There is a more laidback forum on here called the Kill'em with Kindness forum that some people prefer, as things do not get as heated and inflammatory remarks are not allowed. 

However, I would like to also point out again, that there have been some particularly rough discussions that involved Atheist vs. Atheist on political matters and such. Yet, we do tend to usually get along. Trust me, I have had some discussions that got a little overboard on politics a couple of times. BUT, I have also had really civil disagreements. A guy on here that I like, ex-minister, and I had a strong debate about Alcoholics Anonymous. I maintained that it was a religious cult and he held a different view. However, THAT discussion was quite civil and polite. It was a simply a disagreement. 

I would like to add, you might want to ignore Jean ( or not). Those of us that have been on here a while can personally attest that he just enjoys trying to spread alot of nonsense with people. Some are annoyed, some like me, are simply amused. 

As another poster often points out, Jean tried to claim that Earthquake in Japan that killed all of those innocent people was because of "sin".  He has stopped telling me that I am going to hell lately. I guess he figures that it doesn't carry the effect anymore. Just like he had to always reply to me with an insult about sportster motorcycles. I guess he thought it was actually going to get under my skin, but I just find it funny. 

I gotcha. Thanks for the heads up on Jean. I thought he was just...you know, French, or something. I started the conversation and feel responsible for responding to people, but gosh, I just couldn't understand exactly what he was after.

Hello,

There issue with me is that they don't like my consistency and the fact that I punch them so hard, they are all like a bunch of old ladies who have fallen and can't get up.

Regarding Japan, I was presenting the consistent Christian position in relation to Amos 3:6 among other places.

What I was asking you (OP) is this. You said that you do believe that there is a God and you beliee this

via a probablity, you said this in your first post. So your attempts at believing in God are probable, right?

We need to than justify this probablity. In each probable means of what is, there is a ratio of true and false.

It is probable not the case that pigs fly. We then need to ask ourselves what that ratio of probility of

wheather pigs fly or don't find. We need a way to measure this improbable/probable means.

The Sky is Blue. Probable means.

Since You do not have a way to measure the ratio of probablity from what is true, vs. what is false

you cannot be sure what you probable think you "know" is measured as. Is God probabliy true

70% true/ 30% error?

You need to justify your probablity. You and most do not do this, thus they make a

naked assertion and make a leap, a kind of blind faith.

Since you are starting your belief within the probable, you must then present the evidence in the probable as well.

2 questions.

1) What God/god/gods/it are you arguing to

2) What is the probability of this God's existence via the ratio of true and false.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Lmao, with his name, you know, it's an easy mistake to make.

By the way, I was wondering why I hadn't heard back from you. I just realized, though, my intended response to yours never actually posted. So I'll try to reproduce it here.

Your correction to 13.7 billion years is noted. I meant to write approx. 14 billion, but wrote "15", instead. Regarding the question of whether it began or simply began to expand, I have some articles and some conversations to go on here, but I'm not a physics Ph.D. as of yet.

As it's been explained to me, we can "follow" the laws of physics backward and, as we know them now, they predict a point of infinite density, called a singularity. As this physicist explained it to me, a singularity is not to suggest that physicists simply accept that, yes, there was a point that had infinite mass. That seems to be an impossibility, and so the singularity suggested by the laws as we know them is more of a sign that those laws break down. Beyond that point is a giant question mark. Did matter exist in an extraordinarily dense state? It's unclear, for matter to exist seems to imply that the matter takes up space, and taking GR seriously, what takes up space is in time. New dimensions can be postulated, etcetera, but I was reminded that this is math on paper, and is, admittedly, conceptually very puzzling stuff. I was reassured to hear that much. But, nonetheless, I can't speak to all that.

The cosmological argument I see as strongest is one which claims that the very existence of the universe, through chaos, infinite time, or finite time, is beyond scientific explanation. Scientific explanation relies on a substances-powers-liabilities account of reality. However, the existence of matter time and laws cannot be explained in terms of matter time and laws. Those are the very things that need the explaining. So I want to know if we should take the existence of the universe, whether eternal or not, as a brute fact? Or should we doubt that a universe should exist as a brute fact and instead reasonably (though perhaps not correctly) suspect a creator God, which would then be the brute fact that must be accepted.

Of course I know the standard line: If we're accepting a brute fact, let's accept the universe instead of postulating a God. I've seen in my reading good arguments (inductive arguments) for the higher probability of a God being the brute fact than of a universe being the brute fact. For example, that's the argument Swinburne makes in his book, The Existence of God. Mackie responded to Swinburne in The Miracle of Theism, in my opinion unpersuasively, and Swinburne replied in turn.

So here I'm saying belief is not irrational, period. A rational person can (rationally, even if mistakenly) hold that a God exists.

And this just proves my point quite nicely.

The only experience we have of mind is of our own mind. We can easily imagine that mind, our "I", disembodied. For example, I can imagine being a ghost. It is not impossible in the way a square circle is impossible, unless we presume a mind must be attached to a body, which we are not entitled to do. It is not a question of unclear definition. "Mind" is unclearly defined, admitted. It's that sort of thing.

