DarkWraith said:
prayformojo said:
DarkWraith said:
that would set a very dangerous precedent indeed. a slippery slope resulting in thought crime. that is not a world in which I desire to live.
that being said, in the absence of objective evidence for god, the belief is delusional. existence cannot be confirmed any other way. philosophers have tried and failed repeatedly to establish existence through a purely a priori basis.
"In the absence of compelling objective evidence for God's existence, therefore, religious belief is, alethically speaking, pathological and, by two-factor standards, delusional." - Dr. Ryan McKay, "Hallucinating God? The Cognitive Neuropyschiatry of Religious Belief and Experience"
before I get some incredibly asinine reply like "well you can't disprove it either", I recommend you look up the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy since you're essentially saying "it's okay to believe until proven otherwise" which is backwards, fallacious thinking. then pursue a study in epistemology and learn what separates an opinion from a justified belief. |
Yes, but if one much reject the idea of the existance of something entirely due to lack of proof, then the concept of a hypothesis becomes void and thus, science and the pursuit of truth ends. The concept of a creator, in any form, is a hypothesis and one that can't be erased entirely without also erasing science as well. Kill one, you kill the other.
|
any unsubstantiated claim must be rejected on the basis that it isn't justifiable to believe it. a hypothesis without a test is no different, which is why it is a requirement for a hypothesis to be testable.
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Religion isn't factual, nor reasonable. People beleive what they want.
As for this:
"well you can't disprove it either", I recommend you look up the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy since you're essentially saying "it's okay to believe until proven otherwise" which is backwards, fallacious thinking.
That is simply an assumption. That assertion means that it cannot be proven and thus is irrelevant in discussion of rationality not justification for the belief itself.
A set of irrational beliefs does not conflict with a rational mind.
Edit: Its a pointless endeavor to try and blame irrationality on Religion, irrationality is a part of Human Nature, as a construct of Humanity, Religion, which is not formed via the scientific method, would be no exception. Especially, when some in this thread are blaming Religion for the very things that it bans against in the various religions of the world, a delightful ironic display of ignorance.
|
justification for a belief is derived from rationality, so absent rationality it cannot be justified. furthermore, I have to correct you on this notion that beliefs are based upon wants. that is simply incorrect, that would necessitate choice and that isn't the case. for example, you couldn't merely choose to believe in leprechauns if you do not believe in leprechauns. beliefs are consequences of your rationality; in order to change your mind, you would need more data either external or inferred.
I think you have misunderstood me. perhaps you were too swift to respond...what I said was that it is irrational to believe in god absent objective evidence, I did not say that religion breeds irrationality. it is true that this is an irrational (or arational) belief, but as you correctly said "A set of irrational beliefs does not conflict with a rational mind". |
What is your opinion on the growing hypothesis that we may all be living inside of a super computer? I've seen that some of the leading minds in science have started leaning towards this idea and have begun primitive testing.
Personally, it fascinates me because if something like that were true, and science could actually prove that we were all created by an evolved being inside of a complex set of code, for the first time in human history, science and religion would blend together as one.
