The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by jamison20000e If as some say there are "more religious minds" than not? Thanks, just look around... "you" are obviously doing it wrong.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make.

But, "majority" is hardly synonymous with "truth". In fact, frequently, they are at odds.

Perhaps this is what you were trying to say?



(I'm not implying that "religious minds" are wrong, but using majority as an argument for truth, is.)

Originally Posted by jdkaye Duh, I guess I must be really thick. I would have thought that viewing a lunar eclipse where the moon passes through the earth's shadow would be all the evidence you need. When we observe the shadow it is invariably round. The only solid that invariably projects a round shadow is a ... wait for it .... <Drum roll>SPHERE!</DRum roll> That evidence was enough to convince the ancient Greeks and they seem to have got it right. Any other examples? Your point is far far from illustrated. jdk

It is far from illustrated, because you missed it entirely.

Read the first and last sentences in my post - not just the stuff in between.

I said it was a 'ridiculous example' precicely to avoid any rabbit trails like this based on the example itself.

I also said to apply the LOGIC to all OTHER knowledge - not to dissect the details of this particular one.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs To my way of thinking, "both religion and science" are important, and valid. You don't have to choose between one or the other. And, if you should spot "inconsistencies" between one and the other, or even between differing religious and/or scientific perspectives, you just shouldn't get bent out of shape about any of it. Even "faith," I cautiously suggest, can be "bent out of shape." It shouldn't be seen as a substitute for using your own head. It shouldn't prompt you to cast yourself off of a cliff, "having 'faith'" that someone or something will miraculously catch you. And, so on. You have "science" to take you as far as (you think) human intellect can take you. And, you have religion to take you still farther. One does not invalidate the other: we live in a world that consists of both the seen and the unseen. The mere fact that we don't "see everything" does not invalidate those things that we cannot see. If "faith" lets us participate in those unseen things, that's not a bad thing at all. If you are struck by an intuition, an instinct, a feeling, don't dismiss it just because you don't intellectually understand it. Just don't lose your head about it. "Faith and Religion" have been a part of human existence for as far back as we can see ... even among cultures that, as we have begrudgingly discovered, were also very "scientific." There must be a perfectly legitimate reason for that ... which is not "ignorance" or "superstition."

This opinion is practically sound.
Open minded and matured.

Religion being the antonym of freedom, you have to choice. I chose freedom.

Originally Posted by Didier Spaier Religion being the antonym of freedom ...

What a peculiar thing to say. Yes, governments such as the US Government have forbidden the idea of a "state religion," but "religion" is certainly a non-eraseable part of human society, and it always has been. It's perfectly legitimate, and I believe that it stands alongside both science and philosophy without contradiction.

We are driven to try to understand and to relate to ourselves and to the world that we live in ... and to the simple fact that none of us get to live here for an unlimited period of time (it is very brief). All of these modes of thought are part of that. We need not apologize for any of them. We need not defend any one of them against any of the others. "It's okay. Really."

Originally Posted by OregonJim No. Again, you are constrained to the physical world with such 'evidence', so you can only know if those things that can be fully described in time and space, are true (or not true). Evidence is the result of applied science, and therefore limited by its domain. (...) As I said, science THEORIZES this. By definition, it cannot do anything more, as the application of such theory would be constrained to the physical world (i.e. three dimensions plus time) by the scientific 'methods' that many believe is 'where all truth begins and ends'.

So everyone here is missing your point entirely. Perhaps that's just because you should be more clear about it?

Of course I'm constrained to the physical world, I'm part of it. Aren't you? Regarding evidence, it is definitely not "the result of applied science": it can be seen, reasonably, as the result of our own sensory and nervous processes, in relation to our surroundings, including our own body. For instance, you are gathering and using evidence in your own life, everyday, every minute of it. How would you be able to tell if something happened or not without it? Even if you knew something about your alleged non-physical world, it would be because you had some evidence of it, or because you trusted some indirect source claiming to have such evidence. But then we should look at that source and see if it is reliable, shouldn't we?

