Found a list of some famous scientists who were religious: Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Rene Descartes, Robert Boyle, William Thomson, Kelvin Max Planck, Albert Einstein.
CorTilt
Okay, and your point is...?
Athiests' Feelings Toward Christianity
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
Belief is inherently irrational.
unholymight
Either that statement is false, or rationality is overrated.
Rationality cannot be overratted, for it is the study of the truth. By truth, I mean observations of the world. If you want to question the truth that is already there, it becomes philosophical and outside the domain of falsifiability.Philosophies can be as falsifiable as any scientific theory. For example, the philosophies of Zeno can be proven wrong, and have been.
Rationality is not the study of anything. Rationality is making decisions that fit whatever data is available to you about the world. In this, rationality is not falsifiable or a study, and is the background for both science and philosophy.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
I guess what I was trying to say is that, yes, people perhaps hate Christianity because they don't understand it, but there are certainly Christians who hate atheism because they don't understand it... :|
chessmaster1989
Atheism is not synonymous with science, and what's to understand about atheism? It's the rejection of belief in God(s). Is there more to it?
(Well, there is, but I'm not gonna go into that. . .)
I think I'm not expressing myself that well.
What I mean to say is that (I'm just going to use Christianity, since it's the religion that I know the most about (even it, I'm not that familiar with)) Christians will, for obvious reasons, reject the notion of a world without God; this is inherent to their beliefs.
Okay.
Some Christians undoubtedly will not be able to understand a world without a creator, and, thus, atheism.
Okay.
I think the mere fact that people like BR (btw, I'm not trying to compare you/most Christians to BR) post objections to ideas that "life came from non-life" and "everything came from nothing" (the latter, of course, being a gross misrepresentation of atheism-I don't know a single atheist who believes that) implies that they don't understand how the world could be as it is now without a creator.
Okay.
If that still doesn't make sense to you, I guess my point just isn't a very good one... :|
EDIT: Addressing your point about atheism not being synonymous with science, you are completely correct. That said, atheists often use science to justify the possibility of a world without a creator. But, yes, you are correct.
Now I understand you better, and you're completely right.
[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Either that statement is false, or rationality is overrated.
Theokhoth
If I believe something, I've automatically closed my mind to all alternatives to a given situation, right? That's irrationality incarnate.
If you believe something, then you hold that something to be the most likely to be true amongst the sea of possiblities. Not only do you believe in thousands of things (making rationality overrated, if you're right) but you also assume that these beliefs come out of thin air without any prior thought or experience backing those beliefs. . . and no such belief exists.
Well, in my opinion, rationality should trump any kind of belief, be it atheism or religion or whatever.
That being said, I see your point that one in theory 'believes' in a myriad of different things at all times, but they are closing their minds whenever they make those subconscious decisions to interpret something in a particular way. Therefore, we can raise our standards of living by remaining open minded, but it usually ends up in futility. It's worth trying, though, as everything is.
You go by the literal meaning, and going by the literal meaning is evidently ineffective. The word atom literally means indivisible, but we know atoms are divisible. So when I say atom, do I really mean indivisible?[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Atheist: Somebody who doesn't believe in the existence of deities.
That's it. Rationalisation is not a necessary component to atheism, and not everyone who rationalises is an atheist, and not everyone who calls himself an atheist is rational.
Science =/= atheism.
Theokhoth
You're shirking my point with an ineffective analogy. First you need to explain how the "literal meaning" (which, by the way, is the only meaning) is ineffective, and then you need to explain the fact that not every atheist is rational, that not every rational person is an atheist, and the fact that to be rational is not any sort of universal atheistic doctrine.
You ask me to explain ineffectiveness, yet you just made a claim of it in that post. Literal meaning is not the only meaning. Read the Bible, and you'll see that words can have many meanings. Rationality leads to atheism. The perfect rationalist would arrive at the conclusion of atheism due to simple lack of proof, improbability, and contradictions such as "is God able to kill himself without breaking the laws of logic"[QUOTE="CorTilt"]
Found a list of some famous scientists who were religious: Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Rene Descartes, Robert Boyle, William Thomson, Kelvin Max Planck, Albert Einstein.
chessmaster1989
Okay, and your point is...?
Einstein was a pantheist. That's not necessarily a religion.
Found a list of some famous scientists who were religious: Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Rene Descartes, Robert Boyle, William Thomson, Kelvin Max Planck, Albert Einstein.
CorTilt
That list is inaccurate if it claims Einstein was religious... he was most certainly not religious.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Atheism is not synonymous with science, and what's to understand about atheism? It's the rejection of belief in God(s). Is there more to it?
(Well, there is, but I'm not gonna go into that. . .)
Theokhoth
I think I'm not expressing myself that well.
