|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 29, 2014 13:28:55 GMT 10
Why is it irrational?
Pretty simple, you have no proof so the existence of anything supernatural is based on hope, rather than fact or reason.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 30, 2014 10:48:51 GMT 10
No, actually it's circular reasoning; that's a logical fallacy.
By logical standards, if I can trace your conclusion back to the premise, your belief is circular and therefore irrational. So here is your expressed line of thinking, so far:
"The supernatural doesn't exist" How do you know that? "Because I haven't seen any evidence of it" What about witness accounts from people who have? "They are lunatics, or liars" How do you know? "Because the supernatural doesn't exist" (Which is right back to the original premise.)
If you have some other reason for your disbelief, express it and we'll examine that. I'm open to discussing this, if you are open to having your belief(s) challenged.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Apr 30, 2014 13:07:08 GMT 10
Occam, this is a futile and arid line of debate. Slarti is right to say that the existence of God cannot be proved, and you are right to say that the existence of God cannot be disproved. So it's a Mexican standoff with each of you responding to the last thing the other posts by nit picking and hair-splitting. You have a lot of fun and aggro but neither of you really gets anywhere. What's the point? Or is the aggro the point?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 2, 2014 9:43:42 GMT 10
I'm not really interested in debating that, pim. The point was to discredit slarti's conjecture regarding atheism and rationality, being one in the same.
That's all.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on May 2, 2014 13:49:21 GMT 10
I'm not really interested in debating that, pim. The point was to discredit slarti's conjecture regarding atheism and rationality, being one in the same. That's all. Is it rational to believe in the supernatural? The two just don't go together.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 3, 2014 2:45:05 GMT 10
It's not irrational to believe in something intangible, since many things are. And the Laws of nature are finite, so it's not irrational to believe that something exists beyond them.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on May 3, 2014 8:01:17 GMT 10
It's not irrational to believe in something intangible, since many things are. And the Laws of nature are finite, so it's not irrational to believe that something exists beyond them. Let's presume that your definition of the Laws of Nature are indeed the accepted ones; i.e. gravity, electromagnetism, and the two atomic forces in the weak force and the strong force (please correct me if you actually mean something else). Are they indeed finite as you claim? Considering what the wonderful researchers at the University of New South Wales published in 2011, electromagnetism is very likely not to be constant throughout the universe which explains why we have not as yet found lifeforms on other planets. www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/11/02/3353491.htm
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 3, 2014 10:19:44 GMT 10
It's not irrational to believe in something intangible, since many things are. And the Laws of nature are finite, so it's not irrational to believe that something exists beyond them. Let's presume that your definition of the Laws of Nature are indeed the accepted ones; i.e. gravity, electromagnetism, and the two atomic forces in the weak force and the strong force (please correct me if you actually mean something else). Are they indeed finite as you claim? Considering what the wonderful researchers at the University of New South Wales published in 2011, electromagnetism is very likely not to be constant throughout the universe which explains why we have not as yet found lifeforms on other planets. www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/11/02/3353491.htmThat's what finite means, slarti. NOT infinite. You are arguing my case for me. Gravity, time, atomic forces... these are all relative to our universe. And they certainly aren't constant. Nature had a beginning, and therefore it's cause lies outside of itself. (Supernatural)
|
|
|
Post by fat on May 3, 2014 21:12:25 GMT 10
Could it not be held that the Laws of Physics are kept in place moment by moment by the will of God?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 3, 2014 22:50:45 GMT 10
Could it not be held that the Laws of Physics are kept in place moment by moment by the will of God? If you imagine it. Another atheist, hoping to God He doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 3, 2014 23:00:47 GMT 10
Not unlike those who enjoy pretending that God doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 3, 2014 23:14:23 GMT 10
“A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.” -CS Lewis.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 3, 2014 23:51:06 GMT 10
Good ol' Clive, a mad Irishman to be sure to be sure. He probably found his pretend friend inside the wardrobe, along with the Lion and the Witch. Maybe.. But before that, I'll bet he met Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 4, 2014 4:51:41 GMT 10
If you know anything about authors, you'll know they don't come in 'non-weird' varieties. (Non-weird is so cliche, and just not interesting.) But that doesn't invalidate their message. P.S.: You're being overly critical and judgmental today, do you need a hug?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on May 4, 2014 10:38:52 GMT 10
Not unlike those who enjoy pretending that God doesn't exist. No need to pretend. He/she/it just isn't there/anywhere/everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 5, 2014 2:52:23 GMT 10
Not unlike those who enjoy pretending that God doesn't exist. No need to pretend. He/she/it just isn't there/anywhere/everywhere. If atheists want to define their brand in terms of 'reason' then it is imperative they stop arguing in circles.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on May 5, 2014 7:24:08 GMT 10
There is no circle.
