Rationality versus religion

[Lori_7]

I see no valid reason to accuse the thread starter of doing any such thing and nor would such accusation really be relevant here. Of course if you think there is just cause to make such accusation, evidence will be demanded.

evidence is everywhere, but you refuse to consider it, because you already believe something (see below).

I suppose you and I can go back and forth with this all week long, but as a worldview, atheism works whereas theisms make a mockery of reality.

no, theisms make a mockery of your perception...thinking that you in your infinite wisdom define reality.

Confirmation bias is quite common, yes (not just with atheists as you seem to imply but with humans in general). In this particular example though, all we have are some wishy washy, vague, ill-defined notions such as 'spirits', 'souls', 'supernatural', 'immaterial beings' and ludicrous fictions, Adam and Eve, men living inside whales, gods impregnating earthlings with themselves, zombies walking around Jerusalem.

there is nothing wishy washy about a spirit, and the supernatural is by definition, just some things you don't understand.

by discounting all religious text as ludicrous fictions, you intentionally close the door to any understanding.

There's very little to work with and it changes from one person to the next. There is no consistency, just statements to reality and the agreement that such things cannot be tested, falsified, make no predictions and so on.

it says in the bible that understanding does come on a personal level and through an interaction with the holy spirit, which i have in fact tested, and it's true. so it's particularly notable when so many have testified to experiencing the same things, and having the same result, when none of the experience has been collaborated.

Arguments that theism has are not about 'evidence', unless we use the term so loosely as to render it moot, but primarily arguments from ignorance/god of the gaps. In no instance has theism led to so much as one piece of established world knowledge and nor could it seemingly ever do so. Of what worth then is it?

the only gap that exists is between our perception and reality, which you refuse to recognize, and then base a belief on that refusal. a change in perception that is based on the knowledge of god is a very powerful thing that this world needs.

You seem to think that there is actual evidence. I therefore encourage you to present it.

testimony is considered evidence.

 

[Lori_7]

first of all, no one can run from spiritual phenomenon. secondly, "spiritual" is a word for something that can't be understood, but experienced. thirdly, it's not evidence of a god. that's a leap of association you are making.

when you experience it, it sure does open a lot of doors to understanding, and it allowed me to understand that there is a god. i have had experiences with human spirits, what i believe were angelic beings, and with the holy spirit. the attributes of, and the means of, the intelligence that is behind these experiences, allows me to identify what i'm interacting with, and indeed much of what i have experienced, imo, could only be accomplished by what the bible calls god, and the interactions with human spirits and angelic ones that i've had, have only served to support it.

also, what is the most glaring is if you and others like you believe so much, why do you try to convince others by getting others to validate your beliefs?

religionists are so desperate to get others to view things the way they do
because they are unsure themselves.




repeat(the real deal): religionists are so desperate to get others to view things the way they do because they are unsure themselves.

i don't give a flying rat's ass whether or not you believe in god, or believe what i testify to experiencing. but welcome to sciforums! this is a discussion forum! it is appropriate to discuss experiences, opinions, and ideas here! and my opinion, of your opinion, is that it is close-minded and short-sided. no skin off my nose.

 

[birch]

evidence is everywhere, but you refuse to consider it, because you already believe something (see below).

no, not all people make the leap that it's a god. it's your perogative but you insist everyone recognizes it the way you do.

no, theisms make a mockery of your perception...thinking that you in your infinite wisdom define reality.

touche'

by discounting all religious text as ludicrous fictions, you intentionally close the door to any understanding.

no one is doing that. you, however, are closed to other possibilities because you are fixated on your own point of view.

there has been plenty of understanding that has been expressed in regard to religion and philosophy. it has been stated that religion has many moral lessons (some agreed with, some disagreed with). christianity is not the only one though.

it says in the bible that understanding does come on a personal level and through an interaction with the holy spirit, which i have in fact tested, and it's true. so it's particularly notable when so many have testified to experiencing the same things, and having the same result, when none of the experience has been collaborated.

well, then good for you and good for them. why does everyone else have to believe what you believe?

a change in perception that is based on the knowledge of god is a very powerful thing that this world needs.

and you are contradicting your beliefs again. you stated that god is the creator of the laws of the universe, then everyone is subject to it. it's irrevelant if people recognize a god.

testimony is considered evidence.

for those who believe there is an entity, god.

many people are open to other possibliities, they are just not currently making any leap of concrete assumptions as facts.

