Kotah your points are valid reasons for you not to have faith in a christian god, and your choice not to believe in a god at all is fine with me.
WHat impressed me about your statements is that your declaring your belief, and the inconsistencies that exist in the bible is a fair reason not to believe the book as sacred etc.
Also one thing I want to make clear. Although I do believe christ walked this earth I do not believe that he is super-human compared to what people can be with certain levels of spirituality.
I believe that budda etc may have been also been equally adapt and being highly spiritual.
Nor do I believe that the church is a sensible thing to put faith in (or any institutions for that matter)
What I dont get Kotah is that you find it hard to understand that some believe parts of the bible. Why not ? its just a book - a resource to me (not to some), there are some historical references which are useful ? - as a cross reference, not as an authoritarian view - ie when did so-and-so live ? Where did these things report to take place, who was emperor or Rome at the time etc.
You mention that it doesnt matter what my grades were in math or science - to you perhaps some may view my faith in god as a sign of not being educated - this was to prevent some saying "hmm if you learned
some of the logical disciplines a little perhaps you would think otherwise"
I don't believe what intelligent people gives credence to any belief. Einstine beleived quantum
mechanics was delusional - I do believe in quantum mechanics relevance to accurately describing phenomena
(if i believed only in what i deem is the views of the most intelligent person i know i wouldn't believe what i do)
Jude I do agree with your use of "Seem" when your addressing my second quote FROM your perspective.
As far as what I seem to experience or others also - some seem to exist in a god-filled reality.
Some seem to exist in a godless reality. One believing others should adopt their perspective or not
is something that can be debated (we are). I am trying to convince you that you should beleive in god btw jude - I am saying that your perspective is not authoritarian concerning the experience of those
that do believe in god.
A court-case on the existence of god ? Well more believe in god than not, so depending on the jury
your certainty of the outcome is unfounded. Some very influential speakers for both sides could exist. And court cases also cater for "beyond reasonable doubt". Which is subjective to those who would be in the
I am not getting my quantum mechanics from what the bleep do we know, if you believe in mainstream scientists view of such things however your of the flaw similar to what you accused me of (that i believe in what intelligent people believe, which I dont, and later you mentioned mainstream scientists believe that that movie is ridiculous "because it is" - these are subjective opinions not authoritarian opinions)
If you beleive that the observer does not define outcomes in quantum mechanics than it is you who I doubt has read that much into the subject - it seems we are both passionate about our doubt of the others education on this matter. We can let it rest - or spin off another thread
Remember I am not claiming to represent reality from your perspective nor others which are "devout" atheists
"There is no substantive reason to believe in the metaphysical at all when everything can be explained by the physical. As much as people like to point to "wedge" experiences which are clearly subjective and invoke the failures of human observation and analysis (ghost experiences, subject religious experiences, etc.), they're failing to recognize the imperfectness of humanity as experiential beings. Confirmation bias, distortion of memories, and evolutionary wiring can often send us blatantly false signals that we interpret as otherwise. That's why evidence is held so high in scientific circles; without rigor you can't isolate for human failure and imperfection." - Jude
- Substantive reason to believe ? IS there substantive reason not to ?
IS others experience explained by the physical ? ghost experiences religious experiences or even drug induced hallucinations or emotions are not failures of human observation - nor failures in analysis if they are considered legitimate experiences. Failures to reproduce these experiences via emulation of suspected physical conditions triggers some to believe in mystical influences.
Will some of these phenomena become reproducible by science ? likely.
Will some previously explained phenomena become shown to be false ? likely.
"blatantly false signals". Falsely triggered neurons you mean ? We dont understand the mind enough to know when nurons are supposed to fire concerning religious experiences. Some diseases can be attributed to nerves firing inappropriately true, but an experience can change perspectives. "Should it have happened" - or shouldnt it ? If you believe in "grand unfathomable plan" then it should have happened, if you see everything as causational or probabilistic - then it also "SHould have happened". From a probabilistic perspective everything "should". When does statistics stop including new experiences to change its own probability landscape ? When SHOULD it ignore some readings (assuming the error is in detection methods not a trait of the media under scrutiny is dangerous - discoveries can come from what seems to be reading errors.
"Blatantly false signals" implies "an authoritarian landscape of "should"". If true this would effect atheists also - perhaps also at times concerning their formation of religious or non-religious views, the atheist isnt "more immune" to such things or nor the god-believer more prone.. this is of course if a "authoritarian landscape of should" that reality sometimes find itself in conflict with exists (which your statements seem to imply a beleif of)
"Subject truth is an oxymoron. If something is true, it's true objectively. Otherwise it's an opinion." - Jude
All truth is subjective.
True objectively ? observer less ? independent of observer reference frames ?
This comes over as faith in an objective perspective exists that spans all aspects of experience of all perspectives (which is a knowable and godless one) despite many of these perspectives claiming different "truths" than yours describe theirs.
Many would see this as evidence your wrong. Some would claim that is evidence that they are delusional.
Both opinions are correct... subjectively.
"When you get sick, if you go to the temple, you will die. Hospitals actually save lives." - Jude.
Science is exploitable "workable" - yes I do agree. Mechanical clocks are impressive- I am not staying that science is delusional in its endeavors, I am claiming that belief also is exploitably workable and related.
