Yutsie: how more so for someone who has been showing you the light as you are now forced to continue finding the rest of your way in darkness.

That someone is dead & can't give a fig about weather you cry or not. The crying bit is done to impress others. In the Middle East they pay people to form a crowd & cry at Funerals just to impress other people. They are Professional Weepers.

Jayb: <<It shows me that Islamic People are "over emotional" ....... They can't control themselves>>

As it is, you have paid all Muslims an enormous compliment being associated with the name Bilal:

<< Born as a slave, Bilal was among the emancipated slaves freed by Abu Bakr due to the Islamic teachings of slavery. He was known for his beautiful voice with which he called people to their prayers. Bilal ibn Rabah rose to a position of prominence in Islam; but after Muhammad died in 632 AD, Bilal adopted an isolationist and monastic lifestyle.>>

The following is a description of what Bilal, the person you described as “overly emotional”, went through:

<<When Bilal's master, Umayyah ibn Khalaf found out, he began violently to torture Bilal. With Abu Jahl instigating, Umayyah tied Bilal up and had him dragged around Mecca as a means to break Bilal's faith. In addition, children mocked Bilal for disobeying Umayyah and rejecting idol worship.Although the extent of torture was painful, Bilal never renounced Islam. Even when the torture was taken to the extreme, Bilal would repeat "Ahad Ahad" (God is absolute/one). Frustrated upon Bilal's refusal to denounce Islam, Umayyah became even more angry. He ordered that Bilal's limbs were to be stretched out and tied to stakes lying flat on desert sand, so that he could feel the intensity of the sun and the Arabian heat. He would be whipped and beaten while tied to the stakes. Constantly refusing to denounce Islam, Umayyah became frustrated and ordered that a large boulder/stone be placed on Bilal's chest. The boulder heated by the sun burned Bilal's body while also crushing him. However, Bilal remained firm in belief and continued to say "Ahad Ahad". After such punishments, news of this slave reached some of Muhammad's companions who told Muhammad of the slave. Muhammad then sent Abu Bakr. Eventually, Abu Bakr negotiated a deal with Umayyah to purchase Bilal and exchange three of Abu Bakr's slaves (a pagan male slave and his wife and daughter) and emancipate him from slavery>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_Ibn_Rabah

Dan,

I just wanted to address the following point of yours, specifically, because I remember expressing a similar sentiment myself and it was possibly the first time a problem with Christian theology twigged with me. Of course, being the good Christian that I was, I promptly pushed it out of my head. That was, until, such realisations started to become more and more frequent. Anyway…

<<God is under no obligation to do anything for anyone.>>

Actually, he is. If he brought us into this world without asking us if we wanted to be a part of it, then he has an obligation to make sure that everyone is adequately provided for. That your god allows millions to starve speaks volumes about him. What kind of a monster lets that happen when they have the power to do something about it?

Would you let your son starve? Of course not. Just as you wouldn’t lock him in the basement and torture him forever just because he didn’t love you. You hold a different standard for your god - a lesser standard - and you excuse him for unimaginable neglect and horrors that you yourself would never dream of doing. A god that deals infinite punishment for finite crimes is infinitely evil.

You are more moral than your god. Most of us are.

Meanwhile, I’ve just had a revelation. I think Yuyutsu may be my god! Think about it. He remains genderless, he exists on a higher plane than the rest of us, his words are inaudible, I cannot see him, and he speaks to me through other people.

Whoa!

As to being irrational the philosopher David Hume said, "Reason is the slave of the passions."

Yuyutsu wrote, "We all operate essentially out of irrational desires rather than out of reason. Yes, we may apply reason on top in order to calculate how we may best achieve those desires, but without those initial desires we wouldn't be bothered to do anything, to write anything, to say anything or even to think anything."

I agree with David Hume and Yuyutsu in the matter of being irrational.

We mount a rational argument for irrational reasons. We are not going to settle anything. We may get a bit of information, but, most of all, I enjoy the contact with others on these strings. I stopped arguing on another string because I wasn't enjoying it. The other fellow didn't think that was a legitimate reason to stop, but I think that ultimately is the only reason we argue or stop arguing.

On the surface what could be more rational than mathematics? I have two wonderful books. "Induction and Analogy in Mathematics" and "Patterns of Plausible Inference" by Polya. I will spend part of what's left of my life in going through the reasoning and trying to solve the problems in those books. Since some of the problems haven't been solved by great mathematicians I am not going to solve them either. Why do I do it? It gives me pleasure. Why does it give me pleasure? I have no rational answer.

I come here to discuss the merits of Don Batten's article, whom I find to be an eminently rational person. I don't come here to play word games. It is impossible to discuss anything with someone who openly delights in being irrational, or who claims that truth is separate from facts.

AJ,
Sitting in church doesn't make you a Christian theologian, no more than sitting in an armchair makes you an expert, nor sitting in McDonald's makes you a hamburger.

Jayb,
I agree with you that, whether atheist or religious believer, most people don't hate others because of their differing beliefs, most of the time. Yet there are the obvious exceptions.

And most of the discussion on this thread has been quite civil, and some of it has been interesting. Yet I did notice your overly emotional reaction to the geological evidence provided by Tas Walker (12/6/16). Yours was not a rational response.

Yuyutsu and David: great reads . Thanks

Look up Daniel Kahneman,Nobel prize in behaviour economics , and his book "Think, slow & fast" . Also Ainslie who applied psychology & economicsto understand addictions. Both are pioneers.

A much earlier pioneer is Hamid al ghazali, previously cited, guided by the teachings of the Quran and the Prophet.

To illustrae with a well known condition, procastination is where the rational self does battle with the impulse self.

Fascinating.

David , by the way ,for a more balanced understanding of ghazal vis a vis science, go here: http://lostislamichistory.com/al-ghazali/

In no way was he opposed to science. He condemned theologians venturing into to realm of science (if they are not qualified) as much as scientist delving into theology (without the qualifications).
To quote ghazali:

“Great indeed is the crime against religion committed by anyone who supposes that Islam is to be championed by the denial of these mathematical sciences. For the revealed Law nowhere undertakes to deny or affirm these sciences, and the latter nowhere address themselves to religious matters.”