You're coming dangerously close to circular reasoning here, but I get what you are trying to say.

Look at the meaning of that statement when you put it in a different context.   It's kinda like saying even smart people are stupid sometimes, and just because you're being stupid doesn't make you wrong. That's a fail. Or maybe I'm just missing your point.

Regardless, now matter how sincere the believer is doesn't make him rational.

By the way, welcome.  I'm a recovered christian. I've been watching this thread and was almost the first to reply to it, but it looked like Extreme had a grasp on things. He's a smart fellow.

And don't mind Jean, he just gets bitter when nobody will play with him and his imaginary friend Jesus.

As a matter of curiosity, what would you say of Einstein, Shrodinger, Heisenberg, Planck, or Newton, none of whom were atheists? Would you say they were irrational? Or would you say they were holding their beliefs irrationally?

   I think it remains to be seen whether there is or will be a good, or maybe good, deductive argument to belief in God. There could definitely be some very good inductive arguments.

   For example, imagine (hypothetically) that science tells us it appears, to the best of our knowledge (following the laws of physics backwards in time), that at some point in the past all matter simply exterminates itself, is gone, all equations yield 0's. No energy, no time, no matter, no space.

That would lend support to the claim that the universe simply began from the most profound nothingness.

We would either have to accept that this universe and the mathematical order it exhibits and the conscious life that occupies it simply began for no reason and from nothing, or we would have to ask, what could have caused it. It is reasonable to say that the cause of a physical universe is non-physical, and yet can act, for otherwise it could not create a universe. Which explanation is more plausible? I don't think the answer is clear. For both sides, the weighing of arguments and evidence would be incredibly subjective, and there would be no clear deductive win for either side. I think that that's what many of those great minds experienced. Faced with the question of what is the brute fact—the ordered universe or a Divine Mind—they chose. And I don't think they chose irrationally.

This discussion has been very helpful. I definitely know which areas I want to read up on next. What I want to say, and am probably not entitled to say being a youngin' and all and lacking in life experience and things like that which bring wisdom, is that I wish people wouldn't come to these discussions thinking something like "atheism is right", or "theism is right", and "I must defend it to the death". I think we would be better off seeking out both sides' strongest arguments and responses, and being more open to following evidence where it leads. To the degree that we've decided we have the undoubted truth, we stop being able to genuinely follow an argument where it leads.

Whether he came to the right conclusion or not, I admire Anthony Flew when he wrote (declaring that he changed his mind after fifty years and now believes there is a God) that his had been a pilgrimage of reason, not of faith.

So, you are sure I do, in fact, have "too much time" (which I'm reading as no life, job, school, or other responsibilities), but you're sorry you said so openly, and you apologize. And you do think the entire thread is tired nonsense, but again, you're sorry you said so openly, and you apologize. That's a funny apology, but whatever.

Do me a favor, though. Point me in the direction of the cutting-edge non-beat discussions?

But we can compare our concepts of mind with those of the other 7 billion humans on the planet, as well as by comparing ourselves with the creative thoughts of humans in the past, expressed as writing, art, sculpture, architecture. Mind concepts seem to be associated with humans. 

Yeah, I can't imagine not being inside my head. My mind is not just my mind but is associated with my body, skin and all. Music makes my hair stand up, I feel awe in my stomach. My mind is connected to my body. I can't think otherwise without eliminating some part of my self-hood. 

Yeah - it's a good one to play with. 

Our experience has been that minds are associated with humans, but that is not necessarily so. Actually, and I don't want to argue this, I'm just bringing it up as a strange 5:07 a.m.-and-I-haven't-slept thought: isn't there even a kind of selection bias? If the only kind of mind we are capable of experiencing is one in a body, of course all the minds we experience are in bodies.

Anyway, I want to continue this discussion and we can, but I have to say, the right thing for me to do would be to explore more in the philosophy of mind, do some reading, explore responses, etc. As I wrote in a previous post, I'm interested in seeing the big picture, both sides best arguments, and so  I can't in good faith let one discussion make up my "mind" (oy) on this matter. Though, no doubt, the discussion may, and I think is, proving fruitful, at least to me. Perhaps in a post after I get some zzz's I'll share my own problems with the position I'm putting forward, God knows I have some problems with it, no pun intended.

Some of the lesser known books that helped me along the way were "Religion Explained" By Pascal Boyer. "The God Part of the Brain" By Mathew Alper and "Why God Won't Go Away,". by Neuberg. 

I don't agree with all of the materials in these works ( Especially Why God Won't Go Away). But I did find them very interesting. Especially "Religion Explained". These are not necessarily Atheist works. Religion Explained is written from an anthropological point of view and merely explores the different customs, different systems and how some memes seem to catch on while others do not. I highly reccomend it. 

My problem is finding time to read as much as I would like. I have got such a backed up reading list right now that it is unbelievable. I wish I could have a whole month off of my life, to do nothing but read and research. 

I am not the most educated man on the forums, most of what I have read and learned thus far is simply scratching the surface of all the knowledge that is out there. Daniel Dennett really blew my mind when I first started reading him. But some of his work was difficult for me to get through. I needed a notebook and a dictionary and Google, to figure some of his stuff out. 

