Current approach to science is wrong and undermines the authority of the word of God

[TheFinalWord]

Maybe the benefits of tact, emotional intelligence, and plain old good manners has yet to be scientifically proven......

 

That's one approach, another possibility.... <><

[Clair93]

Maybe the benefits of tact, emotional intelligence, and plain old good manners has yet to be scientifically proven......

 

Hard truths have always been regarded as cheap shots by the people who did not want to accept them.

[Trimmer]

Faith vs facts.

 

One of my favorite problems as a freshman was to calculate the speed that you would have to be travelling to fit a 10 foot car in a 5 foot garage. As a driver, that would make me tense!

(sqrt(3) / 2)c

[endlessabyss]

Hard truths have always been regarded as cheap shots by the people who did not want to accept them.

 

What is this hard truth you speak of? Lol

[Clair93]

What is this hard truth you speak of? Lol

 

In this case, that apologetics is not real good philosophy.

[writergal]

Je suis Charlie...

Je ne crois en rien parce que

ce est tout ce qu'il ya

nihilisme

[Weezy1973]

Again, I find your opinion very interesting. It is still an opinion. As has been stated, one cannot prove a negative.

 

There is a difference between saying "I do not believe in a god," and "there is no god." The former is a personal statement. The latter is arrogant.

 

Exactly. Just like saying "I believe in a god" is a personal belief and saying "God exists" is arrogant. I think that a lot of religious people do indeed see their faith as a personal belief and don't claim to know it's the truth. They accept that other religions or belief systems might work for other people.

 

The people who believe their religion is the absolute truth and their god really exists are the ones that are dangerous.

[Levite]

The people who believe their religion is the absolute truth and their god really exists are the ones that are dangerous.

 

That's a logical contradiction. How can you expect a person to have a belief, yet not believe it's true?

 

Implied in all beliefs is the idea that we accept them as true, while rejecting other beliefs. If we don't reject other beliefs, then we don't actually believe what we say--but rather are just paying lip service and going through the motions.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Levite

[Weezy1973]

That's a logical contradiction. How can you expect a person to have a belief, yet not believe it's true?

 

Implied in all beliefs is the idea that we accept them as true, while rejecting other beliefs. If we don't reject other beliefs, then we don't actually believe what we say--but rather are just paying lip service and going through the motions.

 

They can have a belief, but not be sure that it's true. It's the certainty that's the problem. Once we can admit that we're fallible as human beings and really only have access to the information that we've been presented with in our very limited lives, we must acknowledge that just because we believe something to be true, doesn't mean it is true. We, after all, can be wrong.

 

It's the certainty - the inability to accept that we can be wrong - that causes people to fly airplanes into buildings. Because they "know" that they are right.

[Levite]

It's the certainty - the inability to accept that we can be wrong - that causes people to fly airplanes into buildings. Because they "know" that they are right.

 

I always thought what causes people to fly airplanes into buildings is the belief that they will get 72 virgins in heaven.

 

Let's be intellectually honest. The problem is not the strength of one's belief, but rather the CONTENT of their belief.

 

Can we agree on this?

 

What about those who are confidently sure about "the golden rule"? Will they fly airplanes into buildings? Nope.

[autumnnight]

The people who believe their religion is the absolute truth and their god really exists are the ones that are dangerous.

 

So it would make sense to believe in a god you DON'T think exists and believe in something you DON'T think is true? I'm sorry, I'm not really seeing how having faith is inherently dangerous. I suspect that is because it ISN'T, in itself, inherently dangerous. Certainly some people display dangerous actions that they say are based on faith. But that is not the same thing.

[Weezy1973]

So it would make sense to believe in a god you DON'T think exists and believe in something you DON'T think is true?

 

I see I'm not making myself clear. It isn't either or. You can believe something is likely true and still admit that you don't know for sure 100% absolutely that it's true. Do you see the difference?

 

I'm sorry, I'm not really seeing how having faith is inherently dangerous.

 

Faith is not inherently dangerous. But it does allow for the capacity to be dangerous, unlike things like logic, rational thought, evidence based belief systems etc. There has never been a terrorist act in the name of science. But many in the name of faith. Also many wars in the name of faith.

 

I suspect that is because it ISN'T, in itself, inherently dangerous. Certainly some people display dangerous actions that they say are based on faith. But that is not the same thing.

 

Dangerous actions that are based on faith. Faith gives the illusion of absolute truth. If one believes that they know the absolute truth, it means that everybody that disagrees with them must be absolutely wrong. There are no shades of gray. That in itself is something that will inherently lead to conflict.

[Weezy1973]

I always thought what causes people to fly airplanes into buildings is the belief that they will get 72 virgins in heaven.

 

If they weren't 100% sure they'd get those virgins (and that they were fighting a holy war), they certainly would not do it. If they accepted that they could be wrong, even if there's only a minute chance that they're wrong, they wouldn't have done it.

 

And let's be honest, the number one (by far!) factor as to whether someone is a Muslim or a Christian is nothing more than location. The country (and by extension family) you're born into determines (for the most part) what religion you'll be. There's no lifelong quest for truth. We're products of our environment.

 

Let's be intellectually honest. The problem is not the strength of one's belief, but rather the CONTENT of their belief.

 

Can we agree on this?

 

Thinking you know the absolute truth 100% will always be a problem, regardless of the content. It will be a problem because it's quite literally impossible.

 

What about those who are confidently sure about "the golden rule"? Will they fly airplanes into buildings? Nope.

 

Haha, this we can agree on.

[autumnnight]

So being 100% sure something isn't true and 100% sure someone who doesn't agree is wrong can be dangerous as well. In fact, the Christians who are being beheaded are being beheaded by those who are 100% sure said Christians are wrong.

 

I believe in shades of gray in some cases and not in others. I guess even my take on shades of gray existing is in shades of gray lol.

 

Bottom line, I think rational and intelligent people can disagree about religion without slinging cheap shots or generalities. And yes, I CAN tell the difference between a hard truth and a cheap shot. It is 99% about tone and attitude most of the time.

 

Typically, people who have to make it personal lack the capacity for real intelligent debate, so they just cover it with sarcasm and rudeness.

[Levite]

And let's be honest, the number one (by far!) factor as to whether someone is a Muslim or a Christian is nothing more than location.

 

Your claim here is an example of philosophical determinism and materialism. In your opinion, there can't be anything other than a cause and effect relationship between where a person lives and what they believe (or who raises them and what they believe). In reality, even if you want to exclude the spiritual reasons why your claim is false and just look at a physical one, there are too many examples of people converting to Christianity (or away from Christianity) without any outside influence from family or culture. Many people just read a book and, boom, they convert. Your deterministic, materialistic view cannot account for this.

 

"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you...for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."' (Matthew 16:17)

[TheFinalWord]

Your claim here is an example of philosophical determinism and materialism. In your opinion, there can't be anything other than a cause and effect relationship between where a person lives and what they believe (or who raises them and what they believe). In reality, even if you want to exclude the spiritual reasons why your claim is false and just look at a physical one, there are too many examples of people converting to Christianity (or away from Christianity) without any outside influence from family or culture. Many people just read a book and, boom, they convert. Your deterministic, materialistic view cannot account for this.

 

"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you...for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."' (Matthew 16:17)

 

In addition, it can quickly lead to the genetic fallacy. That is, the fallacy of attempting to show that how a belief originates, demonstrates a belief to be false.

[Weezy1973]

Bottom line, I think rational and intelligent people can disagree about religion without slinging cheap shots or generalities. And yes, I CAN tell the difference between a hard truth and a cheap shot. It is 99% about tone and attitude most of the time.

 

Typically, people who have to make it personal lack the capacity for real intelligent debate, so they just cover it with sarcasm and rudeness.

 

I agree with this. That being said, I think for people that are religious, their religion is very personal. So if you're debating (or attacking) religion, they naturally take it very personally. If I say, for example, the idea of a virgin having a baby is ridiculous (not including artificial insemination), people who are Christians would take personal offense to that, even though it is preposterous to think that, and anybody who has any rudimentary knowledge in biology would know that it takes two to tango!

 

But, if you're personally invested in Christianity, you might see that as a cheap shot. As something that is ridiculing your whole world view and values.

 

I as an atheist, don't have any personal connection to atheism. I don't believe in any gods because there isn't any evidence to suggest any gods exist. I also don't believe in the tooth fairy and don't have any personal investment in that either. And not holding a personal stake in something allows one to be more objective.

[Weezy1973]

Your claim here is an example of philosophical determinism and materialism. In your opinion, there can't be anything other than a cause and effect relationship between where a person lives and what they believe (or who raises them and what they believe).

 

Not my claim at all. I'm just pointing out that most people are the same religion as their parents. That's just a fact. Most parents teach their kids (sometimes on purpose, sometimes not) their own values and world views. It's pretty rare (although I'm sure it exists) for parents to say "this is what I believe, but I want you to make up your own mind" when it comes to religion. If you are denying that one's family and culture influences people, I can show you a boatload of evidence that would suggest otherwise.

 

In reality, even if you want to exclude the spiritual reasons why your claim is false and just look at a physical one, there are too many examples of people converting to Christianity (or away from Christianity) without any outside influence from family or culture.

