Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Ah, a world without religion

Ah, a world without religion (Page 3)
Thread Tools
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
How insightful.
It was at least as insightful as the comment you made - really - it made me laugh out loud.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 07:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by zombie punk View Post
It was at least as insightful as the comment you made - really - it made me laugh out loud.
I answered a simple question, which is more than I can say for you. Really.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 09:35 PM
 
Your post gave me a guttural belly laugh - I just wanted to share.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 05:00 AM
 





.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 06:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Are you trying to say that every viewpoint, no matter how stupid and removed from reality, is equally valid? Somebody who has spent his entire life mastering an area of knowledge and improving the world with his expertise is on exactly the same level as a man who claims he is a poached egg?
No. Clearly, a man can be proven not to be a poached egg. There have been many of faith who have spent their entire lives mastering an area of knowledge to improve the world with their expertise.

Offhand I'd say it's pretty damned offensive to suggest that the views held by many here including myself are "stupid" and likening that view with being as far removed from reality as a man who believes he is a poached egg.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 06:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Look, believing in the supernatural is irrational. Why? Because the supernatural by definition pertains to something that does not belong with our normal, known universe. To believe in the supernatural either requires some personal experience, or an act of faith. I'm open to the idea that ghosts exist, for instance, but I realize that this is not rational, because there is no rational explanation for the existence of ghosts, at least not yet. Their existence has not been proven in any concrete way.
You assume "belief in" or "faith" is 100%. It most often is not. I won't go into the entire "faith is a continuum" philosophy with you now for brevity's sake, but suffice it to say faith is not concrete. This is why you have so many different faiths all practicing in various degrees of dedication. This does not mean that faith is irrational. Faith is employed to some degree in almost every aspect of our lives from climbing into a roller coaster to backing out of your driveway in the morning. There is nothing irrational about it.

There is nothing wrong with having a belief in a higher power, we all have faith in something. Some might consider our faith the same as our instincts or gut feelings. However, again, this is not rational by definition. You cannot rationalize your belief in God to somebody else, and this is a tragic mistake that many have made throughout the course of history. You simply cannot "give" me your religious convictions using words. Religion is very post-modern philosophy.
I'm glad that belief in a higher power has been granted your approval. It has already been established how faith can be rationalized and I'm not sure this is reconcilable between the two of us. I can and most definitely have rationalized my belief in God to someone else through words and tragic mistakes like these have been life-changing for many. Religion and/or belief in a law-maker has permeated all cultures throughout the entire globe particularly because it is so rational. I'm now thinking a definition of rational is in order here.

So, am I open to God existing? Sure, since I think of myself as agnostic. However, "God must exist because we have no better explanation" does not cut it for me.
That's not what anyone is saying. I find it interesting that the view must first be twisted to illustrate how irrational it is. There are differing conclusions founded from the same evidences, but this does not define irrational. When the discipline of science uses terminology related to a "degree of certainty" or "consensus", they are not measuring rationale.

Perhaps that explanation is not within our grasp now, and perhaps it will never be, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an explanation for our universe that doesn't involve the supernatural.
True. However, supernatural by definition is of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena. There are indeed some aspects of our existence that lack the proper application of methodology for firm conclusion, but this does not mean differing conclusions founded from existing evidences are irrational.

I believe it is more easy to define "irrational" as an immovable degree of rigidity than it is an openness to alternatives. In this it is possible that a religious person has an immovable degree of rigidity, but this is not exclusive to religion. This means the entire premise of the observation of irrationality among the religious is without a control. It is worse than merely antagonistic, it is meaningless. Primarily antagonistic as the author of the article in the OP openly admits.

There have been a great many religious people in these threads that have been called many things by many people related to many issues, but irrational has never been one of them until a discussion of religion ensues. Is this evidence of the religious being irrational or is it perhaps more demonstrative of the lacking rationale of those hostile to it? Using this thread as evidence, I think it is at best hard to tell.
ebuddy
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 10:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Religion and/or belief in a law-maker has permeated all cultures throughout the entire globe particularly because it is so rational. I'm now thinking a definition of rational is in order here.
I find both of these compelling.

