Not exactly. It's mostly for those who refuse to use their mind solely on the subject of religion. They even say it proudly: "We turn off our rationality to believe." Plenty smart in other areas.

This is your view now. A week from now you’ll call religious people idiots. And then a week later you’ll change your view again. Because in reality you don’t know wtf is going on.

Your rationality has you on a leash, leading you in circles.

See? The enemy of religion is being reasonable and rational. They admit it. Next we will study chemistry, then astronomy, then medicine, then engineering ... and what we need to do is suspend rationality to just believe what the realities of the subject are. Or just believe whatever they believed thousands of years ago. Sounds like a winner.

I said that solely on behalf of the part of you that you don’t believe in enough to sacrifice for. The part of you that you deny mercy.

I think I am correct in describing your stream-of-consciousness diatribes as rants.

The above is a disconnected, stream-of-consciousness diatribe replete with strawmen and unsubstantiated allegations.

You are absolutely no different that the Cultists who stands on the street corner shouting at the clouds.

Be careful who you hate ---- you risk becoming just like them one day.

It should go without saying that literally nobody in this thread has said anything resembling the bolded above.*

It should also go without saying that you're the only one in this thread shouting incoherently at the clouds.

*Except maybe craig1120, who also doesn't make any sense most of the time.

fyp

I didn't say in this thread, genius. In this forum there is a thread committed to the idea that dispensing with rationality is the path to believing ... that is, believing such things as killing every child on earth is holy, moral and loving. I mean ... how else would you do that?

It's just appalling the dishonesty required to defend one's irrational beliefs instead of reassessing them. Ad hominem is required because on the points, it's pure make believe. A loving god killed all the children on earth is a fairy tale ... just like the wicked witch of the forest cooking children in her oven in Hansel and Gretel is. This fairy tale nature is revealed by the complete lack of respect for the utter despair, destruction, and tragedy of all those deaths ... with no comment anywhere about that or any discussion about it among the faithful. And that's because it's as real to them as the Hansel and Gretel story.

Show some respect for reality.

"This is the ultimate loving god speaking. Either you are obedient to me or I'm going to kill you. I am also going to kill children beneath the age of responsibility of right and wrong. All of them."

What's wrong with this picture? Anything? Or it's cool with your morality?

Who devised this ... divine love? A better answer: primitive, barbaric, ignorant mankind.

First off, thank you for offering a cogent response instead of your typical rant. I just now looked at all of the thread titles in this Forum for the past two years, and couldn't find a thread that at least by title suggested what you're are talking about above. Please provide the link or at least the thread title. Thanks!

Well said. I don't believe that I hold any irrational beliefs, so I'm glad I'm not part of that cadre.

So you say over and over again. Maybe you believe something becomes a true if you say it over and over again?

So you say over and over again. Maybe you believe something becomes true if you say it over and over again?

I don't know what you read or don't read, but the so-called Problem of Evil has been addressed roughly a gazillion times by theists. Of course, you don't have to accept their answer; but pretending it isn't discussed among the faithful just shows how ignorant you are of the relevant literature.

I will if you will!

Yet another Strawman.

Where's by shock face?

Oh good, I found it:

Yeah I should have also said, "Since you weren't (past tense) obedient to me, I'm going to kill you and your innocent children all over the earth. Righteous love requires this."

You have to believe it. You have to be down with that as righteous love to be a believer. OR ... it's just tales and stories ... along with a whole lot more of it. Now that makes sense. Each person presented with this gets to choose.

Here in the "For the Rationalists" thread we find wise religious counsel to eschew rationality in the service of believing:


https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...lists-1811456/

Is the killing of millions of children loving? If a book says it is, does that make it so? If a book says a god did it and the god is righteous and loving so therefore the killing is loving and righteous, does the book saying this make it so? Is it irrational and immoral to take this at face value?

I don't see such a problem with evil. The whole idea of evil is superfluous once you subtract the god and demons thing. We have morality and immorality, we have destructiveness, we have hatred versus love ... but none of that is evil unless we are just defining evil as "extremely immoral" or something along those lines. Something isn't evil because a book thousands of years ago said so, any more than the earth is flat because a book thousands of years ago said so. I like a book called "Evil: An Investigation" ... which is essays on the subject getting it out of the "My god said so" realm (which really just means, of course, the people who wrote about that god said so).

The big point about harping on the flood mass destruction/killing story is that once someone admits, "yeah that probably isn't moral and is not necessarily true and actual," we get out the believing things because a book says it and it opens the way for investigation of actual reality, instead of "just so" stories. I.E. if it isn't flood tales and fables and the "poof theory" of reality ... then what is it? Rote religion from ancient texts stands in the way of that.

Thank you! I'll check it out!

addendum: I checked out that thread. You are correct; the OP (craig1120) sees rationality as the enemy with respect to spiritual matters.

In the story of the soul, rationality is a (concealed) bribe from God. It’s an attempt at appeasement in order to quell the rebellion.

Rationality will never let you claim what belongs to you. It’s a test. The rationalists are bought and paid for - corrupt adulterers who fail the test.

The rationalists are many. The Son of Man is one.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. - Isaiah 1:18

but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: - 1 Peter 3:15

The indoctrinated religious don't seem to understand that posting biblical verse is not evidence of anything (other than someone once wrote these words in a book). The text is poetic and abstruse so it gives it a veneer of authority but allow me to translate:

Isaiah: "Your sins are bad but god can clean them up"
Peter: "You must believe in god and convince others by saying that you REALLY believe it because you're scared"

These aren't arguments.
They are just statements & opinions.

In closing:

"Follow thee not those who march blindly forth to pray at an altar devoid of evidence. Harken not to the siren song of self-proclaimed prophets but strive to cogitate all facts bereft of bias" - 1 Lunkwill 1:1

If you had read the post that I was responding to, you probably would have recognized that I chose those two verses to show craig1120 that religion doesn't necessarily spurn the use of reason. That was the sole purpose of the two verses that I chose. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear about that; I assumed (incorrectly) that the reader would see what specific point I was addressing.

That's a good summary.

However , this interpretation is way off. First off, in this context, fear is a synonym for respect.; it doesn't mean "afraid" or "scared." The verse is a call to answer honest questions from the unbeliever in a winsome, respectful manner.

Fair enough. But, I never said they were, except in the context of showing craig1120 that religious belief isn't necessarily devoid of reason.

If those statements are just opinions, then you and I are doing exactly the same thing (i.e. it's a tie). If those statements are in fact the Word of God (which is what i believe), then those statements are absolutely true., regardless of what you or I think about it.

Good advice. Pretty sure I've heeded that advice well.

Listen, a soul that remains abandoned is utterly abandoned. A son that has been forsaken has no access to the kingdom of his father.

The people who need evidence do not take the word of their soul. They leave their soul abandoned and forsaken in the name of vision and clarity. For that, they are blind.

I have no clue what you're talking about. Unfortunately, I can't ask you clarify what you're talking about, because you are an outspoken critic of reason and clarity.

As a result, engaging you in any manner is pretty much a fool's errand, so I'll leave you alone at this point.

The Son of Man figures out a way to fit through the narrow door. The many who give up in frustration do not know the shrewd manager.

What I don't get is how someone who is trying to change the mind of someone who disagrees with them on any subject, religious or otherwise, thinks they have any hope of succeeding if their arguments are not what people would call "rational" (ie follow evidence and Aristotelian logic).

That which transcends rationality starts off like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds.