Religion and rationality go together like kittens and pick-axes

Normal disclaimer: Believe WHATEVER you want; worship WHOMEVER you want. I don't care. As long as you don't force it on my by proselytizing or legislation, knock yourself out. Oh, and if you post about your beliefs in an open forum like this, I think it is fair game for discussion (which will, sadly for some, include people saying your views are not correct).

That being said, I don't know why some people are so hell-bent (:rofl:) to put religion in the realm of rationality. Religion is about FAITH. Here, I'll do the dictionary.com work for you.





So why the desire to equate religion with rationality? Religion is about faith in a supernatural power. It is about belief that something is real that you can't see or prove. That is not rational (read: logical). Why can't you just live with that?

on edit: Stupid typo/misspelling.

If they have to come up with some crazy-ass hypothesis (not a theory that they try to pass off as one) about how the universe was created as proof of their faith then they have no faith to begin with.

So it would probably be best if they just got out of science altogether to save their immortal souls.

TlalocW

reason and evidence are better than views that are not. I think it is really that simple. They recognize that in a world where we understand so much of how things work, the need for God is shrinking and young people are becoming less interested. They want some way to compete. Some peg of reason on which to hang their hat. I don't really have a problem with it as long as one follows where the logic goes. But they don't. Can't in fact.

:rofl:

That it's not possible to prove the existence of a God or gods. That's an assumption I share, but it's not one shared my most Christians, certianly, and I'm fairly sure not by most people of other religions, and it's certainly not one that's clearly enough true to dismiss those who disagree with it as irrational.

I agree that they're making mistakes in their reasoning. I don't agree than in most cases they're not trying to reason.

I think you're probably misunderstanding what most Christians mean by "faith". Most of them *don't* use it to mean "belief in the absence of evidence" (although some do), which is what you're using it to mean; they use it to mean "standing by ones beliefs in the face of doubts or adversity", and irrationalas opposed to rational doubts at that.

1. I was a Christian for 20+ years. Pretty serious Christian, actually; working toward being a priest and all.
2. If someone thinks they can PROVE the existence of god, have at it. I would like to see it. Most of the "proof" that is offered is usually in the form things that can be explained in a number of ways, but the relgious individual still needs to rely on the begged question that there is a god out there causing everything to happen. But, hey, maybe I'm wrong. Prove away.

The problem I have is that, by definition, the underlying assumption is that there is a god, something for which there is no proof and relys on faith.

which *I* think is logically valid, then I can't - I'm an atheist.

However, there are lots and lots of *attempts* at doing so - there's an intersting one in Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, and an awful lot of the scholars of antiquity spend a lot of time producing such proofs - obvious examples are Aquinas and Paley.

I don't think any of those proofs *work*, but as I read it your OP is making a stronger claim: not merely that the reasoning of the religious is flawed, but that they're actively irrational and not reasoning at all, and the number of (in my view flawed) works written to prove the existence of God in my view demonstrates that this is not the case.

but I still stand by my OP. Those ATTEMPTS at proving the existence of god ARE irrational. They are still grounded in the belief that there is a god which is an act of faith. If those ATTEMPTS were successful, we would not be having this discussion.

some of the other things religious people believe?

Is there some rational, logical reason to believe there was an actual place called the Garden of Eden? That there are things called angels and demons. That people can rise from the dead, turn to salt and walk on water. To believe that, though it never happens any more, the laws of physics were regularly broken in ancient times?

I contend it is a far far cry from trying to produce a logical argument for the existence of some abstract concept of god and believing in a real, well defined one that does all of the above super natural things plus many many more. That there is no logical (rational) path to get to those beliefs. Since, even if you say, "well anything is possible for an omnipotent being" it still doesn't give you a logical reason to believe in those specific events vs. thousands of others posited by man in various other myths.

At any rate, it was nice to visit the R/T forums again and see nothing has changed. I stopped in because someone was using science to "prove" God and I wanted to point out what I just pointed out above. To say, "It's nice to see you are walking along the edge of the pool of reason. Don't just dip your toe in , go ahead and take a dive. The water is fine." But apparently pointing out that belief in things that can't be seen, proven or backed by evidence like angels does not meet the definition of "rational" is out of line here so I am gone.

Not *valid* logic, but logic nonetheless.

It goes "God exists (see above proof), therefore the bible is true, therefore the things mentioned in it are true".

The first step is false, and the third is debatable, but it's certainly a chain of reasoning.

Therefore the Bible is true is not a logical step as it does not in any way follow from the first.

You're right, as written it doesn't, but if by "God" you mean "The Christian God", which is what most of the people I've seen using that chain of reasoning do mean, then it does.

How can one get to the Christian part without addressing the specifics of the Christian Bible. If you are saying they aren't (i.e. just addressing the general case of some god) but think they are then that is not logical and therefore not rational. At least, rational in the sense that I am using it. The poster of this thread may have a totally different definition in mind but I am talking about the 3rd def above that I introduced in another thread (to explain what I meant when someone seemed to have gone overboard about a casual comment I made that never occurred to me anyone would have a problem with).

too much credit and credibility to faith in light of reasoning. Yes, it is an attempt at reasoning, but it is FLAWED. It is about faith. Why try to jam faith into reasoning; it just makes you look foolish.

The claim that I've been trying to refute through this subthread is that religion is not arrived at through a process of reasoning. I'm not denying the reasoning is flawed; I am claiming that the approach is reason.

I'm not sure what you mean by trying to jam faith into reasoning; do you mean "claim that religious faith is often arrived at by a process of reasoning?" If so, then trying to do so may make me look foolish, especially in an arena like this one, but not trying to do so *is* foolish.

People of religion try to reach their conclusions with flawed and fallacious reasoning (i.e. their major premise is not a universal truth but is based on faith). If you want to call that rational, go ahead. So Charles Manson was rational?

On edit: I am NOT trying to call people of faith equal to Charles Manson, I am just pointing out that flawed reasoning does not equal rationality. Manson was way more irrational on way more levels than religion.

The entire OP was just a roundabout and contentious way of saying "I think that religion is not true".

Which, admittedly, most of the threads on this forum are, but still...

I am just saying that it isn't rational. You can't PROVE it. You would need to be able to PROVE it for it to be rational. Absent that PROOF, it is based on FAITH which isn't RATIONAL (i.e. "PROVEABLE"). That is what I am saying.

The OP was my saying that I don't understand why people are not comfortable enough just saying that their religion is not rational but is based on faith. Hey, some people like Spock and some people like Bones. No problem either way (given my disclaimer). If you like Bones more than Spock, knock yourself out. But stop trying to tell me that Bones was logic-based. It just ain't true.

To use your Star Trek analogy, remember that even Spocks sometimes make mistakes. I think it's disingenuous to claim that "some people like Bones, some people like Spock" - I haven't seen the show for years, but I think everyone would agree that Spock was the better at reaching correct conclusions.

But what I think you're claiming, and what I'm certainly denying, is that all or most religious people reach their religion through Bones-like and not flawed Spock-like processes.

In the absence of that claim, all that's left is "the chain of reasoning leading to religious belief is flawed", which I agree with, but which I don't think there's any point devoting an entire OP to without even touching on reasons why it's true.

...the things mentioned in the Bible are true
therefore the Bible is true
therefore God exists (as described in the Bible)
therefore the Bible is the inspired word of God
therefore the things mentioned in the Bible are true
therefore...

And they will vigorously defend each and every one of those steps to prevent the self-supporting tautology from dissolving.

the post I am responding to.

Those definitions are somewhat narrow, but I still fail to see how they automatically make religion irrational. Rational thinking, applied to the concept of divinity, can easily conclude its existence in the affirmative. Many religions have a great amount of rational and logical thinking in regards to their outlooks and conclusions on divinity (many, unfortunately, do not). This isn't about equating religion with rationality, but recognizing the fact that rationality is very much a strong and central influence in (many) religion(s). Religion is about divinity and the world around us, and that can involve rationality in a major way. It's too bad that you just can't live with that.

If you want to use dictionary.com, I guess I can start calling all atheists "immoral", now, can't I? :eyes:

Indeed, your conclusions on this subject need rationality as much as anything else.

So give me better definitions that say something significantly different if you have a problem with these.


But they are "outlooks and conclusions" about DIVINITY which inherently requires faith, which is definitionally not rational. Why is that so hard to understand? The major premise is flawed because it is not a "universal truth."


But please, explain to me how something which has as its basic premise the "fact" that there is a supernatural being can possibly be rational. It is premised on faith. That is not rational. How come you can't live with the fact that religion is not premised on something rational? Why is that such a big deal for you?


So I go out of my way not to include potentially offensive and insulting definitions of one of my words, but you have no problem insulting me with a definition. And atheists are the bad guys here? Nice jab--hope you feel good about it. But more importantly, find me a definition from a better source that says something significantly different and we can talk about the differing definitions.



Hey, just keep saying it and maybe someone will believe it.

Again, why is rationality automatically impossible because it is about a certain subject? It isn't. One can think rationally about divinity and come to the conclusion that it exists with rationality. That is not an incorrect statement.

The basic premise is divinity. Many religions conclude that it exists through rational thought and logic. That is the real point here. Faith is not a major component in many religions, but is also simply a matter of agreeing with the conclusion (which uses rational thought, in case you missed that part). Again, that divinity exists is the premise, and many reach that through logic and rationality. It's something that we're talking about because you brought it up, there's nothing I'm at odds with here. As I said, you need to live with the fact that religion can use logic.

I didn't insult you at all. I pointed out that some definitions are inaccurate, and used one that I knew would mean something to you as an example. In case you missed it, I PUT THE ROLLING EYES THERE FOR A REASON. The reason being that I didn't agree with the definition that atheists are "immoral", just as I was not satisfied with dictionary.com's definitions of religion. Why do you have trouble comprehending that? Since I'm not sure you got that, I'll repeat myself: I do not think that atheists are "immoral", I also completely disagree with such a definition and statement.

The point about the definition was that it is somewhat narrow. That's all.

Your argument is flawed. I don't think anyone would have trouble believing something so obvious.

But you haven't provided anything different in the form of new/different definitions after a couple requests? Why not? And fine, I missed your sarcasm, but it seemed kind of out of line for you to use an insulting definition when I took care not to.


Do you not see that begs the question? The existence of divinity is something that requires faith which is inherently not rational. If you start with the premise that there is a divinity, you are begging the question and not rational. And please explain how someone could RATIONALLY (LOGICALLY) reach a conclusion that there is a supernatural being without making a logical fallacy or misstep along the way.

They're fine to work off of, but I wish they were more broad. Providing others isn't required, nor is it necessary.

Faith is pretty much believing in certain things, certain beliefs (specifically, when there isn't 100% evidence in favor of them). However, how do you get to those certain things in the first place? Many religions use logic to get to them, and then the faith is simply believing in the results of that logic.

Secondly, how are those beliefs inherently irrational? They aren't. They CAN be, but they don't have to be. There is a lack of definitive evidence that proves divinity, but there is a lack of definitive evidence that disproves divinity, so it can't be irrational automatically. If you start with a concept, you can think rationally about it and come to different conclusions.