What I mean to say is that (I'm just going to use Christianity, since it's the religion that I know the most about (even it, I'm not that familiar with)) Christians will, for obvious reasons, reject the notion of a world without God; this is inherent to their beliefs.
Okay.
Some Christians undoubtedly will not be able to understand a world without a creator, and, thus, atheism.
Okay.
I think the mere fact that people like BR (btw, I'm not trying to compare you/most Christians to BR) post objections to ideas that "life came from non-life" and "everything came from nothing" (the latter, of course, being a gross misrepresentation of atheism-I don't know a single atheist who believes that) implies that they don't understand how the world could be as it is now without a creator.
Okay.
If that still doesn't make sense to you, I guess my point just isn't a very good one... :|
EDIT: Addressing your point about atheism not being synonymous with science, you are completely correct. That said, atheists often use science to justify the possibility of a world without a creator. But, yes, you are correct.
Now I understand you better, and you're completely right.
Woo woo, I have Theokhoth's official seal of approval. :D
:P
Yeah, sorry about not expressing myself that well at first... I sometimes forget that people can't read minds :P.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="unholymight"] You go by the literal meaning, and going by the literal meaning is evidently ineffective. The word atom literally means indivisible, but we know atoms are divisible. So when I say atom, do I really mean indivisible?unholymight
You're shirking my point with an ineffective analogy. First you need to explain how the "literal meaning" (which, by the way, is the only meaning) is ineffective, and then you need to explain the fact that not every atheist is rational, that not every rational person is an atheist, and the fact that to be rational is not any sort of universal atheistic doctrine.
You ask me to explain ineffectiveness, yet you just made a claim of it in that post. Literal meaning is not the only meaning. Read the Bible, and you'll see that words can have many meanings. Rationality leads to atheism. The perfect rationalist would arrive at the conclusion of atheism due to simple lack of proof, improbability, and contradictions such as "is God able to kill himself without breaking the laws of logic"...but atheism is also a belief system, albeit one more based on rationality.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
If I believe something, I've automatically closed my mind to all alternatives to a given situation, right? That's irrationality incarnate.
Hot-Tamale
If you believe something, then you hold that something to be the most likely to be true amongst the sea of possiblities. Not only do you believe in thousands of things (making rationality overrated, if you're right) but you also assume that these beliefs come out of thin air without any prior thought or experience backing those beliefs. . . and no such belief exists.
Well, in my opinion, rationality should trump any kind of belief, be it atheism or religion or whatever.
That being said, I see your point that one in theory 'believes' in a myriad of different things at all times, but they are closing their minds whenever they make those subconscious decisions to interpret something in a particular way. Therefore, we can raise our standards of living by remaining open minded, but it usually ends up in futility. It's worth trying, though, as everything is.
I know what you mean, but see, the belief that rationality should be held above beliefs is in itself a belief, making your statement paradoxical. There is a level of rationality behind all beliefs; some are more rational than others, yes, but a belief is not automatically irrational for being a belief.
[QUOTE="CorTilt"]
Found a list of some famous scientists who were religious: Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Rene Descartes, Robert Boyle, William Thomson, Kelvin Max Planck, Albert Einstein.
Tezcatlipoca666
That list is inaccurate if it claims Einstein was religious... he was most certainly not religious.
First he was Jewish, then he was a Spinozan pantheist.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
If I believe something, I've automatically closed my mind to all alternatives to a given situation, right? That's irrationality incarnate.
Hot-Tamale
If you believe something, then you hold that something to be the most likely to be true amongst the sea of possiblities. Not only do you believe in thousands of things (making rationality overrated, if you're right) but you also assume that these beliefs come out of thin air without any prior thought or experience backing those beliefs. . . and no such belief exists.
Well, in my opinion, rationality should trump any kind of belief, be it atheism or religion or whatever.
That being said, I see your point that one in theory 'believes' in a myriad of different things at all times, but they are closing their minds whenever they make those subconscious decisions to interpret something in a particular way. Therefore, we can raise our standards of living by remaining open minded, but it usually ends up in futility. It's worth trying, though, as everything is.
Well, technically, the most rational belief would be to have no opinion on the existence of a creator/God, since there is no evidence to support either...
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="unholymight"] You go by the literal meaning, and going by the literal meaning is evidently ineffective. The word atom literally means indivisible, but we know atoms are divisible. So when I say atom, do I really mean indivisible?chessmaster1989
You're shirking my point with an ineffective analogy. First you need to explain how the "literal meaning" (which, by the way, is the only meaning) is ineffective, and then you need to explain the fact that not every atheist is rational, that not every rational person is an atheist, and the fact that to be rational is not any sort of universal atheistic doctrine.
unholy, I must say, I agree with Theo on this one... the definition of atheism pertains only to the disbelief in a god/gods, and has nothing to do with rationality.
