Nowhere357

Afaik, he is.

I think cherry picking is a hell of a lot more reasonable then fundamentalism, for example.

Really? I didn't know that. Still don't, I guess.

Of course not. I think he's a rational person if he is generally rational.

Biff the unclean

I'm lost again?
A person holds irrational beliefs, knows that they are irrational, boasts that they are irrational and as such are not subject to rational examination...and you think this person still qualifies as being rational? Do you grade on a curve?

Even if you assume that this person shows some rationality in other parts of their life (though what would lead you to believe that I haven't seen on these boards) why would you not simply dismiss the irrational belief on the simple grounds that it is irrational?
Yes, I had read your bit about maybe in the future we will have a reason for this belief--though after two thousand years with zilch you'll pardon me if I don't hold my breath. But if a person makes a claim without any reason behind it then the person is, by definition, lying. It doesn't matter if sometime in the future it turns out that whatever they claimed is so. They are saying something is true that they didn't know was true. If it should turn out to be true then that is only by chance. So if a person admits to you that they hold an irrational belief they are admitting to you that they are lying. So why entertain a belief that the believer has already told you is a lie?:banghead:

Nowhere357

The person may, yes. As per the examples I've given, which haven't been refuted.

I suppose this was meant to be flip, but actually I had to think about my answer.

Yes I grade on a curve here. I don't hold children and (other) animals to the same standards of reasoning ability as I do, say, II forum posters.

I haven't talked with RBAC and have only read some of his posts in this thread and none anywhere else. He admits his faith is not rational, which imo is a sign of rationality. I would need to talk with him on subjects like sports, politics, raising children, movies, history, etc to form an opinion of his general rationality, but I see no reason to assume a priori that he would fail such a "test".

In my experience, a belief in a religion directly indicates nothing about a person - other than the person's religious beliefs.

I understand your point, but your vision here is a little narrow. For example, it is a very poor idea to dismiss the irrational belief of your teenage daughter when she claims to be in love.

Another equally poor example - should we assign a claustrophobic man to serve on a submarine, because his claustrophobia is irrational and can therefore be dismissed?

Yes it's okay. Although the point was that reason is a tool we use and that's all it is. No need to elevate it to some sort of "omni-" status.

Actually, "lying" requires intent to deceive, by definition.

I read where the formation of the earth has been pushed back from 50 million years after the birth of the sun, to about 10,000 years. Of course the scientists weren't lying to us before.

And Galileo formulated a theory which put the earth orbiting the sun. He assumed he was correct but didn't know for a fact. It turns out he was right, and of course that's not due to mere chance.

So I disagree with your statements here, on all counts.

If a person claimed their irrational beliefs were rational, you might have a point. But given the lack of this claim, and given the dictionary definition of "lying", then no, you are wrong here.

If a mother felt the need to check on her children, even though we know the kids are safe, is it fair to accuse her of lying?

Bumble Bee Tuna

The logic is VERY simple.

1. Rational people would not harbor beliefs that they admit are irrational without trying to examine and change those beliefs.
2. RBAC harbors a belief that he admits is irrational.
3. RBAC does not try to change that belief.
4. Therefore, RBAC is irrational.

A rational person would not be OK with having an irrational belief, just like a "good" person would not be OK with doing "some" evil.

My argument does NOT say:
theism <=> irrational person
atheism <=> rational person

My argument DOES say:
admittedly irrational theism + failure to change irrational theism after admitting it = irrational person.
By definition.

I would also add that I by no means believe that

irrational person => incapable of making rational decisions.

Are we clear now? Because I really don't know if I can make it clearer. Your attempts to strawman my position really did nothing to help the discussion.

-B

Bumble Bee Tuna

To draw the most likely conclusions from a given set of data.

-B

Llyricist

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-mennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Bumble Bee Tuna

Nowhere, I guess you and I think two different things when we hear someone describes as rational.

I think "This person always tries, although sometimes failing, to use reason when faced with a decision."

You think "This person usually tries to use reason when faced with a decision, but sometimes might not." (or something of the sort, I can't claim to read your mind)

The way I understand the word, one cannot be rational if they have irrational beliefs and accept them. They might sometimes do irrational things, because emotions tend to be irrational and everyone is run by their emotions. But they will try to avoid irrational emotions when possible. Your examples:

gut feeling-

entirely irrational, and often wrong. A rational person would not want to make a decision based on a gut feeling.

mother's instinct-

irrational, a rational person would regret doing some instinctual unnecessary checkup. They would probably still do it, because instincts are strong, but they would not say "yeah that was irrational, but it was right to do anyway". They could claim rationality, though, if their reasoning was "I feel bad because I am not doing this checkup. My bad feeling will not go away until I do a checkup. The bad feeling would be worse than the time wasted doing the checkup. Therefore I will go do the checkup". That's perfectly rational. A rational person recognizes the way brains function.

you claim you know your kids are average, but believe they are special. I believe you are confusing yourself here. You know they are average, therefore you believe that they are average. However, you also know that to you, they are special. Not contradictory or irrational.