There are many ways to think rationally about divinity. First, we know that people can indirectly observe things, much like knowing that there is a fire when one sees smoke. Keeping this in mind, we can ask ourselves different questions. How do systems organize? To what influence does matter become what we see around us? These questions and others like them can lead us to the conclusion that divinity exists. For example, since matter organizes itself in certain and common ways, there must be a common source of that organization. We can also look at the way the world works on the physical level, and apply them to things that are not so readily observable (remember the smoke and fire, however). For instance, we know that water can be solid, liquid or gas without changing. Applying this (along with other concurring observations) in a deeper way, individual things can take different forms without changing on the truest level (to me, for instance, this would have to do with reincarnation, the eternal nature of the soul and other things). There are so many other things I could expand on right now, but that should be enough for us to talk about.

That's the way I take it. Others would take it other ways, and you take it your way. That's all. I'm not trying to say that I'm right and that you're wrong, but that rationality is present in many religions.

are much more than saying divinty exists. And that there is no rational way to believe the specific claims are true.
Even if you think you have proven God there is no logical way to get from that to people walking on water really happening in real life on the real earth. It is a leap of faith. Devoid of logic. Devoid of reason. I don't think anyone would have trouble believing something so obvious.

I thought you'd given up on this forum.

I almost have, many times, but there's a lot more here than the (very few) posters who will argue with ANYTHING an atheist says.

And I mean anything.

It's not "anything an atheist says", it's "most of what atheists post in this particular forum".

Speaking as an atheist, can I beg anyone who reads here regularly not to base their opinion of atheists solely on the posts here - they're not a representative sample at all.

Also, I have to say, I think you really need to look for the beam in your own eye on that one. Are you really claiming that there are any posters here who challenge either a higher proportion or a higher number of the atheistic posts than you or half a dozen others challenge fo the Christian ones, or who tend to do so so deliberately offensively?

Donald Ian Rankin:
"Speaking as an atheist, can I beg anyone who reads here regularly not to base their opinion of atheists solely on the posts here - they're not a representative sample at all."

I thought this might be the case.

Many of the recent threads here seem to be atheists attacking Christian beliefs through their various atheist ideas about the flaws in such beliefs.

I often wonder if the posts are designed to be offensive in order to raise a reaction from the theists.

I also don't find the athiests more rational than the theists, in my opinion. Some atheists here are quite emotional.

most atheists don't defend themselves from mischaracterizations by Christians and/or other theists?

Most atheists don't talk about reasons for their non-belief?

Most atheists don't have a problem with the mere lip service that even liberal Christians seem to give to separation of church and state?

I'm trying to figure out how you determine that what gets said here isn't representative of atheists in general.

are polite, friendly and civil. Until I discovered the DU atheists forum I considered myself to be exceptionally outspoken and worried (and still do worry) that I was too rude about religion when I discussed it.

Nearly all the atheists I've met in real life don't care very much about religion one way or another. They think it's a bit silly, but that it's certainly not worth picking fights about.

More or less the only times I've come across adult atheists talking about the reasons for their non-belief in real life have been when they've been asked about them, and they have almost always been very careful not to imply that disagreeing with them makes someone a fool or a bad person.

The atheists I've met have all been here in England, and by and large they don't care much about the fact that we don't have separation of Church and state - most of them think it would probably be a good idea, but that it wouldn't make much difference to anything.

I don't, incidentally, accept your claim that most liberal Christians in America pay only lip service to the principle.




I think that the main sources of the difference are firstly that in real life you mostly talk to your friends, so you want to actually not cause offence, whereas on the internet you're talking to people you don't give a damn about and so plausible deniability (and sometimes not even that) is sufficient, and secondly that the only atheists you get on this forum are the ones who feel passionately enough about it to post on the internet about it, and but who choose to do so in a forum where nearly everybody agrees with them anyway. That's obviously not going to be a representative sample.

The fact that most DUers are American, not English, may also make a difference, although I'm not sure how much of a one.

Atheism is a viable option in most of Europe. You don't feel like you're under pressure from conservative and even liberal evangelicals.

I don't, incidentally, accept your claim that most liberal Christians in America pay only lip service to the principle.

I can only base it on DU's response to things like the Utah crosses, "under God" in our pledge, etc.

...it should also be noted that liberal Christian DUers are not representative of liberal Christianity outside DU.

I haven't noticed many differences between liberal Christian DUers and the more liberal of my real-world Christian friends and aquaintances.

The only thing I have noticed is that there are lots of people on DU who call themselves Christians but go to some extent for syncretism and other forms of heterodoxy, whereas most people I mean IRL are either believe something recognisably Christian or claim not to be Christians.

Is that what you're refering to? If not, what.

In real life, I'm quiet as a mouse. I don't speak up much about my atheism, except to close friends and family who either know about it and accept it, or are atheists themselves.

But here on DU, ESPECIALLY when I encounter people who think of themselves as liberal Christians yet insist on defining and labeling atheists in ways I don't find acceptable, I won't hesitate to confront them.

So yeah, I see what you mean, and I think that's why it's the case.

I would be happy to sit with you drinking vodka and cranberry while others talked of their religion. I don't say jack.

Since every single Christian cherry-picks scripture to fit their worldview (not even fundie literalists follow every single bit of the bible - IIRC, its contradictory nature makes it impossible to do so), those here who "go to some extent for syncretism and other forms of heterodoxy" are no different than any other Christian.

