Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within

quote:

---

We are not talking about those who would deny God under all circumstances. We are considering those who do not have a personal relationship with God but who find empirical evidence convincing. Wherever that empirical evidence may lead.

---

Good point! Here is my 2 cents:QUESTIONS
1) Which came first for you personally (honestly) - Belief in God/Jesus/Bible or knowledge of the empirical evidence that you consider to support this position?---Growing up in a Christian environment, I was always aware of the basic beliefs and stories surrounding Jesus. My actual belief, however, was kindled through quite an unusual experience that changed me to the core. Like Iano, I had done drugs before, so I knew what to expect from a chemically altered experience. One could also make the argument that I wanted a change in my life and thus my "born-again experience" was simply a confirmation bias with perhaps a dose of desire for acceptance thrown in. To the best of my awareness and sensitivity to my own internal state, I believe to this day that something definitely changed for good that day in January of 1993. My perceived awareness of a living Spirit and an incredible emotional high that simply would not go away increased several orders of magnitude that day. 2) Are your beliefs the result of rational and objective conclusions based on physical evidence which have been confirmed by your relationship with God OR are your beliefs based on your relationship with God which you deem to have been confirmed by the objective physical evidence available? Which way round is it?My beliefs are confirmed primarily through several experiences which I believed were with God or the Holy Spirit, although I cannot honestly say that they were objective or verifiable apart from my own experience. Being around others who claim similar experiences only makes the test biased. The internal belief, however, has remained quite strong and is acceptable to me. 3) Could you maintain your faith in the absence of any objective empirical evidence that supports this position? (I.e. how faithful are you?) Yes. I believe that I could. It would certainly be a lot harder without the confirmations which I believe that I have received from the Holy Spirit.(Again, a personal belief.) On a side note, one of the reasons that I continue to hang out here is because I prefer folks who disagree with and challenge me rather than sheep of a similar persuasion who question nothing. I would, however, feel uncomfortable at a militant atheist website where my beliefs were openly ridiculed and where I had no allies such as the hardcore theists we have here. (Internet Infidels comes to mind.) 4) If the objective empirical evidence which you deem to support your beliefs were present but the relationship with God side of your faith was absent would you still believe as you do? (I.e. is the empirical evidence alone enough to maintain your position?) No! Emphatically no! Were it not for my perceived relationship with God, I would have no use for any sort of evidence or lack of same. My belief is maintained entirely through my perceived relationship and occasional confirmations to my own satisfaction.(Either that, or I could mention that I also believe that He sustains my belief. How do you like them apples? ) 5) Is empirical evidence or subjective knowledge of God's presence the root basis of your beliefs?
subjective knowledge of God's presence . As I mentioned already. END QUESTIONSI might add that at this stage of my faith/belief, even if the Bible were totally discredited and thrown away, I would still believe strongly in a personal relationship with a living God. The only thing that would shake that at all would be if my subjective perceptions of such a relationship ceased. Edited by Phat, : fixed a wee errorEdited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

See...for me it happened a bit differently. Something supernatural (or at least unexplainable) happened and I then assumed that it was God and that the whole story was basically real. To this day I cannot prove that it was God who showed up, but I have a high degree of confidence that it was. There is no real way that I can ever prove that it was and is God, although I am confidant in my belief that He lives.(and lives within me.)

We have more senses than mere sight. We have touch, sound, hearing, and taste...as well as the elusive and undefineable sixth sense. I have never seen God, but I have seen things that lead me to confirm my belief in God. Call it confirmation bias....I would prefer to take a stand and believe in something rather than forever question, doubt, and attempt to remain objective. The objective rat never finds the end of the maze as long as they have not explored all possible routes.

So let me see if I have this straight!
One side says that if only folks would consider the possibility that God exists without any evidence, God will cease giving them the cold shoulder and will pour oodles of evidence and confirmation into their starving souls!The other side says that it is no sin to doubt whether God is real and that all they need is for Him to nudge them with a little evidence if He wants them to come around.For me personally, there has never been any evidence apart from my interpretations of my internal feelings, confirmations, and
beliefs. I can honestly say that many of my presumptions could be questioned and reexamined should I find a pressing need to do so, but I have no doubts that raise any red flags in my mind as to whether or not God is real.I don't think that unbelievers have any obligation to reexamine their beliefs any more than I have an obligation to reexamine mine.I don't fear them going to Hell on account of my refusal to convince them of the reality of GOD as I experience GOD.They may even say that the GOD that I experience is nothing more than a product of my imagination. I don't find a need to correct them, for IF what I believe IS true and IF Who I believe in IS real, HE will find a way to interact with them at some point in time. IF not, it does not really matter any more anyway, right?Edited by Phat, : fixed quote

Hold up. Lemme see if I have this right....are you saying that unless you know for sure that any action or belief that you take in life is not going to harm others, you don't take the action or spread the belief?

the majority of the time we cannot know the effects of our actions overall. At any rate, we may help some people and hurt others. My problem with your approach is that you are putting too much faith in your own ability to not only uphold but to direct and control rationality.

​

Inaction is an action. How do you know that not taking a stand or directing a belief/action may itself harm others?

I have known the lifestyles and behaviors of a lot of people over the years, both within my belief system (the church) and outside of it. I have observed how belief affects an individuals world view and how it carries over into their behavior on a daily basis. What I have observed is that whether an individual is a theist or an atheist in and of itself does not make them less rational overall or pose any inherent danger to their friends and family. Of course there are extremists in either category, and at the extreme fringe edges of any ideology are people who have undesirable and even dangerous behavioral patterns. On the average, however, I fail to see why you have this idea that belief is an irresponsible position or why it endangers your family in any appreciable way.Now on a national level, I can see how a fundamentalist end times mindset that a substantial portion of the population believed in could endanger the future of our country, much as fundamentalist Islamic beliefs endanger the survival of countries such as Iran.On an individual level, in regards to a strong inner faith in God, I see no danger from such thinking, at least not any more danger than I would suggest that a parent who encouraged their children to become atheists could pose.

I think that the internal/subjective evidence wins hands down. While some Christians, myself included, have had some serious emotional experiences that we could be tempted to label as external evidence, we (at least I) feel no need to go out on a limb publicly when I have no evidence that I can present apart from my experience.Over at Dreamcatcher, jar and I had a lively discussion on this thread. The idea was suggested that many, if not most Christians lie to themselves either consciously or subconsciously since they know deep down that their beliefs are irrational yet refuse to question or doubt their beliefs. I personally am unafraid to question my beliefs but consider it traitorous to doubt my beliefs all for the sake of finding a rational truth apart from God as the final answer. Jar maintains that I am dishonest with myself by doing so, but my response is that I have chosen to take a stand in believing in irrationality rather than taking an agnostic stand for the sake of rationality.The reason that I have decided to believe this way is because I feel that it is important for me to have a relationship and a commitment to God. My critics would assert that it is more important to be honest with myself, but I find no dishonesty in believing in an unsupportable and irrational conclusion. Why? Because in my mind, the conclusion is irrational and unsupportable in others eyes but not in my own.Some would say that I indeed am subconsciously lying to myself. The jury is still out, however. I don't feel crazy!

You can educate and inform your family on the duplicities of organized religion and of human bias. You can present alternative humanistic beliefs to your children, in the hope that you can teach them to think rationally. But if this God is real, and if it is somehow foreknown that one or more of your family members may one day answer a call, there is little if anything you will be able to do to prevent it.

OK, you have a good point. I'll leave you alone.

Lots? I doubt whether lots of people have had this "bad and evil" experience that you claim.

I disagree. The foundation of wisdom is knowledge+experience.

I dont see this--and I have spent a lot of time visiting jails. While there are occasional examples of someone who turned to God(or claimed to) early in life and then did something atrocious, Most inmates who claim to have met God at all did so after they had been sentenced for crimes earlier in life. I dont mean to suggest that converts as a group behave any better than the general population---though I would expect this to be so. I believe that there is real change and power behind genuine conversion. If it was proven that there is no discernable difference between converts and the general population, one could rightly question any merit behind conversion or power from same.

Sometimes when I'm bored, I travel back in time to our old archives and revisit conversations made by myself and my friendly fellow posters at EvC. To wit: Black Holes are inanimate. They are objective truths about the behavior of matter.When talking about Christianity, however, we have a necessary God-In Human Flesh,(Jesus Christ) and a History of human believers. We can't divorce Christianity from Christ nor can we divorce Christ from humanity. (Unless our brains were wired for objective evidence--independent of our own subjective feelings, bias, and desires)Other than that, you made a strong case for your reasoning. You seem to me to be more of an agnostic than a staunch atheist, Stile. Any 2015 thoughts to add to our 2009-2014 dialogues? For the record, I applaud the recent decision by the RCC--through Pope Francis--to stop trying to convert Jews. Oddly, most charismatic/fundamentalists that I know think its a terrible move and not only unbiblical but unwise.Perhaps the more liberal that one is, the less likely one is to have more answers than questions.Edited by Phat, : tidied up a few loose words

Not according to Marshall McLuhan. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Funny you should ask. I just re-read an explanation from Mark Federman(Chief Strategist-McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology)which I pulled off the internet. What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message?This is good! Even though our society by-and-large never actually studies anymore, we are increasingly adept at googling information to support or refute arguments. Honestly, it has been years since i read Understanding Media and in simply googling my witty comeback to your question, I have reopened a proverbial can of worms which I like to talk and think about.

quote:

---

The subject that would occupy most of McLuhan's career was the task of understanding the effects of technology as it related to popular culture, and how this in turn affected human beings and their relations with one another in communities. Because he was one of the first to sound the alarm, McLuhan has gained the status of a cult hero and "high priest of pop-culture".{1} This status is not undeserved, and McLuhan said many things that are still pertinent today.

---

McLuhan, a Canadian publisher, wrote the book Understanding Media back in 1964, long before the internet and the age of computers. His ideas were quite novel back then and yet they make sense in todays world--at least for me.What is this riddle of which you speak?

quote:

---

McLuhan tells us that a "message" is, "the change of scale or pace or pattern" that a new invention or innovation "introduces into human affairs."

---

quote:

---

McLuhan defines medium for us as well. Right at the beginning of Understanding Media, he tells us that a medium is "any extension of ourselves."

---

Now how does this relate to Christianity and Christ? If Christ was (and is) God in the flesh, it would be as if the Creator of all seen and unseen became one of us so as to allow communion and relationship to transpire. a medium by dictionary definition is a "go-between" and Jesus is the perfect "go-between" for a bunch of ants on a dust speck trying to relate to or understand the Creator of universes full of stars and planets and God knows what else.Tell me more about McLuhans riddle, as you understand it.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.