If god were omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, there would be no atheists.

[VitalOne]

My experience on this site is that most atheists fall into the "weak" variety - i.e. no actual "belief".
But if you'd care to support your claim...

Well not my experience, most posts have atheists coming in saying theists are just a bunch of delusional fools who live in an imaginary fantasy, even when its irrevelant to the post

One - there is a difference between a theory that is testable but not with current means, and a theory that is entirely un-testable.
Second - if there is no evidence - whether because it doesn't exist or because there is no way YET to provide evidence - then it is still IRRATIONAL TO BELIEVE in the existence of that thing. At a later time that thing might well come to be shown to exist - but until that time it is IRRATIONAL to believe it as truth without evidence.

How do you define irrational? I define it as illogical. Therefore someone considering something to be true if there is no experimental evidence for or against a notion wouldn't be irrational, it would be rational to say that it could be possible, but irrational to say it could not.

To believe the theory as truth would not so much be delusional (one can bicker about the meaning of that word) but certainly irrational. To believe that it is a POSSIBILITY is perfectly legitimate and rational - as long as it fits all known evidence.

Applying your fatally flawed logic, someone living in the 1500s would be a delusional, irrational fool to believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun since the evidence clearly showed at the time that the Sun revolved around the Earth, there was no evidence supporting anything else....

God IS A POSSIBILITY - in so much as God is an intelligent creator of the Universe - but there is no rational reason to BELIEVE THAT AS TRUTH as there is no evidence.

Exactly, therefore you cannot call someone an irrational fool to believe in God/soul/afterlife, since it is a distinct REAL possibility

It would be rational to believe it as the truth if thats what you discovered from your own personal experimentation....rational to consider it as a possiblity, but IRRATIONAL to say that it COULD NOT be true (which atheists say)

Atheists do so from a position of logic and reason - logic and reason that everyone should have. Theists, on the other hand, do so merely from the strength of their conviction. THAT is the difference.

Another typical atheist believing their way is the correct way, the logical way, the right way, everyone else is a fool, and wrong (atheists are really the same in mentality as fundemental theists)

I'm sure that Hitler also taught in his mind that his way was correct, logical, and reasonable, as did the atheistic Stalin, but it didn't mean their way was....

Whether it is "personal belief" or not is irrelevant. If it is a belief without evidence then it is irrational, whether it is just your belief or that held by a billion or more other people on the planet.

This conclusion is irrational, since we only "know" what the current empirical evidence shows, meaning there are many things that are true in reality that we do not know of, therefore through your logic someone believing in the actual truth without evidence is irrational even if it is true...

Again - the actual objective truth is irrelevant. What matters with regard the rationality (or lack thereof) of belief IS evidence.

If there IS evidence - objective evidence (or as close as we can get to that ideal) then this negates the need for "belief" and the evidence becomes fact.

And they would still be irrational for believing it - whether ultimately right or wrong.

And if you believe that you would be irrational, given the absolute lack of evidence for it.

How is the actual objective truth irrevalant? I don't understand why atheists can't understand that evidence doesn't cause something to become true.

This is the problem with atheism, it relies solely upon something that is ever-changing, empirical evidence will change greatly in time, we have not discovered all there is, within a 1000 years there will probably be more than 3 or 4 major revolutions in science which will change the way reality is percieved.

Therefore according to you, atheists are relying on something known as "blind faith" or hope that there won't be empirical evidence for a God/soul/afterlife in the future....

To put it another way...
The label of "delusional" and / or "irrational" is not attributed to the end fact (e.g. whether something exists) but to the journey one takes to get there.
If one's journey is one of belief without evidence then this is delusional / irrational (depending on how you define those terms).
If one's journey is to go by the clear objective evidence then this is not.

The objective truth might be X, and the irrational people might have believed X much earlier than the others had evidence for X - but the irrational people would still have been irrational while they believed without evidence.

