@OrP: the tl;dr of that is that (per discussion with well named a while back) I consider a belief that isn't based in logic to be 'non-rational' and a belief based on bad logic to be 'irrational'.

I think few theists would agree that their belief is "based" on bad logic. Mostly, it's what they put forth in an attempt to justify it, no?

I would say that the best arguments for theism are the lives of great saints (of whatever tradition)

And among the best arguments against theism are unfortunately the lives of many believers.

But in our defense it's really hard :P

If the vast majority of atheists presented ridiculous arguments, then I might reconsider my position. One or two atheists making ridiculous arguments wouldn't be enough to do it.

Most theists claim that their beliefs are based on 'faith'. Logic doesn't factor into it.

Of course. Not suggesting otherwise. The discussion here is about how and when a false belief can be justified. I am tentatively asserting that there is a difference between a false belief that uses bad logic as a justification (irrational) and a false belief that uses bad evidence as a justification (delusional, if you like). And I'd like to make extra clear that I'm not just using 'irrational' as a blanket pejorative but have a particular definition in mind that I gave above to OrP.

On top of and separate to that, I also believe - again, as an empiricist - that personal experience can be evidence for a proposition (even if very weak evidence) in a way that an invalid logical argument cannot be. Therefore I believe that one's belief in God is better justified by personal experience than by an invalid logical argument, even if neither are remotely persuasive to me as a third party.

Ya, agree. I guess, I was just thrown off by the wording of "But when someone defends obviously flawed logical/philosophical/deductive arguments for God then I immediately dismiss them as irrational by definition." (in a similar way as OrP, I guess)

It kind of sounded as if the "them" relates to the person(s) as in general, while I think it could at most relate to the their attempt to justify their belief. But I guess that's what you meant.

This assumes everything we know about them is accurate.

everything might be a bit too hostile of a requirement, but certainly it assumes that they manage to live up to the hype.

Can you expand on this? Not criticising, just looking for more info.

Maybe "everything we know of them for" might be a better way of phrasing that

yes, but my brain is currently fried from excessive coding. However, I just happened to run into this article on Andrew Sullivan's blog which might be interesting as background:

Reflected glory: Imitation, biography and moral formation in early Christianity

That focuses on the expression of morality, and I would place that in the context of an idea I posted about in the trinity/non-dualism thread: that knowledge of God requires a certain "purity of heart", and is not the same kind of thing as knowledge about the world. And so formal arguments abstracted away from the real experience and practice miss something essential. Of course, there is a great deal of apologetics out there that try to support theism objectively or via argumentation, but it's my opinion that those efforts are at best somewhat misguided. Not that there can't be any use of rational thinking, logic, or argumentation in religious teaching, but in that you can't prove the existence of God in an objective fashion, and that's why, as was said in this thread, there aren't really any "good arguments" for religious belief in that vein.

I don't see how this is evidence for anything more than adherence to their doctrine. But I understand that you do not think evidence is available in this sense.

Prophecies could have been a legitimate form of evidence, had there been any legitimate ones described in the Bible (meaning specific in description, time, location and objectively confirmable). I would imagine if there were any really good ones, they would be more commonly mentioned, but generally I only hear about prophecies in terms of how numerous they are, with little regard for what they actually are.

You're reminding me that I needed to get back to elaborating on that.

I could have put "argument" in quotes because I didn't mean that it's actually a logical argument for the existence of God, or "evidence" of the sort a naturalist would be inclined to credit.

What I really meant was that they are arguments for God because they are Beautiful. In their joy and their compassion, their service for others, their singular devotion and self-sacrifice, their peace and radiance. That is what I think it means for them to live up to their reputations. I'm not primarily thinking of great theologians when I say great saints, I mean people who embody those goals of a spiritual life.

And the last word is especially impotrant: life. I think oftentimes in these theism/atheism debates about the existence of God, the purpose or value of religion is reduced to a set of propositions which are either true or false. But religion is not just intellectual or abstract, it's about a way of life. I'm not sure you can ever really appreciate the possible value of being religious by evaluating arguments. You have to try living it, and that is what "saints" represent to me.

I guess it's just fair and square that I mention a rebuttal just posted on salon: Richard Dawkins is not an Islamophobe

Apparently, the author has significant difficulties sticking to some reasonably objective language and further below he writes "Dawkins’ claim to fame as an atheist is his masterly, detailed denunciation of theistic religion, “The God Delusion,”", so w/e, I guess.

Detailed I'll buy. Masterly is more than a stretch.

Lol, you can't get tomatoe juice out of a rock............ I am honest, I know that there are unbelievers and believers and that they exist together.

1. Believers
2. Unbelievers who eventually become believers
3. Unbelievers who will never believe

If someone is #3 it would not matter how much logic and truth you told them, they would never believe. That's why they are called unbelievers. If your in that category, it's not because of something I have said, it's because you were born that way.

And if you are #2 then you will have ears to hear and when you hear the truth you will believe. Some take a long time. Once they've lived awhile and relied on their own belief systems and came up empty over and over or with the short end of the stick, they usually humble themselves and ask for help outside of their own self. And God is always listening and waiting for them to turn their hearts towards Him and call out. But He can't be fooled. He knows the thoughts and intents of everyones heart. So when it's genuine He will make sure they get the exact info they need to believe.... it's that simple and thats exactly how it works....

I honestly do believe that people can turn people away from the truth but I also know and believe that there are lots of bull****ters who blame their unbelief, which is their own responsibility on someone else, and it's just an excuse and a lie.

When I was eight and older boy said to me

After some thought, I realised he was correct.

Kinda sounds like Santa Claus.

You kinda sound like an unbeliever....

Number 3 on the list. I have a fear that something might someday fool me into thinking I witnessed a real supernatural miracle and become a believer.

What sort of programmer are you?

Talented?

Also 4 years older than that post now. How the time goes by...

(Mostly I work on Web apps and services.)

The older boy's assertion isn't something you can rationally agree or disagree with "after some thought." One would have to do extensive research on the claims of the various religions and the reasons given for those claims.

After you have thoughtfully considered the arguments and evidence, then you can have a rational basis for realizing that he was correct.

carlo has expanded my philosophical views and sense of what's important and what is merely scaffolding. Not a conversion, but a little bit of enlightening.