Rational Theists Step Forward

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 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.

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. . .?

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.

. . . The only argument I can make to support the definition of the Rational Theist is to say that given all permutations of god have an equal likelihood, then the Ration Theist is relatively more rational than the theist who focuses on only one or only a selection or personifications.

If you do not accept that all personifications of god have just as much likelihood I would challenge you to show that certain personifications of god are more or less likely than others.

Given that Theism itself has no evidence to suggest it is based on rationalism, and I have made that plain in a number of earlier posts, it none the less does not stop us from accepting Theism as a premise per se (and a certainly popular one at that FWIW). What parts after that do not make sense?

I am having fun dodging bullets!

I should think the burden of proof would be on the one offering the proposal.

There are many gods. Only one could be the one designated as 'he who causes to become'. The likelihood of a second prime mover would be zero.

Faith must be tested.

There are many gods. Only one could be the one designated as 'he who causes to become'. The likelihood of a second prime mover would be zero.

I am only giving equal merit to all personifications of god.

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.

would say planting bombs for a free Israel, or free Palestine (depending on the time frame) whilst wicked is at least rational. Planting bombs to please some concept of divinity is both wicked and irrational to the point of madness imo.