God did it

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is NOT your claim, oh pasta monster.

I think I know what my claims are and aren't, better then you do, but whatever.

Your claim is "despite the reams of evidence disproving faith and the reams of evidence showing their is no God, most people are "honestly mistaken" . . . "

No, my claim was just that I think they are honestly mistaken. Everything else, is again just you adding things to it.

Perhaps you should stick to what I actually say, instead of what you imagine myself to say.

For starters, my position is that supernatural claims are unfalsifiable. Which means that by definition, there can be no evidence to disprove it. Because unfalsifiable means as much as "un-disprovable".

So, please tell me three other things over 90% of people are honestly mistaken about DESPITE HAVING THE FACTS:

1.
2.
3.

First of all, this is dishonest, as I already told you. 90% of people DO NOT AGREE AT ALL!
Within those 90%, you are lumping together extremes like christians and scientologists, as if they believe the same things. This is hilariously dishonest.

Christianity concerns only 30% of people. And even among them, there is much disagreement.

Secondly, this is shifting of the burden of proof. It's upto those who believe / make claims, to justify them.
My stance of assuming they must be mistaken, is the fact that ALL of them fail to properly justify their beliefs / claims. That, combined with the very nature of the claims (unfalsifiable) AND the wide range of various religions AND the fact that we actually know for a fact that humans can, and do, invent religions out of thin air. And actually literally have a psychological tendency to do so.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think I know what my claims are and aren't, better then you do, but whatever.



No, my claim was just that I think they are honestly mistaken. Everything else, is again just you adding things to it.

Perhaps you should stick to what I actually say, instead of what you imagine myself to say.

For starters, my position is that supernatural claims are unfalsifiable. Which means that by definition, there can be no evidence to disprove it. Because unfalsifiable means as much as "un-disprovable".



First of all, this is dishonest, as I already told you. 90% of people DO NOT AGREE AT ALL!
Within those 90%, you are lumping together extremes like christians and scientologists, as if they believe the same things. This is hilariously dishonest.

Christianity concerns only 30% of people. And even among them, there is much disagreement.

Secondly, this is shifting of the burden of proof. It's upto those who believe / make claims, to justify them.
My stance of assuming they must be mistaken, is the fact that ALL of them fail to properly justify their beliefs / claims. That, combined with the very nature of the claims (unfalsifiable) AND the wide range of various religions AND the fact that we actually know for a fact that humans can, and do, invent religions out of thin air. And actually literally have a psychological tendency to do so.

Some supernatual claims ARE falsifiable. I've falsified some myself.

It is not dishonest to say, "FAR more than 90% of people believe in the numinous, the metaphysical, and the supernatural, and atheists are mere outliers".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some supernatual claims ARE falsifiable. I've falsified some myself.

The supernatural is not falsifiable.
For example, take the "supernatural biblical flood".

No matter how much geological / genetic evidence we find that doesn't fit that narrative.... One can ALWAYS claim some supernatural "explaining away" of that data. And there is literally zero option to show such explanation false, because by definition, it can't be tested in any way.

"A wooden boat of such dimensions can't be sea worthy because physics"
"God made it float!"

"Such massive death waves would have left a universal genetic bottleneck behind in all species, but there isn't any to be found..."
"God made sure there was enough genetic variation to repopulate the planet!!!"

"There isn't enough time for such population size drops to repopulate the earth to the numbers we see today"
"God made them extra fertile!!"

With the supernatural, you can literally claim away anything.
Go ahead... try to falsify the idea that "god made sure there was enough genetic variation, eventhoug there were only 2 of each species".

Good luck with that.

It is not dishonest to say, "FAR more than 90% of people believe in the numinous, the metaphysical, and the supernatural, and atheists are mere outliers".

If there are 3000 gods you could believe in, then you disbelieve in 2999 of them. Which is just one less god then the ones I believe in, which is none.

Furthermore the "metaphysical" stuff that scientologists, to name an extreme for clarity, believe in, is VASTLY different then the "metaphysical" stuff that YOU believe in.

Yet, you like to claim them in "your camp".

That makes no sense to me at all.

