Jesus, whatever.

It is of course, OK to have these opinions. However, caveat. Only if you are in fact ShockWaffle. No one else is allowed to have an opinion on it.

You are quite entitled to any opinion you like. If you want to go into an open forum and tell everyone that your opinion is the only rational one, then you should expect to be challenged. There's no point getting passive-aggressive because you failed to justify that overblown claim.

I'm the one being passive aggressive?! You took something I said in a conversational manner (with someone else) that took 4 seconds to come up with (my point, as you well know, was that it's easier to judge things looking at history rather than making [LIFTED] up), and you pulled it apart as if I'd presented it as a philosophical blue print for all future human wisdom. And you were oh so smug about pointing out logical flaws in something that wasn't even my main point, and I haven't been structuring my main arguments like that at all!

You also persist in putting words in my mouth.

Where have I said my opinion is the only rational one? You confuse your terminal fence-sitting for profundity, I have chosen to assume a more antagonistic stance on the same issue, because I think ideas are there to be challenged.

I pointed out that Religion seeks to quell rationality, I put forward some pretty good arguments why this is a bad thing. You somehow read this as "I believe I am the only rational person on the planet". I think you saw that as a challenge to your crown.

“Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear" - Thomas Jefferson

He wouldn't be elected if he said something like that in a modern presidential campaign. I believe that's a bad thing.

That sure reads like you are saying that only atheism is rational. how is that me putting words in your mouth?

I'm not entirely sure how you read it that way to be honest.

Be fair Shockwaffle, you do have a tendency to try and write a thesis when others are generally airing ideas and chit-chatting and it's somewhat disproportionate to dig through the minutia of such comments with the same level of critique you obviously apply to your own responses before you write them.

I don't have a problem with anyone saying their opinion, or asking questions, stating their beliefs, or making light of the whole debate. You after all have espoused atheism without incurring my wordy wrath

But any post that implies the author has put thought into it, and then is delivering the fruits of that wisdom, deserves challenge. Now take a look at the post which directly precedes my first entry in this thread (page 2), that's where Leeds wrote "Saying that no religion is worth following is therefore an incredibly banal stance. It's obvious isn't it?". What's the point in making a bold claim like that, and then getting pissy when subjected to questioning?

You changed that from "my opinion" to "atheism". If you know you're ignoring the teachings and you know you're taking the stories as pure allegory, and you still like the nice idea of a non-threatening, non-denomination creator hiding just beyond the scope of human understanding...

I'm prepared to back down on that point, yeah fair enough that's perfectly sensible.

Great now back to the reality of organised religion, calling yourself a "Christian" or a "Jew".

Religion seeks to limit, avoid rationality. Do you want me to quote lots of Bible at you to exemplify this?
Atheism seeks to champion rationality. Do you want me to provide more quotes?

I'm saying therefore atheism is better than religion.

Let's not pretend here, I know you agree. Otherwise how did you decide to become an atheist? Did you flip a coin?

You said I wan't allowed to use percentages when talking about how disprovable God was. You also said I wasn't allowed to disprove miracles. But what about when the things that the Bible says are provably wrong? When there's no archaeological evidence for the events of The Exodus?

Dinosaur fossils.

We constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

God's message is flawed. But God is infallible. Surely if religion were rational, they would have re-written these inconsistencies out of it by now? What's keeping them? Surely anyone can see such a glaring error in the Bible?

Is it rational to declare carbon dating is flawed instead of acknowledging that Genesis is inaccurate?

But surely that was my point. It's not a bold claim if "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further"

Rosicrucianism anyone? I think that's due a come back, must be some worth to that one. No? No takers?

Some religion does indeed do that. You may even rationally associate that tendency with religion. But unless and until you push your claims about rationality (which appear to relate to science on the whole) to the point of saying they demonstrate there is no God, you aren't saying much that the pope doesn't agree with.

Atheism may seek to champion rationality, but I see no evidence of success. Science works on a rational basis with both believers and non believers contributing freely. It is only when the irrational step of using empirical science to make a claim about an object that cannot by definition be subject to empirical inquiry that the christian biologist parts company with his atheist counterpart. So in that example the religious believer is the more rational of the two.


I used to think there were strong rational arguments for atheism. When I realised that all the ones which claim to prove God doesn't exist are weak as piss, I took more of an interest in the ones that show there is no soul. These, alas, are also very weak (even P F Strawson's, although it is very very clever). There are still fairly good arguments, ones that show that there is a dubious link between me as a sinner condemned to Hell, and this poor spirit / soul thing that suffers for my sins. So that's one major component of many religions that can be rationally doubted to a level which you would accept as proof (I wouldn't, but I do recognise they are very troubling for believers in afterlife). After that you get simpler, moral arguments. They are ok for doubting a particular religion, or a claim like "god is both perfect and all-powerful" but don't count on them to do the whole atheism is awesome thing for you, they can't. Go on further and you get the basic stuff, bits of the bible that contradict each other and all that.

So I came to the rational and honest conclusion, there is simply no way to prove that religion is all wrong, because any argument that even nearly approaches the required rigour is guaranteed to be inappropriate in structure. In logical terms that me an agnostic. In reality I'm an atheist because I find all this religion stuff impossible to believe.

I said there was no point using numbers to describe an improbability of God because you would have to pull them out of your bum crack. I'm not saying you absolutely must not try, but I am going to criticise you for making up stupid fake statistics of you do.

You can't disprove miracles with empirical observation because it is logically contradictory. Miracles are by definition impossible (empirically), the proof of them not happening would be empirical. ergo, the proof does not prove anything. It's not a moral prohibition, just extremely simple logic.

The pope believes in them.
Circular argument. They have to be biblical literalists before that quote has to be taken literally, even though you are using it to justify a claim that they must take the bible literally.

No. Perhaps that's why doesn't do it. Or more importantly, why there are so many christians and jews and muslims who do the radiocarbon dating.

I'll say it: no.

But then that view is rather a minority one. In fact I have heard the word "literalist" used in church as a term of derision.

I was trying more to reconcile an understanding as to why people of religion don't, in the modern world, blindly accept anything that is said to them but will defend to the hilt religions that are based solely on hearsay and stories without any basis of fact. Something which I'm sure they wouldn't do on a day to day basis regarding any other subject.

I've still not read anything to suggest there is an answer to that question.

To suggest that that is making a stance firmly in the camp of 'I'm right, you're wrong' is rather simplistic to be honest.

The basis in fact thing is the issue really. Science, common law, medicine and many other disciplines derive their justifications from observed fact (also known as empirical observation). But religion doesn't use that. Empirical observation is how we learn about a world that isn't trying to communicate with us, so it is incumbent on the observer to discover information.

But in religion the idea is that there is some kind of intelligence behind the world, and that some method of communication is available to it. So religion is a world that can actively communicate information to us, and therefore we do not rely on empirical observation to discover information about God. There are a couple of general theories on this matter.

One is that God designed people (sorry, that can be perfectly compatible with evolution as long as God is all knowing and evolution is the tool he used to create man) with certain capabilities to discern the divine truths necessary to understand the holy truths that must always remain mysterious (i.e. beyond actual proof). In this view, empirical observation is replaced with logical deduction. The starting point is the revealed scripture, and with enough hard thought you can use your good given intellectual powers to answer any question about religion from that basis.

The other main alternative that I am aware of is what catholics call the doctrine of grace. In this view, again, god gives us all the basic ability required, but this time it is the ability to in effect listen with our hearts. If you humbly beseech god's assistance in your hour of need, he will give you the information you need - not through a talking fiery bush or a speaking antelope - just by guiding your intuition to the correct conclusion. So again, empirical observation has no point, the object of inquiry is talking explicitly to us and we don't need to use interrogative techniques to analyse it, neither could we unless it feels the need to allow us.

Yes, but that still doesn't explain that if someone is willing to forgo empirical observations regarding religion why do they not apply that same 'willing blindness' to other subjects?

As science has proven various facts throughout the ages religions have had to alter their teachings, be it from the Earth being the centre of the Universe or whatever, so they are willing to apply some scientific fact to how their religion works, no matter how reluctantly, and yet will not apply that same methodology to the fundamentals of the same religion.

If, as you say, 'empirical observation has no point, the object of inquiry is talking explicitly to us and we don't need to use interrogative techniques to analyse it' then why do religions accept empirical observation to be true and valid, but only in some instances, and not accept that one can therefore extrapolate its use to the religion as a whole?