[Terez]

Cold Iron;360349 said:

Hm... I could flip that one around pretty easily.

Surely a rational reason for belief in god can come if you revise your definition of god to something that is rationally possible to exist?

What makes you think that the god you decided was irrational is the god that everyone else believes in?

I'm talking about any god and all gods, so this is a pretty pointless argument. There isn't any evidence for the existence of any of them. The singular "god" is an affectation adopted to suit our monotheistic members, which clearly outnumber the polytheist ones. And "rationally possible" doesn't come into it. All sorts of things are rationally possible - just because something is "rationally possible" doesn't mean there's any good reason to believe it's true. As far as revising the definition of god goes...if I revise the definition of god to represent something that actually exists, then I might as well call it what it is, rather than "god". Or "gods", for that matter.

[Cold Iron]

Terez;360365 said:

As far as revising the definition of god goes...if I revise the definition of god to represent something that actually exists, then I might as well call it what it is, rather than "god". Or "gods", for that matter.

What if it begins to match all the descriptions of god you've ever heard better than your old description. What if you began to realise that all the attributes and actions attributed to god that didn't make sense before suddenly fit?

Are we defined by the creator, or is the creator defined by us?

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Cold Iron;360391 said:

What if it begins to match all the descriptions of god you've ever heard better than your old description. What if you began to realise that all the attributes and actions attributed to god that didn't make sense before suddenly fit?

Are we defined by the creator, or is the creator defined by us?

If you're talking the christian version of the creator, I would say we are defined by the creator.

[Terez]

Cold Iron;360391 said:

What if it begins to match all the descriptions of god you've ever heard better than your old description.

This makes no sense.

CI said:

What if you began to realise that all the attributes and actions attributed to god that didn't make sense before suddenly fit?

Difficult to see what you're getting at here.

CI said:

Are we defined by the creator, or is the creator defined by us?

All of the evidence points to the latter.

[Mezla PigDog]

Gem Windcaster;360296 said:

Still think I am irrational and weak minded? Well, screw you too.

Well, unfortunately yes. You keep saying that you don't agree with the conclusions of some scientific experiments but you're not providing any evidence to clarify what you mean. Which experiments/evidence and what are your alternate conclusions? You also keep stating that you've been educated always to question but you haven't given us anything to help us grasp what you mean. How were you educated and in what fields? I'm really trying to understand but all I'm getting from you is "I don't agree with your conclusions" without any supporting argument.

And "different mental plane" clearly doesn't indicate "higher mental plane", so why ask unless you like baiting people?

[sorry to ignore Terez' gargantu-post and resulting threads of discussion]

[stone monkey]

Good grief! I turn my back on you people for two minutes...

Anyway re: "arbitrary human stupidity"; wording which some people seem to be objecting to. I can't really see why. As I recall, I was quoting someone who said you couldn't regard religious belief as that. Which is really not the case from where this particular atheist stands.

Human beings are arbitrarily stupid (and needlessly cruel too) at the drop of a hat; sometimes we don't even need the hat. The miraculous thing - I'm using that word in a figurative not literal sense btw, so don't go all "So you believe in miracles then, do you?"; 'cos I don't. Okay? - As I was saying, the miraculous thing is that we occasionally find ourselves doing things that actually aren't arbitrarily stupid.

Some of you would say that religions are the source of this "miracle." I'd argue quite the opposite. I'd further argue they're a significant part of the problem because for one they allow people an excuse to justify to themselves some of the more reprehensible arbitrary human stupidities they like indulge in - and in some cases require them. And, of course, there's the issue that (imo, very obviously) they're simply factually incorrect. All of which makes them... You guessed it.

[Cold Iron]

Terez;360481 said:

This makes no sense.


Difficult to see what you're getting at here.


All of the evidence points to the latter.

Hm... I'm not sure if I can better explain but I'll try. If you define the creator, then why define it to be something impossible to believe in rationally?

God is attributed certain attributes, qualities etc. in the bible (or other religious text) and in tradition. It is said to have done certain things, be capable of certain things etc. It is talked about in a certain way with certain vocabulary and tone. This is how we form an idea of what god is. But without first hand knowledge, direct sensory perception of some sort, we are filling in some very big gaps by ourselves. How we fill these is up to us. If you have an idea of god that is impossible for you to believe in, you can reinterpret the images associated with him. Fill in the gaps differently, whatever and however works for you.

Why? Well if you can think of no reason to do it, don't. I don't think it is all that relevant how I define god or why I define it that way. My only point is that there are those who believe their belief in god is rational. This does not necessarily mean they don't comprehend the meaning of rational or that they haven't had the same thoughts or come to the same conclusions as you. It also doesn't necessarily mean that they are lacking in some sort of vital intelligence or ability to critically examine the world, science, logic or that they were indoctrinated and unable to separate themselves from their predestined world view. Nor does it necessarily mean that they've decided to believe in something that they know to be irrational, setting a precedent for other irrational beliefs. All of these may well be true, and I've been told before that god is well defined and there's no point in discussing it if I'm going to tinker with that. But it is my firm assertion that a person who doesn't believe in god and another person who does are not talking about the same thing.

[Cold Iron]

stone monkey;360515 said:

I'd further argue they're a significant part of the problem because for one they allow people an excuse to justify to themselves some of the more reprehensible arbitrary human stupidities they like indulge in - and in some cases require them.

Like what?

[Terez]

Cold Iron;360523 said:

Hm... I'm not sure if I can better explain but I'll try. If you define the creator, then why define it to be something impossible to believe in rationally?

Why don't you ask the billions of people who actually believe in a creator? I don't define him/her/it as anything except in the context of a discussion with someone who has defined him/her/it, which in the western world is usually some variant of the Hebrew/Christian/Muslim god.

CI said:

God is attributed certain attributes, qualities etc. in the bible (or other religious text) and in tradition. It is said to have done certain things, be capable of certain things etc. It is talked about in a certain way with certain vocabulary and tone. This is how we form an idea of what god is.

Religion is the only basis whatsoever for a belief in god. Therefore, if the god (or gods) you believe in don't fit the bill of any of the available religions, then your god (or gods) are utterly arbitrary. You made it/them up.

CI said:

My only point is that there are those who believe their belief in god is rational.

Obviously. That doesn't make it rational (nor does it mean that they don't comprehend the meaning of "rational" - just means they believe something irrational).

[relentless]

Cold Iron;360524 said:

Like what?

Like Cortez taking infants in Central America, sprinkling them with some holy water and then bashing their head in. Since they'd just been baptized they'd go straight to heaven. :angel:

I think it'd be really hard to justify that one without religion.

[Cold Iron]

Terez;360529 said:

Why don't you ask the billions of people who actually believe in a creator? I don't define him/her/it as anything except in the context of a discussion with someone who has defined him/her/it, which in the western world is usually some variant of the Hebrew/Christian/Muslim god.

Glad we're on the same page, so what is that?

Quote

Religion is the only basis whatsoever for a belief in god. Therefore, if the god (or gods) you believe in don't fit the bill of any of the available religions, then your god (or gods) are utterly arbitrary. You made it/them up.

Actually what I said was that they fit the bill much better than the irrational god. Did you make that one up?

Quote

Obviously. That doesn't make it rational (nor does it mean that they don't comprehend the meaning of "rational" - just means they believe something irrational).

Makes them wrong then. Thats admirably humble of you.

[Cold Iron]

relentless;360530 said:

Like Cortez taking infants in Central America, sprinkling them with some holy water and then bashing their head in. Since they'd just been baptized they'd go straight to heaven. :angel:

I think it'd be really hard to justify that one without religion.

Ok you're not really even trying are you?

[relentless]

Hmm?

Quote

an excuse to justify to themselves some of the more reprehensible arbitrary human stupidities they like indulge in

You asked for an example and I think killing infants seems to fit the bill?

What am I missing?

