This is topic I just don't like religion in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=053112

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
Whats the point serioudly
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
Excellent question. Let's all have a spirited debate on the subject, with much arguing and rebutting.

And if you're thinking of starting another thread, my I suggest as a title, "SEX!"
 

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
I would start it but i'm scared.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Speed:
Excellent question. Let's all have a spirited debate on the subject, with much arguing and rebutting.

And if you're thinking of starting another thread, my I suggest as a title, "SEX!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Speed:
Excellent question. Let's all have a spirited debate on the subject, with much arguing and rebutting.

And if you're thinking of starting another thread, my I suggest as a title, "SEX!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by T:man:
Whats the point serioudly

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Speed:
Excellent question. Let's all have a spirited debate on the subject, with much arguing and rebutting.

And if you're thinking of starting another thread, my I suggest as a title, "SEX!"

---

Arguing and rebutting... That's your idea of foreplay?

---

*dies laughing*
Let's not add another one of these threads to the forum, it's been rehashed way too many times.
 

---

Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
 
i like Religion
 

---

Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
 
I'm almost afraid to ask what "rebutting" is in the context of foreplay...
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carrie:
I'm almost afraid to ask what "rebutting" is in the context of foreplay...

---

When I first read his post (I skimmed the thread before my serioud read-through) that is exactly what popped into my head. "Rebutting? Oh, I wonder if he means... Or..."
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Speed:
Excellent question. Let's all have a spirited debate on the subject, with much arguing and rebutting.

And if you're thinking of starting another thread, my I suggest as a title, "SEX!"

---

Arguing and rebutting... That's your idea of foreplay?

---

*dies laughing*
Let's not add another one of these threads to the forum, it's been rehashed way too many times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carrie:
I'm almost afraid to ask what "rebutting" is in the context of foreplay...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_Somalian:
Religion gives many people comfort, fulfillment, and happiness.

---

quote:

---

I just don't like chocolate. Whats the point serioudly

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by luthe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_Somalian:
Religion gives many people comfort, fulfillment, and happiness.

---

So does chocolate, but you don't see nearly as many arguments about that.

---

Oh I don't know about that. Until everyone realizes that it just doesn't get better than dark chocolate, and even then it must be consumed sparingly, I don't think we will see an end to serioud conflict.
 

---

Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 
I have recently realized that I am an atheist. I quit my temple. But I still have a deep respect and interest in religion. So many people find comfort in it, and it has been a part of humany for thousands of years.
 

---

Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
 
Chocolate is ridiculously over-rated. Of all the tasty dessert flavors, I think of fruits, cinnamon, vanilla, spices, butter--all before chocolate. Best dessert: Apple Crisp, with a good amount of oatmeal in the brown sugar mix.
 

---

Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
 
Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my faith. Prepare to die!


I'm going to cry now, because after realizing that you don't like religion, I started to question my beliefs. As a result I no longer believe in god. Thank you for showing me the light.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I like religion just fine. I mean, as long as it's everyone's choice. Hooray religion! Except for scientology. Scientology can die on fire. Hooray fire!
 

---

Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
 
Hating on scientology? Oh how original.

IT'S NOT SO BAD IF YOU JUST GIVE IT A CHANCE.
 

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
Thank you, if this thread is stupid stop posting in it serioudly
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
"...21 percent of...atheists...believe in God...with 8 percent absolutely certain of it."

"I have recently realized that I am an atheist. I quit my temple."

Why? "...more than one in four Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, and Orthodox Christians expressed some doubts about God's existence, as did six in ten Jews..."
 

---

Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
Seems like some people have a pretty liberal definition of atheism.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
21 percent of people who don't believe the world is flat actually believe the world is flat.
 

---

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by luthe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_Somalian:
Religion gives many people comfort, fulfillment, and happiness.

---

So does chocolate, but you don't see nearly as many arguments about that.

---

Oh I don't know about that. Until everyone realizes that it just doesn't get better than dark chocolate, and even then it must be consumed sparingly, I don't think we will see an end to serioud conflict.

---

You and I need to start a cleansing - a cocoa-crusade, if you will. We can figure out a name that doesn't sound like a breakfast cereal later. There is important work to be done in the meantime. These heathens must be shown the light...err...dark.
 

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
I'm athiest we don't believe in god, Agnostics believe in god. They just aren't sure which religion is right about him.
 

---

Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
T:man, agnostics are undecided about their belief/disbelief in god (though they may lean towards one side).
 

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
Whatever
 

---

Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
 
You know.... I have a brother that says "whatever" and walks away when someone has just pointed out a mistake he made.
 

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
Does he do this *runs away unlocks bike and rides 20 miles away*
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
The point of religion is to help us understand the world, our role in it, and how we should act within it. It provides a framework within which the rest of one's life can be understood. Many people get this framework directly from religion by actively choosing to follow a religion. Some others get such a framework indirectly from religion, if they follow no particular religion but nevertheless accept a system of beliefs and values that originated in one or more religions. In either case, I think religion serves an important role of some sort.
 

---

Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
You guys! This is super duper serial!

-pH
 

---

Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
]Arguing and rebutting... That's your idea of foreplay? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by T:man:
Does he do this *runs away unlocks bike and rides 20 miles away*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Juxtapose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by luthe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_Somalian:
Religion gives many people comfort, fulfillment, and happiness.

---

So does chocolate, but you don't see nearly as many arguments about that.

---

Oh I don't know about that. Until everyone realizes that it just doesn't get better than dark chocolate, and even then it must be consumed sparingly, I don't think we will see an end to serioud conflict.

---

You and I need to start a cleansing - a cocoa-crusade, if you will. We can figure out a name that doesn't sound like a breakfast cereal later. There is important work to be done in the meantime. These heathens must be shown the light...err...dark.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eduardo St. Elmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Juxtapose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by luthe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_Somalian:
Religion gives many people comfort, fulfillment, and happiness.

---

So does chocolate, but you don't see nearly as many arguments about that.

---

Oh I don't know about that. Until everyone realizes that it just doesn't get better than dark chocolate, and even then it must be consumed sparingly, I don't think we will see an end to serioud conflict.

---

You and I need to start a cleansing - a cocoa-crusade, if you will. We can figure out a name that doesn't sound like a breakfast cereal later. There is important work to be done in the meantime. These heathens must be shown the light...err...dark.

---

If I tell you in all honesty that I have at this moment a 99% chocolate bar in my fridge, will this information absolve me for the upcoming cleansing?

---

quote:

---

some suitable kitchen apparel and a brush

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MightyCow:
21 percent of people who don't believe the world is flat actually believe the world is flat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
(However, I will join the crusade to eradicate those who worship the taint and blasphemy called White Chocolate)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
I will join the crusade to eradicate those who worship the taint and blasphemy called White Chocolate

---

More for me!
 

---

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
We might be able to recognize some kind of purgatory for those who renounce White Chocolate, but do not embrace the Dark.

I must consult with the Chocouncil.
 

---

Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
I will join the crusade to eradicate those who worship the taint and blasphemy called White Chocolate

---

More for me!

---

Not if I beat you to it!
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*shares*
 

---

Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
 
*hugs*
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 
I am a religious Jew: I practise, I take my philosophical commitment to the traditional oral law seriously, and I spend much of my time studying religion and not for the simple reason that I was "told to do it" (I passed through an atheist phase in the past). But seriously? One of the things that scares me most - as a person who regards himself religious - is the following paragraph:

"By many measures, Americans are strongly religious: 92 percent believe in God, 74 percent believe in life after death and 63 percent say their respective scriptures are the word of God."

Those numbers are way, way too high (in my opinion) for a healthy society in the 21st century.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan S (Member # 11661) on :
 
Wow...I love the sense of humor you guys have. I think I'm going to thoroughly enjoy posting here.

On a serious note, though, I've had non-denominational Protestant beliefs all my life. My religion has definitely given my life greater direction and purpose. Much to my chagrin, I also allowed it to make me narrow-minded and judgmental. This is something that can happen easily with religion, and something I've worked on overcoming since I was introduced to a new environment in college.

I believe that the simple core of Christianity is love, and I try to live around that. I can think of no way that this is negative. While there are many commandments, certain things we should or shouldn't do according to my religion, above all we're meant to love each other. The point of religion, to me, is to become closer to our Creator, and to build healthy relationships with our fellow man (and woman).

As for chocolate, I pretty much enjoy it all (at least, all that I've tried). I think Turtles are my favorite chocolaty (is that correctly spelled, or even a word?) food. Oh, and Andes.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Jonathan H, how are your first sentence and your last remotely consistent?
 

---

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
Welcome to Hatrack, Jonathan S.
 

---

Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
 
I personally belive that religion and such as, and people out there in our country dont have religion, and I personally belive that we should help Asia and South Africa.

I suppose you watched miss north carolina on youtube.com Or maybe it was south carolina?
 

---

Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
Welclome Jonathan S! How did you hear about us?
 

---

Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
 
Hello Jonathan. Have a nice time here!
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonathan S:
I believe that the simple core of Christianity is love,

---

quote:

---

"By many measures, Americans are strongly religious: 92 percent believe in God, 74 percent believe in life after death and 63 percent say their respective scriptures are the word of God."

Those numbers are way, way too high (in my opinion) for a healthy society in the 21st century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:

quote:

---

"By many measures, Americans are strongly religious: 92 percent believe in God, 74 percent believe in life after death and 63 percent say their respective scriptures are the word of God."

Those numbers are way, way too high (in my opinion) for a healthy society in the 21st century.

---

Why?

---

He seems to equate lack of religiosity with societal health. I would tend to agree, but only when that lack of religiosity is due to the free choice of the masses, not enforced.

Which is really how I feel. While I would like it if more people were atheists (as I happen to think that atheism is the truth), I'm used to living in a country with a majority of religious believers.

As long as religions don't become enforced or outlawed (beyond the occasional outlawing of certain religious practices that cause definite harm), I'm fine with it.

For the most part, I like you religious people.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

My religion has definitely given my life greater direction and purpose.

---

quote:

---

I believe that the simple core of Christianity is love, and I try to live around that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by luthe:
In the village of Nazareth in Galilee, there lived a young virgin named Mary. She was engaged to Joseph, a descendant of King David.

One day God sent the angel Gabriel to visit Mary. He appeared to her and announced,

“Congratulations, Mary! The Lord is nougat. You are truly blessed!”

Mary was confused by what he said.

“Don’t be scared, Mary,” said Gabriel. “God has wonderfully blessed you. You will give birth to a baby nougat. You will name him Jesus. He shall be called the nougat of God. God will give him a throne of nougat and his nougat will never end!”

“How can I have a nougat without a husband?” asked Mary.

Gabriel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and nougat you. And God’s Word will become a nougat inside of you. The child will be the perfect, sinless nougat of God.”

---

quote:

---

He seems to equate lack of religiosity with societal health. I would tend to agree, but only when that lack of religiosity is due to the free choice of the masses, not enforced.

