Wait... You have an Aston Martin ?

CP3S said:

Warbler said:

As for talking snakes,  keep in mind the snake was not just any ordinary snake.   It was supposedly Satan taking the form a snake.   If we presuppose that Satan actually exists, is it irrational to think that Satan could take the form a snake and talk?

With that definition of "rational" it would stand that if I believed my Aston Martin can fly in outer space, then it would be nothing for me to believe that the inflatable doll under my bed is really a cursed princess who comes back to life when filled with fresh semen and keeps me warm at night.

 

I really don't see the connection between that and what I was saying.    Whether or not you believe your Aston Martin could fly in space has nothing to do with an inflatable doll.

btw next time, could you try find some other example that doesn't involve an inflatable doll under your bed and semen? 

CP3S said:

Believing one irrational thing doesn't make another irrational belief really rational.

I am not so sure in cases where if the first belief is true, the second could easily occur.    I guess really what I am am saying is that if you want to attack my beliefs, attack the first believe, not the second. 

CP3S said:

I get what you are saying, in the context of a world where A is possible, it is nothing for B to be possible; so with that rationale, it is rational. But in that sense, being "rational" becomes pretty useless, because any unlikely belief believed opens the floodgates for any kind of belief you'd like to believe.

I don't know to me, my religious beliefs aren't about logic and rational, but faith. 

walkingdork said:

But I do agree. It's like saying, "Frosty the Snowman is real. I know it seems unlikely but you have to understand that it was a magical hat. Is it so irrational to think that a snowman can come to life if a magic hat is involved?"  ;)

no, if we believe that magic is real and that that hat is real and has real magical powers. 

of course, it is irrational to believe that magic is real, and it is irrational to believe that a hat could have real magical powers.  And yes, I know you could argue that it is just as irrational to believe that God is real,  this is where faith comes in.  

Warbler said :

btw next time, could you try find some other example that doesn't involve an inflatable doll under your bed and semen? 

Bryan Ferry Sang :

I blew up your body.

BUT YOU BLEW MY MIND.

(I know the way of the exploding fist).

I believe my farts cure cancer.

.

.

.

I'm off to the hospital.

Maybe we're being hard on Warbler. I just think we need to separate faith from situations that require rational thinking. Faith can be used to define a personal set of morals or goals, a guide for how to treat other people, but it can also be largely abused. However, not every person of faith would be classified as a "good" person. And many people without faith are quite capable of living honorable lives.

I'm sick of evil people posing as God-fearing Christians to become elected and enact their own greedy agendas for profit at the expense of so many people.

I think rationality is being given too much importance (or at least argued too loosely). Love may or may not be entirely rational, but who cares? In this day and age, many even argue that monogamous relationships are not rational (I suspect they mean that they're "inconvenient").

It is true that sometimes my S.O. will ask me to state the reasons I love her. Does the "rational" answer have to do with evolution, biological urges, firing synapses, and social constructs? If you answered yes, congratulations, you win the Sheldon Cooper Award for Brilliance!

But I believe love is more than those things. I also believe it's more than finding her generally tolerable, funny, attractive, intelligent, and that I enjoy our shared experiences...even if that's all I can ever think to say. I don't have logical reasons to believe there is such a thing as "love" but I believe in it nonetheless.

If there were proof that love does not exist, I agree it would be irrational for me to continue believing in it. However, I don't think it is at all possible to show that love does not exist. Nor do I think it is possible to show that God does not exist.

So instead of discussing more transcendental concepts like that of a deity or love, we get into cars flying into space.

I could believe that I am sitting on a couch right now but if I'm currently perched in the kitchen sink, it would be an irrational belief. You could find out if it is irrational if you were able to witness where I am sitting. Similarly, we could determine whether your Aston Martin can fly into space.

If it turns out that you don't own an Aston Martin then your belief must be irrational. There is a whole field of science that investigates which materials, shapes, fuel, engines, and whatnot are needed for a vehicle to leave Earth's atmosphere which would allow us to determine if your car is able to reach orbit.

Belief in God is qualitatively different from any earth-bound/earth-leaving example. As georgec says, there are situations that require rational thinking rather than faith. Putting a vehicle into orbit is one of those situations.

Though the last couple pages seemed to debate teaching creationism in schools, I don't think anyone here expressed support for teaching creationism in schools. So it was odd how contentious it got. There were a couple of good questions about how the US Constitution deals with these issues. Warbler gave some good answers. As for georgec's question:

Would teaching religion in the classroom against the will of science teachers also qualify as a 1st amendment violation?

Are you asking whether it would violate the teacher's freedom of religion as well as the students'? Or whether it would violate the teacher's speech rights? Yes to the first, no to the second.

I share ender's concern about "frequent comments here and elsewhere that frequently belittle the intelligence of religious people." Most of the fighting seemed to come from misreading Warbler's post and a desire to take shots at religious faith.

Oh, my original purpose for coming here: an article about rational political discourse.

Well, this is awkward:

Anonymous hacks white supremacist network, discovers links to Ron Paul

So many interesting political discussions I could start.

The Iran situation is getting scarier.  I don't understand why they don't just follow one of the acceptable alternative means for utilizing "peaceful" nuclear technology that the Security Council has made available to them.  Oh, wait, actually I do understand...

