You can prove you have a brain by getting some medical scans and at worst have some surgery to actually take a picture of it. I've seen pictures of brain surgery with the brain shown so I'm assuming it can be done. That being said, Sishir's argument is that rationality is based on the scientific method. In other words, a rational idea is an idea that is upheld by the scientific method. Therefore believing in an idea that isn't upheld by the scientific method is "irrational." An example would be believing in unicorns. Using the scientific method, one couldn't prove the existance of unicorns therefore believing in them is "irrational." God is the exception to the rule. The scientific method can't prove God's existance yet most of us (including me) believe in some sort of supernatural. Therefore, yes I'm irrational in believing in God but so are most people. It's not an insult to you, it's just a fact if one bases rationality on the scientific method.
Hmmmm, Let's compare- Air America host says nice things about a Scientology program. Influential right wing newspaper (Washington Times) is OWNED by religous nutjob, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church. Which is more significant?
i see... i just think that when it comes to any religion, you have to look at the sum of the parts instead of focusing on one percived "negative" or "irrational" part. if someone believes that scientology is helping them, then there's no problem with paying for it in my eyes. no i am not a scientologist. frankly, the "i think you're a child molestor" dudes should eat a fat one. but definitely humorous.
first and foremost, no real religion would require a tithe that results in excluding the poor because of an inablity to give thousands of dollars to the church. A tithe is a gift you give from your heart, not some required amount to gain knowledge, that is generally used to pay bills, not swindle people. Most churches really have no way of knowing whether or not you tithe because that it let up to you and God. i know that because it's in my Bible. i know it conclusively and no one can stop me from finding the knowledge that is hidden in my Bible or teachings that aren't included in my Bible. The Church of Science Fiction, I mean Scientology, is all about secrets, scams, and money. L. Ron Hubbard said himself that religion was a great way to make money, Can you tell me where Jesus, Muhammed, The Budda, or any other religous founder/ prophet/ or God like figure has ever said something like that? The wikipedia Scientology page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
I remember reading and watching studies where they remove a section of a dog's skull and expose the part of the brain the regulates temperature. They'd poke it with a warm rod and the dog would start panting. The next rod would be cold and the dog would start shivering. For this argument in particular, the brain has been scientifically proven several times to be one (mind and body). It's why there's been an explosion of mind altering drugs in the recent years to regulate aspects such as sleep, pleasure, weight loss, anxiety, and depression. Science hasn't controlled the mind, yet. But it's not like researchers are shooting blind.
I love it when a thread turns to belief in God... you may not be irrational, in fact I think your believing in God is very rational. You cannot see God or engage Him with the senses. But the senses are not the only way to draw a rational conclusion. And science requires the examination of evidence. Scientists consistently draw rational conclusions based upon evidence that cannot be perceived by the senses. Especially in the area of the cosmos, origins and human behavior. If you were to dig into Artic ice and find a masterpiece painting where you least expected it you would immediately come to a rational decision that a painter painted the picture. The location, the quality of the painting and the physical evidence might seem irrational simply due to a preconceived paradigm, but rational thought would give you reason to believe in the painter. It is rational thought that tells me order, design and intelligence does not happen by chance. Since there is zero scientific proof that time produces intelligence it is irrational to think chance does either. I don't think anyone has to believe in God because of creation or by observing the order, design and intelligence of the universe. I think the moral conscience gives man the rational reason for God. Now everyone has a spiritual belief, the belief that the spirit or soul of man exists, or as the Bible says man is a living soul. Life itself is evidence of something that demands a rational explanation. There is no rational reason to believe that the development of eyes and brains that can distinquish color would occur by chance. It is very rational to understand that intelligence is needed to increase order, design and intelligence. In my opinion whether you believe God is that intelligence or not is not a test of rational thinking, it is a test of moral conscienceness.
I hate when people say this. NOTHING happens by chance. Chance only appears to us as chance because we are unable to perceive every factor that makes up a certain phenomena. There is a reason for everything. That in no way means there is a divine being.
word speak- substitute chance for- random, happen-stance What I mean is without intelligent cause and with respect to increased intelligence I mean that it takes superior intelligence to increase inferior intelligence. That is rational thinking. I agree with you there is a reason for everything. And it is a rational reasoning.
