Generally speaking, I am not surprised by the results of this study. What Americans mean when they say "God" varies considerably and the Religious "Nones" category doesn't mean atheist. The majority of Americans believe in "God as described in the Bible" and 48% say that God or another higher power directly determines what happens in their lives all or most of the time. About 10% of Americans do not believe in God or "any higher power/spiritual force." There is a lot of interesting data that address differences by age, political affiliation, education, religion, etcetera.
http://www.pewforum.org/2018/04/25/when-americans-say-they-believe-in-god-what-do-they-mean/
(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/04/23153835/04.25.18_beliefingod-00-00.png)
(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/04/23153841/04.25.18_beliefingod-00-04.png)
(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/04/23153844/04.25.18_beliefingod-00-06.png)
That's why we always have to ask people what they mean by the word "God" when they come here to preach at us. But, to quote Groucho - "Whatever it is, I'm against it."
It's more fun to ask them without giving them a choice. Making some folks think for themselves is very, very funny.
Of course, the problem is that most Americans lie about being religious. They're "me too'ers." Whatever is required to be part of the pack they say "me too". You can see in their day-to-day behaviour that they don't follow the words of any good holy man.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 26, 2018, 06:38:36 PM
Of course, the problem is that most Americans lie about being religious. They're "me too'ers." Whatever is required to be part of the pack they say "me too". You can see in their day-to-day behaviour that they don't follow the words of any good holy man.
Reminds me of an Emo Phillips joke:
https://youtu.be/Df3blZzXTL0
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 26, 2018, 06:29:15 PM
That's why we always have to ask people what they mean by the word "God" when they come here to preach at us. But, to quote Groucho - "Whatever it is, I'm against it."
We have had one atheist Hindu in the time I have been here ... he rejects anthropomorphism, but also rejects materialism. He was the one guy I wish had stayed around.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 26, 2018, 06:38:36 PM
It's more fun to ask them without giving them a choice. Making some folks think for themselves is very, very funny.
Of course, the problem is that most Americans lie about being religious. They're "me too'ers." Whatever is required to be part of the pack they say "me too". You can see in their day-to-day behaviour that they don't follow the words of any good holy man.
I find it interesting that 20% of Christians don't believe in the Bible god ... Cosmic Christ people/Gnostics perhaps.
It is not surprising that 67% of Jews don't believe in the Bible god. The remaining 33% are Orthodox of some type.
It is also interesting that Muslims weren't canvased as a distinct entity.
Quote from: Baruch on April 26, 2018, 07:15:47 PM
It is also interesting that Muslims weren't canvased as a distinct entity.
The survey did not include enough respondents who were Muslim or members of other faiths to be included.
Why?
(http://swingcoachshow.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/merica.jpg)
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 26, 2018, 07:09:25 PM
Reminds me of an Emo Phillips joke:
Whaling Wall. Gotta use that one next time I'm there.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 26, 2018, 07:50:31 PM
Whaling Wall. Gotta use that one next time I'm there.
Yeah, it wasn't Moby Dick who took off Capt Ahab's leg, it was Orthodox Jews, who remembered that Ahab was a bad king of the Northern Kingdom. I hope Capt Ahab's wife wasn't named Jezebel ;-(
This one category perplexes me:
Do you believe in God?
No.
But I do believe in a higher power or spiritual force.
There must be a combination of semantics and other psychological devices working together that I don't understand with this. I keep thinking their definition of God is that guy in the Bible as described. OK they don't believe in God-God, but they seem to believe in another god. It sounds like, "I believe in a god, but not the god." Do they need to think about that, or do I? Wouldn't your god by definition be "the god?"
When I attended AA meetings in my small Bible thumping town, I heard fundamentalist Christians say over and over, "I believe in a higher power that I choose to call God."
Even in that group of lemmings (and it's hard to find a cult with more lemmings than an AA group), they seem to think other people could acknowledge another god, while at the same time, professing there could be only one god. Of course part of that could be nothing more than the mindless babble of "AA speak", repeating phrases that are fashionable and which identify speakers as knowing the talk and being part of the group.
In the survey group identified as the "higher power" group, they seem to be defining the terms quite differently. So when the survey asks, "Do you believe in God," why inquire further? If they asked me, and I said no, would I be expected to believe in some other mystical thing? Should I say, "But I do believe in the good fairy."? And why would that be relevant to the survey?
I may have to sort this out on my own.
There isn't just one definition of G-d or gods ... and it isn't one that atheists or agnostics have ;-) The Intelligentsia are usually wrong.
