People who believe in god are broken

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

Perhaps "honesty" is something we do not automatically grant others. We seem to always be on the lookout, for where and how somebody could be trying to pull the wool over our eyes. We after all do not like being played for the fool. Nobody likes being the dupe.

 

In science we seem to take the approach, "trust, but verify".

 

In religion we seem to take the approach, "trust, and if you have a question, just believe in the wisemen/women, and if they don't seem to have the answer, just believe in God on your own intuition"

 

The two approachs above, are of my own construction, so they may not be actual approaches that people take, but if they are a little bit true, they have some common attributes in that in both cases there is you looking for truth, verifying it with others, and when in doubt, leaving the truth up to a perceived, greater reality, that holds the truth for us to find.

 

Take this paragraph from the Wiki article on Dark Matter.

 

As important as dark matter is thought to be in the cosmos, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive. Though the theory of dark matter remains the most widely accepted theory to explain the anomalies in observed galactic rotation, some alternative theoretical approaches have been developed which broadly fall into the categories of modified gravitational laws and quantum gravitational laws.[8]

 

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited April 21, 2012 by tar

[questionposter]

Moontanman,

 

Perhaps "honesty" is something we do not automatically grant others. We seem to always be on the lookout, for where and how somebody could be trying to pull the wool over our eyes. We after all do not like being played for the fool. Nobody likes being the dupe.

 

In science we seem to take the approach, "trust, but verify".

 

In religion we seem to take the approach, "trust, and if you have a question, just believe in the wisemen/women, and if they don't seem to have the answer, just believe in God on your own intuition"

 

The two approachs above, are of my own construction, so they may not be actual approaches that people take, but if they are a little bit true, they have some common attributes in that in both cases there is you looking for truth, verifying it with others, and when in doubt, leaving the truth up to a perceived, greater reality, that holds the truth for us to find.

 

Take this paragraph from the Wiki article on Dark Matter.

 

 

 

 

Regards, TAR2

 

The problem with you description of approaches is neither fully describe a person. No one is completely logical or illogical.

[tar]

Questionposter,

 

So I suppose we should grant each other a modicum of logic and a modicum of illogic.

 

If this is how we operate, then the spectrum of humans might run from 100% logical, with not even a hint of illogic exhibited, to 100% illogical, with no sign of any logic attempted.

 

If we plotted this out, we might get a bell curve like distribution. The "broken" people would be those that lay three or four deviations from the norm. In either direction.

 

And then we could answer the thread question, if we could equate belief in god to extreme illogic.

Unfortunately we would also have to question the integrity and soundness of the few individuals, with no capacity for illogic.

 

However there seems to be a problem, in that the meat of the bell curve, lets say 62% with the proper mix of logic and illogic, would be made up of mostly religious and agnostic people, even if all the athesists on the planet were within that 62%

 

So I would have to surmise, that given all of humanity, from the first to the current, only the outliers on any spectrum should be considered broken (or gifted), and the rest of us, can consider ourselves functioning, sound, normal human beings.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Except, if you considered every possible spectrum, upon which a human could be plotted, each of us, probably has some characteristic or another that would put us out on one or the other fringe of a particular spectrum. And we would be an "outlier" and broken or gifted, only in that regard. It would leave all the other spectrums upon which we could be plotted available for us to fall within the norm on.

 

So, all in all, I would have to answer the thread question as NO, people that believe in God, are not broken.

 

And not specially gifted either.

[questionposter]

Questionposter,

 

So I suppose we should grant each other a modicum of logic and a modicum of illogic.

 

If this is how we operate, then the spectrum of humans might run from 100% logical, with not even a hint of illogic exhibited, to 100% illogical, with no sign of any logic attempted.

 

If we plotted this out, we might get a bell curve like distribution. The "broken" people would be those that lay three or four deviations from the norm. In either direction.

 

And then we could answer the thread question, if we could equate belief in god to extreme illogic.

Unfortunately we would also have to question the integrity and soundness of the few individuals, with no capacity for illogic.

 

However there seems to be a problem, in that the meat of the bell curve, lets say 62% with the proper mix of logic and illogic, would be made up of mostly religious and agnostic people, even if all the athesists on the planet were within that 62%

 

So I would have to surmise, that given all of humanity, from the first to the current, only the outliers on any spectrum should be considered broken (or gifted), and the rest of us, can consider ourselves functioning, sound, normal human beings.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Except, if you considered every possible spectrum, upon which a human could be plotted, each of us, probably has some characteristic or another that would put us out on one or the other fringe of a particular spectrum. And we would be an "outlier" and broken or gifted, only in that regard. It would leave all the other spectrums upon which we could be plotted available for us to fall within the norm on.

 

So, all in all, I would have to answer the thread question as NO, people that believe in God, are not broken.

 

And not specially gifted either.

 

I don't really see any evidence to support the quantification of logic in humans, any statement you make based on those statistics has at least a 1/2 chance of being utterly wrong.

The things that make people religious effect most if not all people, atheists just happen to not make as much of a connection to religion. Often times a religious belief is also forged out of environment, or growing up with many religious aspects in your life, and I don't think atheists can grow up outside of any environment unless they grow up outside of this universe, which is impossible by the definition of the word "universe".

Edited April 22, 2012 by questionposter

[tar]

Question poster,

 

Well most certianly you are right. Logic tests would be rather hard to design. And the designers would probably be biased in that some subjective criteria would likely be used to define logic and illogic in the first place. That was sort of my point. If you take belief in god as a sign of illogic, then the stronger one's belief the higher you would score on the illogic test.

 

Not really part of this thread question, or maybe it is, is the "idea" of intelligence.

 

What exactly could that be, that some people have more of than others, that we can scientifically determine the exact quantity of, that a person contains at a particular moment in their life. We can only do it with a quotion, a relative scale, comparing A to everybody else, tested for their mental abilities exhibited in performing certain standard tasks of memory, knowledge, pattern matching, problem solving, logic, mental manipulation, recognition of causal relationships, or whatever is deemed to be important components of intelligence. But lets say someone was "more intelligent" than another. What would that mean to the person, less intelligent. If the less intelligent person could do the things, mentally, that the more intelligent person could do, then the less intelligent person would BE more intelligent.

 

Sets up a theory that I have had, since I was 17, that one cannot know what it means to be "more intelligent". For if you knew, you would be such. You can imagine someone doing a mental thing you do, faster, or differently, but only if you are capable of doing it yourself, would you know what that means. When others have something in mind, that you do not, you are the fool, and they are the fooler. They "get it" and you do not. What this set up for me, is the idea that you can know THAT somebody is more intelligent, but you cannot "fool" such a person, as you could someone less intelligent. You can know what it means to be less intelligent, by subtracting abilities, but there is no way to "add" intelligence to your image of someone else, if you can't imagine what that means.

 

Follow up theory, was that there is always someone more intelligent than you, unless you are the most intelligent person on the planet, and this would put you alone, or in a very very small club of equals.

 

So in theory, an adult can fool a child, and an adult can fool another adult of lesser intelligence any time they want, and one of equal intelligence some of the time, and one of greater intelligence, with great difficulty.

 

My "proof" of this, was an inspection of professional sports, considering the amount of people that considered a sport "real" competition. I believe at the time I set roller derby and wrestling at the bottom, since I knew they were NOT real competition, with boxing and horse racing, being a "maybe" in my mind, and football, baseball, basketball and hockey being sports that I believed were "real" competition. (except for flakey holding calls in the fourth quarter that changed the outcome of the game, or noticing that sometimes the shortstop waves at a hit up the middle and sometimes he makes a diving grab and flip to the second baseman).

 

Sort of the TAR2 intelligence test. Assume that all professional sports are not real competition, and the fewer you KNOW are not, the more intelligent you are.

 

I know I am getting further and further away from the point here, but only to get back to it. Last week I heard on the radio the outcome of the night before's Rangers vs. Senators playoff hockey game. I went to talk to a hockey fan I know at work about the game, he told me that they play playoff games every other night, and they had not played the night before. I told him the radio had said the Ranger's scored two goals in the opening minutes of the first period, and wound up losing the game by a goal. He said "no, they didn't play last night"...that night the Ranger's scored two goals in the first six minutes and lost 3-2 in overtime.

 

Are we dupes? Did a radio announcer read the script ahead of time?

 

Are we "broken" if we believe in what people more intelligent than ourselves tell us?

 

Perhaps there is another TAR2 intelligence test. Which of the world's religions do you KNOW are not real, and which seem somewhat reasonable.

 

One thing is for sure though. The most intelligent person on the planet, though he or she can fool everybody else, cannot fool God.

 

Regards, TAR2

[questionposter]

Question poster,

 

Well most certianly you are right. Logic tests would be rather hard to design. And the designers would probably be biased in that some subjective criteria would likely be used to define logic and illogic in the first place. That was sort of my point. If you take belief in god as a sign of illogic, then the stronger one's belief the higher you would score on the illogic test.

 

Not really part of this thread question, or maybe it is, is the "idea" of intelligence.

 

What exactly could that be, that some people have more of than others, that we can scientifically determine the exact quantity of, that a person contains at a particular moment in their life. We can only do it with a quotion, a relative scale, comparing A to everybody else, tested for their mental abilities exhibited in performing certain standard tasks of memory, knowledge, pattern matching, problem solving, logic, mental manipulation, recognition of causal relationships, or whatever is deemed to be important components of intelligence. But lets say someone was "more intelligent" than another. What would that mean to the person, less intelligent. If the less intelligent person could do the things, mentally, that the more intelligent person could do, then the less intelligent person would BE more intelligent.

