Atheist-Pilot: A Dangerous Combination!

[terminal_velo]

There is no way to prove your worldview is rational and anyone else's worldview is irrational when it comes to faith.

 

Exactly! I'm glad we agree.

 

This is why basing your worldview on faith is pointless. There's no way to prove one faith based belief is more accurate than a different faith based belief. So if you can't justify one over the other, how did you manage to pick the one true faith out of 10,000+ others? Like 99% of the the theists out there, I'm guessing it had something to do with the country and family you grew up in.

 

That's why I avoid faith-based worldviews.

 

When you start describing your opponents as irrational on a subject that is completely subjective you only harm your own argument.

 

Truth is not subjective.

 

You do not get to, without opposition, make wild assertions about the true nature of the universe, claim it to be immune to reason and logic, and maintain that it's a rational position.

[WolftalonID]

I am a man of faith. Every time I lift off.....I truly believe I can do this.... And make it back. I have faith I am not going to crash. So far, I haven't. If ever I do.... My mind wont be changed. I have faith, so again I will fly.

 

True to my faith, I am not religious. Those that are make me sick. I have faith. A persons talentdoes not lie within the narrow box of foolish religion.

 

To the OP. Even the pharisees and Sadducees in scripture believed as you do. The people despised them, Christ was angered by them.

 

Be a man/woman of faith... Not religion, and let your faith be proven by your actions. For faith is unwaivering, not changeable, steadfast, and a matter of the heart.

 

Religion is a box, narrow, restrictive, vindictive, false, and easily swayed by feeling.

[Wally]

Truth is not subjective.

 

Umm... No, 'truth' is absolutely subjective, an inference from fact, but apart from the fact.

[pilot#476398]

I have faith,...in my mechanic!

 

He answers my prayers (although he calls them "squawks") and although not required, he does accept the occasional offering of beer and pizza!

[nightsta1ker]

Sacrificial pizza!

[terminal_velo]

 

Umm... No, 'truth' is absolutely subjective, an inference from fact, but apart from the fact.

 

You're incorrect in regards to any worthwhile definition of the word "truth". I'm not going to argue any more with you about it, though. You'll continue to want use a skewed definition of the word, and I'll continue to try to use a useful one, and we won't get anywhere.

 

So, let's rewind and I'll use a different word:

 

 

When you start describing your opponents as irrational on a subject that is completely subjective you only harm your own argument.

 

Facts are not subjective.

 

You do not get to, without opposition, make wild assertions about the factual nature of the universe, claim it to be immune to reason and logic, and maintain that it's a rational position.

[aeroscout]

Faith and belief are outside the factual nature of the universe. Once something of faith comes into the realm of the tangible and measurable, it then becomes known and obviates any need for faith.

As for the factual nature of the universe, there is far more that is unknown than is known. That is where faith operates. It is impossible to describe a tenet of faith about the unknown as irrational. That is until it becomes known either directly or indirectly as in process of elimination.

[terminal_velo]

Faith and belief are outside the factual nature of the universe. Once something of faith comes into the realm of the tangible and measurable, it then becomes known and obviates any need for faith.

As for the factual nature of the universe, there is far more that is unknown than is known. That is where faith operates. It is impossible to describe a tenet of faith about the unknown as irrational. That is until it becomes known either directly or indirectly as in process of elimination.

 

I'm being honest when I say that theists and atheists can often agree on far more than they disagree, and true to that, you and I do agree on a lot of things:

• We don't need faith for something that exists and is observable
• There's a lot we don't know about the universe
• Faith, necessarily, lives in the "margins", the realm of things we don't know

Now, the rationality of beliefs, this is where we won't agree.

 

If a belief is consistent with fact or logic, we call it rational. For instance, we don't know the sun is going to come up tomorrow, it could blow up and obliterate the solar system instead. However, it is rational to believe that it will come up. That belief is a logical conclusion drawn from the evidence.

 

We both agree that gods do not exist in the realm of what's factual or observable. It's very simple; there is no evidence or logical argument for god therefore a belief in god can't be a conclusion from fact or logic. The required components are not there. Theism is, by it's own nature, irrational.

 

And that is what this all comes down to. I avoid blind (irrational) faith. Theists don't avoid it. I don't think theists are automatically bad or stupid people, but are people who depend more on emotion and/or wishful thinking than they depend on reason and rationality.

[pilot#476398]

So this is where the war over atheism began!

[aeroscout]

Quote from terminal_velo...

 

 

"We both agree that gods do not exist in the realm of what's factual or observable. It's very simple; there is no evidence or logical argument for god therefore a belief in god can't be a conclusion from fact or logic. The required components are not there. Theism is, by it's own nature, irrational.

"

 

There is quite a bit of proof that a man named Jesus lived on this earth. There are many accounts by many people about his life and exploits. Many miracles by Jesus were witnessed by supporters and detractors alike. His death was witnessed by many, yet a couple of days later his tomb was empty, and many people began to witness a glorified version of Jesus for a short time afterward. All along Jesus claimed to be the son of God. Now, you may say you don't believe that evidence, but that evidence exists. If you then say this evidence means nothing, then who is being irrational ?