-B

Biff the unclean

(Nowhere) The person may, yes. As per the examples I've given, which haven't been refuted.
You seem to be asking that religion be made into a special case.
A person who had sex only once a month would not qualify as a virgin.
A person who only had a cigarette when she went out with friends would not qualify as a non-smoker.
And so a person who admits to being irrational, but only when it comes to religion, would not be rational

I suppose this was meant to be flip
That is a problem with the internet. Were we talking together I would push my glasses to the end of my noble nose, raise one eyebrow and stare at you until you felt uncomfortable. But here on the boards I'm reduced to being flip.

In my experience, a belief in a religion directly indicates nothing about a person - other than the person's religious beliefs.
Since almost every Christian I meet is a "cherry picker" their beliefs reveal almost everything about them.

I understand your point, but your vision here is a little narrow. For example, it is a very poor idea to dismiss the irrational belief of your teenage daughter when she claims to be in love.
But that of course isn't anything like what we are talking about.
If my teen aged daughter's (she's actually in her 30's) irrational belief were about a six foot tall invisible rabbit who had super powers and lived on the other side of the sky in a magic world that you could only see if you were dead I could certainly dismiss them.
This trick of trying to equate your God with love cannot possible work on any but the very "slow." I don't know why Christians keep bringing it up, it's rather demeaning of you. You aren't talking about a human emotion--you can demonstrate a human emotion. You are talking about an invisible super-hero that you cannot demonstrate.

Another equally poor example - should we assign a claustrophobic man to serve on a submarine, because his claustrophobia is irrational and can therefore be dismissed?
Can you produce a man?
Can you produce a man who suffers from claustrophobia?
Can you demonstrate the ill effects close confinement would have on this man?
Yes. Therefore there's nothing irrational being talked about.

Can you produce a God?


Although the point was that reason is a tool we use and that's all it is. No need to elevate it to some sort of "omni-" status.
No one raised it to omni-status, whatever that means. That would be a straw boy (somewhat smaller than a straw man)
But to say that the admittedly irrational is rational only because you are talking about religion is nonsense.

Actually, "lying" requires intent to deceive, by definition.
That intent was stated when the believer declared his belief irrational. "I don't know this is true but I'm going to believe it's true anyway."

Of course the scientists weren't lying to us before.
No they weren't because they were reporting to you the information that they possessed. The Religious irrational person is reporting to you information they do not posses.

He assumed he was correct but didn't know for a fact.
That’s simply not true.

If a person claimed their irrational beliefs were rational, you might have a point. But given the lack of this claim, and given the dictionary definition of "lying", then no, you are wrong here.
That a person warns you that what they are telling you is a lie does not make them an honest person.

If a mother felt the need to check on her children, even though we know the kids are safe, is it fair to accuse her of lying?
How is a mother's concern irrational? Why do you keep misrepresenting what is being said? Why do you keep making it so nice and sweet?
If I said that you were secretly a Catholic Priest who buggered altar boys would I be lying?
I have no idea who you actually are. I have no idea of how to prove that you were a molester of small boys. In other words I have no rational reason to hold this belief. It is an irrational belief.
So I believe that you rape small innocent boys while performing your duties of the Blessed Sacrament. According to your "rational" this belief would be the same as a mother looking over her sleeping new born.

Bumble Bee Tuna

You seem to misunderstand my/our position. Nobody is claiming that irrational emotions are to be dismissed.They're a fact of life and it would be, well, irrational to think you could ignore them.

But, imagine the claustrophobic man were described as "rational". What would his opinion be about his phobia?

A. He would know it's irrational, want to be rid of it, and regret decisions he made because he was too weak about his fear

B. He would know it's irrational, but say that's fine, it was perfectly acceptable to make decisions in his life based on it and he didn't mind being claustrophobic

I would say A, if he were a rational person. A rational person is not going to find his/her irrational beliefs to be acceptable.

-B

Sabine Grant

ok....what should be the PRACTICAL result of the use of the gift of reason. Not in the abstract. In daily reality. Should the use of the gift of reason lead to POSITIVE accomplishments which will impact POSITIVELY on others thru practical application?