Rationalism
Definition
Rationalism describes any philosophy that claims that beliefs and opinions should always be logical, deductive conclusions rather than being based on experience, observations, religious teachings, or divine revelation.
Keywords: Rationalism, Philosophy, Logical, Reasoning, Deductive, Experience, Observations, Religious, Revelation, Contradictory.
Veracity
Rationalistic claims are false .
Proof
All self-refuting or contradictory claims are deductively false.
Premise 1: Only deductive conclusions should be believed.
Premise 2: Premise 1, being the foundation or starting point of the philosophy, is not itself a deductive conclusion.
Conclusion: Therefore, premise 1, also known as "rationalism", should not be believed.
Rationalistic claims, when adhered to, require the rejection of rationalistic claims. To accept them is to reject them, making rationalism inherently contradictory and deductively false.
Gilbert Guttlebocker, Defender of Dragons
Riveting, yet absurd; romantic, yet innocent; Gilbert Guttlebocker, Defender of Dragons is a little Roald Dahl, a little Harry Potter, and a little Chronicles of Narnia, all rolled into one. Timothy McCabe collaborates with the great Benedict Ballyhoot to bring you the novel of the century!
In Printed Form
Along with numerous other authors including Don Landis, Bodie Hodge and Roger Patterson, Timothy McCabe contributes analyses of various world religions and cults in this volume from Master Books.
Other Writings
"Should modern mainstream religions be considered cults?"
Modern mainstream religions could be considered "cults", and every form of Atheism could as well. But why should it matter if that particular term can be applied? Why would we want to call every modern mainstream religion a "cult" apart from a desire to provoke some type of defensive emotional reaction from religious persons? And why would anyone be interested in manipulating such a reaction?
Continue reading...
"Since there can be no evidence for something that can't be measured, is it at least fair to say that there is no empirical evidence for god, and therefore no reason to believe he exists?"
If there is no reason to believe something that can't be measured, why would anyone believe that "there is no reason to believe something that can't be measured"? This argument is self-defeating. If we accept it, we must apply it to itself. Once we apply it to itself, we see that it does not meet its own criteria. Then, we must reject it. In other words, if we accept your argument, we must reject your argument on its own terms. I hope this is clear. God bless.
Continue reading...
"Where did Jesus go after his baptism, is it as according to Mark 1:12-13 or John 1:35-2:1-2. They both have been chosen by the council of Nicea over thousands of gospels and thought to be inspired by the Holy Ghost. Isn't this a contradiction?"
The book of John does not relate the baptism of Jesus. It simply quotes John the Baptist talking about the baptism sometime after the fact. Nowhere does it claim to inform us of what happened immediately after Christ's baptism. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all inform us that Jesus was led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness after His baptism (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1), where He was to be tempted by the devil.
Continue reading...