Unveiling of Atheism Monument in Florida is a f*cking mess :russ:

[Brown_Pride]

See this? This right here is the problem.

I said that "Faith could not be grounded in reason." And it can't.

You're saying that "faith can be reasonable" which is to say that you can sympathize with people who have faith.

But that doesn't mean that anyone can ground religion in reason. It just means that they can come up with rationalizations to support their faith.

No one is telling people to "deny emotions." But the bottom line is that you cannot ground religion in reason. You can ground empirical conclusions in reason. You can ground 2+2 in reason. You CANNOT ground religion in reason. Period. It's faith. At some point, it always becomes 100% faith.

Ok we're basically arguing the same thing using different words.

So let me back up to be clear.
Religion is not fact based. It's faith based.
a. You can understand someone's REASONING in their belief.
b. You can LOGICALLY trace their REASONING.
c. You can argue that this a and b are reasonable.

A & B are based on experience and choice, as is damn near everything else in this world Atheism included.

Atheism and Religious thought share that in common.

 

[714562]

Ok we're basically arguing the same thing using different words.

So let me back up to be clear.
Religion is not fact based. It's faith based.
a. You can understand someone's REASONING in their belief.
b. You can LOGICALLY trace their REASONING.
c. You can argue that this a and b are reasonable.

A & B are based on experience and choice, as is damn near everything else in this world Atheism included.

Atheism and Religious thought share that in common.

But understanding someone's reason and being able to TRACE someone's reason does not mean that the underlying presumptions are BASED on logic or reason.

It just means you can deconstruct the argument and empathize with the argument holder.

So I repeat - you CANNOT base religions belief in reason.

I would define a "reasonable" belief as being formed by logic.

Logic has strict principles of validity.

If you deviate from those principles of validity in forming a belief, then that belief is no longer reason-based. It is faith based.

You're defining reasonable as "comprehensible." That's nonsense. I can "comprehend" why, given certain environmental factors, hardcore Muslims believe that infidels should be beheaded. But I can "comprehend" tons of stupid shyt. I can comprehend white power movements. Doesn't make it reasonable. It just means that I can trace beliefs back all the way to their illogical premises.

 

[Blackking]

So don't pose your initial question in such a dubious and underhanded light.

You know exactly what you were doing.

 

[NZA]

I'm waiting for the "Church of Atheism" to be founded at this holiest of sites.

they should have randomly chosen a starbucks as the holiest site in atheism

 

[Brown_Pride]

But understanding someone's reason and being able to TRACE someone's reason does not mean that the underlying presumptions are BASED on logic or reason.

It just means you can deconstruct the argument and empathize with the argument holder.

So I repeat - you CANNOT base religions belief in reason.

I would define a "reasonable" belief as being formed by logic.

Logic has strict principles of validity.

If you deviate from those principles of validity in forming a belief, then that belief is no longer reason-based. It is faith based.

You're defining reasonable as "comprehensible." That's nonsense. I can "comprehend" why, given certain environmental factors, hardcore Muslims believe that infidels should be beheaded. But I can "comprehend" tons of stupid shyt. I can comprehend white power movements. Doesn't make it reasonable. It just means that I can trace beliefs back all the way to their illogical premises.

OH not it's reasonable. White power is "reasonable" if your goal is well, white power.

I see what you're saying and that's why i said we're not really arguing about the same thing.

RELIGION is based on faith, not reason, proof, evidence, etc.

CHOOSING to have faith can be a reasonable conclusion, a logical conclusion.

So YES this does not mean that faith is a REASONABLE thing, it's faith after all, by definition it requires belief in something that CANNOT be proven.

Me thinks you just don't like the word "reason" and ANYTHING "religion" in the same sentence.

 

[714562]

RELIGION is based on faith, not reason, proof, evidence, etc.

CHOOSING to have faith can be a reasonable conclusion, a logical conclusion.

So YES this does not mean that faith is a REASONABLE thing, it's faith after all, by definition it requires belief in something that CANNOT be proven.

You're talking in circles.

You JUST SAID religion isn't based in reason.

How can you "reasonably" choose to believe in something that isn't grounded in reason?

You're basically arguing that it's reasonable to choose to believe in Santa Claus because you found some money under your pillow once.

Do you see why that's stupid?

 

[Brown_Pride]

You're talking in circles.

You JUST SAID religion isn't based in reason.

How can you "reasonably" choose to believe in something that isn't grounded in reason?

You're basically arguing that it's reasonable to choose to believe in Santa Claus because you found some money under your pillow once.

Do you see why that's stupid?

I don't see why belief is stupid. I don't see why emotions are stupid. I don't see why personal experience is stupid so no...

I see and agree that the foundation is not reasonable, not arguing that.

I am saying that you CAN reasonable believe in something that isn't grounded in reason based on faith and experience hell even "gut feeling".

I'm saying that if you found money under your pillow and a card Signed "santa" it would be reasonable of you to believe in a Santa. Right or wrong the reasoning behind the choice of belief is not completely illogical, thought the choice maybe.