---

quote:

---

But this sentence would make just as much sense if in place of 'Christianity' it read 'Communism', 'Scientology', or indeed 'chocoholism'.

---

quote:

---

Christianity isn't the only thing in the world that has a statement about love at its core.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
Well, what of it? I'm sure you would also love to have a million dollars; that has nothing to do with what's true. I suggest you get over your moral angsting about what you would like to believe, and go live your life with what you actually do believe. It'll be much more productive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
Well then, what are you complaining about? Go do something useful!

---

I was just trying to say religion is not for everyone... You can like religion but not belive in God. Why are you so angry with me? Dont be. Dont shout. Peace and love.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 

quote:

---

But because all humans agree that love is a good thing, we tend to identify whatever our central belief system is as the source of our loving.

---

quote:

---

Supposing Jonathan S stopped being a Christian, would his love for his fellow man thereby become less?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
Right enough, and how much time do you actually spend thinking about pink elephants? Short of clinical depression, we have considerable amounts of control of where we want our thoughts to go.

---

quote:

---

But in any case that has nothing to do with the question of how Jonathan S, the actual person posting right here, would change if he abandoned his religion.

---

quote:

---

But if Christianity had never existed in the first place, Jonathan S would have grown up in a family and environment that would have held very different ideas about love...

---

quote:

---

I agree - but the question is not how Jonathan would change if he abandoned his religion.

---

That is the question I asked. If you want to answer some different question, that's up to you. I won't be listening, though.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan S (Member # 11661) on :
 
Thanks for the welcome, guys! I discovered the forums because I've read and enjoyed many of Mr. Card's books and was exploring his website. I didn't actually hear about the forums specifically, I just stumbled across them. It seems like a nice community, though. Though I know a few, I don't know very many people who have read his works, so it's nice to be among those who have.

I love the nougat response, Javert. That cracked me up.

You pose some thought-provoking questions, King of Men. I appreciate that. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking, so if my responses don't answer your questions, feel free to clarify, expand, etc. until they do.

I've been raised in my religion, so it's true that I can't compare myself to an atheist version of myself. What I can compare myself to is those times of doubt over Christianity. I feel it's natural to doubt and question what we're taught to believe, if only to find that we can strengthen those beliefs by analyzing them. I found that in those times, I lacked peace. I lacked motivation. Now, is Christianity every part of my life? Certainly not. I'm not a perfect Christian, nor do I claim to be. However, my beliefs are strong, and I can say with confidence that I'm much more peaceful when I follow those beliefs than when I don't. That's as close as I can come to the standard atheist version of myself, as you put it. The times when I grow frustrated by the limits of Christianity. I always find myself coming back, with stronger beliefs.

As for what part of my life would change from being a Christian to a Moslem...hmm. I must admit that I'm not as knowledgeable about other religions as maybe I should be. It's not a lack of respect for them, it's just a firm belief in my own. However, I think the defining aspect is in the name of the religion. CHRISTianity. The perfect sacrifice of Christ is the best example of love that I can imagine. That's what I try to follow, and that's an example that is not displayed in Islam. This is not to say that there aren't fine examples there, as there may very well be. But it's not the same one, so my understanding and example of love would be different. As Tresopax pointed out, some people think it's wrong to love evildoers, and those who are different. By Christ's example, we're instructed to love everybody.

Thanks again for asking this stuff. I used to get offended, for some reason, when people would question my beliefs. I appreciate it now, because you're forcing me to think about why I believe what I believe.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonathan S:
You pose some thought-provoking questions, King of Men.

---

Ah newbies.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

That's what I try to follow, and that's an example that is not displayed in Islam.

---

You realize that many Muslims would disagree with you?
 

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jonathan S:
You pose some thought-provoking questions, King of Men.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah newbies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hee hee I just ignore him.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 

quote:

---

That is the question I asked. If you want to answer some different question, that's up to you. I won't be listening, though.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But if Christianity had never existed in the first place, Jonathan S would have grown up in a family and environment that would have held very different ideas about love...

---

Like...?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:
Well, for instance, without the existence of religion I suspect most people in our culture would show far less unconditional love towards unrelated fellow human beings - particularly those who are different or considered of a lower class.

---

quote:

---

I think you misunderstood my argument. I was not saying "Christianity is not unique in being about love". Rather I was saying "Christianity is not about love, any more than these other things are".

I identify him by pointing to the statistics showing atheists to give just as much to charity, being less violent and less given to divorces, and so on.) Therefore, it is not his Christianity that leads to his love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonathan S:
The perfect sacrifice of Christ is the best example of love that I can imagine. That's what I try to follow, and that's an example that is not displayed in Islam.

---

Yeah, I'm sure there's nothing in the Muslim religion about the glory of martyrdom.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan S (Member # 11661) on :
 
To Tom and Speed:

I see your points, and apologize for my lack of clarity. What I meant by that was that the exact same example didn't exist in Islam. I fully agree that the same TYPE of example exists. I was talking about specifics. I meant that they didn't have the Christ example.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Well, for instance, without the existence of religion I suspect most people in our culture would show far less unconditional love towards unrelated fellow human beings - particularly those who are different or considered of a lower class.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Speed:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonathan S:
The perfect sacrifice of Christ is the best example of love that I can imagine. That's what I try to follow, and that's an example that is not displayed in Islam.

---

Yeah, I'm sure there's nothing in the Muslim religion about the glory of martyrdom.

---

Yeah, the suicide bombers in Iraq are doing it all out of love...
 

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
The love for their 72 virgins!
 

---

Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
 
Well, to love such strangers must be unconditional!
 

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
I've just noticed not one of my friends ar athiests its wierd 2 of them are muslims and 3 of them are catholic/protestentant.
 

---

Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
 
When I was growing up, my friends included a couple of Hindus, two Buddhists, a few Catholics, at least two Muslims, and a whole lot of Jews. Any atheist friends? Sure, those were the Jews and Buddhists. I think my family is still probably the only Protestant household on the block. It was a very interesting experience, growing up with so much spiritual diversity.
 

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
Fogot the numerous jewish dudes
 

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
First and unhundreth post Yay
 

---

Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonathan S:

I believe that the simple core of Christianity is love, and I try to live around that.

---

quote:

---

These questions changed my belief completely.

---

quote:

---

As far as I can tell, this is a reasonable statement, since (according to Christian belief and the book of I John) God is love

---

quote:

---

What I can compare myself to is those times of doubt over Christianity.

---

quote:

---

The perfect sacrifice of Christ is the best example of love that I can imagine. That's what I try to follow, and that's an example that is not displayed in Islam.

---

quote:

---

I think trying to explain and over-ride individuals' self diagnosis of how religion has either benefited or hurt them is about as accurate as telling someone how much pain they are in.

---

quote:

---

Evolution and Creation both give accounts as to where life first come from.

---

Well, no. The theory of evolution makes no statement on the origins of life.
 

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
Exactly, just how life became complex.
 

---

Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
 
ok. I guess I shouldn't have generalized.

Am I wrong in saying that it gives an idea as to where it comes from?
 

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
Read the Koran, the Bible and the Torah they were boring.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Am I wrong in saying that it gives an idea as to where it comes from?

---

quote:

---

Read the Koran, the Bible and the Torah they were boring.

---

quote:

---

This was me thinking about my summer school class for a hour and a half, kay I'm 15 these are just my thoughts.

---

quote:

---

He does service projects all the time, donates to charity, treats his family with respect and love, none of which he did while agnostic.

---

quote:

---

Is it your contention that a statistically significant percentage of people in our culture show unconditional love towards fellow human beings of lower status or significant difference? That has not been my observation.

Myself, I believe a significant percentage of people attempt to demonstrate that love when reminded of the possibility without feeling it for a moment.

---

quote:

---

you have to take into account that 'Evolution' in general discourse refers to 'the naturalistic explanation of biology',

---

quote:

---

It is good to reform. How many of these actions depend on a belief in the existence of a god, as opposed to signalling effects from desiring status in his new community?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
What new community? The Christian community? The one he joined because he now believes in God? In that case, even if you're right and all good acts are based on gaining prestige in the community, they're still a result of his new belief.

---

quote:

---

From which we conclude that not only is Christianity love, but <any ideology I happen to like> is also love.

---

quote:

---

It's not a very useful definition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
What new community? The Christian community? The one he joined because he now believes in God? In that case, even if you're right and all good acts are based on gaining prestige in the community, they're still a result of his new belief.

---

Of course they are.

But had he wanted to join that community, or a similar one, and the belief of god not been a part of it, would any of his actions have been different? I would guess not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scholarette:
I think that deciding that you want to do good things is enough, but I think that some people do change because of God. If someone says their motivating factor was God, why should that be doubted? You don't have to personally believe in God to accept that the belief in an all powerful being is a motivating factor for someone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a bunch of other guys:
I think that deciding that you want to do good things is enough...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by a bunch of other guys:
I think that deciding that you want to do good things is enough...

---

Have any of you guys heard of dieting? Exercise? Writing novels??? You can decide to do x, but it takes more than that decision to actually do x.

Same with religion. Opening oneself to God takes faith, love, patience, and repentance. None of those are particularly easy, even if someone decides to get more involved with a religion.

---

quote:

---

Clearly it's possible to do difficult things without believing in a Supreme Being.

---

Nothing C3PO said contradicts that.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Except the part with "Opening oneself to God"
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Except the part with "Opening oneself to God"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

you have to take into account that 'Evolution' in general discourse refers to 'the naturalistic explanation of biology',

---

No it doesn't. That's mostly just your personal definition.

---

quote:

---

We've been over this before. educated discussion about evolution does not mistakenly assume that abiogenesis is part of evolutionary theory. And if someone points out that abiogenesis is not part of the science of evolution to someone who hasn't figured that out yet, that's not 'pedantic' so much as it is being correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
Educated discussion about evolution does not mistakenly assume that abiogenesis is part of evolutionary theory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
He said opening oneself up to God is hard and requires four things, none of which are God.

---

quote:

---

Me not argue none good, but doesn't opening oneself to God require that there be a God to open oneself to?

---

quote:

---

Me not argue none good, but doesn't opening oneself to God require that there be a God to open oneself to?

---

quote:

---

Obviously they're engaging in delusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
But no, merely being "open to God" doesn't imply delusion anymore than being open to any message or experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
What new community? The Christian community? The one he joined because he now believes in God? In that case, even if you're right and all good acts are based on gaining prestige in the community, they're still a result of his new belief.

---

I rephrase my objection, because it has become more clear in my own head. You have identified a correlation:

a) Your father converted to Christianity
b) He became a better person.

