Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Thomas Ash · 05-19-2003, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sesshoumaru
To embrace Atheism is to abandon rationality. Man cannot exist in a world without God. How can one explain logic, natural law, and the creation of the univerce without the existance of God? It is impossible to prove these things without God. I challenge any atheist to disprove me on any one of the afore mentioned points. Please no ad hominem attacks.

Thank you sincerely,
Sesshoumaru

I can't explain them. Honestly, I don't really have a clue how the universe started, at least when you begin to go back beyond the Big Bang. (Does that phrasing even make sense if the Big Bang is meant to be the beginning of the universe? Maybe I should talk about "behind" the Big Bang...)
But then, I bet you can't explain them either - I just admit it.

NOTE: 'Goddidit' does not actually count as an explanation, only an exercise in buck-shifting and question dodging

.

malookiemaloo · 05-21-2003, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by diana
Well, in rational thinking, one begins with the available evidence--acceptable and mutually-agreed-upon premises--and reaches a conclusion that is supported by those premises, but which does not state more than the premises would reasonably support.

The only premises that we agree upon at all (and some people still argue against this, but I think it's just for the sake of argument) are those things that are supported by our five senses, the windows through which we see the world. Any premises that state the existence of some being we cannot sense will not, I daresay, be found mutually acceptable.

For this reason, yes. Atheism is (as Conchobar just said in the post above) "the end product of strict rationality."

Theism, on the other hand, tries to reason backward, which isn't rational at all. Its arguments rely upon assertions that are not mutually acceptable (assuming you're using the argument to do something other than preach to the choir, of course). Its arguments are based almost exclusively upon circular reasoning and "after, therefore because of" fallacies. Any one of these things is a textbook example of how not to be rational.

Well, I think there may be some supreme being beyond ourselves. To not recognize this as a possibility is, IMO, irrational.

However, there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. While I'm more than willing to agree that there may be some supreme being, there's no rational reason to leap from that "maybe" to:

1. That being made the world.
2. That being created us.
3. That being cares about us.
4. That being is MY god (and all the rest are imposters).
5. That being loves me and will torment me forever if I don't worship him.

I don't understand quantum physics, but I do not argue that it cannot be true, so at the very least I'd say you oversimplify.

How do you judge the world, if not through your own intellect, understanding, knowledge and assessment of your own abilities? You aren't using my intellect (I hope), or Bob's understanding, or Jim's knowledge or Agnes' abilities. You're stuck with your own basis for understanding everything around you.

The difference between you and me, I think, is that I'm consistent in my application of skepticism. We can use the invisible dragon living in Carl Sagan's garage as an example. Are you skeptical of such a claim? Why? Why are you not equally skeptical of the idea of an invisible god? Inconsistency is irrational.

No. It's a reasonable conclusion we can reach from all available evidence. Until evidence arises that there is a supernatural world, it is irrational to assume one.

OK. By the same token, Your ability to rationalize his existence (at least to yourself) doesn't make him exist, either.

What we're looking for, via reason, is what makes sense to believe is true. What we can manage to talk ourselves into by replacing evidence with shaking arguments and a huge dose of hope does not pass for "reason."

Science can either present a supportable theory for observed phenomena or it can't. If it can't, it is obviously lacking something, and thus in NEED of some missing variable that will supply that explanation. I think this is what the humanist statement is saying. It isn't really concerned with whether we understand it well enough to determine what explanations are needed or not.

I've given my ideas of what "rational" entails. Please share yours. We might be simply suffering from dueling definitions here.

d

Thanks Diana.

Yes, from purely a rational standpoint, I think we probably agree on more than we disagree.

But the difference between our respective positions is, I believe, to be this.

You say it is irrational to believe anything beyond your own understanding. I say 'that is far far too limiting as there must surley be 'something' greater than ourselves (a fact you concede is a possibility.)

It all comes back to faith-that is the bridge between our positions. Is my analysis correct so far?

Now faith is the one common theme throughout the Bible-and emphasised by Jesus Himself. Do you not have difficulties with this? You are out of step with the creator of the world?

Perfectly logical when you think about it. God says ' I will communicate with my creatures but, as they will never understand eg how I called the world into being just by speaking, I will ask them to believe me instead.' If you were God, would you not be disappointed in your creatures especially all these super rational cynics on the Sec. web?

m

diana · 05-21-2003, 06:45 AM

Good morning, malookiemaloo.

Quote:

Originally posted by malookiemaloo
You say it is irrational to believe anything beyond your own understanding. I say 'that is far far too limiting as there must surley be 'something' greater than ourselves (a fact you concede is a possibility.)

It all comes back to faith-that is the bridge between our positions. Is my analysis correct so far?

