Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Can Atheism Account For Rationality
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYes, it does.
It is a biological process. Yes, you can diagram it. You can explain the physics. You can understand the physics. That does not make the plant "rational." YOU, a rational person, can understand the plant's biology. You, a rational person, can explain the physics associated with the plant. As far as I know, the plant cannot apply logic or reason. If you can show me that it can, then I would agree that the plant is a "rational" thing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostHow is it different from a fart?
Originally posted by Sparko View PostDoes a fart violate any law of logic?
Originally posted by Sparko View PostDoes it cause any contradictions?
Originally posted by Sparko View PostHow is a fart not operating according to the laws of logic?
Originally posted by Sparko View PostHow can anything in the universe violate the laws of logic?
Dad says, "That's irrational"
As far as I know, we're both in the universe.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThey are "built in" to the reality.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostOnly on Tweb could this discussion drift over to one concerning farts.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]37947[/ATTACH]
I know...go figure. I have no idea how farts got into the discussion. Personally, I think it stinks...The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postyour definition didn't say "operates using and applying reason and logic" it say "operates according to reason and logic" - meaning it has to be something that IS logical, not USES logic. no wonder you and seer (and now I) am talking past each other.
At this point, I have to admit that this is SO basic, and so obvious to me, I am beginning to think I am being trolled just to see how long I will keep responding.
I think I'm going to leave this discussion to you guys. It is beginning to border on the inane.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostOK, I worked REALLY hard to fight the desire to post this way, but I figured CP would just jump on it if I didn't.
Seer, if your thoughts are no different than your farts, I now understand why you have so many problems following a logical argument...
Sorry...but you lobbed that one WAY up there....I just had to swing...
Again, there is nothing in the definition of "rational" that specifies the thing, how the thing came to be, what powers the thing, what color the thing is, or whether the thing likes bananas. The thing is operating/acting rationally if those actions/operations are "based on or in accordance with reason or logic."Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostOnly on Tweb could this discussion drift over to one concerning farts.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOf course, but are they both equally determined biological functions?
Originally posted by seer View PostIs what you think as rational biologically determined?The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostActually, the definition I have now posted multiple times says "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." I suspect "operating" was left out because an object or an idea could be considered rational or irrational or nonrational. An idea doesn't operate. So a thing capable of "operating" can operate (act, decide, ect.) in accordance with reason or logic, or an idea could be assessed as being in conformance with reason or logic.
At this point, I have to admit that this is SO basic, and so obvious to me, I am beginning to think I am being trolled just to see how long I will keep responding.
I think I'm going to leave this discussion to you guys. It is beginning to border on the inane.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostAgain, you are meaning "UTILIZING/APPLYING Logic and Reason" but your definition says "in accordance with" - and I think that is the confusion here. And why you and seer are talking past each other.
"based on" or "in accordance with"
"reason" or "logic"
An idea can be based on logic - so would be deemed "rational"
A person can be operating in accordance with reason - so would be deemed "rational"
A set of rules can be based on reason - so would be deemed "rational"
A computer can be operating in accordance with Boolean logic - so would be deemed "rational"
Nothing in the definition requires it to be or not be chemical, electrical, biological, determined, have free will, own a car, like walks in the rain, be alive, have noxious farts, or any other characteristic anyone wants to throw in that is not part of the definition. If a thing is assessed as "based on or in accordance with reason or logic," we call it "rational."
It's a fairly simple concept. Why we have all of this hairsplitting is beyond me.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAgain, the definition I have repeatedly posted says "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." Notice the presence of two conjunctions:
"based on" or "in accordance with"
"reason" or "logic"
An idea can be based on logic - so would be deemed "rational"
A person can be operating in accordance with reason - so would be deemed "rational"
A set of rules can be based on reason - so would be deemed "rational"
A computer can be operating in accordance with Boolean logic - so would be deemed "rational"
Nothing in the definition requires it to be or not be chemical, electrical, biological, determined, have free will, own a car, like walks in the rain, be alive, have noxious farts, or any other characteristic anyone wants to throw in that is not part of the definition. If a thing is assessed as "based on or in accordance with reason or logic," we call it "rational."
It's a fairly simple concept. Why we have all of this hairsplitting is beyond me.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI am just showing you why you and seer (and I) were talking past each other. I have no idea why you can't just say, "Oh thanks" but have to continue to argue about it even more. When I asked you what you meant by "rational" you gave an unclear definition and when I finally understood what you meant and repeated it back to you, rather than saying "yes" or "no" you just repeat the same old obscure definition. You seem completely incapable of communicating in a clearcut manner, or giving an inch in any discussion. It's very frustrating.
Sparko - if pasting a definition right out of a dictionary is "obscure," then I guess the dictionary was "obscure" and I offer my apologies for resorting to such a noxious source for a discussion about the meaning of a word. If you have another source I should be using instead, by all means let me know what it is.
And yes, there was a bit of sarcasm in that response. This has become a little silly. I was going to commend you for joining into the discussion in such an even handed manner, given our past exchanges, but I guess we're right back to the same-old-same-old.Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-26-2019, 03:11 PM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostObscure definition?
Sparko - if pasting a definition right out of a dictionary is "obscure," then I guess the dictionary was "obscure" and I offer my apologies for resorting to such a noxious source for a discussion about the meaning of a word. If you have another source I should be using instead, by all means let me know what it is.
And yes, there was a bit of sarcasm in that response. This has become a little silly. I was going to commend you for joining into the discussion in such an even handed manner, but I guess we're right back to the same-old-same-old.
Comment
-
https://www.iep.utm.edu/art-inte/
Much as intentionality
Take note of a couple things here. This is a secular website discussing artificial intelligence, and yet it makes reference to Christian thought to explain these concepts. Intentionality is cited as central to intelligence...intentionality requires free will.
Have you heard of the Turing test, carp? The inventor of computers knew they were not rational machines and devised a method of testing when they could have become rational. What say you to that?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostObscure was the wrong word. Ambiguous would have been a better word to use. The meaning of "in accordance with" doesn't convey the use that you were using, as "utilizing reason and logic"
Given that your stated intent was to try to help the two of us see what the impasse was, I apologize for my comment in the previous post. It was inappropriate. I am probably guilty of assuming that your apparent dislike of me was coloring your responses, and reacting defensively when no attack was intended. My thanks for your attempt.
We'll see what Seer has to say.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
606 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment