Christianity is irrational, but is being a Christian?

[Czarcasm]

@raindog

Does it matter?

The OP says (correctly) “I’m sure this applies equally well to other religions, but I’m not in a position to know the extent to which this is the case, hence the focus on Christianity.”

I mean, if for the purpose of this discussion a distinction is to made between different Gods, we will be discussing the relative quality of reason (or rationality) or caprice in the different Gods.

By revealing the caprice of some Gods (cue up the Pink Unicorns) you’ll be discussing the rationality (reason) involved in the different approaches.

And if you can’t see the difference between Jehovah and the Flying Spaghetti Monster you’re not revealing irrationality. You’re revealing your devoutness.

Why don’t you find another word other than “devoutness”, because you seem to be the only one here misusing it in this manner.
Of course the number of gods matter when it comes to the Wager-what if the “true deity” is one we haven’t found yet, and that deity would prefer we work with evidence rather than faith? What if the “true deity” thinks that praying is an abomination? What if the “true deity” is evil, and the right thing to do to despise it?
Atheism is only one choice among an infinity of others in any true Wager, but it is a choice that

1. Is based on available evidence and
2. Is open to change if more evidence comes in, thus showing the inaccuracy of any “devoutness” label.

[raindog]

@Czarcasm

Why don’t you find another word other than “devoutness”, because you seem to be the only one here misusing it in this manner.
Of course the number of gods matter when it comes to the Wager-what if the “true deity” is one we haven’t found yet, and that deity would prefer we work with evidence rather than faith? What if the “true deity” thinks that praying is an abomination? What if the “true deity” is evil, and the right thing to do to despise it?
Atheism is only one choice among an infinity of others in any true Wager, but it is a choice that

1. Is based on available evidence and
2. Is open to change if more evidence comes in, thus showing the inaccuracy of any “devoutness” label.

Would you prefer “subjective certainty”?, “moral certitude”?, a “strong belief”?, a “conviction built on reason”?

Ah…Pascal maintained that ‘wagering’ was not optional—we’re all wagering; all of us. Either passively or not, we’re all wagering. Either God----any God----“is” or “isn’t.”

And your devoutness and protests cannot----in the absence of proof------“will” you out of the wager. You’re laying down your 2 bucks and you’re in this cosmic horse race, like it or not.

But in choosing which horse you’re betting on, the OP posits that it is irrational to bet on any horse other than atheism. That is either a product of ignorance, or the strongest of faiths.

So the question is not whether we’re able to pick the winning horse among many, it’s whether there can be a reasoned way to bet on any one of them.

[Czarcasm]

The right horse may not even be listed on the racecard. What then?

Devoutness doesn’t apply. Not going to let you try to push your inaccurate definition of it without a correction.

[raindog]

And I would add, Czarcasm, that it doesn’t matter whether there are other Gods not on the racing form (presumably one that might be the only “real” one), or that we’ve chosen the “right” one; Christianity.

The question is whether one can make a reasoned, rational decision that results in Christianity. and the answer to that is yes.

Every single day we make reasoned, rational decisions that we find out later were wrong.

Christianity may be wrong. Islam may be wrong. Atheism many be wrong.

But you can use rationality and reason to come to the wrong conclusion.

ETA: answer to post #63. It doesn’t matter, if the question is not of whether the choice is right, but whether it is rational.

[Czarcasm]

@raindog

And I would add, Czarcasm, that it doesn’t matter whether there are other Gods not on the racing form (presumably one that might be the only “real” one), or that we’ve chosen the “right” one; Christianity.

The question is whether one can make a reasoned, rational decision that results in Christianity. and the answer to that is yes.

Every single day we make reasoned, rational decisions that we find out later were wrong.

Christianity may be wrong. Islam may be wrong. Atheism many be wrong.

But you can use rationality and reason to come to the wrong conclusion.

ETA: answer to post #63. It doesn’t matter, if the question is not of whether the choice is right, but whether it is rational.

You have your reasons, whether or not they are rational under any known definition of the term, and you think that among all the religions you know of they best fit whatever flavor of Christianity you’ve been exposed to, and you are personally happy with your decision.
The trouble is that have no way of knowing if what god, if any, the evidence, if any, best fits because we cannot say that we have been exposed to all possible deities. Atheism is the default(and thus the best) position to take because it frees the mind to accept new evidence without the filter of an established religious system. If new evidence comes forth that firmly establishes a new deity that doesn’t follow the precepts of any current established religion, an atheist can accept that evidence without first having to disestablish already deeply inlaid religious concepts, beliefs and habits.
It is easier to build a house on new land, than it is to take everything out of the old house, sort through the mess to see what needs to be kept and what needs to be thrown away, tear down the old house, then build the new one.

