Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any normal, rational person with any critical thinking skills is atheist,

I think what some of you are objecting to is those who are anti-theist. I don’t like them either — unless they can make the case what harm does religious belief do?

Thank you for this example of judgemental atheists on this forum. I know plenty of "normal, rational" people who are not atheist. There's so much black-and-white and Evangelical-Christian-focused on this forum.

Are they rational when it comes to the question of the supernatural?

Please demonstrate the evidence for that claim you are making.

I can't prove God's existence, but God's existence isn't disproven either. So it's not irrational to believe in God anymore than it's irrational to declare definitively that God doesn't exist. Your claim might be more defensible if you were talking about agnostics. But, regardless, there are many reasons beyond belief in God that someone might be religious - community, values, meaning/purpose, etc.

It is irrational to make a claim for which there is no supporting evidence.

That is essentially the DEFINITION of "irrational".

Actually, the definition of irrational is:
"not rational: such as
a (1) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence
(2) : not endowed with reason or understanding
b: not governed by or according to reason"

Plenty of religious people have perfectly fine mental clarity and coherence. The world is not black and white. People are complex. Insisting that anyone who is religious must therefore lack critical thinking skills is ignorant and reductionist. It's this kind of atheist mindset all over this forum that paints all atheists as narrow-minded and angry. Which is not to say that there aren't angry, narrow-minded religious folks on here as well.

Mostly, to get back to OP's point, people on this forum too often paint with a broad brush in ways that only showcase their own ignorance of others and of human nature in general. There is rarely compassionate, open discussion on here. It's always "gotcha" comments and accusations. The internet isn't really built for compassionate, open dialogue; it's so much easier to just be nasty to each other.

“Not endowed with reason or understanding”. Your post proves my point, that it is irrational. Thank you!

I feel like we're not speaking the same language, or you're purposely ignoring me when I say that people are complex and that belief in God who isn't proved or disproved doesn't negate their ability to be reasonable, understanding, rational people. Do you not hold space for people to be more than one thing? Or do we all just have room to be one-dimensional?

1. “Rational” and “irrational” are an exact dichotomy. 2. Belief in the supernatural is irrational because even the most strident admit there is scant actual evidence for it. 3. Therefore anyone who believes in the supernatural is irrational, on that subject anyway.

What part of that do you disagree with? 1, 2, 3, or more?

I have asked (upstream) what evidence for the supernatural would be acceptable and was met with silence, so I’ll ask again.

I have no idea what would be acceptable, and if there is no supernatural than the very question is preposterous. You are making the claim there is one, so show evidence, or admit it is an irrational belief by the definition you posted.

Then how can someone provide evidence if you don’t know what you’re looking for? I’ve dropped a couple of clues (the existence of other minds, the existence of human rights) of things we accept as true but can’t be proven rationally. Care to take a stab?

This is a perfect example of being illogical and irrational.

You are making the claim, you need to provide the evidence. That's how it works.

As for your other "examples", well I am sorry if this offends, but those are just stupid. Your examples are concepts and ideas, like "human rights" which by definition exist because we think them. And if you are hiding your silly god belief behind the problem of hard solipsism, well than that is also stupid because unless we agree we are in reality then ANY position is invalid. One of the worst arguments ever as it is completely self-defeating. If you can't know anything, then stop pretending you know there's a god!

+1. As I’ve heard said: if god were real and wanted me to know he existed , then certainly HE would know what it would take to make me believe . Not to mention, people don’t just decide to believe. They have to become convinced and I find nothing that would convince me . In reality , no one becomes convinced for any reason that can’t be explained by either indoctrination as a vulnerable child that will believe literally anything they are told, or an emotional reason at another time in their life .

NP. That’s what free will is all about. You can DECIDE to believe or not. If God showed up in our lives then we’d be nothing more than worshipful robots doing everything we do under some sort of compulsion.

Also, human rights are not a given, ask the ancient Romans or Aztecs, both of whom had might-makes-right societies. Nietsche and others tried to bring that back and it hasn’t gone away. You can thank religion for instituting human rights in western society.

jfc you people are insane.

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like recent religious pp is an example of someone who is changing their mind about religion on this forum - kicking and screaming to be sure, but changing their mind nonetheless.

They're aware that their arguments supporting religious belief are not very good, and are also becoming aware that that's all there is.

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like recent religious pp is an example of someone who is changing their mind about religion on this forum - kicking and screaming to be sure, but changing their mind nonetheless.

They're aware that their arguments supporting religious belief are not very good, and are also becoming aware that that's all there is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any normal, rational person with any critical thinking skills is atheist,

I think what some of you are objecting to is those who are anti-theist. I don’t like them either — unless they can make the case what harm does religious belief do?

Thank you for this example of judgemental atheists on this forum. I know plenty of "normal, rational" people who are not atheist. There's so much black-and-white and Evangelical-Christian-focused on this forum.

Are they rational when it comes to the question of the supernatural?

Please demonstrate the evidence for that claim you are making.

I can't prove God's existence, but God's existence isn't disproven either. So it's not irrational to believe in God anymore than it's irrational to declare definitively that God doesn't exist. Your claim might be more defensible if you were talking about agnostics. But, regardless, there are many reasons beyond belief in God that someone might be religious - community, values, meaning/purpose, etc.