 

Sets up a theory that I have had, since I was 17, that one cannot know what it means to be "more intelligent". For if you knew, you would be such. You can imagine someone doing a mental thing you do, faster, or differently, but only if you are capable of doing it yourself, would you know what that means. When others have something in mind, that you do not, you are the fool, and they are the fooler. They "get it" and you do not. What this set up for me, is the idea that you can know THAT somebody is more intelligent, but you cannot "fool" such a person, as you could someone less intelligent. You can know what it means to be less intelligent, by subtracting abilities, but there is no way to "add" intelligence to your image of someone else, if you can't imagine what that means.

 

Follow up theory, was that there is always someone more intelligent than you, unless you are the most intelligent person on the planet, and this would put you alone, or in a very very small club of equals.

 

So in theory, an adult can fool a child, and an adult can fool another adult of lesser intelligence any time they want, and one of equal intelligence some of the time, and one of greater intelligence, with great difficulty.

 

My "proof" of this, was an inspection of professional sports, considering the amount of people that considered a sport "real" competition. I believe at the time I set roller derby and wrestling at the bottom, since I knew they were NOT real competition, with boxing and horse racing, being a "maybe" in my mind, and football, baseball, basketball and hockey being sports that I believed were "real" competition. (except for flakey holding calls in the fourth quarter that changed the outcome of the game, or noticing that sometimes the shortstop waves at a hit up the middle and sometimes he makes a diving grab and flip to the second baseman).

 

Sort of the TAR2 intelligence test. Assume that all professional sports are not real competition, and the fewer you KNOW are not, the more intelligent you are.

 

I know I am getting further and further away from the point here, but only to get back to it. Last week I heard on the radio the outcome of the night before's Rangers vs. Senators playoff hockey game. I went to talk to a hockey fan I know at work about the game, he told me that they play playoff games every other night, and they had not played the night before. I told him the radio had said the Ranger's scored two goals in the opening minutes of the first period, and wound up losing the game by a goal. He said "no, they didn't play last night"...that night the Ranger's scored two goals in the first six minutes and lost 3-2 in overtime.

 

Are we dupes? Did a radio announcer read the script ahead of time?

 

Are we "broken" if we believe in what people more intelligent than ourselves tell us?

 

Perhaps there is another TAR2 intelligence test. Which of the world's religions do you KNOW are not real, and which seem somewhat reasonable.

 

One thing is for sure though. The most intelligent person on the planet, though he or she can fool everybody else, cannot fool God.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

There are multiple ways to be intelligent as there are multiple parts of the brain and multiple ways those parts can interact, and having a religion does not mentally impair a person in any way, shape or form.

Edited April 22, 2012 by questionposter

[tar]

Perhaps that is the God I believe in. That intelligence that the world exhibits, which cannot be trumped by a human.

 

Science does not win, hands down. Reality always has a higher card to play.

 

There are multiple ways to be intelligent as there are multiple parts of the brain and multiple ways those parts can interact, and having a religion does not mentally impair a person in any way, shape or form.

 

So are we agreed? People who believe in god are not broken?

[questionposter]

Perhaps that is the God I believe in. That intelligence that the world exhibits, which cannot be trumped by a human.

 

Science does not win, hands down. Reality always has a higher card to play.

 

 

 

So are we agreed? People who believe in god are not broken?

 

I agree they aren't broken, but I don't necessarily agree with the restrictions you applied, such as that you can't fool someone more intelligent that you or that there will always be someone more intelligent, seeing as how there are multiple ways to be intelligent. If "there's always a bigger fish" was actually a true statement, there should be a fish the size of the universe. I think mathematically, the intelligence capabilities of a person or the physical capacities of a person's brain to make neurological connections asymtotes at some number, such as that people can keep coming a little more and then a smaller bit more intelligent but eventually it gets to a point where to make any more neurological connections your brain would have to break the speed of light.

Edited April 22, 2012 by questionposter

[tar]

questionposter,

 

But human intelligence is confined to humans. Any restriction that would apply to a human, in terms of their brain size, and the environment they must be in, to have a functioning brain, would set the limits of human intelligence. Still within this possible population, there are people smarter than me, and people not so smart. Certainly, when you are talking about intelligence there are components to it, and I might be good at problem solving but have a terrible memory for the names of things and so on.

 

But you are probably right, that my bell curve analogy is improper, in the sense that ones intelligence is not a point on any curve, but the intersection of many abilities, and memories, whose collective characteristics define the person's intelligence. In this sense, you are right, you can not be more or less intelligent, just differently so.