Fairly close. I'm a language hound and a pedant, so I'm going to restate my position here to make sure we understand one another.

I have stated that I do not understand quantum mechanics, but I wouldn't state that I don't believe in its truth. Therefore, to state that it's "irrational" to believe anything beyond my own understanding would be an oversimplification. The difference between my acceptance of quantum mechanics and your belief in God is that quantum mechanics can be expressed mathematically. It has predictive powers, to those who understand it (and it is through their ability to predict its outcomes that we can determine that they do, indeed, understand it). No one has ever been able to duplicate this feat with God, to the best of my knowledge.

You state there must surely be something greater than ourselves. Why, though? How did you rationally come to this conclusion? That is, what premises did you begin with that led you to conclude this (as opposed to starting with the conclusion you've decided for one reason or another must be true, then finding reasons to believe it)?

I have conceded that there may well be a "greater" being than ourselves (whatever that means). By the same token, there may well be little purple five-legged creatures named Iggy living in my nose. Reason, however, compels me to start with the information at my disposal and determine what I can rationally conclude from it.

To work in the other direction is irrational. That is, if I begin with the idea I've already accepted as true, I tend to come up with all sorts of things that presume to "support" that idea. I've determined, for example, that the Iggies live within my nose. Being a rational man, you want to know why I'd think such a thing (I'd hope).

I say I know because there are boogers (British "bogey," isn't it?) there. I grant that they are formed at least partially by my natural bodily fluids, but they are too well and consistently formed to have been the result of mere chance. The Iggies must have made them.

But, you say, even if I grant something made the boogers, how do I know it was Iggies? I say I know because I saw one once. I have friends who've caught glimpses of their Iggies, too. I can't actually produce one, mind you...they're very reclusive and we speculate that they have the ability to dissolve themselves into thin air.

Well, okay--you're wondering if I'm a nutter by this point, of course, but you press--how do I know it's these creatures and no others who form my boogers? I respond that it just makes sense, doesn't it? I've seen the creatures. I have boogers. The boogers came from somewhere. What else do you think the creatures do all day, anyway?

When you "reason" backward this way, anything becomes possible. Thus, theologies are born and evolve, based upon subjective and unreproducible "experiences" and post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. These things are not rational.

Quote:

Now faith is the one common theme throughout the Bible-and emphasised by Jesus Himself. Do you not have difficulties with this? You are out of step with the creator of the world?

Faith is the one common theme, no less, in all the religions I've ever heard of. Do you have difficulties with the fact that faith in any religion is indistinguishable from faith in any of the others? How do you know, based on faith, which religion to give your blind acceptance to?

I see you've once again assumed the world had a creator. Which creator do you mean? How do you know? How do you make a rational decision?

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Faith is irrational. Religion is based on faith. Religion, being based on faith, which is irrational, is itself an irrational construct.

Quote:

Perfectly logical when you think about it. God says ' I will communicate with my creatures but, as they will never understand eg how I called the world into being just by speaking, I will ask them to believe me instead.'

The logic of any given thing is based upon the acceptability of the premises, among other things. Your premises are only assertions. They are without support. I do not accept them. Your argument is not, as you think, "perfectly logical" at all.

The facts we have at our disposal are these:

1. No one has every produced a scrap of evidence that any posited god exists or ever did.
2. There are many belief systems that assume a god. These systems use these gods to "explain" what that people do not understand (among other things, but I'm keeping this simply and on point.)
3. The bible is one of the many books that claims it has the truth about which god is the right one.
4. All of these books, including the bible, were written by men.
5. There is no reason to accept the bible as true over any of the others.
6. You have, nevertheless, accepted it as truth over all the others.
7. Your acceptance of its truth leads you to make statements such as "God said...."
8. In fact, all you know is that the bible states that "God said...."
9. Where the rubber meets the road, you still have no rational support for the ideas that (1) any god exists at all, (2) your god is the right god, or (3) your bible tells the truth about your god and is therefore worthy of your belief. All of these things you have accepted without support of any kind. That is, with faith. Faith is irrational.

Quote:

If you were God, would you not be disappointed in your creatures especially all these super rational cynics on the Sec. web?

If I were God, I'd be disappointed in any of my creatures, which I'd designed with rational abilities, who were not using those abilities. Reference the parable of the talents. The slave who was afraid and did not use the talent he was given was condemned.

If I were God, I'd be consistent at the very least. IF he exists and IF he created us, THEN he created us as creatures of reason. IF he created us as creatures of reason, it does not follow that he'd want us to not use this unique ability.

See? It's perfectly rational.

d

malookiemaloo · 05-21-2003, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by diana
Good morning, malookiemaloo.

