Amazon Refund...does It Exist?
How it Works4 mins ago
Reason
142 Answers
If an atheist is asked why he has no belief in a supernatural God, he will usually offer a rational reason, but if a believer is asked why he believes in a supernatural god, he has no rational reason at all. How can anyone believe anything without reason?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@Ellipsis
"So what do we have?
* Poisoning the well
* Straw man argument
* Argument from ignorance
* Argument from incredulity"
This is your take on the arguments and discussion as presented here.It would be helpful when making such assertions to offer examples of each of the logical fallacies you claim to be able to see. Assertion without example is meaningless.
Your argument that agnosticism is more rational than atheism hinges on the supposition that the presence or absence of a supernatural deity is equally probable and equally unknowable - but to arrive at such a conclusion, one might suppose that you weighed the evidence presented for each position - and therein lies the problem, because the theistic position can offer no evidence in support of a god as commonly portrayed by the major religions.Given the lack of evidence, how can one rationally arrive at the conclusion that the idea of a theistic universe has any merit?. The 2 alternatives are simply not equal, and it is far more reasonable to conclude that we live in a naturalistic universe than one with created by a supernatural deity.
When pressed, your response is to assert that man is too dumb to recognise the evidence - oh, and throw out the smokescreen of a list of alleged logical fallacies. If you felt the OP was unfairly slanted, it would have carried greater weight had you pointed that out at the start, rather than 100 posts in.
Faith, almost by definition, is irrational......
"So what do we have?
* Poisoning the well
* Straw man argument
* Argument from ignorance
* Argument from incredulity"
This is your take on the arguments and discussion as presented here.It would be helpful when making such assertions to offer examples of each of the logical fallacies you claim to be able to see. Assertion without example is meaningless.
Your argument that agnosticism is more rational than atheism hinges on the supposition that the presence or absence of a supernatural deity is equally probable and equally unknowable - but to arrive at such a conclusion, one might suppose that you weighed the evidence presented for each position - and therein lies the problem, because the theistic position can offer no evidence in support of a god as commonly portrayed by the major religions.Given the lack of evidence, how can one rationally arrive at the conclusion that the idea of a theistic universe has any merit?. The 2 alternatives are simply not equal, and it is far more reasonable to conclude that we live in a naturalistic universe than one with created by a supernatural deity.
When pressed, your response is to assert that man is too dumb to recognise the evidence - oh, and throw out the smokescreen of a list of alleged logical fallacies. If you felt the OP was unfairly slanted, it would have carried greater weight had you pointed that out at the start, rather than 100 posts in.
Faith, almost by definition, is irrational......
Latest Posts
Technology6 mins ago
Sunday Express Skeleton 12Th May
Crosswords7 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
