Definition of religion

[Dutch Uncle]

This is because vegetables never have any doubts, Terry.

Vegetable can't think, Sybil.

Have you ever had Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)? I've read it can have a very calming effect upon your "demons".

 

[IBDaMann]

Vegetable can't think, Sybil.

It comforts me to know that you have come to accept your condition. We'll do what we can to keep you comfortable.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It comforts me to know that you have come to accept your condition. We'll do what we can to keep you comfortable.

Is that you, yourself and Irene?

 

[Into the Night]

I understand your concern, and I am not saying what you think I'm saying, so allow me to clarify further.

A rational basis for a belief is a basis that cannot be denied by a rational adult, i.e. this is why a rational adult should believe this. A rational basis is similar to a "proof" except that it involves all science, math, logic, economics, observations, empirical evidence, etc... It does not mean that a belief that does not have a rational basis should not be believed, it only means that it could/might be denied by a rational adult. One could preach a particular religion, e.g. Christianity, and it might very well resonate with some and they might believe it. The key is that some rational adults might reject the faith as well. Any proselytizer of the faith would not be able to call those who reject the faith irrational solely on the basis of the rejection.

On the other hand, if you were to go on a vacation for two weeks and not arrange for anyone to feed your fish because you refuse to accept all explanations for how they will be dead upon your return, you could be labeled as irrational (on that matter). There is a compelling reason for you to hold a particular belief that is founded in science/math/logic/economics/etc, and you could be labelled irrational solely on the basis of the rejection ... unless you actually want your fish dead.

That is all that means. A rational basis means that a rational adult must accept. An irrational belief may be denied by a rational adult (or may be accepted). Religions are inherently irrational (per this definition) and may be denied by a rational adult.

Okay...you are trying to redefine 'rational'.

This word first appeared in the English lexicon around the 14th century, stemming from the Latin rationalis, which means 'of or belonging to reason'. A 'reason' only need be logical. Since ?A->A is a valid logical expression, the circular argument itself is logical. All religions are based on some initial circular argument, or argument of faith, with arguments stemming from that. In other words, the circular argument itself (along with any supporting evidence) can be reasonable in and of itself.

Having said that, the Church of Global Warming is NOT reasonable, since it blatantly ignores various theories of science. The circular argument itself is at odds with these theories. That circular argument is not a reasonable one.

Christianity, for example, is reasonable, but not provable. Because it's reasonable, it does not conflict with any logic or any theory of science or any mathematics. Logic is still satisfied with ?A->A.
You cannot use logic or mathematics or any theory of science to prove that God does not exist. You cannot use logic or mathematics or any theory of science to prove that Jesus Christ does not exist.

The same can be said for Shintoism, Buddhism, even some forms of paganism. It can even be said for the Church of No God.

Atheism, is of course, different. Being the only non-religion, it needs no circular argument or argument of faith. Because you follow this type of reasoning, you tend to ignore that ?A->A is a valid logical expression. It stems directly from the Law of Identity, an axiom in logic.

You CAN use theories of science to show the circular argument defining the Church of Global Warming to be itself irrational.
You CAN use mathematics to show some of it's supporting arguments are themselves irrational.

To group ALL religions as 'irrational' is a compositional error fallacy.

 

[IBDaMann]

Okay...you are trying to redefine 'rational'.

Well, I don't consider it "redefining" if I'm reverting to the correct meaning of the word but yes. I almost invariably use "rational" and "irrational" to describe a thought basis, which, as you note, is not being equated with "reasonable". You are correct that the two should really be synonymous ... but I'm not using them as synonyms. Below I expound:

It is rational to bring a jacket if you believe that it might get cold.

It is irrational to believe that a man walked on water, however it is reasonable to believe that such a miracle occurred. If you were a jury member at my trial, and my supposed alibi was that I walked on water to cross the lake, you wouldn't buy it; it's not rational. If a Christian were to claim that the Son of God literally walked on water, ... well, OK, there's nothing unreasonable there as far as a religious belief goes, e.g. there's no internal inconsistency.

The Marxist religions, however, are both irrational AND unreasonable, e.g. "Global Warming is settled science AND the earth spontaneously increases in temperature without any additional energy" or "We value democracy above all else AND we need an omnipotent central planner/controller for the social order" or "It's not fair that some people have more wealth than others so their wealth should be 'redistributed' AND businesses are unfairly exporting all the jobs overseas."

 

[Dutch Uncle]

...It is rational to bring a jacket if you believe that it might get cold...

Agreed.

What is irrational is for a guy to have his socks talk to each other and believe no one notices.

 

[saltydancin]

Okay...you are trying to redefine 'rational'.

This word first appeared in the English lexicon around the 14th century, stemming from the Latin rationalis, which means 'of or belonging to reason'. A 'reason' only need be logical. Since ?A->A is a valid logical expression, the circular argument itself is logical. All religions are based on some initial circular argument, or argument of faith, with arguments stemming from that. In other words, the circular argument itself (along with any supporting evidence) can be reasonable in and of itself.

Having said that, the Church of Global Warming is NOT reasonable, since it blatantly ignores various theories of science. The circular argument itself is at odds with these theories. That circular argument is not a reasonable one.

Christianity, for example, is reasonable, but not provable. Because it's reasonable, it does not conflict with any logic or any theory of science or any mathematics. Logic is still satisfied with ?A->A.
You cannot use logic or mathematics or any theory of science to prove that God does not exist. You cannot use logic or mathematics or any theory of science to prove that Jesus Christ does not exist.

