Nagirrac Dialogue: "belief in god" is rational.

smacl

rozeboosje wrote: »

But, if you must, feel free to present an alternative word to "rational" to convey this strict adherence to intellectual rigour. If you can't, I'm going to insist that that is what we use "rational" for.

Insist away, but your use of rational that isn't in accordance with the definition found in any major dictionary and is about as useful a nagirrac's use of the word God.

If I want to say strict adherence to intellectual rigour I will say strict adherence to intellectual rigour. If I'm lazy, I might even shorten it to intellectually rigorous. I wont use the word rational because it is wrong to so so. Rational does not mean rigorous, it means reasonable and logical. There can be more than one reason to do something and more than one logic may be applied.

Dan_Solo

Sacksian wrote: »

+1

It's rational to believe in a god if you think there's enough evidence to believe that god exists.

It's not rational to believe in any god if you do not think there's enough evidence to believe any god exists.

So, I don't see how this thread can go anywhere other than becoming a p(r)oxy "does god exist?" discussion.

But he's using the term "reasonable" which is defined itself as based on reason and logic, to define the word "rational" as not requiring any base in reason or logic.
How can this be reasonable or rational, by any commonly accepted definition of these terms?

rozeboosje

Sacksian wrote: »

It's rational to believe in a god if you think there's enough evidence to believe that god exists.

Of course. But if you are trying to COMMUNICATE your conclusion to other people, your rationale must be comprehensible, communicable and accepted by your audience. If you fail to do that, you have no basis for claiming that your belief is rational. I would also suggest that if you fail to communicate your rationale for believing in a god to other people, then you KNOW that you don't have a valid rationale for doing so. To then continue to believe in a god is, in fact, irrational.

rozeboosje

smacl wrote: »

Rational [...] means reasonable and logical

Ok. Present the logic.

thank you.

Sacksian

rozeboosje wrote: »

Of course. But if you are trying to COMMUNICATE your conclusion to other people, your rationale must be comprehensible, communicable and accepted by your audience. If you fail to do that, you have no basis for claiming that your belief is rational. I would also suggest that if you fail to communicate your rationale for believing in a god to other people, then you KNOW that you don't have a valid rationale for doing so. To then continue to believe in a god is, in fact, irrational.

That would seem like a rather extreme position.

Maybe I've misunderstood you but, by your logic, if I couldn't convince a group of priests why it was not rational for them to believe in god, then I have no basis for claiming that their belief is not rational?

What if your rationale is communicable and comprehensible to your audience, but not accepted by them?? Why does rationality have anything to do with how successfully an argument is communicated???

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Y'know it could be easier for you to give your definition of God.

Easy yes, helpful no, because the only definition of "god" we can really run with is the one of the person claiming that "god" exists. Generally when having discourse with theists and deists I aim to insist on getting their definition of god in order to move the conversation forward.

And as you say the one we are getting from our resident new age nonsens-ist is a simple relabeling of all of reality to the word "god" and then QED drawn under that. Conversation over. Everything else he has written.... quite literally all of it.... is just filler.

However in my discourse with theists if they do insist I give MY definition of "god" I tell them I define it as something like "An intentional non-human agent responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe".

I find this definition coincides with what the vast majority of theisms and theists on here are actually claiming. I have yet to find one of them take issue with it at least. But I have yet to have one of them even start to substantiate the existence of such a defined entity either.

smacl wrote: »

Accepting information which comes from a trusted source, at a point in time when you're not aware of any contrary information, seems both reasonable and logical.

That would entirely depend on what the implications of that acceptance is. We are a species of limited resources and as such I can not fact check ever single thing that comes at me from all sources. One has to prioritize.

For example, before I knew better, if a trusted source told me Vitamin C was effective against the common cold I might have simply taken their word for it. Makes no implication on my life either way. The context means there are much more important claims being made that are deserving of my attention.

If the same person however said "Therefore large amount of your tax supported government funds will be diverted to providing weekly vitamin C supplements to all school children from age 5 to 15." I would instantly NOT see it as "reasonable or logical" to accept the source no matter how trusted they may be. I would want to know what they think they are claiming and on what basis.

And given when it comes to the god debate, the vast amount of things we are expected to grant off the back of it.... from blasphemy laws to what should be on our educational curriculum to how the existence of such an entity influences human ethics and morality.... I see nothing reasonable or logical whatsoever in even remotely accepting assertion from even the most trusted of sources on the matter.

So I move against the motion that "belief in god is rational".

smacl wrote: »

For example, when everyone else believed the world was flat, for the larger part of the population it was rational to do so.

