To take up the scriptures and submit them to a rationalistic test of scientific validity, which determins the factual basis for each statement, is shallow.

God chose mortal and fallible men to write down the holy scriptures. He prefers to use non-miraculous natural means if possible. Given the limited scientific knowledge of the early times, the writings of these ancients should not be considered worthless, for it was not their intent to write concerning the scientific facts, but to write on cosmogonic realities that are reflected in the microcosm of each human life. The innocence of their form, such as saying "God walked with man in the evening" is also meant to speak to the human heart.

Much of the scriptures is also poetry. When was the last time that a poem was put under scientific scrutiny? Poetry and symbol is the language of Myth. These things speak to that mystical part of the human experience which is non-verbal.

Myths also are true, not in the factual sense, but in the way that they speak to Man's divinity and humanity. In scripture, we find not only Yawehistic poetry but also the incorporation of other near eastern myths, such as those of Canaan cult where the divinity is characterized in the storm thunder. This does not invalidate the truth that Israel was God's chosen people. Evidence of synthesis and syncretistism in a religion is no grounds for invalidation. God can use any vehical of inspiration he wishes, and that icludes the contribution of other peoples. These symbols do not identify God with thunder, they do not say "God is thunder" they say,"God speaks also through thunder"

The poetry of scripture must first be examined as a whole, looking at its beginning and end, with a view to its narrative meaning as well as its underlying realities. One must consider the point of view of the one speaking, for he represents the human condition. Thus the psalmist laments the errors of the Israelites in the desert, and is able to tell a human story in much greater depth than if he simply listed asuccession of facts about the bronze age.

The Word of God is living, it still shapes humanity, it is creative. The word has real power. It is covenental also in that it holy scriptures tell the story of salvation, indeed, the scriptures are deeply inbued with God's character. Whatdo find out about God? A character of faithfulness and patience who is ever remembering his beloved. Through myths as well as actual events the word reveals a prophetic God as protagonist, in this mythic and legendary reality God is the hero.

Christ's word is effective as the divine transformative act. indeed, God's word demands that we make a decision, to either reject or accept, for it can never leave us indifferent.

Concerning these thoughts, read my new novel about The Seven Sorcerers of Yeth, entitled

The Fall of Nystol: Notes on Legends, Labyrinths, and the Last Days of the Magi (http://www.lulu.com/content/330534)

Spammer.

To take up the scriptures and submit them to a rationalistic test of scientific validity, which determins the factual basis for each statement, is shallow.

I knew eventually some theist would adapt to science by declaring truth as shallow.


...for it was not their intent to write concerning the scientific facts, but to write on cosmogonic realities that are reflected in the microcosm of each human life.

So the claim that 'God' exists wasn't intended to be truth? Too bad those poor shmucks didn't know that. Could have save them a few crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, bombings, etc.


...Evidence of synthesis and syncretistism in a religion is no grounds for invalidation...

A declaration that evidence of something being fiction does not make it fiction. Nice.

I knew eventually some theist would adapt to science by declaring truth as shallow.
Spam notwithstanding, Lawdog makes a good point, one echoed by Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time:
We shall take the simpleminded view that a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that might mean). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.

See also the Wikipedia entry on theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories#Theories_as_.22models.22).

Science does not represent the absolute truth. (And neither does anything else, in my opinion.) In this sense it is "shallow."

Spam notwithstanding, Lawdog makes a good point, one echoed by Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time:


See also the Wikipedia entry on theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories#Theories_as_.22models.22).

Science does not represent the absolute truth. (And neither does anything else, in my opinion.) In this sense it is "shallow."

Science isn't supposed to represent truth. It is a process to discover, approximate, and speculate truth. Science discovered the existence of protons. That is truth. Science produced an equation where Energy is Mass x 186,38x mps ^ 2. That is an approximation of truth. Science predicts that the smallest component in reality might be a tiny vibrating string of exotic energy. That is a speculation of truth.

Considering that science has the best track record for discovering truth and it's probing the very foundations of reality and the human mind, I would have to say that it reaches both wide and deep (hardly shallow in the least). Simply put, it goes to places that theology can't touch and because of this, makes it an excellent tool for examining the claims of theology and comparing them against reality.

Science isn't supposed to represent truth. It is a process to discover, approximate, and speculate truth. Science discovered the existence of protons. That is truth. Science produced an equation where Energy is Mass x 186,38x mps ^ 2. That is an approximation of truth. Science predicts that the smallest component in reality might be a tiny vibrating string of exotic energy. That is a speculation of truth.
Yes.

Considering that science has the best track record for discovering truth and it's probing the very foundations of reality and the human mind, I would have to say that it reaches both wide and deep (hardly shallow in the least). Simply put, it goes to places that theology can't touch and because of this, makes it an excellent tool for examining the claims of theology and comparing them against reality.
Well, yes and no. While science is an excellent predictor of nature, what hard, falsifiable claims does theology make? Theology is highly interpretive and is largely concerned with the supernatural, by definition out of science's reach. That said, if your own theology conflicts with science, chances are that science will win if you put them to the test. Then again, I don't think a good theology ought to conflict with science.

Well, yes and no. While science is an excellent predictor of nature, what hard, falsifiable claims does theology make?

Let's take christianity as an example. Adam and Eve are the parents of all humanity. Reality was created in a specific sequence over the course of seven days (or thousands of years). 'God' exists. 'Satan' exists. 'Heaven' exists. 'Hell' exists. 'Angels' exists. 'Demons' exist. Just for starters...


Theology is highly interpretive and is largely concerned with the supernatural, by definition out of science's reach.

Most theology is highly interpretive and there is no known supernatural phenomenoa that exists.


That said, if your own theology conflicts with science, chances are that science will win if you put them to the test. Then again, I don't think a good theology ought to conflict with science.

Why even have theology at all? On the pro side it's the bullshit that binds people together and on the con side it's the bullshit that promotes death, ignorance, and suffering.

Lawdog! It's you! Where have you been?

Let's take christianity as an example. Adam and Eve are the parents of all humanity. Reality was created in a specific sequence over the course of seven days (or thousands of years). 'God' exists. 'Satan' exists. 'Heaven' exists. 'Hell' exists. 'Angels' exists. 'Demons' exist. Just for starters...
You're talking about mythology here. If you mix mythology and theology and take all of it literally, then you will have obvious conflicts with what science tells us. But this is not the only way to look at religion.

Most theology is highly interpretive and there is no known supernatural phenomenoa that exists.
That depends who you ask. An uncle of mine was a mystic and a healer, and he would surely cite his own experiences as supernatural phenomena. I'm fairly certain the house I used to live in was haunted by a poltergeist, whatever that might be. My family and circle of friends are full of accounts of hauntings and extrasensory perception. Being supernatural phenomena, of course, there would be no way to scientifically test for any of these. It's a matter of perspective.

Why even have theology at all? On the pro side it's the bullshit that binds people together and on the con side it's the bullshit that promotes death, ignorance, and suffering.
Some people, myself included, don't need theology all that much. For others, however, it's a useful interpretation of their religious experiences - not necessarily even miracles or visitations by spirits, but more everyday things that we all experience, like love and awe.

Science isn't supposed to represent truth. It is a process to discover, approximate, and speculate truth. Science discovered the existence of protons. That is truth. Science produced an equation where Energy is Mass x 186,38x mps ^ 2. That is an approximation of truth. Science predicts that the smallest component in reality might be a tiny vibrating string of exotic energy. That is a speculation of truth.

Considering that science has the best track record for discovering truth and it's probing the very foundations of reality and the human mind, I would have to say that it reaches both wide and deep (hardly shallow in the least). Simply put, it goes to places that theology can't touch and because of this, makes it an excellent tool for examining the claims of theology and comparing them against reality.


So how would you use science to evaluate ethics?

Theology is highly interpretive and is largely concerned with the supernatural, by definition out of science's reach. That said, if your own theology conflicts with science, chances are that science will win if you put them to the test. Then again, I don't think a good theology ought to conflict with science.
I tire of this statement. Nothing is out of sciences reach. And what is a "good" theology? If you're going to tell me that theology has all of these benefits for the "spiritual" wellbeing of the individual, why not just call it psychotherapy and be done with it? No. Theologies are just mass delusions propagated by the inertia of controlling overlords and the threat of eternal torture.

Goddamn terrorists.

So how would you use science to evaluate ethics?
Evolutionary psychology and biology have nice evaluations of the origins and application of ethics.

I tire of this statement. Nothing is out of sciences reach.
Not true. As an easy example, science simply disregards anything smaller than the Planck length; there is nothing preventing the existence of such an object, but it cannot be measured; it is "effectively" nonexistent. Another one: "qualia," as philosophers call them, or qualitative experiences (not their constituent physical processes).

And what is a "good" theology?
Heh... don't ask me.

Evolutionary psychology and biology have nice evaluations of the origins and application of ethics.

And consciousness?

I tire of this statement. Nothing is out of sciences reach. And what is a "good" theology? If you're going to tell me that theology has all of these benefits for the "spiritual" wellbeing of the individual, why not just call it psychotherapy and be done with it? No. Theologies are just mass delusions propagated by the inertia of controlling overlords and the threat of eternal torture.

Goddamn terrorists.