You have yet to show the causation; in particular, you need to show that there was not an event c, such as for example

c) Your father took a long look at his previous behaviour

which caused the other two. Or for that matter, b might have caused a; it is quite possible that your father believed in the Christian god all his life, but didn't feel worthy to join a church, or thought that its members would judge him badly, or something of that sort. (I know that Christians profess that their churches are for everyone including bad people; that's not the same as saying that Eowyn's father both knew this and believed it.)
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
KoM, what caused "c"?

Threads like this will never cease. I still read them, but I stopped participating in them most of the time because I realized that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

You can be an atheist and still not have an answer to how abiogenesis came about.

You can be believe in a supernatural being, believe in evolution and believe the supernatural being brought about abiogenesis.

You can not believe in evolution and believe in total creationism.

There are multiple theories out there, but with the current amount of knowledge we possess, can any of those theories be proved or disproved within a shadow of a doubt? Not really.

Not to say it's not worth discussing, but it certainly seems like certain people in this thread can't discuss the subject without expressing ultimate scorn toward any idea that is not their own.

Isn't it possible that what you believe could be horribly wrong? I'm not saying that you have to respect all other ideas, but is it really necessary to disrespect somebody for believing something that you find ludicrous or impossible?
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

KoM, what caused "c"?

---

quote:

---

There are multiple theories out there, but with the current amount of knowledge we possess, can any of those theories be proved or disproved within a shadow of a doubt? Not really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick:
You can be an atheist and still not have an answer to how abiogenesis came about.

---

quote:

---

You can be believe in a supernatural being, believe in evolution and believe the supernatural being brought about abiogenesis.

---

quote:

---

You can not believe in evolution and believe in total creationism.

---

quote:

---

There are multiple theories out there, but with the current amount of knowledge we possess, can any of those theories be proved or disproved within a shadow of a doubt? Not really.

---

quote:

---

Isn't it possible that what you believe could be horribly wrong?

---

quote:

---

I'm not saying that you have to respect all other ideas, but is it really necessary to disrespect somebody for believing something that you find ludicrous or impossible?

---

quote:

---

There is a difference between respecting a person's right to express their opinion, respecting the person, and respecting the opinion itself.

Rejecting the third is not at all the same as rejecting the first two.

---

I know that, but it seems all three have been rejected. Ridiculing somebody's opinion to the extreme can be ridiculing the person by extension sometimes too. Comparing Christian beliefs to chocolate is one such example.

Basically, I'm not really taking a stand on the topic so much as I am saying that the arrogance and condescension is thick in the air, cut it out.

That being said, I'm not really directing it toward anyone in particular, just stating an observation I've made in reading this thread.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

KoM, I didn't say any of those were what I believed, they were hypotheticals.

---

quote:

---

Comparing Christian beliefs to chocolate is one such example.

---

quote:

---

because millions of people find greater fulfillment in their beliefs than they do in chocolate

---

quote:

---

Does religion offend you?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
But no, merely being "open to God" doesn't imply delusion anymore than being open to any message or experience.

---

Fair enough, but how many people who make a point of being 'open to God' also do not claim to have received a message?

---

quote:

---

Millions (maybe Billions) of people find greater fulfillment in Chocolate than in Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
That's such baloney, KoM.

To begin with, pleasure is not the same thing as fulfillment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
Yes, and I already took that into account with my 90% guesstimate. What's more, the assumption that all Christians get positive fulfillment from their faith is clearly untrue.

Duh.

---

quote:

---

How dare you denigrate the fulfillment Christians find in their path of choice?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
How dare you denigrate the fulfillment Christians find in their path of choice?

---

quote:

---

I do not see any reason for this to be so

---

quote:

---

Who was talking about respect?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by T:man:
Whats the point serioudly

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:

quote:

---

How dare you denigrate the fulfillment Christians find in their path of choice?

---

KoM was echoing and attempting to diminish this sentiment by substituting chocolate for religion. It was satire. Responding to satire with the sentiment being satired seems... odd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:
But for what it is worth, to a religious person, religion is a very different thing than chocolate-loving is for a chocolate lover

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
How would you know? Are you reading the minds of the chocolate lovers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pegasus:
Considering that Tresopax has made statements that suggest he is religious, and you have provided a guesstimate that 90% of people like chocolate, there would seems to be a likely chance that Tresopax is simply reading his own mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
[People who do not form their beliefs in accordance with evidence offend me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick:
Why? I believe blue is the best color! How can I possibly present evidence of that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick:
If a person said they believed in the Bible, the Koran or other such religious book, why can't you simply think they're a fool and move on with your life?

---

quote:

---

[People who do not form their beliefs in accordance with evidence offend me.

---

quote:

---

How would you know? Are you reading the minds of the chocolate lovers?

---

quote:

---

I won't speak for KOM, but I personally don't have a problem with people believing in unknowable things as long as it results in overall good, and as long as they keep it to themselves. When they attempt to legislate their belief systems, or attempt to hold back knowledge and societal advancement, or use their beliefs as a justification for violence and hatred, then it's a huge problem.

It's a greater problem than similar bad behavior based on rational choices rather than beliefs, because you have a chance to convince someone that their rational beliefs are incorrect with counter evidence.

---

quote:

---

Before I go and type a really long post, let me ask really quick - If I say that I am unequivocally convinced that I, as an individual, find a much greater amount of fulfillment in my Christianity than chocolate, would anyone argue with me?

---

quote:

---

Both the religious and nonreligious use reason to go about deciding what is right and wrong, but ultimately must base their reasoning in a set of starting assumptions.

---

quote:

---

Get over it. Their lives are not about you.

---

quote:

---

False and deliberately rude analogy, Tom, born from a lack of understanding of the motivation for missionary work.

---

quote:

---

I would not. I would point out that your fulfillment has nothing to do with the truth, or the goodness, of your beliefs.

---

Would you accept that the reason I am fulfilled by my beliefs is because I believe in their truth and "goodness"? Again, I'm not asserting that they are true or good (though for the record I do believe they are ), I'm just saying that I believe they are, which explains my fulfillment.

Then you say my fulfillment is based on false assumptions or some variation of that.

Then I say they aren't necessarily false assumptions, though they are indeed astounding assumptions.

Then you say they are false assumptions, because there is no God (I know, you would be much more eloquent and convincing).

Then I say "You're assuming there is no God", a pithy comment I thought of by myself sitting here at work.

Then we agree to disagree ... or rather we just disagree, you thinking that I'm a serious detriment to the the health of you and society in general, me thinking that I'm glad God's existence isn't contingent on KoM.

I probably missed a few steps in the process, and I hopefully didn't represent you too grossly. I really am not trying to be argumentative or even particularly clever. Just efficient.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

Would you accept that the reason I am fulfilled by my beliefs is because I believe in their truth and "goodness"?

---

quote:

---

To not use religion, if your friendship with ... say, Wendy, causes you a moderate amount of fulfillment but your relationship with your wife causes you a lot more, isn't it proper to respect the relationship with your wife more?

---

quote:

---

But even to mention the possibility that a belief in gods ought to be founded on some sort of evidence is considered disrespectful!

---

quote:

---

if you want to get married you cannot simply choose any random person to marry and choose to make yourself be fulfilled by that person's company

---

quote:

---

But even to mention the possibility that a belief in gods ought to be founded on some sort of evidence is considered disrespectful! Much less pointing out that the said evidence does not exist.

---

quote:

---

But even to mention the possibility that a belief in gods ought to be founded on some sort of evidence is considered disrespectful!

---

quote:

---

Much less pointing out that the said evidence does not exist.

---

Obviously, this is where we differ, first because this is not encouraging people to examine their belief systems or their faith, second because the vast majority of those startling realizations I mentioned are not of the "Wow! God doesn't exist!", though to be fair that does happen.


Edit: Woot! ToPP!
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
The next time someone suggests any evidence for their faith that doesn't depend on internal mental states will be the first. Real evidence doesn't require you to be in a receptive mood to accept it; real evidence hits you over the head and forces you to accept it. That's why I can convince people of the existence of chocolate, but you can't convince anyone of the existence of your god unless they accept the evidence already, or you cheat by getting them young.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

That's why I can convince people of the existence of chocolate, but you can't convince anyone of the existence of your god unless they accept the evidence already, or you cheat by getting them young.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
The next time someone suggests any evidence for their faith that doesn't depend on internal mental states will be the first. Real evidence doesn't require you to be in a receptive mood to accept it; real evidence hits you over the head and forces you to accept it. That's why I can convince people of the existence of chocolate, but you can't convince anyone of the existence of your god unless they accept the evidence already, or you cheat by getting them young.

---

quote:

---

Proof and believe have nothing to do with each other.

---

quote:

---

Examples?

---

quote:

---

Real evidence doesn't require you to be in a receptive mood to accept it;

---

quote:

---

You may be able to find...

---

quote:

---

So do you think the only reason a gay person isn't fulfilled in a straight marriage would be because they have chosen not to be fulfilled by a member of the opposite sex?

---

quote:

---

Then there is the non-physical world.

---

quote:

---

Where? Point to it, please; or to its effects. If it has no effect, how can you say it exists? If it has effects, how is it nonphysical?

---

quote:

---

To me this particular story means that if you have faith you can do wonderful things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
bootjes:

Based upon what evidence do you hold that the feelings you feel are in fact some sixth sense about the non-physical world, and not, instead, those very real, very physical things called feelings and symbols and ideas, which are things that physically exist, recorded and occurring in your mind, but aren't indicative of anything more?

How do you tell the difference, then, between the fantasy worlds of fiction, the false worlds of people who are, in fact, in error, and this real, nonphysical world?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:

---

To me this particular story means that if you have faith you can do wonderful things.

---

This is interesting if true, but it is not outside the realm of the five senses. We can test if people with faith are more likely to get jobs, get married, get rich, be happy - whatever your particular wonderful thing is, we can see whether faithful people have more of it. Have you done so?

What is more, if your faith is nothing more than an average pep talk - "You must have faith in yourself or you can never accomplish anything" - then what does it have to do with the existence of gods? Presumably your faith is more than this, but you have not given any indication of that.

---

quote:

---

It doesn't really matter if it is true or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:

---

It doesn't really matter if it is true or not.

---

So you don't object, then, if someone reasons thusly:

1. God has told me to kill bootjes.
2. Therefore, I should kill bootjes.
3. It doesn't matter if 1 is true or not; what matters is the greater truth, which is that bootjes must die.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
I am quite interested in what you think on this subject.

---

quote:

---

I like the world with magic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:

quote:

---

I like the world with magic.

---

That people believe in the magic is not so much a problem. That people believe that the magic wants them to restrict the legal recognition of certain types of contracts...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
Let me see if I can pin down your beliefs a bit more precisely. Do you believe that

a) Jesus had useful things to say on human morality?
b) Jesus rose from the dead after three days, and performed other miracles during his lifetime?
c) There exists a god?
d) ...who sometimes answers prayers, or otherwise intervenes in the physical world?

As for preferring to live in a world with magic, pff. The world is just as magical without fairies.

