Hi

[Boreasos]

[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]

[Boreasos]

[Statler Waldorf]

[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?