ferengi #fundie

ferengi #fundie forums.carm.org

Logic supports the position that atheism is irrational

One of the laws of thought used in the field of logic is the Law of Rationality. This law states that a person should accept as true only those conclusions for which there is adequate evidence. This makes good sense, because a person who accepts conclusions for which there is no evidence, or inadequate evidence, would be irrational.
http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/cou...df/hsc0103.pdf

Since no atheist here has presented evidence for atheism then the above demonstrates how atheism is irrational. So the question that begs to be asked "Why be irrational/an atheist?"

49 comments

old comment by zoltán

Dialog with ferengi part 1---

Q: So now atheism is to "lack belief in dieties [sic]". What happened to atheism being "the doctrine or belief that there is no God"? Link. Is atheism a belief, a disbelief, non-belief, or what?

ferengi: Its both according to the definition.

Q: Am I getting this right: According to you (and your dictionary), 'atheism' is always both a belief and a non-belief?

ferengi: No its not according to me:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...ism?s=t&path=/

Read the dictionary.

Q: I will ask one more time: According to you (and your dictionary), is 'atheism' always both a belief and a non-belief?

ferengi: Asked and answered - your errors were already corrected.

Q: When one uses a word, does one always mean all dictionary definitions of the word? When one reads, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.", is one expected to read 'cleave' as simultaneously meaning "to cling or adhere", "to penetrate or traverse", "to make by or as if by cutting", and "to split or cause to split, esp along a natural weakness"?

ferengi: If you have evidence that allows you to cherry pick and ignore one of the definitions you are welcome to present it.

Q: So, according to the authority of your dictionary, by use of the word 'cleave' the KJV Genesis 2:24 supports marital fidelity, marital infidelity, and divorce. Correct?

ferengi: ???? Red herring and changing the subject.

old comment by zoltán

Dialog with ferengi part 2---

Q: No and no...

ferengi: Yes and yes. No one was talking about 'cleave'. That was not the subject.

Q: The subject is words, their definition, usage, and the question of whether a speaker or writer intends all meanings of a word simultaneously (specifically, whether a speaker or writer is compelled to intend all dictionary definitions of a word simultaneously without being guilty of 'cherry-picking'). The word 'atheism' was used as an example of usage and the word 'cleave' was used as another example. There has been no 'red herring' or 'changing the subject' on my part.

I will attempt one more time to get a straight answer: When one uses a word, does one always mean all dictionary definitions of the word?

In the KJV, Genesis 1:1 reads, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

The dictionary defines 'heaven' as:

1. ( sometimes capital ) Christianity
a. the abode of God and the angels
b. Compare hell a place or state of communion with God after death
2. ( usually plural ) the sky, firmament or space surrounding the earth
3. (in any of various mythologies) a place, such as Elysium or Valhalla, to which those who have died in the gods' favour are brought to dwell in happiness
4. a place or state of joy and happiness
5. God or the gods, used in exclamatory phrases of surprise, exasperation, etc: for heaven's sake ; heavens above

old comment by zoltán

Dialog with ferengi part 3---

You stated, "If you have evidence that allows you to cherry pick and ignore one of the definitions you are welcome to present it". Since I have no "evidence that allows [me] to cherry pick and ignore one of the definitions.", I am forced to read Genesis 1:1 as, "In the beginning God created the abode of God and the angels; a place or state of communion with God after death; the sky, firmament or space surrounding the earth; a place, such as Elysium or Valhalla, to which those who have died in the gods' favour are brought to dwell in happiness; a place or state of joy and happiness; God or the gods; and the earth." Is this reading accurate and correct?

I am looking forward to your reply!

ferengi: No-its the word "atheism". Please don't change the subject.

old comment by zoltán

Dialog with ferengi part 4---

The question remains unanswered: When one uses a word, does one always mean all dictionary definitions of the word?

For clarity I might add: Must one always mean all dictionary definitions of the word?

Thanks in advance for your reply!

ferengi: No - the isssue the atheism and its definition - please don't change the subject.

old comment by dionysus

@christian_leftie

There is no evidence for or against the dictionary definition of Atheism being true, that is correct. Much like there is no evidence for or against any religion being true.

So, rationally we should all be Agnostic?{/b]

Except that gnostic and agnostic have to do with knowledge whereas theism and atheism have to do with an opinion. You can be a gnostic theist (someone who knows one or more gods exists), agnostic theist (someone who doesn't know that any gods exist but still believes; this is what faith is), gnostic atheist (someone who knows that no gods exist; this position is rationally impossible), or an agnostic atheist (someone who does not know that no gods exist but doesn't believe they do either; this is the position most people take toward the gods they don't believe in and that rational people take toward supernatural claims such as ghosts and ESP). However (as if that wasn't enough), there is also strong and weak theism and atheism which deals with how strong your opinion on the existence of gods is. And you can have strong (very certain of the existence of at least one god) or weak (who are full of doubt) theists and strong (very confident in the non-existence of gods) and weak (will consider the possibility of gods but doesn't believe due to lack of evidence) atheists. And there are other categories and ranges within all of the categories.

old comment by Passerby

I don't give a flying pig's droppings what you think the definition of atheism actually is - a belief or a lack of belief... or somehow both despite those sentences being mutually exclusive - but I take offense to your artistic license with the word rationality.