Having said all that, you're slowly but surely engaging in a gigantic argument from popularity.
100% of people could believe something and 100% of them could be wrong about that belief.

And when 99.99% believe in a faith based proposition while 0.01% points out that there is no rational justification for such a belief, then that 0.01% is being rational while the 99.99% is being irrational.

That's just how it is.

No matter what camp you fall into.

Holding faith based beliefs, is holding faith based beliefs.
It's rationally unjustified by definition.

The sooner your realise that, the better.

 

[Darkstorn]

Some supernatual claims ARE falsifiable. I've falsified some myself.

LOL.

I bet you've also peer-reviewed some of your claims yourself.

But i'd like to see it anyway. So please present some evidence of what you did. I suspect this will happen: We'll find out you don't actually know what falsifiable means. To you it seems to be something you confirmed using your own senses. Which means, it's only falsifiable if WE can use our senses to do the same.

But i suspect we won't, and that you didn't falsify anything except your ability to understand how deep a hole you just dug for yourself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Holding faith based beliefs, is holding faith based beliefs.
It's rationally unjustified by definition.

The sooner your realise that, the better.

Here it is: You are stating a fact about reality. It is a fact just like gravity.
There are humans holding faith based beliefs.

You then claim this fact is wrong. But how can a fact be wrong? It is not wrong, that there are humans holding faith based beliefs, so how can it be wrong?
It can be wrong to you, because you are not doing science, reason and logic as such.
You have a belief based on, how you think and feel and claim that this is not just so for you, because everybody else must do as you do or suffer the consequences. I have in fact tested that and found it there are no bad consequences in that I do it differently as me. If what you do, is science, I test it and observe I can do it differently than you.
Falsifiable and falsification is not unique to science. I can do it as a human and I do it in everyday life in regards to your claims. Your claims are not objective as so for all humans like say gravity, because I can in practice and in effect do it differently and I am doing it differently right here as a part of everyday life.

That is it. No matter how different I am, then it is a fact that I am different, And so are you. But you judge that differently than me and that is what you do differently than me. You think as something in you that I am something; i.e. I am mistaken. But I am not. I am not mistaken just because you say the words. The words don't cause me to become mistaken and you can't observe that I am mistaken. That you say, I am mistaken, is not in me, but in you as something you think and feel and then treat as being in me. It is not so. It is in you that to you I am mistaken and not in me. You are not doing science, reason and logic, because you are just as subjective as me. I just know that it is the case for both of us and you believe different. You hold a belief without evidence; i.e. that I am mistaken. So do I, I believe in God, I just know that it is the case for both of us.
It is a fact, that I believe in God and it is a fact, that you believe I am mistaken.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here it is: You are stating a fact about reality. It is a fact just like gravity.

If you wish. Don't think I disagree.

It's just what the words "rational" and "irrational" mean.
Rational beliefs are those beliefs that are supported by rational, valid evidence.

Faith based beliefs are beliefs that are NOT supported by such evidence - which is why "faith" is required to believe them.

It's the same justification that is used to believe in tarrot readings, sceances, horoscopes, crystal healings, etc.

There are humans holding faith based beliefs.
You then claim this fact is wrong.

Huh? No....
There are indeed humans that hold faith based beliefs.
That's a fact. Not sure why you think I disagree with that.

I disagree with what they believe. I don't deny that they believe it.

But how can a fact be wrong? It is not wrong, that there are humans holding faith based beliefs, so how can it be wrong?

Don't think I ever denied that there are people that hold faith based beliefs.

It can be wrong to you, because you are not doing science, reason and logic as such. You have a belief based on, how you think and feel and claim that this is not just so for you, because everybody else must do as you do or suffer the consequences. I have in fact tested that and found it there are no bad consequences in that I do it differently as me. If what you do, is science, I test it and observe I can do it differently than you.
Falsifiable and falsification is not unique to science. I can do it as a human and I do it in everyday life in regards to your claims. Your claims are not objective as so for all humans like say gravity, because I can in practice and in effect do it differently and I am doing it differently right here as a part of everyday life.

