YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 nobody said that. we are looking for evidence for god. again where is ur evidence? what is god? Go look up the definition of rational. Once again, believer or not, you still have no clue about which you write. Go back to school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 what I find to be the most amazing part of this thread, is that people are actually trying to rationalize with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 so u have no evidence for god or zeus but u want to teach children creationism.... lol get real man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 let me guess u think the earth is 6000 yrs old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 belief in zeus was never rational... Neither is the belief in the Bills having a winning season one day, and yet...here we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I am not, but in a given age where belief in Zeus is the norm, rationality as a human (which is usually defined in coping with societal norms and getting along) could be rational. ?Once again, you seem to be confusing rationality with being able to prove something concretely. Big difference... I suggest you go luck up the full definition of the word and take Psych 101 before your answer back. Any supernatural belief is by definition irrational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 let me guess u think the earth is 6000 yrs old? You truly are an idiot, you don't even know what I believe, yet you are arrogant enough to criticize something of which you don't even have any assumed factual basis to back up your statements. I have just acknowledge that I believe in God, anything more specific than that I have not said, but since your little mind cannot handle any kind of discussion of logic. Though you purport yourself to be rational because you think that you are an atheist, but can't even adequately argue coherently any reasons that justify why you believe what you believe/ Man you are walking cluster. How about taking a class on just the definition of rational as it pertains to the English connotation of the term as it is used in the current century as well as its derivatives used through out history. Then talk to me about belief and its rationality within human society.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Any supernatural belief is by definition irrational. According to what norm? Other than atheism, because then it is just circular reasoning as defined by itself. Justify it some more for me. I may still disagree, but I would argue that rationality of belief is anything that allows someone to distinguish between current norms of society so that they can survive with a modicum of happiness. If your are talking about empirical rationalization. Then I would agree, belief in a higher power does not fit the norm of empiricism and therefore is not rational according to that definition, but neither is empiricism ultimately, because it can only result in numbers that infinitely regress but never actually describe reality and therefore by definition is irrational too or at least can not prove its rationality and if it can because of the limits of the link between perception through the brain to consciousness or sole cannot be established its rationality is questionable... though we depend on both empiricism and faith to make "rational" decisions every day. Rational defined as making reasonable decisions based on our understanding of the events and information we have access to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 3, 2009 Author Share Posted October 3, 2009 ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER, they are in the same category, u lose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 3, 2009 Author Share Posted October 3, 2009 According to what norm? Other than atheism, because then it is just circular reasoning as defined by itself. Justify it some more for me. I may still disagree, but I would argue that rationality of belief is anything that allows someone to distinguish between current norms of society so that they can survive with a modicum of happiness. If your are talking about empirical rationalization. Then I would agree, belief in a higher power does not fit the norm of empiricism and therefore is not rational according to that definition, but neither is empiricism ultimately, because it can only result in numbers that infinitely regress but never actually describe reality and therefore by definition is irrational too or at least can not prove its rationality and if it can because of the limits of the link between perception through the brain to consciousness or sole cannot be established its rationality is questionable... though we depend on both empiricism and faith to make "rational" decisions every day. Rational defined as making reasonable decisions based on our understanding of the events and information we have access to. so u believe in zeus and u believe in creationism and u also believe the earth is 6000 yrs old... man u r a idiot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER, they are in the same category, u lose! Logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you Stop feeding the troll you ninnies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 According to what norm? Other than atheism, because then it is just circular reasoning as defined by itself. Justify it some more for me. I may still disagree, but I would argue that rationality of belief is anything that allows someone to distinguish between current norms of society so that they can survive with a modicum of happiness. If your are talking about empirical rationalization. Then I would agree, belief in a higher power does not fit the norm of empiricism and therefore is not rational according to that definition, but neither is empiricism ultimately, because it can only result in numbers that infinitely regress but never actually describe reality and therefore by definition is irrational too or at least can not prove its rationality and if it can because of the limits of the link between perception through the brain to consciousness or sole cannot be established its rationality is questionable... though we depend on both empiricism and faith to make "rational" decisions every day. Fine, if you want to nitpick: Any supernatural belief is by definition empirically irrational. Think about how far you are stretching things to say religion might not be irrational. I don't think you even get close by going down that path. I can't dispute the logic of what you are saying, but it seems to me that we can only make rational decisions based on our perception of reality. I'm not sure that anything outside of what we perceive to be real can ever actually matter to us, but who knows. It's a mind bender for sure, but it doesn't add to either the concept of god or no god. You're not really saying anything at all about it. It's an argument intended to mystify, deflect and redirect. It's not quite as bad as invoking mysterious quantum mechanics to validate some pseudoscience claim, but along the same lines. Rational defined as making reasonable decisions based on our understanding of the events and information we have access to. By your definition it seems to me you that you're almost agreeing with what I said above since you can't make reasonable decisions based on information you do have. In the end, religious beliefs are based purely on faith, even within the context of our perception of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Fine, if you want to nitpick: Any supernatural belief is by definition empirically irrational. Think about how far you are stretching things to say religion might not be irrational. I don't think you even get close by going down that path. I can't dispute the logic of what you are saying, but it seems to me that we can only make rational decisions based on our perception of reality. I'm not sure that anything outside of what we perceive to be real can ever actually matter to us, but who knows. It's a mind bender for sure, but it doesn't add to either the concept of god or no god. You're not really saying anything at all about it. It's an argument intended to mystify, deflect and redirect. It's not quite as bad as invoking mysterious quantum mechanics to validate some pseudoscience claim, but along the same lines. By your definition it seems to me you that you're almost agreeing with what I said above since you can't make reasonable decisions based on information you do have. In the end, religious beliefs are based purely on faith, even within the context of our perception of reality. Exactly, but the result is that many people find comfort in faith, as a result are able to cope with the unexplainable, faith helps provide understanding to the connection they feel with other human beings and therefore they able to make peace with the myriad of human emotions that can often lead to our own and others destruction. I would argue that those who cause destruction don't actually have faith, but use the word or words as a foil to manipulate others to follow in their own narcissism, but that is MO. Hence Faith is a component of rational decision making when not fakely enunciated and thus narcissistic and in its extreme delusional. P.S. I am not sure I can add to your concept of God, hence why I have not defined mine other than to tell you what I don't think God is. Also, I do think that science allows us to further our understanding of our perceived existence despite the fact that we cannot ultimately prove it. In fact many forms of reasoning including faith help in that endeavor and to deny any one of them is to throw away a tool in the tool box of that process. There are times when each tool is necessary. Hence why I keep an open mind to even Right Wing Christians and other fundamentalists, who most of the time I cannot stomach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Exactly, but the result is that many people find comfort in faith, as a result are able to cope with the unexplainable, faith helps provide understanding to the connection they feel with other human beings and therefore they able to make peace with the myriad of human emotions that can often lead to our own and others destruction. I would argue that those who cause destruction don't actually have faith, but use the word or words as a foil to manipulate others to follow in their own narcissism, but that is MO. Hence Faith is a component of rational decision making when not fakely enunciated and thus narcissistic and in its extreme delusional. People find comfort in a lot of things. Comfort in say, astrology or a psychic reading does not make such things real or the decision to believe in such things at all rational. The difference is that astrology and psychics are at least partially falsifiable. I've been thinking about it, and I can agree that deciding to believe in god could be considered rational to those who have been given no alternative or do not have the capacity for critical thought. People who are told such things their whole lives cannot be expected to look at faith rationally without proper information. Faith in and of itself however, can never be rational. Without faith of the masses, those who would cause destruction and manipulate others using faith would have, as you say, one less tool in the toolbox. P.S. I am not sure I can add to your concept of God, hence why I have not defined mine other than to tell you what I don't think God is. Also, I do think that science allows us to further our understanding of our perceived existence despite the fact that we cannot ultimately prove it. In fact many forms of reasoning including faith help in that endeavor and to deny any one of them is to throw away a tool in the tool box of that process. There are times when each tool is necessary. Hence why I keep an open mind to even Right Wing Christians and other fundamentalists, who most of the time I cannot stomach. Science can't really say anything about god, except perhaps to give some idea of the probability of god's existence, which I personally think is very low. This is of course because god is a supernatural idea. I try not to discount the views of others (unless completely illogical) because what other people think matters. If someone has a particular view, chances are it is shared by many and it is therefore better to try to understand it instead of dismissing it out of hand. I know of no 'form of reasoning' that requires faith or is even aided by faith. I'd like a further explanation if you'd like to elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 People find comfort in a lot of things. Comfort in say, astrology or a psychic reading does not make such things real or the decision to believe in such things at all rational. The difference is that astrology and psychics are at least partially falsifiable. I've been thinking about it, and I can agree that deciding to believe in god could be considered rational to those who have been given no alternative or do not have the capacity for critical thought. People who are told such things their whole lives cannot be expected to look at faith rationally without proper information. Faith in and of itself however, can never be rational. Without faith of the masses, those who would cause destruction and manipulate others using faith would have, as you say, one less tool in the toolbox. Science can't really say anything about god, except perhaps to give some idea of the probability of god's existence, which I personally think is very low. This is of course because god is a supernatural idea. I try not to discount the views of others (unless completely illogical) because what other people think matters. If someone has a particular view, chances are it is shared by many and it is therefore better to try to understand it instead of dismissing it out of hand. I know of no 'form of reasoning' that requires faith or is even aided by faith. I'd like a further explanation if you'd like to elaborate. I am not being sarcastic by the next statement... but I disagree with you. I think that many forms of reasoning require a form of faith. The very acceptance of the fact that we cannot prove our existence requires a certain amount of faith that what we perceive is real. It doesn't require that we believe in a specific higher power as enunciated by the major religions, but it requires that existence is real despite our inability to prove it. Because most forms of reasoning sooner or later have a gap in logic requiring faith that the reasoning is based on something. Also, despite what empiricism states, it has no explanation for human emotion other than as it results from natural instincts, which if true would negate our ability to critically think... it would all be the result of the instinctual process. I could go on, but each form of reasoning has its flaws including I admit faith, but taken together faith allows a certain ability to clearly differentiate between the flaws in the reasoning and the actual relevance of the reasoning. How you describe your faith in is up to you, but I don't think some form is in everyone or non-of-the above is possible, IMO granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I think that many forms of reasoning require a form of faith. Every form of reasoning requires faith in reason. See also Godel's Incompleteness Theorem...which I personally find a more compelling argument for God than his ontological proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Every form of reasoning requires faith in reason. See also Godel's Incompleteness Theorem...which I personally find a more compelling argument for God than his ontological proof. Ah, been a while since I read Godel... will have to look that one up. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 6, 2009 Author Share Posted October 6, 2009 Every form of reasoning requires faith in reason. See also Godel's Incompleteness Theorem...which I personally find a more compelling argument for God than his ontological proof. doesnt justify belief in zeus idiot... see the difference , i guess not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 doesnt justify belief in zeus idiot... see the difference , i guess not You are still here, therefore it is proof that the devil does exist. Athiests, quake in your boots!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts