Atheism: The True Path?

[fr0d0]

So you're saying, categorically, that without evidence there is no possibility of rationality?

I have no reason to believe 'faith' can at all be rational, no. Every single case seems irrational simply because believing something exists when you know of no indication whatsoever that it actually exists, is deluded. If you can show me otherwise, fine, if anyone can show me otherwise, fine. Until then, "Faith" will remain irrational because it's believing in the existence of things when there's no reason to believe they actually exist, because there's no indication whatsoever that they actually exist. That's what I mean by no evidence.

I didn't mention faith. You're avoiding the question. Is there no point of rationality without evidence?

The rationale for faith is that there is no evidence. That's what you're asked to accept. You can't accept it. Fair enough. That doesn't make it irrational.

So are you saying believing in the FSM when there's no evidence isn't irrational? It wouldn't be more rational to believe with evidence? In the case of anything else, belief without evidence=irrational. How is God any different whatsoever? You pick him out despite the fact there's no more indication that he actually exists than the FSM.

No. Faith of any kind requires there to be no evidence. Full stop. It's a word of the english language with a strict definition. You can't make it mean anything else. You're changing a subject that wasn't implied. Yes, faith in the cream cake in the centre of the earth requires there to be no knowledge of said cream cake.

That just makes you unwilling to consider it rationally.

There is no way to possibly have bearing on the existence of God without evidence. Because that's what evidence is for, if I had some indication that God actually existed then that would count as evidence. If I don't have any indication then I'd be believing in God despite the fact there's no more indication he actually exists than the FSM. So how exactly is it being 'unwilling to consider' God rationally if God cannot be considered rationally, in the sense that there's no more indication that he actually exists than the FSM, cos if there was, that would be evidence so you couldn't have faith?

Your talking evidence for God when the statement is about considering faith. Try again: Are you willing to consider faith rationally or not? The actual existence of the subject HAS to be unknown remember. So FSM, tooth fairy, or serious entity has to be completely unknown to exist to you.

You can rationally consider faith. But the rules are that you cannot know.

Rationally doesn't mean use proof. It just means using logic. To say you can't start thinking without proof is absurd.

Why shouldn't it be different with God?

Or the FSM?

So what if that's a unique requirement?

So what if your God is no more valid than the FSM, other than you simply believing he is, regardless of the fact there's no more indication that he actually exists than there is for the FSM; because if there was it would count as evidence so you couldn't have faith?

Potential evidence for my God is everything there is. Evidence for the FSM as a joke deity is a non starter.

Does that make it any less valid?

Well - you presumably believing things like "So what if it's a unique requirement?" and picking God out because you can't find a reason not to believe without evidence, like how you say "Why shouldn't it be different for God", doesn't make God any more valid than the FSM though. Fair enough?

So you agree that Special pleading is an unreasonable limitation. Good.

There are thousands of expressions of descriptions of the phenomenon throughout human history. Trying to belittle it as 'special pleading' is saying nothing is allowed to be unique. This dismissal doesn't carry.

There's no indication that God actually exists any more than the FSM, unless you can enlighten me.

snore

Subjective experience of God is no more of an indication of his existence than subjective experience of the FSM is an indication of its existence.

snore

If you're fine with that, then cool. But your God is just as invalid as believing in the FSM for exactly the same reasons. There's no indication that either exist and 'The bible' is no more evidence for God than the 'FSM Gospel' is for the FSM, it would be circular reasoning to say it was and special pleading.

Well that was short lived. You're back on with special reasoning... with no reason. Cool.

You're asked to consider it so that you might understand what follows. To those that have tried it, it makes sense. It logically follows. It works out.

Writing in a book doesn't give objective indication that "God" actually exists. It makes sense to those who believe it makes sense, but that's entirely irrelevant because it doesn't matter who it makes sense to, the point is that it doesn't make sense because it's fallacious to say that it does.

Exsqueeze me? Fallacious how? Because the book doesn't give proof of God's existence when it says it can't?

A book doesn't give indication to the existence of a supernatural superbeing. For exactly the same reason why the FSM Gospel doesn't give indication to the existence of the FSM.

I'm glad I can agree with you on something at last.

You cry that you can't understand it whilst refusing to follow the logic.

What logic? The logic of believing in X without evidence as opposed to Y without evidence for personal preference?

You just contradicted the logic again.

Cry? When? It's not that I don't understand it. It's that I do understand exactly why there is no reason to believe God exists.

Same thing.

For exactly the same reason to believe that the FSM doesn't exist. Subjective experience gives no indication for the existence of either of them in reality, Books are not indication either, whether labeled "Holy" or not is irrelevant because they don't truly give any credence to God (or the FSM ) actually existing until you already assume he (or it ) exists, in order to make them truly "Holy" rather than simply labeled as such and believed as such.

So can you get over this now?

That makes you deliberately ignorant.

Sorry, I'm just too busy with the FSM I'm not going to do special pleading with your God, sorry but I'm just too busy with the FSM to follow this 'logic' of yours. I'll do my special pleading with the FSM instead. To each his own, fair enough?

Hmm but tomorrow I feel like a change. Tomorrow I might randomly dream up some other random thing to believe 'On faith' (out of the countless conceivable things to believe in without evidence that there are) that's just as valid (or invalid rather) as your God.

Yeah. You're too tied up with thinking bollocks to consider anything remotely sensible for a moment. your choice though.

Belief is never certainty. Belief isn't like you believe you have an arm. You can know you have an arm. You don't have to believe it.

I do believe I have an arm though. I don't disbelieve it. I believe it so strongly to the point of saying I 'know' (as strong as my belief will go). But I don't absolutely know, if only in the sense that I can't prove the negative of me being a brain in a jar, that is being fed by a computer and that this entire life I am having is just an illusion and so, I don't really have a body You can't prove a negative, it's a logical fallacy

You don't 'believe in your arm. You 'know'. It's different. That isn't 'believe'. Believe means something different. Again, you can't change the meaning of words to suit yourself. They have accepted definitions in the english language.

You're going to have to remove 'belief' from our vocabulary, along with 'faith', because neither make sense using your rationalisation.

I disagree. I don't disbelieve in the existence of my arm. Nor do I disbelieve in Evolution, for example. But this doesn't mean I have faith in them because I don't believe on these things without evidence. Assuming we are continuing to define faith as nothing more than "Belief without evidence".

I hope you see the glaring faults in this paragraph. Like I said, you need to erase those words.

Belief in God is just that. A trust. A faith. Why? Because we cannot know. Rational? It's purely rational, because it can't be evidential.

It's purely rational because it can't be evidential? So it's purely rational to believe in the FSM for exactly the same reason then? Or Zeus? Or the IPU? Or Russell's Teapot? Or [Insert a random string of more unprovable things there can be no evidence of here, regardless of the absurdity level]?

Your suggestions are absurd yes. Mine isn't.

We can't know, therefore we have to rationalise it and believe or not. As a result of that rational decision we cna take further logical steps. These steps form religious thought.

So how do you rationalize it if you have no indication that your God exists any more than the FSM? Because if you did have indication of your God's existence, then that would count as evidence so you couldn't have faith. That's what evidence is - something that indicates that something actually exists.

If you KNEW God existed you wouldn't have to rationalise it. HOW MANY times have we been over that?