Yeah, I was trying to be a bit less harsh than Scott; I was just trying to see if we could coax a rational argument out of him, as per what I suggested in my previous post.
To help him out, I'll give right now a simple, rational argument in favour of Christianity: "I believe in Christianity because it makes me feel good". In all seriousness, that is a perfectly rational argument.
I'm beginning to think that some people, by nature or nurture, are incapable of reason.
I believe there is a phenomena of people who have been socialized to despise critical thought. For example, my mother has been known to say that "critical thinking is not realistic." Why? When you have influential "men of God," they will attack reason because it threatens their power. The gullible will take that at face value, and ensure their children will be spared from this "threat." In my mother's case, she is lost. As the quality of education decreases, I have no doubt that we will see a generation of people who do not think for themselves. Then, this will look like child's play.
To help him out, I'll give right now a simple, rational argument in favour of Christianity: "I believe in Christianity because it makes me feel good". In all seriousness, that is a perfectly rational argument.
Not really, because what that says to me, and what I feel it's going to say to Scott, is "I deny reality so I don't have to face it." Just because something makes someone feel good on an emotional level does not automatically make it good.
Not really, because what that says to me, and what I feel it's going to say to Scott, is "I deny reality so I don't have to face it." Just because something makes someone feel good on an emotional level does not automatically make it good.
Pretty much, yeah. I could say I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster because it makes me feel good. That still makes me a crazy person.
If one was to show that such a belief would have absolutely no impact on anything except for the fact that it makes you feel good, I'd say it would be an intelligent thing to do.
Reason only provides a negative, a doubt. If revelation is replaced by reason, nothing can be learned. If proposition is replaced with first person interaction, how can you grow? Your truth is meaningless, you know nothing, you don't have any answers to existence.
I know God exists. I know in my heart, in my mind, and in my soul. My proof is ever present, it surrounds me.
William Blake: This life's dim windows of the soul Distorts the heavens from pole to pole and goads you to believe a lie when you see with and not through the eye.
Rational thought has it's use. I leave work at 5pm, the clock says 5pm it's time to leave. If I go further and doubt the clock has the correct time, or think my boss changed my hours and didn't notify me, I would be stuck at work forever. My wife says she loves me. Is it rational for me to believe her? There are billions of other people on this planet that would not say they loved me what makes her different? Why should I believe her? The chances of her actually loving me seem very low in that context.
It's been said to present the truth to those that don't love the truth only provides them with more things to attack. If you can find your way to rationalize the existence of this text you will know I'm stopping here. I've made my point, if you can't comprehend what I'm saying then I guess that's your problem.
If one was to show that such a belief would have absolutely no impact on anything except for the fact that it makes you feel good, I'd say it would be an intelligent thing to do.
Maybe so, for them. They get good feelings at no cost to themselves. However, would you trust someone who believes such things? If so, how much would you trust them? Would you trust them to make important decisions that affect you? Would you trust them to govern you? Would you believe anything they told you? Would you respect their opinions?
I obviously do not. If someone is willing to believe such crazy things, just to feel good, then that shows me they are gullible, weak, untrustworthy, and potentially dangerous. It shows that they care more about their feelings than they care about truth. It shows they would rather play pretend than accept and deal with what is real. If someone makes decisions based upon some fantastical belief, those decisions are much more likely to have a negative impact on reality, even if intentions are good. Fake medicine is the obvious example of how decisions based upon belief in fantasy can be incredibly dangerous.
I actually believe that the vast majority of human beings have good intentions. Everyone thinks they are the good guy. Everyone thinks they are helping. Everyone thinks they are making the world a better place. Even Scientologists really think they are saving the world. The fake medicine people really and truly think they are healing people. They all have good in their hearts. However, because they are making decisions about how to achieve that good result based upon falsehoods, they end up not helping, or even hurting, often without realizing it.
Not really, because what that says to me, and what I feel it's going to say to Scott, is "I deny reality so I don't have to face it." Just because something makes someone feel good on an emotional level does not automatically make it good.
Is Scott always right? Is Scott infallible? When Scott says that he will never be affected by the economy, rants about gaming achievements, says that he will never compromise on even the slightest thing in a relationship, or says that he will always have the same friends forever and ever, is he being completely rational? Sorry, but sometimes I think that "I deny reality so I don't have to face it" is Scott's personal motto.