Yes, I recognize its definition, but I was referring to its meaning in the context that is common here.[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
You're shirking my point with an ineffective analogy. First you need to explain how the "literal meaning" (which, by the way, is the only meaning) is ineffective, and then you need to explain the fact that not every atheist is rational, that not every rational person is an atheist, and the fact that to be rational is not any sort of universal atheistic doctrine.
unholymight
unholy, I must say, I agree with Theo on this one... the definition of atheism pertains only to the disbelief in a god/gods, and has nothing to do with rationality.
Yes, I recognize its definition, but I was referring to its meaning in the context that is common here.Meh, people's beliefs on GS =/= truth... far from it :P (if they were, then Slayer would be considered to be a great band...)
But, anyway, I tend to agree that it's more rational not to believe in a creator, but, then again, whoever said that my belief that atheism is more rational is rational to begin with... :o
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="unholymight"] You go by the literal meaning, and going by the literal meaning is evidently ineffective. The word atom literally means indivisible, but we know atoms are divisible. So when I say atom, do I really mean indivisible?unholymight
You're shirking my point with an ineffective analogy. First you need to explain how the "literal meaning" (which, by the way, is the only meaning) is ineffective, and then you need to explain the fact that not every atheist is rational, that not every rational person is an atheist, and the fact that to be rational is not any sort of universal atheistic doctrine.
You ask me to explain ineffectiveness, yet you just made a claim of it in that post.I don't think I did.
Literal meaning is not the only meaning.
Okay.
Read the Bible, and you'll see that words can have many meanings.
There's a dictionary meaning, a metaphorical meaning, an allegorical meaning, a literal meaning, a metaphysical meaning and an etymological meaning.
Rationality leads to atheism.
Rationality can lead to anything.
The perfect rationalist would arrive at the conclusion of atheism due to simple lack of proof, improbability, and contradictions such as "is God able to kill himself without breaking the laws of logic"
You and I have gone through this paradox countless times. In any case, the ideas of proof and improbability are subjective. . .as is rationality itself. For example, you might demand more or less proof for the existence of God than a theist would, and what you would consider proof might be different as well.
The main reason I dislike most religions: The hypocrisy.
You ask me to explain ineffectiveness, yet you just made a claim of it in that post.[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
You're shirking my point with an ineffective analogy. First you need to explain how the "literal meaning" (which, by the way, is the only meaning) is ineffective, and then you need to explain the fact that not every atheist is rational, that not every rational person is an atheist, and the fact that to be rational is not any sort of universal atheistic doctrine.
Theokhoth
I don't think I did.
Literal meaning is not the only meaning.
Okay.
Read the Bible, and you'll see that words can have many meanings.
There's a dictionary meaning, a metaphorical meaning, an allegorical meaning, a literal meaning, a metaphysical meaning and an etymological meaning.
Rationality leads to atheism.
Rationality can lead to anything.
The perfect rationalist would arrive at the conclusion of atheism due to simple lack of proof, improbability, and contradictions such as "is God able to kill himself without breaking the laws of logic"
You and I have gone through this paradox countless times. In any case, the ideas of proof and improbability are subjective. . .as is rationality itself. For example, you might demand more or less proof for the existence of God than a theist would.
You said my analogy was ineffective. Rationality based on correct logic and credible evidence will always lead down the same path. A miscalculation can modify the result, but perfectly applied there is only one conclusion. I was proposing that your solution to the paradox leads to another paradox. If God were to create a stone heavier than he can lift without breaking the laws of logic, he'd be breaking the laws of logic, which isn't what was asked of him. Surely he can understand our requests perfectly and know exactly what we meant, but if he did it he wouldn't be doing it, as explained. Seeing agreement mixed with disagreement, I ask: are we having a debate or a discussion?[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
If you believe something, then you hold that something to be the most likely to be true amongst the sea of possiblities. Not only do you believe in thousands of things (making rationality overrated, if you're right) but you also assume that these beliefs come out of thin air without any prior thought or experience backing those beliefs. . . and no such belief exists.
Theokhoth
Well, in my opinion, rationality should trump any kind of belief, be it atheism or religion or whatever.
That being said, I see your point that one in theory 'believes' in a myriad of different things at all times, but they are closing their minds whenever they make those subconscious decisions to interpret something in a particular way. Therefore, we can raise our standards of living by remaining open minded, but it usually ends up in futility. It's worth trying, though, as everything is.
I know what you mean, but see, the belief that rationality should be held above beliefs is in itself a belief, making your statement paradoxical. There is a level of rationality behind all beliefs; some are more rational than others, yes, but a belief is not automatically irrational for being a belief.
True, which is why there is really no middle ground in this debate, no matter what agnostics may say. It's just a matter of filtering what beliefs are more rational than others, which is why people debate each other in the first place.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]You said my analogy was ineffective.[QUOTE="unholymight"] You ask me to explain ineffectiveness, yet you just made a claim of it in that post.
I don't think I did.
Literal meaning is not the only meaning.
Okay.
Read the Bible, and you'll see that words can have many meanings.
There's a dictionary meaning, a metaphorical meaning, an allegorical meaning, a literal meaning, a metaphysical meaning and an etymological meaning.
Rationality leads to atheism.
Rationality can lead to anything.
The perfect rationalist would arrive at the conclusion of atheism due to simple lack of proof, improbability, and contradictions such as "is God able to kill himself without breaking the laws of logic"
You and I have gone through this paradox countless times. In any case, the ideas of proof and improbability are subjective. . .as is rationality itself. For example, you might demand more or less proof for the existence of God than a theist would.
unholymight
Because it was. It referred to an unrelated argument.
Rationality based on correct logic and credible evidence will always lead down the same path.
The fact that thousands of beliefs exist is proof to the contrary. And once again: what evidence you consider to be credible may not be said for somebody else; hence, anecdotal evidence.
A miscalculation can modify the result, but perfectly applied there is only one conclusion.
How do you perfectly apply it?
I was proposing that your solution to the paradox leads to another paradox. If God were to create a stone heavier than he can lift without breaking the laws of logic, he'd be breaking the laws of logic, which isn't what was asked of him.
As we went through before, if god breaks the laws of logic, the laws of logic cease to exist, in which case God isn't "breaking" anything.
Surely he can understand our requests perfectly and know exactly what we meant, but if he did it he wouldn't be doing it, as explained. Seeing agreement mixed with disagreement, I ask: are we having a debate or a discussion?
There's not much difference. Debates are supposed to eventually end in agreement, after all.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
Well, in my opinion, rationality should trump any kind of belief, be it atheism or religion or whatever.
That being said, I see your point that one in theory 'believes' in a myriad of different things at all times, but they are closing their minds whenever they make those subconscious decisions to interpret something in a particular way. Therefore, we can raise our standards of living by remaining open minded, but it usually ends up in futility. It's worth trying, though, as everything is.
Hot-Tamale
I know what you mean, but see, the belief that rationality should be held above beliefs is in itself a belief, making your statement paradoxical. There is a level of rationality behind all beliefs; some are more rational than others, yes, but a belief is not automatically irrational for being a belief.
True, which is why there is really no middle ground in this debate, no matter what agnostics may say. It's just a matter of filtering what beliefs are more rational than others, which is why people debate each other in the first place.
Precisely. My, religion topics are so much more fun when everybody's civil!
[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
I know what you mean, but see, the belief that rationality should be held above beliefs is in itself a belief, making your statement paradoxical. There is a level of rationality behind all beliefs; some are more rational than others, yes, but a belief is not automatically irrational for being a belief.
Theokhoth
True, which is why there is really no middle ground in this debate, no matter what agnostics may say. It's just a matter of filtering what beliefs are more rational than others, which is why people debate each other in the first place.
Precisely. My, religion topics are so much more fun when everybody's civil!
I concur. I can't count the times people have just started talking about penises when they get frustrated...
Rationality can have three degrees: 1. Not rational at all. None of the logic was correctly applied. 2. Perfectly rational. Logic was correctly applied all the time. 3. Rational on parts. Logic was correctly applied for a portion of the time but at some step(s) logic was incorrectly applied. Therefore, religious people would never be perfectly rational. Why religion is irrational I have given the three reasons: lack of evidence, improbability, and contradictions. They would fall under category 3, since it is unlikely that someone would apply all their logic wrong all of the time. It follows that only atheists have the potential to be fall under category 1.In addition to my above statements, if rationality always led to atheism then all rational people would be atheists. . .this is not the case, unless you'd like to make the wild (and, frankly, asinine) claim that only atheists are rational.
Theokhoth
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
True, which is why there is really no middle ground in this debate, no matter what agnostics may say. It's just a matter of filtering what beliefs are more rational than others, which is why people debate each other in the first place.
Hot-Tamale
Precisely. My, religion topics are so much more fun when everybody's civil!
I concur. I can't count the times people have just started talking about penises when they get frustrated...
