Do you believe Irrational Things?

He who always was, Spoke it All into existence.

So… Tell me again. Where did the biblical God come from? And how exactly was He supposed to have Created Everything from… Nothing?

And you say you Know this to be True
How exactly do you Know this to be True? Or do you just Believe that…

A God came from nowhere to create Everything that exists out of Nothing?

Even RC says it’s Irrational

It’s a nice Belief, I guess. But do you Know this to be True and how would you actually Demonstrate or Show this to be True in any real and verifiable sense of the word… True?

The world of unbelievers are waiting for something called… Evidence

  • Not BS, 
  • not arguments, 
  • not stron arm bully tactics, 
  • not shifting burdens to those who don’t believe, 
  • not character assasinations for not believing, 
  • not Irrational Circular arguments from Ignorance or Incredulity…

Evidence would do the trick. We are waiting. You’d better get to it. Chop, chop.

-kia

Advertisements

128 thoughts on “Do you believe Irrational Things?

  1. One of the most infuriating things I still hear out of my Catholic parents happens whenever I call them out for bashing people with different beliefs. When I point out that Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. are just as firm in their beliefs as are my parents, my mom or dad invariably respond: “That’s the difference. They believe. We KNOW.” They don’t seem to understand the inherent insult to all non-Catholics in that ridiculous statement.

    Liked by 2 people

    • What most people, me included when I still was Christian, mean when they say that is… I Believe that I know because I have Faith that it is.
      We didn’t and they don’t, but they just aren’t ready to admit it

      Liked by 1 person

    • If it is any consolation it is not just catholics who do this, it pretty much applies to any group regardless of religion.

      That this outcome occurs across culture and religion is powerful evidence that the religious beliefs are anchored by emotion and psychology.

      The argument of many paths to ‘God’ does not hold up as the teachings of the different religions cannot be reconciled.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. When I was a Christian I used to see the question of ‘where did God come from?’ as childish.

    It was not until I deconverted that I could appreciate it was actually a very good question. Lifelong indoctrination seriously damaged my ability to critically consider the evidence and make a balanced judgment. I am only now slowly retraining my brain to think critically.

    Even as a Christian I was not impressed by R.C. Sproul. He used to post answers to questions on a website. He was asked ‘why did God send people to Hell?’, his response was along the lines that people went to Hell because there was nowhere else for them to go. That response never seemed satisfactory to me, it made ‘God’ seem to powerless, unimaginative and not caring.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Are you freaking serious? I am an atheist and this blog is the most inane bunch of bullshit I have ever seen. You are not doing a lack of belief any favors with the idiocy.

    Like

    • Sorry. I’m not atheist, just not Christian anymore. I kind of doubt your honesty in your claim to be an atheist. I’ll check your IP address to see if you’re the same someone who has previously commented rudely here. Have a nice day

      Like

    • Sorry, didn’t see you in my comments anywhere. I still doubt not only your stated identity but your intentions. Have a wonderful day, and if you’d like to respectfully discuss the specifics of your disagreement, I would be willing to listen and consider.

      Like

      • Since testimony is a generally accepted form of evidence, I testify that the supernatural is a constant and palpable presence in my life. If it helps, I can probably get over six billion other folk to bear similar witness.

        Like

              • Your claim, without evidence is just an assertion without demonstrable reason for anyone to believe it to be actually true in any meaningful sense of that word. It’s just an assertion. An irrational, and unevidenced claim.

                Like

              • For anyone to believe, or just yourself. It seems like you’re trying to enlist all humanity to your cause despite actually being in disagreement with the majority of us who do believe. And do you have any proof that the universe is rational?

                Like

              • My dear, the majority is not necessarily endowed with correctness or truth simply by being the majority. Walk into a Wal-Mart sometime. Lol

                Like

              • Faith is the epitome of arrogance. Claiming to Know what even you admit you cannot know, or demonstrate or test. Yet continuing to not only believe it, but arrogantly trying to bully me for not believing it.
                Trying to impugn my integrity and honest and asserting bias all thru this conversation, because you know you have no Real evidence other than your believing it and others being equally convinced without corroborating evidence to support their and your Testimonies. Dishonest

                Like

            • So it’s unverifiable.

              Rather than go around and around and around and not get anywhere, I’m curious to understand why, you think, your god would conceal this thing from people?

              Like

              • How is it concealed?

                Well, for starters, you can’t provide evidence for this thing.

