Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
The crux of my position is that while it may be irrational from a scientific perspective to believe in things without objectively verifiable proof, this kind of irrationality isn't necessarily that important when concerning questions whose answers are fundamentally impossible to prove.
Furthermore, while a belief system based on a commitment to rational decision making does not in and of itself require any faith, the decision to embrace that belief system does. There is no reason to believe that an unwavering commitment to only rationally explainable ideas and endeavors will make you, or society in general, better off in the long run. Unless of course, you define "better off" as being more rational.
|
It sounds like your position is that people need answers even when there aren't any. Therefore, it's better to lie to them and pretend that you have some then to tell them the truth...
Ironically, I think most religious people would be willing to define "better off" as being more rational. They don't see themselves as being irrational, which explains why they aren't adapting your argument.
It's perfectly reasonable to focus on rationally explainable ideas 'cause they're rooted in reality and, since we live in reality, it would seem to be applicable. Your contention is that we should focus a little more on irrational stuff. Why? How is this supposed to help?
All of this is beside the point, as well. Atheists are only going as far as to say that we should dispense with religion. Any rationality beyond that can be discussed, later...
Quote:
I was just pointing out that atheists do fucked up things, too. Also, that attempts to discredit all of christianity based on the actions of only a portion of christians are lazy.
Also, you should be aware that christianity doesn't necessarily dictate a doctrine either, beyond a commitment to acknowledging the importance of christ.
|
It depends on what you mean by "discredit." Christianity is a fairy tale, regardless of how benign its followers are. If people are using their religion to make arbitrary decisions, what else can you do besides remind them that they're making those decisions based on nonsense...
Quote:
|
Seems like a faith-based position to me. People don't need religion to be fooled, and they can do so quite spectacularly without it. You should try to see religion as more of a symptom than a cause.
|
It's debateable whether religion is a symptom or a cause. Obviously, Dawkins thinks it's the cause. Do you have a theory on what it may be a symptom of?
Quote:
|
Yeah, i'm saying that dawkins misses the point, that any system of morals or ethics necessarily is based, at some level, on completely subjective judgements which may as well be based on fairy tales.
|
That's not true and, apparently, he has a chapter detailing that. So, it's unlikely that this is a point that he "missed..."
Is this supposed to be the same point as the last time you used the term "he misses the point?"
Quote:
|
Tell me why being strictly rational all of the time will make the world a better place. First, though, you ought to be able to define "better" in a way that is strictly rational. Good luck.
|
Why do you think that we advocate being "strictly rational all of the time?" Strictly rational? All the time? Please... is this really time for hyperbole?
Quote:
I would probably breathe a sigh of relief, get angry at myself for doing something stupid, decide whether maybe the "stupid" thing to do might actually be the "smart" thing to do and then be thankful that it all worked out.
I may be wrong here, but you seem to think that there is always a rational solution, and that that rational solution is always the one that should be pursued
What do you do when you don't have a rational solution to pursue or you don't have time to come up with one? How can you be sure, in any given situation, that you have enough information to actually make a rational decision? In short, how can you have so much faith in rationality?
|
How is any of this relevant? Are you suggesting that religion is a case of when there was no other, more rational, decision? That people don't have enough time to make a rational decision about religion? Throw me a red herring, why don't you?
Quote:
|
You're right, the rest of the world, the parts without humans, are pretty rational (electrons aside). I don't know where you live that you can so casually dismiss the human element's relevance in shaping the world around you. Where i live i have to constantly deal with the actions of people who aren't doing the things that i might expect them to.
|
Now you're just lying. When did I "dismiss" the "human element?" Here's what you're responding to:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
People can be irrational and unreasonable and you should know this when dealing with them. The rest of the world is perfectly rational and reasonable and it does make sense to treat it as if it makes sense...
|
How is this a "dismissal?" I'm quickly losing respect for you...
Quote:
|
Actually, at least in the u.s., fewer and fewer laws and public policy are being enacted based on faith. We are an increasingly secular country, despite what dawkins might have you believe.
|
I would like to believe this but there's evidence to the contrary.
Intelligent design is enjoying increased penetration,
stem cell research funding was cut and
Bush threatened to enact a constitutional amendment against homosexual marriage. It looks like Christian fundamentalism is enjoying a resurgence...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ch'i
I read it. It did not answer my question.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ch'i
I am a bit puzzled. Every definition of Atheism is something along the lines of "denial of God's existence." Though nearly all of the atheists on this thread are open to the possibility of there being a god. Is this a misunderstanding between those who define Atheism and those who define themselves as Atheists, or is Atheism just a more specific sect of Agnosticism?
|
Atheists are "open to the possibility of there being a god" just as they are open to the possibility of there being Santa Clause. Does that mean that they don't deny Santa Clause's existence? I think it's fair to say that they do deny his existence... |
This doesn't answer your question?
Atheists deny His existence but that doesn't mean they can't be open to the possibility because the chances are so small that it is usually quite ignorable. Is your question still not answered?