Do You Think That Epilepsy Shouold Be A...
Society & Culture1 min ago
Reason
142 Answers
If an atheist is asked why he has no belief in a supernatural God, he will usually offer a rational reason, but if a believer is asked why he believes in a supernatural god, he has no rational reason at all. How can anyone believe anything without reason?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ellipsis, //You've set it up in such a way that it's impossible for the answer to be, rationally, anything other than something that agrees with your atheistic worldview. //
I didn’t ‘set the question up’ – it’s a simple enough question and simply worded – but surely if, as you say, it is impossible to answer rationally without reaching an atheistic conclusion, that would rather confirm my initial suspicion that the religious have no rational reason at all to believe in the supernatural – which is why they never offer one.
From LG: //The certainty of the faithful in declaring the thoughts of others wrong! never ceases to amuse me.//
From you: //I agree with that. But replace "faithful" with "atheist" in the above, and I agree with that too!//
This leads us back to square one. If an atheist declares a theist wrong, he will usually explain his reasons for doing so, but it doesn’t work like that the other way around, and therefore your conclusion is seriously awry.
I didn’t ‘set the question up’ – it’s a simple enough question and simply worded – but surely if, as you say, it is impossible to answer rationally without reaching an atheistic conclusion, that would rather confirm my initial suspicion that the religious have no rational reason at all to believe in the supernatural – which is why they never offer one.
From LG: //The certainty of the faithful in declaring the thoughts of others wrong! never ceases to amuse me.//
From you: //I agree with that. But replace "faithful" with "atheist" in the above, and I agree with that too!//
This leads us back to square one. If an atheist declares a theist wrong, he will usually explain his reasons for doing so, but it doesn’t work like that the other way around, and therefore your conclusion is seriously awry.
>beso We build technologies that allows us to sit in front of a screen and communicate almost instantly with people from all over the world. How is this a feeble mind?
Well, for one, those things are trivial compared to the things that a God would be capable of. And, for another, some of the people that build those technologies are theists, who you yourself claim are feeble-minded. Therefore, the ability to build such technology does not indicate a non-feeble mind. It simply indicates a mind that's a few thousand years (i.e. a tiny fraction of the age of the Universe) more advanced than the caveman's.
To "win" this argument you have to claim intellectual superiority not only over mankind, but over the whole universe. You have arrogated to yourself and your fellow atheists the sole ability to determine the existence or otherwise of God. You claim that all theists and agnostics are wrong. I don't accept your claim based on the evidence that you've presented. At the same time, I don't claim that you're wrong. I claim that we don't know whether you're right or wrong.
>beso By simply posting they display their profound ignorance and do more to destroy the foundations of their faith than any atheist could ever hope to.
Is this the master plan? Lay some bait, wait for a theist to bite, allow them to "display their profound ignorance" and "destroy the foundations of their faith", and then they, their fellow theists, and all agnostics will suddenly realise the glorious one true path that is atheism? Good luck with that! It sounds like simple trolling to me ...
Well, for one, those things are trivial compared to the things that a God would be capable of. And, for another, some of the people that build those technologies are theists, who you yourself claim are feeble-minded. Therefore, the ability to build such technology does not indicate a non-feeble mind. It simply indicates a mind that's a few thousand years (i.e. a tiny fraction of the age of the Universe) more advanced than the caveman's.
To "win" this argument you have to claim intellectual superiority not only over mankind, but over the whole universe. You have arrogated to yourself and your fellow atheists the sole ability to determine the existence or otherwise of God. You claim that all theists and agnostics are wrong. I don't accept your claim based on the evidence that you've presented. At the same time, I don't claim that you're wrong. I claim that we don't know whether you're right or wrong.
>beso By simply posting they display their profound ignorance and do more to destroy the foundations of their faith than any atheist could ever hope to.
Is this the master plan? Lay some bait, wait for a theist to bite, allow them to "display their profound ignorance" and "destroy the foundations of their faith", and then they, their fellow theists, and all agnostics will suddenly realise the glorious one true path that is atheism? Good luck with that! It sounds like simple trolling to me ...