The stereotype that religious people are Arkansas Southern Baptist snake charmers ... is just a stereotype. And perhaps insulting to real snake charmers.
I fall into the category of religious but unorthodox (if we assume "orthodox" means what this poll says it means). And I am more spiritual than religious.
I could be harder on the bigoted stereotyping, if it weren't for actual religious folks who feed the stereotype.
Some peoples' God seems to be more like a guardian angel than the omni-max deity of the Bible. It's hard to argue against the existence of some vague "something out there," but I don't think we're in danger of theocracy from those believers, at least. I think many people seldom think about a god of any kind.
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 27, 2018, 02:56:03 PM
Some peoples' God seems to be more like a guardian angel than the omni-max deity of the Bible. It's hard to argue against the existence of some vague "something out there," but I don't think we're in danger of theocracy from those believers, at least. I think many people seldom think about a god of any kind.
The "everything happens for a reason" crowd.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 27, 2018, 06:51:53 PM
The "everything happens for a reason" crowd.
GSO, that crowd is right, too. The 'reason' is 'because'.
So they don't believe in Eris, the one true god? Weird.
Quote from: Jason78 on April 28, 2018, 04:20:01 AM
So they don't believe in Eris, the one true god? Weird.
Maybe a god that goes around affecting human lives that was invented and worshiped by the ancients taxes the limits of modern educated Christian reality. They need something that isn't so obviously absurd.
Quote from: SGOS on April 28, 2018, 07:42:55 AM
Maybe a god that goes around affecting human lives that was invented and worshiped by the ancients taxes the limits of modern educated Christian reality. They need something that isn't so obviously absurd.
Then explain Joel Osteen.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 27, 2018, 06:51:53 PM
The "everything happens for a reason" crowd.
"My son died in a car crash."
"Don't worry. Everything happens for a reason."
"Yeah. The reason is the other driver was a drunk motherfucker."
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 28, 2018, 11:40:19 AM
"My son died in a car crash."
"Don't worry. Everything happens for a reason."
"Yeah. The reason is the other driver was a drunk motherfucker."
Yes, the demigods are motherfuckers, just like G-d is ... that is what "image of motherfucker" means.
Most people reject the god of Job or Ecclesiastes ... because they prefer Santa Claus. Life sucks. Get in your college furnished safe space, you big babies.
Quote from: SGOS on April 28, 2018, 07:42:55 AM
Maybe a god that goes around affecting human lives that was invented and worshiped by the ancients taxes the limits of modern educated Christian reality. They need something that isn't so obviously absurd.
That is why we watch passion plays of sentient English speaking felonious raccoons ... that Jesus guy is so implausible ;-))
The original purpose of theater (in Athens) was as group political therapy. Guardians of the Galaxy is the same deal. The "Last Jedi" for toddlers.
The public religious festivals in Thebes and Babylon did the same even earlier. Except in Babylon you got ritual prostitution ... in our movie theaters you don't get that (unless you count "friends" feeling each other up in the dark ;-))
"Believe in God as described in the Bible" is still pretty vague. I would venture to say that many of those who express belief have, in one way or another, an anthropomorphic conception of God. That likely applies to all the believer categories. I'm guessing the more simple the view, the more anthropomorphic. Those who think a bit more abstractly might go with the God is "being itself" or "goodness itself", and not as a being.
Well, the characteristics of the Bible's God are pretty apparent, if one actually reads the thing. But few Christians actually do read it, because they know just how boring much of it is. Most Christians only get their Bible from their priest/preacher in a cherry-picked fashion that only gives them the huggy-fuzzy stuff and so gives them a false or incomplete view of what the Bible's God is really like.
What the Bible's God is really like (http://nullgod.com/index.php?topic=164.0)
Biblical illiteracy (https://www.google.com/search?ei=p9T1WojMOsLR_wTh-7-QCQ&q=biblical+illiteracy&oq=biblical+illiteracy&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67k1l2j0i10k1l8.33410.34594.0.34959.5.5.0.0.0.0.102.488.2j3.5.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.5.481...0i7i30k1j35i39k1j0i13k1j0i13i10k1j0i8i7i30k1.0.3eLZn8kKLoE)
I don't think the Biblical God is that apparent, and necessarily so since by both Jewish and Christian theology he's not really describable. He just is. I think the different conceptions of God are tolerated by the different Abrahamic religions because people need something to relate with, even if they are a little far from the mark.
