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.
An essential aspect of rationality is that it is congruent with what we know about reality. You make no such test of what you consider rational because you prefer to believe and accept a magical reality. That is why those two beliefs are equivalent to you and just a matter of taste. For you, there is no grounding for rationality.
we are discussing religious beliefs, and identifying religious beliefs.
it seems to me that you balk at even recognizing and admitting that you have "religious beliefs"
it seems to really bother you and make you exceedingly reluctant and uncomfortable to simply accept the fact that you have "religious beliefs"
I'm curious why that might be.
for you, what is the difference between "what we know about reality" and "religious beliefs"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-06-2018 at 04:21 PM..
have you ever heard two kids around age 5 or 6 arguing over which is BETTER hot dogs or mac and cheese ? and they had reasons galore and they could PROVE it and the argument went on and on and on.
it's like that.
just which religious beliefs you like best. for whatever reasons make sense to you and are most delicious to your taste.
To a significant extent, you are correct. Many religious beliefs fall into one or more of these general categories:
(1) Matters of taste for which there are no "right" answers.
(2) Matters of fact (thus there are correct/incorrect answers), but there is no significant harm done in holding a certain false belief.
(3) Arguably, there might also be some cases that are matters of fact but, due to limitations of human cognition, we can never realistically hope know the right answer so, FAPP, we might as well just say there is no correct answer, or the "best" answer is just whatever makes us happy.
(4) Arguably, there could be some cases where having false beliefs might actually be better than having a true belief. (E.g., the placebo effect: Falsely believing that I am getting medicine, when in fact I'm getting a sugar pill. Sometimes the healing effect is organically real - not just "feeling better" but literally healing, etc.)
But there is also this:
(5) Matters of fact about which some false beliefs can do actual harm (or significantly increase risk of harm) to self or others.
or this:
(6) Matters of fact that don't involve obvious significant harm to most people, but do present perceived harm to certain people (e.g., philosophers) who place great value on truth for truth's sake (they'd rather live "authentically" with an uncomfortable truth, then live happily believing a lie). I'm reminded of a scene from The Matrix where the traitor is "eating a juicy stake" saying something like "I know this steak isn't real, but I don't care. I'd rather live in the Matrix than in the miserable reality that I know is out there." (I'm paraphrasing).
When discussing religious beliefs, I would suggest keeping these distinctions in mind. Personally, when discussing religious beliefs I prefer to focus on beliefs that can cause actual harm - and the most interesting cases are those that I think cause harm, but the harm is not obvious to certain people. Example: Believing that the Theory of Evolution is a lie. Some people might say it doesn't really matter, but I say that, in the big picture, it does matter. Real harm is done by widespread ignorance of science and/or stubborn refusals to acknowledge the logical and empirical power of good scientific theories just because those theories contradict some religious belief.
no, its a you thing, not a me thing. and your right, other than bashing others beliefs while holding some whoo stuff of your own offers us nothing. its good for for yah whoo atheist bash believer types, but thats it.
It's clear that you are simply unable to make sense of anything I post.
Carry on trying to drag me into your flame-war bashing game.
To a significant extent, you are correct. Many religious beliefs fall into one or more of these general categories:
(1) Matters of taste for which there are no "right" answers.
(2) Matters of fact (thus there are correct/incorrect answers), but there is no significant harm done in holding a certain false belief.
(3) Arguably, there might also be some cases that are matters of fact but, due to limitations of human cognition, we can never realistically hope know the right answer so, FAPP, we might as well just say there is no correct answer, or the "best" answer is just whatever makes us happy.
(4) Arguably, there could be some cases where having false beliefs might actually be better than having a true belief. (E.g., the placebo effect: Falsely believing that I am getting medicine, when in fact I'm getting a sugar pill. Sometimes the healing effect is organically real - not just "feeling better" but literally healing, etc.)
But there is also this:
(5) Matters of fact about which some false beliefs can do actual harm (or significantly increase risk of harm) to self or others.
or this:
(6) Matters of fact that don't involve obvious significant harm to most people, but do present perceived harm to certain people (e.g., philosophers) who place great value on truth for truth's sake (they'd rather live "authentically" with an uncomfortable truth, then live happily believing a lie). I'm reminded of a scene from The Matrix where the traitor is "eating a juicy stake" saying something like "I know this steak isn't real, but I don't care. I'd rather live in the Matrix than in the miserable reality that I know is out there." (I'm paraphrasing).
