Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Axiomatic Unicorn" data-source="post: 64124" data-attributes="member: 1974">Re: The should have called it the LAME GAME.I agree with you.I took two hits:Direct Hit 1You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.These answers generated the following response:You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.****************Direct Hit 2You answered "True" to Question 7 and "False" to Question 15.These answers generated the following response:You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction even when there is no external evidence for the truth of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!Hit 1 may be a result of me reading to much into the question.  I answered that it is reasonable to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist because not only is the a lack of supportign evidence, but there is rational evidence against it, (lack of food supply for one).  Like I said, maybe I read to much into the question, but I think it was a bad exaple at least.Hit 2 asks if it is ok to base your beliefs on moral conviction and if you answer yes jumps to the conclusion that it must therefore be ok to impose those beliefs on others.   Really absurd.</blockquote>

Verification