[topherreynoso]

>> To try and dress up either atheism or theism in rational arguments is absurd

Why? I know plenty of philosophers that are great with rational arguments that spend their time in atheism or theism. I know several who believe in God or some kind of higher power simply because of free will. Can you give a definition of free will? Can you provide evidence of it or prove or disprove it even if we can agree what it is that we think we are talking about? Just because we may not have the slightest figment of a clue, not even a scrap, doesn't mean that we can't feel strongly whether free will actually exists or not or posit experiments or rational arguments to explain its existence or non-existence one way or the other. Do you believe in free will? I do and I know several philosophers who do too, who feel that since they feel so strongly about its existence, despite it going against everything we understand about a physical universe (causal relationships, action and reaction and whatnot) that there must be something else going on in the universe other than mere atoms bumping into atoms, the existence that we can observe. Sounds like a pretty rational argument that dresses up atheism or theism quite nicely. Maybe you just haven't explored enough rational arguments or questioned your own ability to think and act freely to even reach the questions? Maybe you have. I don't know you, but I do know that there are all kinds of ways to talk about atheism and theism in very rational ways.

[richmarr]

> Why?

For the reason I highlighted in the post you replied to.

You're welcome to explain why you think I'm wrong, but saying 'I believe X and so do my friends' doesn't satisfy.

[topherreynoso]

I'll be the first to admit that I've heard a lot of irrational arguments from people trying to advocate or disprove a particular religion. But you're saying that because you've only heard or explored irrational arguments for theism or atheism that all arguments for theism or atheism are irrational. Your argument is irrational.

[richmarr]

That's not what I'm saying at all. Don't mistake me for an atheist.

I'm saying that without the ability to even vaguely define what a "God" is the question "does God exist?" is a non-question.

Sure you can define God as the 'metaphysically ultimate being' but that's a cop-out definition that means nothing. 'Ultimate' just means there isn't another one after that... ranked assumedly by some magical badassery rating.

I might as well ask you "is there a Fnooob?" on the basis that Fnooob is the metaphysically penultimate being. You have no basis on which to answer the question because the question is nonsense.

We're all familiar with stories about various gods because we've been fed them since childhood, and that familiarity makes us think we know what they are, but we really don't.

[topherreynoso]

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. Questioning the existence and using rational arguments for or against the possibility of free will itself is a rational argument that affects theism or atheism. My point wasn't to tell you what my friends believe but to help you understand that there is a whole body of work dedicated to substance dualism that is based in rational arguments. That's just one philosophical subject, there are plenty others. Simply waving your hand and saying that rational arguments about theism or atheism are absurd is lazy at best. Take a look, there are plenty to be had.