Fluffy
A fool
This poll is stupid, it's basically asking "am i rational?".
Tho on the topic, is it rational to seek comfort?
I feel that my belief in God is irrational since it stems from a want for it to exist.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
This poll is stupid, it's basically asking "am i rational?".
Tho on the topic, is it rational to seek comfort?
Tigress said:Overall, I don't think that it's any more or less rational than no belief.
KaLi said:There is no reason to believe in a God until you had a real personal experience with Him. Other than that, there is no reason to believe in Him, and therefore makes it irrational.
Fluffy said:Why do you believe in your god? Do you feel that this belief is rational or irrational?
Sunstone said:Whether a belief in "god" is rational or not depends on what one means by "god".
MaddLlama said:Belief in the supernatural, including God, is irrational.
Whether a belief in "god" is rational or not depends on what one means by "god".
But it is no longer irrational to the person who's had that experience.KaLi said:There is no reason to believe in a God until you had a real personal experience with Him. Other than that, there is no reason to believe in Him, and therefore makes it irrational.
Ðanisty said:But it is no longer irrational to the person who's had that experience.
Well said.Godlike said:Quite. However, there is really no need to rationalise belief in God @ all. God represents many things and just IS.
Right, I believe my post said that....Ðanisty said:But it is no longer irrational to the person who's had that experience.
Or, alternatively, when one says one believes in the supernatural, one defines that non-literally, as perhaps a symbol, and not something literally real. The supernatural, in this sense, has nothing to do with the 5 senses, and hence neither does their relationship with it. "Empirical evaluation" would then necessarily be irrelevant to god's existence.robtex said:to further that point when one says they believe in God irrgardless of how they define God as a being understand what they are saying is:
1) inorganic life exists of the form of energy and independant of dna molecules.
2) God has a personal relationship with them as their creator yet alludes their 5 senses
3) emperical evaluation is an invalid means to determine the validity of God's existance
or better put:
God as an existing entity is an object yet is undetecatable emperically speaking
Well, 1, 3 and 5 can certainly apply to a non-literal concept of god. 2 and 4 can be adapted to make non-literal sense, where the literal interpretation can make no sense.robtex said:Many people actually use verbage that states their belief is irrational and than say it is not some examples include:
1) God works in mysterious ways (a personal relationship would not be a mysterious relationship)
2) Evolution, with the mounds of evidence for it is wrong and organic life and dna are not part of the universe
3) Nobody can know the mind of God (yet they have a "personal" relationship with him).
4) God created man organically to prepare him for the afterlife yet excludes most of his creations from that afterlife. It is irrational to think that this is not our "real" life but a substandard version of it used to decide if we get a reasonable "real life."
5) idea that anything, including God can be both omnipresent and omnipotent at the same time. This is impossible and an irrational belief.
Those don't apply to everyone but most of them apply to most theists at a minimum.
Interesting. Thanks; I'll read that.robtex said:To me, from what I have learned from RF and religious debates elsewhere, and what Fluffy is talking about when he says his belief is irrational boils down to the arguement from need which is found here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22446&highlight=arguement