I've been thinking...

[elliotfc]

OK. Just to get the prereqs out of the way, I am a Catholic, but my beliefs are a veritable mixed bag. That's it. Oh yeah, for what it is worth I am a "fortean", whatever that means. I think that only means that I am an ornery and curious person with outrageous pet theories. I've never met two forteans who think alike.

I heard about the randi.org site by word of mouth (I promise this will get to religion/philosophy in a bit). James Randi has always intrigued me. I won't mention the good things about him (which there are aplenty and why should I preach to the choir ) but the thing about him that has most intrigued me is his obsession with debunking. It's analagous to a non-military crusade. It his passion, his life-work.

Implicit in this obsession is the fact that his opponent is formidable. So formidable that after Randi dies, the battle will continue. The battle will never end short of the human extinction. The point of contention, if I understand it correctly, is how the universe operates, and what should humans think about how the universe operates.

The skeptic movement is rather recent in the grand scheme of things. I was raised in Buffalo New York, and read the Skeptical Inquierer religiously for years, til I got sick of it. I began to feel disgust for the whole concept behind the thing. To me, belief is not exactly the end all. I believe that belief (heh) is a valuable exercise or necessary to work things out, but we can never be sure about the answers completely so we should always continue to question and think. But the skeptic mindset, after engaging it for many years, seemed to be as dogmatic a belief system as could be.

Many people compare science (scientism) to religion. Some science types have no problem with that comparison. Others go ballistic at that comparison. I'm very interested (maybe even amused) at the wide range of reactions, by science-types, to the comparison of science to religion. The fact that this forum exists (religion and philosophy) clearly hints at a dichotomy between science and other forms of thinking.

Is that dichotomy a false one? The important thing, I feel, is that everyone is after objective truth. I probably disagree with most of you on the inherent nature of religion. I can guess, based on reading the discussions here, that most of you feel that religion is a way to manipulate the minds of stupid people. There are many aspects of religion that perhaps deserve derision (although I don't particularly feel that "mocking" is a valuable exercise, besides the probable fact that it satisfies some pleasure center of the brain). And a library could be filled with books chronicling the crimes of religion.

But all that is secondary to the question of whether or not religion is after objective truth. Is it, or is it not? I believe that it is. Do most of you believe the opposite?

In my own personal mind, I can integrate science and religion. They are two ways of thinking with the same goal in mind. Do most of you believe that such an integration is simply impossible? And if so, I guess that would make me completely misguided?

One more thing. And this is hardly a new thing. I've met a lot of atheists/agnostics/materialists (I've attended three different universities). I find them to be absolutely insistent about the nature of God, which continually strikes me as extraordinary. The following has actually happened to me several times. I'll talk about my ideas about God, and then an atheist will tell me that "God isn't like that", or, will go on to tell me what the deal is with God. It's quite confounding. At the very least, the belief in the idea of God is universal. An atheist may not believe in God, but every atheists believe in an idea of God. Why would anyone insist in defining, very specifically, something that they believe to not exist?

What's a boy to do? Just by the fact that a skeptic forum engages in discussing religion/philosophy, there has to be something to it. What is the overall goal? To understand religion or philosophy? Or to understand how the religious think? Or to deconstruct religion or philosophy? I'll pretend that the mocking stuff isn't here because it doesn't interest me. What's the point in discussing topics that are pointless?

I can guess the point. The majority of people are religious, so you really have to deal with it. Do most of you wish that was not the case, or do you wish to convince people that religion is not the way to go? How can you change it so that religion is becomes the exception, and not the rule? Or are we already on the road there?

Sorry for the rambling discourse. I'm extremely interested in all answers to any of the few dozen questions that I've asked above. I have an anthropological background, and just to be completely out in the open, I'm planning on eventually writing about these sorts of topics, so any comments would be helpful. Thanks.

-Elliot

 

[Jon_in_london]

I'll talk about my ideas about God, and then an atheist will tell me that "God isn't like that", or, will go on to tell me what the deal is with God. It's quite confounding. At the very least, the belief in the idea of God is universal. An atheist may not believe in God, but every atheists believe in an idea of God. Why would anyone insist in defining, very specifically, something that they believe to not exist?