It seems that you are also confused about what scientific theories and the scientific method are (as in the "it's just a theory" argument). Besides, you have yet to provide any example of knowledge which is not "ridiculous", as in your own words, while explaining to us what a non-physical world should be like; if not from your first-hand knowledge, at least in your opinion. Regarding a possible multi-dimensional universe, it is not written in stone that three dimensions plus time is all we should have. Time is not absolute and distinct, neither space is: the classic "three dimensions plus time" is the way in which we are used to look at our limited surroundings, quite successfully I should say, but it becomes inadequate on astronomical and quantum scales.

While you refuse to, I'm glad to provide some sources, which I hope will interest some:

Evidence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The Analysis of Knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Looking for extra dimensions (Official String Theory Website)
Can We Resolve Quantum Paradoxes by Stepping Out of Space and Time? (George Musser, Scientific American)

Surely 'Athiest,' is almost as wide ranging a term as 'firm believer' in this poll, and could almost be the same category...

e.g.
Some people are firm believers in atheism (the non-existence of gods), whilst others simply don't think about 'religion' or organised belief systems at all!
It just doesn't figure in their life or world view!


This also, obviously, has no relation to what makes someone a 'good' or 'bad' person. I do however think some people are naturally inclined to be religious than others.

In many cases religion is enforced upon people through their culture, or nurture, but in every case you still get people who whole-heartedly embrace it, whose who rebel against it, and perhaps more importantly those who just don't get it!

I don't think the latter two groups are the same at all.


And what about the genuine non-understanders of religion, the people who just can't understand it...
Do they have a different type of brain?
And if so should they be demonized for it?

There is also, I think, such a thing as an "anti-theist." This, to me, is someone who is, more or less, opposed to religion and religious beliefs being held by other people. Anti-theists will ridicule the beliefs that may be expressed by others, and, by extension, the people who express them. (And they won't let you get in the last word ...)

As such, they are another form of ... "religious a*shole." Make it a point to avoid these people whenever you can.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix So everyone here is missing your point entirely. Perhaps that's just because you should be more clear about it?

No. YOU seem to be the only one who has missed it, at least publically. Let's try to be accurate.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Of course I'm constrained to the physical world, I'm part of it. Aren't you?

"Constrained to" and "part of" are not equivalent terms.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Regarding evidence, it is definitely not "the result of applied science": it can be seen, reasonably, as the result of our own sensory and nervous processes, in relation to our surroundings, including our own body. For instance, you are gathering and using evidence in your own life, everyday, every minute of it. How would you be able to tell if something happened or not without it? Even if you knew something about your alleged non-physical world, it would be because you had some evidence of it, or because you trusted some indirect source claiming to have such evidence. But then we should look at that source and see if it is reliable, shouldn't we?

Another point missed. You seem hell bent on redefining terms, rather than 'understanding the concept'.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix It seems that you are also confused about what scientific theories and the scientific method are (as in the "it's just a theory" argument). Besides, you have yet to provide any example of knowledge which is not "ridiculous", as in your own words, while explaining to us what a non-physical world should be like; if not from your first-hand knowledge, at least in your opinion. Regarding a possible multi-dimensional universe, it is not written in stone that three dimensions plus time is all we should have. Time is not absolute and distinct, neither space is: the classic "three dimensions plus time" is the way in which we are used to look at our limited surroundings, quite successfully I should say, but it becomes inadequate on astronomical and quantum scales.

Ok, so now you are beginning to get my point, yet wording it in a way that seems to be oppositional. Yet, what you are saying agrees (vaguely) with my original post!

I'm not interested in going so far afield from the original discussion, and I suspect others would agree.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix So everyone here is missing your point entirely. Perhaps that's just because you should be more clear about it? No. YOU seem to be the only one who has missed it, at least publically. Let's try to be accurate.

I guess Philip Lacroix was referring to

Originally Posted by OregonJim Originally Posted by jdkaye [...]The only solid that invariably projects a round shadow is a ... wait for it .... <Drum roll>SPHERE!</DRum roll> That evidence was enough to convince the ancient Greeks and they seem to have got it right. Any other examples? Your point is far far from illustrated. jdk It is far from illustrated, because you missed it entirely.

So at least 2 people missed your point publicly. Actually you can make that 3; I can't tell what's being argued about, the definitions of "theory", "belief" and "evidence", maybe?

Originally Posted by ntubski I guess Philip Lacroix was referring to So at least 2 people missed your point publicly. Actually you can make that 3; I can't tell what's being argued about, the definitions of "theory", "belief" and "evidence", maybe?

You are correct - I thought those two posts were coming from the same person as the arguments were so similar. My mistake. So make that two people. As for YOU and I - we are in the same boat. I can't tell what's being argued about either, as the arguments have nothing to do with the original point.

For the record, the original point (restated) is that our personal 'knowledge base' is based largely on the faith that the sources of our 'knowledge' are accurate and trustable. That to say you 'know' something often means you 'heard' something that makes sense to you. That 'faith' and 'knowledge' are more often related than not. That for someone to claim they have no 'beliefs' is nonsense.

Rather than arguing this concept, the other two chose to go on rabbit trails, discussing the shape of the earth, the definitions of evidence, scientific theory, and all manner of things unrelated to the simple concept from my original post.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs There is also, I think, such a thing as an "anti-theist." This, to me, is someone who is, more or less, opposed to religion and religious beliefs being held by other people. Anti-theists will ridicule the beliefs that may be expressed by others, and, by extension, the people who express them.

Yes I have met people like this, although I think a high percentage of these people (definitely not all) were brought up in a religious environment, and could also belong to the rebellious group. I think that only a small percentage of atheists fall into this 'anit-theist' camp. Although when an atheist is 'preaching,' the line can get very blurred!

Originally Posted by OregonJim For the record, the original point (restated) is that our personal 'knowledge base' is based largely on the faith that the sources of our 'knowledge' are accurate and trustable. That to say you 'know' something often means you 'heard' something that makes sense to you. That 'faith' and 'knowledge' are more often related than not. That for someone to claim they have no 'beliefs' is nonsense.

Of course that is true. The only thing we KNOW is that we ARE.
I don't even KNOW that I'm typing this into a computer... far less that there is such a thing as other people who are reading and responding to it... But I accept that, or have faith is the fact that, this is (probably) the case, and that I'm not a butterfly dreaming of being a man!


So for each individual: (((Faith + Knowledge) = Sence) = (probable)Reality) = Belief.

Originally Posted by OregonJim For the record, the original point (restated) is that our personal 'knowledge base' is based largely on the faith that the sources of our 'knowledge' are accurate and trustable. That to say you 'know' something often means you 'heard' something that makes sense to you. That 'faith' and 'knowledge' are more often related than not. That for someone to claim they have no 'beliefs' is nonsense. Rather than arguing this concept, the other two chose to go on rabbit trails, discussing the shape of the earth, the definitions of evidence, scientific theory, and all manner of things unrelated to the simple concept from my original post.

I suspect there is no actual disagreement apart from the definitions (though claiming to have no beliefs does imply a rather odd definition of "belief", IMO).

Originally Posted by ntubski though claiming to have no beliefs does imply a rather odd definition of "belief"

Didn't he just mean no religious beliefs?

No belief, implies no political, social, cultural, or moral belief ether, and as you say it would be a fairly unique individual who had none of that!

I think that only a small percentage of atheists fall into this 'anit-theist' camp.

I know more than a few of these people, all raised as atheists. And then there's publications like the Skeptic. Still, doubting that there are accurate numbers, I tend to agree with you.