For example, whenever Nixon used the phrase “law and order”, he was implicitly and secretly signalling to white racists that he would protect them from black folk and other minorities. — NOS4A2

For this to be true, some poeple must have told all supremacist whites, that "law and order" is a wonk-wonk nudge- nudge. Without explicitly agreeing on this, or explicitly discolosing this to white supremacists, the meaning would never be transmitted.

This iis a password-type situation, or entry-code situation. In my building there are approx. 50 tenants; there is a passcode which is supposed to be secret, only to be used by building management; and yet at least 10 people in the building know the code.

That means, that the desired amount of people who must know the code, but nobody else, is 1 person. Yet 10 people know it.

Obviously it ahs been leaked.

If Nixon's code was indeed a code, it would have been leaked. But it was not.

So I call bullshit on the opening post. Nixon or his advisors couldn't have approached all white supremacists (WSs) and tell them in secret. If this happened, then some Not WSs would have been approached, and told; they would have clear evidence, which they would have reported. But no report was ever made, and therefore no evidence.

The rumour is an urban legend, a false conspiracy theory.

Ah, yes. That's why we northern Europeans are the Master Race. — T Clark

I actually did not say that, and I deny the truth of your statement.

I understand ethics only as a consideration in ones action not to do gratuitous harm to anyone/anything. — lepriçok

So to you there is no difference between good and ethical. If I read your sentence right.

Science has become the new religion, and since it hasn't given us any basis for objective morality, many have come to the conclusion that it must not exist. — Tzeentch

You have come to that conclusion, but not the atheists. Some of us do feel that morality exist, we just can't put our fingers on it.

It's a bit like gravity or something. You do know it exists, you do know how it behaves, but you don't knwo what it is.

No atheist who is like me will deny that ethics and morality exists. We just deny that we know what it is in its most fundamental.

Science has become the new religion — Tzeentch

Jeez, here we go again.

I dont know why people still bother with Zeno's paradox of Achilles and TerrapinStation.

To get to where TP is at one point, takes less and less time for Achilles, until the distance between the two and the time to reach the point both reach zero.

You can only think about this in terms of Calculus.

The closer Achilles gets to TP, the less time it takes PROPORTIONALLY. Zeno assumed that it takes a non-proportional time. So by the time Achilles reaches TP, and the distance between them is zero, then the time elapsed to travel that distance is also zero.

IN other words, when the time elapsed between a prevous point in time to the time Achilles reaches TP is zero, the distance between the two of them is also zero.

Consider a sum of fractions: 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16... which is the sum of all 1/2**n, for n= positive integers zero to infinity. There is a proof that proves that the sum is equal to 2. Don't ask me for the proof, because this was taught to us in grade 12, an immense amount of time before I forgot the proof. But I do live with the conviction that the proof exists!

Anyhow, if the distance halves between Achilles and TP and the time halves for achilles to reach the point where TP is, then somehow magically you can marry the two: (the sum of 2(**-n) and (Zenos paradox)), and there you go, bob is your uncle.

I am old-fashioned, and old-brained. If i remembered every proof and every thing I ever learned in school, then I would be crazier than I am not now.

On the surface, it appears as though there is nothing rational about your choice. — Judaka

Most decisions are made by such non-rational, not irrational methods. — T Clark

I make a lot of decisions as part of my work, so I've thought about the decision making process. — T Clark

The choice is immaterial. The OP's question is "can a belief be irrational." Everything else does not matter when we actually read a post and reply to what was asked.

By moral values I mean ethics in scientific research, — lepriçok

This is a difficult cookie. Ethics are not defined anywhere in its literature, or wherever the word pops up.

There is no universal ethics. If there is, we haven't found it yet. So for the time being all ethical considerations are self-serving sermons by the righteous.

And as we know, the world is divided into two: the righteous and the wicked. And it's always the rigteous who do the dividing.

I don't know if ethics in our considerations can be separated from the notion of good.

Everyone seems to own ethics, yet nobody knows what it is. It's the buzzword of the twenty-first century.

Referring to ethics, therefore, must be done by a complete and exhaustive explanation what the author thinks it is; and the readers have a choice of accepting or rejecting that explanation or definition.

I have cut throats mutually with many ethicists, so to speak. Eventually we always come out physcally intact and unharmed from the debate... but with deep, black-and-blue bruises on our minds.)

Why is it that the mind prefers to slumber far from the place right where is needed, it seems to me that life is what happens while you worry about the future. — Ariel D'Leon

Worry is a uniquely human cognitive featire, and it is a survival skill, as much as it causes damage to the coronary arteries.

