If your life really sucks, isn't it rational that you might try to improve it? You try everything, like working hard, studying hard, being nice to people and none of it seems to be working. What are your "rational" choices? Live with it (Job), fight it (Job) or fall into line and accept God (Job). That's why religion has worked so well at controlling the masses for so long. "Rational" is such a relative term and rationality is determined by options. Someone dying from an incurable disease will grasp at straws of hope. Charity, the other sister, enters and offers a remedy, delivered by Hope, who offers to heal you, but only if you accept their sister Faith.
A perfect trifecta. Very rational. They're smart and have been fine tuning this shit for a long time.
Logical, maybe not, but rational, yes. Visit a prison and you'll meet a lot of guys who found religion.

which is irrational. If someone wants to improve their situation by using religion that in itself is irrational (faith = irrational).

That would mean we're surrounded by a lot of irrational people. I just see them as regular folk who have a different take on religion than I do. The human sense of self preservation is very strong and when two or more people share a viewpoint or intellectual position on life, it gives support and credence to their ideas, helping turn those ideas into convictions. Totally rational. Illogical, maybe, but the human is often illogical in his life choices.

and we ARE surrounded by a lot of irrational people.

I have faith in those close to me. I have faith in my ability to accomplish certain tasks. I have faith in my boat, my bicycle and my car that they will get me safely from A to B.
There are many degrees of faith. Maybe you are talking about blind faith.

Is it irrational to have faith in those you trust and love? If those same people tell you they all believe something that sounds illogical to you, does that mean all those folk are irrational? No, because they in turn trusted others. The evidence is abundant. Problem is, the evidence is all anecdotal. There lies the conundrum.

I rarely discuss religion with anyone, because everyone has a different take on it and it is very personal. The problem arises when believers or non-believers try to sell their opinions as the only "truth" and demean those who disagree with them, by warning about hell and being "saved", or insulting them by calling them irrational.

You're no different than those who say "well what about your faith in gravity??" There is no such thing as "faith" in gravity.

What you're talking about is trust.

-You trust in those close to you because you have evidence that they will support you.

-You trust in your ability to accomplish certain tasks, because you have evidence that your abilities have pulled you through before.

-You trust in your boat and car because you have evidence that they will repeatedly take you from point A to point B.

Trust is built, essentially, upon repeatable results. It is clearly and demonstrably rational. Faith, on the other hand, does not rely on evidence of any kind, or on repeatable results. Faith is irrational, plain and simple.

I'm sure you disagree, but that's only because you're trying to redefine "faith". The problem with that tactic is that there have been many definitions of faith written down. Some of them exist in dictionaries, while others exist in poems and books. One common thread between them, though, is that all of the definitions refer to something more than simple trust..."evidence of things not seen"..."belief in something without proof"...etc.

Faith and trust are pretty much the same thing.

Faith

What is faith? This entry focuses on the nature of faith, although issues about the justifiability of faith are also implicated.

The concept of faith is a broad one: at its most general ‘faith’ means much the same as ‘trust’. This entry is specifically concerned, however, with the notion of religious faith—or, rather (and the difference is important), the kind of faith exemplified in religious faith. Philosophical accounts are almost exclusively about theistic religious faith—faith in God—and they generally, though not exclusively, deal with faith as understood within the Christian branch of the Abrahamic traditions. But, although the theistic religious context settles what kind of faith is of interest, the question arises whether faith of that same general kind also belongs to other, non-theistic, religious contexts, or to contexts not usually thought of as religious at all. It may perhaps be apt to speak of the faith of—for example—a humanist, or even an atheist, using the same general sense of ‘faith’ as applies to the theist case.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/

1. I don't find vagueness, and especially playing with vaguess for rhetorical convenience, to be interesting.

2. In your own chosen quote, it shows that your claim is incorrect. "Much the same" is not the same, but rather similar. And that is when they are used in their most general, vague ways.

When your own chosen reference material fails to support your point (in this case the conflation of the meanings of two different words) it's time for a re-evaluation...

Must be nice to have it all figured out.

1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.


To say they are equated doesn't really work as an argument for belief vs rationality.

In my opinion, the vast majority of us have a difficult time differentiating between the imaginary and the non-imaginary; e.g., value, rights, governments, etc.

I am currently taking a class that suggests human relationships are largely imaginary, and how to use that information to our imaginary advantage. It is called Communication of Conflict.

And then there's the confusion between rational and logical. Reason and logic are not synonymous, as reason and purpose are not synonymous.
We fall into the same trap as many fundamental religionists when we start broad brushing all believers as being irrational. Reason is highly subjective.

...and calling the whole being of a person irrational. The "broad brushing" here is mostly in your mind.

Just because I have my own irrationality doesn't mean I can't spot irrationality in others, however. While my own irrationality might be cause in some cases for me to be more sympathetic to the irrationality of other people, it doesn't disqualify me from recognizing the irrationality of others, or calling them out on it.

Is it possible I'm wrong in some cases? Certainly. But I don't make a general policy in life of keeping completely quiet until I'm 100% absolutely sure of a thing. I'd have to be awfully damned quiet if that were true. Nor do I make it my policy to give religion special treatment as a subject area that demands special care before I voice my opinion on what I think is irrational.

