"What's the harm of belief?"

[MysticOnion]

I think agnostic is the humble acknowledgment that there are things we don't know that in the knowing could change everything ..

IMO most errors are made in genuine ignorance and the unwillingness to allow oneself room for an occassional I don't know....

THats alright when it is humble. There are some people who say it because its the only way they can be right (at least in their minds) and thats not humble at all thats.. destructive. If you're agnostic you should realise that all things are possible and not go around calling everything BS.. thats not positive agnosticism.. I say its an open outlook and non judgemental, that all things deserve the same consideration and its possible they might be right.. not "everythings wrong, so I'm gonna dismiss it all"... like some people I could mention who can't bear to be wrong once in a while. Excuse my rant.

Edited September 12, 2009 by SevenofZero

[+Sherapy]

THats alright when it is humble. There are some people who say it because its the only way they can be right (at least in their minds) and thats not humble at all thats.. destructive. If you're agnostic you should realise that all things are possible and not go around calling everything BS.. thats not positive agnosticism.. I say its an open outlook and non judgemental, that all things deserve the same consideration and its possible they might be right.. not "everythings wrong, so I'm gonna dismiss it all"... like some people I could mention who can't bear to be wrong once in a while. Excuse my rant.

no worries you made some really good points, i think that is a good analogy its a neutral position, I like that actually...

[Guyver]

@Guyver:

This is fine. There are many variations of the method, but all of them are, essentially, the same thing in my view.

For me, it's the same. I've always been of the opinion that "reason" correlates to the scientific method, and thus rationalism does too.

However, I do not see why we should argue needlessly over these words. If you want, you can refer to my position as a scientific one, instead of a rational one. I will try to do this from now on too to avoid confusion.

Just to clarify, this position is:

The scientific method is the best thought process to apply in any scenario.

Cheers,

SQLserver

I don't wish to derail your thread by scrutinizing semantics. But technically, the scientific method is not a thought process per se. I do agree that the way science is "evolving" doesn't reach conclusions necessarily and is not in the quest for "truth" either. So I guess we could agree on some middle ground definition of your beliefs as being a form of "scientific rationalism" to coin a phrase (something I'm good at). Funny thing is, so are mine. Although I'm sure that you'd classify my belief in the scriptures as being both unscientific and irrational. I'd really like to jump into this discussion and get into it; unfortunately I've got some other stuff to do right now. Regards to all. I'll try to get back into it later.

Edit: irrational not unrational

Edited September 12, 2009 by Guyver

[SQLserver]

Edit: irrational not unrational

I have a serious prefix problem: It has gotten to the point when I use "anti, un, and i" interchangeably.

Although I'm sure that you'd classify my belief in the scriptures as being both unscientific and irrational.

This depends. You see, if someone who has come to the tentative conclusion that the writings of the scriptures are historically accurate based on sound evidence collected from these and historical documents, this person is definitely on the right track.(I confess to knowing very, very little about the current accepted positions of biblical history in the archeological community, so I make few comments on it.)

Someone who has come to the empirical conclusion, or belief, that evolution is true, is definitely NOT on the right track.

You see, I don't really care what conclusions you personally have come to about the origins of life, as long as you came to them by the scientific method and the scientific method alone. As long as the actual process of science is upheld as the way to find truth in our society, all's good. Differences between tentative conclusions we all draw using the scientific method are simply part of scientific debates, and there's nothing wrong with them.

I mean, honestly now. Do I truly care if common descent is actually correct? Do I truly care about the age of the universe? Of course not; I do not give a feather or a fig as to whether the universe is 50 years old or 50 billion years old. I'll simply adjust my views to fit the evidence; no harm done. Wherever the scientific evidence leads, the science behind it all is still fascinating and beautiful. I spend so much time fighting beliefs such as Intelligent Design and Creationism because I don't want to see that beautiful knowledge challenged, censored, or even lost. I do not want Nature and Science to be as forgotten to future generations as so many of the scrolls in the Library of Alexandria are to us. As long as the scientific method is upheld as the way to reason with the world, and the ideas of humanism as the morals behind it, a dream of a Utopia still exists in my mind.

Cheers,

SQLserver

Edited September 12, 2009 by SQLserver

[Startraveler]

You are correct here, startraveler, but this is also a straw man argument of my position, although perhaps a deserved one. I'm sorry if I made it sound as though I think rationalism is "perfect". It most definitely isn't, by its very definition. It is simply the best we have got, and thus it should always be used.

I don't mean to misrepresent your position but it sounds like you view rationality as a strictly enlightened sort of thing. I disagree, in that sense that rationality doesn't necessarily make us philosophers, it makes up pragmatists. It can lead to morally "good" things and it can lead to morally "bad" things.

For example, I don't believe the statement that "Almost no war can seriously be supported rationally, and instead MUST be supported religiously" can really be supported. War for the purpose of acquiring resources or obtaining a valuable geopolitical advantage could hardly be described as irrational. I agree that religion can be and has been utilized as a tool for securing compliance with the war-making nation or institution--but that's a matter of ensuring a cohesive society that has some additional ideological goal motivating the population. Sometimes the "religion" at play is some form of patriotism or jingoism. But those are essentially tools to keep people motivated as a conflict drags on, they aren't generally the primary reason for entering a conflict. Those reasons, by and large, tend to be rational.

It's worth noting that even if you have a war that's ostensibly "about" religion (say, a struggle between Christianity and Islam) it might still be predicated on rational calculations. Imagine a fairly analogous situation: a struggle between capitalism and communism waged almost entirely on a secular level. The conflict may be ideological in nature--similar to an explicitly religious struggle--but the overall goal is still something akin to political supremacy: the acquisition of power and influence on a global scale, both of which have enormous benefits associated with them. Religions are social institutions and they (rationally) seek to attain power and influence just as nation-states do. People, I think, generally don't kill over personal spiritual beliefs expressed through meditation or something, they kill for the social institution of religion. As wiki describes the First Crusade: "For Gregory's more moderate successor, Pope Urban II, a crusade would serve to reunite Christendom, bolster the Papacy, and perhaps bring the East under his control." These are rational goals, regardless of whether piety was used to sustain his foot soldiers. War can be waged and supported on rational grounds.

[eqgumby]

*snip*

Eggnumby: You didn't answer my question, and I'm not going to reply to your post as I do not see it as contradictory or relevant to my position.

A. A belief in the paranormal motivated these people to trespass.

B. Because they were trespassing they were shot.

C. Thus, their belief in the paranormal caused them to be shot.

Let me redefine my position, as there seems to be a constant goal of some to derail and misinterpret it:

Rationality, in every possible circumstance, is the best possible thought process to use.

That is all. This position can be argued by offering a case in which rationality would NOT produce the best possible answer.

So far, nobody has successfully done that, and thus so far nobody has successfully debated my position.

Cheers,

SQLserver

OK, here we go...

Unconditional love does not have to be irrational. It can be rational if it benefits you or another part of society. Additionally, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. If you could please answer the question in a complete sentence I may be able to get a better idea of what you are trying to say. Perhaps I should rephrase the question as:

Can anyone give a single example of a decision in which the use of an irrational thought process would be superior to a rational thought process?

Cheers,

SQLserver

What was wrong with my answer?

In Nazi Germany, it was common sense, and better for the ruling elite, that Jews were bad, because a disproportionate number of them (according to some Germans at least) owned property and had wealth, and controlled key financial markets at that time. Using purely rational thought, it made sense to exterminate them.

Applying pure logic sounds great, and I do it all the time, in all facets of my life. Then, I try to inject the human element.

There are no absolutes as soon as you inject the human element.

I gave you an example of rational thought being harmful. Not what you wanted?

And, saying someone was shot because they believed in the paranormal, totally ignores the other THOUSAND reasons she was shot. It amounts to saying, "Because she was born, she was shot.", or "Because she was an idiot she got shot.", or "Because she was associating with other trespassers she was shot". Her being shot is MORE an argument for gun control that for what you are attempting to imply by stating her belief in the paranormal caused her to be shot. Maybe it was he big head that caused her to be shot in the head. You're manipulating a reason to suit an outcome. It's like saying imperialism causes nuclear war, because Japan was imperial and it got nuked. Disingenuous at best. It's not that simple, and if you honestly believe that it is, good luck in the REAL world where it doesn't apply.

[Guyver]

I have a serious prefix problem: It has gotten to the point when I use "anti, un, and i" interchangeably.

This depends. You see, if someone who has come to the tentative conclusion that the writings of the scriptures are historically accurate based on sound evidence collected from these and historical documents, this person is definitely on the right track.(I confess to knowing very, very little about the current accepted positions of biblical history in the archeological community, so I make few comments on it.)

Someone who has come to the empirical conclusion, or belief, that evolution is true, is definitely NOT on the right track.

You see, I don't really care what conclusions you personally have come to about the origins of life, as long as you came to them by the scientific method and the scientific method alone. As long as the actual process of science is upheld as the way to find truth in our society, all's good. Differences between tentative conclusions we all draw using the scientific method are simply part of scientific debates, and there's nothing wrong with them.

I mean, honestly now. Do I truly care if common descent is actually correct? Do I truly care about the age of the universe? Of course not; I do not give a feather or a fig as to whether the universe is 50 years old or 50 billion years old. I'll simply adjust my views to fit the evidence; no harm done. Wherever the scientific evidence leads, the science behind it all is still fascinating and beautiful. I spend so much time fighting beliefs such as Intelligent Design and Creationism because I don't want to see that beautiful knowledge challenged, censored, or even lost. I do not want Nature and Science to be as forgotten to future generations as so many of the scrolls in the Library of Alexandria are to us. As long as the scientific method is upheld as the way to reason with the world, and the ideas of humanism as the morals behind it, a dream of a Utopia still exists in my mind.

Cheers,

SQLserver

That's actually really good. I'm going to have to say I agree with where you're coming from. I don't understand what you mean about fighting against Intelligent Design and Creationism because you don't want to see that beautiful knowledge lost. But everything else you said seems right on.

[Guyver]

It seems I was late in jumping in on this thread. In reading it completely, I see that many good points have already been made. I guess I would like to throw in my .02

The scientific method and your rationalistic approach works well when dealing with things in the material world. As I said, the scientific method deals with observation, data collection, hypothesis testing and revising. I get all that and it's all good. I have no problem with rational thought, in fact I embrace it. Logic, deduction, inductive reasoning, etc, it's all good. I've always viewed mathematics as the purest of the sciences, and I still do. Alot of it comes down to perception though.

Think about the statement; the sum of the angles of all triangles always equals 180 degrees. That seems true and irrefutable - and in two dimensional terms it is. But, add in a third dimension and that statement is not always true. In non-euclidian geometry, it's easy to see that the sum of all angles of a triangle can exceed 180 degrees.

You asked me to give an example of when the scientific/rational approach doesn't work better than any other form of reasoning. I have one - the spiritual. You see, everything that we perceive, understand, know, or accept as truth is based largely upon our own perception. Our understanding and perception is filtered by our own grey matter - the brain. That's why often what we perceive as undeniable truth is based on our own experiences. And, I know and understand that our perception can often me skewed or misconstrued; ie. mirages, etc. But, I have had direct and personal experience with the supernatural. I've already shared my stories here enough, so I won't do it again. But one in particular. In that fall I had where what felt like two hands on my back stopped me from smashing my head against the concrete and placed me gently but firmly back on my feet....this was no hallucination or product of my imagination. I was awake, not affected by any type of drug or foreign substance, in my right mind and perceiving reality as well as I ever had. This event was witnessed by my brother, I didn't make it up or dream it. The event is as real to me now as it was then because it was miraculous. Even though it happend more than twenty years ago, I remember it clearly.

Science has no explanation for it. What I experienced defies all known laws of physics. There's no scientific explanation for it, but my faith and understanding of the scriptures explains it perfectly. From the standpoint of science it couldn't have happend. Therefore you would have to conclude that I either made it up, am lying, hallucinated, or experienced something different and my brain reconstructed the event without my own cognition. I can't prove it to you or anyone else, except my brother; but I know and accept the event as fact. Now, since science doesn't accept "invisible" hands as being real, it couldn't have happend. But, the angels of God as described in the scripture have the ability to materialize or dematerialize at will and thus prove the existence of another dimension of existence unknown to us (that is if you accept the scriptures as truth). As I have had first hand experience with this "unknown" dimension - what is unknown and impossible in the realm of science is fact to me.

[Guyver]

Another point about "science." Science picks and chooses what is acceptable and what is not. No, not science itself - the scientific method is pure - but "science" as academia. For example - UFO's. Now, if you went to any respected university and proposed a scientific investigation of the subject - you would be laughed out of town.

