Is Theism more RATIONAL than Non-Theism?

[Zzyzx]

.
In several current threads an Apologist argues that Theism is as rational as, or more rational than, Non-Theism. Let's address that issue directly.

Definitions:

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

Non-Theism: without belief in the existence of a god or gods

Rational: of, relating to, or based upon reason

Inferior: of less importance, value, or merit


Questions for debate:

1) Is Theism AS RATIONAL as Non-Theism? Why?

2) Is Theism MORE RATIONAL than Non-Theism? Why?

3) Is Non-Theism inferior to Theism? Why?

[Goat]

.

Personally, I view someones argument that theism is more rational than non-theism as an attempt to discredit someones beliefs and a weak argument that really has no purpose in a debate. It makes him/her look like he/she is trying to be superior to help his arguments.

I agree 100% -- and trust that readers agree with you also.

If one has a strong position to present they need not make such weak "arguments", but should be willing to debate honestly and openly without resorting to word games, tactics, and maneuvering.

"Present your evidence and your conclusions for consideration by all, and let them stand or fall by their own merits."

I disagree. Here's why:

Your final statement says "present your evidence and your conclusions for consideration by all." This implies that the only way to establish the validity of a perspective is through empiricism. Thus, the statement implies already the superiority of the empiricist methods. Almost half the threads around here go something like this: "What is the evidence for __________."

When it comes to arriving at the truth, what method do you have to show that you speak the truth? What other method do you propose to show that what you claim is valid? If you don't have tangible evidence, what do you have that is something more than arguments from personal belief and word games?

If empiricism is touted as the only valid system of rationality, but Christianity is built on another system of rationality, every post by non-theists demanding an empiricist perspective implies that non-theism is more rational than theism.

How can a statement you can not demonstrate to be true be more rational? There are a vast number of beliefs that come along with various forms of Christianity that can empirically be shown to be false, such as the literal reading of Genesis. There are a number of incidences recorded in the New Testament that vast doubt can be placed on their veracity. How is it more rational to accept something that there is empirical evidence against?

The only way you can do that, is to dismiss empirical evidence.

The best response by a theist confronting a continued series of claims that non-theistic empiricism is more rational than the theistic perspective? Challenge the non-theist's implied claim to superiority of rationality. If theism can be rational, or even more rational than the non-theist, the superiority of empiricism can be abandoned and a more fruitful dialogue can commence.

Yes, the only way that a theist can respond is to give the personal opinion that 'Evidence doesn't matter', and then make unsupported claims. Then, there is a retreat to come up with 'logical proofs' that the assumptions are not provable, and therefore the conclusions are not sound. The lack of support for the original assumptions is attempted to be hidden in the use of doublespeak. Many theistic arguments sounds like they were generated by a post modern essay generator.

Would not the non-theist's demand for empiricism or nothing similarly be "an attempt to discredit someone's beliefs" by requiring and allowing only a particular rationality?

Not at all... there are a number of approaches to theism where that does not matter. I suggest you look on how Cnorman and Slopeshoulder approach their religious beliefs. Their theologies are different, yet they have a very similar approach to the way they believe. Their beliefs are what matters to them, on a personal level, and they don't feel the need claim their concepts are valid beyond them.

The biggest difference is they are not put off by requests for empirical data, because they are quite willing to admit that they don't have any. However, they do not demand that others accept what they believe as 'truth' either. Their religious beliefs are a personal spiritual journey. They do not insist their 'Truth' is for others. The requests for empirical data happens when someone makes a truth claim that they want to have others believe. What gets presented is arguments from personal beliefs, wordy ontological proofs whose premises are unsupported claims, and word games.

There are many aspects of religion that touch on areas that do not make demands that require empirical evidence, such as ethics, morals, and answering questions on 'How to live'. However, there are many claims that many theists have that deal with things that are 'truth claims', such as 'how did the world form', and 'how did man come to exist', and 'there is a life after death'. When it comes specifically to Christianity, there also is the truth claim 'If you don't believe what I believe, you are going to be punished eternally after death', and 'My beliefs are moral and dictated by God, so therefore it must be made law'.

