[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Now we're having fun. The above represents a reasoned argument. The majority of your posts in this thread have been intentionally inflammatory and dismissive.

Now allow me to explain the point you're missing.

We have agreed that proving or disproving the existence of god is impossible at present. Thus, we have agreed that there are no experts on the subject -- not theists, not atheists, not scientists, nobody. But again, we are NOT discussing the existence of a god. This discussion is NOT about whether a god does or does not exist. You seem to be moving the goal posts. We haven't been discussing the existence of god, and we certainly have not been limiting ourselves to a god in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim image. And when I discuss intelligent people that believe in a god, I have never once limited the matter to Christians, or even members of any organized religion. You seem to assume I'm a Christian -- I am not.

This discussion is and has been about whether or not it meets the basic threshold of rationality to believe that a god -- essentially, a creator of any kind -- exists. If I were citing scientists and mega-minds in order to prove that a god exists, your Oprah comparison would fit well. We can agree that most of the smartest theists in the world have no more specific knowledge regarding a deity than most of the smartest atheists. But that's not what I'm doing.

The appeal to authority is meant to demonstrate rationality -- not validity. It is not fallacious. You can erase the notion of god entirely. There are a vast number of extremely intelligent, highly rational people that believe in the same concept. The concept itself is immaterial. You need not accept them as experts on god -- simply on rational thought. I contend that these experts on rational thought, spread over time, culture, and geographic location, are not united en masse in irrational delusions when it comes to god or religion. They may certainly be wrong, but they haven't all abandoned the rational thought that has marked their careers in coming to their conclusions.

And again, I have made my own arguments regarding the rationality of belief in a god. I have explained that even mankind, in our extraordinarily limited scientific capacity, could rather easily set in motion the process for evolution on other planets. I have explained that we have not been able to demonstrate organic life forming from inorganic material. It stands to reason that, at some point, there must have been an initial organic life form. Whether that life form be infinitely simple, infinitely complex, or somewhere in between, we have no explanation for how it came to be. In the absence of evidence, I wouldn't dare to call any reasonable explanation 'irrational'. It is rational to believe that there is some yet undiscovered process that could convert inorganic material to organic polymer life. It is rational to believe that in "the beginning", extraordinarily basic life forms existed and slowly spread throughout the universe and evolved. It is rational to believe that an infinite life form -- sentient or otherwise -- served as the source of organic matter which spread throughout the universe and evolved. You don't have to believe any of this, but that doesn't make it preposterous.

Actually, you're the on setting goal posts that no one else has agreed to. You might not have noticed, but this thread is chaotic as hell. Everyone seems to have an axe to grind for or against Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Christians, and atheists.

Let me refresh your memory on my statements. I expressed doubt on the historicity of Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. You raised the writings of Josephus and Tacitus, which I refuted with considerable thought. Your response was a sloppy copy from the summary paragraph of a Wikipedia entry, which contained contradictory and qualified citations. You attempted to steamroll some sort of massive academic consensus which does not exist using hearsay and vague references as your evidence.

I see two major flaws in your current post. Until very recently, it was simply not socially acceptable to refute religious affiliation. It was definitely rational for thoughtful men to maintain silence and go to church. It is only within the most very recent decades in particular parts of the world where public atheism was not a tremendous disadvantage in many pursuits, including employment opportunities, social networking, marriage partners, and housing availability. As a result, casual statements from past public figures regarding religious beliefs greatly resemble coerced testimony. It was simple not an option to openly state disbelief or even doubt without significant personal cost.

In the modern age, atheism has seized to be as great a disadvantage, but it is still significant. Here is a recent Gallup poll showing atheist candidates as less acceptable to voters than Latinos, Muslims or Gays: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/at...andidates.aspx.

The second flaw in your argument is equally significant and leaves you with fallacious appeal to authority. Humans, however brilliant in their fields, are fully capable of completely irrational behavior both within those areas and certainly in other areas of life. In fact, it is not at all uncommon for the greatest minds to have psychological problems and make horrible, self-destructive decisions. If you'd like some evidence for that, here is an excellent article by the late and brilliant Grady Towers: http://www.cpsimoes.net/artigos/outsiders.html.

I find no clear thinking in your arguments. I find them filled with supposition and interpretation and glaring formal and informal fallacies. I don't claim to know the details of your supernatural beliefs, but your agitated tone throughout this thread make it highly likely that you have an emotional attachment to theism. You appear to be wanting to surround yourself with great thinkers in agreement with you in an attempt to justify your own beliefs. While that may be comforting, it is in no way rational. Herd behavior is instinctive, not cognitive. Within your own expressed argument, you have failed to provide an explanation of how belief in one or more deities can be the outcome of a logical process. It involves a huge logical jump over the unknown to a belief in the giant daddy in the sky. This is argumentum ad ignorantium, perfectly analogous to Russell's teapot, and the diametric opposite of reasoned thinking.