It is irrational to make a claim for which there is no supporting evidence.

That is essentially the DEFINITION of "irrational".

Actually, the definition of irrational is:
"not rational: such as
a (1) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence
(2) : not endowed with reason or understanding
b: not governed by or according to reason"

Plenty of religious people have perfectly fine mental clarity and coherence. The world is not black and white. People are complex. Insisting that anyone who is religious must therefore lack critical thinking skills is ignorant and reductionist. It's this kind of atheist mindset all over this forum that paints all atheists as narrow-minded and angry. Which is not to say that there aren't angry, narrow-minded religious folks on here as well.

Mostly, to get back to OP's point, people on this forum too often paint with a broad brush in ways that only showcase their own ignorance of others and of human nature in general. There is rarely compassionate, open discussion on here. It's always "gotcha" comments and accusations. The internet isn't really built for compassionate, open dialogue; it's so much easier to just be nasty to each other.

“Not endowed with reason or understanding”. Your post proves my point, that it is irrational. Thank you!

I feel like we're not speaking the same language, or you're purposely ignoring me when I say that people are complex and that belief in God who isn't proved or disproved doesn't negate their ability to be reasonable, understanding, rational people. Do you not hold space for people to be more than one thing? Or do we all just have room to be one-dimensional?

1. “Rational” and “irrational” are an exact dichotomy. 2. Belief in the supernatural is irrational because even the most strident admit there is scant actual evidence for it. 3. Therefore anyone who believes in the supernatural is irrational, on that subject anyway.

What part of that do you disagree with? 1, 2, 3, or more?

I have asked (upstream) what evidence for the supernatural would be acceptable and was met with silence, so I’ll ask again.

I have no idea what would be acceptable, and if there is no supernatural than the very question is preposterous. You are making the claim there is one, so show evidence, or admit it is an irrational belief by the definition you posted.

Then how can someone provide evidence if you don’t know what you’re looking for? I’ve dropped a couple of clues (the existence of other minds, the existence of human rights) of things we accept as true but can’t be proven rationally. Care to take a stab?

This is a perfect example of being illogical and irrational.

You are making the claim, you need to provide the evidence. That's how it works.

As for your other "examples", well I am sorry if this offends, but those are just stupid. Your examples are concepts and ideas, like "human rights" which by definition exist because we think them. And if you are hiding your silly god belief behind the problem of hard solipsism, well than that is also stupid because unless we agree we are in reality then ANY position is invalid. One of the worst arguments ever as it is completely self-defeating. If you can't know anything, then stop pretending you know there's a god!

+1. As I’ve heard said: if god were real and wanted me to know he existed , then certainly HE would know what it would take to make me believe . Not to mention, people don’t just decide to believe. They have to become convinced and I find nothing that would convince me . In reality , no one becomes convinced for any reason that can’t be explained by either indoctrination as a vulnerable child that will believe literally anything they are told, or an emotional reason at another time in their life .

NP. That’s what free will is all about. You can DECIDE to believe or not. If God showed up in our lives then we’d be nothing more than worshipful robots doing everything we do under some sort of compulsion.

Also, human rights are not a given, ask the ancient Romans or Aztecs, both of whom had might-makes-right societies. Nietsche and others tried to bring that back and it hasn’t gone away. You can thank religion for instituting human rights in western society.

jfc you people are insane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any normal, rational person with any critical thinking skills is atheist,

I think what some of you are objecting to is those who are anti-theist. I don’t like them either — unless they can make the case what harm does religious belief do?

Thank you for this example of judgemental atheists on this forum. I know plenty of "normal, rational" people who are not atheist. There's so much black-and-white and Evangelical-Christian-focused on this forum.

Are they rational when it comes to the question of the supernatural?

Please demonstrate the evidence for that claim you are making.

I can't prove God's existence, but God's existence isn't disproven either. So it's not irrational to believe in God anymore than it's irrational to declare definitively that God doesn't exist. Your claim might be more defensible if you were talking about agnostics. But, regardless, there are many reasons beyond belief in God that someone might be religious - community, values, meaning/purpose, etc.

It is irrational to make a claim for which there is no supporting evidence.

That is essentially the DEFINITION of "irrational".

Actually, the definition of irrational is:
"not rational: such as
a (1) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence
(2) : not endowed with reason or understanding
b: not governed by or according to reason"

Plenty of religious people have perfectly fine mental clarity and coherence. The world is not black and white. People are complex. Insisting that anyone who is religious must therefore lack critical thinking skills is ignorant and reductionist. It's this kind of atheist mindset all over this forum that paints all atheists as narrow-minded and angry. Which is not to say that there aren't angry, narrow-minded religious folks on here as well.

Mostly, to get back to OP's point, people on this forum too often paint with a broad brush in ways that only showcase their own ignorance of others and of human nature in general. There is rarely compassionate, open discussion on here. It's always "gotcha" comments and accusations. The internet isn't really built for compassionate, open dialogue; it's so much easier to just be nasty to each other.

“Not endowed with reason or understanding”. Your post proves my point, that it is irrational. Thank you!

I feel like we're not speaking the same language, or you're purposely ignoring me when I say that people are complex and that belief in God who isn't proved or disproved doesn't negate their ability to be reasonable, understanding, rational people. Do you not hold space for people to be more than one thing? Or do we all just have room to be one-dimensional?

1. “Rational” and “irrational” are an exact dichotomy. 2. Belief in the supernatural is irrational because even the most strident admit there is scant actual evidence for it. 3. Therefore anyone who believes in the supernatural is irrational, on that subject anyway.

What part of that do you disagree with? 1, 2, 3, or more?

I have asked (upstream) what evidence for the supernatural would be acceptable and was met with silence, so I’ll ask again.

I have no idea what would be acceptable, and if there is no supernatural than the very question is preposterous. You are making the claim there is one, so show evidence, or admit it is an irrational belief by the definition you posted.

Then how can someone provide evidence if you don’t know what you’re looking for? I’ve dropped a couple of clues (the existence of other minds, the existence of human rights) of things we accept as true but can’t be proven rationally. Care to take a stab?

This is a perfect example of being illogical and irrational.

You are making the claim, you need to provide the evidence. That's how it works.

As for your other "examples", well I am sorry if this offends, but those are just stupid. Your examples are concepts and ideas, like "human rights" which by definition exist because we think them. And if you are hiding your silly god belief behind the problem of hard solipsism, well than that is also stupid because unless we agree we are in reality then ANY position is invalid. One of the worst arguments ever as it is completely self-defeating. If you can't know anything, then stop pretending you know there's a god!

+1. As I’ve heard said: if god were real and wanted me to know he existed , then certainly HE would know what it would take to make me believe . Not to mention, people don’t just decide to believe. They have to become convinced and I find nothing that would convince me . In reality , no one becomes convinced for any reason that can’t be explained by either indoctrination as a vulnerable child that will believe literally anything they are told, or an emotional reason at another time in their life .

NP. That’s what free will is all about. You can DECIDE to believe or not. If God showed up in our lives then we’d be nothing more than worshipful robots doing everything we do under some sort of compulsion.

Also, human rights are not a given, ask the ancient Romans or Aztecs, both of whom had might-makes-right societies. Nietsche and others tried to bring that back and it hasn’t gone away. You can thank religion for instituting human rights in western society.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any normal, rational person with any critical thinking skills is atheist,

I think what some of you are objecting to is those who are anti-theist. I don’t like them either — unless they can make the case what harm does religious belief do?

Thank you for this example of judgemental atheists on this forum. I know plenty of "normal, rational" people who are not atheist. There's so much black-and-white and Evangelical-Christian-focused on this forum.

Are they rational when it comes to the question of the supernatural?

Please demonstrate the evidence for that claim you are making.

I can't prove God's existence, but God's existence isn't disproven either. So it's not irrational to believe in God anymore than it's irrational to declare definitively that God doesn't exist. Your claim might be more defensible if you were talking about agnostics. But, regardless, there are many reasons beyond belief in God that someone might be religious - community, values, meaning/purpose, etc.

It is irrational to make a claim for which there is no supporting evidence.

That is essentially the DEFINITION of "irrational".

Actually, the definition of irrational is:
"not rational: such as
a (1) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence
(2) : not endowed with reason or understanding
b: not governed by or according to reason"

Plenty of religious people have perfectly fine mental clarity and coherence. The world is not black and white. People are complex. Insisting that anyone who is religious must therefore lack critical thinking skills is ignorant and reductionist. It's this kind of atheist mindset all over this forum that paints all atheists as narrow-minded and angry. Which is not to say that there aren't angry, narrow-minded religious folks on here as well.

Mostly, to get back to OP's point, people on this forum too often paint with a broad brush in ways that only showcase their own ignorance of others and of human nature in general. There is rarely compassionate, open discussion on here. It's always "gotcha" comments and accusations. The internet isn't really built for compassionate, open dialogue; it's so much easier to just be nasty to each other.

“Not endowed with reason or understanding”. Your post proves my point, that it is irrational. Thank you!

I feel like we're not speaking the same language, or you're purposely ignoring me when I say that people are complex and that belief in God who isn't proved or disproved doesn't negate their ability to be reasonable, understanding, rational people. Do you not hold space for people to be more than one thing? Or do we all just have room to be one-dimensional?

1. “Rational” and “irrational” are an exact dichotomy. 2. Belief in the supernatural is irrational because even the most strident admit there is scant actual evidence for it. 3. Therefore anyone who believes in the supernatural is irrational, on that subject anyway.

What part of that do you disagree with? 1, 2, 3, or more?

I have asked (upstream) what evidence for the supernatural would be acceptable and was met with silence, so I’ll ask again.

I have no idea what would be acceptable, and if there is no supernatural than the very question is preposterous. You are making the claim there is one, so show evidence, or admit it is an irrational belief by the definition you posted.

Then how can someone provide evidence if you don’t know what you’re looking for? I’ve dropped a couple of clues (the existence of other minds, the existence of human rights) of things we accept as true but can’t be proven rationally. Care to take a stab?

This is a perfect example of being illogical and irrational.

You are making the claim, you need to provide the evidence. That's how it works.

As for your other "examples", well I am sorry if this offends, but those are just stupid. Your examples are concepts and ideas, like "human rights" which by definition exist because we think them. And if you are hiding your silly god belief behind the problem of hard solipsism, well than that is also stupid because unless we agree we are in reality then ANY position is invalid. One of the worst arguments ever as it is completely self-defeating. If you can't know anything, then stop pretending you know there's a god!

+1. As I’ve heard said: if god were real and wanted me to know he existed , then certainly HE would know what it would take to make me believe . Not to mention, people don’t just decide to believe. They have to become convinced and I find nothing that would convince me . In reality , no one becomes convinced for any reason that can’t be explained by either indoctrination as a vulnerable child that will believe literally anything they are told, or an emotional reason at another time in their life .

NP. That’s what free will is all about. You can DECIDE to believe or not. If God showed up in our lives then we’d be nothing more than worshipful robots doing everything we do under some sort of compulsion.

Also, human rights are not a given, ask the ancient Romans or Aztecs, both of whom had might-makes-right societies. Nietsche and others tried to bring that back and it hasn’t gone away. You can thank religion for instituting human rights in western society.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any normal, rational person with any critical thinking skills is atheist,

I think what some of you are objecting to is those who are anti-theist. I don’t like them either — unless they can make the case what harm does religious belief do?

Thank you for this example of judgemental atheists on this forum. I know plenty of "normal, rational" people who are not atheist. There's so much black-and-white and Evangelical-Christian-focused on this forum.

Are they rational when it comes to the question of the supernatural?

Please demonstrate the evidence for that claim you are making.

I can't prove God's existence, but God's existence isn't disproven either. So it's not irrational to believe in God anymore than it's irrational to declare definitively that God doesn't exist. Your claim might be more defensible if you were talking about agnostics. But, regardless, there are many reasons beyond belief in God that someone might be religious - community, values, meaning/purpose, etc.

It is irrational to make a claim for which there is no supporting evidence.

That is essentially the DEFINITION of "irrational".

Actually, the definition of irrational is:
"not rational: such as
a (1) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence
(2) : not endowed with reason or understanding
b: not governed by or according to reason"

Plenty of religious people have perfectly fine mental clarity and coherence. The world is not black and white. People are complex. Insisting that anyone who is religious must therefore lack critical thinking skills is ignorant and reductionist. It's this kind of atheist mindset all over this forum that paints all atheists as narrow-minded and angry. Which is not to say that there aren't angry, narrow-minded religious folks on here as well.

Mostly, to get back to OP's point, people on this forum too often paint with a broad brush in ways that only showcase their own ignorance of others and of human nature in general. There is rarely compassionate, open discussion on here. It's always "gotcha" comments and accusations. The internet isn't really built for compassionate, open dialogue; it's so much easier to just be nasty to each other.

“Not endowed with reason or understanding”. Your post proves my point, that it is irrational. Thank you!

I feel like we're not speaking the same language, or you're purposely ignoring me when I say that people are complex and that belief in God who isn't proved or disproved doesn't negate their ability to be reasonable, understanding, rational people. Do you not hold space for people to be more than one thing? Or do we all just have room to be one-dimensional?

1. “Rational” and “irrational” are an exact dichotomy. 2. Belief in the supernatural is irrational because even the most strident admit there is scant actual evidence for it. 3. Therefore anyone who believes in the supernatural is irrational, on that subject anyway.

What part of that do you disagree with? 1, 2, 3, or more?

I have asked (upstream) what evidence for the supernatural would be acceptable and was met with silence, so I’ll ask again.

I have no idea what would be acceptable, and if there is no supernatural than the very question is preposterous. You are making the claim there is one, so show evidence, or admit it is an irrational belief by the definition you posted.

Then how can someone provide evidence if you don’t know what you’re looking for? I’ve dropped a couple of clues (the existence of other minds, the existence of human rights) of things we accept as true but can’t be proven rationally. Care to take a stab?

This is a perfect example of being illogical and irrational.

You are making the claim, you need to provide the evidence. That's how it works.

As for your other "examples", well I am sorry if this offends, but those are just stupid. Your examples are concepts and ideas, like "human rights" which by definition exist because we think them. And if you are hiding your silly god belief behind the problem of hard solipsism, well than that is also stupid because unless we agree we are in reality then ANY position is invalid. One of the worst arguments ever as it is completely self-defeating. If you can't know anything, then stop pretending you know there's a god!

+1. As I’ve heard said: if god were real and wanted me to know he existed , then certainly HE would know what it would take to make me believe . Not to mention, people don’t just decide to believe. They have to become convinced and I find nothing that would convince me . In reality , no one becomes convinced for any reason that can’t be explained by either indoctrination as a vulnerable child that will believe literally anything they are told, or an emotional reason at another time in their life .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any normal, rational person with any critical thinking skills is atheist,

I think what some of you are objecting to is those who are anti-theist. I don’t like them either — unless they can make the case what harm does religious belief do?

Thank you for this example of judgemental atheists on this forum. I know plenty of "normal, rational" people who are not atheist. There's so much black-and-white and Evangelical-Christian-focused on this forum.

Are they rational when it comes to the question of the supernatural?

Please demonstrate the evidence for that claim you are making.

