"This wafer and cheap wine will actually turn into human flesh and human blood as you eat it - The Catholics"
Moreover, they will STOP being wine and wafer as they are mystically-magically transmuted into blood and flesh! And what you are eating does not amount to cannibalism!! Whoa, this is supposed to be MAINSTREAM Christianity?
What must the FRINGES be like???
Yes, crazy does does admit of more-&-less, it is not a binary (on-off) function.
-Removed-But therein lies the problem. How do you decide which beliefs are stupid or dangerous? Once you accept some irrational beliefs, then how can you argue against others? How can you say that someone else is wrong to believe something irrational but dangerous on the grounds that it is a dangerous belief? That a belief is dangerous has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether or not it is true - so it cannot be used as a reasonable argument against it. But you have removed from the table the possibility of arguing against it because it is irrational. So what next?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadEasily. There are different degrees of irrational.
But therein lies the problem. How do you decide which beliefs are stupid or dangerous? Once you accept some irrational beliefs, then how can you argue against others? How can you say that someone else is wrong to believe something irrational but dangerous on the grounds that it is a dangerous belief? That a belief is dangerous has nothing whatsoever to do ...[text shortened]... ved from the table the possibility of arguing against it because it is irrational. So what next?
Person A: "Sure, I can sleep a bit longer. I am confident I won't be late for work. I'll bet, if I really try, I can drive from one side of New York City to the other in 20 minutes."
Person B: "I'll bet, if I jump really high, I can leap from one side of New York City to the other in a single bound."
Person A is fully justified in calling Person B irrational.
Even if Person A believes something as equally ludicrous as B, they are still justified in calling B irrational for thinking he can jump over New York City.
Human beings are not Vulcans. They are not creatures of pure logic. They are also not omniscient, and have trouble acquiring the necessary information to make good decisions at times. None of us make rational decisions all the time. Are we to stop pointing out the egregious irrationality of others because we lack perfect rationality ourselves?
Originally posted by SwissGambitNice post.
Easily. There are different degrees of irrational.
Person A: "Sure, I can sleep a bit longer. I am confident I won't be late for work. I'll bet, if I really try, I can drive from one side of New York City to the other in 20 minutes."
Person B: "I'll bet, if I jump really high, I can leap from one side of New York City to the other in a single bound ...[text shortened]... ointing out the egregious irrationality of others because we lack perfect rationality ourselves?
Live long and prosper, SG. 🙂
Originally posted by SwissGambitGood points, but I don't think it addresses the issue. I was talking about the difference between two beliefs, both irrational, but one is dangerous whereas the other is not. You cannot argue against the one on the basis that it is dangerous, and it being dangerous does not necessarily mean it is less rational. If anything I find that many dangerous beliefs are more rational than the less dangerous ones.
Easily. There are different degrees of irrational.
Originally posted by SwissGambitWe should not stop pointing out dangerousness, in whatever guise we detect it. However, (ir)rationality and dangerousness have nothing to do with each other.
Easily. There are different degrees of irrational.
Person A: "Sure, I can sleep a bit longer. I am confident I won't be late for work. I'll bet, if I really try, I can drive from one side of New York City to the other in 20 minutes."
Person B: "I'll bet, if I jump really high, I can leap from one side of New York City to the other in a single bound ...[text shortened]... ointing out the egregious irrationality of others because we lack perfect rationality ourselves?
"It is precisely the sane ones who are the most dangerous. It is the sane ones, the well-adapted ones, who can without qualms and without nausea aim the missiles and press the buttons that will initiate the great festival of destruction.... No one suspects the sane, and the sane have perfectly good reasons, logical, well-adjusted reasons."
Thomas Merton, Raids on the Unspeakable
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy post was in response to the single question, "Once you accept some irrational beliefs, then how can you argue against others?"
Good points, but I don't think it addresses the issue. I was talking about the difference between two beliefs, both irrational, but one is dangerous whereas the other is not. You cannot argue against the one on the basis that it is dangerous, and it being dangerous does not necessarily mean it is less rational. If anything I find that many dangerous beliefs are more rational than the less dangerous ones.
Originally posted by SwissGambitAh, well, some beliefs are more irrational than others.
My post was in response to the single question, "Once you accept some irrational beliefs, then how can you argue against others?"
I merely meant that the rationality or irrationality of a belief is not a reliable indicator of whether the belief is likely to be dangerous or harmless. Belief in elves is irrational but harmless.
Originally posted by moonbusOriginally posted by moonbus
Ah, well, some beliefs are more irrational than others.
I merely meant that the rationality or irrationality of a belief is not a reliable indicator of whether the belief is likely to be dangerous or harmless. Belief in elves is irrational but harmless.
Ah, well, some beliefs are more irrational than others.
"1. irrational belief Web definitions: (Irrational beliefs (REBT)) are rigid, dogmatic, unhealthy, maladaptive beliefs that mostly get in the way of people’s efforts to achieve their goals. Such beliefs are characterized by demands, musts and shoulds." http://mindsci-clinic.com/psycho_jargon.htm
This definition appears absolute: "... are rigid, dogmatic, unhealthy, maladaptive..." "... more irrational..."?
Originally posted by SwissGambit"Once you accept some irrational beliefs, then how can you argue against others?" -SG
My post was in response to the single question, "Once you accept some irrational beliefs, then how can you argue against others?"
By having achieved clarity of insight in one category disassociated from your "irrational beliefs".
"We're all ignorant on different topics." (Mark Twain or an American Humorist whose name escapes me)
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby"We're all ignorant on different topics." Will Rogers.
"Once you accept some irrational beliefs, then how can you argue against others?" -SG
By having achieved clarity of insight in one category disassociated from your "irrational beliefs".
"We're all ignorant on different topics." (Mark Twain or an American Humorist whose name escapes me)