@ellipsis
your last post was just desperate, ellipsis. Where is the evidence upon which you are basing your supposedly rational decision to assume an agnostic stance - that is, that the presence of a creator deity or the absence of a creator deity are equally valid?
There is not a scintilla of evidence for a creator god, and there would be evidence if there were such a being- evidence that even our feeble brains could comprehend. On the other hand, there is a mountain of cross disciplinary and corroborative evidence supporting a decidedly natural universe formation, one governed by the laws of physics.
To assert that such radically different universes carry equal validity is, simply, irrational.
your last post was just desperate, ellipsis. Where is the evidence upon which you are basing your supposedly rational decision to assume an agnostic stance - that is, that the presence of a creator deity or the absence of a creator deity are equally valid?
There is not a scintilla of evidence for a creator god, and there would be evidence if there were such a being- evidence that even our feeble brains could comprehend. On the other hand, there is a mountain of cross disciplinary and corroborative evidence supporting a decidedly natural universe formation, one governed by the laws of physics.
To assert that such radically different universes carry equal validity is, simply, irrational.
LazyGun, "desperate"? Hardly. That would assume I had a vested interest in the outcome of this thread - which I don't. We're just chatting amiably aren't we(?) because I'm never going to convince you and you're never going to convince me.
To answer your questions and points would simply be repeating myself, so at this point I'll leave it to the gentle reader to draw their own conclusions from this thread ... thanks for the discussion.
To answer your questions and points would simply be repeating myself, so at this point I'll leave it to the gentle reader to draw their own conclusions from this thread ... thanks for the discussion.
Ellipsis, how do we (or you) know what a god would be capable of. We have no experience of a real god do we? The only god we have any supposed knowledge of is a human construct. Presumably if gods are real then they have to obey the laws of their local physics. It may be that those laws allow them to exist for a few picoseconds in our terms. Just long enought to create the big bang. Perhaps the price of omnipotence and omniscience is a very short life.
Ellipsis - “... birdie, excuse me if I disregard your late night straw man argument while I attempt to answer the OP...”
I suggest that your above dismissive post has been made in error. I think you'll find that my earlier post was not a straw man argument. It was designed to and does highlight the logically indefensible position of refusing to declare as false that which lacks evidence, credibility and is profoundly absurd.
I suggest that your above dismissive post has been made in error. I think you'll find that my earlier post was not a straw man argument. It was designed to and does highlight the logically indefensible position of refusing to declare as false that which lacks evidence, credibility and is profoundly absurd.
Ellipsis //Well, for one, those things are trivial compared to the things that a God would be capable of. //
What God would be capable of? Theists claim God is capable of so much yet He does precisely nothing. If God would actually do even one of the things the theists claim He is capable of then I am sure that the argument could be settled in favour of the existence of God.
What God would be capable of? Theists claim God is capable of so much yet He does precisely nothing. If God would actually do even one of the things the theists claim He is capable of then I am sure that the argument could be settled in favour of the existence of God.
I used the word baiting (I assume this is this is "the poor choice of word" referred to by Naomi) because it was invited by Ellipsis.
I certainly do post both questions and answers that will elucidate responses from theists that reveal their true nature. Call it baiting if you want, I don't have a problem with either the term or the concept. I thought the whole point of a site like this was to generate discussion.
When a theist exposes their misogyny, condones pedophilia or their ignorance of verifiable fact then that is a good thing. If it makes them look bad then it isn't my problem.
As I said, my goal is to expose religion for what it is and while the likes of the theists and apologists on here continue to post then I will continue to encourage them.
Ellipsis seems to be doing a fine job of exposing the nature of the apologists.
I certainly do post both questions and answers that will elucidate responses from theists that reveal their true nature. Call it baiting if you want, I don't have a problem with either the term or the concept. I thought the whole point of a site like this was to generate discussion.
When a theist exposes their misogyny, condones pedophilia or their ignorance of verifiable fact then that is a good thing. If it makes them look bad then it isn't my problem.
As I said, my goal is to expose religion for what it is and while the likes of the theists and apologists on here continue to post then I will continue to encourage them.
Ellipsis seems to be doing a fine job of exposing the nature of the apologists.
naomi, I worked pretty hard to answer your OP, and did - and even defined everything you asked me to! A bit of a shame that you would call me pathetic. To summarise ...