You have to define what it is that you dont belive in.
Otherwise you would be saying "I dont is stuff thats like a bit kinda.. like god..like...you know?... like..."

If you dont belive in invisible pink unicorns its a good idea to have them defined ie. they are horses with a big long horn, they are pink and they are invisible. If you change their definitions to a horse that is brown, no horn and visible......

Likewise with something like homeopathy.. I dont belive that homeopathy works but if you change the definition of homeopathy, how do I know what the hell it is Im supposed to belive/not belive in?

Athiests do not belive in god but of course we do recognize that certain people do. Therefore the idea of god, blatanty, exists.

Its isnt athiests who define God. It is theists. And most theists get pissed off (confounded even) when athiests remind them how they have defined god.

go figure.

 

[arcticpenguin]

Both parties in a discussion should agree on terms, or they will end up talking to cross-purposes. For an example of this see Celopatra's thread about how she believes in God but not really.

I'm one of those who is offended by the comparison of a scientific viewpoint with faith-based belief. Knowledge based on evidence is equivalent to 'blind faith' based on a) sacred texts b) the word of others c) any wild idea that settles into your mind? I don't think so.

 

[Dragonrock]

You asked whether or not scientists are dogmatic in their beliefs. Some are. Especially if it is their "pet" theory. However, regardless of how entrenched in an idea a scientist is, there are literally thousands of other scientists who would take great pleasure in proving a theory wrong.

Scientists are people, and alot of them dream of being the one who discovers the new paradigm or shatters the old belief. The network of scientists is a loose knit community with respect for, but little loyalty to, the current theories. This makes science a self correcting system.

Religion, on the other hand, actively discourages questioning existing dogma. There are more liberal churches that do not care what you wear or if you work on the holy day. But at their core almost all say that if you do not believe in the right god then you are not going to be rewarded/go to heaven/reincarnate/move to a higher energy state or whatever their cookie is.

The only thing science demands is proof of claims. Anyone who makes assertions beyond that is expressing a personal contention that is their own problem.

 

[Dancing David]

Nice post Elliot!

 

[arcticpenguin]

I can guess the point. The majority of people are religious, so you really have to deal with it. Do most of you wish that was not the case, or do you wish to convince people that religion is not the way to go? How can you change it so that religion is becomes the exception, and not the rule? Or are we already on the road there?

I think it would be nice if fewer people believed in religion, and especially fewer believed in the really wacky extreme fundamentalist religions because I think having an accurate perception of the world around you is a good survival value. But no, I don't make a lot of effort to 'convert' others to my point of view.

I would appreciate it if religious people would stop trying to cram their religion down my throat. I would appreciate it if they would stop trying to entangle their religion with the government I have to live under. I would appreciate it if they would stop equating religious belief with morality.

As for where the future leads, I don't know. I don't do the fortune-telling thing.

 

[swstephe]

my thoughts

Life is like a toaster, but instead of a repair model, they sent you a book of poetry about the wonders of technology. There is no waranty. If you want to repair the toaster, you have to take it apart and poke around in it for a while by trial and error. As you do, you may come to realize the wonders of technology all by yourself, and the book of poetry makes a little more sense if you look at it from the point of view of the poet, whom you may never meet in person.

Randi's religion article, for me, states that religion is inflexible, but later on mentions some examples that religion must eventually adjust itself to accomodate subjective interpretation of its cryptic message based on new objective information. Very few people believe that the world is flat and the Universe revolves around it. All religions have incorporated this undeniable observation into their paradigms. Stories within religion, (not the statement of poetic "facts", but the other stories), are of a sporadic introduction of prophets who help to prevent religion from becoming stagnant and unreasonable and changing it back to the philosophical basis.

I see science and religion as opposite ends of a very long journey. I theorize that eventually they will merge, (again?), that scientific knowledge and religion will be entirely compatible because the amount of common knowledge will far outweight the fear of the unknown. But by that time, what we call "science" and what we call "religion" will not be the same as today. It will probably be closer to "philosophy" and "logic". (I think science today suffers from too much information and not enough interpretation -- like global warming -- but that's just me).

