That's a fair point and duly noted, but then pretty much what we're saying is that rationality is subjective, in which case we have no reason to judge people for that anyway.

edit: nor should it be brought up in debate for the same reason.

It's subjective, but you can argue about it if you agree on premises, and if it can be shown that one person is being inconsistent.

For example, you prefer to act as if there is not a floating pink elephant above you. You also prefer to act as if Santa Clause is not real. You also choose to act as if Mohammad is not the one and only prophet of the true God, Allah. You also choose to act as if the holy trinity is not composed of Brahman, Shiva, and Vishnu. You also choose to act as if our souls are not infected by the remnants of alien beings stuffed in a volcano by intergalactic emperor Xenu. You do, however, choose to believe in Jesus.

We can't see any of these things. We can't test their presence. We can't prove or disprove any of them.

What makes me rational and you irrational is that you have arbitrarily chosen one of them to believe in. This is inconsistent, because you have no more evidence for one than you do the other. I am consistent. I believe in none. That is rationality.

And that is why Martin Luther insisted that:
[color="#1C2837"][color="#333333"][font="Arial"]Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has. - Martin Luther[/font]

[color="#1C2837"]He understood it. He was at least honest. Why can't you be honest and admit your belief has nothing to do with rationality or proof or logic or any of these faculties, and that you don't want it to?

What makes me rational and you irrational is that you have arbitrarily chosen one of them to believe in. This is inconsistent, because you have no more evidence for one than you do the other. I am consistent. I believe in none. That is rationality.

It wasn't arbitrary. I have plenty of evidence to convince myself; as I am not trying to convert anyone here, why do I need more? Being consistent doesn't make you rational either. My beliefs are totally consistent. If you are arguing that consistency makes you rational then we are both rational.

And that is why Martin Luther insisted that:
[color="#1C2837"][color="#333333"][font="Arial"]Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has. - Martin Luther[/font]
[/quote]
It's a good thing I'm not Lutheran then?

As I understand it the basis behind Christianity is that those who follow it believe that Jesus came to earth to die for our sins so that if we believe in him we get to goto heaven. Sin entered into the world in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge (or Tree of Conscience as I just discovered...) despite El G Man saying not to do it. This event is the fundimental basis for all the sin in the world and consigned us all to damnation, unless we believe in Jesus.

The problem with this model is that it ignores the facts behind human evolution and the fact that at one point there were two competing groups for which there is mounting evidence of interbreeding (clicky).

While there might still be things we don't know about the specifics of how we got here it is becoming clear that we didn't arrive in this world as fully formed humans and that varients of humanity existed at the same time. All of which raises the question of when did this "sin" really happen? Clearly there was no human adam and eve kicking around in a garden, and based on the development it would have been quite some time after human like creatures had the capacity to under stand "don't do this".

More likely, in my view, the creation story is nothing more than an invention, something someone came up with after some amount of thought to explain away why we are here. The concept of 'days' as the periods for development of the world maps perfectly into our understanding of the world and the 'garden of eden' and 'sin' explains away why life is so hard, that at some point in the past things were good but 'we' got it wrong and so were kicked out, but if you lead a good life you can get back to that promised land once more. The Adam and Eve thing is equally easy to explain; everyone has a mother and a father, so it would have stood to reason that all people would have had an initial parent.

I dare say all other creation stories/myths could be deconstructed in much the same way; all explaining the world in such a way as it could be understood based on current understanding at the time, and with the idea that life wouldn't be this hard if not for some mistake done in the past which we must atone for in some manner.

In my view there is just as much evidence for aliens dicking about in our history as there is for an all powerful god doing so; probably more so, as the saying goes 'any significantly advanced technology can look like magic' after all.

[quote name='A Brain in a Vat' timestamp='1312254572' post='4843408']
What makes me rational and you irrational is that you have arbitrarily chosen one of them to believe in. This is inconsistent, because you have no more evidence for one than you do the other. I am consistent. I believe in none. That is rationality.

It wasn't arbitrary. I have plenty of evidence to convince myself; as I am not trying to convert anyone here, why do I need more? Being consistent doesn't make you rational either. My beliefs are totally consistent. If you are arguing that consistency makes you rational then we are both rational.
[/quote]

What evidence? You claim you have some, so let's have it.
And no "I heard the voice of god" bullshit. Real, actual evidence that led you specifically to believe in Christianity. And why it doesn't apply to Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Islam, Rastafarianism, Scientology or Pastafarianism.

You're not trying to convert anyone, but you feel sufficiently confident of your position to engage in this argument, so let's see your evidence.

As I understand it the basis behind Christianity is that those who follow it believe that Jesus came to earth to die for our sins so that if we believe in him we get to goto heaven. Sin entered into the world in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge (or Tree of Conscience as I just discovered...) despite El G Man saying not to do it. This event is the fundimental basis for all the sin in the world and consigned us all to damnation, unless we believe in Jesus.

The problem with this model is that it ignores the facts behind human evolution and the fact that at one point there were two competing groups for which there is mounting evidence of interbreeding (clicky).

While there might still be things we don't know about the specifics of how we got here it is becoming clear that we didn't arrive in this world as fully formed humans and that varients of humanity existed at the same time. All of which raises the question of when did this "sin" really happen? Clearly there was no human adam and eve kicking around in a garden, and based on the development it would have been quite some time after human like creatures had the capacity to under stand "don't do this".

If you view the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor for man taking what is believed to be good or evil into his own hands rather than a literal documentation of what happened between two people thousands of years before it was actually written down it makes more sense. I'm not even entirely convinced that Adam and Eve were homo sapiens in my set of beliefs, so neanderthal/homo sapien interbreeding isn't really relevant to my particular beliefs.

In my view there is just as much evidence for aliens dicking about in our history as there is for an all powerful god doing so; probably more so, as the saying goes 'any significantly advanced technology can look like magic' after all.
[/quote]
And I'd say that's a perfectly valid belief despite it being different than mine.

If you view the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor for man taking what is believed to be good or evil into his own hands rather than a literal documentation of what happened between two people thousands of years before it was actually written down it makes more sense. I'm not even entirely convinced that Adam and Eve were homo sapiens in my set of beliefs, so neanderthal/homo sapien interbreeding isn't really relevant to my particular beliefs.

But if you take it as a metaphor then how does that explain the emergance of sin? It's like we develop to the point of being able to understand 'good' and 'bad' and then god comes down and says 'right, now you understand it you are all doomed unless you do as I say' and then some time after that he sends his son down to say 'hey, you know when you suddenly all became doomed, well believe in me and you'll be ok from now on!'... I mean, what the hell? That just makes god out to be a massive jerk..

It also brings up the question of the 'soul', which is another key part of it all; at what point did we get a soul which COULD be damned? Did one magically turn up at the moment? Or do all creatures have them but we are held to some 'higher' standard simply because we can apprently reason about 'good and bad' in the eyes of god?

However I think people put too much stock in the "it's a metaphor" arguement; looking back on it with modern thinking, evidence and all the advances we've had over the X thousands years since someone first came up with this idea. Back then this probably seemed like a logical and reasonable explaination even taken at face value because they had no evidence to contradict it (much like thunder and lighting being the work of the gods). The story then gets retold over the years in oral tradition before being written down.

[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1312232473' post='4843275']
Birds descended from reptiles, so that blows that argument away. Although it seems he conveniently disagrees with that, too.

O rly?[/quote]The link says dinosaurs, not reptiles - what was the common ancestor?

I'm unclear as to your point - that they didn't descend from dinosaurs because they are disimilar to them, but other evidence shows a similarity with reptiles, therefore evolution is wrong? I don't follow the logic here. Which is it - are they similar to reptiles, or aren't they?

There is nothing irrational with making claims that are un-falsifiable.[/quote]I'm referring believing in such an unfalsifiable thing as a matter of faith - such as someone who believes in invisible undetectable elephants. If you don't consider either to be irrational, then fair enough, we're just disagreeing over the definition of irrational.[/quote]
why is it irrational? I'm using the definition in the dictionary.[/quote]Fair enough, as long as we agree they're the same kind of thing. But as pointed out, there are different uses of the term rational. E.g., saying my bike is missing because magic pixies ate it, is that "a rational explanation"? That's not what anyone means by the term.

it's analogous to using the word irrational correctly. There is no evidence for A, B, C or ~A, ~B, ~C, so believing A or ~A is totally rational as long as your beliefs follow accordingly with the knowns.[/quote]I neither assert that A nor ~A is true.

But we're not talking about logic, we're talking about the existence of a physical entity. I think it's reasonable to apply rationality to a person's thinking on the physical world, and not just pure logic.[/quote]

arguments are logic. If you want to ignore logic there's no point discussing any further.[/quote]Not at all what I said.

What if I say:

1. if A then B
2. if B then C
3. therefore if A then ~C

Is this okay too? Or if not, how do you know your version is right, and my version is wrong?

It wasn't arbitrary. I have plenty of evidence to convince myself[/quote]Well that's a different argument. First you were arguing that it's perfectly rational to believe in things with no evidence, so long as they can't be disproven.

Now you say you believe because there's evidence. Okay, fair enough - believing because there's evidence isn't irrational. But the debate now turns to - what is this evidence?

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1312290026' post='4843559']
If you view the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor for man taking what is believed to be good or evil into his own hands rather than a literal documentation of what happened between two people thousands of years before it was actually written down it makes more sense. I'm not even entirely convinced that Adam and Eve were homo sapiens in my set of beliefs, so neanderthal/homo sapien interbreeding isn't really relevant to my particular beliefs.

