Christianity is irrational, but is being a Christian?

Great Debates
161

A wager has to be the most disingenuous method of professing belief there is. “What if you’re wrong/what have you got to lose” sounds like a moderate, reasonable stance with regards to *debating *the existence of a god, but are you certain the jealous, omniscient Christian God will be placated by a half-hearted gamble? It’s my understanding that He requires absolute belief, adherence, and total rejection of all other possibilities.

“And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” Hebrews 11:6
Can’t blame anyone for hedging their bet, but somehow I doubt that mere posturing is enough to get subscribers through the Pearly Gates.

162

I agree with you.

And there has been hundreds of years of Christians making your point.

163

Then I’m not sure why you seem to be advocating that position. Seems like a confidence game rather than an honest conversion.

164

Perhaps. But I got into this tread by challenging a “well established” principle that Christianity was irrational. (a silly premise only well established by MB atheists)

At any rate, I wasn’t arguing for Christianity. I was arguing that a belief in Christianity can be produced through reason. And of course, you never fail to show up and witness to me, in your charming pit-bull kind of way.

At any rate, I’m a veteran of these kinds of cacophonies. I’ve lived through the Glen Beck like “do they really believe this nonsense, or are they screwing with me?” type of logic.

So while I’m a veteran, I’m just not interested in witnessing to you, nor you, me.

So, don’t be mean. I’m still getting over** Lobohan.**

165

Oh, I’m not, and I’m not advocating for it. I’m sorry if I left that impression.

However one perceives “salvation”, my reading of the bible indicates you need to be “all in”, heart and soul.

I don’t think you can find salvation through a hedging strategy.

And, the OP wasn’t suggesting it either. He was suggesting there were compelling temporal benefits to behaving as a Christian.

166

Next time, check your ego at the door-I posted twice before you even got here sneering and waving your sheets of paper supposedly full of evidence that you say you don’t have to show us.

167

A large part of Christianity is the years-long indoctrination into believing that legend and supposition can be regarded as hard fact. I wonder what percentage of current Christians would become Christians if the years of indoctrination were wiped away and they were presented all the supposed evidence through new eyes, so to speak.

168

What are the numbers of subscribers to new cults such as Heaven’s Gate, Koresh, etc?

169

Pretty small; any that’s with established religions doing much of the preparatory work, by teaching people from childhood that faith and unthinking obedience to authority are good, that imaginary things are more important than real things, and that skepticism and reason are evil.

170

Good point, didn’t think that one through. Setting a reminder to explain “question authority” to my daughter in a few more years.

171

raindog

‘Faith’ is, by definition, irrational -

[QUOTE=Hebrews 11]

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

(and it goes on to commend all the faithful of old )

[/QUOTE]

Christianity (and all other revealed religions), are entirely based on Faith - and are therefore, by extension - irrational.

It simply does not stand up to reason - period.

Does this mean that people, who call themselves “Christians” cannot be reasonable, rational people? of course not - but that does not make their belief (or faith in unseen things) any more rational or reasonable.

For a belief to be ‘rational’ it must be based on OBJECTIVE evidence - how you ‘feel’ about said objective evidence is what is ‘subjective’ - you continually conflate the two things in order to drive your point.

Please state the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE (not proof) for GOD.

By OBJECTIVE - this must be something that anyone can see, test and experience.

IT CANNOT BE ALL IN YOU HEAD.

172

Just so you have some definitions -

[QUOTE=ra·tion·al ]

/ˈraSHənl/
Adjective
Based on or in accordance with reason or logic: “a rational explanation”.
Noun
A rational number.
Synonyms
reasonable - sensible - sane - logical
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Objective]
Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Objective Evidence]
Information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Subjective]
Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Subjective Evidence]
evidence that you cannot evaluate
[/QUOTE]

173

Pascal had an answer to this. He made no claims that his wager proved God existed or anything like that. The point, for Pascal, is that faith comes from the “heart,” but that the “brain” can impede the heart form seeing the presence of God throughout the world. The point of the wager is to open the mind to the possibility that God exists, to keep the mind from rejecting what it cannot really see. Once the “heart” is open to the possibility of faith, Pascal believes that the heart will follow, and far from being a half-baked faith, this “heart” faith would be the real deal. The wager is then just the first step in the process of “true” faith.