But was it rational to do so because everyone else did? I do not think so. I think it was rational of them to think so because all the evidence they had available to them at that time supported the contention that the world was flat.

We have the benefit of hindsight now and in the light of the knowledge we have we can mock them good naturedly in retrospect and laugh at what they thought was true. But given the evidence they had supported that conclusion they were entirely rational to think so.

And when counter evidence began to appear those that believed not in the evidence but the status quo and majority were anything but rational. They were conformist and/or lazy and/or close minded.

rozeboosje

Sacksian wrote: »

Maybe I've misunderstood you

Maybe I didn't express myself well. Maybe I should have used the word "understood", rather than "accepted". You can understand another person's rationale but still reject it. My bad.

rozeboosje

Sacksian wrote: »

Why does rationality have anything to do with how successfully an argument is communicated.

Because if a person fails to communicate their rationale successfully, then they're effectively speaking "ex cathedra" when they say that they're being rational. "I'm being rational because I say so". I'm not sure in what sort of conversation THAT is acceptable, but it sure ain't gonna wash here.

rozeboosje

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think it was rational of them to think so because all the evidence they had available to them at that time supported the contention that the world was flat.

Exactly. Rationality can still lead to incorrect conclusions. If you start out from incorrect premises, impeccable logic will lead to incorrect conclusions. The rational thing to do, then, is to review your conclusions if you find evidence that suggests that your original premises may have been flawed.

smacl

rozeboosje wrote: »

Ok. Present the logic.

thank you.

Sorry, not quite what you're on about here. Rational means reasonable and logical because that is the definition given for the word in most major dictionaries.

Logical comes out as one of the following;

Merriam-Webster wrote:

log·i·cal adjective \ˈlä-ji-kəl\
: agreeing with the rules of logic : sensible or reasonable

: of or relating to the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning

When presented with information from a trusted source it seems sensible and reasonable to accept that information as true until such time as stronger contrary information is presented. If you have made an investment in a belief system, and believe you will harvest rewards by continuing that belief, it could be argued as sensible and reasonable to do so until such time as maintaining those beliefs is untenable.

Dan_Solo

Sacksian wrote: »

Maybe I've misunderstood you but, by your logic, if I couldn't convince a group of priests why it was not rational for them to believe in god, then I have no basis for claiming that their belief is not rational?

It doesn't have to necessarily convince. The request was for a rational argument of any sort, which we have yet to see.

rozeboosje

... and that is why this thread started out the way it did. When someone claims that "belief in god" is rational, then:

1) they must explain clearly what they mean by "god"
2) they must explain clearly what they mean by "belief" so that
3) we can understand clearly what they mean by "belief in god"

but that is only the start of it. They claim that "belief in god" is rational. Once we understand what they mean by "belief in god", then we need to explore whether they arrived at that position using correct "reason and logic". So the next thing - and this is a HUGE step - is
4) Find out what premises they have adopted. And this is HUGE because often premises are presented that themselves are based on a lot of unspoken assumptions. These need to be teased out through a long, rigorous process of nitpicking and pedantry, sorry [grin]

Are we done, then?
Nope. Finally

5) they need to present the logical steps that lead from 4) to a "belief in god". When they can do that, they have convinced me that "belief in god" is rational. And not a second earlier.

SpaceTime

In my opinion it's not rational but it's physiologically explainable.

The human brain doesn't like unanswered questions and mysteries. We have a very powerful brain that contemplates it's own existence and morality. Those concepts frighten us and don't really 'compute'.

There are also lots of natural phenomena that without technology we couldn't really get our heads around.

To fill in the blanks and provide 'logical' answers to mysteries we add supernatural explanations.

The problem is when religious explanations become dogma and prevent people from making scientific discoveries because reality and 'accepted narrative' clash.

That's something that doesn't happen in mainstream modern interpretations of most religions but it's creeping back in with a rise of dogmatic fundamentalism in certain places like the US and parts of the Islamic world.

I think Ireland and Europe is generally on a rational path where facts are facts. I can't really see anyone here taking teaching creationism as science as a serious proposition for example.

If you look at modern 20-21st century developed world thinking. Religion generally seems to move towards being a social space and a set of philosophies and comfort factor for dealing with mortality. Even the religious don't generally take irrational views when it comes to hard science and technology.

Basically we're living in a secular society which has a religious cultural heritage rather than a deeply religious society.

Dan_Solo

smacl wrote: »

When presented with information from a trusted source it seems sensible and reasonable to accept that information as true until such time as stronger contrary information is presented. If you have made an investment in a belief system, and believe you will harvest rewards by continuing that belief, it could be argued as sensible and reasonable to do so until such time as maintaining those beliefs is untenable.

