Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Luiseach · 05-31-2003, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
As far as the most common example of the use of rationalizing which can produce a negative effect......

-an alcoholic spouse tells his or her co dependent spouse... " you make me drink"

-a mother or father hits a child " you made me angry"

- a wife spends more than what she should have... her reply to the concerned husband " I thought you wanted me to go ahead and buy it"

I doubt that as human beings none of us ever rationalized our behavior to escape the route to personal accountability.

There is a difference between 'reasoning' and 'rationalising.' The examples provided in the above excerpt illustrate rationalisation, not reason or rationality.

The terms 'rationalize' and 'rational thought process'/'reason' are not interchangeable.

For clarification-----

Two of the meanings for 'rationalisation' are as follows:

'to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct' (Merriam Webster, s.v. 'rationalization')

and

'to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and esp. unconscious motives' (Merriam Webster, s.v. 'rationalization')

'Reason,' on the other hand, is defined as follows:

'a rational ground or motive......a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; esp. something...that supports a conclusion or explains a fact......the thing that makes some fact intelligible......the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking esp. in orderly rational ways......proper exercise of the mind......sanity...' (Merriam Webster, s.v. 'reason')

There we have some salient differences between 'rationalisation' and 'reason' (or using rational thought processes).

Quote:

...how does the fact that Hitler would have been a sociopath refute my argument that a rational thought process can produce evil?

...because sociopathic behaviour as displayed by Hitler is not supported by reason or rational thought processes; it is the result of rationalisation.

mike_decock · 05-31-2003, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
I do not know where you found that the presumed location of the first invidual who illustrated the Aryan race was the garden of Eden... can you provide more documentation on that claim?

Quote:

He believed that Adam and Eve were created by God in his image, but he also believed that not all of us are descended from Adam and Eve (interestingly enough, one of the Christian fundamentalists on my Hate Mail page shares this belief). To be more specific, Hitler believed that the Aryan race was descended from Adam and Eve, but everyone else evolved naturally (I have personally encountered people who still believe this).

He believed that Jesus of Nazareth was an Aryan, not a Jew, and that Jesus fought the Jews and was killed by them.

Adolph Hitler's Religion

Quote:

"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."

Mein Kampf

Quote:

I have not studied any passages of Mein Kampf in which Hitler claims to follow God's Will to restore the Aryan race which started with Adam. Considering that his main inspiration to the Aryan supreme race was driven by the works of Nietzsche who promotes zoroastrian philosophy, I wonder how the author of that web site can reconciliate that reality with what you claim the author states.

Quote:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Mein Kampf

Quote:

Hitler echoes Martin Luther's thoughts on Satan and Jewry; note that Hitler openly admired Luther, who wrote the virulent anti-Semitic screed "On Jews And Their Lies", and the infamous Kristallnacht was committed on Luther's birthday.

Adolf Hitler's Religion

Quote:

your analysis as to the roots of antisemitism in Europe lacks to reveal the fact that jews were from the Middle Ages skilled in finances.

Are you arguing that anti-semitism was purely a financial prejudice?

Quote:

I am also curious as to where the term " altar boy " ( your quote) comes from.

Quote:

Hitler was a Roman Catholic, baptized into that religio-political institution as an infant in Austria. He became a communicant and an altar boy in his youth, and was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ" in that church.

The Religion of Hitler

-Mike...

Bumble Bee Tuna · 05-31-2003, 11:39 PM

No, Sabine, Hitler did not use a rational process. He started from irrational premises, so just like RBAC's, his conclusion was completely irrational. Your point is void. You also appear to be having some trouble distinguishing between rationality and rationalization- while they share a root, they have entirely different meanings.

I assume you brought up the Hitler point to say "Hey look, rational things can sometimes be bad, so that excuses RBAC for being irrational (The only way I can see it being remotely on topic). It's incredibly funny, though, because you're actually being counterproductive. What you're showing us is that rational thought processes based on irrational premises can lead to great evil (a la Hitler). And of course, rational thought processes based on irrational premises is exactly what RBAC has conceded to doing here. Please note I am not saying RBAC = Hitler, but merely showing you how your post was counterproductive.

-B

Sabine Grant · 06-01-2003, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AJ113
Really? Are you sure that it doesn't "seem" that I am simply exposing the futility of a faith based on nothing but personal preference?

" you are faithfuly following the dogmas of christianity "... sorry but where did I claim such a thing ? it is important you do not interpret my thoughts so it fits your own perception of what a christian ought to be or do. Assumptions on my account never encourage me to pursue a dialogue.

There are no assumptions in my post. Go back and read it. There is one praese at the beginning, which you did not object to, and three questions.

If you cannot or will not answer questions, then all you have to do is say so, but please don't try to wriggle out of them by accusing me of mis-quoting you. I should advise you that assumptions on my account never encourage me to pursue a dialogue.

