Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Rationality of course, being a human construct in all cases, has both objective and subjective components. These are binary components and must be addressed one at a time.
The first reflects decisions that are rational in an “objective” sense: the decision maker can convince others that she is right in making them.
The second relation models decisions that are rational in a “subjective” sense: the decision maker cannot be convinced that she is wrong in making them.
Hence your assertion and your entire presence on the site can thus far be attributed to the SECOND RELATION.
" “objectively rational” to choose f in the presence of g if and only if the expected utility of f is at least as high as that of g given each and every prior in the set. It is “subjectively rational” to choose f rather than g if and only if the minimal expected utility of f (relative to all priors in the set) is at least as high as that of g."
https://ideas.repec.org/p/cca/wpaper/73.html
But none of this is objectively rational of course.
"In the end what is the difference between life and death in the scheme of things but a location in the fantasy of time. Popping in and out of existence until eternity itself fades away or the universe separates from itself in its never ending expansion and another takes its place to begin the process again. Where is this rationality in the particles of dust that randomly gather to form cosmic dust bunnies and why do they turn blue, is it merely the collisions of hydrogen and oxygen atoms or is there a deeper secret independent of all known and imagined possibilities? Death is as much a part of life as breathing and then the atoms scatter in a mindless whim to be used once again and the process continues until it stops."
This is wonderful just repeat it forever...
That is would be precisely how I imagine an infinite reality.
Yes.... but we aren't really having this conversation as there is no we. Any concept of this construct appeared in pasts long ago... and with each breath, with each tick of the clock, it is amazing to discover anew what was just left behind.
You seem to be objecting to objective reality because it doesn't return the results you like, again I'm not sure what your point is beyond finding objective reality an unpleasant long term prospect?
Logic is a demonstrably successful method of understanding reality, as is science, whining that the results don't reflect your religious beliefs is pointless as it no more invalidates those methods than it evidences bronze age superstition.
I just wanted to thank you for providing it. I figured you were obviously.
I'm sorry, there was no one here to receive your message, but the kind intent is noted and a sense of warmth created that seemed to linger for a bit in the space that once was but is no longer.
@ The OP
It seems we are in for more of this:
"The complexity of the present time seems to demand a refining of our third eyes if we are going to survive. Dogma is born in the gap where conscious living has been excluded. Only an entity of the totality may foster this vector of synchronicity.
Although you may not realize it, you are sentient. Have you found your path? How should you navigate this advanced nexus?
A mystic catholic...who woulda thunk it of you Ray....
"It seems we are in for more of this:
"The complexity of the present time seems to demand a refining of our third eyes if we are going to survive. Dogma is born in the gap where conscious living has been excluded. Only an entity of the totality may foster this vector of synchronicity.
Although you may not realize it, you are sentient. Have you found your path? How should you navigate this advanced nexus?"
Wow! That made me want to scrub my eyes with bleach and a wire scouring pad, to see if I could expunge it from my memory.
Another contender for the longest running meaningless thread contest.
It seems this forum attracts far more figments than raisons...I prefer sultanas when I am in the mood to exist.
@ catholicray
If we exist in an infinite reality then rationality is a human construct.
If we exist in an infinite reality then irrationality is a human construct.
If we exist in a finite reality then rationality is a human construct.
If we exist in a finite reality then irrationality is a human construct.
See? Easy.
rmfr
I concur but do you agree?
Who is the "I" that agreed and where is the "you." What we agreed upon in that last moment influences nothing in the next without turning to the past and looking back. A turn in time is a turn in time as one traverses the ever expanding universe. If climbing a mountain would you go back just to place your foot in a position it was in a minute ago? If you did, could it still be said you are climbing ? As humans we can only walk half way into a forest for the very next step means we are coming out again.
@ catholicray
I am assuming you gave this reply…
…to this…
…if so…
Why would I have written it if I did not agree?
rmfr
At this moment, there is very little you and I agree on. You have attempted to sell the concept that we agree on points, while being told repeatedly that there is a difference. Your "logic" is vastly different than mine. You arrived here with presuppositions and an agenda, while I am very willing to change my position based on evidence presented to me.
So instead of the sale pitch "we agree on points and think alike", I suggest you abandon this thread and try another approach. Because that is your method. You began with a wild assertion in your first OP, then quietly slunk away to try another point of attack.
The sole question on my mind is what attempt number three will be.
In other news another thread making grandiose claims demonstrates naught approaching rational argument or objective evidence for any deity.
Rationality may have been refined into what we know as science and reason but it is a product of an evolved brain. So, rationality is a construct of nature.
That's a useless point. That's like saying religion is a construct of nature. Doesn't mean anything in this discussion.
Makes sense in response to your OP.
No, it is not a useless point. Religion is a construct of man's nature as is rationality. The difference between them is that rationality has moved us out of the dark ages and religion strives to return us to them. Rationality works and that is demonstrable. What demonstration can you give for a God doing anything?
chimp3: "So, rationality is a construct of nature."
Now that is a Steve Austin smackdown with a preponderously huge can of Whoop Ass.
rmfr
Well, I think you all are just going to have to maintain a position of "I don't know" and "I refuse to subscribe to any thought without sufficient evidence" as concerns the objectivity of rationality. Is your thinking rational or not? Nobody knows.