I can't prove God's existence, but God's existence isn't disproven either. So it's not irrational to believe in God anymore than it's irrational to declare definitively that God doesn't exist. Your claim might be more defensible if you were talking about agnostics. But, regardless, there are many reasons beyond belief in God that someone might be religious - community, values, meaning/purpose, etc.

It is irrational to make a claim for which there is no supporting evidence.

That is essentially the DEFINITION of "irrational".

Actually, the definition of irrational is:
"not rational: such as
a (1) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence
(2) : not endowed with reason or understanding
b: not governed by or according to reason"

Plenty of religious people have perfectly fine mental clarity and coherence. The world is not black and white. People are complex. Insisting that anyone who is religious must therefore lack critical thinking skills is ignorant and reductionist. It's this kind of atheist mindset all over this forum that paints all atheists as narrow-minded and angry. Which is not to say that there aren't angry, narrow-minded religious folks on here as well.

Mostly, to get back to OP's point, people on this forum too often paint with a broad brush in ways that only showcase their own ignorance of others and of human nature in general. There is rarely compassionate, open discussion on here. It's always "gotcha" comments and accusations. The internet isn't really built for compassionate, open dialogue; it's so much easier to just be nasty to each other.

“Not endowed with reason or understanding”. Your post proves my point, that it is irrational. Thank you!

I feel like we're not speaking the same language, or you're purposely ignoring me when I say that people are complex and that belief in God who isn't proved or disproved doesn't negate their ability to be reasonable, understanding, rational people. Do you not hold space for people to be more than one thing? Or do we all just have room to be one-dimensional?

1. “Rational” and “irrational” are an exact dichotomy. 2. Belief in the supernatural is irrational because even the most strident admit there is scant actual evidence for it. 3. Therefore anyone who believes in the supernatural is irrational, on that subject anyway.

What part of that do you disagree with? 1, 2, 3, or more?

I have asked (upstream) what evidence for the supernatural would be acceptable and was met with silence, so I’ll ask again.

I have no idea what would be acceptable, and if there is no supernatural than the very question is preposterous. You are making the claim there is one, so show evidence, or admit it is an irrational belief by the definition you posted.

Then how can someone provide evidence if you don’t know what you’re looking for? I’ve dropped a couple of clues (the existence of other minds, the existence of human rights) of things we accept as true but can’t be proven rationally. Care to take a stab?

This is a perfect example of being illogical and irrational.

You are making the claim, you need to provide the evidence. That's how it works.

As for your other "examples", well I am sorry if this offends, but those are just stupid. Your examples are concepts and ideas, like "human rights" which by definition exist because we think them. And if you are hiding your silly god belief behind the problem of hard solipsism, well than that is also stupid because unless we agree we are in reality then ANY position is invalid. One of the worst arguments ever as it is completely self-defeating. If you can't know anything, then stop pretending you know there's a god!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any normal, rational person with any critical thinking skills is atheist,

I think what some of you are objecting to is those who are anti-theist. I don’t like them either — unless they can make the case what harm does religious belief do?

Thank you for this example of judgemental atheists on this forum. I know plenty of "normal, rational" people who are not atheist. There's so much black-and-white and Evangelical-Christian-focused on this forum.

Are they rational when it comes to the question of the supernatural?

Please demonstrate the evidence for that claim you are making.

I can't prove God's existence, but God's existence isn't disproven either. So it's not irrational to believe in God anymore than it's irrational to declare definitively that God doesn't exist. Your claim might be more defensible if you were talking about agnostics. But, regardless, there are many reasons beyond belief in God that someone might be religious - community, values, meaning/purpose, etc.

It is irrational to make a claim for which there is no supporting evidence.

That is essentially the DEFINITION of "irrational".

Actually, the definition of irrational is:
"not rational: such as
a (1) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence
(2) : not endowed with reason or understanding
b: not governed by or according to reason"

Plenty of religious people have perfectly fine mental clarity and coherence. The world is not black and white. People are complex. Insisting that anyone who is religious must therefore lack critical thinking skills is ignorant and reductionist. It's this kind of atheist mindset all over this forum that paints all atheists as narrow-minded and angry. Which is not to say that there aren't angry, narrow-minded religious folks on here as well.

Mostly, to get back to OP's point, people on this forum too often paint with a broad brush in ways that only showcase their own ignorance of others and of human nature in general. There is rarely compassionate, open discussion on here. It's always "gotcha" comments and accusations. The internet isn't really built for compassionate, open dialogue; it's so much easier to just be nasty to each other.

“Not endowed with reason or understanding”. Your post proves my point, that it is irrational. Thank you!

I feel like we're not speaking the same language, or you're purposely ignoring me when I say that people are complex and that belief in God who isn't proved or disproved doesn't negate their ability to be reasonable, understanding, rational people. Do you not hold space for people to be more than one thing? Or do we all just have room to be one-dimensional?

1. “Rational” and “irrational” are an exact dichotomy. 2. Belief in the supernatural is irrational because even the most strident admit there is scant actual evidence for it. 3. Therefore anyone who believes in the supernatural is irrational, on that subject anyway.

What part of that do you disagree with? 1, 2, 3, or more?

