Precept #1?
Posted on: April 11, 2006 - 9:08am
Offline
Precept #1?
Why? I mean, I understand creationism, I understand Robertson and Falwell, but why "Theism?"
I mean, why the number one too? Irrational? What is rational? Anything theistic is irrational, automatically? What is the justification for this? Is there a justification for this?
Please don't tell me "There is no god, and believing in something that doesn't exist is not rational," although I doubt you are that ... limited.
I'm a dipshit.
- Login to post comments
Even Aquinas argued against Divine Command, it doesn't stand up to logic.
Today I argued with a few ethics classmates about absolutes. If we can take a moral absolute (lying, killing, etc) we will always come up with at least one situation where following the absolute is illogical.
Quote:
Martin Gardner is assuming that the universe was constructed.
It's just a fun phrase. I think he actually advocated something like pantheism, in which god simply defined physical law and left it be (like Einstein's position).
At it's simplest form there is no proof for any god, even a deistic god. This one's tough as some of our own closest loved ones fit this brand of theism (some are Christian). While Christianity is leaps and bounds more irrational than deism, it is not rational to make up an imaginary object to explain away what we don't fully understand.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I would add it's also irrational to believe in something just because it's written in an old book, or considering as evidence what people "feel in their heart."
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Yes, but some things there just isn't evidence for. Evidence requires a scope to be materialized in and anything pertaining to some god obviously is not going to be evidence. I'd actually say that evidence can not exist for the common monotheistic gods, and if there was then they are not a god.
A god is a being that can create beyond itself. It may be irrational to be gnostic without any actual knowledge and claim to know certain things about gods, sure. - That is also to say, it is irrational to guess that god is an answer to what we do not know, an explanation to what we cannot understand. Understand this, some things we do not understand yet, ultimately the person that understands the most looks down upon everyone else, looks down upon them as you look down upon people less understanding than you. There is no limit, no complete understanding, we will never know the answers to everything. Science can only go so far before becomes metaphysics again, and metaphysics in time often becomes physics- that is just the way it is. I doubt metaphysics will ever disappear, because our knowledge of the universe is cutting itself thin, there is no "god" galaxy out there that can answer the questions we naturally ask as humans. Thus philosophy will always be inescapable.
But theism irrational? I still do not get why it is a "precept." Why, automatically when you hear someone is theistic, they are irrational? Pantheists, deists, monotheists, polytheists, all alike, clumped together- dubbed irrational. Theism- madness? Maybe. I'd say so. Sometimes mad thoughts are more rational, however. Maybe... higher than rational? But to presume, all theists are irrational, just because you disagree with them,
... this seems to be a little irrational, doesn't it?
I'm a dipshit.
I think, we have to define rationality in order to discuss this. Because, like all things, rationality may in fact be a subjective matter. I believe I speak for most of us here on RR that rationality is defined by the fact that in order for something to be rational, it has to be tested, it has to have reason, conform to reason.... God cannot be tested, it does not conform to reason based on the fact that god is used to control society, it can go any which way, used any which way. Rationality uses logic, there is no logic in god because there are so many unanswered questions, that are unanswereable. Rationality is not "faith" based. Therefore is irrational. I also think that the problem is indeed fundamentalists who believe that religion must rule and control everyone....to attack this problem, we attack it at it's fundamental core...god. You disprove god, through logic and reason, you have killed a societal cancer.
I always try to approach the matter from a political standpoint. Church/State issues to control the fundies...I have my "personal" views why I don't have faith and don't believe. But to me, the most important battle right now needs to be fought on the political level, because our constituion clearly bans the u_nion of church and state. Education here is the key. Fundies want to control your life through legislating your bedroom, your doctor, your body, and your pursuit of happiness based on religios moral reasons. This is unconstitutional adn I will fight THAT to the end.
Some people here want to attack religion at it's core, and I have no problem with that because I too think that reliogion and theism is a cancer in society, sometiems a benign tumor but most of the time a malignant one. If faith and theism would be kept to oneself for personal well-being, you would not see any of us trying to fight it. But it is the intrinsic nature of the relious to spread his/her theism, spilling over on OUR lives. This is where I've had enough. Enough of the killing, the hypocrisy, the lies all in the name of god...no...that is indeed irrational. And god, is the foundation of this irrationality so...we attack it as na irrational precept. So theism, the belief of a god that supposedly goes against human nature, is indeed irrational.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Gravity I respect your right to a difference of opinion. "Still not getting it" is like you however, and I have to go back to previously made statement (edited slightly for you):
At it's simplest form there is no proof for any god, even a deistic god. While Christianity is leaps and bounds more irrational than deism, it is not rational to make up an imaginary being and believe it exists in reality.
There you go making up something imaginary and believing in it. Where did I say that I call someone irrational just because I disagree with them?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Believing in something without evidence is pretty much the definition of irrational!
You can't disprove a god and you shouldn't be trying to... for one it is not logically possible and for two you are going to get people thinking you think there is a god that is to disproven. Same goes with people who try to prove god, although they have a more justified reason in needing to do so, they cannot do it. There are countless reasons, beyond the obvious- there is no scope to prove or disprove of a god in. (I mean, you can prove something is a chemical with chemistry or physics, you can prove a rock is a million years old with math, you can prove a person guilty if the glove fits (ignore skepticism for a moment), with a god, and metaphysics, there is no scope to understand it in- Kant made this his most famous mistake). That said, rationality has to be reason. Okay... what is reason? The abiltiy to think? If you want to limit rationality only to that which is testable- then sure, you got me. Metaphysics is utterly not rational. In doing so, I won't think to high of rational though. There are many untested theories awaiting to be confirmed, it is still reasonable to find these theoretical toys.
Rationality is faith based, every judgement is faith based. Be careful on the equivocation of words if you reply, let me define faith now, faith: trust in beliefs or perceptions. Any judgement requires faith, unless of course you are a dirty little objectivist who thinks perception is completely sound and there is no possible way for you to pick up error in judging something. Eh, I've just been going at it on an Ayn Rand board all week.
P.S. Religion isn't about god, if you haven't noticed. Kill the god, still got the religion. Look at it now, very few people believe in a god, they believe in books, and believe in "believing." You can pick out some of them, usually it's the most idiotic religious fanatics and the more intelligent ones that believe in a god. Few of them come to conclusions about a god themselves, they name him god, they make him a him, but deep down inside, at the core, they are essentially atheistic. Their god exists in a church somewhere, in a heaven somewhere. If a god came down and said, "What up," they'd shit their pants, because they truly would be surprised that a god exists. Religion supresses this, religion isn't about god anymore. Religion is about control, comfort, and did I say control?
Good. Here's a tip, fight religion, not theism. God isn't what keeps them connected, I trust most of us have come from that path. The path out of fundamentalism or even Christianity itself, we realize, we still want to believe in god, and then we also realized, we always wanted to believe in god. The want was never quenched, and the hope dissipates. We end with a quick feeling of guilt, this guilt places the matter on our minds, and then the self-reflection happens. Few people actually leave their religious tendencies behind, some think they've killed the god but the god was only the beginning.
I know you are thinking right now, what about those liberal Christians, the ones that don't care too much about church, don't abide by the bible so much and just believe Jesus was endowed by a god? They are not so religious, they are more theistic than anything though? Well, look at them. They've centralized their religion on one point, in an essence, god is their religion. They worship all the things in religion, place it all in a ball and toss it into the sun and call it "god." God is not a lifestyle though. God is a subject of a belief. Take Kahalachan for instance (I don't know if you know, he posts on myspace and is one of these liberal christians). The deity is more prominent than the lifestyle, so he does worship a god, however, what keeps him connected to this god? Nothing. In his religious freedom, he thinks, "what do I know of this god, I know nothing! I can choose new ways to interpret the bible, but what is this bible afterall?!" One thing keeps him hooked, that small piece of religion he put in god. - Quite possibly my reason for theism- however I've made it my goal to become atheist. And when I am atheist, it will be my goal to be theist, and so on.
If religion was kept to oneself than it would not be religion but a belief. Religions are plagues, they are herds and flocks. Organized thought, this is part of the definition of religion.
You want to fight religion at the core, but I tell you, become religious again or remember as hard as you can, just so you know the core. If the more you learn about something, the more you can detest it- then you are good.
Irrational? I still say no. Not hardly, there are countless reasons for theism. Dogmatism? Yes, irrational. Perhaps that is what you all mean by 'theism.'
I'm a dipshit.
Generally when you must refer to phrases such as 'still not getting it,' you may not want to repeat yourself...
That is begging the question. Sure, making up an imaginary being and believing it exists is irrational, but I guarantee the only person you are convincing here is the atheist. Theism is more than "making up imaginary beings."
Here, you even bolded it for me, what I asked you not to do in my very first post:
"There you go making up something imaginary and believing in it. "
Anyone who is theist is irrational. You disagree with theism. It isn't a because, causally speaking. It is a disagreement issue, however. I disagree, however I don't think you are irrational based on your position, rather more for how you come to that position.
I'm a dipshit.
Prove you exist.
I'm a dipshit.
I'd be interested to hear what these are.
