Rational or Irrational

Is someone who admits to being an

antitheist

rational or irrational?

[whitefork]

No voting for "imaginary" or "complex"?

Can I go for "transcendental"?

[Skeptical Greg]

They could be either, neither or both..

Your poll should include other choices.


I cannot vote for either of the choices you have provided.

[Akots]

There is as much empirical proof against God as there is for God.

It's irrational to think otherwise.

[LeFevre]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
Is someone who admits to being an

antitheist

rational or irrational?

I voted irrational

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
Is someone who admits to being an

antitheist

rational or irrational?

From whose point of view?

From the antitheist's POV?, it is rational

From the theist's POV?, it is irrational

[Dub]

Quote:

Originally posted by Akots
There is as much empirical proof against God as there is for God.

It's irrational to think otherwise.

And the empirical proof for God is....?

[Akots]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dub


And the empirical proof for God is....?

As non-existant as the empirical proof against, of course.

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes
They could be either, neither or both..

Your poll should include other choices.


I cannot vote for either of the choices you have provided.

There's just no pleasing you Dogenes.

[metacristi]

Quote:

Is someone who admits to being an

antitheist

rational or irrational?

It's all depending on some personal aspects.I assume that here theism implies a model of God for whom there is no objective [scientific] knowledge to settle the problem of his existence/inexistence either way but there is evidence that can be intepretated subjectively as supporting the existence or inexistence of God.

First of all there is a clear difference between 'irrationality' and 'nonrationality'.Irrationality implies that mind is 'skipped' altoghether when making a decision [of believing/disbelieving something for example],the decision being governed entirely by emotions and 'irrational feelings' that do not involve the rationality at all whilst 'nonrationality' implies that mind [the rational,thinking part] is used but not the best conclusion logically possible is chosen.

So that not even the vast majority [probably almost 100% of them] 'hard' theists [God surely does exist] can be labeled as irrational but only as nonrational since they used their mind in making the decision of faith by studying holy books,hearing priests convincing them and so on,given that their belief is still a logical possibility.

As I've said in numerous occasions on this site if there are no clear scientific experimental [pro/con] data,in the case of all systems of beliefs that are valid logically-'compatible with all existing data',we are left with a subjective choice.

What we choose is acceptable logically,rational,as much as we have a plausible reason for our choices and moreover no claim of 'superiority' or 'proof' [without experimental or logical support] is made.No need of 'proof' then,after all it's all about a simple belief [a logical possibility that one prefer at a certain moment having some subjective,plausible reason] nothing more.Of course all are free to choose the system of belief,all that count is to have a rational reason for their choice.

Antitheists must also have a reason for their disbelief position [having only 'lack of belief' is too broad,'weak' agnosics 'lack belief' too for example and consequently inacceptable] exactly how agnostics must have one for their decision.The fact that no theist has ever provided 'objective' knowledge for God does not make the antitheist position rational by default.Given that there is no objective knowledge I'm afraid that only subjective 'evidence' remain.

As much as positive statements like 'This model of God [nonwithstanding its internal coherence and the lack of 'con' objective knowledge] does not exist in reality' are not made then their position is rational,of course as much as the evidence they have can be interpreted as a logical possibility pointing against the existence of [this] God or as not giving clear reasons to make the decision to believe/disbelieve.
Otherwise their position is 'nonrational' [the case of 'hard' atheists] in the case that mind was used .

But all logical positions that are adopted without using mind in making the decision are irrational,even if they are acceptable from the point of view of logic!This is valid for all domain of possible beliefs ranging from 'God does not exist with certitude' until 'God certainly does exist'.
Clearly one should be a zombi in order to 'qualify' here.

[Dub]

Quote:

Originally posted by Akots


As non-existant as the empirical proof against, of course.

The burden of proof is on the positive claim.

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Akots
There is as much empirical proof against God as there is for God.

It's irrational to think otherwise.

This is only true if you lump all concepts of God together, including the ones not yet formulated. There is a great deal of empirical evidence against certain concepts of God.