Without worrying you'd not prepare for expected future disasters. We could all die in one winter far northo on the northern hemisphere if we ate all our food in the growing season and immediately after. II mean, no worries, don't work extra to make extra food for the winter.

Worry is a VERY strong survival mechanism and motivating factor.

Ultimately, it is worry that placed the northern hemisphere societies that elevated them politically and in war industry that helped them to create industrial societies, which subjugated the rest of the world. It was all due to worry, because other features of humans living elsewhere were and are comparably equal to norhtern hemisphere denizens.

I bet this is more like a bad foreboding. — lepriçok

I guess I was wrong. And yes, it is a foreboding. You are right.

What do you mean by 'truth' referring to future events? — lepriçok

Prophecy.

As long as an approach is effective and non-contradictory, it could be called rational? — Rufoid

Practice says, yes. Just one more addition you'd need: repeatable. And you need to be able to figure it out intuitively. I think this makes a thought rational.

Suppose I believe in making decisions based on which kind of bird I see first thing in the morning, and that I believe this due to my own unpublished scientific research.

Is this an irrational belief? — Rufoid

The belief is rational. You can believe all you want. You could even believe that god exists, and nobody can stop you from that.

Basing decisions on beliefs can be rational. For instance, if the first bird you see is a frizbee, you know it's a good day and you will plan some outdoor activities. If the first bird you see is a few vultures circling in the sky, then you know that a hot lunch is lying there somewhere near your abode.

Furthermore, if you decide that if you first see a dove, you'll asl Julia to marry you, and if you see a crow, then you will ask the old crownie next door to marry you, is still not an irrational decision-- it is a noncongruent decision.

Noncongruence bears randomness, which is not counter-reason.

Since we know very little about the structure of reality, we can hardly fathom the full effect we make on the world and ourselves. — lepriçok

1. We don't know that we have very little knowledge about the sturctue of reality. Maybe we're very close to, maybe we are very far from, complete knowledge. But you can't assume that either one is true.

2. If we can't fathom that, then kapd be a fathom. == sorry, typo. If we can't fathom that, then we also can't fathom how little effect we make on the world and ourselves. Some measure should be available before making such a statement.

You just clarified a definition. You didn't at all address what it would follow from. — Terrapin Station

I think Lepechaun uses his definition as an axiomatic truth. I bet you any amount of dried leaves that that is the case.

What is the highest possible level of scientific achivement, before things going south to us — lepriçok

I can't operate a smart phone, I can't start a keyless car and I can't drive a driverless car.

This is the beginning of Armageddon. Woooo... the winds of Yehuzabeb shalt kill all first birn with calorie-rich diet Cola.

Not every, but almost every word you wrote reflects misinformations, lies, and outrageous claims.

I wish you would stop writing to me, because your so-called facts are wholly unworthy. Please stop responding to me and I promise I shall do the same, that is, I won't respond to you.

This has been a truly sickening thread. It's not healthy to communicate with a person who lies his or her way through an entire debate.

You really disgust me, Joshua.

Again, nothing personal, no claims of fact about your personality... it's just that you make me wanna puke.

Joshua, I don't believe you are an atheist. You wouldn't have written your post above if you were. You are blinded by your faith, and can't see beyond your nose. These previous statements by me are opinions, not facts, but I hold these opinions about you because of the many references you wrote all favouring Christianity in spirit and in emotion.

You are not saying the truth when you say you're a hard core atheist, is my opinion, and I stand by that opinion. Again, I state that as an opinion, not as a fact.

I have seen many, many wolves in sheep's clothing. It's the oldest trick in the book that you are practicing: declaring you're atheist, then praising Christianity non-stop.

You must think I am so stupid as not to see through your thin veneer.

I'm not sure patriarchy is the problem. — Tzeentch

I concur. "Meet the new boss! Same as the old boss!" - The Who, We Won't Get Fooled Again

There is a definitive translation of the Torah — uncanni

Ay-vey.

(Yah' miche borum gom chalichban meshugene...)

Right, because reason is a 'god.' For you, (the concept of ) reason is authoritative. And that's my 'religion' too, mostly. — joshua

No. You believe only god? I believe the weather report. I believe when my neighbour says he is going to go the barber shop. I believe my x wife when she says she'll pick up the grandchildren after 8.

You are copmletely driven by your desire to prove that atheists have gods. No, they don't. Your examples are fit for a congregation in Baptist church, but they are shown to be wrong by someone who is a cliritcal thinker, not a blind follower of a faith in god along with all other accoutraments of a god worship.

Not a report 'after' if even the assignment of 'thinghood' is verbal. — fresco

As god is my witness, I don't know what you are talking about. "After" what? Assignment of Thinghood? What the heck is a thinghood? Especially considering that you put it in quotation marks, which means that you don't really mean thinghood, but rather a different form of it.

I am sorry, I can't imagine what you are talking about, if you talk about a different form of something I don't knwo what you mean by.

What's the difference between Ahab and Melville's report? — creativesoul

There is no difference in the final format. This is due to Ahab being Melville's brain child. Ahab can't say anything different from what Melville puts in his mouth.This is so because Melville was a person in reality, and Ahab, a person existing only in imagination.

An imagined person can't autonomously speak or write. He or she is under the complete influence of the person who penned him or her.

Bridget, if your argument stood, then god would not only be genderless, but would be also tiger-like, wheat-like, mollusk-like, etc. etc., since he created them all, and your argument (how I understood it, but I am not sure of this) states that god created images of himself.

In additoin to that, there are 3,407 versions of bible translation in English. Some say "He created him in his own image", some say "He created Adam in his own image", some say "He created man in his own image," etc. etc.

You can't cherry pick which version to use. Or maybe you can, and you should, because if you read enough bible, you'll see that it contradicts its own self more ways than you can pronounce the name of god.

Imaginary people do not have thought/belief. — creativesoul

But they are reported that they have, by the author. "Jennifer thought the sky was bluer than on most other days." "Jennifer thought highly of George Bernard Shaw; she thought My Fair Lady was a fair interpretation of Pygmalion." Here, Jennifer is an imaginary woman, but her imaginary thoughts are reported by the author. She does not report them; she has them, as it is imagined by the writer and the reader.

I tentatively agree with aletheist on what he said in this last post above this one of mine.

This is a statement with no support and I challenge you to explain it. — Noble Dust

You stated something is possessed by atheists. The onus is on you to prove that.

You are not in the heads of all atheists. You just created a false conjecture.

worship is the function of how we interface with the concept of a god. — Noble Dust

Then there is prayer, there is lent, there are sacrifices, there are atonements, there are rites, there are a whole bunch of other things which are communication between man and an alleged god, but atheists don't do any of them.

These things are gods in their own way, and I would go further and counter that they are, metaphorically, supernatural as well. What is "science"? What is "progress"? These are abstract concepts that represent ideological (sorry, makes the most sense in this context) stories. — Noble Dust

You are bringing up ideas that have been shot down already. Metaphorically there is nothing supernatural about ideas, thoughts, progress. You are making a twisted claim with that.

You may want to think that they are gods on their own, but they are not.

Science is almost, I think unconsciously, made reference to ontologically, as if it's a being. — Noble Dust

NO person thinks of science as a being. Cut the nonsense, please. You said "almost", so you admit it's not really. You are trying to twist words, but you are not doing a good job at it.

I'm not religious. — Noble Dust

Right. Maybe you don't follow a set or defined religion or a community of people of a faith. But do you believe a god or some gods exist?

aletheist claims that proofs are sufficient but not necessary for truth.

god must be atheist claims that that truth can be based on the absence of counterexamples.

Where do the two of you stand on each other's claims? Thanks. — TheMadFool

I would say it's the toes.

But seriously speaking, other things are necessary than just the lack of known counterexamples. So I say this is a false assessement of my stand, please disregard the quote by @TheMadFool that attributes this to me.

Now I am not confident that @aletheist claim is properly written, either.

So I refuse to make a statement on a potential Strawman.

Yes, I admit I enjoy winning arguments. Don't ask me why.

No, I did not distort your story. And the logic stands. You wrote you teach your students to quesion authority. I proved that then you must fail all your students.

Then you said you teach other stuff as well. So did I bend the story line? No, instead, you have given too simplistic a description of what you teach. With what you gave, I was right, and my conclusion was dead on.

Then you introduced other elements... which means that your oriiginal description was not true! This thing I can't be blamed for, and I resent the accusation that I distorted your story. I distorted nothing, I just went with precisely what you said.

You then said I ought to know that the entire curriculum was not restrcted to teaching your students to question authority. How would I know that? You SAID what you taught; it is invalid to think that I should have known more. I knew as much as you told me, nothing less, nothing more.

I beleived you; then you changed your story. I believe you gave a better picutre in the new version, in the changed story of what was close to realliy; in fact, I don't doubt you do also what you said you additionally do. But that was after an argument was too tight for you. You had to introduce new, true stuff, which I had no way of knowing ahead of time.

I therefore resent that you claim I distorted your story of how and what you teach. You gave partial information, and I beleived it; I drew the consequences; then you changed your story.

-----------------

You also said something, do I think you are an anarchist or something similar. You DID say you were a subversive.