 

[birch]

when you experience it, it sure does open a lot of doors to understanding, and it allowed me to understand that there is a god. i have had experiences with human spirits, what i believe were angelic beings, and with the holy spirit. the attributes of, and the means of, the intelligence that is behind these experiences, allows me to identify what i'm interacting with, and indeed much of what i have experienced, imo, could only be accomplished by what the bible calls god, and the interactions with human spirits and angelic ones that i've had, have only served to support it.

interesting. again, you only focus on "angels" and a view that god is perfect and good. what about negative spiritual experiences or being tested by the devil or evil? what about all the testimony of not only in the bible but of people who say they were bothered by evil poltergeists, spirits and entities?

oh, you ignore that.

i don't give a flying rat's ass whether or not you believe in god, or believe what i testify to experiencing. but welcome to sciforums! this is a discussion forum! it is appropriate to discuss experiences, opinions, and ideas here! and my opinion, of your opinion, is that it is close-minded and short-sided. no skin off my nose.

no, you are incorrect. you haven't been giving personal testimony. you have been plugging your beliefs as facts that everyone should recognize as facts.

if you want to be given respect, then you should always preface that it's your personal belief and stop hounding others to recognize your god as a fact that everyone else should recognize. you are also dismissive and disrespectful of other religions and philosophies that are not what you subscribe to or don't believe in. what if they did the same to you?

 

[Lori_7]

no, not all people make the leap that it's a god. it's your perogative but you insist everyone recognizes it the way you do.

it's no leap, and i don't insist.

no one is doing that. you, however, are closed to other possibilities because you are fixated on your own point of view.

this is funny.

snakelord actually did just do that. it's what the quote was in response to. haha.

there has been plenty of understanding that has been expressed in regard to religion and philosophy. it has been stated that religion has many moral lessons (some agreed with, some disagreed with). christianity is not the only one though.

from a morality standpoint, most major religions result in the same behavior, but the purpose of christ really has nothing to do with morality.

well, then good for you and good for them. why does everyone else have to believe what you believe?

they don't. i don't see how they could exactly, to the letter anyway, when all my beliefs are based on my experience. the reason that many believe what i do in a general sense, only lends to understanding we are experiencing the same thing.

and you are contradicting your beliefs again. you stated that god is the creator of the laws of the universe, then everyone is subject to it. it's irrevelant if people recognize a god.

lol. the recognition of god is the LEAST irrelevant thing ever, are you kidding me?

for those who believe there is an entity, god.

no, i mean at the courthouse.

many people are open to other possibliities, they are just not currently making any leap of concrete assumptions as facts.

if you're leaping, you're doing something wrong.

 

[birch]

but the purpose of christ really has nothing to do with morality.

the rest of your post is inconsequential but this part is what is a problem.

how is it that christ has nothing to do with morality? have you read the bible?

and your vision for a better loving world is going to be achieved with no sense of morality?

then what is the purpose of christ for people now?

lol. the recognition of god is the LEAST irrelevant thing ever, are you kidding me?

you stated before that you don't care about morality but the laws of nature which everything is subject to. then the belief or nonbelief in god is irrevelant according to what you said. you also said that you see nothing wrong with the animal kingdom (which would include us). then, in your communion thread, you said all those things in nature that are hurtful and cause suffering would be eliminated (though they are due to laws of nature).

what is really funny and strange is what you've stated and not stated. it would make more sense if you said the devil was responsible for all these negative elements and situations that life has to suffer with and it's mentioned in the bible constantly but you don't mention it at all and you're a christian! LMAO

but you don't want to because then that would be admitting that creation is much to be desired and not perfect. you are really hung up on wanting to believe that creation is perfect but you want people to recognize god to make better changes. let's see; it's perfect but we need to make changes. lol

do you ever actually think about what you say?

 

[Lori_7]

interesting. again, you only focus on "angels" and a view that god is perfect and good. what about negative spiritual experiences or being tested by the devil or evil? what about all the testimony of not only in the bible but of people who say they were bothered by evil poltergeists, spirits and entities?

oh, you ignore that.

oh, no i don't. i understand that god is perfect and good because of what god's accomplished in me. i have had negative spiritual experiences, and i have been tested, and i passed. the reason i referred to an angelic being is because i've experienced physical sensations that when questioned the answer i received was "when a spirit who is not used to being in a physical body inhabits one, it feels heavy". so for lack of a better term, we'll call it an angel. can you think of some better or more appropriate term?

no, you are incorrect. you haven't been giving personal testimony. you have been plugging your beliefs as facts that everyone should recognize as facts.

