@ Stukus

Perhaps, but only in the sense that someone pointed out how negative things were becoming. In looking back at the thread, I really haven't made any attack on atheism or atheists. I've merely pointed out a trend in the forum that was apparently counter-intuitive to a particular group. Like I said, what people choose to do with the information is up to them. Certainly one thread of this nature doesn't paint an entire group as defenders, nor should it paint another as zealots for merely saying "Hey I looked at some data and it refutes this claim".

another good idea could just stop discussing religion at all; neither christianism neither atheaism neither any similar stuff

Can someone explain this to me?
"theist (even though I think two of those four have stated the they do not believe in God) "

How can you be a theist and not believe in god?

Hey Thucydides, if you don't mind my asking, what kind of church do you go to?

Why learn Esperanto? The whole nature of language is that it will evolve. If we all learn the same language, eventually it is going to diverge anyway. There's a reason that Americans don't know what a 'flat' or a 'lorry' is.

Not a zealot by any definition; however, I do become passionate when my personal relationship with God is described as irrational.

I wonder how much of the attacks on religion could be actually pure trolling.

I wonder how many of 'attacks' are really attacks, rather than discussion, debate, what have you. I don't recall too many 'You are a dumbass if you believe in god'.

Rare Eagle: I'm sorry, but by definition, it IS irrational. Faith, by its very nature, is not a rational process. You cannot lay out either a proof of God existing, nor a test that would prove God exists that is independently verifiable.

I'm not trying to use this as an insult, but yes. Your faith is irrational.

So what do you consider me?

Also, the worst zealots are the Vegans, they're all the bad things about religion and none of the good.

Jack, just for arguments sake, what if god spoke directly to Rare Eagle. He may not be able to prove it to YOU, but I assume god appearing to him would be good enough proof for him, and therefore his belief in god is not irrational, at least to him. You might think he needs to be institutionalized, but that doesn't change his 'proof'.

@Crazy: +1 great thread

@rare egale, i'm sorry it seems someone didn't get that you personally feel things which they did not, how about delusional instead of irrational?

actually i think you can convinvce your mind of things which you don't have evidence for - this may not be dellusion but i think it is possible - the mind does crazy things
see: http://www.ted.com/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html

just to be clear - if i take a strong atheistic position that God does not exist I can explain (rationally) your personal relationship with God with needing God to exist.

You on the other hand rationally believe in God based on your expierence OR perhaps come from a theistic position and therefore ascribe God to the personal expierences you have - still just internally consistant as my rational-naturalist explaination.

Neither rational position proves one thing or another - whether they can be consistant with each other is a difficult question.

What if God spoke to me and told me that he didn't appear to Rare Eagle?

"a proof of God existing, nor a test that would prove God exists that is independently verifiable." - that would be scientific - which has a rational basis, how and ever you can be rational and unscientific at the same time. All science starts with some assumptions about the 'natural' warld, it is just as rational (though arguably less useful) to start with an auusmption that God exists.

No, because he can't prove it to anybody else. There is no test or experiment to prove that he heard God.

And for all we know, he had a psychotic episode. Most people we know that hear voices now are put into psychiatric care (unless they are Scientologists).

It may be true, but it doesn't make it rational. (of course, I personally think that if something is true, its rational.... if there is a God, and he created everything, there MUST be a logical and rational reason to prove He/She/It/shmir exists.)

tl;dr: No. He could be crazy. Crazy people believe all kinds of crap.

@DingleberryJones - I don't know what your faith perspective is, but I think that your post was the most valid response yet. People who are of a faith background (myself included) are reacting to experiences that they would consider to be valid and concrete.

Whether or not atheists/agnostics consider those beliefs valid, they look at it from an entirely different aspect, often condescending because they are not aware of the religious mind frame (and I do not exclude ex-churchgoers in that statement - you can attend church). So I appreciate your respectfulness, and open mindedness.

No Faith is not irrational, there are reasons to believe. You may not agree with it, and it is not a matter of proof, however there are things that in my reasoned opinion point to the existence of God. There are many areas of Science where you can not layout a proof, you can only look at the results and make inferences that make sense (Particle physics, evolution, many of the Social Sciences). This is still rational.

Is there any current scientific theory that is proven? (The theory of gravity is known to break down at the Quantum level. I can not create a whole new species through evolution. Particle physics is still evolving with new discoveries). Outside of Mathematics, very few things are proveable. Most of the time you have to look at the results and make inferences. I look at the Universe and the historical writings and based on my personal experience conclude that it is reasonable to believe in God (and in the person of Jesus Christ).

Joey
(Came to the Church as a young adult)

Sorry incomplete statement in the brackets, should read:

...you can attend church *without mentally acknowledging what it is you believe, and the reasoning for your beliefs*)

@Dingleberry Jones, Esperanto is not meant to be a universal first language. It's meant to be a universal second language. Part of that is that, since it's used more for intercultural communication, it has less reasons to change and pick up regional slangs. I agree that languages should change, but I also think that we should have a way to communicate easily and efficiently between difficult, irregular, and quite often bizarre natural languages.

Rational is not the same as Scientific.

Science requires testable hypothesis - however when you can't get one of those you instead come up with a variety of untestable hypothesis (like the various string theory models) later you hope to be able to make testable predictions.

This is entirely rational but not yet science.

There is no reason to prefer one String theory model over another (other than the inherent beauty of the asthetics and symmetries in the model itself - and we know nature has symmetries anyway) There is no reason to prefer believing in one idea of God over another idea or indeed not believing in no God (this being the agnostic position) again other than what seem like 'natural' truths and beauty in the idea of what that God means.

Unless of course you have personal evidence of Gods existance.

I have personal evidence as the existance of my hammer - you have no reason to believe my hammer exists unless you start with the assumption that No hammer can exist (the atheist- ahem anti-hammer proposition)

@joey1 - as a Christian I would respectfully disagree with you. It is impossible to prove something that by it's nature is unprovable. In the same way that a goldfish can't prove the existence of the person who feeds it we can't prove that there is a creator.

In addition, it is not necessarily logical to believe in a metaphysical being because other people told us to. The only reason to believe is if you feel you have experienced something concrete upon which you base your beliefs. You simply can not arrive at religion without some form of personal validation via an experience. I will admit that beyond this religion is irrational.

@Jack Klein, faith CAN be rational actually. It's trusting an authority, which all of us do, since despite my strong belief in evolution, I have never personally done the research. For that matter, I've never seen a pathogen, but believe in the Germ Theory of Disease. I have faith in those who have exercised THEIR reason. Now, there should be reason at some point in the chain, but a lot of those links are still faith-based.

Belief by its very definition both does not require proof, and emphatically denies the need for proof.

Proof and faith are mutually incompatible.

And as far as the scientific process:

Yes, we do not understand everything. Yes, many conclusions are based on only the evidence we currently possess.

The critical difference is that while our knowledge is inadequate to explain everything, we in the rational field are constantly adjusting our theories and hypothesis to adjust for new data. The work is never done, and there is always more data to add into the equation.

Religion, and belief, on the other hand claim to HAVE the answers. There is no need to investigate, no need to ask uncomfortable questions, because God wrote everything you need to know down in his book a few thousand years ago. There are already the answers, and you might as well shut off your mind.

A major issue I have with the major religions in the world is that every single one claims they're the one true way to God. You can't all be right. Give me a reason that you're right, and the Muslims aren't. A reason they couldn't just turn around on you.

Because they believe you're going to Hell just as much as you believe they're going to Hell. And that leads me to believe there is no God, and no Hell.

@Stukus - surely English is the universal second language - except among us first language speaker - nil aon gaeilge agam :(

and once a language becomes more useful (for trade/ science as english is often used) there will alwaly be some second language speakers who concentrate on it more and raise their children using it as their first language.

@Jack_Klien - I disagree, belief is rooted in rationalization. I wouldn't compare blind faith to religious faith.

Stukus: Yes, but if you wanted, you could perform experiments that would show that germs are in fact what causes many diseases, etc.

There are proofs and experiments that show these to be true, even if you don't care to perform them. The fact that anybody CAN is what makes the rational process such an incredible thing.

Rationalization is different from being rational. :P

Rationalization is like a woman being beaten by her husband and making up reasons why she deserves that, or shouldn't go to the cops.

So in that respect, you may be correct. :) (I'm being a bit snarky there, forgive me)

Faith is neither rational nor irrational but transrational. That which deals with the supernatural is beyond logical comprehension. I am neither irrational nor delusional because I have faith. @Jack - I am personally fine with your misgivings about organized religion. My point is that my faith is a personal relationship and I do not accept that it is irrational.

@Jack - there are many teachings which multiple religions have in common - ther are in fact many teachers who would claim the Christian, Jewish and Muslim's one true God are the same thing (along with the Ba'hai religion which specifically claims all four 'one true God's are the same thing.)

The only difference being how you should conduct yourself in daily life - and that really is a personal choice based on your beliefs whether you listen to the wisdom of your elders or experiment with liberal ideas and think for yourself - you still have to think how you will apply the basic set of rules you have (either made up or had passed down to you) to your daily life.

I doubt many religious people go back to their church for advice from their preist/rabbi/whatever every day when a new situation arises.