How Rational Are You?

Dyr

philologos wrote: »

The impression - but if you think about it for long enough there's quite a few things that they assume.

Says someone who believes in Skydaddy and flying bee gee's

Pottler

I'm fairly Rash and all. Everyone I know calls me rash. I might pop in and get some topical cream.

Maximus Alexander

philologos wrote: »

Who is whoever you want to be right? It's funny how atheists tend to claim without basis that they are the rational ones.



Criticising all belief systems under the banner of 'religion' is absolutely useless. For the record atheism is a worldview much like any others. It's built on hugely questionable assumptions.

Oh and for anyone claiming I brought this up that's false. I'm questioning the lazy assumptions of atheist evangelists.

It is rational to claim that, without evidence, you can't know for certain whether or not God exists.

It is not rational to claim that you are certain that God exists, without any evidence.

This is pretty much self-evident based on the definition of "rational".

In response to the OP, I am fairly rational, but I would not claim to be perfectly rational. I try.

dave3004

This thread has given me a thirst for rashers.

philologos

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It is rational to claim that, without evidence, you can't know for certain whether or not God exists.

It is not rational to claim that you are certain that God exists, without any evidence.

This is pretty much self-evident based on the definition of "rational".

In response to the OP, I am fairly rational, but I would not claim to be perfectly rational. I try.

Thats the assumption, which is deeply wrong from my perspective. Christians don't believe on nothing they believe oh the basis of eyewitness testimony, and by looking around them to see if what is written in the Bible makes common sense.

For as long as atheists bandy around that assumption without looking at the eyewitness testimony or the evidence I can't take empty criticisms seriously.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

they believe oh the basis of eyewitness testimony

No not really. They believe first and cherry pick the eye witness testimony to suit their confirmation bias retrospectively.

If Eye Witness Testimony was enough to sway your opinion for example then you would have to believe that Sathya Sai Baba had magical powers because there is literally 1000s of contemporary people willing to witness to them.

The reason you do NOT lend credibility to that testimony however is that you have already decided that Sathya Sai Baba was not a demi god with magical powers.

You HAVE however already decided Jesus was and therefore are happy to seek out and automatically accept anyone willing to testify to that fact regardless of whether they are contemporary or bronze ages peasants reported third hand in a 2000 year old book.

--Kaiser--

philologos wrote: »

Thats the assumption, which is deeply wrong from my perspective. Christians don't believe on nothing they believe oh the basis of eyewitness testimony, and by looking around them to see if what is written in the Bible makes common sense.

For as long as atheists bandy around that assumption without looking at the eyewitness testimony or the evidence I can't take empty criticisms seriously.

I nearly spat tea all over my keyboard upon reading that. Eyewitness testimony?
Who was there to eyewitness the creation of the universe? Actually, **** it, you must be just an extravagant troll

philologos

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I nearly spat tea all over my keyboard upon reading that. Eyewitness testimony?
Who was there to eyewitness the creation of the universe? Actually, **** it, you must be just an extravagant troll

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John concerning Jesus is what I'm thinking of.

The history we have of Christianity makes little to no sense if there wasn't an event that motivated the Apostles going throughout the world explaining that Jesus had risen from the dead and we could have life in His name (1 Peter 1:3) and risk sone of the worst persecutions for doing so. No atheist has given me a valid argument from the events themselves (rather than unrelated events) as to how this event is clearly fiction.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

The history we have of Christianity makes little to no sense if there wasn't an event that motivated the Apostles going throughout the world explaining that Jesus had risen from the dead

Assuming we accept that actually happened... which I do not... there is still MANY ways to make sense of people doing that very thing. Just because you have already decided in advance what explanation you want to be true does not magically make the other ones non-sensical.

If YOU can not think of other ways to make sense of it then that is just a lack of imaginative ability on your part. I can think of several. Straight away I can think of three without any effort:

1) They were liying.
2) They were themselves deluded/lied to.
3) The events in question did not actually happen, your book just is a story about a fiction where it did.

I can think of many more but those three pop right out without even trying.

philologos wrote: »

risk sone of the worst persecutions for doing so.

So what? People risk things all the time for people, places and ideals and those people, places and ideals do not even have to exist sometimes to make them do it. History is punctuated by people willing to die for what they believe in. That willingness however in no way evidences the truth or usefulness of the thing they decided to die for.

philologos wrote: »

No atheist has given me a valid argument from the events themselves (rather than unrelated events) as to how this event is clearly fiction.

We give you arguments and explanations all the time. You just run away from them every time and even pretend to have people on ignore (even when you do not) in order to get away with that retreat. Nor am I the only person to notice this tactic by you.

Maximus Alexander

philologos wrote: »

Thats the assumption, which is deeply wrong from my perspective. Christians don't believe on nothing they believe oh the basis of eyewitness testimony, and by looking around them to see if what is written in the Bible makes common sense.

For as long as atheists bandy around that assumption without looking at the eyewitness testimony or the evidence I can't take empty criticisms seriously.

Do you accept all eyewitness testimony as completely valid, regardless of the source or subject matter?

philologos

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Do you accept all eyewitness testimony as completely valid, regardless of the source or subject matter?

No, just eyewitness testimony that holds up on examination.

Maximus Alexander

philologos wrote: »

No, just eyewitness testimony that holds up on examination.

Does "holds up on examination" mean the same thing as "is supported by other evidence"?