You want to discuss something that is unfounded, unsupported speculation? Oh dear. Firmly holding a belief indicates a fixed position: i.e. a closing off of alternatives. Conversely you mistakenly (deliberately?) mis-characterise the other position. Who has a mind closed to the notion? False. As shown above. So your point would be...?
Dywyddyr,, Your opinion is why it would make a good discussion. Erm, I said: ''I think that belief in God can open the mind to revelations that cannot be had with a mind closed to the notion of God. Try again. As I have clearly posited an opinion, you are obliged to show that it is false. There is no point, just glad you feel that way. jan.
I'm an American and I don't think that. The basic principle of the United States is separation of church and state. Religious belief is a matter of individual choice and conscience. That's an expression of America's larger principle of individual feedom and popular soverignty. The Constitution expressly forbids the government from favoring any particular religion, even Christianity, as a state faith. Having said that, the great majority of Americans are at least nominally Christians. About 76% according to the latest ARIS survey. Even most of our atheists seem to be fixated on and strongly influenced by Christianity. The European ancestry of a large amount of American thought ultimately has medieval Christian roots. So there's probably some truth in saying that American society is strongly influenced by Christian cultural presuppositions.
So you're of the opinion that you don't have to provide any rationale for a belief in god? That you can make claims about what holding this belief does without supporting those claims? Correct. And I pointed how and why you're mistaken. Already done so. So why persist in asking the question? :shrug:
Dywyddyr, We would see if provide rationale for belief in God during the course of the discussion. We could start the discussion by stateing the difference between an opinion, and a claim of fact or even truth. Then you're mistaken, a thought is not a belief. You were mistaken. How many times have I asked you the question? jan.
So you start off by claiming the conclusion in order to promote a discussion to arrive at a conclusion? And it would help if you gave a rationale for your position. Never claimed it was: I think that belief in God can open the mind to revelations that cannot be had with a mind closed to the notion of God. Here you claim (think) that holding a belief helps. Why? Nope. You fail to read what you write. Twice. And you asked it of others.
Because humans can reason, and at some point, they ask "Why bother?" Eating, sleeping, mating and defending do get boring at some point, insufficient, stressful, and in order to continue them, one has to have some idea of why they are worth it. One cannot just grit one's teeth and continue with eating, sleeping, mating and defending. It doesn't work like that. Sure. Dying with relative peace of mind surely is better than being in agony at the time of death.
Your hypocracy is mind boggling. The assumption was based on an alternative to your suggestion but certainly not the only one. It has just as much basis as claiming Hell exists in the first place but obviously you can't see that............. People have genuinely believed much stranger things, as I have shown, so why do you doubt it very much? Again, you have totally missed the point. This thread is not about proving or disproving the existence of God....stop already. But that didn't stop you from confidently saying that Leprachauns are a human concept. Do you see the hypocracy yet???? Yes! I finally got something through your thick skull Maybe you should take your own advice. And when did I ever make an absolute statement about God's existence? I'm the one who acknowledged the US Constitution in the first place which uses these same secular ideals. What is your point by referencing this treaty? How does this treaty have any influence over the American people, culture and Beliefs? What, are you serious?!?!?!?! You actually took the bait????? By examining your above statement, I suppose you would have to agree that a True Christians must follow the orders of Yahweh and exterminate all infidels/non-believers: Deuteronomy 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Yes, I suffer from power delusions....will this make you go away?
There is the idea that we only see what we believe - the limits of my language are the limits of my world. This is a common assumption, we function on it every day. But when it comes to religious belief, it can stretch us. I think this primarily has to do with not being socialized into a religious community and not being part of it. I don't think that being "closed-minded" is the cause here. I am sure that if we would all be born into a religious community and be valued members of it, we would by default see everything according to our religious beliefs. But no amount of open-mindedness can make up for not being a member of a religious community. The socializing aspect is vitally important for humans, and theological arguments often fail to take it into account. Which leads to an unnecessary and unproductive perpetuation of the theist/atheist debate.
For me, scientific knowledge is easier to consider than religious knowledge because I belong to the society in which scientific knowledge is promulgated, while I do not belong to the society in which religious knowledge is promulgated. The community around science may not be the best there is, but at least I find some measure of acceptance in it. Whereas in religious communities, people like myself are per default classed as rascals, fools, egomaniacs, liars, worthless, unreal and such and expected to just give in, or leave. Religious people tend to assassinate the character of those who do not think, feel, say and do as the religious believe they should, in the time-frames and content-scopes that they believe are the norm. Religious communities are made for members, but they are not open to outsiders or newcomers. Which is strange, to say the least, given that they proselytize and expect that everyone should think, feel, say and do as they believe they should.
I don't think there can actually be any rationale for belief in God. This is not to say that belief in God is irrational; just that it cannot be explained in a simple-enough manner. Note that similar is true for other beliefs as well.