This conclusion is irrational, atheism and theism both deal with the objective truth, as does everything. According to you someone is irrational to believe in the actual truth, despite it being true because the current empirical evidence is against it, and someone is rational to believe in ANYTHING if the current empirical evidence supports it, even if it is false.

I don't agree with your irrational conclusion. I say that someone is delusional and irrational if they believe in something that is false, and rational if they believe in the actual truth, not the percieved truth....

 

[Sarkus]

How do you define irrational? I define it as illogical.

As do I.

Therefore someone considering something to be true if there is no experimental evidence for or against a notion wouldn't be irrational

Yes they would be.
others use it the same way as I use "irrational" - hence the comments about definitions. So let's just stick with irrationality.

The evidence to show that the Earth revolved around the sun back then is EXACTLY THE SAME as the evidence today.
All they had to do was look upwards in the night sky and take a few measurements.

But, in principle, if there was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL (a difficult thing to prove in itself) then they would be irrational to believe it.
To assess irrationality one has to consider the evidence available at the time and the ability to actually obtain the evidence.
In the 1500s and earlier they had the means to obtain the evidence - but they didn't.
The issue in those days was that most people didn't have the means and relied on the church, especially, and others to tell them what was what. One can therefore argue about whether someone was irrational or rational in obeying and not questioning.

Exactly, therefore you cannot call someone an irrational fool to believe in God/soul/afterlife, since it is a distinct REAL possibility

One can happily believe in the POSSIBILITY of an afterlife etc and not be irrational - but to BELIEVE AS TRUTH WITHOUT EVIDENCE is not the same as believing in the mere possibility.
Why is this so difficult a distinction for you to grasp.

If I buy a lottery ticket then I believe I have the POSSIBILITY of winning.
However, if I BELIEVE AS TRUTH that I have won the lottery, prior to the draw being made, then I would be irrational.

It would be rational to believe it as the truth if thats what you discovered from your own personal experimentation....

Only if you first discounted all other possibilities. Without doing so it can only remain a POSSIBILITY.

...rational to consider it as a possiblity, but IRRATIONAL to say that it COULD NOT be true (which atheists say)

Agreed.

Another typical atheist believing their way is the correct way, the logical way, the right way, everyone else is a fool, and wrong

Logical way, yes. Everyone else being a fool? Not necessarily. Wrong? Maybe not - and that's the point. We don't know - CAN'T know - who is right or wrong.

I'm sure that Hitler also taught in his mind that his way was correct, logical, and reasonable, as did the atheistic Stalin, but it didn't mean their way was....

Drivel. Utterly irrelevant drivel. Please come up with a better methodology for garnering knowledge than the logical scientific method.
Please? With a cherry on top?

This conclusion is irrational, since we only "know" what the current empirical evidence shows, meaning there are many things that are true in reality that we do not know of, therefore through your logic someone believing in the actual truth without evidence is irrational even if it is true...

The conclusion is perfectly logical. And your understanding of the situation appears correct.
Your issue appears to be that you think IRRATIONAL is attributed to the result - but it isn't - it is in the method one achieves it.
It IS irrational to believe something as true with NO EVIDENCE - even if what you believe turns out to be right.
Why do you have difficulty with this concept?

How is the actual objective truth irrevalant? I don't understand why atheists can't understand that evidence doesn't cause something to become true.

Non sequitor by you, I'm afraid.
Objective truth is irrelevant as to whether your thought process is irrational or not.


If I think of a number between 1 and 100 - and tell you that the only evidence you have is that it is above 50:
The THEIST will believe that the answer is 68.
The Strong Atheist will believe that the answer is NOT 68.
The Weak Atheist will not believe that the answer is 68 - but accepts that 68 is a possible answer based on the evidence given.

The Strong Atheist position becomes more acceptable the larger the number of possibilities (e.g. if the choice of numbers was between 1 and 1,000,000,000 - and the evidence is still that it is above 50) - and some will say that the number of possibilities is INFINITE - giving more credance to their stance.

Now, the theist, if they have NO EVIDENCE to support their claim that the answer is 68 - they are IRRATIONAL to believe it as truth.

This is the problem with atheism, it relies solely upon something that is ever-changing, empirical evidence will change greatly in time, we have not discovered all there is, within a 1000 years there will probably be more than 3 or 4 major revolutions in science which will change the way reality is percieved.

EXACTLY!!
So why do you believe something as truth when it remains but a mere possibility?

Therefore according to you, atheists are relying on something known as "blind faith" or hope that there won't be empirical evidence for a God/soul/afterlife in the future....

You still cling to atheism as only being strong-atheism - the belief that God does not exist. This is inaccurate. You will continue to get disagreements from atheists who do NOT hold this belief.

This conclusion is irrational, atheism and theism both deal with the objective truth, as does everything.

You are limiting atheism - as noted above - to Strong atheism.

I don't agree with your irrational conclusion. I say that someone is delusional and irrational if they believe in something that is false, and rational if they believe in the actual truth, not the percieved truth....

Then your understanding of "rational" and "irrational" is utterly flawed and needs urgent review.
It helps explain why you made the comments you did - but until you appreciate what the terms that you are using actually mean then I suggest you stop using them.

Rational / Irrational: - whether something can be JUSTIFIED or not - irrespective of whether that something turns out to be correct or not.

Delusional: - to hold as truth in light of evidence to the contrary.
As explained, since there is no evidence to the contrary concerning the existence or otherwise of God, belief in such, while irrational, is not delusional.

 

[lightgigantic]

Then your God is evidenced by nothing more than the current lack of absolute knowledge in the field of neurology, neuroscience, chemistry, biology etc.

first talk of what can accomplished in these fields of science. It is foolishness to talk of "in the future we will know a,b and c"

If this is not your admittance that it is nothing other than a "God of the Gaps" then I fail to see what evidence "consciousness" actually gives for the existence of God.

seems like you have a "neurology of the gaps"

I suggest you provide something more, or even another correlate entirly, that is not merely a gap in knowledge.

consciousness, like th example of electricity before the high school drop out, is something everyone can recognize - there are of course other intimate aspects of the field of knowledge that are apparent to a specialist (ie a physicist) that are not apparent to a layman (ie a high school drop out)

 

[lightgigantic]

When an individual has his/her head buried up their ass so far, it's hard for them to grasp an insight of light, when living in darkness so long, it's hard for them to define what the hell is truth or not, when truth is presented to them, they rather be in their confort zone, "their truth, their ideals, their way" is the right way any other is a temptation of driving them away of their confort zone. They think they got all the answers "goddidit" with that explanation they use it as weapon and shield, of course they don't know one iota of this god, or if it exist or not, they take the defesive when asked for evidence, as you see above.

this is an entirely tentative claim - you may say advocating god is an example of human fallibility .... someone else may say advocating atheism is an example of human fallibility

I'ts like if an alien were to come here, and we would threaten them with god, "who is this god?" asks the alien, He is the entity responsible for creating us. Where is this god? asks the alien. He's up in heaven. Where is this Heaven? asks the alien. I don't know!

well if the aliens are fortunate enough to ask a theist they may get a different response

Why you believe this? I have faith. Can your god save you now? asks the alien. No I'll be saved after death. So go be with your god! bank,bank, boom. there we go were' doomed. For being idiots!!

actually we are idiots as long as we have 100% faith in our ability (or the ability of another similarly fallible living entity, regardless of which planet they are from) to protect ourselves since fate is such that we could drop dead in the next 3 minutes even in the presence of 250 medical personnel.

