Is it because we have an ancient moral standard, that doesn't get re-invented whenever it would be emotionally or financially convienent to do so? Why does that indicate a lack of rational thought? Do you re-invent standards of physical measurement to fit your agenda at will? New rulers, new ways to measure pounds/kilos, new measuring cups? Does the existence of THESE standards indicate a lack of imaginitive thought or rationality? If not, then why accuse theists of "non-thinking" for accepting standards for interpersonal behaviour? Please explain!
2006-12-04 02:45:10 · 18 answers · asked by MamaBear 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
because they prefer to rely on their single minded belief that because we have something to believe in that we cannot see that we are fools. athiest will always be the first to believe that if you cannot see it, it doesnt exsist. to bad they cant seethe air they breath. they must not believe in that either.
2006-12-04 03:24:16 · answer #1 · answered by Thumbs down me now 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Rulers, kilograms and measuring cups are objective standards based on unchanging, observable, universally agreed upon physical phenomenon. This is quite a bit different than the subjective, conflicting, and somewhat arbitrary moral standards espoused by most religious organizations.
Yes, scientists will re-invent a standard when they find that it is in error or that a better standard exists. Take for instance, the meter. It was originally defined as 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the north pole to the equator, through the city of Paris. It is now defined as the distance that light travels through a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. The second standard is more accurate and more constant, so it was adopted when it became available. Unfortunately, religious standards seem unable to progress in the same manner.
2006-12-04 10:59:34 · answer #2 · answered by marbledog 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Reason is the analysis of given data and reaching conclusion. Knowledge requires three fundamental concepts:
1. Math & Logic are valid -- if logic is not valid, then the truth value of a fact can never be known. Truth-value is an intrinsically logic-based value. Without logic, knowledge cannot be had.
2. Observations, unaided and aided, are valid. If aided, the aid must support prior observation and be founded on math and logic (for example: lenses work on the mathematically defined principles of optics, and if you zoom in from unaided to aided, there's no sudden JUMP in the picture, just a smaller field of vision and more and more detail). Otherwise, we would never have data on which to operate, and knowledge could not be had.
3. The supernatural, if it exists, must NOT interefere in the slightest way with the natural world. Otherwise, the God of Gravity might decide that 9.8m/(s^2) is too much gravity for earth and thus adjust the gravitational constant of the universe tomorrow; all knowledge would change as a result. Since there could never be permanence, knowledge could not be had.
Faith in a proactive supernatural violates #3 and makes knowledge void. Deists manage to avoid the axe because they DO believe in a supernatural, but that it is a non-revealed supernatural, which is exactly what #3 requires. Knowledge does not support or deny a supernatural, it only rejects its involvement.
2006-12-04 10:53:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are mixing things up here. Just because someone doesn't believe in a god doesn't mean they don't have moral standards. Not many non-theists would argue that it isn't important to have standards. There have been exhaustive studies done on the subject, and no link has been established between one's morality being dependent on a belief in a god.
Theists get accused of not thinking because most of them don't know the bible, ignore verses where Jesus (and the ten commandments) endorses killing disobedient children, yet use the bible to excuse THEIR values. In essence, the accusation isn't one of not thinking, it is of not making any sense. Theists don't make sense. It is important to have moral standards, it is not important however to cling to some mythology in the face of new evidence, science and all the benefits of living in the information age.
2006-12-04 11:01:18 · answer #4 · answered by ¡Razón! 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I never said that religous people can't think rationally, they just normally don't want to when it comes to their religion. So what if people change the way the measure things, It is a measurement and not that big of a deal.
Also, christians have changed their morals. In the crusades, killing was ok.
2006-12-04 10:54:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. You pretty much said it. You're living your lives by a code which no longer applies - not to mention that it's a bunch of hogwash.
Perhaps that makes you feel stoic and superior - your comment "......doesn't get re-invented whenever it would be emotionally or financially convenient..." underscores that very well.
You shouldn't assume that those who do not live their lives according to your terms are straying from your path for convenience or comfort.
That's kind of the point right? You can't rationally understand this.
2006-12-04 10:50:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
You may be rational in other aspects of your life but where your religious beliefs are concerned you suddenly abandon logic and reason and throw your belief behind blind faith.
Faith is not a valid tool of knowledge as anything can be believed through faith alone, you have no proof of religious claims that's why it is called faith, if you had proof then faith would not be required to believe in it.
Through faith alone we can believe in the Celestial Teapot, God or any number of Gods, the FSM, the IPU, fairies etc all are equally as likely or not to exist.
Logic and reason however tells me that the chances of any of these things existing are so footlingly small as to be non-existent.
2006-12-04 10:51:41 · answer #7 · answered by CHEESUS GROYST 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Whose standards? Why do you feel these standards should apply to everyone else? That is why I say you are beyond rational thought. You see only one side, your side, and refuse to acknowledge even when the evidence is overwhelming against your belief.
2006-12-04 10:58:07 · answer #8 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
By definition a believer is relying on blind faith alone so it's not a case of not being able to use reason it's a case of religionists willingly disregarding reason and relying solely on intuition. I don't think Christians for the most part lack intelligence I just think they wrongly refuse to examine their beliefs from a rational viewpoint.
2006-12-04 10:48:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It is highly irrational to believe in an invisible being for which there is no evidence. Not seeing this great error shows me you are "non-thinking."
The problem is that your religion DOES change whenever it is convenient for you, or the "followers" pick and choose which parts to follow. I guess it's actually erroneous to say you are not imaginative, as you make up your religion as you go to fit your needs.
2006-12-04 10:55:28 · answer #10 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not all Theist can think rationally, and unfortunately these are who we are represented mostly by. Like the po-dunk white trash are always interviewed after a disaster...hehe
2006-12-04 10:51:38 · answer #11 · answered by ♫O Praise Him♫ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