---

quote:

---

The next time someone suggests any evidence for their faith that doesn't depend on internal mental states will be the first.

---

quote:

---

Real evidence doesn't require you to be in a receptive mood to accept it; real evidence hits you over the head and forces you to accept it.

---

quote:

---

The Bible

---

quote:

---

a Yes
b no, not as such

---

quote:

---

c Yes , but he is not the guy on the cloud.

---

quote:

---

d prayers: Yes, but most often not in the way people think they are

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:

---

The Bible

---

Is contradicted by the Elder Edda. Which one are you going to believe and why?

quote:

---

a Yes
b no, not as such

---

Ok, fine, this part has nothing to do with religion.

quote:

---

c Yes , but he is not the guy on the cloud.

---

Never mind the second clause. I don't care what you don't believe. Just what do you believe is the nature of this god, and why?

quote:

---

d prayers: Yes, but most often not in the way people think they are

---

Ah! A testable assertion! How then do you account for the fact that no study, ever, has has shown any effect from prayer above that of chance?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The Bible

---

Is contradicted by the Elder Edda. Which one are you going to believe and why?

---

quote:

---

One scientific study's conclusions conflicts with the results of another study; which do you believe and why?

---

quote:

---

One logical argument conflicts with the conclusions of a different logical argument; which do you believe and why?

---

quote:

---

One archeological dig leads to opposite conclusions about ancient man than artifacts found at an earlier dig do; which do you believe an why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:

quote:

---

You may be able to find...

---

I'd like to amend this challenge a bit. It's not hard to find a Christian that claims to have once been an atheist. Atheists of this sort are generally, to borrow and mangle a phrase, "Sunday atheists", who check "none of the above" or "atheist" on the census form, but who have not necessarily put much thought into their position.

I'd like to see evidence of the conversion, including thoughtful descriptions of their state of mind from both before and after the conversion process indicating that the individual truly understood and embraced the skeptical arguments against religion prior to their conversion and how they reconciled those arguments with their new reality.

There are multiple examples going the other way - virtually every atheist I know was once religious and can clearly explain why they believed in their religion and why they eventually came to disbelieve.

---

quote:

---

Now you see, you've become the judge of "truly understood and embraced".

---

quote:

---

My observation with atheism is that it's more often a gradual process, with fanatical Christians turning to Sunday Christians one generation, to "spiritual but not religious" the next, to Sunday atheists the next, and then finally to what you may consider true atheism.

---

quote:

---

What I said is that the atheists I know, for the most part, can state quite clearly how and why they believed - what their spiritual experiences were like and what they meant to them. They could also explain how these experiences were later discounted and discarded. This sort of clear narrative is very difficult to find amongst the atheist-turned-Christian convert.

---

quote:

---

The atheist-turned-Christians I've heard discuss the matter were able to explain their doubts and thoughts as atheists, and what experiences eventually let them to conclude God existed.

---

quote:

---

Most atheists I've known who switched from Christianity seem to be folks who went along with it as children but never really saw any evidence of God, and ultimately rejected idea - often because they began to get annoyed by the behavior of fellow Christians.

---

quote:

---

I cannot give KoM the logical answers he seeks. I can give personal answers.

---

quote:

---

MattP, you do seem to be edging into a "no true atheist" argument there.

---

quote:

---

Could you provide an example? Perhaps point to an online conversion story, or just summarize one you've been told?

---

quote:

---

Are you including the Hatrackers in this tally? There are several atheists here and I doubt *any* of them would indicate that their conversion was primarily because of annoyance with other Christians. That's a counter-logical justification that wouldn't likely turn up in the skeptical flavor of atheist that I mentioned. It's a reason to leave a congregation or quit a religion, not a reason to disbelieve in God.

---

quote:

---

Tres, please explain why you believe the Bible over the elder Edda.

---

quote:

---

KoM, your being able to understand why my belief in God makes sense to me would require a fundamental shift in how you think of God. Or rather, a fundamental shift in how you think I think of God. I don't think you particularly want to make that shift and I don't feel any particular need to try and make you.

---

quote:

---

I believe the Bible over the elder Edda because I don't know what the elder Edda says

---

quote:

---

Bing! Thank you for playing. Mental states, indeed: In this particular case, the mental state of having been exposed to the Bible but not the Eddas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
Fair enough, but now I have told you of the elder Edda. Why are you not rushing off to investigate this new piece of evidence?

Edit: What's more, you can hardly plead ignorance of the Koran, the various Buddhist texts, or the Hindu writings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
I am copying one of my posts from another thread in case the wording of it is helpful to bootjes.

quote:

---

KoM, your being able to understand why my belief in God makes sense to me would require a fundamental shift in how you think of God. Or rather, a fundamental shift in how you think I think of God. I don't think you particularly want to make that shift and I don't feel any particular need to try and make you.

---

Bootjes, if you have more energy for this than I do, go for it. I have been unable to shake KoM's "superman in the sky" idea of God.

---

quote:

---

Therefore I believe God is not a necessity for all.
Just for those who want to.

---

quote:

---

How can you believe in a god without any reason to think it exists?

---

Perhaps, consciously or not, God exists for these people as sort of an approximation of some inscrutable aspect of their psyche or the universe itself sort of how string theory and brane theory are mathematical models which are in accord with known laws of physics while being thus far untestable and therefore not strictly scientific.

They may be right or wrong but a conclusion on the subject is largely a matter of personal opinion, based more on how much sense they make to the individual than on empiricism.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
If kmb or bootjes would like to say "God is the name I give to certain aspects of how my mind works", I would have no quarrel with that. (Actually, I tell a lie. I would still think they were abusing the English language very badly. But at least they wouldn't be abusing the actual evidence.) But it seems to me that at least kmb, and proabbly bootjes, believe there is something external to their own minds, to which they give this name 'God'.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Both and more. External and internal. Cosmic and personal.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Ok, so following MattP, can I say that your god is the name you give to certain aspects of the universal laws? For example, some people believe that punishment for bad deeds is inevitable, and built into the fabric of the universe; and they give this perceived pattern the name 'karma'. (Yes, I know, I simplify.) is your god something similar to this?
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Not just that by any means. But that would be closer than the superman in the sky thing.

Lover, beloved, and love itself as one theologian (don't remember who, a Sufi I think) put it is one place to start too.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Do you believe that God is sentient and possessed of an individual will?
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Define "sentient" and "individual". I think "purposeful" would be true, and "aware". So probably yes to "sentient". "Individual" seems too small.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
All right, now we are getting somewhere. You believe (in part - I understand that we have not yet probed the fullness of your beliefs) that the Universe behaves in certain ways, and this behaviour is, or is caused by, what you call God. It seems to me that this is testable: To wit, we can check whether the universe really does behave as you say it does, if of course you are able to give any sort of specific description of that behaviour. Would you like to try doing so?
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
KoM, I still think that you are thinking of God as something separate from nature. If something can be explained by, say, gravity, you would say that isn't God. I would say that is God is in/with/of gravity and that gravity is with/in/of God. Mover, moved, and movement.

So how testable?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The universe has a brain, and it loves us.

 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, in that case we are back to me not understanding what you mean by 'belief'. How would a gravity without your god be any different from gravity with? Or how would your actions change if you did not believe this? I assume you are not asserting that your 'God' is just a different name for my 'Standard Model of physics'. But what is the difference?
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Tom,



Remembering, of course, that the universe is us, too.

*sings* We are the world.

KoM, Purpose. Joy. Stuff. Gratitude.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Just for a point of reference, I was a believing Christian, who argued for Christian beliefs both in person and online, and believed that I had experienced a direct, personal answer to a prayer at one time.

I later decided against all that stuff. I'm guessing I'm not alone.
 

---

Posted by bootjes (Member # 11624) on :
 
thanks kmbboots and mattp for expressing things along my line of thought. It is helpfull.

about prayer:
For me it is energy and attention used in a certain direction.

Example: in the “weird question” thread I was struck about the Lisa’s situation. I wished her the best. Praying is my way of putting my energy and attention to those wishes. I hope the energy will find a way to Lisa. I have no proof that it will, but giving it extra thought by praying is meaningful to me anyway. If Lisa understands this way of praying than it is meaningful to her too.
I added (if that is not offensive) because some not-religious people find it offensive if you do religious things for them. I don’t want to impose myself upon others.
 

---

Posted by bootjes (Member # 11624) on :
 
quote from KoM:
"Either your god exists or it doesn't. This is not something you can change by believing differently tomorrow"

yes you can. Didn't you read Peter Pan or see ET?

Everytime you stop believing a fairy dies.

Believing is creating.

The Matrix is another awsome example.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
You may have noticed that Peter Pan is found in the 'fiction' section of most bookstores. Nor was ET marketed as a documentary. But if you believe that your belief changes reality, then that does answer my question. Not in a pleasant way, unfortunately, but I understand the internal logic of your beliefs.
 

---

Posted by bootjes (Member # 11624) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
You may have noticed that Peter Pan is found in the 'fiction' section of most bookstores. Nor was ET marketed as a documentary. But if you believe that your belief changes reality, then that does answer my question. Not in a pleasant way, unfortunately, but I understand the internal logic of your beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Again KoM you are thinking of God as external. Because I believe, I behave a certain way that does indeed change the universe. That this seems ordinary and explainable does not mean it isn't God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
Now you appear to have reduced your god to your own belief in it. But above you said that it was also external to your mind. This appears inconsistent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by T:man:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T:man, your attempts to incite another legendary Hatrack religious debate crack me up! Nothing personal of course.

Perhaps if you want a spirited debate with witty logic and intense rebuttals, I suggest you starting us off. People aren't going to take "I just don't like religion" very "serioudly".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Worked Didn't it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
We necessarily reduce God when we talk about God. We can only imagine bits, so we talk about interact with the bits we can imagine. Often we make the mistake of thinking that is all there is, because that it all we can comprehend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MightyCow:
If God translates to "all that is, both internal to me and external to me" then when someone says, "God did something" it actually translates to "Things happen."

I'm not sure that renaming the universe and everything in it "God" has any purpose. Why not just call it the universe, and say, "Sometimes things happen in the universe."

---

"Things happen" implies random and purposeless. Not that there is a purpose to everything that happens, necessarily, but that there is a purpose. "Things happen" is passive.

Though sometimes things do happen. And things happen or are made to happen that are not in accordance with God. We are not finished yet.

ETA: That is not as concrete a question as you might think. The answer would be "yes" ultimately but not in the way we imagine it. The answer would also be, "not the point".

E(A)TA: Just time to throw in the caveat that I do not in any of this claim to speak for anyone but myself. And myself at this particular point in time.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Do you believe you can tell a purposeful event from a purposeless or non-accordingful (is that a word?) one? Do you believe you know (even a small part of) what the purpose is? If so, how? Can you give an example of a purpose-ful event outside your own mind?