[raindog]

@Czarcasm

You have your reasons, whether or not they are rational under any known definition of the term, and you think that among all the religions you know of they best fit whatever flavor of Christianity you’ve been exposed to, and you are personally happy with your decision.
The trouble is that have no way of knowing if what god, if any, the evidence, if any, best fits because we cannot say that we have been exposed to all possible deities. Atheism is the default(and thus the best) position to take because it frees the mind to accept new evidence without the filter of an established religious system. If new evidence comes forth that firmly establishes a new deity that doesn’t follow the precepts of any current established religion, an atheist can accept that evidence without first having to disestablish already deeply inlaid religious concepts, beliefs and habits.
It is easier to build a house on new land, than it is to take everything out of the old house, sort through the mess to see what needs to be kept and what needs to be thrown away, tear down the old house, then build the new one.

Czarcasm
This is the only place I’ve seen this whole “who’s on first” Abbot and Costello routine, where a poster describes all the attributes of agnosticism and then attributes them to their atheism.

And this ain’t my first rodeo. Agnosticism has the one thing that every MB atheist covets: no need to “prove” anything. But I ain’t buying. And I’m not playing this whole “who’s on first?” routine with you.

[Fake_Tales_of_San_Francisco]

@raindog

While Christianity has picked up some silly traditions, it is, at it’s core, an attempt to understand how we got here. It may be much less than compelling, but that doesn’t make it irrational.

No it’s not. It only became as such in recent times when we started to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how we got here. We’re making good headway into answering this question using science, and not just faith.

Christianity at its core is about redemption. Only a few pages here and there in the Bible are devoted to how the universe came about, and even if they weren’t there, Christianity would still function as a religion. For something to be at its core, one would think it would be necessary.

The Judeo-Christian claims about our origins were pretty much taken for granted until recently. It has never been the main drive of religion, to discover how we got here in the first place. It’s just incidentally a question it ends up attempting to answer. I posit that it shouldn’t have bothered trying in the first place. It has no evidence to back up its claims about our origins, so its claims should be discarded (until evidence is found).

@raindog

Christianity may be wrong. Islam may be wrong. Atheism many be wrong.

Actually, atheism is the only position that is always right. Christians and Muslims are atheist when it comes to Zeus, whilst only Christians are atheist when it comes to Allah (who they generally deem to be a perversion/misrepresentation of the god they believe in). In other words, they can’t all be true, because they are contradictory (unless we are living in a computer simulation where that can be possible). Atheism is always true to one extent or another, no matter what you bet on. So you always get some return for your money, so to speak.

It is possible for god to exist and for there to be no afterlife. It’s possible for god to exist and all the religions on the planet to be wrong. It’s possible for there to be an afterlife and no gods exist. It is just as valid to wager on the possibility that the gods reward non-belief and punish belief than it is the wager on the belief that gods reward belief and punish non-belief.

If I was a god, and I had to choose out of either model, I’d probably pick the former, since I haven’t revealed evidence of myself it’s more rational.

@raindog

Czarcasm
This is the only place I’ve seen this whole “who’s on first” Abbot and Costello routine, where a poster describes all the attributes of agnosticism and then attributes them to their atheism.

He said nothing that doesn’t apply to atheism. Do you even know what agnosticism claims? (that even if god exists, he/she/it would be unknowable).

[Czarcasm]

@raindog

Czarcasm
This is the only place I’ve seen this whole “who’s on first” Abbot and Costello routine, where a poster describes all the attributes of agnosticism and then attributes them to their atheism.

And this ain’t my first rodeo. Agnosticism has the one thing that every MB atheist covets: no need to “prove” anything. But I ain’t buying. And I’m not playing this whole “who’s on first?” routine with you.

I’m no agnostic. If there is no evidence to consider, then I can put your god in the Fantasy Box with Santa Claus, Superman and the like, and not give it a second thought until positive evidence is brought forth. At that time I pull the idea of gods out of the fantasy box, see if the evidence truly applies, and go on from there. I am also willing to do that with all the other baseless(so far) ideas that I’ve been exposed to that currently reside in the Box.

[YogSothoth]

@Human_Action

However, I posit that in spite of this, being a Christian can be be entirely rational. Why? Because, at least where I live, it can provide:

• A close-knit community of fellow believers
• A hub for charitable activity
• A (somewhat) comforting explanation for death and loss, and the promise of heaven and perfect justice in the afterlife
• Moral instruction for those who wouldn’t otherwise seek it out
• Material aid in trying times
• Social capital
• The protection of being in the majority

Being a fake Christian who pretends to believe gives you all of that, with the benefit that when you get home at night, you don’t have to worry about all the porn you’re watching

[Thudlow_Boink]

@razncain

Martin Luther for one, you know, the father of the Protestant reformation. Many quotes of him stating such. Just a couple from wiki but there are a great deal more that can be found on the internet:

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but–more frequently than not --struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”—Martin Luther

“But since the devil’s bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she’s wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil’s greatest whore.”–Martin Luther

Why in your god’s name do you think the NT has to stress faith hundreds of times instead of reason? Hell, “faith” is only used twice in the OT (KJV). Paul said “We are fools for Christs sake” and “it pleased god by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” I’m sure all this is rationale to you.

I’m pretty sure Luther didn’t use the word “Reason” but rather a German word. I’d be interested in an authoritative explanation of the precise meaning and connotation of the word Luther actually used, but without such an explanation, I’m not going to assume I know exactly what old Marty was talking about.