You can't really use sensible and reasonable interchangeably here. It may be sensible for the good of the person to go accept a belief and act accordingly, but it cannot be reasonable to actually hold that belief without evidence to support it.

rozeboosje

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You can't really use sensible and reasonable interchangeably here. It may be sensible for the good of the person to go accept a belief and act accordingly, but it cannot be reasonable to actually hold that belief without evidence to support it.

... and I'd even be happy for smacl to use the word "reasonable" here. I'm not THAT much of a pedant. But hands off my special word "rational"

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However in my discourse with theists if they do insist I give MY definition of "god" I tell them I define it as something like "An intentional non-human agent responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe".

I find this definition coincides with what the vast majority of theisms and theists on here are actually claiming. I have yet to find one of them take issue with it at least. But I have yet to have one of them even start to substantiate the existence of such a defined entity either.

Agreed, although this bears little relationship with the pantheist notion of God, which I take to be a mis-use of the word that is obfuscating this debate.

And given when it comes to the god debate, the vast amount of things we are expected to grant off the back of it.... from blasphemy laws to what should be on our educational curriculum to how the existence of such an entity influences human ethics and morality.... I see nothing reasonable or logical whatsoever in even remotely accepting assertion from even the most trusted of sources on the matter.

So I move against the motion that "belief in god is rational".

Again agreed, but the context in this instance is your own experience of the subject, and the availability of supporting evidence. A you child brought up in a Catholic environment sent to a Catholic primary school would be working from a different context, so belief in god may for some time be rational. For an impoverished Muslim working the fields in Pakistan, living a rough life on the promise of a better afterlife, with no available information to contradict what they're taught, this belief may seem rational for their entire life.

And when counter evidence began to appear those that believed not in the evidence but the status quo and majority were anything but rational. They were conformist and/or lazy and/or close minded.

And some of those who didn't got burnt at the stake as heretics

Similarly, when travelling around the middle east for example it is reasonable, sensible and logical to keep my strongly held disdain for Islam to myself. I suspect some people here are using the word rational where they actually mean factual.

SpaceTime

It's rational if you're taught about god as if it is fact rather than theory.

You base your beliefs on what you're taught. If that's fiction you can rationally build explanations of your circumstances and environment based on available knowledge.

That community available knowledge may be irrational though.

When someone then challenges the foundations of a complicated belief system that adherents are heavily invested in the response is often angry. That's where it starts to become very irrational.

rozeboosje

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's rational if you're taught about god as if it is fact rather than theory.

What this is making clearer to me by the second is that rationality can change depending on what you DO with your beliefs. Given what a person knows, and if they are intellectually honest with themselves it can be "rational" for them to arrive at a conclusion such as "god exists". But if they try to bring this conclusion to a larger group, for example within the context of a discussion such as this, the "rationality" needs to be communicated to the entire group, and it ceases to be "rational" if this is not achieved.

rozeboosje

Or to present this in another way. See my post at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91126701&postcount=113

When a person is thinking about reality all by themselves, they can hold a certain set of premises to be valid, and by using correct reason and logic arrive at a particular conclusion. That conclusion would, under those circumstances, be "rational".

But when they bring this into a discussion with other people, they need to establish whether all of them hold the same premises to be true, and if they don't, and you can't explain why YOUR premises should be "true" while THEIR premises should be "false", then you are no longer "rational" if you then persist in clinging on to your original conclusions.

smacl

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You can't really use sensible and reasonable interchangeably here. It may be sensible for the good of the person to go accept a belief and act accordingly, but it cannot be reasonable to actually hold that belief without evidence to support it.

Why not. If a person believes they benefit from their belief, that is a reason to continue believing, and hence from a subjective point of view, the belief is reasonable.

The fact that you or I might consider the foundations of their belief system to be utter bollox only becomes significant when we present our arguments to the believer. In ignorance, their beliefs can be consider rational.

Where the irrational bit comes into play is where you have an obviously ridiculous belief (lets pick on transubstantiation) that someone insists on adhering to regardless of the massive contrary evidence. Most Catholic dogma in this country falls into that category in my book.

Nagirrac's pantheistic God isn't so easily shot down, other than it doesn't stack up with anyone else's notion of a God.

smacl

rozeboosje wrote: »

When a person is thinking about reality all by themselves, they can hold a certain set of premises to be valid, and by using correct reason and logic arrive at a particular conclusion. That conclusion would, under those circumstances, be "rational".

But when they bring this into a discussion with other people, they need to establish whether all of them hold the same premises to be true, and if they don't, and you can't explain why YOUR premises should be "true" while THEIR premises should be "false", then you are no longer "rational" if you then persist in clinging on to your original conclusions.

Nothing that can't be sorted out with a good old fashioned Jihad. They don't accept your well constructed perfectly rational arguments, kill the infidels.

rozeboosje

ROFL

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, although this bears little relationship with the pantheist notion of God, which I take to be a mis-use of the word that is obfuscating this debate.

Perhaps. I have to admit my knowledge of pantheism is much less than that of Christianity, Islam, Biology, Human Psychology, Epedemiology and so forth. On those I am educated. On Pantheism not so much.

But what I do know is that anyone I have seen espousing pantheist notions on forums has pretty much come across exactly as ngarric has done. Especially over on the City Data Forums where this Nozzferrahhtoo account posts a lot. There we have a multitude of them and each and every one of them.... when you press them on their beliefs..... are exactly doing what ngarric is doing. Simply swapping out one word (like "reality") and linguisticallly simply swapping back in the word "god".

And that _quite literally_ is it. From all my talks with pantheists I am getting nothing but a relabeling excercise by people who appear to have no other basis or motivation for doing so other than they really..... really REALLY..... really love the word "god".

It is a trend I have noticed in my years of forum use on the subject of religion. When I first started I got into all the standard debates about god. All the standard arguments from first cause to god of the gaps. I was daily debating the existence of god.

But in the last years I have noticed a total dilution. I hardly, if ever, see the standard arguments trotted out any more. People have given up on them. And instead I see people simply arguing for massively dilute and often meaningless definitions of "god" such as pantheist relabeling excercises described above.

Its like religion and god belief is dying off and what is left behind is people with a deep and powerful love of the WORD "god" who are massively reluctant to let it go.

My own personal impressions and feelings of course, not fact, but that is how I have been parsing my forum and public and private debate experiences of late.

smacl wrote: »

so belief in god may for some time be rational. For an impoverished Muslim working the fields in Pakistan, living a rough life on the promise of a better afterlife, with no available information to contradict what they're taught, this belief may seem rational for their entire life.

I am not sure I am entirely agreeing. It is almost parsing for me like we are using the word "rational" in place of words like "justifiable" and "warranted". Like Ngarric for example telling us that believing there is a god has beneficial side effects therefore it is "rational".

The belief is not rational. The side effects simply might be argued can "justify" operating under the beleif however. But the beleif itself is not made "rational" by proxy to this fact. Even if it were a fact. But the benefits of god belief is another on that list of things Ngarric asserts but never supports.

smacl wrote: »

Similarly, when travelling around the middle east for example it is reasonable, sensible and logical to keep my strongly held disdain for Islam to myself.

Ah indeed but this is a different subject. We have moved now from whether the belief itself is rational to whether or not it is prudent to keep your mouth shut around people with a penchant for homicidal mania. And I would certainly agree that "putting a sock in it" in such contexts is about as rational and reasonable as rational and reasonable gets most of the time..... unless one is well placed to.... and has a genuine desire to..... become a martyr.

smacl wrote: »

I suspect some people here are using the word rational where they actually mean factual.

Id go further as I said above. I think "rational" is being used in place of quite a number of other very workable words. Language, a living thing or not, as a man greater than I once said, has its vagaries.

And the more I learn how to use it and handle that great snake, the more slippery and elusive and dangerous it often seems to become.

rozeboosje

Something I missed earlier but ...

"some people here are using the word rational where they actually mean factual"

Those are very different things. Rationality allows one to derive logically valid conclusions from any set of premises. The conclusions, however, are and remain ONLY valid within the context of the premises as they are set out. What ISN'T rational is to insist that such a conclusion is universally valid if it can be demonstrated to be factually incorrect, as it means that at least one of the originally held premises MUST be false.

On the premise that it has just stopped raining you can validly conclude that the streets must be wet. It is, however, insane to expect the streets to be wet on that basis, without establishing whether it actually has been raining.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps. I have to admit my knowledge of pantheism is much less than that of Christianity, Islam, Biology, Human Psychology, Epedemiology and so forth. On those I am educated. On Pantheism not so much.

I also know very little about pantheism over and above what I've read while engaging in these debates, but do have a fair understanding of Taoism which has broad similarities. As such the Pantheist notion of 'God' would appear to fall much closer to the Tao than a western or abrahamic notion of God.

Its like religion and god belief is dying off and what is left behind is people with a deep and powerful love of the WORD "god" who are massively reluctant to let it go.

