"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. "?

[Tiberius]

I often say that I think that when it comes to organizations/institutions, nothing
on earth ever compared to the Roman Catholic Church for utter supremacy.
Not even USA today has the relative power this church had.

This doesn't exactly help your argument...

 

[Hawkins]

"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. Being irrational makes a person irrational."

It is a "winner" sentence( written by our friend @HonestJoe in his post #104 ) . I appreciate it.
Does one agree with the sentence colored in magenta above?
If not, why not, please?

Regards

Believing in God is the only logical outcome. People don't believe in God because they are brainwashed in one way or another as far as I can tell.

Common stupid arguments on the against side are,

1) too many gods for one to be true and identified
It turns out to be a stupid argument, from those being brainwashed.

2) no evidence supporting the existence of a god
It turns out of be another stupid argument, from those being brainwashed.

I tried my best to point out their flaw of reasoning all the times in all kinds of religious forums, but I can't fight against all the brainwashed, like a single man against a city of zombies.

 

[Tiberius]

Believing in God is the only logical outcome. People don't believe in God because they are brainwashed in one way or another as far as I can tell.

Common stupid arguments on the against side are,

1) too many gods for one to be true and identified
It turns out to be a stupid argument, from those being brainwashed.

2) no evidence supporting the existence of a god
It turns out of be another stupid argument, from those being brainwashed.

I tried my best to point out their flaw of reasoning all the times in all kinds of religious forums, but I can't fight against all the brainwashed, like a single man against a city of zombies.

So your rebuttal against these two arguments is to just call them stupid and not actually address whatever points they make.

Is that your default rebuttal? The grumpy five year technique? If I tell you that you have to eat your vegetables, are you going to call them stupid?

 

[Milton Platt]

I believe that is pure speculation. God knows everything which means Jesus knows it also.

I believe I have never heard of one being seen in our time nor has there been one found in excavations. However since we have the attributes we know what one is whether it is fantasy or material.

I believe I have a different definition of existence. For me things in fantasy exist in fantasy. Things that exist in material are probably what you are used to. God exists in Spirit and we don't even know what that is. We know the attributes of Spirit.

I believe that is not true.
Mal 3:10 Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need.

I believe I have verification that God exists.

Right up front, I need to point out that I would need some reason to consider quotes from the stories in the Bible as true. We have not established within this conversation that a god even exists, so at this point, the Bible is just a collection of stories. And I mean no offense to you at all. I just wanted you to clearly understand my point of view.

My point with the Unicorn is that just because we can define something, that does not make it a real thing. All the creatures of mythology have definitions, just like your god (and everyone else's). Do they all exist? No. You can't give a list of attributes and then say that since you think these attributes define your god, the god therefore exists, agreed? We would have to be able to examine the god in some capacity to determine if the god actually exists and displays those attributes.

You are correct. I do not think things of fantasy actually exist. I place your god into the category of fantasy, because he seems to fit the criteria.
You say that your god exists in something called Spirit, yet you can't tell me what that is or how do determine if it is even a real thing. That is highly illogical. It sounds like a made up thing to cover for a lack of evidence. i am concerned with what I can actually determine to be true, and determine to actually exist in reality...not fantasy or spirit (which sound like the same thing to me). I am okay with fantasy. I'm a big fan of science fiction. But I would not base my life on it being true.

How do you know that god knows everything, by the way? How do you deal with the cognitive dissonance that creates even within the stories of the Bible?

Thanks for your response, by the way. I am pointed just because it is important to be clear. But I try not to be as "in your face" as some on this board can be. If you wish to continue the conversation, that's cool. If you tire of the back and forth and decide to disengage, that is fine. It won;t be seen as accepting defeat or any such thing.

 

[paarsurrey]

You can take Unicorns away and still have to answer for the reality of our universe. So its not an identical process.