And more assumptions....I will enjoy dialoguing with a member of this forum who does not resort to twisting someone else's thoughts. Never did I state that " I faithfully follow the dogmas of christianity". Quote where I stated that. Absence of you providing evidence of your assertion will result in my ignoring your comments as a whole. I think it is time for you to be held accountable for defining a person's thoughts falsely.
You made a very serious statement on my account . I resent the implication of that statement. Either retract or show evidence that I stated that I follow faithfuly the dogmas of christianity.

Sabine Grant · 06-01-2003, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
No, Sabine, Hitler did not use a rational process. He started from irrational premises, so just like RBAC's, his conclusion was completely irrational. Your point is void. You also appear to be having some trouble distinguishing between rationality and rationalization- while they share a root, they have entirely different meanings.

I assume you brought up the Hitler point to say "Hey look, rational things can sometimes be bad, so that excuses RBAC for being irrational (The only way I can see it being remotely on topic). It's incredibly funny, though, because you're actually being counterproductive. What you're showing us is that rational thought processes based on irrational premises can lead to great evil (a la Hitler). And of course, rational thought processes based on irrational premises is exactly what RBAC has conceded to doing here. Please note I am not saying RBAC = Hitler, but merely showing you how your post was counterproductive.

-B

It is interesting to me that the point I brought up that a rational thought process can engender evil appears to be a threatful statement to individuals who consider reason to be the only valuable foundation to a human being's choices.
I am also surprised how the thoughts and expression of a Down Syndrom's person are dismissed.
I am looking forward for you to provide arguments based on the biography and study of Hitler's ideology to support your statement that he did not use a rational thought process.

agapeo · 06-01-2003, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Now remember that I am not really fudging here, but many of my propositions and "beliefs" are just conjecture. Raising the flag just to see if anyone salutes (and that includes myself)

I salute you, sir!

Quote:

Episcopalians are always somewhat skeptical and always like to question their faith in all different manners. And it is never really considered blasphemous. That is the way I was raised---can't help it.

Doesn't it say somewhere in scripture that that is exactly what you should do? Examine your "faith".

Quote:

I do have problems with the trinity.

It's a good thing you're on this site admitting to the problem then. :eek

Quote:

I do have problems with original sin.

I noted that as well. It's really not that difficult of a problem to solve, but I'll leave that to others to address (if they can).

Quote:

I do have problems with the real meaning of the resurrection.

No meaning to it -- just a simple event. The real question is why the crucifixion, necessitating the resurrection. That is tied into the "original sin".

Quote:

I have always had questions about those things

I see no problem with that. And here I thought you had nothing but problems.

Quote:

I think that--------- it is when any Christian puts his blinders on and stops questioning his faith---------that is when he is no longer truly an honest Christian.

I agree!

Quote:

But I can tell that I seriously p----d the Fundies off. ----I can tell from various posts in different threads that they are definitely sure I am going straight to hell. I can assure them that I am not.

Was it Barnaby who said "You can please some of the people some of the time . . ." or something like that. Anyways, if that "p---d" them off then that is their problem, don't ya think?

AJ113 · 06-01-2003, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
And more assumptions....I will enjoy dialoguing with a member of this forum who does not resort to twisting someone else's thoughts. Never did I state that " I faithfully follow the dogmas of christianity". Quote where I stated that. Absence of you providing evidence of your assertion will result in my ignoring your comments as a whole. I think it is time for you to be held accountable for defining a person's thoughts falsely.
You made a very serious statement on my account . I resent the implication of that statement. Either retract or show evidence that I stated that I follow faithfuly the dogmas of christianity.

Ok I'll have one last go at this:

I concede that you have never stated "I faithfully follow the dogmas of christianity."

Now please return back to the original post that you are referring to, and read it again. Hopefully you will then realise that:

1. You have quoted me out of context.
2. I have asked you a question, NOT made an assumption.
3. The "statement" that you are referring to is not a statement, but a question.
4. I have nothing to retract, because all I did is ask you three questions.

Bumble Bee Tuna · 06-01-2003, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
It is interesting to me that the point I brought up that a rational thought process can engender evil appears to be a threatful statement to individuals who consider reason to be the only valuable foundation to a human being's choices.

Ah yes, the post after you complain that AJ113 is making false assumptions, assume that I am replying because I am "threatened" by what you say. Nice ad hominem, there.

I am also surprised how the thoughts and expression of a Down Syndrom's person are dismissed.

I do not recall and can't find on a quick re-read any comments you made relating at all to Down's Syndrome. But, I suppose they may have been made, and I didn't see them, that would explain why you thought they were "dismissed". No, I just didn't see them. Nor do I care, I was only responding to the Hitler side of the argument. As far as I know, there is no law of debating that says I must respond to every point made.

