My argument for atheism +

[Rahn127]

My argument for why I don't have delusional thoughts.

Exhibit 1. - Rational mind

The end

[Apathyst]

My argument for why I don't have delusional thoughts.

Exhibit 1. - Rational mind

The end

What would prohibit an objectively irrational mind from positing the same argument?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

My argument for why I don't have delusional thoughts.

Exhibit 1. - Rational mind

The end

What would prohibit an objectively irrational mind from positing the same argument?

That's a fair point.  Plenty of irrational people don't realize they they're irrational.  Religion, astrology, ghosts, healing crystals, dowsing, Tarot cards, alien abductions and so on are, to people with the appropriate degree of irrationality, perfectly rational.

Boru

[LastPoet]

My argument for why I don't have delusional thoughts.

Exhibit 1. - Rational mind

The end

What would prohibit an objectively irrational mind from positing the same argument?

The mind of a kid, been there and can't go back.i stand rational onjectively or not, i cant harm a human being. It's up to you to find why is that.

[Apathyst]

What would prohibit an objectively irrational mind from positing the same argument?

The mind of a kid, been there and can't go back.i stand rational onjectively or not, i cant harm a human being. It's up to you to find why is that.

I must be missing something or one of us is really high, totally could be me since I frequently am...

[Sal]

What would prohibit an objectively irrational mind from positing the same argument?

That's a fair point.  Plenty of irrational people don't realize they they're irrational.  Religion, astrology, ghosts, healing crystals, dowsing, Tarot cards, alien abductions and so on are, to people with the appropriate degree of irrationality, perfectly rational.

Boru

Crazy people have this problem as well.

[Rahn127]

My argument for why I don't have delusional thoughts.

Exhibit 1. - Rational mind

The end

What would prohibit an objectively irrational mind from positing the same argument?

Nothing would prevent them from lying.

[Belacqua]

My argument for why I don't have delusional thoughts.

Exhibit 1. - Rational mind

The end

What would prohibit an objectively irrational mind from positing the same argument?

I think it might be irrational to assert that you're rational.... And not just you -- I mean everybody.

The idea that we consist of a rational mind trapped in a meat-body is a holdover from religion. We aren't that. We are a body that thinks due to electrochemical events in a meat-brain. The thoughts are affected by hormones and other internal influences, and who knows what other kinds of forces.

There seems to be evidence that toxoplasmosis, something you pick up from cat poo, changes our taste in clothing, for example. And the way you sit in your chair affects your mood, which affects the way you think, which affects the conclusions you reach about things. 

So anyone who claims he's rational is right some of the time, partly.

The idea that just because I think I'm a rational being means I can have confidence about my thoughts -- that's irrational.

[ThinkingIsThinking]

And there's more than one version of atheism.  If you say 'Arguments are not needed for atheism', the clear implication is that arguments are not need for any version of atheism.

No. If I say 'arguments are not needed for any version of atheism' then I would be saying that arguments are not needed for any version of atheism.

If I say 'arguments are not needed for some versions of atheism' then I would be saying that arguments are not needed for some versions of atheism.

If I merely say, as I did, 'arguments are not needed for atheism' then I could mean either some or all. So it's untrue that I implied all.

And, generally speaking, I'll say 'all' when I mean 'all'. It's not good to assume statements are absolutist when absolutist statements are not being outright made. Otherwise any reasonable person would have to qualify 99% of their statements due to the fact that almost nothing is certain to an absolute degree. And, obviously, nobody talks like that.

If anything, the default assumption should be that I mean 'some' as that is more open-ended-- and I did indeed leave it open-ended as I didn't specify any amount at all (let alone 'all').

[Rahn127]

Let's say I recently purchased a home and every room in the home doesn't contain any furniture of any kind.

While showing the empty house to a new neighbor who has never been in the house before, he comments on how nice my dining room table is.

I look at him strangely and say "I don't have a dining room table".
He replies "I believe that you do. It's invisible and intangible, but I can clearly feel it's presence in your dining room."

He holds this belief to be true.
I do not have such a belief.

Are you really asking what my argument is for not having a delusion ?

You don't seem to have any invisible, intangible squids swimming around your house. What argument can you give to support this ?

I just find the question itself to be kinda stupid.