The reality of our universe must have an answer God is that answer. There is no other nor will you find one because it is the answer. That is how it has come to be in our universe the answer to the question

I agree with one here.
I understand, everybody believes of something always existing, no other Being except Allah/G-d has claimed to exist always and created everything else, and given reasonable arguments for it also. Right, please?

Regards

 

[ManSinha]

no other Being except Allah/G-d has claimed to exist always and created everything else, and given reasonable arguments for it also. Right, please?

WRONG PLEASE

Get your facts straight before making asinine statements

etad-yonīni bhūtāni sarvāṇītyupadhāraya
ahaṁ kṛitsnasya jagataḥ prabhavaḥ pralayas tathā

Know that all living beings are manifested by these two energies of mine. I am the source of the entire creation, and into me it again dissolves.

Go read other holy texts - some written centuries before the Qu'ran before you come out with your off the cuff comments

I have asked you this before and you run away like a coward - aside from the Qu'ran what is your proof that Allah even exists?

 

[paarsurrey]

WRONG PLEASE

Get your facts straight before making asinine statements

etad-yonīni bhūtāni sarvāṇītyupadhāraya
ahaṁ kṛitsnasya jagataḥ prabhavaḥ pralayas tathā

Know that all living beings are manifested by these two energies of mine. I am the source of the entire creation, and into me it again dissolves.

Go read other holy texts - some written centuries before the Qu'ran before you come out with your off the cuff comments

I have asked you this before and you run away like a coward - aside from the Qu'ran what is your proof that Allah even exists?

Does one believe Krishna is God, please?
Does one believe Jesus is God, please?
Did Hazrat Baba Guru Nanak ji , 'May the mercy of Allah/God be upon him', believe Krishna/Jesus as God, please?

If yes, then please quote from Hazrat Baba Guru Nanak ji , 'May the mercy of Allah/God be upon him', in this connection, please?
Right, please?

Regards

 

[ManSinha]

Does one believe Krishna is God, please

Whether I believe or not is irrelevant - hundreds upon thousands do
Which makes your statement non-sequitur
and you did not answer my question about any proof you have about the existence of Allah - if you do not - say so!

 

[Muffled]

Well I do try to be rational, and not expecting text from the past to be all that truthful. Fool that I am.

I believe the reliability of what is written depends on who is writing it. I believe God as author of the Bible is the most reliable person one can get.

 

[Muffled]

Does one believe Krishna is God, please?
Does one believe Jesus is God, please?
Did Hazrat Baba Guru Nanak ji , 'May the mercy of Allah/God be upon him', believe Krishna/Jesus as God, please?

If yes, then please quote from Hazrat Baba Guru Nanak ji , 'May the mercy of Allah/God be upon him', in this connection, please?
Right, please?

Regards

I believe Krishna was not an incarnatin of God. I believe Jesus is an incarnation of God. I have no idea what Nanak believed or whether it matters much what he believed.

 

[Muffled]

Whether I believe or not is irrelevant - hundreds upon thousands do
Which makes your statement non-sequitur
and you did not answer my question about any proof you have about the existence of Allah - if you do not - say so!

I believe it is quite conceivable for hundreds upon thousands to be deluded.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I believe the reliability of what is written depends on who is writing it. I believe God as author of the Bible is the most reliable person one can get.

When we have proof of that I might agree, but until then I think the more reasonable assumption is that humans wrote every piece of religious text, whether inspired by something or not.

 

[ManSinha]

I believe it is quite conceivable for hundreds upon thousands to be deluded.

That is your belief - that does not make it the truth - If you talk about hundreds upon thousands being deluded - look in the mirror -

And you are still running away from providing any proof for your so-called beliefs that you proclaim as "truth"

Krishna was not an incarnation - he was the very universe personified IMO - something your book of fables cannot duplicate

I shall accept your lack of response as you conceding you have none to provide - so keep your beliefs to yourself - don't proclaim them as truth - they are no more true than beliefs of Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Animists - nothing gives you any credible grounds to say your beliefs are the only true ones.