Dyw, My rationale is based on the wisdom of the scripture, testimonies of people, both historical, and present my own personal experience and understanding. Some of the arguments presented by creation-science, and I.D'ers present a more convincing case of the universe being the product of intelligence, than the cases brought forward that the universe formed by itself, is eternal, or who cares how it got started. I think the statement ''there is no scientific evidence for God has become standard fall back, the equivalent of putting one fingers in ones ears and shouting la la la. It is really a culmination of lots of different things too numerous to go into. That is why I think it makes an interesting discussion, rather than go down the lazy old ''show me the physical evidence that a trancendental God exists. But if you don't want to discuss, I'm quite alright with that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! jan.
Dwy, Because I believe there is more to me (and therefore others) than my body, but if I condition myself to believing only in what I can sense with my bodily senses, life ultimately amounts serveing my bodily senses. I think it is a waste of time (in the long run) as we seem capable of so much more. As I said, that is my opinion. jan.
Signal, Scientific knowledge is impersonal information, that informs you of the material world. Religious knowledge is always going to be more difficult especially when we begin to see that it is based on you personally as opposed to a group of people. Religion has the ability to get right to core essense of who we are, and what we are regardless of who and what we think we are. The reality of this is scary for those of us who wish to remain anonymous. Religion is no joke. Same here. I know religious people who are sound as a pound, and do try to uphold the tenets of their belief via their scripture, and I can't argue with that. It shows that the true nature of religion is not dead. It's very difficult to break the spell of maya, as the current climate and condition can be all too common, cold, cruel, and depressing. We just have try and keep our focus. jan.
It wouldn't surprise me if he already knows that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! jan.
This is only partly true. We usually get religious knowledge from other people, and we act on it in relation to other people, within the same group. To limit it all to oneself is a recipe for insanity. Protestantism is a historical example of religion being "based on you personally as opposed to a group of people." And we all know what happened to Protestantism - numerous schisms, competition, cults, decline of moral principles, an air of "anything goes". The Catholic Church may be having its problems, but its ideas of authority are nowehere nearly as problematic as ideas of authority in Protestantism. In Protestantism, one in effect holds oneself to be the authority on what is godly and what isn't. In Catholicism or in some traditional Hindu schools, this is not approved of (except in the case of a pure devotee). Sure. There is still the question of Which religion is the right one? Theists of various denominations tend to trivialize this choice. And again: We must not forget that proper religiousness can take place only when one is socialized around religious people. In practice, this means being a member of a particular church, of a particular religion. Religion is not and cannot be a freestyle, do-it-yourself course where a person could pick and choose from scriptures and practices of different religions, while not being a committed member of any. Not so much because to pick and choose would be egotistical, but because it leads to effectual solipsism, insanity.
And this "true nature of religion" is what? To call people rascals? Scriptures say so many things, so many things. Yet for some reason, many theists pick out only the negative things to say to other people, especially to outsiders/newcomers. If beating others (or oneself) would make them good people, then the whole world would be full of angels. No, one cannot punish and criticize others into becoming good people. And no, one cannot punish and criticize oneself into becoming a good person. It doesn't work that way. Punishment, ridicule, criticism may give the critic some personal satisfaction, and it may produce temporary compliance, but it does not motivate and inspire the punished person to change.
My atheism has nothing to do with your inability (or more likely 'refusal') to acknowledge something as perfectly obvious as the fact that religious people have made a habit of rejecting scientific discovery whenever it doesn't fit in with their preexisting views about the world. Actually, no. I said: 'both' meaning believing in God as well as seeking to gain a deeper appreciation of the true nature of reality. I'm sorry, but it doesn't make more sense to me. It used to, many many years ago when I didn't know the first thing about science, but I've since educated myself. I went from a tentative believer in some kind of intelligent design, to embracing theistic evolution to finally embracing naturalistic evolution. This progression was directly related to how much science I had learned. It would be the same for anyone, given they possess at least a reasonable degree of intelligence, unless of course they are trying to make the science fit their beliefs rather than the other way around. As I've said before, in my day to day dealings with people, I don't give anyone a hard time no matter what they believe. Several of my acquaintances are religious in one way or another (one is even a Raelian) and my closest friends are all agnostic or deistic. We all get along very well, since what I ultimately value about people has little to do with how they choose to make sense of the world. But, once again, like so many other theists here, you have forgotten where you are. You're on a science forum, and you have chosen to engage in debate. In this context, then, I certainly am going to give you a hard time as long as you continue to do what it is that you're doing (which aside from endlessly making claims that are unsupported by reliable evidence, is an awful lot like evangelism). My criticism would be leveled at anyone who seeks to characterize the TOE as something that doesn't make sense, regardless of what might lead someone to make such a claim. What? It is these ancient scriptures that so often lead people to reject important science. I mean, just take a look at this guy: http://krishna.org/life-comes-from-life/
