Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
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...
|
Who's lying? My position is that it's not a big deal for one to believe in supernatural explanations for things that otherwise would have no explanation at all.
Quote:
|
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.
|
How are they irrational? They don't necessarily reject things that can be proven, they just believe in things that can't. How is that irrational in the context of an irrational existence?
Btw, i'm still wondering how you came to the conclusion that humanity will ultimately be better off if we only allow ourselves to think and behave rationally.
Quote:
|
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?
|
The experience of reality is only completely rational if you happen to be omniscient. That being said, being rational certainly has its place and there certainly are many theists who aren't open to new ideas.
I'm not saying we should focus more on irrational stuff. I'm saying that coming up with your own explanation for the irrational stuff is okay as long as you allow yourself to be corrected in light of better evidence.
Quote:
|
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...
|
I would bet that you actually aren't qualified to claim anything on behalf of all atheists.
Quote:
|
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...
|
Sure, but seeing as how most christians are well aware of the unprovable nature of their faith i can't imagine why you would bother, other than because you enjoy riding around on high horses.
Quote:
|
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?
|
People like explanations that are meaningful to them.
Quote:
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?"
|
You're right. I assumed people were arguing his positions when they weren't. Let me amend my position on dawkins. He's wrong in the way most militant atheists are wrong: he thinks that reminding people that their faith isn't scientifically justifiable is the same thing as providing a compelling reason to abandon that faith. He thinks that reason should prevail in a place where reason doesn't necessarily matter.
Quote:
|
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?
|
It's probably the repeated denunciations of religion for its irrationality. So when is being irrational okay?
Quote:
|
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?
|
Yes, for many people religion is because there is no other explanation available beyond the atheist explanation of "there is no explanation at this time". Why is atheism necessarily the "rational" decision when it comes to religion? All atheism says is that there's nothing because there's no reason to believe that there is something. Why is that necessarily rational? Has there ever been a point where there was a something despite the fact that there was no reason to believe that there was a something?
Quote:
|
Now you're just lying. When did I "dismiss" the "human element?" Here's what you're responding to:How is this a "dismissal?" I'm quickly losing respect for you...
|
You were responding to this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
The world is an irrational, unreasonable place, and treating everything as if it makes sense doesn't actually make sense.
|
I said that it doesn't makes sense to treat the world like a rational place.
You said that it's just the parts that involve humans that aren't reasonable as some sort of rebuttal to my statement.
Pardon me if that sounds like a dismissal of the amount of human induced senselessness in the world.
Sorry if i misread.
Quote:
|
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...
|
A lot of the people who support nonsense like this aren't in power any more. Besides, it could be argued that intelligent design is just a rebranding of creationism, which means that it isn't really anything new. Stem cell opposition isn't a strictly religious/religious right thing, though i'm not surprised that you'd make such an ideologically self serving generalization. The same goes for gay marriage.