Rational Theists Step Forward

Re: Rational Theists Step Forward

queen annie wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
which is why the term "Rational Theist" is an oxymoron, and no such creature exists to step forward. Religion by definition is irrational.

BUT a theist, is not, by definition, necessarily religious.

The logic of that progression doesn't hold up.

I think it does. I agree religion and theism are not the same. You demonstrate how relgion is irrational and I agree. That does not affect or negate my contention that belief in god or gods is irrational and "Rational Theist" an oxymoron.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) you are not taking the term Rational Theist as outlined and coined by yours truly. Not that is really matters, except to my multitudious followers.

0 Replies

I read your first post quite carefully.

You say a "rational theist" is one who believes in the equal merit of all gods.

I might agree that this is a rational approach. But it doesnt happen does it? The theists all believe in the absolute supremacy of their deity, even if they dont go around publicising the fact.

Not only are they irrational, but they are disingenuous if not down right dishonest. Instead of saying honestly like the rest of us "I dont know" they claim insight into the unknowable and absolute truth for themselves, which they peddle to the young and feeble minded adults.

0 Replies

I coined the phrase for lack of a better term, and not to be taken literally.

I do not explicitly say all that the Rational Theist can accept but only what the Rational Theist could not accept i.e. "The rational Theist could not accept a religion in which one idealization of god superceded another idealization of god."

I am not arguing that the rational Theist is ANY more rational in real terms, only in relative terms to the Theist who believes in a limited personification of god.

The rational Theist correctly believes there is just as much likelihood that god is personified in, or as, a monotheist non-corporeal being, and/or polytheist non-corporeal beings and/or a real living being, and/or real living beings, and/or a real thing and/or real things.

I make no argument that the belief in god itself is rational, I make no argument that the rational Theist's beliefs in all personifications of god is rational. I make no argument that the rational Theist's concepts may be more benevolent. I make no argument that there may be a life force that is quite unlike the sorts of things that one hears in houses of worship. I make no argument that the rational Theist must embrace the entire spectrum of religious thought.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I coined the phrase for lack of a better term, and not to be taken literally.

ok I missed this. but you weren't being ironic or sarcastic were you?

0 Replies

The whole things started out quite differently then it is now, it was a bit of a tongue in cheek challenge to traditional religionists. I did not worry about all the various ways one could define/argue/condem/condone the actual term "Rational Theist", but I knew it had a certain ring to it.

Then things got more interesting as Queen Annie thought it suited her views (and why not, it is more rational) and others chimed with their views, so I officially codified it to make sure my budding religion could get tax exempt status, and I could assume the rightful place as Chief Priest and Bottle Washer (CPBW the Unpronounceable).

- The Rational Theist must accept that all types of God have equal merit.

- The Rational Theist could not accept a religion in which one idealization of God superceded another idealization of God. (This does not impute what the Rational Theist could accept but only what the rational Theist could not accept)

- The Rational Theist believes Humor is one of the Main Invisible Hands of the Gods.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

hephzibah wrote:
While I'm starting to see this steve, I would like to ask one question please. Who decided everything needs to be "rational" anyway? And what makes their idea that everything needs to be "rational" more important that what other people consider "rational" that is not?
my dear mizfiss.

I think "who decided everything needs to be rational?" is an excellent question. Things are rational, that is we can explain them, as history shows. But why should it be that way? Why is there order and explanation in and of the Universe? Therein lies the most profound

Bwaaaaahaaaa haaa haaa llol

The Universe is indeed just a bunch of laughs, and certainly not to be taken seriously. In my not very humble opinion.

Hi.

I'm glad you answered. mizzfiss, very cute. LOL Well stevo, I got another question for you then. Do you think everything can be explained? Hehehe... Yes, your questions are truly profound... You know... I think I must agree with you about the universe is indeed just a bunch of laughs. Though my perspective might be just slightly different from yours in that life itself is a bunch of laughs, and since our life is contained within this universe somehow, it just kind of spills over I guess.

