Day-Age creationism is almost as goofy as Young Earth creationism

[John Doe]

The point of the claim is, in this case, to activate a coping mechanism which releases beneficial hormones and endorphins which help this woman stave off depression and deal with life with a healthier mindset.

She could claim to see Elvis in the iron smudge and if it works for here, who am I to judge. We all know it's not actually Elvis but arguing that point to this woman is to actively undermine the benefits that coping mechanism is providing.

I'm not sure how this argues what you've quoted. So I repeat: True or false is irrelevant for irrationality, it's the method of arriving there.

It doesn't matter what the conclusion is used for, if the conclusions was derived from invalid logic, then conclusion is invalid. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it only means it's invalid and therefore irrational to believe from that logic.

"God exists" is a premise, not a conclusion.

If one chooses to accept the premise and believe it then one naturally asserts it as a truth and behaves accordingly per Thomas Theorem.

Though you and nearly every other atheist I've encountered on DP think "God exists" is a conclusion from the hard sciences, it is in fact a premise from the social sciences.

It is because of that fact that 99% of all atheist arguments are fundamentally based on a false premise. The majority of time there has been no claim which needs to be tested and falsified.

And this refutes what I've quoted how?

If an argument is invalid, any conclusions drawn from that argument are also invalid.


And what's this God premise stuff? If you assume God exists as a true premise, then derive something soundly and valid, then you've derived a truth. But only if the premises are true. Saying "God is a premise" means nothing. I have no clue how any of that ties in with the current discussion, perhaps you'd like to a bit more direct and use counter-examples, not side-statements.

That is, don't tell me what, tell me how.

If a claim which is false exists within a logical framework, it is therefore reasonable and logical.

Wrong. If it's invalid, it's not logical. It is illogical to claim an image is the work of a supernatural force because it doesn't follow that an image in the shape of a figure comes from a supernatural source.

Any further derivations are invalid, and therefore irrational.

 

[Jerry]

I'm not sure how this argues what you've quoted. So I repeat: True or false is irrelevant for irrationality, it's the method of arriving there.

It doesn't matter what the conclusion is used for, if the conclusions was derived from invalid logic, then conclusion is invalid. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it only means it's invalid and therefore irrational to believe from that logic.



And this refutes what I've quoted how?

If an argument is invalid, any conclusions drawn from that argument are also invalid.


And what's this God premise stuff? If you assume God exists as a true premise, then derive something soundly and valid, then you've derived a truth. But only if the premises are true. Saying "God is a premise" means nothing. I have no clue how any of that ties in with the current discussion, perhaps you'd like to a bit more direct and use counter-examples, not side-statements.

That is, don't tell me what, tell me how.



Wrong. If it's invalid, it's not logical. It is illogical to claim an image is the work of a supernatural force because it doesn't follow that an image in the shape of a figure comes from a supernatural source.

Any further derivations are invalid, and therefore irrational.

If I explained that your thalamus were the shape of a walnut approximately 2 inches in from the center of your forehead and on either side of your brain stem, to pretend to hold a white feather, and to now imagine gently tickling the thalamus with the very tip of that white feather, then even-though the feather is fake there would be a real result.

The feather doesn't have to be real because the goal has nothing to do with the feather. The goal is to stimulate the thalamus.

So to does God not have to be real to effect the desired result. For at least a moment, you have to behave as though there is a white feather inside your head for the thalamus to be stimulated on-demand. Perhaps sometime later you may choose to adjust that belief, but for the time being the belief serves a perfectly valid purpose even though it's false.

So too does an image of Jesus on an iron serve a valid purpose even-though it's actually just a random smudge.

 

[John Doe]

I agree, that's all fine and dandy.

I'm not arguing results can occur. I'm arguing believing those results are from real things are irrational.

I don't believe there is really a feather tickling me. But if someone really did believe the feather were real, it would be irrational for them to do so, since it's apparent it's not real.

Recap: I'm not arguing placebo doesn't exist, I'm arguing to believe those results come from a real thing, without logical reason, is irrational.

 

[Jerry]

I agree, that's all fine and dandy.

I'm not arguing results can occur. I'm arguing believing those results are from real things are irrational.

I don't believe there is really a feather tickling me. But if someone really did believe the feather were real, it would be irrational for them to do so, since it's apparent it's not real.

If you never assume the feather is there, you can't perform the stimuli.

Sometimes I wonder if people who see God in strudel are actually religious, or if their concept of GOd is merely a substitute for a missing father figure; but I digress.

Recap: I'm not arguing placebo doesn't exist, I'm arguing to believe those results come from a real thing, without logical reason, is irrational.

I don't believe I said anything about placebo, but the logical reason to believe the feather is there is the prospect of achieving a desired result.

 

[scourge99]

So to does God not have to be real to effect the desired result. For at least a moment, you have to behave as though there is a white feather inside your head for the thalamus to be stimulated on-demand. Perhaps sometime later you may choose to adjust that belief, but for the time being the belief serves a perfectly valid purpose even though it's false.

So too does an image of Jesus on an iron serve a valid purpose even-though it's actually just a random smudge.

Any placebo can be replaced by another. Your placebo God should be replaced with a placebo having far less side effects. In the case of religion I would hope that it be replaced by beliefs of less collateral damage. Granted, that most religious people are competent enough to ground themselves in reality before taking their beliefs to the extreme, nonetheless, we have a limitless list of examples from suicide bombers, abortion clinic bombers, inquisitions, witch trials, Crusades, and Christian Filicides to demonstrate the irreparable damage that faulty beliefs perpetuated by religion has wrecked upon the world.

Keep the good parts of religions: charity, community, social supports structures.

Get rid of the bad: faith, blasphemy, misogyny, homophobia.

The challenge stands: identify anything that religion can do that cannot be accomplished by purely secular means.

 

[Jerry]

Any placebo can be replaced by another. Your placebo God should be replaced with a placebo having far less side effects. In the case of religion I would hope that it be replaced by beliefs of less collateral damage. Granted, that most religious people are competent enough to ground themselves in reality before taking their beliefs to the extreme, nonetheless, we have a limitless list of examples from suicide bombers, abortion clinic bombers, inquisitions, witch trials, Crusades, and Christian Filicides to demonstrate the irreparable damage that faulty beliefs perpetuated by religion has wrecked upon the world.

Keep the good parts of religions: charity, community, social supports structures.

Get rid of the bad: faith, blasphemy, misogyny, homophobia.

The challenge stands: identify anything that religion can do that cannot be accomplished by purely secular means.

I'm not sure what any part of your post has to do with Day-Age creationism or our 3rd tier tangent.

 

[Cephus]

A copping mechanism isn't supposed to reflect actual objective truth.

It's supposed to help you endure.

If seeing an image helps this woman endure her recent losses and prevents an emotional breakdown, how is it irrational?

Not quite sure what a copping mechanism is, but a coping mechanism doesn't have to be irrational as it is in this case. I don't care how good it might make one feel, believing something that is irrational is always mentally unhealthy. Having to make up imaginary friends so that you can get through your day is a sign of a fundamentally unstable and unhealthy mind, period. It's no better than seeing leprechauns or thinking you're the reincarnation of Napoleon.

 

[Jerry]

Not quite sure what a copping mechanism is, but a coping mechanism doesn't have to be irrational as it is in this case. I don't care how good it might make one feel, believing something that is irrational is always mentally unhealthy. Having to make up imaginary friends so that you can get through your day is a sign of a fundamentally unstable and unhealthy mind, period. It's no better than seeing leprechauns or thinking you're the reincarnation of Napoleon.

Well of course Mr. Wilson wasn't a real person either, but just a volyball.

Having conversations with it kept the man going for years, though, and that's perfectly rational.

 

[Cephus]

I personally don't think they cause mental stability, but are both methods (among many others) for coping with it. Granted, it can make mental instability worse in some cases, but many of the religious people I see function better with religion, drugs, or whatever the case may be, than they do without them.

I don't think they cause mental instability, I think they come from mental instability. A mentally stable individual isn't going to come to believe in irrational things, just because they gain emotional comfort from them. Mentally stable people actually care if what they believe is factually true. Unfortunately, religion is a culturally-validated delusion, it's a case where we take one group of fundamentally delusional people and give them a pass to be delusional because there's so many of them. Just because they've been conditioned to be delusional and act better under their delusions than not doesn't make the delusions healthy or demonstrably better than reality. I'm sure people who think they're Napoleon are genuinely happier than when they're not thinking they're a short emperor of France, that doesn't make their beliefs any more true.

 

[Cephus]

Well of course Mr. Wilson wasn't a real person either, but just a volyball.

Having conversations with it kept the man going for years, though, and that's perfectly rational.

While keeping him from getting help that he probably needed to rid himself of the delusion. Just because you think Harvey the rabbit is real doesn't make it so.

 

[Jerry]

While keeping him from getting help that he probably needed to rid himself of the delusion. Just because you think Harvey the rabbit is real doesn't make it so.

He was stranded on an island alone for years. Just what sort of help were you expecting him to seek?

It's not like he didn't make several attempts to get off the island over that time...and even once he finally got off, he was at sea for days before being picked up. If you watch the movie (based on the real story) you see the main character reflecting ideas, calculations and concerns on weather and materials off Mr. Wilon.

By behaving as though the ball were a person, the man was able to survive. It was a constructive coping mechanism.

 

[scourge99]

It was a constructive coping mechanism.

As I have already demonstrated, religions coping mechanism can and does have perverse side effects.

It would be optimal to utilize a coping mechanism involving less collateral damage.

 

[Jerry]

As I have already demonstrated, religions coping mechanism can and does have perverse side effects.

It would be optimal to utilize a coping mechanism involving less collateral damage.

All my first example did was claim to see a religious figure, and then she basically wished everyone a happy holiday. No one at all was damaged for anyone to be "collateral damage".

My second example was a man stranded on an island. You want "optimum"? How about the crash not happening in the first place? That's optimum.

 

[scourge99]

All my first example did was claim to see a religious figure, and then she basically wished everyone a happy holiday. No one at all was damaged for anyone to be "collateral damage".

that is because you ignored the side effects of such a belief. In some cases they may be innocuous and in others quite damaging.

To illustrate your narrow approach I'll use an example:
Jerry: all I did was claim that the person used morphine to stop their pain. It stopped their pain; it was effective.
Scourge: The morphine stopped the pain but its also evidenced that morphine use has physical and mental side effects that you have ignored. Such as addiction, liver damage, etc. Some may experience no side effects (collateral damage) and some may die or become overwelmingly addicted.

My second example was a man stranded on an island. You want "optimum"? How about the crash not happening in the first place? That's optimum.

I agree that not experiencing pain or suffering that would entice the use of a coping mechanism is optimal. I think that is pretty obvious.

 

[John Doe]

Well of course Mr. Wilson wasn't a real person either, but just a volyball.

Having conversations with it kept the man going for years, though, and that's perfectly rational.

No. It's still irrational to think an inanimate object has personality!

It may have been effective, successful, helpful, etc., many things, but it was never rational to begin with, so it's never rational to end with.

 

[lizzie]

I don't think they cause mental instability, I think they come from mental instability. A mentally stable individual isn't going to come to believe in irrational things, just because they gain emotional comfort from them. Mentally stable people actually care if what they believe is factually true.

Oh, what I thought you said was that they cause mental instability

Originally Posted by Cephus
While certainly seeing religious iconography in everyday objects doesn't cause the same amount of physical harm as drug abuse, both of them are causing mental instability and an emotional rejection of objective reality because you simply don't like it. That's not a healthy mental state in either case.

When it comes to religion, it doens't bother me in the least as long as those practicing it are not causing or trying to cause harm to others. Same with drug use, or any of the wide variety of escape mechanisms employed by humans in our current times.

 

[scourge99]

When it comes to religion, it doens't bother me in the least as long as those practicing it are not causing or trying to cause harm to others. Same with drug use, or any of the wide variety of escape mechanisms employed by humans in our current times.

That is easy to believe when religious views don't currently affect you. I think if you were gay then you might have a different opinion on the matter.

Your beliefs inform your actions. If you are prone to believing absurdities then you can be convinced to commit atrocities.

 

[lizzie]

I think if you were gay then you might have a different opinion on the matter.

I might, but since I'm not gay, I don't have any way of knowing. There seems to be a good number of gays who are also religious. What in particular would I have a different opinion about if I were gay?

 

[scourge99]

What in particular would I have a different opinion about if I were gay?

The direct causal link between discrimination and homophobia with Christianity.

Do you think that large religious sects such as the Catholics and Mormons are openly against homosexuality by sheer chance?

If you are willing to believe in the Christian God to cope with difficulty then you may also be willing to believe that homosexuality is "an abomination".

 

[lizzie]

Do you think that large religious sects such as the Catholics and Mormons are openly against homosexuality by sheer chance?

Not by sheer chance. On the basis of their religious texts. If they were killing, imprisoning, torturing or otherwise causing harm to gays, it would be cause for alarm, but believing that something is wrong doesn't meet the criteria of causing harm imo.

 

[scourge99]

Not by sheer chance. On the basis of their religious texts. If they were killing, imprisoning, torturing or otherwise causing harm to gays, it would be cause for alarm,

Let me get this straight:
1) You agree that faulty beliefs can lead to atrocities because our beliefs inform our actions
2) You believe that we shouldn't address false or flawed beliefs until they are harming people.

I suppose we shouldn't treat cancer until it starts to shutdown your organs. Or perhaps we shouldn't give children an education until they apply for a job. Perhaps we shouldn't allow self defense as a plee in courts unless the defendent is harmed or dead.

The idea that known flaws and evils should only be addressed reactively rather than proactively is outrageous. Its lazy, its apathetic, its a cowards defense to responsibility

but believing that something is wrong doesn't meet the criteria of causing harm imo.

I agree. Only actions can cause harm. But those actions are usually informed by beliefs. If the flawed and faulty beliefs can be corrected then it is likely that at least some harmful actions can be avoided.

 

[John Doe]

It's been said over and over: merely believing something does nothing.

But consider when it's time to vote for gay rights. Suddenly your beliefs have an influence on your vote.

Sure, gay rights aren't the same as actively hunting gays, but it's still an issue gays face. And we should choose our support for it from rational thought, not a belief or leap of faith.

 

[Cephus]

When it comes to religion, it doens't bother me in the least as long as those practicing it are not causing or trying to cause harm to others. Same with drug use, or any of the wide variety of escape mechanisms employed by humans in our current times.

It does bother me because widespread irrational beliefs, no matter what they are, have a detrimental impact on society as a whole. One or two people believing screwy things doesn't hurt anyone, but taken as a large-scale issue, it contributes to an overall lack of critical thinking on social issues.

That is dangerous.

 

[lizzie]

Let me get this straight:
1) You agree that faulty beliefs can lead to atrocities because our beliefs inform our actions
2) You believe that we shouldn't address false or flawed beliefs until they are harming people.

The idea that known flaws and evils should only be addressed reactively rather than proactively is outrageous. Its lazy, its apathetic, its a cowards defense to responsibility

Not exactly. Faulty beliefs are not caused by religion. They may make one more inclined toward certain religious practices, but the responsibility and the flaws (and evils as you put them) rest on the individual.
And no, we shouldn't address beliefs until they cause harm, and then it should not be blamed on the religion, but on the individuals harming others.

 

[lizzie]

Sure, gay rights aren't the same as actively hunting gays, but it's still an issue gays face. And we should choose our support for it from rational thought, not a belief or leap of faith.

Which issues are gays facing besides the gay marriage issue? If gay marriage does not become legal, how are they being harmed? Or is it an issue of fairness to you?