everything i believe about god and christ is based on my own personal experience, and if it makes you feel any better, nobody agrees with me.

if you want to be given respect, then you should always preface that it's your personal belief and stop hounding others to recognize your god as a fact that everyone else should recognize. you are also dismissive and disrespectful of other religions and philosophies that are not what you subscribe to or don't believe in. what if they did the same to you?

what the hell else would it be besides my personal opinion? how about if when it's someone else's opinion, i'll cite the source? i don't "hound others", and i'm actually quite open to other religions and philosophies, and very respectful to those who entertain them. if i'm hard on anyone out here at all, it's christians. and the only "philosophy" i entirely reject is atheism, because inherently flawed.

 

[birch]

i entirely reject is atheism, because inherently flawed.

and they think your beliefs are inherently flawed. so what now?

i understand that god is perfect and good because of what god's accomplished in me. i have had negative spiritual experiences, and i have been tested, and i passed.

what do you believe? that god is separate from evil or the devil? do you think creation is perfect or do you recognize it as imperfect as the bible does?

from what i've read of your posts, you seem to be so self-absorbed in your idolation of god that you don't recognize or dismiss that there is inherent evil, brutality or predation in nature.

are people that are currently enslaved and abused right now, a product of this perfect creation and universe? because the result is from the laws of nature.

what i'm pointing out is you have been so enamored with the concept of god, that you defend the idea irrespective of what actually goes on or even a concern.

 

[Lori_7]

the rest of your post is inconsequential but this part is what is a problem.

how is it that christ has nothing to do with morality? have you read the bible?

and your vision for a better loving world is going to be achieved with no sense of morality?

then what is the purpose of christ for people now?



you stated before that you don't care about morality but the laws of nature which everything is subject to. then the belief or nonbelief in god is irrevelant according to what you said. you also said that you see nothing wrong with the animal kingdom (which would include us). then, in your communion thread, you said all those things in nature that are hurtful and cause suffering would be eliminated (though they are due to laws of nature).

what is really funny and strange is what you've stated and not stated. it would make more sense if you said the devil was responsible for all these negative elements and situations that life has to suffer with and it's mentioned in the bible constantly but you don't mention it at all and you're a christian! LMAO

but you don't want to because then that would be admitting that creation is much to be desired and not perfect. you are really hung up on wanting to believe that creation is perfect but you want people to recognize god to make better changes. let's see; it's perfect but we need to make changes. lol

do you ever actually think about what you say?

it's perfect but our behavior in regards to it is obviously not. you can't blame the devil when you're a christian! lol! if you do, then you sure do know how to miss the point! haha!

christ has nothing to do with morality. christ has to do with genetics. if you're going to argue christianity you might want to bone up on what it's actually about.

 

[Lori_7]

and they think your beliefs are inherently flawed. so what now?

sit back and watch what happens.

what do you believe? that god is separate from evil or the devil? do you think creation is perfect or do you recognize it as imperfect as the bible does?

from what i've read of your posts, you seem to be so self-absorbed in your idolation of god that you don't recognize or dismiss that there is inherent evil, brutality or predation in nature.

are people that are currently enslaved and abused right now, a product of this perfect creation and universe? because the result is from the laws of nature.

what i'm pointing out is you have been so enamored with the concept of god, that you defend the idea irrespective of what actually goes on or even a concern.

i think that everything is a part of what god is.

it's duality. you can't have something without the possibility of nothing. you can't have life without the possibility of death. you can't have love without the possibility of hate. you can't have generosity without the possibility of greed. that doesn't mean you have to choose death, or hate, or greed, but it does mean that you do have a choice, and that is a very powerful thing.

 

[birch]

it's perfect but our behavior in regards to it is obviously not.

so when an animal or human kills another for territory or for food, it's wrong behavior? this is not due to laws of nature that you think is perfect?

you can't blame the devil when you're a christian! lol! if you do, then you sure do know how to miss the point! haha!

you sure do miss the point. it's not about taking responsibility for your actions, because christians rely on forgiveness. i don't think you have room to talk on this point. but the issue is that the devil represents the predation and cause of suffering that's "genetically" in nature.

christ has nothing to do with morality.

what? lol

christ has to do with genetics.

what? lol


do you have any idea how nature "genetically" works? lol

 

[Lori_7]

so when an animal or human kills another for territory or for food, it's wrong behavior? this is not due to laws of nature that you think is perfect?

in the garden, everything that was designated as food was vegan, and there was plenty to go around. since then we have changed...things have changed...as they all do...genetically.

you sure do miss the point. it's not about taking responsibility for your actions, because christians rely on forgiveness. i don't think you have room to talk on this point. but the issue is that the devil represents the predation and cause of suffering that's "genetically" in nature.

i have plenty of room to point out that in the bible, forgiveness is contingent upon atonement. do you know what atonement is?

what? lol



what? lol

what i said.

do you have any idea how nature "genetically" works? lol

yes i do.

 

[birch]

it's duality. you can't have something without the possibility of nothing. you can't have life without the possibility of death. you can't have love without the possibility of hate. you can't have generosity without the possibility of greed. that doesn't mean you have to choose death, or hate, or greed, but it does mean that you do have a choice, and that is a very powerful thing.

though this is just an observation of what we experience in this temporal universe, you are not even a christian. lmao

if you were, you would realize that the bible has separate domains such as heaven and hell.

that is why christ came to give hope to people to go to a perfect place free from all this suffering. he preaches morality too! again, have you read the bible? LMAO!

sit back and watch what happens.

what what happens??

furthermore, your views are not even in alignment with what you purport on the one hand and spout on the other.

what is this idea of a loving world where all this unwanted elements are eliminated in your communion thread?? you just said it requires one for the other.

insane.:shrug:

 

[Lori_7]

though this is just an observation of what we experience in this temporal universe, you are not even a christian. lmao

if you were, you would realize that the bible has separate domains such as heaven and hell.

that is why christ came to give hope to people to go to a perfect place free from all this suffering. he preaches morality too! again, have you read the bible? LMAO!



what what happens??

furthermore, your views are not even in alignment with what you purport on the one hand and spout on the other.

what is this idea of a loving world where all this unwanted elements are eliminated in your communion thread?? you just said it requires one for the other.

insane.:shrug:

heaven and hell are merely extractions of the duality. in the communion thread, the basis of my question is an implied segregation.

morality is a necessary evil, like the police, but christ's purpose actually renders morality obsolete.

 

[birch]

heaven and hell are merely extractions of the duality. in the communion thread, the basis of my question is an implied segregation.

morality is a necessary evil, like the police, but christ's purpose actually renders morality obsolete.

i'm helping you to hone your thinking but your take is erroneous. you stated that death must exist in order for life to exist, there can't be a segregation based on this logic. otherwise, eternal life in a perfect existence in "heaven" would not be possible, free from suffering. this is exactly what christ and the bible purports.

the bible is clear that heaven and hell are separate and do not necessarily require one for the other. this is what you believe or based on what observation of the laws of nature.

but the bible makes a clear distinction that it's not an extraction of duality (that is what you came up with). it is separate and heaven does not require hellish elements to exist just as clean water does not have to have dirt in it.

you clearly stated that one must exist in order for the other, which would imply an existence that incorporates those elements.

the bible is clear that heaven is considered perfection and sustainable and in no way states that creation of the world is perfect which is your view.

again, your views are not christian. you are basically a darwinian with utopian dreams with an entity 'god' attached for posterity.

 

[Yazata]

So is it possible for a rational person to be religious?

I agree with Ich-bin that many religious people can be imminently rational in their secular lives.

It's common to see people kind of compartmentalizing their lives. They might be a 100% rational over here at work, but have passionate interests in art over there, be a lover somewhere else, and have strong spiritual and religious intuitions in another place. It's actually kind of hard to keep everything consistent and not do that.

Religion is more of an emotional than a cognitive thing, I suspect. It's fundamentally a matter of feelings (Lori's "spiritual" experience), but it has this cognitive facade of doctrines, revelations and carefully argued theology kind of painted over the underlying passion, obscuring it and lending it a rational appearance that might be misleading.

So sure, it's not only possible but very common to be both rational and religious... so long as the two are kept separate.

But I sense that your question is deeper than that. You seem to be asking whether it's possible to remain rational WHILE being religious. Is it possible to be religious in a rational manner?

I'm not sure. There's definitely an emotional side to religion that might turn out to be necessary. I'm not sure if it's even possible to be religious in a totally cerebral way. So even at its most intellectual, religion is probably going to have to remain a reason-emotion hybrid.

But is it even possible to be rational at all while being religious? I think that the Sciforums atheists would argue 'No'.