Do you believe that the Apostles saw Jesus crucified, as described in the various gospels; saw him buried, likewise; saw him alive some days later, likewise?


It seems we are now down to "God is that which gives some events (internal and external) meaning, plus the incomprehensible part". Is that a fair summary?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Percieving mostly is being in the state of mind I described. So everybody can reach out and touch. It only becomes real if you do that.

---

Amusingly, this is precisely my philosophy, although I think I approached it from the exactly opposite direction: namely, the definition of the word "real" as applied to what Tres would insist are qualia.

quote:

---

It seems we are now down to "God is that which gives some events (internal and external) meaning..."

---

I suspect that for many believers, this is precisely their own sub- or semi-conscious definition of God -- which may well be the reason that so many believers have difficulty conceiving of atheism without nihilism.
 

---

Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
 
Perhaps there is no purposelessness (we're getting really liberal with made-up words around here, aren't we?), and therefore no need to distinguish purposeful events from things that just happen.

Jesus rose from the dead to:

1. Prove that in dying he triumphed over death. The disciples weren't very clear on this until he got them to feel around his hips (please don't misinterpret that sentence PLEASE!)
2. Get things going so that he can rejoin the Father and let the Great Commission get started.
3. Spread hope to all who hear the gospels (Messiah conquers death – that's pretty nice to hear)

If he had anything else in mind, I will repent for missing the point if ever such a revelation comes.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
"It seems we are now down to" shows me that you are not getting this. Narrowing God down is not the right direction. Which you would have figured out by now if you were going to.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Please substitute "My understanding of your definition of your god is now", if you prefer. The questions stand.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Try "my understanding of one small part of your understanding, which is itself a tiny part of an infinite God" is that God gives purpose - or perhaps is purpose.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Well, no. KoM is saying that he believes his understanding of your understanding of God is encapsulated in his "God is that which gives some events (internal and external) meaning..." statement, and moreover that he would like you to indicate the ways in which you feel that precis is incomplete. As a precis, mind you, and not as another pile of random superlatives.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 

quote:

---

Fair enough, but now I have told you of the elder Edda. Why are you not rushing off to investigate this new piece of evidence?

---

quote:

---

Edit: What's more, you can hardly plead ignorance of the Koran, the various Buddhist texts, or the Hindu writings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Try "my understanding of one small part of your understanding, which is itself a tiny part of an infinite God" is that God gives purpose - or perhaps is purpose.

---

quote:

---

The details of how long he was in the grave, what his body was like afterwards, what exact manifestation of this truth was apparent to the apostles is not what matters.

---

quote:

---

Again, let me try to make clear. I have no hope or desire to convince you or to make you understand the nature of God. I would like to make clear the utter impossibility of anyone, especially me, articulating the entire nature of God.

---

This is just as well. But you are perhaps misunderstanding the direction of my questions. I am trying to figure out how you justify your belief in your own mind. So far, all I can tell is that your belief is extremely strange, indeed.

Perhaps a better question for this purpose would be, why do you believe as you do about Jesus and death? How were you convinced of this in the first place?
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Tom, Short answer? I am, after some study and prayer, convinced that the Catholic faith is not dependent on a literal understanding of the gospels or even a fourth century understanding.

KoM, I don't believe that I have to fully understand something in order to believe in it.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
But, um....What actually makes it Catholic, then? What would distinguish your faith from that of a Unitarian?
 

---

Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
 
Bootjes: "The God that works for me does not do fantastical things in the physical world. It does things to my state of mind. I find inner peace. That is what I create by believing. The rest is toying or matter of speech. What is real is my state of mind. That is something that I can create. I can only create it for me by believing in God.

So ….

1. I want to believe in a god, because that will fill a hole in my life.
2. Therefore, I believe in a god.
3. Therefore, god exists. FOR ME, giving me a state of mind. And I don’t even need drugs to do this.

And the state of mind is awesome: Whenever I find it, its real peace and joy. An indescribable feeling. It’s not always easy to get there. I am often distracted by everyday worries. It’s also not something I need everyday. Just to know it’s there and I will get to it if I need it, reassures me.

That is how I create by believing.

It’s not all, but for now the best way I can put it.

So rest assured I do not believe I can believe you a motorbike as a birthday present.

Still think I’m mad?"

Firstly, and in all kindness(as I assume you strive for being proficient in english... what with your high quality of writing), 'proof' is a noun, while 'to prove', is a verb. So it would be "I cannot prove." Hope i'm not offensive.. it just seems to be recurring..

Bootjes, thank you for providing an explanation of what you think god is in even faintly comprehensible terms. No talk of "oh my, it's too big to describe." or simply "I don't have to explain this to you." I very strongly support something that can serve as a comfort to you as described. There is something that confuses me, though. You said that god exists for you because only such a profound concept could allow you to focus yourself on things you hold valuable in your life, such as peace and joy. Do you feel that the god you conceive could possibly have any DIRECT influence on the world, such as throwing a coffee cup? More importantly, (well... assuming you answer no to the prior question, if you answer yes, I'll be fascinated to hear that story)do you understand that by your very definition of God you describe him as a mental construct you find it useful to either compare yourself to, or hold yourself responsible to, or counsel yourself with? Do you believe that the sense of happiness you associate with god is from an external source, that you are being led into joy by anything other than yourself suddenly being willing to be joyful after conceiving of the idea that is God in your mind.

Without any elaboration on what you've said so far it appears to me that the use of the word God to describe what you are describing is nothing close to what you previously described (it being completely incomprehensible). It sounds far more like a lovely ideal to consider that is very valuable in being helpful to your life, but I see nothing supernatural! It is simply you need such a construct to bring certain benefits to your life and apparently I have similar analogous ones that I have not attached to supernatural overtones. I think I am baffled why you feel the need to describe what I quoted above with the word God.
 

---

Posted by bootjes (Member # 11624) on :
 
Reading kmbboots posts I could go to the same church as he.
My background is not catholic so I go to the remonstrant church: a Dutch version of the protestant church. They were thrown out in the 17th century, because they didn't believe in predestination.

A friend of mine is brought up catholic and goes to our church a lot. He likes the sermons which are of more meaning/content than in the catholic church. Every Sunday it gives you food for thought.

I go to the catholic church sometimes. What I like about that service is the use symbols. These help to reach out in a different way than with the mind, more from the heart so to speak.

So for me the difference between the churches is that of mind and that of heart. I like both. What I don't like about the catholic church is the hierarchy: the pope telling priests what to do. But a lot of Catholics I know feel like that too. They don’t leave the church because they feel at home there, which I understand. That is the same reason my friend (although attending my church) doesn’t become a member of it. He still has ties with the catholic faith.
 

---

Posted by bootjes (Member # 11624) on :
 
Starsnuffer:

thanks for the correction. (and for the compliment it includes)

And then again thanks for your understanding. It literally gives me goose bumps
_______________
Quote:
It sounds far more like a lovely ideal to consider that is very valuable in being helpful to your life,
___________________

This is the most important part of my belief. It’s what works.

The thing is: the state of mind I get is so very different form my state of mind when I am worried by everyday problems that it feels like it’s coming from outside.

Examples:

In the “God state of mind” I can really connect with people, be patient with their moods, see trough it. In my everyday sate of mind I can get annoyed by those same people.

In my everyday sate of mind I can hang on to how I want things to go, and get frustrated when they don’t. In the “God state of mind” the frustration is completely gone.

So it feels to me if God is helping me to percieve the world in a better way. This is also something I said in my initiation vows.

________________
Quote:
. . .that you previously described (it being completely incomprehensible. . .
________________________

If you mean the matrix thing:
That part is just private philosophy. My mind seeking ways that wonders can be true. So no wonder that is incomprehensible. It does not interfere of have any other influence on the first part of my religion.

And thanks to all of you. it's good to review your beliefs. You all have helped me do it (are helping me do it, I should say)

I went through this process in my initiation year. it's good to renew it now and then.
 

---

Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
 
I guess I'm actually ok with your belief. From what you've said lately it sounds like you believe in God, and it helps you out, but you don't claim that it is anything capable of extraordinary things. It does not compel you to terrible things such as the destruction of other people's rights(regarding gay rights, here). You don't, I don't think, disbelieve in evolution or geology, or paleontology for what your religion says, which is nice. I still feel that there are lots of silly things in Christianity, mainly belief in miracles and the like. I also maintain that there is no reason to assume that the feeling you prescribe to God is unique to God, that your choice of belief is in no way privileged over any other belief based on wishful thinking. I realize that your conception of god is necessary for you, and is not overtly trying to assert anything that contradicts evidence, and at that level, I am ok with it.

Wow. I have never understood this menagerie any better than this, though there isn't anything fantastical going on other than thinking that some external source is providing the comfort which (I believe) is coming from your own self esteem and thoughts.

Please, nobody think this is a conversion for me away from atheism, but an acceptance of this instance of belief in god.

[ July 03, 2008, 05:47 AM: Message edited by: Starsnuffer ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
KoM, I don't believe that I have to fully understand something in order to believe in it.

---

That is not what I asked.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
KoM, which question; I've lost track. I thought you were asking how I justify my belief.

Tom, the reason I am Catholic instead of say UCC for example, is the concept of sacrament.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

I thought you were asking how I justify my belief.

---

quote:

---

As I said before, this isn't a matter for evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starsnuffer:
I guess I'm actually ok with your belief. From what you've said lately it sounds like you believe in God, and it helps you out, but you don't claim that it is anything capable of extraordinary things. It does not compel you to terrible things such as the destruction of other people's rights(regarding gay rights, here). You don't, I don't think, disbelieve in evolution or geology, or paleontology for what your religion says, which is nice. I still feel that there are lots of silly things in Christianity, mainly belief in miracles and the like. I also maintain that there is no reason to assume that the feeling you prescribe to God is unique to God, that your choice of belief is in no way privileged over any other belief based on wishful thinking. I realize that your conception of god is necessary for you, and is not overtly trying to assert anything that contradicts evidence, and at that level, I am ok with it.

Wow. I have never understood this menagerie any better than this, though there isn't anything fantastical going on other than thinking that some external source is providing the comfort which (I believe) is coming from your own self esteem and thoughts.

Please, nobody think this is a conversion for me away from atheism, but an acceptance of this instance of belief in god.

---

quote:

---

To say that you know there was something, without providing any explanation of how you know there was something, is to say that you THOUGHT there was something. Feeling rather confident is NOT evidence. Your confidence in the fact that there is something does not constitute a reasonable explanation of why you should have confidence in the fact that there is something to have confidence in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
I don't have evidence for all my other beliefs either. Scientific method is great for a lot of things. It isn't the only way to understand everything.

---

quote:

---

Isn't it possible to know something without knowing how you know it or being able to prove that you know it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Different kinds of "truth". I don't think it is the only exception - I don't even think that there is a "rule".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
I don't have evidence for all my other beliefs either. Scientific method is great for a lot of things. It isn't the only way to understand everything.

