ZZZ,
âOn past form, I not optimistic. Doubtless you'll give a fatuous retort .ââ
Youâre consistent and therefore, predictable.
On all questions you are evasive: how do we measure the intangible? Your reply: "How tangible is love". Your response to a question is always an irrelevant question. If it was relevant, we may the have the beginnings of dialectic (but then you would really be in shit street, wouldnât you).
âBelief is not at all irrational, it is the component we use to â¦live daily lifeâ. We conduct our lives on rational/logical expectations. To use your example of driving, if I put the gear into reverse, it is a rational expectation that it will not go forward. If I travel to work in the morning by the usual route, it is a rational assumption that my place of work will be in the same place as previously.
âSuspension of reason â¦does not necessarily result in false conclusionsâ What kind of conclusions do result?
You evade the question by an irrelevant reference to aesthetics. What conclusions can be made?
I agree there is a difference between the reasonable and pure rationality. We can only make decisions based on the information and knowledge we have, which may be incomplete. However, even decisions based on incomplete knowledge should have a rational basis. I am ignorant of the expansion of gases but I can still drive my car on rational expectations.
All choice is rational. If your choices are not rational, on what basis are they made. Divine guidance?
âtheir are faculties that bring truth that are not intellectual or empirical in nature.â Give an example. I think Iâve made my position on the limits of empiricism clear. You are trying to justify your total lack of intellectual credibility.
â...no atheist has shown that God is a false conclusionâ Again, my question: So whatâs the original premise?
Your reply: âThe premise is that atheists practice faith in non God much in the same way theists practice faith in God.â You present this as a syllogism â it isnât ; your reply doesnât logically follow.
My question: Can you give a rational basis for Godâs existence?
Your (evasive) reply: âAssumption of non God is irrational.â No, you canât give a rational basis. Your reply is nonsensical in relation to my question. We know that believers become non-believers, and non-believers become believers. Now, as a non-believer, tell me how I could believe? I am open-minded (though doubtless you will question this) - I can discern contingent from universal truths.
You keep going on about âpractisingâ an atheistic faith. Disbelief or rejection of theism doesnât require a conscious and deliberate effort. I donât believe in Santa Claus, fairies, unicorns, Allah, Persephone, Woden, etc
Do I need to go through an active process of affirmation of disbelief?
âI have no need to "study" someone else's theology.â Your theology is obviously self-taught.
âMore claims intellectual superiority, which is typical of the atheists...â The Church fathers which can teach you nothing, may not have made claims for themselves, but it is evident even to an atheist as myself. You have no claim to intellectual legitimacy, and lack intellectual integrity. You are intellectually barren and bankrupt.
Opponents should enjoy the cut-and-thrust of lively debate. Iâm not wasting anymore time and energy on you â Iâll just pissing in the wind..
Sophistry? You canât even aspire to mediocrity. Do you know what an epistemological anarchist is?
Grant
âOn past form, I not optimistic. Doubtless you'll give a fatuous retort .ââ
Youâre consistent and therefore, predictable.
On all questions you are evasive: how do we measure the intangible? Your reply: "How tangible is love". Your response to a question is always an irrelevant question. If it was relevant, we may the have the beginnings of dialectic (but then you would really be in shit street, wouldnât you).
âBelief is not at all irrational, it is the component we use to â¦live daily lifeâ. We conduct our lives on rational/logical expectations. To use your example of driving, if I put the gear into reverse, it is a rational expectation that it will not go forward. If I travel to work in the morning by the usual route, it is a rational assumption that my place of work will be in the same place as previously.
âSuspension of reason â¦does not necessarily result in false conclusionsâ What kind of conclusions do result?
You evade the question by an irrelevant reference to aesthetics. What conclusions can be made?
I agree there is a difference between the reasonable and pure rationality. We can only make decisions based on the information and knowledge we have, which may be incomplete. However, even decisions based on incomplete knowledge should have a rational basis. I am ignorant of the expansion of gases but I can still drive my car on rational expectations.
All choice is rational. If your choices are not rational, on what basis are they made. Divine guidance?
âtheir are faculties that bring truth that are not intellectual or empirical in nature.â Give an example. I think Iâve made my position on the limits of empiricism clear. You are trying to justify your total lack of intellectual credibility.
â...no atheist has shown that God is a false conclusionâ Again, my question: So whatâs the original premise?
Your reply: âThe premise is that atheists practice faith in non God much in the same way theists practice faith in God.â You present this as a syllogism â it isnât ; your reply doesnât logically follow.
My question: Can you give a rational basis for Godâs existence?
Your (evasive) reply: âAssumption of non God is irrational.â No, you canât give a rational basis. Your reply is nonsensical in relation to my question. We know that believers become non-believers, and non-believers become believers. Now, as a non-believer, tell me how I could believe? I am open-minded (though doubtless you will question this) - I can discern contingent from universal truths.
You keep going on about âpractisingâ an atheistic faith. Disbelief or rejection of theism doesnât require a conscious and deliberate effort. I donât believe in Santa Claus, fairies, unicorns, Allah, Persephone, Woden, etc
Do I need to go through an active process of affirmation of disbelief?
âI have no need to "study" someone else's theology.â Your theology is obviously self-taught.
âMore claims intellectual superiority, which is typical of the atheists...â The Church fathers which can teach you nothing, may not have made claims for themselves, but it is evident even to an atheist as myself. You have no claim to intellectual legitimacy, and lack intellectual integrity. You are intellectually barren and bankrupt.
Opponents should enjoy the cut-and-thrust of lively debate. Iâm not wasting anymore time and energy on you â Iâll just pissing in the wind..
Sophistry? You canât even aspire to mediocrity. Do you know what an epistemological anarchist is?
Grant