I have asked (upstream) what evidence for the supernatural would be acceptable and was met with silence, so I’ll ask again.

I have no idea what would be acceptable, and if there is no supernatural than the very question is preposterous. You are making the claim there is one, so show evidence, or admit it is an irrational belief by the definition you posted.

Then how can someone provide evidence if you don’t know what you’re looking for? I’ve dropped a couple of clues (the existence of other minds, the existence of human rights) of things we accept as true but can’t be proven rationally. Care to take a stab?

It's on the person making the outlandish crazy claim to qualify their "fact" (opinion). Not the other way around. You are being disingenuous by asking atheists to prove your theory for you.

You appear to be operating under the doctrine of logical positivism (i.e., a doctrine in philosophy which asserts that a statement is meaningful only if it is either empirically verifiable (Wikipedia definition)), which has been long been deemed indefensible.

Oy. Only someone lacking rational thought would quote wikipedia LOL. Makes sense for you though.

Do you have a better definition, or are you just flailing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any normal, rational person with any critical thinking skills is atheist,

I think what some of you are objecting to is those who are anti-theist. I don’t like them either — unless they can make the case what harm does religious belief do?

Thank you for this example of judgemental atheists on this forum. I know plenty of "normal, rational" people who are not atheist. There's so much black-and-white and Evangelical-Christian-focused on this forum.

Are they rational when it comes to the question of the supernatural?

Please demonstrate the evidence for that claim you are making.

I can't prove God's existence, but God's existence isn't disproven either. So it's not irrational to believe in God anymore than it's irrational to declare definitively that God doesn't exist. Your claim might be more defensible if you were talking about agnostics. But, regardless, there are many reasons beyond belief in God that someone might be religious - community, values, meaning/purpose, etc.

It is irrational to make a claim for which there is no supporting evidence.

That is essentially the DEFINITION of "irrational".

Actually, the definition of irrational is:
"not rational: such as
a (1) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence
(2) : not endowed with reason or understanding
b: not governed by or according to reason"

Plenty of religious people have perfectly fine mental clarity and coherence. The world is not black and white. People are complex. Insisting that anyone who is religious must therefore lack critical thinking skills is ignorant and reductionist. It's this kind of atheist mindset all over this forum that paints all atheists as narrow-minded and angry. Which is not to say that there aren't angry, narrow-minded religious folks on here as well.

Mostly, to get back to OP's point, people on this forum too often paint with a broad brush in ways that only showcase their own ignorance of others and of human nature in general. There is rarely compassionate, open discussion on here. It's always "gotcha" comments and accusations. The internet isn't really built for compassionate, open dialogue; it's so much easier to just be nasty to each other.

“Not endowed with reason or understanding”. Your post proves my point, that it is irrational. Thank you!

I feel like we're not speaking the same language, or you're purposely ignoring me when I say that people are complex and that belief in God who isn't proved or disproved doesn't negate their ability to be reasonable, understanding, rational people. Do you not hold space for people to be more than one thing? Or do we all just have room to be one-dimensional?

1. “Rational” and “irrational” are an exact dichotomy. 2. Belief in the supernatural is irrational because even the most strident admit there is scant actual evidence for it. 3. Therefore anyone who believes in the supernatural is irrational, on that subject anyway.

What part of that do you disagree with? 1, 2, 3, or more?

I have asked (upstream) what evidence for the supernatural would be acceptable and was met with silence, so I’ll ask again.

I have no idea what would be acceptable, and if there is no supernatural than the very question is preposterous. You are making the claim there is one, so show evidence, or admit it is an irrational belief by the definition you posted.

Then how can someone provide evidence if you don’t know what you’re looking for? I’ve dropped a couple of clues (the existence of other minds, the existence of human rights) of things we accept as true but can’t be proven rationally. Care to take a stab?

It's on the person making the outlandish crazy claim to qualify their "fact" (opinion). Not the other way around. You are being disingenuous by asking atheists to prove your theory for you.

You appear to be operating under the doctrine of logical positivism (i.e., a doctrine in philosophy which asserts that a statement is meaningful only if it is either empirically verifiable (Wikipedia definition)), which has been long been deemed indefensible.

Oy. Only someone lacking rational thought would quote wikipedia LOL. Makes sense for you though.

Do you have a better definition, or are you just flailing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any normal, rational person with any critical thinking skills is atheist,

I think what some of you are objecting to is those who are anti-theist. I don’t like them either — unless they can make the case what harm does religious belief do?

Thank you for this example of judgemental atheists on this forum. I know plenty of "normal, rational" people who are not atheist. There's so much black-and-white and Evangelical-Christian-focused on this forum.

Are they rational when it comes to the question of the supernatural?

Please demonstrate the evidence for that claim you are making.

I can't prove God's existence, but God's existence isn't disproven either. So it's not irrational to believe in God anymore than it's irrational to declare definitively that God doesn't exist. Your claim might be more defensible if you were talking about agnostics. But, regardless, there are many reasons beyond belief in God that someone might be religious - community, values, meaning/purpose, etc.

It is irrational to make a claim for which there is no supporting evidence.

That is essentially the DEFINITION of "irrational".

Actually, the definition of irrational is:
"not rational: such as
a (1) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence
(2) : not endowed with reason or understanding
b: not governed by or according to reason"

Plenty of religious people have perfectly fine mental clarity and coherence. The world is not black and white. People are complex. Insisting that anyone who is religious must therefore lack critical thinking skills is ignorant and reductionist. It's this kind of atheist mindset all over this forum that paints all atheists as narrow-minded and angry. Which is not to say that there aren't angry, narrow-minded religious folks on here as well.

Mostly, to get back to OP's point, people on this forum too often paint with a broad brush in ways that only showcase their own ignorance of others and of human nature in general. There is rarely compassionate, open discussion on here. It's always "gotcha" comments and accusations. The internet isn't really built for compassionate, open dialogue; it's so much easier to just be nasty to each other.

“Not endowed with reason or understanding”. Your post proves my point, that it is irrational. Thank you!

I feel like we're not speaking the same language, or you're purposely ignoring me when I say that people are complex and that belief in God who isn't proved or disproved doesn't negate their ability to be reasonable, understanding, rational people. Do you not hold space for people to be more than one thing? Or do we all just have room to be one-dimensional?

1. “Rational” and “irrational” are an exact dichotomy. 2. Belief in the supernatural is irrational because even the most strident admit there is scant actual evidence for it. 3. Therefore anyone who believes in the supernatural is irrational, on that subject anyway.

What part of that do you disagree with? 1, 2, 3, or more?

I have asked (upstream) what evidence for the supernatural would be acceptable and was met with silence, so I’ll ask again.

I have no idea what would be acceptable, and if there is no supernatural than the very question is preposterous. You are making the claim there is one, so show evidence, or admit it is an irrational belief by the definition you posted.

Then how can someone provide evidence if you don’t know what you’re looking for? I’ve dropped a couple of clues (the existence of other minds, the existence of human rights) of things we accept as true but can’t be proven rationally. Care to take a stab?

It's on the person making the outlandish crazy claim to qualify their "fact" (opinion). Not the other way around. You are being disingenuous by asking atheists to prove your theory for you.

You appear to be operating under the doctrine of logical positivism (i.e., a doctrine in philosophy which asserts that a statement is meaningful only if it is either empirically verifiable (Wikipedia definition)), which has been long been deemed indefensible.

Oy. Only someone lacking rational thought would quote wikipedia LOL. Makes sense for you though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any normal, rational person with any critical thinking skills is atheist,

I think what some of you are objecting to is those who are anti-theist. I don’t like them either — unless they can make the case what harm does religious belief do?

Thank you for this example of judgemental atheists on this forum. I know plenty of "normal, rational" people who are not atheist. There's so much black-and-white and Evangelical-Christian-focused on this forum.

Are they rational when it comes to the question of the supernatural?

Please demonstrate the evidence for that claim you are making.

I can't prove God's existence, but God's existence isn't disproven either. So it's not irrational to believe in God anymore than it's irrational to declare definitively that God doesn't exist. Your claim might be more defensible if you were talking about agnostics. But, regardless, there are many reasons beyond belief in God that someone might be religious - community, values, meaning/purpose, etc.

It is irrational to make a claim for which there is no supporting evidence.

That is essentially the DEFINITION of "irrational".

Actually, the definition of irrational is:
"not rational: such as
a (1) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence
(2) : not endowed with reason or understanding
b: not governed by or according to reason"

Plenty of religious people have perfectly fine mental clarity and coherence. The world is not black and white. People are complex. Insisting that anyone who is religious must therefore lack critical thinking skills is ignorant and reductionist. It's this kind of atheist mindset all over this forum that paints all atheists as narrow-minded and angry. Which is not to say that there aren't angry, narrow-minded religious folks on here as well.

Mostly, to get back to OP's point, people on this forum too often paint with a broad brush in ways that only showcase their own ignorance of others and of human nature in general. There is rarely compassionate, open discussion on here. It's always "gotcha" comments and accusations. The internet isn't really built for compassionate, open dialogue; it's so much easier to just be nasty to each other.

“Not endowed with reason or understanding”. Your post proves my point, that it is irrational. Thank you!

I feel like we're not speaking the same language, or you're purposely ignoring me when I say that people are complex and that belief in God who isn't proved or disproved doesn't negate their ability to be reasonable, understanding, rational people. Do you not hold space for people to be more than one thing? Or do we all just have room to be one-dimensional?

1. “Rational” and “irrational” are an exact dichotomy. 2. Belief in the supernatural is irrational because even the most strident admit there is scant actual evidence for it. 3. Therefore anyone who believes in the supernatural is irrational, on that subject anyway.

What part of that do you disagree with? 1, 2, 3, or more?

I have asked (upstream) what evidence for the supernatural would be acceptable and was met with silence, so I’ll ask again.

I have no idea what would be acceptable, and if there is no supernatural than the very question is preposterous. You are making the claim there is one, so show evidence, or admit it is an irrational belief by the definition you posted.

Then how can someone provide evidence if you don’t know what you’re looking for? I’ve dropped a couple of clues (the existence of other minds, the existence of human rights) of things we accept as true but can’t be proven rationally. Care to take a stab?

It's on the person making the outlandish crazy claim to qualify their "fact" (opinion). Not the other way around. You are being disingenuous by asking atheists to prove your theory for you.

