religion and reasoning

[agustine]

To ItsDarts. With respect to your comment

This was not an ad hominem attack at all. This wasn't an attack on you. An Ad Hominem is an attack on or an appeal to the person with whom you're debating.

I am sorry sir but you are mistaken. I am a theist, as is evident from my profile. Mr. Cephus likened individuals holding theistic beliefs, of which I am manifestly included, to individuals have various sorts of delusions. The assertion is clearly pejorative in its import, that is persons holding theistic beliefs are crazy. His argument is therefore properly ad hominem and invalid. With respect to your comment

Again, this wasn't an Ad hominem.

Again sir, you are mistaken. With respect to your comment

Yet I have not seen any reasons coming from you other than you saying you have epistemological ones.

I'm not sure what you are saying but it appears as though you are raising the evidentialist objection. It is for this reason that I have posted a new thread entitled "Is the Evidentialist Objection to Theistic Belief Rational". With respect to your comment

Now you have commited a strawman.

Not so sir.. I simply posited a series of questions, to wit: Are you suggesting that the theist has some type of obligation or duty to provide evidence to support his belief? If so, how then does one deduce such a moral duty? What is the ontological status of the obligation to provide evidence thrust upon the theist? How does one create a strawman from asking a series of questions? Is the question I just posited inquiring how one creates a strawman from asking a series of questions also a strawman?

Augustine

[agustine]

To Athena. With respect to your comment

Just worship, light candles and burn incense and hope for the best.

How about asking the following question: What is the truth? With respect to your comment

Oh you might try sacrificing animals and painting your door with the blood of the lamb.

One sufficiently conversant with the Bible recognizes that the forms of worship that apply to Israel according to the Mosaic System found in the Tanakh (Old Testament) do not apply to the New Testament Church. I thought I'd point that out for your convenience.

Augustine

[agustine]

To pikatore. With respect to your comment

How is a belief in a god a rational enterprise?

Before I answer your question, let us first set the context. What does it mean to be rational?

Augustine

[Cephus]

Quote by: agustine The clear import of your argument is that positing God's existence is a lie. Actually arguing God absolutely does not exist. You are attempting to affirm a negative in the absolute. Wow! You are batting a thousand my friend....

Considering you purposely took my statement out of context, I was responding to God's Mercenary's post about believing in a non-existent God not having any negative side-effects.

You know, being dishonest really doesn't work well if you're so blatant about it.

[Cephus]

Quote by: agustine Belief in God is an entirely rational enterprise.

And, of course, we've asked you time and time again to demonstrate that belief in an unseen and unknown entity is at all rational and you have failed entirely.

Just making the claim doesn't make it true. Put up or shut up.

[Zinkovich]

What is the truth?

Truths(not THE truth, the existence of a ultimate truth is rather questionable) are features intrinsic within our universe/reality. For example, gravity as a construct is a truth because we are held to the ground by it while on earth, while magic is not yet deemed a truth because no one has yet been observed succesfully casting magic missle in real life.

What does it mean to be rational?

Well, I'll tell you my meaning of "being rational", although I do not know about Athena's.

To be rational means to base your interpretations, beliefs, and meaning on the things that have currently been found to be "truths". Since the contructs math symbolises is widely found to be a feature intrinsic in our universe, for example, to base further speculations as to the nature of our cosmological surroundings on mathematical hypotheses might be rational- the same goes for logic/the scientific method.

Just to make it very, very clear so you do not misconstrue the meaning or context of what I am saying like you have with previous posts: rationality, when it comes down to it, is a cautious mode of thinking that bases its reasoning only on premises that have been proven to be true. Logic, on the other hand, might be founded on untrue premises and still be logical. In other words, rationality is logic with a basis in reality and uses only truths as premises or supports for its conclusions.

[luke virtual kh]

Quote by: agustine To pikatore. With respect to your comment Before I answer your question, let us first set the context. What does it mean to be rational? Augustine

Sorry to butt in.

Rationality?

Wikipedia:
"One aspect associates it with comprehension, intelligence, or inference, particularly when an inference is drawn in ordered ways (thus a syllogism is a rational argument in this sense). The other part associates rationality with explanation, understanding or justification, particularly if it provides a ground or a motive. What is irrational, therefore, is defined as that which is not endowed with reason or understanding."

Answers:
"Meaning 1: the state of having good sense and sound judgment
Synonyms: reason, reasonableness


Meaning 2: the quality of being consistent with or based on logic
Synonym: rationalness"

Basically I think you should use deductive or evidence based inductive inference to show that beliief in God is "rational"...

Your efforts at definition are welcome (to all|).

Augustine - seeing how you could save souls here, lets not beataround the bush.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Cephus But you've wasted your life believing a lie, giving money to a lie, teaching your kids about a lie and sacrificing your intellectual integrity on the altar of a lie. Doesn't sound rational to me.

So what, your dead, and your lifes gonna be a waste anyway, because any good you could have done would be temporary in the extreme.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary So what, your dead, and your lifes gonna be a waste anyway, because any good you could have done would be temporary in the extreme.

If the only thing you've got is what you do while you're alive, isn't it foolish to waste it on stupid, irrational, unreal things? When you're dead, you're dead, you've lost your opportunity to actually make a difference to yourself, your family or the world around you.

Do it while you're here, when you're gone it's too late.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Your life is wasted either way, you're completely insignificant, why not be happy?