You defined a "rational reason" as one that provides "evidence". You defined evidence as "scientific evidence", i.e. evidence that conforms to the scientific method.
Together we then defined "supernatural" as "beyond scientific understanding"; so already we could have had a problem, as (by your definitions) requiring a "rational reason" for something "supernatural" is requiring scientific evidence for something beyond scientific understanding. This could prove problematic.
But it turned out that didn't matter because you then went on to further define "supernatural" as "impossible" - so even if any evidence was to be presented and accepted as possible, it could not possibly be accepted as supernatural, and therefore not evidence of a supernatural God.
At this point, as I said above, the OP may as well have used the word "cod" rather than "God". It really doesn't matter, since whatever God is, the "supernatural" adjective has marked it as impossible by your definition. You didn't have to include the word "supernatural" in the OP - it was implied by the word "God" anyway - but in including in there, you made doubly sure that the there was no room for debate. A real belt and braces approach.
I mentioned earlier that you had "poisoned the well" with the very question. See http://
So you set up the question in an attempt to favour an atheistic answer by using definitions to create tautological circular reasoning. Despite that, you still failed to answer the question yourself. Your own rational reason - which was "I have no evidence" - does not meet the scientific standards that you demand of theists. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - this is a logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance - http://
So what do we have?
* Poisoning the well
* Straw man argument
* Argument from ignorance
* Argument from incredulity
* Probably some others I glossed over
A litany of logical fallacies, ironically presented by people looking for rational responses.
I'm sure you could come up with rebuttals to all of the above, and I'm sure they'd make perfect rational sense to you, based on your own atheistic worldview - but probably not to me, even though my own worldview is far closer to atheist than theist! Some very smart people from all sides are paid to argue about this stuff, have argued long and hard about it, still can't agree on it, and probably never will, and I can't see this discussion being any different. I'm not paid to argue about it and I've had enough of being told how I should think (generally by both theists and atheists, and specifically by atheists on this thread) , so I really will leave it there this time. I admit that you could be right about the existence of a God, and I accept that you don't think "I don't know" is the right answer to the question ...
You defined a "rational reason" as one that provides "evidence". You defined evidence as "scientific evidence", i.e. evidence that conforms to the scientific method.
Together we then defined "supernatural" as "beyond scientific understanding"; so already we could have had a problem, as (by your definitions) requiring a "rational reason" for something "supernatural" is requiring scientific evidence for something beyond scientific understanding. This could prove problematic.
But it turned out that didn't matter because you then went on to further define "supernatural" as "impossible" - so even if any evidence was to be presented and accepted as possible, it could not possibly be accepted as supernatural, and therefore not evidence of a supernatural God.
At this point, as I said above, the OP may as well have used the word "cod" rather than "God". It really doesn't matter, since whatever God is, the "supernatural" adjective has marked it as impossible by your definition. You didn't have to include the word "supernatural" in the OP - it was implied by the word "God" anyway - but in including in there, you made doubly sure that the there was no room for debate. A real belt and braces approach.
I mentioned earlier that you had "poisoned the well" with the very question. See http://
So you set up the question in an attempt to favour an atheistic answer by using definitions to create tautological circular reasoning. Despite that, you still failed to answer the question yourself. Your own rational reason - which was "I have no evidence" - does not meet the scientific standards that you demand of theists. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - this is a logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance - http://
So what do we have?
* Poisoning the well
* Straw man argument
* Argument from ignorance
* Argument from incredulity
* Probably some others I glossed over
A litany of logical fallacies, ironically presented by people looking for rational responses.
I'm sure you could come up with rebuttals to all of the above, and I'm sure they'd make perfect rational sense to you, based on your own atheistic worldview - but probably not to me, even though my own worldview is far closer to atheist than theist! Some very smart people from all sides are paid to argue about this stuff, have argued long and hard about it, still can't agree on it, and probably never will, and I can't see this discussion being any different. I'm not paid to argue about it and I've had enough of being told how I should think (generally by both theists and atheists, and specifically by atheists on this thread) , so I really will leave it there this time. I admit that you could be right about the existence of a God, and I accept that you don't think "I don't know" is the right answer to the question ...