Fairly close. I'm a language hound and a pedant, so I'm going to restate my position here to make sure we understand one another.

I have stated that I do not understand quantum mechanics, but I wouldn't state that I don't believe in its truth. Therefore, to state that it's "irrational" to believe anything beyond my own understanding would be an oversimplification. The difference between my acceptance of quantum mechanics and your belief in God is that quantum mechanics can be expressed mathematically. It has predictive powers, to those who understand it (and it is through their ability to predict its outcomes that we can determine that they do, indeed, understand it). No one has ever been able to duplicate this feat with God, to the best of my knowledge.

You state there must surely be something greater than ourselves. Why, though? How did you rationally come to this conclusion? That is, what premises did you begin with that led you to conclude this (as opposed to starting with the conclusion you've decided for one reason or another must be true, then finding reasons to believe it)?

I have conceded that there may well be a "greater" being than ourselves (whatever that means). By the same token, there may well be little purple five-legged creatures named Iggy living in my nose. Reason, however, compels me to start with the information at my disposal and determine what I can rationally conclude from it.

To work in the other direction is irrational. That is, if I begin with the idea I've already accepted as true, I tend to come up with all sorts of things that presume to "support" that idea. I've determined, for example, that the Iggies live within my nose. Being a rational man, you want to know why I'd think such a thing (I'd hope).

I say I know because there are boogers (British "bogey," isn't it?) there. I grant that they are formed at least partially by my natural bodily fluids, but they are too well and consistently formed to have been the result of mere chance. The Iggies must have made them.

But, you say, even if I grant something made the boogers, how do I know it was Iggies? I say I know because I saw one once. I have friends who've caught glimpses of their Iggies, too. I can't actually produce one, mind you...they're very reclusive and we speculate that they have the ability to dissolve themselves into thin air.

Well, okay--you're wondering if I'm a nutter by this point, of course, but you press--how do I know it's these creatures and no others who form my boogers? I respond that it just makes sense, doesn't it? I've seen the creatures. I have boogers. The boogers came from somewhere. What else do you think the creatures do all day, anyway?

When you "reason" backward this way, anything becomes possible. Thus, theologies are born and evolve, based upon subjective and unreproducible "experiences" and post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. These things are not rational.

Faith is the one common theme, no less, in all the religions I've ever heard of. Do you have difficulties with the fact that faith in any religion is indistinguishable from faith in any of the others? How do you know, based on faith, which religion to give your blind acceptance to?

I see you've once again assumed the world had a creator. Which creator do you mean? How do you know? How do you make a rational decision?

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Faith is irrational. Religion is based on faith. Religion, being based on faith, which is irrational, is itself an irrational construct.

The logic of any given thing is based upon the acceptability of the premises, among other things. Your premises are only assertions. They are without support. I do not accept them. Your argument is not, as you think, "perfectly logical" at all.

The facts we have at our disposal are these:

1. No one has every produced a scrap of evidence that any posited god exists or ever did.
2. There are many belief systems that assume a god. These systems use these gods to "explain" what that people do not understand (among other things, but I'm keeping this simply and on point.)
3. The bible is one of the many books that claims it has the truth about which god is the right one.
4. All of these books, including the bible, were written by men.
5. There is no reason to accept the bible as true over any of the others.
6. You have, nevertheless, accepted it as truth over all the others.
7. Your acceptance of its truth leads you to make statements such as "God said...."
8. In fact, all you know is that the bible states that "God said...."
9. Where the rubber meets the road, you still have no rational support for the ideas that (1) any god exists at all, (2) your god is the right god, or (3) your bible tells the truth about your god and is therefore worthy of your belief. All of these things you have accepted without support of any kind. That is, with faith. Faith is irrational.

If I were God, I'd be disappointed in any of my creatures, which I'd designed with rational abilities, who were not using those abilities. Reference the parable of the talents. The slave who was afraid and did not use the talent he was given was condemned.

If I were God, I'd be consistent at the very least. IF he exists and IF he created us, THEN he created us as creatures of reason. IF he created us as creatures of reason, it does not follow that he'd want us to not use this unique ability.

See? It's perfectly rational.

d

Good answer. Let me ponder it overnight. It's nearly knocking off time in the UK and there is a very important soccer match on tonight.

Will come back to you tomorrow or Friday.

But I think it all comes down to faith.

No scrap of evidence ever produced that God exists? What about Jesus? What kind of evidence would satisfy you?

I have seen critics of atheism saying on this web. things like '' no evidence would ever convince an atheist'. I always thought these kind of statements trite and ignorant. Now, I'm not so sure.

m

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.