AJ113

I don't have any non-irrational core beliefs to share with you.

There are many christian apologeticists who can make some sort of case for their beliefs, and because they have used reason to arrive at their beliefs, I would not view them as irrational.

Nowhere357

I asked for "some possible non-irrational core religious beliefs."
You said you think they can exist. You are unable to share an example?

If their core beliefs are irrational, then are they rational because they claim that their irrational beliefs are based on reason? That doesn't make sense, does it? So only if their core beliefs are rational, would the theist be rational.

So it looks like I need an example of a non-irrational core religious belief to understand your point.

BadBadBad

This thread ended up discussing basically, can a rational person hold on to admittedly irrational ideas. That's interesting perhaps, but that's not what I'm getting at. My question is how can a rational person make rational arguments to support a belief system that is admittedly irrational at it's core? That's not possible is it? If you admit your premise is irrational, then you are either not a rational person, you are not making rational arguments, or both.

Here's an example. Let's say you have a phobia about elevators. If you tell us you're afraid of riding on elevators, we'll say that's silly. The rational thing for you to do is to admit that your fear is silly. It's an emotional fear not a rational one. You don't do that. You argue that you have rational reasons for fearing a ride in the elevator. You argue that the elevator could actually fail and allow you to fall to your death. The possibility is real. The probability is actually worthy of your decision to absolutely not ride on elevators. You make specific "rational" arguments to support those positions. At the same time, you admit that the core fear is inherently irrational. That process from beginning to end is inherently irrational.

That's what you are doing at IIDB. You're admitting that your core beliefs are irrational. You admit that your belief in God is irrational. Then, OTH, you try to make rational arguments that God exists in fact. You try to make rational arguments that the stories in the Bible are actually true, and you even state that God has actually inspired you to believe that. It may make you happy to believe that, but it's not rational.

Can we look forward to a new screen name? How about wannabeBAC? Wouldn't that be a more rational way to describe your belief system?

TomboyMom

And haven't read the whole thread--this is in response to page 1.

You do realize that this is COMPLETELY irrational, right?

Rene

Rational BAC

You are still in the end going back to the long standing argument on this thread. Whether a mostly rational person can hold some irrational beliefs and be considered completely irrational because of that.

If that were the case, the vast majority of people are by definition totally irrational. (Forget Christianity-------we are talking about whether you believe that some numbers bring you luck in the lottery, whether you believe it is bad luck to walk under a ladder, whether you have a lucky rabbit's foot--------any number of silly superstitions that most people might hold) So all these people should not discuss anything at all outside of their irrational beliefs because they are somehow intellectually unworthy? I have a feeling that the world would be turned into silence if that were true.

I got out of this thread long ago, because your position made absolutely no sense at all to me. Still doesn't.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

You are a little late on the alternate monikers. (Some of the ones I liked best were "Irrational BAC", along with "Rationalizing BAC".) I have been told many times that I should change my moniker.

I still like Rational BAC and plan to keep it. A 90%/10% split still works fine for me at least in a practical way, on this forum.

Outside of this forum, on an everyday basis, I would say I am 99% rational and 1% irrational. Which probably approximates the general rationality of most everybody, including atheists.

BadBadBad

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'm not trying to say that at all. I've read a lot of your posts recently. What caught my attention and made me think was seeing you admit that you won't even try to present any rational arguments for your core beliefs. You are admitting your core belief system with respect to religion is irrational.

Now whether that makes you rational, irrational, or somewhere in between doesn't interest me. What I'm interested in is what does that say about your arguments here in favor of your liberal christian point of view? You have a premise that you have come to debate. You have admitted that the premise is irrational. Yet you continue to argue the rational legitimacy of your premise and all of its corrollaries.

For example, here's just a couple of quotes from you lately:

"Don't think you have a leg to stand on on this one. "

"Honestly, your off the wall, convolluted reasoning or lack thereof sound just like a Fundy's."

"And the most logical and rational thing to assume, assuming nothing at all, is that the angels did have gender. "

"You seem to think my Christianity is irrational. I don't see that myself."

"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. "

In a recent thread I quoted above, you're talking about angels, their gender, and sex in heaven. Your premise is that God exists, the Bible may or may not get it right, God "inspires" you to personally decide one way or another. You admit those core beliefs are irrational. Now you come here and argue the rationality of whether or not "angels" have a gender and what heaven is all about. Anything you want you say. Great, I look forward to those 75 virgins as well! That's a nice point of view, but you're not just presenting it for thoughtful discussion. You're arguing the rationality of it. Our basic premise as atheists is that the concept of God is irrational and therefore, God doesn't exist. So, we should agree on this. It's irrational to believe in angels or heaven at all, so then why the argument?

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I don't care whether you or anyone else is rational, or what anyone has as a definition for rational. However, I do care about whether their arguments here are rational.

You've admitted that the premise of all your arguments on religion is irrational. Therefore, it follows that all of your related arguments are irrational. The title of this thread is "Do you have a rational basis for your beliefs?" The answer is no, and you've admitted it.

OTH, in your first post in this thread, you declared your christianity rational. You declared non-belief in christianity irrational, and I've supplied the quotes above. My argument is that you can't argue it both ways. That my friend is irrational.

You are stuck the same way most other christians are stuck. You argue a "rational" position until the rationality of the argument is proven completely untenable, then you fall back on faith, God's mysterious ways, or none of us will ever know. However, your position is even more untenable. You've admitted that Christianity is irrational from the start.

Keep your moniker. It's a flag for your Jeckle and Hyde post that goes along with it. It readies us for that amazingly rational argument that's about to follow in support of that incredibly irrational premise. Wave the flag with pride. If you do decide to change it, how about Rational/IrrationalBAC?


I've never doubted that RBAC. Your beliefs are fine with me, and I believe if most christians felt the same way, we probably wouldn't have this board. All I'm suggesting is that you stop trying to make rational arguments to support your position. Brettc:"Did Jesus zap devils into Pigs?" RBAC:"Sure, why not. I like that part." Brettc:"That's irrational." RBAC:"Yes, I know." I think generally you do that, but as in your first post in your thread, you don't always.

BadBadBad

I've never heard any, but that's not really the point is it? Whether I believe them to be irrational or not, RBAC has admitted that his core religious beliefs are irrational. So whether I have an opinion or not, he has brought an irrational premise to the debate table. His opening statement in the debate is that his basic underlying principle is irrational. Should we as the audience stay for the entire debate?

BadBadBad

You're missing something here, and I think AJ got it wrong. If your premise is irrational, you can make an argument in support of it that appears rational, but it's not and never can be.

Just because someone can make some sort of case doesn't make it rational. They may appear to use reasoning and logic, but if the premise is irrational, the reasoning and logic of the argument are flawed. The argument is just as irrational as the premise.

What RBAC is doing is different than what other apologists do anyway. Apologists claim a devoted conviction that their core beliefs are not just rational, but in fact absolutely true. Then they give rational arguments to support their position. Their opponents have to argue against the premise and the arguments. RBAC admits the premise is irrational at the outset. With that concession, there's nothing to argue. The debate is over.

AJ113

It's not the beliefs themselves that are the issue. It's the process of arriving at them. An example of an irrational belief would be one that was arrived at without the use of reason.

Just like RBAC when he says that he has no intention of defending his beliefs because he has no defence. He has used no rational thought process to arrive at his beliefs, he holds those beliefs simply because he wants to.

Had he cited Josephus, biblical archeology and the textual integrity of the scriptures as helping him to establish his beliefs, then we can at least see a rational thought process in action. We could then move on to a reasoned debate concerning the validity of the evidence that he bases his beliefs on.

Alas, that debate is not to be, because RBAC has used no thought process whatsoever in arriving at his beliefs.

Rational BAC

I still do not see the problem here.

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).

Now-----since I do not believe that the Bible was divinely inspired, do believe that it was a man made effort full of error------to try and explain those very few basic things that I do believe.---------

That leaves me free to argue rationally anything else about Christianity that you can imagine. That leaves me free to agree with you on many many issues if you make a good enough rational case for it. It leaves me free to argue rationally with theists or non-theists or even myself on any other Christian topic besides those very simple core beliefs.

And I still say, since I try to stay away from debating my core beliefs (as being pointless), the debates I do get into are on the rational side. Many times I do throw things out there that I puzzle about just to see what kind of rational response I get. Just because I post something does not mean that it is part of my core belief. Actually as stated before I rarely get into debates concerning anything about my core beliefs.

So many of the previous quotes (I think probably all) that I made and were just now quoted have nothing to do with my actual core Christian belief. It is my search to try and understand and interpret the rest of Christianity that I do not hold as a core belief.

Many times I will just blow off lightly questions put to me that really should have been put to a Fundie. What I mean to say and probably should be more obvious about it I guess is ------"Like you're talking to someone who really gives a shhiit about the seriousness of this-----go ask Magus. Leave me out of it----All I am going to do is make fun of it. None of this stuff means diddly crap to me". ----(Although I will admit I learn something many times from the oft times very funny, but very interesting, atheist-fundy, debates)

I find that if I bounce an idea off of an atheist or a fundie or (even better) both-------that helps me better make a rational judgement for myself what I can better cherry pick from Christianity.

What I cherry pick from the Bible varies from month to month and year to year. But I will always be essentially a Christian. And I will always try to treat everything regarding Christianity (beyond my very few and very simple core beliefs) in as rational and unbiased way as possible.-----------Just like an outsider looking in, scratching his head, and saying "What the hell is that all about?"


I stand by my original statement. I try be very rational and use reason as best I can to understand the part of Christianity that I do not take on faith (which is probably 95% of the Bible.)
----------------------------------------------------------

Some part of this as far misunderstanding is concerned is many times I will say "I believe" when what I really mean is "I think that". I tend to interchange very carelessly sometimes the two terms. For that I am sorry. A very old habit and hard to break. Just try to remember that in almost all cases when I state "I believe" I really mean "I think that"