---

The scientific method was invented precisely because intuition turned out to be such an unreliable way of getting at truths about the universe. Why do you believe that this is the one exception to that rule? People have 'intuited' all sorts of things; why should your intuition be so much better?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
There is scientific "true" but there are things that we experience that are not scientific.

---

What do you mean by 'truth' if not "corresponding to the real state of affairs"?
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I think you need to narrow down "real". Experiences are real.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
But you have already stated that you do not believe your god to exist only within your own mind.
 

---

Posted by bootjes (Member # 11624) on :
 
kmbboots:

thanks for taking the stick from me for a while.

The questions are coming like automatic guns. Where is the time when you had to reload after every single shot?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Isn't it possible to know something without knowing how you know it or being able to prove that you know it?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Isn't it possible to know something without knowing how you know it or being able to prove that you know it?

---

In a word, no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
You're asking me to prove a negative?

---

quote:

---

You're asking me to prove a negative?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:

quote:

---

You're asking me to prove a negative?

---

Yes. If you know it isn't possible, what is your proof that it isn't possible?

---

I know it isn't possible, but I don't know how I know that it isn't possible.
 

---

Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
 
Tresopax: "Yes. If you know it isn't possible, what is your proof that it isn't possible?"

WHO SAID IT ISN'T!!! All any of us have said, or what we meant to say, is not that it is impossible, just that there is no evidence to direct us in the direction of that belief, and much to point us away from it. Much to point us away from it I would call the historical use of religion to explain the unknowable, only to replace those religious beliefs regarding things such as lightning, astronomical motion, and fire with scientific explanations. I would also argue that we should stray away from religious explanations of things as they seem exceedingly improbable next to a simple extension of current scientific knowledge. I feel that it is more likely that our sentience(and what that particularly means) will be explained better by science at some point than it will be by invoking a completely new force called God that is called upon to take such a limited role in the world, and transcend so many other things we accept.

We have shown through history such a multitude of things that happen, that are, without the invocation of a God. We have eliminated so many possible reasons for why he should be thought to exist, while finding not one reason why he should be thought to exist. Not one reason with testifiable, quanifiable, falsifiable results that prove a reason for him to exist, that I am of the opinion that a belief in God is superfluous, unless there is no claim that God is anything more than a term for certain feelings you have sometimes. You can say why he doesn't need to exist over and over and over, but that doesn't mean he doesn't. What it means is that, so far, we have only found that he does not need to exist, and the trends in scientific advancement and in humans to be deceived, should suggest that he probably does not exist, not that he does not, or cannot. ...
 

---

Posted by bootjes (Member # 11624) on :
 
Okay here comes my canon.
It took a while to load it. Let's hope it hits the target.

The target being better understanding from (on?) both "sides", NOT convincing the other side. (That is why I am so pleased with startsnuffers posts, because he already has hit it)

Can we agree on this:

1. science is a great instrument

2. intuition is also a great instrument

3. Neither are infallable

4. Science is the better instrument for decisions regarding others because it is more transparent

5. intuition can be a good instrument for decisions regarding yourself only

6. Intuition can be a good instrument to complete your view of the world next to science, always remembering nr. 4 of course! (or nr. 3 for that matter)


(Intuition is the instrument with which I see God)
 

---

Posted by bootjes (Member # 11624) on :
 
reading this I should say you would grant me 5, and that at 6 you would say: there is nothing to complete. Fair enough, but then there is also nr 3 to consider.

edit:
not sure about the use of the words: should and would

[ July 04, 2008, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: bootjes ]
 

---

Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
 
Your use of them makes perfect sense here.

I would say that I feel no need for number 6 since I'm just waiting for the gap to be filled in, but I won't tell you you can't imagine a god to fill those gaps until they are explained, so long as you are willing to accept evidence as it arises. Basically, my only qualm about religion is when people use it to maintain things that are blatantly untrue, rationalize their own prejudices and hate, and the attitude of willful ignorance that seem to go along with many of them. (For example, criticism of evolution, gay discrimination, and the catholic church's condemnation of Galileo's work)
 

---

Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bootjes:
Okay here comes my canon.
It took a while to load it. Let's hope it hits the target.

The target being better understanding from (on?) both "sides", NOT convincing the other side. (That is why I am so pleased with startsnuffers posts, because he already has hit it)

Can we agree on this:

1. science is a great instrument

---

quote:

---

2. intuition is also a great instrument

---

quote:

---

3. Neither are infallable

---

quote:

---

4. Science is the better instrument for decisions regarding others because it is more transparent

---

quote:

---

5. intuition can be a good instrument for decisions regarding yourself only

---

quote:

---

6. Intuition can be a good instrument to complete your view of the world next to science, always remembering nr. 4 of course! (or nr. 3 for that matter)

---

quote:

---

(Intuition is the instrument with which I see God)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by swbarnes2:
you are substituting a method which has been shown over and over again to yield wrong answers.

Essentially, you are making a habit of driving without a seatbelt, and you are trying to justify that decision. Well, you are never going to do it satisfactorily.

---

quote:

---

If you can't demonstrate your knowledge, then it is only a belief.

---

quote:

---

I know it isn't possible, but I don't know how I know that it isn't possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bootjes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by swbarnes2:
you are substituting a method which has been shown over and over again to yield wrong answers.

Essentially, you are making a habit of driving without a seatbelt, and you are trying to justify that decision. Well, you are never going to do it satisfactorily.

---

I think I didn't say anything about substituting.
Maybe I should have added that in personal affairs where it is available I use a scienctific approach . There are many personal decisions where sciense isn't available. Then I use intuition. Even than very carefully. Just to show that I am sometimes too carefull about my intuition:

My previuos job was chosen using reason. My intuition said "no". But everyone convinced me I made the right choice. All reasonable arguments said so. So I went for it. Didn't work out. Not because I didn't try. By making the decision I stopped listening to my intuition on that matter.

So I try to balance the two in my own life. not subsitute the one with the other.

---

quote:

---

I studied social science, including a course in science-philosophy.

---

It's worth noting that this is the reason why many people consider "social science" to not be science at all.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Of all the things I've taken in school, I've by far gotten the most mileage out of the social sciences.

People are weird and crazy and are a desperately chaotic weave of rationality, axiom, and inflexible belief structures they could have locked themselves into at practically any point in their lives. Anything that even vaguely helps make sense of the human condition is worth the price of admission.
 

---

Posted by bootjes (Member # 11624) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

I studied social science, including a course in science-philosophy.

---

It's worth noting that this is the reason why many people consider "social science" to not be science at all.

---

Wasn't aware so many people know I studied social science.
 

---

Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
Of all the things I've taken in school, I've by far gotten the most mileage out of the social sciences.

People are weird and crazy and are a desperately chaotic weave of rationality, axiom, and inflexible belief structures they could have locked themselves into at practically any point in their lives. Anything that even vaguely helps make sense of the human condition is worth the price of admission.

---

You needed classes to realize that people are wierd and crazy?

Tom, I say the same thing about Political Science as well.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:
[QB]But can you demonstrate that the above statement is true? Or is it just your belief?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bootjes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

I studied social science, including a course in science-philosophy.

---

It's worth noting that this is the reason why many people consider "social science" to not be science at all.

---

Wasn't aware so many people know I studied social science.

---

bootjes
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Sorry. Got bored and wandered off. Same as any other form of knowledge is reliable. It works. Where it doesn't work, it gets adjusted.

Not sure about the term "intuition" for faith.

---

quote:

---

This is my definition of the word 'knowledge'. Perhaps you have a different one. In any case arguing over definitions is never productive.

---

quote:

---

If you want to argue we can only rely on beliefs we can prove...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:

quote:

---

This is my definition of the word 'knowledge'. Perhaps you have a different one. In any case arguing over definitions is never productive.

---

If you want to argue we can only rely on beliefs we can prove, you must in turn prove that statement, using more than just a personal definition as your proof.

---

quote:

---

Would you like to give an example of a statement that you

a) Believe is true
b) Cannot prove to, say, 95% confidence
c) Actually rely on, in the sense of it affecting your assessment of consequences of actions?

---

quote:

---

It is so really really really really beautiful out there. Now there should be more really’s in there. Its beautiful beyond beautiful. Being in such vast nature makes me feel: insignificant, overpowered, at peace . . .. Okay, again not the words to describe the feeling. It’s the feeling that I am lifted up out of the normal world.

Instead of trying to pin down this feeling in words I choose to call it Godly or Devine. I can understand people saying that it was made by Gods hand. I use this as a figure of speech, not as reality. These moments where I feel lifted up are the moments that I speak of as being close to God. (Not only nature can do this) It is as if something is coming to beyond my five senses.

So for me this is not about proving, but about describing an experience that feels somehow greater than reality. Than the word God comes in. Hope this clarifies something. I keep on running around the subject without actually hitting it. But that, for me, is part of the nature of it.

---

quote:

---

Also, different things can evoke these feelings- these chemical impulses- in different people.

---

quote:

---

God is not necessary to have these feelings, and if you have the education, time, and patience, then god isn't necessary to describe them either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:
First of all, you avoided answering the question... If you cannot offer solid proof that there are no reliable unprovable beliefs then you've contradicted yourself when you ask us to rely on that assertion when we evaluate religion.

---

quote:

---

"That bridge won't collapse if I drive over it"

---

quote:

---

"That science textbook isn't making up all those experiments it talks about that I have neither the time nor equipment to conduct"

---

quote:

---

"I'm not hallucinating everything I see right now"

---

quote:

---

"When my friend said he'll be at the movie theater at 8:00, he'll be there at 8:00"

---

quote:

---

"I smell apple pie"
"I feel tired"
"The stuff I remember happening yesterday actually happened"

---

quote:

---

"So-and-so is attractive"
"That joke was funny"

---

quote:

---

"My brother would like this gift I'm buying him"

---

quote:

---

"That babysitter will keep the children safe"

---

quote:

---

"The laws of physics will work tomorrow as they have in the past"

---

quote:

---

"Nazi genocide happened"

---

quote:

---

"When someone uses the word 'rely' they mean the same thing that I mean when I use the word 'rely'"

---

quote:

---

"1 is a number"

---

quote:

---

"If the premises are true and the logic is valid, then the conclusion is always true"

---

quote:

---

"It is wrong to needlessly hurt people"

---

quote:

---

there are tons of examples of beliefs we rely upon everyday that we lack evidence to prove

---

quote:

---

If I assert "There are no pixies in my garden", do you ask me to prove this negative, or do you set out to catch a pixie?

---

quote:

---

Rightly or wrongly, we often -- for convenience's sake -- have a great deal of faith in things we do not know for sure. What does this have to do with the conversation?