Really? I do that when I'm happy. >___>
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Rationality can have three degrees: 1. Not rational at all. None of the logic was correctly applied. 2. Perfectly rational. Logic was correctly applied all the time. 3. Rational on parts. Logic was correctly applied for a portion of the time but at some step(s) logic was incorrectly applied. Therefore, religious people would never be perfectly rational. Why religion is irrational I have given the three reasons: lack of evidence, improbability, and contradictions. They would fall under category 3, since it is unlikely that someone would apply all their logic wrong all of the time. It follows that only atheists have the potential to be fall under category 1.In addition to my above statements, if rationality always led to atheism then all rational people would be atheists. . .this is not the case, unless you'd like to make the wild (and, frankly, asinine) claim that only atheists are rational.
unholymight
To tell you the truth, I've never seen ANTHING that's been perfectly rational, be it a concept, policy, or idea.
Rationality can have three degrees: 1. Not rational at all. None of the logic was correctly applied. 2. Perfectly rational. Logic was correctly applied all the time. 3. Rational on parts. Logic was correctly applied for a portion of the time but at some step(s) logic was incorrectly applied. Therefore, religious people would never be perfectly rational. Why religion is irrational I have given the three reasons: lack of evidence, improbability, and contradictions. They would fall under category 3, since it is unlikely that someone would apply all their logic wrong all of the time. It follows that only atheists have the potential to be fall under category 1.[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
In addition to my above statements, if rationality always led to atheism then all rational people would be atheists. . .this is not the case, unless you'd like to make the wild (and, frankly, asinine) claim that only atheists are rational.
Hot-Tamale
To tell you the truth, I've never seen ANTHING that's been perfectly rational, be it a concept, policy, or idea.
1+1=2. Perfectly rational.[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"][QUOTE="unholymight"] Rationality can have three degrees: 1. Not rational at all. None of the logic was correctly applied. 2. Perfectly rational. Logic was correctly applied all the time. 3. Rational on parts. Logic was correctly applied for a portion of the time but at some step(s) logic was incorrectly applied. Therefore, religious people would never be perfectly rational. Why religion is irrational I have given the three reasons: lack of evidence, improbability, and contradictions. They would fall under category 3, since it is unlikely that someone would apply all their logic wrong all of the time. It follows that only atheists have the potential to be fall under category 1.WhiteSnake5000
To tell you the truth, I've never seen ANTHING that's been perfectly rational, be it a concept, policy, or idea.
1+1=2. Perfectly rational.Not to some insane gynecologist dude.
[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Precisely. My, religion topics are so much more fun when everybody's civil!
Theokhoth
I concur. I can't count the times people have just started talking about penises when they get frustrated...
Really? I do that when I'm happy. >___>
icwutudidthur :P
But, seriously, that's why I'm getting sick of Crush's religion threads... they just degenerate so quickly... :|
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Rationality can have three degrees: 1. Not rational at all. None of the logic was correctly applied. 2. Perfectly rational. Logic was correctly applied all the time. 3. Rational on parts. Logic was correctly applied for a portion of the time but at some step(s) logic was incorrectly applied. Therefore, religious people would never be perfectly rational. Why religion is irrational I have given the three reasons: lack of evidence, improbability, and contradictions. They would fall under category 3, since it is unlikely that someone would apply all their logic wrong all of the time. It follows that only atheists have the potential to be fall under category 1.In addition to my above statements, if rationality always led to atheism then all rational people would be atheists. . .this is not the case, unless you'd like to make the wild (and, frankly, asinine) claim that only atheists are rational.
unholymight
Logic and rationality are separate concepts. They're related, but they aren't the same.
Logic cannot be partially correct. It is either applied correctly or it is not.
Evidence, like I have said several times, is subjective, and thus is not logical, since logic is objective. Evidence can be used logically, but it is not logical in and of itself.
Improbability is the same, and it can be argued that there is no such thing as improbability outside of pure mathematics.
Contradictions are the only thing that are a part of logic.
Next, we still don't know how logic and rationality can be "perfectly applied," and this sounds more like speculation than an actual formula.
Finally, to claim that a certain group of people (atheists) have a monopoly on logic and rationality is in itself illogical and irrational.
[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"][QUOTE="unholymight"] Rationality can have three degrees: 1. Not rational at all. None of the logic was correctly applied. 2. Perfectly rational. Logic was correctly applied all the time. 3. Rational on parts. Logic was correctly applied for a portion of the time but at some step(s) logic was incorrectly applied. Therefore, religious people would never be perfectly rational. Why religion is irrational I have given the three reasons: lack of evidence, improbability, and contradictions. They would fall under category 3, since it is unlikely that someone would apply all their logic wrong all of the time. It follows that only atheists have the potential to be fall under category 1.WhiteSnake5000
To tell you the truth, I've never seen ANTHING that's been perfectly rational, be it a concept, policy, or idea.
1+1=2. Perfectly rational.Mathematics is on a whole other plane of existence when it comes to logic. Math pretty much IS logic; it's how we express logic in as physical a manner as we can get it.
You said my analogy was ineffective.[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Theokhoth
Because it was. It referred to an unrelated argument.
