John Page

Dear Hypocrites (of all persuasions):

David's request is irrational - possibly because of his brain chemistry as per my prior post from New Scientist.

For meaningful discussion to take place it is necessary to compare atheism to something else and, guess what, that's non-atheism. "Rational" is not an absolute. David - do you understand the value of control groups in rational, scientific, gathering of information?

Second, observers should beware their subjective bias. If not, as you can see from other threads, the opponents descend into claiming that rational athiesm is an oxymoron or that rational theism is an oxymoron. Clearly, both sides will wish to appear more rational given the topic thread.

Anyway, I don't see how the starter of the thread can rationally object to a post regarding a scientific experiment that suggests the atheists are more rational than believers.

Rational responses welcome.

I Love Atheism, John

John Page

I can cut and paste and repost too, see below! Are you saying that the findings of scientific experiments are irrational? Or are you simply denying that any evidence that atheists can be more rational is relevant. Next you'll want to chop off my legs, tie one arm behind my back and gag me.

Do you have any rational evidence that shows that disbelief in the existence of god is an irrational act?

I Love Atheism, John

madmax2976

Ah, Well that is one possible answer Helen. It might the most likely one as well.

HelenM

It's what he seemed to me, to be admitting to, in this post:

Hello Everyone,
Finally! This thread is getting entertaining ...

If you people didn't make your hot buttons so obvious it wouldn't be so easy for me to press them!

Love,

David Mathews

from <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000803&p=6" target="_blank">this page</a>

Devilnaut

Vorkosigan:
Apparently, according to Dave, you should need to show that believing that smith did not commit the crime gives your life purpose, infuses you with a system of morals and ethics, explains how our universe came to be, and gives your life value as an individual, before you are entitled to that belief.


Either he's an idiot of the highest caliber, a scripted bot, or an annoying troll. All of the above contribute zero to these forums so my suggestion to Dave is to either shape up or go back to writing uninformed diatribes on his site.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

WJ

John said:

'"Rational" is not an absolute.'

Anyone see the obvious conradiction here viz. atheism? Not that contradiction is bad, but it certainly is not consistent with atheist's attack on theism.

The original question related to methodology/justification. If being rational is not absolute, then why does an atheist use it to make claims agains such arguments for things like the EOG? Is he just talking for fun? That's ok, but it must mean a theist should not take them seriously, or vise versa.

Gee, you-all's perceptions of David must be right . He's just here for fun and those of you who chose rationalism for your methodology in rebuttal, prefer mental masturbation. Thing is, I don't think David cares to watch/hear you all masturbate.


[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Kachana

This is too vague to answer. Can you clarify, and explain the difference between me not believing the Christian God exists, and you not believing some hypothetical being I could come up with exists; note that in both instances, if we believed the positive version of proposition, our whole outlook on life would be drastically changed. It seems we are qualitatively the same.

Cheers!

madmax2976

Yes, there's always the possibility he's just a troll looking to stir things up and has no real intention of discussing things in any meaningful way.

After engaging him for a while in his very first thread on this site, thats the impression I began to form. I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt, but that has its limits. We'll see how he responds here.

Hans

Should you be interested in the view of someone who does not maintain any belief in the existence of gods I can offer the following:

The universe along with it's components exist. Its existence is evident from my observing it. I am undoubtedly aware of only a small fraction of the vast multitude of components that make up the universe as my ability to experience and observe is extremely limited on a universal scale. While one may argue that observation and experience are unreliable and therefore an irrational basis for one's beliefs, they are all I have. I, however, do recognize that observation and experience can be inaccurate and lead to false conclusions. I find it to be a wise decision to apply the highly reliable scientific method to those beliefs that have a greater impact on my decisions and actions.

=======

As to meaning and purpose I will presume you have used those words to convey the following:

What, if any, is the importance or value (meaning) and intended or desired effect (purpose) of both life and the individual self?

First I'll address purpose. Intent and desire are the product of will. If the origin of life has no will of its own then life has no purpose. Even if one found a will in the origin of life it would not guarantee that life has any intended or desired effect as there may have been no desired or intended effect. For instance, for all we know life could have been an accident or unintended side effect of some other process. Regardless, one would need to establish what the origin of life is in order to deduce whether a purpose exists or not. To my knowledge no such origin can be shown.

There does, however, seem to exist at least one method of deducing a purpose to the individual self; One could query one's parents as to why they decided to reproduce. That is if one valued such a purpose. I personally place little value in such a purpose when developing my own values and virtues. On a universal scale the individual self seems to share the same apparent lack of purpose as life in general.

The meaning, or importance and value, of life and the individual self on a universal scale is seemingly non existent. That is, the universe would seem to exist with or without either.

Subjectively, the importance and value (meaning) of life is that it allows the existence of the individual self. The importance and value of the individual self is that it allows the existence of ME.

You now have my view. Not necessary my 'worldview', but my view on the subject matter you presented.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Hans ]</p>

John Page

Hi Waldo!

I think you can measure rationality though, its not necessarily a binary rational/irrational boundary. Based on the evidence and my own personal experience, it is more rational to be atheistic than otherwise.

David, as far as I can tell from his behavior, is not a christian - which is sometimes how he describes himself. For me, this adds considerable doubt as to his sincerity and I place him on a par with the Nigerian "Church of Winners" - pretty much a scamster.

This being a philosophy thread, I thought it might just be useful to offer some actual evidence as to the rationality of atheists. If David doesn't agree then he would seem to have a very irrational view of what comprises rational debate.

Atheism for god! John