What is rational to me is that the scripture for every religion I have ever encountered contains so many self-contradictory statements and factual errors mirroring the ignorance of the culture that spawned it as to render it a farce. In light of that, God as we imagine Him/Her/It/They did not found any of these religions, nor have their presence been indisputably been known in any credible historical accounts, and certainly not in modern times. Conclusively, every religion is a load of crap.

God as we imagine is just a figment of our imaginations at kindest and at the most accurate a construct designed to placate the masses with easy answers and a sense of superiority and manipulate them with superstitious dread or threats of losing their place in an engineered social order.

The only "evidence" of God is the same as the evidence of leprechauns and ghosts: the presupposition they exist as anything other than a fanciful story. It is as impossible to prove physically that an intangible being does not exist as it is to prove that they actually do but easy to prove that any such being has had no interaction with human civilization. If an all-powerful creator being is out there somwhere it simply has no interest in us, which leaves us to our own devices in determining the nature of our universe and our existence much to the chagrin of exiksting religions that only maintain their grip on society so long as nobody looks too close at their claims, supposed answers, and really rather overt social engineering and power games.

old comment by emau99

Logic supports the suspension of belief until sufficient evidence is presented to justify that belief. That’s why you don’t believe in Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, or any of the thousands of other deities that have been presented to you. For some reason, you haven’t followed the same critical thought processes with regards to your own deity.

Regardless, atheists don’t need to present evidence; disbelief is the logical default position. Unless and until you can provide evidence to support your conclusion, it is you who is being irrational. The burden of proof falls on you. Your attempt to shift it only belies the weakness of your position.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"Since no atheist here has presented evidence for atheism then the above demonstrates how atheism is irrational."

Computer: 'What is Kiri-Kin-Tha's First Law of Metaphysics?'

Spock (Leonard Nimoy): 'Nothing unreal exists.'

Computer: 'Correct.'

-"Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home"

And Vulcans abandoned religion, regarding such as illogical.

To paraphrase one of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition: 'Faith, and the sack, is worth the sack.'

So much for [i]your[/i] belief in the Great Material Continuum.

Rule 15. But in your case, we'll make an exception.

Rule 30. (*slaps down strip of Latinum*) I'll have a Synthehol, Quark.

[/Nerd]

--EDIT--

@tracer

It was mixed with a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster, and you know how much they cost, so...! X3

old comment by Alencon

Oh Christ, not again.

For the 10,645th time:

1. The null hypothesis for any and all positive claims must be "FALSE" unless adequate evidence for the positive claim is presented.

2. Theism makes the positive claim that there is a God or Gods.

3. Atheism makes no positive claim just like apinkunicornism and abigfootism make no positive claim.

4. Therefore the burden of proof is on theism to present credible evidence that the positive claim is true.

5. Until such evidence is presented the null hypothesis must hold and the claim must be assumed to be false.

In other words, it is also rational to REJECT a claim which has no adequate evidence.

old comment by Alencon

@christian_leftie

Agnostic vs. Gnostic has to do with what you know.

Atheism vs. Theism has to do with what you believe. You either believe in a God or Gods or you do not.

If you say you don't know if there is a God but choose to believe anyway, then you are an Agnostic Theist. If you choose not to believe, then you are an Agnostic Atheist or Weak Atheist.

About 98% of people who call themselves Atheist are actually Agnostic Atheists or Weak Atheists. The other 2% or so are what are known as Strong Atheists or Gnostic Atheists. They make a positive claim that there is no God or Gods.

Note that you can be a Weak Atheist about some God claims and a Strong Atheist about others.

Note also that ALL monotheistic theists are usually Strong Atheists with respect to all other Gods but their own.

old comment by Alencon

Oh Christ, not again.

For the 10,645th time:

1. The null hypothesis for any and all positive claims must be "FALSE" unless adequate evidence for the positive claim is presented.

2. Theism makes the positive claim that there is a God or Gods.

3. Atheism makes no positive claim just like apinkunicornism and abigfootism make no positive claim.

4. Therefore the burden of proof is on theism to present credible evidence that the positive claim is true.

5. Until such evidence is presented the null hypothesis must hold and the claim must be assumed to be false.

In other words, it is also rational to REJECT a claim which has no adequate evidence.

"… a person should accept as true only those conclusions for which there is adequate evidence.”
Okay.

"This makes good sense, because a person who accepts conclusions for which there is no evidence, or inadequate evidence, would be irrational.”
I don’t think that quiet follows. I mean, i accept that my wife is faithful, though i have not had her under surveilance for 24/7.
An incel will accept that she’s female, thus concludes that she’s been with 100 guys.
For ME, her behavior is enough for me to accept her fidelity. I don’t need enough to convince an incel that he’s a fuckwit.

But based on this law of ratiojnality, i should only believe in a god if someone provides adequate evidence for it.

“Since no atheist here has presented evidence for atheism then the above demonstrates how atheism is irrational.”
No, it’s your claim that gods exist, that a particular god exists. I’ve never found any o fthe evidence convincing.

“ So the question that begs to be asked "Why be irrational/an atheist?"”
Why have beliefs that godbotherers find irrational? Same reason i believe biology that incels find irrationa, or in personal decisions that TERFs find irrational, or race relations that White Nationalists find irrational.
This is not the silver bullet you think you found.

ferengi #fundie forums.carm.org

49 comments

Confused?