OTOH, there is plenty of room for science though in the Deistic "Absentee Landlord" model; though such a model provides little to no reason for a human to acknowledge, care for or follow such a being.

indicate that believers read the doctrine differently from each other.

I don't think "reason" is why many people acknowledge, care for or follow their god. It's something much different, imo.

Most (perhaps all) theistic people seem to just worship their own world view and politics.

It means that doctrine is up for interpretation.

I think most people, both theists and non-theists, hold their own world view and politics.

How they do or don't incorporate religious beliefs seems pretty individualized.

Something is either inherently meaningless or it has a true meaning.

There is a big difference between having a world view and political opinions, and worshiping one's own world view and political opinions.

Something may be inherently meaningful to me, but not to you.

I couldn't embrace the position that there is a single truth or meaning that supersedes what individuals believe or don't believe.

What do you think the difference is between embracing one's world view and political opinions and worshipping them?

then its meaning isn't based upon the perceiver.

Happy New Year, Zombie!

be tested and verified, with religious beliefs which can't be.

So science may have some inherent meaning, but religion may not and be entirely relative to the perceiver.

While there are some conservative religionists who think their world views and political opinions are in alignment with god and therefore perfect and absolutely right, that is certainly not true of everyone.

And other than issues regarding civil rights and social justice, I've never seen such ideas expressed her or by any liberal/progressive believers.

Why do some people repeatedly take the extremist position and apply it to the whole group? That is neither logical nor reasonable.

The most common form is people posting how Republicans misinterpret the word of God to fit their world view.

I read the true intention of God in the Christian Liberals & Progressive People of Faith group, but I won't post any examples out of the respect for their space.

It is not extremist, it is common.

believe that the religious right has co-opted and misused religion for political gain. They have and democratic religionists are trying hard to push them back.

If someone feels that their political goals are directed by their religious beliefs, and their political goals are in line with mine own, I am going to support them.

Is there a problem with that?

I was just saying the post of yours I first replied to was an argument against religion being objectively true. I know that wasn't the argument you were trying to make, but that interpretation is easy to come to.

I'll repost it to save you the trouble of scrolling.

There is no objective truth when it comes to religion, imo. It's all subjective, including the position of atheism.

to derive and dictate objective and universal (as opposed to individual) truths about god and religion, the direct consequence of your position is that all of theology is horseshit and a waste of time.

I agree with that. I'm not sure any of the many theologians you know would.

A Hindu concept that it is all a grand illusion.

It was suppose to be Māyā Sanskrit माया māyā a Hindu concept that all is a grand illusion.
Sorry, It should work this time as I previewed it twice.

I could conceivably understand.

Interesting concept with which I am not very familiar, but I have had similar thoughts.

She related how she wasn't going to drop acid anymore. It wasn't so much that she had a bad trip but when she was in that border area as the effects were wearing off she had the thought- how do I know what is real and what is an illusion. To my knowledge she never again used LSD.

Ineffable is how Christian mystics describe God- that is an oxymoron since they are saying that God is indescribable. So the concepts of doctrine are weak. If God is then we are the lessor trying to speak about something that is greater than us. If God isn't then it's all a waste of time.

I've had some intense hypnopompic experiences that I found very disturbing.

People often have to anthropomorphize in order to wrap their head around something and to share their ideas. But in the end, the concept of god exists solely within the realm of each individuals mind and is, therefore, not really describable.

The concept of (whatever) exists solely within the realm of each individuals mind and is, therefore, not really describable

Can you or anyone prove that how you perceive the color green is the same for me?

We can believe that we know stuff but there is the possibility that we are just fooling ourselves.

I guess what I reject is any stripe of absolutism, were persons are so absolutely sure of their belief or position that everyone else is wrong. And it does extend to everyone else because at the root no one will completely agree with anyone else. All one has to do is to browse through DU with an unbiased eye. Here one can find people who almost think alike at one another over (to me) trivial matters. Some take offense so deeply that there is no healing what could've been a "beautiful relationship."

My final thought is that if one has a rigid idea of who, what, why, how God is, well they don't have any idea of God at all. It is something that transcends us. We may have a sense of it but like our understanding of the physical cosmos it is minimal. As our knowledge increases so do the questions.

Well, that's enough for now. I know that I haven't proved anything to you, nor was that my intention. Time for breakfast for this diabetic. If you are not diabetic be thankful

Doctrine should be absolutely and universally true

It is being tested and revised. There is no semblance of "truth" absolutely, but rather the best idea for the best situation.