Skeptisism has a long history of winning, when it is correct. And doesn't resist change as much as the opposite when it is incorrect. The healthy religous faithful, based on information from religious scripture, is the one who is skeptical and retrospective. Unfortunately, the unskeptical and unquestioning majority get the spotlight most of the time.

 

[Ipecac]

Religions will claim they're looking for objective truth but they're not. If they were, they wouldn't be locked into a two-thousand year old mindset.

(I have always, even when I was a Christian, found it aesthetically unpleasant that Christianity is rooted in a such a depressing, uncool time period such as the middle east of thousands of years ago. It would be much cooler if it were rooted in the Shogun era of Japan).

As far as skepticism being dogmatic, I don't think it is. I have found it liberating. But if you're a true skeptic, what's the alternative? Starting to believe in whatever nonsense floats your way?

 

[Yahzi]

elliotfc

Implicit in this obsession is the fact that his opponent is formidable.

There is a letter from a Greek to a friend of his, debunking a con-man who is robbing a town blind with his magic show. (His best trick was making a snake come out of a chicken egg). In this letter, the author bemoans the gullibility of people. This letter is over 2,000 years old.

I believe that belief (heh) is a valuable exercise or necessary to work things out,

What does this even mean? If you believe something, what is left to work out? Isn't the point of belief to have answers without working them out?

But the skeptic mindset, after engaging it for many years, seemed to be as dogmatic a belief system as could be.

Yes, we are quite obessed with the truth. I can see how you found that overly restrictive.

I can guess, based on reading the discussions here, that most of you feel that religion is a way to manipulate the minds of stupid people.

No, religion is a way for selfish people to manipulate their own minds. It is a method of justifying what you want, of elevating your personal desires to the status of divine commandment. The priests do not control the people, any more than the drug pusher controls the addicts. If he stops selling them drugs, they'll dump him and find another pusher without hesitation. Same for priests. Have you seen what happens to a preacher when he starts preaching what the people don't want to hear? (Hint: in at least one case it involved two sticks of wood and some nails).

In my own personal mind, I can integrate science and religion. They are two ways of thinking with the same goal in mind. Do most of you believe that such an integration is simply impossible? And if so, I guess that would make me completely misguided?

Yes. They are two ways of thinking that are, by definition, incompatible. Science defines truth as that which fits the evidence, and religion defines truth without any concern for evidence.

I find them to be absolutely insistent about the nature of God, which continually strikes me as extraordinary.

Maybe they just like knowing what they are talking about. Maybe they just think that if you don't know what you are talking about, there really isn't any point in talking about it.

How can you change it so that religion is becomes the exception, and not the rule?

We've got slavery down to the exception, and women's rights and racism are being worked on. Maybe someday we'll be able to convince people that being reasonable is always a good idea.

 

[Checkmite]

I've met a lot of atheists/agnostics/materialists (I've attended three different universities). I find them to be absolutely insistent about the nature of God, which continually strikes me as extraordinary. The following has actually happened to me several times. I'll talk about my ideas about God, and then an atheist will tell me that "God isn't like that", or, will go on to tell me what the deal is with God. It's quite confounding.

I think I understand what you're saying here. I also believe in God; I'm a Deist and my concept of God is somewhat unorthodox - compared to common notions of God, that is. I've found that in most places, including this forum, I am simply unable to debate about God in any serious manner because of this.

For example, I'll start talking about my belief in God, and someone will counter with an argument in favor of evolution. That's fine, I say; evolution and science in general are in all manner compatible with my concept of God. So they begin talking about gods mating with humans. Nope, my concept doesn't engage in such behavior either. Revelation? No. Divine Intervention? No. My concept of God kicked off the universe and that's about it.