Isn't it? Science is still limited by the knowledge and tools available. Its rather sweeping to presume nothing is out of its reach

Much of the scriptures is also poetry. When was the last time that a poem was put under scientific scrutiny?
when was the last time POEMS told you STONE bad children or a girl who aint a virgin when you marry her?
www.thewaronfaith.com/bible_quotes.htm

Christ's word is effective as the divine transformative act. indeed, God's word demands that we make a decision, to either reject or accept, for it can never leave us indifferent.

your god if it existed should be charged with genocide
www.evilbible.com

Not true. As an easy example, science simply disregards anything smaller than the Planck length; there is nothing preventing the existence of such an object, but it cannot be measured; it is "effectively" nonexistent. Another one: "qualia," as philosophers call them, or qualitative experiences (not their constituent physical processes).
Quibbling. Science does not disregard anything smaller than the PL, it makes a certain claim that given our current physical understanding, a length smaller than the PL has no "meaning".

And "qualia" such as my experience of the color red, can certainly be explained by cognitive science as the self-referential (feedback) mechanisms of complex weighted neural networks. If that isn't satisfactory, tough cookies.

Isn't it? Science is still limited by the knowledge and tools available. Its rather sweeping to presume nothing is out of its reach
I consider it optimistic.

Look, science is nothing more than a technique that humans have developed to get a handle on the nature of the cosmos (that's rocks, stars, people, slugs, alpha-centaurians...). So far, it has proved to be the best way of gaining reliable information about it. When religion or some other technique can even remotely approach the explanatory power of science, regarding everything, then we'll talk. I'll have my people contact your people. We'll do lunch.

And consciousness?
A fascinating branch of cognitive science with some interesting theories floating around. Is there some other method of investigation that is even working on a solid predictive model of consciousness? I must have missed it...

A fascinating branch of cognitive science with some interesting theories floating around. Is there some other method of investigation that is even working on a solid predictive model of consciousness? I must have missed it...


No there isn't; and you cannot see hear or evaluate it; so why believe it exists? Or doesn't it?

No there isn't;
Didn't think so.

...and you cannot see hear or evaluate it; so why believe it exists? Or doesn't it?
Why can't you evaluate it? It's the result of neurochemical processes, so why not? And I believe it exists because:

1) It's defined as "an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation"

2) I have this sensation sometimes :D

3) So by definition, it exists as defined.

Right?

Didn't think so.


Why can't you evaluate it? It's the result of neurochemical processes, so why not? And I believe it exists because:

1) It's defined as "an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation"

2) I have this sensation sometimes :D

3) So by definition, it exists as defined.

Right?

A sensation? can I feel your "sensation" too? Is it the same as mine? ;)

How can we tell?

A sensation? can I feel your "sensation" too? Is it the same as mine? ;)

How can we tell?
Wow... Ummm... Whew! I won't even begin to tell you how that reads... Tingly. Yes. That's all I will say.

Lawdog,

To take up the scriptures and submit them to a rationalistic test of scientific validity, which determins the factual basis for each statement, is shallow.That cannot be true where the statements are being presented as fact.

God chose mortal and fallible men to write down the holy scriptures.Not accurate. This is only an unsubstantiated claim.

Given the limited scientific knowledge of the early times, the writings of these ancients should not be considered worthless, for it was not their intent to write concerning the scientific facts, but to write on cosmogonic realities that are reflected in the microcosm of each human life. This is nonsense. Science is about the discovery of knowledge, of what is true and what is false. Either these ancients wrote truthful statements or they wrote fiction. Either way a modern scientific investigation is entirely relevant and independent of whether they understood modern science or not.

The innocence of their form, such as saying "God walked with man in the evening" is also meant to speak to the human heart. The heart is a blood pump – what does your statement mean? You mean – an appeal to the emotions rather than the intellect, right?

Much of the scriptures is also poetry. When was the last time that a poem was put under scientific scrutiny? Poetry and symbol is the language of Myth. These things speak to that mystical part of the human experience which is non-verbal.That’s fine providing the intent is not to convey any type of factual truth.

Myths also are true, not in the factual sense, but in the way that they speak to Man's divinity and humanity.How can something be true in a non-factual sense?

The Word of God is living, it still shapes humanity, it is creative.From an objective perspective the essential elements remain fantasy since they lack that factual quality that can be revealed through scientific evaluation.

The word has real power. This is true; it can evoke strong emotions, incite wars and intolerance, as well as encourage love, compassion, and generosity; but then so can many good novels. A truthful basis is not necessary for these things.

Christ's word is effective as the divine transformative act. indeed, God's word demands that we make a decision, to either reject or accept, for it can never leave us indifferent.Clearly not so for those that see no truth in the claims.

Ok. Now that I've regained my... composure ... I understand what you're saying. I suppose all you can go on is an educated guess that since we're all incredibly similar in brain structure, that it would be very suprising if your experience of self-awareness was not essentially the same as mine.

Wow... Ummm... Whew! I won't even begin to tell you how that reads... Tingly. Yes. That's all I will say.


You are way too h***y, buster!!! :rolleyes:

You are way too h***y, buster!!! :rolleyes:
Tell me about it. :rolleyes:

Tell me about it. :rolleyes:


Hello? I just did! :D :m: ?

It was rhetorical! You know? ;)

Spam notwithstanding, Lawdog makes a good point, one echoed by Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time:

We shall take the simpleminded view that a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that might mean). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.

\this same exact statement could apply to the concept of "truth" itself. by that logic, the truth must be relatively shallow as well. in fact, the whole universe would lack depth.

Science is about Fact, if you want Truth go down the hall to Philosophy.

\this same exact statement could apply to the concept of "truth" itself. by that logic, the truth must be relatively shallow as well. in fact, the whole universe would lack depth.
What is "truth," and how does this statement apply to it?

God chose mortal and fallible men to write down the holy scriptures. He prefers to use non-miraculous natural means if possible.

Assuming God exists, how do you know what 'he' prefers? :confused: :confused: :confused:

You're talking about mythology here. If you mix mythology and theology and take all of it literally, then you will have obvious conflicts with what science tells us. But this is not the only way to look at religion.

Do tell.


That depends who you ask. An uncle of mine was a mystic and a healer, and he would surely cite his own experiences as supernatural phenomena. I'm fairly certain the house I used to live in was haunted by a poltergeist, whatever that might be. My family and circle of friends are full of accounts of hauntings and extrasensory perception. Being supernatural phenomena, of course, there would be no way to scientifically test for any of these. It's a matter of perspective.

If these things are really happening then I don't see why they would be beyond science. If these events aren't really happening then of course they are beyond science because there is nothing to observe / experiment with. It's interesting that you are experiencing 'supernatural' events throughout your life. I have yet to witness one; although, I have have quite a bit of fantastic experiences which were all hallucinatory... but really fuckin' cool.


Some people, myself included, don't need theology all that much. For others, however, it's a useful interpretation of their religious experiences - not necessarily even miracles or visitations by spirits, but more everyday things that we all experience, like love and awe.

Is there a way to interpret fantastic experiences without the 'supernatural', 'God', and all the negative behaviors that come with religion?

So how would you use science to evaluate ethics?

You bet!

Do tell.
You can interpret it any way you want; that's why you have so many different kinds of religious people, ranging from stark raving fundamentalist lunatics to very kind, intelligent individuals. I can tell you right off the bat that Catholics do not believe that the Bible is intended to be interpreted literally. Most Catholics literally interpret their theology, but it is of course possible to interpret Catholic theology in other ways. Many, for example, consider heaven and hell to be states of mind rather than physical places where your soul goes when you die.


If these things are really happening then I don't see why they would be beyond science. If these events aren't really happening then of course they are beyond science because there is nothing to observe / experiment with. It's interesting that you are experiencing 'supernatural' events throughout your life. I have yet to witness one; although, I have have quite a bit of fantastic experiences which were all hallucinatory... but really fuckin' cool.
If something is supernatural, then it should appear to the scientific eye that there is nothing to study. It's a silly concept in its common usage, I think, but so many people use it that it merits discussing. Ghosts and the like may not be supernatural phenomena, but they are at least somewhat subjective. Some people are apparently more sensitive to them than others. My uncle saw them all the time; I have only encountered the unexplained a few times in my life, and many, as you, never have. Whether they are merely the hallucinations of hysterics or something else is difficult to say unless you have experienced them yourself, and even then it is easy to doubt. I heard breaking glass downstairs at night once, but nothing broken was to be found. Could that have been in my head? What about coming home to an empty house and finding the master bedroom and upstairs hallway full of recently sprayed perfume? What about lights and radios turning themselves on in sequence - one turns on in the middle of the night, you get up and turn it off, and then another one turns on - how can that be explained? It is easy to call the first a hallucination. The second and third are much more difficult to explain; science might be able to provide answers to these, but they may sound even more far-fetched than the conclusions of a superstitious person. To me, the question of who to believe depends not on the "truth" of their theories, but how well they work. Superstitions and theology both persist because they somehow agree with the experiences of people. When they are very old, it is an indicator that they work well.

Is there a way to interpret fantastic experiences without the 'supernatural', 'God', and all the negative behaviors that come with religion?
There certainly is. I think people believe what satisfies them. Newton believed that gravitational force was instantaneous action at a distance. While it has been shown that gravitational waves actually propagate at c, it is still practical in many cases to use Newton's formula F = GMm/r^2 today. The most "obvious" interpretation of this formula is Newton's, and indeed it works wherever the formula works. For a time, then, both this formula and interpretation were the final word on gravity, and everyone knew it was the truth. If you lived then, so would you. In the same way, were you to live under different circumstances, you might now "know" for certain who the One True God is. If history is any indicator, we are completely wrong about everything we think we know.

'Theology is highly interpretive and is largely concerned with the supernatural, by definition out of science's reach.'

I beg to differ.

What is currently considered "the supernatural" is currently beyond the reach of science. I contend that there is no such thing as "the supernatural" because by definition, all that is natural is natural. If there is some facet of the universe that is currently commonly viewed as "supernatural", I contend that it simply the natural that has not been integrated into science's "big picture" as of this time. I presume perhaps incorrectly that it will be integrated into it over time.

'Theology is highly interpretive and is largely concerned with the supernatural, by definition out of science's reach.'

I beg to differ.

What is currently considered "the supernatural" is currently beyond the reach of science. I contend that there is no such thing as "the supernatural" because by definition, all that is natural is natural. If there is some facet of the universe that is currently commonly viewed as "supernatural", I contend that it simply the natural that has not been integrated into science's "big picture" as of this time. I presume perhaps incorrectly that it will be integrated into it over time.
I agree with you.

If the supernatural is beyond nature, and nature is that which science can study, then the supernatural is beyond that which science can study. But if science can suddenly study it, it isn't supernatural anymore. It's only a semantic distinction, which is why I don't put too much stock in the word.

On the other hand, there are qualitative aspects to life for which science is not the appropriate tool. You could call this "supernatural" as well. (Though that might be stretching it.)

What is "truth," and how does this statement apply to it?

well, arguably a truth is a theory that is either proven or accepted pervasively. a "law" if you will. everything that can be said about a theory can also be said about the truth. what people believe to be truthful is just an accurate describer or predictor of the behavior of a model.

truth is subjective as truth requires belief. if you believe that a is true, then b must also be true...etc. scientific data does not necessarily work that way. if a can be proved, b might not also be proved under certain conditions, or may only be proved under extremely restrictive conditions. the problem lies with people - each scientific experiment that is conducted produces only situation-specific results; while these results may be applicable under other conditions, the experiment is not a supplier of information as to the ability of the premise to succeed or fail under any other conditions. people however, hear that an experiment has gotten a particular result and often assume that these results will be replicated across the board, thus holding the results up to a misinformed or unrealistic expectation. science is not a provider of truth, but rather a describer of what is possible under given conditions. that's not shallow, it is just necessarily limited.

well, arguably a truth is a theory that is either proven or accepted pervasively. a "law" if you will. everything that can be said about a theory can also be said about the truth. what people believe to be truthful is just an accurate describer or predictor of the behavior of a model.

truth is subjective as truth requires belief. if you believe that a is true, then b must also be true...etc. scientific data does not necessarily work that way. if a can be proved, b might not also be proved under certain conditions, or may only be proved under extremely restrictive conditions. the problem lies with people - each scientific experiment that is conducted produces only situation-specific results; while these results may be applicable under other conditions, the experiment is not a supplier of information as to the ability of the premise to succeed or fail under any other conditions. people however, hear that an experiment has gotten a particular result and often assume that these results will be replicated across the board, thus holding the results up to a misinformed or unrealistic expectation. science is not a provider of truth, but rather a describer of what is possible under given conditions. that's not shallow, it is just necessarily limited.
I put "shallow" in quotes because first, it is a very imprecise word to begin with, and second, I didn't mean it literally, whatever it means. You're right, limited is a much better word to describe it.

As well, by your definition of truth, it is quite similar to theory, and so it is not very surprising that the statement should apply to both of them. On the other hand, if we were discussing capital-T Truth, it would not be considered a working model but the absolute, irrefutable, final word on reality, very different from a theory or a truth with a lowercase t (which is really just a highly respected theory, in my opinion).

I put "shallow" in quotes because first, it is a very imprecise word to begin with, and second, I didn't mean it literally, whatever it means. You're right, limited is a much better word to describe it.

As well, by your definition of truth, it is quite similar to theory, and so it is not very surprising that the statement should apply to both of them. On the other hand, if we were discussing capital-T Truth, it would not be considered a working model but the absolute, irrefutable, final word on reality, very different from a theory or a truth with a lowercase t (which is really just a highly respected theory, in my opinion).

there is no such thing as the capital T truth. in order for any universal truth to be established, there would have to be universal acceptance of its veracity or irrefutable evidence as to its applicability in all situations. i can say with confidence that you will never encounter such a thing.

there is no such thing as the capital T truth. in order for any universal truth to be established, there would have to be universal acceptance of its veracity or irrefutable evidence as to its applicability in all situations. i can say with confidence that you will never encounter such a thing.
I sure hope not. It would be a real blow to my world view.

Lawdog! It's you! Where have you been?
hello superliminal,
its good to see that you are still questing, if that is indeed what you are doing.

I hope that you have taken the opportunity to examine some real theology, like Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and others, and have not dismissed the discipline outright.

i had to take my leave of sciforums for a while, since, as you know,
kindness is not great here, and after being so cut down by the rationalists so much, I needed to recover.

Assuming God exists, how do you know what 'he' prefers? :confused: :confused: :confused:

I know because I can rely on the doctrines and customs of the universal Church known and visible to all, The Roman Catholic, which, as a whole, cannot decieve nor be decieved. God is not cruel. Christ would not have left his Apostles without an anchor of certitude concerning the Truth, and true doctrines, and the means for discerning them.

Ok. Now that I've regained my... composure ... I understand what you're saying. I suppose all you can go on is an educated guess that since we're all incredibly similar in brain structure, that it would be very suprising if your experience of self-awareness was not essentially the same as mine.


Hmm I missed this post...

Thats rather a broad generalisation, I think, because perceptiveness ( which you may agree or not) is also a kind of "awareness" and there are differences in the kind and degree of perception that individuals experience.

If you think of awareness as a "learned" behavior maybe through genetic imprinting and also through focussed learning, is it not possible that some individuals may experience greater awareness?

Similarly is it not possible for an individual to be more oe less spiritually inclined based on his exposure to spiritual training and his own personal interest and knowledge of it?

You can interpret it any way you want; that's why you have so many different kinds of religious people, ranging from stark raving fundamentalist lunatics to very kind, intelligent individuals. I can tell you right off the bat that Catholics do not believe that the Bible is intended to be interpreted literally. Most Catholics literally interpret their theology, but it is of course possible to interpret Catholic theology in other ways. Many, for example, consider heaven and hell to be states of mind rather than physical places where your soul goes when you die.

If the content of theology is so ambiguous that such a wide array of interpretations result then it provides a constantly adapting mechanism of self-deceipt.


If something is supernatural, then it should appear to the scientific eye that there is nothing to study. It's a silly concept in its common usage, I think, but so many people use it that it merits discussing. Ghosts and the like may not be supernatural phenomena, but they are at least somewhat subjective. Some people are apparently more sensitive to them than others. My uncle saw them all the time; I have only encountered the unexplained a few times in my life, and many, as you, never have. Whether they are merely the hallucinations of hysterics or something else is difficult to say unless you have experienced them yourself, and even then it is easy to doubt. I heard breaking glass downstairs at night once, but nothing broken was to be found. Could that have been in my head? What about coming home to an empty house and finding the master bedroom and upstairs hallway full of recently sprayed perfume? What about lights and radios turning themselves on in sequence - one turns on in the middle of the night, you get up and turn it off, and then another one turns on - how can that be explained? It is easy to call the first a hallucination. The second and third are much more difficult to explain; science might be able to provide answers to these, but they may sound even more far-fetched than the conclusions of a superstitious person. To me, the question of who to believe depends not on the "truth" of their theories, but how well they work. Superstitions and theology both persist because they somehow agree with the experiences of people. When they are very old, it is an indicator that they work well.

You did a great job of showing a core issue. Superstition/Theology agree with and provide definitive explanation for fantastic experiences and people in general value an agreeable explanation over truth. From an evolutionary perspective this makes alot of sense in a social species.

IMO that value system might be changing as I have seen an increasing number of people whom value truth over what's satisfying. I suspect the results of science might be fueling this and if that value system is held by a majority then evolution might take its course with the resultant environmental pressure.


There certainly is. I think people believe what satisfies them. Newton believed that gravitational force was instantaneous action at a distance. While it has been shown that gravitational waves actually propagate at c, it is still practical in many cases to use Newton's formula F = GMm/r^2 today. The most "obvious" interpretation of this formula is Newton's, and indeed it works wherever the formula works. For a time, then, both this formula and interpretation were the final word on gravity, and everyone knew it was the truth. If you lived then, so would you. In the same way, were you to live under different circumstances, you might now "know" for certain who the One True God is. If history is any indicator, we are completely wrong about everything we think we know.

You might be right, and what was the answer to the original question? Sorry, I wasn't able to discern it.

If the content of theology is so ambiguous that such a wide array of interpretations result then it provides a constantly adapting mechanism of self-deceipt.
That's true. Unfortunately, many people do not understand the importance of letting reality dictate to you. Imagine how much better things would be if every religious extremist asked himself if his beliefs were actually helping him. Does it really make sense that being a hateful person would get me to heaven? It is an easily answered question, but I imagine those to whom it most applies can't be honest enough to themselves to do it.