 

But if you take standard intelligence tests, that have been constructed with much careful consideration of the varied mental abilities of humans, it is possible to score higher or lower on the test than another human. Except for the highest living scorer, who would have no living human, that took the test, which could be more intelligent...given the abilities and capacities that the test was designed to measure.

 

Such a test, administered in English, to a blind backwoods native in a remote part of South America, might yield a similar score, as administering the test in English to a Sighted Goldfish. Would not mean that the native and the goldfish had similar intelligence.

 

So I will accept your discounting of my theory, but not on the basis of human intelligence having no size limit, but on the basis of human intelligence having no single measurable component, upon which all people could be ranked, meaningfully.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Except of course the professional sports real competition test.

Edited April 23, 2012 by tar

[DrDNA]

As I have pointed out many times on this forum i am not saying that god did not create the universe. A Creationist is someone who believes the biblical account is absolutely true as opposed to any science that disagrees with it. To suggest that god could not have created the universe is the stance of science is a strawman and is completely dishonest.

I agree with you ( I think).

But I do believe that the biblical account is true.

It is in no way shape or form contradictory to science.

For example, regarding timelines “,,,,,with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8).

 

The Bible may be contradictory to some scientific fad or false hypothesis.

It has been in the past.

But it does not contradict to the truth and this is becoming more evident every day.

 

Is a beautiful poem that tells a true story a textbook?

We must recognize that the Bible is not an engineering manual for the creation of the universe and so it should not be viewed as such.

How many pages would that take?

Would that have made sense 4 thousand yrs ago?

Could we make much sense out of it today?

 

It is also subject to fallible human interpretation.

History confirms this.

The exact meanings of words and translations from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic are also subject to human interpretation and misinterpretation.

 

This does not mean that the Bible is broken. It means that we are broken.

 

Like trying to put cats in a box, scientific definitions also not stationary.

Edited April 23, 2012 by DrDNA

[iNow]

The Bible may be contradictory to some scientific fad or false hypothesis.

It has been in the past.

But it does not contradict to the truth and this is becoming more evident every day.

<snip>

This does not mean that the Bible is broken. It means that we are broken.

Fascinating words, Doc... But ultimately specious.

 

If we're being sincere here, we must recognize that it's actually worse than the bible merely being "contradictory to some scientific fad or false hypothesis." As stipulated even by the most renowned biblical scholars, the bible even contradicts itself. Seriously. It a lot of places and in a lot of ways. This is indisputable. It's not just some "fad" or "false hypothesis." It's the work itself.

 

I posit that only a broken person would discard that obvious fact... only a broken person would ignore the inherently flawed foundation of the bible to save their belief, and that a "less broken" person would obviously reject without hesitation these writings that are so very clearly inconsistent, fictional, and in large part completely bunk when reviewed by any reasonable, rational, realistic observers... that a "less broken" person would quite rapidly update their thinking accordingly when said contradictions and flaws were shown to them.

 

But no... What do we see instead? Rationalizations and equivocations and a type of solipsism that seeks to make all words so flexible as to render them useless entirely... All to protect their precious belief in their invisible friend.

 

Yes, just about everyone is broken in some way or in some fashion, and the definition of "broken" itself is open to interpretation. However, all other things being equal, a person who believes in god is more broken than a person who does not.

 

Discuss.

[immortal]

How is taking a particular point of view based on a reasonable argument parallely giving the benefit of the doubt to those who object that view whose arguments are equally reasonable a broken system? No one is more broken than an intellectually dishonest person who just can't tolerate a difference of opinion and wants to dismiss the opposite view.

[DrDNA]

 

I posit that only a broken person would discard that obvious fact... only a broken person would ignore the inherently flawed foundation of the bible to save their belief, and that a "less broken" person would obviously reject without hesitation these writings that are so very clearly inconsistent, fictional, and in large part completely bunk when reviewed by any reasonable, rational, realistic observers... that a "less broken" person would quite rapidly update their thinking accordingly when said contradictions and flaws were shown to them.

 

But no... What do we see instead? Rationalizations and equivocations and a type of solipsism that seeks to make all words so flexible as to render them useless entirely... All to protect their precious belief in their invisible friend.

 

 

Discuss.

 

Looks like you are simply lobbying for the brokenness of man. Which is a biblical principle.

 

Plus, the history of science is also filled with what you describe.

[tar]

Inow,

 

I gave you a plus on 86 because I think you are right...and your intent described is indeed the substance of the thread.

 

Why, if one is being honest, would we have the need to fool ourselves, and believe that the fiction of another should become our fact?

 

Any constructed world, formulated in the mind of a human, must, in my estimation, include some bits of real, actual stuff. At least the representation of such. And, as we have seen by looking at history, and the human world around us, we have had, and do have the ability to make fantasies real.

 

Take for instance the border between Canada and the U.S. What is real, scientific fact about that border? It could change with the stroke of a pen a thousand miles away.

 

And "science" is a human construction as well. Rules and formulae, derived from reality, describing in our minds, how reality works, how it fits together...what is likely to happen next...and what has to happen if certian elements are brought together in a certain configuration.

 

I can say, "we have this or that figured out" without actually knowing all the details myself. In fact even the most educated woman, the brightest mind, with access to all the data ever collected, would not know, as my signiture suggests, as much as all of us, put together. Can we "scientifically" say that "science" is real? That it exists without humans having it in mind? Or does it exist because of our historical holding of it, as a true thing, that is bigger than any one human, but that we have together constructed and brought into reality together. Built the universities, named all the peices and parts and forces we have noticed, and described the rules upon which everything fits together, and recorded it all, in conventional language, for others to share and add upon.

 

Not completely broken, to believe in a company, or an institution, or a country, or for that matter, a political party, or a philosophical camp. Things that spring from human imagination, and are brought into reality, and maintained by human agreement.

 

Better certainly, in your mind, and in my mind, to trust the facts about reality that we have together determined to be true, that any person can check out for themselves. We can look up and see the moon, or witness the border control officer at the checkpoint between the U.S. and Canada.

 

But there remains an area of thought that is part real and part fantasy, that can be either brought into view, or dismissed, depending on the human need, and the human convention, and the will of the people involved.

 

The U.S. Federal Reserve can just "say" that it has 300 billion dollars to loan out to banks, at near 0 interest, to bolster up the banks balance sheet...and it happens. Where did that money come from? Who owns it? Its all up to human agreement. Together, we can make these things up, and it becomes real.

 

Not a huge leap to religion. A consensus view of the immense reality we are of and in. A stab at answering the hard questions that occur to us all, about our relationship to the greater reality. Why and how are we here, and why must we die?

 

Perhaps I am broken a bit. A little crazy. To give people, scientist or sage, the benefit of the doubt. But perhaps, its quite alright, and realistic.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited April 24, 2012 by tar

[Villain]

Fascinating words, Doc... But ultimately specious.

 

If we're being sincere here, we must recognize that it's actually worse than the bible merely being "contradictory to some scientific fad or false hypothesis." As stipulated even by the most renowned biblical scholars, the bible even contradicts itself. Seriously. It a lot of places and in a lot of ways. This is indisputable. It's not just some "fad" or "false hypothesis." It's the work itself.

 

I posit that only a broken person would discard that obvious fact... only a broken person would ignore the inherently flawed foundation of the bible to save their belief, and that a "less broken" person would obviously reject without hesitation these writings that are so very clearly inconsistent, fictional, and in large part completely bunk when reviewed by any reasonable, rational, realistic observers... that a "less broken" person would quite rapidly update their thinking accordingly when said contradictions and flaws were shown to them.

 

But no... What do we see instead? Rationalizations and equivocations and a type of solipsism that seeks to make all words so flexible as to render them useless entirely... All to protect their precious belief in their invisible friend.

 

Yes, just about everyone is broken in some way or in some fashion, and the definition of "broken" itself is open to interpretation. However, all other things being equal, a person who believes in god is more broken than a person who does not.

 

Discuss.

 

Let's get to the real point, regardless of what people say, God either exists or doesn't and in that decision, like in most things that are of importance, we are left to our own devices. The real question perhaps, is why you have an incessant need for people to agree with you on this subject? Seems to me that you are not totally convinced of your own opinion.

[questionposter]

Fascinating words, Doc... But ultimately specious.

 

If we're being sincere here, we must recognize that it's actually worse than the bible merely being "contradictory to some scientific fad or false hypothesis." As stipulated even by the most renowned biblical scholars, the bible even contradicts itself. Seriously. It a lot of places and in a lot of ways. This is indisputable. It's not just some "fad" or "false hypothesis." It's the work itself.

 

I posit that only a broken person would discard that obvious fact... only a broken person would ignore the inherently flawed foundation of the bible to save their belief, and that a "less broken" person would obviously reject without hesitation these writings that are so very clearly inconsistent, fictional, and in large part completely bunk when reviewed by any reasonable, rational, realistic observers... that a "less broken" person would quite rapidly update their thinking accordingly when said contradictions and flaws were shown to them.

 

But no... What do we see instead? Rationalizations and equivocations and a type of solipsism that seeks to make all words so flexible as to render them useless entirely... All to protect their precious belief in their invisible friend.