This was centuries before Charles Darwin. If I were living in those times, I probably also would have held religious beliefs. There were so many big mysteries in the universe at that time, it would be incredibly difficult to even imagine some alternative explanation. Now that we live in the 21st century, we know better. It is similar to how a child you believes in Santa Claus is acceptable, but an adult who does so is crazy.
While reason on its own tells you to doubt everything, it is not entirely the same thing as rationality.
Reason is a rational thinking process, but it is not the only tool available to a person when it comes to rational thought. Another way of looking at rationality, quite simply, aiming to get as close to your desired outcome as possible.
Both of the above are rational, but only reason is inherently "true". However, given adequate knowledge and correct implementation, rational thought would give the correct result every time as well.
If I go further and doubt the clock has the correct time, or think my boss changed my hours and didn't notify me, I would be stuck at work forever.
This is not true. While reason does tell you that you can't be entirely certain as to the time, this does not mean the rational decision is to "stay at work forever". On the contrary, you first ascertain the probability that the clock is way off. Now, if you've been going to work every day for a year, it must be said that this probability is very low. Then, you make a decision, where you aim to obtain the highest overall benefit from what you choose to do.
My wife says she loves me. Is it rational for me to believe her? There are billions of other people on this planet that would not say they loved me what makes her different? Why should I believe her? The chances of her actually loving me seem very low in that context.
No rational human decides on issues like 'love' simply because of what someone says to you... To come to a rational conclusion on love, you study your wife's behaviour towards you, preferably over a reasonably long period of time...
Is Scott always right? Is Scott infallible? When Scott says that he will never be affected by the economy, rants about gaming achievements, says that he will never compromise on even the slightest thing in a relationship, or says that he will always have the same friends forever and ever, is he being completely rational? Sorry, but sometimes I think that "I deny reality so I don't have to face it" is Scott's personal motto.
Well, so far the economy hasn't had any effect on my life other than the fact that the economy has become a more frequent point of discussion. More and more people in the gaming world are agreeing with my stance on achievements. I have yet to compromise myself. I never said I would have the same friends forever and ever, but I see it highly unlikely that the people I presently associate with will not continue to be a part of my life for a large number of years to come.
No proof of any god can be simultaneously used to prove one god's existence and disprove another's. That same love that you feel for god and the bible is analogous to the feelings shared by muslims and their quran. Even if you could prove the existence of a god, you cannot prove that the god that exists is your god. It could be Zeus, for all we know.
Scott admitting he was wrong: "I was wrong once - when I thought I made a mistake."
I have been wrong many times. I believe I have admitted it every time, and changed my mind. Eventually after being wrong so many times, and correcting for that wrongness, I am wrong less and less often.
Also, it is easy to avoid being wrong by making sure to say things in a certain way. For example. I might say something like "there is a good chance of X happening," or "I think X is true, but I'm not sure." This is how you avoid being wrong.
No proof of any god can be simultaneously used to prove one god's existence and disprove another's. That same love that you feel for god and the bible is analogous to the feelings shared by muslims and their quran. Even if you could prove the existence of a god, you cannot prove that the god that exists is your god. It could be Zeus, for all we know.
Well, that's just fine. Listen, this is all pretty personal. If someone personally believes in Yahweh or The Force, I don't particularly care, unless they try to convert me. If you say that the belief is evidence that they're irrational, here's some news: we're all irrational in one way or the other. None of us lives up to the Vulcan ideal, not even Spock, so why do we care what other people's personal irrationalities may be, as long as it makes them happy and they don't try to make us share in the same irrationalities?
Also, it is easy to avoid being wrong by making sure to say things in a certain way. For example. I might say something like "there is a good chance of X happening," or "I think X is true, but I'm not sure." This is how you avoid being wrong.
That's the kind of weasel-language used to good effect by many lawyers and politicians. If you start talking like that, people aren't going to believe anything you say. If you really want to be weasel-ly, preface everything by "To the best of my knowledge and belief . . .", as in : "To the best of my knowledge and belief, Jason is sexually excited by Muppets."
I have been wrong many times. I believe I have admitted it every time, and changed my mind.
If one was to show that such a belief would have absolutely no impact on anything except for the fact that it makes you feel good, I'd say it would be an intelligent thing to do.
Maybe so, for them. They get good feelings at no cost to themselves. However, would you trust someone who believes such things? If so, how much would you trust them? Would you trust them to make important decisions that affect you? Would you trust them to govern you? Would you believe anything they told you? Would you respect their opinions?
No human is born with a mind that is inherently 100% rational. If someone were to be born with a mind somehow wired up that belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster would make them happy, then this would undoubtedly be a flaw. And, indeed, different people are flawed to different extents, and so statistically a mind like that would probably mean they were more likely to be screwed up in other ways as well. However, while there would be doubt, this also does not mean that they must necessarily be wrong everywhere else.
I obviously do not. If someone is willing to believe such crazy things, just to feel good, then that shows me they are gullible, weak, untrustworthy, and potentially dangerous. It shows that they care more about their feelings than they care about truth. It shows they would rather play pretend than accept and deal with what is real. If someone makes decisions based upon some fantastical belief, those decisions are much more likely to have a negative impact on reality, even if intentions are good. Fake medicine is the obvious example of how decisions based upon belief in fantasy can be incredibly dangerous.
I admit that if a belief has a chance of impacting negatively on a decision, then indeed it is no longer something you can believe in simply because it would make you "feel good". In such a case, to make a rational decision, you would weigh how the belief made you feel against its possible effects.
However, my hypothetical was that if that belief, whether or not it were true or false, would have no bearing on reality as we know it. If we apply something like this to Christianity, well, it's most certainly not that simple. Despite this, "It makes me feel good, so I will do it" is nonetheless part of a rational thought process. It's just that in the vast majority of cases that thinking is simply incomplete. So I'll try to extend it to a fuller argument, which I admit would no longer support Christianity :P.
Even Scientologists really think they are saving the world.
Except for the ones who are just trying to make money.
No proof of any god can be simultaneously used to prove one god's existence and disprove another's. That same love that you feel for god and the bible is analogous to the feelings shared by muslims and their quran. Even if you could prove the existence of a god, you cannot prove that the god that exists is your god. It could be Zeus, for all we know.
Well, that's just fine. Listen, this is all pretty personal. If someone personally believes in Yahweh or The Force, I don't particularly care, unless they try to convert me. If you say that the belief is evidence that they're irrational, here's some news: we're all irrational in one way or the other. None of us lives up to the Vulcan ideal, not even Spock, so why do we care what other people's personal irrationalities may be, as long as they don't try to make us share in the same irrationalities?
No, you're completely right. I just do my best to not have to associate with people who are subject to believe things without any proof. However, this is where things get messy. I don't care what people believe as long as it doesn't affect me personally. I don't care if anyone is a homosexual, or has an abortion, because it doesn't have a direct effect on me. But once people make decisions based on these irrational beliefs; once people are in high positions and cater to those who are religious and to their beliefs, that's where it begins to matter to me.
Legislation to teach creationism in schools is ludicrous and it only happens because there are people who get into office by the power of the religious right.
But once people make decisions based on these irrational beliefs; once people are in high positions and cater to those who are religious and to their beliefs. That's where it begins to matter to me.
Legislation to teach creationism in schools is ludacris and it only happens because there are people who get into office by the power of the religious right.
I agree. Religious beliefs have no place in government decision-making, in school, or in most of public life. However, I don't think Mr. dragon is making government or public decisions based on his beliefs.
I agree. Religious beliefs have no place in government decision-making, in school, or in most of public life. However, I don't think Mr. dragon is making government or public decisions based on his beliefs.
No, no he's not. And to be honest, I don't really care if people believe crazy things if they don't have anything to do with me. They can go on believing whatever they want. I will never deny someone the right to think whatever they want to think, or say whatever they want to say.
The reason I might appear to care, is this. Seeing as I have good intentions, as I think most people do, I am trying to help people. I can demonstrate that having the ability for reason allows for better decision making. If I find someone who does not understand these things I will attempt to educate them both for their benefit, and my enjoyment. If that attempt at education fails, I will simply fall back on entertaining myself with Internet arguments!
But once people make decisions based on these irrational beliefs; once people are in high positions and cater to those who are religious and to their beliefs. That's where it begins to matter to me.
Legislation to teach creationism in schools is ludacris and it only happens because there are people who get into office by the power of the religious right.
I agree. Religious beliefs have no place in government decision-making, in school, or in most of public life. However, I don't think Mr. dragon is making government or public decisions based on his beliefs.