I'm currently on day 272 of a 365 day reading plan of both the Bible (NAB) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). I learned the popular stories as a kid, but as you say, never gave the Bible a good reading. So far I'm seeing a collection of books of varying genres. Not all the books describe God in the same manner, when they try to describe him at all. The CCC leaves wiggle room on the subject, and for good reason. I particularly like CCC #460 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." That's not your typical sky-daddy reference.
Quote from: Jack89 on May 11, 2018, 05:55:33 PM
I don't think the Biblical God is that apparent, and necessarily so since by both Jewish and Christian theology he's not really describable. He just is. I think the different conceptions of God are tolerated by the different Abrahamic religions because people need something to relate with, even if they are a little far from the mark.
I'm currently on day 272 of a 365 day reading plan of both the Bible (NAB) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). I learned the popular stories as a kid, but as you say, never gave the Bible a good reading. So far I'm seeing a collection of books of varying genres. Not all the books describe God in the same manner, when they try to describe him at all. The CCC leaves wiggle room on the subject, and for good reason. I particularly like CCC #460 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." That's not your typical sky-daddy reference.
Interesting. I have read the bible but not starting from Genesis and going forward. Probably won't at this point. But I did read it all. Why did you decide to take on this task and how did you set it up?
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 28, 2018, 11:40:19 AM
"My son died in a car crash."
"Don't worry. Everything happens for a reason."
"Yeah. The reason is the other driver was a drunk motherfucker."
The "Everything happens for a reason" argument is one of the worst ever. There generally aren't "reasons". That's why they are called "accidents". Except when drunk or distracted driver's do it. Then it is called "manslaughter". Unless it is deliberate. Then it is called either "murder" or "suicide"
Funny how a very similar event can be several different things. That why there are forensic experts...
Akira Kurosawa would disagree with you ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5VKfq4xlYo
In most movies you get the POV of the "omnipotent witness" aka G-d. This gives us a false sense of objectivity.
Jacques Derrida is the philosopher of "reading". How we "read ourselves" into what we read. So when Americans read the Bible, they are reading into it their culture, as well as their individuality. Books can define whole civilizations. The West is defined by the Bible, even if one has never read it ... the rest of society has, directly and indirectly thru the memes it has generated since Late Rome adopted Christianity.
By all means, read in English whatever you will. But if the original language isn't English, or the culture isn't your culture, beware of how you read yourself into it.
I am reading "The Hebrew Bible" - A Critical Companion ... the latest secular analysis, edited by John Barton (of Oxford) and printed by Princeton. That gives you one perspective.
I am teaching the Psalms in the original Hebrew, particularly Psalm 1 and Psalm 23. That gives a different perspective. One perspective is "outside" and the other is "inside". Derrida didn't really speak to this, but it is important.
What is the point of reading something deeply, in the original language? Fahrenheit 451.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8Mgh-W7YcE
If you read deeply, you become what you read. Incarnation of the word. Logos ... which was verbal, not written, embodied, not disembodied.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 27, 2018, 06:51:53 PM
The "everything happens for a reason" crowd.
A friend believed there was no such thing as a coincidence. He used to expand on the theme of missing a meeting, which leads to an alternate life branch where you meet a stranger, who points out something or other, and introduces you to a friend who does something or other, that changes your direction again, where you end up meeting your soul mate, find God, or accomplish something or other. He would conclude by pointing out there were too many variables that ended up putting you right where you needed to be. This could not be coincidence, but could only be by the hand of a higher power.
One day he was enthusiastically telling me about a new TV series that Michael Landon was going to make, where all the episodes centered around the randomness of life that leads us here and there until we end up where we are. He found great validation in his philosophy because a fellow spiritual traveler, from Hollywood no less, also recognized that spiritually based intercessions in life at specific times were there to guide you on your life's journey. The fact that some people accidently become bank robbers through the randomness of life... well I don't know. He never addressed that. As it turned out, Michael Landon's series never made it to the airwaves, possibly due to a higher power's intercession... for a good reason.
But many years later, Matt Damon starred in a delightful feature film, The Adjustment Bureau, which explained exactly how these more or less invisible men in black hats manipulate the "coincidences" that make the necessary adjustments to our lives and keep the course of human history as well as our own lives going where the men in black hats want it to go. Everything happens for a reason, except for when it doesn't.