 

Yes, just about everyone is broken in some way or in some fashion, and the definition of "broken" itself is open to interpretation. However, all other things being equal, a person who believes in god is more broken than a person who does not.

 

Discuss.

 

It's actually more logical than you think. Many people probably did have a problem with being able to fit every species on a single boat, but since god would be able to do anything it wanted happen, it could make it so that it's possible to fit that many animals, so people would just accept that since you couldn't really prove otherwise.

Edited April 24, 2012 by questionposter

[zapatos]

Fascinating words, Doc... But ultimately specious.

 

If we're being sincere here, we must recognize that it's actually worse than the bible merely being "contradictory to some scientific fad or false hypothesis." As stipulated even by the most renowned biblical scholars, the bible even contradicts itself. Seriously. It a lot of places and in a lot of ways. This is indisputable. It's not just some "fad" or "false hypothesis." It's the work itself.

 

I posit that only a broken person would discard that obvious fact... only a broken person would ignore the inherently flawed foundation of the bible to save their belief, and that a "less broken" person would obviously reject without hesitation these writings that are so very clearly inconsistent, fictional, and in large part completely bunk when reviewed by any reasonable, rational, realistic observers... that a "less broken" person would quite rapidly update their thinking accordingly when said contradictions and flaws were shown to them.

 

But no... What do we see instead? Rationalizations and equivocations and a type of solipsism that seeks to make all words so flexible as to render them useless entirely... All to protect their precious belief in their invisible friend.

 

Yes, just about everyone is broken in some way or in some fashion, and the definition of "broken" itself is open to interpretation. However, all other things being equal, a person who believes in god is more broken than a person who does not.

 

Discuss.

In my 12 years of Catholic school I was never once asked to read the bible. We were given bible stories to read and were of course told stories from the bible. We were told what Jesus was about, how we should behave and what could happen if we didn't. To me, and I imagine to those around me, being a Catholic was not about the details in the bible, it was about what we were taught. What we were taught was based on what was in the bible, but I was usually told that the bible was mostly made up of stories meant to convey concepts.

 

I think one of the reasons many Christians are so reluctant to rethink their faith when shown the flaws in the bible is because for the most part they don't take the bible literally. I never did and was never asked to.

 

The ark couldn't possibly have held two of each species? So what? It's only a story.

 

I think you overestimate the importance of the bible to peoples' faith. Attacking the bible is not the same as attacking their faith. If you show the bible to be flawed you have not shown their faith to be flawed.

 

Just because the Constitution says some people are only "three fifths of all other Persons" does not stop people from believing in the Constitution or America. Being an American is much more than just the document we were founded upon.

 

Being a Christian is much more than the bible.

[Iggy]

I think religion in general makes people in general rather weird and quirky, but not broken necessarily. Like Freud said, it would be the difference between an illusion and a delusion.

 

A poor girl thinking a rich handsome prince will whisk her away would be like the belief that Jesus is coming back -- an illusion. A poor woman thinking she is a rich princess would be a delusion -- a psychological problem. Only if a person's religious beliefs are a contradiction of what they know of reality would they be delusional, so a belief in God making a person broken would depend on the nature of the God.

 

I'm personally more fascinated by the broken aspects of culture in regards to religion.

 

This thread's most popular (+ed) post said that belief in God is the same as belief in the big bang. On a science site -- belief in an unfalsifiable theory with no evidence that explains nothing is no more assailable than belief in a falsifiable theory that does explain and is supported by all the relevant information. It must say something about our culture that religion is the only topic where that would happen -- the only issue where blind faith is venerated.

 

Freud touched on that too,

 

At this point it may be objected: well, then, if even the crabbed skeptics admit that the statements of religion cannot be confuted by reason, why should not I believe in them, since they have so much on their side -- tradition, the concurrence of mankind, and all the consolation they yield? Yes, why not? Just as no one can be forced into belief, so no one can be forced into unbelief. But do not deceive yourself into thinking that with such arguments you are following the path of correct reasoning. If ever there was a case of facile argument, this is one. Ignorance is ignorance; no right to believe anything is derived from it. No reasonable man will behave so frivolously in other matters or rest content with such feeble grounds for his opinions or for the attitude he adopts; it is only in the highest and holiest of things that he allows this.

 

-Freud

 

I like how Marx puts it too.. that religion is like a defense mechanism for the human condition, because people are broken. If being human weren't a short, unenlightened, weak condition that nobody survives then maybe we wouldn't need or have the "sigh of the oppressed creature" and the "heart of a heartless world".

[DrDNA]

iNow,

 

Why are you so fixated on disproving or disallowing the existence of God? It's a little much don't you think?

 

Did you wake to find that Santa forgot about you or did he bring you the completely wrong toy one Christmas morning long ago?

 

How did that make you feel?

