Sorry, that example doesn't work.
How is thinking "perhaps there's life on other plants" irrational? While we don't have any evidence that proves this is the case, there's no evidence that suggests it is unreasonable either. The examples we've found of "extremophiles" (living organisms that can live in conditions we once thought inhospitable to life), as well as the recent discovery of earth-like planets around other stars, makes the possibility of life on other planets well within the bounds of reasonable speculation. If someone said that he "knew" that there were intelligent aliens on the 4th planet of Reticuli, THAT would be an irrational claim.
I gotta disagree, but no point in arguing about it because we obviously wont meet up and I don't feel like having this discussion go on forever about what's rational and irrational since it's such a large subject and we won't get anywhere with it.
It doesn't take a lot of common sense to see that a spoon is less dangerous than, say, a gun. Some things cause harm more easily than others. But I don't want to spend much time arguing about the definition of dangerous, as it's not really relevant to the main discussion.
Well then consider most mainstream religions to be a spoon, and for the times they've been warped to be the times someone's been stabbed with a spoon. Does that help clarify what I'm saying?
Would you care to explain how religious opposition to evolution is primarily political?
You're misdirecting my statements. My argument was that the past examples you've sited, with 'religious impedment' to scientific progress have actually been more political than having anything to do with religion. I'm saying that the moves to ban things which are contrary to one's interpretations only has actual effect from a political leader and is more a game of politics than enforcement of a belief. Average Joe isn't going to have any effect on weather or not a scientific article gets published, what will is any political repercussions. Nor will Average Joe have any say in if it gets accepted into the scientific community.
But that is exactly what creationists want. That is what Sotha was objecting to in his first post, and you seemed to disagree with him. No one has ever suggested that creationism can not even be named in a classroom. If someone asked me about the "moon landing was hoaxed" theory in my class I would certainly discuss it, but I would make sure my students knew it was an unscientific theory with no valid evidence to support it.
Well way to blanket and stereo type
. Did you see this on CNN too Spring? This is exactly what I was talking about in that if you don't know enough about the people around you, you end up just forming your opinions not
based on what you've experience in your real life but rather media which screws up everyone's conceptions. Or maybe you saw a group of people protesting outside a school saying teach creationism, even so that's no reason to stereotype all those who view creationism as legitimate?
Maybe you found some website or a youtube video which enforces your thoughts, but did you ever stop to question the validity, and scope of this information?
Any way you've justified this belief to yourself, that all people who believe in creationism have this same motive is not true. All your doing is making an invisible enemy for yourself. This is what I don't like.
Wow, every clause in that sentence is a blatant misrepresentation of my position. Do you really not understand what I'm saying or are you misrepresenting it on purpose?
Apparently I don't get what your going at
Quick aside: atheism is not a belief system. It is a position on a single issue: your belief in a god. If you have one, you're a theist; if you don't, you're an atheist.
I consider the denial of the existence of a supreme being to be a belief, the belief that there is no supreme being. It's a belief maybe belief system isn't the right term I don't know; but there is overlap in that it probably has the same amount of influence on one's life as choosing a religion since there's always going to be differences in society and justifications one has to make to reinforce those beliefs.
What a complete straw man. When did I ever advocate writing people off as idiots, or claim that people who don't believe the same things I do are dangerous to society?
Given that you're totally misrepresenting my position, maybe I'd better clarify your position a bit more:
Well in terms of your underlined statement. You've been communicating to me that all religious people
are irrational and sponges for false information which results in a danger to society. So that leaves 2.3% (according to a quick wiki search of % of atheism in the world)
of the entire population of the world who you feel are rational and not sponges nor a danger to society. If that isn't supremacy through ideology then I don't know what is.
Furthermore some of what I write is not only directed towards you. When Sotha says something such as "it's all nonsense," basically saying 'these people believe in nonsense' what other way of interpreting that should there be? It obviously has an insulting tone to it.
1. Do you agree that reason and rationality are the best tools we have for understanding reality? If not, what is the best tool, in your opinion?
2. Do you believe that people can have beliefs that are dangerous to society?
Look spring, this details finely what I'm trying
to talk about, which is what I think people shouldn't do.
You for your beliefs of the universe and life through the scientific journals you read and that's fine. But you should not just assume all others who think differently then you are inferior
. (being irrational would be an inferiority) Their beliefs may be irrational to you, but they aren't to them and there's probably been more thought put into it than you give them credit for. And to assume only those that share the same beliefs as you are rational beings capable of making correct choices and distinguish right from wrong is ridicules.
For the record I answer Yes to each question, but since you see what I think as irrational we obviously aren't looking at the question through the same lens.