Atheism. Outlived its usefulness?

[Jim Richards]

Quite possibly. Would you provide specific examples so that we (not just me) can weigh in on them?

If you said that you believed that the Earth and all of its inhabitants were no more than ~6000 years old, created in one fell swoop, I would counter that that's irrational based on the scientific evidence that's available.

If you said that life on Earth was seeded by other planetary or non-planetary objects that passed near the Earth a few billion years ago, I would have to say, well, OK, maybe that's a rational belief, but we will need to keep looking for compelling scientific evidence to support that.

I hope this clarifies how difficult it is to answer your complex question.

[Taz's Master]

What if I said like Normy did on page 4 that I know how to behave? There is no objective standard against which to measure my behaviour, I only know this because I believe this, it is a feeling I have.

[Jim Richards]

If you believe that god told you how to behave, I would say that's irrational since there is no proof of a god. If you said that a code of behavior has developed over the millenia in response to meeting the needs of societies (i.e., the public good), then, I would say that based on observing all the anthropological data that is available to us, that this is a rational viewpoint.

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

If you believe that god told you how to behave, I would say that's irrational since there is no proof of a god. If you said that a code of behavior has developed over the millenia in response to meeting the needs of societies (i.e., the public good), then, I would say that based on observing all the anthropological data that is available to us, that this is a rational viewpoint.

So if I followed a set of beliefs developed over the mellenia in response to meeting the needs of societeis (i.e. the public good), then would you say that based on observing all the anthropological data available to us, that that would be a rational viewpoint?

[Jim Richards]

Didn't I say that already?

Please state your intentions without dancing around, Taz. Is your intent to engage me (or us) in a discussion on moral relativism? I'd like to know right now so I can decide whether or not to invest any more time on this thread. Thanks in advance...

[70SWT]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

If you believe that god told you how to behave, I would say that's irrational since there is no proof of a god. If you said that a code of behavior has developed over the millenia in response to meeting the needs of societies (i.e., the public good), then, I would say that based on observing all the anthropological data that is available to us, that this is a rational viewpoint.

Extremely well said. Unfortunately, the very nature of the religiously-inclined mind will preclude responding to it as the rational statement it represents.

Belief and faith have no true basis in logic. The believer will typically attempt to establish one, thus religion requires active verbal defense when confronted with a competing perspective.

This is why this thread is already on page 9, and why you have the common maxim to avoid discussions about politics and religion. It is impossible to resolve an argument point that is based on faith rather than evidence.

The religiously-inclined person cannot grasp the paradox that is inherent to religion itself. Its basis in "faith" and "belief" leaves the proverbial door much more wide open to bad outcomes than does simply living for today in an altruistic fashion. This is in part due to the inherent human tendency to categorize others as inside or outside a trusted domain. Religion provides one more way to categorize and define others as alien or enemy vs friend. It is a primitive reflex.

This is why you have constant religious strife in some part of the world at any given time. When race, economics or some other variable isn't present to help you differentiate yourself from others, there's always religion to help justify death and war, or the manipulation of others.

It does us few favors in the information age.

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

So if I followed a set of beliefs developed over the mellenia in response to meeting the needs of societeis (i.e. the public good), then would you say that based on observing all the anthropological data available to us, that that would be a rational viewpoint?

If that set of beliefs were a religion, then would you allow that the belief in and the worship of God was rational?

[Jim Richards]

Taz, I see you are unwilling to answer a direct question, so, I'm done with you on this thread. Good luck, I hope you find whatever it is you're looking for,

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

If that set of beliefs were a religion, then would you allow that the belief in and the worship of God was rational?

I've only been watching this exchange from the sidelines, but worshipping a god can not be construed as rational behavior. Even if you could prove this god existed (which so far, everyone who has ever tried has failed), it would then be an entirely different task to prove that he required worship and that you (or your religion) were worshipping him in the correct manner.

[Taz's Master]

Jim, you are free to be done with me on this thread, but I don't know what direct question you believe I did not answer. I am not trying to drag you into a moral relativism discussion.

IROC, it is my contention that religion is a natural part of the human condition. If following a set of beliefs developed over the mellinia for the benefit of society is rational behaviour, and if religion could be substituted for set of beliefs, then I would see how following a religion that involves believing in and worshipping God could be considered rational behaviour.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

IROC, it is my contention that religion is a natural part of the human condition. If following a set of beliefs developed over the mellinia for the benefit of society is rational behaviour, and if religion could be substituted for set of beliefs, then I would see how following a religion that involves believing in and worshipping God could be considered rational behaviour.

You might be able to argue that religion is a natural part of the human condition, but extrapolating then that worshipping god is rational doesn't follow. One could argue that making collections of things is "part of the natural human condition", so you could say that butterfly collecting is a rational thing to do. Unicorn collecting would not be rational.

Heck, even my borderline-fundamentalist father-in-law admits that his beliefs are emotional and not rational.

