God is Real in Principle

by looter 251 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  looter

  I liked what you said. But you remarked, "rationality does not require belief." Neither does being irrational. I know a few people who are as unreasonable as they come but have utterly no type of belief in God, any form of righteousness, or ethics whatsoever. On top of everything, rationality not necessarily needs a belief in God but what my point is, non op, is that it can.

  And just because someone doesn't feel it is needed doesn't give them the right the blatantly treat another persons view like it's garbage. Seriously, being different doesn't mean wrong. So many believers and non believers don't understand this ideology even when it's as simple as simple gets.
  
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Looter, I think we are coming from different places when discussing rationality and irrationality.

  I am approaching irrationality as the brain's emotional response as opposed to a logical response. I think of it in terms of rightbrain/leftbrain functioning.

  Belief springs from the brain's desire to fulfill its emotional needs (right brain). Logic springs from the left brain's need to be organized and rational - it is concerned with the detail of the material world - the right brain likes a big picture way of perceiving the world. The right brain speaks through emotion - the left brain speaks through the rationality of language.

  Belief satisfies our emotional need to stay connected to the material world
• 

  looter

  But that's what I'm saying. Someone can have believe in that rational side. Whether a belief is irrational or not depends entirely on what is meant by irrational in this context. A person who believes in God on the basis of considered evidence and reasoning is not irrational. They might be mistaken, but that is true of almost any belief-even those in the sciences. We both just need to remember that some people who believe in God are irrational in their belief and others are rational in their belief.

  The same can be said about any belief. People believe scientific claims without adequate justification, yet no one would say that the belief in science is irrational. The belief in God deserves the same treatment. To do otherwise is a senseless and needless insult to those who carefully consider the rather important matter of God and find that reason and evidence point them towards belief.
  
• 

  cofty

  every time I attempted to explain he completely misinterprets it and asks me another question based on his misinterpretation - Looter

  I have never misrepresented you. I asked you patiently three or four times to explain your point and you stubbornly refused.

  I had two or three goes at summarising what I thought your point was and you still refused to tell us.

  It is entirely your fault that nobody knows what you are trying to say.
  
  
• 

  looter

  What I said was that you didn't understand my answers to some of your questions which led to you asking me something different, cofty. That's how it got off topic. I never refused to explain what topic we had at hand and my point of view. My main topic was already explained in my original post yet you kept thinking I was talking about a physical and creative God which led to a bunch of unrelated stuff that doesn't really pertain to what I was trying to say in my original OP.

  Don't keep saying it was my fault when you clearly misunderstood what I was trying to say and continued to ask questions that while similar weren't related to what was said. I just went along and told you my stance on what you were asking. I feel that it was explained the best way possible in the original post. You misinterpreted like most on here and think this is trying to say that God really exists in the sky and that's not what I meant.
  
• 

  OrphanCrow

  looter: We both just need to remember that some people who believe in God are irrational in their belief and others are rational in their belief.

  Firstly, I would recommend that you learn the art of speaking for yourself and yourself only. "We both just need" is an inappropriate phrase because you simply don't know my needs. You may need to remember that but I don't.

  That aside, I will try to make myself clearer.

  Belief is ALL about the irrational.

  The scientific method does not require belief. It requires an adherence to basic principles that govern the scientific process. If those principles (rules) have been followed, science does not require belief. Science requires rationality.

  Belief requires irrationality. It is the irrational mind that is satisfied emotionally through the process of believing. The brain would like to 'believe' that its belief is based upon rationality...but it simply isn't
• 

  looter

  "I would recommend that you learn the art of speaking for yourself and yourself only. "We both just need" is an inappropriate phrase because you simply don't know my needs. You may need to remember that but I don't." That was said because you don't seem to understand beliefs can be both rational and irrational. It's really at the foundation where someone's head is. Not sure if you refuse this observation or just don't believe in it. "Belief is ALL about the irrational." No. Not at all. Have you ever thought that rationality itself is actually a belief? Of course it uses the laws of action and reason but rationality like irrationality is a state of mind and a natural wiring of someone's brain. People naturally can be either rational or irrational. Rationality implies the standards of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe.

  So basically you're saying that if I believe someone can do good and better then that is using an irrational part of my mind. That's bogus because we can believe in things that are entirely rational and possible but not necessarily will happen. That's labeling so many things everyone may have confidence in all in to one baseless bubble. Please just know that a belief can be rational, irrational, or even both. The whole concept of belief does not require illogicality but rather what position someone's intelligence is, which is either different or slightly different for everyone since we're all unique. Oh, and the scientific method itself uses a belief system. Now I'm not saying it is a belief system but it applies a belief system which is about how certain people see the world, which again is different for everyone.
  
• 

  cofty

  Being rational means that our belief is commensurate with the evidence - "ratio".

  If you tell me you own a pet dog I might believe you based on your word alone. If you tell me that an omnipotent deity made the world and raised Jesus from the dead I am going to ask you for a lot of objective evidence.

  No such evidence exists and the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

  Therefore theism is irrational.

  I still have no idea what your OP is about. Why won't you tell me?
• 

  looter

  "Being rational means that our belief is commensurate with the evidence" Very true. But being rational is still a belief in itself though because you are trusting that something is true but under the view of verification. Not everyone sees this the same way obviously. There is always the case where "evidence" isn't totally believed or even explainable.

  "Therefore theism is irrational." That doesn't mean it's irrational just because there is no refutable proof. If God exists then belief in him is rational. If he does not exist, then it isn’t. No one knows whether he is real or not but people can believe he does or he doesn't. To say there is no proof is a belief but a logical one because while there may not be refutable proof some still believe there is proof.

  "I still have no idea what your OP is about. Why won't you tell me?" Look, cofty, I've already tried to explain this and I'm not going through that again. If you don't understand, you just don't understand. Don't be giving me headaches, I'm just a boy.
  
• 

  cofty

  being rational is still a belief in itself

  No it isn't. It is a commitment to be led by evidence.

  There is always the case where "evidence" isn't totally believed or even explainable.

  I am only talking about objective evidence that can be verified by anybody.

  That doesn't mean it's irrational just because there is no refutable proof

  Believing incredible things without evidence is the very definition of irrational.

  If people just want to be honest and say that they believe because of blind faith then good luck to them. If they want to claim their belief is rational then let's hear the evidence.