When it gets to this point, I'm usually castigated for not using the "real" definition of God, or called an atheist in denial. I can't call my concept of God "God", they say, because a "God" is a big magician in the sky that created man in six days, banishes mortals to hell without a second thought, and urges holy wars in His name - and that is the only concept of God they will debate (as a concession, I do in fact often use the term "First Cause"). One even yelled at me for having a "useless" God. To be fair, a few people have attempted to debate, but we've always ventured off into a philisophical stalemate that is thoroughly disappointing to me and I'm sure to them as well.

As a result, I've tended to avoid debates here on the nature of God, the sole exception being Franko's Goddess, the existence of which he sought to make possible by essentially re-writing the universe...but that's another matter.

In any case, there's plenty here to discuss besides God. You'll find an awful lot of cantankerous and crochety types who like to put down and ridicule; but you'll also find people willing to understand and tolerate your beliefs, even while explaining how you're wrong. Then you'll find people who seem to have a rather meager grip on reality. Don't be discouraged and don't be afraid to concede defeat - nobody is immune from it.

 

[abiogenesis]

elliotfc,

You say that you are able to reconcile science and religion in your own mind. Your belief in the supernatural doesn't have any negative effect on how you interact with the natural world. This is entirely possible. However, most people's faith actually does influence their decisions and how they interact with other people.

In the majority of cases, the influence of faith is benign. Most believers don't lie, cheat or steal. They don't commit murder. These are admirable traits. But then, most non-believers act the same way. The problem is the justification for these actions.

I act in an ethical manner because personal experience and objective evidence suggest that that is the most practical way to behave. I don't need faith in the supernatural to keep me from being a criminal. Using faith to justify your actions, however, is very dangerous.

Any action can be justified through faith. Most believers do not crash planes into skyscrapers. However, "good christians" and suicide bombers both use faith to justify their actions. And, although terrorism is almost universally frowned upon, the bible says that equally horrendous acts have been commanded by the christian god.

Religion is responsible for the promotion of faith, an irrational belief without evidence, as a virtue. I feel that humanity would be better off if irrationality was seen as the weakness that it is.

Just my $0.02.

EDITED TO ADD:
By the way, I appreciate the straightforward and rational manner in which you approached this topic. It suggests a level of reason that is, unfortunately, not the norm among proponents of faith.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

 

[Yahweh]

I believe that belief (heh) is a valuable exercise or necessary to work things out, but we can never be sure about the answers completely so we should always continue to question and think.

There is a philosophical principle that states "Given infinite space, and infinite time, anything that can logically exist, will exist". Of course, that is just a philosophical principle torn down by the fact that there is not "an infinite amount of matter" in the universe, but nonetheless, It reminds me of that "we can never be sure about the answers completely" statement. To me, I've always wondered how complete with facts and logic an assumption must have behind it to suggest that it is "proved true".

Many people compare science (scientism) to religion. Some science types have no problem with that comparison. Others go ballistic at that comparison. I'm very interested (maybe even amused) at the wide range of reactions, by science-types, to the comparison of science to religion. The fact that this forum exists (religion and philosophy) clearly hints at a dichotomy between science and other forms of thinking.

I dont like to compare science to religion. Science is defined as "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena". Religion is defined as " A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader, A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship". Those dont seem to be very interchangeable or comparable terms.

Science teaches no mythology, it is moral-neutral, its not a system of beliefs. Science is understanding, making sense, and discovering how the world works. I dont consider Buddhism to be very "religiony" either, as it a moral system (teaches you have to live morally and happily), pretty comparable to rules in sport (teaches you have to behave).

Is that dichotomy a false one? The important thing, I feel, is that everyone is after objective truth. I probably disagree with most of you on the inherent nature of religion. I can guess, based on reading the discussions here, that most of you feel that religion is a way to manipulate the minds of stupid people. There are many aspects of religion that perhaps deserve derision (although I don't particularly feel that "mocking" is a valuable exercise, besides the probable fact that it satisfies some pleasure center of the brain). And a library could be filled with books chronicling the crimes of religion.

I look at religion as more of a massive misunderstanding. Primitive man used it to explain the things he could not understand such as where thunder came from or why the stars twinkle. Morality (or at least organized and structured society) existed before religion, after a while morality was soon built into the fabric of religion. Thats why I get offended (kinda) when people say "People without religion are immoral" or "Religion provides the basis for morality". There is a huge branch of philosophy called "ethics", so I understand perfectly well on morality vs. religion.

But all that is secondary to the question of whether or not religion is after objective truth. Is it, or is it not? I believe that it is. Do most of you believe the opposite?

Religion is not an objective truth. Science is the objective truth, it doesnt like to lie to you.

In my own personal mind, I can integrate science and religion. They are two ways of thinking with the same goal in mind. Do most of you believe that such an integration is simply impossible? And if so, I guess that would make me completely misguided?

I dont think its possible to do that without "conveniently" changing history (such as a 10,000 year old earth), dwelving into the realm of stupidity (such as dinosaurs living at the time of man), or just trying to avoid science altogether with "just plain dumb" claims (such as Intelligent Design), avoiding science all together ("just have faith), using bad logic to bypass science ("God exists outside of this reality...'), etc.

If it is possible to explain religious claims while adhereing to science, that would be great! But I think its completely unrealistic.

One more thing. And this is hardly a new thing. I've met a lot of atheists/agnostics/materialists (I've attended three different universities). I find them to be absolutely insistent about the nature of God, which continually strikes me as extraordinary. The following has actually happened to me several times. I'll talk about my ideas about God, and then an atheist will tell me that "God isn't like that", or, will go on to tell me what the deal is with God. It's quite confounding. At the very least, the belief in the idea of God is universal. An atheist may not believe in God, but every atheists believe in an idea of God. Why would anyone insist in defining, very specifically, something that they believe to not exist?

Bad idea. We cant just let beliefs or ideas go undefined. We define everything to seek understanding and answers if available. Its not acceptable to "just accept it".

What's a boy to do? Just by the fact that a skeptic forum engages in discussing religion/philosophy, there has to be something to it. What is the overall goal? To understand religion or philosophy? Or to understand how the religious think? Or to deconstruct religion or philosophy? I'll pretend that the mocking stuff isn't here because it doesn't interest me. What's the point in discussing topics that are pointless?

These topics exist, they are a huge part of life (or at least mine), and I see no reason why we would choose not to discuss any given topic.

I can guess the point. The majority of people are religious, so you really have to deal with it. Do most of you wish that was not the case, or do you wish to convince people that religion is not the way to go? How can you change it so that religion is becomes the exception, and not the rule? Or are we already on the road there?

Religion makes life interesting, the least I can say is I think it keeps boredom from eating away at my sanity.

Sorry for the rambling discourse. I'm extremely interested in all answers to any of the few dozen questions that I've asked above. I have an anthropological background, and just to be completely out in the open, I'm planning on eventually writing about these sorts of topics, so any comments would be helpful. Thanks.

Cool.

 

[ntech]

My only response is that I feel that someday the truth prevail and we will no longer be in the minority. Galileo was once in a very tiny minority but that did not make him wrong.

 

[Tricky]

I think I understand what you're saying here. I also believe in God; I'm a Deist and my concept of God is somewhat unorthodox - compared to common notions of God, that is. I've found that in most places, including this forum, I am simply unable to debate about God in any serious manner because of this.

Because you believe in a God that has no definition. How can anyone debate about something you cannot define. You and I reached this impasse many months ago, and there simply seems no way to resolve it. We must agree to disagree.

For example, I'll start talking about my belief in God, and someone will counter with an argument in favor of evolution. That's fine, I say; evolution and science in general are in all manner compatible with my concept of God. So they begin talking about gods mating with humans. Nope, my concept doesn't engage in such behavior either. Revelation? No. Divine Intervention? No. My concept of God kicked off the universe and that's about it.

Yup. Your God is virtually indistinguishable from "no god". You have no idea how frustrating that is to us atheists.

