# Would you try to rationalize it or would you start to believe? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 3, 2001, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165 "2001-05-03T02:30:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/81 "2001-05-11T14:13:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe\_Cool \* > \*\* I just happen to feel that it’s not my job to judge God and the way He set things up. \*\* Not for nuthin’, but why not? Sure, maybe you can’t _do_ anything about it, He being all-powerful and all, but you have free will. You get to choose whom to worship. Am I to understand that if God started killing off the non-believers or sent them all to hell when they died, even if they had led good lives, you would choose to worship the Guy? That, more than “what would make you not believe” is the ‘opposite’ of the question you pose here. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/82 "2001-05-11T14:20:19Z")
But why? Would you still have your head examined (assuming, naturally, an heretofore healthy head) if you and one other saw it? And her head, too? And if you and fifty others saw the bunnies, but a hundred besides yourselves didn’t, would you recommend that all of you who saw them rush in for an examination, or the hundred? If everybody saw them _but_ you, would you still have your head looked at? And would you have your head looked at if you, and _everybody else_ saw the bunnies? If not, why not? Given healthy heads all 'round, why isn’t a single vision of pink bunnies more miraculous than the physical emergence of them for everybody to see with their ordinary eyes? If pink bunnies have emerged as physical entities, why is your inability to explain them evidence of God’s hand whereas your subjective perception of them is not? If God is a pesonal Savior of individual souls, why would He not work with you (and others) on the most personal possible level? Do you think God would rather have people believe in magic or Love? ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/83 "2001-05-11T14:32:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Do you think God would rather have people believe in magic or Love? \*\* According to the fundies, God wants people to believe in magic- that’s why he sends loving people to hell. That’s why the OP (remember that?) asks whether people would believe in God if a large display of magic were performed. Perhaps your questions should be directed at the fundies, rather than at the non-fundie non-Christians? -Ben ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/84 "2001-05-11T15:05:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Would you still have your head examined (assuming, naturally, an heretofore healthy head) if you and one other saw it? Yes. > [@](#): > > And her head, too? Yes. > [@](#): > > And if you and fifty others saw the bunnies, but a hundred besides yourselves didn’t, would you recommend that all of you who saw them rush in for an examination, or the hundred? Everybody should probably get checked ou then. > [@](#): > > If everybody saw them but you, would you still have your head looked at? Probably. > [@](#): > > And would you have your head looked at if you, and everybody else saw the bunnies? Depends. Is there any objective evidence of the bunnies existing, or is it just a vision? If there is no evidence, it might be wise to conclude that we all _saw_ them, but they do not objectively exist. > [@](#): > > Given healthy heads all 'round, why isn’t a single vision of pink bunnies more miraculous than the physical emergence of them for everybody to see with their ordinary eyes? Because seeing things that are not there is not all that uncommon. I have had hynogogic hallucinations before. At least, I assume they are hallucinations, whereas perhaps you would believe that a stone medusa-head really did appear floating in my bedroom. But I decided that it was more likely that I experienced a well-established psychological phenomenom than that a giant stone sculpture appeared and diappeared in my bedroom in apparent defiance of all natural laws. So it would be with the giant pink bunnies. I think it more likely that people would hallucinate them than that a heretofore completely unknown species would suddenly appear, and that some people could see them and some couldn’t, and that they leave no objective evidence behind. > [@](#): > > If pink bunnies have emerged as physical entities, why is your inability to explain them evidence of God’s hand whereas your subjective perception of them is not? I _don’t_ think pink bunnies or subjective perceptions of pink bunnies is evidence of God (unless the pink bunnies appear in such a way as to make it clear that it is done at the will of some Omnipotent Being. Like if they showed up in response to this post. ::waits:: Nope, no bunnies.) It _might_ be evidence of pink bunnies, though. > [@](#): > > If God is a pesonal Savior of individual souls, why would He not work with you (and others) on the most personal possible level? Becuase when one person sees something other people do not see, it is often a sign of mental abberation. Should God decide to use a method of communication that is widely associated with insanity, he should not be too surprised at the results (particularly if He is all-knowing!). > [@](#): > > Do you think God would rather have people believe in magic or Love? Well, seeing as I don’t believe God exists, I can hardly have an opinion on His personality andmore than I can tell you what color I think faeries’ wings are. But your God would rather have people believe in Love, of course. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/85 "2001-05-11T15:42:39Z")