People are always free to try to refute my opinions. I certainly give them ample opportunity to do so in places like DU.

I was referring to those who say "we are surrounded by irrational people".
My position is that we are surrounded by a lot of illogical people, including those who make such broad brush statements. Most people are rational, but most people act or think irrationally on occasion and most have a few ideas that others might find irrational.
DU is an ideal place to discuss religion, because we are free of personal and family considerations and we are protected by anonymity.

Last edited Mon Mar 12, 2012, 02:49 PM - Edit history (1)

People are talking about religion. They're talking about religion being irrational. They're talking about the people who follow irrational religions. Yes, in that situation, many people aren't going to be mincingly careful and delicately diplomatic to make sure that they make it utterly, perfectly crystal clear for those who are hypersensitive that it's only the religious aspect of the lives of believers that they are criticizing.

Just like when someone supports what you consider a stupid political policy, and you might react by calling that person an "idiot", with no intention of trying to convey the idea that this person can't read, spell, solve basic math problems, or win at Sudoku.

A fat lot of good it does to be so careful anyway. Many believers will take a criticism plainly worded to be a criticism of their belief, and not themselves as a whole, and snap back with wounded fury with remarks like, "So you think just because I believe in God I'm stupid and crazy!?"

and if someone is religious and it is based on faith (to believe something with out evidence) then I would say that their religious beliefs are irrational. For the most part all people are irrational at times. Some more than others!

By the way this is in the Atheist & Agnostic Group and you should expect to see comments like this from atheists. If you can't take the heat in here discussing what is rational vs. irrational you are in the wrong group.

I'd say that.

I'd say all people are irrational.... to some extent.

But if you "base your life" on a text of ideas made up by the profoundly ignorant of the late Stone Age and the Bronze Age, then you are irrational is a more extreme way than someone who, say, won't ride in a glass elevator, or won't go in the ocean, or is afraid of all dogs because one bit you when you were a child.

Especially when most people of "Faith" (with a capital "F&quot know almost nothing about their religion and its history.

There I agree with you 100%.
But how many "believers" do you think "base their life" on the Bible or Koran? Not even all the self described Fundamentalists do that. They cherry pick what suits them and they do that as part of their "rationale". They do it to bolster their "illogical" beliefs. That may seem perverse, but it is still rational. Humans are extremely rational creatures. It's what makes us human.
The less the "faithful" know about religion and history, the stronger their "Faith". Otherwise, they would have to reach beyond simplistic human reasoning (rationalizing) and delve into the realm of logic, a far less comfortable arena to negotiate.
Reason is always motivated by a desired, beneficial result.
Logic is motivated by finding a truth or solution, regardless of the desired outcome.

the happier you will be.

The obfuscation, the evasion, the denial, the rationalization, these are side effect of the cognitive dissonance believers experience when confronted with a reality that does not match the one they have created. It's quite natural, and should be expected.

all over the room when people were asked if they would kill their children if God told them to. That one hit a little too close to the mark.

As soon as anyone asks them to define their belief, they hear "your beliefs are ridiculous". It is an automatic condemnation of them and their god. It is a rare bird who can actually have a discussion about what they believe and why they have that belief.

I understand that you "think" that the Religion forum is there for discussion of all things religion, but trust me, they don't think the same way. And they love to torture atheists.

And don't forget - they reserve the right to throw everything they want at atheists or atheism. We're a religion. We have "popes" and "bibles." Atheism caused all the deaths due to communism in the 20th century. Replying to address any of these lies just proves that you are devoted to your religion of atheism.

Ironic isn't it that we, who have nothing to prove, are willing to explain our POV while they avoid answering direct questions and fall back on alerting because they're being offended?

Of course, there's always the point that there isn't a rational answer and they might just be as aware of the fact as we are.

I was trying for "Let's talk about what YOU believe? YOUR definition of God."" But that seems to difficult for them. They talk about "cosmic life energy" (I guess that is like The Force) but it's like when acupuncture enthusiast talk about the energy that "flows through us" but it can't be detected. They are words without meaning.
When I was an agnostic, before becoming an atheist (thanks to Dawkins', 'The Blind Wathchmaker') I just had a hard time with the concept of there being nothing else. But I had to keep asking and probing to seek what was real.
It may be to big a question for many of them.

and depends on how they need to use that definition to rationalize their beliefs. You won't get an answer because they cannot give you one, as the definition is just too fluid to nail down.

Isn't it apparent that believers do not probe.

they fall back on those mysterious "other ways of knowing" to try to shut down any discussion because that makes it your fault you won't accept their patently ludicrous ideas.

Edited to add: I'm thinking about taking a break from DU for a while thanks to the switch over to DU3. It's becoming more and more obvious (imo) that atheists aren't all that welcome here. We might not have really been that welcome before, I don't know, but it's getting more difficult to take.

They base their beliefs on faith and not reason. They are not likely to change their minds.

I find the need to try to get someone to stop believing in a god a pointless endeavor. They'll do so of their own accord, IMO.

