[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by tad10

Let me assure you that this is a fight you can not win. But since you want to be bent into a pretzel anyway.

You are, of course, correct. There's no way to combat sophisms.

Originally Posted by tad10

You say

(1) Rationality is the employment of reason, which is inference and deduction through logic an empirical evidence.

(2) Faith is belief without logical proof or empirical evidence.

(3) Therefore Faith is not rational.

I think we can all agree that I have put your argument as fairly as possible -- using your own words -- merely rearranging them into the syllogism you were using.

I might object you trying to turn a simple statement of definitions into axioms, but, again, whatever floats your boat.

Originally Posted by tad10

I'm going to ignore Pascal's Wager as a rebuttal.

Oh that's good...since Pascal's wager concerns only belief in God (specifically Christian), and not faith in a general sense. You might say these are the same, but even then Pascal's wager deals only with the consequences of faith not with what faith itself means.

Originally Posted by tad10

I'm also going to ignore the "benefit here and now regardless of the hereafter" rebuttal.

Oh, whew. Because it's not like that concerns only consequences of faith as well and has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

Originally Posted by tad10

I just want to point out the flaws in your argument:

Statements (1) and (2) are exactly the kind of flawed logic that I'm talking about.

Lets parse it shall we?

Shoot.

Originally Posted by tad10

"Rationality is the employment of reason" --
Axiom One: God can not be proved through the use of Reason.

"Which is inference and deduction" --
Axiom Two: Inference and deduction can not be used to prove the existence of God.

"Through logic and emprical evidence" --
Axiom three: Logic and empirical evidence can not be used to prove the existence of God.

Would you agree that those are you points?

I would not agree that those are my points. I have to this point made no assertions about God. My point, which seems to have escaped you entirely, is that the definitions of these words were mutually exclusive. Again, I reitterate that if you chose to define these words in a different way then you are not actively arguing against me, but substituting, via equivocation, new words. Those are the accepted definitions (as nearly as I'm willing to approximate on a message board anyway) in both the common and philosophical sense. If you choose to deny those definitions that are commonly held by humanity to represent those particular ideas then any further argument is moot---since again we are not debating the same things.

Originally Posted by tad10

Now would you agree that you have just done exactly what I said you had to do to make the argument that atheism is rational and religion irrational.

No, I wouldn't for reasons that should be abundantly clear.

Originally Posted by tad10

You have introduced several axioms 1,2 & 3 that you can't prove.

I introduced commonly accepted definitions. You introduced the axioms. I guess I should elaborate here that my definitions cannot be considered axioms since they were not intended for deductive reasoning and were instead simple statements of agreed upon meaning that is necessary for human communication.

Originally Posted by tad10

Statement (2) is similiary flawed. You assume that Faith can not be logically proved. This is another axiom that you can't logically prove.

That doesn't even make sense. "..faith cannot be logically proved," is gibberish.

Originally Posted by tad10

Finally, I note that you protest my definitions -- well I protest your definitions. Saying that "Faith is irrational by definition" -- doesn't make your point -- it is cheating. You, like Dawkins, are defining faith in a way to suit your argument. You're just pissed I'm calling you on it.

Yeah, you got me. Clearly, banking on previously well established meanings to words is cheating. I AM defining faith in a way that supports my argument, however, that same definition just so happens to be the one agreed upon by nearly everybody. Your's isn't.

Originally Posted by tad10

You may enjoy thinking that as an atheist you're somehow more rational and logical than the crowd -- but you're not. Sorry to burst your bubble.

And now the very crux of it all. You're damn right I consider myself more rational and logical than most Christians. I don't, however, consider myself better than others for it. You could abolutely make the argument that reason cannot be taken as a given and I'd concede the point. But, you didn't do that now did you? No, you took the smug tone that only people with little applicable knowledge to whatever they happen to be debating take. You could say that I'm smug as hell, and arrogant...and you'd be right, but I'm not exactly bound by faith to nurture my humility...am I?

Originally Posted by tad10

Oh and P.S. I like the apple/orange strawman argument.

The funny thing is that as absurd as that argument was...it actually wasn't a strawman.