Rationality based on correct logic and credible evidence will always lead down the same path.
The fact that thousands of beliefs exist is proof to the contrary. And once again: what evidence you consider to be credible may not be said for somebody else; hence, anecdotal evidence.
A miscalculation can modify the result, but perfectly applied there is only one conclusion.
How do you perfectly apply it?
I was proposing that your solution to the paradox leads to another paradox. If God were to create a stone heavier than he can lift without breaking the laws of logic, he'd be breaking the laws of logic, which isn't what was asked of him.
As we went through before, if god breaks the laws of logic, the laws of logic cease to exist, in which case God isn't "breaking" anything.
Surely he can understand our requests perfectly and know exactly what we meant, but if he did it he wouldn't be doing it, as explained. Seeing agreement mixed with disagreement, I ask: are we having a debate or a discussion?
There's not much difference. Debates are supposed to eventually end in agreement, after all.
Credibility can be determined through rationality. A test that can be performed individually is more credible than a claim of spiritual experience.It doesn't matter how to perfectly apply it. Doesn't relate to this debate.
Rationality uses logic. Logic is systematic evaluation of trues and falses. It is a mathematical process. And as we all know, no matter how hard the math problem is, done correctly, anyone will always yield the same answer.
Thousands of other religions...one mistake plus some imagination can yield thousands of different results. Besides, this point was addressed already.
Add the clause, God has to do the action and make the laws of logic exist at the same time. The status of paradox is returned.
Discussion has no distinct sides. Debates don't always end in agreement. Nor are they supposed to. Due to misapplication of logic.
Rationality can have three degrees: 1. Not rational at all. None of the logic was correctly applied. 2. Perfectly rational. Logic was correctly applied all the time. 3. Rational on parts. Logic was correctly applied for a portion of the time but at some step(s) logic was incorrectly applied. Therefore, religious people would never be perfectly rational. Why religion is irrational I have given the three reasons: lack of evidence, improbability, and contradictions. They would fall under category 3, since it is unlikely that someone would apply all their logic wrong all of the time. It follows that only atheists have the potential to be fall under category 1.[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
In addition to my above statements, if rationality always led to atheism then all rational people would be atheists. . .this is not the case, unless you'd like to make the wild (and, frankly, asinine) claim that only atheists are rational.
Hot-Tamale
To tell you the truth, I've never seen ANTHING that's been perfectly rational, be it a concept, policy, or idea.
Take a look at math. Real life is the same; just trues and falses instead of numbers.But, seriously, that's why I'm getting sick of Crush's religion threads... they just degenerate so quickly... :|chessmaster1989Then I guess you're happy that the mods have locked his last two religion threads before it could even heat up? The newest one only had 3 posts: Crush, some guy, and then a mod explaining the lock. The second newest that I'm aware of only had around a dozen posts.
[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"][QUOTE="unholymight"] Rationality can have three degrees: 1. Not rational at all. None of the logic was correctly applied. 2. Perfectly rational. Logic was correctly applied all the time. 3. Rational on parts. Logic was correctly applied for a portion of the time but at some step(s) logic was incorrectly applied. Therefore, religious people would never be perfectly rational. Why religion is irrational I have given the three reasons: lack of evidence, improbability, and contradictions. They would fall under category 3, since it is unlikely that someone would apply all their logic wrong all of the time. It follows that only atheists have the potential to be fall under category 1.unholymight
To tell you the truth, I've never seen ANTHING that's been perfectly rational, be it a concept, policy, or idea.
Take a look at math. Real life is the same; just trues and falses instead of numbers.It's all based on perception, anyway. Plus, string theory is kind of like irrational math...
Take a look at math. Real life is the same; just trues and falses instead of numbers.[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
To tell you the truth, I've never seen ANTHING that's been perfectly rational, be it a concept, policy, or idea.
Hot-Tamale
It's all based on perception, anyway. Plus, string theory is kind of like irrational math...
In the interests of time I am not going to explain the why to you, but when there is no way to tell something for sure the next best way is to apply probability. Probability is math, and dominates real life.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Credibility can be determined through rationality.[QUOTE="unholymight"] You said my analogy was ineffective.
Because it was. It referred to an unrelated argument.
Rationality based on correct logic and credible evidence will always lead down the same path.
The fact that thousands of beliefs exist is proof to the contrary. And once again: what evidence you consider to be credible may not be said for somebody else; hence, anecdotal evidence.
A miscalculation can modify the result, but perfectly applied there is only one conclusion.
How do you perfectly apply it?
I was proposing that your solution to the paradox leads to another paradox. If God were to create a stone heavier than he can lift without breaking the laws of logic, he'd be breaking the laws of logic, which isn't what was asked of him.