That is it. No matter how different I am, then it is a fact that I am different, And so are you. But you judge that differently than me and that is what you do differently than me. You think as something in you that I am something; i.e. I am mistaken. But I am not. I am not mistaken just because you say the words. The words don't cause me to become mistaken and you can't observe that I am mistaken. That you say, I am mistaken, is not in me, but in you as something you think and feel and then treat as being in me. It is not so. It is in you that to you I am mistaken and not in me. You are not doing science, reason and logic, because you are just as subjective as me. I just know that it is the case for both of us and you believe different. You hold a belief without evidence; i.e. that I am mistaken. So do I, I believe in God, I just know that it is the case for both of us.
It is a fact, that I believe in God and it is a fact, that you believe I am mistaken.

It is a fact that you believe in god.
It's also a fact that this belief is faith based.
It's also a fact that faith based beliefs require faith, because no rational evidence is available.
It's a fact that rational beliefs are supported by rational and valid evidence.
It's thus a fact that faith based beliefs aren't rational.

From this, we can conclude that your belief of god, is not a rational belief.


Seems perfectly sensible to me.

Personally, I do my best to not hold irrational beliefs.
I try to only believe those things that are rationally justified.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Seems perfectly sensible to me.

Personally, I do my best to not hold irrational beliefs.
I try to only believe those things that are rationally justified.

Yes, that works for you. What you overlook is that it is subjective.
There is no objective, universal, absolute or what ever justification in practice for everyday life possible as how we ought to behave as humans, because they are all subjective.
That it is justified to you, doesn't mean it is justified to me. And the standard you use is subjective, yet you use it objectively, because you claim evidence for it. But the only evidence you have for it, is that works for you.
You use evidence and other words in the general sense within science and you then use the words personally as you and you don't seem to notice the difference.
Science is an objective methodology, yet you admit it is subjective to you: "Seems perfectly sensible to me." Now check the word "seems" and you will notice that it is not a scientific word. The word is first person, subjective, individual and about how it makes sense to a given person.
You admit you are subjective and then claim that is irrelevant, because of reasons in you. That is! You know that you are subjective, yet that is different than when I am, because of reasons in you. That is what makes it subjective.

I admit I am subjective and you admit it, yet to you subjectively, that is different because of subjective reasons in you. In effect you proclaim that you are the objective standard for all human behavior. The problem is that I and everybody else can still do it differently and that is because "Seems perfectly sensible to me" is subjective, not science and not only based on reason and logic alone. "Seems perfectly sensible to me" is in part a feeling/emotion in you. It is how you in psychological terms work and you don't accept that it is different in the end, because it is not psychology to you. It is an objective standard, yet it is not.

That is it. You are so close, yet far away, because you are missing one part. That it dawns on you, that what you are doing here is in part subjective and you can't turn it into being objective; i.e. for all humans.

You really want that everybody to think and feel like you, because it: "Seems perfectly sensible to me."
That is no different than some other humans, who want that of you.
I don't want that of you, because I accept that we are in part subjectively different. I want you to accept the difference and then we can see what else we can agree on.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, that works for you. What you overlook is that it is subjective.

It isn't, if the standard is objective evidence.

There is no objective, universal, absolute or what ever justification in practice for everyday life possible as how we ought to behave as humans, because they are all subjective.

We aren't talking about how we ought to behave. We are talking about what does and doesn't exist in observable reality. What is and isn't real, is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of empirical fact.

And the standard you use is subjective, yet you use it objectively, because you claim evidence for it. But the only evidence you have for it, is that works for you.

No, objective evidence works for everybody. That's kind of what makes it objective......
It doesn't matter if you I drop my keys or you do. They will fall to earth with an acceleration (in a vacuum) of 9.81 meters per second per second.

If you build a rocket and calculate your required energy to achieve escape velocity based on such objective parameters, it will work. If not, it won't.

This is not a matter of opinion at all.

You use evidence and other words in the general sense within science and you then use the words personally as you and you don't seem to notice the difference.

Because there is no difference. Objective evidence is objective evidence. Wheter it is presented in a scientific paper, a court case or late at night at the bar.

Science is an objective methodology, yet you admit it is subjective to you: "Seems perfectly sensible to me."