I am looking forward for you to provide arguments based on the biography and study of Hitler's ideology to support your statement that he did not use a rational thought process.

This is foolish. You are placing the burden of proof on me, the one making a negative claim. Instead, perhaps you should start writing your essay based on the biography and study of Hitler's ideology to support your statement that Hitler did use a rational thought process. You do know how the burden of proof works, don't you?
BTW: what you said is a strawman. I specifically told you how I would believe you that Hitler used a rational thought process, but that he used it starting from irrational premises. If you're going to fallaciously rebut my points, at least get them right.

wade-w · 06-02-2003, 12:11 AM

Sabine:

In logic, there is a huge difference between a valid argument, and a sound argument. A valid argument is one in which the conclusion follows from the premises. A sound argument, on the other hand, requires the argument to be both valid and have true premises! An argument can easily be valid and still lead to a false conclusion. It is also quite possible to have false premises and a true conclusion. In both cases, we would say that the argument is unsound.

You seem to be implying that because some people support great evil with apparently valid reasoning, there is something wrong with trying to be rational. All that shows is that the premises of an argument should be examined as closely as the argument itself.

If that is not your point, forgive me, but in that case I can't see what you are even trying to say, or why you brought it up. Or were you hoping someone would invoke Godwin's Law?

Sabine Grant · 06-03-2003, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wade-w
Sabine:

In logic, there is a huge difference between a valid argument, and a sound argument. A valid argument is one in which the conclusion follows from the premises. A sound argument, on the other hand, requires the argument to be both valid and have true premises! An argument can easily be valid and still lead to a false conclusion. It is also quite possible to have false premises and a true conclusion. In both cases, we would say that the argument is unsound.

You seem to be implying that because some people support great evil with apparently valid reasoning, there is something wrong with trying to be rational. All that shows is that the premises of an argument should be examined as closely as the argument itself.

If that is not your point, forgive me, but in that case I can't see what you are even trying to say, or why you brought it up. Or were you hoping someone would invoke Godwin's Law?

Bonjour Wade... sorry but Godwin's law does not ring a bell to me. I merely proposed that a rational thought process can produce evil. It seems that I faced a denial from several participants that it could ever produce evil. Whereas what I suggested in relating how I recieved the poem from a 16 year old Down Syndrom who does not have the rational thought process ability he would normaly have was not aknowledged as relating to the topic.
Previous post of Bumble bee Tuna clearly states " nor do I care". That is the whole point....... the dismissal of a thought process which lacks rationality. It then is of no interest. I beg to differ.... I find thought processes which lack intellectualism based on reason soly to be of great interest.
The debate in this forum started with a challenge as to rational BAC proving the validity of the term rational in his name. As if reason is the only justification to a human being's choice. My counter challenge is...... should reason be the only justification to a human being's thoughts? and let us explore the possibilities of reason producing evil.

Wade.... a judge in a court of law will find himself having to dismiss a piece of evidence of a crime because of the logical and rational course of a lawyer revealing a technicality problem... despite of the judge's knowledge that the defendant is most probably the author of the crime, that logical process obliges him to dismiss that evidence. So what do we have here? the use of reason for what purpose?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-31-2003, 11:39 PM	#63
Bumble Bee Tuna Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Middletown, CT Posts: 7,333	No, Sabine, Hitler did not use a rational process. He started from irrational premises, so just like RBAC's, his conclusion was completely irrational. Your point is void. You also appear to be having some trouble distinguishing between rationality and rationalization- while they share a root, they have entirely different meanings. I assume you brought up the Hitler point to say "Hey look, rational things can sometimes be bad, so that excuses RBAC for being irrational (The only way I can see it being remotely on topic). It's incredibly funny, though, because you're actually being counterproductive. What you're showing us is that rational thought processes based on irrational premises can lead to great evil (a la Hitler). And of course, rational thought processes based on irrational premises is exactly what RBAC has conceded to doing here. Please note I am not saying RBAC = Hitler, but merely showing you how your post was counterproductive. -B

06-02-2003, 12:11 AM	#69
wade-w Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Silver City, New Mexico Posts: 1,872	Sabine: In logic, there is a huge difference between a valid argument, and a sound argument. A valid argument is one in which the conclusion follows from the premises. A sound argument, on the other hand, requires the argument to be both valid and have true premises! An argument can easily be valid and still lead to a false conclusion. It is also quite possible to have false premises and a true conclusion. In both cases, we would say that the argument is unsound. You seem to be implying that because some people support great evil with apparently valid reasoning, there is something wrong with trying to be rational. All that shows is that the premises of an argument should be examined as closely as the argument itself. If that is not your point, forgive me, but in that case I can't see what you are even trying to say, or why you brought it up. Or were you hoping someone would invoke Godwin's Law?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.