You did a great job of showing a core issue. Superstition/Theology agree with and provide definitive explanation for fantastic experiences and people in general value an agreeable explanation over truth. From an evolutionary perspective this makes alot of sense in a social species.

IMO that value system might be changing as I have seen an increasing number of people whom value truth over what's satisfying. I suspect the results of science might be fueling this and if that value system is held by a majority then evolution might take its course with the resultant environmental pressure.
Well, what to you is the difference between an agreeable explanation and truth? Or rather, what is the explanation agreeing with? I think that some people allow an experience to agree with an explanation they heard, when it would be better to fit an explanation to the experience. In the former case, the "agreeable explanation" is going to agree only with itself and not necessarily the truth, but in the latter, they are pretty much the same thing. Is this what you mean?

You might be right, and what was the answer to the original question? Sorry, I wasn't able to discern it.
Sorry about that. I was trying to illustrate how any interpretation that works suffices, but I lost my point in the process. The answer is yes, if you can find such an interpretation.

Exactly what sort of theology are you looking at? Ambiguous? hardly in my experience!

Theologies in general, not any one in particular. But even Christian theology as discerned from holy texts can be quite ambiguous without a good degree of interpretation. The Catholic Church, to whom I believe you refer, is great because it does almost all of the interpretation for you. There's very little room nowadays for violent extremism under Catholicism. On the other hand, many find this restrictive. It is collectively a mixed blessing, I suppose.

hello superliminal,
its good to see that you are still questing, if that is indeed what you are doing.

I hope that you have taken the opportunity to examine some real theology, like Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and others, and have not dismissed the discipline outright.

i had to take my leave of sciforums for a while, since, as you know,
kindness is not great here, and after being so cut down by the rationalists so much, I needed to recover.
Always questing. And I promise not to be unkind.

Thats rather a broad generalisation, I think, because perceptiveness ( which you may agree or not) is also a kind of "awareness" and there are differences in the kind and degree of perception that individuals experience.
Yes.

If you think of awareness as a "learned" behavior maybe through genetic imprinting and also through focussed learning, is it not possible that some individuals may experience greater awareness?
Definitely.

Similarly is it not possible for an individual to be more oe less spiritually inclined based on his exposure to spiritual training and his own personal interest and knowledge of it?
Of course.

When I said:

...essentially the same...

I mean within some "normal" range. I can say with some confidence that your experience of awareness may be quantitatively different from mine, but not qualitatively. As you said, you may be more "aware" than I am, but it's a matter of degree, not of kind. Si o no?

Yes.


Definitely.


Of course.


:)




I mean within some "normal" range. I can say with some confidence that your experience of awareness may be quantitatively different from mine, but not qualitatively. As you said, you may be more "aware" than I am, but it's a matter of degree, not of kind. Si o no?

Can we place limits on human experience? Que pense tu?

:)

Can we place limits on human experience? Que pense tu?
Creo que no.

Therefore I suppose that each persons sense of awareness taken as the variation in their perception and experience (qual es no limitado, si?) is unique. Yet is the fundamental sense of awareness that different? Can it be, given the similarity of human brains?

This is so far off topic it isn't even funny. Well, yes it is. :D

Creo que no.

Therefore I suppose that each persons sense of awareness taken as the variation in their perception and experience (qual es no limitado, si?) is unique. Yet is the fundamental sense of awareness that different? Can it be, given the similarity of human brains?

Well its hard to find an analogy but if you look at the Guiness book of world records :) you might say that we don't know what we are capable of until we aim high enough; some experiences are a result of trying to reach an invisible goal only the person testing himself can determine...

What do you think?

This is so far off topic it isn't even funny. Well, yes it is. :D

Okay to get back on topic, what is your opinion on the sanctity of religious books?

Is anything sacred anymore?

Well its hard to find an analogy but if you look at the Guiness book of world records :) you might say that we don't know what we are capable of until we aim high enough; some experiences are a result of trying to reach an invisible goal only the person testing himself can determine...

What do you think?
Well sure. I guess I'm saying that I think the qualitative experience of peoples sense of awareness is probably very similar, but I have no way of proving it. But as far as experience goes, and the attainment of that experience, I can imagine that greatly effecting the quantitative sense of awareness and their degree of perceptiveness. Does that make any sense? :confused:

Well sure. I guess I'm saying that I think the qualitative experience of peoples sense of awareness is probably very similar, but I have no way of proving it. But as far as experience goes, and the attainment of that experience, I can imagine that greatly effecting the quantitative sense of awareness and their degree of perceptiveness. Does that make any sense? :confused:

Yes, maybe having lived in a culture which is very intensely spiritual makes me biased, but we have a history of people ( of various religions) who have achieved spiritual fulfillment simply by making it the major focus of their lives; the way a man might gain intellectual fulfillment by making that the major focus in his life.

Which is why it is difficult for me to relate to someone who completely dismisses the possibility of spirituality as mumbo-jumbo :)

And as I've said before:

"Without bullshit to bind us in purpose, we'd have been extinct long ago."

Okay to get back on topic, what is your opinion on the sanctity of religious books?

Is anything sacred anymore?
I don't like the words "sancitity" and "sacred" much. They imply that a force-field of unquestioning sterility surrounds the "sacred" thing. Respect on the other hand implies a willingness to avoid certain things in order to not unduly offend people.

For instance, After reading your posts for a while now, I respect your position as a muslim and will not attack you regarding that anymore (others, however... grrrr). If religion was a private thing for the practioner, I would absolute respect it. But as it is, I find its intrusion into public policy one of the most dangerous things on earth. It's not a big stretch form saying your country was founded on thus-and-such religious philosophy to becoming a theocracy. I'd rathed pour sand in my eyes and record the scraping sounds as I blink for entertainment, than live in a theocracy.

So, no. Things are not sacred (to me) unless they are of immediate personal importance to someone I respect. Si?

Which is why it is difficult for me to relate to someone who completely dismisses the possibility of spirituality as mumbo-jumbo :)
Mumbo-jumbo? I never said spirituality was mumbo-jumbo! Maybe the wild rantings of a madman, but never mumbo-jumbo. :p

Do you remember a post I made (I think in response to one of yours) that atheists can be just as "spiritual" as theists (even more-so)? I don't dismiss it at all. It's just that my source of "spirituality" is not a god of dubious existence. It's the mysterium tremendum of the cosmos itself.

And as I've said before:

"Without bullshit to bind us in purpose, we'd have been extinct long ago."
Righto. Maybe it's time to find a better glue?

I don't like the words "sancitity" and "sacred" much. They imply that a force-field of unquestioning sterility surrounds the "sacred" thing. Respect on the other hand implies a willingness to avoid certain things in order to not unduly offend people.

For instance, After reading your posts for a while now, I respect your position as a muslim and will not attack you regarding that anymore (others, however... grrrr). If religion was a private thing for the practioner, I would absolute respect it. But as it is, I find its intrusion into public policy one of the most dangerous things on earth. It's not a big stretch form saying your country was founded on thus-and-such religious philosophy to becoming a theocracy. I'd rathed pour sand in my eyes and record the scraping sounds as I blink for entertainment, than live in a theocracy.

So, no. Things are not sacred (to me) unless they are of immediate personal importance to someone I respect. Si?


But doesn't according respect to someone's opinions (regardless of whether you believe in them) actually enable better communication?

I mean who are you more likely to interact with, someone who says "I respectfully disagree because ....." or " You are a f**king mindless pink unicorn, what the f**k are you thinking?"

From what I see on the threads in the religion forum, everyone (theists and atheists alike) are so patronising and intolerant that its hard to see what they achieve except a momentary satisfaction from insulting each other in the most creative way possible ( and some are really creative!) or maybe a couple of points increase in their blood pressure.

The only thing they do NOT achieve is an understanding of the others point of view.

Mumbo-jumbo? I never said spirituality was mumbo-jumbo! Maybe the wild rantings of a madman, but never mumbo-jumbo. :p

Do you remember a post I made (I think in response to one of yours) that atheists can be just as "spiritual" as theists (even more-so)? I don't dismiss it at all. It's just that my source of "spirituality" is not a god of dubious existence. It's the mysterium tremendum of the cosmos itself.

I didn't mean you specifically, I meant youknowwho :)

I didn't mean you specifically, I meant youknowwho :)
Letter #17 guy?

Letter #17 guy?


Do you want to get us killed ? :eek: ( sneaking uneasy looks around)

But doesn't according respect to someone's opinions (regardless of whether you believe in them) actually enable better communication?
Absolutely.

I mean who are you more likely to interact with, someone who says "I respectfully disagree because ....." or " You are a f**king mindless pink unicorn, what the f**k are you thinking?"
Depends on what you mean by "interact". Is punching in the nose interaction?

From what I see on the threads in the religion forum, everyone (theists and atheists alike) are so patronising and intolerant that its hard to see what they achieve except a momentary satisfaction from insulting each other in the most creative way possible ( and some are really creative!) or maybe a couple of points increase in their blood pressure.
This is an excellent point. You'll notice the change in my avatar for that very reason (not that the occasional awesomely creative insult is not highly tempting).