If we take all this entirely too seriously we could lose our ability to laugh because we would forget that regardless of what we believe or how we approach it life is just what it is. And what it is, is what we make of it. I mean truly laugh. That deep down, in your gut, can't stop, can't breath, red faced laugh. I can't tell you how many times I have left this forum late at night and laid in bed just laughing for like 10 minutes because someone said something that hit me just right. Laughter has a certian healing quality to it.

Honestly speaking I have wondered about you. If you were sincere in what you said about me cracking you up and laughing like I do. Forgive me please for doubting you if you have been sincere. I like to laugh. I like to express that to others when they do or say something that tickles me. I see no harm in it. I see no harm in laughing at ourselves as well. Every time I read my sig line I start cracking up. I don't know what it is about it, maybe it's the truth within it. Maybe it's because I have eaten dirt few times in my life. LOL Who knows. Who cares. If it makes you laugh, I think that's all that really matters. And if I do make you laugh... good... I'm glad... It's nice to know I don't laugh alone. LOL

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

queen annie is cool!

Thanks, Chumly! I think you're pretty alright, yourself. Laughing

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I might agree that this is a rational approach. But it doesnt happen does it?

Maybe only very infrequently, but yes, it does.

Quote:

The theists all believe in the absolute supremacy of their deity, even if they dont go around publicising the fact.

Such a statement implies you have surveyed every single theist regarding this issue.

Quote:

Not only are they irrational, but they are disingenuous if not down right dishonest.

That's a judgment and a generalization that is unfounded. Admittedly many people do lie to themselves, theists and atheists, too. But that's beside the point. It's not necessarily true in every case, and it's not rational to aver such a thing.

Quote:

Instead of saying honestly like the rest of us "I dont know" they claim insight into the unknowable and absolute truth for themselves, which they peddle to the young and feeble minded adults.

Not everyone peddles. And just because you don't know something doesn't mean it is 'unknowable.' And that applies to everything. Aside from all that, if they are claiming this only for themselves, what does it matter to you? Provided they aren't peddling, that is.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Chumly wrote:
I coined the phrase for lack of a better term, and not to be taken literally.
ok I missed this. but you weren't being ironic or sarcastic were you?

Chuckle.

0 Replies

Neo, your posts may be monitored for quality assurance or training purposes.

0 Replies

Always willing to train others in the art of clear thinking.

0 Replies

I wrote

Quote:

The theists all believe in the absolute supremacy of their deity, even if they dont go around publicising the fact.

Queenie wrote

Quote:

Such a statement implies you have surveyed every single theist regarding this issue.

yep every damn one of 'em. Took me a while too

queenie wrote

Quote:

And just because you don't know something doesn't mean it is 'unknowable.' And that applies to everything.

of course it doesnt follow that if something is unknown it must be unknowable. I'm not that stupid. Your implication is that everything will become known, I take issue with that

Quote:

Aside from all that, if they are claiming this only for themselves, what does it matter to you?

If someone wishes to go away and contemplate their naval in a quiet room for several years, it matters not one jot to me. But when they think they are doing the will of God by putting a bomb on a tube train killing my neighbour, it matters quite a lot.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

If someone wishes to go away and contemplate their naval in a quiet room for several years, it matters not one jot to me. But when they think they are doing the will of God by putting a bomb on a tube train killing my neighbour, it matters quite a lot.

The Rational Theist could not "think they are doing the will of God by putting a bomb on a tube train killing my neighbour" as the religion in question I assume you are referring to would worship the God of Abraham.

- The rational Theist could not accept a religion in which one idealization of god superceded another idealization of god.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

- The rational Theist could not accept a religion in which one idealization of god superceded another idealization of god.

So this "rational theist" - a myth imo- places all gods at the same level? There is no superior god, they are all the same? So your rational theist is either a polytheist, or alternatively the term does not apply to followers of a monotheistic cult or religion.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

So this "rational theist" - a myth imo- places all gods at the same level? There is no superior god, they are all the same? So your rational theist is either a polytheist, or alternatively the term does not apply to followers of a monotheistic cult or religion.

The Rational Theist would have to believe that there is just as much likelihood in any of the possibilities, so could not by default be a monotheist.

When you say "all gods at the same level" and "superior god" if you mean does this imply that all gods would be equal in all respects, I do not specify. That would be open to the Rational Theist's understanding and interpretation of all the permutations of all the personifications of god. I would add however that if I was a Rational Theist then the answer would have to be that gods could vary in power and purpose.

The Rational Theist would have to accept all the personifications of god in all its permutations, not just the non corporeal, but also actual beings, animals, celestial bodies, the whole gamut.

Remember however that the word "theism" does not mean the same as the word "religion" and I make no stipulation as to religious choice except to say that:

-The rational Theist could not accept a religion in which one idealization of god superceded another idealization of god.

Notes:
a) It is in fact quite conceivable to have a religion without a god.

b) It is also quite conceivable to assay equal merit to all permutations of god without necessarily adhering to any specified religion.

c) I don't consider the Rational Theist to be a myth.

d) Are we having fun yet?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

The Rational Theist would have to believe that there is just as much likelihood in any of the possibilities, so could not by default be a monotheist.

When you say "all gods at the same level" and "superior god" if you mean does this imply that all gods would be equal in all respects, I do not specify. That would be open to the Rational Theist's understanding and interpretation of all the permutations of all the personifications of god. I would add however that if I was a Rational Theist then the answer would have to be that gods could vary in power and purpose.

The Rational Theist would have to accept all the personifications of god in all its permutations, not just the non corporeal, but also actual beings, animals, celestial bodies, the whole gamut.

Remember however that the word "theism" does not mean the same as the word "religion" and I make no stipulation as to religious choice except to say that:

-The rational Theist could not accept a religion in which one idealization of god superceded another idealization of god. . .

And this is rational because. . .?

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Queenie wrote
Quote:
Such a statement implies you have surveyed every single theist regarding this issue.

yep every damn one of 'em. Took me a while too

Err....
I don't recall any interview between you and I specifically concerning this particular issue...

Quote:

I'm not that stupid.

Please, I beg your pardon. I never meant to imply that you were. Because I am quite certain you are far from it.

Quote:

Your implication is that everything will become known, I take issue with that[/b]

I didn't imply that...mainly because I don't know that for sure. So how can I say?

Quote:

If someone wishes to go away and contemplate their naval in a quiet room for several years, it matters not one jot to me. But when they think they are doing the will of God by putting a bomb on a tube train killing my neighbour, it matters quite a lot.

No doubt! That's just plain Evil or Very Mad

and not something I approve of on any level, either.

But surely you realize that such persons house an unimaginable snare of self-deception, myriad insecurities, hurts, and hatreds that there is absolutely no reason to consider their words rational, on any subject...especially to do with an idea of something superior to themselves.

Just because they cry 'god made me do it' doesn't mean that all who sincerely say the word 'god' or 'gods' in other contexts are irrational. The flip-side folks use the old 'the devil made me do it' excuse--but it's all the same. Excuses and buck-passing (even to imagined spiritual entities) are always a symptom of denying personal responsibility (secondary to grandiose self-delusion.) And that's a psychological principle, not a religious one.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Chumly wrote:
- The rational Theist could not accept a religion in which one idealization of god superceded another idealization of god.
So this "rational theist" - a myth imo- places all gods at the same level? There is no superior god, they are all the same? So your rational theist is either a polytheist, or alternatively the term does not apply to followers of a monotheistic cult or religion.

Or an agnostic. This rational theist sounds a lot like an agnostic.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

c) I don't consider the Rational Theist to be a myth.

I would hate to think of myself as 'mythical.'

Unless, of course, I could be the sort of mythical that comes complete with a fish tail, long red hair, and a deadly singing voice (not to mention being able to be totally appropriate by going topless every single day!) Laughing

Quote:

d) Are we having fun yet?

Always! Why be dull? :wink:

0 Replies

Rational Theists Step Forward

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know