I don’t think so. At least, I don’t believe in patently absurd things.
No, I’m rational for not bowing to the nonsense the establishment preaches.
No.
So you expect me to believe that you have absolutely no faith in your moral convictions. Do you not have faith that the “patently absurd things” do not exist?
What is “the establishment”? If your beliefs are “the establishment” are you still against “the establishment”?
Right. My moral convictions are rational, not based on faith. What’s the relevance of that anyway ?
If you can prove that organized religion is not a pack of lies, go ahead. Otherwise…
Not sure what your point is. Do you have any ?
Just for you, Juan [:P]
Interesting. I’ll check that out later. Meanwhile you can explain why you confuse ‘benefit’ with ‘rationality’.
I highly doubt that. I highly doubt you can give a rational argument for every single one of your beliefs without the need for belief whatsoever.
And you have faith that they are a pack of lies - you have a faith that, unless proven otherwise, a belief should not be held.
That you are a provocateur who stands on unstable ground.
Pathetic, Lam.
Show that the lies of your church are true…if you can.
Don’t switch the subject once you’ve been cornered.
No. The problem is that YOU changed the subject. So, show that your absurd ‘religious’ beliefs are rational - Please, you don’t change the subject.
No, Juan, what I am saying is that human reason has a limit, and that a basic result of that is that many of our ethical, moral, and religious beliefs must be founded on faith. The atheist has faith that God does not exist just as a Christian believes that Jesus Christ rose from the dead on Easter. In fact, the entire thesis that all beliefs must be supported by evidence is circular for where does that thesis emerge from, but a commitment of faith?
That’s why I’m an agnostic, not an atheist - but I don’t think the limits of human reason are the problem here. Human reason does work when used to debunk revealed religion.
Proof that jesus ever existed, let alone rose from the dead ?
I never said that all beliefs must be supported by evidence. But that doesn’t prevent me from asking for evidence for the claims of organized religion.
Also, I don’t see how the thesis that all assertions must be somehow proven has anything to do with faith.
Agnosticism is based on faith just like atheism; the entire question of faith with respect to the existence of God is unavoidable, and the question of faith is an inquiry as to the limits of human knowledge, and hence reason.
No it does not. One cannot rationally prove that Jesus Christ never rose from the dead. All that reason can do is give reasons for not believing it, and vice versa.
It was a preemptive refutation of the thesis that all beliefs must be supported by evidence therefore showing that there are certain beliefs that can only be supported by faith.
Ever read William Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief”, or James William’s “The Will to Believe.” The thesis has great relevance not only to the question of faith over the question of whether, or not it is moral to base beliefs on faith, but also to the question of what beliefs can even be supported by evidence, and what are the ones that are a matter of faith.
Agnosticism is a philosophical position which explicitly recognizes the limitations of reason. I think you know that. But agnosticism does not open the door to faith nor is it based on faith.
Actually, what one can’t do is prove that Jesus rose from the dead (granting he existed, which he didn’t).
Yeah, reason can give reasons for not believing absurd things. If you want to believe absurd things, go ahead, but don’t pretend it’s rational, don’t pretend it’s justified, admit it’s just tales.
Thanks for the pointers to Clifford and Williams. I’ll check the papers you mentioned.
Juan,
Can you prove that I exist beyond Cartesian doubt or do you believe on the grounds of sufficient reason that I do?
I’m not getting into the religeon topic here but somone presented me with this argument and if its true then 1. There should only be one huge textbook for each subject 2. You have no right to disagree with any intellectuals including the ones at Mises 3. We should have Plato’s whole philosipher king/ leader thing where the ivory towers will command us all like the gods thet are 4. If we always believed mainstream stuff we’d still think the world is flat
AFAICT, the only difference between an “agnostic” and an “atheist” is the former doesn’t like to be called the latter.
Who needs faith when you have a real epistemic method called reason? Please PLEASE do not conflate rational trust with faith, either.
False. We have as much faith that there is no god as we have faith that there are no square circles and married bachelors. That you are incapable of understanding that is YOUR problem and YOUR problem alone.
The mere fact that you asked and posted demonstrates your existence.