Quote from: LaudaM on May 11, 2015, 02:00:47 PM

Quote from: the joint on May 11, 2015, 01:30:08 PM

Quote from: Prosperityforall on May 08, 2015, 06:10:33 PM

+1, David Hume and Kant had similar views. Humans are rational beings, believing in a "god" without any objective reason(Evidence) to is irrational, and disregards the entire concept of having the ability to reason and think. Theists are quite possibly the dumbest people on the planet. It's almost as if they "want" to give away their ability to reason, like mindless zombies.

I think you missed some of what Hume stated, however. If Hume concluded that "believing in a 'god' without any [evidence]...is irrational," then he contradicted himself.

Hume rightfully pointed out that Empiricism, and therefore Science, have non-empirical, unscientific foundations. Specifically, the assumptions that give the Scientific Method validity are entirely philosophical, e.g. how the rules of sound inference and knowledge of the limitations of inductive reasoning give validity to the assumption that we live in a Positivistic Universe, an assumption that is absolutely required for Science to work at all, and for which there is both no evidence nor a means of empirical falsification.

With regards to religion, Hume would say that a lack of evidence is not a strong enough basis (actually, it carries no weight whatsoever) to reject theism specifically because one who does would also be forced to reject the epistemological underpinnings of science itself. Yes, it is true there is no physical evidence for God, but because there is also no physical evidence for the validity of the scientific method, then we must defer back to Philosophy to establish the validity/invalidity of both. In other words, if one can make a total scientific departure to validate scientific epistemology (note: Science is merely a philosophical subset), then why cannot one make the same departure for theism?

On a side note, it's my personal observation that the unbelievably-vast majority of religious debates are a priori invalid for the aforementioned reasons. Atheists make bullshit claims that it is silly to believe in God due to a lack of evidence (claims which are often supported by equally-bullshit analogies like the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot which hold no weight whatsoever), and then theists, thinking that these invalid arguments are actually credible, entertain them and provide bullshit rebuttals by hopelessly trying to cite evidence that supports the existence of God.

When it comes down to it, religious debates set in an empirical context are invalid and a waste of time, and people just spew a bunch of hot air.

You're just interpreting this for your own argument. Did you base your information off of Google? I actually have partially studies Hume and I have a book lying next to me.
Even though he wrote a lot about religion, his views seem a bit unclear. This is why it is open to interpretation. He stance was agnostic and skeptical. I'm not sure why people brought him up, he was definitely not an atheist. He did claim that reason is not up to the task to be the only guide in our life.
Believing in this "god" is irrational. I'm talking about the "gods" from the current religions. Theists are very deluded.

Quote from: erikalui on May 11, 2015, 01:48:17 PM

-snip

I know what the world is facing today because of religion and hence I just disregard this term. There are no atheists or theists in life but only Good and Bad people. While I love and respect the former, I dislike the latter. What kind of a person are you?

The underlying implication here must be atheists are bad. Most of the people that were defined as "bad", were defined by a set of ignorant rules, that were set by various religions.

I pulled this from a combination of .edu and other credible sources. It's set in the context of his commentary on the Problem of Induction. My point in referencing his comments wasn't in any way to discuss his personal religious beliefs, which are irrelevant to the discussion, anyway. Rather, it was simply to correct the poster's statements that it is irrational to believe in something without physical evidence. Adhering to this point of view must also lead one to the conclusion that it is irrational to believe in the validity of scientific epistemology.

To reach a conclusion that "believing in 'this' god is irrational" requires a philosophical basis. Because science is a mere philosophical subset, it isn't good enough to assume it has the final say. We need to defer to Philosophy in a broader sense to determine whether there is a way to determine what is and what is not logically necessary. If there is a philosophical basis by you can conclude God is logically impossible, or even that it impossible to know whether God exists, then you are free to make that conclusion. However, the reverse seems to be true, i.e. Intelligent Design is a logical necessity for reality's existence.