Augustus
…
For a test designed to show 'consistency' (in a very smug and self-satisfied manner), probably should have made more of an effort not to be inconsistent 
You have to be inconsistent in your beliefs to 'pass' the test.
You've taken a direct hit!
Earlier you responded that it is rational to believe 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 occasion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
The previous question was about people having searched for the monster without finding evidence it existed (thus was an argument for it not existing).
In the absence of arguments or evidence that God doesn't exist then it is a matter of faith. Having no evidence that something exists is an argument that it doesn't exist though given it either exists or it doesn't. This is what the monster argument showed.
I don't believe atheism is a matter of faith, I believe there are arguments (not proof) against God's existence.
You've taken a direct hit!
Earlier you said that even in the absence of independent evidence, it is justified to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction. But now you do not accept that the serial murderer Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the killer has exposed that you do not in fact think that a 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!
Many of our moral values are built on a strong inner-conviction that they are correct with no independent evidence that the are correct. They are subjective value preferences, but ones we think should also be held by other people (thus being about the external world). These are justified because they lead to positive consequences, not because they are objectively true.
Someone being justified in believing God told him to kill people would require God actually existing.
You have to be inconsistent in your beliefs to 'pass' the test.
You've taken a direct hit!
Earlier you responded that it is rational to believe 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 occasion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
The previous question was about people having searched for the monster without finding evidence it existed (thus was an argument for it not existing).
In the absence of arguments or evidence that God doesn't exist then it is a matter of faith. Having no evidence that something exists is an argument that it doesn't exist though given it either exists or it doesn't. This is what the monster argument showed.
I don't believe atheism is a matter of faith, I believe there are arguments (not proof) against God's existence.
You've taken a direct hit!
Earlier you said that even in the absence of independent evidence, it is justified to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction. But now you do not accept that the serial murderer Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the killer has exposed that you do not in fact think that a 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!
Many of our moral values are built on a strong inner-conviction that they are correct with no independent evidence that the are correct. They are subjective value preferences, but ones we think should also be held by other people (thus being about the external world). These are justified because they lead to positive consequences, not because they are objectively true.
Someone being justified in believing God told him to kill people would require God actually existing.