Not true... we examine the cosmos based on what little we can sense. For example, we detect extra-solar planets based on observations off of the wobble of a star that indicates that a planet is influencing it via gravity. We can see comets that are billions of miles away through a telescope etc... I suppose we're not there directly to look at the comet, but through the aid of technology, we can get a pretty decent look. It's not irrational at all. That's how the scientific method works. You take a hypothesis (in this case the idea that a painter made it) and then you do research (looking at the quality of the work, the type of picture on there, looking around the surrounding area for potential equipment, comparing it with paintings that are confirmed to be by humans for similarities etc..) and you then come to a conclusion. That is the scientific method in action. I disagree. And I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Remember we defined rationality, as a conclusion coming from the scientific method. I can't see how the scientific method could be applied to determine whether intelligent design exists. Besides, chance is just as probable as intelligent design. Evolution explains much of the order and design that you speak of. (Mind you I still believe in a supernatural) Moral Conscience? I'm not quite sure how you come to the conclusion that we have some built in Moral Conscience or how that creates a rational reason to believe in God. I think you're missing the point that rationality is defined by the scientific method which means that unless you can prove God exists via the scientific method that it is "irrational" to believe in God. I use quotes because obviously I'm not calling people who believe in God crazy. I'm just saying for the mere sake of semantics that it would technically be classified as "irrational" Also, eyes and a brain can be explained by evolution in my opinion. I think you come to the same conclusion I come to about God but for different reasons. The complexity of life on Earth, the development of powerful senses, don't prove anything in my mind. But there are so many unexplained phenomena in the world that cannot be explained that I can see how a supernatural can exist. Also, I practice religion for largely spiritual reasons as well. And I think on a different level, the existance of a supernatural is important just to comfort us. I think all of us go through events that are so sudden, unexplained and many times painful that it's always a little more comforting to know that a supernatural "has our back" for lack of a better term. It's always better to think that we live in a more controlled environment where we can get our due at the end of the day as opposed to living in an anarchic world of chance.
It wouldn't be much of a fight. The libpigs would simply cut and run, most likely retreating to France, where they would be welcomed with open arms. The true irony would be the existence of the anti-fighting protests amidst the liberals' ranks, which would serve to boost the Republicans in the fight.
bigtexxx, self proclaimed 4-star general in the war against teh lib'ruls! "I have spotted teh enemiez! Notice their aversion to manual labor and affinity for body hair! CH4RGE!!!!1"
I was asking a rhetorical question but to your rhetorical question yes I can prove I have a brain scientifically. An MRI, or CAT scan will quickly prove it otherwise I could just cut a hole in my skull and take a look.
There is nothing quite as funny as keyboard warriors like li'l t talking about other people cutting and running. Have you volunteered since your last post li'l t? Because here's a bulletin- You actually have to be in the fight, to even be in a position to cut and run. Li'l t is the model of neocon bravery- no cutting and running for him, he'll fight to last drop of someone else's blood.
Exactly and couldn't have said it better myself. I'm not saying God doesn't exist just that there is no rational or empiracally based method to prove God exist. As I've said before in these type of debates the existence of God isn't a scientific issue.
Science is rational most of the time. I never defined rational thought as being defined by the scientific method. I stated that is only one way to think logically and rationally. I also stated that science states things as rational that cannot be determined by scientific method, these things require beliefs or thought paradigms. How can I tell we have a moral conscience? I have one and the evidence is abundant all mankind has lived by moral conscience- justice systems, laws, rule of conduct etc. Jeffrey Dahmer said this right before he died- 'being an atheist and since after death there is nothing, I did what I did' If there is no moral conscience then there would be no restraint taken by mankind between thought and action. If there were no moral conscience children would not hide their wrong actions. If there was no moral conscience there would be no law, no enforcement. Moral conscience is the only rational explanation for man's behavior. Moral conscience could not have happened by random development because it requires a moral point of reference. To stop a hungry big fish from eating a little fish for moral reasons is stretching rational thinking past logic. Monkeys fling pooh on the D&D, but that is as close to mankind as a monkey can get with regard to morality.
While your side is arguing about which god to pray to or which corporation should get which contract or which political strategy should drive the military actions or which sex act to prohibit, the libpigs would wax you.
It is highly debatable though whehter we represent superior intelligence. What we consider intelligence isn't even necessary for complexity. Bees create incredibly complex hives, termites mounds yet we don't consider them intelligent. Life as we know it isn't required for clomplexity. Storm patterns are unbelievably complex. Even Brownian motion of dust motes is so complex as to defy calculation. Rationality isn't a requirement for complexity.
The existence of a moral conscience gives us "the rational reason for God"? Surely you give humanity too little credit? Morality is the product of human culture: It exists as certain "universal" rules which have been necessitated by - and fine-tuned over - millennia of human beings living together in social groups. And, as you would expect in such an evolutionary system, every individual still maintains a completely unique set of moral standards, even if the variations are slight Sure, the main points may be aligned: Don't kill, don't take things that belong to others, etc.. But what about concepts such as, say, vigilante justice or premarital sex? Is it so hard to imagine that people who practise them are acting naturally and without qualms, instead of knowingly going against their own internal compass and "succumbing to temptation"? By the way, if all of us really are given our natural moral bearings by the God of the Bible, the world would very arguably be a whole lot nastier today - but this is a longer discussion I don't wish to go into here To me it seems that theists think the bad feeling they get from doing "immoral" things is God-given, rather than something stemming from their upbringing and the cultures they are immersed in - simply because they can't imagine being any other way, and view anyone that differs as being "wrong" rather than just different
This could be the worst argument ever. The funny thing is that if you sub 'mind' or 'consciousness' for brain it gets a lot more interesting.