I know I criticize it very strongly, but intelligent design is one. Teleogical purposes. Transcendantalism (similar to what Kant talked about). Pantheism/panentheism for natural law. Objectivism (not a strong point). Skepticism. Not a reason, but I like this quote, "the universe is the most exquisite masterpiece ever constructed by nobody" - Chesterton. I can't think of anymore on the top of my head.
Note, I said reason as in purpose, not reason as in deduce or induct [?]. Even then, Some things can not be reasoned. That doesn't make them irrational in the sense that they are stupid, rather irrational as they go beyond our abilities to reason. And to go beyond our ability to reason is one thing we naturally do as human, "push the envelope, watch it bend."
I'm a dipshit.
Creationism (the phrase Intelligent Design is insulting) makes swiss cheese look solid, the kind of stuff these bible thumpers spit out (like the grand canyon being evidence for the flood) is demeaning to human intelligence.
The Teleological argument has flaws in all three of its premises. The first premise is illicit redefinition where they infer that just because complex objects in our world today were constructed, the universe must have been created. The word create in context implies ex nihilo, where complex objects in our world are shaped using existing natural resources. The question stands, who created God?
Third premise - saying that God is that designer/creator is a claim to absolute knowledge, it could be an infinite being, or it could be finite aliens, or it could be cosmic evolution (which science supports), ad nauseum.
When I studied transcendental phenomenology, it stated that the only way we can truly have knowledge is if we limit our view to what we perceive (the penny-in-experience). To me, the idea says that God is beyond our comprehension and thus we can't have a logical conversation about her, this is biting a bullet and would refute any attempt to apply the concept of God to our lives, even with just faith.
I've never heard Pantheism and Natural law used together. Natural law implies that humans are naturally good, but that this was put in us by God. Aquinas didn't give much reason behind this, and most political philosophies would disagree with him, especially the social contract.
Objectivism? There are no absolutes in morality. Even if there were, it would get us out of a trend of thinking and into a trend of taking things for granted.
Martin Gardner is assuming that the universe was constructed.
"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
See, there has to be a god, because I don't think we are truly worthy to hear such a beautifully blatant straw man argument. Hehe. Learn the difference between "Intelligent Design" and "creationism" before you try to debate them, seriously. It is vital.
God's dad! And, I don't know what the teleological argument I didn't give is. Care to enlighten us?
You're right. I was just eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich right now and got a stomach-ache and lost my appetite. God dammit.
Aw, but surely you don't want to deny my ability to think outside the box?
I meant Natural physical law. My fault.
I don't agree with it but there may be an objective right or wrong, despite our insistent urge to create right or wrong. There may have been a god that dubbed that which is right, right, and that which is wrong, wrong, but I seriously doubt this and laugh at people in this position. Regardless, it is an arguable position, and completely possible.
It's just a fun phrase. I think he actually advocated something like pantheism, in which god simply defined physical law and left it be (like Einstein's position).
I'm a dipshit.
I hope you don't mind if I try to broaden your horizons a bit... I know I am your ass.
There is a point in every philosophy when the philosopher's "conviction" appears on the stage - or to use the language of an ancient mystery:
Adventavit asinus,
Pulcher et fortissimus.
- Nietzsche, BGE 8
I'm a dipshit.
Intelligent design is the trojan horse of creationism, they still call it creation science, don't tell me they are different. The funny thing is, everyone's referring to the Christian God when arguing for it, little do they know that by their own arguments, it's equally likely that Zeus created the universe.
It's unbelievable the shit that I hear, they say that one single flood caused the grand canyon, they try to argue that millions of species fit on one boat, they say that carbon dating and evolution isn't scientific. Stephen Jay Gould should boot stomp them.
God's dad! And, I don't know what the teleological argument I didn't give is. Care to enlighten us?
You mentioned Teleogical, that's not a word i've heard used in philosophy. I assumed you meant the Teleological argument which is an old argument for God. It was also refuted several thousand years ago along with the Cosmological argument, yet people are still using both :shock:
You're right. I was just eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich right now and got a stomach-ache and lost my appetite. God dammit.
Ad nauseum in context means repetition, there are countless possibilities.
Aw, but surely you don't want to deny my ability to think outside the box?
Even thinking outside the box has evidence to it. Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.
I meant Natural physical law. My fault.
I'll research it later. I found Pantheism interesting, and it seems like the majority of pantheists have adopted an atheistic standpoint. The idea that the universe is the greatest thing we know (thus it is God, Pan-Theism, All-God). It seems on the same lines as Humanism, but with tree hugging.
I don't agree with it but there may be an objective right or wrong, despite our insistent urge to create right or wrong. There may have been a god that dubbed that which is right, right, and that which is wrong, wrong, but I seriously doubt this and laugh at people in this position. Regardless, it is an arguable position, and completely possible.