Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is a vast difference between 'acceptable' and 'favored'.
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."
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe quoted question was not mine; it was twhitehead's. And he seems to have reconsidered.
"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)
-Removed-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.
-Removed-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.
-Removed-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?