are you an atheist?

xxxxxp
It implies that you think people confronting the irrationality of their beliefs boils down to modifying a thought process, which greatly oversimplifies the matter.

thanks guys its been too long since i dusted off the old "oh good an atheist thread" comment

this makes me miss a. nairn

irrational believes are those which can't be scientifically verified. better? or you could consult a dictionary.

that there might be some value

might be. might. not must. not the default response.

i'm sure you have beliefs that can't be scientifically verified.

there's all kinds of situations where irrational play is the profit-maximizing solution (in this pascal's wager doesn't seem so bad after all)

If you swap "supernatural" for "unknown variable" this is a perfectly response to an unknown phenomenon, and is the basis of all scientific inquiry.

yes and? don't see your point here.

i'm sure you have beliefs that can't be scientifically verified.

this again? really?

A god that invented 'god exists! no he doesnt' threads doesnt deserve defending

thanks for posting that quote tsrobodo - one i've thought about frequently since first reading that essay (it was in a de capo iirc)

― Mordy , Wednesday, 12 February 2014 00:41 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I can understand why, though I read the essay around the time I lost my faith so there is something of a bias there

granny, i'm not saying you need recourse to supernatural hypotheses to defend things like moral or aesthetic judgments but you also don't use the scientific method.

there are interesting emergent properties of evolving game robots that have the potential of explaining morality/ethics

once more...

Are you saying you've never engaged in such?

Did I say that? Lemme check...nope, I didn't.
Sure I have. And I would hope that when such instances are pointed out to me, I would agree they were irrational.

re morality: like one of the most stable strategies is "tit for tat + forgive" which seems like golden rule + jesus in a nutshell.

i scanned this conversation for common ground and granny + i are def on the same page re the ridiculous of this god's son thing

like faith, a strong commitment to "reason" or rationality is itself a rather intense calling that can't really justify itself in its own terms. locking the door behind you is how any kind of systemic thinking basically works, i think:

Are we obeying the principle of reason when we ask what grounds this principle which is itself a principle of grounding? We are not—which does not mean that we are disobeying it, either. Are we dealing here with a circle or with an abyss? The circle would consist in seeking to account for reason by reason, to render reason to the principle of reason, in appealing to the principle in order to make it speak of itself at the very point where, according to Heidegger, the principle of reason says nothing about reason itself. The abyss, the hole, the Abgrund, the empty "gorge" would be the impossibility for a principle of grounding to ground itself.

what's uniquely advantageous about holding on to "transcendental" or religiously derived forms of thought in a "secular age" is, i think, just the ability to confront questions like the above, which in turn allows for the construction of different forms of rationality.

defend things like moral or aesthetic judgments but you also don't use the scientific method.

actually, morality can be explained by scientific method. so can beauty, eg the golden ratio. that does not mean while judging morality or beauty one uses the scientific method. the brain has created shortcuts for us. thanks, brain!

i'm totally a skeptic on that golden ratio thing -- seems fishy man.

granny + i are def on the same page re the ridiculous of this god's son thing

hi 5!
god having a son, for me that's strong evidence showing Bible and God are human creations.

i also don't fully buy that "rule of thirds" for taking good photos. i like to center my subjects!

actually, morality can be explained by scientific method

Cool, good to hear!

rule of thirds shouldn't be fully bought...there's lots of times a centered subject is most pleasing.

hi 5!
god having a son, for me that's strong evidence showing Bible and God are human creations.

Well the Bible was a human creation of course. And if God is a human creation that doesn't make it any less valid. Humans have created many things of lasting rational value.

Basically, every critique you have offered towards theism is something that is also inherent in science.

Science is a human creation, does that mean it's worthless?

xp our main operative paradigms -- things like time and space and belief in freedom -- are not scientifically verifiable and science actually complicates these things greatly. but it's impossible to eschew this stuff in our daily life and i don't think it would be desirable to do this anyway; to take physics more seriously than our common ways of thinking and seeing and operating. so there are many beliefs we hold that are pragmatic rather than rational by your definition.

irrational believes are those which can't be scientifically verified. better? or you could consult a dictionary.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:46 PM (12 minutes ago)

most dictionary definitions of the "irrational" talk about the absence of reason (sensible, rational thought). it's certainly possible to come sensibly to believe things absent scientific support. emotional awarenesses and physical sensations give us access to useful information that most of us happily and productively use without such outside validation. again, if i honestly and consistently perceived the presence of the divine in the world, then it would be perfectly rational and sensible for me to credit that perception with some validity.

ridiculous of this god's son thing

yes obv that's a bridge too far

might be. might. not must. not the default response.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:47 PM (19 minutes ago)

nobody's insisting that the belief in the divine MUST be the default response. only that it might be reasonable/rational if other conditions are met (for instance, if one by some means seems to perceive the divine).

man Adam you really need to work on your analogies, bro

again, if i honestly and consistently perceived the presence of the divine in the world,

you mean that thing that's unknowable and cannot be shown to have any interaction with the universe we inhabit? is it reasonable/rational to conclude elves all named Thomas are responsible for the night sky, so long as one perceives it to be so? pretty weak criteria for rational thought.

Basically, every critique you have offered towards theism is something that is also inherent in science.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:02 PM (3 minutes ago)

Science seeks explanations and reevaluates when new information presents itself.
Theism starts with a conclusion works backwards by relying on uncertainties to somehow assert that specific belief.

Basically, every critique you have offered towards theism is something that is also inherent in science.

the part where you make shit up? the part where you have the conclusion first and work backwards? the part that doesn't change it's belief even when mounds of conflicting evidence is presented? the part that champions "faith" in the face of this conflicting evidence.
yeah they're totally the same, thanks for letting me see that.

if this night sky elf was half-horse would it be thomas... equinas?

Congratulations on defining those words in ways that contrast each other.

anyone who trots out that tired "science is just like religion" shit can gtfo

wtf are you talking about. are you ok?

Science seeks explanations and reevaluates when new information presents itself.
Theism starts with a conclusion works backwards by relying on uncertainties to somehow assert that specific belief.

And once you've accepted that these are true statements, what conclusions do you draw from them?

the part where you make shit up?

Yes nobody in science has ever made up an untested 'theory' to explain a hypnothesis.

the part where you have the conclusion first and work backwards?

Yes nobody has ever reverse-engineered anything in science, that is for backwards hillfolk.

the part that doesn't change it's belief even when mounds of conflicting evidence is presented?

You are confusing literary myth with historical truth. You and the Creationist see the Bible the same way.

the part that champions "faith" in the face of this conflicting evidence.

So individual will should be crushed in the face of authority?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3NqIqSExfA

thanks guys its been too long since i dusted off the old "oh good an atheist thread" comment

― Corpsepaint Counterpaint (jjjusten), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:44 PM (32 minutes ago)

this makes me miss a. nairn

― Corpsepaint Counterpaint (jjjusten), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:44 PM (32 minutes ago)

I thought he came back as waterface

Pilate listened to lots of Deicide

Adam, seriously, are you ok?

Good rebuttal.

show me one untested theory that someone made up and that the scientific community accepts as fact. I just need one! Take your time.

it's a great rebuttal to really poorly thought out statements from you. not worth my time. sorry to be a dick but then you should be sorry for such bad logic.

show me one untested theory that someone made up and that the scientific community accepts as fact. I just need one! Take your time.

The Big Bang?

As if they guessed?

you can't even get your terms right. you don't make up a theory to explain a hypothesis. have you taken any science courses? how did you do in them?