Hey Christians (& other theists) -What do you believe in? II

Discussion Open Forum
21

No, for the purpose of showing how your reasoning is flawed. I wasn’t actually trying to make your argument in perfect detail.

I argued that irrationality is often a key feature of insanity. [/quote]
No, you said that “insanity is irrationality taken to an extreme level” or something very close to that. I will go back and find a quote if you think my paraphrase is not accurate enough. That’s a bad definition.

It depends on the belief. [/quote]
But you have not given any logical criteria for choosing which beliefs need scientific evidence and which don’t. You are completely ignoring that the factor that leads to what needs “proof” and what you can just believe in relies almost entirely on a person’s starting point of view and past experience.

Or do you disagree with my statement? If you disagree, then what criteria would you say determines which experiences needs scientific evidence for a person to rationally believe, and which don’t?

Blah blah blah[/quote]
That’s exactly how your argument sounds because of your lack of logic. If it doesn’t make logical sense then it’s just “blah blah blah”.

In one breath you say “No, it is just…” and in the next you say “it would be irrational not to accept it”. A blatant self-contradiction in the same sentence.

You seem to be looking at things in black and white. Choice A is most probable. There for anyone who doesn’t believe Choice A is irrational. Therefore people who believe Choice A are bonko.

Here’s what I’m saying: there’s more than one rational belief. Any belief that is backed up by experience can be rational-- even false beliefs.

Just because one choice is the most likely overall doesn’t mean all others are irrational or illogical. But you haven’t even shown your choice is the most rational. You just say it is without explaining why. That’s because you think it’s the most rational because it is what you believe.

Misguided is the only one I can live with. But you still haven’t been able to explain why “god talking” is irrational if it’s possible for there to be a god.

Actually, no it wouldn’t. In the face of such overwhelming evidence believing it was all a hallucination on her part would become increasingly less rational.

So perhaps later you will see the rationality of my arguments here?[/quote]
Perhaps if later you start having rational arguments. This isn’t a matter of experience, it’s a matter of logic and its application. A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy despite whatever experience you gain. 2+2 is always going to be 4. So, unless you improve your argument, it’s always going to be invalid.

Now, adding in the “misguided” part is a marked improvement. If atheism is correct then theists are indeed misguided. So, from a particular perspective that is a valid way of thinking. Thinking they’re all insane or stupid is not.

And perception is related to reason. Hallucinations may be beyond reason but delusions certainly are not.[/quote]
No, delusion is based on faulty inference from external reality.

Insanity is perceiving reality differently from everyone else. Sane person sees a chair, insane person sees an octopus.
Delusion is believing differently than virtually everyone given the same, accurate input.
Irrationality is believing something strongly for which a person has no evidence or experience, and especially if there is strong contradictory evidence.

Now, if a person holds an irrational, deluded belief so firmly that they are willing to deny what they really see to continue in that belief, or it causes them to actually perceive their external environment differently than it exists so that they can continue in their delusion, that does constitute insanity. But simply being “very irrational” does not mean insane.

You have not shown belief that God talking is irrational. And you’re so far from showing that it is irrational to the point that any belief in God automatically makes a person insane that you might as well drop it.

Stick with your changed line and start calling theists “misguided”. I won’t agree with you, but at least you’ll have a position that can withstand scrutiny.

Because “bonko” is not a very precise term, which was why you originally switched to it. “Bonko” could refer either to rationality or insanity. I claim belief in God is neither insane nor irrational. I’m making both claims and calling your claim that it is false.

I’ll do that then. I’ll have my proof independently checked by people who actually know something about propositional logic and you can take their word for it. And if I fail, I’ll say you are perfectly right to call all Christians bonko from your point of view.

22

Well how can one use logic to test faith or belief?

You keep on popping up with the use of logic whis is totally irellevent to one having a belife in something.

Perhaps because there is no scientific evidence to shown that there is anything such as god it is logicall based on that lack of evidence to sugest there is no god.

Why should any religious beleif need scientific evidence.

Let’s take the humble bumblebee. Scientifically it should not be ale to fly yet it does quite well.

What is your definition of God RDO?

23

Well how can one use logic to test faith or belief? You keep on popping up with the use of logic whis is totally irellevent to one having a belife in something.[/quote]
Logic and experience define what rational belief is. Bob is trying to say that believing in a God (who speaks) is irrational/insane. I’m saying it’s generally sane and often rational (although I would not go so far as to make a positive claim that it is usually rational.)

Most of our beliefs are based to some degree on both logic and experience. Those beliefs for which there is almost no basis for belief or a lot of evidence against the beliefs are irrational. If Bob can show that it is irrational to believe in God then his word “bonko” would be appropriate.

But that’s not logical. Lack of evidence for something is not evidence it does not exist. Only if you can examine the entire system in question (in this case, the universe) can that be proof. When there is an expectation of evidence of something then the lack of that evidence can then be evidence in favor of the position that such a thing does not exist. But that’s not applicable in this case (although it is applicable to specific theistic beliefs).

It doesn’t. It can be rational without scientific evidence. It just can’t be demonstrated convincingly to another rational person without scientific evidence.

Bob is saying a lack of scientific evidence makes religious belief insane-- at least insofar that it includes the concept of God speaking. I’m saying its not.

Now there are times I refer to the logic of a person’s beliefs. Other times I’m referring to the logic of a particular argument. The two are not always the same. A person can have a rational, logical belief but still make an illogical argument for that belief. I believe the essence of Bob’s belief is logical (that there is no god that speaks to people) from his own point of view, but his presentation of his arguments has been illogical and certain inferences he has made from this personal belief he has are not reasonable.

I’m not saying Bob is irrational for his lack of belief in a god (that talks). Just his arguments do not hold up.

God with a capital ‘G’ will be different from god with a lowercase ‘g’. I’ll give both.

God: The being which is the subject of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam’s worship having the characteristics of supreme authority, omniscience, omnipotence, perfection in terms of justice, mercy, love. The source of order and cause of the universe, and earth in particular. Father of the spirits of all mankind (and if you don’t believe in spirits, then father of mankind itself). Beliefs outside of the Abrahamic family of religions whose beliefs coincide with these qualities can also be considered to be referring to God (Zoroastrianism is an example that comes to mind).

god: Any being of power of such magnitude that it is supreme within its own domain, i.e. able to alter any aspect of that domain according to their will. godhood would necessitate enough intelligence to be able to affect whatever changes the god would desire, thus a high level of intelligence would be indicated. A god can be good, evil, just, unjust, and imperfect so long as it retains the ability to control its own domain with perfection.

24

He’s been doing exactly that for weeks now, but your faith (or something) seems to blind you completely to it. It sure as hell has nothing to do with logic. Alien abductions? Talking bushes? Hellz yeah! Can’t be any more rational explanation than that. You’re just babbling on and on and on, but you’re saying nothing more than “I believe and that’s good enough for me – I’ve SEEN things, don’t you know?” Bonko. Or in other words, blind faith.

25

and that is the point i made right at the beginning. someone else believed that they talked to (or were) God, and while that belief may or may not have been grounded on hallucination or spirtual truth, the acceptance of such a belief by others defies logic. You just agreed with that in this statement. Whether or not you started to believe in God as part of a chuch environment, you accept it now without independent verification. any ‘talking to God’ you may have done since has been coloured, shaped and manipulated by your belief set since, and is not an independent discovery of the existence of God in your life, but a continuation of that erroneous set of belief constructions, and therefore not strong reasoning. You are part of a global 2,000 year old con job. and that con job only survived or could have been constructed in the first place because it was built on the idea of ‘religion’ that had been in train for millenia, ever since the objectification of unknown forces into some Divine untouchable by tribal shamans tripping out on mushrooms and peyote and what have you since the first glimmers of human collective consciousness, ie society. Go back far enough, and you see that there is an unbroken train of acceptance of ideas based on the purported viusions of oithers. THAT blind acceptance of ideas is the nut here, and that is the very thing that you say is illogical and irrational, yet you admit you do it yourself.

[quote=“RDO”]
God with a capital ‘G’ will be different from god with a lowercase ‘g’. I’ll give both.

God: The being which is the subject of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam’s worship having the characteristics of supreme authority, omniscience, omnipotence, perfection in terms of justice, mercy, love. The source of order and cause of the universe, and earth in particular. Father of the spirits of all mankind (and if you don’t believe in spirits, then father of mankind itself). Beliefs outside of the Abrahamic family of religions whose beliefs coincide with these qualities can also be considered to be referring to God (Zoroastrianism is an example that comes to mind).

god: Any being of power of such magnitude that it is supreme within its own domain, i.e. able to alter any aspect of that domain according to their will. godhood would necessitate enough intelligence to be able to affect whatever changes the god would desire, thus a high level of intelligence would be indicated. A god can be good, evil, just, unjust, and imperfect so long as it retains the ability to control its own domain with perfection.[/quote]

i was interested in what YOU thought, RDO, if there is only God for you or not. If there is a God, then gods must exist too by your logic (or illogic). But if you believe that there is only God (which is the Christian central tenet) then gods can’t exist. Yet, without proof of the existence or not of God, you cannot deny the existence of gods if you believe in God, other than by positing it to be so. So you’re stuck in a logical loop, a spiritual Catch-22 of which Joseph Heller would have been very proud.

26

I can’t force myself to actually respond point by point to your posts anymore RDO but I will respond with this…

We don’t know if there was an intelligent, compassionate, loving God behind the big bang or not. What we do know with some certainty however is that since the big bang the universe has obeyed certain physical laws. One of those laws says that words don’t come out of thin air, not as delivered by God or by any other means. There is simply no scientific evidence of that ever happening.

Irrationality is almost always a characteristic of insanity. It is irrational to to believe that basic physical laws were ever broken. Carry those beliefs too far and you are becoming insane. The majority of Christians crossed that line with regard to their religious beliefs long ago.

27

He’s been doing exactly that for weeks now[/quote]
No, he’s been saying things that don’t make a valid argument. It doesn’t matter how long he talks, how many times he says “bonko”, how many straw men he sets up or how many times he goes in circles, it doesn’t make what he’s saying worth anything. Nor you either.

Before you go saying someone is blind, check your own eyes. And brain. Seriously. If you think he’s made any sort of logical argument then you don’t know logic.

Not to say he hasn’t strung together a few things, but what he has said doesn’t amount to making his case. Not even close. And if you can’t see that then you are the one who has a problem comprehending, not me.

I’ve repeatedly asked him to make a logical case. Take it point by point. He’s admitted he doesn’t know how. He has tried to put some propositions together but each time there are glaring fallacies. I pointed them out. How much more obvious can it be?

28

That you don’t have a blind clue what’s happening here? Not much more. Your “logic” and your “perfectly reasoned arguments” are just balderdash, to me. You’ve done nothing – absolutely NOTHING – to strengthen your position.
“I believe in god. I’ve had EXPERIENCES! So he’s REAL I tell ya!” That’s it. You have nothing else.
“Logic.” “Rationality.” For FUCK’S sake man! :unamused:

By the way, using the tired old “if you can’t see that then you’re [whatever]” marks you out as little more than a pontificating buffoon. Didn’t your high school debating teacher tell you that?
Mormon, Jehova’s witness, whatever it is you are, I don’t care. Do your thing. But ENOUGH already of your “its logical” claptrap. Maybe in Salt Lake City it is. Elsewhere its just nuts. Bonko.

29

But whatever. If it makes you feel better, or smug or whatever, safe in your certain knowledge that your belief is true and that it’s “rational” and “logical,” then knock yourself out.
We think you’re bonkers and irrational, you think we’re bonkers and irrational, together we can make beautiful music.

30

[quote=“urodacus”][quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]

It doesn’t. It can be rational without scientific evidence. It just can’t be demonstrated convincingly to another rational person without scientific evidence.[/quote]and that is the point i made right at the beginning. someone else believed that they talked to (or were) God, and while that belief may or may not have been grounded on hallucination or spirtual truth, the acceptance of such a belief by others defies logic. You just agreed with that in this statement.[/quote]
No, I didn’t. I said it can’t be demonstrated convincingly to another rational person without scientific evidence. I also said that you don’t have to have something proven to you for it to be rational to believe it. We believe many things without scientific proof. It doesn’t make it irrational.

However, as I believe gao bo han said earlier, for an extraordinary claim there must be extraordinary evidence to convince a skeptical person. That extraordinary evidence exists, but it is not scientific. Thus, a skeptical person is perfectly rational to not accept another person’s word when they don’t trust them to relate their experience.

And once again you fall into the same loop of fallacy. Circular reasoning. How do you know that it isn’t real communication with God? You don’t. You are making an assumption. Again.

It is fine for you to believe that. I can understand your belief. But you can’t just rely on your belief in a lack of gods in this sort of argument any more than I can rely on the existence of god in mine. You’ll notice I avoid doing that. I don’t explain things using any sort of god without providing the possibility that there is no god.

But, even if it is exactly as you say, it’s still rational to believe. Just wrong.