 

Of course there are examples of this. I'm not saying being born into a Christian family is going to absolutely mean that person is going to end up being a Christian for their whole life in every single case. But, at least statistically, that is certainly the pattern for most people. Not all though.

 

Many people just read a book and, boom, they convert. Your deterministic, materialistic view cannot account for this.

 

Not sure what you mean by this. Someone who is unsure, and then reads a book, which convinces them, and then they convert...how is that not deterministic nor materialistic?

[Weezy1973]

In addition, it can quickly lead to the genetic fallacy. That is, the fallacy of attempting to show that how a belief originates, demonstrates a belief to be false.

 

I never said that either and that indeed seems like a fallacy. That doesn't mean the origin of a belief can't shed light and knowledge on why people might believe something. And learning that is interesting.

 

I don't think any belief can be proven 100% true no matter what it is and if people think what they believe is 100% absolutely true, they are mistaken. Even though I'm an atheist, really I'm just a very convinced agnostic. Evidence will always win the day, so I can never hold that what I believe is 100% absolutely true. I think a lot of religious people absolutely think what they believe is 100% true.

[Levite]

I never said that either and that indeed seems like a fallacy. That doesn't mean the origin of a belief can't shed light and knowledge on why people might believe something. And learning that is interesting.

 

I don't think any belief can be proven 100% true no matter what it is and if people think what they believe is 100% absolutely true, they are mistaken. Even though I'm an atheist, really I'm just a very convinced agnostic. Evidence will always win the day, so I can never hold that what I believe is 100% absolutely true. I think a lot of religious people absolutely think what they believe is 100% true.

 

You just made the following two contradictory statements in the same post:

 

1) Nothing can ever be fully known.

 

2) Evidence will "always win the day".

[TheFinalWord]

evidence will always win the day, so I can never hold that what I believe is 100% absolutely true. I think a lot of religious people absolutely think what they believe is 100% true.

 

I have not found that to be the case in my own life. To me this is not the best analogy as we are attempting to quantify an entire belief system into percentages. At best, using your 100% scenario, you might get a cross-sectional sample where at one point in our study, a believer says 100% "I believe in God" If you ask them the same question during another point in life, such as a life trial, they may say 50%. Belief is more like a continuum for most believers. Even the bible promotes the idea of lazy and hard working servants of the Lord. Unless you are doing a longitudinal study and you can quantify their beliefs in some meaningful way, these types of statements are basically false analogies concocted to make believers look closed minded. In my above example, that was belief in God. Less important things that factor into my religious identity include my belief that one should be immersed for baptism. I am only about 20% certain that is true. Religious people hold many beliefs that when compiled represent their religious identify. Its unlikely that composite variable would equal 100%.

[Weezy1973]

You just made the following two contradictory statements in the same post:

 

1) Nothing can ever be fully known.

 

True.

 

2) Evidence will "always win the day".

 

Which means nothing can ever be fully known. If we are able to admit that evidence is the foundation of knowledge of the universe, then we must accept that new evidence can always (and should always) change our minds.

 

Not contradictory at all.

[Weezy1973]

I have not found that to be the case in my own life. To me this is not the best analogy as we are attempting to quantify an entire belief system into percentages. At best, using your 100% scenario, you might get a cross-sectional sample where at one point in our study, a believer says 100% "I believe in God" If you ask them the same question during another point in life, such as a life trial, they may say 50%. Belief is more like a continuum for most believers. Even the bible promotes the idea of lazy and hard working servants of the Lord. Unless you are doing a longitudinal study and you can quantify their beliefs in some meaningful way, these types of statements are basically false analogies concocted to make believers look closed minded. In my above example, that was belief in God. Less important things that factor into my religious identity include my belief that one should be immersed for baptism. I am only about 20% certain that is true. Religious people hold many beliefs that when compiled represent their religious identify. Its unlikely that composite variable would equal 100%.

 

That is fair. There are many shades of gray so likely many religious people vary in the degree of veracity towards their beliefs. We know people change religions and leave religion so obviously there must be some sort of continuum in the strength of religious belief.

[Levite]

True.

 

 

 

Which means nothing can ever be fully known. If we are able to admit that evidence is the foundation of knowledge of the universe, then we must accept that new evidence can always (and should always) change our minds.

 

Not contradictory at all.

 

Then don't say evidence will "win the day". That implies finality and certainty.

[TheFinalWord]

That is fair. There are many shades of gray so likely many religious people vary in the degree of veracity towards their beliefs. We know people change religions and leave religion so obviously there must be some sort of continuum in the strength of religious belief.

 

Very true.