Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bumble Bee Tuna · 05-27-2003, 01:25 PM

The following is a reply I made to Rational BAC in the "Are Fundies a Minority?" thread. I'm making a new thread because the post was seriously off-topic. It was a reply to RBAC denying that he had argued for Christianity from what I deemed the "Argument from Swiftly Increasing Numbers"...An argument that Christianity grew fast and therefore it was likely to have had a supernatural event to spur its growth, therefore the bible is true.
As a sidenote, my "psychoanalysis" was in jest, because I was accused of reading into his posts too much.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna

Quote:

Something happened 2000 years ago that was supernatural (call that part a belief if you want, which in essence it is, but I think it is also a rational explanation of the surprisingly fast rise of Christianity and the tenacity and stubborness of its early martyrs.)

Quote:

No--- I just find it more likely that some type of supernatural events happened than not due to the circumstances concerning the rise of early Christendom. Atheists believe that the whole thing was a made up story. I find that explanation possible but unlikely. It is a toss up. I think I'm right. You think you're right. Live and let live.

These two sentences all but explicitly scream "I am a Christian because Christianity rose to power really fast in its early days, leading me to believe a supernatural event happened and therefore the Bible is telling the truth about God".

Atheist and Christians believe that Islam is just a made up story, just like all the other religions. You are trying to be rational. You find the "made up story" explanation to be "unlikely" about Christianity yet likely about Islam. Why? Well, the reaosning you offered is "the surprisingly fast rise of Christianity and the tenacity and stubborness of its early martyrs".

I point out that Islam rose even faster (it also had martyrs, btw), and upon seeing that you pretend you never tried to make the argument. Well, looking at the statements I quoted above, I find it immensely hard to believe you weren't trying to make that argument. Call it "reading into" what you said too far, but I think I am reading it for exactly what it says. If you want me to read into the things you say though, I could give it a shot...

You are a rational person. Youtry to be rational in everything you do. I might even go so far as to say that you despise being irrational and feel stupid/guilty/wrong for doing so (as well you should, IMO!). However, your faith has also helped you in great ways in your life. You have mentioned the great change your born-again experience was. This makes your faith very dear to you. However, you recognize that your faith is irrational. You really don't like that. You really want to be rational, and try to pretend (this is why you felt the need to pick the username "Rational BAC"- being rational is your big focus, and you realize "BAC" stands for something that is definitely not rational. You want a rational foundation for your faith. Because of this, you developed your Argument from Numbers and Argument from Swiftly Increasing Numbers to try to give your faith a rational foundation. By no means do you consider these to be proof for God, but that's not what you want.

What you want is to be able to say: Look at this argument! Sure it doesn't prove God, but it at least says that theism isn't an absurd position.I could be wrong, but lets all just be friends, and live and let live. We're all rational here!...It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. Your arguments are NOT rational. I think you recognize this, because you're always quick to deny your arguments came from your mouth as soon as someone points out the fallacies involved. But then as soon as you're done denying them, you go right back to spitting them out again when your faith is questioned. You can't stand to say "I just believe in God out of pure faith". That's too irrational for you, it makes you feel too guilty. You instead feel the need to say "Well, I believe in God because ______ implies that something supernatural probably happened 2000 years ago, and so it seems like I've got a decent chance of being right...THEN I use faith to bridge the gap". ____ is always either "Well, Christianity is so popular" (Argument from Numbers) or "Well, Christianity grew really fast" (The new, Argument from Rapidly Increasing Numbers) or even the good old Argument from Alleged Martyrs. None of these apply only to Christianity and your latest, the Argument from Increasing Numbers, applies much better to Islam.

If I really wanted to get into your deep subcoscious and probably be much more likely to be wrong, I'd say you secretly want to be an atheist because you realize it's the only rational conclusion. You even decided to come to II because you are subcosciously hoping to deconvert. Of course, that's almost certainly wrong, but while I'm making unsubstantiated assertions about your inner motives I might as well.

Now THAT is reading into your posts. Is it true? I have no idea. But I think it's a pretty good armchair psychiatrist guess. It doesn't matter, though- I only reply to what you post, not to what I think your hidden reasons are. The above was somewhat in jest.

What I would like from you, though, and perhaps I should devote a new thread to this:

Either A:
Admit that you do not have a rational foundation for your beliefs.
or B:
Explain what rational basis you have for your beliefs.

Every time this has come up before, you have chosen B and then used the Argument from Numbers or Argument from Swiftly Increasing Numbers as your rational foundation. And every time, I have pointed out how these arguments are fallacious and not applicable. What you need to do is either defend against my rebuttals or admit that the belief is not rational. If my free psychoanalysis is on the mark, though, you would be very troubled by being forced to admit not having a rational foundation.

I suspect the reason you can't call Xianity "just a story" but you have no problems doing so about all the other religions is just personal experience. It bothers you too much to admit that most of the seemingly smart people you know would buy into a fake story. Islam though, you don't know many followers of so it's easier to say that the faceless strangers were fooled.

So what do you say? Are you willing to admit that your beliefs have no rational foundation? If not, please create a separate thread to address my comments and discuss what your foundation is. If you are though, please, let's get this over with! I need to save the quote so I can remind you of it the next time you bring out your "hey, it's a toss-up, I think my beliefs are more probable than yours because _____" line.

I'm a nitpick, damnit, and I simply won't stand for inconsistent beliefs! I'm going to call you on them every time.

Yes, I know this post was both tediously long, AND off-topic, but it was really fun and I couldn't stop.

-B

Rational BAC · 05-27-2003, 04:32 PM

Bumble Bee---
--

-Realized you were jesting in your post. I was also jesting about the bean counter part. ---------- Although it does seem you like to nit pick a lot. I like broad generalities, you like details. Difference in temperament that way between you and me.

Somehow you have gotten the strange notion that I think that Islam is just a made up story. I don't think I ever said that.

I have said that Islam is supposed to have the same God as Christianity. And I won't quarrel with that. Why should I?

Islam did have a very fast growth period, so I assume some importance to it. As I assume some importance to Christianity for the same reason.

I believe I stated that I am a Christian because I am most familiar with it. I have nothing against adding to my Christianity spirituality from other sources. I have never denigrated any religion. (granted I called Muhammed " a little bastard" ---but I do things like that sometimes just to lighten things up---nothing real personal against Muhammed meant)

You seem to think my Christianity is irrational. I don't see that myself. Of course any time you make up a deficiency with a faith or "belief" then of course that part could be called irrational. I never said I was 100% rational with my Christianity. I have said many times that I was not. Call it 90% reason and 10% faith if you like. Or any other set of numbers you like as long as the rational part is the majority----which I believe it is.

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. Still --it is a toss up. You believe what you want. I'll believe what I want. Neither of us knows for sure anyway. Your rationality is just as suspect in thinking that nothing happened at all as mine is for thinking that something did happen.

You keep bringing up the "numbers" thing as if that is the basis of everything. It is not. High numbers just indicate to me something to pay attention to. Islam has high numbers too. It also should be paid attention to. As should any other religions with high numbers.

Islam, of course, uses the same God as Christianity and Judaism. So I don't see why you keep suggesting I convert to Islam. I would be converting to nowhere different at all as far as God is concerned.

Post getting long. Back later.

Rational BAC · 05-27-2003, 05:17 PM

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)

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)

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.

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.

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). ----

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?

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.

Yellum Notnef · 05-27-2003, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
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.

Nobody but Christian apologists or those ignorant of Christian history would make the above statement.

I don't want to get involved with this,but I have to say that "cherry picking" what parts of the bible you wish to believe seems to be the least of your hurdles on your quest to be rational.

Rational BAC · 05-27-2003, 05:44 PM

Fenton----

I am not sure I really want to get into this either.

There is a seemingly interminable thread called "Cherry Pickers" where this was all thrashed ad nauseum out to no real conclusion. I am sure that I convinced no atheists on that thread. Nor did they convince me.

But, maybe we ended up understanding each other a little better. Which, I think is the whole point of this discussion forum.

I do remember on that thread finally saying something like "We have gone over the same things 4 or 5 times you know"

Just trying to answer Bumble Bee. Maybe I shouldn't have.

(I know that just #1--existence of a Supreme Being ---we could argue back and forth on for like forever. )

Yellum Notnef · 05-27-2003, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Fenton----

I am not sure I really want to get into this either.

There is a seemingly interminable thread called "Cherry Pickers" where this was all thrashed ad nauseum out to no real conclusion. I am sure that I convinced no atheists on that thread. Nor did they convince me.

I do remember on that thread finally saying something like "We have gone over the same things 4 or 5 times you know"

I stopped reading that thread after the first half dozen or so posts. I'm not going to comment on it.

Quote:

Just trying to answer Bumble Bee. Maybe I shouldn't have.

Why not answer him? Mr. B started this thread just for you. Unless you're not so secure with your answers.......

Quote:

(I know that just #1--existence of a Supreme Being ---we could argue back and forth on for like forever. )

It wouldn't last nearly as long as forever. Speculating that there might be a "supreme being" or some sort of creator out in the universe is one thing. Proving that this thing is responsible for or even gives a damn about your religion is a very different matter.

I say your religion has more to do with the Sun and the Moon than with an alleged supreme being. You can look back at the history of the worlds religions and see evidence for my claim as well as go outside and see these things for yourself.
Where might I have to look to see your evidence?

Rational BAC · 05-27-2003, 06:32 PM

Fenton --

Not really insecure,-------

----- but I get quickly bored with what I consider to be nit picking. Some enjoy that. Bumble Bee definitely does. I don't. Was why I said I thought he/she would make an excellent bean counter accountant. Not meant disparagingly either. Some of my best friends are accountants and they make excellent money.

Yellum Notnef · 05-27-2003, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Fenton --

Not really insecure,-------

----- but I get quickly bored with what I consider to be nit picking. Some enjoy that. Bumble Bee definitely does. I don't. Was why I said I thought he/she would make an excellent bean counter accountant. Not meant disparagingly either. Some of my best friends are accountants and they make excellent money.

Bumble Bee is just trying to get you to explain what is so rational about your "cherry picker" version of Christianity. YOU are the one who came here to tell us all about it,but when we try to hold you to anything you've said,you tell us we are "nit picking".

What's the point of starting these discussions?

Rational BAC · 05-27-2003, 07:20 PM

Fenton ---

I didn't start this one.

Live and learn on starting things you have to live with seemingly forever. I have learned pretty much not to start threads.

I would rather get in on someone else's thread and put my 2 cents in as a "Rational Born Again Christian" ----because I think it does add to and develop the discussion. Intransigent Fundies arguing with intransigent atheists just goes around in circles. Apples and oranges stuff. And can get very boring.

Except for the "Are Fundies a minority?" thread, which was, I thought, a very important one to bring up because that subject seems to be of great concern to atheists --and justifiably so.-----------------I have tried to stay away from starting threads.

Rational BAC · 05-27-2003, 08:14 PM

Am going to continue with this---

Not because I really want to get into a picayune debate on very minor points with Bumble Bee. I do not. I don't plan to answer any questions in detail on this thread.

But since I've gotten all the way up to #7, will go on with #8 and on-------so that anyone who wants a somewhat vague idea of my beliefs and where I am coming from when I post---they will find it here.

#8-----------I have serious problems with the concept of "original sin"------Have read Genesis many times and I don't see it. Original sin was definitely original for Adam and Eve but for all humanity to suffer from what they did is absurd. I think that original sin was tacked on later to try and justify the reason for the resurrection. Which brings us to----------

#9----------The resurrection-----Why did Jesus die on the cross? I don't really think it had much of anything to do with saving us from our original sin.--(which I don't believe in anyway). I think it had to to with showing us humans that there really was an afterlife. That was the whole point of it. And the only point of it --IMHO.

#10-------The trinity----------The trinity makes no sense to me at all. There are most obviously 3 different and separate spirits in the Bible. The whole point of proclaiming "one for all and all for one" --kind of like the 3 Musketeers----------done by the Council of Nicea --was to make an obviously tripartied deity into a monotheistic one. But I just don't see it. Can anybody explain the trinity to me in any way that makes any sense at all?---meant for theists I guess.

Enough for now. May think of some others later.

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

05-27-2003, 04:32 PM	#2
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Bumble Bee--- -- -Realized you were jesting in your post. I was also jesting about the bean counter part. ---------- Although it does seem you like to nit pick a lot. I like broad generalities, you like details. Difference in temperament that way between you and me. Somehow you have gotten the strange notion that I think that Islam is just a made up story. I don't think I ever said that. I have said that Islam is supposed to have the same God as Christianity. And I won't quarrel with that. Why should I? Islam did have a very fast growth period, so I assume some importance to it. As I assume some importance to Christianity for the same reason. I believe I stated that I am a Christian because I am most familiar with it. I have nothing against adding to my Christianity spirituality from other sources. I have never denigrated any religion. (granted I called Muhammed " a little bastard" ---but I do things like that sometimes just to lighten things up---nothing real personal against Muhammed meant) You seem to think my Christianity is irrational. I don't see that myself. Of course any time you make up a deficiency with a faith or "belief" then of course that part could be called irrational. I never said I was 100% rational with my Christianity. I have said many times that I was not. Call it 90% reason and 10% faith if you like. Or any other set of numbers you like as long as the rational part is the majority----which I believe it is. 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. Still --it is a toss up. You believe what you want. I'll believe what I want. Neither of us knows for sure anyway. Your rationality is just as suspect in thinking that nothing happened at all as mine is for thinking that something did happen. You keep bringing up the "numbers" thing as if that is the basis of everything. It is not. High numbers just indicate to me something to pay attention to. Islam has high numbers too. It also should be paid attention to. As should any other religions with high numbers. Islam, of course, uses the same God as Christianity and Judaism. So I don't see why you keep suggesting I convert to Islam. I would be converting to nowhere different at all as far as God is concerned. Post getting long. Back later.

05-27-2003, 05:17 PM	#3
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	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) 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) 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. 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. 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). ---- 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? 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.

05-27-2003, 05:44 PM	#5
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Fenton---- I am not sure I really want to get into this either. There is a seemingly interminable thread called "Cherry Pickers" where this was all thrashed ad nauseum out to no real conclusion. I am sure that I convinced no atheists on that thread. Nor did they convince me. But, maybe we ended up understanding each other a little better. Which, I think is the whole point of this discussion forum. I do remember on that thread finally saying something like "We have gone over the same things 4 or 5 times you know" Just trying to answer Bumble Bee. Maybe I shouldn't have. (I know that just #1--existence of a Supreme Being ---we could argue back and forth on for like forever. )

05-27-2003, 06:32 PM	#7
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Fenton -- Not really insecure,------- ----- but I get quickly bored with what I consider to be nit picking. Some enjoy that. Bumble Bee definitely does. I don't. Was why I said I thought he/she would make an excellent bean counter accountant. Not meant disparagingly either. Some of my best friends are accountants and they make excellent money.

05-27-2003, 07:20 PM	#9
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Fenton --- I didn't start this one. Live and learn on starting things you have to live with seemingly forever. I have learned pretty much not to start threads. I would rather get in on someone else's thread and put my 2 cents in as a "Rational Born Again Christian" ----because I think it does add to and develop the discussion. Intransigent Fundies arguing with intransigent atheists just goes around in circles. Apples and oranges stuff. And can get very boring. Except for the "Are Fundies a minority?" thread, which was, I thought, a very important one to bring up because that subject seems to be of great concern to atheists --and justifiably so.-----------------I have tried to stay away from starting threads.

05-27-2003, 08:14 PM	#10
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Am going to continue with this--- Not because I really want to get into a picayune debate on very minor points with Bumble Bee. I do not. I don't plan to answer any questions in detail on this thread. But since I've gotten all the way up to #7, will go on with #8 and on-------so that anyone who wants a somewhat vague idea of my beliefs and where I am coming from when I post---they will find it here. #8-----------I have serious problems with the concept of "original sin"------Have read Genesis many times and I don't see it. Original sin was definitely original for Adam and Eve but for all humanity to suffer from what they did is absurd. I think that original sin was tacked on later to try and justify the reason for the resurrection. Which brings us to---------- #9----------The resurrection-----Why did Jesus die on the cross? I don't really think it had much of anything to do with saving us from our original sin.--(which I don't believe in anyway). I think it had to to with showing us humans that there really was an afterlife. That was the whole point of it. And the only point of it --IMHO. #10-------The trinity----------The trinity makes no sense to me at all. There are most obviously 3 different and separate spirits in the Bible. The whole point of proclaiming "one for all and all for one" --kind of like the 3 Musketeers----------done by the Council of Nicea --was to make an obviously tripartied deity into a monotheistic one. But I just don't see it. Can anybody explain the trinity to me in any way that makes any sense at all?---meant for theists I guess. Enough for now. May think of some others later.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.