Note the Placebo effect in hospitals (it is believe triggered - which causes the body to react differently)
the placebo effect is a case where the patient gets better by belief alone.
Hypnosis to "tell the body to get better" also has cases of success. Science and beleif or "faith" are exploitable tools that are not mutally exclusive.
"Math has absolutely no flaws, it can't have them by design." - Jude
TRy dividing by zero a few times accidentally. Oh there is a rule to state you have to avoid doing so as the math has flaws ? - Hmm... limitations ? Weaknesses ... some all powerful genie you are algebra :)
Also they have presumptions. if 1 + 1 = 2 and this and this then ... This is true while the "if's" remain true and unmutable in the landscape math is applied. If in its own landscape then its "circular logic" (which is useful eg factorials, fractals etc). Finding landscapes suitable for certain math to be applied (ie real world - reality) is an art.
When applied 1 + 1 = 3 sometimes 1 + 1 = 0 sometimes - if you assume 1 = 1 person.
does 1/2 + 1/2 a person make a person ? does 1 woman + 1 man sometimes make 1 man plus one woman plus a baby ? Does 1 solider plus 1 soldier sometimes resume in both dying ? "Oh wait lets adjust the math to cater for time or actions" wait that didnt work - lets refine it so it caters for ... yes until you have a useful MODEL what your representing mathematically (which itself is not real just a model).Bertrand Russel's efforts have not done away with this abstraction.
"Occam's Razor has absolutely nothing to do with black holes." - Jude.
From your perspective yes, some would disagree, myself being one of them.
"Also I'm willing to bet that you really don't have the proper understanding of black holes. " - Jude
We experience them viritual objects with presumed characteristics. Much like we experience many things as virtual objects with presumed characteristics. albeit blackholes are "more virtual" than most.
"Quantum mechanics is strange and full of unusual phenomenon, so it's easy to read mystical things into it. But that's not at all what the field proports."
This is not what the field proports to you Jude, its not what it proports to you. :)
(Remember I am not saying a believer in god's perspective explains your reality, I just don't have faith an atheist's views explaining mine)
"All we have is experience" - Judge
Yes Jude, yes. Views of it ? yes. Mathematical Models of it ? Yes. Scientific Models of it ? Yes. Perspectives of it ? Yes. Proof of it? No.
Do we need to proof it to others for it to exist from our experience landscape ?
Atheists do not have to prove the lack of a god
Theists do not have to prove the existence of god.
The individual can experience either perspectives - whichever they choose best represents their perspective.
"The lack of necessity for god does weakly imply that god does not exist, but it only implies it. " -Jude
To some god is a necessity. To some it is not. Some who believe it is not still believe one exists.
"It's a classic ploy of the religious to equate faith in the scientific method with faith in religion, but there are so many differences that you really have to squint hard to do it. For one, as I've already said, Science actually accomplishes things. The only good things that ever come about by religion could happen otherwise, and have more to do with religion motivating people to do good things to begin with. You may argue with that but the only examples you can give will require faith to actually accept as what you claim they are." - Jude
See above re placebo effect.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I have seen you give absolutely none. The point isn't that belief in god is wrong, note that nowhere did I ever say it was wrong, just that it isn't logical. So much convolution has to be introduced into the process of thought to even have the god question brought up to begin with." - Jude
Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence ? Really ? to some this is a requirement. To some in order to value a certain opion it does. To some not believing in god of some-kind is an extraordinary view requiring extraordinary evidence to prove its grounds.
"I don't ask that people who are religious don an atheistic or agnostic point of view, I believe everyone has the right to think whatever they want and I wouldn't want to harm their faith to begin with as long as it makes them a better person, I just merely ask that they recognize that their faith is not at all grounded in reason. Because it's not. If it was, a simple argument that doesn't have to jump through so many phenomenological loops could be made supporting the existence of god." - Jude
From those who think like me it is your statements that are not grounded in reasons strong enough (from my subjective stance) to justify your convictions. We are both right in our choices of what is true to us. We both believe its unlikely we can make the other change their view on the subject. Talking of it helps us refine our opinion and debating skills even if neither do a u-turn.
"Belief in things that are illogical is not necessary wrong. I choose to believe in friends who have betrayed me before because I want to give them a chance knowing very much that they will probably do it again. I continue to reach out the olive branch to members of my family who I know are untrustworthy because they are members of my family. None of this is logical, the logical thing to do would be to shut them off, but I can't accept that." - Jude
Jude - I disagree with may of your points but I have also felt the knife of betrayal. I do sympathize.
I am sorry to hear that. Logically though giving them another chance (at friendship or at least tolerance) is justified (character refining, making the best with what you have etc), but not in the landscape of "trust"
"But, and this is the important part, when you realize your beliefs aren't grounded as firmly as you'd like to believe they are... That they ARE largely illogical and quite a gamble... You're far less willing to act on them in extreme, dangerous ways. That is the main way in which religion does any harm to the world, and something which a little doubt could easily rectify." - Jude
Most have a little doubt Jude, many times those who are theists doubt their faith.
I hope that things happen to you where you doubt your current one also, may such an occurance
fill your life with health, wealth, happiness, friends and the woman or man (or both) of your dreams.
... oh and a few paranormal abilities to boot !