I have to respectfully disagree with this point. I contend that there are a great many people who have faith in a higher power and are still rational people with respect to pretty much every other subject. You do observe a sort of overall irrationality in the zealous types, but people of more moderate temper aren't necessarily irrational all around.
The rationality or irrationality of a single belief or set of related beliefs (be they faith-based beliefs like religion or evidence-based beliefs like scientific principles) held by a person does not necessarily indicate the rationality or irrationality of the person holding said belief(s).
Hypothetical situation. You have a calculator that works perfectly for everything but one operation. When you try to square something, it spits out a 0, no matter what number you squared. Would you say the calculator works? Is it rational?
Is your argument therefore people are either 100% rational or they are 0% rational and no middle ground? If so, are you 100% rational in everything you do?
Hypothetical situation. You have a calculator that works perfectly for everything but one operation. When you try to square something, it spits out a 0, no matter what number you squared. Would you say the calculator works? Is it rational?
Star: Your analogy is flawed, but I'll run with it.
I would say that the square function doesn't work, and all other functions work as intended.
I'm not a fan of writing a thing off wholesale simply because it doesn't accomplish one function out of many.
You can call a person irrational if a sizable majority of their arguments, thought patterns, and other logical constructs are irrational. If, however, only of particular set of those constructs is irrational, and the rest are rational, you cannot truly characterize that person as "irrational," because that singular word does not truly characterize every logical construct originating from that person.
If you want to nickel-and-dime it, all arguments, period, are fundamentally "irrational," and therefore all logical constructs would be considered irrational. It's all about relative, proportional levels of irrationality, past the baseline that is present for all beings.
If you want to nickel-and-dime it, all arguments, period, are fundamentally "irrational," and therefore all logical constructs would be considered irrational.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?
In my mind, rationality is a binary state. If you say something is rational, it is rational 100%. There may be varying magnitudes of irrationality, but they are all irrational regardless of their degree.
Language, especially the English language, is made up discrete words. Qualities of human character are not discrete. Therefore, it is very difficult to use the discrete labels of language to 100% accurately describe the content of a human character. Perhaps someone has a short temper, and someone else has an even worse temper. You could argue until you are blue in the face about the correct way to label these people, because it is subjective. So to call a person rational or irrational does not work, because people have varying levels of rationality.
However, let me make this objective statement. Regardless of what other qualities a person may have, I personally lose a great deal of respect for someone who holds any irrational beliefs whatsoever, especially a belief in a god or gods. If someone really believes that a magical, invisible, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent man truly exists, then I can't respect that. I can talk to such a person, hang out with them, and generally treat them like a human being. However, I can never really respect them. I will always look down on them in some way. I have the same feelings for religious people that I have for some mentally ill people. Believing in a deity is effectively identical to having an imaginary friend.
Just to clarify one more point about that in order to thwart the next argument. Some people hold irrational beliefs due to ignorance or misinformation. These people, basically everybody, do not get disrespected automatically. I will only disrespect someone when they deny the facts put before them despite the evidence and logical reasoning they have been shown. For example, if some kid didn't know Newton's laws, and he believed that a perpetual motion machine was real, I couldn't blame him. However, if after being presented with the evidence that a perpetual motion machine could not exist he continued to believe, then at that point the respect is lost. If at some point he comes back around to reality, the respect can be regained.
If you want to nickel-and-dime it, all arguments, period, are fundamentally "irrational," and therefore all logical constructs would be considered irrational.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?
In my mind, rationality is a binary state. If you say something is rational, it is rational 100%. There may be varying magnitudes of irrationality, but they are all irrational regardless of their degree.
A solipsistic entity can know only that it exists. Every other assertion or piece of information possessed by such an entity is, at least in a small part, some sort of assumption that cannot be empirically verified. Ergo, all rational arguments, other than assertions of existence, are based on undefendable assumptions and are therefore irrational.
Of course, since this line of reasoning doesn't get us anywhere, we have to accept the base irrationality and move from there.
Scott: Good argument. The one question I have, though, is what to do with a person who is perfectly rational in all other repsects - let's say for the sake of argument that they even agree with your opinions and arrived to them independent of you using the same logical thought processes - EXCEPT that this person also believed in the existence of God. Would you still lose a lot of respect for them?
Personally, I find that sort of irrationality to be problematic only in combination with other sorts of irrationality. If a person is perfectly rational otherwise, I can forgive a little blemish of irrationality.
Scott: Good argument. The one question I have, though, is what to do with a person who is perfectly rational in all other repsects - let's say for the sake of argument that they even agree with your opinions and arrived to them independent of you using the same logical thought processes - EXCEPT that this person also believed in the existence of God. Would you still lose a lot of respect for them?
