Religions purpose is not to facilitate learning/ gaining knowledge.

In general, religion relies on pure rationalism. Emotion is a nice side effect : the effect of knowing something is right. Extremely weak theism, worthless theism in my opinion might just be some wishful thinking or nice feeling.

Extreme empiricism denies reason and is illogical. That's how I find atheism founded on a denial of rationalism to be. If you can entertain rationalism and empiricism then that's not you.

(June 17, 2014 at 8:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Religions purpose is not to facilitate learning/ gaining knowledge.

In general, religion relies on pure rationalism. Emotion is a nice side effect : the effect of knowing something is right. Extremely weak theism, worthless theism in my opinion might just be some wishful thinking or nice feeling.

Extreme empiricism denies reason and is illogical. That's how I find atheism founded on a denial of rationalism to be. If you can entertain rationalism and empiricism then that's not you.

I don't know any atheist here who relies on strict empiricism void of rationalism. Do you?

In my understanding most atheists here think that.

This would describe their position :-

belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

(June 17, 2014 at 8:45 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: In my understanding most atheists here think that.

This would describe their position :-

belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

Yes, empiricism not void of rationalism. When atheists generally argue in favor of empiricism, they are not arguing against rationalism.

Why do you think atheists often refer to themselves as rationalists as well?

In my experience the majority of atheists here deny rationalism and are exclusively empiricists.

Hence the neverending demand for empirical evidence for God.

Athiest posters have said to the effect:
I don't know what it takes to be convinced (myself included)

At this stage if Jesus or "dad" wants to come down to make me believe, he won't need to convince me of anything.
He'll just make me an enlightened believer!

No need for proof or logic is there?
The believers will enter heaven, the rest of us won't.

If all man was created equal god, then why have you given some the ability to not recognise you?
Life is tough here and you just want to play fucking mind games! Get a life! (Not mine please)

(June 17, 2014 at 9:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: In my experience the majority of atheists here deny rationalism and are exclusively empiricists.

Hence the neverending demand for empirical evidence for God.

How does that make them exclusively empiricists? They are not arguing against rationalism, rather they employ an empiricist approach that implies rationalism.

How does it imply rationalism? They refuse to rationalise because they cannot sense anything.

(June 17, 2014 at 9:21 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: How does it imply rationalism? They refuse to rationalise because they cannot sense anything.

No, they don't. They employ both rationalism and empiricism. You are still referring to that old definition of rationalism you hold to. The problem is that we're in the 21st century now.

Frodo is actually arguing people on this board are strict empiricists, and not rationalists, because they don't find the arguments for God compelling, and is proving your thesis for you, as that is the definition of rationalism.

By the way, science is rationalism with empiricist methodology.

Scientists perform experiments using strict empiricism, but without rationalism, fields like theoretical physics would not exist.