Even in science and technology, so called progress is accidental connections ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMqyPQ5Ug3I
I'm of the opinion that some ideas used by Christians, including "everything happens for a reason," are psychological defenses against despair. I don't think these ideas are strictly Christian but where I live Christian seem to be the ones who use them. The ideas that God is in control, that you are part of a plan bigger than yourself, that you will be forgiven for your mistakes, that you are loved when no one else seems to care, that the good guys will eventually win and the bad guys will lose, that you are more than just aging flesh, that you will see your deceased loved ones again... whether one believes these to be true or not, they are all coping strategies. As a secular person, I simply have different coping strategies. What works for one person may not work for another.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on May 12, 2018, 10:12:19 AM
I'm of the opinion that some ideas used by Christians, including "everything happens for a reason," are psychological defenses against despair. I don't think these ideas are strictly Christian...
I'm sure the Bible can be interpreted by some to prove that this is part of Christian doctrine. I'm not sure if it's in the Bible or not, but I can see how it would be tempting to believe. Unfortunately, I don't think this kind of intervention happens in an environment of free will, which Christians usually claim is true as well. I also believe free will exists, but I arrive at that assumption by other means.
Quote from: SGOS on May 12, 2018, 10:29:44 AM
I'm sure the Bible can be interpreted by some to prove that this is part of Christian doctrine. I'm not sure if it's in the Bible or not, but I can see how it would be tempting to believe. Unfortunately, I don't think this kind of intervention happens in an environment of free will, which Christians usually claim is true as well. I also believe free will exists, but I arrive at that assumption by other means.
Ehhhh... I don't believe there are any verses which directly address the "everything happens for a reason" thing, but there is a quote by Jesus which is relevant. "He (God) causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." God can't be bothered to reward good deeds or punish evil.
As for free will, it's not Biblical either. When I was a Christian, I compiled a list of verses for and against free will, and I asked other members of the Christian Forums to suggest their own verses. My only requirement was that the verse had to be self-relevant. That is, by reading the verses by themselves, I had to be able to see how that verse could possibly be in favor of one or the other. I quickly realized that while there were several verses which directly confirmed predestination, the verses on the free will side were implied at best. Most of the verses submitted in defense of free will were verses which said so and so chose to do this, which have nothing to say about whether or not that person chose by their own agency. One passage, Romans 9, even directly addresses the main complaint people have against predestination.
"One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?' But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?"
When presented with the argument that a lack of free will means a lack of responsibility on our part, Paul basically says, "God's in charge. Stop whining."
Depending on how you define it, free will isn't really logically possible either. There are causes for our actions. We do what we want to do, and we can't choose what we want. The only defensible definition of free will I can think of is, "Freedom to make ones own decisions without coercion." In such a case, the only time someone wouldn't have free will is when they had a gun to their head or something like that, where they wouldn't be free to do what they want to do. Otherwise, free will as a self-driven agency is illusory.
Different theologies for different Jews. Usually the rabbis are pro-free-will (else guilt is impossible). Paul the rabbi, is predestinate, all over his letters. Each was trying to relate to the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Job as best they could. I would classify Paul as a lone sociopath. Rabbinic circles were collegial, if ideological.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 11, 2018, 07:06:57 PM
Interesting. I have read the bible but not starting from Genesis and going forward. Probably won't at this point. But I did read it all. Why did you decide to take on this task and how did you set it up?
A little over 2 years ago I had an epiphany of sorts and returned to the Catholic Church, after roughly 15-20 years of being an agnostic atheist. I've been a practicing Catholic since. I believe I mentioned it on these forums when I 'reverted'.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 12, 2018, 12:17:29 PM
When I was a Christian, I compiled a list of verses for and against free will, and I asked other members of the Christian Forums to suggest their own verses. My only requirement was that the verse had to be self-relevant. That is, by reading the verses by themselves, I had to be able to see how that verse could possibly be in favor of one or the other.
Naughty Christian. Critically reading the Bible.
During an AA meeting, we were having a discussion about free will. I can't remember the context, but one of the most fundamental of the fundamentalists commented, "All Christian denominations allow for free in some way or another." Of course, I disregarded this, as I did about almost everything else I heard in AA. OK, there were some things I took to heart, the things that applied directly to my own sobriety. But most of the stuff was just mysterious woo.
Quote from: Jack89 on May 12, 2018, 01:47:31 PM
A little over 2 years ago I had an epiphany of sorts and returned to the Catholic Church, after roughly 15-20 years of being an agnostic atheist. I've been a practicing Catholic since. I believe I mentioned it on these forums when I 'reverted'.
