The Choice I Never Made...

[Brazko]

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.

Stop REd/Blue highlighting words that mean nothing absence of the whole. It's right there in black/white and it's not my definition. Go, edit wiki so that the rest of the world gets it right by your standards of the word.

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.

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.

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.

This is just Hot ass Smoke because you have been the only one being disengenuous. We both comprehend what you are saying but no one asserted such a thing but you. and it was clearly noted in the original post before you asserted such a thing.

The only difference will entail our comprehension of who we take Santa Claus to be...

 

[olylifter420]

dude, if you dont like what i am posting, then dont read it! YOu dont see me asking these people to leave... i like to know the way they think... I think it is evolution taking place... A breed evolving into the biggest bunch of hate driven people determined to undermine others beliefs and bash them in, sort of like the nazi's...

OLYLIFTER...............

GO THE FUCK AWAY!!!!!

YOU HAVE SCREWED THIS THREAD BIG TIME!

If 10 mutha fuckas tell ya yer a horse......get a bag of oats.........can you understand the simplicity of that statement??????I know your all super smart and shit cause your in school an all but damn dude!!!!!

I'm going back ta where i left off.Good stuff in here fellas....keep it up.

 

[Brazko]

until some more qualified Atheist of logic and Reason come along, here's a choice I've decided to make....

 

[karri0n]

until some more qualified Atheist of logic and Reason come along, here's a choice I've decided to make....

That's pretty obviously photoshopped.

 

[olylifter420]

ahh, yeskiss-asskiss-asskiss-asskiss-asskiss-asskiss-ass, you all tend to back each other up, while i have no one... pretty nice way of forcing things upon someone, dont you think...

you have no reason to be upset... no one told you to hate Christians and their beliefs now did they?

Yea you found as a kid that God doesnt exist, good for you boy genius... LEave it at that! Who cares what other people think and what they believe in?

Obviously you do! I could care less if you said that your god was a fucking guitar or whatever else you guys like... On the contrary, i would support you for what you believe in and help in anyway to get you closer to your beliefs...

thats me, but you, you really want to hurt people with hatred driven ridicule...

I hear you Heis, and you're right. This shit gets everyone nowhere. I made a few civil attempts in the beginning with oly but eventually just gave up. It was a mistake to take the hostile route of engagement, I admit.

Thanks for your post, I hope to one day get past the frustration.

It doesn't matter how much you try to help someone if they don't want to listen.

 

[olylifter420]

couldnt of said it any better braz

Exactly, but thats what I said a few posts ago... Oh, I'm a believer. Hands over Ears/Eyes...

Hypocrite - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite

That is why Oly doesn't respect nothing you have to say. This isn't the first time he has engaged your posts.

 

[guy incognito]

Stop REd/Blue highlighting words that mean nothing absence of the whole. It's right there in black/white and it's not my definition. Go, edit wiki so that the rest of the world gets it right by your standards of the word.





This is just Hot ass Smoke because you have been the only one being disengenuous. We both comprehend what you are saying but no one asserted such a thing but you. and it was clearly noted in the original post before you asserted such a thing.

Blue highlighting was by wiki, red was by me. The words do not mean nothing in absence of the whole, they are a fundamental part of the definition both by your wiki definition and the definitions I posted from the dictionary. I'm not really sure why I should edit the wiki when I already have already posted multiple dictionary references. The only reason I disagree with the wiki is if it is in fact chopped into parts and is taken out of context, such as the second line of the definition -

"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."

Which when taken out of context seem to confirm what you are saying. Once you add in the other highlighted parts (about the exercise of reason) and take the definition as a whole I don't see how you can make your claims.

 

[karri0n]

I could care less if you said that your god was a fucking guitar

That would be fucking SWEEET

something like this:
View attachment 1687706

 

[olylifter420]

ok boy genius, explain how a whole heap of things that have taken place in the past centuries and were deciphered in the scripture of the Bible? is that just a coincidence?

answer this question,

Can you begin to write a book and predict what will happen 3000 years from now and be accurate at your prophecy?

I dont know if you can, but i really doubt it...

Perhaps this is a better way to phrase the question I asked to get rid of some of the confusion;

Are there any reasons that would convince a rational person God exists?

This is a little bit different, as the reasons one might have for justifying their belief may seem rational to them, but that wouldn't make them any more or less rational to everyone else. Those beliefs may(and does) lead a person to do some pretty irrational things making them an irrational person.

One final point to ice this cake... can a believer say the same thing about science?

 

[Brazko]

That's pretty obviously photoshopped.

I'm not sure of your meaning, but No, it's not my hand... It's being presented as imagery for the purpose at hand. No need to grab a phone or camera to post a picture of my hand when a millisec google search could provide the same results.

 

[guy incognito]

ok boy genius, explain how a whole heap of things that have taken place in the past centuries and were deciphered in the scripture of the Bible? is that just a coincidence?

answer this question,

Can you begin to write a book and predict what will happen 3000 years from now and be accurate at your prophecy?

I dont know if you can, but i really doubt it...

What specifically was predicted that came true and has been deciphered from the bible?

 

[olylifter420]

maybe cause you lack common sense!

That is what i have begun to see is that you by yourself have zero common sense or that atheists' as whole lack common sense... i think it is the first one... Not all atheists' are dicks like you, so it would be wrong for me to ASSUME all atheists' lack common sense...

I dont think blaming atheists' as whole just because of you is right... that is what i have learned from this discussion...

I don't understand this post.

 

[karri0n]

I'm not sure of your meaning, but No, it's not my hand... It's being presented as imagery for the purpose at hand. No need to grab a phone or camera to post a picture of my hand when a millisec google search could provide the same results.

It's not anyone's real hand, either. All the lines and such are drawn on in some kind of image manipulation program.

 

[Heisenberg]

Braz, you used an explanation of rational that is not meant for the context we use it in. Wiki has a page for our use of the term.

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

In epistemology and in its modern sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification" (Lacey 286). In more technical terms, it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive" (Bourke 263). Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the more extreme position that reason is "the unique path to knowledge" (Audi 771). Given a pre-modern understanding of reason, "rationalism" is identical to philosophy, the Socratic life of inquiry, or the zetetic (skeptical)cdlarify interpretation of authority (open to the underlying or essential cause of things as they appear to our sense of certainty). In recent decades, Leo Strauss sought to revive Classical Political Rationalism as a discipline that understands the task of reasoning, not as foundational, but as maieutic. Rationalism should not be confused with rationality.

Even wiki states that our context of rationality should not be confused with the rationality you linked to. When one sees toys appear on Christmas morning, he believes in Santa because of Empiricism. He believes what he sees and is presented with. When one applies reason to this belief and wonders how Santa can manage to visit every house in the world in one night, he is being rational. He is engaging in critical thinking. Skeptics incorporate both an empirical and rational view.

Yes it's true that a person can use whatever world view they have to rationalize things. In this context it means to lie to yourself as a method of cognitive dissonance reduction. When someone says they believe in Santa because he shows up with presents every year and they don't want to jeopardize that by questioning it, they are rationalizing, but not being rational.

If you are upset that Pad listened to my appeal and not yours, when they both essentially said the same thing, then perhaps you should construct a better argument instead of faulting Pad. You seem to be discounting his contempt, while I suggested he simply find a more effective(refined) and less strenuous way to apply it. The reasoning behind religious beliefs and the level of influence it has over our lives is contemptible, but that contempt can be constructive instead of alienating. Note that belief in bigfoot does not evoke the same level of contempt, because bigfoot believers do not judge or push or attempt to influence political and public policies. They simply try to get their information out there while continuously searching for more answers.

 

[Heisenberg]

Are you Atheists working on ways to eliminate us? I'm sure you are. Elitist scum.

This is an absurd premise and intended solely to provoke anger. What do you hope to gain by starting this line of inquiry? What is your motivation for posting here if not to simply cause rancorous grief? At least oly, while being hypocritical and disrespectful, is pure in his intent. You seem to exhibit nothing but malicious spite.

 

[olylifter420]

I dont wish to engage in an educational discussion with you because of the way you assume things... assumptions are what you look retarded...


you would know about the big fuck up of the alchemists' back in the early 1400-1700's, who tried to make gold out of nothing, you should know this blunder, you are or should i say should be very smart!

It is funny how you love science yet you either refuse to accept al-chemistry or you too stupid to understand it...

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.



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.





[COLOR=green[COLOR="red"]]What information has oly provided? Highlight it please[/COLOR]. [/COLOR]



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

 

[olylifter420]

oh, and this im just trying to keep my post count going up... I want reach 1000 by the end of the day... think i can make it?

 

[olylifter420]

it is promise!!! duhhh

This is an absurd premise and intended solely to provoke anger. What do you hope to gain by starting this line of inquiry? What is your motivation for posting here if not to simply cause rancorous grief? At least oly, while being hypocritical and disrespectful, is pure in his intent. You seem to exhibit nothing but malicious spite.

 

[Brazko]

It's being presented as imagery for the purpose at hand.

It's not anyone's real hand, either. All the lines and such are drawn on in some kind of image manipulation program.

I thought it was a cool pic.. I started to use this one.. It was never a matter of me attempting to use something of a realistic nature..

​

edit: I also wanted to state a good eye of observance as well. It is a drawing by an artist and not a computer drawing. Here's a link to some more of her drawings.


http://www.queeky.com/gallery/image/naattlii-0




http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KJkIb2rBxOrS8APWSJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBpc2VvdmQ2BHBvcwM3BHNlYwNzcgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=1j8viegdm/EXP=1310530934/**http%3a//images.search.yahoo.com/images/view%3fback=http%253A%252F%252Fimages.search.yahoo.com%252Fsearch%252Fimages%253Fp%253Dtalk%252Bto%252Bthe%252Bhand%2526ei%253DUTF-8%2526fr%253Dyfp-t-701%26w=480%26h=480%26imgurl=images4.cpcache.com%252Fproduct%252F515851814v1_480x480_Front.jpg%26rurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.cafepress.com%252F%2btalk_to_the_hand_bb_smiley_throw_pillow%252C515851814%26size=30KB%26name=Talk%2bto%2bthe%2bHand...%26p=talk%2bto%2bthe%2bhand%26oid=68d9df90b2cd536aa18184017a7bfb25%26fr2=%26no=7%26tt=551000%26sigr=12bulo6gm%26sigi=11puml1v6%26sigb=12li9h5od%26.crumb=67vFnUDB.76

Braz, you used an explanation of rational that is not meant for the context we use it in. Wiki has a page for our use of the term.

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



Even wiki states that our context of rationality should not be confused with the rationality you linked to. When one sees toys appear on Christmas morning, he believes in Santa because of Empiricism. He believes what he sees and is presented with. When one applies reason to this belief and wonders how Santa can manage to visit every house in the world in one night, he is being rational. He is engaging in critical thinking. Skeptics incorporate both an empirical and rational view.

Yes it's true that a person can use whatever world view they have to rationalize things. In this context it means to lie to yourself as a method of cognitive dissonance reduction. When someone says they believe in Santa because he shows up with presents every year and they don't want to jeopardize that by questioning it, they are rationalizing, but not being rational.

If you are upset that Pad listened to my appeal and not yours, when they both essentially said the same thing, then perhaps you should construct a better argument instead of faulting Pad. You seem to be discounting his contempt, while I suggested he simply find a more effective(refined) and less strenuous way to apply it. The reasoning behind religious beliefs and the level of influence it has over our lives is contemptible, but that contempt can be constructive instead of alienating. Note that belief in bigfoot does not evoke the same level of contempt, because bigfoot believers do not judge or push or attempt to influence political and public policies. They simply try to get their information out there while continuously searching for more answers.

Heis, I see and Understand the difference. I don't know why this is being misunderstood. The question was not how Scientist or Epistemologist go about rationalizing, but how do believers use rationality. I showed him how they rationalize. And even gave an example of how I would rationalize a certain belief. You have said in the past, (I think) that you cannot use Science to confirm Religion or something along those lines. So I didn't use a scientific definition to explain that of a believer.

It's not an Upset thing to my personal satisfaction, its being a hipocrit thing. You are now stating that he should continue pressing forth in a different manner, where as I said he should do the same thing. It's no matter of constructing a better arguement for him. He could either accept me telling him to stop dialoguing the way he was doing and just provide information or not. You told him the exact same thing. I didn't discount his efforts and gave an account of a similar situation when I was discussing matters with someone of the same nature. Did you read what I said, obviously you did and you see that I was not discounting but agreeing with his statment and giving him the same advice you later gave. It was a point to display to him the nature of being a hipocrit as he points out to Oly to which he feels he has been doing which essentially/technically is the same thing he's done. Ignoring information. I even took in account of him missing it and being my mistake to accuse him of such if he did, but clearly you can see for yourself that you are acknowledging it and not him. He was and still is confused as to what I'm talking about. Hypocrit

 

[olylifter420]

he has instant teleportation like Goku and Gohan

Braz, you used an explanation of rational that is not meant for the context we use it in. Wiki has a page for our use of the term.

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



Even wiki states that our context of rationality should not be confused with the rationality you linked to. When one sees toys appear on Christmas morning, he believes in Santa because of Empiricism. He believes what he sees and is presented with. When one applies reason to this belief and wonders how Santa can manage to visit every house in the world in one night, he is being rational. He is engaging in critical thinking. Skeptics incorporate both an empirical and rational view.

Yes it's true that a person can use whatever world view they have to rationalize things. In this context it means to lie to yourself as a method of cognitive dissonance reduction. When someone says they believe in Santa because he shows up with presents every year and they don't want to jeopardize that by questioning it, they are rationalizing, but not being rational.

If you are upset that Pad listened to my appeal and not yours, when they both essentially said the same thing, then perhaps you should construct a better argument instead of faulting Pad. You seem to be discounting his contempt, while I suggested he simply find a more effective(refined) and less strenuous way to apply it. The reasoning behind religious beliefs and the level of influence it has over our lives is contemptible, but that contempt can be constructive instead of alienating. Note that belief in bigfoot does not evoke the same level of contempt, because bigfoot believers do not judge or push or attempt to influence political and public policies. They simply try to get their information out there while continuously searching for more answers.