Yes, that is true. He is only speaking in a public forum. However, the issue that we atheists here are really trying to get to is whether or not someone who shows that can believe in irrational things have any place in society. If religion weren't such a big thing, and such a force with lobbyists and in politics, this discussion would be of no consequence. The truth of the matter is that if we don't speak up, our worst fears will go unaddressed.
I see. You have to defeat them, convince them that you're right, and make them convert to your way of thinking.
You have a right to your own opinion, but you don't have a right to your own facts. The world is the way the world is, whether you believe it or not. Helping people get their beliefs in line with reality is just a way to help people. The more people who have their mind in line with reality, the better the world will be for everybody. It's not a dogmatic conversion. It's like trying to give children bad tasting medicine that will cure their illness.
Helping people get their beliefs in line with reality is just a way to help people. The more people who have their mind in line with reality, the better the world will be for everybody.
So . . . you have to defeat them, convince them that you're right, and make them convert to your way of thinking because it's in their own best interest. You're just trying to help (would it be fair to say save?) them, and by helping them you're making the world a better place.
Any public decision should be taken considering every single person it affects, and it should be made rationally. Simply because religion is a personal thing, it is obvious that whether or not it is true, it should have no place in a public decision.
Religious beliefs catalyze irrational decision making, because at the very least religion teaches people the horrible habit of "faith". To have faith is to believe something without having good evidence of its truth, and if one then takes this truth and applies it to their decision-making, that can be very bad.
Indeed, religious belief has caused many atrocities in the past, and while the present is a far milder time, we still see this underlying irrationality when we see the attitudes religious people have towards something like homosexuality. Additionally, all too many believers show an unwillingness to accept theories like evolution, despite its widespread support among scientists.
The point I was arguing before was merely emphasizing that to make a rational decision, you not only study the possibilities, you also study the effects of these. In fact, the most rational viewpoint on religion is to have no beliefs whatsoever on the topic.
In a case where believing would benefit you, but cause no harm at all (and I mean not even indirect harm through the consequences of your decisions), it would be rational to believe, but such a case doesn't exist.
Helping people get their beliefs in line with reality is just a way to help people. The more people who have their mind in line with reality, the better the world will be for everybody.
So . . . you have to defeat them, convince them that you're right, and make them convert to your way of thinking because it's in their own best interest. You're just trying to help (would it be fair to say save?) them, and by helping them you're making the world a better place.
Where have I heard this type of thing before?
Would you feel comfortable letting schools teach that the Nazis didn't kill any Jews? You have to protect facts.
Would you feel comfortable letting schools teach that the Nazis didn't kill any Jews? You have to protect facts.
Well, that did it. I was good and ready to keep going and talk about Scott being a preachy atheist and how religion is a tool that can inspire good or evil depnding on the person and you had to go and Godwin the whole thing up.
Would you feel comfortable letting schools teach that the Nazis didn't kill any Jews? You have to protect facts.
Well, that did it. I was good and ready to keep going and talk about Scott being a preachy atheist and how religion is a tool that can inspire good or evil depnding on the person and you had to go and Godwin the whole thing up.
LMAO. Excuses. Fine, lets take a realistic example. I am not comfortable with schools teaching that Christopher Columbus was a hero and the discoverer of the new world. People had arrived on this side of the world before he did. He committed atrocities against the indigenous people of Hispaniola where they would take a pregnant woman, hang her by her toes and cut her stomach open and let the unborn baby fall to the floor. All in an effort to impose fear upon the people there.
Are you comfortable with him being touted a hero knowing that?
Comments
To help him out, I'll give right now a simple, rational argument in favour of Christianity: "I believe in Christianity because it makes me feel good".
In all seriousness, that is a perfectly rational argument.
Just because something makes someone feel good on an emotional level does not automatically make it good.
Reason only provides a negative, a doubt. If revelation is replaced by reason, nothing can be learned. If proposition is replaced with first person interaction, how can you grow? Your truth is meaningless, you know nothing, you don't have any answers to existence.
I know God exists. I know in my heart, in my mind, and in my soul. My proof is ever present, it surrounds me.
William Blake:
This life's dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
and goads you to believe a lie
when you see with and not through the eye.
Rational thought has it's use. I leave work at 5pm, the clock says 5pm it's time to leave. If I go further and doubt the clock has the correct time, or think my boss changed my hours and didn't notify me, I would be stuck at work forever. My wife says she loves me. Is it rational for me to believe her? There are billions of other people on this planet that would not say they loved me what makes her different? Why should I believe her? The chances of her actually loving me seem very low in that context.