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Your life is wasted either way, you're completely insignificant, why not be happy?

I'm more happy defining potentials for my future and realising them, thank you very much. No intellectual self-deception required for that one

[Gods_Mercenary]

So then do that, I'm talking to someone who thinks that God will make them happy, but wont believe because they think it is irrational. Although, why do your achievment s have any significance when you and any leagacy youmight have left will be gone in a while anyway?

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: agustine To ItsDarts. With respect to your comment I am sorry sir but you are mistaken. I am a theist, as is evident from my profile. Mr. Cephus likened individuals holding theistic beliefs, of which I am manifestly included, to individuals have various sorts of delusions. The assertion is clearly pejorative in its import, that is persons holding theistic beliefs are crazy.

At this point I can't speak for Cephus but this is not how I saw it. I saw his comment as only an analogy. He compared someone who believes he is Napoleon and thinks he is justified in that belief but is clearly wrong in his belief to the theist who thinks he is justified in his belief in invisable friends in the sky, but is clearly wrong as well. He was not attempting to say theists were crazy, just equally not justified.

His argument is therefore properly ad hominem and invalid.

I disagree and will let Cephus explain, if he so chooses. If he was implying that theists are equally crazy, then I'll happily retract my comments.

With respect to your comment Again sir, you are mistaken.

Again, I disagree and will let Cephus defind himself.

With respect to your comment I'm not sure what you are saying but it appears as though you are raising the evidentialist objection. It is for this reason that I have posted a new thread entitled "Is the Evidentialist Objection to Theistic Belief Rational".

You throw around big words like evidetialist and perjorative and you don't know what "I'm" saying? LOL Apparently we're on equal but different grounds. My objection to theistic beliefs stems from the word "Faith", by definition, belief without logical proof or empirical evidence. To me this is not rational.

With respect to your comment Not so sir.. I simply posited a series of questions, to wit: Are you suggesting that the theist has some type of obligation or duty to provide evidence to support his belief?

When they are trying to impose this belief through governmental actions and laws, then yes, otherwise I don't care what they believe in.

If so, how then does one deduce such a moral duty?

Again, what does a "moral duty" have to do with rational belief in invisable friends in the sky? Maybe if you re-word this to something a bit more coherent to my small pea brain I can answer this. :)

What is the ontological status of the obligation to provide evidence thrust upon the theist?

Huh? Who talks like this? What did you say?

How does one create a strawman from asking a series of questions? Is the question I just posited inquiring how one creates a strawman from asking a series of questions also a strawman? Augustine

I'll retract the strawman charge only because I don't know what you are saying. Ontological status? WTF is that? Does anyone else here know what you're saying? It appears you are asking what is the "nature of being" status (ontological status) of the obligation to provide evidence upon the theist. This doesn't make sense to me. Please explain.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary So then do that, I'm talking to someone who thinks that God will make them happy, but wont believe because they think it is irrational. Although, why do your achievment s have any significance when you and any leagacy youmight have left will be gone in a while anyway?

Significance is relative in and of itself. I am perfectly happy haivng an impact on a purely human/presonal level. Plus, there is a very slight chance that humanity will reach the point where it might find and realise some truly great amount of innovative potential for itself and thus does become more significant- so my actions, if large enough, might indeed become something "significant" by a very slight extension in that manner.

It's slim, sure, but at least I don't have to be dishonest to myself concerning what I see in the future/around me to bring some "light", "meaning", or "singificance" into my life.

[Gods_Mercenary]

How would you define reaching our fullest potential, if you mean wiping ourselves off the earth and doing the animals some good, then go ahead, although becoming a fundementalist might actually help that goal.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary How would you define reaching our fullest potential, if you mean wiping ourselves off the earth and doing the animals some good, then go ahead, although becoming a fundementalist might actually help that goal.

Why would the animals achieve any greater significance? No, I am talking about the amount of control we have over our universe and chance thanks to the innovation and progress we have made over the years. Through that, we might recieve significance for a while longer due to sheer multiplicity(especially if we ever find a way to colonise space).

Although, with enough technological adavancement, we might indeed reach the point where we can ameliorate some of the damage we have done to our ecological systems.

Edit: Why do you have an issue with just enjoying the human experience without believing in God, anyways? If an omnipotent goddaddy in the sky loved me it wouldn't change how much I enjoy eating, thinking, fucking, and living by any sort of degree whatsoever.

[Gods_Mercenary]

To what end? the earth will die someday, that too is pointless.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary To what end? the earth will die someday, that too is pointless.

Would existence in heaven be purposeful or something? To me, just joyfully thrashing about in God's presence for all eternity would be just as pointless, if not as purely hedonistic, as my reasons for enjoying life.

No, I'll just enjoy my "pointless", limited life, and then die and become nothing(or perhaps something, I don't know what happens after death). Enjoyment, after all, is entirely relative and subjective and even the lowliest of things can find enjoyment from simple activity.

Edit: Can you make another thread for this, and perhaps get the mods to move our posts there? We're derailing this one from the topic at hand.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Exactly, so let theists enjoy their lives in their own way, which is just as pointless as yours.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Exactly, so let theists enjoy their lives in their own way, which is just as pointless as yours.

I do not require disbelief from a theist, what I require from a theist is rationality and fairness on an intellectual level if he is going to assert his beliefs, whether as truth or not as truth, in an intellectual debate or in a philosophical subforum.