The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
DS, I think you've finally said something I can agree with.

The root of the matter is that you've decided (or have been brought up to decide) that there is a criteria that is more important than rationality. For all of the words that have been thrown at each side by the other, the most progress I've ever seen is this-- the admission that belief in God is not rational. In fact, the word admission is too loaded a word. More like recognition, or even awareness.

I don't know if the ability to abandon (or, with a less-charged phrase, set aside) rationality is one that should be lauded. It seems like knowing that would settle the issue once and for all. What I do know is that a quote recently put up onto my facebook speaks to the issue quite nicely:

Also, pertaining to the bold text, I've made it abundantly clear that I only recently became more religious. Meaning I was brought up as secular as you or most of you have. However, I found it more rational for me to believe in a higher power, rather than believing in mankind or not believing in anything in particular. No, there were no tragedies or insecurities, it just felt right. And no, I wouldn't argue that religion is rational. But if you believe in a higher being, then it IS rational to believe that he exists outside of human knowledge and understanding.

So when DS says "God is" and I say "prove it," he is not operating from a position where conventional Burden of Proof applies.

I don't think this makes theistic reasoning any less vacuous or its platform any more appealing, but it is, at the very least, consistently vacuous and unappealing. As I've said before, the long-lifespan of many present-day religions has afforded them time to iron out many inconsistencies. (For all practical purposes, at least.) That consistency may not make them true, but from what I've gathered that isn't exactly the point.

Spoiler:

(This is essentially NOMA where theism stays the hell out of my way.)

[/B]

One can say the exact same thing about philosophy or rather arguments against religion or a higher power. No offense RH because you're pretty smart, but you're also transparent. It's the things you intentionally leave out that tell the story. You think religion or belief in a higher being is irrational, I get that. So without being very blatant, you're saying that we religious people know that we're full of shit and we need something to justify our nonsense.

The only problem with this is that these "explanations" came about 3,000 years ago, so that argument isn't exactly sound. And if religion or the belief of a higher being sounds silly to you, trying to disprove a theoretical higher power using conventional wisdom and reason, sounds silly to me.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I wouldn't go as far as say that a belief in God is irrational but I would agree that it's not rational from a purely black and white, rational standpoint. I don't know what to call it. What I DO know is that claiming something is irrational (God/Higher power), and then trying to provide a rational argument against it makes one look like a douche.

One can say the exact same thing about philosophy or rather arguments against religion or a higher power.

I don't think that you've understood my position. I'm not criticizing theism here. I disagree with it, but I'm not looking for an argument.

No offense RH because you're pretty smart, but you're also transparent. It's the things you intentionally leave out that tell the story. You think religion or belief in a higher being is irrational, I get that. So without being very blatant, you're saying that we religious people know that we're full of shit and we need something to justify our nonsense.

There is a temptation to label someone that disagrees with you willfully evil (wrong) because how could they possibly come to a different conclusion? I see this argument launched at atheists all the time. I didn't mean to send the message that you're denying some fundamental truth. What I was trying to say is that you're operating on an inherently different way of looking at the world.

The only problem with this is that these "explanations" came about 3,000 years ago, so that argument isn't exactly sound. And if religion or the belief of a higher being sounds silly to you, trying to disprove a theoretical higher power using conventional wisdom and reason, sounds silly to me.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

I very deliberately did not use the word irrational. In fact, the word I was thinking of was antirational. Irrational usually means that someone has tried to be rational and failed. As I noted, that isn't the situation I see at all.

One can say that "philosophy or arguments against religion or a higher power" are not operating from a rational platform?

I don't think that you've understood my position. I'm not criticizing theism here. I disagree with it, but I'm not looking for an argument.

As noted, I think that it is antirational. Not irrational. As such, religious people do not know that they are full of shit and very well might not be.