 

Were you breast fed or bottle fed?

 

PS: Parts of the Bible are poems and/or parables.

Just because some people have it all screwed up in your opinion doesn't mean squat about the existence of God or even the truth of the Bible.

 

He exists just the same, and for that matter, he loves you just the same, no matter if you believe in him or not.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

DrDNA, this thread isn't about iNow and it isn't about the existence of God. Please stick to the topic.

[Ophiolite]

In my 12 years of Catholic school I was never once asked to read the bible.

That is astounding. I have been under the, seemingly false, assumption that Catholocism and Protestantism would be somewhat alike in this regard. Bible reading was an integral part of religion as practised within the Church of Scotland. While tales from the Bible dominated Sunday School for the younger children, this was not the case for the older ones. This was reflected in the name: we did not attend Sunday School, but Bible Class. I was a member, for many years, of the Scripture UInion - an organisation that promoted daily Bible reading by the young.

 

It never occured to me it could be different in this age, so thank you for delivering that insight.

[imatfaal]

Let's get to the real point, regardless of what people say, God either exists or doesn't and in that decision, like in most things that are of importance, we are left to our own devices. The real question perhaps, is why you have an incessant need for people to agree with you on this subject? Seems to me that you are not totally convinced of your own opinion.

 

Whilst I am sure iNow will reply for himself - many of us here spend a not inconsiderable amount of time arguing on this subject; I will let you know why I do so.

 

I understand and recognize that religious observation and devotion is an important part of many peoples lives; that this provides succour and comfort in distress is good and I would never seek to take away that strictly personal relationship with a god/gods. However, the relationship is very often far from personal - it becomes proselytizing, which I find annoying and disruptive; but much worse it becomes political. I do not want to live in a state, a country, or a planet in which decisions are made based on what I believe is a fallacy. This has a real impact on the way we are able to live our lives - at present in the UK I am not overly affected by religiously motivated state interference in my life; however we often copy the lead of the USA, and there it is another matter entirely.

 

If you think I am exaggerating please take a look at this post - and the discussions that follow. The religious right in some states of America are actively and deliberately threatening women's rights of self-determination (through restrictions on contraception and draconian legislation on abortion)- those three bills alone are worth fighting over. Others might cite cases regarding Education and Bills in several state legislature that mandate the "teaching of the controversy" of evolution when scientifically there is none. These are why we debate and argue - to stop our countries being run by those labouring under a fallacious delusion.

[zapatos]

I'm personally more fascinated by the broken aspects of culture in regards to religion.

 

This thread's most popular (+ed) post said that belief in God is the same as belief in the big bang. On a science site -- belief in an unfalsifiable theory with no evidence that explains nothing is no more assailable than belief in a falsifiable theory that does explain and is supported by all the relevant information. It must say something about our culture that religion is the only topic where that would happen -- the only issue where blind faith is venerated.

The post I believe you are referring to is #23. The whole point of the post was shades of gray when it comes to evidence; that belief in the Big Bang and belief in God are similar in that both sides find a level of evidence that is acceptable to them. It did not say the evidence was comparable.

 

I believe scientists require a higher level of evidence in general to support their beliefs than theists do, but everyone is flexible on their standards. If you believe in God, then what happened at Fatima is probably acceptable evidence. If you believe dark energy is real, then an accelerating universe is evidence of that.

 

There is plenty of evidence for God. It is no surprise however that for many (most?) scientists that evidence is completely unacceptable. It is relatively weak and supports a theory that is unfalsifiable.

 

It is also no surprise that for most theists the evidence is acceptable. They are typically not coming from a scientific background or a belief system with such demanding rules of evidence.

Edited April 24, 2012 by zapatos

[Iggy]

The post I believe you are referring to is #23. The whole point of the post was shades of gray when it comes to evidence; that belief in the Big Bang and belief in God are similar in that both sides find a level of evidence that is acceptable to them. It did not say the evidence was comparable.

 

I believe scientists require a higher level of evidence in general to support their beliefs than theists do, but everyone is flexible on their standards. If you believe in God, then what happened at Fatima is probably acceptable evidence. If you believe dark energy is real, then an accelerating universe is evidence of that.

 

There is plenty of evidence for God. It is no surprise however that for many (most?) scientists that evidence is completely unacceptable. It is relatively weak and supports a theory that is unfalsifiable.

 

It is also no surprise that for most theists the evidence is acceptable. They are typically not coming from a scientific background or a belief system with such demanding rules of evidence.

The dichotomy is not between scientists and theists. There are plenty of religious scientists.

 

Laypeople are ordinarily perfectly capable of judging the quality of evidence as well. It isn't that they have "less demanding rules of evidence".

 

Theists don't use rules of evidence to determine their belief. Their belief does not hinge on the probability that reported apparitions of the virgin Mary are accurate. You say "there is plenty of evidence for God" but christians would tell you that the evidence of God is faith -- something they may get from Hebrews 11:1. My point was that our culture (believers, non-believers, scientists, non-scientists alike) respect blind irrational faith in only one thing.

 

In other aspects of life it would be widely considered frighteningly inappropriate.

[iNow]

The real question perhaps, is why you have an incessant need for people to agree with you on this subject? Seems to me that you are not totally convinced of your own opinion.

Please be assured that I am convinced of my own opinion on this matter. There were many years of introspection, reflection, and deep anguish inducing doubt that I had to process and work through before I realized the relief that comes with letting go of such an unsupportable position. That doubt, however, is long gone and every argument I've seen trying to convince me that my position is somehow inaccurate has been quite easily dispatched, shown lacking, and based on copious logical fallacies.

 

Let me summarize what I've come to realize in bullet point form. Faith is stupid. End program. Belief in god is baseless and based on wish thinking and indoctrination. End program. The default position should be to dismiss the concept of god entirely until adequate reason is given to accept it. None of the reasons offered scale with the extraordinary nature of the belief. End program.

 

I know some people are offended by my directness and the blunt manner with which I sometimes wield my words. I really don't give a shit. If your position was even remotely credible, you'd easily be able to defend with something more rigorous than "it's that way because I believe it's that way... it's called faith." Since when has such a childish approach to discussion been allowable to anyone who no longer eats their own boogers? Yes, I know this is provocative. My genuine hope is that MAYBE someone will actually rise to the challenge and support the god belief with something more than the ridiculous notion of faith.

 

It's simple. My study of human psychology and sociology and other similar fields like neuroscience and evolution have all led to a far better explanation for why people believe these ridiculous things than the prospect that "god actually exists." When you couple that with inherent flaws and inconsistencies of the beliefs themselves, it strikes me as ludicrous to think they are valid, and anyone who fails to accept this is IMO broken.

 

Others have already noted some of the real world impacts of belief, and why it's so important to share the nonbelief position so passionately. It infects our politics, our education, our culture, our understanding of the universe... everything that has relevance on our lives and the futures of our children is impacted by our choice to allow faith into a conversation that should instead be rooted in facts and reality.

 

I stand up for veracity, intellectual honesty, and integrity. That's all I need to motivate me to speak out openly and passionately against the cancer which is faith and the ignorance which is demonstrated by this belief in imaginary friends far into adulthood.

 

---

 

I think one of the reasons many Christians are so reluctant to rethink their faith when shown the flaws in the bible is because for the most part they don't take the bible literally. I never did and was never asked to.

 

The ark couldn't possibly have held two of each species? So what? It's only a story.

 

I think you overestimate the importance of the bible to peoples' faith.

Think what you want. You seem to be ignoring the entire context of my comments. They were made in direct reply to DrDNAs post which was arguing against a strawman (namely that biblical inconsistencies aren't there, and only result from "some scientific fad."

 

Attacking the bible is not the same as attacking their faith. If you show the bible to be flawed you have not shown their faith to be flawed.

As I think I've made known repeatedly in the past, I find the concept of faith to be implicitly flawed. The bible never becomes relevant to that specific argument. Faith is the worst possible reason to accept something as valid. That's my worldview.

 

Given this perspective... Yes, if you disagree and think faith is an acceptable reason to accept something as valid, I have good evidence to suspect that you are a broken human being. Other people believe completely different things than you based on faith alone. Their faith is not enough to convince you of the merit of their position. Why do you think your faith is enough to convince me?

 

There is much more to my position than just this, but condensed... I don't attack your faith specifically. I disregard it as irrelevant. If you were paying more attention, you might realize that my attacks are leveled against the entire concept of faith itself. If you were more intellectually honest, you would concede that I am right to do so.

 

---

 

Did you wake to find that Santa forgot about you or did he bring you the completely wrong toy one Christmas morning long ago?

 

How did that make you feel?

 

Were you breast fed or bottle fed?

It's telling that your responses are so laden with emotion and personal attacks. Perhaps the weakness of your position is clear even to you?

 

He exists just the same, and for that matter, he loves you just the same, no matter if you believe in him or not.

Sorry, but this is after all a science forum. You are making the positive claim, so prove it. You don't get to make completely unfounded baseless assertions like this and expect to be taken seriously. "He exists just the same" is a claim. I challenge that claim as baseless, and dismiss it as bullshit until you demonstrate otherwise. To do so, you must clearly define it in an acceptable way, and then provide acceptable evidence to support that falsifiable definition. People have been trying to do exactly that for thousands of years and have failed every time. Let's see what you can bring to the table.