First, though, I'd like to ask you to expand on what you mean by the first statement.

Though perhaps that requires dealing with the second proposition?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 05:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by zombie punk View Post
Your post gave me a guttural belly laugh - I just wanted to share.
I see, you live in the land of the easily amused. Now many other things are starting to make sense.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 05:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
I find both of these compelling.

First, though, I'd like to ask you to expand on what you mean by the first statement.

Though perhaps that requires dealing with the second proposition?
Religion and/or deism exists in all cultures and throughout all regions. It is the majority of most regions. I think it is difficult to claim that religion is irrational when in fact it is the norm for most.

rational; having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense. To say that something is irrational is likening it with being unreasonable. This fails to acknowledge that many of faith question it. They question its leadership. They question and challenge its tenets. Many come to faith through reason and many for the reasons I gave. I was questioned for the validity of those reasons by one who mistakenly framed my view as a "God of the gaps" theory in filling that which we don't know when many come to faith by what we do know. It is therefore inaccurate to make the claim that faith is without reason and as such, irrational. I would not claim one without faith is irrational because it simply is not a sensible word for what is nothing more than a varying interpretation of the same evidences. The intent of the observation is antagonistic.
ebuddy
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 05:26 PM
 
Didn't read the thread. Just want to ask why it is that people seem to think religion makes people stupid and/or crazy? Ever think that the crazy and stupid will still just be crazy and stupid without religion?
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Second, in a world where EVERYONE is ugly, is anyone really ugly anymore? How can anyone be flawed if EVERYONE is? When we accept the notion that every human who ever lived and ever will live is "flawed", then the none can be flawed at all. They are just what they are.
We don't all exhibit the same flaws. You can look to attributes of various people and develop a notion that certain traits are indeed flaws.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by wallinbl View Post
We don't all exhibit the same flaws. You can look to attributes of various people and develop a notion that certain traits are indeed flaws.
Saying that certain people have certain traits that are "flaws" is not the same as saying that "Human's are flawed".

Besides, we live in a universe where there is variation and mutation in every single known living thing. If the tendency to have "flaws" are inherent in every living thing, how can they really be flaws? They are not flaws, they are variations. And no, I'm not trying to argue semantics here. These things that you might consider "flaws" may very well be necessary for the human species as a whole.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 06:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by wallinbl View Post
Didn't read the thread. Just want to ask why it is that people seem to think religion makes people stupid and/or crazy? Ever think that the crazy and stupid will still just be crazy and stupid without religion?
That was covered in the first couple of posts. Bottom line: Yes, people would be crazy and stupid without religion, but extremism would be minimised (ie. it's harder to become a suicide bomber for a political ideology than with the promise of virgins in the afterlife).

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 06:42 PM
 
Flaws are imperfections. That is to say, the word 'flaw' is meaningless without first defining a perfection to be used as a standard of measurement. In nature, there is no such thing. Therefore no one is flawed, because there is no natural model of perfection compared to which we can find flaws. So to say humans are flawed requires there to be such a thing as a perfect human. There is no such thing out there in the world that we can find and observe, so religion provides us with models of perfection against which we can measure ourselves and others.

This, of course, is only true in an absolute sense. We can define perfection in limited contexts such as perfect adherence to the law, perfect attendence, &c., and therefore can judge a person imperfect in that context. But there is no such thing as an absolutely perfect person and therefore no such thing as a person who is flawed in an absolute sense outside the context of religious belief.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 06:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Religion and/or deism exists in all cultures and throughout all regions. It is the majority of most regions. I think it is difficult to claim that religion is irrational when in fact it is the norm for most.

