[itepearce]

I am god.

[fgjhfgjh]

Bah, public, so I won't bother answering.

The question should be rephrased "Do you believe in God or other mythical beings like Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny?"
That might generate a few additional yes answers.

[vernotixas]

Asking someone if they are irrational isn't irrational?

[bataovady]

Asking someone if they are irrational isn't irrational?

If they are irrational, they will answer rational or irrational. If they are rational, they will answer rational.

But it is a completely different question from 'Is there a god' even if you believe that it is irrational to believe that there is a god.

JM

[Pheboasmabs]

Bah, public, so I won't bother answering.

The question should be rephrased "Do you believe in God or other mythical beings like Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny?"
That might generate a few additional yes answers.

HEY, MIKE! Why don't you people get another rallying cry?

[Mynameishappy]

I don't think how many people believe it affects how rational it is. Lots of people believe lots of things without any rational basis.

There can't be any rational basis for belief in God, that's what Faith is about isn't it? A belief in something despite the lack of evidence.

[teodaschwartia]

To be fair his point that a main stream belief is considered more rational because it's mainstream does hold some water.

He didn't say it supported the existence of God.

[mr.nemo]

Belief and hope are not the same thing.

[QvhhbjLy]

From this.

Believing things with lacking evidence is rational behavior. Everyone does it. From people who believe their team will win, to people who support democracy in the Middle East, to people who think that providing health care to everyone is a better system then the US one.

JM

[Ztcgtqvb]

I might "believe" that my team will do better next year because they added a new star or replaced the coach (evidence) but simply believing they will do better because they are my team is "hope".

[fkisjjdhh]

I might "believe" that my team will do better next year because they added a new star or replaced the coach (evidence) but simply believing they will do better because they are my team is "hope".

Religion is more like believing an invisible, supernatural sports team will win next year.

[GuitarLoverBe]

Ah, I knew it wouldn't be long till the insults started.

JM. How christian of you.

[Intockatt]

Keep it up. You'll convert me to that christian love.

It seems to be your default debate style.

1) Take on a losing position
2) Flail about a bit trying to support said position
3) Resort to insults when 2) fails.

[RokeIdeadioke]

I am arguing it is rational because it is necessary.

Most people won't die for things/devote themselves for things/put lots of effort into things without believing in them. Yet doing so is how most of our achievements (all?) have came about.

Most things that require action lack sufficient evidence to be true without any belief.

Additionally, I think if you look at philosophy it would be impossible to do any science/engineering/etc without belief.

JM

[Kokomoxcv]

But doesn't it matter, if they become a democracy, that some believe in it?

If none believed in it, I guarantee that they wouldn't become a democracy... because some do believe in other things.

But even as far as it goes, they believe that in some other system life will be better in XYZ ways. There is incomplete evidence for this... yet they are out there protesting anyways.

And it could be argued that in the face of the challenges it has faced, that the capitalistic system would not exist without people believing in it. Not saying that the majority of people need to believe in it all the time, or even that there is never inertia (for a system in place). Just when stormy seas exist, belief is stronger.

And without a doubt, people have believed and died about capitalism. Just like they have about socialism and communism. And democracy and monarchy.

And I think that the progress of humanity wouldn't exist without it. Even on the cases where I don't believe the same (monarchy, for example).

JM

[drugstore]

But that doesn't refute my point, Jon. You said that belief was a requirement for action, and that's why it's rational. I'm arguing that while some may definitely believe, it's not required for action.

You pointed to the people in Egypt.

I pointed that they do believe. The people who are protesting believe in something, not necessary democracy (but if democracy triumphs, it will be because some do (maybe even not in egypt, but in the US/EU) believe in democracy).

So I don't think your argument is true, can you provide another example?

JM
(BTW, our argument now is that a lack of any belief is irrational. Which is a stronger argument than that having any belief is rational. Unless you are seeking to prove that practically everyone, throughout history, has been fundamentally and irrevocably irrational.)

[VIAGRAENLINOBARATOCAMPRAR]

How can anyone equate a belief that democracy benefits people better than communism with a belief in GOD??? They are not in any way related.

[lisualsethelp]

Incomplete is much different than ZERO.

[Thunderzee]

By the way, a lot of evidence isn't of the sort you could publish in a scientific journal, but that doesn't stop it from being evidence.

Such as:
"Democracy works quite well in Sweden." could be taken as evidence for belief in democracy in the Middle East.

Others would claim that that wasn't evidence in favor of a belief in democracy in the Middle East.

This is totally independent of whether the evidence is true or not true.

But still, it serves as part of the basis of the belief of democracy in the Middle East.

JM

[Qynvtlur]

No. Those were incorrect beliefs, but not necessarily irrational given the evidence.