There is a temptation to label someone that disagrees with you willfully evil (wrong) because how could they possibly come to a different conclusion? I see this argument launched at atheists all the time. I didn't mean to send the message that you're denying some fundamental truth. What I was trying to say is that you're operating on an inherently different way of looking at the world.

Here's the way I see it and correct me if I'm wrong. To have a legitimate discussion regarding religion, the first question posed should be "do you believe in God or a higher being?" If the answer is yes, then I don't think you can logically try to categorize or describe God or his actions. Furthermore, it is completely rational(when established that you believe in a higher being) to state that we cannot understand God because he operates outside of human boundaries.

Now, if the answer is no, then what you and Andrew Ryan propose is very rational as well and I couldn't argue about that. The problem lies when the different fundamentals collide and one tries to juggle ideas from one side to fit an argument against the other side.

I don't know what this is referring to. [/B]

This was in response to you saying since religion has been around for so long, we've had forever to brush up on our rationale.

The Question of origin actually makes a belief in God somewhat rational until we get a realistic scientific theory that can explain where all this universal matter came from in the first place. : )

Originally posted by truejedi
The Question of origin actually makes a belief in God somewhat rational until we get a realistic scientific theory that can explain where all this universal matter came from in the first place. : )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Ah but who created the big bang? 🙂

Dr McBeefington
Ah but who created the big bang? 🙂

Careful, or the next "big bang" will be the minds of skeptics everywhere with that line of thought.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Ah but who created the big bang? 🙂

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Originally posted by Gideon
Careful, or the next "big bang" will be the minds of skeptics everywhere with that line of thought.

My post wasn't serious Gideon. It was actually meant to prove a point that you can have two fundamentally different ideas explain the exact same event and not contradict one another..

And Veneficus, I'm well aware of that theory.

Dr McBeefington
It was actually meant to prove a point that you can have two fundamentally different ideas explain the exact same event and not contradict one another.

I know.

Hence the blowing of minds.

Originally posted by Gideon
I know.

Hence the blowing of minds.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
My post wasn't serious Gideon. It was actually meant to prove a point that you can have two fundamentally different ideas explain the exact same event and not contradict one another..

And Veneficus, I'm well aware of that [b]theory. [/B]

I'm not sure that ZP energy is at the level of theory yet, but as a point to make so you don't misuse the word again.

Theory of Gravity
Theory of Plate Tectonics
Theory of Evolution

DS, you know that "theory" isn't a derisive term.

So stop it.

Edit:
🥷

Originally posted by Autokrat
I'm not sure that ZP energy is at the level of theory yet, but as a point to make so you don't misuse the word again.

[b]Theory of Gravity
Theory of Plate Tectonics
Theory of Evolution [/B]

I thought you would have understood the first time I was sarcastic, especially since I claimed as such. I would think that me bolding a word intentionally to get these predictable rebuttals would make you aware of a recurring pattern.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I thought you would have understood the first time I was sarcastic, especially since I claimed as such. I would think that me bolding a word intentionally to get these predictable results would aware you to a recurring pattern.

Seeing as how this is a text only (images notwithstanding) environment, sarcasm is easily lost on the translation, especially since while you were making your post to Gideon about the sarcasm, I was typing the [b] tags on my post and as such was unaware of your post until after I had posted.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Seeing as how this is a text only (images notwithstanding) environment, sarcasm is easily lost on the translation, especially since while you were making your post to Gideon about the sarcasm, I was typing the [b] tags on my post and as such was unaware of your post until after I had posted.

Alrighty then. So we're sexy then.

DS
Alrighty then. So we're Gideon's sexy then.

😖hifty:

Originally posted by Gideon
😖hifty:

Dude, even if I was gay, I'm not sure if you would be up there on my list of attractive men. Hit the gym and we'll talk (hypothetically of course).

😒
no

DS
Dude, even if I was gay, I'm not sure if you would be up there on my list of attractive men.

Lies.

DS
Hit the gym and we'll talk (hypothetically of course).

That's one of the reasons I haven't been on here nearly as much.