So that's it for the election.

[Lazortag]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Idiot, it's a belief. I'm not telling you god exists. I still haven't even stated my own beliefs. I'm saying that it is rational to believe that god exists. It is also rational to believe that there is no god or creator. You don't have to prove either viewpoint in order for them to be considered rational -- both are inherently unprovable.

If someone was telling you god definitely exists, yes -- the burden of proof would shift to him. If someone was telling you god definitely doesn't exist -- again, burden of proof is on him. Nobody is saying that here. We're talking about beliefs and the rationality of those beliefs.

I'm posting here against my better judgement, since it's almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation on these forums without it being ignored or derailed by trolls.

I think it's right to say that you can't prove or disprove the existence of god one way or the other. This is a red herring though, since a lot of intuitively absurd claims are impossible to prove or disprove. You could apply your same standard to the flying spaghetti monster (I know it's asinine, it's just the best example I could come up with) or any other parody religion and your logic would still hold. I think what Alarti is trying to say is that you shouldn't commit to a belief in something that you have no evidence for. This is different from saying that you should commit to a belief in the opposite. Something can be unproven but true - Fermat's last theorem was no less true 20 years ago (before it was proven) than it is now.

I still think Alarti's approach is a little too strong. I don't require evidence for every little thing that people tell me. If I come home and my wife says, "the roast is in the oven", and I don't smell it, see it, or otherwise verify her claim with my senses, I still believe what she says is true. But if someone says that the universe was created by an all-knowing, all-powerful being, I need evidence for that because of the enormity of their claim. That doesn't mean that it's not true, just that you shouldn't commit to believing in it without evidence.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Lazortag [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But if someone says that the universe was created by an all-knowing, all-powerful being, I need evidence for that because of the enormity of their claim. That doesn't mean that it's not true, just that you shouldn't commit to believing in it without evidence.

This is agreed upon by everyone. Nobody is saying that you, or anyone else, should accept the existence of a god as universal truth. The discussion is focused on whether or not a belief in god is inherently irrational. It is not.

To that end, your comparison to a flying spaghetti monster is not an appropriate parallel. There is evidence for a creator -- it's just not overwhelming evidence. The fact that we have not been able to demonstrate evolution from the inorganic to organic polymer life is inconsistent with the current explanations for complex life on Earth. The sheer improbability of complex life emerging on Earth could be consistent with a creator. The fact that mankind is capable of reproducing life in the vein of a "creator" also can serve as evidence that life here could have been intentionally incubated rather than spontaneously generated.

Again, that evidence is NOT conclusive by any means. It could be interpreted in thousands of different ways. But there is clearly a rational niche that a creator would fill. It is well within the realm of logical possibilities that could explain life on Earth.

To secularize this discussion, let's replace god with alien. If we really wanted to, we're just about capable of cultivating life on another planet. We could certainly deploy very simple, resilient organic life forms to foreign planets and sustain their existence. So let's pretend we did that. Now add 2 billion years of evolution. Assuming no catastrophe completely wipes out all life forms (highly unlikely, but that's what happened on Earth), according to our best science, you'd very possibly have a planet with a diverse selection of species. We would be their creators. If someone told you that they believe life on Earth originated in a similar manner -- via alien life forms that intentionally or unintentionally deposited organic life forms on Earth billions of years ago -- would you consider that irrational?

I wouldn't. It's a rational belief. It might not be accurate, it might not be the most likely possibility, but it's totally rational. That could definitely have been what happened. People get too sensitive when it comes to the word 'god'. It gets jumbled with beliefs and religious orders that have taken the concept of a creator and absolutely run wild with it. That's not to comment one way or another on the validity of religion -- just to say that an acceptance of the rationality of creator origin theories is not necessarily related to any particular organized religion.

[bamzal]

but mitts got binders full of women

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is the following irrational?

A man examines all available scripture, historical sites and artifacts, and conducts a sweeping review of prophecy both supposedly "passed" and that yet to occur. He personally finds that it is more likely than not that these revelations and discoveries are authentic.

No, it is entirely rational. He has what he considers a proper set of evidence and makes a decision to believe. At no point is he playing with blind faith. He has evidence that, in his view, satisfies the proper burdens. He is believing based upon his evidentiary conclusions. When you walk into a room for the first time and turn on the light switch, you expect that it is more likely than not that the lights will come on. That is a rational belief supported by your experiences and understanding of reality.

The belief is rational. Don't hide the ball by switching rational belief with faith.

There's a difference between being rational and rationalizing.

[MammothMafia]

ROFL you sound just like that moron obama


3) Obama's 4 years so far: a) stock market up 50%; b) deficit decreased (not sure on %); c) unemployment decreased significantly; d) nothing majorly bad happened, even if you dont like obama care; d) bin laden killed; e) out of iraq

a) after market crash and decline in credit rating not a valid point b) no... deficit is up 100% c) wow... really... you must be dumb. d) uhhh... housing.. thats pretty fucking bad. d) <again? another towel head has taken his place. e) we were just attacked on 911.. war not over.. dunno if u know but ppl are still FIGHTING out there.

[MammothMafia]

d) again... we still fighting out there. dunno if u know we were just attacked on 911 as well

[Ravager]

Nothing is going to improve debtwise until deficit spending is eliminated entirely. And the only candidate who proposed that was Ron Paul (who also wants to cut up the credit card which is the Federal Reserve), so, whoever's elected will still put us further in debt.

[Lucky]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh.... do tell me how the constitution is being eviscerated [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Haha man youse trollin.

How about no 5th amendment due process for what it takes to be labeled an errist. Assassinations of American citizens. Renditions and torture. Warrantless wiretapping and spying breaking the 4th amendment.

I don't have time but you could write a book. C'mon real elementary. The united states is now recognized globally as one of the most aggressive police states on earth.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Lucky [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Haha man youse trollin.

How about no 5th amendment due process for what it takes to be labeled an errist. Assassinations of American citizens. Renditions and torture. Warrantless wiretapping and spying breaking the 4th amendment.

I don't have time but you could write a book. C'mon real elementary. The united states is now recognized globally as one of the most aggressive police states on earth.

No not, trolling. How is the constituion being eviscerated?

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I used the word "fact" once to refer to the concept that there are smarter, more rational, and more fulfilled people than Alawen that believe in a god. I also referenced the fact that humans have been unable to recreate the supposed spontaneous formation of polymers given organic monomers. That is, in fact, a fact -- you can look it up yourself.

I never once claimed it is a fact that god exists or anything even remotely close to that.

I don't understand how you can spend 18 hours a day on these forums and still be functionally illiterate.

Prove it?