Rational Beliefs

[Deleted]

That argument is purely being pedantic. Technically there could be a Santa, but you don't have to have proof that there isn't one to reject a belief in Santa. The instructions given to the OP's actually anticipated such silly, pointless nit-pickings.

I do not find such arguments to be silly. These are major issues of grand scope that require said nit-picking in order to be correct on a fundamental level. Having said this, i doubt even OPs professor would understand the argument anyway, mainly misinterpret it to something like : "Technically there could be a Santa, but you don't have to have proof that there isn't one to reject a belief in Santa." Gonna stop the OT now

---------- Post added 2012-08-19 at 06:44 PM ----------

I wouldn't be. A teacher that asks you to analyze a belief using rationality is more likely going to be open-minded about the belief you choose than say a history teacher asking you to write about an historical event or an English teacher asking you to write about an author's hidden intentions. The teacher is looking for logical reasons to reject a belief. If you actually have logical reasons to reject that belief (and haven't done it simply based on irrational/emotional bias), the belief in question is irrelevant. It's more likely you'd offend him by using bad reasoning then by picking a bad topic.

Although, a teacher *might* be more or less biased in how they judge your reasoning skills based on the topic for a very select number of topics -- they won't give you an A or and F on the topic alone, but they might be more critical of the merits of your arguments given a topic they disagree with. Personally, if I had a topic I thought might be borderline, I'd write about it. I like a challenge. But I'd also be more critical of my own arguments to be on the safe side.

That very well may be true aswell. Its just that based on my personal experience, people are not usually that rational.

[Ynna]

I'd write about I used to belief that every single human did their best. Maybe narrow it down to how I used to think that teachers were motivated to make their students into better humans.

[semaphore]

These are major issues of grand scope that require said nit-picking in order to be correct on a fundamental level.

It's incredibly asinie because it is nitpicking about an undisputed technicality - as if nobody else recognise it. He even had to justify himself by declaring that he's not using any normal definition of atheism. In other words he is nitpicking an imaginary argument.

i doubt even OPs professor would understand the argument anyway

Except it's not exactly a hard pseudo-argument to understand.

mainly misinterpret it

And how is that a misrepresentation? Sounds to me like you just don't have any actual argument.

[Itisamuh]

My favorite rational conversion is going from atheism to God.

Maybe you should do it on the idea of rationality in itself, since there is no universal consensus on what qualifies, and is purely up to the individual.

[Dezerte]

How about fanboyism?

[Deleted]

And how is that a misrepresentation? Sounds to me like you just don't have any actual argument.

You cannot take a stance on things that exceed the bounds of possible experience/reality.

[semaphore]

You cannot take a stance on things that exceed the bounds of possible experience/reality.

So you have no stance on whether Santa is real?

[Dendrek]

My favorite rational conversion is going from atheism to God.

Maybe you should do it on the idea of rationality in itself, since there is no universal consensus on what qualifies, and is purely up to the individual.

He's not being asked to given an informative debate, he's asked to defend a decision (to change a belief) he made based on logic. I doubt he's come to the decision at any time that rationality doesn't exist, so I doubt he'd have a reason to discuss why his opinion on that has changed.

[Deleted]

So you have no stance on whether Santa is real?

The distinction between Santa and "God" has already been made in that thread.

My own personal stance is that i dont really give a crap until something becomes tangedable with my will.

[semaphore]

The distinction between Santa and "God" has already been made in that thread.

Irrelevant, you didn't specify "God". You previous post was also irrelevant actually, since the question was "how is that a misrepresentation", and you answered it with a random irrelevant claim.

[Dendrek]

I'm going to interject in the debate between Egzis and sempahore.

To "reject a belief in Santa" and to "believe Santa does not exist" are fundamentally two different things. In the first case, you are refusing to accept the proposition of the existence of something for which there is no proof. The key here is that it's the proposition that you do not accept -- you are distancing yourself from the argument entirely. In the second case, you are forming a belief in the matter -- you are holding a "rational" opinion regarding Santa (in this case, the opinion that he cannot exist) without any conclusive evidence to support that opinion. Without such evidence, your belief is not based in logic. And a belief that's not based in logic is generally considered to be irrational.

To be clear, a belief that Santa does not exist, although not based on infallible evidence, is generally justified because of reasons dealing with probability and with the validity of the source of that belief (being told a story by one's parents). Probability indicates that he's not very likely to exist. Unreliability of the source of the belief introduces extreme doubt in its credibility. Add to these a lack of evidence of his existence -- and particularly the lack of expected evidence that would be associated with his purported activities (going down chimneys, leaving presents, etc would all be VERY noticeable signs of his existence). So it can be rationally concluded, based on a preponderance of evidence, that he does not exist. But even this is an illogical position to take because the evidence demonstrates that he is unlikely to exist, not that he doesn't.

You cannot take a stance on things that exceed the bounds of possible experience/reality.

What he should have said it, "You cannot take a logical stance on things that exceed the bounds of possible experience/reality." You can definitely take a stance on such issues, but to do so is illogical. It doesn't necessarily make it irrational; but being illogical makes it that much harder to defend the rationality of it.

[mahananaka]

How about super heroes? Most people I think at one point wanted to be something like a superman, batman, nightcrawler, ect. Until I was 8 I wanted to be an archeologist cause I thought Indiana Jones was the type of thing most archeologists did.

[Gheld]

Well, before the credit crunch of 2008, I had a blithely naive view that the world would keep improving for all people as ideas travelled across the world. I think I clung onto that in an almost quasi-religious manner so as to have some sort of utopia to look forward to and perhaps a change in politics. I realize that now although we have many technological improvements we can't sit back and hope for human progress to just happen.

The process of learning how wrong I was took a lot of reading around.

What annoys me is that people like you accuse me of cynicism 8 days a week.

[Dendrek]

What annoys me is that people like you accuse me of cynicism 8 days a week.

Realists, like myself, accuse you of it 32 days a month.

[Gheld]

Realists, like myself, accuse you of it 32 days a month.

There aren't 32 days in a month! You've clearly eaten a whole-integer half of a bakers dozen of moldy bread.

[GarGar]

One thing I'd suggest doing is, talk to the professor about it. Don't ask them for a topic, but let him/her know some of the things you've come up with (religion, politics, etc), see what they think, ask for examples of topics other students have written about in the past. Usually examples they give will be examples they thought were really good, so if you can come up with one that is along the same lines, you should be pretty well off.

Edit: In addition, instructors really like when you put a lot of thought and effort into an assignment. Even if you're not excited about it, talk to them about assignments. Let them know you're interested, and that you're actively thinking about it (even if you're not). They'll think more highly of you as they're reading your paper, no matter what you write.

[Troodi]

I used to have the belief that the people in third world countries that are poor and starving could, with education, be able to get out of their current situation.

Then I joined a relief group, traveled to Africa, and saw first hand the problem and changed my belief.

Starving, hungry children when they grow up, have been damaged* irreparably and do not have the capacity to learn to the same degree as a healthy, nourished person. They (poor/starving people) need help beyond their own resources, to build an infrastructure first to provide a health, growing environment. Then education will be possible.

* You can look into someone's eyes and see the evidence of starvation, even a grown adult who is now living with adequate food will show the signs. Their mind has been compromised and nothing can restore it. That's why it is vital children get proper food while growing.

* * *