What counts as evidence for God?

[Sehnsucht]

As @ Holder of the Heel pointed out, cognitive dissonance is a thing. "Religious scientist" is an oxymoron not because it's impossible for one to hold such conflicting beliefs, but the beliefs themselves fundamentally conflict with each other.

To elaborate on this point (and the current topic at hand), perhaps it would be more accurate to say that anyone can do science.

So it's possible for a religious person (i.e. theist) to perform science, to follow the scientific method, and even to make discoveries big and small (as has evidently been the case in history). It's also possible for a non-theistic person to do all of these things. The quality of possessing or lacking theism does not necessarily pose an obstacle to the pursuit of these things, because science is a methodology, and not, strictly, a state of being or belief.

The conflict emerges when religiosity colours one's practice of science. If a given conception of god can't be measured/detected/observed through any scientific means, then science isn't interested in this god-concept, and it thus has no place in the domain of science (regardless of whether such a god-concept factually exists). In the scientific paradigm, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and the proper course of action would be to discard it, until such a time as the hypothesis is revised in order to align with scientific strictures, or new evidence surfaces to support the hypothesis.

If a god-concept can be measured/detected/observed, then if you practice the scientific method, you'd presumably eventually reach the conclusion of the existence of said god-concept, since the evidence would eventually lead there. The trouble is that in a scientific context, any god-concept is a foregone conclusion, since there doesn't yet exist any observable or verifiable evidence. Yet the theist would claim that such a god-concept presently does exist despite this.

It basically becomes a matter of begging the question -- to assume the conclusion as true before the argument even begins. Which in turns runs counter to the essence of scientific inquiry (i.e. to start from nothing, following the evidence wherever it leads with as few assumptions and biases as there can be).

So a theistic person can perform science. But the fact that they are theistic tacitly undermines the work they're doing, even if only in principle, and even if the consequences never extend beyond the confines of their own psychology (re: holding mutually conflicting and/or contradictory beliefs).

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

As a point, almost everyone that lived before 1900 was religious to some extent. I'd say near 100% of scientists/philosophers born that long ago were. What percent would you say are now? I really don't see what that has anything to do with anything either way.

This isn't actually true.

A lot of them actually believed in an aethist mindset of no god but due to a lot of governments, mostly Europe, had this mindset of, "If you don't beleive in what we say, you'll be charged as a heretic."

It was a moronic mindset, but that is what happens when people take something the wrong way.

Right now the US has somewhere between 75-85% of the country being of the Christian faith, mind you this also secludes people who believe in God but just don't align with a specific religion. Even then a lot of those people are still scientists.

As @ Holder of the Heel pointed out, cognitive dissonance is a thing. "Religious scientist" is not an oxymoron because it's impossible for one to hold such conflicting beliefs, the beliefs themselves fundamentally conflict with each other.

Science leaves a page blank if it cannot discern the answer, whereas religion automatically slaps the idea of God over every temporary gap in human knowledge while actively discouraging further inquiry (i.e. "God did it, don't ask questions"). It is the difference between humility and arrogance. Strict empiricism vs. subjective whim.

Nevertheless, religion will insist that their God is responsible for everything regardless of existing scientific explanations. The final all-encompassing gap is that we're unable to explain the origin of the universe and religion milks this ignorance for all it's worth with the most nonsensical contradictory lies as if what they say has any relation to truth whatsoever.

I really don't believe this of a person who truly wants to be a scientist and still religious, nor do I think this would in turn cause absolute conflict unless they still believe the idea that the world is only 6,000 years old. The catholic faith disbanded that and has left it up to the individual to decide, they teach it in catholic school as a legitimate science. The church accepts that Evolution is a valid theory that explains the origins of man. Again, the bible is not 100% accurate, granted this is my belief here that Evolution was a tool God could have used and set-up rather than the creationist idea.

The only thing someone of a Catholic should concern themselves about science is that God made the universe, that's it. How tit happened, what works in this world, how something will interact. That should be left up to science, not religion. You can leave it at the door and still be able to ask questions.

What your implying is that the religion is living in the ages of old Europe where they executed or arrested you for making claims like this. We don't live in the dark ages anymore.

To elaborate on this point (and the current topic at hand), perhaps it would be more accurate to say that anyone can do science.

So it's possible for a religious person (i.e. theist) to perform science, to follow the scientific method, and even to make discoveries big and small (as has evidently been the case in history). It's also possible for a non-theistic person to do all of these things. The quality of possessing or lacking theism does not necessarily pose an obstacle to the pursuit of these things, because science is a methodology, and not, strictly, a state of being or belief.

The conflict emerges when religiosity colours one's practice of science. If a given conception of god can't be measured/detected/observed through any scientific means, then science isn't interested in this god-concept, and it thus has no place in the domain of science (regardless of whether such a god-concept factually exists). In the scientific paradigm, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and the proper course of action would be to discard it, until such a time as the hypothesis is revised in order to align with scientific strictures, or new evidence surfaces to support the hypothesis.

If a god-concept can be measured/detected/observed, then if you practice the scientific method, you'd presumably eventually reach the conclusion of the existence of said god-concept, since the evidence would eventually lead there. The trouble is that in a scientific context, any god-concept is a foregone conclusion, since there doesn't yet exist any observable or verifiable evidence. Yet the theist would claim that such a god-concept presently does exist despite this.

It basically becomes a matter of begging the question -- to assume the conclusion as true before the argument even begins. Which in turns runs counter to the essence of scientific inquiry (i.e. to start from nothing, following the evidence wherever it leads with as few assumptions and biases as there can be).

So a theistic person can perform science. But the fact that they are theistic tacitly undermines the work they're doing, even if only in principle, and even if the consequences never extend beyond the confines of their own psychology (re: holding mutually conflicting and/or contradictory beliefs).

It's still a, it can, not an, it will.

You ca perform both and do fine if you leave your person beliefs at the door when you perform science. Some people can't, but there are still some that can, a lot of them are at my college at were at my high school.

 

[LarsINTJ]

I know what I'm implying, the Dark Ages is what society becomes when religion takes the helm. Religion is not any more sophisticated or mature than it was back then, less fanatical for sure, but that's only because it constantly realigns itself with contemporary norms in order to maximize appeal.

Most individuals live their lives according to what is socially acceptable, no principles whatsoever, just conformity.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I know what I'm implying, the Dark Ages is what society gets when religion takes the helm. Religion is not any more sophisticated or mature than it was back then, less fanatical for sure, but that's only because it constantly realigns itself with contemporary norms in order to maximize appeal.

Most individuals live their lives and make decisions according to what is socially acceptable, no principles whatsoever, just conformity.

No, that's what happens when people are allowed to shovel down their beliefs onto others on threats of death. You can blame the people at the time for taking their thoughts to such extremes.

Religion only promotes ignorance when you try to make people not think, which by now people have realized was a bad thing back then.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Religion only promotes ignorance when you try to make people not think, which by now people have realized was a bad thing back then.

but that's only because it constantly realigns itself with contemporary norms in order to maximize appeal.

It's always amusing to think about the religious today who think they are truer or more superior than the believers of previous ages given that those are the creators originators of the very beliefs that they supposedly hold and it is proof that they hold their own principles and culture above anything "divine". But that's a separate topic.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I really don't believe this of a person who truly wants to be a scientist and still religious, nor do I think this would in turn cause absolute conflict unless they still believe the idea that the world is only 6,000 years old. The catholic faith disbanded that and has left it up to the individual to decide, they teach it in catholic school as a legitimate science. The church accepts that Evolution is a valid theory that explains the origins of man. Again, the bible is not 100% accurate, granted this is my belief here that Evolution was a tool God could have used and set-up rather than the creationist idea.

A quick note on the theory of evolution:

Evolution by natural selection merely concerns the how live develops and changes over time. The origin of life is a separate topic in the scientific domain. In science, the study of the origin of life is the domain of abiogenesis -- the process by which organic molecules (non-living matter) gave rise to the complex biochemical phenomenon that is life (living matter). And it takes this form because science can't presume that life was kickstarted by some kind of external agent (since there is as yet no evidence to suggest that there were such agents who kickstarted life back in the day). There are a handful of abiogenetic hypotheses, but that's not relevant here.

You could say that it was God who set up the process of abiogenesis. But evolution via natural selection works without any external influence or guidance, so from a scientific perspective, it isn't necessary to invoke God (or any other agent) as an explanation. In other words, a world where observed evolution is unguided, and one where it is, are virtually indistinguishable; external agents thus need not be appealed to.

It may be that some agent does influence evolution at a distance. But it would be difficult indeed to determine when and where this influence might be occurring. Though I suppose that if an agent (e.g. God) desired for the present human species to arise, then they would have either nudged the evolutionary chain along at key junctures, or let the dices fall where they may, and later took a liking to this intriguing human species.

Just wanted to clarify your use of terms. God as the instigator of life on Earth is a concept unrelated to evolution, or the theory thereof -- a belief on origins that anyone is free to hold, albeit if you propose this as an actual scientific hypothesis, you'd in principle be expected to hold to scientific rigours (e.g. testability, falsifiability, etc.).

And you can posit that God had something to do with evolution also, but in the eyes of science, God isn't necessary to explain how it works, because from all observation, unguided evolution works fine as it is.

The only thing someone of a Catholic should concern themselves about science is that God made the universe, that's it. How tit happened, what works in this world, how something will interact. That should be left up to science, not religion. You can leave it at the door and still be able to ask questions.

Concerning the bolded segment, are you implying that the question of universal origin falls beyond scientific purview? If you are, then consider the following (and if not, disregard).

The origin of the universe is a scientifically salient question. Those who practice science, now and hereafter, will most surely attempt to use scientific methodology to see if they can gain insights into this question.

When one says "God created the universe", you're making a claim about our reality; in the eyes of science, it's a hypothesis about the origin of the universe. Which is likely why it doesn't sit well with those who aren't theistic, and/or adhere to the scientific method -- because then there are questions of what phenomena have you observed that would lead you to posit such a hypothesis, how such a hypothesis can be tested (if at all), what we'd expect of a world where this hypothesis if false, and so on.

The issue is that at present, these are difficult questions to answer, since we lack the means to infer universal origin with our current instruments. Which is why, I'd imagine, that God as Creator is often more discussed in the context of philosophy, since it's a question currently out of empirical reach (and philosophy concerns questions that can't be addressed empirically, as opposed to science).

But I digress. The point is that in principle, Universe Origin is a question not strictly beyond the jurisdiction of science, even if current scientific means are insufficient for the investigation of this question***.

***There is, of course, the possibility that universal origin can't possibly be determined through scientific means, even with hypothetical future advances in our technology. In such a case, universe origin couldn't be determined empirically, so you'd have to either A) try to infer indirectly, lacking direct means of observation, or B) relegate the question to the realm of philosophy, or other non-empirical domains of knowledge.

You ca perform both and do fine if you leave your person beliefs at the door when you perform science. Some people can't, but there are still some that can, a lot of them are at my college at were at my high school.

Yes. And one should rightly take issue with those who can't.

The relationship remains looming in the background, though. This given person, who practices science precisely as one should, holds true the proposition of God without an empirical basis to the belief, which runs counter to the spirit of scientific inquiry. It's a curious notion when viewed from non-theistic lenses. But I suppose this would constitute a different tangent of discussion (re: how one can at once believe in the edicts of scientific methodology, and the edicts of one's theology).

 

[Sucumbio]

As a point, almost everyone that lived before 1900 was religious to some extent. I'd say near 100% of scientists/philosophers born that long ago were. What percent would you say are now? I really don't see what that has anything to do with anything either way.

See for yourself? We'll set the bar at c1800 since that's after Ben Franklin performed most of his research on electricity which is probably one of the more notable secularizing discoveries (lightning was often seen as God's Anger rather than a natural phenomenon). Oh, and he was a deist.

As for what point does it make, I was merely correcting Lars. Oxymoron is a poor choice of words... Jumbo Shrimp, that's a great oxymoron. Oxymoron refers to when two words are put together that would appear to be contradictory. But as we all know, jumbo shrimp do, in fact exist. So too do scientists who embrace some form of religion or spirituality. NOT NECESSARILY CHRISTIAN! (though, I linked to Christians just now and for sake of ease.)

Scientists who practice Yoga, are in fact, practicing spirituality. To the laymen it may appear they're performing stretching exercises. But to those who are versed in Yoga's traditions and proper techniques, it's far more than just bending in awkward ways on the floor. Lars' continued argumentation style is like throwing globs of pasta at a wall to see what sticks. He continues to throw words around without taking their proper meaning, and he continues to base his arguments on half-truths. He reminds me of a child who overhears their parents' discussing politics over pork chops at the family dinner table and then trying to recite it back to their classmates the next day in some attempt to appear intellectual. We all know how that goes... the child ends up only half right, and to the keener observers, just sounds idiotic.

As @ Holder of the Heel pointed out, cognitive dissonance is a thing. "Religious scientist" is not an oxymoron because it's impossible for one to hold such conflicting beliefs, the beliefs themselves fundamentally conflict with each other.

Well it took someone else to say what you were thinking but had they not come along and reworded you, you'd be at the end of my grammar blade once again. You can thank Sehnsucht.

Science leaves a page blank if it cannot discern the answer, whereas religion automatically slaps the idea of God over every temporary gap in human knowledge while actively discouraging further inquiry (i.e. "God did it, don't ask questions"). It is the difference between humility and arrogance. Strict empiricism vs. subjective whim.

Except "God" is not synonymous with "Religion." And, to boot, you've forgotten just how many scientific discoveries the planet Earth owes to Catholics.

Nevertheless, religion will insist that their God is responsible for everything regardless of existing scientific explanations. The final all-encompassing gap is that we're unable to explain the origin of the universe and religion milks this ignorance for all it's worth with the most nonsensical contradictory lies as if what they say has any relation to truth whatsoever.

Nonsensical. Exaggeration. Inaccurate. Only a handful of religions actually discount the science we've discovered. Yes, there are some sects of Christians who believe the earth really is only a few thousand years old, that dinosaurs and man walked the earth together, and any "evidence" to the contrary is just "the devil's work."

That's called fanaticism. You'd be proud to know that there exists fanatics in the realm of science as well. Fanatics are to blame for the 9/11 attacks. They're to blame for the war in Iraq (yes, I am calling American Foreign Policy a form of fanaticism - the widespread misuse of military might to spread American ideals). That's not the summation of us all. Hardly, it's a minority, really. A powerful minority to be sure, but still a minority. Here recently, polls suggest US citizens think we should concentrate on our own country for once.

To elaborate on this point (and the current topic at hand), perhaps it would be more accurate to say that anyone can do science.

And of course, you are correct. Science is a tool... it's not a state of being, such as what spirituality is aimed at achieving. The point you make about undermining, I don't believe spirituality can undermine someone's ability to perform scientific research. It may play a role in WHAT science the researcher gets involved in, and so therefore on a global scale, the overall scientific march towards all-known-truths that's shared among all scientists may be hindered in some regards over others because it's being ignored by specific minds that could have otherwise pressed those specifics onward had they not had some religious objection to it... yeah, I'll buy that.

But then again, passion is necessary for mankind to progess, I believe, and I feel that religion and spirituality is congruous to passion for many people. I'd almost say that to take -away- spirituality in the hopes that science could proceed fully unimpeded could in fact result in the opposite. "Dead inside." No... passion, for so many. Here's an interesting quote:

“When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe,and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.” -Stephen Hawking

Rather simplistic considering the originator, but he's got a great point. What he's also implying, is that HIS passion, his spirituality manifest, is in the appreciation of the grand design of the universe. His thirst for knowledge quenched by research... that is his passion. Passion, to me, is necessary for mankind to progress; we don't make good robots.

I know what I'm implying, the Dark Ages is what society becomes when religion takes the helm. Religion is not any more sophisticated or mature than it was back then, less fanatical for sure, but that's only because it constantly realigns itself with contemporary norms in order to maximize appeal.

I dunno about all that... Isis is plenty fanatical. Religious institutions will always have a spectrum of "normal" to mundane to exceptionally unhinged. That's just people... some people go to church and say their prayers and eat their wafers and wine and then go home and don't think about it again for a week's time. And they do it because they believe (out of fear of the unknown) that one day when they die they might just get to have everlasting life in paradise as opposed to everlasting life in damnation. Is that stupid to you? Congratulations, you've figured it out, you are one of the luckiest people on Earth because you're SO sure you know what it's like to die that you can kick back and point and laugh at all the sheep around you busying themselves with pointless rituals. If it's one thing your parents never taught you, it's how it's rude to point.

Most individuals live their lives according to what is socially acceptable, no principles whatsoever, just conformity.

Let me guess, you wear black nail polish and hand-me-downs from the Army/Navy store because you're so rebellious. Principles are like cheap commodities, they change with the times, I got that right? I used to be like you, actually. I really believed that... until I realized that all we have is each other. If we don't act together as a society, we cannot possibly survive. What's a world with 7 billion people on it and all 7 billion decide they need not think of the other 6,999,999,999? I call that chaos, myself, but you sound like you'd call it Utopia. I don't think it's responsible to just bury your head in the sand, nor do I think it's a good idea to jump off the bridge when everyone else is doing it. But I do believe that we have no choice but to agree on things, at the very least, to agree on what we disagree about. That's a start, anyway, yeah? I mean, wars aren't just fought because people just HAVE to kill other people, the same as I have to take a **** once or twice a day. It's because of conflict, terrible, beautiful conflict. And that is not born from conformity. It's born from a desire to shape our world as we see fit. So many people... so little space.

It's always amusing to think about the religious today who think they are truer or more superior than the believers of previous ages given that those are the creators originators of the very beliefs that they supposedly hold and it is proof that they hold their own principles and culture above anything "divine". But that's a separate topic.

Eh, I suppose it's amusing, but to me it's kinda sad, really. Catholics consider Pride a Mortal Sin for many reasons; one of my personal favorite comedians best put it:

"My God's got a bigger **** than your God!" -George Carlin

 

[Sehnsucht]

And of course, you are correct. Science is a tool... it's not a state of being, such as what spirituality is aimed at achieving. The point you make about undermining, I don't believe spirituality can undermine someone's ability to perform scientific research. It may play a role in WHAT science the researcher gets involved in, and so therefore on a global scale, the overall scientific march towards all-known-truths that's shared among all scientists may be hindered in some regards over others because it's being ignored by specific minds that could have otherwise pressed those specifics onward had they not had some religious objection to it... yeah, I'll buy that.

