The Choice I Never Made...

[bigbillyrocka]

No, read and comprehend the full definition and concept of what rationality is. I think you don't understand rationality.

Answer this: Do you find it rational to stick a Dick up your Ass?

Please answer this question...

If hes gay, of course it would be rational. Good trick question there. Not saying hes gay of course.

 

[guy incognito]

No, read and comprehend the full definition and concept of what rationality is. I think you don't understand rationality.

Answer this: Do you find it rational to stick a Dick up your Ass?

Please answer this question...

ra·tion·al

   /ˈræʃ

ə

nl, ˈræʃ

nl/ Show Spelled[rash-uh-nl, rash-nl] Show IPA
–adjective 1.agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.

2.having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.

3.being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.

World English Dictionary
rational (ˈræʃənəl) —adj 1. using reason or logic in thinking out a problem 2. in accordance with the principles of logic or reason; reasonable 3. of sound mind; sane: the patient seemed quite rational 4. endowed with the capacity to reason; capable of logical thought: man is a rational being 5. maths expressible as a ratio of two integers or polynomials: a rational number; a rational function

Do I find it rational to stick a dick up MY ass? No. You are mixing subjective feelings with objective facts though.

Is it rational to eat a banana? Depends on many subjective factors. Do you like the taste of bananas? Do you have other food sources to get nutrients from or do you rely on bananas for some specific nutrient? Based on these factors you can reason one way or another, just like sticking a dick up your ass.

Do bananas exist? This is objective and has a correct answer. There is no way you could justify an answer that bananas do not exist while still remaining rational.

 

[Brazko]

But santa is real. Think back to when you were a kid when you still believed, it felt great right? Makes me smile to this day, Even though we clearly know as adults he is not. This is the premise of believer's in all forms of believing.

Big Billy.. I comprehend everything you are saying, and yet you have the slightest clue I think as to what I am saying (I think but consider the fact of you probably joshing me ). Even after I have displayed it right before your eyes. But that is the premise of all small minds shared alike, belief or lack of.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/joshing

 

[Padawanbater2]

I think the only way someone like me would think god exists is if somebody floated into air, or walked on water and seperated seas in front of me like the bible makes it out. And thats a good question. I've asked some here (mormons) and they get mad! Red in the face even. Seems the can judge me with no problem, but when i simply ask of their faith they flip the script!

Aaah, OK, so basically you're saying if the laws of physics as you understand them to work were broken?

When I've asked people this and when I used to ask myself this, I'd come up with a similar type answer, but then I gave it a little thought and figured out it's pretty much the same exact line of reasoning as people who believe in ghosts. There's a thread on here somewhere that talks all about this, basically, why go from "OK, the laws of physics are broken, I see someone floating through the air.." to "... so God exists!"? There's no connection from premise A. -broken laws of physics to conclusion C. -God exists. There needs to be something in slot 'B' to connect the two or else you might as well be saying "laws of physics broken... ... bannana cucumber wallet" or "laws of physics broken... ... lamp doorbell pictureframe"...

I think I'd have to see with my own two eyes and hear with my own ears God himself explain our existence to believe it's true. I think a god with the amount of power one would require to perform that task wouldn't give any amount of consideration to blind faith, if it did it would most certainly frown upon it.

I provided a worldly view answer.

gi's post addresses this well. You can be objectively irrational about things, your acknowledgment of it isn't required.

If you believe in Santa Clause based off the evidence of you having received gifts during Christmas time as a child, then that's an irrational belief. You have no evidence to support that conclusion and there are much more likely alternative ones. To dismiss the evidence in support of what you may or may not want is a completely irrational position to take.

He asked a question and you provided an unsatisfactory answer. I don't think the term "rational" is completely subjective and up to each persons personal view. We have definitions for words. You may believe in santa, and you may believe that to be a rational decision based on reason and logic, but you would be wrong. You cannot provide any rational reasons to believe in santa claus. A belief in santa is necessarily irrational by definition.

I honestly didn't expect you to. It was quite confusing wasn't it.. but I'll explain. You ignored what I said which was the exact same thing Heis said but you acknowleged him telling you the same thing I said. Unless you just missed my post all together that I quoted you on.. However, you are accusing Oly of having his eyes/ears closed when you are offering information to him. You just did the same thing. Unless you missed the post I just quoted you on.. then my mistake.. it's all good

What information has oly provided? Highlight it please.

Yes, one can say the same thing about science. Einstein was ridiculed for being irrational about his theories. Just as past and present theories by Scientist are found to be of irrational degrees.

Before you Ice a Cake, you have to bake One first..

What kinds of irrational beliefs is science responsible for? (I'm not talking about individual scientists, I'm talking about science as a whole)

 

[VILEPLUME]

Back to the OP original question about a choice.

I agree with you that the way we are brought up does give us a "conditioning" before we hit adulthood. I was brought up that weed was a horrible thing and it is against the law, but looked how that turned out lol

I've studied many faiths, been to many different denominations' churches, mosques, temples, etc. I have even lived with Tibetan monks in north west china!

I think that everyone in life hits an age where they explore and find their belief. Many people today base a belief on its people, but as human beings, there are always the ones that f*ck it up for the rest. Its like the saying, "you can do 99 things right, but people will always talk about the 1 thing you did wrong".

I also use to work in T.V and the amount of B.S spilled by every station is heart wrenching. We had a saying at our station, "if it bleeds, it leads". They dont care if the truth on a story is 100% accurate, only if it gets them views. A lot of garbage today is about celebrities/people in the spot light, who the f*ck gives a sh*t about celebrities? Seriously? Someone told me the other day that Kate Middleton's dress caught some wind and u could see her ass! Really? People care about stupid sh*t like that?

Wow, I guess this thread does make u angry lol.

Anyways, regarding the OP again. Our minds cannot not comprehend something being made out of nothing, it goes against how matter cannot be created or destroyed. Yet here we are and here is the universe. The only thing I can comprehend is that there is a power that can create something out of nothing, but that power has always been there(it hurts your head when you think about it too much lol)

I do believe in what the bible says, I have done my research and found too much evidence not to believe in it(Dead sea scrolls, over 20,000 known manuscripts that document the New Testament).

So OP, you wanted to know what I believe in and why, so there ya go.

 

[bigbillyrocka]

@pad, very good point you present there. Without a connection theres simply nothing to base it on. or off for that matter!

 

[Brazko]

Do I find it rational to stick a dick up MY ass? No. You are mixing subjective feelings with objective facts though.

I'm not mixing anything subjective with objective you are. I'm giving you the total encompassed meaning and concept of rational..

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

Rationality is the exercise of reason, in philosophy. It is the manner in which people derive conclusions when considering things deliberately. It also refers to the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons for belief, or with one's actions with one's reasons for action. However, the term "rationality" tends to be used in the specialized discussions of economics, sociology, psychology and political science. A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem. The term "rationality" is used differently in different disciplines.


Determining optimality for rational behavior requires a quantifiable formulation of the problem, and the making of several key assumptions. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in how much information is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). Collectively, the formulation and background assumptions are the model within which rationality applies. Illustrating the relativity of rationality: if one accepts a model in which benefiting oneself is optimal, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish; whereas if one accepts a model in which benefiting the group is optimal, then purely selfish behavior is deemed irrational. It is thus meaningless to assert rationality without also specifying the background model assumptions describing how the problem is framed and formulated.


Rationality doesn't just encompass your own worldly view of what's rational.

Get over it.. OmfG

 

[karri0n]

He asked a question and you provided an unsatisfactory answer. I don't think the term "rational" is completely subjective and up to each persons personal view. We have definitions for words. You may believe in santa, and you may believe that to be a rational decision based on reason and logic, but you would be wrong. You cannot provide any rational reasons to believe in santa claus. A belief in santa is necessarily irrational by definition.

No, you just don't understand what santa claus is. Disbelief in santa claus is irrational. Over ten million google results show that the concept of Santa Claus does indeed exist. It took me 0.07 seconds to find this information.

 

[bigbillyrocka]

Rationality is also called common sense in some inner circles of the world.

 

[Brazko]

gi's post addresses this well. You can be objectively irrational about things, your acknowledgment of it isn't required.

If you believe in Santa Clause based off the evidence of you having received gifts during Christmas time as a child, then that's an irrational belief. You have no evidence to support that conclusion and there are much more likely alternative ones. To dismiss the evidence in support of what you may or may not want is a completely irrational position to take.

No, GI didnt address anything.... And you all are slowww. That's the only advice I know for sure Oly was correct about. Please don't think yourselves as to be better equiped to handle life with your assumed ability to think logically and reasonably..

What information has oly provided? Highlight it please.

I didn't say Oly, I said me... Ears/Eyes closed.. ref #201

What kinds of irrational beliefs is science responsible for? (I'm not talking about individual scientists, I'm talking about science as a whole)

Science as a whole includes the scientists that bring about the science. If there are no Scientists then there is no science to claim. If there is no science to claim then we are still stuck with the humans who are observing and making assertments of what already is. And it's not science..

 

[bigbillyrocka]

i like alot of the stuff you say Braz, keep it up.

 

[Padawanbater2]

No, GI didnt address anything.... And you all are slowww. That's the only advice I know for sure Oly was correct about. Please don't think yourselves as to be better equiped to handle life with your assumed ability to think logically and reasonably..

I didn't say Oly, I said me... Ears/Eyes closed.. ref #201

Science as a whole includes the scientists that bring about the science. If there are no Scientists then there is no science to claim. If there is no science to claim then we are still stuck with the humans who are observing and making assertments of what already is. And it's not science..

You guys make a lot of assumptions. Who said they're better equiped to handle life because they think logically and reasonably? Why can't we ever be on the same teams, why's it always gotta be so adviserial?

The short version is this; atheists think believers make bad choices. The bad choices they make are heavily influenced by the things they believe that cannot be substantiated in reality, they must take them on faith. The atheist believes this is selfish and that believers do not have a right to subjugate non believers with the problems that arise because of their beliefs for the sake of their comfort.

Science is a systematic way of evalutaing the evidence. That's it. It is a tool. It has no agenda, no bias. Religion on the other hand..

The challenge stands - What kinds of irrational beliefs is science (not scientists)responsible for?

 

[guy incognito]

I'm not mixing anything subjective with objective you are. I'm giving you the total encompassed meaning and concept of rational..

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

Rationality is the exercise of reason, in philosophy. It is the manner in which people derive conclusions when considering things deliberately. It also refers to the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons for belief, or with one's actions with one's reasons for action. However, the term "rationality" tends to be used in the specialized discussions of economics, sociology, psychology and political science. A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem. The term "rationality" is used differently in different disciplines.


Determining optimality for rational behavior requires a quantifiable formulation of the problem, and the making of several key assumptions. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in how much information is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). Collectively, the formulation and background assumptions are the model within which rationality applies. Illustrating the relativity of rationality: if one accepts a model in which benefiting oneself is optimal, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish; whereas if one accepts a model in which benefiting the group is optimal, then purely selfish behavior is deemed irrational. It is thus meaningless to assert rationality without also specifying the background model assumptions describing how the problem is framed and formulated.


Rationality doesn't just encompass your own worldly view of what's rational.

Get over it.. OmfG

Even by your own definition is requires reason. You must exercise reason.

"It is the manner in which people derive conclusions when considering things deliberately"

I think this statement is wrong. Simply deriving a false conclusion after considering something deliberately does NOT mean it is rational, or the thought process was rational.

By your flawed logic any conclusion anyone ever comes to is rational.

 

[guy incognito]

No, you just don't understand what santa claus is. Disbelief in santa claus is irrational. Over ten million google results show that the concept of Santa Claus does indeed exist. It took me 0.07 seconds to find this information.