I take the "cloud of witnesses" seriously .. and materialists can scoff. I have a great many Catholic ancestors. So I can't be overly critical ... without dismissing the lives of those ancestors. Similarly I have a line of Jewish ancestors. I can criticize institutions, traditions, clergy ... but it has to be positive not negative.
In a sense, I am not just an individual, I am just a currently living leaf on the end of the branch of a gigantic tree of life, and the day is coming soon when I will turn brown and drop off, as all leaves do, but the tree will live on.
Metaphorically, there are anxious leaves, who want to control their anxiety, by creating a botanic dictatorship over all the other leaves. Such leaves don't realize they are part of the tree, which is life. Separation from the tree is death.
Quote from: SGOS on May 12, 2018, 02:02:30 PM
Naughty Christian. Critically reading the Bible.
During an AA meeting, we were having a discussion about free will. I can't remember the context, but one of the most fundamental of the fundamentalists commented, "All Christian denominations allow for free in some way or another." Of course, I disregarded this, as I did about almost everything else I heard in AA. OK, there were some things I took to heart, the things that applied directly to my own sobriety. But most of the stuff was just mysterious woo.
This is why in Christianity, it was necessary to prevent laity, and even most clergy, from reading scripture, it was fenced in by Church Fathers. In Islam and Judaism it is the opposite on a superficial way. In a sense, Protestantism came about as a Christian reaction to the freedom the other two Abrahamic faiths have.
You aren't free to interpret it however you want. You have liberty in community, but not sociopathic freedom. In the Middle Ages of course, Islam and Judaism was subject to the same tendencies ... Islam had commentary replace the Quran, and in Judaism the Talmud replaced the Tanakh. Think of it as a clam making a pearl.
Quote from: Jack89 on May 12, 2018, 01:47:31 PM
A little over 2 years ago I had an epiphany of sorts and returned to the Catholic Church, after roughly 15-20 years of being an agnostic atheist. I've been a practicing Catholic since. I believe I mentioned it on these forums when I 'reverted'.
Oh yes, I do sort of remember that. When I tackled the bible, it was during a time I was searching for answers in spiritual terms. The more I read of the bible, the less I thought of it. In the end it encouraged me to conclude that organized christian religion was not for me. So far in your bible reading journey, how has the bible impressed you? Did you read it from start to finish as it is laid out in the Jerusalem Bible?
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 12, 2018, 06:07:33 PM
So far in your bible reading journey, how has the bible impressed you? Did you read it from start to finish as it is laid out in the Jerusalem Bible?
I'm actually getting quite a bit out of it. I have trouble understanding the relevance in some parts, but that may just be me and my frame of mind. I think perspective and context matters. I've read the gospels more than once and get something new out of them each time. I find the clarity of the CCC very helpful as well.
I'm reading the New American Bible and have roughly split it up into 3 readings a day, the OT, Psalms/Proverbs and the NT.
Don't want to highjack the thread though, this is shooting off on a different tangent.
Quote from: Jack89 on May 13, 2018, 05:52:09 PM
I'm actually getting quite a bit out of it. I have trouble understanding the relevance in some parts, but that may just be me and my frame of mind. I think perspective and context matters. I've read the gospels more than once and get something new out of them each time. I find the clarity of the CCC very helpful as well.
I'm reading the New American Bible and have roughly split it up into 3 readings a day, the OT, Psalms/Proverbs and the NT.
Don't want to highjack the thread though, this is shooting off on a different tangent.
You are having an interesting but common experience ... that some people have with writings, and the older and the more mysterious, the better. The ideas in these old books are very basic memes (once called collective unconscious), that are deeply a part of what humans are, and what a culture is. If you have a "resonance" with something, then you are "tuned into it". Like a radio station. This can happen with just about any cultural artifact or practice. Going back to the early Middle Ages, the Benedictine order has "lectio divina" which is a systematic system of contemplation (originally of the Vulgate Bible). Your practice of liturgical reading is very ancient. Each time you experience something important to you, you change. If you go back and experience it again (as we can with reading) you aren't the same person reading it you were the first time. You are "neuro-linguistically" re-programming yourself. In ancient times, with was with story telling rather than reading.
Quote from: Jack89 on May 13, 2018, 05:52:09 PM
I'm actually getting quite a bit out of it. I have trouble understanding the relevance in some parts, but that may just be me and my frame of mind. I think perspective and context matters. I've read the gospels more than once and get something new out of them each time. I find the clarity of the CCC very helpful as well.
I'm reading the New American Bible and have roughly split it up into 3 readings a day, the OT, Psalms/Proverbs and the NT.