---

quote:

---

and even if I did it would not tell me that the 101st car would not crash the bridge

---

quote:

---

Otherwise, there is something you know that you can't prove.

---

quote:

---

If I thought 1 was not a number, I'd have failed math, and count rather poorly too!

---

quote:

---

If the laws of physics weren't likely to be the same tomorrow as they are today, I wouldn't trust many things to work tomorrow.

---

quote:

---

If I thought something I was seeing was a hallucination, I would definitely act differently towards that thing.

---

quote:

---

If the premises are true and the logic is valid, then the conclusion is always true.

---

quote:

---

For instance, if you observe 100 days in the summer that are above 90 degrees, you can't then say that there is a 95% probabilty that any given day during the year will be above 90 degrees.

---

quote:

---

[Reflective loops are] the sort of justification that people mentioned earlier, and that was referred to as intuition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:

quote:

---

If I assert "There are no pixies in my garden", do you ask me to prove this negative, or do you set out to catch a pixie?

---

You are the one saying you can prove everything you know.

---

quote:

---

Rightly or wrongly, we often -- for convenience's sake -- have a great deal of faith in things we do not know for sure.

---

quote:

---

It relates to KoM's claim that we should not rely on beliefs which we cannot give proof for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teshi:
I love religion, especially in its raw, broken down form (symbol, story, metaphor, meaning where none exists etc.). I find it to be one of the most exciting and fascinating expressions of humanity that exists.

---

quote:

---

I think it is that use of the word "know" that is being objected to. Much clearer is to say that I believe the the Cubs will win the World Series, because the word 'believe' doesn't have the implication that I've verified my claim at all in the real world, which I think the word 'know' does.

---

It really doesn't matter to me what particular words he uses to formulate his assertion. I will take out the word 'know' if that helps. My problem is that he seems to be holding religion to a standard of evidence high enough that his own claims in this thread don't pass that same standard. The evidence given so far for the claim that "beliefs not justified with evidence can't be reliable" is... well he hasn't directly answered my question. Is it based on intuition?

If so I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with that. I believe there are "Basic beliefs" which we simply observe to be true. I also believe there are plenty of beliefs which we build upon incomplete or shaky evidence, because we lack the time or ability to find stronger evidence. I believe the ultimate test for the reliability of a belief is our own human judgement. I think we are acting rationally if we take the evidence available into account, consider carefully, and then use our best judgement to determine whatever belief seems most likely. If we do that, I think we can rationally rely, at least to some degree, on the conclusions of our judgement.

On that note, you can expect your $1,000 when my best judgement tells me you are telling the truth about giving me the $10,000.
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:
My problem is that he seems to be holding religion to a standard of evidence high enough that his own claims in this thread don't pass that same standard.

---

quote:

---

I've had atheist friends and classmates argue with me for hours because they can't understand how I can call myself a fellow atheist and still be so fascinated and interested in religion and what it says about our species and our thoughts and ideas throughout history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:

quote:

---

Would you like to give an example of a statement that you

a) Believe is true
b) Cannot prove to, say, 95% confidence
c) Actually rely on, in the sense of it affecting your assessment of consequences of actions?

---

First of all, you avoided answering the question... If you cannot offer solid proof that there are no reliable unprovable beliefs then you've contradicted yourself when you ask us to rely on that assertion when we evaluate religion.

Secondly, there are tons of examples of beliefs we rely upon everyday that we lack evidence to prove:
"That bridge won't collapse if I drive over it"
"That science textbook isn't making up all those experiments it talks about that I have neither the time nor equipment to conduct"
"I'm not hallucinating everything I see right now"
"When my friend said he'll be at the movie theater at 8:00, he'll be there at 8:00"
"I smell apple pie"
"I feel tired"
"The stuff I remember happening yesterday actually happened"
"My brother would like this gift I'm buying him"
"That babysitter will keep the children safe"
"It is wrong to needlessly hurt people"
"When someone uses the word 'rely' they mean the same thing that I mean when I use the word 'rely'"
"So-and-so is attractive"
"That joke was funny"
"The laws of physics will work tomorrow as they have in the past"
"Nazi genocide happened"
"1 is a number"
"If the premises are true and the logic is valid, then the conclusion is always true"

For some of these things I have some evidence in their favor, but nothing that would justify calling it 95% certain that they must be true. Some of these things are provable in theory, but I lack the time/resources to actually test. Some of these are totally unprovable. Some are just judgement calls. Some are based entirely on trusting what people have told me.

---

quote:

---

The 'larger' the assertion, the more complicated or 'out-of-the-ordinary' something is, the more evidence it needs to support it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:
It really doesn't matter to me what particular words he uses to formulate his assertion.

---

quote:

---

My problem is that he seems to be holding religion to a standard of evidence high enough that his own claims in this thread don't pass that same standard.

---

quote:

---

The evidence given so far for the claim that "beliefs not justified with evidence can't be reliable" is... well he hasn't directly answered my question. Is it based on intuition?

---

quote:

---

I believe there are "Basic beliefs" which we simply observe to be true.

---

quote:

---

I also believe there are plenty of beliefs which we build upon incomplete or shaky evidence, because we lack the time or ability to find stronger evidence.

---

quote:

---

I believe the ultimate test for the reliability of a belief is our own human judgement.

---

quote:

---

I think we are acting rationally if we take the evidence available into account, consider carefully, and then use our best judgement to determine whatever belief seems most likely.

---

quote:

---

On that note, you can expect your $1,000 when my best judgement tells me you are telling the truth about giving me the $10,000.

---

quote:

---

When you say "judgement", what you mean is "throw away the reason and evidence if I don't like what they are telling me".

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The evidence given so far for the claim that "beliefs not justified with evidence can't be reliable" is... well he hasn't directly answered my question. Is it based on intuition?

---

No, its based on solid data. People make mistakes. People are very likely to make mistakes in the direction beliving things they want to be true, even when they aren't. Intutition, because it's not rigorous, very often will tell people that what they think is true, and what they want to be true, really is true.

---

quote:

---

If KoM has, or you have, done a rigorous study to get solid data that demonstrates that there can never be a situation where it is helpful to trust a belief that is not well supported by hard evidence, I'd be interested in the data.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:

quote:

---

When you say "judgement", what you mean is "throw away the reason and evidence if I don't like what they are telling me".

---

That is not at all what I mean by "judgement".

---

quote:

---

If KoM has, or you have, done a rigorous study to get solid data that demonstrates that there can never be a situation where it is helpful to trust a belief that is not well supported by hard evidence,

---

quote:

---

I'd be interested in the data.

---

quote:

---

I'd think that people rarely have the time and ability to conduct a careful study for every belief they need to rely upon

---

quote:

---

In those cases, better to believe something and risk a mistake than to believe nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:
My definition of provable for the above list was "there exists evidence from which we can logically deduce that there is at least a 95% probability that the statement is true".

I am confident of the statements too. My point is that that confidence cannot be derived solely from the evidence I have.

---

quote:

---

But you can't seme to give an explanation that is distinctly different from what I suggetsed.

---

quote:

---

All we need to do is point out that when people do rely on intuition, they are wrong more than 95% of the time.

---

quote:

---

I did earlier... By "judgement" I mean taking all the evidence, reasoning, observations, intuition, and other factors available to you and weighing them to decide what belief seems mostly likely to you to be true.

---

quote:

---

(Whereas throwing away evidence and simply believing whatever you want is virtually the opposite of judgement.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:
By "judgement" I mean taking all the evidence, reasoning, observations, intuition, and other factors available to you and weighing them to decide what belief seems mostly likely to you to be true.

---

quote:

---

(Whereas throwing away evidence and simply believing whatever you want is virtually the opposite of judgement.)

---

quote:

---

Intuition is often right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by swbarnes2:

quote:

---

I'd be interested in the data.

---

Look up research of heuristics. A common one was posted a few weeks ago, it runs something like this.

Which is more likely:

A) California will suffer a major flood

b) California will suffer a bad earthquake, which will cause a major flood.

Which answer do you think people's instincts lead them to? Which answer will stand up to logical rigor?

---

quote:

---

But the question is, when reason and evidence say one thing, and your "intuition" says another, which is more likely to be right?
I think history is pretty clear on that point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

But the question is, when reason and evidence say one thing, and your "intuition" says another, which is more likely to be right?
I think history is pretty clear on that point.

---

There's a whole bunch of people who faced enormously bad consequences for allowing their reason to trump their intuition. Check out "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin de Becker some time for examples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
They're in the book. I can't do them justice without it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkw:
In that thread a few weeks ago no one ever did present any evidence that most people's instincts would lead them to the wrong answer. Do you have any?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Reader:
You needed classes to realize that people are wierd and crazy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
There's a whole bunch of people who faced enormously bad consequences for allowing their reason to trump their intuition. Check out "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin de Becker some time for examples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
In my case, evidence, judgment and "intuition" all lead the same direction.

---

quote:

---

That's a perfect example, because it uses interesting and compelling personal anecdotes rather than considering the facts behind the stories.

---

quote:

---

For every story about a person who ignored their instincts and faced bad consequences, I can give you another story about a person who followed their instincts rather than doing what was logically correct and faced bad consequences as a result.
I think the best conclusion we can draw here is that while instincts may be very useful, they're also quite unreliable, on the whole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
In my case, evidence, judgment and "intuition" all lead the same direction.

---

Under Tres's definition, judgement is the sum of evidence and intuition, so that should be removed from the list. And then we come to that good old question: What dang evidence?

---

quote:

---

They're absolutely important in split second decisions.

---

quote:

---

In math, one can take the time to prove the intuited result. Unfortunately, a lot of decisions have to be made when there either isn't time to perform that proof or where there is no way to resolve the question solely with reasoning and evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

They're absolutely important in split second decisions.

---

And in situations where one can't gather all the relevant information (split second decisions being a subset of that).

---

quote:

---

It's not very useful in situations where one can't gather all the relevant information, because it's just a refusal to say, "I don't know."

---

quote:

---

Intuition has been shown to be a very unsuccessful way to invest, as it fails for most people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

It's not very useful in situations where one can't gather all the relevant information, because it's just a refusal to say, "I don't know."

---

I disagree. I have imperfect knowledge about the stock market. In making investment decisions, I rely on evidence, the expert opinions of others, and intuition. It's true I don't know. But it's also true I have to choose to act or not act.

---

quote:

---

And how well do naive investors, who don't know any facts about investing do with their intuition?

Pretty badly I bet.

---

Is that your intuition on the matter?

quote:

---

Perhaps the usefulness of one's "intuition" is proportional to how much of the relevent facts and reasoning they already know?

---

quote:

---

People who rely on [evidential factors X] plus intuition can be shown to do worse than people who rely on X alone. Intuition makes you do worse whether or not you use other evidence in addition.

---

quote:

---

I don't know the original source, but will you accept as common knowledge that market-indexing funds do better than actively managed funds?

---

quote:

---

I don't understand why the incomplete availability matters, kmb presumably has access to the same evidence that I do.

---

quote:

---

I'll agree that there are some funds that are "managed" by someone with no more than a really strong feeling. But that doesn't mean that intuition isn't a net plus when used correctly.

---

quote:

---

Do you consider that evidence complete?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
But that doesn't mean that intuition isn't a net plus when used correctly.

---

quote:

---

(I'm assuming you agree that evidence and reason can be used incorrectly, too.)

---

quote:

---

It does mean, though, that there is clearly nobody within finance who is using intuition in this correct manner, whatever it may be; if there were, their fund would do better than market indexing.

---

quote:

---

I don't think I understand the relevance. "All the evidence there is" may not be complete, but you can't do any better by adding non-evidence like intuition.

---

quote:

---

Great.
How do you determine if you are using it correctly?

---

quote:

---

Sure. And when you do, other people catch you. They tell you that you are missing important data, or have wrong data, or your reasoning is faulty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Great.
How do you determine if you are using it correctly?

---

That's a separate question from whether intuition can be used correctly.

---

quote:

---

There are many, many funds doing better than market indexing. I'm not making the claim that this is because of intuition, but your premise here is wrong.

---

quote:

---

You have yet to demonstrate this to my satisfaction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by swbarnes2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Great.
How do you determine if you are using it correctly?

---

That's a separate question from whether intuition can be used correctly.

---

You assert that intuition can be used correctly.

You therefore must have a method of determining if intuition is being used correctly.

---

Actually, it might just be his intuition tha's telling him such a method exists. In that case I don't know how he knows that he is using his intuition correctly for this question unless of course he is intuiting it. In which case...
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
In all fairness, there have been several studies done which show that "gut feelings" can be very, very effective.

Their effectiveness rises with:
1) the complexity of the decision;
2) the inverse of the time available;
3) and the expertise of the decider.

The more familiar you are with a given sort of decision, the more likely your gut feeling about something is going to be right. Interestingly, as the complexity of that decision rises and the time available to you to decide falls, you will reach a point -- assuming that you are sufficiently familiar with the subject -- when your gut feelings will actually be more effective than your conscious analysis.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Ironically, my gut feeling is that all this gut feeling stuff is B.S.

I just blew my own mind.
 

---

Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
I have a gut feeling this debate is going nowhere. Intriguing, though.
 

---

Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
424 posts and the debate is going nowhere. someone needs to bring it now-here.
 

---

Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
Professional poker players use intuition all the time. For example, they can consistently do better bluffing than game theory would say is possible because they can get "reads" on other players.
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
I don't think reading players counts as intuition any more than interpreting spoken words is intuitive. It's simply a learned ability to interpret subtle signals transmitted visibly or audibly (heck, maybe even through pheromones) by other people.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
For my part, I think a learned ability to interpret multiple complex, subtle signals is intuition. That might not be what most people mean by the word, though.
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
Yup.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
The problem with that analogy is that poker players get direct, repeatable evidence of the outcome of their intuitive guesses, so that they can develop more accurate intuition (if we insist on calling it that, rather than just a subtle skill of reading people).

With religious intuition, there is no correlated evidence with the intuition - if there were, it would be something which could be demonstrated, and it has consistently not been.

So if we go with TomDavidson and MattP (and possibly Threads)'s idea that intuition can be a learned ability, religious intuition must fall outside this definition, since there is no way to learn it.
 

---

Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:
I don't think reading players counts as intuition any more than interpreting spoken words is intuitive. It's simply a learned ability to interpret subtle signals transmitted visibly or audibly (heck, maybe even through pheromones) by other people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Threads:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:
I don't think reading players counts as intuition any more than interpreting spoken words is intuitive. It's simply a learned ability to interpret subtle signals transmitted visibly or audibly (heck, maybe even through pheromones) by other people.

---

Then what is intuition other than instinct?

---

quote:

---

Would it be fair to say that intuitions are abilities that are learned subconsciously?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:

quote:

---

Would it be fair to say that intuitions are abilities that are learned subconsciously?

---

I think that's a reasonable definition, but I don't think that's necessarily what the religious "intuition" being described her is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:

quote:

---

Would it be fair to say that intuitions are abilities that are learned subconsciously?

---

I think that's a reasonable definition, but I don't think that's necessarily what the religious "intuition" being described here is.

The "reading cues subconsciously" sort of intuition can be tested. For instance, you could put a shield in front of a player to obscure his face and see if the other player plays better or worse. With a little creativity it's possible in principle to determine and measure the cues that the poker player is responding to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Threads:
While conscious understanding may ultimately be preferable to intuition that doesn't mean that intuition should be discounted. It can be very difficult to beat your intuition with conscious analysis in situations like reading body language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
Once again, I think the poker analogy is a bit off from the question I was asking, namely, how does [fill in theist] know that her "always known there was something" is accurate? There can certainly be no body-language cues involved!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starsnuffer:
This is developed through instinct, such as a baby's tendency to not breathe underwater

---

quote:

---

In the same way a hunter may decide the risk of hunting a potentially deadly boar outweighs the alternative risk of his family starving since it's been a hard winter without directly measuring the calories expended per day, calculating how much energy and nutrients are likely to come from the killing of the boar, and decide whether it is worth it.

---

quote:

---

He can only rely on his gut feeling, and his gut feeling MUST be pretty good, otherwise that wouldn't be his gut feeling.

---

quote:

---

Intuition, by necessity, must be beneficial in these circumstances, where data is unattainable.

---

quote:

---

The argument being made is that intuition, when added to indisputable evidence must necessarily bring down the level of conclusion made.

---

quote:

---

I now rationalize my intuition that "Stuff is solid, and stationary" with the data that "Stuff is really made of lots of little bits that interact with each other, and wiggle around." Based on the fact that I have seen no evidence suggesting that things are, in fact, solid and stationary, while I have seen overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

---

quote:

---

The assessment of intuition did not inherently make my conclusion worse, if anything, it reminded me that it seems to me that stuff is still solid, and I should not try sifting the atoms of steel rod through my hand (though I grant, this same information could be more accurately obtained through thorough tests)

---

quote:

---

I feel that an assertion that God informs you that cows are sacred, for example, and should be allowed to roam freely in the cities must be supported by 1.Your intuitive sense of what will happen if you allow cows to wander and 2.The evidence of what happens when cows are allowed to wander, and then you must decide whether your belief that God has some issue with your cooping of cows is well founded, or whether the risk of spreading disease from cows freely in the city outweighs the unapparent wrath of god.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by swbarnes2:
Here's the problem with all this intuition touting...for every story you can come up with of someone ignoring the available facts, and going with their intution, and making out well, there's a whole casino of people felt the same way about what their intuition was telling them, and lost big.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by swbarnes2:
And for every person who did use their intution to their benefit, there's someone else who made the same decision, but is able to explain the reasoning and facts behind it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by swbarnes2:
But you don't need "intuition" to tell you that catching a flying baseball will work. You've got lots and lots of evidenc e that you can do just that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
One more time. I am using 'intuition' as a shorthand description of kmb's "I have always known". I wish to know why she believes that this is reliable knowledge. It has nothing to do with poker, catching a ball, or other everyday uses of the word 'intuition'.

---

quote:

---

My knowing of God looks like the knowing that you use when you love someone.

---

quote:

---

Getting friends, falling in love doesn't involve research (we don't want take our friends/lovers through a battery of psychology tests before we decide to give them our trust and love)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rollainm:
subconsciously at the very least

---

quote:

---

I think that this analogy is even more subject to criticism than your last, especially given the inherently subjective and fallacious nature of the feeling/experience we refer to as love. Could you be more specific?

---

quote:

---

Calling that experience something doesn't really bring us any closer to understanding religious conviction.

---

quote:

---

This is what I mean. The subconscious is very much part of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MightyCow:
You can't use this analogy with something mythical, which never shows any testable interaction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rollainm:
(numinosum, awakening, enlightenment, etc.)

---

quote:

---

Getting friends, falling in love doesn't involve research

---

No, but generally speaking we are sure that they exist before we experience any such emotion.
 

---

Posted by bootjes (Member # 11624) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:

---

Getting friends, falling in love doesn't involve research

---

No, but generally speaking we are sure that they exist before we experience any such emotion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Threads:
Saying that most people use intuition incorrectly does not imply that intuition is unreliable.

---

quote:

---

Poker players can test their intuition by following it and seeing if it is correct.

---

quote:

---

Obviously a lot of poker consists of reasoning and facts but good intuition gives the true pros an edge.

---

quote:

---

I doubt this is true of every situation. For example, there are police officers who are particularly adept at recognizing shady behavior and I doubt that they could tell you the specific algorithm that they use for doing so.

---

quote:

---

If they could then they should be able to tell other officers so that all police officers become as good as they are. That doesn't happen in practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by swbarnes2:

quote:

---

Poker players can test their intuition by following it and seeing if it is correct.

---

Do you really think that top poker players routinely disregard the facts of probabilty, their observations of player's playing habits, and observations of body language, when their instincts tell them to do the opposite of what all those facts tell them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by swbarnes2:
Yet there is still this insistance that intuition really is a "great" tool, and that it is more important than logic and reasoning still crop up. It's just faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by swbarnes2:

quote:

---

I doubt this is true of every situation. For example, there are police officers who are particularly adept at recognizing shady behavior and I doubt that they could tell you the specific algorithm that they use for doing so.

---

There are police academies. They do teach police officers things.

You're pointing out one example of an area that you don't think can be well articulated is hardly very convincing.

<snip>

No, it could require a very complicated algorithm, with lots of variables.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tresopax:
"Acceptance without evidence" is not really what I'd think the religious mean by "Faith". "Faith" is more along the lines of "Acceptance in spite of doubt." I think most, if not all, religious folks believe that their particular faith has some sort of evidence to support it, whether that be personal observations about the world, intuition, the Bible, or whatever. BUT along with the evidence, there are usually also doubts that come along, because religious evidence never seems to be 100% complete. Faith is all about overcoming those doubts.

---

This is interesting but do these doubts manifest themselves in practice? It seems like if one were 80% confident that the God of the Bible existed then it would make sense to be Christian* but it would not make sense to "specialize" as 100% Protestant or 100% Catholic or some other type.

* Pascal's Argument is valid if the prior probability of Christianity being correct is significantly above that of other religions.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
On the other hand, it could be observed that many people do in fact "bend the rules" in favour of increased non-religiousness but still retain their "label" if asked. Christians with declining church attendence, Jews that become more secular and stop keeping kosher, etc.

Perhaps we could start calling them 80% Christians or 80% Jews
 

---

Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
That would get tedious

In all seriousness though, it's more accurate to view beliefs as probabilities rather than binary choices.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Threads:
In all seriousness though, it's more accurate to view beliefs as probabilities rather than binary choices.

---