And the Syria situation is getting worse.  I guess if you bow to public and American pressure to peacefully step down, as Mubarak did, you end up on trial and potentially death row.  No wonder Assad figures it's better to kill everyone else.  Did you guys catch the recent news items on the ties between Iran and Syria, by the way?

Ol' Ruthie Ginsberg, who has sworn to protect the American Constitution, yet she is continuing her pattern of preference for non-American documents (yes, she has based rulings on International law rather than American law in the past)--I'm sorry, but however unjust you feel American laws are, as a Supreme Court justice, your rulings are legally required to conform to our Constitution; the legislators are those who determine if our Constitution is no longer applicable in some regard.

And I noticed georgec immediately jumped at the chance to defend religion from state involvement as the Obama Administration dictated what the Catholic Church must provide in terms of healthcare for employees, including a plan that requires what the Church opposes, specifically contraceptives and abortions.  Gone are the days where an potential employee who didn't like what his would-be employer offered would instead seek a new job (heck, I hate my company's insurance options, but I choose to work there), and now the gov't requires a religious organization to do something it finds immoral.  Hmmm...I can't seem to find georgec's post now...

PS Too lazy to do all the links right now, but do your research and you'll find it.

I guess someone's been waiting giddily for quite awhile to call me out.

Are you accusing me of making a post then deleting it? I don't really know what you're saying. I made a post to defend religion from state involvement, then I deleted it? Que?

My last post in this thread is 2/4 at 8pm. It's 2/6 at 4:30pm.

I've criticized religion wanting special treatment from the government while wanting to be able to exert their own beliefs on others. I don't think I made a post defending this special treatment. Maybe you're being sarcastic...I'm genuinely confused.

?

Please elaborate or provide a link to my post in question and I'll be happy to argue with you. :)

It was definitely sarcastic, since I don't think I've ever seen you come to the defense of religion, or at least Christianity.  But it's just a little teasing, so don't take it too hard.

Just checking. Yea, at first I was thinking, "Hey, that doesn't sound like me..."

But, I'm not a religion hater or anti-Christian. I'm not even an atheist.

What I am is a proponent of kicking religion out of politics. I'm all for faith, morals, and personal enrichment to lead a better life. But when someone's faith skews their perception or understanding of certain situations, it should be enlightened.

georgec said:

But when someone's faith skews their perception or understanding of certain situations, it should be . . . enlightened.

fix'd :]

Sounds like carte blanche to trample over religion when a self-described 'enlightened person' disagrees with a church.

georgec said:

But, I'm not a religion hater or anti-Christian.

you sure about that?  

Warbler said:

georgec said:

But, I'm not a religion hater or anti-Christian.

you sure about that?  

Pretty sure, unless you know something about me that I don't know ;).

Can one not make valid criticism of all the negative things done in the name of religion without being labeled a hater?

Mrebo said:

georgec said:

But when someone's faith skews their perception or understanding of certain situations, it should be . . . enlightened.

fix'd :]

Sounds like carte blanche to trample over religion when a self-described 'enlightened person' disagrees with a church.

I don't claim to be enlightened.

I mean that the issues and problems with how people apply religion to certain situations should be enlightened.

georgec said:

Mrebo said:

georgec said:

But when someone's faith skews their perception or understanding of certain situations, it should be . . . enlightened.

fix'd :]

Sounds like carte blanche to trample over religion when a self-described 'enlightened person' disagrees with a church.

I don't claim to be enlightened.

I mean that the issues and problems with how people apply religion to certain situations should be enlightened.

I really wasn't sure to whom you were referring, I assumed you meant the government given then context of the debate. I'm supportive of open dialogue in society. I'm not supportive of coercive 'enlightenment' by the government.

Haha no, I don't think the government should tell people what to think or "enlighten" them (that's 1984 type of shit). When they do that, you get things like creationism taught in science classrooms. ;)

I mean that it should be fair game to point out the fallacies of religion in politics, when applicable.  It should be just the same as pointing out the flaws in anything else. No exceptions or special treatment for anyone.

If someone disagrees with a person using religion to justify social policies, that person should be able to voice his/her stance without backlash of being labeled an anti-religion h8r.

georgec said:

My last post in this thread is 2/4

SOCK REVEALED AT LAST!

Wow, what a change of heart!  He's quite rational with this new account.

Your point of view is indeed reasonable, georgec.

Nanner Split said:

Well, this is awkward:

Anonymous hacks white supremacist network, discovers links to Ron Paul

That's terrible, a drag queen of colour mixing with 'those people', she should hang her head in shame.

georgec said:

Warbler said:

georgec said:

But, I'm not a religion hater or anti-Christian.

you sure about that?  

Pretty sure, unless you know something about me that I don't know ;).

if you say so.   But when you take a swipe at my religious beliefs even after I make it clear that I agree with you on creationism in  public schools, I begin to get suspicious.

georgec said:

Can one not make valid criticism of all the negative things done in the name of religion without being labeled a hater?

of course, as long as you realize that not all of us religious people approve of the negative stuff that happened.  It would also be nice if you acknowledge the positive stuff done in the name of religion.