Can believing there is a God ever be rational?

158 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
Tin-Man "LMAO... Dammit,

Tin-Man "LMAO... Dammit, Sheldon! Stop it! I shouldn't be laughing this much before having my morning coffee!"

Given my earlier faux pas, I felt I ought to practice some sarcasm, just to make make sure I've still got it you understand.

NO THEISTS WERE HURT IN THE MAKING OF THESE POSTS So suck it up theists, cos no one likes a crybaby.

Account Inactive's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

Nice post!

But you do know that sarcasm is the lowest form if wit right? ;)

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

delete

Jo's picture
@ Diotrephes.

@ Diotrephes.

In Acts when it records people being baptized they are baptized "in the name of Jesus". The NT following Acts is generally written to people who were already Christians and so probably already baptized. No Christians are baptized in the Gospels. The only recorded instances of people being baptized is in Acts.

The name of the son is Jesus. What is the name of the father? Not "father", that is not a name. You could say Jehovah, but not father. What is the name of the Holy Spirit? Holy Spirit is a descriptive term, not a name. If it is the spirit of Jesus than the name of that spirit would be Jesus. Since Jesus is God become human, we have to ask what God became human. The God of the OT or Jehovah is the answer. Since Jehovah became human, we would be accurate in calling him (the father that became human) Jesus.

So the NAME of those three titles or descriptive terms is Jesus.

I am a father, a son, and a blogger. If you were to baptize in the name of the father, son, and the blogger, you would baptize in the name of Jo. My name is Jo, so the name of those three is Jo. My name is not father, son, blogger.

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

delete

Jo's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

Yes, I speak English so I gave his English name. Probably Joshua is a more literal name going directly from the original to English.

But I think you missed my point.

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

delete

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Dio

@ Dio

So, if you believe in the biblical character you just can't go around praying to him using an alias. The least you can do is to use the name that his creator gave him.

And nobody has a clue what that name was......there is not one single contemporary record, as we know.

We can state for certain sure...it was not "Jesus"

arakish's picture
@ Everybody

@ Everybody

Just had a very hilarious “amina saliros demoi ocularum.” Anyone remember the TV series "Dinosaurs?"

I saw a little baby dinosaur with a grown up dinosaur named Yosum, and the little baby dinosaur is smacking the shit out of him with a very heavy iron cast skillet on his head while yelling, "NOT the Jesus! NOT the Jesus!"

rmfr

Jo's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

I can't pray to God in my own language? If I call him Yehoshuʿa is that OK? I think that is the original pronunciation.

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

delete

Jo's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

They are two different baptisms. John's was for repentance, not to become a christian.

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

delete

Jo's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

To "fulfill all righteousness" or to " carry out all that God requires". In my words, because it was the right thing to do and as an example to us.

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

delete

Jo's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

The story you are referencing concludes with Jesus granting her request. He was asking a rhetorical question to test her. That is evidenced because he granted the gentile women's request. Jesus also healed a Roman in Matt 8. He also said in John 10:15-16 "... So I sacrifice my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They will listen to my voice, and there will be one flock with one shepherd."

You can become a member of his congregation. We are all equal with him. Gal 3 says there is no difference to God between a Jew and a Gentile.

Cognostic's picture
The trinity was invented 290

The trinity was invented 290 years after the death of Jesus (if he ever actually existed) at the council of Nicea in an attempt to bring all the bizarre Christian faiths under a single umbrella. The Nicean Creed was the first attempt at establishing a trinity and then the Church argued about it for another 700 years. You could actually contend that the Church is still arguing about it today. Not all Christians are Trinarians. Not all Christians believe in the divinity of Christ. Not all Christians believe in a personal God. Granted; prior to Constantine there was a much wider variety of Christian beliefs, the Church did a great job of killing off anyone who disagreed with the orthodox view, but some of these non-orthodox views still survive today.

Jo's picture
@ Cognostic I agree.

@ Cognostic

I agree.

Sheldon's picture
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 06:09

Tue, 04/23/2019 - 06:09
Cognostic "There are 30 thousand Christian sects and NONE OF THEM AGREE WITH EACH OTHER"

Tue, 04/23/2019 - 21:04
Jo "I would not say the Bible was inerrant....But definitely inspired, and ***highly reliable for its intended purpose.****"

As Cognostic just pointed out, it's so reliable it's produced over 30 thousand different sects, and has been roundly refuted by multiple fields of scientific study.

LogicFTW's picture
Can believing there is a God

@Jo

Can believing there is a God ever be rational?