rational; having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense. To say that something is irrational is likening it with being unreasonable. This fails to acknowledge that many of faith question it. They question its leadership. They question and challenge its tenets. Many come to faith through reason and many for the reasons I gave. I was questioned for the validity of those reasons by one who mistakenly framed my view as a "God of the gaps" theory in filling that which we don't know when many come to faith by what we do know. It is therefore inaccurate to make the claim that faith is without reason and as such, irrational. I would not claim one without faith is irrational because it simply is not a sensible word for what is nothing more than a varying interpretation of the same evidences. The intent of the observation is antagonistic.
Because it is the norm means absolutely nothing. There are cultures in which sacrificing people was the norm, because of their beliefs; we now consider that wrong. We come to faith through unprovable beliefs passed down by others, nothing more. One can study the various religions for an entire life (and many do, and are considered experts), but no one can definitively say they know god exists. They can say they most strongly believe he/she/it exists. As has been rehashed, argued, debated, and fought over for centuries, there is evidence that the individual called Jesus may not even have existed, yet untold numbers base their entire lives (or at least as much as it is convenient to) on the possibility that he existed and was somehow associated with some being that is responsible for us and everything that exists in the universe. Unknowable numbers have killed each other because of their belief in the same god, and will continue to do so. IMO, that is the true definition of irrationality.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
That was covered in the first couple of posts. Bottom line: Yes, people would be crazy and stupid without religion, but extremism would be minimised (ie. it's harder to become a suicide bomber for a political ideology than with the promise of virgins in the afterlife).
The biggest example in all of history disagrees with your premise.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
... there is evidence that the individual called Jesus may not even have existed...
Huh?
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by wallinbl View Post
The biggest example in all of history disagrees with your premise.
Are you surreptitiously invoking Godwin's law here?

Because if you are….

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 09:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
Are you surreptitiously invoking Godwin's law here?

Because if you are….
If I'm not mistaken, the Soviet Union under Stalin and Zedong's regime have both managed to kill a couple people...actually about 60,000,000 people between the two of them.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 09:26 PM
 
it's bad enough different religions attack each other because of their faiths

it's worse when religions are based on the same faith and yet they still fight each other because of their interpretations

it reminds me of my white rock music fans from the 70's who loved zeppelin, stones, boston, skynard, etc. and thought of it as "white rock" while at the same time ignoring the fact that the groups were influenced by black blues musicians.

i don't mind religious people... i always learn from them but don't try to convert me...
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 09:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Huh?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

Faith takes too much for granted. We're expected to believe that, through several thousand years, and hundreds (if not thousands) of translations of versions, in different languages that have long since disappeared, with every translator throwing their own viewpoint into their work, and with the sparse record keeping of the day, and any of a number of other problems confirming a 2,000 year old man's existence, that some individual was the son of god.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Faith takes too much for granted. We're expected to believe that, through several thousand years, and hundreds (if not thousands) of translations of versions, in different languages that have long since disappeared, with every translator throwing their own viewpoint into their work, and with the sparse record keeping of the day, and any of a number of other problems confirming a 2,000 year old man's existence, that some individual was the son of god.
You've exaggerated just a bit there. "Several thousand" is barely more than two, and how "long since disappeared" is Greek? And later manuscripts of the NT are strikingly similar to the early versions...not to mention the mounds of commentaries we have written on the NT. I can see where you'd have some doubt, but it's not as bad as your connotation makes it sound.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

Faith takes too much for granted. We're expected to believe that, through several thousand years, and hundreds (if not thousands) of translations of versions, in different languages that have long since disappeared, with every translator throwing their own viewpoint into their work, and with the sparse record keeping of the day, and any of a number of other problems confirming a 2,000 year old man's existence, that some individual was the son of god.
What's all that for?

I want you to show me links to evidence that a person did not exist. How can there be evidence that a person did not exist? Is there a notation in some historians records that say: "Jesus, son of Joseph, did not exist".
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 11:33 PM
 
Why is it that the concept of "burden of proof" never seem to register with some people?

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 11:39 PM
 
Religion isn't the problem.

Bigotry is the problem.

BIgotry is hardly limited to those who are religious. You don't have to look any farther than this forum for proof of that.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 11:40 PM
 
Religion feeds bigotry.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 12:41 AM
 
Atheism feeds thread crapping.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 12:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
Religion feeds bigotry.
Atheism feeds bigotry.

"Science" feeds bigotry.

It's really easy to assign blame in short sentences. It's a lot harder to actually show tolerance for other beliefs and actually keep an open mind. Again, this thread is proof of that.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 12:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
Why is it that the concept of "burden of proof" never seem to register with some people?
Actually, he's the one that said "there is evidence that the individual called Jesus may not even have existed". So he is claiming to have evidence. Burden of proof is on him.

I never said there was evidence that Jesus existed. No burden of proof on me.

Did that "register" with you?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 01:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Because it is the norm means absolutely nothing. There are cultures in which sacrificing people was the norm, because of their beliefs; we now consider that wrong.
I didn't say faith was rational because it was the norm in one culture. I said faith (broadly) is the norm of most cultures and regions. IMO, it is logically difficult to consider faith irrational on these grounds.

We come to faith through unprovable beliefs passed down by others, nothing more.
No. In fact it is much more, but I wouldn't expect one who could only point to the absolute most absurd examples of religious practice and the global travesty of human nature's greed run amuck (what you call religion) to be enlightened enough to see them. Besides, something can be proven and still not believed. Presupposition is powerful. The examples I gave were those of physical laws, mathematical laws, biological laws, and laws of human nature. There is plenty of evidence, but people come to differing conclusions. They are no more or less "reasoned" in that conclusion than you. To suggest otherwise is nothing more than intolerant and wholly without reason; irrational. I fail to see a difference between this and any person of zeal.

If I'm right, you've gone all the way to Creation VS Evolution in your mind and you've already pieced together a craftily-worded response instead of reading mine. It's not a stretch. I've already seen it in this thread. Simpleton thinking at its finest and in proving its intellectual prowess, puts itself on display repeatedly. If I'm wrong and my entire statement was a strawman, I stand corrected and apologize in advance.

One can study the various religions for an entire life (and many do, and are considered experts), but no one can definitively say they know god exists. They can say they most strongly believe he/she/it exists.
Why would this elicit; "ahhh, the world without religion" though? How does this demonstrate lacking rationale?

As has been rehashed, argued, debated, and fought over for centuries, there is evidence that the individual called Jesus may not even have existed, yet untold numbers base their entire lives (or at least as much as it is convenient to) on the possibility that he existed and was somehow associated with some being that is responsible for us and everything that exists in the universe.
I find it interesting that you'd frame the debate first by claiming that evidence exists to suggest that Jesus may not have even existed. The entire reason there is information that he may not have existed is of course that the majority of evidence suggests He did.

Personally, I don't see any reason why the belief that a man existed and is associated with some being that is responsible for the inception of life is irrational. I really don't. I dare say most others don't either.

Unknowable numbers have killed each other because of their belief in the same god, and will continue to do so. IMO, that is the true definition of irrationality.
Of course this fails to acknowledge the incredible influence of religion on the arts, architecture, philanthropy, the legal system, governance, the sciences, and thought exercise itself. These ideals led to the loftiest of progressive goals attained including the first institutions of higher learning, healthcare, and community service to one another. These ideals have demonstrated a profound self-awareness and valuation of life which opened the door to exceptional means of not only prolonging it, but increasing the quality of it. The examples of travesty you'd no doubt cite are not exclusive to the religious, but do have a common denominator; the powerful. Their actions can almost always be shown to be contrary to the tenets of their faith both in their details and their fruits.

With this, I'm glad to see you end your post with what "rational" is in your opinion. This post really seems plenty opinionated, short on substance. I'm not arguing that atheists are irrational, but if your view is in fact more reasoned than mine, I'm not sure you've shown it here.
ebuddy
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 01:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Huh?
That statement wasn't accurate. What he should've said is, "There is no evidence that Jesus ever existed." Big difference.
( Last edited by Helmling; Aug 28, 2008 at 01:17 AM. )
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 01:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Religion and/or deism exists in all cultures and throughout all regions. It is the majority of most regions. I think it is difficult to claim that religion is irrational when in fact it is the norm for most.

rational; having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense. To say that something is irrational is likening it with being unreasonable. This fails to acknowledge that many of faith question it. They question its leadership. They question and challenge its tenets. Many come to faith through reason and many for the reasons I gave. I was questioned for the validity of those reasons by one who mistakenly framed my view as a "God of the gaps" theory in filling that which we don't know when many come to faith by what we do know. It is therefore inaccurate to make the claim that faith is without reason and as such, irrational. I would not claim one without faith is irrational because it simply is not a sensible word for what is nothing more than a varying interpretation of the same evidences. The intent of the observation is antagonistic.
On your first point, I'm afraid I'm too much of a cynic to accept that religion must be rational because it is universal.