 

[Sarkus]

first talk of what can accomplished in these fields of science. It is foolishness to talk of "in the future we will know a,b and c"

Because I don't know what will or will not be accomplished in the future, I MAKE NO CLAIMS about such things. But it is ridiculous, not to mention irrational, to say that just because we don't know NOW that it must be God. And this is the stance you appear to have admitted to - that because we can't yet fully explain consciousness that it must be evidence for God.
Ridiculous.

seems like you have a "neurology of the gaps"

Pathetic response, LG. I expected more.
Until we have exhausted the possible and verifiable it is irrational to jump on board the unverifiable explanations. THAT is the "God of the gaps" that you seem to cling to.
I merely promote the high-possibility explanation that consciousness is an emergent property of the complexity of our brains, rather than jump on board an unprovable claim.

consciousness, like th example of electricity before the high school drop out, is something everyone can recognize - there are of course other intimate aspects of the field of knowledge that are apparent to a specialist (ie a physicist) that are not apparent to a layman (ie a high school drop out)

I fail to see what relevance this have to the comment I made and to which this is a response? How does this stop this example being merely evidence for your "god of the gaps"?

 

[Godless]

this is an entirely tentative claim - you may say advocating god is an example of human fallibility .... someone else may say advocating atheism is an example of human fallibility

Actually advocating god, is an example of remnants of our primitive minds, some of us have been able to let go, such primitive notions.

 

[lightgigantic]

Actually advocating god, is an example of remnants of our primitive minds, some of us have been able to let go, such primitive notions.

the beauty of tentative claims - their flexibility enables the opposite to be established by the use of copy/paste (with one or two minor adjustments)

eg

Actually advocating atheism, is an example of remnants of our primitive minds, some of us have been able to let go, such primitive notions.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
first talk of what can accomplished in these fields of science. It is foolishness to talk of "in the future we will know a,b and c"
”
Because I don't know what will or will not be accomplished in the future, I MAKE NO CLAIMS about such things.

so you want to reneg on ....

Then your God is evidenced by nothing more than the current lack of absolute knowledge in the field of neurology, neuroscience, chemistry, biology etc.

????????

But it is ridiculous, not to mention irrational, to say that just because we don't know NOW that it must be God. And this is the stance you appear to have admitted to - that because we can't yet fully explain consciousness that it must be evidence for God.
Ridiculous.

therefore if you take the phenomena of consciousness and apply existing methodologies for its comprehension in religion, you will end up with an understanding of god - much like if you take electricity and apply existing methodologies of physics you end up with an understanding of electrons

“
seems like you have a "neurology of the gaps"
”
Pathetic response, LG. I expected more.
Until we have exhausted the possible and verifiable it is irrational to jump on board the unverifiable explanations.

thats the point - god is verifiable (to persons who are rightly qualified of course, much like any field of knowledge you care to mention) and the notion of consciousness being a materially derived phenomena is not verifiable, hence the "neurology of the gaps"

THAT is the "God of the gaps" that you seem to cling to.
I merely promote the high-possibility explanation

High possibility = neurology of the gaps

that consciousness is an emergent property of the complexity of our brains, rather than jump on board an unprovable claim.

unprovable to a person who doesn't apply the process, just as the electron is unprovable to a high school drop out

“
consciousness, like th example of electricity before the high school drop out, is something everyone can recognize - there are of course other intimate aspects of the field of knowledge that are apparent to a specialist (ie a physicist) that are not apparent to a layman (ie a high school drop out)
”
I fail to see what relevance this have to the comment I made and to which this is a response? How does this stop this example being merely evidence for your "god of the gaps"?

in the case of the high school drop out, applying the process of physics.
in the case of the atheist, applying the process of religion
Both are unlikely due to attitude problems

 

[Sarkus]

so you want to reneg on ....

Then your God is evidenced by nothing more than the current lack of absolute knowledge in the field of neurology, neuroscience, chemistry, biology etc.

????????

I think you're losing it, LG.
My statement is saying that YOU are making claims of evidence - and your evidence being nothing BUT a lack of absolute knowledge etc.
I am saying that UNTIL we exhaust those fields of knowledge we can NOT say what consciousness is - nor will I jump on the "God" bandwagon.

therefore if you take the phenomena of consciousness and apply existing methodologies for its comprehension in religion, you will end up with an understanding of god - much like if you take electricity and apply existing methodologies of physics you end up with an understanding of electrons

God of the Gaps, LG. That's all this is.
You have made up a God to help explain consciousness, merely 'cos current scientific knowledge can not fully explain all its intricacies.
God of the Gaps.

thats the point - god is verifiable (to persons who are rightly qualified of course, much like any field of knowledge you care to mention)

And yet you have singularly failed, in all the posts, to explain what that process is beyond the logical fallacies of appeal to authority in various guises.

...and the notion of consciousness being a materially derived phenomena is not verifiable, hence the "neurology of the gaps"

LOL! Yes it IS verfiable!
All it takes is for one artificial intelligent machine to become conscious. Utterly verifiable - but just NOT YET!
To introduce GOD at this point is merely to cover up the gaps.

What of this do you not understand?

High possibility = neurology of the gaps

LOL!
Just spouting words does not an argument make!
Try and understand the principles surrounding the words you make and then we can move this along a bit more.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so you want to reneg on ....

Then your God is evidenced by nothing more than the current lack of absolute knowledge in the field of neurology, neuroscience, chemistry, biology etc.

????????
”
I think you're losing it, LG.
My statement is saying that YOU are making claims of evidence - and your evidence being nothing BUT a lack of absolute knowledge etc.
I am saying that UNTIL we exhaust those fields of knowledge we can NOT say what consciousness is - nor will I jump on the "God" bandwagon.

safe gamble then eh since its impossible for empiricism to exhaust any field of knowledge

“
Originally Posted by LG
therefore if you take the phenomena of consciousness and apply existing methodologies for its comprehension in religion, you will end up with an understanding of god - much like if you take electricity and apply existing methodologies of physics you end up with an understanding of electrons
”
God of the Gaps, LG. That's all this is.
You have made up a God to help explain consciousness, merely 'cos current scientific knowledge can not fully explain all its intricacies.
God of the Gaps.

actually what I am saying is that it becomes verifiable by applying a process
“

Originally Posted by LG
thats the point - god is verifiable (to persons who are rightly qualified of course, much like any field of knowledge you care to mention)
”
And yet you have singularly failed, in all the posts, to explain what that process is beyond the logical fallacies of appeal to authority in various guises.

just as you have failed to establish how a high school drop out can be relieved of their ignorance regarding the electron for as long as they treat both physics and physicists with disdain

“
Originally Posted by LG
...and the notion of consciousness being a materially derived phenomena is not verifiable, hence the "neurology of the gaps"
”
LOL! Yes it IS verfiable!
All it takes is for one artificial intelligent machine to become conscious. Utterly verifiable - but just NOT YET!
To introduce GOD at this point is merely to cover up the gaps.

but thats the point isn't it?
If it hasn't been done its not verifiable?

What of this do you not understand?

that they haven't created conscious AI I guess

“
Originally Posted by LG
High possibility = neurology of the gaps
”
LOL!
Just spouting words does not an argument make!
Try and understand the principles surrounding the words you make and then we can move this along a bit more.

try understanding the implications of the words you use
On what body of empirical knowledge do you draw to determine consciousness is highly probably caused by material combinations?
(particularly since there is not a shred of empirical evidence of anything in this field)

 

[Sarkus]

safe gamble then eh since its impossible for empiricism to exhaust any field of knowledge

It's not a gamble - it's merely a rational position of not jumping on board the God of the Gaps to explain what hasn't yet been explained.

but thats the point isn't it?
If it hasn't been done its not verifiable?