Religion requires the affirmation of ideas into truth. If someone is true ("there is a God&quot it is not practicable to test. It is not revisable. There is no alternative. There is no room for growth or change of a truth. This is only possible with ideas, not beliefs.

For one to affirm an idea as truth, they thereby eliminate all alternatives. Everyone else is wrong. And to accept a common doctrine thereby institutes a common absolute "truth" among all adherents. If all of such adherents recognized their absolute truth is only relatively true for themselves, it therefore ceases to be a truth.

Whether it is being tested and tried on an individual scale or a much larger scale is a matter of perspective.

Why do you think religion requires the affirmation of ideas into truth?

Religion has changed and grown throughout history. IMHO, it is ideas based on beliefs.

Your position is too rigid and pat, imo. There are many who do not believe they hold the single truth and that everyone else is wrong. That position has been consistently taken and affirmed in this very group.

Perhaps when it comes to things religious there is no absolute truth, only relative truth.

Would that be a problem?

There is no point in believing anything while simultaneously acknowledging that it may not be true to anyone but you ("relative truth&quot . In fact, I would venture to say that isn't belief at all ("I believe there is a purple dinosaur God but I might be wrong and it could possibly not be absolutely true&quot . Then you just have an idea. And ideas aren't truth. And relative ideas cannot form shared doctrine.

There are plenty of people who have personal, relative ideas about the world. Only when those ideas eliminate all alternatives and become truths, would I call them beliefs. And when that happens, its not important who holds them, as the holder considers them truth irregardless of who does or does not believe.

There are lots of points in believing some things and acknowledging that it may not be true for everyone.

The only people I have known who take the absolutist position are on the extremes. They are the one-wayers, the fundamentalists. They include both believers and non-believers who dismiss the perspectives, experiences and beliefs (or lack of beliefs) of others.

Most people live in the murky middle holding some beliefs (or not) and accepting that others may see it very differently but that that doesn't make them wrong.

Your insistence that that means they therefore have no beliefs is just not factual.

An idea is not a belief. It allows room for revision and contradiction.

The Fixation of Belief


We're just using different words.

no matter what a writer from 1877 says.

I have had many beliefs that have changed with the presentation of new information or with new experiences.

Haven't you?

Believing in something is not defined as having the inability to change those beliefs. It merely implies that one holds something to be true at any given time.

People go from being believers to non-believers when it comes to a god, and vice versa. Are those just ideas or are they real beliefs?

Are they only valid if that is the only position one has held for, say, their entire lives?

Honest and intellectual theists are constantly revising their beliefs and seeing the contradictions.

I used to. And there was no room for alternatives, as alternatives did not exist. Nothing. There was only the absolute. It took mountains to destroy such beliefs. I have no more. I believe nothing. I only have room left for ideas.

I simply think we are using different words to refer to the same thing. I believe my definition of "idea" is your definition of "belief". My definition of "belief" is your definition of "fundamentalist belief".

If not so, I simply have to ask you, what the hell is the difference between--in your mind--an "idea" and a "belief"? To me, the difference is immense.

I would assume that that has formed your perspective and accounts for how you think about people of faith.

They must all be like you were? Or are they?

I think you are correct that we may be getting hung up on definitions.

There are many things I believe that I can not offer hard evidence for. They are not just ideas, they are beliefs.

I believe that my husband loves me. I believe that I love him. I believe that most people do the best they can. I believe in the general goodness of people. I believe Obama is doing a good job and is really on our side. These aren't ideas to me. They are bigger than ideas.

They represent my personal doctrine, but they are subject to change.

And I do differentiate them from fundamentalist beliefs which are rigid and immutable.

I would assume that that has formed your perspective and accounts for how you think about people of faith.

They must all be like you were? Or are they?

I believe that my husband loves me. I believe that I love him. I believe that most people do the best they can. I believe in the general goodness of people. I believe Obama is doing a good job and is really on our side. These aren't ideas to me. They are bigger than ideas.

I am quite sure that you found your present position through deep thought and study. I am also quite sure that is how many get to their religious beliefs.

So we are stuck on definitions and semantics. You have a much narrower definition of belief than I do and that different appears to be impeding our discussion.

But you once had beliefs, I assume, which have changed pretty dramatically. So beliefs are not immutable and do not necessarily mean truth.

Millions of people also lose their belief in god and millions other find theirs.

Again, a thinking person, whether they be a theist or atheist knows that their beliefs are subject to revision.