But then again, passion is necessary for mankind to progess, I believe, and I feel that religion and spirituality is congruous to passion for many people. I'd almost say that to take -away- spirituality in the hopes that science could proceed fully unimpeded could in fact result in the opposite. "Dead inside." No... passion, for so many.

Here's an interesting quote:

“When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe,and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.” -Stephen Hawking

Rather simplistic considering the originator, but he's got a great point. What he's also implying, is that HIS passion, his spirituality manifest, is in the appreciation of the grand design of the universe. His thirst for knowledge quenched by research... that is his passion. Passion, to me, is necessary for mankind to progress; we don't make good robots.

I don't think anyone would discount the utility, if not the need, for passion in the domain of science. It's certainly a prime motivator for any endeavour, the doing of science or otherwise.

I was more so tinkering at the notion that someone who believes there is such a thing as a higher power (whichever the form) holds that fact as the basis of their worldview. It need not hinder their efficiency as scientists or researchers -- though it certainly can, if you have ulterior agendas, or letting subconscious beliefs and biases affect your work. Though anyone, theistic or not, can be prey to such things, so indeed, theism in itself is not anathema to scientific research, no more than liberalism or veganism.

It's more of a conceptual quibble. The theistic person is making a claim about reality which was not attained through empirical means*** (and depending on the case, can't be demonstrated empirically either). Yet since this claim of universal causation concerns the sandbox of science's purview (i.e. the universe that was caused), there's naturally a conflict at play, if only a semantic one.

Speaking of semantics, perhaps it would be useful to formalize the use of "spirituality", here. What is spirituality? What is it to be spiritual?

Is it recognition and subsequent awe at the fact of one's self-awareness, that one exists? Or to fully take in. or appreciate, one's place in the scheme of the cosmos, as in Hawking's musings? Or is spirituality instead the search to connect with something beyond yourself, or greater than yourself? Or is it explicitly trying to attune with things of actual spirit (gods, life force, spirits, etc.)?

Or perhaps you'd say spirituality is a synonym of passion, as with your characterization of Hawking's "spirituality". Though in that case, one term is just as useful as the other, so we can arbitrarily discard one and keep the other.

Whatever the case, it's clearly distinct from religion, anyway, since religion is the body of knowledge that consists a given theology (and the institution that frames, explores, and disseminates this knowledge). Religion is spiritual, but spirituality need not be religious, as the old adage goes.

And by extension, I'd say that the body of knowledge of science can be compatible with the body of knowledge of theology (e.g. Catholic theology being compatible with evolution and the theory thereof).Conversely, however, the practice of science isn't all too compatible with the claims of theology, since the latter makes bald claims about reality that run counter to the tenets of scientific methodology.

Which is to say, science isn't keen on people making claims that can't be verified/observed/corroborated/measured/detected/etc. by either the senses or through instruments and other data-collecting methods -- which is what science is.

I get the sense that I'm rambling on about definitions and distinctions we're already in agreement with, here. So forgive me if I'm not really going anywhere with this. XS

***Theism usually arises from personal experiences, cultural conditioning, exposure to persuasive or convincing information, ignorance concerning certain matters (usually related to science or philosophy), or some combination of these elements. If people were to "find God" using empirical means, then it'd be quite the day for everyone. Yet no one who properly uses the tool of science has yet "found God" -- unless I missed the memo. Whatever the case, it remains that if a person is theistic, they didn't attain this position through empirical means; at most, they might have been persuaded by existing information about the world previously obtained empirically.

 

[Thor]

I could name things that would be irrefutable evidence for God (i.e., some mighty being coming down and killing almost everyone in this forum for being heathens and then raising up the holy where they disappear and Earth's very surface starts to burn - that would convince me beyond a doubt God is a real thing) and I can point at things that are claimed to be evidence that aren't, but I can't say I know what would constitute evidence... if iGod is supposed to be beyond understanding, I don't think we could understand evidence as being evidence, because we couldn't understand why, and would discount it, although that's assuming there is one... if that makes any sense (it probably doesn't).

 

[LarsINTJ]

You've pulled the 'not an argument' card big-time with that latest response, @ Sucumbio , impressively deplorable.

I'll define truth again: any concept which is verifiable through observation and logically consistent.

Science is the only valid standard for truth. Mysticism and faith have nothing to do with truth, it's pure falsehood, a rejection of reality.

What is real? That which is composed of either matter or energy.

If you're working with a definition for truth which happens to include whimsical religious dogma, then please do tell so I can address this hazy paradigm directly. If you know better than the opposition, show it, don't give me snarky passive-aggressive bullsh*t.

 

[_Keno_]

Lars, you're being too aggressive, tone it down. Obviously your definition of 'real' purposely excludes any view but your own, and for this to be a debate, you should probably be willing to work with a little more lax of definitions (even if you don't like them). I'm sure if you have a point, you can make it with your words and not by arguing definitions.

Most individuals live their lives according to what is socially acceptable, no principles whatsoever, just conformity.

I think it just *happens* that lot of what is socially acceptable falls in line with a lot of people's principles (just going to tell you right now, it's not coincidence). Generally people do have their own direct principles that differ from everyone else, or at least every single person I know decently well does.

As for what point does it make, I was merely correcting Lars.

Ah. Well for future reference for everyone, appeal to authority is a fallacy and should probably not be used again in here. There are definitely people of all religions (and non) who made scientific discoveries.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Lars, you're being too aggressive, tone it down.

You might want to check Sucumbio's post first before accusing me of hostility.

Obviously your definition purposely excludes any view but your own, and for this to be a debate, you should probably be willing to work with a little more lax of definitions (even if you don't like them). I'm sure if you have a point, you can make it with your words and not by arguing definitions.

...Obviously you don't understand logic. There can only be one definition. Truth is binary, not a continuum. So please, if you can provide a valid counter-definition for truth then do it. If you aren't happy with the definition I put forward then show me why it's invalid, don't just wave anti-absolutism in my face and proclaim the intellectual superiority of fence-sitting (typical of relativism).

I think it just *happens* that lot of what is socially acceptable falls in line with a lot of people's principles (just going to tell you right now, it's not coincidence). Generally people do have their own direct principles that differ from everyone else, or at least every single person I know decently well does.

Principles must be universal, they must apply to everyone. I'm not talking about preferences here. Individuals can't have their "own" principles. The only reason society ever changes is because people like me have the balls to stand up against the blind repetition of history, everyone else just bleats their way through life in the avoidance of confrontation (not counting the evil sociopaths).

 

[_Keno_]

...Obviously you don't understand logic. There can only be one definition. Truth is binary, not a continuum. So please, if you can provide a valid counter-definition for truth then do it. If you aren't happy with the definition I put forward then show me why it's invalid, don't just wave anti-absolutism in my face and proclaim the intellectual superiority of fence-sitting (typical of relativism).

Your definitions of 'truth' favors the present since it requires "verification through observation," which discounts most events of the past that don't have abundance of evidence (AKA history, which is what a lot of religious arguments are built on AKA the bible, etc). And I agree that truth is binary, it's just that most of the time humans can't tell the truth value of something one way or the other (which is the whole point). Just because you do not *have* evidence that something is true, that does not automatically mean it is false. (unless you are meaning universal truths by 'truth,' in which case I'm arguing a wrong definition yet again).

Also, must have been editing your post for quite a while. I re-vamped my original post to be more specific about which definition I was not liking, about an hour before you posted lol. I mean, in most circumstances I would fully agree with your definition of 'real', but since there are religious people in the room, we have to soften our definitions if we want to debate them.

 

[Sucumbio]

What is spirituality? What is it to be spiritual?

To me, this is the practice of extending one's perception beyond the 5 senses. When we turn inward, we "sense" the experiences of memory. We "feel" the ground beneath our feet as we recall our afternoon walk the day before. But you aren't actually feeling anything. It's more an... echo of a feeling. So too can this be said of turning that lens toward the moment of now, or as close to now as one can get. Technically speaking everything we sense is still delayed by a fraction of time from the moment of it happening to the moment our brain's perception relays that moment to our consciousness.

Buddhists are especially keen on achieving this focus through practiced methodology. Training their minds as one trains a muscle, they are able to literally transform their organic selves to achieve states of consciousness that would otherwise be unknown to humans.

In Christianity, spirituality is very specific. It refers to the acceptance of Jesus Christ as their lord savior, and that he died on the cross for their sins. This decision comes with it an agreement to perform specific rituals, and to conduct oneself in specific ways, throughout life.

The list is long, frankly. But in general spirituality refers to that which is beyond the realm of the physical. Unfortunately, that's really a misnomer. It's more accurate to say that spirituality is a device which bridges the gap between what we understand as "the real world" and what we'd consider "the spiritual world."

And yes, you are correct. One need not be "religious" in order to be spiritual. And yes, I personally believe passion is our greatest strength, and something of the spiritual realm. I find it to be behind everything great and terrible that mankind has achieved. Something so powerful and yet elusive for so many... it's the closest thing to a superpower I can equate.

Science is a methodology. Spiritualism is a state of being. So I find it impossible to really compare spirituality to science, as one can employ science whether they are spiritual or not. But as I said, I do think that ones attachment to spirituality can influence the direction (and reason) by which they employ science.

