(February 27, 2011 at 9:52 pm)everythingafter Wrote: I agree there. But then, of course, they really don't believe do they? If they did really believe every word of their book, they would act much differently and more dangerously. Kind of like fanatic Muslims. I guess this would be a question for them, but if they aren't willing to follow their doctrine to the letter, why is there any sense in calling yourself a Christian. Most, pathetically, simply refer to themselves as a Christian in some nebulous sense-of-belonging kind of way. I don't have much sympathy for the idea of moderate Christianity. I think they are all wasting their time, but the moderates even more. But I think we can say even moderates still believe that there is a god up there who governs everything, intervenes in people's lives and will one day separate the wheat from the chaff. If they don't believe that, they have ceased being Christian.

No, I think if someone's faith inspires them to help others, that's great. But in almost every case I've seen as a former churchgoer, helping people build schools or churches is a secondary goal to trying to reach them for Christ. Believers aren't in Africa and China and everywhere else for purely humanitarian reasons. Spreading the message is at least one of the two main goals in almost every case of Christian missionary work, and usually, the main goal. It is, after all, the Great Commission. And also, if that's not a person's goal as a member of the Protestant or Catholic church, they are Christian in name alone.

Then they shouldn't follow it at all. But again, I suppose that would be a question for them, not you.

That is a good point. If they are not ready to follow all the tenants of their religion, they are not really Christian. The problem comes from the fact that they, like you said, want this feeling of belonging bonded with the idea of a greater power that is closer to deism than theism...And i do think those people are not dangerous.

There should be a way to distinguish between the "literal" theists who follow the Bible literally, and are people that i condemn fully, and the "cherry-picking" theists who are not really dangerous and that i don't think do not deserve to be called idiots and bigots. Something between "theist" and "deist"...

I did not consider the whole "bring them to God" part of charity, which does put their altruism in perspective. But if, as an offshoot of that, they save lives, i don't mind it that much.

Rwandrall Wrote:Most theists are very rational.

Now that's interesting because I'm starting to wonder what planet you're from. Most people are very irrational, the most rational of us aren't fully rational and are still ultimately a slave to our passions, and theists tend to be more on the irrational side.

(March 2, 2011 at 11:47 am)DoubtVsFaith Wrote:

Rwandrall Wrote:Most theists are very rational.

Now that's interesting because I'm starting to wonder what planet you're from. Most people are very irrational, the most rational of us aren't fully rational and are still ultimately a slave to our passions, and theists tend to be more on the irrational side.

What he said! Doubt vs. Faith has his eyes open.

(March 2, 2011 at 11:47 am)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: Now that's interesting because I'm starting to wonder what planet you're from. Most people are very irrational, the most rational of us aren't fully rational and are still ultimately a slave to our passions, and theists tend to be more on the irrational side.

We are all extremely rational, since we all act according to what we accept as facts.

Just because you are a theist does not mean you are going to accept homeopathy or the existence of aliens. Except for the existence of God, every single thing a theist does in his daily life, from social interactions to operating machines like cars or Ipods to using our senses are ALL motivated and calculated rationally. Compared to all the things we do according to the action-reaction paradigm, believing in God is a small irrationality.

Quote:We are all extremely rational, since we all act according to what we accept as facts.

You're leaving out all the irrational behaviour then?

Quote:Except for the existence of God, every single thing a theist does in his daily life, from social interactions to operating machines like cars or Ipods to using our senses are ALL motivated and calculated rationally.

There are many things anyone does that is irrational. Whenever we lose our temper over something when we know that it is more rational to keep a calm state of mind, we are irrational (for example). Emotions are often irrational. Their resulting behaviours are often irrational.

Quote:believing in God is a small irrationality.

A sky-daddy is a big irrationality, and when you go further than deism and are a theist, e.g, a Christian, Muslim or Jew, you accept a load of other related irrational beliefs.

People are a fusion between irrational and rational behavior, you couldn't be human without both, its better to keep both separate and to try and not fuse the two into one great big mess (which is pretty much what you get with religion), but without irrational behavior the world would be a pretty boring and un-inspiring place (culturally at least), sadly people don't keep them separate and can't tell their dreams/fantasies from what is possible immediately in reality, the result being bloodshed and catastrophic failure.

Irrationality is best when you recognize it as such. It's less harmful to recognize that you are ultimately a slave to your passions, since the recognition alone gives you some control.

(March 2, 2011 at 1:03 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: Irrationality is best when you recognize it as such. It's less harmful to recognize that you are ultimately a slave to your passions, since the recognition alone gives you some control.

I see everything as irrational that can't rationally occur within a reasonable time frame, effect me much in any way, and be tested to my satisfaction as workable/can happen right now. That pretty much rules out 95%, the rest I can just guess, read about or ask other people.

Informally people use "rational" to mean "reasonable" which is ultimately a matter of opinion besides when it applies to the formal definition of rational: That which is logically valid or those who hold positions that are logically valid.

Most of what we do is rational, and many things we do are irrational.

The thing i want to avoid most of all is categorizing theists as "irrational" and atheists as "rational". No general rule, no white and black, only shades of gray.