Absurd REALLY stupid stories in the bible.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
then it follows that by your second definition, faith is very rational, as the goal of being closer to god is achieved.

taking it to extremes, the mouse that constantly presses the switch that gives him orgasms instead of food is very rational because he achieves his goal of having orgasms efficiently and effectively.



sarcasm aside, i do not agree with your opinion.

No. You still don't get rationality. At all.

Faith is never rational as it violates part one of rationality which is having an accurate
world view.

And rationality feeds back on itself as it also helps determine what things you should
have as goals.

For example you might really enjoy smoking... or at least being addicted really desire it.
However as a rationalist your rational accurate world view tells you that smoking is
dangerous, unpleasant for others, is expensive, and is reducing the quality of other
parts of your life... So you decide to quit smoking and have that as one of your goals.

Because people never have ONLY one goal, you have many different goals which often
conflict.


It's not 'my opinion' that you don't get rationality.

You don't get rationality.

Just as it's not 'my opinion' that RJHinds doesn't get evolution.


As you are a Christian, I am a rationalist. I believe in rationality and being rational.
[and as ever neither I nor anyone else ever actually achieves being perfectly rational,
it's a goal to aim and strive for rather than something you claim to have actually achieved]
And just as I wont try to tell you what it means to be a Christian, or what you as a
Christian believe.
Perhaps you shouldn't try telling me what rationality entails given it's not your philosophy.

You are not getting what rationality is... which is unsurprising as rationality is generally very
poorly and inaccurately portrayed in popular culture.

I recommend watching the video. It's well presented and humorous, and deals specifically
with this issue. If you are genuinely interested then I can explain it in detail myself... But that's
quite a lot of time and effort required.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No. You still don't get rationality. At all.

Faith is never rational as it violates part one of rationality which is having an accurate
world view.

And rationality feeds back on itself as it also helps determine what things you should
have as goals.

For example you might really enjoy smoking... or at least being addicted really desire it.
H lain it in detail myself... But that's
quite a lot of time and effort required.

why are you so sure i do not get rationality? why are you so sure you do? is it possible you are wrong? is it probable? do you believe your view could use some adjusting? or have you reach the final stages of enlightment?



"Faith is never rational "
i never claimed that it is. i only claimed that every human being is irrational at some point and in various degrees and that makes us human. one can have irrational goals, just to make oneself be happy.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
heh, seems we are adjusting our stance now? i thought you said resurrection is impossible, period. now we are working with specific conditions, huh?


no, i merely pointed out that a simpler, similar experiment with more lax conditions was already successfully performed by human scientists. that is HUMANS, not someone who supposedly is the supreme bein ...[text shortened]... nalogy, something you apparently missed, there is no reason to assume improvement is impossible.

I've not changed anything, I have been talking all along about the resurrection of Lazarus as detailed in the Bible. That Jesus brought Lazarus back to life by the command of his voice is one of the details in the story.

I didn't miss your flight analogy, it was simply rubbish and dismissed. So, do you have any scientific evidence that someone can be brought back to life by the command of the human voice?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
dude, i kept answering that. over and over. that is the case where proof is presented and you choose to ignore it. and as i mentioned before, those that do that are no longer ignorant, they are acting like mindless drones.

No, you are still not getting the question. I am saying that the envelope is in front of you, but you do not know what is in it. You have not been presented with proof that she is cheating, you have been presented with an envelope that contains the answer to whether she is cheating or not. ie she might not be cheating.
The answer you have given so far suggests you would not go to any trouble to check if your wife is cheating, so I am presenting a scenario where no trouble is required, you just reach over and open an envelope.

faith is indeed irrational. we are irrational beings, no matter how much you dislike the concept.
Yet you criticize others and distance yourself from them for being irrational.

it is irrational to play the lottery,
If you expect to win, yes.

it is irrational to drink, to smoke.
I disagree.

it is irrational to pay 100 million dollars for a work of art.
I disagree.

it is irrational to buy a ferrari with 100k dollars when a volvo gets you from A to B just as fast and comfortable.
I disagree about the comfort. Showing off, is a form of comfort, as is enjoying the power of the Ferrari.

it is irrational to pay 1000 dollars for a meal in an expensive restaurant rather than eat a bland nutrient paste filled with what your body needs to survive. entertainment is irrational. love is irrational. art is irrational.
I disagree.

happiness comes from being irrational in certain degrees. to be 100% logical is to cease being human.
I disagree.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No. You still don't get rationality. At all.

Faith is never rational as it violates part one of rationality which is having an accurate
world view.

And rationality feeds back on itself as it also helps determine what things you should
have as goals.

For example you might really enjoy smoking... or at least being addicted really desire it.
H ...[text shortened]... lain it in detail myself... But that's
quite a lot of time and effort required.

As you are a Christian, I am a rationalist. I believe in rationality and being rational.


and i claim that nobody can be a 100% rationalist, the way you seem to describe it. in various degrees we are all at times irrational.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, you are still not getting the question. I am saying that the envelope is in front of you, but you do not know what is in it. You have not been presented with proof that she is cheating, you have been presented with an envelope that contains the answer to whether she is cheating or not. ie she might not be cheating.
The answer you have given so far su ...[text shortened]... eing irrational in certain degrees. to be 100% logical is to cease being human.
I disagree.[/b]

"so I am presenting a scenario where no trouble is required, you just reach over and open an envelope."
yes, in this case, to ignore that envelope is to be stupid.


"Yet you criticize others and distance yourself from them for being irrational."
heh, yes, the world is not black and white, and there are various degrees of being irrational. we judge each case separately. i do not wish for my faith to be mandatory and be thought in schools. i do not want to stop the progress of the human race by banning stem cell research. so yes, i will distance myself (figuratively) from a jw refusing blood transfusions to his daughter but i will bring myself closer to him as i petition the authorities to charge him with child abuse and save his daughter.


"If you expect to win, yes."
agreed. yet people do it? why? one explanation is that for a brief moment of imagining themselves with a gazilion dollars, they are happy.


it is irrational to drink, to smoke.
I disagree.
why? it is an action that is bringing you momentary happiness at the cost of damaged health and possibly a hangover in the case of drinking.


it is irrational to pay 1000 dollars for a meal in an expensive restaurant rather than eat a bland nutrient paste filled with what your body needs to survive. entertainment is irrational. love is irrational. art is irrational.
I disagree.

everyone is entitled to one's opinion in these manners. which is ok and actually desirable. diversity makes life interesting.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I've not changed anything, I have been talking all along about the resurrection of Lazarus as detailed in the Bible. That Jesus brought Lazarus back to life by the command of his voice is one of the details in the story.

I didn't miss your flight analogy, it was simply rubbish and dismissed. So, do you have any scientific evidence that someone can be brought back to life by the command of the human voice?

yes, dismissing arguments your opponent makes as rubbish until he has nothing left to defend his position. i remember this debate tactic. it was used by rjhinds for his last... every post he ever made.



at least fudge gave reasons why he disagrees with my arguments. so if you don't mind, i would rather talk with him.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, dismissing arguments your opponent makes as rubbish until he has nothing left to defend his position. i remember this debate tactic. it was used by rjhinds for his last... every post he ever made.



at least fudge gave reasons why he disagrees with my arguments. so if you don't mind, i would rather talk with him.

So do you have any scientific evidence of someone being brought back to life by human voice?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
As you are a Christian, I am a rationalist. I believe in rationality and being rational.


and i claim that nobody can be a 100% rationalist, the way you seem to describe it. in various degrees we are all at times irrational.

Everyone makes mistakes, everyone has biases, everyone gets things wrong.


However some try their best to minimise their mistakes, their biases, and
employ systems and strategies that minimise and correct for mistakes and biases.

If you actually read my posts (including the line right under the one you quoted)
you would see that I am not claiming that anyone achieves being rational all the time.

[and as ever neither I nor anyone else ever actually achieves being perfectly rational,
it's a goal to aim and strive for rather than something you claim to have actually achieved]

But that doesn't mean that trying to achieve that goal and minimising the amount by which
we are irrational is not a worthwhile enterprise.

You also could do with reading "The Relativity of Wrong" By Isaac Asimov...
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Because while I could indeed be wrong about rationality, I know enough about it to
know I am not wrong enough to not know that you have no clue what it means.

In the same way that I realise while I don't know everything about how the brain
decomposes after death... I know enough to know that someone who is actually dead
for four days cannot ever be revived because their mind has been irrevocably destroyed.

I don't know the precise shape of the earth... but I know it's never going to be discovered
to be a flat disk, or a cube.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"That is not in any way shape or form evidence that the god of the bible exists.
"However, even if we do allow that JC was a historical figure and was not purely mythical."
yes, jesus existed. that is fact. whether he was the son of god, that is a matter of faith. even if he appeared in the sky and said "yo, fudge, i am the son of god, worship me". you ...[text shortened]...
and try not to put all believers in the same boat as rjhinds. it is very insulting.

this is what you fail to understand from my "wife loving you" example. believers don't require hard evidence. we have faith. believing in someething [sic] is what makes us happy. if god was proven beyond a doubt to exist (which you asked me to) only the insane and retarded would deny his existence.

Actually I understand your example fine... I just disagree with it.

I am well aware of the fact that all theistic beliefs are faith based, and have no supporting evidence
and/or are contraindicated by the available evidence.

However You said...

likewise, i choose to believe there is a god, based on evidence that is perhaps insuficient,

To which my question is still "What evidence?".

If you say that there is evidence, insufficient or otherwise, then I want to know what that is.

If you don't have any evidence (you don't) and simply believe based on blind faith (you do)
then I would like you to admit that and retract the claim that you choose to believe based
on evidence.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, dismissing arguments your opponent makes as rubbish until he has nothing left to defend his position. i remember this debate tactic. it was used by rjhinds for his last... every post he ever made.



at least fudge gave reasons why he disagrees with my arguments. so if you don't mind, i would rather talk with him.

This is nothing more than a dodge. Simple as that. You know as we'll as I do that there is zero scientific evidence that a human can be brought back to life by the command of a human voice. Yet instead of admitting as such you're going down the 'I'm not talking to you anymore' route.

You made a claim to prove that your faith contradicts science, that has been done. Now the question is, are you of the same ilk as RJHinds, Carrobie and Galveston or can you admit when you're wrong?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Everyone makes mistakes, everyone has biases, everyone gets things wrong.


However some try their best to minimise their mistakes, their biases, and
employ systems and strategies that minimise and correct for mistakes and biases.

If you actually read my posts (including the line right under the one you quoted)
you would see that I am not claim ...[text shortened]... the earth... but I know it's never going to be discovered
to be a flat disk, or a cube.

But that doesn't mean that trying to achieve that goal and minimising the amount by which
we are irrational is not a worthwhile enterprise.

and i do the same. evolution, physics, chemistry, genetics. yet i choose to skip minimising irrationality when it comes to my faith. to be pragmatic, having faith causes me to lose nothing and i gain a peace of mind, happiness if you will. it is a very unfair way to look at faith, after all, one shouldn't be faithful because of only selfish reasons. but it is a way of arguing (justifying) faith to an atheist.


i will read that asimov thingy.

Originally posted by googlefudge

this is what you fail to understand from my "wife loving you" example. believers don't require hard evidence. we have faith. believing in someething [sic] is what makes us happy. if god was proven beyond a doubt to exist (which you asked me to) only the insane and retarded would deny his existence.

Actually I understand your example f ...[text shortened]... e you to admit that and retract the claim that you choose to believe based
on evidence.

there is no evidence that god is real, there is evidence that jesus is a historical figure that existed. and yes, even that evidence is debatable. i have never denied this. you cannot reach god with science. not the science of today anyway. you need faith.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
there is no evidence that god is real, there is evidence that jesus is a historical figure that existed. and yes, even that evidence is debatable. i have never denied this. you cannot reach god with science. not the science of today anyway. you need faith.

I am not sure what you mean by "you cannot reach god..."

If you mean that you can't rationally justify belief in god with science then
yes you're right and we agree.

If you mean that you can't address the question as to whether or not the god
of the bible exists with science then I have to disagree.

Science can absolutely tackle that question.

What makes you think it can't?


EDIT: It seems to me that you (for some inexplicable reason) want to believe in
the god of the bible, and are basically saying that you will do so whether it's
true or not. While at the same time admitting that you can't give any reasonable
reason why.
You are like someone who knows the odds of winning the lottery with one ticket...
but still obstinately believes that they will win, despite the massively overwhelming
odds that they wont.

Except that this is worse as the odds are much much greater and the cost of being
wrong is also much much greater.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
This is nothing more than a dodge. Simple as that. You know as we'll as I do that there is zero scientific evidence that a human can be brought back to life by the command of a human voice. Yet instead of admitting as such you're going down the 'I'm not talking to you anymore' route.

You made a claim to prove that your faith contradicts science, that ...[text shortened]... you of the same ilk as RJHinds, Carrobie and Galveston or can you admit when you're wrong?

this is what is bothering you? that nobody has proven that a human can be brought to life by the sound of someone's voice? even jk rowling addressed that in harry potter, that the incantation of the spell can simply be a means to focus one's intent. kinda like you invite a caveman into your ferrari and say "start, mighty ferrari, your master commands it" while you turn the ignition key and step on the gas.



leaving that aside, i don't mind much what your opinion is of me. i have presented my claims, you dismissed them as rubbish without even mimicking an attempt to show why. until you do that, i see no reason to debate you. to make another analogy, you break my legs and my arms, then ask why aren't i willing to kung fu you.