"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. "?

[mikkel_the_dane]

General problem with being rational. It has an element of subjectivity in practice and indeed some people in effect treat being irrational as a fact. If it indeed is a fact about how the world works just like e.g. gravity, then how can it be wrong?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[PruePhillip]

But that has a limit.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

You are doing metaphysics and not science.

Regards
Mikkel

It doesn't do the origin of the Big Bang, for instance, because
it can't. The notion that the universe had an actual beginning
is bad enough - trying to explain how is the stuff of nightmares.

 

[paarsurrey]

Paarsurrey. Wouldn't it be better if people go to their own source of faith or morals with or without god(s) during this time? Pagan go to their gods. Etc etc.

If people are panicking, wouldn't it make sense to go to their own source(s)?

I am just saying that:

1. One should turn to G-d , whatever concept of G-d one has
2. and reform oneself whatever concept of one has of self-reformation
3. and do good deeds, whatever concept of goodness one has.

And the human beings should face collectively the pandemic of corona-virus, while the scientist are busy finding some vaccine.
There is no harm in it. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I think having a belief in God gives meaning in ones life but alone without ‘hard work’ as you mentioned is of little value to society as a whole.

Trying, striving and hard work are definite paths to peace and prosperity for the poor.

I believe the choicest fruit of any belief in God are our deeds and actions to serve humanity. Tyere are a lot of wonderful people doing this already but the reason religions fight and go to war with each other and do not promote tolerance? More hard work I believe needs to be done by religionists to tolerate each other and become more like a family than competitors.

"having a belief in God gives meaning in ones life"

I agree with one here.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Belief in God is more an experience of the presence of something greater than yourself. People usually have the feeling with beauty nature or brief moments of peak experiences in our lives. I had a really good one skiing really fast through a grove of pine trees with the sun at the perfect angle down the slope at my back. It was a brief moment where it felt like time stopped and my skiing was effortless and I just felt perfection.

I don't consider belief in God to be decision based on reasons. If it were, then it would rational or irrational based on the reasons. For me, having a belief in God is a choice. A true choice meaning a choice not made based on any reasons. For me, my choice to belief in God is a leap from non-belief. There's nothing between the two for me. I just feel there's something greater than myself sharing my experiences.

"I don't consider belief in God to be decision based on reasons."

It is more based on wisdom and is supported with reason, to me. Wisdom and reason go together. Right, please?

Regards
______________
[27:65]اَمَّنۡ یَّبۡدَؤُا الۡخَلۡقَ ثُمَّ یُعِیۡدُہٗ وَ مَنۡ یَّرۡزُقُکُمۡ مِّنَ السَّمَآءِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ ءَ اِلٰہٌ مَّعَ اللّٰہِ ؕ قُلۡ ہَاتُوۡا بُرۡہَانَکُمۡ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ صٰدِقِیۡنَ ﴿۶۵﴾
Or, Who originates creation, and then repeats it and Who provides for you from the heaven and the earth? Is there a God besides Allah? Say, ‘Bring forward your proof if you are truthful.’

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am just saying that:

1. One should turn to G-d , whatever concept of G-d one has
2. and reform oneself whatever concept of one has of self-reformation
3. and do good deeds, whatever concept of goodness one has.

And the human beings should face collectively the pandemic of corona-virus, while the scientist are busy finding some vaccine.
There is no harm in it. Right, please?

Regards

Does it need to be god regardless the concept? Other religions without god.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The purpose of my threads* these days is that both non-believers and believers should turn to G-d, while the scientists are set to find some vaccine or cure of the Corona-Virus

Huh. I thought that the purpose of this thread was to discuss whether believing in a god makes one irrational. So it was really to recommend that I turn to your god. You actually asked, "Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. Being irrational makes a person irrational. Does one agree with the sentence ... above? If not, why not, please?"

So I answered you: "Believing in anything without sufficient supporting evidence is irrational, not just a god belief" Turns out that you weren't interested in discussing answers that you didn't like. Right, please?

I am just saying that:

1. One should turn to G-d , whatever concept of G-d one has
2. and reform oneself whatever concept of one has of self-reformation
3. and do good deeds, whatever concept of goodness one has.