When claims are made about the physical world, or the imposition of laws upon everyone else is made because of some people's personal beliefs, then the question of 'What evidence do you have' is very important.

The statement 'God created the world' is a truth claim that is about the empirical world. When a statement is made about the empirical world then empirical evidence is required for veracity.

[Cathar1950]

Of course I think it is theology that got the meanings or principles from mostly Greek words and meanings and they were using other theological ideas, sometimes such as Hebrew, and even they would be seen in experiences and God was developed from other gods. Like hiss questionable Christian creation of the person he wants to give theology credit for even the principle terms.

I cited books on the other thread, but those seem irrelevant to the reader of an online forum. Perhaps a digital source will help?

Prosopon (pronounced /ˈprɒsɵpɒn/[1] or /prɵˈsoʊpən/,[2] from Ancient Greek: π�όσωπον; plural: Ancient Greek: π�όσωπα - prosopa) is a technical term encountered in Greek theology. It is most often translated as "person", and as such is sometimes confused in translation with hypostasis, which is also translated as "person." Prosopon originally meant "face" or "mask" in Greek and derives from Greek theatre, in which actors on a stage wore masks to reveal their character and emotional state to the audience. Both prosopon and hypostasis played central roles in the development of theology about the Trinity and about Jesus Christ (Christology) in the debates of the fourth through seventh centuries.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopon

It seems that wikipedia agrees: in Greek, "propopon" originally meant "mask." In patristic theology it means "person." That's a shift in meaning.

The Cappadocian fathers were the first to link "hypostasis" (individual existence) with "prosopon" (originally mask) to develop the idea of a person as we know it today. I cited John Zizoulas' book Being as Communion which traces the historical origins of the word.

I want to give theology credit for what it has done, and nothing more. I have yet to see an acceptable response to my main arguments in the other thread. I still await the revisions to your final post to see what you have to say.

Trying to make the Trinity “rational�, Irrational are your words not ours, after the doctrine is like trying to close the barn door after the horses have left or trying to put them in the barn after it was already burning.

Rational or rationalizations, as it seems to me you are trying to make something look or feel rational after you already walked through the rational door.
The charge or irrational, your words not mine, has been raised long before the Christian reinvention of person.
How is both fully human and fully God is the door.
It seems the Christian Bishops and thinkers found themselves on the horns of a dilemma, one hand saying Jesus was a human sounded to Jewish and having another God sounded to pagan with all their gods, why limit it to two gods, or God?
They selected paradox over reason.
Theology is defined as the reasonable stuffy of God and by definition is reasonable or it is bad theology.
This doesn’t justify the unreasonableness of belief, it is after the fact.

I am trying to finish up on the Trinity thread as I wade though the fluff and devotional nature of the sermonized language and meanings as you try and redefine the terms with sentiment between imaginings of believers and projecting it backwards as if you were explaining what they were doing all along.

I will have to get back to this after I have finished the Trinity post.

[theopoesis]

.

Personally, I view someones argument that theism is more rational than non-theism as an attempt to discredit someones beliefs and a weak argument that really has no purpose in a debate. It makes him/her look like he/she is trying to be superior to help his arguments.

I agree 100% -- and trust that readers agree with you also.

If one has a strong position to present they need not make such weak "arguments", but should be willing to debate honestly and openly without resorting to word games, tactics, and maneuvering.

"Present your evidence and your conclusions for consideration by all, and let them stand or fall by their own merits."

I disagree. Here's why:

Your final statement says "present your evidence and your conclusions for consideration by all." This implies that the only way to establish the validity of a perspective is through empiricism. Thus, the statement implies already the superiority of the empiricist methods. Almost half the threads around here go something like this: "What is the evidence for __________."

When it comes to arriving at the truth, what method do you have to show that you speak the truth? What other method do you propose to show that what you claim is valid? If you don't have tangible evidence, what do you have that is something more than arguments from personal belief and word games?

Calling philosophical argumentation "words games" is pejorative and unproductive.

You might consider reading my discussions on the following threads as to the questions of epistemology that you raise:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=14573
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=15130

If empiricism is touted as the only valid system of rationality, but Christianity is built on another system of rationality, every post by non-theists demanding an empiricist perspective implies that non-theism is more rational than theism.

How can a statement you can not demonstrate to be true be more rational? There are a vast number of beliefs that come along with various forms of Christianity that can empirically be shown to be false, such as the literal reading of Genesis. There are a number of incidences recorded in the New Testament that vast doubt can be placed on their veracity. How is it more rational to accept something that there is empirical evidence against?

The only way you can do that, is to dismiss empirical evidence.

If you read the definition of rational offered by Zzyzx, you'll note there is no connection to truth. Something is "Rational" if it is "of or relating to reason." Reason is defined as: "the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences." Something can be rational, as cnorman has noted, without being true. Similarly, something can be irrational but true.

I would grant that some forms of theism are less rational than some forms of non-theism. Conversely, I have argued that some forms of non-theism are less rational than theism. Can you please address my arguments if you object to them?

The best response by a theist confronting a continued series of claims that non-theistic empiricism is more rational than the theistic perspective? Challenge the non-theist's implied claim to superiority of rationality. If theism can be rational, or even more rational than the non-theist, the superiority of empiricism can be abandoned and a more fruitful dialogue can commence.

Yes, the only way that a theist can respond is to give the personal opinion that 'Evidence doesn't matter', and then make unsupported claims. Then, there is a retreat to come up with 'logical proofs' that the assumptions are not provable, and therefore the conclusions are not sound. The lack of support for the original assumptions is attempted to be hidden in the use of doublespeak. Many theistic arguments sounds like they were generated by a post modern essay generator.

You have declared my premises "unsupported" but you have done nothing to demonstrate that. I welcome discussion on the threads posted above, or any direct challenge to my initial post in this thread. Am I to assume you can offer a stronger argument than "your definitions are distorted" when I took the definitions from a dictionary?

Would not the non-theist's demand for empiricism or nothing similarly be "an attempt to discredit someone's beliefs" by requiring and allowing only a particular rationality?

Not at all... there are a number of approaches to theism where that does not matter. I suggest you look on how Cnorman and Slopeshoulder approach their religious beliefs. Their theologies are different, yet they have a very similar approach to the way they believe. Their beliefs are what matters to them, on a personal level, and they don't feel the need claim their concepts are valid beyond them.

I cannot speak for cnorman, but slopeshoulder and I have had many personal discussions. I do not think I would be terribly incorrect to say that he is coming to agree with my epistemological perspective. You'd have t ask him.

Slopeshoulder's and Cnorman's perspective are all fine and well, but I am presenting my perspectives. Can you address the logic of my initial post, or can you simply express your preference for other's opinions over mine?

The biggest difference is they are not put off by requests for empirical data, because they are quite willing to admit that they don't have any. However, they do not demand that others accept what they believe as 'truth' either. Their religious beliefs are a personal spiritual journey. They do not insist their 'Truth' is for others. The requests for empirical data happens when someone makes a truth claim that they want to have others believe. What gets presented is arguments from personal beliefs, wordy ontological proofs whose premises are unsupported claims, and word games.

The initial premise of any system is necessarily and by definition unsupported (see the above definitions). I merely wish to show that non-theistic paradigms, such as evidentialism, are also derived from non-supported premises. Or, can you argue for an empiricist perspective without any unsubstantiated claims?

Perhaps we all only use word games, and Wittgenstein is correct. I just prefer chess to checkers.

There are many aspects of religion that touch on areas that do not make demands that require empirical evidence, such as ethics, morals, and answering questions on 'How to live'. However, there are many claims that many theists have that deal with things that are 'truth claims', such as 'how did the world form', and 'how did man come to exist', and 'there is a life after death'. When it comes specifically to Christianity, there also is the truth claim 'If you don't believe what I believe, you are going to be punished eternally after death', and 'My beliefs are moral and dictated by God, so therefore it must be made law'.

