Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis?

[Thought Criminal]

Many theists will tell you that their belief in God is based on faith, or on something equally nonrational or irrational, such as a special feeling they have, or their unshakable trust in their parents, or an ineffable experience.

Fine, but none of this carries any weight for me because, as a secular humanist, I have a commitment to believe only what is rationally justified, what a logical analysis of the evidence compels me to believe. It's possible that I might miss out on some truths this way, but I do avoid many, many falsehoods. Of course, I do want to believe whatever's true, so I'm always open to evidence.

Anyhow, this leads me to the obvious question: Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis? If so, how?

TC

[Thought Criminal]

Well said...you have summarized their position well. They, of course, will continue to claim they are seeking the truth, while claiming they have it all at the same time. Its an absurd position, but one many claim is "logical" and "rational."

Yes, yes, always put up a united front against the evil atheists.

It can't possibly be that atheists believe they're correct but are open-minded enough to keep looking for evidence that might overturn their current beliefs!

TC

[twobitsmedia]

Yes, yes, always put up a united front against the evil atheists.

Are atheists evil? Can you substantiate that claim? I will have to see evidence of that before I can even slightly agree with that notion .

It can't possibly be that atheists believe they're correct but are open-minded enough to keep looking for evidence that might overturn their current beliefs!

I presume on some absurd way that makes sense: Let me get this straight: I am an atheist who is correct, but I am searching for a way to overturn my correctness...

As I said: holding two positions simultaneously.

[Thought Criminal]

Are atheists evil? Can you substantiate that claim? I will have to see evidence of that before I can even slightly agree with that notion .

Actually, I was just repeating the common theistic claim that atheists cannot be moral. In my own experience, atheists are no less moral, on the whole, than theists. If anything, they're more likely to take personal responsibility for their moral beliefs, which gives them a leg up.

But, of course, you knew that. You're just doing your best to derail this topic.

It can't possibly be that atheists believe they're correct but are open-minded enough to keep looking for evidence that might overturn their current beliefs!

I presume on some absurd way that makes sense: Let me get this straight: I am an atheist who is correct, but I am searching for a way to overturn my correctness...

As I said: holding two positions simultaneously.

Is the notion of an open mind so strange to you?

TC

[twobitsmedia]

Are atheists evil? Can you substantiate that claim? I will have to see evidence of that before I can even slightly agree with that notion .

Actually, I was just repeating the common theistic claim that atheists cannot be moral. In my own experience, atheists are no less moral, on the whole, than theists. If anything, they're more likely to take personal responsibility for their moral beliefs, which gives them a leg up.

But, of course, you knew that. You're just doing your best to derail this topic.

Ho humm, yes, if I respond to your derailment, then it is me who is doing the derailing.....and it is logical and rational for you to make such a claim....even when you make assertions that you then claim meant something else or was just random....Heard it before.

It can't possibly be that atheists believe they're correct but are open-minded enough to keep looking for evidence that might overturn their current beliefs!

I presume on some absurd way that makes sense: Let me get this straight: I am an atheist who is correct, but I am searching for a way to overturn my correctness...

As I said: holding two positions simultaneously.

Is the notion of an open mind so strange to you?

TC

An "open mind" and your comment are not even remotely "similar"..But then neither is "self denial" and "self determination"...so I see the how you can hold both positions simultaneously....I am just not sure how you can keep up with it.

[Thought Criminal]

Are atheists evil? Can you substantiate that claim? I will have to see evidence of that before I can even slightly agree with that notion .

Actually, I was just repeating the common theistic claim that atheists cannot be moral. In my own experience, atheists are no less moral, on the whole, than theists. If anything, they're more likely to take personal responsibility for their moral beliefs, which gives them a leg up.

But, of course, you knew that. You're just doing your best to derail this topic.

Ho humm, yes, if I respond to your derailment, then it is me who is doing the derailing.....and it is logical and rational for you to make such a claim....even when you make assertions that you then claim meant something else or was just random....Heard it before.