The same can be said for Shintoism, Buddhism, even some forms of paganism. It can even be said for the Church of No God.

Atheism, is of course, different. Being the only non-religion, it needs no circular argument or argument of faith. Because you follow this type of reasoning, you tend to ignore that ?A->A is a valid logical expression. It stems directly from the Law of Identity, an axiom in logic.

You CAN use theories of science to show the circular argument defining the Church of Global Warming to be itself irrational.
You CAN use mathematics to show some of it's supporting arguments are themselves irrational.

To group ALL religions as 'irrational' is a compositional error fallacy.

Who'd of guessed that with SCOTUS Rehnquist Fourth Reich July 9/11 national religion of "one nation under God with equal justice under law" would only be applicable to their Islamidiotocracy Christiananality-Mohammed pedophilia of those crooks on Capital Hill suicidal super ego pyramid scheme Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking sociopsychopathilogical homicidal human farming survival of the fittest master race fascists.....

 

[IBDaMann]

Watching you talk to yourself is interesting, Sybil. Revealing too.

Terry, I hate to break it to you but you aren't watching anybody. That feather-brush feeling on your brain stem is confusing you into imagining the bizarre.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Terry, I hate to break it to you but you aren't watching anybody. That feather-brush feeling on your brain stem is confusing you into imagining the bizarre.

I'm watching you, Sybil. Your manifesto is very revealing, as well as your little conversations between your socks.

 

[Yakuda]

Looks like Durkheim gets closest.

It also best describes the democratic party

 

[saltydancin]

It also best describes the democratic party

Don't have to wonder why Ukraine should keep killing Russian Orthodox Church rootin' tootin' Putin Nazi security; but when it comes to this Christian Nation SCOTUS Rehnquist Fourth Reich July 9/11 Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement Nazi security of "serve the Pope or die" more perfect union with Islam "death to the infidels" Plan A is no more "one nation under God with equal justice under law".....

 

[NiftyNiblick]

i can't remember if I've already responded to this thread or not.

In any case, my definition of religion:

"an irrational assumption of a deity or multiple deities or spiritual forces
entirely without physical evidence of their existence."

 

[Yakuda]

i can't remember if I've already responded to this thread or not.

In any case, my definition of religion:

"an irrational assumption of a deity or multiple deities or spiritual forces
entirely without physical evidence of their existence."

Like multiverses

 

[Cypress]

i can't remember if I've already responded to this thread or not.

In any case, my definition of religion:

"an irrational assumption of a deity or multiple deities or spiritual forces
entirely without physical evidence of their existence."

Serious question:

Are you convinced that human sensory perception and the cognitive capacity of our brains allow us to percieve and interpret all of reality?

 

[saltydancin]

i can't remember if I've already responded to this thread or not.

In any case, my definition of religion:

"an irrational assumption of a deity or multiple deities or spiritual forces
entirely without physical evidence of their existence."

Christian Nation SCOTUS Rehnquist Christiananality - Mohammed pedophilia 9/11 play calling for those Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement patriot act diatribe Washington, D.C. born USA citizens are Islam much as Russia's Orthodox Church rootin' tootin' Putin is just an evil mad man tautology Ukrainians are Nazis....

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Serious question:

Are you convinced that human sensory perception and the cognitive capacity of our brains allow us to percieve and interpret all of reality?

Respectfully serious answer:

It's entirely possible that they do not,
but since that's all that we have,
any speculation beyond their capacities seems fanciful to me.

I suppose that when one is young and not limited by diminished hard-drive space between the ears,
a measure of fanciful curiosity isn't a bad thing,

but at this point in my life, it's best to use my remaining thought capability
on things of more immediate interest.

The last thing I would want is a staggeringly boring eternal life in heaven, even were it available to me,
and so it's comforting to simply believe that I needn't be worrying about it,

and to instead think about things like
why I love donuts,
and why the Red Sox suck as much as they do.

 

[Litmus]

Respectfully serious answer:

It's entirely possible that they do not,
but since that's all that we have,
any speculation beyond their capacities seems fanciful to me.

I suppose that when one is young and not limited by diminished hard-drive space between the ears,
a measure of fanciful curiosity isn't a bad thing,

but at this point in my life, it's best to use my remaining thought capability
on things of more immediate interest.

The last thing I would want is a staggeringly boring eternal life in heaven, even were it available to me,
and so it's comforting to simply believe that I needn't be worrying about it,

and to instead think about things like
why I love donuts,
and why the Red Sox suck as much as they do.

wrong.

it's idiotic to believe the world ends at the end of your perceptions.

You've lived an idiots life are left with empty hedonism and evil.

congratulations, dumbass.

 

[IBDaMann]

In any case, my definition of religion:

"an [purely on faith] assumption of [metaphysical] forces
[purely on faith]."

Clever.

 

[IBDaMann]

Serious question: Are you convinced that human sensory perception and the cognitive capacity of our brains allow us to percieve and interpret all of reality?

Mathematician Kurt Gödel proved that we cannot, with his Incompleteness theorem.

 

[saltydancin]

Like multiverses

Just like Russia's Orthodox Church rootin' tootin' Putin Christiananality pedophilia medical degree baptize thine Ukraine Nazis as SCOTUS Rehnquist baptize those Washington, D.C. born Islam & for the holy trinity baptize duh cheese.....in that WW II Mengele "Angel of Death" baptize thine eyes by urinations medicine evil narrative....