This assumes that only empirical things are true. Ethics (etc.) are therein reduced to non-truths. I object to this perspective.

It would seem that modern philosophy and cultural criticism interprets empiricism much in the way you interpret ethics. To eliminate ethics as being "true" would simultaneously suggest that empiricism cannot be "true."

When claims are made about the physical world, or the imposition of laws upon everyone else is made because of some people's personal beliefs, then the question of 'What evidence do you have' is very important.

The statement 'God created the world' is a truth claim that is about the empirical world. When a statement is made about the empirical world then empirical evidence is required for veracity.

By what logic do you reduce "the world" to the "empirical world"? It seems that you presuppose (i.e. apart from empirical evidence) that the world is only empirical.

[theopoesis]

Of course I think it is theology that got the meanings or principles from mostly Greek words and meanings and they were using other theological ideas, sometimes such as Hebrew, and even they would be seen in experiences and God was developed from other gods. Like hiss questionable Christian creation of the person he wants to give theology credit for even the principle terms.

I cited books on the other thread, but those seem irrelevant to the reader of an online forum. Perhaps a digital source will help?

Prosopon (pronounced /ˈprɒsɵpɒn/[1] or /prɵˈsoʊpən/,[2] from Ancient Greek: π�όσωπον; plural: Ancient Greek: π�όσωπα - prosopa) is a technical term encountered in Greek theology. It is most often translated as "person", and as such is sometimes confused in translation with hypostasis, which is also translated as "person." Prosopon originally meant "face" or "mask" in Greek and derives from Greek theatre, in which actors on a stage wore masks to reveal their character and emotional state to the audience. Both prosopon and hypostasis played central roles in the development of theology about the Trinity and about Jesus Christ (Christology) in the debates of the fourth through seventh centuries.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopon

It seems that wikipedia agrees: in Greek, "propopon" originally meant "mask." In patristic theology it means "person." That's a shift in meaning.

The Cappadocian fathers were the first to link "hypostasis" (individual existence) with "prosopon" (originally mask) to develop the idea of a person as we know it today. I cited John Zizoulas' book Being as Communion which traces the historical origins of the word.

I want to give theology credit for what it has done, and nothing more. I have yet to see an acceptable response to my main arguments in the other thread. I still await the revisions to your final post to see what you have to say.

Trying to make the Trinity “rational�, Irrational are your words not ours, after the doctrine is like trying to close the barn door after the horses have left or trying to put them in the barn after it was already burning.

Rational or rationalizations, as it seems to me you are trying to make something look or feel rational after you already walked through the rational door.
The charge or irrational, your words not mine, has been raised long before the Christian reinvention of person.
How is both fully human and fully God is the door.
It seems the Christian Bishops and thinkers found themselves on the horns of a dilemma, one hand saying Jesus was a human sounded to Jewish and having another God sounded to pagan with all their gods, why limit it to two gods, or God?
They selected paradox over reason.
Theology is defined as the reasonable stuffy of God and by definition is reasonable or it is bad theology.
This doesn’t justify the unreasonableness of belief, it is after the fact.

I am trying to finish up on the Trinity thread as I wade though the fluff and devotional nature of the sermonized language and meanings as you try and redefine the terms with sentiment between imaginings of believers and projecting it backwards as if you were explaining what they were doing all along.

I will have to get back to this after I have finished the Trinity post.

Perhaps you can edit this post when you return? I apologize, but I cannot follow your train of thought here.

[Flail]

.

I would say, once again, that the answers to these questions depends on what specific varieties or approaches of "theism" and "non-theism" we're talking about, and how one got there.

Perhaps I could have more clearly stated the issue as: Is the position "I believe in gods" more rational than the position "I do not believe in gods."?

Since there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of any 'God', since no one can demonstrate or point to any 'God', it is more reasonable to claim an absence of knowledge of 'God' than to claim having such knowledge. Since there is amble verifiable evidence as to 'mountains', on the other hand, it is more reasonable to claim knowledge of mountains than to claim otherwise.

