Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
A debate?
Fine, I say idiots who prance proudly into the wolves mouth deserved to be devoured.
However, should you care to actually define said the debate, I'd be happy to rake you over the coals. We do have a one on one forum for just that.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Realize, since you are calling us out that this will be at least semi-formal. The subject will be WELL defined and preferably narrow in scope, there will be an introduction, a set number of exchanges and a conclusion by all parties.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
You implied I was an idiot? That wasn't nice.
Hm. Well.. I didn't really define the parameters of the debate.. because I didn't really have any. It was more half a joke... but I'd be happy to give it a round or 10.
How about what I consider to be a basic premise of RRS, theistic beliefs are not rationale.
If you care to refine the issue more, feel free.
Of course of course, I realize the need to be narrow and have ground rules.
Maybe a little more narrow.. a theistic belief in a God-figure based upon Christian theology can be rationale. Up to you.
If you define which theist belief you intend to defend clearly, define what you consider rational (concretely, with examples, preferably) then sure, we can have a go. I suggest an opening statement by each (you can have the honors), two rounds of rebuttal and conclusion. No post to exceed 2000 words (give or take, so long as lattitude is extended both ways - i.e. 2,500 words could pass, but 4,000 is just being a dick). Up to one week allowed for each response. Nobody else may post in said thread.
I would also like to appoint moderators, one of your choosing and one of mine, who are members of this forum as of today.
Feel free to add or amend, this is simply a suggestion.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Sounds good. I'll choose Hammy, trusting he can keep objective.
As for defining what theistic belief and what I consider rationale.. I should define so now? Just to make sure we got a basic foundation to start off on?
Sounds OK, in defining your position I would expect you would delinate a set of beliefs and their rationale - i.e. I believe Jesus is the son of god, because....., I believe God has these attributes, becuase....., etc. Then proceede to explain why such belief is rational. That is assumining you are Christian, what faith are you, btw?
Hamby is a good choice as a mod, he would have been mine as well. Since you already picked him, I'll likely go with Cap'n Pineapple or Rook.
But let's make the topic clear first. What, exactly, will be your position - and we can translate that into the topic.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
One of these days posting when i've had too much to drink is going to bite me in the ass, perhaps today is the day
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I would consider myself Christian.
Q: If I feel it is unnecessary to state the attributes of God or why Jesus is the Son of God for the purpose of this debate, need I still do it?
I would be happy to give what I define as theistic beliefs in general and what it means to be rationale, but I don't think my specific theistic beliefs are important to the issue. If you think, however, that it might prove helpful, I'll be happy to do so.
My position is what I stated before, but, to put it another way, "A theistic belief can be rationally held." Pretty simple. But.. as was mentioned above, if I need to be more specific, I guess I can argue "christian theology can be a rationally held belief system."
Just so you know, I'll moderate a debate, but ONLY after I agree that we have a proper debate topic, and that we have a clear understanding of who's claiming what.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Well, let's get speific and say that "A Christian belief can be rationally held". Now let's simply talk off line on what you define as Christianity and what is rational. Then we'll both be on the same page.
Edit: These definitions can and should be posted prior to our debate, so everyone else will know where we are coming from and interpret what we say from the same place.
I'm going to bed, but will be online tomorrow night.
If the peanut gallery has suggestions on definitions, it certainly would not hurt.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Heh. I'm actually out for a few days.. probably until Sunday. But I will get back to this upon my return. Happy 4th of July all.
Me too, things will work themselves out, have faith
This is going to be a learning experience for both of us, and it really is about time this particular subject gets hashed out. I'm looking forward to it.
And I am sincere about that.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Bravo!
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
This could be interesting. Hopefully this will come to fruition, although, I have some doubts with respect to this post with gottheflu where we had a similar, informal, undefined debate. I think the definition of concepts, terms, and stances before the debate is essential, yet probably the most difficult, since rational seems to have different meanings to different people. Semantics to some, serious philosophical differences, or simply denial of what words mean to others. Personally, I think we won, but the terms were never defined in the beginning to a degree of mutual satisfaction, and that was the majority of the battle.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
You do know that "rationale" and "rational" are two different things, right? I mean, I don't normally get on people about spelling, but you've made the same mistake three times in this thread.
I just thought you should know the difference before you get into a debate.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
I guess you can't, at least not without shredding every dictionary in the world and executing every reasonably literate person first so that no one can point out your woeful lack of understanding of the words "theology", "belief" and "system" (see the clue below if you've suddenly wondered if you are actually talking shit. If not, prepare yourself for the shortest debate in history).
I recommend you take more than a few days (a few decades perhaps?) to learn English first. Then maybe you will at least be able to propose a debate that makes sense linguistically, semantically and logically, whatever about your ability to prosecute it. And, as the previous poster charitably pointed out to you, a debate concerning rationality of views should at least be conducted by someone who knows the difference between "rational" and "rationale".
Clue: Anything ending with "ology" is the study of something, not the something itself.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Just an FYI, I'm currently on vacation. I will be back to the states this Friday. Sorry for not checking in earlier as I intended to, but Rum Runners and Jose Quervo do rule the day.
Right now, I'm on the WiFi at the hotel, because the people I came down here with apparently do not know how to handle their liquor and are sleeping quietly at the moment (seriously, it's only 10PMm just cause we've been drinkin g all day since 11 is not excuse). I on the other hand am drunk and beliggerant. Tis a shame this debate thing hasn't already started, cause you'd probably get some interesting shit from me at the momenent.
Happy 4th all.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I'd be interested in arguing for something like an ultimate being but nothing of the Abrahamic conception.
The Flying Spaggheti Monster can always do with some new champions, Mick.
Very good point.
And I'll try not to get the flu.
Thanks Geirj.
I actually do know that they are two different things.. I just don't pay attention some time.. or, if I get stuck in a habit, don't take the time to correct myself.
But thanks, I do appreciate you pointing it out, I'll be sure to pay more attention to it in the future.
I will continue being polite towards you.. even though I have previously asked you to refrain from making post like this, i.e., that add nothing to the thread and only backhand an insult towards me.
Ya, I just got back from Yosemite... hiked up half dome, worst idea ever.
Let me know when you return. We'll clear up the last bit of issues and get this show on the road.
We'll see how it goes.. I think it is easier to argue for a general "ultimate being".. but, I thought something a bit more narrow would be interesting.
What I was adding to the thread was the sound advice not to compound your problems in using English (due to inattention and habit, as you seem to think) with making a public ass of yourself. If you interpret such altruism on my part as rudeness then you simply have one more problem to add to your tally.
I agree with you about hiking the Half Dome in Yosemite. I also had that really bad idea a few years back and the few photos I came back with from the haul, though stunning, are still more inclined to remind my muscles of the agony they endured afterwards than they are to make me go all nostalgic for the trip.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Wait... was the purpose of your point to reiterate greij's point about my use of rationale and rational? Or about something else?
Because.. upon reading your post again, it seems that you're trying to point out a problem that doesn't exist... something about the possible misuse of the word "theology."
the·ol·o·gy
n. pl. the·ol·o·gies
1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
If that was the case--for the sake of premption--I post the defintion above. There is nothing wrong with the phrase "christian theology"; it makes sense "linguistically, semantically, and logically."
As for half dome.. ya, probably will never do that again. Of course, that's what I said last time too.. so who knows.
Listen, you're obviously a little tired or something after your exertions over the weekend, so maybe you should really heed my advice stated earlier.
When you can tell the difference between a belief system and the study of a belief system then - and only then - should you get out of your bed and come back to the computer. Even then, I would refrain from pressing too many keys, and I would definitely refrain, if I were you, from challenging intelligent people to a debate.
I'll set your proposed debate in several different contexts, if it helps you see the light;
I guess I can argue "sociology can be a rational society."
I guess I can argue "speleology can be a rationally held cave."
I guess I can argue "piscatology can be a rational fish."
I guess I can argue "parthenology can be a rationally held virgin."
I guess I can argue "scatology can be a rational lump of crap."
See the difference now? No? Ok - here's one to get your head around: A christian theologian doesn't have to be christian. He or she could even be completely atheistic (though why they'd be then bothered to study claptrap is anyone's guess).
Still having problems?
I think it's the second bit of the definition you posted that's confusing you. When that definition says "system" it doesn't mean "belief system" - it means the system of examining opinions concerning god. A study of the question, in other words, not a philosophy.
So you take that rest I advised, now. And try Nurofen Gel on the leg muscles if they're at you. It's what I used after that trek and it worked a treat!
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I was focusing more on the "school of opinions concerning God" which would seem, in the definition's sentence, to limit the definition of "system."
But I see what you're saying now and I am inclined to agree. If not incorrect, at the very least, can be confusing. So, in the future, I will try and remember to write "christian theology can form the basis of a rationally held belief system."
That being said, my english is fine.
I'm sending you the bill for the repair of the rather deep hole in my wall which I have just acquired from rapidly beating my head against it in exasperation.
If you're really going to insist on wandering around out of bed in your debilitated state and launching yourself into debate with people who eat woolly thinkers for breakfast can you please at least indicate that you understand (which I believe you now do) that theology is the study of a belief system, and therefore cannot be its basis?
How about - "I propose that the belief system with which christian theology concerns itself is rational"?
It is at least semantically correct.
And wrong, of course ... but that's a problem you have that I seemingly can't help you with.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I do not find this particular debate important. In order that I may create less mental anguish for you, I will refrain from using the phrase in the aforementioned ways.
That being said, I think my rewrite of the phrase was correct. You seem to disagree. So be it.
Gods make their own importance, don't you know. Read your Kavanagh.
Indeed they do.
Good to see you amongst the pantheists, Rhad. Not that I'll join you, but it is a step in the right direction (and sort of fucks up any monotheist argument you might have been preparing).
Anyway, well done - your English and common sense are coming on in leaps and bounds.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I will explain my take on Christianity. I don't think there is a need to attach the take onto a particular theologian.
If there is some hole that needs filling for the purpose of the debate, I will fill it upon request.
Indeed.
So, let's start with the easiest:
rational: definition/-adjective
1. reasonable
reasonable: definition/-adjective
1. agreeable to reason or sound judgment
agreeable: definition/-adjective
1. to one's liking
reason: definition/-noun
3. sound judgment
sound: definition/-adjective
3. competent, sensible, or valid
judgment: definition/-adjective
4. the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances present to the mind.
competent: definition/-adjective
2. adequate but not exceptional.
sensible: definition/-adjective
1. having, using, or showing good sense or sound judgment
valid: definition/-adjective
1. sound; just; well-founded
well-founded: definition/-adjective
1. having a foundation in fact; based on good reasons, information, etc.
reason: definition/-noun
1. the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.
good: definition/-adjective
11. sound or valid.
foundation: definition/-noun
1. the basis or groundwork of anything
fact: definition/-noun
2. something known to exist or to have happened.
having: definition/-verb
1. to possess; own; hold for use; contain
No matter what I did.. there was no way I could get rid of all the loaded terms, so I will try to make up a definition that is agreeable to us both and still serves the purpose of this debate.
A belief can be rationally held if it is (1) based on (a) something known to exist or have happened; or (b) good reason; and is not (2) inconsistent with (a) itself (i.e., self-contradictory), (b) other contemporaneously held beliefs, (c) or something known to exist or to have happened.
Still some loaded terms exist, like "good reason" . . . so I will try to avoid using the "good reason" rationale. Have a solution? Perhaps "good reason" can be defined as (1) the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction that is not inconsistently used or not used as the basis or motive for another similar action, decision, or conviction.
How does this sound?
Something else that might need to be defined:
based-on: definition/-verb
Since I can't seem to find a straight definition, I will propose one and if you accept it will be used.
X1 is based-on X2 if X1 substantially (1) contains, (2) possesses, (3) is situated on, (4) or uses, elements of X2. e.g., Cinderella Man is based on a true story; the reserve bunker is based on American Soil; the school's architecture is based on a gothic design; the witness's testimony as to the criminal's state of mind was based on his observation earlier in the day.
"Are you not entertained?! Are YOU not entertained?!?!" - Maximus
It is Friday.