When it gets to this point, I'm usually castigated for not using the "real" definition of God, or called an atheist in denial. I can't call my concept of God "God", they say, because a "God" is a big magician in the sky that created man in six days, banishes mortals to hell without a second thought, and urges holy wars in His name - and that is the only concept of God they will debate (as a concession, I do in fact often use the term "First Cause"). One even yelled at me for having a "useless" God. To be fair, a few people have attempted to debate, but we've always ventured off into a philisophical stalemate that is thoroughly disappointing to me and I'm sure to them as well.

Actually, that is not at all disappointing. When we get beyond our straw men and examine our personal philosophies, that is when we open ourselves to new ideas. I've found some very important insights by debating stubborn asses like you.

As a result, I've tended to avoid debates here on the nature of God, the sole exception being Franko's Goddess, the existence of which he sought to make possible by essentially re-writing the universe...but that's another matter.

Ah yes. Franko's Goddess was a thoughtful construction, but ultimately easy to dismantle. Still, I found it a useful exercise.

In any case, there's plenty here to discuss besides God. You'll find an awful lot of cantankerous and crochety types who like to put down and ridicule; but you'll also find people willing to understand and tolerate your beliefs, even while explaining how you're wrong. Then you'll find people who seem to have a rather meager grip on reality. Don't be discouraged and don't be afraid to concede defeat - nobody is immune from it.

I am immune. I have never been defeated. I am invulnerable. Well, at least in Flame Wars. In real discussions, I get dinged pretty often. I think the real victory here is to be respected by the people you disagree with. In this, Joshua has excelled. I like to think I have done ok too. So, Elliot, listen to Josh, this wise, if ridiculously young sage. These boards can be great fun and very illuminating if you don't take them personally. You will probably find some people you cannot agree with here. You will probably find some people you agree with totally. You will probably find that the people you like come from both of the above groups.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: I've been thinking...

I think I understand what you're saying here. I also believe in God; I'm a Deist and my concept of God is somewhat unorthodox - compared to common notions of God, that is. I've found that in most places, including this forum, I am simply unable to debate about God in any serious manner because of this.

If you are Deist, does that make you a Christian? No.

For example, I'll start talking about my belief in God, and someone will counter with an argument in favor of evolution. That's fine, I say; evolution and science in general are in all manner compatible with my concept of God.

Tell that to Philosopher Yahweh. He'd have a lot of negative things to say. You may have the belief that your God is compatible with evolution and science, but Philosopher Yahweh says "you cant invent your facts to support your own belief". Philosopher Yahweh also notes that no amount of science today can support the existence of a god, no reasoning to support the existence of god, "My god is compatible with science" is an obvious logical flaw. Philosopher Yahweh does not accept belief without reason.

So they begin talking about gods mating with humans. Nope, my concept doesn't engage in such behavior either. Revelation? No. Divine Intervention? No. My concept of God kicked off the universe and that's about it.

Concepts are fine. Of course a concept becomes a "false adage" when there is a logical contradiction behind it. In this case, the logical "whaa" (not to be confused with "flaw") is the lack of reasoning behind your particular concepts.

When it gets to this point, I'm usually castigated for not using the "real" definition of God, or called an atheist in denial. I can't call my concept of God "God", they say, because a "God" is a big magician in the sky that created man in six days, banishes mortals to hell without a second thought, and urges holy wars in His name - and that is the only concept of God they will debate (as a concession, I do in fact often use the term "First Cause").

Well obviously, you dont believe in the same god as written about the Bible. You may infact be your own independent religion (or a freethinker, or a Unitarian kinda). If someone doesnt realize that, then the debate becomes kinda stalemated, as one person is under the assumption you are a Christian who worships the Christian god. Still, I dont see why anyone would refuse to debate with you even if they knew you werent a "traditional" Christian (note: I'm not trying to billiefan or anything, for lack of better words I used the word "traditional").

One even yelled at me for having a "useless" God.

The easiest and most obvious counter arguement is "That in no way invalidates my beliefs". Then a smartass like me would say something like "Youre right, science does".

To be fair, a few people have attempted to debate, but we've always ventured off into a philisophical stalemate that is thoroughly disappointing to me and I'm sure to them as well.

Its because you dont have any grounded or defined beliefs (that I've seen). Debate is really hard to do when your debating something incredibly vague, ambigious, and undefined.