The choices are pretty clear:
Is there is a God?
a) Yes - and here is the evidence b) No - there is no evidence
As the answer a) has never been provided and never will be so the choice for the logical person is b).
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 5, 2014 9:55:31 GMT 10
If I can trace your conclusion back to it's premise, it's circular; there is no denying it.
Here's your argument:
1. God does not exist 2. Therefore God does not personally reveal His existence to people 3. When people think they are having experiences of God, this experience can be fully explained in terms of naturalistic causation, using scientific terms (particularly through neurological studies.) 4. Therefore people don't have experiences of God. 5. Therefore testimonies of God's existence do not prove that God exists. 6. Therefore, God does not exist. (..And from the conclusion we go back premise 1.)
Despite our differences, I hope we can at least come to a consensus that circular logic is irrational.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 5, 2014 10:11:53 GMT 10
Your statement is contradictory as well as circular, EG. 1. You began from the assumption that 'my friend' was imaginary, without offering any supporting evidence. 2. To call Him 'imaginary', I'd be affirming I willingly knew He didn't exist; and thus wouldn't expect Him to tell me anything. Distortions, how utterly expected. But thanks for playing.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 5, 2014 10:22:10 GMT 10
You cannot affirm that your imaginary friend is imaginary because you are deluded. Awww poor EG, He's professing his atheism obtrusively, and no one really gives a shit. Sing Louder, EG! Sing you Moral man of Culturally Subjective Fibre, sing until they all notice you, again.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 6, 2014 10:16:36 GMT 10
It's not expressed obtusely, you just receive it that way.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jun 9, 2014 8:43:38 GMT 10
You find some classic comments when looking for something else: You resort to children's entertainers for your data. I'll stick with accredited scholars. Like the accredited scholars that came up with this bogus study!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jun 14, 2014 6:06:02 GMT 10
You find some classic comments when looking for something else: You resort to children's entertainers for your data. I'll stick with accredited scholars. Like the accredited scholars that came up with this bogus study! ...Can you substantiate that they were not? Can you confirm the study was bogus, just because these results differed from yours? The study isn't invalidated solely on your say so; and neither is it's source.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jun 14, 2014 8:52:48 GMT 10
It is pretty obvious that the outcome isn't even close to reality.
You don't half a brain to work that they are using bogus information. And I have already shown you an impartial study, so please do try to keep up.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jun 14, 2014 10:01:13 GMT 10
And I have already shown you an impartial study, so please do try to keep up. How exactly did you come to the conclusion that it was impartial? (Particularly when the wiki accepts BOTH findings.) In fact, it suggests the perimeters of your 'impartial' study , may not be entirely accurate or scientific. "According to a study by WIN-Gallup International, the number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining.[3] On the other hand, a study by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity has concluded that atheism is on a global decline due to continuing steady increases in religiosity in China, which harbors the majority of atheists and non-religious people, and Eastern Europe which has had significant changes in religiosity after the fall of communism. Generally the trend is a return to religion in areas that were under state dominated doctrines that promoted atheism as the official state ideology.[4]
Social scientific assessment of the extent of "atheism" in various populations is beset with a number of problems. First in most of the world outside of East Asia the vast majority of the populations are believers in either a monotheistic or polytheistic system, typically being cited as 80% or more in United States and India. Consequently questions to assess non belief often take the form of any negation of the prevailing belief rather than an assertion of positive atheism and these will then be accounted, accurately (due to a proper definition of atheism being in reference to literal translation, simply one without theism), to rising "atheism".[5][6][7]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism *(Emphasis added) (In other words, it comes down to how you define "atheism")
|
|