First, that’s not what I’m saying here. I’m saying lack of scientific evidence means you can’t convince somebody who doesn’t believe you. It’s an entirely different story if you are talking to someone who trusts you.

Second, it’s not blind acceptance. It’s acceptance based on personal experience. It begins with first-hand experience. Somebody talks to god (or thinks they did). Somebody performs a miracle (or sees something that can easily be interpreted as a miracle). They believe because the evidence supports the belief. Then it goes to second-hand experience. These people who believe tell other people. Those who trust these people don’t need scientific proof to believe that the person they are talking to might be telling the truth. Then these people follow the beliefs and have their own personal experiences that continuously confirm the belief.

Trust is based on experience. Belief based on trust is rational.

I was asked for my definition of God, not for what I believed about God. That’s what I gave. For the purpose of this discussion both definitions are important.

I’ve repeatedly held that belief in God is not come to by reasoning out what God is or gods are. I don’t think I can disprove anyone else’s belief. I specifically argue that beliefs other than my own can be, and often are, rational. That includes beliefs of people who believe in different gods and belief that there is no god at all.

I believe in religious tolerance and think religious intolerance is close-minded. Even for those people that believe as I do about God.

31

That’s exactly what you just did. “Bob has been doing that all this time, but you must be blind…”

My response was in kind. So, who’s the buffoon?

32

That’s just it. You think I’m bonkers for a belief you can’t disprove or even have any evidence against. I think you’re illogical for arguments that are fallacious. I don’t think your beliefs are irrational. Just your arguments are illogical.

But if it makes you feel better, I can call you a nutjob, too.

33

I think you’re bonkers for indulging in a belief you can’t prove and have no evidence for. (“But Ma! I SEEN it! I really DID!” is not evidence.)
And I think your belief is totally illogical and that your arguments are fallacious.

34

I hope you’ll try after I post my proof.

So far, so good.

Of course. Sort of like spontaneous combustion. But see, God talking isn’t actually words coming from “thin air”. It’s words coming from an entity. There is plenty of evidence of words coming from entities. Right?

You keep saying that, but it’s not true. Most insane people act on beliefs based on their experience. The problem is that their perception of experience is screwed up, so their actions don’t make sense to other people.

It’s foolish to think we understand all the physical laws of the universe. There are many things we don’t understand. Don’t you think science will ever discover how to make words appear in the middle of the air, or transmit information directly to a person’s mind?

You fail to see things from any point of view different from your own. You are assuming god can’t speak to people because “words don’t appear from thin air”, but they would only be appearing “from thin air” if there’s no god. If there’s a god then they wouldn’t be appearing from “thin air” they’d be appearing from god. And even in those instances where people “heard a voice” but couldn’t see where it was coming from, what is to stop a god from projecting a voice?

Circular reasoning.

35

Sounds like you’re describing yourself, not me.
I can’t prove my beliefs, no, but I do have evidence for it.

You don’t even have personal experience for your belief.

Actually, eye witness testimony is good enough to convict a person of a crime. It’s incredible evidence. But, it’s much stronger when corroborated. The reason why religious experience is not scientific is only because there is no way to corroborate it.

What fallacy? Where? Point one out. Go ahead.

Nobody has pointed out a single logical fallacy in my position this whole time. Not once. So if you claim there’s a fallacy, go point it out.

36

tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/ … /jcyf.html
Just read this and I’d like to know how youguys think?

37

Of course I do. I have never seen or heard god. I don’t know anyone who has and I’ve never read anything I can trust that says he’s ever been heard or seen.

38

AHa, so the lack of experience is the experience itself.

that is smooth.

39

Of course I do. I have never seen or heard god. I don’t know anyone who has and I’ve never read anything I can trust that says he’s ever been heard or seen.[/quote]
That would be evidence if you could see the whole universe. But you can’t.

You haven’t seen dark matter or know anyone who has seen dark matter. But that’s not evidence that dark matter doesn’t exist.

Lack of seeing something isn’t “experience” that it isn’t there unless you should be able to see it. There’s a lot of thing you haven’t seen and don’t know anyone who has seen it. That’s not evidence it doesn’t exist. Just means you lack experience.

40

I believe it. That’s good enough for me. And if I might rephrase, you can forget the personal experience part and stick to the part where I point out that I’ve never read or heard from any trustworthy source that god has ever been seen, heard or felt by anyone anywhere ever in the history of mankind.