***Theism usually arises from personal experiences, cultural conditioning, exposure to persuasive or convincing information, ignorance concerning certain matters (usually related to science or philosophy), or some combination of these elements. If people were to "find God" using empirical means, then it'd be quite the day for everyone. Yet no one who properly uses the tool of science has yet "found God" -- unless I missed the memo. Whatever the case, it remains that if a person is theistic, they didn't attain this position through empirical means; at most, they might have been persuaded by existing information about the world previously obtained empirically.

Well, I believe I addressed this earlier in this thread, but technically speaking there is already "empirical evidence" for God, it's just that you still have to believe in that sort of thing to accept it. A skeptic could very well have God come down to earth and shake their hand, and they'd still think "well, this is just some trick." That's why spirituality is so personal, and why it really does no good to try to categorically prove as real. Plus this isn't exactly a new concept. People see things on the news all the time, and yet don't believe in their heart of hearts that what they've seen is real. Americans are divided on so many fronts and topics, nay, people are divided - opinions - and yet they've all been looking at the same "set of facts."

I could name things that would be irrefutable evidence for God (i.e., some mighty being coming down and killing almost everyone in this forum for being heathens and then raising up the holy where they disappear and Earth's very surface starts to burn - that would convince me beyond a doubt God is a real thing) and I can point at things that are claimed to be evidence that aren't, but I can't say I know what would constitute evidence... if iGod is supposed to be beyond understanding, I don't think we could understand evidence as being evidence, because we couldn't understand why, and would discount it, although that's assuming there is one... if that makes any sense (it probably doesn't).

Ah, yes. This is classic Agnosticism. Not a poor position to be sure. It is definitely one of the more humble of positions. It accepts that if we are to believe in a higher power, that such a power is far beyond our mere mortal understanding. The difficulty I tend to find with this stance is of course the finality of it all. Not only do we not know, but we can NEVER know. I find that to be ... limiting. If it's one thing that's constant, it's the evolution of man's intellect and thereby discoveries. And one day we may very well discover that our entire Universe wasn't "created" but that the "big bang" is simply another link in a never ending chain of life processes. Even still, such a discovery would not discount the existence of a "higher power."

You've pulled the 'not an argument' card big-time with that latest response, @ Sucumbio , impressively deplorable.

Well of course you'd say that, you're a bigot. There's no defending your position. Intolerance of other people's religions or creeds is unacceptable, here or anywhere, and I will continue to badger you on this note until you either stop trying to masquerade your posts as "logic" and simply come out and say: "I hate religion and anyone that partakes in it," or you just plain stop.

I'll define truth again: any concept which is verifiable through observation and logically consistent.

Science is the only valid standard for truth. Mysticism and faith have nothing to do with truth, it's pure falsehood, a rejection of reality.

What is real? That which is composed of either matter or energy.

If you're working with a definition for truth which happens to include whimsical religious dogma, then please do tell so I can address this hazy paradigm directly. If you know better than the opposition, show it, don't give me snarky passive-aggressive bullsh*t.

Your definition of Truth is immotile. If we were to accept your definition, then the world would still be "flat." Clearly it is not. So therefore, something True is clearly not something that is ONLY verifiable through observation and logically consistent. So let us agree for the moment, that Truth is a fluid concept.

There are many different theories on what constitutes Truth:

• Correspondence theory
• Coherence theory
• Constructivist theory
• Consensus theory
• Pragmatic theory
• Performative theory
• Redundancy theory
• Pluralist theory

"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." -Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

It's an important distinction, you see. Facts are things (concepts, ideas, physical realities) that never change. Truth, however, is in the eye of the beholder. If you're interested you can research on your own the above Truth theories, but I'll just note that as of 2009 almost half of the planet's top philosophers accept or lean towards Correspondence theory.

From that article:
The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.

From Aristotle:
"To say that [either] that which is, is not or that which is not is, is a falsehood; and to say that that which is, is and that which is not is not, is true."

You balked last time someone pointed this out, but that's because you misread what you saw. It's not "what's true, is true." It's what IS, is true.

Here's the problem: we don't know everything about the world (about reality). Going back to the time when the Earth was flat. It was true! By definition. But then our understanding of "the world" changed, and the Earth became "round." So... did we literally transform the Earth? Of course not. We simply expanded our ability to perceive what was always there. Such a thing is fact. It is a fact, that the Earth is spherical. It is also true.

It is a fact, that religion and science coexist. It is also true.

Now to address the specifics, this notion that spirituality cannot contain or have anything to do with Facts.

Let us look at this recent study.

FASCINATING, isn't it? I love it. Every year SCIENCE brings our understanding of the world around us, our understanding of Truth, that much closer to Fact. Reality. Science is bridging the gap between those two realms. Funny, that one would think they're mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite, they're permanently linked. Do you still think spirituality and mysticism to be "whimsical?" Even when science has -proven- otherwise? Like I said: you can bury your head in the sand, but as one of my former colleagues once said: "Some things are true, whether you believe them or not."

 

[Sehnsucht]

To me, this is the practice of extending one's perception beyond the 5 senses. When we turn inward, we "sense" the experiences of memory. We "feel" the ground beneath our feet as we recall our afternoon walk the day before. But you aren't actually feeling anything. It's more an... echo of a feeling. So too can this be said of turning that lens toward the moment of now, or as close to now as one can get. Technically speaking everything we sense is still delayed by a fraction of time from the moment of it happening to the moment our brain's perception relays that moment to our consciousness.

Buddhists are especially keen on achieving this focus through practiced methodology. Training their minds as one trains a muscle, they are able to literally transform their organic selves to achieve states of consciousness that would otherwise be unknown to humans.

In Christianity, spirituality is very specific. It refers to the acceptance of Jesus Christ as their lord savior, and that he died on the cross for their sins. This decision comes with it an agreement to perform specific rituals, and to conduct oneself in specific ways, throughout life.

The list is long, frankly. But in general spirituality refers to that which is beyond the realm of the physical. Unfortunately, that's really a misnomer. It's more accurate to say that spirituality is a device which bridges the gap between what we understand as "the real world" and what we'd consider "the spiritual world."

Could it be said that to be spiritual is to attempt to bridge the experiential gap between the world that we perceive through the senses, and the world as it truly is, stripped of sensory bias?

The latter seems as apt an encapsulation as I can conceive of your description of a "spiritual world". By turning inward, cultivating the mind, you try to alter the way you assimilate information so that you might then also alter your perception of your reality. And perhaps, in so doing, gain insight, develop skills or understanding, achieve goals, or whatever.

Is this at all in the ballpark? You're talking about looking inward to reinforce your mind into attune with some nebulous state of being, but it doesn't seem that you're saying there is indeed an "ontically spiritual plane" that one can indeed connect to. So I figure it's all about altering states of mind or being, with the aim of achieving some goal (growth, insight, etc.).

And yes, you are correct. One need not be "religious" in order to be spiritual. And yes, I personally believe passion is our greatest strength, and something of the spiritual realm. I find it to be behind everything great and terrible that mankind has achieved. Something so powerful and yet elusive for so many... it's the closest thing to a superpower I can equate.

Science is a methodology. Spiritualism is a state of being. So I find it impossible to really compare spirituality to science, as one can employ science whether they are spiritual or not. But as I said, I do think that ones attachment to spirituality can influence the direction (and reason) by which they employ science.

Passion is of the spirit? Then do we define spirit as being the sum of human behavioural expression, or something of the sort? Whence else might passion spring, if not from a combination of emotion and psychology and instinct, of the conscious and subconscious? And is spirit more of the conscious or the subconscious? Is spirituality the act of using the conscious to navigate the subconscious?

Again, it would be useful to condense your deliberations into a dictionary entry definitions, because I am the dumb.

As for your second paragraph, at this point, we seem to be in agreement. A state of being can, yet need not, influence how tools are employed. So we can leave that tangent aside going forward.

Well, I believe I addressed this earlier in this thread, but technically speaking there is already "empirical evidence" for God, it's just that you still have to believe in that sort of thing to accept it. A skeptic could very well have God come down to earth and shake their hand, and they'd still think "well, this is just some trick." That's why spirituality is so personal, and why it really does no good to try to categorically prove as real. Plus this isn't exactly a new concept. People see things on the news all the time, and yet don't believe in their heart of hearts that what they've seen is real. Americans are divided on so many fronts and topics, nay, people are divided - opinions - and yet they've all been looking at the same "set of facts."

Concerning skepticism, the scientific method has long since proven itself to be an effective way to ascertain (probably) correct information. If a skeptic uses scientific reasoning to assess whether the figure named "God" who shook their hand is in fact God, then if they apply the reasoning correctly and ultimately find the assessment to be inconclusive or false, it will have been good of them to do so -- even if "God" was indeed God.

It's a matter of pragmatism, I suppose. Like Sagan's analogy of the invisible, undetectable dragon dwelling in your garage. If the dragon can't be detected, measured, or observed in any humanly possible way, then a world where the dragon does exist is indistinguishable to one where it doesn't. So rationally, it's best to go with the latter. Same with a dude named God who shakes my hand. If I can't know that this dude is God beyond simply taking his word for it, what reason would I have to believe them? He might actually be God, but a world where this hand-shaking fella is God, and one where he's just a guy proclaiming to be, would be indistinguishable, so I'd provisionally surmise he'd be the latter until shown otherwise.

Your handshake analogy aside, it seems you're saying that for all the objectivity of acquiring and amassing data, people can (and do, and will) still interpret this data in a variety of ways. Which is evidently true.

