Stating belief is more rational . . .

[TruthWorthy]

No, it's more of a reference to mortality and the origin of existence.

[tavarish]

The whole process is backwards, it basically means that you choose what to believe in and then create supporting argument.

That makes perfect sense.

It's putting the cart before the horse.

[TruthWorthy]

Yeah sorta except that's implying that god is physical there like a cart and horses are.

---

Also it doesn't really cover the interchangablity of reinvented supporting arguments.
As in a cart is known to be pulled by horses so we don't say change the idea, because it couldn't be reasonably argued otherwise.

[tavarish]

Yeah sorta except that's implying that god is physical there like a cart and horses are.

---

Also it doesn't really cover the interchangablity of reinvented supporting arguments.
As in a cart is known to be pulled by horses so we don't say change the idea, because it couldn't be reasonably argued otherwise.

Elaborate please.

[TruthWorthy]

I thought I just did elaborate, but since you ask me to elaborate again, I must need you to elaborate on what that is.

[tavarish]

I thought I just did elaborate, but since you ask me to elaborate again, I must need you to elaborate on what that is.

Sorry about that, I got a bit confused and then I remembered my psychology course a few years back. I was getting it (rationalization) mixed with the sociological definition, rather than the more widely accepted psychological one.

Yes, it is a defence mechanism, but more importantly, it is a fallacy of reasoning.

I understand what you're getting at.

Are you personally going through this? Or are you just shedding some light on the topic?

[TruthWorthy]

Yeah, the fallacy of reasoning is more interesting to me as psychology doesn't list rationalisation in terms of developing causal argument for a desired outcome as such. I think I'm trying to understand where the terms rational and irrational are applicable/inapplicable more than anything.

I like your hybrid duck/croc too; hope that doesn't reflect on evolutionary theory

[tavarish]

Yeah, the fallacy of reasoning is more interesting to me as psychology doesn't list rationalisation in terms of developing causal argument for a desired outcome as such. I think I'm trying to understand where the terms rational and irrational are applicable/inapplicable more than anything.

I like your hybrid duck/croc too; hope that doesn't reflect on evolutionary theory

It's a joke - Crocoduck is Kirk Cameron's argument against evolution, as a transitional form. The Banana man is his sidekick, Ray Comfort. They lack a basic understanding of evolution, yet make videos and push the topic of ID so much that you can't help but laugh out loud when you see it.

[TruthWorthy]

I think it's laughability is that there's no basic understanding there.

---

To think that came out of a duck is ridiculous.

[tavarish]

I think it's laughability is that there's no basic understanding there.

---

To think that came out of a duck is ridiculous.

To think that they believe evolution works in such a way is thought provoking.

The sad part is, a majority of Americans agree with them.