Ask the Christian

[KichigaiNeko]

Okay, do you have any evidence to prove your claim that it isn't rational to believe something without sufficient evidence?

So you receive an email from a nigerian doctor (whom you've never heard of)claiming that he has access to 25 million dollars but he wants your bank account details so he can deposit the money in your account and then you can go halves.

Would you accept that or ask for more evidence?

That is one example of a circumstance where belief without sufficient evidence would be irrational. It doesn't, however, prove the universal claim that all belief without evidence is irrational.

Why??

For instance, I believe that there is an external world beyond what I experience in my mind. There is no way to prove this, however, I choose to believe it anyway. Am I irrational to believe this? According to your proposition, I am.

Must make it hard for you to do anything then...mainly because "it" may or may not be 'there' for you to interact with. so you have no way to prove anything so therefore even your 'belief in this godboy since it cannot be proved by this line of reasoning it must be an irrational delusion? Have I got that right??

This alone proves that the claim is logically self-refuting, because there isn't any evidence which could prove it is universally true. Therefore, it in itself is an irrational belief.

Didn't I just say that? So your belief in this godboy is irrational since you are unable to prove it one way or the other and so you are no better than a sheep-le doing as you are told?? I thought we had places called mental asylums for that mind set?

Or have I stuffed up yet again??

[Epimethean]

"For instance, I believe that there is an external world beyond what I experience in my mind. There is no way to prove this, however, I choose to believe it anyway. Am I irrational to believe this? According to your proposition, I am.

This alone proves that the claim is logically self-refuting, because there isn't any evidence which could prove it is universally true. Therefore, it in itself is an irrational belief."

Ah, but you do gain evidence to corroborate your suspicions that there is something beyond your mind in the various individuals who confound you by doing things directly to contradict your will and desire. The solipsist argument will not help you here, because, if it holds water, you must abandon your god first and foremost as being the character most unlikely to exist. Whereas there are other beings who should at least "seem" to exist for you (discoverable by means of your five senses), your god is not discoverable by any of these senses. So if you wish, apply the Cogito in that direction: Cogito ergo (deus) non est.

[Zen Badger]

Okay, do you have any evidence to prove your claim that it isn't rational to believe something without sufficient evidence?

So you receive an email from a nigerian doctor (whom you've never heard of)claiming that he has access to 25 million dollars but he wants your bank account details so he can deposit the money in your account and then you can go halves.

Would you accept that or ask for more evidence?

That is one example of a circumstance where belief without sufficient evidence would be irrational. It doesn't, however, prove the universal claim that all belief without evidence is irrational.

For instance, I believe that there is an external world beyond what I experience in my mind. There is no way to prove this, however, I choose to believe it anyway. Am I irrational to believe this? According to your proposition, I am.

This alone proves that the claim is logically self-refuting, because there isn't any evidence which could prove it is universally true. Therefore, it in itself is an irrational belief.

---

But you have a sufficency of evidence from your senses informing you of the state of the world. The fact that you are still alive strongly suggests that that information is indeed reliable.

So in fact it is a belief based on strong multiple sources of evidence.

But you are asking us to believe in something for which there is no evidence.Therefore, not rational.

---

To the verse which was mentioned about God's judgment on the youths who mocked the prophet of God. That is God performing a judgment, not man offering a sacrifice.

I don't care whether it was a sacrifice or a judgement, your arsehole God sending two bears to savagely tear apart children for merely teasing some bald git for being bald is sick, twisted and abominable.

Were it you FutureAndAHope, were you god, wouldn't you suffer little children? Wouldn't you love them regardless of what they do? Wouldn't a remotely sane mind chasten them instead to show them the error of their ways?

If you say "no" then I want nothing more to do with you, or your corrupt god concept.

---

I'll just repeat this post I made about this earlier..ie, they weren't children:

And as you were discussing earlier, in regards to the bears, those weren't "little children", they were young men. The words used to refer to the so-called children are ascribed to adults as old as 39.

Would a bunch of small children be allowed to roam around outisde the city by themselves without any supervision? Not only that but they were specifically mocking Elisha because he was a prophet..which shows they knew good from evil. The insult "go up, go up" is a mocking reference to his mentor Elijah, who was assumed into Heaven. So it was deliberate blasphemy against a prophet..that isn't going to come out of the mouth of babes.

So which translation are you using? http://bible.cc/2_kings/2-24.htm

Thre are several, the KJV specifically mentions "children" while the
NIV( presumably to make the passage more palatable)
describes them as "youths"

Either way, it is a distinctly odd way for a loving, compassionate god to behave.

[lucent]

Why??

Because one circumstance in which something is true cannot prove a claim in which it would have to be true under all circumstances.

Must make it hard for you to do anything then...mainly because "it" may or may not be 'there' for you to interact with. so you have no way to prove anything so therefore even your 'belief in this godboy since it cannot be proved by this line of reasoning it must be an irrational delusion? Have I got that right??

No; see below.

Didn't I just say that? So your belief in this godboy is irrational since you are unable to prove it one way or the other and so you are no better than a sheep-le doing as you are told?? I thought we had places called mental asylums for that mind set?

No, the belief that all beliefs require sufficient evidence to be rational is irrational. This doesn't speak to the rationality or irrationality of any particular belief beyond the specific claim itself.

[The Grand Nudger]

It was blasphemy so it was allright. Roger that.

Any evidence that anyone, ever, has been punished by any god for anything? See, people here are criticizing the morality of the storyteller but you apparently don't get that. You're too busy retelling the story so that god seems like a nice guy, when it was never any god that was a bad guy in the first place. Fairy tales are fairy tales.

[lucent]

Ah, but you do gain evidence to corroborate your suspicions that there is something beyond your mind in the various individuals who confound you by doing things directly to contradict your will and desire. The solipsist argument will not help you here, because, if it holds water, you must abandon your god first and foremost as being the character most unlikely to exist. Whereas there are other beings who should at least "seem" to exist for you (discoverable by means of your five senses), your god is not discoverable by any of these senses. So if you wish, apply the Cogito in that direction: Cogito ergo (deus) non est.

Obviously the external world cannot serve as proof for the external world.

Exploring your claim though, the belief that there are minds other than my own is something else which cannot be proven and that I choose to believe. This again shows the original claim to be false.

I don't have to abandon anything, by the way. I am simply proving that the claim "it is irrational to have a belief without sufficient proof" is false, and self-refuting.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, but you do gain evidence to corroborate your suspicions that there is something beyond your mind in the various individuals who confound you by doing things directly to contradict your will and desire. The solipsist argument will not help you here, because, if it holds water, you must abandon your god first and foremost as being the character most unlikely to exist. Whereas there are other beings who should at least "seem" to exist for you (discoverable by means of your five senses), your god is not discoverable by any of these senses. So if you wish, apply the Cogito in that direction: Cogito ergo (deus) non est.

Obviously the external world cannot serve as proof for the external world.

Exploring your claim though, the belief that there are minds other than my own is something else which cannot be proven and that I choose to believe. This again show the original claim to be false.

I don't have to abandon anything, by the way. I am simply proving that the claim "it is irrational to have a belief without sufficient proof" is false, and self-refuting.

It is irrational. People do it all the time. Still irrational.

[lucent]

But you have a sufficency of evidence from your senses informing you of the state of the world. The fact that you are still alive strongly suggests that that information is indeed reliable.

So in fact it is a belief based on strong multiple sources of evidence.

There is nothing to prove that any of it is actually real. I choose to believe it is. The external world certainly suggests that it is real, but there isn't sufficient evidence to prove it.

But you are asking us to believe in something for which there is no evidence.Therefore, not rational.

The argument fails, as I am demonstrating. There is no evidence to prove it is true, therefore the proposition is itself irrational.

[Epimethean]

"Exploring your claim though, the belief that there are minds other than my own is something else which cannot be proven and that I choose to believe. This again shows the original claim to be false."

The difference being the fact that there is evidence of the minds of other people and none of the existence of your god. Persist in your level of irrationality, by all means, but take care lest you lock yourself in a box of your own devising, mountain vistas and all.

[lucent]

It was blasphemy so it was allright. Roger that.

Any evidence that anyone, ever, has been punished by any god for anything? See, people here are criticizing the morality of the storyteller but you apparently don't get that. You're too busy retelling the story so that god seems like a nice guy, when it was never any god that was a bad guy in the first place. Fairy tales are fairy tales.

What I am busy doing is correcting your lazy interpretation. btw, evidence?

---

"Exploring your claim though, the belief that there are minds other than my own is something else which cannot be proven and that I choose to believe. This again shows the original claim to be false."

The difference being the fact that there is evidence of the minds of other people and none of the existence of your god. Persist in your level of irrationality, by all means, but take care lest you lock yourself in a box of your own devising, mountain vistas and all.

I can just as easily say that the existence of any mind is evidence for God, just as you can easily say that with no proof.