Though I suppose this might be the result of existing biases and preconceptions. If you're already a theist, or inclined to theistic belief, then you'd naturally interpret a "set of facts" as compatible with theism. Likewise for those who examine the facts under a non-theistic lens.

It comes down to who is using the correct lens. Which appears to be an ongoing discussion, as this thread and doubtless past others can attest.

Lastly, I'm not American, so I can't say much about that. Though from the outside (Canada), I have to say that the American nation seems like quite the party, to put it mildly.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Well of course you'd say that, you're a bigot. There's no defending your position. Intolerance of other people's religions or creeds is unacceptable, here or anywhere, and I will continue to badger you on this note until you either stop trying to masquerade your posts as "logic" and simply come out and say: "I hate religion and anyone that partakes in it," or you just plain stop.

Yes, I'm intolerant of crazy people who inflict their idiotic mental virus on helpless children.

You think intolerance is some sort of moral evil? What about a blood-thirsty murderer who wants nothing more than to stick you with a rusty knife? I'm sure you would be quite tolerant of their beliefs! Another person steals your car, suck it up and tolerate their beliefs! Rapists? Pedophiles? It would be wrong to intervene, that would be *gasp* intolerant, totally unacceptable here or anywhere.

The 'intolerance is bad' narrative was created by people who wish to exploit or do you harm, remember this.

That's OK, we all have to outgrow propaganda at some point. Keep working on it, Sucumbio.

Your definition of Truth is immotile.

It is not my definition, it's the definition. This is not subjective.

If we were to accept your definition, then the world would still be "flat." Clearly it is not.

Clearly, can you tell me why the Earth is not flat? You'll find that the answer you provide is well in line with the definition for truth I put forward.

There are certainly many things which are illusory at face value, but observation is not a matter of utilizing a single perspective or sense, we gather and compound evidence - that is observation.

So therefore, something True is clearly not something that is ONLY verifiable through observation and logically consistent. So let us agree for the moment, that Truth is a fluid concept.

There are many different theories on what constitutes Truth:

• Correspondence theory
• Coherence theory
• Constructivist theory
• Consensus theory
• Pragmatic theory
• Performative theory
• Redundancy theory
• Pluralist theory

"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." -Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

(Did you seriously just list a bunch of Wikipedia headings then quote a movie?)

This is exactly the kind of relativistic mental masturbation which I vehemently oppose. All theories are not equally valid!

It's an important distinction, you see. Facts are things (concepts, ideas, physical realities) that never change. Truth, however, is in the eye of the beholder. If you're interested you can research on your own the above Truth theories, but I'll just note that as of 2009 almost half of the planet's top philosophers accept or lean towards Correspondence theory.

Oh I see, an appeal to authority, now there's an argument.

From that article:
The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.

From Aristotle:
"To say that [either] that which is, is not or that which is not is, is a falsehood; and to say that that which is, is and that which is not is not, is true."

You balked last time someone pointed this out, but that's because you misread what you saw. It's not "what's true, is true." It's what IS, is true.

Aristotle clarification:
"To say that which is real (composed of matter or energy) does not exist or that which is not real, exists, is invalid; and to say that which is real, exists, and that which is not real does not exist, is valid"

I have no problem with this at all, did you think it was some sort of argument against my position? He was basically just saying that you can't deny the validity of the senses.

Aristotle was an empiricist, unlike Plato.

Here's the problem: we don't know everything about the world (about reality). Going back to the time when the Earth was flat. It was true! By definition. But then our understanding of "the world" changed, and the Earth became "round." So... did we literally transform the Earth? Of course not. We simply expanded our ability to perceive what was always there. Such a thing is fact. It is a fact, that the Earth is spherical. It is also true.

It is a fact, that religion and science coexist. It is also true.

Nope. Truth is not relative to human understanding, it's relative to reality. Believing something to be true does not make it true.

This is why relativism is a joke.

Now to address the specifics, this notion that spirituality cannot contain or have anything to do with Facts.

Let us look at this recent study.

FASCINATING, isn't it? I love it. Every year SCIENCE brings our understanding of the world around us, our understanding of Truth, that much closer to Fact. Reality. Science is bridging the gap between those two realms. Funny, that one would think they're mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite, they're permanently linked. Do you still think spirituality and mysticism to be "whimsical?" Even when science has -proven- otherwise? Like I said: you can bury your head in the sand, but as one of my former colleagues once said: "Some things are true, whether you believe them or not."

Are you done grasping at straws?

 

[Sucumbio]

Is this at all in the ballpark? You're talking about looking inward to reinforce your mind into attune with some nebulous state of being, but it doesn't seem that you're saying there is indeed an "ontically spiritual plane" that one can indeed connect to. So I figure it's all about altering states of mind or being, with the aim of achieving some goal (growth, insight, etc.)

Yes I'd say you got it. To me anyway, that's what spirituality is. Religion and spirituality are separate things, to me, though religion involves spirituality, it's not necessarily the case that someone who is spiritually inclined need follow a religion.

Passion is of the spirit? Then do we define spirit as being the sum of human behavioural expression, or something of the sort? Whence else might passion spring, if not from a combination of emotion and psychology and instinct, of the conscious and subconscious? And is spirit more of the conscious or the subconscious? Is spirituality the act of using the conscious to navigate the subconscious?

Once again, your summation is most accurate. It's definitely a combination of conscious (effort) and subconscious (desire). Dreams to me are a tactile "window" into the subconscious desires of ourselves attaining spiritual enlightenment. Though dreams are normally difficult to understand, and things in dreams do not always behave as they do in the "real" world, we still tend to experience dreams through an imitation of the 5 senses. When we dream of swimming for instance, we still "feel" the water, but because the consciousness is so far subdued, our feeling can be totally warped, the water may feel like icicles, or fire, or even dry like sand. To me these aren't symbols as Freud suggested, but instead a sneak peak at what it is to experience the world through what Buddhists refer to as "oneness," that is ... experience "in the moment."

Concerning skepticism, the scientific method has long since proven itself to be an effective way to ascertain (probably) correct information. If a skeptic uses scientific reasoning to assess whether the figure named "God" who shook their hand is in fact God, then if they apply the reasoning correctly and ultimately find the assessment to be inconclusive or false, it will have been good of them to do so -- even if "God" was indeed God.

Funny you should say that, actually.We have no shortages of Doubting Thomas' in the DH. I'll provide you the same link I provided earlier just in case you aren't reading other people's posts in this topic, it's an article from Huffingtonpost...
How you can train your mind to do the impossible.

The Skeptic would simply brush this aside (with a capital 'S'.) In formal debate this fallacy falls mostly under "The Moving Goalpost." That is to say I wasn't describing skepticism, but instead people who insist they are right to the point that any and all evidence to the contrary will be filtered by them and relabeled as unconvincing so they themselves may remain "correct." It's the worst kind of denial, really, because it's not as if you can REALLY convince yourself, you can say it, and think it, but past all that you know that what you've read is true. True, this was not a source proving God, but instead showing empirically through the scientific method that Buddhists are capable of training their bodies to attain a physical state unlike normal. This state of being has been identified by science.

Another way to think of it, it's basically taken science this many years (thousands) to "catch up" to what the Buddhists have always known. This is actually great news for science, because it demonstrates just how perfectly it works. Had science -disproved- the abilities of Buddhist monks it'd be a different story. Except that there was previously no accounting for what Buddhists could do. Now that the science has been explored, people have that "ahhh, I get it" moment.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Yes I'd say you got it. To me anyway, that's what spirituality is. Religion and spirituality are separate things, to me, though religion involves spirituality, it's not necessarily the case that someone who is spiritually inclined need follow a religion.

[..]

Once again, your summation is most accurate. It's definitely a combination of conscious (effort) and subconscious (desire). Dreams to me are a tactile "window" into the subconscious desires of ourselves attaining spiritual enlightenment. Though dreams are normally difficult to understand, and things in dreams do not always behave as they do in the "real" world, we still tend to experience dreams through an imitation of the 5 senses. When we dream of swimming for instance, we still "feel" the water, but because the consciousness is so far subdued, our feeling can be totally warped, the water may feel like icicles, or fire, or even dry like sand. To me these aren't symbols as Freud suggested, but instead a sneak peak at what it is to experience the world through what Buddhists refer to as "oneness," that is ... experience "in the moment."

So spirituality = synesthesia, then?

I get your meaning, though.

On the other hand, I'm reminded of the popular notion that dreams are the brain's way of trying to make sense of experiences acquired during waking life. Which would account for the often weirdness of dreams.

Doubtful that playing squash with a wallaby in Idaho is what constitutes "spiritual enlightenment". XD

Funny you should say that, actually.We have no shortages of Doubting Thomas' in the DH. I'll provide you the same link I provided earlier just in case you aren't reading other people's posts in this topic, it's an article from Huffingtonpost...
How you can train your mind to do the impossible.

The Skeptic would simply brush this aside (with a capital 'S'.) In formal debate this fallacy falls mostly under "The Moving Goalpost." That is to say I wasn't describing skepticism, but instead people who insist they are right to the point that any and all evidence to the contrary will be filtered by them and relabeled as unconvincing so they themselves may remain "correct." It's the worst kind of denial, really, because it's not as if you can REALLY convince yourself, you can say it, and think it, but past all that you know that what you've read is true. True, this was not a source proving God, but instead showing empirically through the scientific method that Buddhists are capable of training their bodies to attain a physical state unlike normal. This state of being has been identified by science.

Another way to think of it, it's basically taken science this many years (thousands) to "catch up" to what the Buddhists have always known. This is actually great news for science, because it demonstrates just how perfectly it works. Had science -disproved- the abilities of Buddhist monks it'd be a different story. Except that there was previously no accounting for what Buddhists could do. Now that the science has been explored, people have that "ahhh, I get it" moment.

Ah. Well, in that case, we're in agreement.

Especially in the bolded bit. As a result of its track record, science is a trustworthy tool for the verification of knowledge, so holding to it as your epistemic barometer is certainly reasonable. I'd further say that skepticism, when applied correctly, is fairly synonymous with open-mindedness -- the capacity to entertain a notion without necessarily accepting it.

Although, I do suspect that the "path to oneness" would have been found empirically. How else could the ancients have acquired and perfected these altered states of mind, had they not first noticed certain phenomena of states, and, through investigation and trial-and-error, learned what meditation is, what it does, and how it can be best applied? I doubt that Buddy Boy one day sneezed and entered oneness, then intuitively figured the whole thing out after the fact.

I suppose this only underlines how much further science has to go. We're good at applying it to the external world, but there's still much a ways to go when it comes to applying empirical methodology to the experience of being (assuming it can be applied in this way, naturally, though I'd imagine it would).

Anyway, I suppose we've covered everything. TL;DR science is good, spirituality =/= religion, hyperbolic rejection =/= skepticism, etc. etc. tingle-tingle-koloo-limpah

 

[Neanderthal]

Yes, I'm intolerant of crazy people who inflict their idiotic mental virus on helpless children.

You think intolerance is some sort of moral evil? What about a blood-thirsty murderer who wants nothing more than to stick you with a rusty knife? I'm sure you would be quite tolerant of their beliefs! Another person steals your car, suck it up and tolerate their beliefs! Rapists? Pedophiles? It would be wrong to intervene, that would be *gasp* intolerant, totally unacceptable here or anywhere.

The 'intolerance is bad' narrative was created by people who wish to exploit or do you harm, remember this.

That's OK, we all have to outgrow propaganda at some point. Keep working on it, Sucumbio.

Telling people that what they believe is an "idiotic mental virus" isn't just intolerant. It's aggressively intolerant.
Hardly the best way to go about progressing society beyond ideas like religion. It just badly represents non-religious people and re-enforces the "us vs them" mentality that has made religion a problem throughout history.

Religious people aren't maliciously inflicting a "virus" upon children. They're just teaching their kids what they believe to be true. That doesn't make them crazy or bad people, just probably misinformed or emotionally compromised.

The more tolerant and progressive our society is, the more likely these kids will grow up and work out the truth for themselves.
As is happening in the west now as our society continues to progress, religion is becoming smaller and smaller.

No need to go around calling people idiots. It just slows things down.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Telling people that what they believe is an "idiotic mental virus" isn't just intolerant. It's aggressively intolerant.

There's a big difference between honesty and aggression.

I'll tell you what's "aggressively intolerant" - inflicting horrendous lies of hell and torture on impressionable children without ever teaching them how to negotiate or think critically so that they can grow up and repeat the cycle all over again.

Am I intolerant for attempting to lift a toppled motorcycle off someone's mangled body while they struggle to keep it on? Yes! I'm intolerant of their ridiculous perception of health, intolerant of their apparent desire to trap their own kids under motorcycles, crushing their fragile developing bones, stunted for life.

Enough with motorcycles...

Hardly the best way to go about progressing society beyond ideas like religion. It just badly represents non-religious people and re-enforces the "us vs them" mentality that has made religion a problem throughout history.

You're mixing cause and effect. Ideologically, "us vs. them" arises from a complete lack of principles, there are no external standards or proof between religions, just my fantasy vs. your fantasy. Conflict is inevitable when both sides' screwed up livelihoods depend on the general acceptance of particular flavors of nonsense.

Without reason and evidence to resolve conflicts, society forms hierarchical pecking-orders of dominance and submission instead, it's embarrassingly primal.

Has there ever been a war between scientists? Of course not. If there are any disagreements in science then additional experiments are carried out. All scientists accept the same conclusions supported by incontrovertible reason and evidence.

Religion (like Statism) is just a collective delusion, it has no methodology for determining truth, anything goes. It is not harmless either, as I have alluded, children suffer the most under these garbage anti-philosophical systems.

Religious people aren't maliciously inflicting a "virus" upon children. They're just teaching their kids what they believe to be true. That doesn't make them crazy or bad people, just probably misinformed or emotionally compromised.

It does make them bad people (at least nowadays or when it's not a matter of survival) there's no excuse for failing to accept the many fallacies and contradictions contained within 'holy texts' - all the information they need to know is easy to find here on the internet.

It's not A-OK for a parent who purposely shuts themselves off from reason and evidence to shut their dependent kids off too. That is to deny them a valid conception of reality, to deny them truth for the sake of petty convenience. What is truth to these kids? Truth is whatever an authority figure tells them. This either leads to mindless subservience or nihilism depending on whether the hypocrisy of one's elders is ever revealed.

Bigoted irrationality (faith/patriotism) is a mental virus because it will only survive for a long as it is continually propagated within children. Otherwise it would literally cease to exist within a few generations.

Also, since when does being "misinformed" or "emotionally compromised" make child abuse acceptable?

The more tolerant and progressive our society is, the more likely these kids will grow up and work out the truth for themselves.

As is happening in the west now as our society continues to progress, religion is becoming smaller and smaller.

Society has always swayed their unfounded allegiance between Religion and the State. What we're seeing now is another shift away from Religion and toward the State (in the West). The only way to break this cycle is to universally reject evil, not tolerate it! New generations must learn the necessity of intolerance toward wolves in sheep's clothing, human predators.

No need to go around calling people idiots. It just slows things down.

Check again, I never called anyone an idiot. Stop attaching your sense of identity to faulty beliefs and you might not feel insulted when those beliefs are rightfully challenged.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

No need to go around calling people idiots. It just slows things down.

I guess you're not a fan of these...

I'll define truth again: any concept which is verifiable through observation and logically consistent.

What's the point of saying "...and logically consistent"? If you liberally interpret "observation" to include, say, all observations that could possibly be made by some idealized hypothetical observer, and if these observations verify logically inconsistent concepts, then we have a serious theoretical problem on our hands!

How do you feel about the concept of moral truth?

 

[InfiniteTripping]

I think it is typical of someone when they discover atheism to become an evangelist for the cause, especially if they were initially tortured as a child by some of the worst ideas invoked by religion. They even have a name for it, new atheism. There's this feeling that logic is the highest attainment of human beings but in reality, anyone who tells you they are completely logical without a hint of feeling is full of it. It's not that they don't have feelings - they are repressing them, and it is grossly unhealthy.

That being said, I describe myself as not an atheist or a new atheist, but a post-atheist.

 

[LarsINTJ]

What's the point of saying "...and logically consistent"? If you liberally interpret "observation" to include, say, all observations that could possibly be made by some idealized hypothetical observer, and if these observations verify logically inconsistent concepts, then we have a serious theoretical problem on our hands!

I'm sure we can agree that truth has something to do with accuracy and consistency, but compared to what? It is not arbitrary or subjective, the truth value of an observation depends on the actual physical properties external to our consciousness.

Logic itself is only possible due to the consistency of matter, so it could be said that all truth is solely derived from observation. Nevertheless, the human mind is imperfect and easily influenced, we can make mistakes or accept incorrect theories, there may be confirmation bias, perhaps ulterior motives. We cannot simply take another's statements as absolute fact regarding specific aspects of the world around us.

So what makes a statement valid or invalid?

Logic: First we need to establish whether something is even possible to begin with. It must be within the realm of possibility given all known laws of physics, it must be logical in order to be assessed for probability. God is immediately invalid.

Observation: Next, probability requires investigation and independent verification. If there is no null-hypothesis (way to disprove a statement) then it would be reasonable to doubt the validity - invalid for all intents and purposes especially if there are better explanations. When probability is low, the burden of proof rests upon those putting forward the proposition. Probability does not automatically equate to truth.

Our conclusions cannot be considered perfectly accurate in relation to reality, but collective reason and evidence takes us exponentially closer as the bigger picture becomes clearer.

How do you feel about the concept of moral truth?

In short, ethical truth defines evil actions (murder, theft, ****) which violate another person's self-ownership (axiom).

Keep in mind that if we own our bodies then we own the effects of our actions, this includes private property.

Deception outside of self-defense or the defense of a third party in order to take advantage of somebody else's time and resources is also a form of theft i.e. fraud.

There's no such thing as ethical truth regarding good behavior, only well-informed recommendations as they relates to a person's neutral goals.

 

[Neanderthal]

That was a very long response to my relatively short post. But I'll humour you.
Edit: Looks like I just did the same to you

There's a big difference between honesty and aggression.

Honesty and aggression aren't opposing terms. I didn't say that your post wasn't honest.

Just that it was aggressive, which isn't productive to anything, including your own cause.
People tend to switch off and not take it seriously when they are talked at aggressively. It just makes the aggressor come across as ignorant or malicious (I'm not saying you are either of these things).
At the very least It certainly doesn't come across as wise when you talk with such emotion.

I'll tell you what's "aggressively intolerant" - inflicting horrendous lies of hell and torture on impressionable children without ever teaching them how to negotiate or think critically so that they can grow up and repeat the cycle all over again.

Am I intolerant for attempting to lift a toppled motorcycle off someone's mangled body while they struggle to keep it on? Yes! I'm intolerant of their ridiculous perception of health, intolerant of their apparent desire to trap their own kids under motorcycles, crushing their fragile developing bones, stunted for life.

Alot of emotive language here. Generally indicative of emotional bias.

That first line obviously isn't aggressive intolerance. It's a different issue.

The motorcycle analogy is false.
Firstly, the parents aren't knowingly trying to hurt their children, they're doing what they believe is right.

Secondly, being under a motorcycle implies great pain and disability.
Being a man of science as you are, you should require some evidence that religion does cause great pain and disability to the average believer before claiming so.
This isn't substantial evidence, but as I look around me I see alot of happy religious people with very little limit to their lives due to their religion in the west.
There should also be some evidence that arguing with the person is the best way to free them of their burden (from my anecdotal experience, it's not. I have de-converted someone before).

To play along with the analogy anyway, it's like running up to the motorcycle without first working out the best way to remove it and instinctively trying to kick it off while judging the person trapped for being in that position (without knowing what led them there).


P.S. I dislike analogies. Best tool for deception since false analogies are often hard to spot without careful thought.
The only place to use them is when something is too technical for the listener.
Otherwise, if something can be explained in a true analogy, then you shouldn't need an analogy to explain it in the first place.

You're mixing cause and effect. Ideologically, "us vs. them" arises from a complete lack of principles, there are no external standards or proof between religions, just my fantasy vs. your fantasy. Conflict is inevitable when both sides' screwed up livelihoods depend on the general acceptance of particular flavors of nonsense.

Apologies, but I wasn't able to follow which cause and effect I mixed.

I disagree that it comes from a lack of principles.
I think it's a natural human response when we feel something that's part of our identity being threatened.
That's why directly attacking someone's beliefs/race/other promotes this mentality.

Conflict isn't inevitable. Proof is in the west where religious and non religious people get along fine. People frequently de-convert just by being educated, learning about the world and getting to know people with all kinds of different views (hence the benefit of a tolerant society). Sometimes even intelligent peaceful conversation does it... but in my experience, rarely from aggressive argument because the person being attacked develops emotion even stronger to want to reject what you say.

My solution is introducing a class into school where children are taught critical thinking skills and emotional self-regulation skills. In my opinion this would be far more useful than most classes in the average western curriculum. Could prevent all kinds of mental illness and other issues as well as just making for a more scientific minded generation.

Without reason and evidence to resolve conflicts, society forms hierarchical pecking-orders of dominance and submission instead, it's embarrassingly primal.

If there was a clapping emotion, I would use it now. Excellent point. We need evidence to tell us how to resolve conflicts. Just like with religion, we should use evidence to tell us how to deal with it.
Not just use our instinct which tells us to run up and tackle it head on with aggressive arguments full of accusation and judgement.

Has there ever been a war between scientists? Of course not. If there are any disagreements in science then additional experiments are carried out. All scientists accept the same conclusions supported by incontrovertible reason and evidence.

The scientific community is a wonderful thing. It's a real golden age for discovery and thought.
Like anything though, It's not without its' flaws. The method just reduces bias, it doesn't remove it, so I would never use the word incontrovertible (even though I had to google it ).

Religion (like Statism) is just a collective delusion, it has no methodology for determining truth, anything goes. It is not harmless either, as I have alluded, children suffer the most under these garbage anti-philosophical systems.

I don't disagree with this, just with your emotionally driven unscientific approach to tackling it.

It does make them bad people (at least nowadays or when it's not a matter of survival) there's no excuse for failing to accept the many fallacies and contradictions contained within 'holy texts' - all the information they need to know is easy to find here on the internet.

You were fortunate enough to have the right genes and environment to eventually utilise the internet and learn to think critically on this topic, they weren't that lucky.
It doesn't make them bad people.
Just as it doesn't make you or I bad people that we hold a number of views that are incorrect or even harmful right this moment (we do).
We ALL have a lot to learn and we shouldn't point fingers at those who are behind us in certain aspects.
Religious parents are typically acting in good will by teaching it to their children.

Being quick to judge isn't very compatible with wisdom and generally finds its roots in emotional bias.

Bigoted irrationality (faith/patriotism) is a mental virus because it will only survive for a long as it is continually propagated within children. Otherwise it would literally cease to exist within a few generations.

That would imply that the default human without this "mental virus" is rational.
One alternative way of looking at it could be that we are only now able to overcome irrationality like religion because we are trained in critical thinking throughout our lives. Perhaps human nature tempts us more toward spectacular supernatural explanations? Just a thought.

Also, since when does being "misinformed" or "emotionally compromised" make child abuse acceptable?

Never. But it became a reason not to judge them the moment we realised that it's more beneficial to work with people who have issues or limitations than to blame them.
If they commit acts that aren't compatible with a peaceful society then we punish them through the judicial system as a preventative measure. Not as revenge or because they "deserve" it.

Check again, I never called anyone an idiot. Stop attaching your sense of identity to faulty beliefs and you might not feel insulted when those beliefs are rightfully challenged.

My apologies, you said what they believe is idiotic, not them.
I'm sure I didn't come across as insulted in that post. I'm not even a member of the belief group that you were insulting.

I'm not particularly sure which faulty belief of mine you're referring to that I'm attaching my identity to. But I'd be very willing for you to point it out. I'm also of the philosophy that having strong emotional attachment to beliefs is harmful. So help improving is always welcome.
Unless maybe you mean my belief that aggression is not the best way to tackle irrationality? I'll think about that. But I think it's certainly a more substantiated view than the opposing.


I tend to find that the stronger we feel about something, the more likely we are to be wrong (because bias only comes from emotion). So I usually try to use it as a red flag when I feel strongly about something, to take a step back and try as best I can to objectively scrutinise that belief. Although being human, I often allow biases to sneak up on me without recognising them.
Some of your language gave the impression that you might have some strongish emotional attachments to your beliefs about religion? Might be worth taking that as an opportunity to scrutinise that belief and do a re-take. Even if you come to the same conclusion, you might have a more productive or less emotionally attached take on it afterwards.

Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent man and has powerful verbal skills. But you couldn't say that he's the best at putting aside his emotions on topics he feels passionate about. There are wiser men than him in these intellectual fields.
(Forgive me if I incorrectly assumed you are a fan, some of your terminology seemed plucked straight from his books (i.e. mental virus).

Don't take that I chose your points to pick at personally or get defensive. I engaged you because it's worth it as you value scientific reasoning. Meaning you probably have alot of potential and desire to expand your wisdom and better ability to point out and improve flaws in my own thinking where emotion seeps in.

I think it is typical of someone when they discover atheism to become an evangelist for the cause, especially if they were initially tortured as a child by some of the worst ideas invoked by religion. They even have a name for it, new atheism. There's this feeling that logic is the highest attainment of human beings but in reality, anyone who tells you they are completely logical without a hint of feeling is full of it. It's not that they don't have feelings - they are repressing them, and it is grossly unhealthy.

That being said, I describe myself as not an atheist or a new atheist, but a post-atheist.

This.
But I don't think it's necessarily people who suffered a great deal as a child due to religion.
Truth be told, Lars just reminds me of myself several years ago when I was new to irreligion. It's just exciting being right with actual evidence for a change, and you want to shove it in everyone's face.
In my upbringing I certainly didn't have any experiences you could put the word "torture" to. My parents are quite committed Christians and were great parents and very moral people.

 

[LarsINTJ]

@ Neanderthal
Passion is a tool often used by irrational people, yes, that doesn't make passion irrational.

Relativism is the bane of human society in whatever form it might take, I will not pretend to tolerate child abuse for the sake of people-pleasing. It is a matter of principle, not consequence. There's nothing unsavory about passionately defending those who don't have a voice and never had a choice.

Here's one of the main issues regarding the acceptance of religiosity - victims are largely oblivious to the kind of damage they experienced as kids and there's no way of knowing how they could have turned out better. In the case of Christianity, it's also common to bury psychological issues for fear of appearing discontent (a sign of wavering faith). It's all deeply disturbing.

I appreciate the effort Dawkins puts in to combat religion, but he's just as irrational as those he attacks when it comes to ethics, rather typical.

 

[Neanderthal]

@ Neanderthal
Passion is a tool often used by irrational people, yes, that doesn't make passion irrational.

It's not used as a tool by irrational people. It's what causes irrationality (if we let it). Emotions compromise reason.

Relativism is the bane of human society in whatever form it might take, I will not pretend to tolerate child abuse for the sake of people-pleasing. It is a matter of principle, not consequence. There's nothing unsavory about passionately defending those who don't have a voice and never had a choice.

Someone could probably make a decent argument that if you taught this stuff to your kids it would be similarly harmful to them as religion. (There's probably mountains of evidence of intolerant judgemental fathers raising children with more mental health issues).

Your insistence about how catastrophically harmful it is to teach kids religion is still unsubstantiated. It's certainly what you want to believe though.

Here's one of the main issues regarding the acceptance of religiosity - victims are largely oblivious to the kind of damage they experienced as kids and there's no way of knowing how they could have turned out better. In the case of Christianity, it's also common to bury psychological issues for fear of appearing discontent (a sign of wavering faith). It's all deeply disturbing.

It doesn't matter. Pointing the finger doesn't help, aside from to boost your ego.
Being tolerant and working with them to progress society appears to be the best way to slowly overcome this issue, based on what limited evidence we have to go on.

One way we gather evidence on how kids may develop differently is with studies on those with religious vs non-religious upbringings.

I appreciate the effort Dawkins puts in to combat religion, but he's just as irrational as those he attacks when it comes to ethics, rather typical.

I'm not a fan Dawkins but I'm fascinated to hear what you mean about him being ethically irrational?

 

[Articablack]

1): What would you count as satisfactory evidence for the existence of some God?
I would only assume that satisfactory evidence required to prove an existence of a God is some form of communication from said God.

2): What would you count as satisfactory evidence for the existence of a specific God? (Like the God of the Bible, for instance.)
Textual criticism to prove prophetic statements would determine which specific God had it right in my mind.

 

[LarsINTJ]

@ Neanderthal
There's nothing irrational about emotions. Rationality vs. irrationality is about truth vs. falsehood, not calm vs. passion. A disregard for valid internal experiences demonstrates a lack of empathy.

As I've mentioned before, if you have a problem with what I'm saying then address it directly, don't just sit atop your relativistic high-horse while taking the idea of tolerance for granted as if you have a point. God, heaven and hell do not exist, that is a fact. Lying to your kids about the fundamental nature of reality is abuse.

Objective ethics defines what is evil under any circumstance by universally acknowledging the axiom of self-ownership and by extension, the Non-Aggression Principle. Relying on arbitrary commandments is not only unnecessary, but counter-intuitive.

Dawkins is the same as most atheists who transfer their irrational allegiance away from religion toward the state. I'm not sure if he's a socialist, but it sure seems like it. To clarify, government is a predatory institution designed to exempt self-interested rulers from the laws they enforce upon their human livestock, a driver of social problems, not a solution. I know it's difficult to break through propaganda, but this is neither the time or the place.

 

[Articablack]

@ Neanderthal
God, heaven and hell do not exist, that is a fact. Lying to your kids about the fundamental nature of reality is abuse.

What do you mean by lying?

Surely some people believe that God, heaven, and hell exists, would telling your kids about these mean you're lying to them if one truly believes in that?

 

[LarsINTJ]

What do you mean by lying?

Surely some people believe that God, heaven, and hell exists, would telling your kids about these mean you're lying to them if one truly believes in that?

Truth is relative to reality, not preference. The degree of obsessive devotion to crazy makes no difference, it's still a lie. Faith is a willful denial of ignorance framed as virtue.

 

[Articablack]

Truth is relative to reality, not preference. The degree of obsessive devotion to crazy makes no difference, it's still a lie.

So by your definition, one cannot know the truth and still end up lying?

What if you're wrong about God, Heaven, and Hell? Then by your definition, you're lying?

 

[LarsINTJ]

So by your definition, one cannot know the truth and still end up lying?

What if you're wrong about God, Heaven, and Hell? Then by your definition, you're lying?

Must I repeat myself?

Faith is dishonesty even if we disregard all the contradictions associated with the idea of God, there's no reason or evidence, just bigoted assertion. Lies relative to reality, not my or your preference.

To proclaim that you know X to be true when you're actually clueless relative to reality. Lying.

 

[Articablack]

Must I repeat myself?

Faith is dishonesty even if we disregard all the contradictions associated with the idea of God, there's no reason or evidence, just bigoted assertion. Lies relative to reality.

Well, that's not what I asked. I asked: "What if you're wrong?" You didn't seem to answer that, if you don't want to, you don't have to if it makes you uncomfortable.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Well, that's not what I asked. I asked: "What if you're wrong?" You didn't seem to answer that, if you don't want to, you don't have to if it makes you uncomfortable.

Religion provides false answers to the nature of the universe, atheism leaves the page blank while excluding logical impossibilities. I don't have an answer, so I can't be wrong.

If you wish to provide a case for the validity of square circles then go ahead, perhaps you can change my mind when it comes to logical impossibilities.

 

[Articablack]

Religion provides false answers to the nature of the universe, atheism leaves the page blank while excluding logical impossibilities like square circles. I don't have an answer, so I can't be wrong.

If you wish to provide a case for the validity of square circles then go ahead, perhaps you can change my mind.

I'm not the one making any claims here, I never said that there is or isn't God, Heaven, or Hell. I was only asking a question, you made the claim that there isn't a God. Since you don't have an answer for me, it doesn't make you impervious to being wrong, it makes you clueless, and as you said:

To proclaim that you know X to be true when you're actually clueless relative to reality. Lying.

 

[_Keno_]

Religion provides false answers to the nature of the universe, atheism leaves the page blank while excluding logical impossibilities. I don't have an answer, so I can't be wrong.

I agree with this, but your definition of 'lying' is terrible. Lying has the connotation of purposeful wrongness. A person who says "my religion is true" and has no reason or evidence, then assuming his religion is not actually correct, he is simply wrong.

You are also making the assumption "religion provides false answers" when you can't necessary be 100% sure of that. Rather, you can only say "you do not have proof of the truth of your answers."

 

[LarsINTJ]

I'm not the one making any claims here, I never said that there is or isn't God, Heaven, or Hell. I was only asking a question, you made the claim that there isn't a God. Since you don't have an answer for me, it doesn't make you impervious to being wrong, it makes you clueless, and as you said:

The burden of proof is on the people who assert the existence of zero-evidence contradictory entities, not the atheists.

@ _Keno_
Religion is purposeful wrongness relative to reality.

Pretending to understand what you do not understand/cannot explain relative to reality is dishonesty, i.e lying.

Granted, it can't be said that someone is lying about their subjective experience when it comes to religion just as we cannot disprove the content of someone else's dream, but it's a whole different story when that same religious person starts projecting their dream onto the rest of the universe as if it's real.

Regardless of future discoveries, religious people are still incorrect in their present beliefs. A cave-man who accidentally scratches e=mc² on a cliff-side understands nothing about the relationship between matter and energy, conclusions are meaningless without methodology.

Anyway, the potential of future discoveries can't be used as an excuse for agnosticism, that's not how science works. Science cannot be used to reverse the logical foundations of what is and is not possible, it simply builds upon what we already know to be true. It is quite reasonable to be 100% sure that god does not exist.

 

[Articablack]

The burden of proof is on the people who assert the existence of zero-evidence contradictory entities, not the atheists.

Incorrect, the burden of proof lies on those who make the claims. I haven't made any claims, I could be an atheist for all you know. You just can't relieve yourself from backing your statements because you say you're an atheist. If you want to talk continue to talk in circles and avoid my questions, I'll save you the trouble and just leave knowing you couldn't even understand what I was asking.

I mean, if you did, you'd understand what I was asking, right? Otherwise, you wouldn't be setting up all these Straw-Man arguments.

 

[_Keno_]

religion is purposeful wrongness relative to reality

How do you you presume to know what is wrong relative to reality? Just because they don't have compelling evidence doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong.

religious people are still incorrect in their present beliefs

The problem is you can't just discount all of their beliefs just because YOU personally believe they are wrong. I mean, I BELIEVE you are correct, but I can't presume to say that I KNOW reality better than anyone else.

 

[Neanderthal]

@ Neanderthal
There's nothing irrational about emotions. Rationality vs. irrationality is about truth vs. falsehood, not calm vs. passion. A disregard for valid internal experiences demonstrates a lack of empathy.

Reread my post please. For the third time, I didn't say emotion is irrational. I said it causes irrationality.
If you disagree, i'd be interested in your insight on the root cause of irrationality/bias?
If you're consistent with your previous posts, you'll say something out of your head while ignoring modern research.

No one should ever disregard or avoid their emotions. But we should be skeptical of them. Otherwise they often lead us astray if we allow oursves to get caught up in them.
The wisest are the ones who are skeptical of their own thoughts and feelings.

Saying things like "a disregard for internal experiences shows a lack of empathy" is bizare. I personally can't follow any logic in that and you clearly are not very well read in modern psychology to be saying these things. It's just thoughts that pop into your head.
Good example of why we need to be skeptical of our thoughts and feelings.

You figured out religion lacks evidence and suddenly you're an intellectual god despite not being very well read. Yet you speak like the authority on psychology while disagreeing with it's modern findings (hypocritical after condemning religious people for being ignorant to modern research contradicting their beleifs).

Propositions like mine above about emotion & reason, skepticism of thoughts/feelings, not avoiding emotion etc... are well grounded in modern psychology. I can give you sources if you request.

As I've mentioned before, if you have a problem with what I'm saying then address it directly, don't just sit atop your relativistic high-horse while taking the idea of tolerance for granted as if you have a point.
.

This is very hypocritical.
When I have talked about approach to religion I have stressed the need for evidence to determine how best to approach it.
And that the limited evidence we have suggests that tolerance is more productive than aggression.
To then say im the one sitting back on my high horse talking as though it's a given point just proves you haven't read what I've been saying or refuse to accept my points.
The only one making baseless claims while not requiring evidence is yourself.

God, heaven and hell do not exist, that is a fact. Lying to your kids about the fundamental nature of reality is abuse.

More of the same, claiming facts without evidence.
A god/creator is a very valid hypothesis that is given credibility in the scientific community. We don't know what caused the expansion of the universe.
Only the ignorant rule it out completely.

I also pointed out a number of hypocrisies and non-facts in my longer post which weren't answered, so I'll assume they were conceded.