As we went through before, if god breaks the laws of logic, the laws of logic cease to exist, in which case God isn't "breaking" anything.
Surely he can understand our requests perfectly and know exactly what we meant, but if he did it he wouldn't be doing it, as explained. Seeing agreement mixed with disagreement, I ask: are we having a debate or a discussion?
There's not much difference. Debates are supposed to eventually end in agreement, after all.
unholymight
Rationality is subjective. Hence, anecdotal evidence; a person could be the sole witness to a murder, and nobody in the world could believe her, but that does not mean she is irrational. She just can't prove what she saw to somebody else.
A test that can be performed individually is more credible than a claim of spiritual experience. It doesn't matter how to perfectly apply it. Doesn't relate to this debate.
Of course it does. If we don't know how to perfectly apply it, then why bring it up? What use does it have? Does it even exist?
Rationality uses logic.
Yes.
Logic is systematic evaluation of trues and falses.
In part.
It is a mathematical process.
Basically.
And we all know, no matter how hard the math problem is, done correctly, anyone will always yield the same answer.
If we were to use pure logic, this would be correct. But we do not. We implement subjective rationalisations into every logical thing we do, thus leading to many rational answers. Mathematics is the one and only exception to this.
Thousands of other religions...one mistake plus some imagination can yield thousands of different results.
"Mistake" is subjective here.
Besides, this point was addressed already. Add the clause, God has to do the action and make the laws of logic exist at the same time. The status of paradox is returned.
If God is omnipotent in the way you're trying to say then God defines what logic is; God in essenceis logic, and God can be and do whatever He wants. Thus, no paradox. I'm tired of going over this again and again.
Discussion has no distinct sides.
Sure it does. I talk, you talk, I talk, you talk.
Debates don't always end in agreement.
Yes they do; otherwise they never end.
Nor are they supposed to.
Yes they are. It's why they exist.
Due to misapplication of logic.
1+1=2. Perfectly rational.[QUOTE="WhiteSnake5000"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
To tell you the truth, I've never seen ANTHING that's been perfectly rational, be it a concept, policy, or idea.
Theokhoth
Mathematics is on a whole other plane of existence when it comes to logic. Math pretty much IS logic; it's how we express logic in as physical a manner as we can get it.
Yeah, I would hope everyone knows that. Also, pretty much anything that is as it is said to be, is logical. However, believing in something that is irrational to begin with and no way to prove it is illogical... All religions have their descriptions of what God is, yet most of them are based upon illogical principles and defy the reality that is in front of us. That's why many theists are illogical in that regard.
I don't hate Christianity, but I disagree with some of its beliefs. I don't like being told that I'm going to burn for eternity because I wasn't in the one true religion out of countless other religions. Most Christians also disrespect gays which I also believe is wrong.
I don't hate Christianity, but I disagree with some of its beliefs. I don't like being told that I'm going to burn for eternity because I wasn't in the one true religion out of countless other religions. Most Christians also disrespect gays which I also believe is wrong.
dog64
Hmm, I'm interested to see how Theo responds to this :P.
Rationality can have three degrees: 1. Not rational at all. None of the logic was correctly applied. 2. Perfectly rational. Logic was correctly applied all the time. 3. Rational on parts. Logic was correctly applied for a portion of the time but at some step(s) logic was incorrectly applied. Therefore, religious people would never be perfectly rational. Why religion is irrational I have given the three reasons: lack of evidence, improbability, and contradictions. They would fall under category 3, since it is unlikely that someone would apply all their logic wrong all of the time. It follows that only atheists have the potential to be fall under category 1.[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
In addition to my above statements, if rationality always led to atheism then all rational people would be atheists. . .this is not the case, unless you'd like to make the wild (and, frankly, asinine) claim that only atheists are rational.
Theokhoth
Logic and rationality are separate concepts. They're related, but they aren't the same.
Logic cannot be partially correct. It is either applied correctly or it is not.
Evidence, like I have said several times, is subjective, and thus is not logical, since logic is objective. Evidence can be used logically, but it is not logical in and of itself.
Improbability is the same, and it can be argued that there is no such thing as improbability outside of pure mathematics.
Contradictions are the only thing that are a part of logic.
Next, we still don't know how logic and rationality can be "perfectly applied," and this sounds more like speculation than an actual formula.
Finally, to claim that a certain group of people (atheists) have a monopoly on logic and rationality is in itself illogical and irrational.