Otherwise you are essentially saying, "There may be a God that we may know nothing about." There may be lots of things we know nothing about. In fact you could say, "There may be ______ that we know nothing about", and fill in the blank with absolutely anything. Without any kind of definition, the word God is meaningless. But as soon as you claim to know a single thing about God, then it is your burden to provide evidence for that knowledge.

[Franko]

dub,

Quote:

And the empirical proof for God is....?

And the empirical proof for “free will” (the A-Theist’s “God”) is....?

Quote:

The burden of proof is on the positive claim.

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of atoms.
You obey TLOP!

TLOP (God) controls YOU controls CAR

In the same way you are more conscious (self-aware) than your CAR, TLOP is more conscious (self-aware) than YOU.

Franko,


How many anti-theists have you had the (dis)pleasure of communicating to online and in real life?

I've know a few personally, but many many many online.

-Probably because they can express their beliefs easier online.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini



There's just no pleasing you, Diogenes.

But at least he's honest!!

hee hee hee

Quote:

Originally posted by Kiri


But at least he's honest!!

hee hee hee

Kiri,

How am I dishonest?

I always say what is on my mind. Because one disagrees with it doesn't make me dishonest.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini



Kiri,

How am I dishonest?

I always say what is on my mind. Because one disagrees with it doesn't make me dishonest.

You may have missed the point.. ( Kiri? )

You seem to be quick to point out the cynicsism of my namesake, but do you know the rest of the story?



( I certainly wouldn't suggest you are dishonest)

[Dub]

Quote:

Originally posted by Franko
dub,

And the empirical proof for “free will” (the A-Theist’s “God”) is....?

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of atoms.
You obey TLOP!

TLOP (God) controls YOU controls CAR

In the same way you are more conscious (self-aware) than your CAR, TLOP is more conscious (self-aware) than YOU.

Quote:

will:

The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action.
Diligent purposefulness; determination: an athlete with the will to win.
Self-control; self-discipline: lacked the will to overcome the addiction.


Source: www.dictionary.com

Using the the example from the dictionary, the ahlete may have the 'will' to win although he wont necessararily win the race. The other competitors are his constraint he has to work within. I can 'will' things that break TLOP although that doesnt mean I will be able to do it. TLOP in no way affects my will, I am free to will what I wish, TLOP only put a constraint on what is actually possible.

Your TLOP theory still doesnt expalin why you believe TLOP is God.

[Franko]

Quote:

dub:
Using the example from the dictionary, the athlete may have the 'will' to win although he wont necessararily win the race.

Isn’t that kind of like saying when you flip a coin, it won’t necessarily ALWAYS come up TAILS?

Quote:

dub:
The other competitors are his constraint he has to work within.

All of whom (like the gears in a Car) OBEY The Laws of Physics (TLOP).

Quote:

dub:
I can 'will' things that break TLOP although that doesnt mean I will be able to do it.

That’s right! … You can say “4-sided triangle”, but that doesn’t mean you can draw one. The “symbol for the thing” and the “thing itself” are not the same. Put another way, the word “Car” is not the same as a real Car you could drive. If the symbol for the thing isn’t logically consistent … then the thing cannot exist in reality.

Quote:

TLOP in no way affects my will, I am free to will what I wish …

Well considering that TLOP was the thing that choose your DNA and decided to make you a Human being instead of a squirrel or a chipmunk; I’d say that TLOP has had far more affect on your “will” than you’ve had. Where is the “YOU” anyway? Aren’t “You” just your brain, and isn’t your brain just a bunch of chemicals obeying the laws of physics like ALL chemicals do?

Quote:

… TLOP only put a constraint on what is actually possible.

Then why does your body react before your mind is consciously aware of it? And what are these “constraints” you are talking about? What makes you are any less constrained than the MOON? Other than TLOP where is a “controlling force”? I see 4 fundamental forces and those forces control YOU and the MOON exactly the same – 100%.

Quote:

Your TLOP theory still doesnt expalin why you believe TLOP is God.

Hey buddy, how do you know that YOU aren’t God, and I’m just a figment of your imagination … along with the rest of this Universe? … of course, at least that would explain the Free Will …

[Dub]

Quote:

Originally posted by Franko

All of whom (like the gears in a Car) OBEY The Laws of Physics (TLOP).

But that still has nothing to do with their will.

Quote:

That’s right! … You can say “4-sided triangle”, but that doesn’t mean you can draw one. The “symbol for the thing” and the “thing itself” are not the same. Put another way, the word “Car” is not the same as a real Car you could drive. If the symbol for the thing isn’t logically consistent … then the thing cannot exist in reality.

Exactly bu the constraint, i.e. not being able to draw a 4-sided triangle, is not on my will. I can still have the will to do it. Even though I could never actually do it.

Quote:

Well considering that TLOP was the thing that choose your DNA and decided to make you a Human being instead of a squirrel or a chipmunk; I’d say that TLOP has had far more affect on your “will” than you’ve had. Where is the “YOU” anyway? Aren’t “You” just your brain, and isn’t your brain just a bunch of chemicals obeying the laws of physics like ALL chemicals do?

My DNA is the outcome of evolution, and therefore is the outcome of uncountable selection forces. These selection forces are no TLOP themselves, but the actions of the environment (a chaotic system) and the actions of other beings in that environment. Yes my conciousness is within my brain and is the result of chemical actions. But the actions have an emergent propety. TLOP does no tell the chemical what to do, TLOP only limits what those chemicals cant do.

Quote:

Then why does your body react before your mind is consciously aware of it?

The mind actually reacts un-concisously before the concious reaction. There is reaseach i have seen, and that has been posted on these forums before, which show unconcious brain activity before the concious decision is made.

Quote:

And what are these “constraints” you are talking about?

For example, I can will to jump 200 feet but gravity is too powerful on Earth for me to do that.

Quote:

What makes you are any less constrained than the MOON?

As far as I kinow the moon isnt concious and so has no will to be constrained.

Quote:

Other than TLOP where is a “controlling force”? I see 4 fundamental forces and those forces control YOU and the MOON exactly the same – 100%.

My conciousness controls what I do. TLOP doesnt tell me what to do, they only govern what I cant do.

Quote:

Hey buddy, how do you know that YOU aren’t God, and I’m just a figment of your imagination … along with the rest of this Universe? … of course, at least that would explain the Free Will …

Firstly thats not answering my question. This doesnt explain you reason why you say TLOP are God. Unless you have some proof, I'd assume im not God and you arent a figment of my imagination.

[Pahansiri]

I would vote Irrational as I would irrational for someone who is anti-atheist. It is illogical to be anti someone due to what they believe ( that brings no suffering to others), hold dear, how they look, speak etc. The “anti” is based in a ego based fear, the “ if they are right I am wrong and I just can not allow that”.

That is just what i believe.

[justsaygnosis]

I voted rational on a sole basis.
There is no proof that there is/are (a) god/gods who conform to the anthropomorphic characterisitics people have assigned it/he/she/them.
The point of the poll is vague.
If it stated something specifically such as an anti-theist bent on anihilating all who disagreed with anti-theism then it is by all means irrational.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini



Kiri,

How am I dishonest?

I always say what is on my mind. Because one disagrees with it doesn't make me dishonest.

No, no, no... I was in no way suggesting ANYBODY was being dishonest!

I was just making a rather silly reference to the Greek philosopher Diogenes, who carried a lantern in the daytime in search of an honest man.

See? It was a joke! JUST A CRUMMY JOKE!!

Ok, no prob, I get it now.

man this forum software sucks...

it just ate my post.

sorry, oh well.

Scott

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kiri


No, no, no... I was in no way suggesting ANYBODY was being dishonest!

I was just making a rather silly reference to the Greek philosopher Diogenes, who carried a lantern in the daytime in search of an honest man.

See? It was a joke! JUST A CRUMMY JOKE!!

You weren't supposed to explain it to him..


That was his homework assignment...

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes


You weren't supposed to explain it to him..


That was his homework assignment...

Mea culpa!

Homework... THAT takes me back!
You know, the kids in school who ostracized me for being a nerdy weirdo didn't know what a resource they were abusing. I would've helped them with homework if they'd just bothered to extend a friendly hand.

----
That was his homework assignment...
----


Sorry Prof, I'll do better next time.


(prays in class)