I have "turned to God" in the past, then turned back. Secular humanism fit me better. I have no reason to return to that life, especially as an atheist.

Why do you think that everybody needs reforming? These religions sell themselves by telling you that you have a problem that only they can fix. You are told that need to make yourself fit for salvation. You are told that the world is an evil place going to hell in a basket. This virus will be great for promoting religious belief, because it invokes the same kind of apocalyptic fear as those religions. But we don't all buy in.

And being charitable and doing good deeds also does not require a god belief, just empathy and the means to be of service.

"having a belief in God gives meaning in ones life" I agree with one here.

Not necessary.

The point of having a belief in God is for having enthusiasm in spite of all our imperfections and shortcomings. I tend to be in the camp God is more an experience than a belief. We have God experiences when see greatness in nature, in ourselves, in others, and in great performances. When an athlete has a great performance we say he was "god-like" or he is a "god". Greatness is a conduit for us to experience slivers of the perfection that is God. We are all drawn to experience the perfection that is God. God draws us to Him when we experience the beauty of flowers, happiness of a puppy, the curves of a woman's body, and babies. Some things are sacred. God give us purpose.

Yet all of that is available without a god belief. Try having all of the same ideas without the god. One can get a rush thinking about the incredible intellectual, technological, and moral progress man has made over the millennia without invoking a god concept.

One can look up at the night sky and contemplate that the droplet of starlight impacting your retina has traveled unimaginable distances to inform you of that that star exists while knowing that our connection to that star goes deeper yet being that we are but stardust.

I don't see where adding a god to that is necessary or adds anything.

Believing that something just popped out of Utter Nothing for no
reason whatsoever....... is irrational.

Yes, because there are other possibilities that cannot be excluded logically such as the multiverse hypothesis and the god hypothesis. Ruling those possibilities out without sufficient evidence is irrational.

Remember, science says there are no miracles and every event
must have a natural cause, and there is a reason for everything.

Science's understanding of causality applies to processes within the universe. If the universe has a cause, it is either conscious, which I call a god, or unconscious which I call a multiverse.

The hard part to grapple with is that either of these things either has existed infinitely long already or came into existence uncaused. All of those ideas seem impossible, yet apparently one is the case.

 

[PruePhillip]

Science's understanding of causality applies to processes within the universe. If the universe has a cause, it is either conscious, which I call a god, or unconscious which I call a multiverse.

The hard part to grapple with is that either of these things either has existed infinitely long already or came into existence uncaused. All of those ideas seem impossible, yet apparently one is the case.

A multiverse doesn't "explain" creation. Instead of having to explain how the universe
just magically popped into existence you now must explain how a plethora of them
appeared - and for what reason.

 

[dfnj]

I think having a belief in God gives meaning in ones life but alone without ‘hard work’ as you mentioned is of little value to society as a whole.

Trying, striving and hard work are definite paths to peace and prosperity for the poor.

I believe the choicest fruit of any belief in God are our deeds and actions to serve humanity. Tyere are a lot of wonderful people doing this already but the reason religions fight and go to war with each other and do not promote tolerance? More hard work I believe needs to be done by religionists to tolerate each other and become more like a family than competitors.

I believe in golden rule of karma. Regardless of one's religious beliefs, if we cause suffering in other people's lives we will live a life were we experience suffering in equal proportion. The contrapositive is also true. If we purposely help others achieve joy, happiness, and well-being we will experience the same in our own lives.

 

[dfnj]

I think our experiences of all these things, and more no doubt, can be explained quite satisfactorily without any need for God being in the mix. And if we did understand how human life, and all other life, is so unique and wonderful in so many ways - along with all the negative bits too - then we might get on better with each other and treat our world and co-inhabitants a lot better. It seems to me that it is in our conflicting nature that so many problems arise - just too easy to see others in 'some other group' when we are all basically the same, although our various innate differences and needs does tend to pull us apart anyway.

For me, our ability to set our own purpose in life is the one true freedom we have, although usually we all do have constraints and often set by where we are born and to whom. It might be fine if all had some purpose united by some universal belief but this is not so, and probably never will be so, such that perhaps a common purpose in recognising that unless we all do become more agreeable and less selfish we have a good chance of really messing up our existence on Earth and for all other life.

Why does it matter to you if God is in the mix or not? Why did you feel compelled to say without God is everything is just as good. Obviously choosing God is not your cup of tea. But why does it matter how other people choose? Is it really any skin of your back?

 

[dfnj]

"I don't consider belief in God to be decision based on reasons."

It is more based on wisdom and is supported with reason, to me. Wisdom and reason go together. Right, please?

Regards

One man's reason is another man's insanity. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

A choice is just a choice. You in charge of your own choices. Good luck!

 

[dfnj]

Yet all of that is available without a god belief. Try having all of the same ideas without the god. One can get a rush thinking about the incredible intellectual, technological, and moral progress man has made over the millennia without invoking a god concept.

One can look up at the night sky and contemplate that the droplet of starlight impacting your retina has traveled unimaginable distances to inform you of that that star exists while knowing that our connection to that star goes deeper yet being that we are but stardust.

I don't see where adding a god to that is necessary or adds anything.

As if I were asking you to! I see no reason not to have a belief in God.

We can talk about retina's and still appreciate God.

There is no progress without God. We should be thankful for all the incredible intellectual, technological, and moral progress God has given us with His blessings.

I don't know what "try having all the same ideas without the god" means. Belief in God is just as good as anything you are trying to sell!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A multiverse doesn't "explain" creation. Instead of having to explain how the universe just magically popped into existence you now must explain how a plethora of them appeared - and for what reason.

Actually, I don't have to explain how a multiverse might create universes. I merely called it a logical possibility that our universe had an unconscious source that, like gods and another mechanism, I could neither rule in or rule out.

If you disagree that it is possible that such a thing exists, you need to show why it is impossible.

Do you apply that same standard to your beliefs? I assume that you have concluded a god did it. If so, and since you require mechanisms from others, perhaps you should tell us how a god "explains" creation any better or differently than a universe. How did a god make a universe magically pop into existence? I'm guessing that you use a different standard for your own beliefs than you do for the ideas offered by others.

Why did you feel compelled to say without God is everything is just as good. Obviously choosing God is not your cup of tea. But why does it matter how other people choose? Is it really any skin of your back?

For me, life is better without a god belief.

You didn't ask me, but I also feel compelled whenever somebody tells me how much their god belief does for them that that can be done without a god belief. Felling incomplete without such a belief is not an advantage. It leads you into faith-based thinking and behavior, like the people who believed Trump on faith that the pandemic was a hoax to be ignored, or the climate deniers. Better to avoid that form of thinking altogether in the first place.

People telling me how great needing a god belief is are like people telling me how great glasses are. Not if you don't need them. Sure, having glasses if your vision is inadequate without them is great, but isn't it better to get through life not needing them?

I see no reason not to have a belief in God.

I do. I also see no reason to wear glasses if your vision is 20/20

Belief in God is just as good as anything you are trying to sell!

I'm not selling anything. I'm telling you that I don't need gods or religions to feel complete and satisfied. I also don't need crutches.

And no, it is not just as good. It's better to live without religion and faith-based thought of any kind if you can,

 

[nPeace]

"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. Being irrational makes a person irrational."

It is a "winner" sentence( written by our friend @HonestJoe in his post #104 ) . I appreciate it.
Does one agree with the sentence colored in magenta above?
If not, why not, please?

Regards

I agree with the first sentence.
I understand what the poster means to say, by the second sentence, but although said with good intent, and sincerity, unfortunately it is a logical fallacy.
The reasoning is invalidated by the choice of words.
For example, if I said, The chalk I am writing with is chalk, because it's chalk. It is true that it is chalk, and I am writing with chalk, but I have not explained what makes it chalk, so my reasoning is invalid.
Just trying to be helpful.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why does it matter to you if God is in the mix or not? Why did you feel compelled to say without God is everything is just as good. Obviously choosing God is not your cup of tea. But why does it matter how other people choose? Is it really any skin of your back?

"why does it matter how other people choose?"

You mean:
"Why does it matter how other people choose G-d over no-God?"
Right, please?

Regards

 

[HonestJoe]

HonestJoe is a loser. Just because someone votes him a winner doesn't make him a winner.

That's a little harsh. As it happens I disagree with the OP (on pretty much everything) and they're misrepresenting or misunderstanding (I've given up trying to work out which) what I meant by that statement.

They clarify to say that there are certain types of atheism that are rational but what is called Gnostic Atheism ("we know there is no God") is irrational.

Yes, it was a click-bait headline which you're using for it's intended purpose. They may well have made other relevant points but they marketed it on the back of a lie.

1. An agnostic claims to not know for certain about religion, while an atheist claims to not believe in God but if often closer to an antitheist.

I don't like any of these labels but that is what they are. They don't describe what a person claims, they describe what a person believes. They might not even be consciously aware of their belief or to be able to put it into words, the label would still apply.

2. In fact, an atheist cannot consistently decide anything about itself. Is it a religion or not?

You're mixing your objects there. An atheist is a person, who may or may not be able to decide anything about themselves. Their atheism on it's own is unlikely to have much if any impact on that. Each individual has thousands of different characteristics, experiences and thoughts which combine to form their decisions. Whether they believe in any kind of god in itself is a minor factor.

Atheism is a concept and so can't decide anything at all. Whether atheism is called a religion or not is down to people, atheist and not. My personal opinion is that it obviously isn't, in the same way theism isn't a religion. An atheist (like a theist) can be religious and atheism (like theism) can form an element of a religion but that doesn't make atheism (or theism) a religion in an of itself. It certainly doesn't make it a single religion.

Of course, none of that need be in any way relevant to any given individual who happens to not believe in any gods. The vast majority of such people never come close to getting involved in these discussions after all.

3. It claims to be on the side of science, but when used to oppose the notion of God, it willfully dismisses laws of science when they no longer are convenient.

Again, atheism is a concept so it can't claim anything. Some atheists might claim stupid things but then some theists claim stupid things too. That isn't an atheism thing, it's a human thing.

So "matter cannot be created or destroyed" except when it comes to the Big Bang, then it can just do whatever it wants. Or we have evolution, only in every case where society tried to impose a survival of the fittest model, it has been a tyranny, and its days are number.

None of that has anything to do with belief in gods or atheism.

4. The idea of atheism is inherently irrational. Anything that exists comes from an origin, and there are no known exceptions to this...

Well you've already noted the distinction of "gnostic atheism", distinct from the more general (and much more common) casual "not believing". The latter makes absolutely no reference to the need for some kind of origin for existence, only about the concept of gods specifically. It would be perfectly possible for there to be some kind of origin, even an intelligent one, that wouldn't fit our current concept of a god.

You see, the problem of Big Bang...

Your problem with the Big Bang is that is has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. There could have been a Big Bang triggered by a god or there could have been no Big Bang and no god. It's a moot point here.

5. The Bible says that the unbelievers are under a "powerful delusion."

Something of a biased source don't you think?

I know this to be true for certain, as I've seen atheists reject pages and pages of information contrary to their opinions, and they simply ignore this to continue saying what they think is true.

Again, just because some people who happen to be atheist do irrational things doesn't mean atheism makes people irrational. Some theists do irrational things too but that doesn't mean theism makes people irrational either. We're all capable of being irrational as a consequence of being flawed human beings (that was the actual point I was making in the quote that triggered this thread).

6. During this disease hysteria, the least fearful have been (real) theists, who insisted that it's just a bug going around, and it's fairly mild. The atheists I've talked to ignore completely any reasoned attempts to convince them that hoarding and job loss caused by an extreme fear reaction are at least as dangerous, deciding to literally buy 50 rolls of toilet paper and collapse the supply chain.

Yet again, you're treating the (cherry-picked) actions of a few individuals and labelling vast groups of other individuals as a consequence. It's wrong to do that on the basis of race, gender or religion and it's wrong to do is on the basis of belief (or non belief) in gods.

You're also ignoring that there were some religious people actively promoting bad behaviour, with negative consequences (such as the outbreak among a church group in South Korea or the televangelist pastor in the US claiming to sure COVID-19 through the TV screen). Their actions don't reflect badly on any other Christians, religious people or theists though, they are entirely individual to those individuals.

 

[paarsurrey]

That's a little harsh. As it happens I disagree with the OP (on pretty much everything) and they're misrepresenting or misunderstanding (I've given up trying to work out which) what I meant by that statement.

