If it was so random and didn't make sense up to a certain degree, people wouldn't want to believe in it.
Randomly generated. Not random.
Imaginary things are practically randomly generated, while following some rules for making sense.
My point: in ancient times, knowledge was limited, but Man's imagination was not, and filled the gaps. You see this as wrong, as a typical, enlightened modern man; but I see its past usefulness, and necessity. Nowadays though, that's something else.
Yeah, so the origin of the religion can be explained, but in mordern society it is a burden that should disappear as fast as possible.
If something is past usefulness and necessity, isn't practicing it (and it's negative effects) not wrong?
A religion is not stubborn and always refuses to admit it can be wrong; the people who practice it though, do. As of today, many Christians believe in evolution as well as their god.
A religion does not refuse things. To that statement I am simply 'wat'.
Many christians believe in both evolution as well as their god, perhaps as an absolute number, but as I have shown you the percentage is much much lower and there is a clear causation between religous beliefs and "belief in evolution".
The problem is that evolution is scientific fact and the "belief" in that should be 100%. The US is so indoctrinated with religion that even 40% of the athiests doubt religion. What the hell is that?
First, it talks about opposing infidels in those 109 verses, killing is only scarcely mentioned. Second, that shows how few people actually do it. People have the rationality not to go on a killing spree, religion or not.
Still says it. Still drives some people to do it.
If the religion didn't exist, nobody would do it.
When has atheism driven someone to a killing spree? Never. It is impossible because you can't kill for something that is absent. There is simply nothing to kill for.
My point exactly. Religion is not the sole source of irrationality, and faiths, in varying intensity, are a way of life.
Yes, faith. Religion promotes faith over rational thought. Hence religion bad.
I'd like you to explain to me how a faith can possibly be rational. Faith is believing. Believing is having knowledge without evidence. Faith and rationality are the exact contrary of one another. By definition, a faith cannot be rational.
One of my main points thus far is to explain how faith and rationality are opposites and rule eachother out.
What I mean with my previous post was not that faith can be rational. My point was that nobody purposely performs irrational actions: it is that faith drives someone to irrational actions, even though that person THINKS it is rational, even though it is irrational.
So you believe. You believe in a future revelation just as some Christians believe in the Judgment Day that is to come. Even I don't hold such a belief, that one day we will find out the truth. That just sounds so irrational to me.
Quit denying you don't have any faiths. You believe in mathematics, in science, physics, you believe in your country, in your culture, your history, in your friends, your family, the betterment of humankind, the superiority of science and the poison of religion. Like many others, you've seen horrible things happen, blamed religion, believed religion is evil, and later came to the conclusion that all forms of faith are wicked. You believe in more things than you think; we all do.
What part of 'maybe' did you not understand? I said MAYBE we will find the truth. It is a potential outcome of our explorations, which would be nice because it would settle debates like this. I am not making a prophecy, I am making multiple hypotheses from which none can be confirmed, YET.
I "believe in" mathematics science and physics because they are observable science. I "believe in" them WITHOUT FAITH.
I am quoting "believe in" because that implies faith. I simply "know them" as facts. The only faith I have is the faith to rely on my senses and brainpower.
Knowing something does not require faith. Concluding something does not require faith.
The only thing that requires faith is when you WANT to believe something even though it is not supported by any evidence. I don't want to believe in anything unless it is supported by evidence.
It's not that different, Hitler's nationalism-socialism relied heavily on indoctrination for example. Besides, that doesn't explain how me or other people stopped being Christian on our own.
Different scenario to democrating voting of today. Irrelevant.
No, it doesn't explain that, because it wasn't meant to explain that. This explained the absence of choice for indoctrinated children versus voting adults.
The brain is also programmed to want to know, or rather, to not want to not know. As History proves it, people give a higher priority to that pursuit than to rationality.
And a smart brain applies logic and rationality to achieve that goal with best effectiveness, accuracy and coverage.
How is rationality competing or exlcuding "wanting to know, or not wanting to not know"?
I can't entirely disagree with that, but how come there are so many religious scientists? They're not ignorant or dumb, and they're no more far in than the next guy.
Because a small percentage of billions of people is still a large number.
Make a google. Wherever you look you will find that a significant majority of scientists are athiests.
There are NOT many religious scientists. Or rather, there are not many scientifically oriented religious practicioners.
How could someone possibly become an evolutionary biologist or geologist if he/she believes the earth is 6000 years old? How can you work as a nuclear radiologist and question radiometric dating methods? How can you be an astronomer rejecting evidence supporting the big bang?
The main problem is that people raising/indoctrinating their childen with religious beliefs will lower the chances those kids grow up to be a good scientist that contributes something to the world.
I guess you see religion as an active belief: if you practice, it's all you practice, and it determines the way you live your life. You know that's not true, and this is an important point. Look at the IS now: their belief, which is a bit different than what other Muslims believe in (as proven by their attempt to change the Quran), now that's an active belief. They really believe in what they're doing, their life's purpose. Go ask the average Christian about his opinions on God and he'll tell you: "God's okay, I guess". Same for Muslims. Not the same for radical Muslims, Al-Qaeda or similar cells.
Yeah, yet if you ask those "yeah god is okay I guess"-christians about the origin of life, they will always state god made it and actively refuse to accept any scientific proof. The religion made people act retarded, and that is why I don't like it.
Believing in perfect rationality though, is dangerous. Ever heard of scientism?
Why? Is it not the most accurate and correct world view one can have?
How can something not be the truth it if relies on observing what the truth is?
Making assumptions could be actually seen as rational. Not making assumptions can be dangerous and unhelping for oneself. In some situations, not making assumptions will get you killed.
I would like to ask you a question. Imagine; something unique happens to you, something that would never happen again. Your body is contaminated with something, that, if researched, will surely advance humanity by a few centuries, maybe more. But you need to die to be researched. Would you do it? Would you sacrifice yourself for humanity's sake?
There is a difference between making an assumption in the sense of hypothesis or calculated risk and an assumption in the sense of THE ORIGIN AND MEANING OF LIFE DICTATING YOUR ENTIRE LIFESTYLE.
Of course assumptions can be made. How many times have students assumed drag or friciton to be neglegible in their physics exercises or chemicals to be pure and perfectly homogenous in their chemistry experiements? All the time. Except this is assuming while KNOWING it is assuming and why you are assuming it.
Religious assumptions are not recognised as assumptions by the practitioners, but as facts. And this is where the factual incorrectness is rooted.
To your proposition:
Initially I'd say: Yeah, sure. I bet something can be worked out on the right terms. (Ensure the technology will fall into the right hands etc.)
However, on-the-spot, I am quite certain that my self preservation will prevent me from doing it, and it will be the hardest desicion I will ever have to make.
If people find a great bearded man in the sky controlling people as reasonable, then hey, that's rational by this definition.
Think of that peer-reviewed scientific magazine article as a theological paper that has had lots of high level theologians read and debate it. They're placing their faith in a book and you do too. The only difference is that your faith is science Psycix.
Anyway, the Bible isn't this changeless thing, look at all of the different editions and versions of it and tell me that it hasn't changed.
-No, it is not rational and those people are retarded. Sure it might be rational to them, but it it irrational to any third party.
-Same answer as up in this post. The word believing implies faith. Knowing doesn't. I believe it, but that's because I know it, not because I assume it. I faithlessly believe in certain facts.
-Yes, there are many different versions of the bible, and they all claim to be the one true word of god. Funny, isn't it?
Note: Fixed the quote problem, limit raised from 10 to 50.