Rationality & Christianity: Mutually Exclusive?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We are not discussing my beliefs, so all reference to what you might imagine they are is off topic. It's a discussion about how belief in God is irrational.

I'm not discussing your beliefs specifically - I'm arguing that believing in God is no more or less rational than not believing in God.

Atheists do not believe in God. That is the raw definition. Individuals who call themselves Atheists may say that they believe there isn't a God, but that's their business. And is actually a different proposition.

More specifically Atheism is a refusal to believe in a God where there are multiple Gods - there are of course multiple Gods. I only believe in one and reject all others - you reject all Gods. We are both, in fact, Atheists but I'm just slightly less of an Atheist than you.

Granted, if you go all the way back to the pre-Socratics then you have "atheism" is a lack of faith in the Gods but even then you have descriptions of "atheists" afraid the enter the temple - so it really more of a lack of faith in some cases than an actual refusal to believe. I'll see if I can dig up that quote.

You have misdefined agnosticism. It is not the belief that we don't know if God exists but a specific philosophical stance declaring that God is unknowable .

This is usually considered to include the unkowability of his existence - being utterly unknowable is the same as being undetectable. We can split hairs on this all day. The fact is that asserting something does not exist is not, philosophically speaking, a neutral position. The neutral position is "I don't know".

I do not have to prove God doesn't exist. That is ludicrous

I didn't say you had to prove God doesn't exist - I said you had to prove that believing he exists is less rational than believing he doesn't.

And as for your synthesis of the scientific method... Well I don't have the time or patience to correct you, but please be advised that it most certainly isn't coming up with any old crazy idea, giving it a cursory test to try and falsify it, then declaring it true.

Observe - Hypothesise - Test - Disprove.

If you can't disprove it then it might be true.

I don't have any problem whatsoever with human irrationality. I have plenty of irrational beliefs. But I identify them as such, and try not to let them influence my thinking.

I think it's irrational to think they don't influence your thinking.

[Greyblades]

Or maybe Thatcher's Britain has actually resulted in a more tolerant Britain, in that no one cares what others think, as each is concerned only with themselves. Criticising other religions, when those religions don't actively impinge on you, involves caring what those religions say. If people don't care what those religions say, then they don't bother criticising.

No i dont buy that explanation, especially when i referr to the entire west and not britain in particular.

Yeah it is a good thing that beliefs which dont affect anyone but the practicioner are left alone but I feel that whenever religious beliefs result in abhorrant action on a regular basis all too often anyone even suggesting the beliefs being at fault are shut down by either by fear of violent retaliation, unwarranted accusations of racism or accusations of racism caused by fear of violent retaliation..