The truth is however, that the subject would lend itself perfectly to the scientific method. Why is it then a taboo topic? Because it is associated with little green men. There is no mention of little green men in ufo's, they are unidentified flying objects. What they are is unknown.

A perfectly scientific study could be done by gathering data on all continents, developing a hypothessis, testing the hypothesis, etc., right on down the line. There certainly is enough evidence there to warrant scientific inquiry. The same could be said about the sasquatch, yeti, etc. Why is it that no zoologist can get funding to research the sasquatch? Because science picks and chooses - that's why. If "science" were purely scientific, then there would be no boundaries as to what could be researched and what could not.

Are you aware that the ceolecanth only exists in the fossil record in the late cretaceous? Yet, we know for a fact that it still swims in waters today.

[SQLserver]

Hey eggnumby:

The problem with your example is that it was NOT rational to exterminate the Jews. I mean, look at what happened: Hitler committed suicide, millions died, Germany was occupied and economically ruined, etc. There were several possible rational options, such as an increase of taxes on the rich Jews, or more economic restrictions, etc.

It was not rationality that led Hitler to exterminate the Jews, but instead a deep and obsessive anger he had for years.

@Guyver:

I don't understand what you mean about fighting against Intelligent Design and Creationism because you don't want to see that beautiful knowledge lost.

By this I meant that I don't want to see the knowledge we've obtained through scientific inquiry lost, censored, or mangled simply because it views a religious belief.

Are you aware that the ceolecanth only exists in the fossil record in the late cretaceous? Yet, we know for a fact that it still swims in waters today.

The coelacanth of today is very different(neither the same genus or species) from its ancient ancestors.

The coelacanth experienced a near extinction event during the Cretaceous. However, the fish which adapted to live in deeper water were able to survive.(Today, Coelacanths only thrive in very deep water) It is almost impossible to retrieve fossils from very, very deep water for obvious reasons, and thus it appears as though they disappeared from the fossil record.

The fish had a pretty easy life for the last 65 million years in deep water, and thus it has changed little morphologically until today.

Why is it then a taboo topic?

Actually, it's not.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc597.htm

http://www.hyper.net/ufo/literature.html

(This surprised me, too... I just googled "UFOs in the scientific literature" out of curiosity)

Why is it that no zoologist can get funding to research the sasquatch?

Surprisingly, neither is this a taboo.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/evilutionary_biologist/ecological_niche_modeling_and_finding_sasquatchs_range_distribution

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a908690753~db=all~order=page

While these ideas are largely rejected by the scientific community, scientific studies done on them are still very acceptable and allowed.

After analyzing deeper, I've often found that the scientific community isn't a group of grumpy, old, evil rational-robots all of the time... In fact, quite often there's a more "If the research is done well, publish it" approach.

Cheers,

SQLserver

[Guyver]

Actually, it's not.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc597.htm

http://www.hyper.net/ufo/literature.html

(This surprised me, too... I just googled "UFOs in the scientific literature" out of curiosity)

Surprisingly, neither is this a taboo.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/evilutionary_biologist/ecological_niche_modeling_and_finding_sasquatchs_range_distribution

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a908690753~db=all~order=page

While these ideas are largely rejected by the scientific community, scientific studies done on them are still very acceptable and allowed.

After analyzing deeper, I've often found that the scientific community isn't a group of grumpy, old, evil rational-robots all of the time... In fact, quite often there's a more "If the research is done well, publish it" approach.

Cheers,

SQLserver

Well, that is something. I was quite surprised and you do seem to have made a solid point there to counter my criticisms. It does seem that the majority of those papers were published in a span of a few years between 1967 - 1972. But still, I was unaware of that level of scientific involvement in the issue. It appears to have been dropped in recent years? I've seen unusual objects in the sky on a few occasions, only one seems truly anomalous to me, the one I observed somewhat clearly struck me as most likely some top secret military type stealth glider.

[MARAB0D]

It seems I was late in jumping in on this thread. In reading it completely, I see that many good points have already been made. I guess I would like to throw in my .02

The scientific method and your rationalistic approach works well when dealing with things in the material world. As I said, the scientific method deals with observation, data collection, hypothesis testing and revising. I get all that and it's all good. I have no problem with rational thought, in fact I embrace it. Logic, deduction, inductive reasoning, etc, it's all good. I've always viewed mathematics as the purest of the sciences, and I still do. Alot of it comes down to perception though.

