Clutch

Pseudonym,
Do you really think that saying foolish things like this is a better idea than simply admitting you were making a mistake?

Your ill-informed claim is in ruins. And while you could earn some respect just by candidly conceding that you spoke too hastily, you evade the issues with this absurd red herring. That really is one of the hallmarks of irrationality!

Devilnaut

Pseudo:


Well, to call someone ignorant generally is an insult. It suggests that they are unlearned, unaware and uninformed. This suggests that there is something there to learn or become aware of, that the person in question has remained oblivious to (for whatever reason). Since in your apparent opinion the subject that I am ignorant of contains absolutely no information whatsoever, I would say that you have used the wrong word.

I defined strong atheism in a previous post, please reread that. I personally don't see how judging the probability that a specific being (say, an all powerful super being) happened to have created the universe to be below 50%, is anything less than the only rational option.

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Totalitarianist

Perhaps all the above bowelcrud would be valid if you could refute my last few posts.

Oh, and ignorance can be defined as "lack of knowledge". That refutes quite a bit of your garbage.

Edit: I'm only now taking an arrogant stance because you people are being so defensive.

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>

Totalitarianist

HHA HAHA HA HA HA AH HA!!! That's funny. I don't think I've ever laughed that hard! You really are ignorant--moreso than I had anticipated!

Now, refute the contents of my last posts. Picking at things insignificant to the over-all meaning of my posts just proves that you are unable to refute my claims. Refute it. Don't be scared. Just because I have the upper-hand, doesn't mean you have to resort to hypercritical nit-picking. I dare you to refute the contents of my last 10 or so posts.

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>

NialScorva

David Matthews...

Define "rational" and "reason".

Here's a couple relavent definitions I've found:

<a href="http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/r.htm#reas" target="_blank">Reason:</a> The intellectual ability to apprehend the truth cognitively, either immediately in intuition, or by means of a process of inference.

<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=reason" target="_blank">reason:</a>
4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.


What would classify a belief as "rational" rather than "irrational", for theism or atheism?

Without making it clear, you are leaving a *lot* of room for equivocation. You make such a mistake in going from your first open question to your second.


The first question is easily answerable. The second subtly changes what "irrational atheism" is being talked about. For example: I would consider emotional hatred of an abusive priest an irrational (though not unjustified) source of atheism. However, given that answer, you cannot extend it to asking what is sufficient to transform it into rational atheism because it is no more than it is. You're phrasing itself is questionable. You extend from "irrational atheism" to "irrational atheists" in what I assume is an attempt to negatively paint at least a subset of atheists. This is an equivocation between "one who holds a position for irrational reasons" and "one who is irrational".

Perhaps a better way of stating your second question would be "How can an atheist who holds his belief irrationally supplement it with rationality".

Clutch

Pseudonym, I'm trying to gentle, though you're making it difficult.

If you are now claiming your comments about the First Cause argument are "insignificant to the overall meaning" of your posts, that's fine. I have not followed your other posts to other people with much interest; I have been following up your confused and false statements about the FC argument.

It is understandable that you now want to dodge the issue by suggesting that you never really meant it; thus you try to characterize my demolition of your claim as "picking at" trivialities. Again, this is a missed opportunity to garner a little respect through honesty, instead of coming across as a bombastic blowhard who will not retract a claim no matter how clear its falsity. If you are giving the wrong impression of yourself here, now is the time to set it straight.

Devilnaut

To Pseudo:


I was simply trying to explain to you why "people tend to synonymise ignorance, in every context, with some sort of insult.". It is because of the way in which people normally use the word.

ig·no·rant Pronunciation Key (gnr-nt)
adj.
Lacking education or knowledge.
Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
Unaware or uninformed.


If you are using the term in a way in which it is not normally used, it is polite to explain your specific definition before you go tossing it around as a label.

Semantic issues aside:

As I posted earlier in the thread, a strong atheist is one who perceives the probability of a given God concept to be below 50%.

Do you agree with this definition?

your previous response to this definition was:

So, I assume that you do agree. Can you please explain to me how we can have any knowledge whatsoever about something that does not exist? Can you explain how you can "deny the existence" of dragons, while you were not present thousands of years ago when they were purported to exist? On what basis do you deny the existence of dragons? Or are you agnostic in regards to their existence?

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Totalitarianist

Okay. That's your opinion.

Dodging the question? Isn't that precisely what you have been doing hitherto by refusing to refute my arguments? If, by some marvel of a chance, I missed your refutation, enlighten me.

Your labeling of my argument as "ill-informed" is rather insignificant on account of your obvious inability to refute it.

Totalitarianist

So, I assume that you do agree. Can you please explain to me how we can have any knowledge whatsoever about something that does not exist? Can you explain how you can "deny the existence" of dragons, while you were not present thousands of years ago when they were purported to exist? On what basis do you deny the existence of dragons? Or are you agnostic in regards to their existence?

But are we completely ignorant of Dragons? Can we define "Dragon"?

Clutch

Pseudo, I don't know any simpler form of communication than written English. I have explained that the First Cause argument is completely distinct from the idea that the universe actually had a beginning; that the former is unsound while the latter is consistent; and that atheists correctly reject the former while virtually universally accepting the latter, which is, after all, the received scientific view.

If you have somehow failed to notice that this demolishes your claims about atheists and the FC, then I am unable to communicate with you. Your repeated evasion, however, makes it quite clear that you *have* noticed this, and would rather dodge than admit your error.
Asked and answered, I guess.