You presented things that lead to a self-contradiction, then you rewrote the things. And then you accused me of distorting your story.

Yes. The novel reports the thought, belief, and ideas of Ahab. — creativesoul

Yes, but isn't Ahab an imaginary person? I think a novel can never report the thoughts and beliefs of an imaginary person... the novel reports how the author describes or makes known the thoughts and beliefs of an imaginary person.

The first level of all measurement is 'nominal' i.e. 'identifying and naming a thing' That necessarily involves directed focal interaction of an observer with a selected aspect of what is considered to be 'the world'. That is why physicists call 'things' - 'repetitive events' — fresco

So... this is a report after the measurement. Check.

I don't teach or practice anarchy. — uncanni

Then you did not say the truth when you first posted about what you taught.

You clearly said, you teach your students to question authority.

I proved it to you in logical terms that you must then fail the whole class if you do that.

You said that is not you teach, in order to justify why you don't fail the whole class.

I am sorry, this is a philosophy forum, where logic is supposed to reign.

I calls them as I sees them.

You wrote this originally:

I teach students to question authority and more than anything else, I try to get a dialogic flow going between them and me. — uncanni

You gave no indication at all beyond this about what you teach. I ASSUMED NOTHING BEYOND THIS AS YOUR TEACHING SUBJECT MATERIAL. YOU ARE HANGING ME FOR NOT ASSUMING MORE THAN WHAT YOU SAY.

I teach many different things to my students. Is that really so hard to understand? I don't think I've ever known a professor who only taught one thing in the sense that you seem to mean.

Who is this "we"? Is that the royal we — uncanni

We are the users of the forum. Many people read these posts, not just you and me. When you say here something, you tell not just me, but POTENTIALLY all that can and do read our dialogue.

questioning authority. — uncanni

What do you mean by that? Let's sort this out as well. You say I assumed you meant something different than what you meant.

So let's hear what you meant. Please.

I hand out a syllabus and I tell them that they have to follow my rules or they can take the course with someone else. — uncanni

So in effect you don't tolerate your students to question your authority. "It's my way or the highway", you say on the day you hand out the syllabus.

Not very pedagoguical, I'd say. You fail them for doing precisely what you teach them to do.

Exactly what I had predicted.

I don't know if this will help or just send us farther down the rabbit hole. I teach a subject matter; students pass or fail my classes. I hand out a syllabus and I tell them that they have to follow my rules or they can take the course with someone else. Then I proceed to teach my subject matter.

However, I consider this the least important aspect of what I teach my students. There are moments, either in class or in my office, where a real teaching moment, a genuine dialogic moment can occur. — uncanni

Do I detect that you don't teach what you originally told us you teach?

You told us origianlly that you teach your students to question authority.

Now you tell us you teach something different.

How would this stand up to some authority who is judging you for consistency? I am not that authority, but still, moving the goal posts of the argument is not very nice.

And if you knew the concrete circumstances of my students, you would realize that this isn't an exercise in following the logical consequences of questioning authority to its limits, but rather one more along the lines of pedagogy of the oppressed. — uncanni

Same dialogue. If I knew. How would I know? You told us? I simply went by what you told us on the post. I calls them as I sees them. If I assumed that they had special circumstances, then I'd also have the right to assume they were Martians, or that they were Cantaloupes, or that they only speak Sanskrit while your teaching language is English.

You must assume, as a writer, that people will read what you write, and some of the readers will not assume more than what they read. IF there are special circumstances that must be considered to not treat the topic logically, then you must inform the readers. Which you are doing now.

This is acceptable, of course, to correct the readers' perception if the reality is not precisely what you first wrote.

I apologize for mistaking your gender. I had no way of knowing. You never gave an indication.

But we came to an understanding that you are a woman. DESPITE my assuming you were a man.

So the dynamic was precisely what I advised: I assumed, and you corrected me. I did not have to ask you "Are you a man or a woman", to which you'd maybe answer, "What concern is that to you?" and I would answer, "Why are you asking me if that is a concern to me?" etc.

Okay, thanks.

What about the last part of my tri-part question of your teaching?

If a kid questions you, when you teach "You must question authority", then his or her only thesis could be that s/he must not teach authority, therefore they get a failing mark for not internalizing the subject material.

If a kid does not question you, the authority figure, then he or she obviously did not internalize the subject material.

Both ways they deserve a failing mark.

If you were honest in your marking system, therefore, you would have to fail the entire class each time you have a session.

If you called me a troll, you simply reject the reasoning in my criticism. It's fine, but the logic is infallible that you can't teach to question authority. Please see the last part of my comment.