Where the hell is **JerseyDiamond**? Did he get raptured since the time he started this thread? (sigh) Why do the Fundies always start these fires and then walk away? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/86 "2001-05-11T16:14:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by toadspittle \* > \*\*Where the hell is **JerseyDiamond**? Did he get raptured since the time he started this thread? > > (sigh) > > Why do the Fundies always start these fires and then walk away? \*\* Because they eventually realize that screaming “GODDIDIT!” and “BELIEVE OR GO TO HELL!” doesn’t do much in the way of conversion and can’t figure out what else they can do… If I prayed, it would be for more Christians like **Polycarp** here or **Mars Horizon** over at the Parlor. jayjay (pizza lurker) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/87 "2001-05-11T16:16:14Z")
> [@](#): > > …unless the pink bunnies appear in such a way as to make it clear that it is done at the will of some Omnipotent Being. Like if they showed up in response to this post. ::waits:: Nope, no bunnies I believe that proves only that _you_ are not omnipotent, i.e., your waiting did not produce any bunnies. > [@](#): > > [Because] when one person sees something other people do not see, it is often a sign of mental abberation. Should God decide to use a method of communication that is widely associated with insanity, he should not be too surprised at the results (particularly if He is all-knowing!). All the more reason to use exactly that method. I submit that others telling you that you are sane because they saw it too might cause you to believe more in _their_ veracity than His. Is that the kind of response you would want from the man of your dreams as you whisper in his ear, “I love you.”? “Honey, could you speak up? You see, if you’ll say it loud enough for the others in the room to hear, it will _prove_ that you love me.” ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/88 "2001-05-11T16:41:39Z")
COOL!! So the vision I keep having of Martha Raye in a leopard-print mu-mu, where she’s holding the severed left arm of John Wilkes Booth and screaming at me to _“kill the librarians . . . KILL THE LIBRARIANS”_ is actually a sign from God? ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/89 "2001-05-11T16:44:48Z")
> [@](#): > > I believe that proves only that you are not omnipotent, i.e., your waiting did not produce any bunnies. Of course it does not disprove anything. I was merely giving an example where the appearance of giant pink bunnies _would_ be evidence of God. > [@](#): > > All the more reason to use exactly that method. I submit that others telling you that you are sane because they saw it too might cause you to believe more in their veracity than His. Given our often capricious and falliable human perceptions, verifying the actual existence of things by cross-checking with other people and confirming with objective evidence is a useful thing. I do not think it is a good trait to believe everything you see, even if other people don’t see it, and even if there is no objective evidence to show that it was not a hallucination. If God wished us to trust our perceptions utterly, he should have made them more reliable; then we would not have to do such cross-checking. It is not a matter of believing in God as opposed to believing in other people; it is a question of “should I trust my falliable human perception even when no one else can confirm it and I have no objective evidence, or should I beleive everything I see without question?” If I only believe in Giant Pink Bunnies when other people see them too, am I trusting in the veracity of others over the veracity of the bunnies? Of course not. First we must use the perceptions and techniques we have used to confirm the existence of something to decide if it actually exists–_then_ we can determine whether the Bunny/deity is truthful. But doubting the existence of something is _not_ doubting something’s truthfulness; it is a non sequiter, IMHO, to say that I am doubtung God’s truthfullness by doubting His existence if He chooses to appear in a manner that has the exact characteristics of a hallucination. > [@](#): > > Is that the kind of response you would want from the man of your dreams as you whisper in his ear, “I love you.”? “Honey, could you speak up? You see, if you’ll say it loud enough for the others in the room to hear, it will prove that you love me.” A better analogy would be if no one else could ever see than man who said he loved me and he left no objective evidence (dirty clothes on the floor, used toothbrush, etc.). Then I might strongly suspect that I was hallucinating, since as a general rule men are considerate enough to both leave objective evidence of their existence and be visible/touchable/hearable/tasteable to all persons with the requisite senses/brain structure. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/90 "2001-05-11T16:57:03Z")
Libertarian, if you don’t mind me asking, why are you arguing with Gaudere? Why are you trying to prove that her epistemology is wrong, if you believe that all epistemologies are valid? Why are you trying to present a logical argument for your case, if you feel that logic itself is spurious? It just seems to me that I remember cases where the tables were turned, and you defended your position by saying that it was unassailable by logic, because logic was invalid. Why, then, do you try to attack Gaudere’s position with logic? -Ben ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/91 "2001-05-11T16:57:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Of course it does not disprove anything. I was merely giving an example where the appearance of giant pink bunnies _would_ be evidence of God. You mean because you “rubbed the bottle”? Gaudere, c’mon! > [@](#): > > But doubting the existence of something is _not_ doubting something’s truthfulness; it is a non [sequitur], IMHO, to say that I am [doubting] God’s truthfullness by doubting His existence if He chooses to appear in a manner that has the exact characteristics of a hallucination. I dunno. His bit with Saul of Tarsus was pretty effective. > [@](#): > > A better analogy would be if no one else could ever see [the] man who said he loved me and he left no objective evidence (dirty clothes on the floor, used toothbrush, etc.). Then I might strongly suspect that I was hallucinating, since as a general rule men are considerate enough to both leave objective evidence of their existence and be visible/touchable/hearable/tasteable to all persons with the requisite senses/brain structure. But men are made of atoms. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/92 "2001-05-11T17:08:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Libertarian, if you don’t mind me asking, why are you arguing with Gaudere? Why are you trying to prove that her epistemology is wrong, if you believe that all epistemologies are valid? Why are you trying to present a logical argument for your case, if you feel that logic itself is spurious? > > It just seems to me that I remember cases where the tables were turned, and you defended your position by saying that it was unassailable by logic, because logic was invalid. Why, then, do you try to attack Gaudere’s position with logic? Good lord, let me deal with this before your synapses explode. I am not attacking my sister, thank you, I am loving her. We are discussing, amicably, what might constitute evidence enough to convince an atheist that God exists. Having been one, I have some understanding of the concept and how it worked in my own life. I offered that. Gaudere countered it. I countered her counter. She countered my counter of her counter. And I countered her counter of my counter of her counter of my proffer. Debate with Gaudere is incredibly stimulating. Her mind is the equal of any here, and her heart is immeasurably beautiful. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/93 "2001-05-11T18:00:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\* > Good lord, let me deal with this before your synapses explode. \*\* Why would my synapses explode? I’m merely trying to understand what motivates a person to present arguments when he rejects the logic on which they are based. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I am not attacking my sister, thank you, I am loving her. \*\* I didn’t say you were attacking her. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Debate with Gaudere is incredibly stimulating.\*\* I still don’t understand. You speak of how stimulating it is to “counter” her arguments. Is this sort of discussion a ritualized dance to you? Is it, perhaps, like chess, a mere game based on arbitrary rules, having no direct bearing on anything of consequence, but nevertheless enjoyable and requiring a certain degree of skill to play well? -Ben ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/94 "2001-05-11T18:11:05Z")
Gaudere wrote: > [@](#): > > tracer: better make sure you’re worhsipping the right God I didn’t think “worhsipping” was legal outside of Nevada. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/95 "2001-05-11T18:41:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ben \* > **Once again, we have a fundie saying that bashing fundie idiocy and fundie immorality equals bashing Jesus.** OOOOOooh, I see…you don’t speak English. I didn’t say that anything equals bashing Jesus. In fact, I don’t even think I mentioned Jesus by name at all. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills. > [@](#): > > **Do you think Polycarp is a “real” Christian, or do you just consider him to be one of those fake pseudo-Christians? When he says he won’t bow to Jenkhovah, even if that means being sent to LaHayedes, does that mean he’s bashing the Almighty God, or does it mean that he has a hell of a lot more backbone than the average fundie?** It’s not my place to judge Polycarp. He and I have vastly dissimilar beliefs. What I think beyond that is between Polycarp and me, and is, quite frankly, none of your business. > [@](#): > > **I don’t recall seeing even a single person who said that, and Gaudere seems to have borne that out. Would you care to back it up or back it down?** Sure thing. Mekhazzio: I would **party!** Good riddance! Rocket88: Of course, for a time I suspected that a '54 Buick I once had was posessed… betenoir: might…make me think those fundumentalists were right…consign myself to hell, given that I couldn’t whorship such a mean, petty, bastard of a god Badtz Maru: super-advanced aliens Morrison’s Lament: would take a lot of intoxicating substances Asmodean: would believe it a fakery Libertarian: wouldn’t believe it if he were an atheist Degrance: hopes the rapture comes soon so pagans can have the world to themselves Some Guy: His thesis has not been submitted yet, but summary is: possible, but unlikely xenophon41: might believe that the Christian God exists, but would not change anything else Freyr: it still wouldn’t change my faith > [@](#): > > **So if you saw Norse mythology coming true, you wouldn’t believe- but you criticise the imaginary non-Christians who wouldn’t believe in Jenkhovah, even if the Left Behind books were to come true?** I didn’t call anybody an “imaginary non-Christian”. I simply pointed out that people did, in fact, say they still wouldn’t believe, even in the face of evidence. Gaudere and I even mentioned a few of the same posts. Obviously we interpreted some of them differently, but it looks pretty clear to me that . If I saw the world ending as described in norse mythology, I would have to think that it was utterly incompatible with my beliefs, so I would be forced to rethink them. And the left behind books don’t enter into it. They are a novelization of events described in the bible, and I don’t see why you focus so strongly on them in this thread. Could it be that you’re attacking a strawman of your own making? I’m not looking for the left behind books to come true. I’m looking for events in the bible to happen. The OP mentioned them only because to a general audience, pop culture is more likely to be familiar than the bible. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > **Maybe she was assumed into Heaven?** My apologies. I’m sure you were only concerned for her spiritual welfare when you posted that, and should not have assumed you were making a snide or mocking remark about her not posting for a few days. In that same sense of concern, I would suggest that you brush up on your reading as well, since I (mistakenly, of course) accused you of mocking Christians (JerseyDiamond, in particular), not religion. But since you’ve seen fit to tell me twice how seriously flawed her OP was, why don’t you elaborate? How so? I saw only a premise (assumed: The events of the end days, as outlined in the bible and novelized in Left Behind are taking place) and a question (would you a: believe that the God of the bible is real, and b: modify your behavior and religious views accordingly?). Where’s the flaw in a sincere question? I guess the old adage is false. The only stupid questions are the ones you don’t ask, and the ones you ask about religion on SDMB. Andros: I draw the line where the text is clearly using a symbol. Especially in places where the key to the symbol is written down nearby, as is the case in much of Revelation and in Daniel. The rule I use is common sense, combined with the context of the passage. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/96 "2001-05-11T18:52:38Z")
> [@](#): > > You mean because you “rubbed the bottle”? Gaudere, c’mon! Unlike you, I have no set vision of what God is/must be. Perhaps a genie God exists, or perhaps your God would choose to have bunnies appear right then for his own reasons. I do not think the bunnies would appear because I demanded them, I would think the bunnies would appear if whatever God theoretically exists decided it would be a good idea right then. > [@](#): > > I dunno. His bit with Saul of Tarsus was pretty effective. I am a little more versed in the workings of hallucinations and other mental tricks than Saul. And more so than those who have seen devils, witches, unicorns and ghosts, too. If the quality of evidence for God is the same as the evidence for boogiemen, and I do not beleive in boogiemen, it would be inconsistent for me to believe in God based on that same evidence. If the evidence offered is better, that would be another matter, but thus far the question seems to be “would you believe in God if you witnessed an event no one else watching could see leaving no objective evidence?” In which case, I would no more believe God exists based on such evidence than I beleive the floating stone medusa-head I saw in my bedroom exists. At any rate, I still think your “whispered ‘I love you’” analogy doesn’t work. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/97 "2001-05-11T18:54:49Z")
Gaudere wrote: > [@](#): > > A better analogy would be if no one else could ever see than man who said he loved me and he left no objective evidence (dirty clothes on the floor, used toothbrush, etc.). Then I might strongly suspect that I was hallucinating, since as a general rule men are considerate enough to both leave objective evidence of their existence and be visible/touchable/hearable/tasteable to all persons with the requisite senses/brain structure. You let other people taste your man? Wow, you must have a really open relationship. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![SisterCoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@SisterCoyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SisterCoyote)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/98 "2001-05-11T19:10:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by toadspittle \* > **Where the hell is JerseyDiamond? Did he get raptured since the time he started this thread?** Just FTR, I believe **JerseyDiamond** is female. Carry on. Oh, and much like Degrance I’d find the world a much quieter place. I don’t **disbelieve** in the J/C/I God. I just don’t **believe** in **Him** as a necessary force in my life, or in the world. But that’s just MHO, and certainly not an attack on Christians (since I seem to need to state that explicitly). ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/99 "2001-05-11T19:13:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by toadspittle \* > **Where the hell is JerseyDiamond? Did he get raptured since the time he started this thread?** JerseyDiamond hasn’t posted anywhere on the SDMB since she last posted to this thread. FWIW, she’s been on the SDMB for a while, and isn’t a hit-and-run fundie, so I’m inclined to think she’s merely indisposed. -Ben ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2001, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165/100 "2001-05-11T19:19:21Z")
My original statement: “You’d think so, but anyone who doesn’t already believe is apparently supposed to be some sort of flaming moron. “Even if you came back from the dead they wouldn’t believe,” and all that…” Your response: “If you’ve read the whole thread, then you can see that it’s full of “ **even if I saw it happening exactly the way the bible says, I still wouldn’t believe in God!!!** ” or some variation of that.” Your evidence in support, and my comments: > [@](#): > > Mekhazzio: I would party! Good riddance! No reference as to whether Mekhazzio believes, does not believe, would not believe. n/a > [@](#): > > Rocket88: Of course, for a time I suspected that a '54 Buick I once had was posessed… No reference as to whether Rocket believes, does not believe, would not believe. n/a > [@](#): > > betenoir: might…make me think those fundumentalists were right…consign myself to hell, given that I couldn’t whorship such a mean, petty, bastard of a god betenoir says s/he would beleive. That’s a yes. > [@](#): > > Badtz Maru: super-advanced aliens Mentioned only as a possibility. > [@](#): > > Morrison’s Lament: would take a lot of intoxicating substances Still accepts the possibility. Just doesn’t like the fundamentalist God. (Scant few do, on this board, including the bulk of the Christians) > [@](#): > > Asmodean: would believe it a fakery Unknown belief system, and I always thought she was Christian. Simply points out that the LB series doesn’t follow revelation exactly, so if the events happen like in LB, it wouldn’t be following the bible. n/a > [@](#): > > Libertarian: wouldn’t believe it if he were an atheist Lib is a Christian, and later clarified that he would believe in the fundamentalist God if the evidence supported it. n/a > [@](#): > > Degrance: hopes the rapture comes soon so pagans can have the world to themselves No reference as to whether D believes, does not believe, would not believe. n/a > [@](#): > > Some Guy: His thesis has not been submitted yet, but summary is: possible, but unlikely We have a possibility! > [@](#): > > xenophon41: might believe that the Christian God exists, but would not change anything else We have a yes! > [@](#): > > Freyr: it still wouldn’t change my faith Already believes the Christian God exists. n/a. Saying “I don’t like fundamentalists. I’d be glad if they went away” is not the same as “even if I saw it happening exactly the way the bible says, I still wouldn’t believe in God!!!” Saying “It might be aliens” is not the same as “even if I saw it happening exactly the way the bible says, I still wouldn’t believe in God!!!” Saying “We are easily misled. We should investigate it carefully” is not the same as “even if I saw it happening exactly the way the bible says, I still wouldn’t believe in God!!!” Saying “I don’t like the fundamentalist God. I’d have to drink heavily to worship him” is not the same as “even if I saw it happening exactly the way the bible says, I still wouldn’t believe in God!!!” (The first is a sentiment often implied by many devout Christians, as well.) Saying “I don’t like the fundamentalist God. I wouldn’t worship that jerk, ever” is not the same as “even if I saw it happening exactly the way the bible says, I still wouldn’t believe in God!!!” (The first is a sentiment often implied by many devout Christians, as well.) Saying “I don’t like the fundamentalist God. I would still try to do good anyway” is not the same as “even if I saw it happening exactly the way the bible says, I still wouldn’t believe in God!!!” (The first is a sentiment often implied by many devout Christians, as well.) > [@](#): > > ". I simply pointed out that people did, in fact, say they still wouldn’t believe, even in the face of evidence. Oh really? The only ones who might arguably be saying that was Lib (who later clarified, at least to my satisfaction, that he would believe _that_ god existed if evidence supported it) and asmodeon (who seems to be simply pointing out that the LB books don’t follow the Bible, and therefore if it happened like in the LB, it be easier to believe in Jenkin’s God than the Bible. In other words, God would likely follow His book rather than LaHaye’s, so unless the LB writers are privy to divine inspiration, it’s a fake.) I believe your statement, “If you’ve read the whole thread, then you can see that it’s full of ‘even if I saw it happening exactly the way the bible says, I still wouldn’t believe in God!!!’ or some variation of that,” and the implied slur on the intelligence and openmindedness of the nonChristians and Christians on this board has been conclusively refuted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-try-to-rationalize-it-or-would-you-start-to-believe/64165.md?page=6)