But yes, I've seen differences between a few self-professed liberal Christians here (who are somewhat bigoted against, say, blacks, don't allow me to define myself, and don't support GLBT rights) and ones I know offline, who do support both my rights and my right to define my atheism (which is to say, allow me to use the correct definition and don't try to call me a liar who believes the way they insist I must in order to beg the question that there is a god I'm just rejecting).

Maybe the difference is that those bigots here really aren't liberal at all? :shrug: Anonymous message boards make it hard to determine.

I'm not sure if the hoopla was over my use of rational, or if this thread was in response to that, but since the def I used is written above I figured I had something at stake. I actually thought I was being rather conciliatory in the original post, but I just wanted to point out that there was more to Christianity than the idea that "there is a god". (If I had realized the OP in the other thread was the first liberal democratic biblical literalist I have ever met then I would have likely not even bothered).

At first I thought maybe I should have used a different word. Like "logical", in the strict sense but I would guess it would cause the same problem. I don't have a problem with faith, I just don't think faith = logic unless we change the definition. And, I was using "rational" strictly in the sense of following a logical argument where each step of the argument is "proved" from the previous. I did use the term ,after all, in the context of a thread on a scientific discovery that a believer was trying to present as a "proof of god".

If it makes anyone feel any better, I think it is entirely possible to have a mostly consistent, mostly logical world view once one is inside the "belief bubble" (i.e. once you accept miracles they are no longer a 'problem'). At least as much so as anyone else's world view. I just don't think you can get inside the bubble through a rational process (i.e. it requires faith). I didn't realize that was so controversial.

Anyway, thanks for the moral support hehe. :hi: (I'd give you a toast but I am actually being sincere ;-) ).

If they weren't so busy following atheists around and feigning offense, they might realize that some of us are actually having conversations in here.

And I do have my doubts about how liberal any biblical literalist can be when they cheerfully tell me that I'm going to burn in hell forever and ever for not believing in their god.



I like your bubble analogy and I don't understand why people are so offended when told that faith does not mean logic.

Apparently, some people are too insecure about their faith to accept it for what it is.

The "ID"iots also conveniently ignore the fact that fundies have been trying to prove how "rational" and "scientific" their beliefs are for centuries, not to mention how they've failed miserably to do so.

They actually think people are going to believe ID has nothing to do with creationism and that using gods to fill in the gaps is science.


Anyway, I'm glad you came back and look forward to reading more of your posts in here.

:hi:

atheist logic on what can be real and rational back into "history"?

Not that it is wrong to do so, and indeed the theist does the same as he sees God in this life and has no problem reading about him in history.

The word rational implies a result that "most" humans would come to via thought - and most humans come to God - so is atheism ir-rational? Or are we back saying the more educated you are the more likely you are to be "rational" and agree with atheism?

When the belief/faith system called atheism fights with any theist belief system it of course asserts that what is its dogma is true, just as the theist system asserts its beliefs to be true.

So then we fight over who is the more educated??? - Is that the idea?

Doing this dance day after day in the R/T forum on DU takes Evangelical fervor - and I am too old to care what "irrational" atheists care to post to justify their self esteem.

I suggest that Atheists are good folk, and should have a ton of self esteem - and indeed should not need to spread the faith on DU by telling all theists progressives that they are not as rational as the atheist progressive.

but then I have never been an Evangelical and do not really understand that mindset.

>Isn't all history a leap of faith

No not really. There are historical artifacts both of the written and archaeological kind. Data from multiple sources and of multiple kinds tend to make a historical hypothesis more reliable. Less data and less sources equals less reliable.

I mean, it isn't physics if that is what you are getting at. But there are different levels of uncertainty and those things that make extraordinary claims should naturally be treated with an initial skepticism. I'm sure you follow that common sense approach when dealing with deities other than your own, Zeus for example. You don't say... "hey , he must be real since people wrote about him. why don't you believe the ancient Greeks!!" You may claim this is unfair or "atheistic bias" but you would be incorrect. It is simply bringing in knowledge from other fields. Massive amounts of research and voluminous data that tells that a person turning in to a pillar of salt is so unlikely that we are safe top call it impossible.

The Bible has very little (ok no) outside corroboration for it's more fantastical claims. So I would say no, all history is not the same. The notion that Julius Caesar existed and the notion that a woman was turned to a pillar of salt are no where even close to each other on the "faith" scale.

>and aren't you just forcing your atheist logic on what can be real and rational back into "history"?

Now there is atheist logic and non atheist logic? What are you talking about?

>The word rational implies a result that "most" humans would come to via thought - and most humans come to God - so is atheism
>ir-rational? Or are we back saying the more educated you are the more likely you are to be "rational" and agree with atheism?

Rational is not what most humans would arrive at via thought. As I specifically defined it, several times now, and as the context of a discussion of a scientific discovery clearly showed, I meant and mean rational in the sense of a reasoned argument consisting of a string of logical statements. Statements where one logically (in the classic philosophical sense) implies the other. There is a god therefore the bible is true is not such a statement. That is not even debatable. Turn that in a class on logic and you get a zero. There is a god , therefore the Bible might be true is. However, the Bible might be true therefore the bible is true is not.

>So then we fight over who is the more educated??? - Is that the idea?

What? Who said anything about more educated? There are tons of believers more educated than myself.

>Doing this dance day after day in the R/T forum on DU takes Evangelical fervor - and I am too old to care what "irrational" atheists
>care to post to justify their self esteem.
>I suggest that Atheists are good folk, and should have a ton of self esteem - and indeed should not need to spread the faith on DU by >telling all theists progressives that they are not as rational as the atheist progressive.