I look at it this way. I base my atheism on a clear rational view of the Universe. After looking and questioning, this is the conclusion I have come to.
But I would be egotistical to think I must be correct based only on my own judgement. So I seek the argument made by believers on why they believe.
If I cannot critically counter their ideas, I should rethink mine.
So it's not so much of proven them wrong to them, it's showing they are wrong to me.
Let's face it, we have often heard that we base our atheism on an outmoded concept of God. So asking for a better definition seems logical.

You're saying that if you cannot reasonally counter them in their arguments, then your ideas are flawed?

If I am reading you correctly, I find that a bit odd. My ideas are reinforced by the science around that which has been proven factual.

I guess I could see your point if during a discussion a believer pointed out something with you had no knowledge of, but I would probably point out that science does not pretend to have all the answers...religion does.

I do not look to believers of any religion to reinforce my atheism. That's what science does.

I guess it's that is if I put myself in the debate, which i do in the R/T Forum. I want to keep myself open to what I am debating.
Maybe it's not reinforcing my atheism as keeping up with what I am atheistic about.
The exchanges are frustrating, but I don't lose sleep over the quandary.

Reacting to the ludicrous things they say isn't the same as trying to get them to stop believing. Why would you want to do that?

The OP was about the frustration of trying to find out exactly what they do believe, not trying to change their minds.

I wanted clarification.

I don't bother with trying to debate believers unless they approach me with their religion. I find it a complete waste of time.

than me.

But when they try to promote their beliefs in public and influence others to their way of thinking (and frankly, there IS no other reason to post on a public discussion board), then their claims need and deserve to be challenged.

If we followed your philosophy to its logical end, no one would ever be given the opportunity to change their mind, because everyone would be uninterested in defending or even expressing their own point of view to others.

ETA: There's a difference between trying to explain to someone how your POV is valid, and trying to get someone to abandon their own.

"The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" and it seems to me that the only way that the Bible (the fount of knowledge for Christians and a foundation for other faiths) can be accepted is by refusing to examine your beliefs. The ordinary believer often has little or no background in the beliefs of their particular sect let alone a wider grounding in theology; that is left to ministers and apologists. Even the missionaries are often ignorant of the disputes and difficulties of their faith, usually following a set script when challenged.

I'm sure all of us have seen how scientific research and properly documented history are cherry picked by ministers and apologists, but they do that with the Bible as well! Whole wads of text are selected, ignored, falsely glossed and mistranslated. With that background is it any surprise that many simple followers cannot answer even the most basic questions? Those of the faith cannot fathom that many atheists have searched for a god, any god, and have looked at the texts, asked the questions and still found nothing. We have knocked and there has been no door, we have sought extensively and found only a void, we have listened for that still small voice and only heard our imagination. We have seen in the Abrahamic faiths the vile genocides, the abuse, the approval of rape, the pedophilia, the sanctioning of violence and the glorying in the imaginary future torture of those who dispute the dictator deity.

The majority of believers are honest, and frequently likable, but will refuse to examine the received wisdom. Others will admit that there is nothing behind their faith except the fact that it comforts them and refuse the extreme teachings and ideologies of ranting preachers. Some of the faithful will become persuaded of agnosticism or atheism and be happier; others will just accept your denial as not affecting them; a minority will see you as a threat to their comfort, a threat to the future of the world and refuse to accept your lack of faith and belief.

Keep going, you will end up doing far more good than those last god botherers.

into a part of the brain they use when they start feeling alone and terrified.

You're trying to access the irrational with rationality. They aren't answering because they can't answer in any rational way and they know it. Belief is completely irrational, self contradictory, and by most measurements, insane. However, it's what keeps them feeling safe in a world that often feels irrational, too.

We all have weird cutoff points in our heads. You've just run into one that's very common in believers, the refusal to speculate about the nature of what they claim to worship because such speculation can actually serve to limit belief and belief is what makes them feel safe.

If this doesn't make any sense, it's because it's not supposed to.

Belief is irrational.

but I can't even get what their irrational belief is.
Forget the debate or critical inquiry. I was just looking for a clear concept.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is more defined than what I get as an answer.

You know what it does (banishes fear, gives false hope) but you have no idea in the world how it works. It just sits there, a black box that makes a slow thing turn fast on the other end, modify current in some peculiar way, whatever. You might have put everything else together and know exactly how it works, but that black box is a little beyond your knowledge base at this point.

That's how I think of it, in any case. I have plenty of believer friends and I know they're ill prepared to examine their beliefs under a microscope, nor are they motivated to. It's a black box off to the side in their consciousness. It works. That's all they care about.

It's ennobling to our species that a being so unlike can be acknowledged as God.

Lesser species would just imagine a more powerful version of themselves.

come out and say honestly "I know this isn't rational, I know it doesn't make sense, but I NEED this belief, so just let me have it, OK?"

Religions also have confessional documents that define what their faith is in addition to the Bible.

For example, Lutherans generally stand by the Augsburg Confession, The Smalcald Articles, and The Small Catechism as defining their faith.
http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php
http://bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php
http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php

In the Augsbug Confession God is characterized by: