Freethought & Rationalism Archive

BadBadBad · 07-22-2003, 12:45 PM

Here's an exchange between Milton and RBAC:

Rational BAC :

Quote:

I still say that since there is so little written about heaven or an afterlife in the Bible (almost nothing at all)----------the obvious assumption (since we are dealing with an obviously very serious gross omission here)--------is that we can make up any kind of heaven or afterlife we want, and cannot be proven to be wrong. We all are just guessing on this.

I like my guesses better than your guesses.

My guess is lots of sex, good booze, the best food, mucho entertainment of all kinds------the Life of Riley.

If you would rather have a sexless, colorless, boring heaven (or afterlife)-----that is your choice. I hope you will be happy with it.

The counter argument from Milton:

Quote:

Yea, you can create your own fantasy world. But you forget that you already claimed to believe the concept of heaven as prescribed by Christianity--indirectly, the Biblical concept of the after-life.

So, with that said, you can't have anything of what you have just claimed. Because nothing will be there. We will be completely blank. You won't even be given a choice as to what you want or not, you will be erased before you can see life again. In other words, oblivion awaits your consciousness!

Milton fell into RBAC's little trap. He's trying to defeat RBAC by limiting him to what the Bible says. Silly Milton!

Counter argument from Brettc:

Quote:

RBAC's argument with respect to the attributes of Heaven is irrational since he readily admits his core belief in Heaven and God is irrational. What the Bible says about Heaven is nonsensical. RBAC agrees that what the Bible says about Heaven is the nonsensical musings of ignorant and corrupt men. We have no other evidence to support the existence or even a definition of Heaven outside of the Bible. Therefore, we should conclude that Heaven doesn't exist. People don't go there after death and have all the sex they want. Not only is that concept irrational, it's absurd and ridiculous.

Who's argument is more rational?

BadBadBad · 07-22-2003, 01:37 PM

RBAC argues:

"The OT is man-made myth," but a limited portion of the NT is true, and that truth is unassailable.

Brettc responds:

I agree that the OT is a man-made myth. In addition, the NT is shown to be myth using the same reasoning that RBAC agrees with.

RBAC reasons that Genesis, the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the burning bush, parting the red sea, God ordained slaughter and genocide, prophesy including the supposed prophesies on Jesus Christ, the definition of God itself as defined in the OT are all false and mythical.

The NT uses the same mythical definition of God which is defined by the OT. RBAC admits the definition of God as defined in the OT is mythical.

RBAC cannot define which portions of the NT are truthful.

RBAC frequently changes his mind as to which parts of the NT are truthful.

All of the portions of the NT RBAC considers truthful have the same elements of supernatural silliness that RBAC himself discounts in the NT, OT, and all other religions.

RBAC admits that all of the portions of the NT he believes in suffer from the same history of fraud in authorship and transmission as do the portions he discounts. For example, the Gospel of Mark includes the story of demon possessed pigs. RBAC believes this is a fraudulent or mythical story. This story was written by the same author or was inserted during the same history as the story of the resurrection. Whether one story is in fact true and untainted by history is irrelevant. RBAC admits there is no reliable evidence or any other rational basis to conclude that the resurrection story is not tainted equally with the pig story.

RBAC admits that his belief in any portion of the NT is entirely irrational.

RBAC has no rational arguments to offer with respect his belief in any portion of the NT.

Therefore without any other rational arguments from RBAC, we should conclude that both the NT and OT are myth in their principle tennants. As myth, neither provide any evidence for the existence of God. There is no other evidence at all outside of the Bible to support the existence of the Christian God. Therefore, the rational conclusion is to believe that God does not exist.

Rational BAC · 07-22-2003, 05:00 PM

(I knew I shouldn't have gotten back into this thread)

That was a very long and very well thought out post(s).

OK---Where are we now?

I am allowed to consider myself very rational in all things as long as I give up all metaphysical belief or discussion of any metaphysical belief?

If I say that the OT is myth, then I am being rational.

If I say that I believe by faith that the NT does contain some truth (even though badly corrupted by Man), then I am still being irrational when I question or try to determine the validity of the rest of the NT that I do not believe in by faith.

I just seem to drip with irrationality no matter what I do.---------I can make exactly the same statement about something in the Bible that an atheist does (word for word).--------and the atheist would be making a rational statement and I would be making an irrational one. That is your position--correct?

In other words, when I question the validity of the pig story, I am being irrational. When I question the validity of original sin, I am being irrational. When I question the validity of the trinity, then I am being irrational.

Why do I get the strange impression that there is in effect, almost no difference many times between a Fundy and some atheists? ---------- "All or nothing at all"---reminds me of a song.

BadBadBad · 07-22-2003, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
OK---Where are we now?

Where we are now is that I'm waiting for you to respond to my argument not your strawman.

Quote:

I am allowed to consider myself very rational in all things as long as I give up all metaphysical belief or discussion of any metaphysical belief?

If I say that the OT is myth, then I am being rational.

Whether you are rational or not and when you are rational or not is not my argument. I've stated that. I've explained that many many times now. This is a strawman argument. Do you intend to acknowledge or deny that point, or are you just going to continue arguing it anyway?

Quote:

If I say that I believe by faith that the NT does contain some truth (even though badly corrupted by Man), then I am still being irrational when I question or try to determine the validity of the rest of the NT that I do not believe in by faith.

This incorporates both strawman arguments that you've been whooping up on for quite some time now. One more time now, whether you are "being irrational" or not is not my argument. The rationality of your arguments against mainline christian beliefs and the Bible is not my argument.

Quote:

I just seem to drip with irrationality no matter what I do.---------I can make exactly the same statement about something in the Bible that an atheist does (word for word).--------and the atheist would be making a rational statement and I would be making an irrational one. That is your position--correct?

You're kind of like Bruce Lee with those flying round house kicks whooping up on both these strawman at the same time like nobody's business. Wow! Kind of exciting just to watch you go at it.

Quote:

In other words, when I question the validity of the pig story, I am being irrational. When I question the validity of original sin, I am being irrational. When I question the validity of the trinity, then I am being irrational.

Why do I get the strange impression that there is in effect, almost no difference many times between a Fundy and some atheists? ---------- "All or nothing at all"---reminds me of a song.

Now he goes in for the kill. Oh my God, it's gruesome. The strawman is DEAD! The strawman is DEAD! Long live RBAC the strawman killer!

BadBadBad · 07-22-2003, 09:55 PM

If we can get back to my argument, I thought about this today. I said I could come up with rational arguments against the existence of God. I was wrong about that. I can make rational arguments against many common arguments for the existence of the Christian God.

RBAC, as I've demonstrated, your arguments in favor of your definition of God and your doctrine that defines your individual brand of Christianity are particularly simple to defeat.

BadBadBad · 07-22-2003, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
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 .

Quote:

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".

[quote]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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

BBT nailed you to the wall in the OP RBAC. This whole thread has been drug hopelessly off topic. The original question is in the subject line. "Do you have any rational foundation for your beliefs." BBT's main complaint is that your Your arguments are NOT rational

He also wanted you to admit that your core beliefs were irrational. Instead, you continued to argue the rationality of your core beliefs. For BBT, here are the quotes:

Quote:

Originally posted by RationalBAC
I hold a few faith based beliefs, very simple really and very few-------Jesus lived, was a semi-God, born of Mary, was crucified, died and was resurrected---thereby proving the existence of an afterlife. Anything beyond that is open to debate for me. What any of it really means is open to debate for me.

I admit I have no rational basis to believe in these very few things. But my faith in those few beliefs are unshakeable and not subject to any rational debate (that would do any good).

Is there any rational foundation for your beliefs? Absolutely not.
You've admitted it. Now let's bring the thread back on topic.

RBAC, you've been accused first by BBT and now me that you are repeatedly arguing IN FAVOR of Christian beliefs.

BBT and I have pointed out that Your arguments are NOT rational .

Will you admit that you argue IN FAVOR of Christian beliefs?

If so, will you admit that these arguments IN FAVOR of Christian beliefs are irrational, since you have admitted that the principal foundation of your argument is admittedly irrational?

Rational BAC · 07-23-2003, 01:19 AM

Golly. You don't have to shout.

If I understand you correctly, you want me to admit that I have no rational basis for my core Christian beliefs.-------the part of Christianity that I accept on faith alone ----Christ, lived, was a semi-God, and was resurrected after death thus proving the existence of an afterlife.

OK. I admit that. (I thought I already have done that. But just in case, I am admitting it again.) Faith is the opposite of reason.

(actually I do have a few quasi-rational ideas to support those beliefs, and have tried to use them sometimes in the past---as you have noticed).

But they are so weak I don't really convince even myself all that well (and I am biased on the matter)----so I revert to the fact that those beliefs are essentially faith based --and therefore need no rational basis. --which is quite true.

Now that I have admitted that I have no rational basis (or at least a rational enough basis to make a good argument even to myself) for my core beliefs, are we all happy, happy now?

BadBadBad · 07-23-2003, 07:55 AM

Didn't intend on yelling. Just wanted to draw a big picture of the apple, so that you would stop calling it an orange.

BTW, throughout this most recent exchange, you've been continuing to argue that you are a rational person.

\Strawman Hat On\
How does continuing to argue with only a strawman argument even after you've been called on it after every time you use it an actual defense of your rationality?
\Strawman Hat off\

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
(actually I do have a few quasi-rational ideas to support those beliefs, and have tried to use them sometimes in the past---as you have noticed).

Not quite happy yet. You're still doing exactly what BBT accused you of in the first post. You are admitting that your beliefs are irrational and you believe on faith, yet you still claim to have rational arguments to defend those beliefs. You're close to admitting the arguments are irrational, but you haven't. I fully expect that you will continue to bring out those arguments and parade them as rational in the future just like you've always done.

Why the reluctance? I accuse you of being rational. You are a rational person. The rational part of your brain knows that your religious beliefs are not only irrational, they're ridiculous. The resurrection story is just as ridiculous as the pig story, and it comes right along with the dead saints coming out of the ground and the holy earthquake and eclipse and the hopelessly mixed up testamonies of it's truth. The rational part of your brain is ROTFLOL.

You are a rational person. The rational part of your brain dominates your mind 90%/10% in your own words. That is except for this. So what is it that lets that wimpy 10% emotional part dominate on this one subject? It's like a toy poodle chewing up a Rottweiler. The two could get along fine, but the poodle is eating the Rottweiler's bone. The Rottweiler starts the fight, but the poodle chews him up and spits him out like nobody's business.

How does that happen? That's the underlying question in this thread. What is the weapon that the emotional part of your brain uses to chew up and destroy the strength of the rational mind? All atheists want to know the answer because you're not the only Christian that has this problem. Fundie's don't have the problem. The rational side of their brain is weak. It only shapes their personality like the emotional side shapes yours. For the fundie, the emotional side dominates. Many other people are more balanced or they are dominated like you by rationality. It's not so easy for them. What is it then? Why do rational people believe such irrational ideas?

I submit to you that the weapon the emotional side uses to absolutely crush such a strong rationality is fear. Fear is the weapon of religion. I've seen it working in my family with a christian wife injecting fear into the minds of my innocent children.

I've confronted my son who is eleven. It's very clear. He believes first through trust in my wife. Through the door of trust, his loving mother walks through with the authority of motherhood to plant the seed of fear. That's the anchor of religion. When I ask him why he insists on holding on to religion, the answer is as simple as only a child can make it. Not rationality. Not Faith. Just plain unadulterated fear.

Rational BAC · 07-23-2003, 09:44 AM

(Bit of a duplicate here in another thread, but what the hell.)

FEAR!!!!?????--------What is a liberal Christian, like me at least, supposed to be afraid of anyway ?

I am not afraid of death. Whatever happens happens. If it turns out to be non-existance (the preference of atheists) then how the hell would I know anyway?

I do not believe in a fire and brimstone hell, so why should I be afraid of that like the Fundies are?

If the Supreme Being turns out to be Allah or Buddha or some damnbody--------I think a liberal, free thinking, cherry picking Christian has the best chance of anybody of "getting a pass". -----Hey ----we can con our way through anything. Or at least we think we can. And that's half the battle. I think a Supreme Being of any kind with any sense of humor at all, would admire our chutzpah. (spelling?)

I can in a pinch, when push comes to shove, accept any Supreme Being --or none at all. Non-existence does not bother me any more than it would an atheist.

BadBadBad · 07-23-2003, 10:53 AM

So what is it then that let's your wimpy 10% emotion rule over your powerful 90% rationale? Your rationale is putting up a viscious fight, but it's no match. It can't give up though. It's a fight to the death.

I believe for many many people it is fear. That's a very powerful emotion, but I accept that for you, it is not. Member Emotional is an excellent example of that.

What makes the emotional side of your brain so powerful as to overwhelm your rationale even when what the emotional side wants is actually an afront to everything the rational side stands for? Your emotional side wants the rational side to believe something irrational. Not only that, it wants the rational side to associate those beliefs with self identity. Since you are a rational person, the rational side controls the reigns of self identity. Your identity is that of a rational person. Yet your identity is inseperably linked to irrational beliefs. You are rational. Yet your rationality knows your identity is associated with irrationality. Jeckyl and Hyde. Rational/IrrationalBAC. The internal struggle is obvious to me and others.

How is it that irrationality wins out on the topic or religion?

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

07-22-2003, 01:37 PM	#242
BadBadBad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: WHERE GOD IS NOT!!!!! Posts: 4,338	RBAC argues: "The OT is man-made myth," but a limited portion of the NT is true, and that truth is unassailable. Brettc responds: I agree that the OT is a man-made myth. In addition, the NT is shown to be myth using the same reasoning that RBAC agrees with. RBAC reasons that Genesis, the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the burning bush, parting the red sea, God ordained slaughter and genocide, prophesy including the supposed prophesies on Jesus Christ, the definition of God itself as defined in the OT are all false and mythical. The NT uses the same mythical definition of God which is defined by the OT. RBAC admits the definition of God as defined in the OT is mythical. RBAC cannot define which portions of the NT are truthful. RBAC frequently changes his mind as to which parts of the NT are truthful. All of the portions of the NT RBAC considers truthful have the same elements of supernatural silliness that RBAC himself discounts in the NT, OT, and all other religions. RBAC admits that all of the portions of the NT he believes in suffer from the same history of fraud in authorship and transmission as do the portions he discounts. For example, the Gospel of Mark includes the story of demon possessed pigs. RBAC believes this is a fraudulent or mythical story. This story was written by the same author or was inserted during the same history as the story of the resurrection. Whether one story is in fact true and untainted by history is irrelevant. RBAC admits there is no reliable evidence or any other rational basis to conclude that the resurrection story is not tainted equally with the pig story. RBAC admits that his belief in any portion of the NT is entirely irrational. RBAC has no rational arguments to offer with respect his belief in any portion of the NT. Therefore without any other rational arguments from RBAC, we should conclude that both the NT and OT are myth in their principle tennants. As myth, neither provide any evidence for the existence of God. There is no other evidence at all outside of the Bible to support the existence of the Christian God. Therefore, the rational conclusion is to believe that God does not exist.

07-22-2003, 05:00 PM	#243
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	(I knew I shouldn't have gotten back into this thread) That was a very long and very well thought out post(s). OK---Where are we now? I am allowed to consider myself very rational in all things as long as I give up all metaphysical belief or discussion of any metaphysical belief? If I say that the OT is myth, then I am being rational. If I say that I believe by faith that the NT does contain some truth (even though badly corrupted by Man), then I am still being irrational when I question or try to determine the validity of the rest of the NT that I do not believe in by faith. I just seem to drip with irrationality no matter what I do.---------I can make exactly the same statement about something in the Bible that an atheist does (word for word).--------and the atheist would be making a rational statement and I would be making an irrational one. That is your position--correct? In other words, when I question the validity of the pig story, I am being irrational. When I question the validity of original sin, I am being irrational. When I question the validity of the trinity, then I am being irrational. Why do I get the strange impression that there is in effect, almost no difference many times between a Fundy and some atheists? ---------- "All or nothing at all"---reminds me of a song.

07-22-2003, 09:55 PM	#245
BadBadBad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: WHERE GOD IS NOT!!!!! Posts: 4,338	If we can get back to my argument, I thought about this today. I said I could come up with rational arguments against the existence of God. I was wrong about that. I can make rational arguments against many common arguments for the existence of the Christian God. RBAC, as I've demonstrated, your arguments in favor of your definition of God and your doctrine that defines your individual brand of Christianity are particularly simple to defeat.

07-23-2003, 01:19 AM	#247
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Golly. You don't have to shout. If I understand you correctly, you want me to admit that I have no rational basis for my core Christian beliefs.-------the part of Christianity that I accept on faith alone ----Christ, lived, was a semi-God, and was resurrected after death thus proving the existence of an afterlife. OK. I admit that. (I thought I already have done that. But just in case, I am admitting it again.) Faith is the opposite of reason. (actually I do have a few quasi-rational ideas to support those beliefs, and have tried to use them sometimes in the past---as you have noticed). But they are so weak I don't really convince even myself all that well (and I am biased on the matter)----so I revert to the fact that those beliefs are essentially faith based --and therefore need no rational basis. --which is quite true. Now that I have admitted that I have no rational basis (or at least a rational enough basis to make a good argument even to myself) for my core beliefs, are we all happy, happy now?

07-23-2003, 09:44 AM	#249
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	(Bit of a duplicate here in another thread, but what the hell.) FEAR!!!!?????--------What is a liberal Christian, like me at least, supposed to be afraid of anyway ? I am not afraid of death. Whatever happens happens. If it turns out to be non-existance (the preference of atheists) then how the hell would I know anyway? I do not believe in a fire and brimstone hell, so why should I be afraid of that like the Fundies are? If the Supreme Being turns out to be Allah or Buddha or some damnbody--------I think a liberal, free thinking, cherry picking Christian has the best chance of anybody of "getting a pass". -----Hey ----we can con our way through anything. Or at least we think we can. And that's half the battle. I think a Supreme Being of any kind with any sense of humor at all, would admire our chutzpah. (spelling?) I can in a pinch, when push comes to shove, accept any Supreme Being --or none at all. Non-existence does not bother me any more than it would an atheist.

07-23-2003, 10:53 AM	#250
BadBadBad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: WHERE GOD IS NOT!!!!! Posts: 4,338	So what is it then that let's your wimpy 10% emotion rule over your powerful 90% rationale? Your rationale is putting up a viscious fight, but it's no match. It can't give up though. It's a fight to the death. I believe for many many people it is fear. That's a very powerful emotion, but I accept that for you, it is not. Member Emotional is an excellent example of that. What makes the emotional side of your brain so powerful as to overwhelm your rationale even when what the emotional side wants is actually an afront to everything the rational side stands for? Your emotional side wants the rational side to believe something irrational. Not only that, it wants the rational side to associate those beliefs with self identity. Since you are a rational person, the rational side controls the reigns of self identity. Your identity is that of a rational person. Yet your identity is inseperably linked to irrational beliefs. You are rational. Yet your rationality knows your identity is associated with irrationality. Jeckyl and Hyde. Rational/IrrationalBAC. The internal struggle is obvious to me and others. How is it that irrationality wins out on the topic or religion?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.