Lois, you claimed...The atheist position, which isn't a theory, incidentally. We should choose a position that makes more sense. The atheist position makes more sense to me. Atheists don't worry about their "lives" ending when they die. We go by what we can know. If you're a rational person you won't need the "comfort" of silly fairytales. You grow up.Theistic religion is the antithesis of rational thinking.I replied with the following analysis of the rational basis for both theism and atheism.Theists claim we go to heaven after death. Atheists claim we rot in the ground, and that’s it. Neither side can prove anything. Should we choose a theory which gives people hope, and encourages them to earn heaven through constructive behavior? Or should we choose a theory which promises nothing as a reward for all our efforts? We can’t separate these theories on the basis of fantasy, because both are fantasy. The theist thinks they know, the atheist thinks they know, but the truth is nobody has a clue what death is.Which is the most rational theory Lois?
Lois, you claimed...The atheist position, which isn't a theory, incidentally. We should choose a position that makes more sense. The atheist position makes more sense to me. Atheists don't worry about their "lives" ending when they die. We go by what we can know. If you're a rational person you won't need the "comfort" of silly fairytales. You grow up. if you are an atheist - you reject the claim that there is a God. Thats it. Atheism does not claim anything else. Dawkins claims the rational thinking people arrive at this position when it comes to supernatural claims. The point of thread is rational thinking from the likes of Dawkins doesnt seem to be equally applied in over areas of our lives such as economic.Theistic religion is the antithesis of rational thinking.I replied with the following analysis of the rational basis for both theism and atheism.Theists claim we go to heaven after death. Atheists claim we rot in the ground, and that’s it. Neither side can prove anything. Should we choose a theory which gives people hope, and encourages them to earn heaven through constructive behavior? Or should we choose a theory which promises nothing as a reward for all our efforts? We can’t separate these theories on the basis of fantasy, because both are fantasy. The theist thinks they know, the atheist thinks they know, but the truth is nobody has a clue what death is.Which is the most rational theory Lois?
You completey misunderstand atheism.Sorry, not true, I understand it far better than all the little baby atheist ideologues on the Internuts. Forum atheists have a faith based belief that human reason is qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions, an un-examined assumption for which there is no proof whatsoever. It's not even a credible claim, given how small and insane we are in comparison to "all of reality" the realm being addressed by god claims.
That people need the "comfort" of belief is wrong. Atheists do well without it.It appears you have not the slightest idea what you're talking about, which in your defense is entirely normal on this topic, including among many very famous atheists. I just outlined your faith based belief above, which you don't even realize you have, that's how deep the faith is. The fact that even atheists who loudly reject faith belief themselves have a faith based belief, reveals how strong the human need for answers is. The only difference between you and Jehovah's Witnesses is that you have a different totally unproven faith based belief than they do. The poses of superiority claimed by BOTH SIDES are entirely fantasy, a triumph of ego over reason.
You completey misunderstand atheism.Sorry, not true, I understand it far better than all the little baby atheist ideologues on the Internuts. Forum atheists have a faith based belief that human reason is qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions, an un-examined assumption for which there is no proof whatsoever. It's not even a credible claim, given how small and insane we are in comparison to "all of reality" the realm being addressed by god claims.
That people need the "comfort" of belief is wrong. Atheists do well without it.It appears you have not the slightest idea what you're talking about, which in your defense is entirely normal on this topic, including among many very famous atheists. I just outlined your faith based belief above, which you don't even realize you have, that's how deep the faith is. The fact that even atheists who loudly reject faith belief themselves have a faith based belief, reveals how strong the human need for answers is. The only difference between you and Jehovah's Witnesses is that you have a different totally unproven faith based belief than they do. The poses of superiority claimed by BOTH SIDES are entirely fantasy, a triumph of ego over reason. Atheism has nothing to do with faith. Your ignorance is really annoying
I’m not going to summarize this for you because you are resistant to evidence, but look up this author and this topic and you will find some excellent research on how people get a sense of in-group loyalty from religion. They can get the same thing from non-religious groups, there are just fewer of them right now. They don’t dominate the landscape like religion does.
Lois, you claimed...The atheist position, which isn't a theory, incidentally. We should choose a position that makes more sense. The atheist position makes more sense to me. Atheists don't worry about their "lives" ending when they die. We go by what we can know. If you're a rational person you won't need the "comfort" of silly fairytales. You grow up. if you are an atheist - you reject the claim that there is a God. Thats it. Atheism does not claim anything else. Dawkins claims the rational thinking people arrive at this position when it comes to supernatural claims. The point of thread is rational thinking from the likes of Dawkins doesnt seem to be equally applied in over areas of our lives such as economic. You're right about what atheism is. But those who have come to atheism through rational thinking, tend to apply it to everything else. Everybody is irrational or just wrong about something. Rational thinking is applied to such things as economics. It's just that people tend to label anything as irrational that they disagree with. The proof of the pudding is in the evidence.Theistic religion is the antithesis of rational thinking.I replied with the following analysis of the rational basis for both theism and atheism.Theists claim we go to heaven after death. Atheists claim we rot in the ground, and that’s it. Neither side can prove anything. Should we choose a theory which gives people hope, and encourages them to earn heaven through constructive behavior? Or should we choose a theory which promises nothing as a reward for all our efforts? We can’t separate these theories on the basis of fantasy, because both are fantasy. The theist thinks they know, the atheist thinks they know, but the truth is nobody has a clue what death is.Which is the most rational theory Lois?