When discussing religious beliefs, I would suggest keeping these distinctions in mind. Personally, when discussing religious beliefs I prefer to focus on beliefs that can cause actual harm - and the most interesting cases are those that I think cause harm, but the harm is not obvious to certain people. Example: Believing that the Theory of Evolution is a lie. Some people might say it doesn't really matter, but I say that, in the big picture, it does matter. Real harm is done by widespread ignorance of science and/or stubborn refusals to acknowledge the logical and empirical power of good scientific theories just because those theories contradict some religious belief.
Thats right. believing a conclusion is a lie, that can be reached independent of birth location, based on observation and commonsense is dangerous.
we are discussing religious beliefs, and identifying religious beliefs.
it seems to me that you balk at even recognizing and admitting that you have "religious beliefs"
it seems to really bother you and make you exceedingly reluctant and uncomfortable to simply accept the fact that you have "religious beliefs"
I'm curious why that might be.
for you, what is the difference between "what we know about reality" and "religious beliefs"
if we are. then a dude dying, waking up, and flying away as a literal belief is the first one we should be addressing. why and how that happened. Also, we need to assign proper weights to claims. All beliefs are not on equal terms and stating they are is dangerous.
we can certianility address how the belief of deny anything and everything for atheist marketing is just as dangerous and counters science and common sense and thus as dangerous as literal religion. well, it is literal religion, but you get what I mean.
An essential aspect of rationality is that it is congruent with what we know about reality. You make no such test of what you consider rational because you prefer to believe and accept a magical reality. That is why those two beliefs are equivalent to you and just a matter of taste. For you, there is no grounding for rationality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
we are discussing religious beliefs and identifying religious beliefs.
it seems to me that you balk at even recognizing and admitting that you have "religious beliefs"
it seems to really bother you and make you exceedingly reluctant and uncomfortable to simply accept the fact that you have "religious beliefs"
I'm curious why that might be.
for you, what is the difference between "what we know about reality" and "religious beliefs"
I am at a loss how to respond to this question. If you do not know the difference between "what we know about reality" and "religious beliefs," I haven't the slightest idea how to discuss the difference between rational and irrational beliefs with you.
How about this...since Gaylen asked you...why don't you give it a shot? You typically dodge and deflect by attempting to move the goal posts by turning around and expecting others to answer what you have been asked.
Why can't you answer what you were asked?
She seems to want to avoid it. Her expectation for a discussion or discourse is to ask others their views NOT discuss hers.
This is NOT a generic question of different beliefs making sense to different people. The relevant comparison is the rationality of two SPECIFIC beliefs:
1.) a belief that scourging and crucifying an innocent human was a necessary blood sacrifice to appease God in some inexplicable way so God would forgive our failures.
- versus -
2.) a belief that ONE human being's consciousness needed to achieve IDENTITY (perfect resonance) with God's consciousness (Holy Spirit of agape love) toward us all to connect ALL human consciousness to God so God need not count our failures against us.
So you dont like the beliefs of the particular religion you have chosen to identify with. Alrighty then. Yet you still identify with that religion. That seems to be a rather large conflict.
People outside of your specific chosen religion make the observation that the two choices you list above are both "religious beliefs" . Since you posted in the general religion forum and not your specific religion section Crstnty then that is the feedback you are receiving. The two choices you list above are both Crstn beliefs.
It's like going to a bunch of atheists and Hindus and Sikh and Buddhists and pagans and asking them to vote for your brand of Crstnty over another brand of Crstnty as being "more rational."
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-07-2018 at 07:26 AM..
So you dont like the beliefs of the particular religion you have chosen to identify with. Alrighty then. Yet you still identify with that religion. That seems to be a rather large conflict.
yes, it is normal and rational to not like all of the rules of a particular club and still be a member. In Fact, those "variations" help the club change over time to meet the needs of its environment. err, wait a min.
i am an atheist. i do not associate with the literal atheists that preach to "deny everything, no matter how valid, if it looks like it can be used by atheists." But I am still an atheist. I still weight every claim against the standard model and our understanding of life.
what do you weight "he literally rose from the dead" against?
yes, it is normal and rational to not like all of the rules of a particular club and still be a member. In Fact, those "variations" help the club change over time to meet the needs of its environment. err, wait a min.
i am an atheist. i do not associate with the literal atheists that preach to "deny everything, no matter how valid, if it looks like it can be used by atheists." But I am still an atheist. I still weight every claim against the standard model and our understanding of life.
what do you weight "he literally rose from the dead" against?
Thats MPDs club ask him.
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.