The definition of rational you cite seems to apply to an individual. Considering the context of this discussion, I think that the accusation being made against religion is that it doesn't fit this description, which seems to apply better: "proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning"

Do you believe religion--in the broadest possible sense, I suppose--fits this definition?
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 01:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
If I'm not mistaken, the Soviet Union under Stalin and Zedong's regime have both managed to kill a couple people...actually about 60,000,000 people between the two of them.
It's Mao, and he mostly just starved people through incompetence.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 07:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
Are you surreptitiously invoking Godwin's law here?

Because if you are….
He was a drug addled occultist
45/47
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 09:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
On your first point, I'm afraid I'm too much of a cynic to accept that religion must be rational because it is universal.
I merely suggested that it's difficult to consider it irrational on these grounds. If I were you, I'd have probably chosen skeptic over cynic, but I appreciate your honesty.

The definition of rational you cite seems to apply to an individual. Considering the context of this discussion, I think that the accusation being made against religion is that it doesn't fit this description, which seems to apply better: "proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning"
Religion as a whole is comprised of religious individuals of varying degrees of dedication and circumstances. IMO it is disingenuous to paint with such a broad brush as you suggest. One may generally accept a scientific concept while not understanding the details of it or being familiar with all the evidences that support it. Their acceptance would likely be viewed as rational when he or she may not be. In reality they've not availed themselves of any of the reasoning behind it to have come to that conclusion. They're merely accepting what others before them accepted or have passed down to them. I've maintained that the observation is without a control in this context or any other. It is generally meaningless, founded not as much on skepticism as on cynicism and often manifests in antagonism as the author of the article in the OP suggested openly.

Do you believe religion--in the broadest possible sense, I suppose--fits this definition?
I believe it certainly can, yes. I believe this thread has illustrated my point perhaps best of all. In this it is possible that there are those of faith that are irrational, but I'm not seeing any evidence of those among us without faith being any more rational. So... we're kind of back to square one here. The most rational move here would likely be to agree to disagree.
ebuddy
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 11:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I merely suggested that it's difficult to consider it irrational on these grounds. If I were you, I'd have probably chosen skeptic over cynic, but I appreciate your honesty.


Religion as a whole is comprised of religious individuals of varying degrees of dedication and circumstances. IMO it is disingenuous to paint with such a broad brush as you suggest. One may generally accept a scientific concept while not understanding the details of it or being familiar with all the evidences that support it. Their acceptance would likely be viewed as rational when he or she may not be. In reality they've not availed themselves of any of the reasoning behind it to have come to that conclusion. They're merely accepting what others before them accepted or have passed down to them. I've maintained that the observation is without a control in this context or any other. It is generally meaningless, founded not as much on skepticism as on cynicism and often manifests in antagonism as the author of the article in the OP suggested openly.


I believe it certainly can, yes. I believe this thread has illustrated my point perhaps best of all. In this it is possible that there are those of faith that are irrational, but I'm not seeing any evidence of those among us without faith being any more rational. So... we're kind of back to square one here. The most rational move here would likely be to agree to disagree.
I'm not particularly interested in assessing the qualities of those holding either perspective. Clearly, there are and can be irrational people on both sides of the issue. I don't think this thread has really spoken meaningfully, though, to whether the perspectives themselves can claim to be rational.

Let me state openly what you already know, I do not believe in God. Now, even in light of my recent attempt at, um, let's call it ideological reduction, I am still comfortable making this statement. Why?

Because I believe that in the absence of any compelling evidence to believe in God it is therefore rational, i.e. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning, to assume the negative. Therefore, I do not believe in this thing.

What I'm asking you, as a rational person who does believe, is there a rational reason I might consider to reverse this position?
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 11:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
That statement wasn't accurate. What he should've said is, "There is no evidence that Jesus ever existed." Big difference.
Thank you. THAT was my point.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Thank you. THAT was my point.
Yes, sorry. I just go down and reply to things I see, so I posted a reply before I saw that this had already been clarified.

Now, I feel compelled to add that there is historical evidence that many of the stories about Jesus in the New Testament are not factual.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Because I believe that in the absence of any compelling evidence to believe in God it is therefore rational, i.e. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning, to assume the negative. Therefore, I do not believe in this thing.
I believe the fundamental evidence I've cited affirms God and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is therefore rational, that is; derived from reason and based on sound reasoning to assume the positive. If one is unwilling to accept this evidence as compelling, we simply have a disagreement. Not a measure of rationale.

What I'm asking you, as a rational person who does believe, is there a rational reason I might consider to reverse this position?
Given that we likely have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes compelling evidence and legitimate reason, why would it be rational to assume I might be successful in reversing your position? In other words, why should I try? For example, if one presupposes that supernatural is nothing more than natural pending a mechanism to establish it, nothing I say to you could affirm my view. I'm not sure I'm even interested in trying to make you think like I do, but then I might appreciate diversity more than most.
ebuddy
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 04:20 PM
 
No, that's entirely tautological. You're saying that you think A implies B, and that there is A, so therefore it's completely reasonable to assume B. But you're not providing any reasonable basis to support the claim that A implies B other than that you say so. Hence you are being irrational.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
No, that's entirely tautological. You're saying that you think A implies B, and that there is A, so therefore it's completely reasonable to assume B. But you're not providing any reasonable basis to support the claim that A implies B other than that you say so. Hence you are being irrational.
With regard to the inception of life there is little basis for any theory. One who is arguing me is saying it is not so because he says. I came to my conclusion using the same logic Helmling gave me. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that with laws there are law-makers. There is as much empirical evidence of this as there is anything within our ability to observe. You may not accept the premise, but there is absolutely nothing to prove contrary and likewise, nothing to suggest your view is somehow more rational than mine. Two people may view the exact same evidence and come to differing conclusions. This is a disagreement, not a measure of rationale. I'm perfectly open to the evidences of science, the knowledge of man, the history and exercise of worship, and the fundamental evidences that compel me to believe in God. I enjoy all of the above and I don't have a problem saying "I don't know". I'm certainly not suggesting that others are "irrational" nor am I bent on convincing them to think like me. If I'm being irrational, the term has been so watered down as to be meaningless. I may in fact be the most rational here.
ebuddy
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 05:36 PM
 
I'm still deciding whether to really comment in this thread or not.

Carry on.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 06:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
With regard to the inception of life there is little basis for any theory. One who is arguing me is saying it is not so because he says. I came to my conclusion using the same logic Helmling gave me. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that with laws there are law-makers. There is as much empirical evidence of this as there is anything within our ability to observe. You may not accept the premise, but there is absolutely nothing to prove contrary and likewise, nothing to suggest your view is somehow more rational than mine. Two people may view the exact same evidence and come to differing conclusions. This is a disagreement, not a measure of rationale. I'm perfectly open to the evidences of science, the knowledge of man, the history and exercise of worship, and the fundamental evidences that compel me to believe in God. I enjoy all of the above and I don't have a problem saying "I don't know". I'm certainly not suggesting that others are "irrational" nor am I bent on convincing them to think like me. If I'm being irrational, the term has been so watered down as to be meaningless. I may in fact be the most rational here.
It is a measure of rationality if one person claims that they know the truth, while the other is only presenting theories. Religion claims to know the truth in defiance of reason; there is no proof, or even real evidence, for the truth of what religion claims (nor is there proof to the contrary, but that's not the point). While this is certainly true of many of those who take a 'scientific' viewpoint and tend towards staunch anti-religiosity, it is not true of science itself (in the same way that people who might call themselves Christians or Muslims might not actually live up to the standards and ideals of Christianity and Islam). Science makes no claims to absolute truth, it merely builds up a theory of things based on the body of available evidence.

By scientific standards, religion is absolutely and unquestionably irrational because it is not evidence based. The same is true of anyone who claims unequivocally that religion is wrong: they are being irrational.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 06:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
there is no proof, or even real evidence, for the truth of what religion claims. . .
There are mounds of proof from my vantage point, although perhaps not enough to change a given ardent non-believer into a believer. Which is fine, too.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 07:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
There are mounds of proof from my vantage point, although perhaps not enough to change a given ardent non-believer into a believer. Which is fine, too.
We are all subject to personal interpretation of experienced events.

I am not saying anything against your reasoning or beliefs. I am merely stating that what made you a believer, may not convince another, even one that believes themselves, that it is an event that proves existence.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
SirCastor
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 08:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
While this is certainly true of many of those who take a 'scientific' viewpoint and tend towards staunch anti-religiosity, it is not true of science itself (in the same way that people who might call themselves Christians or Muslims might not actually live up to the standards and ideals of Christianity and Islam). Science makes no claims to absolute truth, it merely builds up a theory of things based on the body of available evidence.
So really, we should be calling this thread "Ah, a world without people"...?
2008 iMac 3.06 Ghz, 2GB Memory, GeForce 8800, 500GB HD, SuperDrive
8gb iPhone on Tmobile
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
There are mounds of proof from my vantage point, although perhaps not enough to change a given ardent non-believer into a believer. Which is fine, too.
Right, but my point is that said proof doesn't meet scientific standards. One can, perhaps, provide a philosophical proof of God's existence, but not a scientific one. To say that God exists, because He created everything so since everything exists He must exist is circular logic, and a non-starter. Everyt supposed proof of God's existence that I've ever seen presupposed the existence of God which makes it, frankly, little more than one big circle jerk (but does not in anyway discredit or disprove the proposition of God).
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I believe the fundamental evidence I've cited affirms God and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is therefore rational, that is; derived from reason and based on sound reasoning to assume the positive. If one is unwilling to accept this evidence as compelling, we simply have a disagreement. Not a measure of rationale.


Given that we likely have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes compelling evidence and legitimate reason, why would it be rational to assume I might be successful in reversing your position? In other words, why should I try? For example, if one presupposes that supernatural is nothing more than natural pending a mechanism to establish it, nothing I say to you could affirm my view. I'm not sure I'm even interested in trying to make you think like I do, but then I might appreciate diversity more than most.
Ok, so you seem to be saying that if the supernatural could be explained it would cross over into the "natural." You also seem to include the idea of God in that. I'm going to assume that this means you agree there is no "natural" evidence to believe in God. Correct me if I'm mischaracterizing any of that.

I asked my question because I'm operating on the belief that if there is a rational reason to give credence to an idea, then I should do so. I'm certainly not asking you to prove the existence of God, but currently I know of absolutely nothing that would even incline me to believe there might be a God, so I'm hoping to understand your reasons for regarding such a belief as "rational" under that second standard we agreed upon.

Now, I hope you'll forgive me here. I have followed *most* of this thread, but it's so spread out and has gone on for days and I wouldn't want to go rooting through it and pick up the wrong bits and end up mischaracterizing you, which would require you to correct me and perhaps have to correct me on more than is necessary. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask you to restate as succinctly as you'd care to what the "fundamental evidence" you feel points to the existence of a God.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2008, 09:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
There are mounds of proof from my vantage point, although perhaps not enough to change a given ardent non-believer into a believer. Which is fine, too.
I admit to being a non-believer. As I said to ebuddy moments ago, I am currently aware of no evidence that would even incline me to entertain the possibility that a God exists.

I am, though, very, very interested in hearing some. Could you share?
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2008, 02:32 AM
 
This isn't exactly the most hospitable setting for such a discussion.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:30 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,