Just as yours were.

Ask people if Jews should be rounded up and killed. Then ask those who say "no" if those who say "yes" are absolutely wrong.

Genocide is wrong. Those that disagree with that are wrong.

I think the bulk of the people on earth would agree with that.

given that your post is clearly an exercise in turning your own idea into truth.

I see no reason why we should redefine "belief" to mean nothing more than "idea" (as the other poster seems to have). I do think it is advantageous to religion proponents to do so, in order to improve the image of religions that adhere to doctrines. If they can muddle the definition of "idea" and "belief" enough, it makes believers seem rational and normal

Well, that would just change the whole game, lol.

Belief in that which cannot be proven is not a rational process. Its something else. If that makes you uncomfortable, you need to find a personal resolution

I thought you were quite comfortable with the idea that faith was not rational/reasonable:

I don't think "reason" is why many people acknowledge, care for or follow their god. It's something much different, imo.

So your hypothesis that they are not can't be proven by any rational process. It is just a biased opinion that you have developed. A belief, perhaps.

I feel in no way discomfort what you say and never claimed that faith was any more than a belief without proof. Not all things must be rational and I think the world would be a very dull place in deed if they were.

in creationism, your post is both laughable and hypocritical.

The use of the modifier "theistic".

I strongly suspect almost everyone highly regards their own world view, but literally worshiping their own world view requires religion.

No, the correct statement there would be: "Atheists sometimes wield evolution as a hatchet to discredit religionists making theistic claims that contradict the mountain of evidence that supports modern evolutionary theory".

And I guess you and the author's point is that the awful atheists should stop doing that.

why you would surmise anything at all about my POV or why you would conclude that I think atheists are awful and should stop doing anything.

Or on the other hand, you agree that the statement I quoted is egregious bullshit?

Now's your chance!

Anyway, I think the argument he is making is that theists and atheists sometimes use the evolution argument to polarize what is not necessarily an incompatible set of ideas.

He then presents some data which would seem to show that most people, both believers and not, do not find evolution to be incompatible.

I think he could have worded it in a less inflammatory way, but I don't think it's egregious bullshit.

with it, and with that phrase in particular, that was completely disingenuous.

OK.

Thanks again for the amuse bouche. It is always a tasty treat disentangling your words.

And I just explained to you where I agree and don't agree with what is being said.

Why are you so intent on making me into something I am not? On belittling my ideas as "amuse bouche" and trying to corner me in order to try and show that I am insincere? Is it just your love of the "game" or do you hold some personal animosity towards me?

That doesn't necessarily mean you want them to stop doing certain things, it just means you want them dead and extinct. Sorry for misunderstanding.

There is a branch of atheism: christian atheism, that you might want to check out. At least some of them believe that god "died" and ceased to be an active force in the world.

gives us strenght.

but I do believe belief in God can give a person strength.

Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 04:32 PM - Edit history (1)

that belief in "god" can't give a person strength that they didn't have and couldn't have wielded without belief in god.

It's really sad and pathetic that so many religionists have been convinced that they are weak and worthless without the support of "god".

The Roman Catholic Church officially allows Catholics to believe in Evolution. The idea is roughly that God works through many agencies; like nature, like evolution.

There's even some specific biblical support for Evolution. For both Catholics and Protestants too. The Bible for instance 1) says that God made Adam out of "clay"; ultimately this corresponds to the evolutionary account, which finds we came out of "primal ooze" ... or clay.

Saying 2) "God made us" therefore might be taken as mere shorthand for any number of longer and even partially natural processes; including Evolution.

As for 3) chronology, the amount of time needed? Many hold that the Bible says that the world is just a few thousand years old. However, other parts of the Bible suggest that time even in the Bible is relative; for God a year is like a day, or a day is like a "thousand years." Therefore, the Bible itself does not strictly or exactly specify dates and times, in many cases. Time for God is variable and relative.

Often there is less conflict between Religion and Science, than many have thought.

Possibly a metaphor for a great Nature doing it....

To be sure, most conservative Catholics would not allow extending traditional religious concepts this far.

Some liberal Catholics might allow this however.

In a sense, even Bronze Age texts might be consistent with this. In that they saw what we would now call "nature" as an act of "god." Ultimately then, they were often speaking of Nature.

Granted, many more anthropomorphic pictures of God would not fit this. Unless indeed, you have a kind of Deist god. Who creates nature to be sure ... but then stands back to let it run itself according to natural laws.

well sure, if you wish to concede that we invented gods as an explanation for a universe we didn't understand at all, I'm fine with that.

But we have progressed to the point where we understand many of the basic processes of our universe, and what we don't understand no longer needs "just so" stories, instead smart people are actively pursuing deeper understandings.

There is no need for magical explanations.

Not as contradiction, exactly. But clarification.

For anyone in a reconciliatory mood; a meeting of Heaven and earth, religion and science.l

But when the myths and superstitions of your religion have been utterly wrong (not unclear) for thousands of years, right up to the present day, and when the real truth has been discovered entirely by science, with not a shred of credit due to your religion at all, that would be a pretty dishonest and intellectually bankrupt way to see it.

sees it as mythology, allegory or just literature.

I don't use the Bible as either a science text or history book.

Not all people, but most.

who believe in the seven day, twenty four hour story of creation and that the world is only 6000 years old. However I moved to north Florida from the Tampa Bay Area when I retired and more people here take their Bible literally than did in there.

To me the Bible contains a lot of wisdom on how to live a worthwhile life contained in allegorical stories. Unfortunately reading the entire Bible (which I have done) is a lot like reading Moby Dick. If you chose to do either it is best to use a unbiased study guide as an aid.

I had the opportunity to drive coast to coast and back this year.

Some of the radio I heard made my jaw drop. I knew they were out there, but I did not realize how extreme some of them were.

Their ideas about GLBT rights were alarming, but I expected that.

OTOH, their ideas about women were terrifying.

Moby Dick is a good comparison, but I find Ulysses most closely matches my experience. I know that some parts really do mean something, but I sure don't know what it is.

Wish me luck.

Think biblical Job - torture and patience.

are all too aware of the many contradictions within it and universally accept it as allegory. I think of it as an encyclopedia of all the Bronze Age myths from around the eastern Mediterranean. It was a good read when I sat down and plowed through it but I saw little to be taken seriously as a guide to modern life and less to be taken seriously as fact. It is, however, a wonderful guide to the way our remote ancestors thought about things.

I have never met a fundy who has read the whole thing. I think the key to being a fundy is never reading it, allowing oneself to be guided by bible study workbooks which direct people to a very narrow selection of well thumbed pages within it while using the whole book itself as some sort of folk religion talisman.

And therein lies the problem.

is in the New Testament.

The God of the Old Testament comes across as demanding and often ruthless. Of course, to be fair, his followers of that time seem to be a rather "stiff necked" people who often insisted on worshiping other gods.

For example, Solomon was known as a very wise man but when he was elderly, his foreign wives managed to convince him to worship other gods.

From the creation story, god was the liar and the serpent told the truth, something I'm amazed more believers haven't noticed. The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil did not kill them by sundown. It just woke them up.

They'd been kept as pets, anyway, the rest of us already here and living east of Eden in the land of Nod, wherever the hell that was. Either that or Eve had to be incestuous and astonishingly fertile into a very, very old age.

Fundies have amazing mindsets that allow them to ignore all of this stuff. If it doesn't fit the world view, it must not really be there. Then again, they love to see punishment being dealt and dislike that sissy mercy stuff unless their own butts are in the sling.

who gifted mankind with the knowledge of fire which enabled civilization and the advancement of mankind.

bible as literature was an interesting course

say they didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Do most Christians you know don't believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ?

many recognize that much of it is.

So there is no reason to accuse people of taking the extremist position and applying it to a whole group.

Are there any?

Why the hell is the strawman Atheist(anti-theist) so popular?

"Atheists sometimes wield evolution as a hatchet to discredit religion..."

Can anyone give ONE example of this? We are talking about in general, are we not?

Obviously, when religion tries to make easily discredited, real world claims, for example those directly contradicting evolution, that's different than trying to use evolution to counter theism itself, which is just silly.

I have seen instances where the fundamentalists rejection of evolution has been used as a broad argument that religion impedes science. I think that's his underlying point when read in context.

But I agree that trying to use evolution to counter theism itself is just silly.

inquiry, it doesn't need to be in a religious context, though in many cases it is, examples include arguments against studying abiogenesis, or The Big Bang, Neurology(and the materialistic basis of the mind), climate change, etc.

The issue is this, scientific inquiry doesn't concern itself with the supernatural, regardless of source, whether gods, ghosts, or wizards, if its not something that can be measured, experimented with, or observed with any type of objectivity or system or checks on fallibility, then it isn't science, and it isn't reality as we know it, but rather a reality many wish was true.

