In article <16BB7B863.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes: #In article <1r0sn0$3r@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> #frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: #  #>|>#>#Theism is strongly correlated with irrational belief in absolutes. Irrational #>|>#>#belief in absolutes is strongly correlated with fanatism. #  #(deletion) #  #>|Theism is correlated with fanaticism. I have neither said that all fanatism #>|is caused by theism nor that all theism leads to fanatism. The point is, #>|theism increases the chance of becoming a fanatic. One could of course #>|argue that would be fanatics tend towards theism (for example), but I just #>|have to loook at the times in history when theism was the dominant ideology #>|to invalidate that conclusion that that is the basic mechanism behind it. #> #>IMO, the influence of Stalin, or for that matter, Ayn Rand, invalidates your #>assumption that theism is the factor to be considered. #  #Bogus. I just said that theism is not the only factor for fanatism. #The point is that theism is *a* factor.  That's your claim; now back it up.  I consider your argument as useful as the following:  Belief is strongly correlated with fanaticism.  Therefore belief is *a* factor in fanaticism.  True, and utterly useless.  (Note, this is *any* belief, not belief in Gods)  #>Gullibility, #>blind obedience to authority, lack of scepticism, and so on, are all more #>reliable indicators.  And the really dangerous people - the sources of #>fanaticism - are often none of these things.  They are cynical manipulators #>of the gullible, who know precisely what they are doing. #  #That's a claim you have to support. Please note that especially in the #field of theism, the leaders believe what they say.  If you believe that, you're incredibly naive.  #>Now, *some* #>brands of theism, and more precisely *some* theists, do tend to fanaticism, #>I grant you.  To tar all theists with this brush is bigotry, not a reasoned #>argument - and it reads to me like a warm-up for censorship and restriction #>of religious freedom.  Ever read Animal Farm? #> #That's a straw man. And as usually in discussions with you one has to #repeat it: Read what I have written above: not every theism leads to #fanatism, and not all fanatism is caused by theism. The point is, #there is a correlation, and it comes from innate features of theism.  No, some of it comes from features which *some* theism has in common with *some* fanaticism.    Your last statement simply isn't implied by what you say before, because you're trying to sneak in "innate features of [all] theism".  The word you're groping for is "some".  #Gullibility, by the way, is one of them.  No shit, Sherlock.  So why not talk about gullibility instead of theism, since it seems a whole lot more relevant to the case you have, as opposed to the case you are trying to make?  #And to say that I am going to forbid religion is another of your straw #men. Interesting that you have nothing better to offer.  I said it reads like a warm up to that.  That's because it's an irrational and bogus tirade, and has no other use than creating a nice Them/Us  split in the minds of excitable people such as are to be found on either side of church walls.  #>|>(2)  Define "irrational belief".  e.g., is it rational to believe that #>|>     reason is always useful? #>|> #>| #>|Irrational belief is belief that is not based upon reason. The latter has #>|been discussed for a long time with Charley Wingate. One point is that #>|the beliefs violate reason often, and another that a process that does #>|not lend itself to rational analysis does not contain reliable information. #> #>Well, there is a glaring paradox here:  an argument that reason is useful #>based on reason would be circular, and argument not based on reason would #>be irrational.  Which is it? #> #That's bogus. Self reference is not circular. And since the evaluation of #usefulness is possible within rational systems, it is allowed.  O.K., it's oval.  It's still begging the question, however.  And though that certainly is allowed, it's not rational.  And you claiming to be rational and all.  At the risk of repeating myself, and hearing "we had that before" [we didn't hear a _refutation_ before, so we're back.   Deal with it] : you can't use reason to demonstrate that reason is useful.  Someone who thinks reason is crap won't buy it, you see.  #Your argument is as silly as proving mathematical statements needs mathematics #and mathematics are therfore circular.  Anybody else think Godel was silly?  #>The first part of the second statement contains no information, because #>you don't say what "the beliefs" are.  If "the beliefs" are strong theism #>and/or strong atheism, then your statement is not in general true.  The #>second part of your sentence is patently false - counterexample: an #>axiomatic datum does not lend itself to rational analysis, but is #>assumed to contain reliable information regardless of what process is #>used to obtain it. #> #  #I've been speaking of religious systems with contradictory definitions #of god here. #  #An axiomatic datum lends itself to rational analysis, what you say here #is a an often refuted fallacy. Have a look at the discussion of the #axiom of choice. And further, one can evaluate axioms in larger systems #out of which they are usually derived. "I exist" is derived, if you want #it that way. # #Further, one can test the consistency and so on of a set of axioms. #  #what is it you are trying to say?  That at some point, people always wind up saying "this datum is reliable"  for no particular reason at all.  Example: "I am not dreaming".  #>|Compared the evidence theists have for their claims to the strength of #>|their demands makes the whole thing not only irrational but antirational. #> #>I can't agree with this until you are specific - *which* theism?  To #>say that all theism is necessarily antirational requires a proof which #>I suspect you do not have. #> #  #Using the traditonal definition of gods. Personal, supernatural entities #with objective effects on this world. Usually connected to morals and/or #the way the world works.  IMO, any belief about such gods is necessarily irrational.  That does not mean that people who hold them are in principle opposed to the exercise of intelligence.  Some atheists are also scientists, for example.  #>|The affinity to fanatism is easily seen. It has to be true because I believe #>|it is nothing more than a work hypothesis. However, the beliefs say they are #>|more than a work hypothesis. #> #>I don't understand this.  Can you formalise your argument? #  #Person A believes system B becuase it sounds so nice. That does not make #B true, it is at best a work hypothesis. However, the content of B is that #it is true AND that it is more than a work hypothesis. Testing or evaluating #evidence for or against it  therefore dismissed because B (already believed) #says it is wronG/ a waste  of time/ not possible. Depending on the further #contents of B Amalekites/Idolaters/Protestants are to be killed, this can #have interesting effects.  Peculiar definition of interesting, but sure.  Now show that a belief in gods entails the further contents of which you speak.   Why aren't my  catholic neighbours out killing the protestants, for example?   Maybe they  don't believe in it.  Maybe it's the conjunction of "B asserts B" and "jail/kill dissenters" that is important, and the belief in gods is entirely irrelevant.  It certainly seems so to me, but then I have no axe to grind here.