God belief becomes ever more unreasonable when a particular, specific 'God' is proposed. The more narrow our un-evidenced guesses, the less likely they become...which is why Deism is more reasonable than Christianity, and why Ignosticism is most reasonable of all.

[Flail]

.

I would say, once again, that the answers to these questions depends on what specific varieties or approaches of "theism" and "non-theism" we're talking about, and how one got there.

Perhaps I could have more clearly stated the issue as: Is the position "I believe in gods" more rational than the position "I do not believe in gods."?

Since there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of any 'God', since no one can demonstrate or point to any 'God', it is more reasonable to claim an absence of knowledge of 'God' than to claim having such knowledge. Since there is amble verifiable evidence as to 'mountains', on the other hand, it is more reasonable to claim knowledge of mountains than to claim otherwise.

God belief becomes ever more unreasonable when a particular, specific 'God' is proposed. The more narrow our un-evidenced guesses, the less likely they become...which is why Deism is more reasonable than Christianity, and why Ignosticism is most reasonable and rational of all.

[Zzyzx]

.
Theo,

I appreciate your reasoned / thoughtful reply. We agree somewhat and disagree somewhat.

If one has a strong position to present they need not make such weak "arguments", but should be willing to debate honestly and openly without resorting to word games, tactics, and maneuvering.

"Present your evidence and your conclusions for consideration by all, and let them stand or fall by their own merits."

I disagree. Here's why:

Your final statement says "present your evidence and your conclusions for consideration by all." This implies that the only way to establish the validity of a perspective is through empiricism (i.e. through evidence).

As I use the term "evidence", it is with the meaning (as per Merriam Webster Dictionary) "something that furnishes or tends to furnish proof" of the matter being proposed or claim being made. It implies, "Show me that you speak truth" -- nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly what do you suggest in lieu of evidence to determine if a claim or statement is true?

If someone claims, in debate, "The cow jumped over the moon", how do you suggest determining if the claim is true? Would you NOT ask for reason to accept the claim (i.e., evidence of truth)?

If information from biology indicates that cows have limited jumping ability but the person claims "this one was special", would you accept the claim as truthful in spite of contrary indications? Would the same hold true if the person claimed that a dead body came back to life after days in the grave -- and said "this one was special"?

Thus, the statement implies already the superiority of the empiricist methods.

No, my statement asks for reason to believe what is presented. I, and others, will evaluate the merits of whatever substantiation is offered.

If empiricism is touted as the only valid system of rationality, but Christianity is built on another system of rationality

How is the request "show me that you speak truth" a claim of superiority?

Exactly what can be presented to show that Christian claims and stories are true?

To date what I have observed is largely:

I think so (or believe so)
He thinks so (or the book says so)
We've thought about what has been said and consider it credible
Great theologists, philosophers and scholars agree
If we assume that "god" exists then ____________ (fill in the blank)
It follows from the premises we have chosen to accept

every post by non-theists demanding an empiricist perspective implies that non-theism is more rational than theism.

Most posts by Theists seem to imply that Theism is more rational. Perhaps each of us considers our own position as more rational than contradictory positions.

The best response by a theist confronting a continued series of claims that non-theistic empiricism is more rational than the theistic perspective? Challenge the non-theist's implied claim to superiority of rationality.

In my opinion, the best response by a Theist would be to show that what they say is true.

If theism can be rational, or even more rational than the non-theist, the superiority of empiricism can be abandoned and a more fruitful dialogue can commence.

For purposes of fruitful dialog, I will temporarily accept equality of rationality for those two points of view.

Where do we go from there?

I will still ask for reason to accept what is presented as truth (and will not agree to accept testimonials, conjecture, opinion or unverified claims and stories as verification of truth). I will certainly not accept "believe on faith" or "believe because philosophers think so."

[Flail]

.
Theo,

I appreciate your reasoned / thoughtful reply. We agree somewhat and disagree somewhat.

If one has a strong position to present they need not make such weak "arguments", but should be willing to debate honestly and openly without resorting to word games, tactics, and maneuvering.