There is no agreement / evidence / proof about Jesus being any kind of god - other than a debunked book of fables and contradictions - compiled decades to centuries after the purported events had taken place - what you and others "believe" in that regard is irrelevant IMO

 

[Tiberius]

I believe the reliability of what is written depends on who is writing it. I believe God as author of the Bible is the most reliable person one can get.

God didn't sit down and write the Bible though.

At best he inspired other writers - fallible Humans - to sit down and write it.

At worst, it's a bunch of stories that people have claimed were inspired by God but weren't really.

 

[paarsurrey]

God didn't sit down and write the Bible though.

At best he inspired other writers - fallible Humans - to sit down and write it.

At worst, it's a bunch of stories that people have claimed were inspired by God but weren't really.

"God didn't sit down and write the Bible though."

There is no question, I understand, of Jesus being G-d, Jesus was a human being as he himself described about him that he was "Son of Man" or "Son of Adam" or a human being .
Right, please?

Regards
______________
"SON OF MAN:
By: Emil G. Hirsch

In Contrast to Deity.
The rendering for the Hebrew "ben adam," applied to mankind in general, as opposed to and distinct from non-human relationship; expressing also the larger, unlimited implications of humanity as differentiated from limited (e.g., national) forms and aspects of human life. Thus, contrasted with the "sons of God" ("bene Elohim") are the "daughters of man" ("benot ha-adam"), women taken by the former, non-human or super-human, beings as wives (Gen. vi. 2 et seq.). As expressing difference from God, the term occurs in the blessing of Balaam: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" (Num. xxiii. 19). Similarly, David appealing to Saul puts Yhwh over and against the children of men (I Sam. xxvi. 19). The punishment of God, also, is contrasted with that of the "children of men," the former being much more severe, as appears from the promise solemnly given to David (II Sam. vii. 14). God alone knows the heart of the "children of man" (II Chron. vi. 29 et seq.). In the prayer in which this thought is expressed, "man" is used in distinction to the "people of Israel"; indeed, "children of men" appears to mark a contrast to "children of Israel" in the Song of Moses (Deut. xxxii. 8, R. V.).

"Son of man" is a common term in the Psalms, used to accentuate the difference between God and human beings. As in Ps. viii. 4 (A. V. 5), the phrase implies "mortality," "impotence," "transientness,"as against the omnipotence and eternality of God. Yhwh looks down from His throne in heaven upon the "children," or "sons," of "man" (Ps. xi. 4, xxxiii. 13). The faithful fail among them (Ps. xii. 2 [A. V. 1]); the seed of Yhwh's enemies will not abide among the "children of men" (Ps. xxi. 10). "Children of men" is thus equivalent to "mankind" (Ps. xxxvi. 8 [A. V. 7], lxvi. 5)."
SON OF MAN - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[paarsurrey]

That is your belief - that does not make it the truth - If you talk about hundreds upon thousands being deluded - look in the mirror -

And you are still running away from providing any proof for your so-called beliefs that you proclaim as "truth"

Krishna was not an incarnation - he was the very universe personified IMO - something your book of fables cannot duplicate

I shall accept your lack of response as you conceding you have none to provide - so keep your beliefs to yourself - don't proclaim them as truth - they are no more true than beliefs of Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Animists - nothing gives you any credible grounds to say your beliefs are the only true ones.

There is no agreement / evidence / proof about Jesus being any kind of god - other than a debunked book of fables and contradictions - compiled decades to centuries after the purported events had taken place - what you and others "believe" in that regard is irrelevant IMO

"There is no agreement / evidence / proof about Jesus being any kind of god - other than a debunked book of fables and contradictions - compiled decades to centuries after the purported events had taken place - what you and others "believe" in that regard is irrelevant"

I agree.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe Krishna was not an incarnatin of God. I believe Jesus is an incarnation of God. I have no idea what Nanak believed or whether it matters much what he believed.

Neither Krishna nor Jesus, none of them is/was, as I understand, an incarnation of G-d.
The next sentence of my post does matter to the poster I was responding.
Krishna and Jesus, as I understand, were however truthful prophets/messengers of Allah/G-d. Right, please?

Regards

 

[wellwisher]

"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. Being irrational makes a person irrational."

It is a "winner" sentence( written by our friend @HonestJoe in his post #104 ) . I appreciate it.
Does one agree with the sentence colored in magenta above?
If not, why not, please?

Regards

All innovation in thought or in deed, began in the mind of an innovator, as faith in something, that was not yet manifest. For example, the number one song for 2021, has not yet written. It is imaginary at this point in time. However, by the end of 2021, it will become expressed in reality. Only then can the rational use it as a data point for further reasoning. The belief in God is the foundation of creativity and innovation. It is part of evolution and the future.

If you limit yourself to the status quo of what is known and proven, then looking into the future may appear irrational, since all proof may be lacking. This lack of data and proof will only occur, until the next great song reaches number one on the hit list. Faith deals with the future and not just the present. This may appear irrational to those who live in the present. But all progress is about those who lived for the future.

The corona virus could not be fought successfully based only on what was known and had hard proof in Jan 2020. It needed innovative thinking and faith in things that had yet to be tried. This is not irrational to the innovator.

Those with faith in God are more used to forward thinking, that is not always attached to the present. This is why the bible belt states in the US are the first to break quarantine in the USA. The godless states are more paralyzed by the fear of a future that has yet to be expressed. They will consult their oracles; statistics, to appease or amplify that fear.

 

[Tiberius]

"God didn't sit down and write the Bible though."

There is no question, I understand, of Jesus being G-d, Jesus was a human being as he himself described about him that he was "Son of Man" or "Son of Adam" or a human being .
Right, please?

Regards
______________
"SON OF MAN:
By: Emil G. Hirsch

In Contrast to Deity.
The rendering for the Hebrew "ben adam," applied to mankind in general, as opposed to and distinct from non-human relationship; expressing also the larger, unlimited implications of humanity as differentiated from limited (e.g., national) forms and aspects of human life. Thus, contrasted with the "sons of God" ("bene Elohim") are the "daughters of man" ("benot ha-adam"), women taken by the former, non-human or super-human, beings as wives (Gen. vi. 2 et seq.). As expressing difference from God, the term occurs in the blessing of Balaam: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" (Num. xxiii. 19). Similarly, David appealing to Saul puts Yhwh over and against the children of men (I Sam. xxvi. 19). The punishment of God, also, is contrasted with that of the "children of men," the former being much more severe, as appears from the promise solemnly given to David (II Sam. vii. 14). God alone knows the heart of the "children of man" (II Chron. vi. 29 et seq.). In the prayer in which this thought is expressed, "man" is used in distinction to the "people of Israel"; indeed, "children of men" appears to mark a contrast to "children of Israel" in the Song of Moses (Deut. xxxii. 8, R. V.).

"Son of man" is a common term in the Psalms, used to accentuate the difference between God and human beings. As in Ps. viii. 4 (A. V. 5), the phrase implies "mortality," "impotence," "transientness,"as against the omnipotence and eternality of God. Yhwh looks down from His throne in heaven upon the "children," or "sons," of "man" (Ps. xi. 4, xxxiii. 13). The faithful fail among them (Ps. xii. 2 [A. V. 1]); the seed of Yhwh's enemies will not abide among the "children of men" (Ps. xxi. 10). "Children of men" is thus equivalent to "mankind" (Ps. xxxvi. 8 [A. V. 7], lxvi. 5)."
SON OF MAN - JewishEncyclopedia.com

I will not argue that there are stories that make the claim.

The accuracy of those stories is another matter.

 

[gnostic]

Trying to “rationalize” the belief in god is irrational, because that person is trying to rationalize FAITH.

FAITH is acceptance of belief without evidence.