It can't possibly be that atheists believe they're correct but are open-minded enough to keep looking for evidence that might overturn their current beliefs!

I presume on some absurd way that makes sense: Let me get this straight: I am an atheist who is correct, but I am searching for a way to overturn my correctness...

As I said: holding two positions simultaneously.

Is the notion of an open mind so strange to you?

TC

An "open mind" and your comment are not even remotely "similar"..But then neither is "self denial" and "self determination"...so I see the how you can hold both positions simultaneously....I am just not sure how you can keep up with it.

I'm unable to find a anything in your comments that merits a specific response. Instead, allow me to remind you that your goal is to show that a belief in God can be justified on a rational basis. Please feel very free to try this. But don't waste my time with anything else.

TC

[Jester]

Amazing. He repeats my statement in the form of a question, omits the part that answers the question and appends an inaccurate summary. Is he a debater or an Eliza AI?

As you specifically ended our debate, I would consider it courteous not to continue commenting directly on my remarks. Moreover, I'd appreciate it if you didn't attack me either. Such is against the rules as well as being rude.
I'll not comment on anything regarding the debate as per your request, but if you do wish to keep debating this one, let me know. I'm willing to read and respond to anything you have to say.

[Jester]

Don't faint, guys, but I agree with you. Radical skepticism is not a position; it negates the possibility of holding any position at all, and is a philosophical, intellectual, and debating dead end.

Forget about debate; if we can't assume that anything at all is true or real, what is there to SAY?

Actually, I raised this issue. And, if you care at all:
I brought it up not to argue that we shouldn't assume that reality exists, but to point out that some things are assumed without evidence. I then pointed out that this is a form of faith, as an attempt to refute an earlier claim that at least some atheists were completely without non-rational beleif in anything. Whether or not some people are purely rational in their beliefs was the actual subject.

Hope that clarifies a bit.

[Thought Criminal]

Amazing. He repeats my statement in the form of a question, omits the part that answers the question and appends an inaccurate summary. Is he a debater or an Eliza AI?

As you specifically ended our debate, I would consider it courteous not to continue commenting directly on my remarks. Moreover, I'd appreciate it if you didn't attack me either. Such is against the rules as well as being rude.
I'll not comment on anything regarding the debate as per your request, but if you do wish to keep debating this one, let me know. I'm willing to read and respond to anything you have to say.

No, I reserve the right to comment on anything you say at any time. I may address you or I may speak about you. You have earned no special dispensations through your behavior.

TC

[Jester]

If you mean to pick up the trail here, please explain the logical reasons that we must accept an axiom.

Because they have been shown to be axiomatic - true across the board for all people, in this Universe. a+b=b+a or x=x. It appears by all accounts that these are true in every case. We call them axioms; they are axiomatic.

a+b=b+a by matter of definition. These symbols do not refer to reality, but are arbitrary terms that have been defined in such a way that this equation is true.

The matter of the existance of reality is something that people accept. I have never argued otherwise. I have merely pointed out that people accept it for non-rational reasons. Truly, I don't see how these things have been logically "shown to be true". If this has occured, perhaps you could explain it more fully. The only argument presented thus far was rooted in doubting the logic presented based on doubting the validity of human logic in general. My issue with this is that it is a doubt of logic that seems only to be applied to this one argument. It makes no sense that we should reject this argument on the grounds of doubting logic in general, and even less sense that we should apply this only to one argument without a reason why this is any different.

Can you find a commonly experienced and explanable event in which these axioms are not true?

In any event whatsoever, the axiom that the physical universe exists has not been logically proven to be true. It is simply assumed.

I am trying to understand if you accept some things as being true?

I accept physical reality is true, but don't claim to have evidence to defend that belief

[Jester]

No, I reserve the right to comment on anything you say at any time. I may address you or I may speak about you. You have earned no special dispensations through your behavior.

In which case, I would expect a logical reason why axioms should be accepted (as opposed to a pointing out that they are). Otherwise, we are not having a civil debate.