I Know That God Does Not Exist

So the ancient Greeks believed in a handsome naked man on the top of Mount Olympus with . . . a rocket-propelled grenade?I'm still detecting irrationality.

At the time, perhaps, Greeks didn't know any better, so maybe, at the time, it might have been considered a rational explanation.But two and a half millennia later?

What's irrational about the notion of a man holding a bit of plasma with an enormous electrical current running through it? Well, for starters, it would fry him pretty good, wouldn't it?

But then, Zeus or Thor belong to the past, when it may (though, who knows) have been rational then, but certainly isn't now.

You want to stretch things so painfully that the ancients and their notions of gods throwing thunderbolts from mountaintops, inhabiting trees or rivers, firing their furnaces in volcanoes you might be able to call rational by the standards of the ancients?Perhaps. But I started out saying that might be the case. Are you insisting that we judge the rationality of the idea of gods by those same standards today?If so, sure, it's "rational" by those standards.

quote:

---

Europeans in the MiddleAges believed that lice were a sign of good health
Europeans actually believed that having lice is good for your health. The reason behind their beliefs was the fact that sick people rarely or never had lice.

---

Back in the Middle Ages people made a rational deduction. Coming to that same conclusion now would not be considered rational.

Consider the phrase, "It was a good idea at the time, but knowing what we know now..."

That is correct. But I wasn't commenting on whether or not is was "wrong" or "right" or "correct" or "incorrect" for people in ancient times to believe in gods, or for people nowadays to believe.For earlier people it may have been rational, as their knowledge was less extensive than ours. As you implied, one may make the wrong decision rationally.

So, to follow your analogy to math class, two plus three is always five, whether I'm asking you, now, or asking Alcibiades in Classical times, or Og back in times the Creationists say didn't exist?

Our knowledge is always imperfect, but still we try to find out the truth as best we can.

quote:

---

In another example, Peter Gordon spent many years living among the Pirah tribe of Brazil learning their language and culture. He noted that the Pirah have only three words for numbers: one, two, and many. He also observed that they found it difficult to remember quantities and numbers beyond three even after learning the Portuguese words for such numbers.
Chapter 1 – The Culture Concept | Selected Perspectives: an Open Introduction to Cultural Anthropology

---

If I asked you to add two and three and you said "many" one might conclude that you were not giving a rational answer to the question.But if we were living sometime in the Paleolithic, that might very well be considered a rational answer.Remember, I'm not talking about "right" and "wrong" or "correct" and "incorrect" but about rational and irrational.

So if I ask you to add two and three and you answered "many" is that a rational answer?

If. Other. Numbers. Are. Available. It. Is. Not. Rational.Yes?

I wasn't asking about what they did.I'm asking about you. You have more numbers available.Would it be irrational for you to answer "many"?