As a result, I've tended to avoid debates here on the nature of God, the sole exception being Franko's Goddess, the existence of which he sought to make possible by essentially re-writing the universe...but that's another matter.

I wasnt a member of Randi.org early enough to debate Franko. I'm sure I could rip his arguements to pieces anyhow. I base that assumption on the Franko posts I've seen, his general reasoning style (which is beyond measureble levels of "stupid"), and also my ability to rationalize.

In any case, there's plenty here to discuss besides God.

Yes there is, but thats not a reason to avoid the God topic is it?

You'll find an awful lot of cantankerous and crochety types who like to put down and ridicule; but you'll also find people willing to understand and tolerate your beliefs, even while explaining how you're wrong. Then you'll find people who seem to have a rather meager grip on reality.

Correct me if I misunderstood, you said "people who tolerate your beliefs, even while you explain how they are wrong" and also "then other people who have a meager grip on reality"... does that imply people with no belief system dont have a grip on reality or am I being presumptuous?

Don't be discouraged and don't be afraid to concede defeat - nobody is immune from it.

Entirely correct! Most people dont realize that the ability of one to outdebate another doesnt logically make the assumption "the winner of the debate is the correct one", its really more along the lines of "the winner of the debate presented his arguements better". Of course, if someone has had a few devestating losses or (major) contradictions in their reasoning, its proabably safe to assume that they may have ill-founded beliefs.

(Oh, and I am immune to defeat, I am Yahweh! Able to punch holes in any bad arguement, able to expose the flawed judgement in any bad arguement, and an ego that just wont quit! )

 

[Checkmite]

Yup. Your God is virtually indistinguishable from "no god". You have no idea how frustrating that is to us atheists.

Cry me a river.

 

[Checkmite]

Re: Re: Re: I've been thinking...

If you are Deist, does that make you a Christian? No.

No, but he said he is challenged because his views about God are unorthodox, and I'm in the same situation.

Tell that to Philosopher Yahweh. He'd have a lot of negative things to say. You may have the belief that your God is compatible with evolution and science, but Philosopher Yahweh says "you cant invent your facts to support your own belief". Philosopher Yahweh also notes that no amount of science today can support the existence of a god, no reasoning to support the existence of god, "My god is compatible with science" is an obvious logical flaw. Philosopher Yahweh does not accept belief with reason.

Student Joshua asks, "What facts have been invented to support my belief?" and reminds Yahweh that he only said science was compatible with his concept of God, not supportive of it.

Concepts are fine. Of course a concept becomes a "false adage" when there is a logical contradiction behind it. In this case, the logical "whaa" (not to be confused with "flaw") is the lack of reasoning behind your particular concepts.

Interesting deduction - considering that it's based on nothing. Philosopher Yahweh is guilty of making an ASSumption. Knows Philosopher Yahweh what happens when you ASSUME?

Well obviously, you dont believe in the same god as written about the Bible. You may infact be your own independent religion (or a freethinker, or a Unitarian kinda). If someone doesnt realize that, then the debate becomes kinda stalemated, as one person is under the assumption you are a Christian who worships the Christian god. Still, I dont see why anyone would refuse to debate with you even if they knew you werent a "traditional" Christian (note: I'm not trying to billiefan or anything, for lack of better words I used the word "traditional").

They have tried; it doesn't work (refer to that nitwit Tricky's post above).

The easiest and most obvious counter arguement is "That in no way invalidates my beliefs". Then a smartass like me would say something like "Youre right, science does".

How?

Its because you dont have any grounded or defined beliefs (that I've seen). Debate is really hard to do when your debating something incredibly vague, ambigious, and undefined.

Your "that I've seen" qualifier is the only thing that makes this statement true, since I've never even debated this with you...

Yes there is, but thats not a reason to avoid the God topic is it?

Sigh. You know, my orginal post wasn't directed towards you...

Correct me if I misunderstood, you said "people who tolerate your beliefs, even while you explain how they are wrong" and also "then other people who have a meager grip on reality"... does that imply people with no belief system dont have a grip on reality or am I being presumptuous?

No. Look again...it says "people willing to understand and tolerate your beliefs, even while explaining how you're wrong", not "people who tolerate your beliefs, even while you explain how they are wrong". Notice how the difference is subtle, yet profound? Contemplate.

Here, let me make a list of the types of people here:

• [*]Crochety types who like to put down and ridicule,
  
  [*]Understanding people who will tolerate your beliefs but still encourage you to question them, and
  
  [*]People with a meager grip on reality.

Better?

Entirely correct! Most people dont realize that the ability of one to outdebate another doesnt logically make the assumption "the winner of the debate is the correct one", its really more along the lines of "the winner of the debate presented his arguements better". Of course, if someone has had a few devestating losses or (major) contradictions in their reasoning, its proabably safe to assume that they may have ill-founded beliefs.

Yes!

(Oh, and I am immune to defeat, I am Yahweh! Able to punch holes in any bad arguement, able to expose the flawed judgement in any bad arguement, and an ego that just wont quit! )

My ego is bigger than yours.

 

[Correa Neto]

A small remark-

There is a big difference between beliving in God, admiting (or considering) the possibility that God exists and following an organised religion. And there are also countless degrees inside the "following a religion", ranging from the people that attend to churches or sinagogues merely as a social event (and have a collective or social event, to get an ethinical feeling - as a friend once told me), those who see religion as a set of moral and behavioral principles, to those that belive that every single word of the sacred texts he/she follows is true (fundies).

In my own experience, I have met scientists and people who use scientific methodology in their daily work and range from atheists to almost all the "following a religion" gradations above. Few belive or follow the Bible quite literally, most belive in a God concept which is quite different from Bible's God (quite similar to that of some greek phylosophers, a deity the has little or no contact with its creation).

Now, personal beliefs, as the term says is something personal, but when it comes to a a religious phylosophycal construct based on a text that states that the Sun revolves around the earth, that all humans were derived from a single couple (with no incest involved), that Earth is 5Ky old and has several genocide episodes (killing all the primogenits, killing all those who followed Baal, kill everybody that worshiped the golden bull - but not those ones, yes, that one forged the bull, but he's my brother and he repented)... Well, I think that such religion must be seriously quetioned.

And by the way, assuming that three is a God, what evidences we have that the Bible and not any other religious text is the correct? Maybe the buddists or the muslims are right...

It is my personal belief that if mankind is to evolve it must abandomn (or perhaps on a firts stage drastically modify) its religions. People must follow social rules of behavior (don't kill, don't steal, etc.) because they know that its good for the continuity of our species, and not because they are afraid of the penalities imposed by the "Big Daddy in the Sky", or because they are expecting the rewards given by the "Big Daddy in the Sky"in the afterlife.

And the number of people who belive in God or follow a religion is not a sign of anything. Remember how many bad politicians won an election because most of the people voted on them. You see what the following the "most people" principle can do to a lemming?

 

[Ladewig]

The fact that this forum exists (religion and philosophy) clearly hints at a dichotomy between science and other forms of thinking.

Is that dichotomy a false one? The important thing, I feel, is that everyone is after objective truth. [snip]

But all that is secondary to the question of whether or not religion is after objective truth. Is it, or is it not? I believe that it is. Do most of you believe the opposite?

Before I can answer your question, I need to have a better understanding of how you are defining religion and the religious quest for objective truth.

I know how science types go about their quest for o.t. They observe the world, make hypotheses, test these hypothoses by isolating variables, and then develop theories or laws to explain specific phenomenon. If new or different observations become apparent, the science types are prepared to throw out or modify old laws if this observable evidence can be confirmed.

The value of this approach is apparent when one considers that given enough time, observations, and experiments, all reasonable scientists will come to the same conclusion no matter what their starting beliefs are.


So my question for you, elliotfc, is how do religious types go about their quest for objective truth?

 

[Yahzi]

So my question for you, eliotfc, is how do religious types go about their quest for objective truth?

That's a very good question that deserves being repeated in bold face.