Really. What about religion demands it to be irrational? I consider myself rational and believe in religion. Isaac Newton considered himself rational and believed in God.Originally Posted by cockerpunk
Really. What about religion demands it to be irrational? I consider myself rational and believe in religion. Isaac Newton considered himself rational and believed in God.Originally Posted by cockerpunk
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. Its not" - Dr Suess
ir·ra·tion·al (-rsh-nl)Originally Posted by Lohman446
a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.
a. Being a syllable in Greek and Latin prosody whose length does not fit the metric pattern.
b. Being a metric foot containing such a syllable.
3. Mathematics Of or relating to an irrational number.
1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
4. Mathematics Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.
faith, is irrational. religion is irrational.
if it were rational, then you would not need faith to believe.
That depends entirely on what definition you choose to look at. Some definitions define that they are exactly the same, while others state they are different due to the existence of "rituals" in religion and a few others say that "faith" is the dividing line. I don't really think there is any significant difference, they both establish rules and morals for how one should live life, behave and treat others.Originally Posted by cockerpunk
I edited my previous post to supplement my position.
HARDY HAR HAR!
And we're just gonna put a happy little bush in the corner right there, and it'll be our little secret. AND IF YOU TELL ANYONE! THAT, THAT BUSH IS THERE! I WILL COME TO YOUR HOUSE! AND I WILL CUT YOU!
Originally Posted by cockerpunk
not really, as humans have a pretty good track record of thinking and doing good things when they have the right information.Originally Posted by dahoeb
no, science does not have established rules and morals for how one should live life. philosophies that draw from science, like humanism, naturalism etc etc do.Originally Posted by dahoeb
So who gets to decide if something is consisten with or based on reason? I am telling you that religion can be arrived at through reason and logic. You are arguing it cannot. Without supporting premises you are attempting to claim an authority of what you consider rational over what I do. By your own argument that would be evil.Originally Posted by cockerpunk
how do you reason you way toOriginally Posted by Lohman446
1. a god
2. that god is the christian god
3. that god had a son
4. the bible is an accurate representation of that sons life/death
i'd like logic, mathematics, data and repeatable experiment on all 4 points.
if you can do that, i will grant you that you can reason your way to religion.
That's really splitting hairs. See the book of Genesis. See the Big Bang theory.Originally Posted by cockerpunk
Science is the god that your philosophy (humanism, naturalism, etc) draws from.
In religion, the God and the subsequent bible is what we draw our philosophy from.
The way you treat science and your 'ism's is not really any different than a Christian treats God and the bible. They're essentially used in the same way.
I've got the feeling that you're just looking at the glass half empty, while I'm looking at it half full.
no, the rejection of faith as a method to determine accuracy is not the same as using faith as a method to determine accuracy.Originally Posted by dahoeb
sorry, you cannot say faith and science are equivalent in any way shape or form. one requires faith, the other rejects faith.
A). You said all religions.Originally Posted by cockerpunk
B) I never said religion had to be the biblical Christian God
C) I never argued the bible was infallible.
How do you prove that a God, gods, or other supernatural power does not exist through empirical testing?
The point is you can no more disprove it than I can prove it. You want your conclusion to be more valid than my conclusion with no more proof. You want your argument to simply be more authoratative then the other because you argue it is. However without that proof you are demanding the same authority you are calling evil.
You can be wrong. I would not label it as evil
all religions start with step 1. just reason you way to a god, and i'll be happy. from there steps 2-4 can be for any particular religion you wish. just reason your way to a religion. you claimed you could do it, please try.Originally Posted by Lohman446
i don't have to disprove it. just like i don't have to disprove unicorns existing.
Last edited by cockerpunk; 12-06-2012 at 04:01 PM.
When did I say that faith could be used as a method to determine accuracy?Originally Posted by cockerpunk
I said that religion and science can be used in similar ways to guide ones life, which I think most could agree with.
I don't agree with your definition of religion (in which FAITH is a requirement). There are differing definitions of religion (which I already discussed) depending on what text and interpretation you decide to pull from. Even with that one word of distinction, the similarities and parallels still remain.