[IROC]

An additional thought - why do you care if your religious belief is rational in the first place? Humans do lots of things that are not rational. I drive a 32 year-old orange 911 with no air conditioning in the middle of summer - it's out in the parking lot now. Many would argue that's not rational. I can't disagree. The more rational thing to drive would be a newer Toyota Corolla or something.

Worshipping a being for which you have no evidence even of it's existence is not rational, but in the end - who cares? If it makes you feel better and you're not hurting anyone else, then go for it.

(just don't tell me I'm wrong for not joining you in your endeavor...)

[Taz's Master]

IROC, if you've been following this discussion, this is the point I am trying to clarify: It was argued that since there is no scientific evidence of God's existance, there is only a feeling that leads one to believe God exists, and therefore believing in God is irrational. I hold multiple beliefs that are not based on scientific evidence (like Normy's assertion that he knows how to behave), but rather a feeling, does that render those beliefs (and Normy's) irrational?

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by IROC

An additional thought - why do you care if your religious belief is rational in the first place? Humans do lots of things that are not rational. I drive a 32 year-old orange 911 with no air conditioning in the middle of summer - it's out in the parking lot now. Many would argue that's not rational. I can't disagree. The more rational thing to drive would be a newer Toyota Corolla or something.

Worshipping a being for which you have no evidence even of it's existence is not rational, but in the end - who cares? If it makes you feel better and you're not hurting anyone else, then go for it.

(just don't tell me I'm wrong for not joining you in your endeavor...)

First, I would argue that if a 32 year-old 911 brings you more satisfaction than a Corolla, then it is indeed rational for you to drive it.

Second, I would argue that since your genes and experience determine who you are and what beliefs you hold, then having those beliefs is rational. Denying them would be irrational.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

IROC, if you've been following this discussion, this is the point I am trying to clarify: It was argued that since there is no scientific evidence of God's existance, there is only a feeling that leads one to believe God exists, and therefore believing in God is irrational. I hold multiple beliefs that are not based on scientific evidence (like Normy's assertion that he knows how to behave), but rather a feeling, does that render those beliefs (and Normy's) irrational?

Like Jim, I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I think you're mixing definitions of words to achieve some desired outcome. Normy's assertion that he knows how to behave might not be based on "scientific evidence" but the ethics of reciprocity and is therefore entirely rational. I don't think anyone would try to argue that the ethics of reciprocity = scientific evidence.

To me, if you hold multiple beliefs that are not based on evidence or logic, then you need to take a closer look at them and decide for yourself if they are rational. Most likely they aren't. That doesn't make them "bad" necessarily, just irrational.

Plain and simple, believing in a being for which you have no evidence of it's existence is irrational. Substitute any mythical being in place of "god" and that becomes obvious. Religions are just "mass irrationalities" when it comes down to it. Just because lots of people partake in the same irrational behavior, that doesn't make it "rational" all of the sudden.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

First, I would argue that if a 32 year-old 911 brings you more satisfaction than a Corolla, then it is indeed rational for you to drive it.

"Satisfaction" is an emotional response, though and not a rational one. Like I said, being irrational sometimes isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by IROC

Just because lots of people partake in the same irrational behavior, that doesn't make it "rational" all of the sudden.

Really? Is there an absolute for "rational", or is it an agreed upon "standard"?

Seems to me that "rational" is a human construct, so it is by definition fuzzy.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

Second, I would argue that since your genes and experience determine who you are and what beliefs you hold, then having those beliefs is rational. Denying them would be irrational.

So you're saying that just because someone believes something, that makes it a rational belief? I don't follow that at all.

[RPKESQ]

Quote from Taz's Master "this is the point I am trying to clarify: It was argued that since there is no scientific evidence of God's existance, there is only a feeling that leads one to believe God exists, and therefore believing in God is irrational. I hold multiple beliefs that are not based on scientific evidence (like Normy's assertion that he knows how to behave), but rather a feeling, does that render those beliefs (and Normy's) irrational?"

Yes, all non-fact based beliefs are irrational. Irrational thoughts are with us constantly. Identifying irrational thoughts does not mean you should not have them as some are quite positive (love, etc.) but it also does not mean all of them should be accepted (wanting to shoot the driver who just cut you off).

In short, what is needed is Critical Thinking. You should be able to instantly identify and categorize your thoughts as rational and irrational. Irrational thoughts are with us all, IROCs desire to drive in a hot, humid climate without the benefits of AC are a perfect example. We all have some irrationality just like this. But not being able to distinguish between rational (fact based) and irrational (emotion based) thought are what allows abortion clinic bombings, the Holocaust, ethnic cleansing and religious based violence.

It is a great skill to foster. It would solve the majority of problems in the world.

Note: Social behavior rules have existed long before religion ever raised its head. "Morals" have their origins in social group behavior that can easily be traced back to pre-human societies. No religion is required to have morals.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Really? Is there an absolute for "rational", or is it an agreed upon "standard"?

Seems to me that "rational" is a human construct, so it is by definition fuzzy.

Well, everything we're discussing is a human construct. There is no absolute standard for rational. It's probably like obscenity - I know it when I see it.