"Present your evidence and your conclusions for consideration by all, and let them stand or fall by their own merits."

I disagree. Here's why:

Your final statement says "present your evidence and your conclusions for consideration by all." This implies that the only way to establish the validity of a perspective is through empiricism (i.e. through evidence).

As I use the term "evidence", it is with the meaning (as per Merriam Webster Dictionary) "something that furnishes or tends to furnish proof" of the matter being proposed or claim being made. It implies, "Show me that you speak truth" -- nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly what do you suggest in lieu of evidence to determine if a claim or statement is true?

If someone claims, in debate, "The cow jumped over the moon", how do you suggest determining if the claim is true? Would you NOT ask for reason to accept the claim (i.e., evidence of truth)?

If information from biology indicates that cows have limited jumping ability but the person claims "this one was special", would you accept the claim as truthful in spite of contrary indications? Would the same hold true if the person claimed that a dead body came back to life after days in the grave -- and said "this one was special"?

Thus, the statement implies already the superiority of the empiricist methods.

No, my statement asks for reason to believe what is presented. I, and others, will evaluate the merits of whatever substantiation is offered.

If empiricism is touted as the only valid system of rationality, but Christianity is built on another system of rationality

How is the request "show me that you speak truth" a claim of superiority?

Exactly what can be presented to show that Christian claims and stories are true?

To date what I have observed is largely:

I think so (or believe so)
He thinks so (or the book says so)
We've thought about what has been said and consider it credible
Great theologists, philosophers and scholars agree
If we assume that "god" exists then ____________ (fill in the blank)
It follows from the premises we have chosen to accept

every post by non-theists demanding an empiricist perspective implies that non-theism is more rational than theism.

Most posts by Theists seem to imply that Theism is more rational. Perhaps each of us considers our own position as more rational than contradictory positions.

The best response by a theist confronting a continued series of claims that non-theistic empiricism is more rational than the theistic perspective? Challenge the non-theist's implied claim to superiority of rationality.

In my opinion, the best response by a Theist would be to show that what they say is true.

If theism can be rational, or even more rational than the non-theist, the superiority of empiricism can be abandoned and a more fruitful dialogue can commence.

For purposes of fruitful dialog, I will temporarily accept equality of rationality for those two points of view.

Where do we go from there?

I will still ask for reason to accept what is presented as truth (and will not agree to accept testimonials, conjecture, opinion or unverified claims and stories as verification of truth). I will certainly not accept "believe on faith" or "believe because philosophers think so."

It's a very simple concept. If you claim something as truth, you should be expected to demonstrate why it is truth. If you cannot sustain that burden, it must be assumed that you have made a false claim...in that you have claimed a truth without evidence...that you have guessed at truth without any valid reason for having done so.

[Zzyzx]

.

. . . it is more reasonable to claim an absence of knowledge of 'God' than to claim having such knowledge.

Exactly.

The real issue is the claim of KNOWLEDGE of "god" or "what god wants or does" vs. an admission that we just don't know such things (beyond unverified stories and pondering).

[Goat]

.

Personally, I view someones argument that theism is more rational than non-theism as an attempt to discredit someones beliefs and a weak argument that really has no purpose in a debate. It makes him/her look like he/she is trying to be superior to help his arguments.

I agree 100% -- and trust that readers agree with you also.

If one has a strong position to present they need not make such weak "arguments", but should be willing to debate honestly and openly without resorting to word games, tactics, and maneuvering.

"Present your evidence and your conclusions for consideration by all, and let them stand or fall by their own merits."

I disagree. Here's why:

Your final statement says "present your evidence and your conclusions for consideration by all." This implies that the only way to establish the validity of a perspective is through empiricism. Thus, the statement implies already the superiority of the empiricist methods. Almost half the threads around here go something like this: "What is the evidence for __________."

When it comes to arriving at the truth, what method do you have to show that you speak the truth? What other method do you propose to show that what you claim is valid? If you don't have tangible evidence, what do you have that is something more than arguments from personal belief and word games?

