Is rational theistic belief possible?

[Zhavric]

No takers?

Quote by: LetThereBe It seems to me, even given that extreme "parking spaces" example, that belief in the supernatural being, Thor, would still be irrationally placed.

I can agree with that.

Regards
S.

[Fonceai]

Something to consider...

Any belief a person has is "rational". They took some or no information and passed it through their own personality and came out with a rationalized conclusion.

Rational to one person is irrational to another.

If you're talking about "rational" in a logical sense, then it all depends on how much a person expects others to agree with them.

The subject doesn't matter.

I would propose that the most rational person is the one who realizes that the only one that can truly understand and accepts their beliefs is themselves.

So not only is my answer to your question "yes" in the former context of my post, but it's also "yes" in the latter sense as well.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Something to consider... Any belief a person has is "rational". They took some or no information and passed it through their own personality and came out with a rationalized conclusion. Rational to one person is irrational to another. If you're talking about "rational" in a logical sense, then it all depends on how much a person expects others to agree with them. The subject doesn't matter. I would propose that the most rational person is the one who realizes that the only one that can truly understand and accepts their beliefs is themselves. So not only is my answer to your question "yes" in the former context of my post, but it's also "yes" in the latter sense as well.

More "nothing can be proven" post-modernism.

Do you have a stance on my challenge regarding migraines or have you convinced yourself whatever you've thought of is rational?

[Fonceai]

I don't care about your migraines.

I'd rather have a good discussion without your baiting, attacking, or trolling the same comments about me.

Shove the "post-modernist" stuff where the sun doesn't shine and leave me alone.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Shove the "post-modernist" stuff where the sun doesn't shine

Quote by: Fonceai ... are you just being overall insulting? That would be against the rules, you know.

Seriously, I'm curious about your take on the migraine example I gave.

[The_Genius]

Many people have encountered supernatural happenings. There are many convincing records of things such as reincarnation. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is not right to say, supernatural happenings are totally ridiculous.

[Jack]

There are many convincing records of things such as reincarnation.

I have yet to be convinced by any story I've encountered. Too many supernatural experiences can be explained just as well by natural processes. If reincarnation stories were so convincing and were testable, more people would accept that concept.

[arielmessenger]

I mean how much evidence do you need that human beings periodically perceive supernatural events? It's all through human history. To ignore or discount the huge amount of human intellectualism that has gone into discussion about supernatural phenomena is to be irrational.

And we all know, putting one's faith in science having all the answers is just as invalid as putting one's faith in Jesus. Just look at the record of science of the present overturning science of the past--i.e., a shaky foundation that requires "faith" to believe in.

Having had my Damascus experience, I will say I can "prove" spiritual events well enough for my personal science-orientation (former U.C.B anthro major) to refute the claim spiritual events cannot be seen or "rationally" explained. Atheists need to look at the "seams" in material reality where spiritual phenomena show up--synchronicity experiences and near-death-experiences. Oh, yes, "science" has "explained" all that, ha ha, but only to atheist satisfaction who have never "been there, done that" and don't know zip about what they're are talking about, e.g. the attempts to "explain" n.d.e.'s as chemically induced hallucinations produced by a dying brain as if this explained how a flat-line brain can produce full-blown detailed imagery that normally is created through multiple brain functioning.

The old believer's saw still applies: atheists are blind to spiritual phenomena. If it can't be measured it doesn't exist to the atheist mind.

[rez]

Quote by: arielmessenger I mean how much evidence do you need that human beings periodically perceive supernatural events?

Can the supernatural event be directly or indirectly observed?
The evidence should be somewhat consistent with all other evidenced phenomena.

The evidence should lead the way for new discoveries.

no hocas pocas thinker has ever provided any evidence other then a subjective story. Many of the hocas pocas thinkers also make excuses such as "the supernatural is not on demand, so no evidence can be provided". A good example of this is the thread "Ariel's Messenger".

Nowadays, when people want to be even remotely entertained by supernatural occurrences they will go to a magic show.

The old believer's saw still applies: atheists are blind to spiritual phenomena. If it can't be measured it doesn't exist to the atheist mind.

Not only can it not be measured by it explains absolutely nothing and makes things more complicated. Plus I would be a hypocrite if I preferred supernatural explanations over natural ones. You, I guess, have no problem with that.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I think, first of all, that most theists don't care that their beliefs are irrational, once they take that leap (or stumble) of faith, it can be possible for them to try to be rational, but the qualifying of their beliefs in the first place is by defenition irrational

[rez]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I think, first of all, that most theists don't care that their beliefs are irrational, once they take that leap (or stumble) of faith, it can be possible for them to try to be rational, but the qualifying of their beliefs in the first place is by defenition irrational

yeah, it makes no sense.

[Jack]

putting one's faith in science having all the answers is just as invalid as putting one's faith in Jesus.

Of course the difference is that atheists look to science for explanations for natural events. We don't worship science or hold science to be infallible.

Just look at the record of science of the present overturning science of the past--i.e., a shaky foundation that requires "faith" to believe in.

Theists need to quit expecting science to play by their rules. Science does not suggest it can provide absolute answers or absolute truth. If you quit expecting it to, you'll see that scientists frequently update their models of how things work to account for new information. Scientific findings are not written in stone.

I mean how much evidence do you need that human beings periodically perceive supernatural events?

Any event can be perceived as supernatural. It's all about perception, interpretation and belief.

Oh, yes, "science" has "explained" all that, ha ha, but only to atheist satisfaction who have never "been there, done that" and don't know zip about what they're are talking about, e.g. the attempts to "explain" n.d.e.'s as chemically induced hallucinations produced by a dying brain as if this explained how a flat-line brain can produce full-blown detailed imagery that normally is created through multiple brain functioning.

A generalization based on personal opinion. You also mistakenly equate scientists with atheists. I know quite a few scientists who would resent your simplification.

The old believer's saw still applies: atheists are blind to spiritual phenomena. If it can't be measured it doesn't exist to the atheist mind.

Old saws are often rusty. We simply ask theists to substantiate their fantastic claims about gods. Theists cannot do so. Thus we remain unconvinced.

[arielmessenger]

"Of course the difference is that atheists look to science for explanations for natural events. We don't worship science or hold science to be infallible."

What a crock! Your whole argument against theism and supernatural phenomena is based on science. Take science away and you atheists have no creed and no argument to refute theists with.

[Gods_Mercenary]

The argument against theism is logic, not science. We have no reason to believe in God, so therefor we do not assume He exists.

[rez]

Quote by: arielmessenger What a crock! Your whole argument against theism and supernatural phenomena is based on science. Take science away and you atheists have no creed and no argument to refute theists with.

Right, because there would be no explanation other then supernatural ones to explain reality. As you can see, if there were no science humans would still be in the Dark Ages.

[Jack]

Take science away and you atheists have no creed and no argument to refute theists with.

You misunderstand what atheism is.

Theists have proposed gods. Theists have offered no evidence to support their supposition. They say the concept must be accepted by faith alone.

Some of us prefer to not blindly believe everything that humans come up with. We ask for evidence, something that can be falsified and supports the contention of gods. As long as theists fail to provide that evidence, we continue to withhold belief.

Science is a tool to help us discover what nature is all about. Religion is a perception that requires obedience to a creed or set of beliefs. We don't choose to accept those creeds or beliefs. We prefer to look at what science discovers, which doesn't require faith or the acceptance of a particular creed.

[Dirty Name]

All I can tell you is that my belief in God is not TOTALLY irrational, only partially, because it is based on two things:

1) Faith (admittedly irrational)
2) Historical and Scientific Evidence (rational)

Taken together, those elements form a solid BELIEF that is only partially irrational.

More importantly, I wish to point out that rationality isn't necessary for one to be correct.

[Dirty Name]

Theists have offered no evidence to support their supposition.

Wrong. Theists point to evidence all the time - (the Big Bang theory is a classic example where atheists formed new theories when existing scientific evidence pointed obviously toward the Biblical account of creation). You simply have chosen to reject the evidence, which is your prerogative, but your claim that Theists have offered "no evidence" is utterly false.

We don't choose to accept those creeds or beliefs. We prefer to look at what science discovers, which doesn't require faith or the acceptance of a particular creed.

Religious beliefs consistent with scientific evidence offer a far more satisfying intellectual explanation than just science devoid of any way of ever understanding how we got here. Trust me, you'll never figure it out through science alone, because, as science tells us, there's only so far we can peer into space - thus there is only so much we can ever know about our origins.

Your blind faith in science to answer life's mysteries is going to be a major letdown for you one day.

[Dirty Name]

The argument against theism is logic, not science.

Oh really? Lay it out for me logically, then. I won't hold my breath.