First off I would like to state the obvious that your rant has gone way off topic by this point. Now your venom for atheists is coming out and the subject has changed completely. You are not making reasoned, logical arguments any longer (as you at least started with). You are now in attack mode making random hateful statements.

People are allowed to be interested in whatever they like. This forum is specifically for this topic. Objecting to people talking about a subject they enjoy, in a place set aside for just such discussions, is really petty and ridiculous quite frankly. As I explained more than once I came in because the subject was a scientific discovery. But, I enjoy the subject of myth as well, even the Christian myth. I think, looked at as a whole, myth provides an interesting window in to the human mind.

My or anyone else's self esteem has nothing to do with it. Belief in unverified, fantastical, known to be unlikely in the extreme events is not logical. Is not arrived at via a rational process of logical arguments. The belief is arrived at via faith (as I thought all progressive theists on these forums had admitted long long ago). I think those are correct statements.

It should be pointed out, however, that the rationality of believers was never the primary subject of my post in the first place. it became a subject because someone , or multiple people, decided to interpret it in a way that was never intended. That I specifically said I did not intend when it was brought up that it had been interpreted that way. But, that doesn't matter because it has been taken for a good enough reason to go off on a tirade.

Since you played armchair psychologist perhaps I will join in as well. What I think it is, is that the point I brought up is just way too difficult to face. Too obviously true. It is the elephant in the living room for those who decide to selectively apply a scientific level of reasoning to their belief systems. Zeb and you (in another forum) were quite proud to post that story and to proclaim science had proven your belief in god correct (or that at least the science was compatible with it for a change). But you know quite well that the same science should tell you to abandon many of your other beliefs. (Not belief in god but the specifics of your belief system that I have brought up enough times to not need to list them again.) And, that it is probably intellectually dishonest to both believe in the immutability of scientific laws through time (required to believe in the big bang discovery) and to discard it for you other more specific beliefs.

It is so hard to face that you have to find a way to change the subject and lash out about some petty semantic non-sense instead of looking at it head on.

>but then I have never been an Evangelical and do not really understand that mindset.

and yet you "preach" on these forums, and on the main, just as much as any atheist you deride now.

You know papau I used to respect you. Scratch that... I still do respect you. You bring much good , solid factually information to the table on many topics religious and otherwise. As an example I'll bring up the post on "the earth is flat" belief during the middle ages. I had heard that info before (that the prevailing belief was actually in a round world through most or all of the Christian era) It was , however, useful to be reminded and useful for many that probably had never heard of it. That said, I have to note that you and your attitude toward atheists has changed drastically recently. I know because I have "known" you since probably at least late 2002 (I had a previous name long ago). I am not passing judgment. Believe me I am the last person on here with the right to do that. I am just pointing it out as a friend , and acquaintance. Lose the venom man. Go back to the old you. And of course, the obligatory... Let go Get Those Bush Bastards!

Indeed your response is so well written I am taking it very seriously. But I do ask you to remember the obvious fact that I do not write as well as yourself, nor do I organize my answers as well as you do.

1.Isn't all history a leap of faith

We appear to agree that there is a bit of unknown in any history, with you noting that there are historical artifacts both of the written and archaeological kind that we can interpret and claim as supporting a given writing of history. No one can argue with your statement that "Less data and less sources equals less reliable", although the degree of accuracy gained by historical artifacts both of the written and archaeological kind is open to discussions. I personally loved the government of the time's written record (of 3000 to 5000 years ago), as put on carved and painted walls, of the history of those various times in Egypt's past - most of it not being true as we discovered from other sources.

But I must agree there are different levels of uncertainty - the only question is how meaningful those different levels of uncertainty are for our quest for truth. Indeed I argue the level of initial skepticism for any and all claims should be the same lest we be in effect saying that truth is that I want to or am willing to believe needs to present less data than truth I am unwilling to believe. I like your choice of Zeus, a Deity still worshiped in some northern Afghanistan villages, as proof that I must understand the need for massive skepticism when it comes to a Deity I don't believe in. The progressive religious rarely see a need for massive skepticism about someone else's belief as the every man his own preacher concept is part of the package we carry. I believe that Jesus is indeed the way and is God, but I see no need for me to say that there are not other paths. In John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the ... No one comes to the Father except through me." ..., and the Catholic and some other Churches read that as meaning there are no other paths. But in the history of the Church in the first 200 years we had universalism and unitarian slants on those words - and many progressive Christians hold to those ancient points of view.

Bringing knowledge from another field might be important if it were relevant - but a bit of knowledge may be useless in some other field - and some of the religious think the atheists are ignoring their own life experiences - a much greater crime against logic and logical inference and deduction - as they try to set up high hurdles for that which they do not want to believe.

The very concept of God makes the use of massive amounts of research and voluminous data a dead end in the understanding of God and his relationship to oneself and ones world. If the religious say nothing is impossible with God, do the atheists then concede that they can call nothing impossible?

The Bible's outside corroboration for it's more fantastical claims are in the fact that the people of the time said so - are early religious all liars?

But I agree as to your claim that history that says Julius Caesar existed and the history that says a woman was turned to a pillar of salt are no where even close to each other on the "faith" scale, if you have no belief in God. But if you do have a belief in God there is really no difference in the level of faith required.

I am not going to be able to "prove" God to your satisfaction, and you are not going to prove to me that I should dismiss my life experiences and my logical interpretation of this life and become an atheist. This is what I meant when I said you were just forcing atheist logic on what can be real and rational back into "history" - one ends with what one starts with - and indeed nothing is proven that you did not already believe.

You did not like my "rational implies a result that "most" humans would come to via thought - and most humans come to God - so is atheism is ir-rational?..Or are we back saying the more educated you are the more likely you are to be "rational" and agree with atheism?"

Instead you want that human thought divided into that which is a reasoned argument consisting of a string of logical statements where one one implies the other - when you know that the concept and belief in God does not come from such a string of statements by your rules on such statements, but it does come for me from logic such as that of St. Thomas Aquinas and his Five Ways to prove God. So your comment is really an unfounded assertion - at least in my world - that what I reason as true does not have enough behind it to be so reasoned.

Granted that an early logic course - say about the Charles Dogson games - does not allow for or need anything more that algebra - you string of logical statements comment fits well here. But the Greeks began that quality of the information question and the asking if it was really on point - making a string of statements type proof something we discuss over a few centuries :-)

What you describe as a rant filled with venom for atheists is not, in my mind, either. I do find the lack of tolerance by the atheist, the desire to evangelize by the atheist, the certainty that the more educated one is the more quickly you come to atheism, the certainty that the atheist dogma is the only true dogma, all very tiring, albeit also amusing at times. But I may, apparently, need a sensitivity course if you see what I say as attack mode random hateful statements, or then again I may not if you are referring to my laughing at the conflating of atheist and agnostic, or my being amused by the pretense that atheism is not a belief system. My having a difference of opinion with the atheist does not mean I hate anyone.

I do not believe this forum is specifically for atheism evangelism - but it has become such a forum. If people are just talking about what they enjoy, the groups should be adequate. Their should be no need to shout down the theist. Indeed a discussion of myth would be a proper topic for the religious forum - indeed I agree it is an interesting window into the human mind. But objecting to those screaming at the theist that all is myth and lies seems not petty, but quite reasonable.

Again you go back to your assertion that Belief in unverified, fantastical, known to be unlikely in the extreme events is not logical...it is not arrived at via a rational process of logical arguments. And again I say you start with the answer you want. To the believer logic does not have an axiom that one must reject anything that allows for "God did it". Granted that belief is arrived at via faith alone (good deeds does not cut it but a believer is expected to do good deeds because God wants us to do so), this does not mean that the believer does not see logic in their own thinking. And for the atheist to scream that the believer is not being logical simply leads the believer to say "why is that atheist being so dense?"

My "armchair psychologist" is indeed as you describe - and your variation has as much validity as my own. I may well be wrong about self-esteem questions, desires to avoid accountability for the life lived - accountability to anything after death, that the evangelical screams are to drown out what the atheist does not want to hear, that the group attacks with attitude are because they are fun, etc. - and I suggest you may be wrong about "a point just way too difficult to face. Too obviously true" and how I choose not to see that science/logic demands that I give up specifics of my belief system.

We do need to sit down for a few days with a few pots of tea and talk. You saw the fact that much of the Bible can be cast into an early and correct statement about many current science beliefs, and my and Zeb so stating, as phony, if I may put a word to it. And indeed BMUS so stated "phony"- it took me a long time to understand what she was saying - my fault -but the essence is that I am intellectually dishonest to both believe in, as in your example, the immutability of scientific laws through time (required to believe in the big bang discovery) and to discard it for my other more specific beliefs. For me, in the latter case one does not believe in science laws - they are simply our best guess to date on how to either organizes something or to predict something. As you know the big bang has many problems, which may, or may not, be solved. Indeed string theory seems to have an even more iffy lifeline. And QM with action at a distance, entanglement, and the elimination of action reaction that we can know about is getting very close to being a simple recast of the concept of God and miracles. with perhaps a little math :-) .

Perhaps it is just hard for the atheist to admit that the theist is indeed looking at life head on.

I wish I knew how to preach, how to act as an actor. My career, now more or less over, would have have been ever so more effective, and indeed more financially rewarding. I agree I can hang in a multi-post rant for quite a while, and even make a point or two, but mine is not the quality of preaching nor it with the fervor of preaching. I admire the Evangelical - even the Evangelical atheist - but I do not have the energy for that activity.

Please know I do respect you - and indeed everyone - and when folks like BMUS go unhappy I worry about it and wish they were not unhappy - with me or anything else. But I know there is much I can not change and what will be will be.

And I thank you for taking the time - as a friend , and acquaintance - to talk to me about losing the venom. I convey venom only through my poor choice of words - I mean no hate or venom toward anyone. But I appear to be really good at conveying the wrong tone - and indeed good at doing the incomplete post which apparently sounds like venom to many.

As BMUS said in her "When atheists go bad" thread, sorry. (BMUS though she does not like me is one of my heroes!)

And now the obligatory...

Let go Get Those Bush Bastards! :toast:

:-)

:)

many existing religions.

Many beliefs of many religions are, in fact, extremely logical and rational. Many religions are rational as well. Complete use of faith (aka a "leap of faith", as you call it) as the basis of religious thought is observable in some religions, but clearly not nearly all. The claim that someone walked on water is irrelevant to most religions, and therefore irrelevant to the general topic at hand. In fact, when the Christians first began to gain followers in the Roman Empire, the polytheists were shocked by the fact that they rejected logic as a matter of principle (see the link on this post), and relied solely on faith without any sort of rational thought involved. This simply shows that many religions and religious beliefs are very rational, while many others are not.

