Comments on: Meaning and Dawkins – Meaningless Dawkins. http://a.rintrah.ca/2007/02/19/meaning-and-dawkins-meaningless-dawkins/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=meaning-and-dawkins-meaningless-dawkins of course you are archived Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:21:33 +0000 hourly 1 By: horatio http://a.rintrah.ca/2007/02/19/meaning-and-dawkins-meaningless-dawkins/#comment-221 horatio Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:07:27 +0000 http://rintrah.ca/2007/02/19/meaning-and-dawkins-meaningless-dawkins/#comment-221 am i missing something? Andrew, I don't think you are quite understanding what rintrah was driving at. If you did bother to gamble on wasting your time you would have seen why he said what he said. Even if he was wrong. I don't think you are being reasonable at all. If reason and rationality are the only means by which truth is discerned, then would it not be beneficial to have more information at your finger-tips? Even if rintrah were wrong his wrongness might propell you to a greater truth. You may consider something in a new light or at least consider as someone else may (walk in their shoes, say). But alas, the truth that you agree with is the only truth that can exist and, therefore, you might as well ignore all others. Tradition dictates that. oh yeah, that would also be non-rational, and possibly un-reasoned. hmmmmm, go figure. am i missing something?

Andrew, I don’t think you are quite understanding what rintrah was driving at. If you did bother to gamble on wasting your time you would have seen why he said what he said. Even if he was wrong.

I don’t think you are being reasonable at all. If reason and rationality are the only means by which truth is discerned, then would it not be beneficial to have more information at your finger-tips? Even if rintrah were wrong his wrongness might propell you to a greater truth. You may consider something in a new light or at least consider as someone else may (walk in their shoes, say).

But alas, the truth that you agree with is the only truth that can exist and, therefore, you might as well ignore all others. Tradition dictates that. oh yeah, that would also be non-rational, and possibly un-reasoned. hmmmmm, go figure.

]]> By: spiroid http://a.rintrah.ca/2007/02/19/meaning-and-dawkins-meaningless-dawkins/#comment-220 spiroid Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:31:22 +0000 http://rintrah.ca/2007/02/19/meaning-and-dawkins-meaningless-dawkins/#comment-220 Andrew, what are you saying? Are you saying that rintrah wants to imply that reason and rationality are the only way a conclusion can be drawn? Or that reason and rationality are the only way? Are you saying that reason and rationality don't demand all the facts? If the facts are not all on the table then how can there be a reasonable discussion? If the facts are not there how can a person rationalize? Rationalize comes from the word ratio. Ratio meaning that the ideas are weighed. What is the ratio of points for and against the existance of God? That is the rational approach. It is faulty. What is it that you want rintrah to correct? Also, I think the image of the chair is a very redeeming quality. Andrew, what are you saying? Are you saying that rintrah wants to imply that reason and rationality are the only way a conclusion can be drawn? Or that reason and rationality are the only way?

Are you saying that reason and rationality don’t demand all the facts? If the facts are not all on the table then how can there be a reasonable discussion? If the facts are not there how can a person rationalize? Rationalize comes from the word ratio. Ratio meaning that the ideas are weighed. What is the ratio of points for and against the existance of God? That is the rational approach. It is faulty.

What is it that you want rintrah to correct?

Also, I think the image of the chair is a very redeeming quality.

]]> By: Andrew Jenkins http://a.rintrah.ca/2007/02/19/meaning-and-dawkins-meaningless-dawkins/#comment-219 Andrew Jenkins Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:02:35 +0000 http://rintrah.ca/2007/02/19/meaning-and-dawkins-meaningless-dawkins/#comment-219 I stopped reading at "And by reasonable or rational I do not want to imply that reason or rationality is the only way by which a conclusion can be drawn." Thats not true, I did continue reading a bit and saw, "I say this because reason and rationality demand all the facts." Your 0/2 now brother. I feel that you should correct both these statements before my valuable time, as a reader, is wasted. Please let me know when you've gotten your introductory statements correct. By the by, thanks for the easy comments page, it is the one redeaming factor of this site, thusly I withdraw in great anticipation of your response. Andrew I stopped reading at “And by reasonable or rational I do not want to imply that reason or rationality is the only way by which a conclusion can be drawn.” Thats not true, I did continue reading a bit and saw, “I say this because reason and rationality demand all the facts.” Your 0/2 now brother. I feel that you should correct both these statements before my valuable time, as a reader, is wasted. Please let me know when you’ve gotten your introductory statements correct. By the by, thanks for the easy comments page, it is the one redeaming factor of this site, thusly I withdraw in great anticipation of your response.

Andrew

]]>