That's not what I was referring to. You might want to go back and read it again.
I was referring to the explanation of how faith based beliefs are irrational, where it is contrasted with rational beliefs and what the "rational" in "rational beliefs" really refers to - which is the opposite of the underpinnings of "faith based beliefs".

Now check the word "seems" and you will notice that it is not a scientific word.

Ever read a scientific paper? Perhaps you should. Such language is constantly used out of intellectual honesty. I was being polite and intellectually honest, by leaving the door open to the possibility of a come-back argument and/or other evidence which might force me to change my mind.

Because I'm like that: open minded. Which means that at all times, I am prepared to take an honest look at arguments and/or evidence and allow for the possibility that it might prove me wrong, including the things I would say that I am "certain" about. Because absolute certainty is a no-go.

The word is first person, subjective, individual and about how it makes sense to a given person.
You admit you are subjective and then claim that is irrelevant, because of reasons in you. That is! You know that you are subjective, yet that is different than when I am, because of reasons in you. That is what makes it subjective.

Nope. By using such words, I am merely expressing my intellectual honesty in that I am open to being shown wrong when presented with proper arguments and / or data which demonstrates such.

Which implies that if such arguments and / or data is not forthcoming, there's no reason for me to think I am incorrect. After all, I can only go by the information at my disposal.

And given the information currently at my disposal, concluding that faith based beliefs are irrational seems like the only reasonable way to go. So that's the conclusion I'll take on.

I admit I am subjective and you admit it, yet to you subjectively, that is different because of subjective reasons in you. In effect you proclaim that you are the objective standard for all human behavior.

Once again, this is not about behaviour. This is about how to distinguish the real from the not real in observable reality. Things exist or they don't - and they do so regardless of our opinions.

If you wish to claim or believe that X exists, you should have valid reasons to claim or believe so.
"faith", as I've explained, is not a valid and/or rational reason.

The problem is that I and everybody else can still do it differently and that is because "Seems perfectly sensible to me" is subjective, not science and not only based on reason and logic alone

Are you able of explaining the exact steps that "seem sensible to you" in the same way as I layed them out?

I went through a logical argument of premises leading up to a conclusion. Is there a premise you disagree with?

Here's a summary again:

- rational beliefs are beliefs that are supported by rational / valid (= objective) evidence
- irrational beliefs are beliefs that are NOT supported by rational / valid (= objective) evidence
- faith based beliefs require faith, because there is no rational / valid evidence
=> therefor, faith based beliefs are irrational

By "rational, valid evidence", I mean evidence that is independently verifiable in an objective way.

"Seems perfectly sensible to me" is in part a feeling/emotion in you

No. In this specific case, it means that I think the argument is sensible and valid and that I presently have no reason to think otherwise. It also means that I'm open to being shown wrong. Yet at present, I have no reason to think I'm wrong.

That is it. You are so close, yet far away, because you are missing one part. That it dawns on you, that what you are doing here is in part subjective and you can't turn it into being objective; i.e. for all humans.

No. What is rational to one person is also rational to another person. The word "rational" has a specific meaning, you know...

"i think this is right because wouldn't it be nice?" => not rational
"i think this is right because look how beautifull the woman is that came up with the idea" => not rational
"I think this is right because it would be horrible if it wasn't" => not rational

"I think this is right because of this and this objective test and / or evidence" => rational

You really want that everybody to think and feel like you

No, but I would love it if everybody, including myself, would only hold rational beliefs. Or at least try.

, because it: "Seems perfectly sensible to me."

You are really just confusing yourself with your focus on this one word, which you didn't even interpret correctly.

That is no different than some other humans, who want that of you.
I don't want that of you, because I accept that we are in part subjectively different. I want you to accept the difference and then we can see what else we can agree on.

I fully accept and understand the difference between rational beliefs and irrational beliefs. The question is: do you?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The supernatural is not falsifiable.
For example, take the "supernatural biblical flood".

No matter how much geological / genetic evidence we find that doesn't fit that narrative.... One can ALWAYS claim some supernatural "explaining away" of that data. And there is literally zero option to show such explanation false, because by definition, it can't be tested in any way.

"A wooden boat of such dimensions can't be sea worthy because physics"
"God made it float!"

"Such massive death waves would have left a universal genetic bottleneck behind in all species, but there isn't any to be found..."
"God made sure there was enough genetic variation to repopulate the planet!!!"

"There isn't enough time for such population size drops to repopulate the earth to the numbers we see today"
"God made them extra fertile!!"

With the supernatural, you can literally claim away anything.
Go ahead... try to falsify the idea that "god made sure there was enough genetic variation, eventhoug there were only 2 of each species".

Good luck with that.



If there are 3000 gods you could believe in, then you disbelieve in 2999 of them. Which is just one less god then the ones I believe in, which is none.

Furthermore the "metaphysical" stuff that scientologists, to name an extreme for clarity, believe in, is VASTLY different then the "metaphysical" stuff that YOU believe in.

Yet, you like to claim them in "your camp".

That makes no sense to me at all.

Having said all that, you're slowly but surely engaging in a gigantic argument from popularity.
100% of people could believe something and 100% of them could be wrong about that belief.

And when 99.99% believe in a faith based proposition while 0.01% points out that there is no rational justification for such a belief, then that 0.01% is being rational while the 99.99% is being irrational.

That's just how it is.

No matter what camp you fall into.

Holding faith based beliefs, is holding faith based beliefs.
It's rationally unjustified by definition.

The sooner your realise that, the better.

In the Bible, God acts logically. I do not think I can wave away anti-Flood claims. I do think there is scientific data that affirms Flood theory.

It's not an ad populum fallacy to describe the human condition, such as "all people who are alive have bodies". It is such a small percentage of people, now and always, who deny the numinous, that it is a universal and a (seemingly) willful effort to deny God exists. "But there are SO MANY gods!" is hardly a counterclaim to "the knowledge of a god seems to be universal"!

 

[BilliardsBall]

LOL.

I bet you've also peer-reviewed some of your claims yourself.

But i'd like to see it anyway. So please present some evidence of what you did. I suspect this will happen: We'll find out you don't actually know what falsifiable means. To you it seems to be something you confirmed using your own senses. Which means, it's only falsifiable if WE can use our senses to do the same.

But i suspect we won't, and that you didn't falsify anything except your ability to understand how deep a hole you just dug for yourself.

And here I always considered you intelligent!

A person hears another person has cancer, in their presence, prays "Jesus, I command you to heal their cancer now!" then claims they are in complete remission. The person heads for their doctor's appointment, who confirms the cancer has spread and performs chemotherapy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

"i think this is right because wouldn't it be nice?" => not rational
"i think this is right because look how beautifull the woman is that came up with the idea" => not rational
"I think this is right because it would be horrible if it wasn't" => not rational

"I think this is right because of this and this objective test and / or evidence" => rational


...

No, the word "right" has no objective test and/or evidence.
That is what you don't get.
That word for how you use it, is in your brain. It is not how I use it.
How come?
Because you can't use an objective test and / or evidence on it.
The word "right" is not real, because it is not science nor a part of objective reality. It has no scientific standard of measurement nor any instrument to use to measure it.

You are doing it again. You are using a word that is utterly subjective, because it depends on subjective thinking and you know this, when you realize how you and I use the word "right" depends both on how we individual think.

Science is neither right nor wrong as such in itself. It is a limited human behavior observable in some humans, but not all. That is what science is, if you look at it as a human behavior.
Science is not a thing nor anything in itself. It is something some humans do!
But that is neither right or wrong objectively. Science is only right or wrong, when subjectively judged to be so by a human. And you can't do that using science, because science is an limited behavior in humans and it requires observation or testing according to being observable by all.
But "I think this is right..." is not based on observation. It is based on how you think and I think differently about the word "right" and I use differently because I can do that in practice for everyday world.

You are so close, yet you don't register the importance of "I think this is right..." It doesn't apparently occur to you, that "right" is not subject to observation itself and it is a dead giveaway, because you start with "I think...".

So here it is for observation. You think one way about right and I think another way. So both cases are a fact, right???
That is so, because both cases are subjective and dependent on thinking.

So here is a definition of objective as relevant:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.