Do you want to get us killed ? :eek: ( sneaking uneasy looks around)
Hahaha! :D

That's true. Unfortunately, many people do not understand the importance of letting reality dictate to you. Imagine how much better things would be if every religious extremist asked himself if his beliefs were actually helping him. Does it really make sense that being a hateful person would get me to heaven? It is an easily answered question, but I imagine those to whom it most applies can't be honest enough to themselves to do it.

IMO, it's an educational issue. People aren't trained how to think about information, how to relate to themselves, how to relate to others, how to figure out whom they are, etc.


Well, what to you is the difference between an agreeable explanation and truth? Or rather, what is the explanation agreeing with? I think that some people allow an experience to agree with an explanation they heard, when it would be better to fit an explanation to the experience. In the former case, the "agreeable explanation" is going to agree only with itself and not necessarily the truth, but in the latter, they are pretty much the same thing. Is this what you mean?


In one case the explanation is agreeing with the needs of people (i.e. the bullshit binding them in purpose). In the other case reality is agreeing with the explanation.


Sorry about that. I was trying to illustrate how any interpretation that works suffices, but I lost my point in the process. The answer is yes, if you can find such an interpretation.

Perhaps using reality?

Perhaps using reality?
You can't use reality to interpret itself. :p

You can't use reality to interpret itself. :p

I see no reason why we can't learn from it and better understand how to think about information.

Sure, we learn from reality. But we deal with it only through interpretations and models. When we discuss a dog, we are actually discussing a common notion of "dog," not the reality that is Dog, so to speak. So there must be an interpretation separate from that which it represents.

(Oh yeah - if you reverse 'dog' . . . )

Sure, we learn from reality. But we deal with it only through interpretations and models. When we discuss a dog, we are actually discussing a common notion of "dog," not the reality that is Dog, so to speak. So there must be an interpretation separate from that which it represents.
Fine. So what does this line of thinking do for you? Besides give you a hard-on for being able to string words together so cleverly? (No offense. This is directed at all of the philosophically inclined out there).

Personally, it allows me to avoid the mistake of putting any one model of reality up on a pedestal and giving it authority over another. It enables philosophical pragmatism, if you will. I find this useful, though someone more religious than I may find it exceedingly so.

Sure, we learn from reality. But we deal with it only through interpretations and models. When we discuss a dog, we are actually discussing a common notion of "dog," not the reality that is Dog, so to speak. So there must be an interpretation separate from that which it represents.

Now look who's making an ass of themselves.

"Not the reality that is Dog."

Get a grip, man, pull yourself together!

Personally, it allows me to avoid the mistake of putting any one model of reality up on a pedestal and giving it authority over another. It enables philosophical pragmatism, if you will. I find this useful, though someone more religious than I may find it exceedingly so.

Wouldn't the single observed reality be the authoritative?

It would, but that's not a model.

But doesn't according respect to someone's opinions (regardless of whether you believe in them) actually enable better communication?


thats an interesting thought as it relates to where you draw the line in terms of respect. hitler believed that the jews needed to be exterminated in order for germany to acheive its "destiny". do you accord his belief respect in order to better communicate with him?

what about cult leaders and pedophiles and everyone else who believes in something patently irrational and damaging to society? do you accord their beliefs respect also in the name of getting along and communicating - no, i don't think so. there is no difference here really, when you give a belief respect, even if you do not share the conviction, you lend validity to it. i don't think that the validity holy books or scriptures or religious beliefs should be entertained by a rational society, so demanding that they be seen as the inaccurate and archaic stories that they are is a sacrifice i would be willing to make even if it damages my ability to communicate with people whose only agenda is to further the acceptance of these ideals and their integration into wider society.

thats an interesting thought as it relates to where you draw the line in terms of respect. hitler believed that the jews needed to be exterminated in order for germany to acheive its "destiny". do you accord his belief respect in order to better communicate with him?

what about cult leaders and pedophiles and everyone else who believes in something patently irrational and damaging to society? do you accord their beliefs respect also in the name of getting along and communicating - no, i don't think so. there is no difference here really, when you give a belief respect, even if you do not share the conviction, you lend validity to it. i don't think that the validity holy books or scriptures or religious beliefs should be entertained by a rational society, so demanding that they be seen as the inaccurate and archaic stories that they are is a sacrifice i would be willing to make even if it damages my ability to communicate with people whose only agenda is to further the acceptance of these ideals and their integration into wider society.

Of course I do not mean fundamentalists or dictators; but surely you do not mean to say that every theist fits only these two categories?

Thats like saying all white men are racists or all Germans are Nazis.

There are a lot of theists in the world who follow their religion only for spiritual reasons and no other; if you think attacking someone's core belief will change it why all you have to do is examine your own beliefs to know how hard it is to shed what one REALLY believes in. Attacking someone for his/her belief only makes them defensive and may precipitate the very thing you fear, a desire to fight back...so how can you conceive of this as a rational approach? You cannot make someone "see" something some way merely because that way appears right to you. It will be resented just as you would resent it if a theist did the same to you. Tolerance and compassion are an integral part of a mixed society; without it, there is no resolution.

[QUOTE=charles cure]thats an interesting thought as it relates to where you draw the line in terms of respect. hitler believed that the jews needed to be exterminated in order for germany to acheive its "destiny". do you accord his belief respect in order to better communicate with him?

Was Mein Kampf taken too seriously or not seriously enough?

Heads in sand caused World War II.

....when you give a belief respect, even if you do not share the conviction, you lend validity to it.

To the contrary, if you have not bothered to respect that which you disagree with, your disagreement is invalid.

I am happy enough to be disagreed with when somebody appears at least to have understood my position.

I am not so keen to bother with those who think they know better than I do what my position is.

--- Ron.

You cannot make someone "see" something some way merely because that way appears right to you. It will be resented just as you would resent it if a theist did the same to you. Tolerance and compassion are an integral part of a mixed society; without it, there is no resolution.

Like Christians do to Muslims and vice versa?

And we all know the extent of tolerism between the two.

And what I find most disturbing is when theists "see" that which has never been shown to exist.

So, please explain, why anyone should be tolerant of that?

It is not necessary to "prove" God. We see with a spiritual eye, Faith.

Of course I do not mean fundamentalists or dictators; but surely you do not mean to say that every theist fits only these two categories?

what i mean is that irrational ideas that are prone to distortion and abuse are all the same. your criteria for respecting any given idea or ethos should be that it has inherent value and applicability to reality. at one point i believe that christianity may have qualified as such but at this juncture in history it ceases to be useful other than as a framework for people who seek to impose their way of life on others. good morals are good morals whether they derive from logic or a ficticious god, and i have never seen any evidence that would lead me to believe that nonreligious morals are fundamentally any different than religious ones. there are certain basic moral tenets that society needs to value in order for civilizations to form and function, and these will be necessary as long as humans believe that societies are still necessary, regardless of where they originate, or the minor particulars of the dogmas they are associated with.

Thats like saying all white men are racists or all Germans are Nazis.

well, pay attention because i wasn't saying that. however, you did appear to be saying that beliefs deserve respect if they are accepted by many people. well, i'm asking where do you draw the line? for me, the line is drawn at rationality and reason. if a belief is untenable in terms of logic or reason or seems to have a basis in fantasy, i don't accept its validity. so in that regard i do lump religious belief in with naziism...et al. although, i am wondering what exact distinction you would make - is it that religious belief is ok because it doesn't harm anyone, irrational as it may be? well a case could be made that roman catholicism has resulted in far more death and despair than naziism ever did. i'm just curious about why you think that something like the christianity or islam would deserve respect when these other things wouldn't.

There are a lot of theists in the world who follow their religion only for spiritual reasons and no other; if you think attacking someone's core belief will change it why all you have to do is examine your own beliefs to know how hard it is to shed what one REALLY believes in. Attacking someone for his/her belief only makes them defensive and may precipitate the very thing you fear, a desire to fight back...so how can you conceive of this as a rational approach? You cannot make someone "see" something some way merely because that way appears right to you. It will be resented just as you would resent it if a theist did the same to you. Tolerance and compassion are an integral part of a mixed society; without it, there is no resolution.

there is a difference between attacking and denying. i don't go up to people coming out fo church on sunday and challenge their beliefs, thats ridiculous. however, when some religious conservative is out lobbying for outlawing abortion based on their insane book of rules, i take issue with it and will argue for what i believe is correct based on human reasoning, which - in the end, is all any god that may have ever existed has left us with. the way i see it, there is no possible way for me to force non-belief onto someone, and i don't wish to. i appreciate people's right to be as spiritual as they want to be a long as i don't have to be too. however, i think that there are a lot of people out there, christians especially in the US, who have taken the game to us and try to enshrine the bible in law. that is something that i will never be ok with, and i see working against it as a defense of myself and my own beliefs, because that's what's under attack. so i agree, in my view, christian political attacks on secularism and nonreligious ideals makes me want to defend myself and it is exactly their disrespect for anything but their own religion that requires me to feel that way. i think though that the issue is twisted all around here. as far as religion goes, i may not have any respect for the ideas espoused, but i do have a fundamental respect for the idea that people should be allowed to believe what they want to in private, and practice a spiritual lifestyle as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's ability to exercise their own rights.

It is not necessary to "prove" God. We see with a spiritual eye, Faith.

yeah good luck with that. do you realize how assinine that sounds?

Was Mein Kampf taken too seriously or not seriously enough?

Heads in sand caused World War II.

how is this relevant at all? mein kampf was popular, and hitler's leadership was taken seriously in germany and privately i'm sure europeans in other countries agreed with him as well.

who cares what caused WWII, that's not even a part of the discussion.



To the contrary, if you have not bothered to respect that which you disagree with, your disagreement is invalid.

do you respect satanism, pedophilia, witchcraft, sado-masochism, human slavery, child prostitution, suicide bombings, cannibalism, rape, torture...etc.? i have no respcet for any of those things and i disagree with them on perfectly rational grounds. i'd say thats pretty valid. so it would seem patently untrue that you can't disagree with something without respecting it. as a matter of fact i would say that disrespect for some act or set of beliefs is a primary reason for disagreement in the first place. maybe you need to reevaluate your statement here, as it fails to make any kind of sense.

Sure, we learn from reality. But we deal with it only through interpretations and models. When we discuss a dog, we are actually discussing a common notion of "dog," not the reality that is Dog, so to speak. So there must be an interpretation separate from that which it represents.

I agree. What is preventing us from using reality to refine how we interpret reality?

how is this relevant at all? mein kampf was popular, and hitler's leadership was taken seriously in germany and privately i'm sure europeans in other countries agreed with him as well.
who cares what caused WWII, that's not even a part of the discussion.

You put the question "do you accord his belief respect in order to better communicate with him?"


do you respect satanism, pedophilia, witchcraft, sado-masochism, human slavery, child prostitution, suicide bombings, cannibalism, rape, torture...etc.?sense.

"Respect" does not necessarily infer agreement or deference.

c.f.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1075318#post1075318

--- Ron.

You put the question "do you accord his belief respect in order to better communicate with him?"


right, so i'm asking where the line is drawn in terms or respecting a particular belief in order to facilitate communication.

"Respect" does not necessarily infer agreement or deference.

c.f.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1075318#post1075318

--- Ron.

from merriamwebster.com

Main Entry: 2respect
Function: transitive verb
1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM b : to refrain from interfering with
2 : to have reference to : CONCERN
synonym see REGARD

it means at the very least to see something in a positive light.

what i mean is that irrational ideas that are prone to distortion and abuse are all the same. your criteria for respecting any given idea or ethos should be that it has inherent value and applicability to reality. at one point i believe that christianity may have qualified as such but at this juncture in history it ceases to be useful other than as a framework for people who seek to impose their way of life on others. good morals are good morals whether they derive from logic or a ficticious god, and i have never seen any evidence that would lead me to believe that nonreligious morals are fundamentally any different than religious ones. there are certain basic moral tenets that society needs to value in order for civilizations to form and function, and these will be necessary as long as humans believe that societies are still necessary, regardless of where they originate, or the minor particulars of the dogmas they are associated with.

How does intolerance reflect secularism?


well, pay attention because i wasn't saying that. however, you did appear to be saying that beliefs deserve respect if they are accepted by many people. well, i'm asking where do you draw the line? for me, the line is drawn at rationality and reason. if a belief is untenable in terms of logic or reason or seems to have a basis in fantasy, i don't accept its validity. so in that regard i do lump religious belief in with naziism...et al. although, i am wondering what exact distinction you would make - is it that religious belief is ok because it doesn't harm anyone, irrational as it may be? well a case could be made that roman catholicism has resulted in far more death and despair than naziism ever did. i'm just curious about why you think that something like the christianity or islam would deserve respect when these other things wouldn't.

No I said we live in a mixed society; if the beliefs are illegal, there are laws to take care of it; if not, everyone has a right to their beliefs and the freedom to practise them.



there is a difference between attacking and denying. i don't go up to people coming out fo church on sunday and challenge their beliefs, thats ridiculous. however, when some religious conservative is out lobbying for outlawing abortion based on their insane book of rules, i take issue with it and will argue for what i believe is correct based on human reasoning, which - in the end, is all any god that may have ever existed has left us with. the way i see it, there is no possible way for me to force non-belief onto someone, and i don't wish to. i appreciate people's right to be as spiritual as they want to be a long as i don't have to be too. however, i think that there are a lot of people out there, christians especially in the US, who have taken the game to us and try to enshrine the bible in law. that is something that i will never be ok with, and i see working against it as a defense of myself and my own beliefs, because that's what's under attack. so i agree, in my view, christian political attacks on secularism and nonreligious ideals makes me want to defend myself and it is exactly their disrespect for anything but their own religion that requires me to feel that way. i think though that the issue is twisted all around here. as far as religion goes, i may not have any respect for the ideas espoused, but i do have a fundamental respect for the idea that people should be allowed to believe what they want to in private, and practice a spiritual lifestyle as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's ability to exercise their own rights.

Yes you are right; you have a right to your belief as much as anyone else and you are fully justified in your defense.

[Respect] means at the very least to see something in a positive light.

Did you ever attend a funeral?

People respect death, and not usually in what I would call a positive light.

--- Ron.

How does intolerance reflect secularism?


tolerance and respect are two different things. we were discussing respect and i was discussing why i think religious belief has outlived its usefullness and applicability and why it does not deserve respect. tolerance is an entirely different subject.


No I said we live in a mixed society; if the beliefs are illegal, there are laws to take care of it; if not, everyone has a right to their beliefs and the freedom to practise them.

first of all, hitler's beliefs were enshrined in law at the time that he was leader of germany, that still does not make them right or deserving of respect. slavery was also once legal here, and i think we all know that the basis for that practice - the belief that blacks were inferior - was not deserving of respect either.

secondly, the debate about religion's place in western society often revolves around whether religous beliefs and religiously based moral arguments can be used as a basis for defining law. in some cases, practices that were once legal have become illegal because a religious agenda is favored by those in power. so freedom can be eroded easily if you stand by and let others take it from you, as many religious people in the west would like to.



Yes you are right; you have a right to your belief as much as anyone else and you are fully justified in your defense.

i dont have a belief. thats the beauty of it. i want the right to not be bombarded by the beliefs of certain sects in the public square, and i would like to retain the secular nature of our laws and values as a society.

Did you ever attend a funeral?

People respect death, and not usually in what I would call a positive light.

--- Ron.

no they don't. the respect you show at a funeral is twofold. respect for the family who has lost a loved one, because you view the family or members of it in a positive light and you wish to soothe their pain. you also go to show respect for the person who has died. people attend a funeral to show that they respected who that person was in life because they saw them as good or worthy of respect.

did you not think before you posted that?

tolerance and respect are two different things. we were discussing respect and i was discussing why i think religious belief has outlived its usefullness and applicability and why it does not deserve respect. tolerance is an entirely different subject.

So intolerance is the wave of the future? what does that achieve, exactly?


first of all, hitler's beliefs were enshrined in law at the time that he was leader of germany, that still does not make them right or deserving of respect. slavery was also once legal here, and i think we all know that the basis for that practice - the belief that blacks were inferior - was not deserving of respect either.

What's the obsession with Hitler? And was he not called to account for his actions ? Intolerance by ANYONE is not to be condoned.

secondly, the debate about religion's place in western society often revolves around whether religous beliefs and religiously based moral arguments can be used as a basis for defining law. in some cases, practices that were once legal have become illegal because a religious agenda is favored by those in power. so freedom can be eroded easily if you stand by and let others take it from you, as many religious people in the west would like to.

And in how many places has it actually been implemented?


i dont have a belief. thats the beauty of it. i want the right to not be bombarded by the beliefs of certain sects in the public square, and i would like to retain the secular nature of our laws and values as a society.

Not having a belief is also a belief

belief:Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

Like Christians do to Muslims and vice versa?

Some Muslims and some Christians; you might be surprised to know that a lot of it has to do with politics and not much else.

And we all know the extent of tolerism between the two.

Who's we? ( tolerism??)

And what I find most disturbing is when theists "see" that which has never been shown to exist.

And this is important because...?

So, please explain, why anyone should be tolerant of that?

Because compassion and understanding is better than intolerance and invective?

Because we (?) live in a secular society?

Because everyone has a right to his beliefs?

So intolerance is the wave of the future? what does that achieve, exactly?


where are you getting this bullshit about intolerance? here, i try to make a distinction between respct and tolerance and it somehow escapes you. you can tolerate something that you don't have respect for. having respect for something and allowing it to be seen as valid go beyond toleration and extend into a tacit approval of the practice or belief as ok for everyone, including yourself. i am saying that the more people say "oh its ok for people to take the bible seriously because its somewhat accurate or because its story could be real" the more it becomes acceptable to assume that we can base our cultural norms and values upon it. by saying "look, lets see the bible for what it is - a ficticious story" you do not take away people's ability to believe in it, but you relegate it to a private belief instead of an insidious cultural guideline. in this way, you may tolerate without respecting.

What's the obsession with Hitler? And was he not called to account for his actions ? Intolerance by ANYONE is not to be condoned.

he was, but not by the german people who he lead, and not before he had already killed 6 million people. imagine if the germans had condemned his idiocy before he ever came to power, there would have been no holocaust.


And in how many places has it actually been implemented?

well let's see...the entire arab world for starters. in our country, for years and years religious belief has dictated laws regarding sexual norms, including a ban on gay marriage, a prohibition against gays in the military, the Texas law banning abortion that led to the Row v Wade decision by the supreme court, laws banning euthanasia/assisted suicide...etc.
so i guess all over the place.