Think about the statement; the sum of the angles of all triangles always equals 180 degrees. That seems true and irrefutable - and in two dimensional terms it is. But, add in a third dimension and that statement is not always true. In non-euclidian geometry, it's easy to see that the sum of all angles of a triangle can exceed 180 degrees.

You asked me to give an example of when the scientific/rational approach doesn't work better than any other form of reasoning. I have one - the spiritual. You see, everything that we perceive, understand, know, or accept as truth is based largely upon our own perception. Our understanding and perception is filtered by our own grey matter - the brain. That's why often what we perceive as undeniable truth is based on our own experiences. And, I know and understand that our perception can often me skewed or misconstrued; ie. mirages, etc. But, I have had direct and personal experience with the supernatural. I've already shared my stories here enough, so I won't do it again. But one in particular. In that fall I had where what felt like two hands on my back stopped me from smashing my head against the concrete and placed me gently but firmly back on my feet....this was no hallucination or product of my imagination. I was awake, not affected by any type of drug or foreign substance, in my right mind and perceiving reality as well as I ever had. This event was witnessed by my brother, I didn't make it up or dream it. The event is as real to me now as it was then because it was miraculous. Even though it happend more than twenty years ago, I remember it clearly.

Science has no explanation for it. What I experienced defies all known laws of physics. There's no scientific explanation for it, but my faith and understanding of the scriptures explains it perfectly. From the standpoint of science it couldn't have happend. Therefore you would have to conclude that I either made it up, am lying, hallucinated, or experienced something different and my brain reconstructed the event without my own cognition. I can't prove it to you or anyone else, except my brother; but I know and accept the event as fact. Now, since science doesn't accept "invisible" hands as being real, it couldn't have happend. But, the angels of God as described in the scripture have the ability to materialize or dematerialize at will and thus prove the existence of another dimension of existence unknown to us (that is if you accept the scriptures as truth). As I have had first hand experience with this "unknown" dimension - what is unknown and impossible in the realm of science is fact to me.

What science concludes in its results, relates to the Objective reality which it studies. It is not the goal of Science to disprove Spirituality or God, there is no such task at all. It is religions which see the danger coming from sciences, not vice versa. Religions at the moment are still out of their social place, as they fail to separate God's from Caesar's. God does not belong to the things, owned by Caesar - and Caesar is that Objective Reality which we can see. Religions insist God belongs to this Objective reality, and thus are trying to penetrate into someone else's area of influence. The very idea of separating Church and State is related to this separating of God's from Caesar's as Jesus was promoting.

Religious and spiritual matters belong to the Subjective realities of the people, not to the Objective Reality which Science works with. God may exist inside yourself and thus require no objective proof at all. Same is related to all Spiritual achievements a human can make. There is no such St Paul in this world which can pray and be awarded with an idea of a colour TV or a refrigerator, unless this saint the same time has a good knowledge of Math and Physics. History knows no example like that. God is exclusively personal for the people, and thus is not compulsory at all, no matter what one can persuade oneself in.

The most important is that the religious people still have to use the achievements of godless science, no matter how they can hate it - thus Roman Pope does not go to Jerusalem on a white virgin female donkey, but on the airplane, and he moves around the city on a car, scientifically designed specially for him. Believers right here are using computers, a product of Science - and they do not see it as originating from Satan and dark forces, despite they know those who created it did not care about God at all.

[Lt_Ripley]

no worries you made some really good points, i think that is a good analogy its a neutral position, I like that actually...

good points sherri as you know who takes her child like digs .........not everything is possible. An humble honest agnostic weighs both sides . as for God ? no one knows. that's honest and humble. the bible code ? BS . An agnostic doesn't ignore either.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Lt_Ripley

[+Sherapy]

good points sherri as you know who takes her child like digs .........not everything is possible. An humble honest agnostic weighs both sides . as for God ? no one knows. that's honest and humble. the bible code ? BS . An agnostic doesn't ignore either.

agreed, I can say I don't know on alot of things and have found it the most honest way to go ....