Stop being disingenuous, you knew exactly what I meant. No one is claiming the concept of santa or god doesn't exist.

 

[karri0n]

Stop being disingenuous, you knew exactly what I meant. No one is claiming the concept of santa or god doesn't exist.

No one is being disingenuous. It's you who didn't understand what WE meant. It's not My or Braz's fault you don't understand in what capacity things like gods or santa claus exist. Neither of us have made the claim that santa claus as a singular physical entity literally flies to millions of houses dropping presents. Things such as gods, santa claus, and other mythical beings have considerably more power than they would ever have if they were constrained to a physical form.

See:

I find rationality in the belief of Santa Claus, you find irrationality in the belief of Santa Claus. The only difference will entail our comprehension of who we take Santa Claus to be...

I....feel that once people can get past their understanding of deities as sky wizards that literally exist on this plane, a much better understanding can be reached between all parties.

Braz is 100% correct - fundamentalist atheists truly do spend their time with their eyes and ears closed...

 

[tomcatjones]

@Padawanbater2

nearly everything in science "as a whole" was wrong once and has been replaced with better evidence and harder facts or altered to account for the new research.

it is self correcting. and structured

NOT dogmatic and faith driven

 

[Brazko]

You guys make a lot of assumptions. Who said they're better equiped to handle life because they think logically and reasonably? Why can't we ever be on the same teams, why's it always gotta be so adviserial?

The short version is this; atheists think believers make bad choices. The bad choices they make are heavily influenced by the things they believe that cannot be substantiated in reality, they must take them on faith. The atheist believes this is selfish and that believers do not have a right to subjugate non believers with the problems that arise because of their beliefs for the sake of their comfort.

Science is a systematic way of evalutaing the evidence. That's it. It is a tool. It has no agenda, no bias. Religion on the other hand..

The challenge stands - What kinds of irrational beliefs is science (not scientists)responsible for?

Here's the short short short version.. You think believers make bad choices. I think people make bad choices.. See the difference...

What kind of irrational beliefs have been put forth by science.. I don't know Pad, the science has always been correct in the past. The science is always right and never clouded by the Scientist interpetation of the information put forth because it stood alone as scientific fact even if the interpation made was based on incomplete information. Good Grief, but hey I'll tickle your fancy..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/04/2

 

[Brazko]

@Padawanbater2

nearly everything in science "as a whole" was wrong once and has been replaced with better evidence and harder facts or altered to account for the new research.

it is self correcting. and structured

NOT dogmatic and faith driven

And this is a correct assertment. Science is not some independent self aligned being of correct righteousness. If science never existed that same independent self aligned quality of correctness would remain. The only thing that changes is the interpretation made by those who attempt to explain that which already is. I'm now considering the ability of such a person like Pad incapable of holding the capacity think clearly and unbiased. Oh, that what they say about everybody else that's not Atheist...3%

 

[guy incognito]

No one is being disingenuous. It's you who didn't understand what WE meant. It's not My or Braz's fault you don't understand in what capacity things like gods or santa claus exist. Neither of us have made the claim that santa claus as a singular physical entity literally flies to millions of houses dropping presents. Things such as gods, santa claus, and other mythical beings have considerably more power than they would ever have if they were constrained to a physical form.

See:



Braz is 100% correct - fundamentalist atheists truly do spend their time with their eyes and ears closed...

Yes YOU are being disingenuous. When I claim santa does not exist and a belief in him is irrational it is very clear what I mean.

San·ta Claus

   /ˈsæn

tə ˌklɔz/ Show Spelled[san-tuh klawz] Show IPA
–noun a benevolent figure of legend, associated with Saint Nicholas, supposed to bring gifts to children on Christmas Eve.

That is the literal definition from a dictionary, and that is exactly what I meant, which is exactly why I used the word. The concept, or spirit, or idea of santa is NOT what I meant. If I meant that I would have specifically stated it instead of using the words I did use.

dis·in·gen·u·ous

   /ˌdɪs

ɪnˈdʒɛn

yu

əs/ Show Spelled[dis-in-jen-yoo-uh

s] Show IPA
–adjective lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.