1. I don't see how that related to my post. 2. 10 steps of logic. 1 was wrong. Partially correct, in the interests of avoiding awkward language. 3. Subjective evidence is discounted as evidence. Religious experiences are discounted as valid proof. The result of an experiment is objective evidence, because anyone can do the experiment and test it. 4. There is no line separating math and real life. The extreme end of improbability is the opposite of "almost surely" 5. Perfectly applied logic: Evaluate every step correctly, like in solving a math problem. The number of people who check the logic and find no error increases the probability that it's perfectly applied. This doesn't matter, like I said, in the context of the debate because we were discussing the potential of religious people having perfectly applied logic. 6. I never said atheists have a monopoly on logic. I just said religious people have made at least one error in evaluating their logic.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="WhiteSnake5000"] 1+1=2. Perfectly rational. WhiteSnake5000
Mathematics is on a whole other plane of existence when it comes to logic. Math pretty much IS logic; it's how we express logic in as physical a manner as we can get it.
Yeah, I would hope everyone knows that. Also, pretty much anything that is as it is said to be, is logical. However, believing in something that is irrational to begin with and no way to prove it is illogical... All religions have their descriptions of what God is, yet most of them are based upon illogical principles and defy the reality that is in front of us. That's why many theists are illogical in that regard.It's not necessarily irrational to begin with, because rationality is subjective. Logic is not based in proof; it's based on certain principals, such as "A =/= Not A at the same time in the same place."
Finally. . . what is reality? Is the one in front of us correct? How do we know this, and is describing reality illogical in and of itself?
Yeah, I would hope everyone knows that. Also, pretty much anything that is as it is said to be, is logical. However, believing in something that is irrational to begin with and no way to prove it is illogical... All religions have their descriptions of what God is, yet most of them are based upon illogical principles and defy the reality that is in front of us. That's why many theists are illogical in that regard.[QUOTE="WhiteSnake5000"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Mathematics is on a whole other plane of existence when it comes to logic. Math pretty much IS logic; it's how we express logic in as physical a manner as we can get it.
Theokhoth
It's not necessarily irrational to begin with, because rationality is subjective. Logic is not based in proof; it's based on certain principals, such as "A =/= Not A at the same time in the same place."
Finally. . . what is reality? Is the one in front of us correct? How do we know this, and is describing reality illogical in and of itself?
I'm sorry believing in something that contradicts the time line of the universe is completely illogical when it comes to existence, reality, and rationality. When you notice the bountiful and obvious flaws in Religion you can't call it anything more than illogical.[QUOTE="dog64"]
I don't hate Christianity, but I disagree with some of its beliefs. I don't like being told that I'm going to burn for eternity because I wasn't in the one true religion out of countless other religions. Most Christians also disrespect gays which I also believe is wrong.
chessmaster1989
Hmm, I'm interested to see how Theo responds to this :P.
I've been disrespected more based on religious beliefs than sexuality (ironically).
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="WhiteSnake5000"]Yeah, I would hope everyone knows that. Also, pretty much anything that is as it is said to be, is logical. However, believing in something that is irrational to begin with and no way to prove it is illogical... All religions have their descriptions of what God is, yet most of them are based upon illogical principles and defy the reality that is in front of us. That's why many theists are illogical in that regard.
WhiteSnake5000
It's not necessarily irrational to begin with, because rationality is subjective. Logic is not based in proof; it's based on certain principals, such as "A =/= Not A at the same time in the same place."
Finally. . . what is reality? Is the one in front of us correct? How do we know this, and is describing reality illogical in and of itself?
I'm sorry believing in something that contradicts the time line of the universe is completely illogical when it comes to existence, reality, and rationality.What is the timeline of the universe? That's what you need to define before you can start stating that things are illogical.
Much more truthful as well...I'm sorry, but don't you think this would be much more interesting if the roles were reversed?
Silverbond
I'm sorry believing in something that contradicts the time line of the universe is completely illogical when it comes to existence, reality, and rationality.[QUOTE="WhiteSnake5000"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
It's not necessarily irrational to begin with, because rationality is subjective. Logic is not based in proof; it's based on certain principals, such as "A =/= Not A at the same time in the same place."
Finally. . . what is reality? Is the one in front of us correct? How do we know this, and is describing reality illogical in and of itself?
Theokhoth
What is the timeline of the universe? That's what you need to define before you can start stating that things are illogical.
Regardless of what the time line exactly is. Creationism is false. Science alone has already shown that the Earth is a lot older than Christianity portrays it. Yet someone out there believes in Creationism. That's a prime example of something illogical.[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="dog64"]
I don't hate Christianity, but I disagree with some of its beliefs. I don't like being told that I'm going to burn for eternity because I wasn't in the one true religion out of countless other religions. Most Christians also disrespect gays which I also believe is wrong.
Theokhoth
Hmm, I'm interested to see how Theo responds to this :P.
I've been disrespected more based on religious beliefs than sexuality (ironically).
Heh, I do find that to kind of funny :P.
...especially given some of the people who come on here and bash gay marriage (and homosexuality in general) as immoral based upon the Bible :P.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment