Addiction By Definition

I may not agree with all of your premises, but my rational mind can respect them.What is it about the RR AVRT theory that your mind finds so illogical?Edited by Phat, : better phrasing

As long as you can show that God's existence aligns with all the available information/evidence - yes.
Unfortunately, we have searched for God for years and found "no God." In fact, everywhere we've been able to get a concrete answer - that answer specifically functions without the need for God.Lightning - no God
Famine - no God
Plentiful food - no God
Love - no God
Hate - no GodTherefore, the rational position is to think that God does not exist.It's easy to change, though - all you have to do is provide evidence that God exists. Then it would be rational to believe all the stories of "well, God just isn't there when you look for Him."Without evidence of God's existence, though - it's rational to stick with the evidence we do have - "no God." We don't have all the info/evidence for anything - but when we have a lot of info/evidence, it's rational to go with the evidence - "no God."
People have been searching for evidence of God for over thousands of years. If that's not enough info/evidence of "no God" for you - perhaps you're not being rational. I don't know.
Post a picture - if you have a beard, I'll believe you. If not, I won't.Or - let's say a vast portion of the human population diligently searched for the existence of your beard for a few thousand years - and no evidence of your beard could ever be found. And every time they found evidence - it aligned with you not having a beard (lots of pictures of you - but never a beard; your bathroom always has shavers and toiletries for getting rid of beards; your weekly garbage always has male facial hair in it.)Do you think, then, it would be rational to believe that you didn't have a beard?How rational would it be to believe you did have a beard in the face of such evidence?
Even if "your followers" (who actually never met you, and only started talking of you decades after your death) told conflicting stories of you having a beard? Even if there was "evidence" of you having a beard in the form of people finding pictures of you with a beard appearing in burnt toast?I think the rational position is obvious.
Just as it is with God.By all means, please continue this analogy where you having a beard is similar to God's existence. It provides for some very, very funny material.

As I said, the "rational mind" is not always of one mind. When we "rationalize" our bad habits, it's the rational mind that's doing it, not the "animal mind".

Again I ask the question. Who is "we"?Rephrase what you just said and pretend that you are saying it to yourself. after all, there is only one ringo. Thus your sentence should read:

quote:

---

As I said, the "rational mind" is not always of one mind. When I "rationalize" my bad habits, it's the rational mind that's doing it, not the "animal mind".

---

The next question would then be "Why am I allowing my rational mind to allow me to drink excessively? (for example) Note the excuses that come up in your internal dialogue. We will then discuss what you found.

Don't be cute. "We" means "we". We all have the same brain functions. No need. "We" already includes me. You answer that question. How can we "allow" our rational mind to "allow" something? It's because our rational mind has two different opinions: And both opinions are right. There can not be an "internal dialogue" unless there are two (or more) rational entities to hold the dialogue.Your attempt to blame bad decisions on a "Beast" is the same as saying, "the Devil made me do it." The fact is that they are decisions and decisions are rational.

Scripture disagrees.

quote:

---

DOUBLE-MINDED

​

dipsuchos NT:1374 lit. means "twosouled" (dis, "twice," psuche, "a soul"), hence, "double-minded," James 1:8; 4:8.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

​

James 1:2-8 NKJV
My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. 4 But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

​

James 4:7-10
8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.
NKJV

---

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

No it doesn't. Both minds are rational.

I think you like to argue with yourself, yet you end up agreeing.

But I'm not agreeing with you. I'm pointing out that the scripture you quoted agrees with me and disagrees with you.

I would argue that the scripture clearly says that having (or holding) two minds (or two opinions) at the same time makes one unstable.But my point was that this whole nonsense of having two different minds which agree sounds more like Leviathan than any rational human I know.Of course, to be fair, your argument about differing minds agreeing sounds a bit like the consensus of politics. I would in fact agree that some politicians have a reptilian beast mind. They could care less about rationality. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Lets get deeper. I would tell the emotionally immature brain cells that while it may be true that they promise one little drink, evidence shows that it often leads to 3, 4, or even 5 drinks. Given that new information, can both opinions still be rational?Keep in mind that RR theory states that the Addictive Voice will lie to you in order to have its way.

Of course. But the point is not about the consequences. It's that a rational mind doesn't arrive one and only one opinion. Who said they agree? The whole point is that they don't agree.

You're confusing rational with correct. A rational thought process doesn't necessarily produce The Right Answer. In fact, there often is no "right answer". How can you lie if you're not rational?

Precisely!Next question...have you ever lied to yourself in order to rationalize an irrational behavior?

Lets define terms. I disagree. Not every decision that I make is rational. Some decisions are impulsive. Some decisions are fantasy based. Of the latter two, I would argue that they were driven by wishes and desires rather than by logic or rationality. The devil never makes anyone do anything, but he is quite good at mimicking my own rational voice.