Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (14247)	6/9/2007 10:33:41 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

Hi, I was hoping you would join in. "I'm curious how it is rational to accept this, since it cannot be proved or reasoned out. I've been trying my level best to provide some reason that backs belief. If you have time, I hope you wont mind reviewing my side of the discussion some. A reasonable atheist would be a welcome addition. "It seems to me that the only rational response to the things we cannot know, is to say "We don't know that yet", and NOT to accept a conclusion of any sort. " There are many things we don't know but that we have enough evidence (self evidence compounded by reports of wise guides and substantial evidence) to support faith. You didn't know when you got up this morning whether or not the world would end before noon but you had lunch groceries just in case. No one has proven what awareness is, yet many people base their definition of humanness to self awareness of their own human life. So we begin with a belief in our humanity and seek proof of it from there on. "To accept the influence of things unproved is irrational- and there is nothing per se wrong with the irrational, but you can't really call it rational and get away with it. I'm not saying there are no schizos claiming a religious belief. However, unproved does not mean no evidence. It merely means scientific method cannot nail it down according to the prerequisite rules. My premise here is that there are many things scientific method can nail down and other things that we know about but can't be scientifically proved because the proof extends beyond the limits of scientific observation. That is not proof that they don't exist. "When you accept things on faith, you enter the realm of the irrational," No I don't. "...and I think the best argument, for the religious, is that God intended there to be a certain irrationality to belief, because if faith were logical, everyone would believe it, and there would be no "test" for the faithful." Your parents told you not to talk to strangers and they may have had some stories to back up the belief that strangers could be trouble. Maybe you believed them, there was some evidence, but no proof that strangers were dangerous. The fact is most are not dangerous. It is still rational for small children to believe the guidence of parents. If they test that out and find a nice stranger, does that mean they should lose faith in their parent's guidence, lacking solid proof of each directive from parents? "Almost all religious texts have something in them about the need for believers to have this sort of faith- which would set them apart from the other people on the planet who are not willing to take the irrational leap. Almost all, guide believers to seek knowledge and use the lessons of history to confirm the teachings. The step we all take to imagine what lay beyond our knowledge base, our power base, and control is to believe something. No knowledge base is absolute, all are founded upon certain assumptions. As such all require a leap of faith. The irrationality is not to believe the evidence that says there is something beyond the temporal scientific evidence it is to believe something that fundamentally contradicts self evidence, the wisdom of guides, and substantiated science. I don't think I've read many religious texts that don't have something to say about this, so I do think that trying to apply logic and reason to faith is probably a non-starter, The idea that faith and reason are essentially contradictory is flawed. "...at least if you are dealing with the world's dominant religions " I am not a spokesperson for dominant religions and, in fact, consider dominance of religious authority to be a corruption practiced by powerful hypocrites. "(not to mention the logical problem with trying to do it)." That's the problem we are discussing... <g>

To: epicure who wrote (14247)	6/9/2007 11:25:24 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

"...and I think the best argument, for the religious, is that God intended there to be a certain irrationality to belief, because if faith were logical, everyone would believe it, and there would be no "test" for the faithful." Tests of the faithful probably mean something different to you than they do to me. Every lucid moment is a test of faith. What proof is there that charitable acts, kindness, and consideration are good for the good acting person? What proof is there that unethical behavior is always bad for the unethical person? What proof is there that honesty is the best policy? All of this requires some level of faith that what you instinctively know is goodness in human character is good beyond the act itself and that badness in human character leaves an invisible scar on the heart of the perp. Who do you know, not tested in this way? I know of no one.