It's been said to present the truth to those that don't love the truth only provides them with more things to attack. If you can find your way to rationalize the existence of this text you will know I'm stopping here. I've made my point, if you can't comprehend what I'm saying then I guess that's your problem.
Does Odin exist?
I obviously do not. If someone is willing to believe such crazy things, just to feel good, then that shows me they are gullible, weak, untrustworthy, and potentially dangerous. It shows that they care more about their feelings than they care about truth. It shows they would rather play pretend than accept and deal with what is real. If someone makes decisions based upon some fantastical belief, those decisions are much more likely to have a negative impact on reality, even if intentions are good. Fake medicine is the obvious example of how decisions based upon belief in fantasy can be incredibly dangerous.
I actually believe that the vast majority of human beings have good intentions. Everyone thinks they are the good guy. Everyone thinks they are helping. Everyone thinks they are making the world a better place. Even Scientologists really think they are saving the world. The fake medicine people really and truly think they are healing people. They all have good in their hearts. However, because they are making decisions about how to achieve that good result based upon falsehoods, they end up not helping, or even hurting, often without realizing it.
Reason is a rational thinking process, but it is not the only tool available to a person when it comes to rational thought.
Another way of looking at rationality, quite simply, aiming to get as close to your desired outcome as possible.
Both of the above are rational, but only reason is inherently "true". However, given adequate knowledge and correct implementation, rational thought would give the correct result every time as well.
This is not true. While reason does tell you that you can't be entirely certain as to the time, this does not mean the rational decision is to "stay at work forever". On the contrary, you first ascertain the probability that the clock is way off. Now, if you've been going to work every day for a year, it must be said that this probability is very low. Then, you make a decision, where you aim to obtain the highest overall benefit from what you choose to do. No rational human decides on issues like 'love' simply because of what someone says to you... To come to a rational conclusion on love, you study your wife's behaviour towards you, preferably over a reasonably long period of time...
Also, it is easy to avoid being wrong by making sure to say things in a certain way. For example. I might say something like "there is a good chance of X happening," or "I think X is true, but I'm not sure." This is how you avoid being wrong.
However, my hypothetical was that if that belief, whether or not it were true or false, would have no bearing on reality as we know it. If we apply something like this to Christianity, well, it's most certainly not that simple. Despite this, "It makes me feel good, so I will do it" is nonetheless part of a rational thought process. It's just that in the vast majority of cases that thinking is simply incomplete. So I'll try to extend it to a fuller argument, which I admit would no longer support Christianity :P. Except for the ones who are just trying to make money.
I don't care what people believe as long as it doesn't affect me personally. I don't care if anyone is a homosexual, or has an abortion, because it doesn't have a direct effect on me. But once people make decisions based on these irrational beliefs; once people are in high positions and cater to those who are religious and to their beliefs, that's where it begins to matter to me.
Legislation to teach creationism in schools is ludicrous and it only happens because there are people who get into office by the power of the religious right.
The reason I might appear to care, is this. Seeing as I have good intentions, as I think most people do, I am trying to help people. I can demonstrate that having the ability for reason allows for better decision making. If I find someone who does not understand these things I will attempt to educate them both for their benefit, and my enjoyment. If that attempt at education fails, I will simply fall back on entertaining myself with Internet arguments!
Richard Dawkins makes a better case than I ever could about this very subject at TED.
Where have I heard this type of thing before?
Simply because religion is a personal thing, it is obvious that whether or not it is true, it should have no place in a public decision.
Religious beliefs catalyze irrational decision making, because at the very least religion teaches people the horrible habit of "faith". To have faith is to believe something without having good evidence of its truth, and if one then takes this truth and applies it to their decision-making, that can be very bad.
Indeed, religious belief has caused many atrocities in the past, and while the present is a far milder time, we still see this underlying irrationality when we see the attitudes religious people have towards something like homosexuality. Additionally, all too many believers show an unwillingness to accept theories like evolution, despite its widespread support among scientists.
The point I was arguing before was merely emphasizing that to make a rational decision, you not only study the possibilities, you also study the effects of these.
In fact, the most rational viewpoint on religion is to have no beliefs whatsoever on the topic.
In a case where believing would benefit you, but cause no harm at all (and I mean not even indirect harm through the consequences of your decisions), it would be rational to believe, but such a case doesn't exist.
Are you comfortable with him being touted a hero knowing that?