Thanks for the laugh.
LightGigantic's Defense Thread
- Thread starter Prince_James
- Start date
Thanks for coming in with your fortnightly ad hom - guess we will hear from you again in another two weeks
I would say that the only way to call a belief "irrational" would be to bring evidence that it is not possibly true, or at least to show that it is probably incorrect, rendering the belief "somewhat irrational".
Neither of these have been done in this case.
Only that some people's perspective makes dualism seem irrational, and other perspectives make it seem rational, as LG said.
If anyone wants to call an idea like this objectively "incorrect", they may be justified, but don't say "irrational."
Also LG, I really meant thanks for the laugh - I laughed. It was funny. And I do have a life (on and off), which keeps sciforums from getting my undivided attention, and if my post count gets up to 3 per day I feel like I must be neglecting it.
Neither of these have been done in this case.
Only that some people's perspective makes dualism seem irrational, and other perspectives make it seem rational, as LG said.
If anyone wants to call an idea like this objectively "incorrect", they may be justified, but don't say "irrational."
Also LG, I really meant thanks for the laugh - I laughed. It was funny. And I do have a life (on and off), which keeps sciforums from getting my undivided attention, and if my post count gets up to 3 per day I feel like I must be neglecting it.
cole grey;
agreed
keep on truckin
Far from it. People can only perceive god by faith. If they can't demonstrate how or why, then the far most likely explanation is that they are filling an emotional void by their faith in god. Occams Razor wins that one in favour of the atheists view.
The fact that there are so many different religions and different individual notions RE god, means your usual comparison with the electron is flawed. It's like science saying there are millions of different types of electrons, and that it simply invents each different type of electron as it goes along, with no real regard for demonstration which passes critical investigation.
No - belief (without evidence) is irrational - full stop!
To claim something as truth without the requisite evidence is irrational.
Claiming God exists is as irrational as claiming God doesn't exist.
Either could be right - but BELIEF that one is true is irrational.
As I have stated - dualism is rational (i.e. logical) in and of itself.
But BELIEF THAT IT IS TRUE is irrational unless you have the proof.
BELIEF THAT IT IS NOT TRUE is equally irrational.
This is not difficult to understand.
The concept might be a rational concept - but BELIEF THAT IT IS TRUE is irrational unless you have evidence.
For example - is it rational or irrational for you to BELIEVE that I have orange juice in my fridge?
It is certainly rational for you to believe that I MIGHT have - but to believe as truth that I do (or believe as truth that I do not) is irrational.
Or better, perhaps our understanding of God is like that of some of the ancient greeks, who talked about something they couldn't explain or show, and ended up having an incomplete and somewhat messed up version of the basic idea of the molecular structure of matter, which would seem to many people of the time ridiculous. That is, in my opinion, precisely what our understanding of God is like.
good example.
If I have been led to believe by any means, that you always have orange juice in your fridge, then it is entirely rational to believe you have some there now. The only question is, what means are accepted as leading to a rational belief that you have the OJ?
Look, I don't understand anyone who says that they KNOW God is real, the same way they know they are sitting in a chair and typing, or whatever - that seems a bit strange to me personally - perhaps you are just defining a belief differently than I am.
Something you think is true = a belief, i.e. "I believe my dog likes to wrestle". I don't know what my dog is thinking, but I have that belief, and I cannot prove it.
What is the problem there?
I don't usually hear people saying "I know God exists," usually it is "I believe god exists."
In religion the term "belief" is held to be a 100% acceptance. i.e. you believe God exists = you accept 100% that God exists.
In common parlance the term "belief" is more widely used as "on an assessment of probability..."
"I believe my dog likes to wrestle" is merely you saying that, on the basis that dogs do like to wrestle, for which I have evidence is the case, then I believe my dog also likes to - but can not be 100% positive.
"I believe I won't die crossing the road" is merely saying that, on the basis of probability built up from a plethora of experience, I won't.
This is very different to religious "belief" which is 100% acceptance - with no probability of being wrong - on the basis of zero evidence.
So there is a difference.