Calling philosophical argumentation "words games" is pejorative and unproductive.

Funny. I considering philosophical argumentation to be unproductive. I find that the vast amount of 'philosophical arguments' consist of 'lets start with a conclusion we want to arrive at, make up some unsupported premises designed to arrive at the conclusion, and then manipulate the arguments to arrive at the conclusion that is desired. The axioms are non verifiable, and the conclusion is non verifiable. There is no way to distinguish between 'this is how things works' verses 'we make things up as we go along'.

You might consider reading my discussions on the following threads as to the questions of epistemology that you raise:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=14573
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=15130

Those threads actually reinforced my disdain of 95% of all 'philosophical argumentation'. It reinforces the concept that it's all word games. I see a lot of attempts to use complicate simple matters to hide the fact that nothing can be shown to be real. It seems to me that it all hides the fact of 'we can't show we speak the truth' with the use of 'let's hide the fact we can't show we speak the truth with complicated terminology and yet even more unsupported claims.

The trouble with all that is when you get your argument all finished, the one thing you can't do is show testing and results. With all that 'word soup', you can not show that what you have has to do with the real world what so ever.

If empiricism is touted as the only valid system of rationality, but Christianity is built on another system of rationality, every post by non-theists demanding an empiricist perspective implies that non-theism is more rational than theism.

How can a statement you can not demonstrate to be true be more rational? There are a vast number of beliefs that come along with various forms of Christianity that can empirically be shown to be false, such as the literal reading of Genesis. There are a number of incidences recorded in the New Testament that vast doubt can be placed on their veracity. How is it more rational to accept something that there is empirical evidence against?

The only way you can do that, is to dismiss empirical evidence.

If you read the definition of rational offered by Zzyzx, you'll note there is no connection to truth. Something is "Rational" if it is "of or relating to reason." Reason is defined as: "the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences." Something can be rational, as cnorman has noted, without being true. Similarly, something can be irrational but true.

I would grant that some forms of theism are less rational than some forms of non-theism. Conversely, I have argued that some forms of non-theism are less rational than theism. Can you please address my arguments if you object to them?

I have yet to see any form of theism that has come up with a method of showing that it is a true and accurate representation of the world. While there are some forms of theism that make claims about the world that have been proven false, I haven't seen any form of theism were the basic claims of the religion can be shown to be true. I do see these forms use 'word soup' to hide that fact.

The best response by a theist confronting a continued series of claims that non-theistic empiricism is more rational than the theistic perspective? Challenge the non-theist's implied claim to superiority of rationality. If theism can be rational, or even more rational than the non-theist, the superiority of empiricism can be abandoned and a more fruitful dialogue can commence.

Yes, the only way that a theist can respond is to give the personal opinion that 'Evidence doesn't matter', and then make unsupported claims. Then, there is a retreat to come up with 'logical proofs' that the assumptions are not provable, and therefore the conclusions are not sound. The lack of support for the original assumptions is attempted to be hidden in the use of doublespeak. Many theistic arguments sounds like they were generated by a post modern essay generator.

You have declared my premises "unsupported" but you have done nothing to demonstrate that. I welcome discussion on the threads posted above, or any direct challenge to my initial post in this thread. Am I to assume you can offer a stronger argument than "your definitions are distorted" when I took the definitions from a dictionary?

For example, let's see you support your premise that the atheist is taking their concepts from theism. Prove it. I see nothing but unsupported claims and word games.

Show me evidence that any of your starting points in logic can be shown to be TRUE.

All I see is the purposeful use of complicated language to disrupt communication. "If they can't understand my double speak, they can't prove me wrong'.

Would not the non-theist's demand for empiricism or nothing similarly be "an attempt to discredit someone's beliefs" by requiring and allowing only a particular rationality?

Not at all... there are a number of approaches to theism where that does not matter. I suggest you look on how Cnorman and Slopeshoulder approach their religious beliefs. Their theologies are different, yet they have a very similar approach to the way they believe. Their beliefs are what matters to them, on a personal level, and they don't feel the need claim their concepts are valid beyond them.

