No, I was just wondering what the fuck Lobohan was on about. It’s a total mystery to me. My conclusion is that he’s an idiot. Period. Nothing else to conclude.
The basic Christian principle, though usually stated poorly, is subtley different. Christians more or less believe that, while we might dislike the effect on us, a real world with real consequences to the real power of humanity is worth having. Evidently God agrees, so here we are.
One can only speculate on the motives of a creature one can’t comprehend. But Christians, believeing as we do in the omnibenevolence of God, can also accept that the world is worth living in. The greatest in this world is not caused by nature but by man, and the most devout Christians have usually been thos who most fully embraced the suffering. The “Problem of Pain” is, frankly, a question principally for the academic who views only from a distance, not the man living it.
I violated the rules. Reported my own post. I’m out of this one.
I must be missing something here, because I thought his response was a straightforward attempt at refuting part of your immediately preceding post:
IOW, you were saying “It’s unverifiable and hence unjustified to assert as an objective truth that no god unsupported by reliable indisputable evidence exists” (which I happen to agree with, btw).
Lobohan was objecting “No, we have to qualify that statement because we can validly assert on the basis of logic alone that at least some types of god absolutely cannot exist.”
As indicated in my previous post, I happen to disagree with him on that, but ISTM that it was reasonable to attempt the argument. I’m still baffled by the “totally useless” and “idiot” criticisms.
ETA:
Okeydoke, forget I said anything.
I did point out where I’m fucked. I’m expecting to get dinged on my rule violations. I’ll take my warnings, as deserved.
So noted.
[ /Moderating ]
I think you’ve got part of it. I’d say there is some obligation to at least consider other facts as they present themselves. Where that line is drawn is up for discussion for some of the reasons you explain. Still, certain facts repeated often enough, to someone who claims to be a seeker of truth, ought to count for something. It doesn’t seem rational to me , given human history, in science and religion to not recognize that we have a lot to learn and belief systems can change.
It seems to me that science while not perfect deals very well with our physical world while religion and philosophy tackle the inner person and our relationship with each other. We have problems when religion tries to apply it’s text literally, factually , and historically , rather than as a metaphor about the human condition.
I prefer the Bahai teaching that truth is truth and science and religion must at some point reconcile. Something cannot be scientifically true and religiously false.
Right.
This thread came from the one about ridicule where several posters assert that ridicule is acceptable to use against religious belief since religious beliefs aren’t rational and you can’t reason with believers.
What if religious beliefs are rational in context?
And how is that statement irrational? There’s the correlation between religiosity and social problems & unethical behavior of all sorts. There’s all the wars waged in the name of religion, the tyranny all over the world imposed in the name of various religions. There’s destructive practices like lying about condoms protecting against AIDS, shielding child molesters, pushing creationism in schools, and on and on. Religion has and continues to do as much harm to society as other destructive belief systems like racism or sexism; it’s just that it’s still popular, so it’s taboo to actually point this out. It’s difficult to imagine how it could do enough good to offset that; and the fact that societies that have sidelined religion continue to not only function as well as before but generally better indicates that whatever good religion may do, it isn’t significant.
If anyone is being irrational, it’s the people like yourself who insist that only someone irrational would call religion destructive. It’s an attempt to shout down anyone who points out that the Emperor has no clothes.
When rubber meets road, what can be proven using numbers is considered more rational that what can’t be.
And if dollar signs can be applied to those numbers, they are treated as essentially pure reason.
I reject that particular example as a bad example. It never made sense to me to posit that such a being exists and then proceed to judge that being by human standards and say “See it can’t exist”
It just doesn’t follow.
Well, for starters, it’s a quantitative assertion with no clearly defined quantifiable metric to evaluate it.
There is no recognized scale for negativity vs. positivity when it comes to the effects of religion. Likewise, there is no standard yardstick of worseness when comparing “religion” in general to “the average human” in general. (Love the pseudo-precision of that phrase “by a large margin”, though!)
We can certainly cherry-pick many many bad things to say about religion and its effects, just as you did in the rest of your most recent post, but none of them add up to an objective quantitative measure of the merits and demerits of religion.
In short, you toss around a sweeping condemnation of religion that’s belligerently but unverifiably quantitative, and then consider that you’ve backed up your assertion adequately by flinging a few slightly more specific condemnations of religion into the mix. Not rational, bro.
Honestly, Der Trihs, if atheism weren’t so widely loathed already, I would seriously be concerned that you were making the rest of us look bad. As it is, however, knock yourself out; there’s not much damage that can be done to our image, even by you.
Ah, the old double standard for religion. I doubt if we were discussing something like sexism or racism you would dare trot out some line about how we can’t judge whether or not their effects are negative or positive. But when someone criticizes religion, suddenly we’re all supposed to be rabid moral relativists who wouldn’t issue a condemnation of someone even if they were setting us on fire.
Of course, if someone says something positive about religion - suddenly we regain the ability to make judgements about whether or not the effects of religion are good.
Nonsense √2 + πi isn’t rational at all!
really? after all this time and the numerous times it’s been pointed out to you , you still persist in this assertion?
On a casual note, mankind has been overwhelmingly religious since recorded history and yet has still steadily progressed. I would say that at least suggests the distinct possibility that the good has outweighed the bad.
More than that, there is simply no objective way to measure good vs bad that was caused by religion. That renders your opinion, just that, and nothing more.
False analogy. Sexism and racism are much more narrowly circumscribed cultural phenomena which are essentially defined by their negative effects.
Trying to infer comparisons from sexism and racism to the whole monumental immemorial sociocultural complex of human existence that goes by the vague designation of “religion” is comparing apples and solar systems.
And Jragon, I saw what you did there. 
Holy Snikes is that ridiculous.
Oh I don’t know. Seems like it might be hard to find the positive effects of racism and sexism, but not difficult at all to find some of the positive affects , and work by people who are believers.
Either way, I have no interest in seeing this thread hijacked by one more useless round of you asserting the same old thing.
The attributes are impossible to reconcile. You are free to throw your hands up and say, “Maybe it makes sense in some way we can’t tell.” but that isn’t being rational.
We’re talking about rational thinking here. Accepting the existence of something that can have no limits to Its power and be unlimited in Its compassion and goodness, you can’t have needless suffering. Saying that somehow the suffering is needed, ignores the fact that the God is omnipotent. An omnipotent being has suffering in its universe because it decided to.
Right now there are children going blind from parasites in their eyes. There are people in agony from cancer that’s choking their organs. There are people burning to death right this instant. Right now.
Either God can’t stop it, or he doesn’t care to. You can’t just say, “Well, maybe there is another option that we’re too small to see!” and still be in the realm of rational thinking.
Where does that end? Why not rape a child? It might actually be good, in some way we can’t see! Why not kill the next person who speaks to you? It might actually be good in some way we can’t see!
Because we as a society have at this point decided that those effects are negative. While when it comes to religion most of us still tend to try desperately to handwave away the negative effects of religion.
Except that if we can’t rationally decide whether or not the effects of religion are good or bad, we can’t rationally decide whether or not the effects of racism and sexism are good or bad. In fact given how closely they have historically been allied, that’s pretty much the same thing; saying that we can’t judge religions for treating women as inferior is the same as saying that we can’t judge sexism as bad or good.
It’s the double standard again. If we can judge whether or not racism and sexism are good or bad, then we can do the same with religion. If we can’t judge religion, then we can’t judge racism or sexism; or anything else for that matter. Religion doesn’t get a magic “cannot be judged” card.
“Rational” means that you use logic and reason to make decisions. As opposed to faith, “gut instinct”, intuition, personal feelings, chicken bones or any other mystical nonsense.
There is nothing “rational” about religeous beliefs. By definition, if you are basing your beliefs in something that cannot be seen or measured empirically on faith or personal beleifs, it’s not reason.
And really, it applys to anything. Not just religeon. Do you want to visit a doctor who will operate on you based on “some good we can’t see yet”? No. You would want him to operate on you based on some specific medical need and using tested medical procedures.