar task, this time identifying real words from made-up ones.

This being the case, the boogerman is real - but only in your mind.

I Love Atheism. John

David Mathews · 07-25-2002, 07:40 AM

Hello Everyone,

The topic under consideration is Atheistic Rationality. This topic is not a comparison/contrast between Theism and Atheism.

Please confine your posts to demonstrations of the rationality of your atheistic beliefs, supposing that they are rational.

Thanks,

David Mathews

07-25-2002, 04:47 AM	#11
Cretinist Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hell Posts: 399	Many of the �Reveled� claims of Christianity are indeed not based on any sort of empirical evidence. Take for example, the doctrine that believing Jesus is the savior will get you into heaven. None of the events described in the Gospels support this doctrine in any empirical way. Also take for example, the belief that Jesus is God himself. Even if you assumed all the events in the Gospels did indeed happen, they would be equally compatible with an infinite number of other hypotheses. Jesus could have been a minor deity from another religious pantheon trying to make a name for himself, an alien playing tricks on some dopey humans, Satan trying to trick the Jews into straying from Yahweh, etc ad infinitum. There is no empirical reason for accepting one hypothesis over any other. [ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Cretinist ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-25-2002, 05:40 AM	#12
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Cretine! That is an important miconception that I keep hearing. You are talking about apriori logic again, not Revelation. Doctrine (1+1 is universally true) has no real meaning in the sense that it is percieved as an objective truth to someone. So of course the alternative's there are either to accept it, or reject it (true or false are the only 'real' answers to that 'equasion'). Otherwise, the only way it 'means' something is that one has to already (make the choice)'believe' for it to impart a meaning or for someone to claim it is either/or. That leads to verification, which is another topic. Again, revelation is revealed knowledge thru the aposterior; thru the phenomena of living and [B]being. Now I ask again, why are they incompatible if sense experience is common in both? the apeman

07-25-2002, 06:49 AM	#14
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I know that it is a lot to ask but atheists have gone out of their way to claim that their viewpoint is rational, reasonable and logical. Let's imagine we find a murdered body in the road. You say "Smith did it." I say "Evidence indicates Smith did not do it." You argue that I need to propose an alternate theory of the murder in order to prove Smith did not do it. Logical error, Dave. I just need to show that Smith could not have done it. I don't need to prove who actually did it. Likewise, atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It is not a worldview and entails no empirical or moral conclusions. All atheists have to do is demonstrate that it is rational, reasonable and logical to lack a belief in gods. We do not need to provide an account of any of those things you asked for in order to show that belief in god is irrational, unreasonable and illogical. That is true whether we are metaphysical naturalists, freethinkers, skeptics, Buddhists, Confucians, Wiccans, pantheists, or just plain tired of people who can't understand English. Once again, atheism does not entail constructing an alternate theory of reality. It merely entails lacking a belief in certain aspects of your theory of reality; namely, the one that deals with Canaanite Sky Gods. Vorkosigan

07-25-2002, 07:32 AM	#16
David Mathews Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: st. petersburg Posts: 622	Hello Everyone, At the present moment I cannot perceive any evidence of rationality, reasonability and logic within the philosophy of these atheists. I propose the following principle: 1. A philosophy which is concisely and completely stated in a single negative propostion is not reasonable, rational nor logical. Does anyone disagree? Sincerely, David Mathews

07-25-2002, 07:34 AM	#17
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Joe! "Beginning with the proposition that a God does exist what sort of rational, reasonable and defensible worldview do you have?' While I can't speak for David, from a cosmological standpoint, God is a necessary being and free-will is an 'illusion'-one that causes the need for a daily walk in faith. That's one method of how I use reason to support my belief in God. Any holes in that one? Walrus

07-25-2002, 07:37 AM	#18
AtlanticCitySlave Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 251	One hole is obviously that we cannot make sense of a "necessary being". Any "being" that we can think of, we can think of not existing.

07-25-2002, 07:40 AM	#20
David Mathews Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: st. petersburg Posts: 622	Hello Everyone, The topic under consideration is Atheistic Rationality. This topic is not a comparison/contrast between Theism and Atheism. Please confine your posts to demonstrations of the rationality of your atheistic beliefs, supposing that they are rational. Thanks, David Mathews

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.