1. Creation college seeks state's OK to train teachers

Comment #99185 by Augustus Osari on December 15, 2007 at 9:01 pm

Texans are all bad, huh?

Good job making yourselves just as filthy as all of the other dogmatists.

2. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83689 by Augustus Osari on October 31, 2007 at 12:07 am

Teapot_Believer:

First, all psychology is the combination of biological instincts and memes, which depend upon each other. If people can be "slaves of their own biological instincts," that is essentially saying that all people are slaves of biological instincts simply because they think. After all, every thought is based on biology, which takes the psychological form of instinct, no?

Second, at the most basic level, it is rationally clear that the fetuses which are aborted during early pregnancy are not so aborted immorally, as they do not yet have any real nervous system or brain to speak of. They can suffer neither physically nor mentally.

Third, contraceptives and abortions block the birth of children. If contraception and abortion are allowed, then accidents cannot happen: even if contraception fails, then abortion will take care of the problem.

Through these three points, it should be clear that sexuality, contraception, and early abortion are all perfectly fine. It can only be argued otherwise if the supernatural is accepted as existent, and there is not currently any evidence which would suggest the existence of the supernatural.

3. American kids, dumber than dirt: Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history

Comment #82143 by Augustus Osari on October 25, 2007 at 6:28 pm

As a student in the American public school system, I can personally attest that this article is absolute trash. The Bible is infinitely more credible than this horrible series of complete lies.

And I thought *I* was overly hard on the less-than-intelligent youth of today...

4. Atheists aren't a bad lot

Comment #81448 by Augustus Osari on October 24, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Interestingly enough, when you look on a map, Canada is above the U.S. and Mexico is below it...

There might be something to that whole "Heaven above, Hell below" mindset, after all. =P

5. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #81394 by Augustus Osari on October 24, 2007 at 4:48 pm

I'd warn strongly against any "the existence of my emotions and the existence of God are different" argument. It implies the belief in a soul, which is clearly irrational.

6. A Rational Universe Implies a Creator, Science points towards Theism

Comment #81352 by Augustus Osari on October 24, 2007 at 4:03 pm

I actually think an effective rebuttal is quite simple:

A rational universe is, of course, a universe which is held to firm laws. Though these laws may not always be properly understood, they exist. That is what it means for a universe to be rational.

Now, if there were not laws which dictated how things act and react, there would not be any way by which these things might act and react. Essentially, everything would be able to do anything at any time for any reason or lack thereof; everything would be undefined in both its concrete form and its conceptual understanding. An irrational universe would not exist, and, at the same time, it would exist. It would simultaneously hold every single concept to be true and untrue. An irrational universe is an equivalent of division by zero: both are disastrous.

To put it in another way, "irrational" is the state of not being "rational." If there was a universe which was not rational, it would, by default, be irrational. "Irrational" is essentially the term used to designate things which are apparently impossible. "Impossible" is just another word for what cannot exist or transpire. An irrational universe, therefore, would be defined as a nonexistent universe.

Regardless of which method used to arrive at the conclusion, it is clear that nothing could possibly exist irrationally, as the very state of existing requires that there is some set of laws which allow for existence.

The universe, of course, exists. This means that the universe is, of course, rational. The argument basically boils down to "The universe exists. Therefore, God exists."

There are already multitudes of rebuttals for such an argument.

7. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #80965 by Augustus Osari on October 23, 2007 at 5:47 pm

...Oh, wow. I can't believe no one has said this.

"Consciousness" is just a function of the brain; a set of processes. The brain is subject to evolution. Therefore, evolution is almost certainly the explanation for consciousness.

mjr's argument, on the other hand, is based on a possible explanation for a possible interpretation of a possible set of evidence, all of which might somehow manage to individually be true, and even defeats itself by making itself entirely untestable, unobservable, unintuitive, illogical, irrational, and downright ridiculous. I applaud the large success in your attempt to trick people with wordplay and immovable faith, but your argument really didn't go any further than "God is omnipotent" ever went.

8. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #80524 by Augustus Osari on October 22, 2007 at 4:00 am

Rayy,
First off, I find it very refreshing to encounter a theist who is prepared to discuss the intricacies of religion without resorting to excuses through circular logic or other such irrational methods, as seems to be true of you. Far too often have I had encounters, however, in which I initially found that I might very well have come across a believer who could prove to be capable of an interesting and satisfying discussion, only to later discover that the veil of rationality was nothing more than that: a shallow cover to conceal the irrationality just beneath. I do not, of course, wish to assume the same is true of you. In fact, I hope, maybe even trust, that you will provide a pleasant change of pace.

However, I will be honest. I find your acceptance of the idea that anything could be beyond the reach of science to be appalling. For this reason, I wish to dispel you of any beliefs that such a thing could be possible.

"What is the problem with things that are not rational?"

It is, to one who trusts the methods of science, impossible for anything to be valid if it is entirely irrational. While, at certain times, any given truth may be seen as irrational, the light of new evidence, eventually and invariably, points toward that truth. In a world in which this is not true, it is impossible for anything to be more than mere conjecture, and, essentially, impossible for anything to be true or false. In such a world, any and all sorts of existence are surely entirely impossible, as there is no framework in which anything might exist. Things which are not rational can only exist within the realm of thought, as the realm of existence first requires that there is some set of laws that allows all things to exist.

"Life is not rational; beauty is not rational."

I'm actually not quite certain of what you meant by "life," as life can be used to describe so many things and, in its broadest definition, includes all things which can be perceived or understood, essentially coming to refer to all of existence. It would be helpful if you would clarify this part for me.

I do, however, believe that I understand what you mean by "beauty," as, while subjective, beauty is still a clearly defined abstract term. I do find that beauty is perfectly rational, and even more amazing through being so. The workings of the human mind which have arisen from rational and natural forces are so powerful and complex that being able to break them down into purely rational things is simply wonderful in its own right. In the case of beauty, there are various reasons why such aesthetics are a positive contributor to the survival of individuals, some of which I will outline and evidence below.

Most obvious would have to be the warning of danger. I am sure we can both agree that a rather obese person covered in open sores is not going to be particularly beautiful to us, though it is not doubtful that there are some individuals who might find such a person attractive, as will be addressed later. There are many reasons why this might be the case. First, of course, the person might be diseased, and a disease might be contagious. This would definitely be a good reason to be repulsed. Second, the person will almost certainly not be a romantic interest, and he or she has displayed two visible elements that do not suggest a particularly good set of genes. There could be other reasons, of course, but I trust this is enough.

Slightly less obvious would be the attraction to what is beneficial. Fruits, for example, are very unlikely to be repulsive, or even ugly. Instead, they often look, while not startlingly beautiful, rather pleasant. Fruit, of course, is a good source of various nutrients which are beneficial to many humans and various other animals. Also, returning back to one of the arguments made of the initial example, the beauty of a member of the opposite sex is part of the process of determining who will be selected as a "mate."

Beyond this, of course, there are various psychological reasons which may contribute. For instance, a person who is particularly depressed in western society might find an odd attraction to the color black, which is used as a symbol for death, sadness, and other such things. These symbolic meanings would also fall under the laws of evolution, being memes, and the genes and memes would, in this case, likely have a mutually beneficial relationship. As an example, the symbolic meanings of the color black are used to help a person communicate and decipher messages about the psychological state of various people. Initially, one person would use this symbol. However, the psychological state and the color could easily become connected in the minds of various people. Though loosely, the symbol could be adopted by others, and those who wanted to associate with that person or that mental state would adopt the use of the color. In the end, this would be beneficial to the survival of the person and his or her gene, perhaps by better allowing the person to find other people of similar state in order to form a group, enhancing likelihood of survival and mating, and beneficial to the meme, as the establishment of a group would make the connection between the state and the color much more obvious, thus leading to greater numbers of people associating the two.

I am aware that this isn't a full explanation of exactly how every facet of the concept of beauty came to be, but, to someone who accepts evolution to explain the physical, it is not any leap to extend it to the mental. After all, a large part of the mental is determined by the brain, which is physical.

"Can you reduce everything to a rational explanation?"

Ah, the last question, and the easiest one to answer. As has been demonstrated, yes.