Hence, belief is irrational and nonbelief rational.
Yes. So it’s rational to answer, “I don’t know,” vs taking on an irrational belief.
This is an error on your part. Atheism is the absence of belief, not having a different belief.
1 Like
It’s really interesting to me how this debate is being framed as binary. Imo, neither atheism not belief in God qualifies as ‘rational’, because both are based on assumptions we can’t really justify. Why is ‘Idon’t fucking know, and I’m not going to pretend I know’ not being discussed as the only ACTUAL rational opinion?
3 Likes
I don’t have much thought either way haven’t posted on PWI in a while and can’t remember ever conversing. I don’t have strong opinions about people on anon forums no matter what. I’m sure he and I agree on far far far more than we disagree on.
Yeah and my example was extreme on purpose of course. I think pretty much everyone on t-nation would tend to think that losing 20 pounds from a chocolate chip cookie is quite the statement and would like to see why the author says it is possible. If the answer was it’s chocolate chip fairies you can’t see a special kind I think most of us would start to dismiss it. If we asked the author to prove that these fairies existed and he answered with well prove they don’t I think we would be frustrated with that response. And if we said well we can’t PROVE fat burning chocolate chip fairies aren’t in that cookie we haven’t seen but that doesn’t mean they are I think we would be frustrated. And it the response by the author was well you’re just incapable of understanding fat burning chocolate chip fairies the site would have some pretty annoyed members.
1 Like
I think i’ve miscommunicated here then because that’s exactly what i was trying to stay.
1 Like
Yea I got that from you. More directed at H and RT.
1 Like
I’ve been an atheist for my whole adult and adolescent life but I’m also a confirmed Roman Catholic, being raised in the Catholic Church, completing all Sacraments up to Confirmation. I’ve read plenty of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and agree with a lot of what they have to say, but…
The older I get and the more I learn about myself, other people and the world around us, the more I’m leaning away from atheism and into lapsed Catholic. That’s a long discussion far outside the purview of this thread.
Much like passing nationwide abortion legislation in 1973 was far outside the purview of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
That said, what would you say was the better alternative to religion for your typical Byzantine?
Are you arguing that the quality of life is what justifies it. Should we be able to kill all the homeless people?
As I said agnostic atheist is usually how I would define myself because as everyone has said I can’t disprove God’s existence nor would I try. I have no need to do such a thing. Personally I don’t even know why believers get up in arms over the rational thing so much. It’s called faith just own that. But I’m also typically a stickler for definitions and I still think by definition of the word it’s hard to define faith as rational for reasons already laid out.
1 Like
I’m saying I find it incredibly contradictory to claim to be pro life and be against so many quality of life things. I would never advocate for killing homeless people. That sounds like a pro life side thing (they are parasites, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, etc.)
But leaving out any of the quality of life stuff I pointed out that abortions are performed to save the mothers life sometimes when the fetus is either already dead or has no chance of making it. How is it pro life to take two lives instead of one?
I don’t know any states that are banning abortion to save the mother’s life. I could be wrong
Why wouldn’t they? It seems logically consistent to do so. I also do not know nor care to try and figure out what state is doing what with all the stuff up in the air. My point is a lot of pro lifers say they want abortions to end and then when you get down to the details they come up with all these well not in that case…
And then who makes the decision about when? We just said women can’t make that decision so who does now? At what point of certainty. If a doctor gives a baby a 5% chance of surviving and tells the husband if carried to term the mother is incredibly likely to die how is he supposed to feel? Is she a murderer if they decide not to take that risk or try to have one? Is the doctor?
It’s been a few years but I won’t forget a colleague I had that worker in an office about 50 minutes away. I do not remember the specific details on what it was whether it was septic but I talked to her one day and she was having a situation similar to what we are talking about. This was actually her daughter who was pregnant. She told me I know my daughter is heartbroken and I am as well about my grandbaby but you should see her. This is killing MY baby (her daughter). They did end up terminating and her daughter did end up recovering in a few months.
It seems incredibly heartless and laughable to say pro life means you think two people need to die.
It also is completely ignoring history to think back alley and attempted self abortions aren’t coming back. And then you might catch yourself some more bodies.
I need to stick up for myself now. I have taken more mathematics courses than anyone I know. I used them to raise my GPA. When I say “proof” or “prove” that is based on solid, facts. When I say “rational” is if far from “proven”, not even close. “Rational” is based on clear thought or reason. When compared to “proven”, “rational” is opinion oriented, based on what someone believes.
We cannot assume everyone knows what you know.
This is a perfect example. I say there is no “proof” and the reply is to equate “proof” to “rational”. IMO, this is extremely illogical.
Now, doesn’t anyone see the distinction between “proof” and “rational?” If not, I will plead being the idiot in this conversation.
I tend to think that debates like this typically end up binary because the “I don’t know” crowd ends up drawing the ire of both sides, as opposed to just one or the other.
I don’t think any sort of conclusive claim can be made to prove/disprove the existence of a god. And in the total lack of evidence, “I don’t know” is the only “rational” answer.
3 Likes
You make a good point about “prove” vs “rational” - I just looked up the definitions, and you’re correct.
Even acknowledging that you’re talking about thought/reasoning rather than explicit proof, wouldn’t some set of facts be necessary to build your reasoning upon? Maybe we’re getting too semantic.
“Rational” has to be based on a person’s current knowledge.
“Rational” does not mean you are correct. Only that conclusion makes sense at the time you make it.
One more thing since I haven’t posted in a while as someone who is pro choice I have stated over and over again that I think we should do as much as we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies. But the pro life side is the absolute worst at doing that. They are the ones fighting sex ed and contraception. Those policies lead to more teen pregnancies. They lead to more people getting pregnant before they are ready. They throw out things like hold a Tylenol between your knees or don’t have sex until you can be a parent. Very helpful considering that’s very rarely going to be followed. This is not based in the reality of how humans work.
The being against healthcare, daycare, maternity leave, etc etc etc is just icing on the cake. They seem to want a raped 13 year old to carry to term no matter what but once that 13 year old has the baby fuck ‘em both.
If that is the case nothing can be irrational. Which means the definition of rational is incorrect.
It would also mean we shouldn’t ask for proof in anything.
Better look up the definition of “rational”. That’s what I did.
What dictionary you looking at that I’m not? I’m not super into pure semantics here because if that’s the route you’re going down asking questions doesn’t make sense. Which is not what you or hardly anyone else does.
That was Cambridge
If you use Merriam Webster we then must define “reason”. But that isn’t based on proof either