I cannot speak for cnorman, but slopeshoulder and I have had many personal discussions. I do not think I would be terribly incorrect to say that he is coming to agree with my epistemological perspective. You'd have t ask him.

Somehow, I don't think so. And, for that matter, I find that path to claimed knowledge to be 'Let me make it up as I go along, because I can't show I speak the truth'.

Slopeshoulder's and Cnorman's perspective are all fine and well, but I am presenting my perspectives. Can you address the logic of my initial post, or can you simply express your preference for other's opinions over mine?

I find that the use of doublespeak and complicated language is a barrier to communication. I find that the logic leaves a lot to be desired.

Since Cnorman was kind enough to be a decoder for you , let's go and see you demonstrate that 'atheism's first principles ('i.e. assumptions' are drawn from theism.
'
Let's see if you can simplify your word soup to accurately describe what you think the assumptions that atheism use '(you use first principles, because why use one simple word when two can words can confuse the issue) are drawn from theism. Try to use the readers digest condensed version, .. because using a long sentence when a single word will do is counterproductive.

The biggest difference is they are not put off by requests for empirical data, because they are quite willing to admit that they don't have any. However, they do not demand that others accept what they believe as 'truth' either. Their religious beliefs are a personal spiritual journey. They do not insist their 'Truth' is for others. The requests for empirical data happens when someone makes a truth claim that they want to have others believe. What gets presented is arguments from personal beliefs, wordy ontological proofs whose premises are unsupported claims, and word games.

The initial premise of any system is necessarily and by definition unsupported (see the above definitions). I merely wish to show that non-theistic paradigms, such as evidentialism, are also derived from non-supported premises. Or, can you argue for an empiricist perspective without any unsubstantiated claims?

WRONG.. because, you see, there is this thing know as 'RESULTS'. If you can make accurate and precise predictions when testing things , you can show that the initial assumptions are reasonable. When it comes to theistic concepts, you can't verify the conclusions. For most of philosophy, you can't verify the conclusions.

Perhaps we all only use word games, and Wittgenstein is correct. I just prefer chess to checkers.

Except, of course, that is not 'chess' verse 'checkers'. It's more like talking about 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin'. Pardon me, but I don't find such 'philosophical argumentation' productive.

There are many aspects of religion that touch on areas that do not make demands that require empirical evidence, such as ethics, morals, and answering questions on 'How to live'. However, there are many claims that many theists have that deal with things that are 'truth claims', such as 'how did the world form', and 'how did man come to exist', and 'there is a life after death'. When it comes specifically to Christianity, there also is the truth claim 'If you don't believe what I believe, you are going to be punished eternally after death', and 'My beliefs are moral and dictated by God, so therefore it must be made law'.

This assumes that only empirical things are true. Ethics (etc.) are therein reduced to non-truths. I object to this perspective.

You can object to it as much as you want. I am sure you wish to assume that 'objective morality' exists too. When it comes to those, can you show that you speak the truth though?

It would seem that modern philosophy and cultural criticism interprets empiricism much in the way you interpret ethics. To eliminate ethics as being "true" would simultaneously suggest that empiricism cannot be "true."

You certainly make a lot of assumptions about on how I view ethics. I will say that I don't believe in 'objective morality'. .. other than that, I find your argument there to be totally meaningless and off base when it comes to understanding life and reality.

I also would like to say where I said that 'ethics aren't true'. I don't see how comparing apples and frogs mean anything what so ever .

When claims are made about the physical world, or the imposition of laws upon everyone else is made because of some people's personal beliefs, then the question of 'What evidence do you have' is very important.

The statement 'God created the world' is a truth claim that is about the empirical world. When a statement is made about the empirical world then empirical evidence is required for veracity.

By what logic do you reduce "the world" to the "empirical world"? It seems that you presuppose (i.e. apart from empirical evidence) that the world is only empirical.

because of VERIFICATION and RESULTS. If you can't show RESULTS , how can you show you speak the truth?