Rationality versus religion

this is ridiculous. there are people who are 'spiritual' and still are not theists or define it by religion. actually, they are usually wiser than christians/muslims. almost everyone is spiritual in some way, (everyone has a lifeforce) as well it has many textures and nuances. people are introspective at certain times in their life or in some cases often, constantly absorbing and reevaluating. there are many things in life that can move you and not everybody has to label it under 'god' to somehow make it seem that their experience is somehow more profound or worthy of attention or legitimacy than another.

people think that one must be a theist in order to consider life sacred or recognize the sanctity of life, learn morals, have emotional and spiritual experiences as well as wonder and question the universe they are in.

people's lives are not all centered around god, there are all kind of things to consider. not all people need to pray to ask god which way to back out of the driveway either.

this is the blindspot, the assumption that it's only a "theists" domain and restricted to only people of religion.

that is complete bs. it's absolutely ignorant. hell, i think zen buddhists are more deep, extraordinary and spiritual than any fundamentalist religionists ever.
 
Last edited:
I agree. Spiritual is a different issue all together.

The sense of awe I have looking at the world around us can be quite deep. The connection I've felt with history when I've visited places such as Mesa Verde and Coventry Cathedral has been very moving for me. The sense of our tiny place in the overall scheme of things is incedibly humbling.

But yet, here we are, able to ask questions and contemplate the wonder of it all.
 
the holy spirit and my own experience is my source, as i've stated, and the source has confirmed to me much of what it says in the bible, and has contradicted nothing that is in the bible. the bible is common knowledge and easily accessible, so if you contend that what i'm saying isn't scriptural, then prove it.
Click to expand...

un-believable. how lazy! you are the professed christian, post your sources! just like a typical christian, you spout anything you want to and expect others to do all the real mental work and critical thinking! you are so self-absorbed in your own beliefs that you don't even consider that your beliefs are not even christian and it's obvious you don't care. many of the things you've said are not even an interpretation but a direct contradiction to scriptures.

i don't consider that a point of view but a dishonest character. i could care less that religionists like you are given a free pass to do it continually. it's not right! it's like reinforcing or ignoring or spoiling someone just like telling a liar that it's okay.

you don't even have the honesty to have admitted, even once, that you were incorrect. lie after lie is said and pretend innocence.

what is so hard about admitting that it's your interpretaton and not necessarily what the bible says?

you are too intellectually dishonest to do even that!
 
Last edited:
The connection I've felt with history when I've visited places such as Mesa Verde and Coventry Cathedral has been very moving for me. The sense of our tiny place in the overall scheme of things is incedibly humbling.
Click to expand...

yeah, it's also even more moving and profound when you see stars in the sky on a beautiful night!

also, science fiction movies are incredibly moving and get one's sense of wonder and awe going full tilt as well!

profound and incredibly humbling things and experiences are not just religious, churchy or god-related!
 
birch said:
un-believable. how lazy! you are the professed christian, post your sources! just like a typical christian, you spout anything you want to and expect others to do all the real mental work and critical thinking! you are so self-absorbed in your own beliefs that you don't even consider that your beliefs are not even christian and it's obvious you don't care. many of the things you've said are not even an interpretation but a direct contradiction to scriptures.

i don't consider that a point of view but a dishonest character. i could care less that religionists like you are given a free pass to do it. it's not right!

you don't even have the honesty to have admitted, even once, that you were incorrect. lie after lie is said and pretend innocence.

what is so hard about admitting that it's your interpretaton and not necessarily what the bible says?

you are too intellectually dishonest to do even that!
Click to expand...

it is what the bible says, and anyone with even a remedial knowledge of scripture would know that.

where does your understanding of scripture come from? and can you give me so much as a vague scriptural basis for your contention?
 
Lori_7 said:
it is what the bible says, and anyone with even a remedial knowledge of scripture would know that.

where does your understanding of scripture come from? and can you give me so much as a vague scriptural basis for your contention?
Click to expand...

excuse me? where is your scripture that states that heaven and hell is just a 'possiblility'? where is your scripture that jesus had nothing to do with morality? where is your scripture that creation is perfect and the "devil" did not taint or corrupt it?

where are all your scriptures for anything that you felt like posting willy nilly and up to your whim as a representation of christianity?
 
birch said:
people think that one must be a theist in order to consider life sacred or recognize the sanctity of life, learn morals, have emotional and spiritual experiences as well as wonder and question the universe they are in.
Click to expand...

This is because that is what religions teach. It's there "hook" into peoples psyche. Without these hooks into people's lives, they would be able to "stray" away from religions. They are taught that it's religions that define our morals and not social-evolution, They are taught that only religions and god recognize life as special, and anything that is really a special experience _must_ be a religious one, except of course, when it leads to negative affects and is then blamed on a psychos' of some sort!... Without these religions really have nothing.

Religions are all very good at taking credit for the good deeds people do in its name (not allowing people to realize that people that do good deeds would do so without religions in most cases) and quick to disassociate itself with the atrocities also done in its name.

KRR
 
birch said:
excuse me? where is your scripture that states that heaven and hell is just a 'possiblility'?
Click to expand...

that's it. you've misquoted me what, like 3 times now, about heaven and hell? you having to resort to that should tell you something. you're on ignore.
 
Lori_7 said:
that's it. you've misquoted me what, like 3 times now, about heaven and hell? you having to resort to that should tell you something. you're on ignore.
Click to expand...

i didn't misquote. you just use excuses. it's a form of lying.
 
Lori_7 said:
that's it. you've misquoted me what, like 3 times now, about heaven and hell? you having to resort to that should tell you something. you're on ignore.
Click to expand...

....and another one dead...and another one gone....another one bites the dust...another one bites the dust. :D
 
I find this a bit sad. People disagree, and then get hot under the collar.

Hey guys. It's just a debate. If you disagree, that is fine. No need to call each other names.

Lori,

As you might surmise, I have a strong interest in proper evidence. I appreciate that you find your own subjective experiences convincing, but most on this forum, including me, require evidence that could be published in a science journal.

Do you have evidence of this kind to quote?
 
Skeptical said:
I find this a bit sad. People disagree, and then get hot under the collar.

Hey guys. It's just a debate. If you disagree, that is fine. No need to call each other names.

Lori,

As you might surmise, I have a strong interest in proper evidence. I appreciate that you find your own subjective experiences convincing, but most on this forum, including me, require evidence that could be published in a science journal.

Do you have evidence of this kind to quote?
Click to expand...

i doubt it. i mean, there would have to be a scientific interest first of all, which i don't really see. and secondly, it would have to be a force that could be manipulated. this is an intelligent force, with it's own agenda, that to my knowledge doesn't really care about our own agendas or constraints all that much. imo god isn't interested in being proven or studied; god is interested in communion with individuals. i can attest to the fact that there isn't a need for a scientific journal or a lab to achieve that.

i have been led to believe though, that what happened to me in 2005 will make some headlines at some point, and will turn some heads. i have seen evidence that my experience can be corroborated, without there ever being any physical collaboration, and that's a big deal. those who can corroborate are artists with a very big voice. i'm interested to see how it all turns out.
 
what if jesus didn't actually exist but that his story is a representation of deeper meaning and higher or worthy values? jesus also represents that innocence and precious truth that can so easily be ignored for other base emotions such as jealousy, dishonesty, selfishness, immorality, lust, envy, greed, hate etc.

if he had not existed or the story is a culmination of other stories or symbolism of human experience or wise gurus, would you reject it?

isn't the essence and it's message more important if that is what you agree with? a christian tends to agree with all of it.

i don't but some of it i do. i see in general the symbol of jesus as a marytr in one aspect as well as a victim of the world but also someone who was true to what they thought was right. he refused to be compromised or live untruthfully so to speak. in that sense, he was not as lost which also elicited their jealousy and hatred (because he was honorable) as they were more corrupt, even though he was humble and had no earthly possessions to hate him for. he represents the struggle and suffering, especially when they are trying to do the right thing and also to offer hope. these dynamics are really not new and they can be witnessed in life metaphorically and literally. it has happened countless times in history with myriad of different scenarios/situations. the sweetest souls often have the most precious truth to offer the world but is rejected by the corrupt or they are abused/used or laughed at. he's like a champion for the underdog, the bullied as well as the unloved. in that sense, it is a very enlightening and beautiful story.

jesus is one icon or story but there are others as well.
 
Last edited:
birch said:
what if jesus didn't actually exist but that his story is a representation of deeper meaning and higher or worthy values? jesus also represents that innocence and precious truth that can so easily be ignored for other base emotions such as jealousy, dishonesty, selfishness, immorality, lust, envy, greed, hate etc.

if he had not existed or the story is a culmination of other stories or symbolism of human experience or wise gurus, would you reject it?

isn't the essence and it's message more important if that is what you agree with? a christian tends to agree with all of it.

i don't but some of it i do. i see in general the symbol of jesus as a marytr in one aspect as well as a victim of the world but also someone who was true to what they thought was right. he refused to be compromised or live untruthfully so to speak. in that sense, he was not as lost which also elicited their jealousy and hatred (because he was honorable) as they were more corrupt, even though he was humble and had no earthly possessions to hate him for. he represents the struggle and suffering, especially when they are trying to do the right thing and also to offer hope. these dynamics are really not new and they can be witnessed in life metaphorically and literally. it has happened countless times in history with myriad of different scenarios/situations. the sweetest souls often have the most precious truth to offer the world but is rejected by the corrupt or they are abused/used or laughed at. he's like a champion for the underdog, the bullied as well as the unloved. in that sense, it is a very enlightening and beautiful story.

jesus is one icon or story but there are others as well.
Click to expand...

i think jesus, and the bible's message, are all of those things. real, meaningful, or even metaphorical. i just watched a documentary tonight called "the case for christ" which looked at the historical integrity of what the bible says about jesus. even my brother who is an atheist well educated in history doesn't argue that he existed. if you think that he was a great teacher, a prophet, or even a good man, you would also have to consider what he testified to, that he was the messiah, the son of god, the perfect man, and what he is able to accomplish because of that.
 
skeptical,

this is the way i think about science and god. i think they answer different questions. science answers "how?", and god answers "why?". those two questions don't contradict each other, but they really don't have anything in common either. you can dissect things scientifically forever, and never answer the question "why?", and we do that. and for all of our dissecting and discovering, what's changed? the circumstances by which we meet our physical, mental, and emotional needs? are we better off? does it really add meaning to our lives? when i listen to an atheist i hear the answer "no". atheists aren't looking to answer the question "why?", and neither is science.

what do we do with our scientific knowledge? we own it, we covet it, we pride ourselves on it, we fight over it, we capitalize on it, we buy it, we sell it, and in a big way some would say we destroy ourselves with it.

i'm going to get some hate for saying this but, really, it's my opinion, that if you can answer the question "why?", the "how?" becomes pretty unimportant.

and finally, if you consider the two approaches we're suggesting here, as to how might be the best way, or acceptable way, for god to introduce himself, i think the personal approach wins hands down. i mean we're talking about the difference between you picking up a journal and reading an article about god, and then laying it down when you're finished and going back to whatever else it is you do, and god smacking the journal out of your hand and saying "hello. i'll be staying." i think a lot of people are more comfortable with the idea of keeping god in a book, or a journal, or a lab, or a church, and under consideration for a good reason, because once you know, once god shows up, it's the most comprehensively impactive thing that could ever happen to you. i think some people have a lot of negative associations and fear about it.

but from what i know, i don't think god wants to be considered, or analyzed, or manipulated any more than you or i do. i think what god wants is for us all to know and love each other.

god wants communion.
 
Lori

Sound great. Problem is, for myself and a heap of other people, it does not happen. If God exists, and is as you say he/she/it is, then this deity is clearly not interested in a lot of people, including me. I do not demand much. Just a clear cut, empirical demonstration. Something that can be written up, and show the existence of the deity you claim exists.

However, I accept that you have already admitted that such evidence does not exist. That being the case, I will remain skeptical.
 
if you think that he was a great teacher, a prophet, or even a good man, you would also have to consider what he testified to, that he was the messiah, the son of god, the perfect man, and what he is able to accomplish because of that.
Click to expand...

that's what makes you a christian. christians believe he was literally god or the son of god and perfect, therefore the miracles as well.

first of all, even if a person named jesus who went around prostelyzing existed, i supect the bible has embellished or even added many things as well as additional stories to this persona that may not even be true but for effect and a message.

secondly, i don't think jesus was perfect but that his intention was perfect or truly sincere in regard to living an honest life or embodying it, so to speak and that is very important in order to remain true.

thirdly, i also don't think he was literally the son of god. i think that is a metaphor. if you consider god to represent the truth or all good and higher values such as love, compassion, justice etc; because jesus represented it innately or truly valued and respected virtue in his heart/soul and lived it, he was therefore the son of god in essence or extenuation.

fourth, i don't think most of those miracles are literally true at all. i think, again, they are a symbolism. for instance, how he helped the blind to see etc and turn from sin. he also used many 'parables' or stories to illustrate the meaning. it was all about a moral lesson using symbolism or stories and to offer hope.

like i said before, there are other people who are representative of similar gurus but the difference is the bible takes extra steps to use the symbol of god to mean a higher authority/knowledge/values or virtue whereas in other philosophies it is left more open-ended. i think it was good pr as it tends to attract those who need a concrete symbolism or authority.
 
Last edited:
Birch, it would help to follow the discussion if you would leave in the original poster attribution of the post you are responding to.
 
rationality is built on knowledge, to rationalize with religion you have to "study" religion, sitting in your chair for 46 years won't change things much.
you can research and validate it, or wait for it to jump in your face and prove itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top