That you think this is right, is not objective, because it is not of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
And "right" is not of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
Your "right" is not science, because it is not of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

Here is another:
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
"I think this is right..." is an interpretation in you, because it relies on how you think.
You think only science and thus rational is right. But that is not science, because it is not objective. And it is not rational, because it is a subjective judgment in you.

We have been here before. You are apparently unable to understand your own subjectivity as subjective and you subjectively claim it is objective. It is not. It is an interpretation in you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the Bible, God acts logically. I do not think I can wave away anti-Flood claims. I do think there is scientific data that affirms Flood theory.

There isn't.

It's not an ad populum fallacy to describe the human condition, such as "all people who are alive have bodies"

Or "all people, like most animals, have a tendency to be superstitious".

That's one I would agree with.

It is such a small percentage of people, now and always, who deny the numinous, that it is a universal and a (seemingly) willful effort to deny God exists. "But there are SO MANY gods!" is hardly a counterclaim to "the knowledge of a god seems to be universal"!

I'll rephrase this one as well:

"The BELIEF in superstitious claims, seems to be part of general human psychology"

Mere beliefs aren't knowledge, first of all. And as I explained several times already, lumping all religions into a single camp is dishonest. If you wish to go for generalities, you need to speek in generalities.

And the red thread here, are superstitious beliefs.
That doesn't just cover religions btw. It also covers moon landing conspiracies, alien abduction claims, bigfoot spotters, crystal healings, tarrot readers and other fortune tellers, etc etc etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, the word "right" has no objective test and/or evidence.
That is what you don't get.
That word for how you use it, is in your brain. It is not how I use it.
How come?
Because you can't use an objective test and / or evidence on it.
The word "right" is not real, because it is not science nor a part of objective reality. It has no scientific standard of measurement nor any instrument to use to measure it.

You are doing it again. You are using a word that is utterly subjective, because it depends on subjective thinking and you know this, when you realize how you and I use the word "right" depends both on how we individual think.

Science is neither right nor wrong as such in itself. It is a limited human behavior observable in some humans, but not all. That is what science is, if you look at it as a human behavior.
Science is not a thing nor anything in itself. It is something some humans do!
But that is neither right or wrong objectively. Science is only right or wrong, when subjectively judged to be so by a human. And you can't do that using science, because science is an limited behavior in humans and it requires observation or testing according to being observable by all.
But "I think this is right..." is not based on observation. It is based on how you think and I think differently about the word "right" and I use differently because I can do that in practice for everyday world.

You are so close, yet you don't register the importance of "I think this is right..." It doesn't apparently occur to you, that "right" is not subject to observation itself and it is a dead giveaway, because you start with "I think...".

So here it is for observation. You think one way about right and I think another way. So both cases are a fact, right???
That is so, because both cases are subjective and dependent on thinking.

So here is a definition of objective as relevant:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.

That you think this is right, is not objective, because it is not of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
And "right" is not of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
Your "right" is not science, because it is not of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

Here is another:
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
"I think this is right..." is an interpretation in you, because it relies on how you think.
You think only science and thus rational is right. But that is not science, because it is not objective. And it is not rational, because it is a subjective judgment in you.

We have been here before. You are apparently unable to understand your own subjectivity as subjective and you subjectively claim it is objective. It is not. It is an interpretation in you.

"right", accurate, true,....

Whatever floats your boat.

When you express belief in something, what you are saying is that you think a certain thing is correct / accurate / true.
That's literally what "belief" means.

Such a belief can be rationally justified or it can be irrationally justified.

When your justification are things like "it feels good" or "it would be horrible otherwise", or any other such emotional argumentation, then that is irrational as justification for beliefs.

If your justification rather deals with possible independent verification and objective evidence, then that is rational justification.

This is what these words mean.
That's the difference between rational and irrational.

Rational are those things that are reasonable, properly justified, testable, verifiable, demonstrable,...
Irrational are those things aren't that and sometimes even in spite of rational evidence of the opposite, yet believed anyway.

 

[Darkstorn]

And here I always considered you intelligent!

It's okay. I never considered you intelligent.

A person hears another person has cancer, in their presence, prays "Jesus, I command you to heal their cancer now!" then claims they are in complete remission. The person heads for their doctor's appointment, who confirms the cancer has spread and performs chemotherapy.