You completey misunderstand atheism.Sorry, not true, I understand it far better than all the little baby atheist ideologues on the Internuts. Forum atheists have a faith based belief that human reason is qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions, an un-examined assumption for which there is no proof whatsoever. It's not even a credible claim, given how small and insane we are in comparison to "all of reality" the realm being addressed by god claims.
That people need the "comfort" of belief is wrong. Atheists do well without it.It appears you have not the slightest idea what you're talking about, which in your defense is entirely normal on this topic, including among many very famous atheists. I just outlined your faith based belief above, which you don't even realize you have, that's how deep the faith is. The fact that even atheists who loudly reject faith belief themselves have a faith based belief, reveals how strong the human need for answers is. The only difference between you and Jehovah's Witnesses is that you have a different totally unproven faith based belief than they do. The poses of superiority claimed by BOTH SIDES are entirely fantasy, a triumph of ego over reason. You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know what atheism is, you don't know what critical thinking is and you create your philosoohy based on emotional reactions to what other people accept or reject and how it lines up to your own preconceived notions and beliefs.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know what atheism is, you don't know what critical thinking is and you create your philosoohy based on emotional reactions to what other people accept or reject and how it lines up to your own preconceived notions and beliefs.I've been trying to tell him that since he got here. He calls me emotional. Yeah, that's me, all emotion, no logic.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know what atheism is, you don't know what critical thinking is and you create your philosoohy based on emotional reactions to what other people accept or reject and how it lines up to your own preconceived notions and beliefs.I've been trying to tell him that since he got here. He calls me emotional. Yeah, that's me, all emotion, no logic. Oh, well, it takes all kinds.
You completey misunderstand atheism.Sorry, not true, I understand it far better than all the little baby atheist ideologues on the Internuts. Forum atheists have a faith based belief that human reason is qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions, an un-examined assumption for which there is no proof whatsoever. It's not even a credible claim, given how small and insane we are in comparison to "all of reality" the realm being addressed by god claims.
That people need the "comfort" of belief is wrong. Atheists do well without it.It appears you have not the slightest idea what you're talking about, which in your defense is entirely normal on this topic, including among many very famous atheists. I just outlined your faith based belief above, which you don't even realize you have, that's how deep the faith is. The fact that even atheists who loudly reject faith belief themselves have a faith based belief, reveals how strong the human need for answers is. The only difference between you and Jehovah's Witnesses is that you have a different totally unproven faith based belief than they do. The poses of superiority claimed by BOTH SIDES are entirely fantasy, a triumph of ego over reason. You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know what atheism is, you don't know what critical thinking is and you create your philosoohy based on emotional reactions to what other people accept or reject and how it lines up to your own preconceived notions and beliefs. I agree, he has no idea what he is talking about. Atheism is no faith-based belief. Some weirdoes even go as far as saying that atheism is a religion!
Is it rational to think that tax cuts to the rich helps the working class? Is it rational to think that deregulation helps create jobs? is it rational to think that privatising the essential public services benefits the public? is it rational to think that the rich are job creators? Is it rational to think capitalism = democracy? Is it rational to think climate change can be addressed with the framework of capitalism? Is it rational to think that capitalism doesnt need imperialist wars? Is it rational to think a free market exists?No, not a joke. I just don't get what the point is. The OP was asking why certain people don't critique economics like they critique religion. My answer was that it's not their area. But there are people who do critique economics. Noam Chomsky would be a good example. You can find experts that respond to every one of your questions above. So what's the connection to rationalism? Some people have rational critiques, some not so much. Just because we see irrational things happening, it doesn't mean rationalism is never applied to economics. There is as much disagreement among economics experts as in any subject of discussion. Economics is do closely related to,political opinion, so,there are extreme views from the left and the right.
Theists claim we go to heaven after death. Atheists claim we rot in the ground, and that's it. Neither side can prove anything. Should we choose a theory which gives people hope, and encourages them to earn heaven through constructive behavior? Or should we choose a theory which promises nothing as a reward for all our efforts? We can't separate these theories on the basis of fantasy, because both are fantasy. The theist thinks they know, the atheist thinks they know, but the truth is nobody has a clue what death is. Which is the most rational theory?Apart from a few unverifiable mythical accounts, dead people in the ground rot. Seems way beyond an unproven fantasy. Is that irrational? Both sides of many of Adamski's points/questions have rational arguments to support them. The debate isn't over. To many atheists, the issue isn't as much God / no God as much as God is irrelevant to our lives. We have no rational basis to support any other notion. If that ever changes, I'm sure many will be open to rational debate. We choose not to live by a dubious theory which gives people unproven hope, and encourages them to earn mythical rewards and instead search for and practise behaviors which make sense based upon our feelings of accomplishment in this world. Our differences arise from incomplete attempts at rationality and from differences in real and assumed understanding of what motivates people. I guess it depends how you define fantasy. Preview OK, same in post is spam. Inserting one return triggered spam. Deleting the same return still triggered spam.
You missed the premise of the thread
You missed the premise of the threadYou missed the purpose of the forum
You missed the premise of the threadYou missed the purpose of the forum OP?? struggler