Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rational BAC · 05-27-2003, 08:51 PM

Now it may seem to some of you that I have sidetracked Bumble Bee's thread. ----------

I don't think I have. I think I have broadened it.

The question is about the rationality of my born again Christianity. It is much more to my taste to state my general beliefs and concerns about Christianity and let you all decide whether I am thinking rationally or not.

It may not be to Bumble Bee's taste, ---------but it is very difficult for me to argue what seem to me to be very minor points ad nauseum.

--------Probably major points to Bumble Bee as he/she is trying to count the angels on the head of a pin, but a little silly to me. To each his own, I guess. But I think the broader outlook works just as well as the severely restricted one. I have said before and will say again that Fundies have an awful lot in common with atheists in that way.

So if the mods think that I am sidetracking this thread, I can assure them that I don't think I am doing that at all. Just improving it.

CaptainOfOuterSpace · 05-28-2003, 05:16 AM

RBAC:

If I may ask, what originally caused you to become a "born-again" christian? And what were you before that? In other words, what series of events in your life caused you to switch over?

Rational BAC · 05-28-2003, 05:44 AM

I was an agnostic before that. Didn't really know one way or the other and assumed I would never know.

I did not however turn into a literalist, fundamentalist Christian because of my "born again" experience. Fundies think they own that "born again" phrase and it must mean believing exactly #1 #2 #3 #4. etc. or you were not truly "born again". They are wrong. They do not own that term in any way.

Don't really want to get into detail about my "born again" experience. It was a very personal thing that happened during a very difficult part of my life and it is probably the usual Fundy type (epiphany) experience in that way. Probably not even that unusual an experience compared to most Fundy stories. ----

---Most fundies will try to bore you to tears and also open themselves up to ridicule going into great detail about their born again experience, hoping that by their example they might convert you. I won't do that. ----------Which brings us to ----

#11----------Proseletyzing or evangelizing or anything you want to call it ----------

--------but what it really is --is ----being a pain in the buttt.
I think "spreading the word" made a heck of a lot of sense 2000 years ago when almost nobody could read and write and transmission of information was done almost totally by word of mouth and oral tradition. And is why evangelism is stressed so strongy in the Bible. But that was 2000 years ago. This is the year 2003 and we have no problem getting info. In fact we are overwhelmed by it. So what was necessary 2000 years ago is no longer so and can be downright annoying. Personal evangelizing today is serious overkill. We are surrounded by the Christian message and it is very easy to find for anyone interested in it.

Rational BAC · 05-28-2003, 06:33 AM

Looked at Bumble Bee's profile and almost certain that he is male. Have gotten hung on guessing gender incorrectly before so I try to be somewhat careful about that.

Anyway, am going to call him --him --rather than him/her or he/she from now on. If I am wrong about this, let me know.

If anyone has doubts about gender from my profile---(I assumed mine was obvious---Since I know of very few female retired Refrigeration/AC technicians aged 60. )--------I am a male.

fishbulb · 05-28-2003, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
[B]Basis of my (I think) mostly rational belief system---------

1-------It is most likely that there is a Supreme Being of some kind or other. Otherwise, your assumption has to be that Man is the highest life form in the universe.---------which I find seriously unlikely and irrational. (of course this subject could turn into a very long thread on its own)

Since you claim that this is a rational belief system, I should point out two major logical fallacies in this statement.

Appeal to consequence: you choose to believe in a supreme being not because there is evidence to support your belief, but because you don't find the alternative palateable. Rational belief is based on evidence that supports conclusions, not on the negative consequences associated with a belief being false.

False dilemma: either there is a supreme being or humans are the highest life form in the universe. Setting aside the question of what you mean by "highest life form," why can't there be entire galaxies teeming with life forms "higher" than human beings but who are not "supreme beings?"

Quote:

2-----Assuming that it is rational to assume the existence of a Supreme Being, and we don't get all bogged down on that, then which one of the many religions on earth? -----(it could be of course that none are correct--I leave open that option)

You don't really leave that option open because you immediately go on to conclude that Christianity gets it right. You haven't seriously considered the possibility that, even if some sort of god exists, no proposed religion gets it right.

Quote:

3----I like Christianity and the story of Jesus Christ. It appeals to me. It is what I am used to. I have a lot of familiarity with it. (although I am far from a Biblical expert--nor do I want to be).

So I have chosen Christianity. Admit I can't be 100% sure--but that is where faith comes in. If it turns out that, at the pearly gates, I am wrong about it, I really won't feel all that bad about it.
--------have made a rational decision that whoever is the Supreme Being is probably a pretty nice and tolerant guy anyway, and will give me a pass.------some of that could be called wishful thinking and thus faith based of course.

In fact, all of it can be called wishful thinking which is, in point of fact, not rational. Once again, you have committed the logical fallacy of appealing to consequence. You believe in Christianity because you are more familiar with it and because you like what you interpret as its philosophy. The truth of a propostion is in no way related to your familiarity of it, nor is it related to the advantageousness of it being true.

You claim to base your beliefs on rational thought, but all you have done is rationalized your beliefs: you try to explain why the beliefs you happen to hold are justified by making unsubstantiated assumptions that, if true, might tend to support your beliefs. Rational thought works the other way around: you start with all the facts and follow them to whatever conclusions they lead.

It is not rational to believe that one idea is more likely to be true than another just because you are more familiar with it or more comfortable with it. Other people are more familiar and comfortable with contradictory concepts, and at least one of you has to be wrong.

Saying that your beliefs are rational does not make them so. You admit freely that you chose to believe in Christianity because you like the belief system. There is nothing wrong with that (I suppose) but it is in no way rational to believe that something is true just because you would like it to be true. The fact that you leave open the possibility that you may be wrong means that your beliefs are not dogmatic, but it doesn't make them rational either.

Fundamentally, you seem to formulate your beliefs based on the comfort they bring you, not on the evidence that they are true. Whatever this may be, it is not rational.

Rational BAC · 05-28-2003, 08:06 AM

A lot of good points there.

Don't plan to argue with them all that much because you are probably technically correct. As a former technician, I do have a lot of respect for that. And we could argue back and forth point by point endlessly to no satisfactory conclusion.

However-------I still believe that Rational BAC is a good moniker. Have to admit I take a much more rational view of Christianity and spirituality in general than most believers do. At least, that is my not so humble opinion.

So, like it or not, as irrational or not as it may seem.-----------I am sticking with Rational BAC

Bumble Bee Tuna · 05-28-2003, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Basis of my (I think) mostly rational belief system---------

1-------It is most likely that there is a Supreme Being of some kind or other. Otherwise, your assumption has to be that Man is the highest life form in the universe.---------which I find seriously unlikely and irrational. (of course this subject could turn into a very long thread on its own)

Non sequitor.
Man not being the "highest life in the universe" (whatever that means) has NOTHING to do with the existence of a "Supreme Being". It would have everything to do with the existence of aliens. But you didn't explain WHY you find that assumption unlikely, so as it stands this is very irrational.

2. Assuming that it is rational to assume the existence of a Supreme Being, and we don't get all bogged down on that, then which one of the many religions on earth? -----(it could be of course that none are correct--I leave open that option)

Your "rational" assumtion in #1 has nothing to do with religions or gods. but yes, this is correct, if we were to assume a Supreme Being (ridiculous, irrational assumption), we would want to try to decide if a religion might have it right.

3. I like Christianity and the story of Jesus Christ. It appeals to me. It is what I am used to. I have a lot of familiarity with it. (although I am far from a Biblical expert--nor do I want to be).

And this is rational how? I like Star Wars. Does it hold cosmic truth?

I have chosen Christianity. Admit I can't be 100% sure--but that is where faith comes in. If it turns out that, at the pearly gates, I am wrong about it, I really won't feel all that bad about it. --------have made a rational decision that whoever is the Supreme Being is probably a pretty nice and tolerant guy anyway, and will give me a pass.------some of that could be called wishful thinking and thus faith based of course.

you call it both a "rational decision" AND "wishful thinking and thuus faith based of course". It is only the latter. Completely irrational, not based on any facts. And choosing a story is true because you like it is the height of irrationality.

4. I have no problem thinking that something very important of a supernatural nature did happen 2000 years ago. The early history of Christianity does point to that. That is where you get hung up on the "numbers" part. I don't.

Actually, you do. Whenever you explain WHY you have no problem thinking that, you use the Numbers Arguments as your reasoning. They are unsound reasoning. I'm only pointing that out. If you want to cease pretending they're valid, I will stop "being hung up" on it. The fact remains that you have absolutely no rational reason to believe a supernatural event occurred, and as Fenton pointed out a study of early Christian history would show you that.

5------I am not in any way a Biblical literalist. That is absurd to me. The idea that God directly inspired all those writers and committees to create the Bible we have today ---is absurd to me. Had God really wanted to directly create a Bible, then He would have done so----directly one on one with one human being, bonked on the head and told exactly what to write down.----

(----(You do have a point about the Qu'ran being written down in just that fashion----------too bad Muhammed was such a nut case (whoops--shouldn't have done that one--I know I said I disparaged no religion didn't I?)----------But Islam doesn't really affect my Christianity. I may read the Qu'ran some day and add on to my belief system (as a cherry picker of course). ----

About the only rational thing you've said all day. Yes, cherry picking from the Bible is less ridiculous than literal inerrancy. But it is still ridiculous.

6-----As far as my cherry picking in the Bible. I generally accept the Old Testament as just a context for the New Testament. Some of it is beautiful literature, most of it is boring, much of it is bunk.

In the New Testament, I take seriously what Jesus is purported to have said, but not word for word. Just a general idea of what He was trying to teach the world. I read the writings of Paul, but do not take him very seriously. I ignore the whole Book of Revelations as being the ravings of a lunatic.

7---------If I haven't made this clear enough yet, I will try now. ----------I believe that God in no way influenced how the Bible was written or what is written in it. It is just fallible man's attempt to try and explain supernatural events of a certain time. For whatever reason known only to God, God decided to stay the hell out of it and let Man figure the whole thing out. (perhaps as a test for us-----which is why cherry picking works the best--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could go on but----didn't we do all this in the "Cherry Picker" thread?

Yes, we did, so I won't cover your last points as they are irrelevant to our discussion.

I think that for a believer, especially a Christian believer, that I have a very rational outlook. Of course any belief system has to be somewhat based on "faith" and that part of it is irrational---will give you that.

You are more rational than other Christians. But you are NOT rational. That is the point of this thread. You are not "90% rational, 10% faith". That's ridiculous. I will explain by a parallel hypothetical situation:

Imagine I believe that the "Star Trek" series/movies are accurate portrayals of the future. Prophecies, of you will. But I have noticed that the Star Trek movies/shows often have contradictions in them. They can't be completely accurate. Thus, I cherry pick out some of the contradictory stuff. This is the only rational way to believe in the Star Trek prophecy!

Is my belief in Star Trek "90% rational"? Of course not. It is 100% irrational. If you base your argument on irrationality, the whole argument is irrational. Imagine a tree of logic here:

Code:

                                 -rational conclusion 1 
                                 -rational conclusion 2
rational premise1             /  -rational conclusion 3
- ---------------------------<     -rational conclusion 4
                    (logic)   \    -rational conclusion 5
                              /   - rational conclusion 6
- ---------------------------<    -rational conclusion 7
rational premise2             \   -rational conclusion 8
  \                                -rational conclusion 9
   \
    ---faith---------------irrational conclusion 1

Poorly drawn because I'm lazy. The point is, THIS would be 90% rational. 90% of conclusions are rational, 10% are irrational. You use logic to get conclusions from rational premises, it's rational. You use faith to draw conclusions from rational premises, it's irrational.

Code:

                                                        - irrational conclusion 1  
                                                    /   -irrational conclusion 2
-irrational premise 1---------------logic----------<    -irrational conclusion 3
                                                    =  - irrational conclusion 4
-irrational premise 2---------------logic----------<    -irrational conclusion 5
                                                    \   -irrational conclusion 6
                                                        -irrational conclusion 7
                                                        -irrational conclusion  8

This is you. You are starting with irrational premises. Even though you are using logic and rationality to find conclusions form those premises, the final conclusions are still irrational because they are based on irrational premises.

To be rational, every step of your logical process must be rational, including your premises.

And I have pointed out, your basic premises:

1. There must be a Supreme Being
2. Something supernatural must have happened 2000 years ago

are completely irrational. Any conclusions drawn from these premises is also irrational.

Even after I debunked your reasons for premise #2, you keep on making the assertion:

Quote:

I believe that it is quite likely that something supernatural did happen 2000 years ago. I find it unlikely (irrational if you like) that nothing happened at all, that the whole thing was just a made up story. If you feel that way, fine-------but your way just does not seem very likely to me.

You need to explain WHY it is not likely. Only then will it have a chance of being rational.

You've been saying you don't think Islam is just a story. There really aren't options. Either Islam's truth-claims are true, in which case you need to convert ASAP, or they are false, and Islam is just a story. Since you have not converted to Islam, "just a (false) story" is the only explanation.

Let me clarify the purpose of this thread. The purpose of this thread is to see if you have any rational foundation to your beliefs. Not what rational techniques you might use to draw conclusions from your premises, but what rational techniques you used to select the premises. Your 11 points have mostly been off-topic. I am challenging your assertion that your beliefs are rational/90% rational. That is the purpose of this thread. If you don't want to do that, fine, but that just means I'm going to hound you about it every time you try to make that claim that you're rational. You are not, and I want you to recognize that. I don't care about whether you keep your beliefs or not- you seem happy with them and are reasonable enough not to hurt anyone. But I want you to end your charade that the beliefs are rationally based or that anything here is "a toss-up", and your position is equivalent to atheism in terms of rationality. It is not.

-B

Rational BAC · 05-28-2003, 08:35 AM

Fair enough Bumble Bee---------

Going to keep my moniker anyway though.

Works for me, if not for you.
----------------------------------------

PS---------let you win didn't I?.

You worked very hard on that. I think you deserve it.

I like to help people feel good about themselves.

The Other Michael · 05-28-2003, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
PS---------let you win didn't I?.

You worked very hard on that. I think you deserve it.

I like to help people feel good about themselves.

Hello Rational BAC,

I was going to PM you with this, but you've not turned PMs on.

Your comment "let you win didn't I?" is hopefully just a poor job of phrasing on your part, as it seems quite patronizing, if not insulting, to me.

Do you really mean "there, there, you poor little atheist, I took pity on your hard work and I've let you "win" so that you'll feel good about yourself"? If that is indeed your attitude I'd suggest that you may find the number of people willing to engage you in discussion to drop off pretty sharply.

If that wasn't your intended meaning, you might want to clarify your actual intent.

cheers,
Michael

Rational BAC · 05-28-2003, 11:23 AM

Most probably a poor job of phrasing. -----

Didn't mean it patronizingly at all. I did want to acknowledge all of Bumble Bee's effort in this. Seems like a very sincere young man. And, actually, I like him. I make a little fun of him sometimes. And he makes a little fun of me too sometimes. I consider it all to be good-natured. If it seemed insulting, I did not truly mean it that way, and I am sorry.

I can change it from "I let you win" to "You won" if that seems better. Was just acknowledging on the first one that no one ever really convinces anyone that I have found on this forum of a complete 180 degree about face. Nor would anyone really expect that to happen, either by a theist or a non-theist.

I think we should just try to understand each other a little better. And that is the best that can be gained.

I think I understand Bumble Bee a little better and for that I am grateful. I hope he understands me a little bit better too.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-27-2003, 08:51 PM	#11
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Now it may seem to some of you that I have sidetracked Bumble Bee's thread. ---------- I don't think I have. I think I have broadened it. The question is about the rationality of my born again Christianity. It is much more to my taste to state my general beliefs and concerns about Christianity and let you all decide whether I am thinking rationally or not. It may not be to Bumble Bee's taste, ---------but it is very difficult for me to argue what seem to me to be very minor points ad nauseum. --------Probably major points to Bumble Bee as he/she is trying to count the angels on the head of a pin, but a little silly to me. To each his own, I guess. But I think the broader outlook works just as well as the severely restricted one. I have said before and will say again that Fundies have an awful lot in common with atheists in that way. So if the mods think that I am sidetracking this thread, I can assure them that I don't think I am doing that at all. Just improving it.

05-28-2003, 05:16 AM	#12
CaptainOfOuterSpace Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Cleveland, OH, USA Posts: 137	RBAC: If I may ask, what originally caused you to become a "born-again" christian? And what were you before that? In other words, what series of events in your life caused you to switch over?

05-28-2003, 05:44 AM	#13
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	I was an agnostic before that. Didn't really know one way or the other and assumed I would never know. I did not however turn into a literalist, fundamentalist Christian because of my "born again" experience. Fundies think they own that "born again" phrase and it must mean believing exactly #1 #2 #3 #4. etc. or you were not truly "born again". They are wrong. They do not own that term in any way. Don't really want to get into detail about my "born again" experience. It was a very personal thing that happened during a very difficult part of my life and it is probably the usual Fundy type (epiphany) experience in that way. Probably not even that unusual an experience compared to most Fundy stories. ---- ---Most fundies will try to bore you to tears and also open themselves up to ridicule going into great detail about their born again experience, hoping that by their example they might convert you. I won't do that. ----------Which brings us to ---- #11----------Proseletyzing or evangelizing or anything you want to call it ---------- --------but what it really is --is ----being a pain in the buttt. I think "spreading the word" made a heck of a lot of sense 2000 years ago when almost nobody could read and write and transmission of information was done almost totally by word of mouth and oral tradition. And is why evangelism is stressed so strongy in the Bible. But that was 2000 years ago. This is the year 2003 and we have no problem getting info. In fact we are overwhelmed by it. So what was necessary 2000 years ago is no longer so and can be downright annoying. Personal evangelizing today is serious overkill. We are surrounded by the Christian message and it is very easy to find for anyone interested in it.

05-28-2003, 06:33 AM	#14
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Looked at Bumble Bee's profile and almost certain that he is male. Have gotten hung on guessing gender incorrectly before so I try to be somewhat careful about that. Anyway, am going to call him --him --rather than him/her or he/she from now on. If I am wrong about this, let me know. If anyone has doubts about gender from my profile---(I assumed mine was obvious---Since I know of very few female retired Refrigeration/AC technicians aged 60. )--------I am a male.

05-28-2003, 08:06 AM	#16
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	A lot of good points there. Don't plan to argue with them all that much because you are probably technically correct. As a former technician, I do have a lot of respect for that. And we could argue back and forth point by point endlessly to no satisfactory conclusion. However-------I still believe that Rational BAC is a good moniker. Have to admit I take a much more rational view of Christianity and spirituality in general than most believers do. At least, that is my not so humble opinion. So, like it or not, as irrational or not as it may seem.-----------I am sticking with Rational BAC

05-28-2003, 08:35 AM	#18
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Fair enough Bumble Bee--------- Going to keep my moniker anyway though. Works for me, if not for you. ---------------------------------------- PS---------let you win didn't I?. You worked very hard on that. I think you deserve it. I like to help people feel good about themselves.

05-28-2003, 11:23 AM	#20
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Most probably a poor job of phrasing. ----- Didn't mean it patronizingly at all. I did want to acknowledge all of Bumble Bee's effort in this. Seems like a very sincere young man. And, actually, I like him. I make a little fun of him sometimes. And he makes a little fun of me too sometimes. I consider it all to be good-natured. If it seemed insulting, I did not truly mean it that way, and I am sorry. I can change it from "I let you win" to "You won" if that seems better. Was just acknowledging on the first one that no one ever really convinces anyone that I have found on this forum of a complete 180 degree about face. Nor would anyone really expect that to happen, either by a theist or a non-theist. I think we should just try to understand each other a little better. And that is the best that can be gained. I think I understand Bumble Bee a little better and for that I am grateful. I hope he understands me a little bit better too.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.