Your error here is in assuming that because it isn't NOW verifiable then it can not be.

that they haven't created conscious AI I guess

And that is to say that they never will?
How very presumptious of you - to know what future technology might or might not make possible.

On what body of empirical knowledge do you draw to determine consciousness is highly probably caused by material combinations?
(particularly since there is not a shred of empirical evidence of anything in this field)

Remove brain - remove consciousness.
Damage brain - damage consciousness.

That is a start.
It ties the "consciousness" to the brain.

Since no evidence has EVER been found for something that is not either matter or a process involving anything but matter - it is a rational and logical assumption that "consciousness" is merely a process involving nothing but matter.

As such it is a logical and rational conclusion that consciousness is just one of the many (emergent) properties of the complexity of the (entirely material) interactions within our brain - along with "personality" and "intelligence".

Given that there is more evidence for this than for the "non-material" claim you put forward (for which zero evidence exists - even for ANYTHING that is "non-material")... well... need I say more.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[Godless]

Forget arguing with an idiot who's head is buried up his ass, it's redundant, and terminally tends to bring one down to their idiotic level. I forfit!

The statement above is not directed towards anyone, if in case you happen to think that it's directed at you, then so be it, it's you that understands that you are an idiot, and no one will argue with that assesment!

 

[(Q)]

just as you have failed to establish how a high school drop out can be relieved of their ignorance regarding the electron for as long as they treat both physics and physicists with disdain

It should be very much like trying to relieve the ignorance of theists who treat reason and rationale with disdain.

 

[lightgigantic]

(Q)

It should be very much like trying to relieve the ignorance of theists who treat reason and rationale with disdain.

so far the argument that you have that god/religion/the theist is irrational is that god doesn't exist - everytime we move forward to examine this general principle you retreat, which makes your argument irrational.

Otherwise you are welcome to provide a link to an argument of mine that you seem to think is irrational

Godless

Forget arguing with an idiot who's head is buried up his ass, it's redundant, and terminally tends to bring one down to their idiotic level. I forfit!

The statement above is not directed towards anyone, if in case you happen to think that it's directed at you, then so be it, it's you that understands that you are an idiot, and no one will argue with that assesment!

another version of the "you are wrong because you are wrong" argument


Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
safe gamble then eh since its impossible for empiricism to exhaust any field of knowledge
”
It's not a gamble - it's merely a rational position of not jumping on board the God of the Gaps to explain what hasn't yet been explained.

the high school drop out rules the claims of a physicist as gappy because they are ignorant of the process or even the ability to distinguish credible claims from fallacious

“
Originally Posted by LG
but thats the point isn't it?
If it hasn't been done its not verifiable?
”
Your error here is in assuming that because it isn't NOW verifiable then it can not be.

actually it is verified through theistic processes already, so when persons like yourself hold out that it is yet to be claimed through exhausting the limits of empiricism (which is technically impossible, since the foundation of empiricism is the limited and imperfect senses and the desire to see what one is seeing with is much like trying to jump over one's knees) it simply indicates a reluctance or stubbornness to apply the relevant process (much like the high school drop out's predicament)

“
Originally Posted by LG
that they haven't created conscious AI I guess
”
And that is to say that they never will?

yes
the reason being is that they are ignorant of the foundational substance of consciousness.
Its kind of like trying to buy italian chocolates at an abattoir supply warehouse

How very presumptious of you - to know what future technology might or might not make possible.

What can you say to a person who is hoping to purchase italian chocolates at a place that sells meat hooks and rubber boots?
At the very least it indicates where your faith lies.

“
Originally Posted by LG
On what body of empirical knowledge do you draw to determine consciousness is highly probably caused by material combinations?
(particularly since there is not a shred of empirical evidence of anything in this field)
”
Remove brain - remove consciousness.
Damage brain - damage consciousness.

this is incomplete empirical knowledge since
have brain - have consciousness
is not a fact

That is a start.
It ties the "consciousness" to the brain.

the engine is connected to the steering wheel which is connected to the person driving it


Remove engine - remove locomotion
Insert engine and remove person - remove locomotion
remove engine and insert person - walks away to find another car

just because something is connected it doesn't mean it is necessarily contingent

Since no evidence has EVER been found for something that is not either matter or a process involving anything but matter - it is a rational and logical assumption that "consciousness" is merely a process involving nothing but matter.

particularly if you rely on processes (ie reductionist models of atoms etc) that deal exclusively with matter.
At the very least it would be impossible to give a material definition of consciousness - in fact even such subtle activities of consciousness (such as love, happiness, boredom etc)

As such it is a logical and rational conclusion that consciousness is just one of the many (emergent) properties of the complexity of the (entirely material) interactions within our brain - along with "personality" and "intelligence".

- so that leaves us with the highly irrational theoretical conclusion of modern science - individuality doesn't actually exist since as it is merely a complex array of chemical reactions (very few scientists however would be prepared to live in a world that didn't assert legal responsibility with individuality)

Given that there is more evidence for this than for the "non-material" claim you put forward (for which zero evidence exists - even for ANYTHING that is "non-material")... well... need I say more.

actually there is zero evidence for your claim - there is some information about the chemical processes used by life - the reason that your view remains popularized in scientific circles is because the reductionist paradigm has opened up many fields of scientific advancement and the synthetic construction of many organic chemicals gives the hope that life too can be synthesized

Here endeth the lesson.

as it stands at the moment by contemporary empirical understanding, there is a big gap between life and the chemicals that life utilizes, so its not clear where you have been doing the research for your lesson (sci-fi literature perhaps?)

 

[(Q)]

so far the argument that you have that god/religion/the theist is irrational is that god doesn't exist - everytime we move forward to examine this general principle you retreat, which makes your argument irrational.

Cute. The argument IS that theists must show gods exist, which IS the claim made by theists, which IS the very thing they can't show, hence that IS why they are irrational. What does all that have to do with me?

Otherwise you are welcome to provide a link to an argument of mine that you seem to think is irrational

Don't you mean links?

 

[lightgigantic]

Cute. The argument IS that theists must show gods exist, which IS the claim made by theists, which IS the very thing they can't show, hence that IS why they are irrational. What does all that have to do with me?

hence why the analogy about the high school drop out is so effective

Don't you mean links?

either that or a summary of the defeat of the analogy
you'll have to forgive me if I am reluctant to accept your statements on faith

 

[(Q)]

hence why the analogy about the high school drop out is so effective

It is effective only in its mootness.

 

[lightgigantic]

It is effective only in its mootness.

Is that another call to swell the ranks of the faithful or are you actually willing to venture why you think it is irrational?

 

[SkinWalker]

Is that another call to swell the ranks of the faithful or are you actually willing to venture why you think it is irrational?

"Why" your failed analogy is irrational has already been stated by many in several threads. Not only does the analogy not have any relevance to the subject at hand, its merely a convenient and cowardly way for you to avoid dealing with the obvious: evidence for your claims.

Instead of explaining why your delusion is not a delusion but a reality, you choose to accuse those that doubt your delusion of simply not being able to see it. Psychotics, schizophrenics and the otherwise mentally challenged say the same things to their primary care personnel every day.

The high school drop out has the potential to understand electrons. Indeed, I know of two high school dropouts that understand electrons very well (my father and one of my childhood friends). One could easily state that the religiously deluded are incapable of understanding the anthropological, psychological and sociological reasons for religion and are, therefore, not qualified to comment on their own beliefs. In fact, I hold that position. Clearly, you demonstrate it each time you post in this forum.

But, hey, we've come to expect that when the tough gets going, you'd rather avoid dealing with the tough and give the cowardly answer: "you aren't qualified to see the evidence just as the high school dropout isn't qualified to understand electrons..."

delusion: "an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary." I include this since, undoubtedly, LG will start a new thread about my "transgressions." Should he provide evidence, instead of taking the cowardly position and avoiding dealing with it; or should he come clean and just say there is no evidence and his beliefs are grounded in hopes, desires, and superstition -I'll be happy to revise my opinion of him.

By the way, a "transgression" is a violation of law or moral duty. If I didn't call LG out on his nonsense, then I'd have a "transgression." Pseudo-intellectualism and pseudo-philosophy has been abused by the religious and the superstitious for too long.

 

[lightgigantic]

"Why" your failed analogy is irrational has already been stated by many in several threads. Not only does the analogy not have any relevance to the subject at hand, its merely a convenient and cowardly way for you to avoid dealing with the obvious: evidence for your claims.

it explores the general principle of whether there are prerequisites to knowledge, particularly of the technical variety - since one would be hard pressed to name any field of knowledge that doesn't require training and such, its not clear why an atheist demands that the 'evidence' of god not meet such criteria

Instead of explaining why your delusion is not a delusion but a reality, you choose to accuse those that doubt your delusion of simply not being able to see it.

once again we have a failure in communication - actually if you examine the analogy, you will see that I accuse them of not applying the relevant process

Psychotics, schizophrenics and the otherwise mentally challenged say the same things to their primary care personnel every day.

I would also accuse these persons of not applying the relevant process too, much like psychotic, schizophrenic and otherwise mentally challenged persons making claims in the field of genetics would also fail to meet the standards by which genetic claims are validated

The high school drop out has the potential to understand electrons.

potentially every one has the ability to understand god too

Indeed, I know of two high school dropouts that understand electrons very well (my father and one of my childhood friends).

then they must have lacked the particular bad attitude of the high school dro out that I use in the analogy that makes it tenable

One could easily state that the religiously deluded are incapable of understanding the anthropological, psychological and sociological reasons for religion and are, therefore, not qualified to comment on their own beliefs.

the basis for making such an assertion however relies on making an absolute statement about the nature of religion as defined by current academic trends (namely advocating a negative absolute, which places a bullet sized hole in one's foot, regarding the nature of god's existence)

In fact, I hold that position. Clearly, you demonstrate it each time you post in this forum.

the smoking hole in your foot is apparent in most of your posts

But, hey, we've come to expect that when the tough gets going, you'd rather avoid dealing with the tough and give the cowardly answer: "you aren't qualified to see the evidence just as the high school dropout isn't qualified to understand electrons..."

on the contrary, you reluctance to even breach the topic about what the processes of perceiving god actually are indicate the nature of your intellectual stamina

delusion: "an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary."

and the evidence that god is not a perceivable phenomena is? (given that the persons who advocate a perception of god also advocate a process)

I include this since, undoubtedly, LG will start a new thread about my "transgressions."

only if you start getting haughty with trolling and ad homming and using your modship as an ivory tower - but so far you are keeping things quite civil at the moment - congratulations

Should he provide evidence, instead of taking the cowardly position and avoiding dealing with it;

which comes back to the analogy of the high school drop out - which is not really an invitation to determine the statistics of what high school drop outs understand an electron, but an invitation to determine whether knowledge (of any variety) can be evidenced without a knowledge base in theory, practice and values

or should he come clean and just say there is no evidence and his beliefs are grounded in hopes, desires, and superstition -I'll be happy to revise my opinion of him.

a gentleman has the ability to respect others that may even have needs interests and concerns different or contrary to their own

By the way, a "transgression" is a violation of law or moral duty. If I didn't call LG out on his nonsense, then I'd have a "transgression." Pseudo-intellectualism and pseudo-philosophy has been abused by the religious and the superstitious for too long.

then you shouldn't feel nervous about examining the general principle you apply that are so integral to your argument

It would help take it off the emotional platform of assertions of confidence that border on trolling and ad homming and make for a philosophical discussion