These books do not necessarily set out to prove or disprove anything. The title "Why God Won't Go Away" hints at such, but I found it to be unfairly biased towards the end. It makes an assertion that religious people and believers live more productive and happy lives. I disagree. The neuroscience sections of it WERE interesting to me though.

Same thing with the God Part of the Brain. While Alper's conclusion hints towards an Atheist viewpoint and while I disagreed with some of his ideas, he ultimately leaves it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. 

For instance, while "Why God Won't Go Away" talks about brain activity during such things as meditation or religious ritual, it neither seeks to prove or disprove a deity. Theists would argue that god put that in our brains and Atheists like me, would argue that it is just a hard-wiring in our genetics that causes us to gravitate towards that feeling. 

I guess I have wandered off topic somewhat. 

The original post was whether or not belief was rational. 

I would go so far as to say, based on the reading material above, that belief is somewhat natural to human beings ( whether it was acquired through centuries of biological evolution, simple fear of our own mortality, or a number of other things is anyone's guess). 

I desperately clung to belief for a long time after I had stopped believing inside. 

As far as rational goes, that is a question that I don't think could ever be fully answered with a resounding yes or no. 

There is the issues of nature, nurture, social structures that we are raised in, environments and interactions that all play a key role as to how we perceive things. 

I personally do not view god/creator/ force or whatever one may wish to call he/she/it rational. But that does not make me the ultimate authority. It just means that after years of being religious, then being non-religious and my own personal opinions, I simply do not believe in god.  Whereas, the religious people in my family have been known to ask me on many occasions : "How could a sane and rational person say there is no god,". 

 I don't believe in god because I simply do not see evidence for one. Am I rational or irrational ? That would largely depend on who you ask. 

  Your first board ?????

Whether my move was "foolish" would depend on what I was trying to accomplish. What I wanted to discover is where the average (militant) atheist sees the case for God as blatantly irrational. So to that end, I actually think I've succeed. I've heard some wonderful responses that have raised questions about What is probability, Is a mind necessarily embodied, Is the concept of God coherent, etc.

My age is 23, so make of that what you will. To be fair, most people twice or three times my age couldn't negotiate their way out of a paper bag. And if I'm being honest—I've browsed many other threads, the caliber of the majority of arguments isn't exactly world-class.

Perhaps I don't understand. Should I find that I'd like to stick around here, I will not continue discussions with people who are rude or feel the discussion is somehow beneath them. Not because I'm afraid to—I'm not, it matters little to me if an argument I make is decisively proved wrong—but because I could have the debate with someone else who is civil. It seems that simple to me.

Nonetheless, I appreciate you taking your time to share some advice.

Call it "climate disturbance", for example. Why? Because the phenomena we've been calling "global warming" does not only produce a warming trend. It also produces greater fluctuations in world weather.

I had this talk with my stepmom:

Me: Why do you watch Fox News? It's filled with sociopaths, fundamentalists, and global warming deniers.

Her: Global warming? It's the coldest winter in a hundred years, and last June it snowed.

Me: *facepalm*

(Those extremes people take as evidence that nothing is "warming" are part of the climate disturbance.)

Whether my move was "foolish" would depend on what I was trying to accomplish. What I wanted to discover is where the average (militant) atheist sees the case for God as blatantly irrational. So to that end, I actually think I've succeed.

Amen brother.  I never had the title of minister, but I went thru and did all the same facades.  People ask me why do I take the offensive toward christianity and not just let it slide.  One of the many reasons is I feel sorry for people living under that yoke.

I wish someone would have woke me up much earlier.  And how much damage did I do by spreading these lies and injecting this poison into people? I feel I owe it to the world.

What fools we were.  In a sense we are freed slaves.

Again, I'm not someone who could talk in a very sophisticated way about probability. The rain example may seem to be reliant on the frequency interpretation of probability, in that we could say "on x out of y May 29th's, it rains/ has rained; therefore, there is a x/y chance it will rain". Or it could be seem as an example of subjective probability, which is no more than just a report of how likely you think it is that it will rain, given our predisposition to infer that the future will be like the past, which, as Hume, Popper, Thaggard, and many others have shown, is not a valid assumption. It is almost certainly not any sort of objective interpretation of probability. Probability is weird, which is why I want to avoid talking about it. And I believe that's possible.

Where it would come in, though, would not be in assigning a numerical probability value, it would not be in a mathematical sense. It would be useful in saying only what is more probable: the existence of the universe as a brute fact, or the existence of the universe given a creator god. Swinburne explains how such probability calculations would work in a very clear and simple way at the beginning of his book, which I have mentioned previously, The Existence of God.

But would you agree here, at this point, that for us to say to a theist (or deist, I suppose, as far as my arguments go) "you're beliefs are utterly irrational" and be justified in making that claim, we would have to be familiar with a lot more than a few chapters of The God Delusion?

Thanks for the tip Tony. Now I can read all of Jean's posts?! Excellllllenttt.