• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Entitlement Culture

4. I lack belief in non-trivial claims made without evidence.
5. I form working beliefs about trivial claims made without evidence.
6. Forming working beliefs enables me to navigate reality without constantly referring back to first principles.
7. I assume my assumptions until they are shown to no longer work or, they work less effectively than if I made an alternative assumption.

What is practically irrational about those things?

Nothing except that you continue to try and claim a lack of belief is not a belief in statement 4, and then turn around in sentence 5, and admit that you have "working" beliefs about claims made without evidence.

Stop using the word belief when you really mean faith.
 
Nothing except that you continue to try and claim a lack of belief is not a belief in statement 4, and then turn around in sentence 5, and admit that you have "working" beliefs about claims made without evidence.

Stop using the word belief when you really mean faith.

Wrong thread.
 
Wrong thread.

He asked me to point out what was irrational. That was the only irrational part. Besides the other thread is the wrong thread too. It should be a discussion about faith, not belief, and both these threads should be in a different sub-forum.
 
This seems to be a demand for people who believe in religion to explain why rational people should lend their belief systems any credence.

I think he is asking those of us who believe in some yet-to-be-proven existence in deity to justify pushing fantasy rather than accepting a factual, scientific, naturalist world-view.

I guess a rational argument in favor of religion would be that morality is not a "fact-based" idea, but rather an effort to get people to act contrary to "natural" animalistic urges by positing a higher power...a "parental figure" if you will, to keep people in line.

IMO this should be in the religion forum.

This was placed in this forum by design. You can't bash religion in the religion forum. ;)
 
There seems to be a fixation among 'militant internet theists' with some kind of perceived hypocrisy on the part of others for not giving their delusion a free pass. So here are a few pointers that you can agree with or disagree but, if you don't feel that they are applicable to your delusion, I would like to be convinced as to why that is so.

1. I assume that reality exists.
2. I assume that I can learn about it.
3. I assume that I can make useful predictions from that knowledge.
4. I lack belief in non-trivial claims made without evidence.
5. I form working beliefs about trivial claims made without evidence.
6. Forming working beliefs enables me to navigate reality without constantly referring back to first principles.
7. I assume my assumptions until they are shown to no longer work or, they work less effectively than if I made an alternative assumption.

It matters not a jot to me if you claim gods, dualism, faeries or Leprechauns, I treat them all with the same method to the best of my ability. So other than a perceived entitlement for your particular claim, what actually makes your claim so special that you feel it deserves a free pass in our culture and politics? Why do you not strive to want to 'know' as many 'true' things as possible?

A guy with an avatar idolizing a murderous scumbag, is worried about other's "delusion". :doh
 
Nothing except that you continue to try and claim a lack of belief is not a belief in statement 4, and then turn around in sentence 5, and admit that you have "working" beliefs about claims made without evidence.

Stop using the word belief when you really mean faith.
Yes, you conveniently missed out the use of trivial and non-trivial in the explanation. Good work!
 
This was placed in this forum by design. You can't bash religion in the religion forum. ;)
I have already said it doesn't have to be about religion. The obsession with going that way when I have given choices is not mine. Those responses are kind of Freudian aren't they.
 
I have found that the concept god is treated differently than all other concepts as if it is a more serious concept worthy of serious consideration. So those who believe in god(s) want this subject to be treated differently than all other concepts that would fall under the umbrella of supernatural. In addition, there are also those who just like to have that general god/spiritual idea taken seriously even if they for the most part do not believe it is literally true. They point to studies that claim belief in the supernatural is a natural human predisposition. Related to this they also may cite studies that claim that just believing in something has a power to heal or help in some way. And then there is the open mind crowd who don't commit one way or the other but push the idea that keeping an open mind means that we must be open to the possibility of god/spirit.

So the bottom line is that a large part of the population, from true believers to your average uncertain person, all buy in to some degree the whole god/spirit thing. I don't have statistics to back this, but it seems that most people don't fall into the group that is certain that the supernatural and all it entails is nothing but a frivolous concept created by man's imagination.
 
I guess a rational argument in favor of religion would be that morality is not a "fact-based" idea, but rather an effort to get people to act contrary to "natural" animalistic urges by positing a higher power...a "parental figure" if you will, to keep people in line.

It's not true that "animalistic urges" are just about "nature red in tooth and claw". What makes workers ant work so sacrificially for their colonies? What makes mother tigers take such tender care of their cubs, rather than just eating them when they are hungry? What makes elephants herd together to protect one of their own herd against a potential predator? What makes wolves hunt so cooperatively in packs and then share in the meal afterwards? What makes a dog sacrifice its own life to protect its owner and his family against a potential intruder? What makes meerkats puts their own lives in danger when they raise a loud alarm at the sight of a predator to warn the others in their group to get away?

I was reading a few years ago about a family dog in Alaska. A large bear had come into the house, and there were young children there. The dog, without hesitation, had attacked the bear, which probably weighed about fifty times its weight, and put up a fierce fight to keep it at bay as best it could. It survived for less than a minute, of course, before it was torn to shreds, but that gave enough time for the family to escape with the children.

Was this a religious theist dog? Would it not have known what to do if it hadn't read its scripture? Dogs have been known to do these kinds of things in other countries too- even ones which aren't Christian!

This idea that evolution is just a selfish survival of the fittest is an unsophisticated understanding of how nature actually works, which is far more complex. In nature, species which do not know anything about cooperation, loyalty, empathy, self-sacrifice, and yes, even love, are at an evolutionary disadvantage. These emotions are hard-wired into "normal" humans (which don't have things like psychopathic personality disorders, which are neurologic deficits like dyslexia or autism, except that they lack the brain centers for empathy, or "conscience"). Neuroscientists have even been able to map where some of the brain centers for some of these emotions lie, namely in the part of the brain called the limbic system, in neurons called "mirror neurons"- which allow us to empathize and "mirror" others' emotions to ourselves.
 
Meh. Nobody needs to justify their superstitions and beliefs to me unless they are using those beliefs to enact legislation or otherwise coerce others to live by those beliefs. There certainly are people like that but I don't think most believers in the supernatural fall into that category. At least not in the US.
 
Meh. Nobody needs to justify their superstitions and beliefs to me unless they are using those beliefs to enact legislation or otherwise coerce others to live by those beliefs. There certainly are people like that but I don't think most believers in the supernatural fall into that category. At least not in the US.

If they try to tell me that the things they believe are true, they absolutely have to justify their superstitions to me. And there are plenty who come knocking on my door trying to get me to go to their church. If they leave me alone, by and large, I leave them alone, unless they are harming someone with their crazy beliefs.
 
Back
Top Bottom