Atheists are having it too easy.

[ibis]

Perhaps I'm just not understanding the term 'rational' correctly.

I would associate the term with the idea of reasonableness. I can well see how there might be valid arguments for and against the notion that God exists. But I cannot see how there could be sound arguments on both sides. I can see that it might be rational for different people in different contexts to believe or not believe, but I cannot see how it could be rational for a person to either believe or not believe (as opposed to adopting a position of agnosticism.)

It's possible to develop a rational (that is, logically coherent) argument for both positions - the difference would be in the assumptions made along the way. We don't always possess the level of knowledge of the universe to allow us to definitively dismiss assumptions, and therefore there will always be the freedom to make different assumptions on which entirely logical arguments can then be constructed.

It's very easy for the atheist to say "well, we assume nothing", but a complete absence of assumptions leads nowhere - usually, the atheist is indeed making assumptions (for example, that the world is fundamentally causal, or that time exists, etc).

[ibis]

You've phrased the claim as an empirical one - is it possible for a baptised Christian to be a soldier? It's unclear if you mean: is it permissible for a baptised Christian to be a soldier? Or if you mean: is it a contradiction in terms to say that a baptised Christian is a soldier? (Clearly it's physically possible for someone to be baptised a Christian and then become a soldier.)

That's true, I was unclear. What I was asking was whether it was morally acceptable for a Christian to be a soldier, and to shed blood, or whether a Christian that does so would be in a state of sin (I'm using the concept of 'sin' as largely synonymous with Christian morality here).

The early Church was very clear on the subject - a soldier, by virtue of his profession, was sinning. The modern Church requires no such penalty. At some point, then, the heavy moral opprobrium attached by Christianity to the shedding of blood has fallen by the wayside.

[Mercurial]

It's possible to develop a rational (that is, logically coherent) argument for both positions - the difference would be in the assumptions made along the way. We don't always possess the level of knowledge of the universe to allow us to definitively dismiss assumptions, and therefore there will always be the freedom to make different assumptions on which entirely logical arguments can then be constructed.

It's very easy for the atheist to say "well, we assume nothing", but a complete absence of assumptions leads nowhere - usually, the atheist is indeed making assumptions (for example, that the world is fundamentally causal, or that time exists, etc).

I think perhaps it’s clearer to say valid or logically coherent rather than rational. An argument may be perfectly valid but contain premises which it would be highly irrational to believe. Rational seem to me to be a word which is better applied to individuals rather than arguments.

Given two people with more or less identical mental faculties and experiences which are essentially the same, I cannot see how it might be reasonable for one of these people to believe A while also being reasonable for the other to believe NotA. Counterexamples welcome.

[just a thought]

I am sure this question should be posted in a new thread but because I am a new contributor to politics.ie I am not allowed to open one. So I apologise in advance for jumping in with this. Perhaps a moderator can move it later on.

I am genuinely curious as to why atheists visit organised Christian gatherings for worship? My specific example being "atheists that attend the Meeting for Worship of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)".
Quakers are a recognised Christian denomination or do atheists (and maybe other groups/persons) see them as secular?
Quakers believe "there is that of God in everyone" (except for atheist Quakers, I presume) so what is/would be the attraction for an atheist when attending a Meeting for Worship?
Would a secular/non religious meditation or universalist group not be a more suitable solace/stimulus for an atheist?

Sorry I moved away from the philosophical arguments.

[Cato]

That was part of the Church's discipline, which can change from time to time. The Church's moral teaching never changes, nor can it.

Wrong. It's moral teaching on usury changed. It was once deemed immoral to charge interest on a loan.

Slavery is another issue on which the church changed its mind.

[Didimus]

Wrong. It's moral teaching on usury changed. It was once deemed immoral to charge interest on a loan.

Slavery is another issue on which the church changed its mind.

Some details would be helpful.
Although I am unsympathetic both to claims to the unchangingness of church teaching on moral issues and challenges to that claim that are blithely unconcerned with historical context.

[Cato]

Yes. It doesn't challenge your sexual behaviour.

That's usually the reason.

That response ought to have been beneath you. Most atheists have not rejected Christianity because of that; we reject it because it is founded on a lie, and not because of its spurious moral teachings.

[Didimus]

That response ought to have been beneath you. Most atheists have not rejected Christianity because of that; we reject it because it is founded on a lie, and not because of its spurious moral teachings.

A lie might be a little harsh. Mistaken belief? And why spurious, not mistaken, or irrational or whatever?
The weather seems to be making people tetchy.

[Monday Monday]

Some details would be helpful.
Although I am unsympathetic both to claims to the unchangingness of church teaching on moral issues and challenges to that claim that are blithely unconcerned with historical context.

In the middle ages it was considered a sin for a Christian to lend money at interest.
I'll pop up a wikipedia link which gives an overview here. sadly nothing more academic
Usury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interestingly
This allowed the Jewish families to become wealthy in countries where they were allowed to live (such as England) but were forbidden from normal trades such as farming or blacksmithing etc. The lending money at interest, the wealth gained from its practice, and all the bad social stuff involved with the collecting of money owed, did a lot to reinforce and deepen the savage antisemitism of Christian Europe. Many of the charges against the "Jooos" you hear bandied about these days are a direct throwback to the middle ages.

[Toland]

That response ought to have been beneath you. Most atheists have not rejected Christianity because of that; we reject it because it is founded on a lie, and not because of its spurious moral teachings.

I thought you were atheists, Cato and Mercurial, not acolytes of some free-love, hump-the-good-looking-ones sect (which you must be, seeing as how Almanac has identified the real reason that you reject the catholic church).

I'm disappointed in you both.


Can I join?