You appear to be operating under the doctrine of logical positivism (i.e., a doctrine in philosophy which asserts that a statement is meaningful only if it is either empirically verifiable (Wikipedia definition)), which has been long been deemed indefensible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any normal, rational person with any critical thinking skills is atheist,

I think what some of you are objecting to is those who are anti-theist. I don’t like them either — unless they can make the case what harm does religious belief do?

Thank you for this example of judgemental atheists on this forum. I know plenty of "normal, rational" people who are not atheist. There's so much black-and-white and Evangelical-Christian-focused on this forum.

Are they rational when it comes to the question of the supernatural?

Please demonstrate the evidence for that claim you are making.

I can't prove God's existence, but God's existence isn't disproven either. So it's not irrational to believe in God anymore than it's irrational to declare definitively that God doesn't exist. Your claim might be more defensible if you were talking about agnostics. But, regardless, there are many reasons beyond belief in God that someone might be religious - community, values, meaning/purpose, etc.

It is irrational to make a claim for which there is no supporting evidence.

That is essentially the DEFINITION of "irrational".

Actually, the definition of irrational is:
"not rational: such as
a (1) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence
(2) : not endowed with reason or understanding
b: not governed by or according to reason"

Plenty of religious people have perfectly fine mental clarity and coherence. The world is not black and white. People are complex. Insisting that anyone who is religious must therefore lack critical thinking skills is ignorant and reductionist. It's this kind of atheist mindset all over this forum that paints all atheists as narrow-minded and angry. Which is not to say that there aren't angry, narrow-minded religious folks on here as well.

Mostly, to get back to OP's point, people on this forum too often paint with a broad brush in ways that only showcase their own ignorance of others and of human nature in general. There is rarely compassionate, open discussion on here. It's always "gotcha" comments and accusations. The internet isn't really built for compassionate, open dialogue; it's so much easier to just be nasty to each other.

PP doesn’t sound “angry” at all. She was simply pointing out that some people don’t use facts/reason all of the time.

Nothing about supernatural forces is rational.

She didn't qualify her statement with anything about "all the time." PP's statement was that "normal, rational people with critical thinking skills are atheist," implying that anyone who is not atheist must also not be normal, rational or having critical thinking skills. It's unnecessarily judgmental. Maybe I'm wrong about them being "angry" but it certainly comes across that way to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any normal, rational person with any critical thinking skills is atheist,

I think what some of you are objecting to is those who are anti-theist. I don’t like them either — unless they can make the case what harm does religious belief do?

Thank you for this example of judgemental atheists on this forum. I know plenty of "normal, rational" people who are not atheist. There's so much black-and-white and Evangelical-Christian-focused on this forum.

Are they rational when it comes to the question of the supernatural?

Please demonstrate the evidence for that claim you are making.

I can't prove God's existence, but God's existence isn't disproven either. So it's not irrational to believe in God anymore than it's irrational to declare definitively that God doesn't exist. Your claim might be more defensible if you were talking about agnostics. But, regardless, there are many reasons beyond belief in God that someone might be religious - community, values, meaning/purpose, etc.

It is irrational to make a claim for which there is no supporting evidence.

That is essentially the DEFINITION of "irrational".

Actually, the definition of irrational is:
"not rational: such as
a (1) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence
(2) : not endowed with reason or understanding
b: not governed by or according to reason"

Plenty of religious people have perfectly fine mental clarity and coherence. The world is not black and white. People are complex. Insisting that anyone who is religious must therefore lack critical thinking skills is ignorant and reductionist. It's this kind of atheist mindset all over this forum that paints all atheists as narrow-minded and angry. Which is not to say that there aren't angry, narrow-minded religious folks on here as well.

Mostly, to get back to OP's point, people on this forum too often paint with a broad brush in ways that only showcase their own ignorance of others and of human nature in general. There is rarely compassionate, open discussion on here. It's always "gotcha" comments and accusations. The internet isn't really built for compassionate, open dialogue; it's so much easier to just be nasty to each other.

“Not endowed with reason or understanding”. Your post proves my point, that it is irrational. Thank you!

I feel like we're not speaking the same language, or you're purposely ignoring me when I say that people are complex and that belief in God who isn't proved or disproved doesn't negate their ability to be reasonable, understanding, rational people. Do you not hold space for people to be more than one thing? Or do we all just have room to be one-dimensional?

1. “Rational” and “irrational” are an exact dichotomy. 2. Belief in the supernatural is irrational because even the most strident admit there is scant actual evidence for it. 3. Therefore anyone who believes in the supernatural is irrational, on that subject anyway.

What part of that do you disagree with? 1, 2, 3, or more?

I have asked (upstream) what evidence for the supernatural would be acceptable and was met with silence, so I’ll ask again.

I have no idea what would be acceptable, and if there is no supernatural than the very question is preposterous. You are making the claim there is one, so show evidence, or admit it is an irrational belief by the definition you posted.

Then how can someone provide evidence if you don’t know what you’re looking for? I’ve dropped a couple of clues (the existence of other minds, the existence of human rights) of things we accept as true but can’t be proven rationally. Care to take a stab?

Other minds and human rights are not supernatural.

+1