For the Thinking Man.

[Angrboda]

No belief is rational if it can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes.

What? No. Things can be described from different levels of description. What is described as non-rational at one level may be described as rational at another.

This is simply wrong. It was wrong when C.S. Lewis said it, and it's still wrong.

[Jackalope]

Despite the excessive length of the OP, the argument has merit but needs a nuanced approach to what rationality entails.

You mean" nuanced "as in the approach that atheism takes?

I doubt it, as he isn't even remotely an atheist.

[The Valkyrie]

So, Artur Axmann, anything to say?

I refute your argument that human consciousness could not have arisen solely through natural, biological processes and that if it did, rational thought cannot exist.

Thoughts?

Yes, seens to be a boy who has been raised to ignore women and consider them inferior, since it won't even acknowledge the questions.

I wonder what he thinks of his mother, if he has ANY respect for her at all? And I wonder how he would respond if brought into my ER?

[Bittersmart]

pick up a brush and paint something.. do a self portrait.

and label it accordingly. make it accountable ..

Are you going to answer ANY of the women, child?

Apparently not.

He's not wrong to be intimidated by us, though.

[Artur Axmann]

Yes, rational thinking can exist without believing in god ,but up to a point.

Rational thinking cannot be totally explained in materialistic terms because it's evolution cannot be explained soley on a purely natural basis.

Yes, it can. I don't know why you think otherwise.

Perception by evolutionary principles ,must evolve from sentient being or beings.

Again, untrue.

Human consciousness must serve the evolutionary process in ways other than the mechanical process of instinct.

Why?

Good and evil come about as a result and thusly form the religion basis to human existence.

"Good" and "evil" are human constructs and are subjective to our definitions. They do not exist objectively outside of our societies.

If you want more information on the evolution of human consciousness, this video is a good start.





EDIT: If you don't want to listen to the talk, there is this paper you could read, instead. http://www.academia.edu/1610087/Evolutio...sciousness

sorry, how did you refute my argument.. ? I somehow missed it..

[Heywood]

Yes, rational thinking can exist without believing in god ,but up to a point.

Rational thinking cannot be totally explained in materialistic terms because it's evolution cannot be explained soley on a purely natural basis.
Perception by evolutionary principles ,must evolve from sentient being or beings.
Human consciousness must serve the evolutionary process in ways other than the mechanical process of instinct.

Good and evil come about as a result and thusly form the religion basis to human existence.

Rational thinking builds upon itself. It pulls itself by its bootstraps so to speak. I believe in God, but I see no reason why rational thinking is dependent on God's existence any more than 2+2=4 depends on God's existence.

[Artur Axmann]

Yes, rational thinking can exist without believing in god ,but up to a point.

Rational thinking cannot be totally explained in materialistic terms because it's evolution cannot be explained soley on a purely natural basis.
Perception by evolutionary principles ,must evolve from sentient being or beings.
Human consciousness must serve the evolutionary process in ways other than the mechanical process of instinct.

Good and evil come about as a result and thusly form the religion basis to human existence.

Rational thinking builds upon itself. It pulls itself by its bootstraps so to speak. I believe in God, but I see no reason why rational thinking is dependent on God's existence any more than 2+2=4 depends on God's existence.

Rational thinking lies outside the realm of evolutionary biology.
And that's true no matter how it develops.

[Heywood]

I notice my comments are being ignored by the OP.

Every thread I've seen him participating in, I've tried to count the number of women he responds to because I thought I noticed a pattern. I think he might just... ignore women?

He hasn't ignored Bittersmart....I think your hypothesis is wrong.

[Bittersmart]

sorry, how did you refute my argument.. ? I somehow missed it..

Your argument from ignorance? It's easy to refute a fallacy.

You believe that consciousness (and rational thought) could not have come from biological processes because you don't fully understand it how that's possible.

---

Every thread I've seen him participating in, I've tried to count the number of women he responds to because I thought I noticed a pattern. I think he might just... ignore women?

He hasn't ignored Bittersmart....I think your hypothesis is wrong.

After he answered every one else first and then we said something about it.

[The Valkyrie]

Rational thinking builds upon itself. It pulls itself by its bootstraps so to speak. I believe in God, but I see no reason why rational thinking is dependent on God's existence any more than 2+2=4 depends on God's existence.

Rational thinking lies outside the realm of evolutionary biology.
And that's true no matter how it develops.

No, that's what you claim.

A claim does not equate to truth, no matter how you try to rationalise it,