[eqgumby]

Hey eggnumby:

The problem with your example is that it was NOT rational to exterminate the Jews. I mean, look at what happened: Hitler committed suicide, millions died, Germany was occupied and economically ruined, etc. There were several possible rational options, such as an increase of taxes on the rich Jews, or more economic restrictions, etc.

It was not rationality that led Hitler to exterminate the Jews, but instead a deep and obsessive anger he had for years.

*snip*

Which of course brings to mind, hind-sight is 20/20.

You can't look at a poor outcome, and make the assumption that it was because of poor judgment or decision making.

Those who died in Hiroshima would argue that it was a bad thing, while many of the thousands whose lives were spared by the ending of the war would argue otherwise.

In my example above, it's only considered bad judgment because the Nazi Party and Hitler ultimately lost, and their beliefs and ideals dissected and mocked by the ultimate winners.

You quite simply cannot apply the sort of logic you wish to apply to many facets of life, in particular when you add the human factor.

What are you going to do, euthanize the elderly and infirm using cool logic, despite some people believing they should be cared for despite the drain on the economy?

How about this? Love is not rational. What if I am truly in love and pursue the woman of my dreams, and she reciprocates and we decide to run off and be together forever in blissful harmony? You would be p***ed, and your kids, because it was your wife and me, and of course my wife and kids upset as well.

The truth is, what seems rational to some may not be to others. Much of it depends on where you sit.

You will never be able to solve the issues of abortion, the death penalty, racism, sexism, and a thousand others, using what you claim is "rational thought".

[MARAB0D]

Which of course brings to mind, hind-sight is 20/20.

You can't look at a poor outcome, and make the assumption that it was because of poor judgment or decision making.

Those who died in Hiroshima would argue that it was a bad thing, while many of the thousands whose lives were spared by the ending of the war would argue otherwise.

In my example above, it's only considered bad judgment because the Nazi Party and Hitler ultimately lost, and their beliefs and ideals dissected and mocked by the ultimate winners.

You quite simply cannot apply the sort of logic you wish to apply to many facets of life, in particular when you add the human factor.

What are you going to do, euthanize the elderly and infirm using cool logic, despite some people believing they should be cared for despite the drain on the economy?

How about this? Love is not rational. What if I am truly in love and pursue the woman of my dreams, and she reciprocates and we decide to run off and be together forever in blissful harmony? You would be p***ed, and your kids, because it was your wife and me, and of course my wife and kids upset as well.

The truth is, what seems rational to some may not be to others. Much of it depends on where you sit.

You will never be able to solve the issues of abortion, the death penalty, racism, sexism, and a thousand others, using what you claim is "rational thought".

Correct! Being rational does not mean being mathematically precise. It only means to be adequate in achieving the goal we each time want to achieve.

Say, if my goal is to have a cup of tea, "rational" would be to put a kettle on, while "irrational" would be anything which would not boil water for my tea, say a prayer or a telephone call to fire brigade. Hitler had a goal to get rid of the Jews (we are not discussing the features of this goal, just the fact) - so his actions were fully adequate and lead to this his goal being achieved. Means he was acting rationally. If instead he was strolling the streets naked with an icon of St George in his hands, this would've been irrational.

Love is irrational only for the others, but for us it is fully rational and fully justifies all our visually irrational actions, as love is a standard natural emotion associated with procreation. One does not need to be Charles Darwin for wanting children specifically from this woman selected, therefore visual irrationality - but this is simply a nature demanding some specific combination of genes to appear for some reasons which are out of our sight.

[Doug1029]

I do agree that the way science is "evolving" doesn't reach conclusions necessarily and is not in the quest for "truth" either. So I guess we could agree on some middle ground definition of your beliefs as being a form of "scientific rationalism" to coin a phrase (something I'm good at).

Science is a quest for knowledge. There's really nothing else it CAN do.

Go to the moon? Scientists study the moon; it's engineers who go there.

But you're absolutely right that science doesn't always reach a conclusion (Those tests don't get published.). It is distressingly apparent to any statistician that the data do not always support a conclusion, no matter how long you torutre it.

Doug

[Guyver]

Correct! Being rational does not mean being mathematically precise. It only means to be adequate in achieving the goal we each time want to achieve.

Say, if my goal is to have a cup of tea, "rational" would be to put a kettle on, while "irrational" would be anything which would not boil water for my tea, say a prayer or a telephone call to fire brigade. Hitler had a goal to get rid of the Jews (we are not discussing the features of this goal, just the fact) - so his actions were fully adequate and lead to this his goal being achieved. Means he was acting rationally. If instead he was strolling the streets naked with an icon of St George in his hands, this would've been irrational.

Love is irrational only for the others, but for us it is fully rational and fully justifies all our visually irrational actions, as love is a standard natural emotion associated with procreation. One does not need to be Charles Darwin for wanting children specifically from this woman selected, therefore visual irrationality - but this is simply a nature demanding some specific combination of genes to appear for some reasons which are out of our sight.

You are confusing love and attraction. IMO.

[MARAB0D]

You are confusing love and attraction. IMO.

Did you tell your wife when proposing "I am attracted to you"?

[+Sherapy]

Correct! Being rational does not mean being mathematically precise. It only means to be adequate in achieving the goal we each time want to achieve.

Say, if my goal is to have a cup of tea, "rational" would be to put a kettle on, while "irrational" would be anything which would not boil water for my tea, say a prayer or a telephone call to fire brigade. Hitler had a goal to get rid of the Jews (we are not discussing the features of this goal, just the fact) - so his actions were fully adequate and lead to this his goal being achieved. Means he was acting rationally. If instead he was strolling the streets naked with an icon of St George in his hands, this would've been irrational.

Love is irrational only for the others, but for us it is fully rational and fully justifies all our visually irrational actions, as love is a standard natural emotion associated with procreation. One does not need to be Charles Darwin for wanting children specifically from this woman selected, therefore visual irrationality - but this is simply a nature demanding some specific combination of genes to appear for some reasons which are out of our sight.

hmmm strolling the street naked with a icon of St george would be irrational , but mass murdering millions because one thinks they are inferior and has millions support you is not irrational .....IMO .

your gonna have to explain this more for me...

[MARAB0D]

hmmm strolling the street naked with a icon of St george would be irrational , but mass murdering millions because one thinks they are inferior and has millions support you is not irrational .....IMO .

your gonna have to explain this more for me...

He did not really say that the Jews were inferior, he said they were evil - and in his time this was seen as scientifically proven and had a theory behind this. His theory was that the European captivity made the Jews to fight for their lives, for the survival of the entire nation - so his ideologists like von Rosenberg came forward saying that because of this the Jews lost the responsibility before the non-Jews of the host countries, and acted on premise that they were all the media for the Jews to live. He practically accused the Jews in racism and in attempted takeover of the country, in them not seeing the Germans as humans but only as a source of income. In contrast he never said the same about the Arabs or even about native Israelites, living in Eastern Europe. On the contrary Germans were treating such people as Karaims with all respect and in return they were helping the Germans to eliminate the local Ukrainian Jews. Modern PC explanation of this would be that Karaims are rather Turcic than Semitic, but if someone actually meet one there would be a big laugh. Imagine a Turk looking like Plato Sharon, speaking Hebrew and going to Synagogue!

Absolutely similar way the Gypsies were treated - and these are more Aryan than Hitler himself. But he considered them behaving same way as Jews and shamelessly robing other Aryans, their hosts.

Inferior nations for him were the Slavic nations, and even this with a lot of "subject to", I can quote von Rosenberg from memory - this is from his book "Russian revolution" issued around 1936. "The moving force of Russian revolution of 1917 was a hostile takeover of the dark wild Mongoloid element of generally racially healthy Russian nation. In 1918 it was enough to be a tall, blue-eyed blond with thin fingers to get in the dungeons of narrow-eyed chairman of VeCheKa" This chairman was Felix Dzerzhinski, a Polish noble and one of the important old Bolsheviks, his eyes sure looked a bit asiatic. I cannot even say that Rosenberg was completely wrong, despite I cannot see any Mongolian connection, this was a takeover by the uneducated peasants to me.

[Guyver]

He did not really say that the Jews were inferior, he said they were evil - and in his time this was seen as scientifically proven and had a theory behind this. His theory was that the European captivity made the Jews to fight for their lives, for the survival of the entire nation - so his ideologists like von Rosenberg came forward saying that because of this the Jews lost the responsibility before the non-Jews of the host countries, and acted on premise that they were all the media for the Jews to live. He practically accused the Jews in racism and in attempted takeover of the country, in them not seeing the Germans as humans but only as a source of income. In contrast he never said the same about the Arabs or even about native Israelites, living in Eastern Europe. On the contrary Germans were treating such people as Karaims with all respect and in return they were helping the Germans to eliminate the local Ukrainian Jews. Modern PC explanation of this would be that Karaims are rather Turcic than Semitic, but if someone actually meet one there would be a big laugh. Imagine a Turk looking like Plato Sharon, speaking Hebrew and going to Synagogue!

Ever read Mein Kampf? Just curious. I mean if you're going to stomp in here and say stuff without even ever citing a SINGLE SOURCE, except of course for the world according to Marabod, you should at least get your facts straight. He most certainly did consider the Jews inferior, equated them to rats, and had a plan to rid the world of their "infestation." And, if he didn't actually believe that himself; he sure did his darndest to convince everyone else he did. Hitler, and the Nazi Occupation and all that implies is the perfect example of science gone AMOK! You should really get some history in you before making these baseless claims. How do you think the term "Aryan" even became colloquial? Some of his ideas came directly from the source of his "pure bloodline" breeding philosophies himself; Charles Darwin. How else would he be able to convince the German people, and the Nazi's in particular to committ these attrocities? Few people think twice about killing a rat or squishing a spider.

[MARAB0D]

Ever read Mein Kampf? Just curious. I mean if you're going to stomp in here and say stuff without even ever citing a SINGLE SOURCE, except of course for the world according to Marabod, you should at least get your facts straight. He most certainly did consider the Jews inferior, equated them to rats, and had a plan to rid the world of their "infestation." And, if he didn't actually believe that himself; he sure did his darndest to convince everyone else he did. Hitler, and the Nazi Occupation and all that implies is the perfect example of science gone AMOK! You should really get some history in you before making these baseless claims. How do you think the term "Aryan" even became colloquial? Some of his ideas came directly from the source of his "pure bloodline" breeding philosophies himself; Charles Darwin. How else would he be able to convince the German people, and the Nazi's in particular to committ these attrocities? Few people think twice about killing a rat or squishing a spider.

You must be dumb Guyver if you cannot see me quoting from Rosenberg an inch below this paragraph... Mein Kampf clearly says that the first case of Hitler saying anything negative about the Jews was when he was a young man, working as a builder and getting involved in Social-Democratic movement and Trade Unions. When liaising with SD emissaries and propagandists he noticed that for some reason absolute majority of them were not Germans but the Jews, this made him to study who actually writes in their newspapers and he came to conclusion that Social-Democrats were fully dominated by Jewish people, of which we NOW know only Karl Kautski, the actual leader of SDPG and chairman of 2nd Internationale as well as German Communists, opposing Hitler in 1920s-30s, Rose Luxembourgh, Clara Zetkin and Ernst Telman.

The role of the Jews in Germany was studied BEFORE Hitler was even born, by Nietzsche and famous composer Wagner, his close friend, which two later split, as while they both equally saw the Jews as pests, Nietzsche was disagreeing with Wagner one the essentuality of their extermination. This was in late 19th century, when there was already existing the proof that the level of economic development of European countries was directly proportional to the amounts of Jewish population in them, this being linked to their life in diaspora and their dominance in international trade. The whole statistical proof can be found in "Economy of Germany" issued 1885. Thus Hitler was aware about the existing model of distributing business revenues among population, and knew that the Germans were only having what's left from the Jews. These all are historical facts, which for the purposes of political correctness are now concealed from public - as I cannot notice here any rationality on this matter at all, people got used to believe that the Jews in Germany were absolutely innocent humble lambs, chosen by vicious barbaric Germans as a scape goat. I do not buy this PC brainwashing only because I saw what the bolsheviks made to my country of birth and also know that up until Stalin Jews among the leadership of the Communist Party were in 80% majority (this is without counting half-bloods like Lenin himself). Same was in Germany. This is one of the reasons why Germans secretly love Hitler and Russians secretly love Stalin, as each nation likes to rule its own land.

The Jews have learned the lesson, and now they are not like that already, they blend with us, they befriend us, they do business with us - but this was not the case in the early 20th century, and it was Hitler who opened their eyes and helped to establish Israel, as this was HIS idea.