Uni-Universe

Cap,

Both is no. I am leaning more toward "pantheism." I don't think the Universe intervenes in anything. For one, the Universe-God exists outside time and space. Perhaps human beings become aware of "it" and experience things they can't directly define. Who knows? I am not going to define other people's experiences.

I have my own set of beliefs that may resemble other people's but I keep mine open for change. A Person who is stuck with one belief that does not evolve at all is not the type of person I want to be.

It is fine that you and others are convinced having beliefs is delusional. I am working toward not being affected by lack of acceptance or tolerance from others. I personally believe that regardless of belief the only way the human race is going to find peace is through tolerance. So far, everyone is too concerned about being the only ones who are right. I say, that really no one is "right" because there are too many things we do not know about everything. So no one can be "right" right now. LOL! If we knew everything, then we could consider ourselves "right."

(whispers: Can you tell I have a problem with people who believe they have the one truth?)

Biff the unclean

I'll be hornswoggoled if I can understand what you are talking about.

You claim "the Universe-God exists outside time and space." That brings up two questions 1) how can you possibly have come by this information, and 2) what the heck does it even mean?

You comment that "…our knowledge is limited by what we currently know through science etc." Which is true, but then you portray our not knowing everything as our not knowing anything. (I say, that really no one is "right" because there are too many things we do not know about everything. So no one can be "right" right now. LOL!) Which is completely unfounded.

"whispers: Can you tell I have a problem with people who believe they have the one truth?"
No, all I'm getting out of this is that you are not being tolerant of others in the same blurb that you boast about your high degree of tolerance.
:banghead:

Stephen T-B

Way back on Page One Brighid wrote: “As atheists we simply disbelieve in ONE more God then you do.”
I think that is the most succinct explanation of the atheist / Christian divergence I’ve come across, and well worth remembering.
It does, however, disguise a bottomless chasm.
Disbelieving in one less god, with the consequence that he believes in no god at all, is something that JoeElliott could not even begin to do because while the Christian god is no more real to an atheist than is Zeus or Thor, to a Christian like JoeElliott it is as life itself.
His OP, I think, provided an insight into this state of mind, and it reveals why the Christian (Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon or whatever) can never be dislodged from his Faith by appeals to reason or by another person’s inability to recognise the “evidence” which, to the Believer, is self-evident and beyond question.
And it is why JoeElliott is totally bewildered by us atheists.

Biff the unclean

I don't think you are correct Stephen, at least I hope you aren't.

When I was an undergraduate I belonged to my universities Catholic Society (you see there was this really beautiful girl who was a member and…well never mind) One day the first Atheist I had ever seen showed up. The guy was African-American, lower class, very poorly spoken, strangely dressed. He got into a discussion with the other kids that I eaves dropped on. One kid (the beautiful girl actually) said "I do not need proof that God exists for I have Faith (her caps)" "Da be a goud ting then," replied the Atheist,"cause youse ain't got no proof." This incensed me. Of course there was proof. Who did this uneducated jerk think he was anyway? I would find it and throw it in his arrogant face.

But, of course, he was right. There was no proof to be had. And my entire life changed…for the better.

Just because a person is a Believer doesn't mean that they are blind. They might just not be looking and assuming that what they have always been told is correct.

Kuyper

I would be curious to know why you think that? Why is evidence necessary for belief to be rational? What evidence is there that that statement is even true?

K

Philosoft

It's true by definition if 'rational belief' = 'belief supported by evidence.' If you wish to make the argument that 'rational belief' has other meanings, please continue.

braces_for_impact

I'm sorry you took this as arrogance, as this was not my intent. In truth I have learned much in ii (as I have remarked numerous times in other threads). My intent was merely to suggest that the reader recognize his/her own bias when reading and replying to posts here, which of course is good advice to anyone. Especially when one thinks (as I did) that I was addressing a new poster.

But then, I AM arrogant...



Uni-Universe

To me you seem to be saying that this god exists outside of time and space, is non detectable, doesn't involve itself in human affairs, and has the same characteristics of the universe. I ask:

What's the point then? How is this at all distinct from the universe itself? And even if it is, why should I care if it resembles the universe in every way, shape and form with the exception that it somehow exists 'outside' of space/time?

Kuyper

I don't think appeal to a definition is going to be of much help. The definition as you give it smacks of being a circular argument: to be rational a belief must have evidence because by defintion only beliefs based on evidence are rational. Whether or not that is even true is the point about which I raised the question.

Furthermore, what make this the definition of rational belief? The definition is self-refuting. In order to accept it as being rational, you would need to have evidence for it. What evidence is there that "rational belief=belief supported by evidence"?

K

Jobar

Uni-Universe, I am not arguing with your philosophical position here; in fact, if you look at my profile you'll see I'm listed as an atheist/pantheist. As a moderator though- yes, I have once more donned my EoG mod hat- I must point out that you are taking this thread way off topic. Read the title. Then tell me if you consider your conception of God to be the *Christian* God.

If you want to spin off a topic about your ideas, please do. However, this thread is not the appropriate place. J.

Philosoft

I'm not sure what you're asking for. "Rational" is an attribute, an adjective used to describe something else. It's not something that needs to be evidenced; we just say something is "rational" if it has properties x, y and z.
Why do you need evidence for a definition? If you wish to have the common usage changed, then you need to argue for a more inclusive definition.

The evidence is that this is what people mean when they say "rational belief."