Originally posted by moonbus
"We're all ignorant on different topics." Will Rogers.

Yeah... just thought of his name myself. Thank you.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Hmmmm, I've never been banned, although I may have deserved it once (or twice) in the long ago past.

It's humbling......

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes and its of course demonstrably nonsense,

(Acts 10:34, 35) At this Peter opened his mouth and said: "For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him."

There is a vast difference between 'acceptable' and 'favored'.

Originally posted by Suzianne
There is a vast difference between 'acceptable' and 'favored'.

actually the point is that God is not partial, thats why the scripture was cited.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually the point is that God is not partial, thats why the scripture was cited.

Your point is ridiculous, since there are examples of certain humans being "favored" by God.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"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)

The quoted question was not mine; it was twhitehead's. And he seems to have reconsidered.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The quoted question was not mine; it was twhitehead's. And he seems to have reconsidered.

Ok.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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?

No I haven't removed from the table the argument that something is irrational; I just don't accept that it's the most important factor. For example an irrational belief in Santa Claus or unicorns or a Flying Spaghetti Monster is more or less harmless. A belief that infidels should be beheaded on the internet or that blood transfusions are against a god's will are not.

Not being able to discern between these, or to prefer to group them by their irrationality rather than their dangerousness is itself irrational. The comedy element is merely another grouping.

Are you so biased towards the need to see all things primarily as either rational or not rational that you are unable to feel the humour?

Originally posted by divegeester
No I haven't removed from the table the argument that something is irrational; I just don't accept that it's the most important factor.

Important for what?

For example an irrational belief in Santa Claus or unicorns or a Flying Spaghetti Monster is more or less harmless.
Pretending to believe in them is more or less harmless. Actually believing in them would likely get you landed in a mental asylum.

Not being able to discern between these, or to prefer to group them by their irrationality rather than their dangerousness is itself irrational.
How one groups beliefs depends on why one is grouping them.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Important for what?

[b]For example an irrational belief in Santa Claus or unicorns or a Flying Spaghetti Monster is more or less harmless.
Pretending to believe in them is more or less harmless. Actually believing in them would likely get you landed in a mental asylum.

Not being able to discern between these, or to prefer to group them by th ...[text shortened]... erousness is itself irrational.
How one groups beliefs depends on why one is grouping them.[/b]

Important is the wrong word; perhaps I should have used 'most appropriate' for defining whether something is humours, dangerous, crazy, or whatever. But I think you knew what I was getting at.

Believing in Santa Claus will not get you put in a mental asylum and this is a good example of the point I'm making. You seem to be being irrational about the belief in Santa Claus. Unless such belief is accompanied by dangerous behaviour, it is irrational to even think that way.

Mr Twhitehead, you have just been irrational.*



*said with the intonation of fake incredulity that Captain Kirk uses with Mr Spock in their lighthearted banter at the end of certain episodes.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Your point is ridiculous, since there are examples of certain humans being "favored" by God.

and yet the Bible itself states - God is not partial! May I suggest you take your grievances up with God?

Originally posted by divegeester
Important is the wrong word; perhaps I should have used 'most appropriate' for defining whether something is humours, dangerous, crazy, or whatever. But I think you knew what I was getting at.

I am afraid I don't think I do get what you are getting at. It seems like a trivial tautology to me. "The most appropriate way to define whether something is or is not dangerous is to look at whether it is dangerous". Where is the point?

Believing in Santa Claus will not get you put in a mental asylum and this is a good example of the point I'm making.
Maybe not, but it should get you labeled insane.

You seem to be being irrational about the belief in Santa Claus.
Mistaken perhaps about how we treat the insane, but not, I think, irrational.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am afraid I don't think I do get what you are getting at. It seems like a trivial tautology to me. "The most appropriate way to define whether something is or is not dangerous is to look at whether it is dangerous". Where is the point?

[b]Believing in Santa Claus will not get you put in a mental asylum and this is a good example of the point I'm maki ...[text shortened]... Santa Claus.
Mistaken perhaps about how we treat the insane, but not, I think, irrational.[/b]

There you go again, being irrational.

As Swissgambit pointed out, there are clearly (at least to most rational people) degrees of irrationality. That you cannot see this does not mean it is not the case. Some irrationality is harmless, some comedic, others dangerous. Why are you having such a difficult time rationalising this?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am afraid I don't think I do get what you are getting at. It seems like a trivial tautology to me. "The most appropriate way to define whether something is or is not dangerous is to look at whether it is dangerous". Where is the point?

[b]Believing in Santa Claus will not get you put in a mental asylum and this is a good example of the point I'm maki ...[text shortened]... Santa Claus.
Mistaken perhaps about how we treat the insane, but not, I think, irrational.[/b]

"Believing in Santa Claus should get you labelled insane"

Really, you think that is a rational belief to hold?

Originally posted by divegeester
There you go again, being irrational.

You are starting to overuse that phrase (not least because you are using it wrongly).

As Swissgambit pointed out, there are clearly (at least to most rational people) degrees of irrationality.
And I agreed with him.

That you cannot see this does not mean it is not the case.
That you cannot see that I agreed with him, does not mean that I don't.

Some irrationality is harmless, some comedic, others dangerous. Why are you having such a difficult time rationalising this?
I have no difficulty with that. You seem to have difficulty realising that Swissgambit did not measure his 'degrees' on the same scale as you are doing. You seem to think that harmless irrationality is equivalent to being less irrational - it isn't.
Someone (an adult) who believes in Santa, seriously needs a psychiatric evaluation (if he hasn't yet had one). In fact, I would say that such a belief is far more irrational and far more dangerous than belief in Islam.
But I still don't get what point you are trying to make. Are you saying your irrationality is fine because it is harmless? Are you sure it is harmless? What do you base that on?