Are all Religious Beliefs Irrational?

[LuisDantas]

I don't think anything should aim to be irrational, and certainly not religion nor its beliefs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is love itself, believers experience that love through Grace.

So God is an emotion? Emotions don't exist without minds to feel them. Does this describe your god?

To say that God feels is to continue another argument as to the place of biblical anthropomorphism.

The whole idea of a god is an anthropomorphism in the first place, so on this issue, you seem to be closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out.

To a mind that discounts anything considered irrational, nothing a believer could state will ever be considered rational.

If you're saying that your position is irrational, thank you. That saves me a lot of effort considering it.

If there were empirical evidence for the existence of God, which there is not, the idea of faith would not exist, as it would be rendered unnecessary, If there were empirical evidence for an itinerant Jew who preached the end times, who both died and lived again, which there is not, no reason for faith.

So you're saying that there's no empirical evidence for either God or Jesus? That's even harsher than my own position: I'm generally okay with the historical consensus that while the evidence isn't conclusive, what weak evidence we have is more in line with at least some of the things being attributed to Jesus being based on a real person.

In any case, I'm more interested in believing things for good reasons that valuing faith for the sake of faith. Based on what you've said, I see no good reason to think that your beliefs (or what you've shared of them, anyway) are something I should be accepting.

 

[pearl]

So God is an emotion? Emotions don't exist without minds to feel them. Does this describe your god?

God is love, not in an 'emotional' or 'sentimental' way but the love of the Father who is the source of all life, the love of the Son who died on the cross and rose, the love of the Spirit who renews man and the world.

 

[crowfeather]

All beliefs are irrational.
To subscribe to anything without having experienced it, accepting it as true, is irrational.
When you've done it, only then can you know it.

Fortunately, there's a great deal more to life than the merely rational.
Indeed, rationality elevated to the position of deity, guarantees the virtual non-living of life.

 

[pearl]

So you're saying that there's no empirical evidence for either God or Jesus? [QUOTE

There is historical evidence for Jesus. There is no empirical evidence of the Resurrection.

that valuing faith for the sake of faith.

Valuing faith for the sake of faith?

I'm more interested in believing things for good reasons

First you would have to admit that, without proof, there exists an entity outside of space and time. Only then may you search for a belief system which best expresses what you believe.

The whole idea of a god is an anthropomorphism[/QUOTE}

Without anthropomorphic expressions the antients had no way of expressing something beyond their comprehension.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is love, not in an 'emotional' or 'sentimental' way but the love of the Father who is the source of all life, the love of the Son who died on the cross and rose, the love of the Spirit who renews man and the world.

Love is an emotion. If you say that God is love, then you are implying that God is an emotion.

I asked you directly if you meant that God feels love; you said that you didn't. Have you changed your mind?

Right now, if God is love, then we're getting into some seriously recursive nonsense. You do realize that you're saying that love experiences love, don't you? IOW, the way you talk about God sure doesn't seem like you really consider God and love to be equivalent.

 

[pearl]

Love is an emotion. If you say that God is love, then you are implying that God is an emotion.

From an Atheist perspective it is impossible to distinguish a human emotion from the supernatural that is beyond human emotion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From an Atheist perspective it is impossible to distinguish a human emotion from the supernatural that is beyond human emotion.

But love is a human emotion. You're the one defining God in terms of the human emotion.

Since love is an emotion, any "supernatural that is beyond human emotion" is beyond love.

You know, you'd be a lot clearer if you just said what you meant instead of doing all this dancing around.

 

[pearl]

You know, you'd be a lot clearer if you just said what you meant instead of doing all this dancing around.

First Letter of John. In chapter 4, verse 8 and again in verse 16, "God is love"
I said exactly what I meant, God is love.

 

[Willamena]

But love is a human emotion. You're the one defining God in terms of the human emotion.

Since love is an emotion, any "supernatural that is beyond human emotion" is beyond love.

You know, you'd be a lot clearer if you just said what you meant instead of doing all this dancing around.

Like that the flesh that is base and vulgar compared to spirit, love that is limited to being defined by emotion in an earthly context is base and vulgar compared to what spirit is able to accomplish to relate two beings together in a bond.

I suspect that's what he's referring to.

 

[viole]

Someone on these forums has suggested to me that all religious beliefs are irrational. Do you agree? Why or why not? Can you provide examples of a rational religious belief?

Without discriminating evidence, they are all equally plausible. Ergo, either they are all rational or all irrational. Since they contradict each other, case 1 can be excluded. Therefore we have only case 2. They are all necessarily irrational.

That does not entail that they are all wrong. It is irrational to bet all your savings on a roulette number, but that is not necessarily wrong.

QDE

Ciao

- viole