Re: Rational, Reasonable -- Council of The Grey

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:08:40 09/02/00 Sat
Author: avalanche
Subject: Re: Rational, Reasonable
In reply to: Mariah 's message, "Rational, Reasonable" on 08:37:10 09/02/00 Sat

> It is deeply insulting to you. It is your opinion that
> is deeply insulting to "any rational, reasonable
> person" for I am both rational and reasonable, yet it
> doesn't insult me.

that's your opinion, i do not share your opinion.

>
> You have defined that religion is the belief in a
> higher force. I have defined that religion is when
> someone uses any artifice to say they are better than
> another, and uses that artifice as it if were the real
> thing.

your definition is irrelevant, mine is the commonly accepted definition, the dictionary definition, the scientific definition, the philosophical definition, your definition is meaningless.

To me, religion is the desire to place oneself
> above others. So, to me, this defines it perfectly.

that is arrogance, not religion.

>
> It is only highly probable that I am not the only
> person who sees religion in this way. If I were
> completely unique in that aspect, then that would mean
> that I had come up with an absolutely unique
> interpretation, which would mean that I am very
> creative, and again would raise the possibility that I
> was extremely intelligent because intelligence, to me,
> means creativity and the ability to twist things
> around and see them from all angles at once.
>

someone else could (and would) have come up with that definition, but might not accept it as true, therefore your argument falls apart.

> And thus, by your own definition, (a person who is
> intelligent is more reasonable and rational) it would
> be you who would have the more limited view.
>

not quite. simply because i do not share a your minority definition does not mean i have a more limited view, in fact, based on most of your posts here, i would say, that even though you have a very wide view, much bigger and better than 99% of the world population, mine is bigger. this is not egocentrical arrogance, just an observation.

> And, if it turned out that there were, indeed, more
> like me who believe like this. Then, to those people,
> you would be the one who was insulting them by your
> limited view of the word 'religion'.

my view is not limited, in fact, i find your definition limited. in order to effectively communicate, there must be a standard "definition" of words. since my definition of the word religion is the commonly accepted one, it is only the most intelligent and rational choice to adopt that definition, rather than one's own.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]