But if you take it as a metaphor then how does that explain the emergance of sin? It's like we develop to the point of being able to understand 'good' and 'bad' and then god comes down and says 'right, now you understand it you are all doomed unless you do as I say' and then some time after that he sends his son down to say 'hey, you know when you suddenly all became doomed, well believe in me and you'll be ok from now on!'... I mean, what the hell? That just makes god out to be a massive jerk..[/quote]
Once you decide for yourself what is good and bad you accept the responsibility that goes along with it. As human's, once we decided we could judge right and wrong we opened ourselves to the possibility that we could be judged. God gave us his law to prevent us from being damned and sent his son to fulfill that law and give us the ultimate path to salvation.

We separated ourselves from God, and because he loves us he gave us direction back to him. He did not separate himself from us; we separated ourselves from him, and the onus is on us to go back to him not on him to collect us all. If he were to do that it would be a violation of our free will, which is our defining gift from God.

I mean, what the hell? That just makes god out to be a massive jerk.[/quote]
When you start with the assumption that God is a jerk and you write the story reflecting God as a jerk obviously he will sound like a jerk. That's true of any entity regardless of how much a jerk they may or may not be. You could make Nelson Mandela sound like a huge asshole doing the same thing.

It also brings up the question of the 'soul', which is another key part of it all; at what point did we get a soul which COULD be damned? Did one magically turn up at the moment? Or do all creatures have them but we are held to some 'higher' standard simply because we can apprently reason about 'good and bad' in the eyes of god? [/quote]
This is an issue with you thinking that Christianity is a guide to everything. It is not. It is an isolated guide on how to live a fulfilled life leading to salvation. It doesn't need to answer anything more than that, so why read into more than is there?

However I think people put too much stock in the "it's a metaphor" arguement; looking back on it with modern thinking, evidence and all the advances we've had over the X thousands years since someone first came up with this idea. Back then this probably seemed like a logical and reasonable explaination even taken at face value because they had no evidence to contradict it (much like thunder and lighting being the work of the gods). The story then gets retold over the years in oral tradition before being written down.
[/quote]
That's fine if it doesn't work for you. If you can't justify that it's a metaphor, ok; it works for you and more power to you. Religious people still shouldn't be looked down on just because they are religious.

The link says dinosaurs, not reptiles - what was the common ancestor?

I'm unclear as to your point - that they didn't descend from dinosaurs because they are disimilar to them, but other evidence shows a similarity with reptiles, therefore evolution is wrong? I don't follow the logic here. Which is it - are they similar to reptiles, or aren't they?

There's similarity between some insects and reptiles. There's similarities between us and reptiles. There are similarities between jellyfish and some predatory plants despite one being a plant and one being an animal.

What if I say:

1. if A then B
2. if B then C
3. therefore if A then ~C

Is this okay too? Or if not, how do you know your version is right, and my version is wrong?[/quote]
Because 3 does not follow from 1 or two? Can't tell if serious...

It wasn't arbitrary. I have plenty of evidence to convince myself[/quote]Well that's a different argument. First you were arguing that it's perfectly rational to believe in things with no evidence, so long as they can't be disproven.

Now you say you believe because there's evidence. Okay, fair enough - believing because there's evidence isn't irrational. But the debate now turns to - what is this evidence?
[/quote]
I'm not trying to convert anyone. Similar to what I said before, would you feel comfortable justifying your love for your wife scientifically? Is it even right to do so? Is it fair to her? Would you appreciate someone calling you irrational for loving your wife? Would you appreciate it if someone compared your actions and reasons for loving your wife to the actions of a drunk teenager who vandalizes his ex's new boyfriend's car because he's in "love"? Would you appreciate someone telling you that your opinion on science is invalid because you believe that you love your wife?

It wasn't arbitrary. I have plenty of evidence to convince myself

Well that's a different argument. First you were arguing that it's perfectly rational to believe in things with no evidence, so long as they can't be disproven.

Now you say you believe because there's evidence. Okay, fair enough - believing because there's evidence isn't irrational. But the debate now turns to - what is this evidence?
[/quote]
I'm not trying to convert anyone. Similar to what I said before, would you feel comfortable justifying your love for your wife scientifically? Is it even right to do so? Is it fair to her? Would you appreciate someone calling you irrational for loving your wife? Would you appreciate it if someone compared your actions and reasons for loving your wife to the actions of a drunk teenager who vandalizes his ex's new boyfriend's car because he's in "love"? Would you appreciate someone telling you that your opinion on science is invalid because you believe that you love your wife?
[/quote]
You haven't answered the question. Second, you are making appeals to emotion. Third, you are making the same [s]argument [/s] appeal gain.