If we define an Irrational belief as one that 'goes beyond the available evidence and doesn't leave open possibilities not closed out by that evidence', then does a belief in gods meet that definition?

There can be no such thing as 'Scientific' evidence of something supernatural, Science rejects the existence of the supernatural and god, by definition, is supernatural (non-physical), so what evidence is there for the existence of gods? It seems that all evidence regresses to one base claim, that we could not be here unless we had been created by something that we'll call 'god'.

But, even if you could argue that this claim isn't going beyond the available evidence (and that's debatable), does it close out possibilities that the available evidence should leave open, that the cause of our existence is in fact something else? All we know is that we are here to ask the question, anything else is at best, a Hypothesis.

(And, if a gods belief is Irrational, does that mean that it can't be Justified, since the relationship between the belief and the evidence that it is based on is undermined by the fact that the thinking behind the belief is Irrational in the first place?)

Yes, next.

This is a big leap.

its a gift from God.

beware of being the proud atheist. its the road to destruction and hell fire. God hates pride and lies.

Thanks for the warning, but the two main things atheists do not fear are God and hell fire.

aboslutely specially the traditional ones since most of the actual culture do not make sense at all

Under this definition, disbelief in God is also an irrational belief.

But of course, no reasonable person uses this definition of irrational, so it really doesn't matter that much.

Pots and kettles

Let's just go with "not logical or reasonable" then.

I welcome you presenting a definition of either one that is consistent with the usage of the terms and an explanation as to how you reached your conclusion.

It's always interesting to me the sheer number of atheists who try to look down at religious people as being stupid, irrational, or whatever, but when they present themselves they tend to prove themselves to be the ones lacking in logic and intellect.

I don't know about irrational, but history/archaeology shows that "man/cro-magnon" have believed in god(s), evidenced by jewelry/cave paintings found and interpreted by scholars who believe they referenced god(s) as creator.

Well, something doesn't have to be scientific to be rational.

And "science" doesn't reject the existence of the supernatural, it merely demands that all claims should be subjected to the same rigor. Or at least most traditional science does so. There are, after all, many scientists who believe in god and I find it doubtful that all of them perform some dualistic mind-exercise every time they do work.

Nor are all definitions of god non-physical.

In short, you have added so many caveats to your question that it has become fairly uninteresting to answer.

No of course not, but since the question revolves around what evidence is available, and Scientific evidence always comes up, I thought I'd rule that out right away in the OP so that I didn't have to do it on an individual basis throughout any ensuing conversation.

People can introduce any other types of evidence if they choose to.


Yes, it does. Science is applied though Methodological Naturalism, it only accepts that there is the Natural world and does not accept supernatural explanations because they are not useful. The vast majority of scientists adhere to Naturalism.

If you accept the supernatural, you are, by definition, rejecting Scientific explanations.



Ouch, except that I don't agree. I used one definition, and I ruled out one source of the evidence that an answer might rel;y on. Hardly 'so many caveats'.....

Well, that's the scope of the OP. I'm asking the question from an Epistemological viewpoint of what constitutes an 'irrational belief'.

Don't preach at me, I'll just block you. I currently only have two people on my block list, but I've been posting on facebook a lot recently and my block reflex has evolved rapidly....

Why is it? A great many religious explanations have been replaced by Scientific explanations and it seems that if you argue 'proof of gods' the conversation always ends up at the last refuge of the theist which is to claim that whatever else we know, we still can't explain how the universe is here in the first place.

Even if what I just said isn't true, why not start there anyway? Either way, the question is one of the evidence available and whether or not it sufficiently supports the idea of gods or whether those who believe are being irrational.

i will praise my God and father in heaven until my last breath. you will miss something if you block me.

I don't see how you get from, "we can't explain exactly where we came from" to "it must have been created by a thinking being we call God".

My view is that belief in God is not logical or reasonable, is simply because there is no evidence for it.

You want me to define logical and reasonable for you? I'm sure you can look them up.

To me a logical conclusion to draw is one that is consistent with the evidence available.

Few prominent atheists claim that the existence of God is logically inconsistent with the available evidence (eg including Dawkins). There are some philosophers who defend the logical problem of evil as showing that traditional conceptions of God don't exist are inconsistent with the evidence, but the evidential problem of evil (which generally admits that the existence of evil doesn't logically imply that god doesn't exist) is more popular.

Perhaps my explanation wasn't quote what I was going for. I would say a logical conclusion is one that can be sensibly drawn from the evidence available.

We don't need to have a debate on how neither side can prove their position, but to me the balance of evidence is heavily in one direction.

jecross,
Where do you stand on the question of whether we live in a simulation?

Higher probability than God?
Lower probability than God?
Much higher probability that God?

Surely it's a lower probability than God by definition? If we are in a simulation then it must have had a creator.

Then belief in God is not illogical.

We've moved on from there, but thanks. Ahh, ninja edit.

It seems we disagree on the interpretation of sensibly.