Fire
There is however the claim of perceiving god by direct perception and indications of processes advocated to come to the platform of such perceptions
there are several different ways to perceive the nature of electrons - all such processes are reconciliable to one knowledgable about electrons - and such knowledge also grants the ability to determine all such processes that are bogus.
actually funny you should bring this up - if you take empirical investigation further enough in either direction (macro or micro) you end up with something we cannot explain or show, and end up having an incomplete and somewhat messed up version of basic ideas, which will seem like, to many persons of the future (ie future empiricists), as ridiculous - todays empirical breakthroughs are tomorrows roaring laughs (or sighs of regret) - such is the merciless nature of empiricism
This is simply not true.
In some religions, sure, but NOT in "religion" as a whole.
We assume dogs like to wrestle, but we don't really know. They seem to appreciate it - my dog gives me evidence by wagging his tail when I give him a mean look and he runs over to grab at me. This becomes evidence based on perspective - if my dog ran over to someone else they might scream and run.
Of all the religious people I know, and I know many, very few would ever say they have 100% acceptance with no doubts. Perhaps robots could believe or not believe the way you describe, but most humans don't use the term that way. What is your source for your definition? Over my lifetime so far I have personally experienced literally hundreds of religious people contradicting your idea, and asserting to your definition not being the definition.
Actually your view (of 100% acceptance of god being the essence of distinction between a theist and an atheist - an atheist might be one at 99% or lower) is what fanatical relgious societies operate on - coming to the point of 100% acceptance of god is the perfectional stage of religion which, while theoretically could happen in an instant,practically takes a long long long time of practice, dedication and cultivation - advocating that you "must" come to the level of 100% to be religious is the cause of many duplicities in theistic societies as persons pretend to be stabilized on levels of practice that are far far above them in the name of saving face
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UNQStKaDe-U"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UNQStKaDe-U" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
^^^^^^^
Ditto
Ditto
I have never met a religious person who says that God might not exist.
They might have doubts as to how much influence this God exerts on our world etc - but to the actual existence... no - they are all 100% sure.
Are you religious?
Do you accept that there is a possibility that your God does NOT exist?
If so - on what grounds do you accept it?
The point is that to be 100% convinced that god exists (ie god as the supeme controller who directs al phenomena of the universe) is a very exalted position - like for instance it squestionable how a theist who'se sense of happiness and distress is dictated by how much money/fame/adoration from mundane personalities etc they receive has faith at 100%
In otherwords to have 100% conviction that god exists is characterized by many qualities that are difficult to imitate (although its quite easy to give lip service to such statements)
That is really weird. How many have you actually met and talked to about this?
I am not a good example because I am not a believer in the reliability of cognition to describe all events and realities. A fundie would call me "not religious" and a pure athiest would call me "religious". I would say that your average person would call me religious.
That having been said, I can tell you that at the apex of my fundamentalism, i.e. when I was a thousand times more "religious" than I am now, and participating in a church i would call fundamentalist, I accepted the possibility that God might not exist, and so did many, if not most, of the people I knew. It is called "doubt" and it is a huge part of the religious experience - there are libraries worth of books describing it, and not all the descriptions are in a negative light.
Why accept the possibility? Because God never showed up in a physical form and said "hi". Or even said, "hi" in any way I could actually hear. It seems only normal to have doubt.
I think you may be reacting to the manner in which people "act" as if they had no doubt because it is a more practical way to live, function in society, and not spend a bunch of time talking about this kind of thing like we are doing now. It isn't always fun to have to think for yourself, it is often very frustrating.
Last edited:
There's a difference between being 100% true to the religion you hold and being 100% sure that God exists.
One can be 100% sure God exists but not actually be religious - so I'm talking theists here, rather than religious (i.e. just dealing with the belief in God aspect).
Many.cole grey said:
I was brought up an RC - attending RC schools up until I went to Uni - and even then I conversed with people all the time about it, as those were my "formative years", so to speak.
Every religious person I know personally who does more than merely give lip-service to their religion (e.g. not including those that have never questioned it but do it merely out of habit / upbringing etc) have 100% conviction that God exists. With most it is a case of "Of course God exists" and that is it.
But is this doubt a true % chance that God does not exist - or merely a momentary lapse of understanding the nature of the God?cole grey said: