Well you obviously have no respect for my beliefs, and are very arrogant. Should we form a club?
Well you obviously have no respect for my beliefs, and are very arrogant. Should we form a club?
I try to respect other views, but as to the club, will there be a secret handshake?Originally Posted by mal4mac
...and what about bowling shirts with the club name on them?
We'll help you with that problem.
Oh, trying to see new perspectives, affording respect for other people and not forcing my views on others isn't a problem, thanks. I'm not a scientist; I'm only a Christian.
No name, just any cartoon that might get you kicked out of the bowling arena. Jesus & Mo for me:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2013/05/15/stupid/
Maybe religion is irrational to you, but remember that humans are irrational creatures. Maybe there is a reason for that? Maybe there's a type of reason greater than human reason? You know, there's so much us humans don't understand, and yet we have the gall to say that there is no God. How can we possibly know that when our minds are so limited? Does that not strike you as conceited?
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
It is the same with science. So much is yet to be discovered....
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
Once you admit & admire irrationality any excess is permitted. Why not believe in astrology or Zeus? They are just as irrational as Christian beliefs. Why not get really irrational and hold all these views at the same time? They contradict each other? This shouldn't bother an irrationalist.
Again, sigh, who says that? There is insufficient evidence for God, just as there is insufficient evidence for the tooth fairy, therefore the rational persons holds that there is no God, just as there is no tooth fairy. Is it conceited not to believe in the tooth fairy?You know, there's so much us humans don't understand, and yet we have the gall to say that there is no God. How can we possibly know that when our minds are so limited? Does that not strike you as conceited?
That is like saying, because you love someone, support a football team or admire a opera - all irrational feelings - you must believe in all things imaginary (which are not the same as irrational). Poor argument and rather ilogical. I suppose you believe in astrology and Zeus now?
Love has a rational explanation, it's a combination of sexual attraction and friendship, both readily explained by evolutionary theory. Supporting English football teams is an irrational action that I have cured myself of. For instance, I followed none of the recent England football's team qualification fiasco, apart from catching the appalling racist remarks of their idiot manager.
You need to be careful with the broad and narrow definitions of rationality (You are assuming I'm using the narrow definition, I'm not, I'm using the broad definition.) Watching an Opera, if you like Opera, or think you could like Opera, is a rational act because it is a "sensible, sane, moderate, not foolish or absurd or extreme" thing to do. Believing in God is not sensible or sane, it's foolish and absurd, and often leads to immoderate, extreme actions.
Love is not the same as physical atraction, which is what you described but do you understand even having faith will be explained by evolutionary theory just like any emotions. And still, being irrational is absolutely normal and healthier. And still: we can be picky with our irrationalities.
Watching Opera can lead to extreme actions. People cry rivers of tears. There is sane, moderate, sensible, not foolish religious people. Aquinas's first cause is rational, it is logical and yet you keep saying there is no logical reason to believe in God. This is very irrational, a bit of absurd claim, since you just ignore a historical fact.
As you finding ridiculous people who is religious, it is ridiculous to not support a football team, even if your option is the English team.
I said love came from a physical reaction & friendship... maybe that's not quite correct in all cases, so I'll broaden it to say it comes from a physical & social reaction. Yes indeed "having faith" can be explained by evolutionary theory. On a recent video, Dawkins says he likes the idea that faith comes from inappropriate attribution of agency. For instance, if you hear the grass move, it's likely to be just the wind blowing, but it's probably of an evolutionary advantage to attribute agency to the movement, that is, assume a carnivore is behind you and run like hell. 99 times out of 100 it will be the wind, but it's worth running like hell 100 times for the one time it is a jaguar. Some people inherited the tendency to attribute agency to *everything*, so if a volcano erupts, "someone did it". Obviously not a jaguar, must be something bigger, must be God. So evolution installs irrational tendencies, sometimes, and they need to be opposed by rationality.
Not in EnglandWatching Opera can lead to extreme actions. People cry rivers of tears. There is sane, moderate, sensible, not foolish ...But I'll give you this, I think it's a positive thing. Some extreme actions are not good though, like burning heretics.
Aristotle's physics is considered absurd *today* because it obviously doesn't work, we can excuse Aristotle because not much was known about science, he had an excuse for his ignorance. I'm not sure if Aquinas was mad, bad, or ignorant; but today we can certainly relieve our ignorance. Just as Newton's ideas can be explained to 14 year olds, Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence have been shown to be vacuous today (i.e., irrational.) Dawkins does a reasonable job of this in "the God Delusion", though you can pick up many books of popular philosophy that do a decent demolition job.Aquinas's first cause is rational, it is logical and yet you keep saying there is no logical reason to believe in God. This is very irrational, a bit of absurd claim, since you just ignore a historical fact.
The first cause argument comes from the idea that nothing is caused by itself, every effect has a prior cause. This infinite regress is terminated by a first cause: God. The first cause argument makes the entirely unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress, that God himself does not need to be caused.
Is that is all they had to do? Just tick a box for which religion they belonged to? I would probably have to tick the "non-religious" box depending on what the other boxes were.
It is irrational to assume that makes me an atheist.
People like Dawkins need to be careful that those "non-religious" people they are counting on for support don't turn anti-atheist.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
When people say there is insufficient evidence for something, they are saying there is no evidence that they accept for something. This is the one of the problems with atheism's relationship with science. It would be the same problem no matter what religion dominated science. Atheists refuse to look at evidence that counters their belief system. They then use their influence to insist that scientists in general refuse to do so as well.
What science needs is a tolerant agnosticism, not atheism. Scientists need to have open minds.
Let us also not forget that when atheists gain power, they behave badly as well. To refuse to acknowledge the problems of state atheism and only focus on the problems of other religions opens atheists to the charge of hypocrisy and even bigotry.
Does atheism itself have any "good existence claims"? If atheists cannot argue other religions out of existence, is it acceptable, should atheists get political power, in the name of "science", in the name of "reason", in the name of whatever bogus idealism they currently embrace, to try to force other religions out of existence?
Last edited by YesNo; 10-22-2013 at 09:28 AM.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
