[split] YOU! - rational/irrational discussion.

[lrh9]

None of the things I listed are evidence that the Joe's name is George. They are just reasons why the idea that his name is George is plausible.

[Edwardo Piet]

But IF the reasons ARE valid because he IS telling the truth, then they're evidence of him telling the truth.

So in that case you would be believing with evidence - and rationally.

And IF the reasons are NOT valid and he's LYING instead - then they're obviously NOT evidence of him telling the truth (for a start - because he's LYING!).

So in that case you would be believing 'on faith' - and IRrationally.

EvF

[leo-rcc]

But IF the reasons ARE valid because he IS telling the truth, then they're evidence of him telling the truth.

So in that case you would be believing with evidence - and rationally.

And IF the reasons are NOT valid and he's LYING instead - then they're obviously NOT evidence of him telling the truth (for a start - because he's LYING!).

So in that case you would be believing 'on faith' - and IRrationally.

EvF

I was with you so far, but this line of reasoning does not follow. What you are now saying that the one that believes his name is George is either rational and irrational due to what "George" does, even though the reasoning behind the conclusion has not changed.

[lrh9]

So you're telling me that in order to be rational, I need to not believe him when he says his name is George?

[Edwardo Piet]

But IF the reasons ARE valid because he IS telling the truth, then they're evidence of him telling the truth.

So in that case you would be believing with evidence - and rationally.

And IF the reasons are NOT valid and he's LYING instead - then they're obviously NOT evidence of him telling the truth (for a start - because he's LYING!).

So in that case you would be believing 'on faith' - and IRrationally.

EvF

I was with you so far, but this line of reasoning does not follow. What you are now saying that the one that believes his name is George is either rational and irrational due to what "George" does, even though the reasoning behind the conclusion has not changed.

Because if your reasons are valid then they are rational reasons and they are evidence. If they are NOT valid then they are IRrational reasons and they are not evidence so that is Faith. THAT is irrational.

Because the question here is not whether you are being rational or not as in whether your 'reasons' are 'most likely' to be correct or not. It's NOT whether the person in question is rational - it's whether the reasons themselves indeed ARE rational or not and whether FAITH ITSELF can be rational or not therefore. Evidence certainly can (and IS) - but the term 'rational faith' I believe is an oxymoron for reasons stated.

If the reasons ARE valid then they would equate to evidence - which is rational.

If they are not then they would NOT equate to evidence and be faith - which is IRrational.

If there are rational reasons to believe George then they'd have to give credence to him telling the truth - which would IOW be evidence. That would be believing with evidence and that would be RATIONAL

If you believe George when the reasons you have are completely irrelevant and DON'T give credence to him telling the truth then they of course WOULDNT' be evidence. That would be believing 'on faith' and that would be IRrational.

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

Would it be irrational of me to believe that you are male? After all, I have no actual evidence that you are.

Quite apart form the fact that I have said I am, there's a fair bit of evidence actually ... do a Google search on "Kyuuketsuki atheist" and you'll quickly see that my given name is one typically associated with males.

But then I think it's clear that Ev is referring to those that actually state those beliefs as truth and I don't think you'd do that, you'd like say you thought I was or similar.

Why are we arguing this in the quotes section?

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

Why are we arguing this in the quotes section?

Because we (and I do include myself in this) are doing a piss poor job of moderating this thread.

---

Why are we arguing this in the quotes section?

Because we (and I do include myself in this) are doing a piss poor job of moderating this thread.

I split the thread up, and in order to make sense of the topic I quoted EvF in the first post.

[josef rosenkranz]

Or by my definition - without evidence. And hence, irrational.

And besides, without reason is irrational too! - So once again IRrational Faith

EvF

I think that when speaking of faith the things are not black and white .
If you super simplify faith to a unique sentence of the believer in the existence of God then this sentence is irrational. But faith is for all religions, beyond this elementary sentence,a multitude of believes ,ideas,laws,of all kind -moral ,social,ethnic and so on.
Within this multitude there is,whithout any doubt, a lot of rational thinking . Let's not forget that great personalities of the past or of the present,writers,poets,philosophers,scientists are religious believers. Even Darwin was a believer although one say that his believe derived from social or familiar pressures.

On the other hand when atheism affirms to "almost " prove the inexistence of God and does not deny strait forward it's inexistence ,that is in my view paramount to drawing a blanc check on the atheism of the future and the rational thinking or other mode of thinking in the future concerning the inexistence of God.
I believe in the direct version of denying the existence of God and have in previous posts expressed my view of how to demonstrate that. But infortunately I have nor found sufficient members of this forum to agree with my views.
I'm always ready to reopen the debate.

[Edwardo Piet]

If you believe in something without evidence - then that means you are believing when there's no indication of the truth of that belief WHATSOEVER how can that be rational?

If Faith is defined as THAT - how can that be rational?

I believe in the direct version of denying the existence of God and have in previous posts expressed my view of how to demonstrate that. But infortunately I have nor found sufficient members of this forum to agree with my views.
I'm always ready to reopen the debate.

Sure. You are more than welcome to start a thread on the matter if that's the case

So the clarify...you are a gnostic atheist? You believe God is DISProved or you claim to absolutely know he doesn't exist?

If that IS the case then rather than debate here perhaps you'd like to start a thread on the matter as I suggested - if you're always ready to reopen the debate as you say?

EvF

[josef rosenkranz]

If you believe in something without evidence - then that means you are believing when there's no indication of the truth of that belief WHATSOEVER how can that be rational?

If Faith is defined as THAT - how can that be rational?

I believe in the direct version of denying the existence of God and have in previous posts expressed my view of how to demonstrate that. But infortunately I have nor found sufficient members of this forum to agree with my views.
I'm always ready to reopen the debate.

Sure. You are more than welcome to start a thread on the matter if that's the case

So the clarify...you are a gnostic atheist? You believe God is DISProved or you claim to absolutely know he doesn't exist?

If that IS the case then rather than debate here perhaps you'd like to start a thread on the matter as I suggested - if you're always ready to reopen the debate as you say?

EvF

When I registered to the forum I ommited to declare my views so I'm completing that by declaring my self as a strongly convinced atheist.
I do agree with all proves so convincingly expressed by RD in the TGD.
I do not agree with this "almost" expression regarding the inexistence of God because I consider that there is also another way to deny the existence of God.
This way is based on the proof that God was created by man in an early stage of evolution of the human society,for a lot of reasons -spiritual,social, economical,psichological and so on
which were important to the development and survival of early human communities
All this historical development is provable by the sciences of history , archeology,psychology,economics and others.
Moreover ,in my opinion God is not only a historic creation by man but God is actually momentarily created in the mind of every believer ,the very moment he thinks of him .
Here intervenes the irrational thinking of the believer and that's why we all agree that it is difficult next to impossible to convince a believer in God through rational arguments.
The very need of people to believe in a supranatural entity which they feel that it helps them in their lives is a direct proof that this entity is nothing but their own creation.
Speaking of theists or "Intelligent creationists" their seemingly scientific prooves elude from this basic notion of the man-created God and after "prooving " his existence ,many of the jump directly to the God who needs to be whorshiped by men.
This is only a very short presentation of my opinion of denying the existence of God.
If the topic will find any resonance at members of the forum then may be it will be worth to open a new thread,