[Cold Iron]

Kinda hard to argue whether Cortez actually believed his actions were justified.

[Terez]

Cold Iron;360532 said:

Glad we're on the same page, so what is that?

Who cares? Not me...

CI said:

Actually what I said was that they fit the bill much better than the irrational god. Did you make that one up?

You're being unclear again. What are you talking about?

CI said:

Makes them wrong then. Thats admirably humble of you.

I never claimed to be humble. You have no hesitation pointing out the irrationality of other views, so it's difficult to see why you feel you have a one-up on this subject.

[relentless]

Cold Iron;360540 said:

Kinda hard to argue whether Cortez actually believed his actions were justified.

Oh, it wasn't just Cortez. Quite a few spaniards did that and there's bound to be some who really thought there was nothing wrong with it.

Or if you want something a little more current, take the pope's contraceptive ban. There are still kids starving every day, and I for one cannot think of any rational reason for banning birth control under these circumstances (or any other for that matter).

[Gothos]

relentless;360543 said:

Oh, it wasn't just Cortez. Quite a few spaniards did that and there's bound to be some who really thought there was nothing wrong with it.

Or if you want something a little more current, take the pope's contraceptive ban. There are still kids starving every day, and I for one cannot think of any rational reason for banning birth control under these circumstances (or any other for that matter).

the shepherd cares after the size of his flock. who cares about the well-being of individual sheep? it's all just numbers from high atop Vatican...

[Cougar]

Although I warned you all not to argue with Cold Iron since he indulges in the above snarky type response almost without equal, I think at least one part what he says is actually 'reasonable'. If you feel the need to believe in a God why not construct one you can rationaly believe in. Unfortuantely, in general most organised religions shy away from the 'believe whatever the fuck you want so long as your happy route' mores the pity. I suspect the more interesting question about rationally constructing a god is why one would feel the need to do this. SM and myself and a few others obviously don't feel the need to have a god to explain things that we don't understand. Others do and call it faith.

As to the charge of religion being responsible for arbitrary stupid behaviours I doubt anyone who has taken the most cursory glance at history could deny this. Naturally, one could argue that human greed etc are just as responsible in most cases and that religion was either used as justifcation or hijacked to persuade people.

Cortez murdering babies is genocide, I suspect this happens without religion, the fact that murdering heathens was made acceptable to those who followed him by religious belief makes it irrelevant what he truly believed himself. I'd also cite incidents like the Childrens Crusade as evidence of religious stupidity and also general human sacrifice to appease angry gods. I'll close off with Dawkins expansion of Russells 'Celestial Teapot', whereby Russell challenged the notion that in criticising religion the bruden of disproving falls upon the aetheist etc by comparing it to him beleiving in a teapot orbiting the sun that no-one could see from earth. It doesn't prove a thing it just makes me chuckle especially the last line:

"The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first" (Dawkins, "The God Delusion")

[Cold Iron]

Terez;360541 said:

Who cares? Not me...

Hm.. You don't care what it is, but you know it's irrational to believe in it?

Quote

You're being unclear again. What are you talking about?

How can you argue about whether the belief in god is irrational unless you argue about your definition of god? Our definitions may be vastly different. Or is it your position that the very label god has some inherent irrationality or logical flaw?

Quote

I never claimed to be humble. You have no hesitation pointing out the irrationality of other views, so it's difficult to see why you feel you have a one-up on this subject.

I'm just saying that belief in god is not necessarily irrational, depending on your definition of god. It's a fairly benign assertion. I see no reason not to make it

[Terez]

Cougar;360553 said:

Although I warned you all not to argue with Cold Iron since he indulges in the above snarky type response almost without equal

Some of us are big boys and girls and can handle it.

Cougar said:

I think at least one part what he says is actually 'reasonable'. If you feel the need to believe in a God why not construct one you can rationaly believe in.

Sure, if you feel the need to believe in a god or gods, then make something up that's more believable than what religions offer. But making up a god or gods that fits whatever believable definitions is still arbitrary, and irrational.