Which is most reasonable....belief or doubt?

[Flail]

The question for debate is :

Of the polar extremes of Atheism vs Theism, which is most reasonable and rational?

For purpose of this debate we define Atheism as: "Having no evidence of God, I do not believe in any God"....and we define Theism as: "I believe in a particular God based upon an existing faith or belief system which I have accepted to be absolutely and infallibly true."

Atheists as well as agnostics typically leave the 'door open' to a greater or lesser extent,by accepting the possibility,however remote,of a Supreme Creative force or God....but they await proofs...evidence...some rational or logical verification beyond simply adopting the dogma or belief system of their particular tribe......

Theists,on the other hand, permit no other possibility but the one they have chosen to adopt....if they are Christian,then the God and dogma of Christianity is the only possible truth....it they are Muslim,then the God and dogma of Islam is the only possible truth....Theists offer no option for human error in making a 'God choice.'...whereas Atheists and Agnostics are open to all possibilities as they reason,debate,doubt and await evidence.

IMO, the atheistic or agnostic positon is more reasonable,honest and rational....and if there is a 'God of reason'....would be most pleasing to Him....if there is a 'God of Dogma'...many are doomed by the mere happenstance of birth and a bad guess...to some eternal damnation....

[Zzyzx]

.

But that's just it, the gentleman who believes he is Napoleon is not an otherwise rational individual.

How do you know that?

[Vanguard]

.

But that's just it, the gentleman who believes he is Napoleon is not an otherwise rational individual.

How do you know that?

Better to say I have not met anyone who is. Have you?

[Zzyzx]

.

But that's just it, the gentleman who believes he is Napoleon is not an otherwise rational individual.

How do you know that?

Better to say I have not met anyone who is. Have you?

I have not met such a person as you propose -- so I do not assume that they do or do not exist. I do not have adequate information upon which to make a reasoned decision.

I say exactly the same thing about the thousands of proposed "gods". There is insufficient information upon which to make a reasoned decision, so I make no assumption.

However, I am aware of negative effects produced by god worshiping organizations in excess of the amount of positive effect that has been identified. Therefore, I oppose promotion of organized, commercial god worship (though I have no comment regarding personal and private religious beliefs).

[JoeyKnothead]

.
I say exactly the same thing about the thousands of proposed "gods". There is insufficient information for me upon which to make a reasoned decision, so I make no assumption.

However, I am aware of negative effects produced by god worshiping organizations in excess of the amount of positive effect that has been identified. Therefore, I oppose promotion of organized, commercial god worship (though I have no comment regarding personal and private religious beliefs).

>I changed it to add the bolded part for clarity<
I'd like to amend my previous reply to incorporate this information. I failed to include this important part of my own position. So, let it be known I hereby plagiarize this as my own.

[Cephus]

But that's just it, the gentleman who believes he is Napoleon is not an otherwise rational individual. A believer in a god most of the time is. It is a comparison of apples to oranges. Please show me an entriely functional individual who considers himself Napoleon?

You're simply making an assertion here, it's entirely possible that someone who is deluded into thinking he is Napoleon or some other character may be an otherwise rational individual. I can make the counter-claim that theists are not otherwise rational, after all, they spend a lot of time talking to imaginary friends (praying), reading and taking seriously mythical stories (the Bible), hanging around with other delusional people and singing songs to imaginary friends (church), etc. It's a more accurate comparison than you want to admit, simply because you fall into one of those groups. I don't think you can find me many theists who I would consider entirely functional, rational, well-adjusted people.

[Vanguard]

But that's just it, the gentleman who believes he is Napoleon is not an otherwise rational individual. A believer in a god most of the time is. It is a comparison of apples to oranges. Please show me an entriely functional individual who considers himself Napoleon?

You're simply making an assertion here, it's entirely possible that someone who is deluded into thinking he is Napoleon or some other character may be an otherwise rational individual.

Well, I guess anything is possible, Cephus, though you and I both know that anyone seriously making the claim of being Napoleon over an extended period of time will also show a combination of decrements in functioning across variables we can all verify (i.e., ability to work, follow a cohesive series of thoughts, maintain a modicum of healthy relationships, attend to daily personal hygiene, refrain from mind-altering substances, and the like). Unless, you know of the mailman who believes he's Elvis?

I can make the counter-claim that theists are not otherwise rational, after all, they spend a lot of time talking to imaginary friends (praying), reading and taking seriously mythical stories (the Bible), hanging around with other delusional people and singing songs to imaginary friends (church), etc. It's a more accurate comparison than you want to admit, simply because you fall into one of those groups. I don't think you can find me many theists who I would consider entirely functional, rational, well-adjusted people.

The fact of the matter is you have countless individuals who are otherwise fully-functioning across all variables who make the peculiar claim (at least to those who are unfamiliar with such experiences) of enjoying contact with their god. Adtmittedly, it would be irrational for one who does not have such experiences to accept such claims. For those who have, it is an entirely rational enterprise.

[Cephus]

Well, I guess anything is possible, Cephus, though you and I both know that anyone seriously making the claim of being Napoleon over an extended period of time will also show a combination of decrements in functioning across variables we can all verify (i.e., ability to work, follow a cohesive series of thoughts, maintain a modicum of healthy relationships, attend to daily personal hygiene, refrain from mind-altering substances, and the like). Unless, you know of the mailman who believes he's Elvis?

Then go ahead and prove it, provide evidence of your claim or stop making the claim. I've seen people who I would consider seriously deluded who, outside of their delusion, come off as entirely normal people. I knew someone once who seriously thought that he was an animal soul in a human body, but if he never said anything about it, you'd never know he was off his rocker.

You're just making an unfounded claim, specifically to draw a distinction between two delusional concepts which are not intrinsically different, only because you happen to belong to one of them.

The fact of the matter is you have countless individuals who are otherwise fully-functioning across all variables who make the peculiar claim (at least to those who are unfamiliar with such experiences) of enjoying contact with their god. Adtmittedly, it would be irrational for one who does not have such experiences to accept such claims. For those who have, it is an entirely rational enterprise.

We have countless individuals who are completely screwed up by their religion as well. How many crazy religious parents deny their innocent children medical treatment because they're deluded into thinking God will cure them? Last year in Papua New Guinea, there were more than 50 murders, that we know of, where people were killed for being witches. There was a case about a week ago about a crazy guy in Virginia who beheaded his 5-year old son to guarantee he'd go to heaven. There are tons of cases of crazy Muslims who are spraying acid in the face of female "sinners", arranging brutal rapes of innocent women so they can con them into strapping bombs to their bodies. I could list cases all day, it's simple reality that lots of religious people are out of their minds, these people are not functioning whatsoever, yet you choose to ignore those people, again because you happen to fall in their camp.

[olavisjo]

There was a case about a week ago about a crazy guy in Virginia who beheaded his 5-year old son to guarantee he'd go to heaven.

Where did you hear this?

[Zzyzx]

.

There was a case about a week ago about a crazy guy in Virginia who beheaded his 5-year old son to guarantee he'd go to heaven.

Where did you hear this?

One can READ the account here:

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/02/jailhou ... -young-son

[Vanguard]

Well, I guess anything is possible, Cephus, though you and I both know that anyone seriously making the claim of being Napoleon over an extended period of time will also show a combination of decrements in functioning across variables we can all verify (i.e., ability to work, follow a cohesive series of thoughts, maintain a modicum of healthy relationships, attend to daily personal hygiene, refrain from mind-altering substances, and the like). Unless, you know of the mailman who believes he's Elvis?

Then go ahead and prove it, provide evidence of your claim or stop making the claim. I've seen people who I would consider seriously deluded who, outside of their delusion, come off as entirely normal people. I knew someone once who seriously thought that he was an animal soul in a human body, but if he never said anything about it, you'd never know he was off his rocker.

You're just making an unfounded claim, specifically to draw a distinction between two delusional concepts which are not intrinsically different, only because you happen to belong to one of them.

I am appealing to a general consensus that you do not seem to accept for obvious reasons. Please, do tell us all about your negihborhood, work, and social contacts who consider themselves reincarnations of past historical figures but who are functionally indistinguishable from you!

The fact of the matter is you have countless individuals who are otherwise fully-functioning across all variables who make the peculiar claim (at least to those who are unfamiliar with such experiences) of enjoying contact with their god. Adtmittedly, it would be irrational for one who does not have such experiences to accept such claims. For those who have, it is an entirely rational enterprise.

We have countless individuals who are completely screwed up by their religion as well. How many crazy religious parents deny their innocent children medical treatment because they're deluded into thinking God will cure them? Last year in Papua New Guinea, there were more than 50 murders, that we know of, where people were killed for being witches. There was a case about a week ago about a crazy guy in Virginia who beheaded his 5-year old son to guarantee he'd go to heaven. There are tons of cases of crazy Muslims who are spraying acid in the face of female "sinners", arranging brutal rapes of innocent women so they can con them into strapping bombs to their bodies. I could list cases all day, it's simple reality that lots of religious people are out of their minds, these people are not functioning whatsoever, yet you choose to ignore those people, again because you happen to fall in their camp.

Indeed, we have many poor examples of what the human experience will render. That however is not a commentary on what this thread is about. What people do as a result of belief in God is an entirely different question. Don't go to the lowest common demoninator to prove your point. The fact is there are many theists who do not behave in such irrational ways. Because some will behave irresponsibly should not inform how the entire set will behave.

As an aside, this fellow-Californian finds offense that you would compare me to your long list of crazies. You do not have to resort to ad hominem to make what I consider a viable point on your part. IMO, your abilities far surpass the need for cheap points of this kind.