Religion

rug

(82,333 posts)

6. You are limiting the term "rational" to "scientific".

Fri Jun 14, 2013, 02:13 PM

Jun 2013

I reject that.

The essence of reason is to proceed from a premise. You reject the premise because it does not comport to what you consider scientifically verifiable evidence. On the other hand, if the premise is accepted, what follows can indeed be quite rational.
You are rejecting the premise and misusing a word.

As to your comments about mental disorders, well, I will suspend acceptance of your claim without evidence of your expertise in the field.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Making Light: All Religions are UPG [View all] rug Jun 2013 OP

Had to look up UPG - unverified personal gnosis, I am assuming. cbayer Jun 2013 #1

It's discussed further down in the article. rug Jun 2013 #2

Caught me in not reading the whole thing, lol. cbayer Jun 2013 #4

When a claim is unprovable and unfalsifiable.... MellowDem Jun 2013 #3

You are limiting the term "rational" to "scientific". rug Jun 2013 #6

I'm not limiting the term... MellowDem Jun 2013 #9

That is not the premise. rug Jun 2013 #15

Yes, that is the premise... MellowDem Jun 2013 #18

"It's widely known and accepted." rug Jun 2013 #19

don't worry.. some of us bystanders read you loud and clear. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #21

That would be your problem right there. Well, one of them. gcomeau Jun 2013 #33

Of course you can. Let me tell you what your problem is. rug Jun 2013 #37

Wow... gcomeau Jun 2013 #38

No, read it again. rug Jun 2013 #39

ok, I read it again. gcomeau Jun 2013 #40

Good, then you should know we we were discussing the concept of rationality, not proof of God. rug Jun 2013 #41

Perhaps I am not the one who needs to read things again. gcomeau Jun 2013 #44

Since the unkowable is, well, unknown, I would argue that taking a cbayer Jun 2013 #8

You have the question wrong... MellowDem Jun 2013 #10

So do you claim to hold the truth? cbayer Jun 2013 #12

Sure, on some things... MellowDem Jun 2013 #14

But do you specifically claim to hold the truth on the existence of a god or gods? cbayer Jun 2013 #16

It is not similar to what fundamentalists do... MellowDem Jun 2013 #20

It's a lot like it, IMO. cbayer Jun 2013 #22

Not at all, it's called having a position... MellowDem Jun 2013 #27

God of the gaps Act_of_Reparation Jun 2013 #23

God of the gaps is an argument used to prove there is a god. cbayer Jun 2013 #24

what a wonderful post Stargazer99 Jun 2013 #5

They're not my words. The author has a pretty good blog at the link. rug Jun 2013 #7

Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge durbin Jun 2013 #11

So it is. rug Jun 2013 #13

That's funny, I thought asking for personal information durbin Jun 2013 #17

I've had a lot of strange conversations in my life, including odd conversations about epistemology. rug Jun 2013 #25

"The basic concept of God is that it is unknowable" durbin Jun 2013 #26

What the hell are you talking about? rug Jun 2013 #28

Busted. rug Jun 2013 #30

Cool. I knew it was him but he really backed off when challenged. cbayer Jun 2013 #31

Damn, he's persistent. okasha Jun 2013 #35

Which is not a great quality when you just aren't very good at something. cbayer Jun 2013 #36

What about revelations from God that had to be exterminated along with the people that "heard" them? eomer Jun 2013 #42

Gauguin was a pig. That does not diminish his art. rug Jun 2013 #43

You said how you think we know things about God; my point is a different take on that. eomer Jun 2013 #45

Then we have two different opinions. rug Jun 2013 #46

Just to be clear, okasha Jun 2013 #47

I'd prefer not to be rude, so I'm merely going to characterize this article as "piffle" . . . MrModerate Jun 2013 #29

If UPG is roughly equivalent to unprovable gobbledygook, I concur. Warren Stupidity Jun 2013 #32

It is. gcomeau Jun 2013 #34