Mind Boggling

I look forward to your reply to my last response. Is a chair "rational" or "irrational", according to you, and to a non-theist... and why?

I don't see how your claim that nothing is "rational" to a non-theist is true given your definition of "rational".

[Dan Mezick]

Indictable as a consequence of this sentiment are all religions, organized and disorganized, including the astonishing rise of shamanistic practice among highly educated Americans. You can now take college course in shamanistic techniques



There is an argumment that says all "clergy" are mooches that are running a scam while producing nothing of value. This in theory includes the earliest "clergy"-- the shamans.

Others say the human brain is wired for seeking spiritual experience. If so, this explains many things, such as the 14,000 year existence of astonishingly similiar shamanistic practices in diverse and isolated parts of early human society. It also explains "church" as we understand it today.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I look forward to your reply


[/ QUOTE ]

Take any of my previous posts as a reply. I'm throwing in the towel.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, for non-theists, WE CREATE OUR OWN MEANINGS.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what others have not been saying. You are about the only one to admit it (that I can recall, other than David S.).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a crock. The whole thread about NotReady's comments on Nietzsche centered on this theme. We repeatedly made the case that Nietzsche was not a nihilist but believed men can create value and meaning for their lives. NotReady's position was repeatedly stated that this is impossible without God, and the ONLY possible path was nihilism. This continuous revisionist editing of NotReady's positions (and our responses) is flat out wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understood the conversation to be like this:

Yes, we can each create our own meaning. We cannot create Absolute meaning. We can also not create meaning for others. (i.e impose our meaning on others.)

NotReady never stated it like this, but I do not think he would disagree with it.

RJT

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is this: you seemed to suggest that you would call the universe "rational", while non-theists would call it "irrational". If by "rational" you mean, it was created by an intelligent being... then, sure. You're right.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what he has been saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed it amongst all the nonsense. So, a chair is rational, since a person created it. Interesting. OK. If that's what he means. I don't use the term that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't refering directly to the rational/irrational part - I got lost in that train of thought. (I assumed it was just another way of stating "Murder is OK").

(Not really hung over, chez - a little foggy is all)

[RJT]

I stand correct, chez. You have admitted this. But, I don't think you admit it is ok to murder if one wants to. That is - do you think you can impose your meaning onto others? (Again, this is outside the discussion of societal reasons.)

[ QUOTE ]

I understood the conversation to be like this:
....
NotReady never stated it like this, but I do not think he would disagree with it.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Must be nice to have someone else just fill all the holes in your threads and make up stuff to get your back.

[AthenianStranger]

[ QUOTE ]

Lets assume for a second that there is no god. (a distinct possibility based on any empirical evidence that's out there)
That means that for almost 2000 years people have been building churches, attending church, fighting wars, reading the bible, etc for no real reason. That's quite mind boggling if you think about it. What a waste of the human mind and body.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you considered that people have been praising God and going to church for so long because He does exist and this is what He wants us to do-- what He wants you to do? It sounds like this is the root of your "mid-life crisis": you are afraid that Christianity is the truth and that you don't know anything, that you are leading your life in error. You see these people and it makes you angry to see them happy, because they are so ignorant and worship so blindly. Why have they maintained this illusion for so long? Well, what if it is not an illusion?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I understood the conversation to be like this:
....
NotReady never stated it like this, but I do not think he would disagree with it.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Must be nice to have someone else just fill all the holes in your threads and make up stuff to get your back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am just stating how I understood the conversation. Seems like you think I got it wrong - that what was being said. (Could be.)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I look forward to your reply


[/ QUOTE ]

Take any of my previous posts as a reply. I'm throwing in the towel.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine... I didn't intend for this to be a boxing match. I enjoy having rational discussions about these sorts of things, but I just saw a lot of things being said that didn't make sense. So, to summarize / conclude:

1) By "rational", you mean "created by an intelligent designer for a purpose".
2) You say the universe is "rational", and the non-theist says it's "irrational"
-- by your definition, this is true
3) You say "that on this presupposition (that the universe is "irrational") everything is irrational, including logic".
4) I don't think a chair is "irrational", because a human (an intelligent designer) created it for a purpose.
5) You must either have a different definition for "rational" that has yet to be explained, or not think a human is an "intelligent designer" ... or not really believe your previous statement about everything being irrational to a non-theist.

I'm not trying to be pedantic... but it seemed to me that in the course of this discussion, logic was being superceded by equivocating rhetoric, and lots of it. There is an informal logical fallacy called "argumentum ad infinitum", which means that one tries to prove their point by speaking/writing a whole lot, in hopes that the details are overlooked, and the sheer quantity of words will convince someone that what they are saying is true (or at least that the other party will give up trying to respond, since they are overwhelmed by the numerous points being made).