                What you seem to be pointing to is the human propensity to find agency in nature. It’s a cognitive blunder, the root of all superstitions where we observe one event (B) happening after another event (A) and assume A is responsible for B.

                Let me be clear, though, it is a blunder that served us extremely well at a time not that very long ago when even the strongest of us were counted as snack items. A breeze bending blades of grass could easily be attributed (albeit in this instance incorrectly) to a stalking lioness and all the dangers that it implied. The causal association made between the unpredictable movement of grasses and the presence of danger (to use this example) was a good thing, a promotable skill, a biologically useful adaption that was slowly but surely etched into our genome. To put it simply, our evolutionary path rewarded the lesser of two evils whereby the cost of paranoia was deemed lower than the cost of scepticism which, if wrong, extracts a painfully high price: namely death.

                In a sentence, nature beatified the neurotic.

                A tendency to make quick albeit mostly false associations was deemed more evolutionarily beneficial than more reliable but equally more time-consuming rational scepticism. There was a price to pay for this inbuilt paranoia, anxiety and suspicion, but the price was evidently considered tolerable in the face of the more costly alternatives.

                We are, as such, biologically predisposed to this blunder, but again, it is an evolutionary trick that served us very, very well in the past. The downside is that we see things that aren’t there, and if we then couple this inbuilt error to deep emotional needs and existential death anxiety, then individuals start seeing fantastic things.

                So, the question is: why do you think your god conceals this supernatural thing from people?

                Asked another way: why would such a being conceal itself behind a veil of seemingly impenetrable ‘naturalism’? What purpose would this effort to secure its anonymity serve?

                Like

              • I can provide evidence, but you won’t accept it unless it supports your worldview. It’s like asking someone who sees a dove flying far overhead to provide tactile proof that its there. No matter how many people I get to tell you the same thing, you’ll just keep saying you can’t feel it up there and won’t believe it until you can.

                As for your narrative, were you there to watch all this unfold and measure it empirically? Or have you been able to recreate the phenomenon in a repeatable, falsifiable experiment?

                Remember that the vast majority of people see this thing you believe to be impossibly concealed; that most of us are able to see, albeit dimly, through that veil you find impenetrable, and have been able to for most of human history.

                Like

              • Billions of people disagree. Hindus don’t believe you. Buddhists don’t believe you. Muslims don’t believe you. In total, 7 out of 8 theists on the planet don’t believe you.

                So, what is this evidence?

                And could you please address the question put to you. If what you say is true, why does your god conceal itself?

                What possible reason can you think of to explain this?

                Like

              • They may disagree on the particulars, but not on the general point. And again, I’m saying he doesn’t. You’re just trying to see with your nose. If you’re blind to it, I hope that changes. In the meantime, you ought to stop trying to make things even by poking out the eyes of those who can see.

                Like

              • Billions of people (the overwhelming majority) say your “testimony” is dead wrong. Period.

                You are a tiny minority.

                What evidence do you have that you are right, and everyone else is wrong?

                And please tell me why your particular god conceals itself from the majority?

                Like

              • And that’s fine. I’m glad to discuss any points of disagreement where they occur. In this case, you and I disagree on the existence of the supernatural, so that’s what I’m focusing on. You demand a kind of evidence that’s narrowly defined to exclude anything that disagrees with your worldview, though. It’s becoming clear you’re not interested in what other people experience, though. You’re just proselytizing.

                Like

              • You demand a kind of evidence that’s narrowly defined to exclude anything that disagrees with your worldview

                How can you say this if you haven’t provided any evidence for me to judge?

                Self-evidently, your god does conceal itself. If evidence existed (for that god, or even the supernatural) then no one would rely on “faith.” If evidence existed, we’d have “knowledge.”

                Now, please address the question put to you. Your obfuscation is growing tiresome.

                The world is painted in seemingly impenetrable naturalism. Even finding agency in nature can be easily explained via the evolutionary paradigm. Why is this? What possible reason can you think of to explain why your god hides behind this veil of seemingly impenetrable naturalism?

                If you can’t explain it, then fine. There’s no disgrace in saying “I honestly don’t know.”

                Like

              • What forms of evidence do you accept as valid?

                Just because you fail to penetrate the veil doesn’t mean its altogether impenetrable. It’s not obfuscation to explain the color blue to someone who’s blind. It’s just a lot easier when they admit to their condition.

                Like

              • Please, just present what you have and stop obfuscating. It’s tiring and boring.

                Just because you fail to penetrate the veil doesn’t mean its altogether impenetrable.