The god you describe, of the bible, (I will take it as an amalgamation of all the various bibles literature etc, old testament, the new, the popular KJB etc. Then no I don't think it could ever be "rational" at least by standard definition of rational I have in mind.

Why is the “no” conclusion the logical, rational, unbiased, scientific, reasonable, with no presuppositions conclusion, while the “is” conclusion is the opposite?

You just described why this is. Logical, rational, unbiased, scientific, reasonable, with no presuppositions. Look up each word. You are not going to find in their definitions words like: emotional, "faith," "feelings," "popular," or the old historical answer.

Is there any way a believer could be justified in believing?

Actually yes in my opinion. I have been debating with theist for years about this subject. They can justify it for themselves, and may even quite often successfully justify it for others. However with the atheist regulars here that won't work. I would say just about all of us stick to the evidence, the logic, the rational, the scientific, the reason.

I hear all the time that "belief" in god requires faith, requires opening up your "heart" (this really means the emotional/spirtual response.)

Here is an example of a justification, even if I do not agree with it:

Venezuela has fallen hard in the last decade, from an oil rich country that allowed for large (if unsustainable) government services that, while the oil flowed freely allowed for much prosperity for many people in the country. When the oil money stopped flowing and the country descended into chaos fighting over who is president among other things, and millions fled the country, those that were unable to flee have increasingly turned to religion in great numbers, people's lives have changed greatly and gotten a lot harder in the last few years. People are literally starving in the streets. The "god" answer is increasingly the best answer available to these people in hard times. The soup kitchen put on by the church is one of the most popular places around, (partly due to aid shipments being halted or stolen,) if I was one of those people I feel turning to "god" would be increasingly justified. Go with god or go hungry is a powerful justification.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Jo's picture
@ LogicFTW

@ LogicFTW

Can you give me the standard definition of rational that you mentioned?

doG's picture
How dishonest.

How dishonest.

You start a thread asking about rationality, without a definition of the term...and then claim ambiguity of the term when confronted with reason?

How typically christian of you.

Sheldon's picture
Something is considered

Something is considered rational if the reasoning behind it adheres to the strict principles of validation contained within logic.

Do ALL aspects of your belief do this?

I can help you out with a clue if you're struggling Jo. Since you have used known common logical fallacies, and NOTHING that contains a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rational.

Jo's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

No, I doubt all aspects of my belief adhere to the strict principles of validation contained within logic.

Sheldon's picture
Jo "No, I doubt all aspects

Jo "No, I doubt all aspects of my belief adhere to the strict principles of validation contained within logic."

Then you have answered the thread OP.

Cognostic's picture
@Jo: " I doubt all aspects

@Jo: " I doubt all aspects ...." Seriously Jo, do any aspects of your belief adhere to strict principles of validation contained within logic. Any at all?

You have demonstrated over and over and over that you do not even know the teachings of your own Bible. Not only have you not read the text but you do not understand it. You have been called out so many times on your false logic and erroneous assertions. You make yourself look ignorant. Isn't it time to STOP making these inane comments and wallowing in ignorance. What if you just STOPPED and began asking questions instead. Questions will lead you to new information and new ways of understanding. Idiotic statements just make you look foolish. Have you not grasped the FACT that the ATHEISTS on this site are more well versed in Biblical Scholarship than you appear to be. And even when we don't know shit, we do not make inane assertions, we go and look it up. We do the research before we make comments. On top of that, when we do stick our feet in our mouths, we simply admit our mistakes, thank the person for the information that demonstrated our error, and then move on. You are like an autistic child who keeps bashing his head against a wall. We all feel sorry for you but you are the only one that can stop the behavior. So, just stop~

LogicFTW's picture
A google search would work,

A google search would work, but hey it takes me 2 seconds to do your work for me and you can know exactly which definitions I am using.

A combination, a total, an average of all these definitions:

1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

2. A: having reason or understanding, B: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason

3. consistent with or based on or using reason

4. showing clear thought or reason

Jo's picture
@ LogicFTW

@ LogicFTW

Thanks for the definition. I did look it up before posting, but I wanted to make sure I understood what you meant.

arakish's picture
Jo: "Thanks for the

Jo: "Thanks for the definition. I did look it up before posting, but I wanted to make sure I understood what you meant."

What other definition could there be for RATIONAL?

So far, you ain't been.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 21:09

Tue, 04/23/2019 - 21:09
Jo "Can you give me the standard definition of rational that you mentioned?"

rational
adjective
1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.