All your arguments fall short on calling your opponents irrational. You cannot prove their beliefs to be false, neither can they prove yours to be false. There is no reason or rationale to support your claims once you go into the domain of faith and belief, unless and until observable fact supplants belief.

Therefore your claim that theism is irrational, is in fact irrational, on your part. You will not make any headway with anyone by claiming otherwise. At some point, with matters of the heart and soul, you have to live and let live.

[terminal_velo]

So, first it sounded like you were describing your theistic beliefs as something that is based outside of fact and non-detectable. Now you're saying that there are facts. So which one is it?

 

- If you think your faith is a reasonably concluded from the evidence or logical argument, we'll look at that evidence and/or logical argument.

 

- If you think it's based entirely in faith, we'll continue to talk about how blind faith is irrational.

 

So pick one so I know what your point of view is. You don't get to jump back and forth between the two.

[aeroscout]

So, first it sounded like you were describing your theistic beliefs as something that is based outside of fact and non-detectable. Now you're saying that there are facts. So which one is it?

 

- If you think your faith is a reasonably concluded from the evidence or logical argument, we'll look at that evidence and/or logical argument.

 

- If you think it's based entirely in faith, we'll continue to talk about how blind faith is irrational.

 

So pick one so I know what your point of view is. You don't get to jump back and forth between the two.

What do you mean by blind faith ?

If you mean faith in the face of contradictory fact, then I would agree.

But if you mean faith where no fact has yet been established, then by definition that cannot be irrational.

Many studies have proven that faith is tangible in it's seemingly placebo effect.

Why are you so stuck on the idea that faith with which you disagree is therefore somehow irrational ?

As a fallible human being you (and I) must realize that no human is immune from being irrational. You don't seem to realize that faith is entirely separate from evidence and logic.

Evidence and logic are within the realm of knowledge.

If you demand that your faith be proven by fact and logic, then it is not faith at all.

At some point in your life you will become certain that there is a spiritual component to man that can have wide ranging powerful positive influence on your life. At least I hope you come to.

[terminal_velo]

So, which is it then? You completely avoided the question.

 

Does your belief in god require evidence or logic (like evidence about Jesus for instance) or is it based outside of evidence and logic.

 

If it's the first, this discussion about rationality is irrelevant. If it's latter, the discussion about proof/evidence of jesus is irrelevant.

[aeroscout]

How do people come to believe in God ? By hearing the word of God. Those who are his will answer his call. Those who aren't, there's no amount of evidence to convince them otherwise.

A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

[WolftalonID]

So how many exchanges does it take to recognize a mute argument?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and yet trying again to get a different result. Few people have been successful, we call them great guineeses.

 

Areoscout, I assume you might have been indirectly referencing a passage from one of the gospels. "He who has ears let him hear". Its in three of the four. So if your attempting to be a witness, at what point does one recognize they are pushing their own agenda and not led by the spirit of God.

 

One cannot force faith...one cannot pursuede another to faith, our example can be a light, it can be an opportunity to witness, our words cannot be our own.

If you pursue without being lead...you go alone. So dont waist your time and efforts where they are being sewn if you have the instructions as to how, where, and when.

 

These arguments tend to spin wheels in everyones lives. It only produces alot of sh*t being flung and very little positive achievment on either side.

 

I am not trying to stand you on one side or the other, but do take time to be astute, and hear the Word, not just be a rote parrot in a box. When we truely understand what is being said, then we know when to open our mouths to the ears around.

Edited October 12, 2013 by WolftalonID

[terminal_velo]

How do people come to believe in God ? By hearing the word of God. Those who are his will answer his call. Those who aren't, there's no amount of evidence to convince them otherwise.

A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

 

You're still being kind of cryptic, but I think what you're saying is that your belief in god is not a conclusion you've drawn from evidence or the principles of logic. In other words, it's unsubstantiated faith (vs. substantiated faith, like faith that the sun will come up tomorrow).

 

If that's the case, your belief in god lacks rationality; it is irrational.

• Belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is, by definition, irrational, because there is no factual or logical justification. It's an unsubstantiated claim.
• Belief that Elvis is alive on another planet? Also no justification, unsubstantiated, and irrational.
• The Myan gods? No justification, unsubstantiated, irrational.
• Your god? Same deal as the rest. No justification, unsubstantiated, irrational.

It doesn't get a free pass because it's the one that your parents taught you.

 

If your belief in god is rational, then any belief, in any situation, not matter how ridiculous, is rational.

[Wally]

 

You're still being kind of cryptic, but I think what you're saying is that your belief in god is not a conclusion you've drawn from evidence or the principles of logic. In other words, it's unsubstantiated faith (vs. substantiated faith, like faith that the sun will come up tomorrow).

 

If that's the case, your belief in god lacks rationality; it is irrational.

• Belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is, by definition, irrational, because there is no factual or logical justification. It's an unsubstantiated claim.
• Belief that Elvis is alive on another planet? Also no justification, unsubstantiated, and irrational.
• The Myan gods? No justification, unsubstantiated, irrational.
• Your god? Same deal as the rest. No justification, unsubstantiated, irrational.

It doesn't get a free pass because it's the one that your parents taught you.

 

If your belief in god is rational, then any belief, in any situation, not matter how ridiculous, is rational.

 

What is true is what you believe is consistent with facts. As Seinfeld's George Costanza famously said "If you believe it when you say it, it's not a lie." "The atom is indivisible" was considered factual and thus true at one time. That the fact is ultimately proven mistaken doesn't make previous statements false, they were believed consistent with facts when posited.

The belief in supernatural beings is no more irrational than the disbelief, as neither can be demonstrated by facts. As previously admitted, one can't prove a negative, only the probability of the position argued. Probability of a thousand goziliion to one that an event will occur still admit of an improbable event, the rational position is thus a statement of belief- it is faith.

[terminal_velo]

"The atom is indivisible" was considered factual and thus true at one time. That the fact is ultimately proven mistaken doesn't make previous statements false, they were believed consistent with facts when posited.

 

Agreed, but what is releveant is that the belief was a logical conclusion based on what was known at the time. It was wrong, but it was rational.

 

The belief in supernatural beings is no more irrational than the disbelief, as neither can be demonstrated by facts.

 

Please, please come to an understanding about what disbelief (atheism) means. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it's not that complicated. I can't figure out why this won't click.

 

Atheism does not require asserting that there is no god. Atheism is the lack of the assertion that god exists.

 

"I don't believe in ghosts, but I'm not saying ghosts don't exist."

"I don't believe in gods, but I'm not saying that gods don't exist."

 

That is an atheistic position, and it is a completely rational position. Yes, it is rational to not believe incredible claims without evidence.

 

Theism does not follow from fact or logic, and is irrational.

[Nearly Retired]

terminal_velo says:

Atheism does not require asserting that there is no god. Atheism is the lack of the assertion that god exists.

 

"I don't believe in ghosts, but I'm not saying ghosts don't exist."

"I don't believe in gods, but I'm not saying that gods don't exist."

 

That is an atheistic position...

 

Wrong.

 

That would be the agnostic position.

 

The atheist denies the existence of God. If you call yourself an atheist then you are saying that not only do you not believe in God, but that God does not exist. If you say that you don't believe in God but that God might exist, then you are an agnostic.

 

You cannot have it both ways, and please do not try to cloud the issue.

[aeroscout]

Not believing in God is a belief. Believing there is not a God is a belief. It is impossible to avoid belief. Belief is part of the human condition. The question is, how did it get there ?

[WolftalonID]

Terminal.....its really hard to "believe" you when you cant even get basic vocabulary of your debate correct. Please take a moment and research this. It took me 30 seconds to pull this off dictionary.com

 

a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA

noun

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Origin:

156575; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist

 

 

ag·nos·tic [ag-nos-tik] Show IPA

noun

1.

a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Origin:

< Greek ágnōst ( os ), variant of ágnōtos not known, incapable of being known ( a- a-6 + gnōtós known, adj. derivative from base of gignṓskein to know) + -ic, after gnostic; said to have been coined by T.H. Huxley in 1869

 

 

 

Its like reporting the news. You can report live " we tue lo" or you can research your source and verify the information as facts.

If you cant, at least throw in a disclaimer of sorts saying you guess....lol

Edited October 13, 2013 by WolftalonID

[pilot#476398]

Do atheists believe people have souls?

[terminal_velo]

Guys, we've gotten past these definitions pages ago. I've explained theism/gnosticism probably three or four times. Why can't you guys follow a train of thought? Every theist I know tries to muddle these definitions. Why?

 

It really seems like this refusal to learn is self-defense, a last ditch effort to make your position seem justified. I hope that's not the case.

 

Nearly Retired: You are wrong, about many things in this debate, but especially about this.

 

Aeroscout: If I say "I don't believe in ghosts, but I'm not saying that ghost don't exist", what is my belief? I think the only relevant belief there would be that the evidence for ghosts is insufficient, but there's no belief in or denial of ghosts.

 

WolftalonID: Thanks for the definitions! If you read the definition you posted of atheism, you'll see what I'm saying. "denies or disbelieves". You don't have to go as far as to deny that god exists, simply disbelieving makes you an atheist.

 

pilot#476398: I can't speak for other atheists, but I personally don't believe there are souls in a metaphysical sense.

[pilot#476398]

What do atheists belive happens to them after they die?

[terminal_velo]

I can't speak for others, but I don't believe anything happens when we die. Same thing that we suspect happens when a squirrel dies. It becomes dead.