RE: Hello
May 12, 2011 at 9:18 am
(This post was last modified: May 12, 2011 at 9:19 am by Whirling Moat.)
Peace...
What does his posting this on an Atheist site have to do with it? An irrational belief is simply one which is not founded on sound reasoning. An atheist could be someone who never reasoned disbelief at all, it could be as simple as he lacked belief because he was not indoctrinated at an early age like so many others. The idea that he went from rational to irrational is unfounded. I would imagine that Minimalist made the comment for no other purpose than to demonstrate his disapproval.
If someone defines him/herself as a "skeptic" most likely the evidence for the existence of the object of their skepticism will typically have to be overwhelming. This means that it must pass over the 'reasonable person would accept it" bar. Atheist can be, and are typically unreasonable in this regard. There are many extraordinary claims. A claim need only be "extra" ordinary to fit this bill. Science is in the business of finding the extraordinary. When new theoretical models are proposed the standard of proof is simply the status quo, as it relates to religious claims, the standard for many atheist goes directly to admantium, impregnable conclusive evidence. Such a requirement is unreasonable...
Whirling Moat
Quote:His point was that you went from rationality to irrationality.. You are on an atheist site and have been atheist - presumably you are aware that atheists view religious belief as irrational... Comprehension of his post did not require piecing anything together.. His point was obvious..
What does his posting this on an Atheist site have to do with it? An irrational belief is simply one which is not founded on sound reasoning. An atheist could be someone who never reasoned disbelief at all, it could be as simple as he lacked belief because he was not indoctrinated at an early age like so many others. The idea that he went from rational to irrational is unfounded. I would imagine that Minimalist made the comment for no other purpose than to demonstrate his disapproval.
Quote:Most atheists are also skeptics... Skeptics tend to (usually not always) analyze arguments for and against a premise prior to acceptance lest they find themselves emotionally espousing fallacies or embracing nonsense..
If someone defines him/herself as a "skeptic" most likely the evidence for the existence of the object of their skepticism will typically have to be overwhelming. This means that it must pass over the 'reasonable person would accept it" bar. Atheist can be, and are typically unreasonable in this regard. There are many extraordinary claims. A claim need only be "extra" ordinary to fit this bill. Science is in the business of finding the extraordinary. When new theoretical models are proposed the standard of proof is simply the status quo, as it relates to religious claims, the standard for many atheist goes directly to admantium, impregnable conclusive evidence. Such a requirement is unreasonable...
Whirling Moat
