Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you. The only relevant matter here is what is supported by valid evidence, and how we assess evidence is a matter of rationality. Rationality by and large and arguably is better that the irrational, but if neither here nor there, what's the argument? That we should believe an irrational claim because it's good for us?
There is too much evidence that it's either bad or indifferent. I'll leave the ethics to others. I'm talking what is believable.
First, again, I am not rational 100% of the time (and neither are you or any other human being) and not 100% of my beliefs are backed up by scientific, rational data (and neither are yours)
Again, there are countless things people believe that are irrational and not based on evidence.
Where is the evidence of the tastiness of cheesecake? Is hope for a better future rational?
And again, where is the evidence that an evidence based existence will lead people to existential authenticity?
And yes, I do believe it is fine to have irrational beliefs if they make one's life better.
Quote:
What has that to do with whether there is a god or not? It seems simply trying to pin one matter - the god -claim on some debatable irrelevance.
So that experiment may have been unethical. What has that to do with the factuality of science? What has it to do with the validity of the god-claim?
You claimed that abandoning reason would lead to atrocities. I correctly pointed out that rational behavior (like the Tuskegee Experiment) have also lead to atrocities. Hence, "reason" loses the moral high ground...which, of course, is ironic when you consider that there is no objective, rational basis for morality in the first place.
There are two arguments there - neither of them really relevant to supporting the god -claim, but let's deal with them.
One is referencing human being prone to error. The only point in that was to try to discredit everything science thinks it knows in order to try to make room for the god -claim. It fails totally because science is a tool honed to eliminate those errors mistakes and irrationalities that led to the god -claims in the first place.
The other is trying to discredit science by claiming that it leads to atrocities. This is quite a favourite one, but it is totally futile as science is about finding facts, just as chemistry and metallurgy is about finding what chemicals do and how to work metals.
What ethical or inethical use humans then put the results to is irrelevant to the factuality of science, chemistry and metallurgy.
Ethics and morals are important of course, and we understandably disapprove of those who use science, chemicals and metal objects in committing atrocities. But the science, chemicals or metal working themselves are not to blame and to somehow suggest they are not true because of their misuse is ridiculous.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-16-2017 at 01:39 AM..
There are two arguments there - neither of them really relevant to supporting the god -claim, but let's deal with them.
No, let's not because again, I make no arguments or claims.
I simply make a statement: I believe in GOD because I choose to.
I do not argue why GOD exist, and I do not have any evidence for my beliefs. This belief is completely irrational. This belief is made with no evidence or reason. And I make it anyway.
There is nothing supporting my belief in GOD aside from my will. Is there anything in your life that is there because of your sheer force of will? I doubt that.
That's fine. You believe in God because you choose to (I won't quibble about that terminology).
You accept that the claim is irrational.
I do not accept the god-claim because it is not supported by convincing evidence. You believe. I don't. What is there to argue about?
Force of will? At one time. Long since I have let the weight of evidence (assessed logically and rationally - as best I can) drive me. Nothing to argue about there, either.
So, the question will pop up, why am I here arguing, then?
It is because of organized religion and its' influence, which I think to be somewhere between unfortunate and pernicious. I and those who follow my or....think like me...want to see it rolled back.
If you and I have no argument about the god -claim, perhaps you have an argument about that.
G W Bush said God told him to invade Iraq. This indicident killed millions, and also destroyed the families and lives on an astronomical level. Don't you wonder how and where God would've told him to so?
That's fine. You believe in God because you choose to (I won't quibble about that terminology).
You accept that the claim is irrational.
I do not accept the god-claim because it is not supported by convincing evidence. You believe. I don't. What is there to argue about?
Force of will? At one time. Long since I have let the weight of evidence (assessed logically and rationally - as best I can) drive me. Nothing to argue about there, either.
So, the question will pop up, why am I here arguing, then?
It is because of organized religion and its' influence, which I think to be somewhere between unfortunate and pernicious. I and those who follow my or....think like me...want to see it rolled back.
If you and I have no argument about the god -claim, perhaps you have an argument about that.
best exchange I ever saw ... I agree with almost everything you said and its almost exactly how I see it.
First, again, I am not rational 100% of the time (and neither are you or any other human being) and not 100% of my beliefs are backed up by scientific, rational data (and neither are yours)
Again, there are countless things people believe that are irrational and not based on evidence.
Where is the evidence of the tastiness of cheesecake? Is hope for a better future rational?
And again, where is the evidence that an evidence based existence will lead people to existential authenticity?
And yes, I do believe it is fine to have irrational beliefs if they make one's life better.
Irrational beliefs can feel good, yes. The placebo effect is a scientifically proven phenomenon. But there are usually negative side-effects, as with any other mind-altering drug.
A particularly nasty side-effect of all placebos is this: the placebo can stop working as soon as the patient finds out that it's just a sugar pill.
If one becomes addicted to a placebo, anyone who tries to tell you "it's just a sugar pill" becomes your enemy. Wink wink.
Irrational beliefs can feel good, yes. The placebo effect is a scientifically proven phenomenon. But there are usually negative side-effects, as with any other mind-altering drug.
A particularly nasty side-effect of all placebos is this: the placebo can stop working as soon as the patient finds out that it's just a sugar pill.
If one becomes addicted to a placebo, anyone who tries to tell you "it's just a sugar pill" becomes your enemy. Wink wink.
lmao, yuppers.
I would say the most nasty effect of finding out is how mad they get for being "tricked" by a loved one. Finding out there is only oneself or a family member to blame can lead to a violent reaction. And with no place to "place" that anger, well, you see what can happen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You believe in God because you choose to (I won't quibble about that terminology).
But you put your finger on it old mate -we agree on almost everything. Just the idea that outspoken atheism = some kind of extremist frogma.