                No, it is impenetrable, and your god, it appears, is hiding behind this curtain. If there were evidence for it we would not have “faith,” we would have “knowledge.”

                So, why does your god choose to conceal itself? What possible purpose does this serve?

                Like

              • If I were giving this testimony alone, then I could see your objection. I’m not, though. The vast majority of humanity corroborates my claim. One testimony by itself is evidence, just as a single, unrepeated test is evidence. Not enough to be proof, but evidence nonetheless. At some point, though, the preponderance begins to carry substantial weight for all but the willfully blind.

                Like

              • The more people testify that you robbed a bank, matters little if you didn’t actually do it. There must be evidence to corroborate your guilt. The number of people who claim a testimony without evidence matters little if there is no testable way to corroborate that what they are saying is actrually True in any sense of the word. Truth, evidence and reality just don’t work that way, and you know it

                Like

              • I am in no way convinced that truth can be understood by a series of falsifiable tests. And the only way you can pigeonhole reality that way is to assume beforehand that it consists only of natural, material phenomena.

                Liked by 1 person

              • You need to demonstrate that an extra or supernatural realm of existence actually exists. That is your burden. And you are assuming my bias again so you don’t feel the need to meet it.
                You don’t get to assert untreatable, unprovable things into existence then blame others for bias when they don’t believe you. That’s not honest

                Like

              • 1.6billiion Muslims believe Muhammad flew on a winged horse, and another half billion Buddhists, and 1.1 billion hindus, combined… that’s a little over three billion people who don’t believe what you do on your testimony, and each has their own testimony that contradicts yours.
                Testimony alone is not evidence. Truth must be testable and open to evidence pro and con, or it is just assertion at best, delusion at worst.

                Like

              • How about evidence for start, evidence that can be corroborated, not just untestable assertions. Got any of that for what you’re selling? You already said you don’t.

                Like

              • Evidence isn’t a test you can perform. What test would you suggest? I’m not even asking you to perform the test. Just come up with the framework of a test to prove your assertion that all of truth and reality are testable affairs.

                Like

              • Truth is not a numbers game of how many believe it. If your testimony cannot be shown to be true or corroborated to be true, then you cannot assert to others thagg it is in fact true.

                Like

              • Science considers peer review valuable because of testability and falsifiability of a claim. Can it be demonstrated to be True? Exactly what you are trying to deny the ability of for your claims.
                Truth claims need to be verifiable and conform to what can be demonstrated to be True. Other wise they are assertions, without evidence

                Like

              • I disagree that truth needs to conform to your demands. I believe truth is greater than our understanding. We can understand parts of it, and experience somewhat more. We’ll have to transcend our limitations to see the full picture, though. And that need for transcendence is why I follow Jesus. Guess I could have led off with that, but thanks for helping me refine the point. Hope you have a good night as well.

                Like

              • Truth doesn’t need to conform to ‘My demands’. Nice try at making it about me and once again implying Bias where there is none so you don’t have to think about how silly you are being.
                Truth must conform to Reality, and whatever is called Truth must actually be True in a verifiable and testable way, otherwise it cannot be Truthfully called Truth.

                Like

              • You’d think by your reasoning that Christianity is the smallest in comparison with all the other faiths combined, and many individually, thus your Faith is less true than they are.
                More Buddhists than Christians
                More hindus than Christians
                More Catholics than protestants
                More anything else combined than Christians .
                The number of people that believe something sincerely, that have a ‘Testimony’ but no evidence to corroborate it… has absolutely nothing to do with the Truth of said claim or belief or Testimony

                Like

              • Fair enough. That’s why it’s called faith. The point is that you’re standing on no more bedrock than the rest of us. You pick and choose what to consider evidence. You take certain things for granted for the sole reason that you read them from sources that dovetail with your suppositions to appear credible. And you do so to a degree commensurate with the amount of indoctrination you’ve received in the worldview you believe. So, maybe you can paddock the high horse for a bit and actually take the time to listen to some different views without so much judgement.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Faith is the worst way at arriving at truth one could come up with. Faith is literally trusting there is a bedrock when you have no idea you’re standing on anything at all. In reality, you care very little for Truth. You want to believe what you want to believe, regardless of how little or no evidence there is for it

                Like

              • And once again, you are dodging by trying to throw this backmmat me rather than considering why you believe what you believe without the ability to test or demonstrate it to actually be true… Again in any meani gful sense of the word

                Like

Please comment Responsibly and Respectfully

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s