I think it's a valid comparison. The Loch Ness monster seems to be a creature of myth. Perfectly rational people believe they have seen Nessy, but there is little if any empirical evidence to support the existence of the Nessy. It is equally hard to prove that God does not exist as it is to prove that Nessy does not exist.
As I suggested earlier, the flaw of the game is that it presupposes that faith is not rational. Pure faith can be a rational response to ones environment. You need not be crazy or stupid to have faith. And since all things that cannot be proven one way another (such as the existence or lack of existence of God or Nessy) are matters of faith, to say that faith is irrational is to say that all people are irrational, because all people, at the end of the day, base their ultimate beliefs about God on faith. If all people are irrational, than the statements of none can be trusted. But since we can observe that some people are rational, and since all people have faith, and since in rational people, their faith is founded on some sort of reasonable response to experience, then we must conclude that faith is rational. It is the proclamation of a lack of faith that is irrational because the person who proclaims a lack of faith is denying all evidence to the contrary that he cannot disprove the existence of God. H. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 12:37 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Battleground God Damn that Loch Ness monster...I bit a bullet there. I think they should have chosen a less real world example. You really can't compare God and the Loch Ness monster imo :) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I played the game. I got to question 14 before taking a hit. I took two hits > and had to bite the bullet once. Here's my response to those hits: > > > > The question was: > "As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God > does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality." > > And I took a hit with this statement: > > "Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness > monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument > that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the > monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now > you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