I don’t have my copy of the Pensées handy, so it would be hard for me to get you some cites, but if people are interested, I might try to find something through Google.

174

But the wager does no such thing, in that(at best) it opens up the mind to the possibility that anything for which there is no evidence might exist.

175

My lord, where does a person even begin to address this mess?

Faith, by any definition I’ve ever read, says nothing about being irrational. Can you please cite that for me? Except…simster’s, right here, right now. Pardon me for being underwhelmed.

You then follow your own peculiar definition and make proclamations based on that incorrect definition.

I know I’ve whooshed you in the past, and I feel bad for that and I’m sorry. Are you whooshing me back?

You follow by saying, “for a belief to be ‘rational’ it must be based on OBJECTIVE evidence” and while it would seem to me that objective evidence might make for a more compelling belief you wish to share it with other people, it’s absurd to say a ‘rational belief must be based on OBJECTIVE evidence.’

I mean, I believe Bill Evans is the best jazz pianist of all time, and that is a reasoned, rational belief that would be shared by lots of people. But it’s hardly an objective assessment.

simster, “A” for effort and enthusiasm. But it’s not copacetic to waltz in, state your subjective opinions (oh, the irony!) as fact, and then make those fallacies the underpinnings of your argument.

C’mon dude!

176

RadicalPi, Czarcasm

I gotta tell you, I think you both got it wrong. Her’s wiki’s’s take on it.

177

Hey, raindog, I registered just to ask for your evidence of Christianity not being irrational and/or being realistic and/or being true. Something you claimed having evidence for multiple times without ever presenting any.

178

“c’mon dude” - this is why I really regret engaging with you - but here we go again -

Re-read it -

The definition of FAITH - biblical - the one you are using - is based on what?

Hope, feeling, and “lack of evidence” - it is therefore the opposite of rational -

Hint - I even gave you the definition of rational - “reasonable and logical” - for something to be those things - there must be some form of OBJECTIVE evidence for it. Anything less is clearly ‘irrational’ by definition.
Then you go on to actually prove the point - there is OBJECTIVE evidence that “Bill Evans”* is a Jazz Pianist - your SUBJECTIVE opinion is that he is the “best”. So, we can all agree on part of that - and then we can have a reasonable discussion on what makes him ‘the best’ or not - since the subjective part requires nothing more than FEELING.

as far as ‘waltzing in’ - I’ve been in this thread since the beginning - it was you that first dropped by to drop a load of BS on the floor and proclaim “I don’t care to debate this” - so, which is it? I also gave my OBJECTIVE take on it by using EVIDENCE - now - debate the logic or go home.

Is Christanity based on FAITH or OBJECTIVE evidence?

In order for a belief to be RATIONAL - I gave you the definition - it must have some OBJECTIVE evidence to back it up - if you believe “Bill Evans” is the greatest “running back” ever - then he should have at least played football, otherwise what you have is nothing but an IRRATIONAL belief - It does not hold up to REASON.

Give me one BIBLICAL or RELIGIOUS definition of FAITH that is rational - based on OBJECTIVE evidence or LOGIC and REASON- The dictionary reference includes the word “TRUST”, but bear in mind that that usually has with it some OBJECTIVE evidence to go along with it.
(I am capitalizing KEY WORDS for you since you have such a hard time understanding them - maybe if you went back to school and finished basic logic you wouldn’t have such a hard time with it.)
*you’ve used crap names before to play your fucking woosh game - I again, for lack of reason, take you at your word here.

179

I have to disagree with that. The definition of agnosticism is

Or in simpler terms, no one knows if a god of any kind exists or doesn’t exist. There is nothing pro-religion about that.

180

Hey JamesE.
I’m flattered you registered because of me. I’m afraid I’m going to disappoint you, in part because I didn’t quite say that------in those terms anyway.

I guess I’d direct you to the wiki link I just cited on Pascal’s Wager. It has some information-----said likely more eloquently than you or I probably----on the role of “reason” in establishing a belief in God, including the limitations Pascal saw in relying on reason.