Religion is clearly fading in modern Europe, but I think people still love a bit of woo. Look at the decline in organised religion with the rise of the likes of Reiki, homoeopathy, crystallography and all sorts of other nonsense. My suspicion is that children who are raised with God and Santa want to hang on to a bit of the magical fantasy stuff. Whatever about the value of religion in society, its removal seems to leave a void of types.

The belief is not rational. The side effects simply might be argued can "justify" operating under the beleif however. But the beleif itself is not made "rational" by proxy to this fact. Even if it were a fact. But the benefits of god belief is another on that list of things Ngarric asserts but never supports.

I think it is necessary to distinguish between the subjective belief held by an individual and the objective statement that belief makes. For example, a child believes in Santa and from their subjective perspective it makes sense to do so. They have the information on good authority, and the belief gets rewarded. However, you, I and everyone else here knows that Santa doesn't exist* The same logic applies to our impoverished Muslim in rural Pakistan.

I see religion as a stage of social evolution that we pass through over time. Literally held truths get watered down to analogies. Fire and brimstone Gods become lovey-dovey and somewhat obscure. The body of Christ becomes a dry biscuit which goes on to get re-incarnated as a small sugar pill that does not contain any of the active ingredient on the bottle from which it came.


(*sorry if I missed out on putting a spoiler on that one)

rozeboosje

Ergo: it may be rational to hold a certain belief as long as you're living in splendid isolation, in your own little bubble with no awareness of anything other than your own premises, but as soon as you step out of that bubble and you insist on clinging on to a belief in the face of a challenge, without being able to answer to that challenge whatsoever, then it becomes irrational and, frankly, a little bit stupid.

Czarcasm

rozeboosje wrote: »

Of course. But if you are trying to COMMUNICATE your conclusion to other people, your rationale must be comprehensible, communicable and accepted by your audience. If you fail to do that, you have no basis for claiming that your belief is rational. I would also suggest that if you fail to communicate your rationale for believing in a god to other people, then you KNOW that you don't have a valid rationale for doing so. To then continue to believe in a god is, in fact, irrational.

Where that sort of one dimensional line of reasoning falls flat on it's arse though is if you were to take an example of an atheist trying to communicate their ideas to an audience of theists. Ultimately s/he will fail, because neither party will be able to reach a consensus on what they conclude is a rational argument based on logical thought processes.

Using your own justification - if you fail to communicate your rationale for your absence of belief to other people, then according to your own argument, the corollary should be that you KNOW that you don't have a valid rationale for your absence of belief. To then continue to have an absence of belief, is in fact irrational.

Your argument isn't compelling enough to convince enough people that you're right and they're wrong, so the onus is then back on you to come up with a more compelling argument. The only way in which you can do that is to first understand the way that the people you are trying to communicate your ideas to, think. You have to talk to them using language that they understand, not expect that they should have to learn your language so that you can convince them that they are the irrational and illogical person.

SpaceTime

rozeboosje wrote: »

What this is making clearer to me by the second is that rationality can change depending on what you DO with your beliefs. Given what a person knows, and if they are intellectually honest with themselves it can be "rational" for them to arrive at a conclusion such as "god exists". But if they try to bring this conclusion to a larger group, for example within the context of a discussion such as this, the "rationality" needs to be communicated to the entire group, and it ceases to be "rational" if this is not achieved.

I accept that but I think that maybe we are over-thinking what people's ability to think that deeply about this subject, particularly in the past or in less developed places. Most people operate within the scope of the knowledge that they have available to them. In the past (and in the present if you're brought up in a very religious environment or a theocracy) you were working from what were assumed to be 'established facts'. Often these facts were also unchallengable and deemed to be sacred and infallible too. Challenging them often came (and still comes with in some places) dire consequences like excommunication, social isolation, being burnt at the stake, jail sentences, etc etc.

If you go back before the mid 20th century the average person also didn't have an awful lot of education or time to think about these things. It was left up to priests, academics and philosophers to do all that for them and they were presented with a nice easy-to-use belief system that had been all thought out for them.

What's happening now I think is very much more a like a democratised, much more widespread and generalised 'enlightenment'. People have access to vast amounts of knowledge, more than they've ever had at any time in human history. We have very good levels of education in the developed world and we have a much better grasp of what's really going on around us.

To me, that's what's allowing people to think for themselves and to be much more rational than they were in the past.

Religious dogma is being challenged, socially damaging social mores are also being completely overthrown - sexism, homophobia etc etc has basically been thrown out the window. It's also completely undermining oppressive political and governmental regimes.

When you stand back and look at it, we've actually stepped into a very interesting period of human evolution where knowledge access is completely ubiquitous. It's an interesting time to live and it's going to get even more interesting as the level of access and the hyperconectivity just keeps increasing.

Watch over the coming years as it will become impossible for countries like China, North Korea, various middle eastern theocracies etc to control the flow of information as they won't be able to block or filter stuff like satellite-based mobile broadband.

The times they are a changing!

This is also why I think our recent blasphemy law is a complete and utter embarrassment!

Piliger

rozeboosje wrote: »

Ergo: it may be rational to hold a certain belief as long as you're living in splendid isolation, in your own little bubble with no awareness of anything other than your own premises, but as soon as you step out of that bubble and you insist on clinging on to a belief in the face of a challenge, without being able to answer to that challenge whatsoever, then it becomes irrational and, frankly, a little bit stupid.

No. It may 'appear' to the believer that he is rational.

Piliger

rozeboosje wrote: »

Something I missed earlier but ...

"some people here are using the word rational where they actually mean factual"

Those are very different things. Rationality allows one to derive logically valid conclusions from any set of premises. The conclusions, however, are and remain ONLY valid within the context of the premises as they are set out. What ISN'T rational is to insist that such a conclusion is universally valid if it can be demonstrated to be factually incorrect, as it means that at least one of the originally held premises MUST be false.

On the premise that it has just stopped raining you can validly conclude that the streets must be wet. It is, however, insane to expect the streets to be wet on that basis, without establishing whether it actually has been raining.

That is a very valid and true point However I am unable to see where it affects the topic

rozeboosje

Czarcasm wrote: »

an atheist trying to communicate their ideas to an audience of theists

Huh? What ideas? "Atheism" can be boiled down to "I've listened to you going on about your snake oil and I'm not buying it". Where do "ideas" come into that?

Piliger

smacl wrote: »

None of the definitions of the word involve a need for strict intellectual rigour.

I don't agree with this revisionist view of what a definition of a word is. A word is either used in one of it's meaning or it is not. Meaning is not something that requires intellectual rigour, it just needs to be clear.

This becomes important because most people don't apply strict intellectual rigour to most of their decision making, yet the decisions they make can't be considered irrational on that basis.

It depends on what you call 'most'. Most people of reasonable intelligence make most of their decisions based on purely subjective reasoning, personal prejudice and randomness. Those far fewer decisions that need to be assessed for the purpose of making a choice based on outcomes are made by most people based on very rational bases. Choosing the cheapest mortgage, the best petrol, where to live, where to shop.
Thus some decisions are totally irrational and some are perfectly rational. When lady goes to the restaurant with her friends and chooses three items off the menu there is no rational basis for the decision. It is purely subjective and probably spontaneous. We make lots of completely irrational decisions and choices every day.

People make decisions more typically based on balance of probability (which is based in turn on their own limited experience and expertise), and personal preference or bias. This is perfectly rational.

What is rational ? to live on this basis ? of course it is ! But it is wrong to say that every decision we make is rational.

It is unreasonable to apply your own contextualisation of a given term when dismissing someone else's reasonable use of the same term.

I disagree with this attitude that seem to claim that everyone can use a word however they like and no one is right or wrong. This is a nonsense.

rozeboosje

Piliger wrote: »

I disagree with this attitude that seem to claim that everyone can use a word however they like and no one is right or wrong. This is a nonsense.

"however they like", certainly not. But when words are clearly commonly used in different ways in different contexts, especially when such various uses of such a word are all presented as variations in many dictionaries then yes, people are perfectly entitled to use such a word in one of the alternative ways.

Piliger

rozeboosje wrote: »

Huh? What ideas? "Atheism" can be boiled down to "I've listened to you going on about your snake oil and I'm not buying it". Where do "ideas" come into that?

This is not true at all. The ideas that Atheists are spreading and that are catching on all over the world are those of 'rational thinking', 'logic', 'reason'.

In addition, Atheists have important ideas to communicate about how morality does not come from religion, how a life without religion is far more liberating and fulfilling, how a life without the need to cling to a supernatural paternalistic controller of our lives allows us, as a race, to at last grow up.

rozeboosje

Piliger wrote: »

This is not true at all. The ideas that Atheists are spreading and that are catching on all over the world are those of 'rational thinking', 'logic', 'reason'.

In addition, Atheists have important ideas to communicate about how morality does not come from religion, how a life without religion is far more liberating and fulfilling, how a life without the need to cling to a supernatural paternalistic controller of our lives allows us, as a race, to at last grow up.

Whoa, wait a second. Let's separate a few things. Firstly, I stand by what I just said. HOWEVER, of course a lot, even MOST Atheists go much further than that, and then all those things you just mentioned do come into play. Most of these things in response to crazy accusations thrown at us from various religious quarters.

Piliger

rozeboosje wrote: »

"however they like", certainly not. But when words are clearly commonly used in different ways in different contexts, especially when such various uses of such a word are all presented as variations in many dictionaries then yes, people are perfectly entitled to use such a word in one of the alternative ways.

You are confusing two things. 'Different in a different context'. Of course this is true. Window is used in one context to mean something on a house that opens to let the air in and out. Window in psychophysical context can mean something else. Lots of words have different meanings in different contexts.
But 'different in the same context' ? this is no longer the case and language has absolutely no purpose or value if what you are saying were to be true,

Piliger

rozeboosje wrote: »

Whoa, wait a second. Let's separate a few things. Firstly, I stand by what I just said. HOWEVER, of course a lot, even MOST Atheists go much further than that, and then all those things you just mentioned do come into play. Most of these things in response to crazy accusations thrown at us from various religious quarters.

I have no idea what that mean ... maybe it's me

rozeboosje

Piliger wrote: »

But 'different in the same context' ? this is no longer the case and language has absolutely no purpose or value if what you are saying were to be true,

What do you think I'm saying?

Czarcasm

Piliger wrote: »

That is a very valid and true point However I am unable to see where it affects the topic

I think it's part of rozeboosejes continuing efforts to redefine and limit the meaning of commonly understood words to set the premise for an argument solely from their own point of view.

The only logical conclusion I can draw from looking at the evidence is that nobody else's argument will be agreeable to rozeboosjes perspective, because they aren't prepared to agree to use his individual definitions for words with commonly understood meaning in everyday discourse.

Honestly, it's a bit like watching a mirror image of niggarac at work (I'm reminded of so many episodes from Star Trek, the original series - the species that were diametrically opposed to each other because "look at him, he's white on the left, black on the right. I'm white on the right, black on the left!", or the two lads from parallel universes, locked in infinite conflict).

That's why this thread will never progress beyond so many previous threads of this type, because the person making the challenge to have their perspective changed, will only listen to opinion that agrees with their perspective from the get-go so to speak.

That, to me at least, is the epitome of a closed mind that has no intention of changing their perspective, which is based on their own inherent prejudices, prejudices which are logical and rational to them, in their mind, and they are unwilling to be moved from that position.

rozeboosje

Piliger wrote: »

I have no idea what that mean ... maybe it's me

Sorry. Ok, let me try again.

In principle, Atheism means one thing, and one thing only: you've heard the waffle, and you're not buying it. That's all.

But Atheists don't live in a vacuum. You tell someone that you don't buy into their specific brand of BS, and next thing you're getting it in the neck. "You don't believe in my GOD, so you must be immoral scum". "You don't believe in my GOD, so your worldview can't possibly make sense". Yada, yada, yada. And of course Atheists feel they need to defend their position. All very understandable. But in the end, the position is pretty simple.

smacl

Piliger wrote: »

I don't agree with this revisionist view of what a definition of a word is. A word is either used in one of it's meaning or it is not. Meaning is not something that requires intellectual rigour, it just needs to be clear.

If a word is not used to communicate any one of its defined and accepted meanings, it is ambiguous at best and likely to be a misuse of that word. For example, rozeboosje said "we do need at least one word to convey a need for strict intellectual rigour. It makes sense to use the strongest term, "rational", to convey that". This is wrong, as rational does not mean to have a need for strict intellectual rigour.

I disagree with this attitude that seem to claim that everyone can use a word however they like and no one is right or wrong. This is a nonsense.

That's why I tend to be so pedantic. From what I gather, the point of this thread is to discuss whether belief in God is rational. Changing the meaning of the word rational mid-thread to mean something else is nonsensical.

rozeboosje

Czarcasm wrote: »

I think it's part of rozeboosejes continuing efforts to redefine and limit the meaning of commonly understood words to set the premise for an argument solely from their own point of view.

The only logical conclusion I can draw from looking at the evidence is that nobody else's argument will be agreeable to rozeboosjes perspective, because they aren't prepared to agree to use his individual definitions for words with commonly understood meaning in everyday discourse.

Honestly, it's a bit like watching a mirror image of niggarac at work (I'm reminded of so many episodes from Star Trek, the original series - the species that were diametrically opposed to each other because "look at him, he's white on the left, black on the right. I'm white on the right, black on the left!", or the two lads from parallel universes, locked in infinite conflict).

That's why this thread will never progress beyond so many previous threads of this type, because the person making the challenge to have their perspective changed, will only listen to opinion that agrees with their perspective from the get-go so to speak.

That, to me at least, is the epitome of a closed mind that has no intention of changing their perspective, which is based on their own inherent prejudices, prejudices which are logical and rational to them, in their mind, and they are unwilling to be moved from that position.

Really? How did you work that one out?

rozeboosje

smacl wrote: »

Changing the meaning of the word rational mid-thread to mean something else is nonsensical.

ra·tion·al
ˈraSHənl,ˈraSHnəl/
adjective
adjective: rational

1.
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.


I'm not changing anything, I'm just asking people to stick to one specific use of the word, because if we DON'T, then there is no word left to express what needs to be said.


I'm not closed-minded on this. Give me a better word and I'm happy to adopt it. I've told you that 3 times now.

rozeboosje

ra·tion·al (rsh-nl)
adj.
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.

log·i·cal (lj-kl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
2. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.
3. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.


rea·son
ˈrēzən/
noun
noun: reason; plural noun: reasons

1.
a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
"the minister resigned for personal reasons"
synonyms: cause, ground(s), basis, rationale; More
motive, motivation, purpose, point, aim, intention, objective, goal;
explanation, justification, argument, defense, vindication, excuse, pretext
"the main reason for his decision"
good or obvious cause to do something.
"we have reason to celebrate"
Logic
a premise of an argument in support of a belief, especially a minor premise when given after the conclusion.
2.
the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

Any other nonsense?

Vivisectus

czarcasm wrote:

From an outside perspective, a belief in God can appear to be a completely irrational, illogical, and quite frankly batshìt crazy idea to a person who does not share their opinion as it doesn't fit with their world view.

BUT, to the person themselves who bases their belief on faith, such a belief is completely rational and logical in their opinion, because it fits with their world view.

The difference between the two, really comes down to the individual's perspective of what IS actually rational or logical, and that's where the fun begins -

Do you keep your opinions to yourself, or do you impose them on people whom you find don't share your opinion, and then the question becomes - how far are you willing to go to impose your world view on another person who doesn't share your world view?

I find this a bit strange. If I apply your reasoning to a hyperbolic example - let us say that I hold the opinion that a left-sock-eating gnome lives in my sock drawer, and also hold the opinion that this is a rational belief, then the level of rationality we can ascribe to this idea is really just a matter of perspective? There is no way that we can weigh an alternative explanation based on it's objective merits and see if it is more or less rational?

Piliger

rozeboosje wrote: »

Sorry. Ok, let me try again.

In principle, Atheism means one thing, and one thing only: you've heard the waffle, and you're not buying it. That's all.

But Atheists don't live in a vacuum. You tell someone that you don't buy into their specific brand of BS, and next thing you're getting it in the neck. "You don't believe in my GOD, so you must be immoral scum". "You don't believe in my GOD, so your worldview can't possibly make sense". Yada, yada, yada. And of course Atheists feel they need to defend their position. All very understandable. But in the end, the position is pretty simple.

You said there are no 'ideas' involved in Atheism's dialogue with theists. I disagreed and demonstrated that there are many ideas

rozeboosje

Piliger wrote: »

You said there are no 'ideas' involved in Atheism's dialogue with theists. I disagreed and demonstrated that there are many ideas

Er.... no. I said that Atheism itself is not based on an "idea". BEING an Atheist, on the other hand, is a different story altogether.

Piliger

Czarcasm wrote: »

I think it's part of rozeboosejes continuing efforts to redefine and limit the meaning of commonly understood words to set the premise for an argument solely from their own point of view.

No. It was a perfectly valid and wholly true statement that ""some people here are using the word rational where they actually mean factual".

I didn't see it is as all that relevant because you and a few others do not make this mistake.

You guys cannot distinguish between "Rational" and Irrational". A far more elemental problem and one that is at the core of theists' problem.

Piliger

rozeboosje wrote: »

Er.... no. I said that Atheism itself is not based on an "idea". BEING an Atheist, on the other hand, is a different story altogether.

Atheism is based on the idea that there is no god. Atheists simply do not believe in gods or supernatural entities.
In addition the original post that spawned this fun ... said "an Atheist trying to communicate their ideas to an audience of theists".

Atheists do have many important ideas to communicate to theists.

Vivisectus

If God is simply all of existence and reality, then it boils down to a belief in the existence of matter, more or less. It is the same as not believing in God.