Hi

[Boreasos]

Of course you are as entitled to ridicule the ridiculous as anyone else.

I'm not really talking about "entitlement" or "rights", but whether it is morally right to ridicule someone you believe to be ridiculous.

I believe that it is morally acceptable to ridicule a person or group of people if they hold views that are irrational (will get to what I mean by irrational below).

I am an atheist, as are many on this board, but it's a very broad term. Some atheists just don't believe, others actively oppose theism (closer to anti theist) and others occupy the entire spectrum in between. Being a critical atheist means I go a step further than a simple lack of belief, but not quite as far as to openly and actively opposing theism. I find that theism, or the belief in a god/gods is irrational (as there is no evidence to support the notion) and should ideally be rejected by all, though I freely admit that the existence of a god/gods isn't impossible.

Thank you for a very clear explanation of your view. I am a bit puzzled as to why you choose the word "critical" to describe it, but that is neither here nor there. Why do you think that theism is irrational, and what is "irrationality" on your view (is it a normative standard of right-thinking that all humans are held to, for example?)? And given that you believe it to be an irrational belief (and obviously one that is widely held) why do you not actively oppose it?

I chose the word critical because I feel it most aptly describes my views and opinions. I am not the first to use this label though, and I do feel at home using the common definition of it as it is almost exactly as I wrote it.
In my view irrationality is simply the lack of rational thought, where a rational thought is one that is backed up by evidence and/or valid logic. An irrational belief would therefore be one that is believed even when there is no demonstrable evidence to support it, or there is demonstrable evidence that contradicts it.
Under this definition I therefore classify theism as an irrational belief, since there is no demonstrable evidence to support it.
As for active opposition; I am a believer in a persons right to believe what he or she wishes, even if said belief is irrational. I only take issue with such beliefs if it is forced on others or if it's detrimental to society and progress. As such my "opposition" is mostly reactive.

That said though, I am human and not entirely above ridiculing those I find to hold beliefs that fly in the face of all available evidence, logic and reason.

---

---

Thanks Maria, LastPoet, lilphil1989 and Boreasos.

LastPoet, lilphil1989, Boreasos: If I consider one of the things you say in the future to be ridiculous, will it be right for me to ridicule you for holding those views?

Boreasos, from your "Religious Views": What is the difference between a critical atheist and an uncritical (or non-critical) atheist?

Of course you are as entitled to ridicule the ridiculous as anyone else.

I am an atheist, as are many on this board, but it's a very broad term. Some atheists just don't believe, others actively oppose theism (closer to anti theist) and others occupy the entire spectrum in between. Being a critical atheist means I go a step further than a simple lack of belief, but not quite as far as to openly and actively opposing theism. I find that theism, or the belief in a god/gods is irrational (as there is no evidence to support the notion) and should ideally be rejected by all, though I freely admit that the existence of a god/gods isn't impossible.

---

Just being curious, what evidence would you accept for the existence of God?

Any demonstrable scientific evidence.

[Statler Waldorf]

Any demonstrable scientific evidence.

Well you don't really believe that all truth claims can be validated by science right? You believe in the reality of things that science doesn't touch right?

[Boreasos]

Any demonstrable scientific evidence.

Well you don't really believe that all truth claims can be validated by science right? You believe in the reality of things that science doesn't touch right?

I understand that there are some things that are arguably true or real, but have not yet been explained by science. I do however also believe that science will one day come to understand and explain even those things we see as out of the reach of science today. Science is after all simply the search for truth and understanding through the application of the scientific method.

[Nathanael]

In my view irrationality is simply the lack of rational thought, where a rational thought is one that is backed up by evidence and/or valid logic. An irrational belief would therefore be one that is believed even when there is no demonstrable evidence to support it, or there is demonstrable evidence that contradicts it.

Just so that I am sure of your position: let's say I hold belief B, and there exists demonstrable evidence and/or a valid logical argument for B, but I am not aware of that evidence or argument. Would B still be "rational"? And is any argument that is not rational automatically "irrational", or is there an intermediate "arational" category (like moral, immoral and amoral)?

Under this definition I therefore classify theism as an irrational belief, since there is no demonstrable evidence to support it.

When you say there is no evidence, do you mean that you, personally, are not aware of any evidence, or that there is actually no evidence?

[Boreasos]

In my view irrationality is simply the lack of rational thought, where a rational thought is one that is backed up by evidence and/or valid logic. An irrational belief would therefore be one that is believed even when there is no demonstrable evidence to support it, or there is demonstrable evidence that contradicts it.

Just so that I am sure of your position: let's say I hold belief B, and there exists demonstrable evidence and/or a valid logical argument for B, but I am not aware of that evidence or argument. Would B still be "rational"? And is any argument that is not rational automatically "irrational", or is there an intermediate "arational" category (like moral, immoral and amoral)?

B would still be rational(as it is demonstrable) , but you would not be rational in holding a belief in it if you were unaware of any evidence to support it(since from your point of view you are holding a belief despite the lack of any evidence that supports it).
As far as I define it myself, anything that is not rational is irrational, there is no arationality.

Under this definition I therefore classify theism as an irrational belief, since there is no demonstrable evidence to support it.