And when it comes to the traditional religious faiths, I'm inclined to agree with them. Believing in scriptural revelations without any credible evidence, while simultaneously rejecting competing inconsistent faiths whose evidence looks to be just as good (it's a very low hurdle), is going to be hard to justify rationally.

But I do think that it's possible to remain rational while adhering to forms of religion that are different than Protestantism's (and legalistic Islam's) familiar scriptural-faith.

There are religious paths that take the form of empirical spiritual psychologies. They don't require any dramatic faith commitments in order to start, just a determination to begin a meditation practice. Then the path proceeds according to whether or not the practices lead to positive effects. (The Theravada Buddhism of the Pali canon looks like that.) It won't be 100% cerebral, since most of the effects will indeed be emotional and affective, but the logic of the cognitive side of the path doesn't seem to generate lots of contradictions.

And even in the Christian tradition, there's what theologians call 'apophatic', or 'negative' theology. This is the idea that the divine lies beyond all human categories and conceptions. So this path to God involves entering into a "cloud of unknowing" in which the concept of 'God' is gradually stripped of all of its determinate cognitive qualities, without losing the felt emotional or affective connection. It's a fascinating instance of agnosticism pursued with an entirely religious motive.

 

[birch]

^ you are making it more complicated than it is. everyone has many experiences that can't be concretely defined including emotional ones, the difference is rational people can differentiate what they experience as just as experience and leave it more open-ended or question it. theists just label it god.

the problem with theists is they tend to use this type of irrational mode of operation in everything they do. that is why they are opposed in the political sphere and in education.

Religion is more of an emotional than a cognitive thing, I suspect. It's fundamentally a matter of feelings (Lori's "spiritual" experience), but it has this cognitive facade of doctrines, revelations and carefully argued theology kind of painted over the underlying passion, obscuring it and lending it a rational appearance that might be misleading.

carefully reasoned? lol. furthermore, her views are not even christian. it's her views which she mistakes as being christian. lol

 

[wsionynw]

1. This is in error, negatives can be 'proven' [of course 'proven' cannot be used in an absolute sense]. It depends upon the type of statement, (universal/singular).

Indeed, you cannot prove the celestial teapot does not exist but you can come up with a scientific argument that it does not exist. The same can be said of God, ghosts, werewolves, etc. For me the belief in God is little different to a belief in other supernatural beings that seem to exist in people's imaginations to either make the world more interesting for them or because they are mentally ill.
No offence intended to theists. Well, maybe just a little.

 

[Lori_7]

i'm helping you to hone your thinking but your take is erroneous. you stated that death must exist in order for life to exist, there can't be a segregation based on this logic. otherwise, eternal life in a perfect existence in "heaven" would not be possible, free from suffering. this is exactly what christ and the bible purports.

the bible is clear that heaven and hell are separate and do not necessarily require one for the other. this is what you believe or based on what observation of the laws of nature.

but the bible makes a clear distinction that it's not an extraction of duality (that is what you came up with). it is separate and heaven does not require hellish elements to exist just as clean water does not have to have dirt in it.

you clearly stated that one must exist in order for the other, which would imply an existence that incorporates those elements.

the bible is clear that heaven is considered perfection and sustainable and in no way states that creation of the world is perfect which is your view.

again, your views are not christian. you are basically a darwinian with utopian dreams with an entity 'god' attached for posterity.

i am a christian.

and what i said was that "the possibility of" must also exist.

what you're saying about the bible and heaven and hell are made up. you're not that familiar with what the bible says are you?

heaven and hell are extreme possibilities based on the duality. you could think of them in terms of parallel universes, that are subject to the same law, but are the result of different choices given that law.

 

[birch]

i am a christian.

and what i said was that "the possibility of" must also exist.

what you're saying about the bible and heaven and hell are made up. you're not that familiar with what the bible says are you?

heaven and hell are extreme possibilities based on the duality. you could think of them in terms of parallel universes, that are subject to the same law, but are the result of different choices given that law.

everything you said is bs, read your bible.

this is what happens, when theist's lack of reason doesn't work to convince others, they start veering away from the bible.

do you want to have your cake and eat it too? didn't you say that's a no-no? lol

you don't even understand that the bible does not state that heaven and hell are possibilities but that they exist. also, these so-called parallel universes couldn't exist with the laws you are purporting are necessary. how can one have eternal life if death is required or a possibility? how can good always result if there is a possibility that the opposite can occur? calling it a "possibility" on your account is just pointless.

and yes, i believe you are a christian in the sense most christians are not to be taken seriously either rationally or with their peculiar ignorance of their religion. lol