Not having a belief is also a belief

belief:Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

listen to yourself: "not believing is the same thing as believing". is it? do you realize what a contradiction in terms that is? i don't believe in a religion, nor do i favor a particular spiritual or moral belief system that is not fact based. to believe means to accept the validity or truth of something in the absence of empirical proof or evidence. i don't do that. whether or not i agree with a doctrine espoused by a praticular religion or not is a matter of coincidence and personal morality for me and i decide issues like that based on their merits - ie: whether a particular position is logical or has any factual basis to begin with, and to what extent the effects of any act can be forseen and viewed as positive or negative based on what is known at present. that's not belief at all. that's informed decision making.

no they don't. the respect you show at a funeral is twofold. respect for the family who has lost a loved one, because you view the family or members of it in a positive light and you wish to soothe their pain. you also go to show respect for the person who has died. people attend a funeral to show that they respected who that person was in life because they saw them as good or worthy of respect.

did you not think before you posted that?

Yes I did.

What does "respect" mean here then?

To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;

(Hamlet, Act 2, 1.)


This to my mind is the greatest respect of all.

--- Ron.

oh you mean to respect the power of death out of fear? yeah i don't do that. so you keep on quoting shakespeare's middle english and i'll continue to use respect the way it is meant today.

where are you getting this bullshit about intolerance? here, i try to make a distinction between respct and tolerance and it somehow escapes you. you can tolerate something that you don't have respect for. having respect for something and allowing it to be seen as valid go beyond toleration and extend into a tacit approval of the practice or belief as ok for everyone, including yourself. i am saying that the more people say "oh its ok for people to take the bible seriously because its somewhat accurate or because its story could be real" the more it becomes acceptable to assume that we can base our cultural norms and values upon it. by saying "look, lets see the bible for what it is - a ficticious story" you do not take away people's ability to believe in it, but you relegate it to a private belief instead of an insidious cultural guideline. in this way, you may tolerate without respecting.


And this is your idea of tolerance?

he was, but not by the german people who he lead, and not before he had already killed 6 million people. imagine if the germans had condemned his idiocy before he ever came to power, there would have been no holocaust.


You have read some strange history books.



well let's see...the entire arab world for starters. in our country, for years and years religious belief has dictated laws regarding sexual norms, including a ban on gay marriage, a prohibition against gays in the military, the Texas law banning abortion that led to the Row v Wade decision by the supreme court, laws banning euthanasia/assisted suicide...etc.
so i guess all over the place.

You might want to travel the world a bit; regardless of popular opinion the US and ME are not the extent of the world.






listen to yourself: "not believing is the same thing as believing". is it? do you realize what a contradiction in terms that is? i don't believe in a religion, nor do i favor a particular spiritual or moral belief system that is not fact based. to believe means to accept the validity or truth of something in the absence of empirical proof or evidence. i don't do that. whether or not i agree with a doctrine espoused by a praticular religion or not is a matter of coincidence and personal morality for me and i decide issues like that based on their merits - ie: whether a particular position is logical or has any factual basis to begin with, and to what extent the effects of any act can be forseen and viewed as positive or negative based on what is known at present. that's not belief at all. that's informed decision making.

Is that a direct quote? I've lived in several multicultural societies but this is the most non-secular society I have ever seen; even the atheists are fundamentalists!!

And this is your idea of tolerance?


explain how it isn't tolerance. in fact, why don't you try refuting the things i say instead of just weaseling out of them by asking more questions.


You have read some strange history books.

oh really, its accepted history now that the german people stopped hitler before he came to power and averted the holocaust? interesting.



You might want to travel the world a bit; regardless of popular opinion the US and ME are not the extent of the world.

i've been to 10 countries and every state in the US except for 3. so i think i have been around a little, however, that seems irrelevant considering i answered the question you posed and now you don't think that those were valid examples because i didn't explain how it has happened historically everywhere else in the world. you're wasting both of our time. try arguing it instead.




Is that a direct quote? I've lived in several multicultural societies but this is the most non-secular society I have ever seen; even the atheists are fundamentalists!!

who cares where you lived? you made a stupid statment. you said non-belief is a belief. where do you get an idea like that? on top of it, i'm going to bet that you view any protest against religion in the public square here as an atheist intolerance of religion, which it's not. there are some people here that are religious but value the ideals on which our country was founded highly enough to be angered when someone tries to circumvent constitutional law and shove a religious belief into our midst as a public institution. those issues are purely legal and have nothing to do with intolerance of one idea because another is favored; they instead are based on the premise that if no one belief is accorded preferential treatment, then all beliefs will have equal opportunity to flourish.

I agree. What is preventing us from using reality to refine how we interpret reality?
Nothing. That's what learning is.

[QUOTE]explain how it isn't tolerance. in fact, why don't you try refuting the things i say instead of just weaseling out of them by asking more questions.


You might have noticed, I'm not exactly agreeing with you here.


...allowing it to be seen as valid go beyond toleration and extend into a tacit approval of the practice or belief....

How exactly does this equal tolerance to you? I am curious to know...also you seem conflicted between tolerance and accepting two completely separate concepts


oh really, its accepted history now that the german people stopped hitler before he came to power and averted the holocaust? interesting.

I would think you would recognize the power of self delusion...

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/osssection2.htm



i've been to 10 countries and every state in the US except for 3. so i think i have been around a little, however, that seems irrelevant considering i answered the question you posed and now you don't think that those were valid examples because i didn't explain how it has happened historically everywhere else in the world. you're wasting both of our time. try arguing it instead.


And you think all the countries were fighting about religion? not about power?


who cares where you lived? you made a stupid statment. you said non-belief is a belief. where do you get an idea like that?

How about "you believe in the absence of theism?"

Are you familiar with semantics?

on top of it, i'm going to bet that you view any protest against religion in the public square here as an atheist intolerance of religion, which it's not. there are some people here that are religious but value the ideals on which our country was founded highly enough to be angered when someone tries to circumvent constitutional law and shove a religious belief into our midst as a public institution.

No but I do view violent opposition of theists ( on the sole ground that they are theists) as anti-theism, which is completely separate from atheism.

Atheists disbelieve in the presence of a deity; anti-theists are convinced all theists are irrational.

those issues are purely legal and have nothing to do with intolerance of one idea because another is favored; they instead are based on the premise that if no one belief is accorded preferential treatment, then all beliefs will have equal opportunity to flourish


all beliefs? like this you mean?

"look, lets see the bible for what it is - a ficticious story"

How naive.

Nothing. That's what learning is.

Then it would appear that reality can be used to interpret reality.

No, re-read it. I've been very specific in my wording.

As have I. We're not exactly seperate from reality hence by default we are points of reality interpreting reality. Reality can provide these points with knowledge that might let them learn how to interpret reality better.

I see. I misunderstood you at the outset, then.

Some Muslims and some Christians; you might be surprised to know that a lot of it has to do with politics and not much else.

Horsepucky, it has everything to do with religion.

Who's we? ( tolerism??)

Everyone.

And this is important because...?

Because they see things that aren't there, you don't find that disturbing? Is that normal for you?

Because compassion and understanding is better than intolerance and invective?

But, your religion is intolerant, that makes Muslims hypocrites.

Because we (?) live in a secular society?

Unfortunately, we do not.

Because everyone has a right to his beliefs?

A right yes, but when people believe in myths and fairy tales, that is a different story because it is offensive.

[QUOTE=charles cure]

You might have noticed, I'm not exactly agreeing with you here.

who cares if you disagree, you have put forth no reason as to why my assertion is incorrect. if you came here just to disagree without any real reasoning, then i'll see you later.



How exactly does this equal tolerance to you? I am curious to know...also you seem conflicted between tolerance and accepting two completely separate concepts

i knew i would have to do this - from www.merriamwebster.com

Main Entry: tol·er·ance
Pronunciation: 'tä-l&-r&n(t)s, 'täl-r&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : ENDURANCE, FORTITUDE, STAMINA
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION

notice that the definition does not contain any necessary respect for anyone elses belief, only an allowance of it. if something is allowed legally, then i don't take that right away by speaking out against it. but if i think it is wrong it is my right to attempt to persuade people as to why its wrong. i would argue that i can do that and still tolerate the belief although i don't agree with it. intolerance would be attempting to eradicate it through violence or through a change in the law that would criminalize the practice of religion. i was never advocating something like that. i don't know how you have gotten so confused.




I would think you would recognize the power of self delusion...

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/osssection2.htm

how exactly is that relevant? hitler espoused his beliefs about the jews in literature and in speeches before taking absolute control of the country. you can only blame so much on charisma and propaganda. the german people agreed with hitler to an extent, and those that didn't may still have seen him as the antidote to their troubles and so they accepted his bad qualities as a necessary evil. so what? let's not belabor the point, the germans knew that he had an intolerant agenda and they went along with it. they failed to speak out and stop hitler from coming to power. self-delusion or not is irrelevant. in fact the hitler aspect of this conversation is irrelevant. the original point is that people believe in dangerous and irrational ideas sometimes and have reaped the negative consequences repeatedly. religious belief is no less irrational than the beliefs that form the basis of ideas about racial supremacy and the fact that holy books claim to be authoritative, but are left open to interpretation and distortion by a slew of hacks, ambitious politicians, demagogues, and the like makes them potentially extremely dangerous when taken seriously by the majority of society.



