kill crips and tards?

If we are merely evolved animals, you would think we might mate like them, for the same reasons. But we don't. Sex is much more to humans (including Christians) than procreation. That was my point.
Umm, animals have sex for pleasure...



This is only your opinion and your belief system. That doesn't make it true.
Actually by all standards of rationality (ie evidence, perception of it, logic) it IS irrational.



I understand that evolution must explain the seemingly irrational (the range of human emotions and motivations, etc) because it must have evolved since it exists. Circular logic at its finest.
I don't understand your point here. Evolution does explain emotions and motivations.




If there are things that exist outside of the scientific realm, then how can science hope to be presented with evidence? There is reality outside of science.
If there is no way to have any knowledge of this universe then how do you know it exists? There must be something that told you that this magical place exists.
 
Science helps us understand reality, but there is reality outside of science. Reality that science can't explain. It is not irrational to understand this. In fact it may be irrational not to admit it.

Why do you continue to make odd claims like this. I really do not get it. I explained this like a million times in the evolution thread, scientific knowledge is constantly expanding and advancing. Ofcourse there are still things science cannot explain yet (if you added that word you would almost have been half right) or simply doesn't know about at this moment. I've never seen any definition of science that claimed to know everything there is to know. It is infact quite the opposite.

And even if we grant you, for argument's sake, that there are things that science will never explain, what makes you think that your religion (and conveniently only yours, not the several thousand other doctrines outthere) is exactly right about all the specifics of this supposed "reality outside of science" that humans apparently cannot perceive or understand? Have you gone through the doctrines of every religion outthere, applied some systematic evaluation method and picked the "best" one? Probably not. The only reason why you believe what you believe is because that is what you have been taught to believe. Just like a Muslim believes their truths and morals are correct and a Jew theirs, all simply based on being told so by their respective doctrines and not by applying any kind of critical thinking.

That is irrational. Like it or not.

I consider myself rational because I do not make any ridiculously detailed assumptions about the nature of our reality when there is no reason or evidence to support those assumptions at all. If you want to believe that there is a reality beyond human perception and understanding then fine, but that means you also have to concede that you, as a human being, will never know anything of it with any kind of certainty and claiming otherwise is simply foolish.
 
CAIRATH: Much of science is inferential: the things it explains could often be explained by other things. God aside, do we have to accept that it explains anything about the real world? Both God and science both explain our own experience. The real world doesn't necessarily have anything to do with either.
 
God...epic.

I only condone abortion when it is done to avoid the bestowing of life to a child who will not be able to fully experience it--note that I didn't say "won't be able to make the most of his life" because that is, on the whole, quite subjective. Generally, abortion is not a good choice. I would say it is only a good choice if there is an accidental (hard to prove, I know, and it costs a lot to have court arguments about this, not to mention exorbitant, and ever-rising, abortion fees as I udnerstand them) pregnancy or if it will lead to some kind of incurable disaster. Use of abortion as birth control is an atrocity. Plain and simple.
 
I don't see why. We could be in a dream right now, hooked up to machines which present a different reality, or in the Truman Show. In that case science will be rigorous and evidential, but it won't represent the true reality.
 
Why do you continue to make odd claims like this. I really do not get it. I explained this like a million times in the evolution thread, scientific knowledge is constantly expanding and advancing. Ofcourse there are still things science cannot explain yet (if you added that word you would almost have been half right) or simply doesn't know about at this moment. I've never seen any definition of science that claimed to know everything there is to know. It is infact quite the opposite.

And even if we grant you, for argument's sake, that there are things that science will never explain, what makes you think that your religion (and conveniently only yours, not the several thousand other doctrines outthere) is exactly right about all the specifics of this supposed "reality outside of science" that humans apparently cannot perceive or understand? Have you gone through the doctrines of every religion outthere, applied some systematic evaluation method and picked the "best" one? Probably not. The only reason why you believe what you believe is because that is what you have been taught to believe. Just like a Muslim believes their truths and morals are correct and a Jew theirs, all simply based on being told so by their respective doctrines and not by applying any kind of critical thinking.

That is irrational. Like it or not.

I consider myself rational because I do not make any ridiculously detailed assumptions about the nature of our reality when there is no reason or evidence to support those assumptions at all. If you want to believe that there is a reality beyond human perception and understanding then fine, but that means you also have to concede that you, as a human being, will never know anything of it with any kind of certainty and claiming otherwise is simply foolish.

I didn't think we were discussing religion, and I have no desire to go into a religious debate at this point. I never claimed to know beyond any doubt that my beliefs are absolutely correct. I also never stated that science claims to understand everything. My posts have been about abortion and about human life. In one place I simply stated that based on our differing worldviews, we will not be able to come to an agreement on the essence of the issue of abortion. Is that incorrect? I didn't "use" it to prove anything. I simply stated it as a fact. Not a fact that my views are correct, but a fact that they differ from yours in ways that make agreement impossible at this point. So then you get frustrated and change the debate from abortion to my irrationality. Lame.

ir·ra·tion·al
–adjective
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4. not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.

^ Not me
 
CAIRATH: Much of science is inferential: the things it explains could often be explained by other things. God aside, do we have to accept that it explains anything about the real world? Both God and science both explain our own experience. The real world doesn't necessarily have anything to do with either.

I don't see why. We could be in a dream right now, hooked up to machines which present a different reality, or in the Truman Show. In that case science will be rigorous and evidential, but it won't represent the true reality.

Like I said, if there is a reality outside of our perception (the possibility for which you imply here) then its very existence is meaningless to us as we will never know of it. Your argument is purely philosophical (i.e. is our perception of the real world really the real world?) and has no bearing on anything I just said really.

Science does a much better job of explaining the world that we do perceive (our real world, regardless of whether it is the real world) than any other methodology or philosophy that mankind has conjured up so far does. Its reliance on empirical data rather than speculation atleast guarantees that it is reasonable to believe that it helps accurately explain one plane of our reality (the plane that we can perceive), whereas pure speculation guarantees nothing in any plane of reality, perceived or otherwise.

This is starting to venture off topic though.


So then you get frustrated and change the debate from abortion to my irrationality. Lame.

I directly addressed a quote from your previous post where you claimed 1) that your reasoning is not irrational and 2) that I am. Both of which I felt the need to contest. And everything I touch upon in that post is directly related to your views on abortion which you already admitted previously in this thread (i.e. that it has to do with the values handed to you by your religious belief, including the concept of a soul).

You may not be deprived of reason, but you sure apply it very selectively.
 
CAIRATH: Much of science is inferential: the things it explains could often be explained by other things. God aside, do we have to accept that it explains anything about the real world? Both God and science both explain our own experience. The real world doesn't necessarily have anything to do with either.

Isn't this sort of irrelevant? I mean, even if Cairath did accept such a view I'm sure he'd maintain that positing God doesn't explain our experience very well. And I happen to think that these explanations have a lot to do with the real world (or at least what we think about the real world). When we explain some aspect of our experience in these ways we are making a judgment as to how things really are.

edit: oh I see that Cairath did in fact make the point I anticipated.
 
Like I said, if there is a reality outside of our perception (the possibility for which you imply here) then its very existence is meaningless to us as we will never know of it. Your argument is purely philosophical (i.e. is our perception of the real world really the real world?) and has no bearing on anything I just said really.

I know, but then why did you feel the need to rebut AchrisK's post, which was perfectly in line with what you are saying? It was his post I was defending and then you brought up all this religious crap.