Yeah, I would. Granted, if say a teacher of math who believes in god tries to teach me math. I'm not going to pretend the math they are teaching is wrong or something. I just respect them less as a person.
The burden of proof lies with those who make the new assertion or fight the long-held belief. It fell to Galileo to prove that the earth moved around the sun. Even though he ended up being right in the end, he still had to fight to prove it. This is how it SHOULD be, but it is not how it is. Since the atheists own the internets, the theists must fight to prove that which has been called into question by the atheists.
I have already shown (though the forum does not consider it proven) that the atheists are the ones with the new idea. The concept of God has always been. You can't be ignorant of a higher power, you can only deny it. For example: It is impossible for someone to truly doubt that I exist.
Rym has never seen me in person, yet he sees my posts on the forum. Since he knows that something with the login "Rooster" signs on from time to time and posts on his forum, Rym has a concept of the individual Rooster. Before Rooster appeared on the forum, Rym had no concept of any such individual, but Rooster made himself apparent, and now Scott knows of Rooster. Suppose Scott and WaterIsPoison decided to deny that Rooster exists. Rym, as he said in the Spoilers episode, cannot in good conscience go along with something he knows not to be true. Rym would say something like: "Hey! That's not right! I've seen Rooster post here. I've seen him log in. I can see his password if I want to. He's real!" But Scott and W.I.P. go and remove all posts by Rooster, blocking his IP and deleting his account. Scott and W.I.P. have removed all traces of Rooster from the forums, but in his heart, Rym still knows that Rooster once trolled these forums.
That is the dilemma that Christians find themselves in on the internets (all other content aside). The actions of Scott and WaterIsPoison indicate that they also know of Rooster, and have mysteriously decided to remove all trace of him from the forum. That is what the atheists try to do, but they can never fully do that because they must have some concept of God. That concept of God can be likened to the fingerprints or signature of a sculptor on his work.
The burden of proof lies with those who make the new assertion or fight the long-held belief. It fell to Galileo to prove that the earth moved around the sun. Even though he ended up being right in the end, he still had to fight to prove it. This is how it SHOULD be, but it is not how it is. Since the atheists own the internets, the theists must fight to prove that which has been called into question by the atheists.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem. False.
The concept of God has always been.
Audiatur et altera pars. False.
It is impossible for someone to truly doubt that I exist.
Yeah, I read a book on existentialism once, too. But it doesn't help your argument. You are arguing from an affirmation of the consequent -- also a logical fallacy.
I just want to make it clear that solipsism, while perfectly valid, is not useful if taken to its technical conclusion. The "faith" it takes to believe in, say, evolution or disbelieve in, say, an invisible sky giant patriarch of a desert death cult, is exactly the same as the "faith" it takes to believe that you're actually the person thinking the thoughts you're thinking right now. Sure, technically it's a leap of "faith," but realistically, that razor-thin line is nonexistant.
You can argue personal spirituality all you want, as it amounts to nothing more than philosophy and conjecture. The fact remains that there is zero evidence for the veracity of any supernatural claim that any known religion has ever made, and that furthermore in most cases there is historical evidence as to said religions' secular origins. It is thus lunacy to continue to believe in such things, and I consider those who do to be far less worthy of respect than those who do not.
... Rym would say something like: "Hey! That's not right! I've seen Rooster post here. I've seen him log in. I can see his password if I want to. He's real!" But Scott and W.I.P. go and remove all posts by Rooster, blocking his IP and deleting his account. Scott and W.I.P. have removed all traces of Rooster from the forums, but in his heart, Rym still knows that Rooster once trolled these forums...The "god" situation is entirely different. It's more akin to Scott saying that there was a poster named "Foobity" from the IP address a.b.c.d. Looking at the server logs, I find no reference to either this name or this IP. I find no posts, nor any references to said posts. The only evidence of Foobity is Scott's claim that he existed. There is no other evidence.
In that case, no rational person would believe that Foobity existed, and instead would simply disregard Scott's fairy tales in the future.
Solipsism: The only thing that I can truly know is that I exist. All my memories, experiences, etc. might all just be in some matrix-type simulation. Am I correct so far?
I do have to say that I don't agree with Rooster and I agree with Rym. Proof of God doesn't exist in any quantitative way. God is philosophy, not science (which incidentally was my entire argument from the start).
God is philosophy, not science (which incidentally was my entire argument from the start).
Sorry, god is not philosophy. Philosophy is philosophy. God, at least to the major monotheistic religions, is a magical, invisible, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being. If you insist on using the word god to label something else that does exist, like the ideas of philosophy, then you are an atheist who is lying to yourself. If you don't really believe there is a magic man in the sky, then grow some balls and say so. If you do really believe there is a magical man in the sky, then don't pussy foot around saying you actually believe in something else that you decide to call god that really isn't.
