No but a sky man who sends you to a land if you don’t believe in him to be tortured for all eternity is as rational as it comes.
It does to them. Hence subjective.
And they would say the same thing to you? Hence subjective? Not sure how else to explain it lol
Of course it’s rational to them. Why wouldn’t it be? I think when people kneel at their bed and pray they’re being irrational. Do you share my view of prayer being irrational? Because if not, seems like you’re inserting some subjectivity into it, eh?
Again, you can say whatever you want but the definitions remain the same. Faith is irrational.
What is theism? Is it not a belief in a supernatural being? A being with intelligence? It’s not something inanimate.
And no, your paranoia is misplaced. Also, I am not restating an opinion but simply stating facts.
This is completely wrong. It is totally rational if you believe that you are doing God/Allah’s work. In fact, if one honestly believed that he was following divine orders then it would be crazy to not murder.
1 Like
Weird. It’s almost like viewpoints varying from person to person makes it subjective.
Then again, I’m sure pat will show up and tell me how irrational he thinks prayer is like I do, proving once and for all there’s no subjectivity to what we determine is “rational.”
The problem for pat is that if he still believes that Muslim terrorists are irrational then he has to accept his own irrationality as their starting point, that their belief is right, is the same as his.
Ug. The word means what posted as it’s definition. I know what you are saying I just disagree with the lingo. You’re using the term in a psychological sense, more as a verb to rationalize. I would say a better word for it is ‘justification’. That makes is more subjective.
The problem is something rational is fact based. If we are going to start calling irrational beliefs as rational, than the person saying 2+2=-1 is just as rational as someone saying 2+4=4, and one is rational and the other is not.
There are things that are rational and things that are irrational, whether or not a person thinks it so. They may justify irrational beliefs or thoughts, but those things are no more rational because they think them to be.
There is no problem for pat. Mind reading ain’t your thing, so quit.
To quote pfury ‘swingandamiss’.
Geez dude, you don’t even know what theism is? How the hell can you be an ‘atheist’ when you don’t know what ‘theism’ is?
Nope. Literally all wrong. Except for the “means what posted as it’s definition” part I guess
And since religion isn’t fact based, but faith based, I called it irrational?
Says the guy who couldn’t figure out the difference between “extremely” and “excessively”
swingandamiss (that’s how it’s done)
edit: I see now you said mind reading lol. Ima let it stand. I deserve this one. The irony is not lost upon me.
I think you don’t know what theism means. Also, why would you assume I am an atheist? I know what faith actually means whereas you don’t. I also know what rational means and you don’t even after posting the definition.
If you believe in God then it is logical, and rational, to behave in ways and make decisions that are in accordance with that belief.
1 Like
Well this is going no where… So I am content to let it die. If we cannot agree on commonly accepted definitions of basic words, we’ll never get any where.
For instance, in someone really believed that 2+2=5, regardless of their belief in it, it’s irrational. It does not follow from actual facts. It’s not rational for them and irrational for everybody else.
First it’s a strawman.
I never said that and your welcome to hold that opinion, but if you really believe that religious faith is based on an absence of fact, you simply haven’t done your homework.
Don’t take what I did not say to you, personally. Seriously, it wasn’t directed at you, why you taking it like I did? Unless carlo is your alter-ego that you use.
Anyway, I am content to let it die. I don’t enjoy going in circles, it makes me dizzy.
Can we shake on it and call it a day? We may not agree here, but we do in other areas…
Very much so agreed.
let’s agree to disagree lol
Because I used the word excessively and you followed up by changing it to extremely on half a dozen occasions even after I pointed out your mistake. I was really just laughing at your expense before I realized I also misread your statement. I promise I didn’t take anything personally. I promise I’ll never take anything you say personally lol.
100% Have a good one
1 Like
It’s not what faith does with facts but what it does in the absence of facts. That is what faith is based on.
What is this, “I know you are, but what am I?”
Given the fact that what you said about theism doesn’t resemble what theism is, but what you seem to interpret from an outside in view of religion. Theism is a philosophical proposition, not religious term. If you knew that, then you would not have kept referring to religiousness in regards to it. There are theists, who do not ascribe or believe in religion. It is a basal belief for the branch of philosophy call theology, but they are not the same thing.
You constant conflation of theism with religion was indicative that you don’t know what it means. Hell you could have just looked it up, it’s not like a big secret.
I don’t think you know what you are other than an antagonist. I sure don’t know, other than you are extremely anti-religious and vitriolic.
Something tells me you are going to sling some insult at me and try to score a point. Have at it, I am disengaging.
A. Post the definition of theism. If it does not state that it is the belief in deities or gods, as theism comes from the Greek word for god, then I am wrong.
B. You call me an antagonist because you are frustrated with being wrong.
You are disengaging because you are too vain to admit you are wrong. If you believed you could “win”, since you brought up points, then you would stick it out. Your history on this subject has shown that.