Hey Chuck, So you claim to be a rational creature, does this mean that all that you belive to be true has no basis in faith at all?
On Apr 26, 1:28 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > Of several definitions fromhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/faiththis one > seems most relevant to the discussion: > > Faith - "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." > > Andhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/rationality > > Rationality - "the possession or utilization of reason or logic" > > Rationality is a methodology. It is a technique used to link a set of > concepts together in a logical way in order to produce a reasoned > conclusion. Rationality is based in boolean logic. I.e., if A is true and B > is true then A and B are true. If A is false or B is false then A and B are > false. These are simple rules that have a foundation in well reasoned > arguments. > > Faith circumvents the rational methodology. In a faith based argument A can > be true while B can be false. Yet A and B can still be true. > > I never said that the argument was simple nor did I say that rationality and > faith are mutually exclusive. You can have any number of beliefs based > purely on well reasoned arguments and any number of beliefs based purely on > faith. But, due to its mutability, you can also have faith based beliefs > that violate the rules of a rational argument. > > Theism and atheism both violate the rules of a rational argument in that > they do not require that all predicates of the statement be true in order > for the conclusion to be true. > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:35 AM, [email protected] < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > I would argue that one Chuk. > > > Faith can be rational and ones ratioanlity can be grounded in faith. > > > I find it very hard to accept this or that mentalty. Nothing is ever > > as simple as A, if not A then B. what of C,D,E,F and G? > > > I reiterate that none of us are wholey rational and devoid of faith. > > > On Apr 25, 4:48 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > As an agnostic I have to reject this argument. > > > > First, agnostics don't make any statements. They invite both theists and > > > atheists to argue their views. Any real agnostic will allow himself to be > > > swayed to one viewpoint or the other if the argument in favor is > > rational. > > > So far, I have found no argument from either side that is sufficiently > > > rational to sway my view. > > > > The relevant views aren't theism vs. atheism. They are rationality vs. > > > faith. > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 1:17 AM, malcymo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It seems to me that of the three main competing stances, theism, > > > > atheism > > > > and agnostisism, that the first two must be based on faith because to > > > > know > > > > whether or not there is a god is such. Agnosticism is simply a > > > > statement of what we all know and hence irrelevent and not at all > > > > useful. > > > > > It seems that theists and atheists spend a lot of time disputing the > > > > autheticity of their equally untenable positions. > > > > > Would it not be more useful to make rational comparisons > > > > between theist gangs and secular gangs and then choose to join those > > > > which are deemed to be the least damaging. This, of course, would > > > > need to be a carefully defined study but perhaps worthwhile in that > > > > it > > > > would enable us to establish what is a useful or relevant gang and > > > > whether or not it is likely to be > > > > kept useful or relevant. You see, I am not sure how to keep democratic > > > > gangs > > > > useful. I LEAVE YOU TO DEFINE USEFUL OR RELEVANT. > > > > > Happy Easter to you all. Here in New Zealand this Easter Monday > > > > coincides with ANZAC day. > > > > > Kind regards all.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