And you think all the countries were fighting about religion? not about power?

when did a fight even enter the discussion? i was talking about how religious belief forms a basis for law in society, and specifically how christian belief has influenced lawmaking in the united states and how muslim religious law plays a huge role in the formation of legality in the middle east. are you even paying attention to the conversation or are you just trying to misdirect it because you can't come up with a proper counterargument?



How about "you believe in the absence of theism?"

Are you familiar with semantics?

yeah i am, but apparently you aren't. this isn't a semantic distinction at all. i don't believe in an absence of anything, i simply refuse to believe that something is there without evidence. there are a ton of things i don't believe in because they seem totally unlikely, even impossible, and there is no reason to believe that they exist. superman for example, or smurfs. there are books written about them, yes, even tv shows, but there is still no evidence for their existence, so i consider them made up. now, do i believe that they don't exist - no, i have precluded myself from even wondering if they do because there is absolutely no reason to think that they ever would.

by the way, i don't believe in an absence of theism either, i'm well aware that theism exists.


No but I do view violent opposition of theists ( on the sole ground that they are theists) as anti-theism, which is completely separate from atheism.

Atheists disbelieve in the presence of a deity; anti-theists are convinced all theists are irrational.

good for you, when did we start talking about violent opposition to theists?


How naive.

yeah, i bet. enlighten me then, and while youre at it bring all the proof that you can find that corroborates the core story of christianity.

please try harder next time.

who cares if you disagree, you have put forth no reason as to why my assertion is incorrect. if you came here just to disagree without any real reasoning, then i'll see you later.


Hmm



i knew i would have to do this - from www.merriamwebster.com

Main Entry: tol·er·ance
Pronunciation: 'tä-l&-r&n(t)s, 'täl-r&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : ENDURANCE, FORTITUDE, STAMINA
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION


notice that the definition does not contain any necessary respect for anyone elses belief, only an allowance of it. if something is allowed legally, then i don't take that right away by speaking out against it. but if i think it is wrong it is my right to attempt to persuade people as to why its wrong. i would argue that i can do that and still tolerate the belief although i don't agree with it. intolerance would be attempting to eradicate it through violence or through a change in the law that would criminalize the practice of religion. i was never advocating something like that. i don't know how you have gotten so confused.


Try using a better dictionary: ( Websters)

Tolerance

Noun

1. The power or capacity of an organism to tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions.
2. A disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior.
3. The act of tolerating something.
4. Willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others.
5. A permissible difference; allowing freedom to move within limits.




how exactly is that relevant? hitler espoused his beliefs about the jews in literature and in speeches before taking absolute control of the country. you can only blame so much on charisma and propaganda. the german people agreed with hitler to an extent, and those that didn't may still have seen him as the antidote to their troubles and so they accepted his bad qualities as a necessary evil. so what? let's not belabor the point, the germans knew that he had an intolerant agenda and they went along with it. they failed to speak out and stop hitler from coming to power. self-delusion or not is irrelevant. in fact the hitler aspect of this conversation is irrelevant. the original point is that people believe in dangerous and irrational ideas sometimes and have reaped the negative consequences repeatedly. religious belief is no less irrational than the beliefs that form the basis of ideas about racial supremacy and the fact that holy books claim to be authoritative, but are left open to interpretation and distortion by a slew of hacks, ambitious politicians, demagogues, and the like makes them potentially extremely dangerous when taken seriously by the majority of society.

I really do not have time for a comprehensive history lesson here; so I'll give you some pointers to start with:

1. World War I effects on Germany, Britain and France
2. Economic conditions in Germany during World War II
3. Oh what the heck! here's some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II

http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_were_the_causes_of_World_War_2

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/germany_and_rearmament.htm

http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/newspapers/intro_e.html

http://www.teacheroz.com/WWIIcauses.htm

http://www.rpfuller.com/gcse/history/6.html


I'll address the rest of your post a little later.

when did a fight even enter the discussion? i was talking about how religious belief forms a basis for law in society, and specifically how christian belief has influenced lawmaking in the united states and how muslim religious law plays a huge role in the formation of legality in the middle east. are you even paying attention to the conversation or are you just trying to misdirect it because you can't come up with a proper counterargument?

If christian law forms a basis for law in the US, and Islamic law a basis for law in the ME, it is a reflection of the political mindset of the people and is based on majority opinion.


yeah i am, but apparently you aren't. this isn't a semantic distinction at all. i don't believe in an absence of anything, i simply refuse to believe that something is there without evidence. there are a ton of things i don't believe in because they seem totally unlikely, even impossible, and there is no reason to believe that they exist. superman for example, or smurfs. there are books written about them, yes, even tv shows, but there is still no evidence for their existence, so i consider them made up. now, do i believe that they don't exist - no, i have precluded myself from even wondering if they do because there is absolutely no reason to think that they ever would.

This is not about you or your beliefs; it is about generalising your personal assumptions and analysis of experience for others with different beliefs.

by the way, i don't believe in an absence of theism either, i'm well aware that theism exists.

OK




good for you, when did we start talking about violent opposition to theists?



Hmm, was I mistaken about the sentiment here?

if a belief is untenable in terms of logic or reason or seems to have a basis in fantasy, i don't accept its validity. so in that regard i do lump religious belief in with naziism...et al. although, i am wondering what exact distinction you would make - is it that religious belief is ok because it doesn't harm anyone, irrational as it may be? well a case could be made that roman catholicism has resulted in far more death and despair than naziism ever did. i'm just curious about why you think that something like the christianity or islam would deserve respect when these other things wouldn't.


If so, I stand corrected.

yeah, i bet. enlighten me then, and while youre at it bring all the proof that you can find that corroborates the core story of christianity.

It is not my desire to enlighten you about religion, merely to point out that all people have a right to their beliefs, including you. I reread your posts; it seems your focus is on fundamentalists rather than theists; since I share these concerns about extremism, I believe we are on the same page here. I too do not agree with religion as a tool to promote divisiveness and terrorism.

please try harder next time.

Hope I was able to clarify my position.

Horsepucky, it has everything to do with religion.

I respectfully disagree; and you may call me Sam, I like it better than Horsepucky. :)



Everyone.

Hmm, self delusion.



Because they see things that aren't there, you don't find that disturbing? Is that normal for you?

Are you disturbed by all individuals who disagree with you? Is this normal for you?



But, your religion is intolerant, that makes Muslims hypocrites.

Says the person who is intolerant of all who do not agree with him/her?



Unfortunately, we do not.

Hmm, explains your attitude.



A right yes, but when people believe in myths and fairy tales, that is a different story because it is offensive.

Sounds like you have a REAL problem (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/intolerant)

If christian law forms a basis for law in the US, and Islamic law a basis for law in the ME, it is a reflection of the political mindset of the people and is based on majority opinion.

so? majority opinion isn't always right. in fact, there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. as a coroallry to that, in the middle east it is sometimes not the majority opinion, rather it is forced upon the people by those who weild the biggest guns. in the US, the constitution is still more important than any one majority's opinion at any given time, so unless they amend it, there is still a law against giving preferential treatment to a religion in the public square, and there is still separation of church and state regardless of how certain groups would try to erode it.


This is not about you or your beliefs; it is about generalising your personal assumptions and analysis of experience for others with different beliefs.

on the contrary it was about you saying that my non-allegiance to religion and non-belief in god were actually a fanatical belief system, an interesting theory which has clearly been debunked and that you are now trying to weasel out of because you were wrong.
and as per your above statement, all i have said is that i don't think that religion deserves my respect, nothing about attempting to forcibly alter anyone else's way of thinking.



OK

well, you said i believed in an absence of theism. maybe you should pay closer attention to the words you type and what they actually mean.



Hmm, was I mistaken about the sentiment here?

If so, I stand corrected.

clearly you are as it says nothing whatsoever about violence or fighting or forcing anyone to do anything.

here's what i said, maybe try reading it again, and this time try to understand it:

if a belief is untenable in terms of logic or reason or seems to have a basis in fantasy, i don't accept its validity. so in that regard i do lump religious belief in with naziism...et al. although, i am wondering what exact distinction you would make - is it that religious belief is ok because it doesn't harm anyone, irrational as it may be? well a case could be made that roman catholicism has resulted in far more death and despair than naziism ever did. i'm just curious about why you think that something like the christianity or islam would deserve respect when these other things wouldn't.

i guess you stand corrected.

It is not my desire to enlighten you about religion, merely to point out that all people have a right to their beliefs, including you. I reread your posts; it seems your focus is on fundamentalists rather than theists; since I share these concerns about extremism, I believe we are on the same page here. I too do not agree with religion as a tool to promote divisiveness and terrorism.

well, i'm not really talking about extremism exclusively. every extremist is at one time a run-of-the-mill believer. every extremist is allowed to exist by virtue of the fact that there is a ready made framework for which to implement their vulgar ideas that is supported by thousands or millions of people who share at least some of that core belief. if no one took the koran seriously, then no one could ever use its verses to convince people to blow themselves up on a bus. if no one took the bible seriously, there would have been no basis upon which to twist its doctrines to justify witch burnings, closeted homosexuals, crusades, the torture of the inquisition, women being harrassed and threatened at abortion clinics, hitler's germany, black slavery, and countless other wars, skirmishes and genocides commited throughout the course of history by what you would now call extremis