As an example of a specific claim, the concept of karma is a good one. Karma states that every action is ultimately met by a reaction to the one who carried out the act, a reaction that is equal to the original. This is pretty much Newton's 3rd Law of Motion applied in another way. How is that devoid of logic (I would like to remind you that the idea of karma has been around far longer than Newton)? I have many other examples if you want them, but I would love to know how you would so incorrectly label many rational religious beliefs and concepts as devoid of logic and reason, because it is truly obvious that they are not.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300036272/sr=8-1/qid=1143508773/ref=sr_1_1/002-2581174-3560860?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Often, they have their own doubts about their beliefs, and so they try to prove their beliefs true with whatever they might find handy. There have been many attempts at this- since 17th century Rationalist papers suggested logical proofs of the existence of God.

- for various values of God - since well before the 17th century. Certainly a thousand and some years before that, and almost certainly a lot more.

the atheist gets attacked and insulted for having an opinion about rationality, reason and religion.

Oh the horror.

How dare you be honest?

You should lie and agree with everything they say.

Because since the invention of an arrogant, jealous and homicidal god, that's always been the safe thing to do.

Count posts. To claim that the "as usual" on this forum is atheists being attacked for their opinions, rather than atheists attacking religious people for their opinions, is demonstrably not true. Look at the number of those posts intended to insult. To claim that there are not far more attempts by atheists to insult religion than vice versa on this forum is silly.

Whether or not the OP actually is "offensive" (I'm never sure what that word means - *anything* is offensive to someone), it's certainly *intended* to offend, and to offend everyone religious - it doesn't even have the (usually blatantly untrue, but at least a step in the right direction) caveat that some similar posts carry that it's only intended to insult fundamentalists, not everyone religious.

Its central claim, that most or all religious people arrive at their beliefs through methods other than reasoning, is also not true, as I've argued above.

The OP has been challenged in two subthreads, one of them in terms no more insulting than the OP itself, (the other was by me, so I can't comment objectively on how insulting or otherwise it is), and received vast amounts of backslapping.

to find a graphic of akitten with any kind of ax. Alas, all I found was this...

http://users.wolfcrews.com/toys/vikings/


BTW, kittens and pick axes are both very useful in their place. But, you can't cudddle with a pick axe on your lap on a cold winter night and kittens are damned useless in digging up old roots...

:spray: :rofl:

I must admit, as an animal lover, I was scared to go there.

I will never listen to that song again without visualizing that web site.

I hadn't thought of that!

:banghead:


I'm going to go ruin the song for all my friends and family now.

Pointing out facts like that!


:hide:

Trying to *defend* religion on this forum leads to be tarred and feathered.

Attacking it leads to being told how brave you are for sticking your head above the parapet and taking on the prevailing orthodoxy.

Are you saying your God doesn't give you the strength to stand up to the puny minority?

I don't know if your claim about believers "outweighing" unbelievers is true over DU as a whole, but if you go by post count in the Religion and Theology forum, which I think is the relevant thing to count, then the discernably atheist significantly outnumber the discernably Christian.

This is aggravated by the fact that the atheists are, on average, far, far more confrontational and abusive.

you can give specific examples of when atheists are more confrontational and abusive.

Oh, yeah I remember:

1. we constantly tell them that they have a belief system in god even though they explain why that isn't true.
2. we tell them that they are inherently immoral because they don't believe in a god
3. we make posts that say they are child molesters
4. we tell them they don't know anything about the theology of a specific religion because they are atheists even though they went to a seminary of that specific theology for 4 years

Oh, wait, that is what the theists do to the atheists. My mistake.

But, please, give me specific instances where the uppity atheists have taken on a theist (been confrontational and abusive) when not first provoked by the theist in one of the four ways above (or numberous other techniques). And I don't think calling bullshit on someone when they post logically inconsistent beliefs counts (see the discussion on clay pots/"I'm not god, but..." for an example). Go ahead, point them out to me and we can talk about those instances.

There are specific rules against continuing debates from other threads, and I think listing all the offensive posts from them would be too close to that. But I've sent you a private message. Or at least, I've tried to; I've hardly ever done so before and so I may not have done it right; let me know if it doesn't arrive.

On Edit: Goblinmonger, it's a longish list, and there are almost certainly some entries where I've reversed the digits or put 23 instead of 43 or something, but hopefully most of the posts on it should be the ones I intended to highlight.

Its very true over DU as a whole. Even in the religion forum, there are a few of us. The problem is, we are so damn vocal. Really, I can count about 6 other fundamentalist atheist heretics like me who post here. To be completely honest, I think we are louder and argumentative...but we're also a lot better at it (arguing/debating) than the religionists (i.e. they're overpowered by our wit and arrogance haha). That may lead to the perception there are more of us. Although, if you count up all the "why won't the atheists stop being mean" threads, you'd see there are a lot more of them than us. When we get people being mean and rude to us, we don't cry about it and leave. When we're "mean", threads get started, people get hysterical and they leave. I really applaud the ones who do stay (seriously, I'm not being sarcastic). Zeb, Inland (despite the fact hes not christian hehe) and TallahasseeGrannie all stay and fight the good fight (although blocking people who argue with you is not cool).

There's a clear atheist majority in post count, but that's skewed by the fact that there are a few very high volume atheist posters.

I don't know if your claim about believers "outweighing" unbelievers is true over DU as a whole, but if you go by post count in the Religion and Theology forum, which I think is the relevant thing to count, then the discernably atheist significantly outnumber the discernably Christian.

Spend some time in GD and you'll quickly find that believers vastly outnumber non believers. Just because not all of the believers venture into this forum does not mean they don't exist. I would dare to speculate many of them hang out in the Christianity and Progressive Believers forum as well, but that's just conjecture as I've never gone there myself.




This is aggravated by the fact that the atheists are, on average, far, far more confrontational and abusive.

:spray:



No, just the believers, on average, are far, far more whiney.

You're really not helping your case, you know...

And I'm specifically talking about this forum, which has a very distinct culture (although I query the assertion that on threads dealing with Christianity vs atheism in GD the pro-Christian posts outnumber the atheistic ones).

But it's a fact.


Believers consist of 77.3% of America, yet they cry that they are "oppressed". How can a group that is clearly in the majority be oppressed?

Christians (http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm">76.5% of the American population) persecute gays, women, people of other faiths, people of no faith, abortion providers and various other groups, then turn around and cry that they are being persecuted. By whom???

Christians have up to a dozen networks on cable television devoted exclusively to their programming, plus a great variety of religious/inspirational shows on regular network television. Such programming routinely includes vicious attacks against gays, proclamations that women should be subservient to men, pronouncements that world leaders and others should be assassinated, and other hateful material. Yet should a TV program arise that shows religion in a light that is in the least bit unflattering (regardless of how accurate it may be), it is immediately run off the air by a barrage of e-mails and telephone calls from irate Christians who can easily dish it out but not take it.



Am I wrong? :shrug:

Some people just don't get it.

Be nice to the christian bigots, child, they run the country.

Then they cry that they are being oppressed and persecuted. :cry:


Sure, and white men are being oppressed and persecuted too. :eyes:

Here's a few pages from that book:


Persecution of homosexuals in your backyard?

Ignore it, concentrate instead on the one christian who is being persecuted in another country.


Religious fundamentalists deciding policy in Washington?

Ignore it, concentrate instead on the fact that christian children are being discriminated against because they can't preach the gospel in public schools.


Basic rights and freedoms being taken away from women?

Ignore it, concentrate instead on the "fact" that Eve damned all of us by defying God.


That must be one hell of an instruction manual.

An instruction manual that makes my head want to do this

are two polar opposites. Unfortunately, "irrational" has come to be identified with dementia or insanity.

My faith comes from a place in my brain or my soul that doesn't do logic and numbers. It just is.

"So why the desire to equate religion with rationality? Religion is about faith in a supernatural power. It is about belief that something is real that you can't see or prove. That is not rational (read: logical). Why can't you just live with that?"

I can't see or prove quantum physics either.

But hey, your point is you want data or some reasonable foundation for a belief. Well, on a historical level, you can find evidence for many historical aspects of quite a few religions. Jesus and Mohammad, for example, were both historical figures with evidence supporting their existance (as humans, at least). There's also quite a bit of archeological evidence to support many aspects of the Abrahamic religions.

Of course, there's clearly some things that are not historically possible, or have errors. A lot of that can be chalked up to parables, errors introduced in copying and verbal tradition, and outright fabrications. I think the people who suggest the Bible is infalliable are really off their rocker, especially when they use the poorly translated King James Version as the basis for their argument on "perfection".

Furthermore, in terms of content of most religious texts, they all tend to emphasize moral philosophical behavior and describe the social dynamics of helping people being a net gain. It's very interesting to compare the content of Tao Te Ching with the book of Proverbs, or much of what Jesus said. Buddhism is very similar here as well; in fact, Buddhism regards Jesus as a Buddhisvata, an enlightened person who helps others ascend.

Of course, history and philosophy, regardless of how valid you may or may not believe they are, aren't proof of a higher power. That requires, as you say, faith. Faith is never blind; even Jesus's disciples would not accept he was anything but a human until he performed well, supernatural acts, around them.

If nothing else, I would ask this: do you have faith in yourself? As Stephen Hawking wrote, if the universe is entirely deterministic, there is no free will. This is where the Star Trek transporter debate comes into focus. Is there something that is "you" beyond the predetermined interaction of neural cells mediated by catecholamines and neurotransmitters? It is also theoretically possible to copy a human brain without violating Heisenburg's uncertainty principle. So what, or who, is "you"? An illusion created by the frontal lobe of your brain? I for one can't accept that.

I can appreciate agnosticism as a very skeptical, science based viewpoint. I find the evangelical atheists to be pretty amusing though. If only "people of faith" had that kind of faith!

Maybe the atheists are right. Maybe free will is an illusion, everything is deterministic, and every religious experience has been nothing more than a temporal lobe microseizure. But I see no proof of that, and quite a bit of historical evidence for the Abrahamic religions, such as the Big Bang Theory. And everyday I see the proof of the philosophy of the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism and Taoism playing out.

As an atheist, consider what we know from science. People who practice religion have lower scores of mental illness, stress, live longer, are more socially connected, and are physically and mentally healthier. For the price of "free", that seems like a good deal rationally, does it not?

Even without faith, meditation and much of the Taoist and Buddhist philosophy can be very helpful to you. Don't believe me? Fire up PubMed and read the research studies. The data is there. How rational is it not to meditate, in light of its well-documented medical benefits?

I don't claim to have all the answers, or even a small number of them, but don't blow off spirituality and religion entirely because of a few of my fellow Christians or Islamic brothers being hate-filled nutjobs. After all, that wouldn't be rational.

The New Testament actually highlights the importance of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom (example--the book of Ephesians). The first part of Isiah 1:18 is quite specific--"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD..." I believe Jesus really recognized the problem "people of faith" have is that they are naive and inclined not to question circumstances (Luke 16:8).

Over the years as I have studied the Bible and asked God to help me understand, I have developed a logical, rational belief system that rests on the concept "God is love" (I John 4:8). By pressing through for answers to my questions, many things in the Bible that once were confusing now make sense. What started out as a young person's act of faith in someone I couldn't see or prove has matured into a belief system that is logical and livable. My faith is only as good as my life is.