The Nature of this Conflict (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, January 22, 2010, 02:05 (5227 days ago) @ George Jelliss
edited by unknown, Friday, January 22, 2010, 02:20

George,-You've got yourself trapped in a box, inside and looking out. -When you ask:-But why do they choose to be irrational?-You do the following:-1. Assert your position is more rational for all people. -2. That anyone who analyzes the same information as you but reaches a different philosophical conclusion than yours is irrational. -3. That everyone starts out on the same philosophical and cultural footing.-4. That among all philosophies there is a philosophy that "trumps" all other philosophies. -5. That among all people you have the right to choose what it is that other people call irrational in their own philosophies. -6. That you are completely detached from any and all perspective.-Both Dawkins and yourself claim that the proper place to start is to have 0 assertions, no belief at all. (This is fine, I share this view.) But you have to be at a certain point intellectually, to even be able to make this claim. You have to have a certain level of maturity, and I would go so far to say even, a certain IQ. Most importantly, a certain culture. -In order to be as "rational" as you or I, one must accept and adhere to a level of rigor and discipline higher than what is necessary for nearly every other man; man is an expert in making snap judgments and estimations--it isn't just an expertise, it is what helped us evolve to where we are. But what someone chooses to believe or disbelieve is of no consequence to you or Dawkins, or myself, ultimately. What you see as irrational I see as a judging mind making sense of what they perceive and interpret based upon what they know and feel. And you can't dissociate feelings; it is something that some people value more than rational reason, and neither of us have an claim to that save when [EDIT] some disturbance of the law results--and no freethinker has any more right to claim justice than any theist of any ilk. There is no monopoly on truth. -[EDITED]

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"