Yes, it was a click-bait headline which you're using for it's intended purpose. They may well have made other relevant points but they marketed it on the back of a lie.

I don't like any of these labels but that is what they are. They don't describe what a person claims, they describe what a person believes. They might not even be consciously aware of their belief or to be able to put it into words, the label would still apply.

You're mixing your objects there. An atheist is a person, who may or may not be able to decide anything about themselves. Their atheism on it's own is unlikely to have much if any impact on that. Each individual has thousands of different characteristics, experiences and thoughts which combine to form their decisions. Whether they believe in any kind of god in itself is a minor factor.

Atheism is a concept and so can't decide anything at all. Whether atheism is called a religion or not is down to people, atheist and not. My personal opinion is that it obviously isn't, in the same way theism isn't a religion. An atheist (like a theist) can be religious and atheism (like theism) can form an element of a religion but that doesn't make atheism (or theism) a religion in an of itself. It certainly doesn't make it a single religion.

Of course, none of that need be in any way relevant to any given individual who happens to not believe in any gods. The vast majority of such people never come close to getting involved in these discussions after all.

Again, atheism is a concept so it can't claim anything. Some atheists might claim stupid things but then some theists claim stupid things too. That isn't an atheism thing, it's a human thing.

None of that has anything to do with belief in gods or atheism.

Well you've already noted the distinction of "gnostic atheism", distinct from the more general (and much more common) casual "not believing". The latter makes absolutely no reference to the need for some kind of origin for existence, only about the concept of gods specifically. It would be perfectly possible for there to be some kind of origin, even an intelligent one, that wouldn't fit our current concept of a god.

Your problem with the Big Bang is that is has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. There could have been a Big Bang triggered by a god or there could have been no Big Bang and no god. It's a moot point here.

Something of a biased source don't you think?

Again, just because some people who happen to be atheist do irrational things doesn't mean atheism makes people irrational. Some theists do irrational things too but that doesn't mean theism makes people irrational either. We're all capable of being irrational as a consequence of being flawed human beings (that was the actual point I was making in the quote that triggered this thread).

Yet again, you're treating the (cherry-picked) actions of a few individuals and labelling vast groups of other individuals as a consequence. It's wrong to do that on the basis of race, gender or religion and it's wrong to do is on the basis of belief (or non belief) in gods.

You're also ignoring that there were some religious people actively promoting bad behaviour, with negative consequences (such as the outbreak among a church group in South Korea or the televangelist pastor in the US claiming to sure COVID-19 through the TV screen). Their actions don't reflect badly on any other Christians, religious people or theists though, they are entirely individual to those individuals.

Sorry, if I wrongly understood one. There is no such intention.

Regards

 

[blü 2]

"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. Being irrational makes a person irrational."[...]
If not, why not, please?

The primary meaning of 'rational' (says my nearest dictionary) is "using reason or logic to think out a problem". I don't think it's controversial in 2020 to say that reason and logic can't establish the existence of the supernatural or of supernatural beings. (Even coherent definitions of those things as aspects of reality are lacking.)

But that may not be quite what the quote says.

It also can be read as saying that although a person is capable of using reason, particular conclusions or behaviors that aren't rational may not disqualify that person overall from the title of "rational being".

And having lived long enough to have done some dumb things, I have to agree with that just to save my own skin.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, because there are other possibilities that cannot be excluded logically such as the multiverse hypothesis and the god hypothesis. Ruling those possibilities out without sufficient evidence is irrational.
Science's understanding of causality applies to processes within the universe. If the universe has a cause, it is either conscious, which I call a god, or unconscious which I call a multiverse.

This multiverse thing. People imagine that it "explains" the universe. It doesn't.
My understanding is that the universe didn't so much expand like a balloon but
as a foaming bubble. This doesn't "explain" where the space time foam comes
from.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, I have learned to be so rational at times, that I can spot I am irrational as believing in something irrational. I then check the consequences and so on and if it is not a big deal and works as "good" in some sense, I stay irrational.
So I am in a weird sense rational about being irrational.

Regards
Mikkel

So that's a yes, is it?

If belief in A is irrational, and Person X believes in A, Person X is irrational.