BadBadBad

That's a little twist on my take. I don't care how he arrived at the premise. The premise is irrational, and he admits that.

BadBadBad

Absolutely no problem so far.

Absolutely wrong. You can't rationally argue a premise that you have admitted is irrational.

Absolutely no problem. "I admit my position is irrational, therefore any attempt at rational debate would be pointless."

BZZZZZZT!!! Absolutely wrong again.


I agree, and I don't see any problem with this.

Heaven and afterlife are part of your core beliefs, and in your first post in this thread you argued for the rationality of your core beliefs and the irrationality of any position opposing that.


I agree, and I can plainly see that. However, we are arguing that belief in God and christianity is irrational and therefore not true. You are still arguing against that. Yet you admit that.

I understand exactly what you are saying, but let me leave you with a quote from Benjamin Franklin:

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason."

AJ113

There is no premise. There is no structured argument. In an argument there is a proposition followed by a number of premises followed by a conclusion. He jumps straight to the conclusion without proposition or premise. That is why his belief that god exists (conclusion) is irrational.

In any case, what is an irrational premise if not one that is assumed without the application of reasoned thought?

When you say "irrational premise" do you mean something more like "false" or "unproven?"

BadBadBad

With respect to the premise, I'd use the words like illogical or non-sensical. RationalBAC used the word irrational to describe his core beliefs on religion. There's no reasoning behind it. He can't make any reasonable arguments to support his core beliefs.

AJ113

Ah I see.
I agree with this, but it doesn't necessairily mean that the position itself is irrational. Others may have arrived at the same position after a great deal of reasoned thought. In these cases, I would not say that they hold irrational beliefs. I would perhaps argue against the validity of their beliefs, but not the rationality.

For example, I may say that I believe that the moon's gravity is responsible for the earth's tides. I can't explain why I believe this, it's just the result of a gut feeling.

I happen to be correct, but not through the application of rational thought. So you could say that I hold irrational beliefs, because I failed to use reason to establish them, but it would be more accurate to say that my beliefs are not a conclusion of rational thought, they are the result of - well - no thought process at all, really.

Now, what if those "irrational" beliefs did not concern the moon, but religeon, a part of my life that affects everything I say and do, colours my viewpoint on most issues, and I base my very life upon them? I'd have to concede that I was a totally irrational person............

BadBadBad

Ok, this is interesting. I see what you're saying, but you don't have to be rational about everything. Like I said if RBAC wants to admit he believes in religion due to emotional reasons. That's fine with me. If he wants to bet on the lottery or avoid elevators that's OK too.

Unfortunately, he's not just doing that. He's admitting on the one hand that his core beliefs are on faith, they're emotional, with no rational basis. At the same time, he's arguing the beliefs are rational, truthful, and unassailable. In your example, I might believe the moon causes the tides. It would be foolish for me to argue a related proposition with the moon/tide premise as the main basis of my argument. That after admitting from the start that there's no rational basis for the moon/tide, and given that I'm aware that the premise is really the main point of contention.

The other thing that's interesting is that he won't analyze his premise he admits is irrational. He'll look at any other subject on religion, and as long as that doesn't contradict his core beliefs, he'll analyze that "rationally." Not the core beliefs though. Those aren't open for debate, and that's where he really gets in trouble. We know if he just used the same reasoning he does to throw out the bulk of what is contained in the Bible, he'd have to throw out everything.

The bottom line for this thread is that RBAC has now admitted that there is no rational basis for his beliefs. He will continue to deny that, but he's admitted it. All of his future arguments will be based upon his core beliefs as the main underlying premise. At the beginning of each future argument, we should challenge the main premise and watch him squirm to spout off a "rational" basis and then hopelessly fall back on to his admission that it's all just faith. He's in the same boat as all christions, except most are absolutely reluctant to admit that because they understand that if there's no rational basis for it, it's embarrassing to base such important arguments on it. RBAC doesn't see anything wrong with it.

Rational BAC

You are right. I don't see anything wrong with it.

So let's take an example or two---

---I say the pig story is just made up hokum added on, in my opinion, later on in the 3 centuries after Christ as the Bible was probably added on to and corrupted by humans to get the OT and the NT to "fit a little better" Same with the idea of original sin. Same with the trinity.

---I say the OT is just literature and myth and neither the OT nor the NT are divinely inspired--just a man made work, full of errors and inconsistencies with add ons and subtractions and greatly politically influenced in these changes.

--Best I can say about the Bible is man tried to keep an oral tradition and write down eventually something concerning some supernatural events that they thought happened 2000 years ago. And the whole thing got greatly corrupted over the centuries.

Now you are going to have to say (from your stated position on this) that since I do have a very few core Christian beliefs which I admit are irrational---------that I am therefore being completely irrational in making the previous statements and have no right to have any opinion at all on these subjects.

I will be waiting with baited breath for the next time that I criticise something concerning Christianity (in the same way an atheist would do) and you will feel obligated to say that I am being completely irrational in stating that.

Fair is fair you know, I know that you do not want to appear to be hypocritical. So you have to call me on EVERY statement I make as being irrational and therefore not worth consideration--------even though you may agree with what I say in that case.

Your turn-------

(I admit I am way over my head on this one and probably should just stay out of this thread.) But, I think we are talking apples and oranges here and nobody seems to realize it except me.

BadBadBad

These examples are examples of you using reason to rule out what you don't believe in. That's not what we're talking about. I rule out the stories for exactly the same reasons. We're talking about your arguments supporting what you do believe. What is rational basis for them? As an example, you've stated that you believe in all of the miracles in the NT, including the pig story, even though in one of your examples above, you say you don't believe in the pig story. So here is your proposition:

I believe in the XXXX miracle story.

Premise 1: YYYY
Premist 2: ZZZZZ
Premise 3: God exists.
Premise 4: Jesus was the Son of God.

Conclusion: Therefore, the XXX miracle story is true.

Here's an argument you made in your first post in this thread:

Something happened 2000 years ago.

Premise 1: The Gospel story couldn't just be made up.
Premise 2: God exists
Premise 3: Jesus was the Son of God

Conclusion1: My belief in Christianity is rational
Conclusion2: Your lack of belief is irrational.

Like I said, I can successfully defeat any argument you make that is based primarily on your core beliefs since you've admitted that your core beliefs are irrational.


No, this is a strawman with respect to what I've said. The bit about "completely irrational" has never been my argument. I've said over and over that I don't care whether you are completely or partially irrational. Your arguments are admittedly irrational, and your religious beliefs are admittedly irrational.

This is another strawman. Your criticisms of traditional christianity aren't the issue. I agree that your arguments against traditional christianity are rational. That's why I'm an atheist. It's the arguments in favor of your liberal brand of christianity that are at issue.

This is still the same strawman.

Is this another admission that your arguments are irrational, but you're going to keep on arguing anyway?

We are talking about apples and oranges, and I recognize that too. I'm talking apples. I've told you I'm talking apples. If you'd talk about apples, then we wouldn't be talking apples and oranges.

Rational BAC

Let me see if I have this right. --------

You think you can win any day of the week if I want to debate my core beliefs as being rationally based.

Will give you that one.

Granted I have at times tried to put some type of rational basis for my core beliefs-------which you were pretty quick at discovering. But I have rarely done that, and just gave up on the whole project since my core belief system is faith based essentially anyway.

Forget my core beliefs. I still say if you are going to hang me as being irrational in all statements because of the admitted irrationality of my core beliefs, then you have to hang me as well for my non-theistic statements,---------- since you have decided that I am essentially irrational.

In other words, when I say that the OT is man-made myth then you have to accuse me of irrationality. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

BadBadBad

Yes, I do since you've admitted that you assert God exists, but you have no rational arguments to support it. I on the other hand can make many rational arguments against the existence of God. That's not my point though, I can win any argument where you use your core beliefs as a premise because your core beliefs are the principal basis for your other arguments in support of non-core religious beliefs. You've admitted the principal basis is irrational.


If you're successful at doing that all the time, which I don't agree you are, then good for you. I think that's a more respectable and honest position. You believe in religion for what I would say are emotional reasons, and I don't see anything wrong with that. You probably have a favorite color as well. Not everything is rational. Just don't try to rationally argue your core beliefs, and don't try to use these irrational core beliefs to support any other propositions.

That's still a strawman. I'm not arguing at all that you are a partially or fully irrational person. Nor, am I arguing that ALL or any other part of your statements are therefore irrational. I'm only arguing that your arguments in favor of your religious beliefs are without merit because the principle underlying premise is admittedly irrational.

You are constantly arguing your religious beliefs here both for what you believe and what you don't believe. All of your arguments in favor of your beliefs are based principally on your core beliefs. Your core beliefs are admittedly irrational. Your core beliefs, as your principal premise, are defeated at the outset by your own admissions. Without this core premise, your argument has no merit. You can't rationally argue about the characteristics of Heaven and angels, when the main premise of your argument is irrational. I don't think you can successfully deny that. You can argue, but just admit that your arguments are irrational. Your belief that heaven is anything anyone wants it to be with all the sex they want is not rational for the same reason your core beliefs are not rational.

You can say you believe in IPUs. You can argue that they are pink and invisible. It's just not rational. I like pink. Pink is cool. Green is not as cool as Pink. We can discuss that and argue that, but it's not a rational discussion. You argue that your discussions and opinions on religion are rational, and that's incorrect. There is no rational basis for your religious beliefs any more than there is for your favorite color being the best color.

OTH, you are arguing against people here that can easily make rational arguments against your beliefs. I don't believe in Heaven. Only the Bible asserts the existence of Heaven. Heaven is inseperably linked to God. The definition of God is an illogical paradox and therefore God cannot exist. Therefore Heaven does not exist. Therefore you are incorrect when you say that Heaven exists, you are going there, and you'll be getting as much sex as you want. I may not be the best example of someone here with a rational argument, but I hope you'll get my point.



This is still the same strawman argument. I'm discussing your statements about what you believe in, not your statements about what you don't believe with respect to traditional christianity. You have two strawmen going. This one and the one on partial/fully irrational. I've pointed them out numerous times. You continue to argue the strawman without any defense for that. You are being irrational.