You taking the word "santa" and changing the meaning into the "concept of santa" is absolutely disingenuous.

The same thing goes for unicorns. A belief in unicorns is irrational, despite the fact that a google search of unicorn brings back over 65 million hits.

 

[olylifter420]

Man you must be retarded! It is so stupid how you all think to know how i am in person... Assumptions get you nowhere and i really dont care what you have to say either... to me you are just the same as any other atheist that has attacked me for my beliefs... You are right about giving you the shirt off my back if you needed it or i would stop and give you a ride or help you change a flat tire on the side of the road if you needed assistance... Judging by your beliefs, i think you would need assistance in changing tires, i think i spend to much of your time hating people like me although, you dont know me... that is ok because that demonstrates the thinking capability you are capable of...

j

Pad, I don't think oly is the best person to seek answers from. He's stumbled upon religion without understanding what it is, so there is a poor chance you will gain any understanding from him. He has proven this with all his responses, which aren't likely to change. He doesn't even understand what we mean when we say ignorant, he sees it as an insult. How can you communicate with that level of under education? It's like trying to explain to a child that the big bright ball of light in the sky is actually a giant nuclear furnace that builds hydrogen into helium. The child doesn't know what words like hydrogen and nuclear mean, so there is no way he can possibly go on to make a connection. He is not capable of seeing it as anything other than a ball of light, nor is he capable of explaining to you why he doesn't see it your way. Oly is not a child, so it is unlikely his basic comprehension skills will improve. Whether someone takes this position with god or the sun, is it really a religious position? Oly is both willfully and incidentally ignorant, and happy about it. Your words will never mean anything other than atheist superiority to him, and you will gather no valid insight from engaging him. The good news is that people such as him don't amount to much in life, and he probably doesn't vote or try to influence political policy. When someone demonstrates they are a lost cause (incapable of comprehensive discussion) it is best to leave them be and let them circle the drain. It is your thread, but I don't see the value in your exchanges. Even religious people that might be reading this thread know better than him. I think it's important to send the message that, if you can't defend your beliefs (or even express them clearly in olys case) you DO NOT get to bring them to the table and participate in discussion with the adults. Unless of course you simply enjoy poking a retard with a stick.

People with his outlook and conduct make me angry too, but I realized a few years ago that those sort of people are not likely to be part of your circle of acquaintances. I used to leave the house with an angry sour attitude aimed at religious people, but in actuality most of them don't mind questioning their beliefs and assigning reason, as invalid as it may be. Most of them would give you the shirt off their back. This in no way excuses them for their erroneous conclusions and their tendency to push and judge; I am just saying that neither do they deserve such level of hostility. When you do encounter a worthless position such as olys, it does no good to attack it as it does not represent the typical catalyst responsible for religion. The best thing you can do is to promote awareness and education and encourage critical thought, which of course I see you do a lot. It's a long slow process but one that is likely to, eventually, be productive. These are the things I would have told my younger, angrier self, and I say them to you not out of concern for oly, but because I think you might benefit from a different perspective. I still tend to be inflammatory and offensive at times, but I do so while promoting doubt, and not just to point fingers and insult. If you turn on the God channel in my house, within 10 minutes I will be so angry at their manipulative promotion of self serving illogic I might break the TV, but again, I find those are not the same people I see going to church, and not all religious people are affiliated.

In short, I am suggesting you should save your contempt for those who deserve it (sheep mentality vs child mentality) and shape it into a more piercing and impressionable tool.

Here's a quote that in no way pertains to anything I've just expressed,

I have no room in my heart for compassion
If you piss me off I will quickly start smashin'
Your pleas for reason are simply pathetic
Why waste my words when my fists are poetic

- Beefcake the Mighty

[video=youtube;y-rxFGqseIs]http://youtu.be/eMUoN61HE3M[/video]

I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I BEAT YOU TO DEATH.