David Mathews

Hello Trekkie With a Phaser,

David: When you say that a belief is "grounded firmly in reality" what do you mean? How do you determine the degree to which a belief is "grounded firmly in reality"?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Hans

David Mathews,

I agree that a theist could argue that the universe exists and that the universe's existence is evidenced by the theist's observation of it. And do so without abandoning his or her theism. But the god or gods of which the theist believes exists would be of an unusual sort in order to be considered of little concequence to one's decisions and actions. So I think that except for a limited few, the theist would abandon his or her theism if that theist agreed with everything I stated above.

You have quoted multiple views and requested my personal view as to the implication of but an unspecifed one. To which realization do you refer?

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

Trekkie With a Phaser

I mean that looking for answers to questions in reality is rational, whereas making up an answer that is contradictory to reality is not. For instance, people used to believe that when a person got sick, it was an evil spirit that was causing it and that by bleeding the person with leeches, they'd get better. When people actually started looking for natural causes it was found that bacteria, diseases, viruses, etc. were the actual causes of illnesses. This eventually led to medicines which save lives. So, to sum it up, I’m saying that looking for answers in reality is rational because it causes progress and can actually provide answers. On the other hand, trying to find these same answers in magic and superstition is irrational because there is no evidence to verify the claims made and there is no way that progress will be made.

(I tried to make that as clear as possible, but I’m quite tired right now so this may come across as nothing more than babbling. If you would like any of what I’m saying clarified, specify which part and I’ll do the best I can.)

Ierrellus

David,

I cannot believe that all world views are reducible to 42. I believe in 37.

Ierrellus
PAX

madmax2976

Hello David,

<strong> True. Though why you join these two attributes together I'm have no idea.

<strong> I am indeed "more rational" than others. I'm probably also less rational than some others. But in either case, my atheism has has nothing to do with such a judgement. I do not label the simple belief or disbelief in some higher power or creator being as rational or irrational. Do you?

Are you beginning to understand what atheism is and is not David? Are you seeing how erroneous many of your questions are, as they imply it is much more than what it actually is? Are you starting to understand that atheists are a widely diversified group, containing people with a great variety of different outlooks, morals, philosophies, biases, understandings, and so forth? Is it sinking in that the only thing that necessarily unites all atheists is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of all deities?

I can only hope the answer is yes to all these questions. Until such time as you do understand this, you won't likely be able to acheive any understanding of atheists, or even ask any meaningful questions. We'll get another 20 page thread with lots of meandering, but with little substance.

rainbow walking

Hi David,
The atheist's criteria of rationality
is based on his refusal to believe any claim as true without sufficient evidence to corroborate the belief. Therefore anyone who states a thing to be true without such evidence is, in the atheist's opinion, irrational. Your next move is to examine the criteria of what constitutes believable evidence.

For instance, basing the believability of a claim on the absence of evidence to the contrary is not evidence that would sustain the claim.

Also, basing the believability of a claim on the number of claimants is also not evidence that would sustain the claim.

Now, do you have any evidence that falls within the proper criteria of evidence to support your claim that atheists are as irrational as theists?

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: rainbow walking ]</p>

John Page

This statement is incoherent. First, as others have pointed out to you many times on this board, this "whole body of beliefs which an atheist accepts" is merely your statement of what you consider an atheist to be.

Second, I do not reject belief in god per se, I just don't subscribe to it myself. I cannot find any rational reason why I should do so, though; the evidence points to god being an invention of the human mind. On this basis it is far more rational to be an atheist.

Atheists differ in their views. For example, I do not "believe" in logic, I do not worship "rationality" nor do I bow without question to the results of so-called reason. Any method, IMO, can only be shown as 100% rigorous a posteriori - if we knew the answers to all our questions there would be no need for debate. The supposition that something called god can be substituted for all unknown a priori causes merely postpones the issue.

David, I used to be a theist albeit a somewhat skeptical one. I think religion can have upsides as well as downsides. There might be a god who's nature we haven't figured out yet. However, until you can rationally provide an argument that shows god does indeed exist then it is more rational to be an atheist - your attempt to have struck from this thread the factual results of a scientific investigation into brain chemistry merely demonstrates how weak your case is.

You may wish to note that, in addition to being an atheist, I am a relativist. If you wish to debate relativism as it affects rationality, I suggest you review the numerous past threads on the topic and start a new one if you wish to explore it further.

All gods are relative. John

NialScorva

David,

You're behavior closely borders on the trollish. You have a thread on this very subject already open, which you are no longer posting to.