Luther has also been quoted as saying “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything,” which doesn’t sound like the words of someone who has no use for reason.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@monavis

I don’t know any Christians who are still believers, that are interested in finding out whether it is truth or not.

::raises hand::

[raindog]

These threads always seem to devolve into some variation of witnessing. The irony is, of course, that those witnessing-----as a result of a faith so strong that their subjective beliefs become objective truths—are blind to their own witnessing.

I joined the thread because I felt the premise of the OP----that Christianity is irrational----was incorrect and flawed, and without fail as the thread progresses that question is ignored for the downstream questions as the merits of theism vis a vis atheism.

That’s the hallmark of witnessing.

And I have zero interest in the posters who profess their atheism, and when asked for proof (the exact charge they levy against theists) ------or at least a recognition that as far as proof is concerned both atheists and theists are on the exact same shaky ground----they hide behind agnosticism.

It gets so tiring.

Poster 1: I don’t believe. I just don’t believe in a God.

Poster2: didn’t you say up thread “There is no God!”? rather vociferously?

Poster 1: Well yes, I just don’t believe.

Poster 2: But when you said up thread, ‘there is no evidence of god’, there is a fundamental difference between that statement and “there is no god!” You realize that right?

Poster 1: But there is no god!

Poster 2: But that is an affirmative statement. You realize that right? “There is no evidence of god” requires no proof, right? But an affirmative statement that declares *definitively * and affirmatively that ‘there is no god’ is either objectively true or not.

And if you can’t prove it, it is a subjective belief, right? I mean, there’s nothing wrong with a subjective belief, or atheism. But you realize that that statement carries the same burden of proof as “There is a God”, right?

Poster 1: Who’s on first?

[Czarcasm]

The rebuttal to the imaginary conversation. How predictable.

[Troppus]

@raindog

I joined the thread because I felt the premise of the OP----that Christianity is irrational----was incorrect and flawed, and without fail as the thread progresses that question is ignored for the downstream questions as the merits of theism vis a vis atheism.

Will you answer the OP?

[Czarcasm]

What seems to be most rational in our society today according to posts so far is to lie about being a Christian because it gets you into a large social and business network, people as a whole will be nicer to you, and you don’t have to waste any time praying or worrying about your metaphysical future. Win/win all around.

[raindog]

@Czarcasm

The rebuttal to the imaginary conversation. How predictable.

Exactly.

I should get some clep test credit for knowing exactly where this was heading. It’s past tiring.

I should get a ‘Lifetime Achievement Award’ or something for suffering through the many attempts we’ve seen where atheist wolves don agnostic lamb clothing, when it suits them.

Embrace your subjectivity I say. It’s perfectly fine (and rational too!) to say you believe there is no god.

Jump in. The water of faith is warm.

[raindog]

@Troppus

Will you answer the OP?

If you haven’t seen an answer as of yet, then the answer is ‘no’, I won’t be answering.

[Czarcasm]

@raindog

Exactly.

I should get some clep test credit for knowing exactly where this was heading. It’s past tiring.

I should get a ‘Lifetime Achievement Award’ or something for suffering through the many attempts we’ve seen where atheist wolves don agnostic lamb clothing. when it suits them.

Embrace your subjectivity I say. It’s perfectly fine (and rational too!) to say you believe there is no god.

Jump in. The water of faith is warm.

Personally, I don’t think your ongoing quest to mislabel “atheism” as “agnosticism” is on-topic for this thread, so I won’t pick it up here. Perhaps if you actually started your own thread about the subject instead of trying to introduce it in threads about other matters…?

[Lobohan]

There is no evidence whatsoever (aside from people claiming spiritual feelings) for the existence of God.

It’s perfectly reasonable to say something doesn’t exist when it goes against what we know, and there is no evidence for it.

Rain, are you agnostic about vampires? Or do you say they don’t exist?

And atheist can say, “God doesn’t exist” because it is as stupid a concept as vampires.

Most atheists might reconsider, if there were any evidence, but we’ll likely never know, because in all of recorded history none has come up.

[Larry_Borgia]

@raindog

Exactly.

I should get some clep test credit for knowing exactly where this was heading. It’s past tiring.

I should get a ‘Lifetime Achievement Award’ or something for suffering through the many attempts we’ve seen where atheist wolves don agnostic lamb clothing, when it suits them.

Embrace your subjectivity I say. It’s perfectly fine (and rational too!) to say you believe there is no god.

Jump in. The water of faith is warm.

Why is it that God is the only thing in the universe to which this ludicrously high standard of certainty must apply? If someone says “There is no such thing as the Loch Ness Monster,” no one goes “Ha! maybe there is a Loch Ness monster! Maybe it’s invisible and undetectable by sonar, and only appears to those who are innocent and pure of heart. Your position is just as irrational as those who believe in Nessie.” Nope, it’s just with God that we have to absolutely prove it’s non-existence beyond any doubt whatsoever before we have to give up our finicky pseudo-objectivity.