What is it you're telling us we must all claim not to know? You've already been told that logic and science are just methods humans have created to help us better understand reality, they wouldn't work if they were not objective methods, and we have objective evidence that they work.
" Is your thinking rational or not? Nobody knows."
Nonsense, if your thinking adheres to the strict principles of validation contained within logic then it is by definition rational.
There are no absolutes in science or logic. Science identifies predictability not absolutes.
This is a feeble attempt at arguing, "Nothing can be known with 100% accuracy so my god concept is the same as your science concept." NO! Not even close. Science does not need absolutes to outshine your fallacious god concept. Predictability is enough. I predict the sun will rise in the morning. If I looked in the newspaper I could give you the exact time because that time has been worked out by science. Please demonstrate the same predictability for your god.
Logic and predictability are enough to make reasonable sense of the world we live in, whether or not it is an ever expanding universe.
You are equally WRONG on another front. A square is not a circle. I know this with 100% accuracy. By definition a square is a square. A is A and it can not be non-A. There are absolutes within systems of logic.
The logical absolutes can not be proved to be absolute in and of themselves. They are a-priori, At the same time they can be used to produce absolutes in the math and the sciences. They produce results that can be relied upon. They produce results that are logical, consistent and repeatable. Can your God do that? Science, does in fact, produce and use absolutes, unless of course you can prove a square and a circle are the same thing.
Who are you talking to and why are you using a straw man argument? Not one poster has claimed either science or logic deals in absolutes as far as I am aware, objective facts are established by the availability of objective evidence, absolutes are neither needed nor are they epistemologically speaking possible.
The problem ray is that you think we have not encountered this dishonest polemic before, attempting to claim that objective methods like science and logic are no more objective than faith based religious beliefs, based on the fact they don't deal in absolutes.
Is the word flat and at the centre of the universe?
Simple enough question really, now the catholic church insisted the Pope had the right to claim absolute knowledge, whereas Galileo presented objective evidence showing they were wrong. Now despite Galileo's evidence not being an absolute claim no rational person would deny the evidence as it establish an objective fact.
Can you demonstrate anything approaching such evidence for your deity?
catholicray: "Well, I think you all are just going to have to maintain a position of "I don't know" and "I refuse to subscribe to any thought without sufficient evidence" as concerns the objectivity of rationality. Is your thinking rational or not? Nobody knows."
My thought is rational. Still trying to figure yours out. As for "refusing to subscribe to any thought without sufficient evidence", you are correct. However, think on this. Every thought you have presented has not even passed the muster of rationality. Until it does, I have no reason to accept any of your statements.
rmfr
Why do you keep insisting Rationality is objective. IT'S NOT. It is useful. If you have something more useful that can fly men to the moon, create medications and cure diseases, please let us know. Rationality provides us with real results in a real world. Something no God has ever done.
So my conclusion:
Prerequisites
A) I do not know that God exists I believe that God exists
B) My faith is subjective and its objectivity has not been established
Since rationality cannot be determined to be objective we can not know if your position or my own can be determined to be objectively rational. Therefore our positions are thus far equal as concerns rationality: Status unknown.
catholicray
"A) I do not know that God exists I believe that God exists
B) My faith is subjective and its objectivity has not been established"
A) A belief you can demonstrate no objective evidence for, and have offered no rational arguments to support.
B) Well one could believe literally anything using subjective faith, so it's worthless for understanding reality or validating claims or beliefs.
"Since rationality cannot be determined to be objective we can not know if your position or my own can be determined to be objectively rational. "
Er you just said your faith is subjective, and you have failed to offer any objective evidence for it, so you're contradicting yourself. It's not a contest between faith based superstition, and science & logic, The latter can be shown to give demonstrable results in helping us better understand reality, religion offers no objective explanations about reality.
"Therefore our positions are thus far equal as concerns rationality"
Do you not know what rational means? You seem to be implying that logic is not rational, which is a bizarre claim as something is rational only if it adheres to the strict principles of validation contained with logic. You have already offered an argument for your deity that contained several known common logical fallacies, so by definition the cosmological argument is irrational. You have offered nothing else but attacks on logic, and even if they were not nonsense this still doesn't validate your beliefs at all.
@Sheldon
Er you just said your faith is subjective, and you have failed to offer any objective evidence for it, so you're contradicting yourself.
My faith is subjective to me and I am the objective evidence OF it not FOR it to you.
You say the argument I previously offered is irrational. Let us start with that establishment.
You say then that one is rational if they adhere strictly to logic and Science.
So we can objectively know that my statement was irrational. We then have to study if my method is irrational.
When the fallacy of my argument was stated did I hold on to it or was I able to adapt to the reasoning? The answer is that I did not gather a sufficiently positive or negative result due to insufficient data subjective to me.
Is my method rational? The answer is: status pending or status unknown.
Now there is a spectrum of positions as concerns God. I will offer only four.
A.) God does not exist
B.) I do not know if God exists
C.) I believe God exists
D.) I know God exists
The Church is objective to me it would fall under category D with qualifiers I’m not interested in spending time on here.
I would be placed in category C
Your position is B if I’m not mistaken
By what objective qualification based on the objective evidence that you thus far have (which is me the individual) have you ascertained the irrationality of my subjective faith?
Pages