When you say there is no evidence, do you mean that you, personally, are not aware of any evidence, or that there is actually no evidence?

I cannot of course say for absolute certain that there is no evidence, for I do not hold the entirety of human knowledge. However, to my knowledge there is actually no evidence to support it.

[Violet]

By what standard should we judge what is and what is not right?

Well, in Christianity God's nature is the objective moral standard. What is it on your view?

*cringes at the misuse of 'objective'*

I can't even take it anymore.

Edit: i have a hard time respecting people who use the ignore list. If you don't want to read someone's post: scroll over it. To not show it entirely (or however the feature works here), is to say that you do not respect a person (or anything they have to say) at all. In which case why should I respect you if by attempting to debate with you I will be ignored?

Call me jaded... welcome -_-

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Any demonstrable scientific evidence.

Well you don't really believe that all truth claims can be validated by science right? You believe in the reality of things that science doesn't touch right?

I understand that there are some things that are arguably true or real, but have not yet been explained by science. I do however also believe that science will one day come to understand and explain even those things we see as out of the reach of science today. Science is after all simply the search for truth and understanding through the application of the scientific method.

---

However, in order to even conduct the scientific method there to be certain truths that are pre-supposed right? Some of which are...

There are laws of logic and they discern truth.
A person's senses are generally trustworthy.
The future will resemble the past.
There are laws of morality.
There is an underlying uniformity in nature, which allows predictions to be made.

I believe that a rational creator is another such truth that must be pre-supposed in order to obtain any knowledge through the scientific method. So I do not believe this is any less rational than believing in the reality of the laws of logic despite there being no scientific evidence to support their reality.

[Boreasos]

---

Any demonstrable scientific evidence.

Well you don't really believe that all truth claims can be validated by science right? You believe in the reality of things that science doesn't touch right?

I understand that there are some things that are arguably true or real, but have not yet been explained by science. I do however also believe that science will one day come to understand and explain even those things we see as out of the reach of science today. Science is after all simply the search for truth and understanding through the application of the scientific method.

---

However, in order to even conduct the scientific method there to be certain truths that are pre-supposed right? Some of which are...

There are laws of logic and they discern truth.
A person's senses are generally trustworthy.
The future will resemble the past.
There are laws of morality.
There is an underlying uniformity in nature, which allows predictions to be made.

I believe that a rational creator is another such truth that must be pre-supposed in order to obtain any knowledge through the scientific method. So I do not believe this is any less rational than believing in the reality of the laws of logic despite there being no scientific evidence to support their reality.

I disagree that laws of morality are a required presupposition for following the scientific method, but I agree that the other points are presupposed to one degree or another.

I also obviously disagree that you a creator of any description is a requisite presupposition for obtaining knowledge through the scientific method. There are rational reasons behind presuming the future will resemble the past, as the universe has an unbroken continuity and predictions can be made and demonstrated to be correct. In the same way there are rational reasons for using the construct of logic to form your conclusions. I cannot see any rational reason for the presupposition of a creator though, could you expand on your reasoning behind it?

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Any demonstrable scientific evidence.

Well you don't really believe that all truth claims can be validated by science right? You believe in the reality of things that science doesn't touch right?

I understand that there are some things that are arguably true or real, but have not yet been explained by science. I do however also believe that science will one day come to understand and explain even those things we see as out of the reach of science today. Science is after all simply the search for truth and understanding through the application of the scientific method.

---

However, in order to even conduct the scientific method there to be certain truths that are pre-supposed right? Some of which are...

There are laws of logic and they discern truth.
A person's senses are generally trustworthy.
The future will resemble the past.
There are laws of morality.
There is an underlying uniformity in nature, which allows predictions to be made.

I believe that a rational creator is another such truth that must be pre-supposed in order to obtain any knowledge through the scientific method. So I do not believe this is any less rational than believing in the reality of the laws of logic despite there being no scientific evidence to support their reality.

I disagree that laws of morality are a required presupposition for following the scientific method, but I agree that the other points are presupposed to one degree or another.

I also obviously disagree that you a creator of any description is a requisite presupposition for obtaining knowledge through the scientific method. There are rational reasons behind presuming the future will resemble the past, as the universe has an unbroken continuity and predictions can be made and demonstrated to be correct. In the same way there are rational reasons for using the construct of logic to form your conclusions. I cannot see any rational reason for the presupposition of a creator though, could you expand on your reasoning behind it?

Any statement that contains a "should" or an "ought" is a moral statement. We use these all the time in science, so I believe moral laws are necessary in order to conduct the scientific method.

Well I believe a rational creator is necessary for several reasons, two of which would be...
The other presuppositions I listed above are completely rational if a rational creator is exists. If the universe came into being without a rational mind behind it there is no reason at all to make these presuppositions.
The second reason is that there would be no reason for humans to develop rational minds from irrational events and matter. Our ability to think rationally I feel is one of the greatest evidences that we are made in the image of another rational being. Irrational events never begot rationalism. So that's one reason I believe in God. Thoughts?

[Autumnlicious]

Any statement that contains a "should" or an "ought" is a moral statement. We use these all the time in science, so I believe moral laws are necessary in order to conduct the scientific method.

Would you like some vinaigrette with that word salad, Sir?