Because term “objective standard” is just as incoherent as the term “married bachelor”. A standard is what everything else is judged against, but one has to choose which standard applies. That will always be subjective. [ . . . ]
…Your begging the question, how does God’s choosing of a standard make that standard subjective?
Choosing normally qualifies as
subjective. The standard may be objective, but not its choice. If
ones is lenient on objective morality and using an objective moral
standard qualifies as objective morality, then – contrary to what
sadolite suggested - God does not have a monopoly on objective
morality.
I am not actively participating in the discussion about morality here as it is off topic. Nonetheless it shows that there is good reason to be suspicious about the Christian position. Therefore it is rational to be suspicious. Being suspicious about the claims of a popular religion aligns well with atheism.
If the answer is moral, then morality is subject to gods will (aka subjective).
Except God’s ACTUAL will doesn’t match the will of your incoherent hypothetical (hence why you thought of it), it’s coherent and objective. It’s pathetic how you bring up hypothetical nonsense and try to use it as an argument for reality thinking it suits you. What ifs isn’t what is dude.
You are assuming Double_R's hypothetical is incoherent. Assumptions must be demonstrated. Go ahead!
In the mean time everyone agrees, either tacitly or explicitely, that the position that atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible one.
Not everyone.
[selfquote of post 117 :]
The statement, "God does not exist," is irrational. (If one wants to know the reason, I'm willing to oblige.) So if one premises one's belief on an irrational statement, then I suppose one could argue that the belief itself is irrational. With that said, one's beliefs don't have to be rational.
Who doesn't agree and why haven't they attempted to defend that position ?
you dont like my criteria for whether something is valid or repeatable, i get it. using your standards, the evidence i presented isn't valid or repeatable. but it could be said to be both of those under different criteria.[*] if you ask someone what happened outside of their body when they were dead, and all witnesses say it was accurate, that's evidence that they had an actual out of body experience. sometimes doctors verify that they were doing things that no patient could have known. when you consistently ask several different people, and they are consistently accurate, that's strong evidence they had out of body experiences actually. we have no reason to assume this stuff isn't accurate, the surveys, so it's valid. anyone can do these surveys and get the same results, so it's repeatable.[87] i agree that there haven't been any strong examples (there are studies like this, but i question if they are accurate and can be done repeatedly) where under experiement someone reads something on paper that is impossible to have read unless they had out of body visions.[88] [ . . . ]
[*] Under different criteria people are abducted by aliens, many mansions are haunted and and Bigfoot roams the American winderness.
[87] What are these surveys that are allegedly repeatable ?
[88] If you were to present such evidence, that would no doubt be useful in a different debate, you would be presenting a red herring, for this thread is about the indefensible claim that atheism is irrational.
BTW, where is that afterlife and how does the soul that left the body reach it ?
you also confuse probable with possible.
-it's not probable that someone would hallucinate only family and dead people. if it's just a hallucination, it shouldn't be so consistent. all your arguments for why it's possible that would happen to people so consistently is just that... you are showing a possiblity. not a probablity. based on all dreams, hallucinations, and drugs that we know.... that shouldn't be that way, as a matter of probability.
It is not probable that a soul leaves the body at death. So far no one has been able to demonstrate it is even possible.
[41] Present a reference, please.
[42] Given atheism, that is to be expected.
[43] Since apparently you have looked into that, are there a significant amount of cases where people who had not heard of God before have discovered God ?
[44] The wide array of afterlife religious experience is not in individuals, but over different people, i.e. people each experiencing an NDE consistent with their religion.
[45] What a coincidence. We also know of no deity that can do that.
[46] Is that a valid form of argumentation, calling the hypotheses of your opponents stupid ? Can atheists do that too ?
[no response]
[41] Of course, if you don't have any references to back up your claim, it is understandable you don't provide any.
[43, 46] You forgot to answer my questions.
[38] You forgot to answer my question. You know the answer, don't you ? And you dislike it, don't you ?
[41] I haven't kept track because NDEs are off topic. What I was referring to is Double_R's remark of NDEs adapting to the religious belief of the person. Ramshutu also has presented some unchallenged evidence I believe.
[42] You are confusing evidence with explanation. Others have presented hypotheses. You haven't. It is comfortable to criticize the explanations of others when you fail to provide one. It allows you to point out shortcomings of theirs while they can't point out the flaws in your explanation for you don't have one.
[43] Who decides what the greatness of evidence is ? You ?
[44] Maybe finally we shall get some studies. Please present them.
[45] It is all common nonsense, which you all posess in spades.
[46] You are misrepresenting the claims of others.
[40] Of course, if that science you allude to doesn't exist, it is understandable you fail to present it.
You forgot to answer my question.
[no response]
[38] Dismissing answers because you dislike them is irrational. Skeptics are less inclined to do that. That is why they tend to be atheistic.
[43] You forgot to answer my question.
[44] Of course, if there are no studies that back up your claims, it is understandable you can't present any. Hopefully no one noticed.
References please.
Your evidence doesn't support that atheism is irrational.
[47] Why is that ?
[48] Images in hallucinations or dreams are not random.
[49] Why is that ?
[no response]
Of course if there are no articles that support your claims, it is understandable you can't refer to them.
[47, 49] You forgot to answer my questions.
i pointed out to you that surveys and interviews of out of body experiences show highly accurate evidence of out of body experiences.[50] what do you respond with?
"So having no reason to assume surveys are not accurate doesn’t make them valid, it makes them tentatively acceptable. As far as how tentative, that’s where Occam’s razor comes into play. And given what they are alleging, it’s not unreasonable at all to question their accuracy, which again would not be a problem if these phenomenon were repeatable, which they’re not, so we’re left with very little to support any of this."
basically, you said 1. a bare assertion that you think it's reasonable to question if they actually are accurate 2. the point that these examples have not been repeated in a lab. 3. you also point out occam's razor
a bare assertion isn't an argument.[51] pointing out that these have not been repeated in a lab is a good point, but it's not enough to counter point the fact that there are so many witnesses corroborating the examples.[52] you didn't elaborate on your occam's razor point but i think that point is just a repeat that you think the simplest solution is that my evidence isn't accurate.[53] everything comes back to you to the point that you think hallucinations are the simplest solution, so you ignore all evidence that shows it's more than that.
basically, you provide a lot of bluster, but very little in the way of actual logic or science. this actually is a great example of someone, you, thinking you have provided competent rebuttal, but in fact have provided nothing of worth. a great example of dunning kruger effect.[54]
[50] When I asked you for references, you were unable to provide any. How gullible do you think we are ?
You may be projecting. You think that because you are gullible, skeptics must be too.
[51] The fallacy you chose to commit is the straw man. Double_R has not claimed a bare assertion is an argument.
Would it be rational to believe people who rely on fallacies to support their worldview ?
[52] So many examples or so few ? On what grounds do you qualify the number of axamples as numerous ? There are apparently too few examples for them to be systematically studied. Creating out of body experiences of dying people may not be feasible, but if these events happened frequently enough, it would have been possible to systematically study them, like in hospitals.
Moreover, you ignore the examples of out of body experiences in different contexts than dying. Cherry picking the evidence that supports your desired conclusion is irrational.
[53] No. Nature is a simpler explanation than supernature because the existence of nature has already been established.
[54] Read who is writing.