This is literally nothing to do with the supernatural OR falsifiability. It's a random anecdote.

Maybe this isn't about intelligence at all. Maybe it's about medication.

Would certainly explain the delusional content in your post.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"right", accurate, true,....

Whatever floats your boat.

When you express belief in something, what you are saying is that you think a certain thing is correct / accurate / true.
That's literally what "belief" means.

Such a belief can be rationally justified or it can be irrationally justified.

When your justification are things like "it feels good" or "it would be horrible otherwise", or any other such emotional argumentation, then that is irrational as justification for beliefs.

If your justification rather deals with possible independent verification and objective evidence, then that is rational justification.

This is what these words mean.
That's the difference between rational and irrational.

Rational are those things that are reasonable, properly justified, testable, verifiable, demonstrable,...
Irrational are those things aren't that and sometimes even in spite of rational evidence of the opposite, yet believed anyway.

Thank you for clarifying.

There is a problem though. Unless you are totally amoral, then you are irrational, when you behave in a moral sense.
So pick your poison.
If you are indeed amoral, please explain.
If you are irrational, then you are like all humans, who behave with a claim of being moral or doing ethics.

So here it is with science:

Science doesn't make moral judgments
When is euthanasia the right thing to do? What universal rights should humans have? Should other animals have rights? Questions like these are important, but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights — and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

So yes, there are rational and irrational behavior and you can claim all of your favorite words, but either you are amoral or irrational according to your own system.
Should humans have universal rights?
Both yes and no are irrational, because we have no way of answer that with reasonable, properly justified, testable, verifiable, demonstrable....

That is the everyday limit of your beloved worthwhile science and rationality.
That has been known for over 2000 years in the western culture. For those of us, who pay attention, it is in the books and on the Internet, i.e. the knowledge about it.
It even has a name, subjectivity. And it is a fact that you can't avoid even if amoral. You can deny it, but that is a case of subjectivity.

So let me explain. A majority of humans, when claiming morality, do something subjective, yet claim it is rational, objective and what not. They claim an objective God or other objective supernatural explanations. Others then use philosophy; e.g. Marxism, Objectivism and the list goes on. And a few claim science
A rough estimate including non-religious claims of objectivity would place it around 90+% of humans.
So as a universal fact for all humans, there is a reason, why it is that, it is named the declaration of human rights and that we don't have a scientific theory of objective morality and ethics.
It is simple. You can't observe good or bad. You experience it non-objectively.
Objective:
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.
- expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Definition of OBJECTIVE

That is it. Anybody, who do so, are subjective and irrational as per your definition of rational, yet because it is subjective and what they do, is subjective, they can get away with claiming it is objective.
Here is how it works.
If I do something based on personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations and I can in fact do it, I can get away with claiming it is objective. How so? Because I can in fact do it.
That also applies to you and everybody else.

But you see, I don't claim that I can do morality and ethics objectively. I admit I am irrational. Further I use religion because it brings me comfort as me and I admit it.

That is related to such words as mentalizing, meta-cognition and self-reflection/intra-psychology. There is science on that and it describes what goes on. It is a personal interpretation of right, wrong, good, or bad. So some scientist and other humans know this, but all who claim science don't know it, because they are not aware that they are subjective and irrational.
It is simple, if it indeed was science, we would have a scientific theory of objective morality and ethics. We don't and as long as we remain humans as we are now, that will remain so.

I can explain it more in depth, but I see no reason for it, because I predict that your subjectivity works for you and that includes claiming that you are always rational. Your woo is that you believe in form of rationality, which is irrational, because you believe that it is possible to be that all the time.

 

[Darkstorn]

There is a problem though. Unless you are totally amoral, then you are irrational, when you behave in a moral sense.

That is logically invalid.

So yes, there are rational and irrational behavior and you can claim all of your favorite words, but either you are amoral or irrational according to your own system.
Should humans have universal rights?
Both yes and no are irrational, because we have no way of answer that with reasonable, properly justified, testable, verifiable, demonstrable....

You're wrong. I'm sorry, i can't really elaborate more. There's only one kind of wrong in my books.

/E: By that i mean i can't elaborate in any accurate sense "how" wrong you are. Because that level is total. You're totally wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is logically invalid.



You're wrong. I'm sorry, I can't really elaborate more. There's only one kind of wrong in my books.

/E: By that I mean I can't elaborate in any accurate sense "how" wrong you are. Because that level is total. You're totally wrong.

All of those words tell me that it is subjective and your personal interpretation of wrong. Because I can do it differently and that is what makes it subjective and without reason, logic AND evidence.
If indeed it is a fact, that I am wrong, then that fact can't be wrong, because facts can't be wrong. You have just stated something as a fact. It is a fact about a part of how the world works that I am wrong. But then you can't claim it is morally wrong, because facts can't be morally wrong, because you can't observe a wrong fact. That is the right back at you

 

[Darkstorn]

All of those words tell me that it is subjective and your personal interpretation of wrong. Because I can do it differently and that is what makes it subjective and without reason, logic AND evidence.
If indeed it is a fact, that I am wrong, then that fact can't be wrong, because facts can't be wrong. You have just stated something as a fact. It is a fact about a part of how the world works that I am wrong. But then you can't claim it is morally wrong, because facts can't be morally wrong, because you can't observe a wrong fact. That is the right back at you

Oh, you're a solipsist. Or i guess "reductionist" would be more appropriate. Super. But i don't think things, or especially concepts, should be reduced to infinite regress. Because then things will become non-understandable and word-saladey. With your philosophy, i could reduce everything and anything into nothing. For example, in a very strict sense, i could argue you out of existence using the stuff you just used here.

But we all know i'm not a wizard so i'll just do the next best thing:

In the context of a forum debate, what you said there in the text i quoted previously, is too subjective to be considered a fact with any sort of realistic practical definition. Yet you are treating it as fact. Hence you're just plain wrong. Because of the simple reason that i disagree and make the claim that i can rationalize all the things you claimed cannot be rationalized.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, you're a solipsist. Or i guess "reductionist" would be more appropriate. Super. But i don't think things, or especially concepts, should be reduced to infinite regress. Because then things will become non-understandable and word-saladey. With your philosophy, i could reduce everything and anything into nothing. For example, in a very strict sense, i could argue you out of existence using the stuff you just used here.

But we all know i'm not a wizard so i'll just do the next best thing:

In the context of a forum debate, what you said there in the text i quoted previously, is too subjective to be considered a fact with any sort of realistic practical definition. Yet you are treating it as fact. Hence you're just plain wrong. Because of the simple reason that i disagree and make the claim that i can rationalize all the things you claimed cannot be rationalized.

I am not a solipsist, yet you continue to state a fact: "Hence you're just plain wrong".
I am not a reductionist, because world is neither just objective nor subjective. Nor rational or irrational.
You see, the problem is that I am still here and a part of the everyday world just like you. No matter how many words you throw at me, they won't make me wrong. That is not how words work.
That you and I can disagree, is because of subjectivity and you continue to confirm that in part here: "...that i disagree..." Neither of us would be able to disagree, unless that is subjective.

 

[Darkstorn]

I am not a solipsist, yet you continue to state a fact: "Hence you're just plain wrong".
I am not a reductionist, because world is neither just objective nor subjective. Nor rational or irrational.
You see, the problem is that I am still here and a part of the everyday world just like you. No matter how many words you throw at me, they won't make me wrong. That is not how words work.
That you and I can disagree, is because of subjectivity and you continue to confirm that in part here: "...that i disagree..." Neither of us would be able to disagree, unless that is subjective.

One problem: If even one person can rationalize universal human rights, or acting with moral guidance, then it has dis-proven your claims:

"Unless you are totally amoral, then you are irrational, when you behave in a moral sense."

And

"So yes, there are rational and irrational behavior and you can claim all of your favorite words, but either you are amoral or irrational according to your own system.
Should humans have universal rights?
Both yes and no are irrational, because we have no way of answer that with reasonable, properly justified, testable, verifiable, demonstrable...."

So the real problem is you stating your opinions as facts. Opinions CAN be wrong.

You're wrong. ""