The more I look around the world the more I am certain that it did not arise by chance. The more I learn the more I realize this is true. Consider the pictures of molecular biology, how the particles within our cells function with one another. Scale it up and look at the pictures and the similiarites to how universes interact. There is a pervasive sense of order in the world around us. The laws of physics that can predict particiles through formulas and only prove that existence at the development of better equipment shows this order. The formulas used to arrive at the location of planetary bodies such as Pluto (whatever its refernced as now) show that we are uniquely suited to understand the world around us through reason and logic. That our ability to reason is so in tune with how the world actually works tells me that there is a connection that ties us, those abilities, and the world as we know it around us, even the world that we do not know yet, together.
This is why I have faith in God. Not that God has paused the rules of nature around me and given me some great sign but that the rules of nature exist and we have even the slightest ability to understand those rules.
Science does not disprove to me the existence of a God. The more we understand the more it strengthens in to me the belief that God exists. I don't know exactly what God is. Perhaps its that little spark within all of us. Perhaps its the reason that so many accept that killing another human is just wrong before we know the complex theories. Perhaps its that spark of empathy that we can share with others. I believe that somehow God exists though I do not know how exactly to define God
Can I prove it? No. Does it use logic and reason to get there? The above statements are not irrational. It is as defensible as any argument that God does not exist.
Last edited by Lohman446; 12-06-2012 at 07:40 PM.
Well said.Originally Posted by Lohman446
all religion requires faith, they can be used interchangeably.Originally Posted by dahoeb
so if you disagree with religion requiring faith, please tell me about a religion that does not require faith.
and loh still has to explain to me how he has reasoned his way to a god.
you guys got a lot of explaining to do!
there is just so much wrong in this post i don't even know where to start, so im going to take a bullet point approach to this non-sense.Originally Posted by Lohman446
no one has said the world arose by chance.
you are imposing your view of "organization" on the universe. by any measure, the universe IS CHAOS. pure, unadulterated chaos. even earth itself is a bad place to be. less then a half a percent of earths volume is livable for humans. this is organization? we have observed and scanned very thoroughly of life, what ... 150 light years out? of that sphere, even if you say there was life on mars ..... thats something like 10^-15 percent of what we know about the universe could contain life. this is organization to you? god sure sucks at ordering things.
how does universal laws prove a god? if the universe can exist without a god, and "order" itself, how is this a proof of god?
and then you still end with faith. so you have not reasoned your way to a god. you have faith there is a god because of an incorrect worldview.
and i already dealt with why we innately know killing is wrong - evolution. it does not serve the population to have us killing each other for unjustified reasons. do you wonder why **** smells? evolution. the lifeforms that sat around in there own **** died, the ones thought it was gross, lived. we are there ancestors. we think **** smells because we are the decedents of those who thought **** smelled.
so i ask again, reason you way to a god. show me data, evidence, and logic to prove a god. not to mention, since you have failed at #1 .... what does that say about the rest of your beliefs and how irrational they are?
Irrational and wrong on what authority?Originally Posted by cockerpunk
CP soooo you dont believe in the human spirit or "ghosts" or supernatural forces ? Have you been able to explain everything you have ever seen ? If God and the devil do not exhist then there is no good or evil only choices made by man ?
Not to nitpick but if the devil doesnt exhist you cant really say "The devil is in the details" because he doesnt exhist. I apologize if you didnt say that I may be mistaken.
Would you say that? If not by chance, then what?Originally Posted by cockerpunk
History has shown many times that our best equations are merely accurate representations of our local conditions. How do you prove something that you can only model?
factually incorrect and not rational, both are objective and do not require an authority to determine.Originally Posted by Lohman446
and you still didn't reason your way to even gods existence, much less Easter bunnies and ho ho ho.
no i do not believe in anything supernatural. and no i cannot explain everything i have seen, what would we need science for if not to try to figure out what we don't currently have an explanation for? thats what i do for a living, try to figure out things i cannot explain, that's what makes my job so much fun and that is why i love what i do.Originally Posted by Flatliner333
just because we do not have an explanation for something, doesn't mean you get to make one up. this is why i before alluded to the intellectually lazy theist. because saying god did it, or ghosts or spirits or whatever the **** you want to make up did it, frees you from needing an actual explanation.
we know quite a lot about how the universe and human existence came to be, where would you like to start? and no point in the story will i be required to say "and we just got lucky" to explain from the big bang to today.Originally Posted by Spider-TW
"we just got here by chance" is a classic creationist strawman. we know quite a lot about the processes and reasons why the universe is the way it is today.
this statement does not make sense "how can you prove something that you can only model" a varifiably accurate model is what the goal of science and mathematics is. a model to explain and predict phenomenon so that we can manipulate that phenomena to our advantage.
[QUOTE=cockerpunk]what would we need science for if not to try to figure out what we don't currently have an explanation for? thats what i do for a living, try to figure out things i cannot explain, that's what makes my job so much fun and that is why i love what i do.
Finally something we can agree on. I do believe that science has done alot of good (and bad)for mankind but I am also a christian. And it is great to hear that you love what you do for a living as do I
CP wants his authority and reason to be valid and those that do not conform to his to be wrong.
In the process he labels religion as "evil". I don't believe he is as stupid as he comes off in these conversations I believe he is simply that arrogant and lacking of any degree of intellectual honesty.
As his assertion was that all religion was evil and he has not been able to back it with anything that resembles a premise (that he does not immediatly deny is evil) I find his ability to apply propositional logic poor at best. If the premises do not support the conclusion (IE its evil because of X but X is not evil) it is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
Can religion be good? Yes.
Rothbaum, Weisz, and Snyder in explaining the two-process model held that religion was one possible replacement when locus of control was threatened (1982). This was built off of early writings that control helped to psychologically buffer people from feelings of randomness and chaos that were in fact detrimental to them (Antonovsky, 1979). Further studies have strengthened the value of religion to psychological health and shown, throw empirical psychological testing, that God (or gods, or another nonhuman entity) does provide an alternative locus of control when personal control is threatened (Kay, Gaucher, Callan, Napier, and Laurin 2008).
Now CP can sit there and whine about it and tell us all about his knowledge of the empirical sciences. The above information was readily found from the project I did for my capstone course in Psychology. He can whine about the lack of logic all he wants - I figure I should mail him my coursework from my study of propositional logic. He can demand the empirical testing that shows the positive value of religion - which I have provided. I would simply request that he provide similiar evidence that religion is inherently evil, as was his initial assertion. He can demand that we simply grant him authority to decide what is rational and logical. His title of "engineer" does not make him an expert. At best he simply is not good at expressing an opinion. In reality he is likely either trolling or is actually that full of himself that he thinks we should treat him as some subject matter expert in all things. The end, reasonable decision, would be to activate the ignore feature.
The studies and discussion if you care to hunt them down.
Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Kay, A., Gaucher, D., Callan, M., Napier, J., & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 18-35.
Hafer, C. L., & Begue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128-167
Last edited by Lohman446; 12-08-2012 at 10:15 AM.
Originally Posted by cockerpunk
You can't have it both ways, CP.
You say faith is irrational when it concerns our religion, but when you espouse having faith in humanity, it's suddenly not irrational. But since your whole disagreement on my point seems to hinge on your definition of each of the words, lets look them over.
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uh n]
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
I don't see anything in this definition that disqualifies any of what I said.
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Well look at that, definition #3 fits you just right. Yes, it may say "especially a system of religious beliefs" but that's not a disqualifier, it's just an example.
So yes, I'll stick with my argument: that one's belief in the laws of science and the derived philosophies, such as humanism can be a form of religion.
Don't buy my argument, Ok. Here's some summaries from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (Kaufman vs McCaughtry) to reinforce my position:
A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 & n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (1961); Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 200-15 (3d Cir.1979) (Adams, J., concurring); Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam), nor must it be a mainstream faith, see Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981); Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir.2003).
Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion.
Link Sections I and II deal with his atheism.
or the legal dictionary.....
The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being ......
As the case of United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), demonstrates, the Supreme Court must look to the sincerity of a person's beliefs to help decide if those beliefs constitute a religion that deserves constitutional protection..
If you go into any dictionary, the core nutshell definition of "religion" is essentially, "a set of beliefs that one believes in and adheres to". The fact that some dictionaries include the word "faith" and some don't just goes to show that it's obviously not a "make or break" word, even though you may try to twist it into one.
The bottom line, until a FIRM definition of religion is established by a recognized authority (not you), you're only voicing your opinion, which I (and the 7th CC of Appeals) will probably continue to disagree with.
Last edited by dahoeb; 12-07-2012 at 06:10 PM. Reason: tyyypoooos
pre-big bang. something exists (or not)Originally Posted by cockerpunk
1) Why dont you prove you have a brain ?
Have you seen your brain ?
If you cant show it to us we refuse to believe you have one.
You have absolutely zero proof that you have a brain, zero son.
Because that would take faith for us to believe you have a brain.
2) When you start your car in the morning you realize it takes faith to do that ?
The faith you have that your car will start,
thats how much faith it takes to know there is a true and living God.
Can you tell me how this apple tastes that I'm eating now ?
Neither can you tell me about my God.
You've never known Him.
O taste and see that the LORD [is] good: blessed [is] the man [that] trusteth in him.
and this is what I like to call a "head-ache thread"
Only when yiu try to understand CPs logic. And as usual, he just got served... lol
so what does that say about your world view, if it takes only a high school level understanding of biology, the big bang, and chemistry to prove yours false? i am by no means an expert on any of these topics, and yet you grant me that status, only to mock it.Originally Posted by Lohman446
what that really is doing is mocking your own understanding and world view.
thats a good question. the big bang was the source of existence itself (time, matter, energy, space ...). what ... if anything .... existed before existence? what does this mean about laws we understand in our universe such as logic, cause and effect, and reason?Originally Posted by Spider-TW
i was using faith in a colloquial term. one might say they have faith that when they sit in a chair it wont break, but that is a different kind of faith then a faith in god. the reason is of course that we have experience with chairs, and most of the time they don't break. we can see and inspect the chair, and if it looks like it wont hold us and we sit on it, we may not be surprised when it breaks.Originally Posted by dahoeb
this is the colloquial version of faith. i have this faith in people, because in my experience and in my studies of humanity, when given good information, rational people will make the best decisions they can.
this is a different kind of faith then one of an unknowable, unseeable, unprovable concept such as god.
and thanks for the definitions of religion, i already told you mine, and clarified exactly where they might disagree with yours.
Originally Posted by going_home
i am also still waiting on loh reasoning his way to a god. if it is a rational concept, faith, please, reason your way to a god.
Last edited by cockerpunk; 12-11-2012 at 01:47 PM.
My response is simple CP:
If you feel that everyone around you is irrational perhaps the problem is not everyone else. You have failed to compile any reasonable argument to support your initial conclusion that you were called on that religion was inherently evil. Its only morbid curiousity at this point that has prevented me from simply activating the ignore feature. Your own arguments, both this one and previous, have indicated that you do not have the knowledge or expertise required to question my rationale or logic or for that matter anyone elses.
Last edited by Lohman446; 12-11-2012 at 03:50 PM.
irrational isn't an insult. irrational is merely a category. there are rational things and irrational things. religion is an irrational one. most people are irrational on some level, even i am. i love, old, junky, kluged together things, despite pursuing technical perfection every day of my life. this is irrational, and thats just fine with me. i wouldn't have it any other way. i drive 80s turbo cars, because i love turbo lag, i shoot autocockers, because i love to turn knobs. not to mention, majority by no means establishes truth. there was an age when everyone knew the world was flat after all.Originally Posted by Lohman446
i listed more then half a dozen reasons religion is inherently evil, and instead of trying to argue with them, you just keep saying "You have failed to compile any reasonable argument to support your initial conclusion that you were called on that religion was inherently evil." well thats great if you think that, but you also have not provided a single valid counter argument to the reasons i have listed! instead keep just repeating that i haven't shown anything, and then refusing to respond to my many examples. its like arguing with a fox news host, wrong on every detail, but still claims the initial claim.
you also claimed that you could reason your way to a god, you have not done this. i look forward to you doing this. i think the entire intellectual and philosophical community would be interested in your proof of a god, as it has so far eluded humanity since the dawn of time.
Last edited by cockerpunk; 12-12-2012 at 02:41 PM.