If that is your argument, then I would have to say I believe in my imaginary friend that I don't really interact with. I would though have to respectfully disagree however and say that God is part of philosophy the same way a argument of the soul is. Its a branch of Philosophy called Metaphysics
If you don't interact with it in any way, it's the same as if it didn't exist.
Nice! You guys make me so proud. Of course, you have to take it one step further. If something has no effect on the universe, it is non-existent for all intents and purposes.
A philosophy question (more on theoretics than God per se):
If something has no effect on the universe, it is non-existent for all intents and purposes.
I'd add add one part to that statement: If something has no current or observable effect on the universe, it is non-existent for all intents and purposes. Is this the same as saying that something doesn't exist?
In the effective, practical world, yes. For 99.9999% of cases, the something in question does not exist.
For the purposes of pure speculation and debate, that is not necessarily the case. It's not technically impossible that God does exist; it is, however, exceedingly infeasible, far past the point at which a person would accept any other premise to be correct.
In the effective, practical world, yes. For 99.9999% of cases, the something in question does not exist.
For the purposes of pure speculation and debate, that is not necessarily the case. It's nottechnicallyimpossible that God does exist; it is, however, exceedingly infeasible, far past the point at which a person would accept any other premise to be correct.
Precisely. It is not absolutely 100% impossible for god to exist. However, the chances of god actually existing are so infinitesimally small they might as well be zero. To put it in perspective, someone who truly believes they will win the $100 million lottery tomorrow with their single ticket is about infinity times more rational than someone who truly believes in god.
In the effective, practical world, yes. For 99.9999% of cases, the something in question does not exist.
For the purposes of pure speculation and debate, that is not necessarily the case. It's nottechnicallyimpossible that God does exist; it is, however, exceedingly infeasible, far past the point at which a person would accept any other premise to be correct.
Precisely. It is not absolutely 100% impossible for god to exist. However, the chances of god actually existing are so infinitesimally small they might as well be zero. To put it in perspective, someone who truly believes they will win the $100 million lottery tomorrow with their single ticket is about infinity times more rational than someone who truly believes in god.
Well, I wouldn't say the PERSON is more or less irrational, just that the belief itself is more or less rational. But otherwise, yeah.
Well, I wouldn't say the PERSON is more or less irrational, just that the belief itself is more or less rational. But otherwise, yeah.
True, the degree of rationalness of the person will depend on what other irrational beliefs they hold. However, if two people are equally rational in all ways, except that one believes in the lottery and the other believes in god, then it will hold true.
You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the positive. It is a logical fact. With no proof of the positive point of view, the negative must be logically assumed until the positive is proved.
That being said, it is ridiculous for people to discuss "faith" in terms of logic. The entire point of faith is that you believe WITHOUT proof. Faith defies logic by its very nature.
Lacking any evidence (and falling back on dispensationalism as an excuse), religious adherents rely simply on what others tell them. Ask yourself this: If you were born in Saudi Arabia and given the same training in the Islamic faith as you have been in Christianity, would you be Islamic? In Japan, would you be Shinto? In India, would you be Hindu? In China, Buddhist? In Israel, Jewish? In Greece would you have worshipped Zeus?
Without evidence, your "faith" is merely cultural indocrination.
While I am not a woman of faith, I do not begrudge others their faiths, as long as they don't force it on me or anyone else. I know that many people rely on their faith to get them through difficult times, to enrich their joy, to give them comfort. This seems a bit masturbatory to me, but just as I do not care what others do in their bedrooms, I do not care what they do in their churches, temples, mosques, synagogues, shrines, etc.
I know that many people rely on their faith to get them through difficult times, to enrich their joy, to give them comfort.
What better time to take advantage of someone than when they are down on the ground and broken. Here is just a sample of why religion is a virus. These people don't know any better and most of them don't think logically, especially when it deals with their faith. If you had a friend who believed that if they drank a teaspoon of motor oil every day that they would be cured of (insert disease), would you let them? Or would you try to help them? What if it was part of their religion and that it gave them comfort, would you still do it? Look at the Christian Scientists who don't inoculate their children because it is against their religion, the parents are not charged with child abuse because it is a religious practice. While I think people should be allowed to believe what they want, sometimes people will take advantage of them when they don't know any better.
Comments
The rationality or irrationality of a single belief or set of related beliefs (be they faith-based beliefs like religion or evidence-based beliefs like scientific principles) held by a person does not necessarily indicate the rationality or irrationality of the person holding said belief(s).
I would say that the square function doesn't work, and all other functions work as intended.
I'm not a fan of writing a thing off wholesale simply because it doesn't accomplish one function out of many.
You can call a person irrational if a sizable majority of their arguments, thought patterns, and other logical constructs are irrational. If, however, only of particular set of those constructs is irrational, and the rest are rational, you cannot truly characterize that person as "irrational," because that singular word does not truly characterize every logical construct originating from that person.
If you want to nickel-and-dime it, all arguments, period, are fundamentally "irrational," and therefore all logical constructs would be considered irrational. It's all about relative, proportional levels of irrationality, past the baseline that is present for all beings.
In my mind, rationality is a binary state. If you say something is rational, it is rational 100%. There may be varying magnitudes of irrationality, but they are all irrational regardless of their degree.
However, let me make this objective statement. Regardless of what other qualities a person may have, I personally lose a great deal of respect for someone who holds any irrational beliefs whatsoever, especially a belief in a god or gods. If someone really believes that a magical, invisible, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent man truly exists, then I can't respect that. I can talk to such a person, hang out with them, and generally treat them like a human being. However, I can never really respect them. I will always look down on them in some way. I have the same feelings for religious people that I have for some mentally ill people. Believing in a deity is effectively identical to having an imaginary friend.
Just to clarify one more point about that in order to thwart the next argument. Some people hold irrational beliefs due to ignorance or misinformation. These people, basically everybody, do not get disrespected automatically. I will only disrespect someone when they deny the facts put before them despite the evidence and logical reasoning they have been shown. For example, if some kid didn't know Newton's laws, and he believed that a perpetual motion machine was real, I couldn't blame him. However, if after being presented with the evidence that a perpetual motion machine could not exist he continued to believe, then at that point the respect is lost. If at some point he comes back around to reality, the respect can be regained.
Of course, since this line of reasoning doesn't get us anywhere, we have to accept the base irrationality and move from there.
Scott: Good argument. The one question I have, though, is what to do with a person who is perfectly rational in all other repsects - let's say for the sake of argument that they even agree with your opinions and arrived to them independent of you using the same logical thought processes - EXCEPT that this person also believed in the existence of God. Would you still lose a lot of respect for them?
Personally, I find that sort of irrationality to be problematic only in combination with other sorts of irrationality. If a person is perfectly rational otherwise, I can forgive a little blemish of irrationality.
I have already shown (though the forum does not consider it proven) that the atheists are the ones with the new idea. The concept of God has always been. You can't be ignorant of a higher power, you can only deny it. For example: It is impossible for someone to truly doubt that I exist.
Rym has never seen me in person, yet he sees my posts on the forum. Since he knows that something with the login "Rooster" signs on from time to time and posts on his forum, Rym has a concept of the individual Rooster. Before Rooster appeared on the forum, Rym had no concept of any such individual, but Rooster made himself apparent, and now Scott knows of Rooster. Suppose Scott and WaterIsPoison decided to deny that Rooster exists. Rym, as he said in the Spoilers episode, cannot in good conscience go along with something he knows not to be true. Rym would say something like: "Hey! That's not right! I've seen Rooster post here. I've seen him log in. I can see his password if I want to. He's real!" But Scott and W.I.P. go and remove all posts by Rooster, blocking his IP and deleting his account. Scott and W.I.P. have removed all traces of Rooster from the forums, but in his heart, Rym still knows that Rooster once trolled these forums.
That is the dilemma that Christians find themselves in on the internets (all other content aside). The actions of Scott and WaterIsPoison indicate that they also know of Rooster, and have mysteriously decided to remove all trace of him from the forum. That is what the atheists try to do, but they can never fully do that because they must have some concept of God. That concept of God can be likened to the fingerprints or signature of a sculptor on his work.
You can argue personal spirituality all you want, as it amounts to nothing more than philosophy and conjecture. The fact remains that there is zero evidence for the veracity of any supernatural claim that any known religion has ever made, and that furthermore in most cases there is historical evidence as to said religions' secular origins. It is thus lunacy to continue to believe in such things, and I consider those who do to be far less worthy of respect than those who do not.
In that case, no rational person would believe that Foobity existed, and instead would simply disregard Scott's fairy tales in the future.
Am I correct so far?
Can I know that I think that I'm having all these experiences? Or would that just be thinking that I know that I think? Crap, infinite regress, I guess.
Oh yeah, I just remembered what my pal René said about it. Something about addition... ~_^
I just realized I completely talked myself out of it over the course of typing my post.
Do you have an imaginary friend or not?
The above bears repeating.
If something has no current or observable effect on the universe, it is non-existent for all intents and purposes. Is this the same as saying that something doesn't exist?
For the purposes of pure speculation and debate, that is not necessarily the case. It's not technically impossible that God does exist; it is, however, exceedingly infeasible, far past the point at which a person would accept any other premise to be correct.
That being said, it is ridiculous for people to discuss "faith" in terms of logic. The entire point of faith is that you believe WITHOUT proof. Faith defies logic by its very nature.
Without evidence, your "faith" is merely cultural indocrination.