Sometimes I hate quoting others, but dammit, believing in something doesn't make it so.

have to impede or interfere with each other in any way.

But I agree that that's not true or possible for everyone.

The deeply religious scientists I have know recognize as true exactly what you say. Their religious beliefs can't be measured, experimented with or observed with any objectivity. They also have placed it completely outside the realm of religion, but that doesn't make it any less "true" for them. They believe based on faith, something they would never do in their scientific inquiries.

No, it doesn't make it so. But not believing in something also doesn't make something not so.

too many negatives in a single sentence, indeed if I counted it right, that's a triple negative sentence, which is confusing as all hell.

But, and I want to emphasize this, what I was trying to explain is that belief doesn't equal fact, wishes aren't evidence, and faith is not a substitute for theory. By the same token, not all opinions are equal, not when some are supported by evidence and others aren't.

You said that believing something did not make it true. What I tried to say was that not believing something does not make it untrue.

So, while I agree that belief doesn't equal fact, disbelief does not equal fiction.

When it comes to an area where there is no evidence for or against the existence of something, I think opinions become pretty equal.

The only reason to see it any other way is in order to place oneself in a superior or one up position.

If there is no evidence for the existence of a god, then the default, and most reasonable position, would be to not believe that such a being exists. The issue is that this non-belief is NOT reliant on evidence against the existence of such a being, but lack of evidence for its existence.

So are both opinions actually equal, one is an unsupported, positive assertion of a god's existence, while the other isn't.

You can say the same for anything that has a lack of evidence for its existence or activity, whether we are talking about gods, bigfoot, yeti, the Loch Ness monster, or alien visitation, they all have the same level of evidence supporting them, you cannot say that opinions in support of the existence of this phenomenon or creatures is equal to skepticism of the same.

Is the default position, therefore, that there is none?

I find that highly unlikely. I might even suggest that someone taking that default position has placed themselves in a very untenable position, as the possibilities are so vast and may even be infinite.

So, I think both opinions have equal weight, even if I may personally think that one is more likely than another.

You are restricting your examples to things that may or may not exist or happen on this planet. That's an extremely narrow window. Since there are an finite number of possibilities when you restrict things so narrowly, your ability to start ruling things out becomes greatly.

It's when you expand it that your ability to say anything with certainty fail.

and I confined my examples to things that are about equally as likely to exist, at least to a certain level, though gods don't have to be limited to one Earth, which I find funny, because the god(or gods) of the Bible are extremely, uhm, tribal in nature, very limited.

I think the issue is that we hold different opinions as having different weight depending on what subject they are under, what is possible, physically, as well as direct evidence. The example of intelligent life in the universe, I would say, and this is honest, that I don't know, so I don't care to speculate, so its likely that there is very few if any civilized alien species in, at least, our part of the universe.

As far as life itself, a separate question, I would say its more likely, and there is some intriguing possible evidence, particularly on Mars, that its possible life has evolved on other worlds. The issue is that, at the moment, we only have one dataset to work with, Earth, so its far too limited.

If we were to find evidence of past or extant life, independent of Earth's, on Mars, Europa or any other place in the Solar System, then we can calculate the odds much more accurately, at least then we would know the proliferation of life in our solar system, and under what conditions.

Only those who substitute knowledge for faith want certainty, and they are fools, everything should be tentative, with varying degrees of certainty, but not absolute certainty.

I don't think you can put the loch ness monster and alien abduction on the same level as there possibly being something akin to a god (or gods).

I do think humans have anthropomorphized their god, which makes it easier to put the whole thing in the same category as the loch ness monster. But, imo, they really aren't on the same footing.

I feel the same way about gods as you do about intelligent life in the universe. I don't know. I don't ever expect to know and I can't be bothered to really think about it too much. True or not true, I don't think it would change my life much.

Along this same line, it makes little difference to me what others believe or don't believe. I've got no horse in this race other than I think attacking or dismissing people solely based on their religiousness is a foolish thing to do.

Your last sentence resonates very much with me, although I'm not sure you mean it in the way I am reading it. I think that certainty is the biggest danger when it comes to religious beliefs or non-beliefs. I think that intolerance is the next biggest danger.

You might want to sort out a different argument. The only question regarding the universe and intelligent life is "is it unique to our planet?", and a claim of singularity in the vastness of the universe is bordering on silly. Not impossible, just silly.

Really? Could you point me to some of that?