(June 17, 2014 at 9:24 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(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.

The 21st century where every dictionary has what you call the old definition as the current definition.

So if you, as an empiricist atheist, for example, are faced with a purely rational problem, would you be able to consider it?

(June 17, 2014 at 9:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 17, 2014 at 9:24 pm)Irrational Wrote: 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.

The 21st century where every dictionary has what you call the old definition as the current definition.

So if you, as an empiricist atheist, for example, are faced with a purely rational problem, would you be able to consider it?

Disregarding the "purely" term, provided it really is rational and is based on (or confirmed by) empirical evidence, then yes.

But as for purely rational problem, provide an example so I know what you're on about.

Theoretical in science, correct me if I'm wrong, is more that unsupported conjecture.

I'm not saying that most people aren't well balanced/able to use both empiricism and rationalism. I'm picking on the idea that you can deny rationalism on its own.

---

(June 17, 2014 at 9:48 pm)Irrational Wrote: Disregarding the "purely" term, provided it really is rational and is based on (or confirmed by) empirical evidence, then yes.

But as for purely rational problem, provide an example so I know what you're on about.

So without the empirical evidence you cannot be rational. Bingo. You are said mono atheist.

Belief in God is purely rational. You cannot have empirical evidence. You can only gather information and consider it rationally. If you cannot fault it then you can trust it. If you trust it you can act on it. If you act on it you believe in God.

(June 17, 2014 at 9:57 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Theoretical in science, correct me if I'm wrong, is more that unsupported conjecture.

I'm not saying that most people aren't well balanced/able to use both empiricism and rationalism. I'm picking on the idea that you can deny rationalism on its own.

---

(June 17, 2014 at 9:48 pm)Irrational Wrote: Disregarding the "purely" term, provided it really is rational and is based on (or confirmed by) empirical evidence, then yes.

But as for purely rational problem, provide an example so I know what you're on about.

So without the empirical evidence you cannot be rational. Bingo. You are said mono atheist.

Belief in God is purely rational. You cannot have empirical evidence. You can only gather information and consider it rationally. If you cannot fault it then you can trust it. If you trust it you can act on it. If you act on it you believe in God.

How precisely does one gather information without using one's senses? It's my contention that rationalism and empiricism cannot stand alone - or at the very least, are weak when they do.

I'll also note that I've yet to see you put forth a sound rational argument for belief.

(June 17, 2014 at 9:57 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Belief in God is purely rational. You cannot have empirical evidence. You can only gather information and consider it rationally. If you cannot fault it then you can trust it. If you trust it you can act on it. If you act on it you believe in God.

So, like Cthulhu said, bring forth the rational argument for God.

(June 9, 2014 at 2:08 pm)Severan Wrote:

(June 9, 2014 at 10:29 am)JesusHChrist Wrote: You just need to have faith!

Why do you have the 'faith' in this god in particular? Was it your parents that said this is the right one? There are hundreds of other gods. Why this one?

---

(June 9, 2014 at 10:51 am)RobbyPants Wrote: Yeah, every bit of "proof" I've seen either requires the assumption of God's existence as a premise (sometimes implicitly) or it requires weird presupposition claims (in order to think about God, he must exist!).

I've noticed whenever someone wants to believe something, implicit assumptions and presupposition do not bother them; however, they stick out like a sore thumb when you don't simply want to believe it.

Beliefs should not change facts. Facts should change beliefs. Any person who presupposes the existence of 'god' is a lunatic.

That's not entirely true. Many of us were once theists. That doesn't mean we were insane. It means we didn't yet discover the rational truths that would cause us to make a shift from religious beliefs to atheism.

(June 17, 2014 at 9:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 17, 2014 at 9:24 pm)Irrational Wrote: 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.

The 21st century where every dictionary has what you call the old definition as the current definition.

So if you, as an empiricist atheist, for example, are faced with a purely rational problem, would you be able to consider it?

So your position is no atheist on this forum has ever discussed ontological arguments?

That's funny, could've sworn...

(June 17, 2014 at 10:22 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 17, 2014 at 9:57 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Theoretical in science, correct me if I'm wrong, is more that unsupported conjecture.

I'm not saying that most people aren't well balanced/able to use both empiricism and rationalism. I'm picking on the idea that you can deny rationalism on its own.

---

So without the empirical evidence you cannot be rational. Bingo. You are said mono atheist.

Belief in God is purely rational. You cannot have empirical evidence. You can only gather information and consider it rationally. If you cannot fault it then you can trust it. If you trust it you can act on it. If you act on it you believe in God.

How precisely does one gather information without using one's senses? It's my contention that rationalism and empiricism cannot stand alone - or at the very least, are weak when they do.

I'll also note that I've yet to see you put forth a sound rational argument for belief.

You're being facetious. Written information is transference of ideas rather than direct experience. It's 2nd hand information to be accepted or denied.

Claim: "God is"
Empiricist response: no empirical evidence
Rationalist response: consider evidence and weigh up possibilities.

The rationalist can accept the intellectual proposition given no empirical evidence. Because the evidence is logically consistent.

The empiricist cannot move past the fact that there cannot be independently verifiable evidence. He remains with a null answer.

Now you guys say that this isn't a rational explanation exactly because you are illogically married to the notion that there has to be some empirical evidence for any idea to have merit.

---

(June 18, 2014 at 1:52 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: So your position is no atheist on this forum has ever discussed ontological arguments?

That's funny, could've sworn...

I wrote "most atheists". You wrote "no atheist".

Honesty is important rampant.

---

(June 17, 2014 at 10:56 pm)Irrational Wrote: So, like Cthulhu said, bring forth the rational argument for God.

This shows a misunderstanding of the subject, and that you didn't read or didn't understand what I said above.

If there could be an independently verifiable way of proving God then you wouldn't need to believe (in the religious sense) that he existed. You would know.

The process to belief is the consideration of information. A purely rational (because none of this information is empirically verifiable) process.

The information is subjective/ is dependent on the perspective of the observer. If you were to adopt the perspective of the observer, then the information would be true for you.

The rationalist is able to assume the perspective of the observer and verify to an extent the observers claims. They can then understand the advantageous possibilities of the observers point of view.

Here is the rational process:
Information > intellectual assent > action
This is faith as defined in the Christian tradition.

I suspect though that you're actually saying that you wish to withdraw from the conversion. And that's fine by me.

Quote:The rationalist can accept the intellectual proposition given no empirical evidence. Because the evidence is logically consistent.

So basically the "rationalist" can accept the lack of any evidence because the evidence that doesn't exist is "logically consistent." Um. Ok. That's very intellectual. Almost like saying that belief in God's existence is justified because there's so many reasons not to believe.

(June 18, 2014 at 5:49 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You're being facetious. Written information is transference of ideas rather than direct experience. It's 2nd hand information to be accepted or denied.

Claim: "God is"
Empiricist response: no empirical evidence
Rationalist response: consider evidence and weigh up possibilities.

By this, are you referring specifically to the Bible, or to other experiences related by other people, such as visions of Christ or witnessing of miracles?