Don't want to highjack the thread though, this is shooting off on a different tangent.
It helps when reading the Bible to have certain study materials close to hand, such as
Asimov's Guide to the Bible (https://archive.org/stream/AsimovsGuideToTheBibleTheOldAndNewTestaments2Vols.IsaacAsimov/Asimov%27s+Guide+to+the+Bible_+The+Old+and+New+Testaments+%282+Vols.%29+-+Isaac+Asimov_djvu.txt).
There are many good study references on line, and many of them can be found here:
Bible Studies and Critiques (http://nullgod.com/index.php?topic=4.0)
If any of this helps, as I hope it will, your Bible reading might be more enjoyable and interesting.
Azimov's Guide was the first one I used. Covers other books neglected by main line Protestants. Material in it is fairly theology free.
Quote from: SGOS on May 12, 2018, 07:54:58 AM
A friend believed there was no such thing as a coincidence. He used to expand on the theme of missing a meeting, which leads to an alternate life branch where you meet a stranger, who points out something or other, and introduces you to a friend who does something or other, that changes your direction again, where you end up meeting your soul mate, find God, or accomplish something or other. He would conclude by pointing out there were too many variables that ended up putting you right where you needed to be. This could not be coincidence, but could only be by the hand of a higher power.
One day he was enthusiastically telling me about a new TV series that Michael Landon was going to make, where all the episodes centered around the randomness of life that leads us here and there until we end up where we are. He found great validation in his philosophy because a fellow spiritual traveler, from Hollywood no less, also recognized that spiritually based intercessions in life at specific times were there to guide you on your life's journey. The fact that some people accidently become bank robbers through the randomness of life... well I don't know. He never addressed that. As it turned out, Michael Landon's series never made it to the airwaves, possibly due to a higher power's intercession... for a good reason.
But many years later, Matt Damon starred in a delightful feature film, The Adjustment Bureau, which explained exactly how these more or less invisible men in black hats manipulate the "coincidences" that make the necessary adjustments to our lives and keep the course of human history as well as our own lives going where the men in black hats want it to go. Everything happens for a reason, except for when it doesn't.
But wasn't that show also fiction? Just asking...
Quote from: Jack89 on May 12, 2018, 01:47:31 PM
A little over 2 years ago I had an epiphany of sorts and returned to the Catholic Church, after roughly 15-20 years of being an agnostic atheist. I've been a practicing Catholic since. I believe I mentioned it on these forums when I 'reverted'.
I assume sort of "logic" induced you back to theism. My I ask what?
Most people here are very partisan about their fiction ... my fiction = reality, your fiction = BS.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 17, 2018, 03:26:43 AM
But wasn't that show also fiction? Just asking...
No, it was based on true life experiences, which was one of the things my friend enthusiastically pointed out. There are no coincidences, and the fact that the stories were true/embellished only added evidence that his perception was correct. The interesting part for me was that even when you dress up interesting chains of events with the truth claim, you still run into a fallacy.
There are 5 billion people in the world and each one has thousands of experiences in a week. Statistically there will be enough people with stories to tell about one "miraculous" chain of experiences that seemed like there had to be a divine pattern, enough to make a TV series anyway.
Billions of people experiencing millions of events mathematically works out to one huge shit load of random events. You don't need to search very far to find chains that resemble a superficial pattern. Reasonable people would just chalk it up to someone having a extraordinarily good day/week/year. I've had them, you've had them, everybody has because everyone encounters degrees of good fortune during their lives. And the absurdly mundane takes on the appearance of the divine.
You need more atheist friends. Do do you think would happen if you stood on a sidewalk holding a sign that said "I'm an atheist, are you? With a friend to push back on idiots?
Quote from: Cavebear on May 19, 2018, 11:30:51 AM
You need more atheist friends. Do do you think would happen if you stood on a sidewalk holding a sign that said "I'm an atheist, are you? With a friend to push back on idiots?
After I identified as an atheist, I felt kind of alone. But then I took an inventory, and I realized I had several atheist friends, some that I never realized because we had just never talked about it. This helps underscore that atheism is not a special belief, but more like NOT collecting stamps
Quote from: SGOS on May 19, 2018, 11:36:22 AM
After I identified as an atheist, I felt kind of alone. But then I took an inventory, and I realized I had several atheist friends, some that I never realized because we had just never talked about it. This helps underscore that atheism is not a special belief, but more like NOT collecting stamps
SCORE!
Um, yes, that makes sense. I have learned that many more people are basically "atheist" than let on.
Yeah, many people don't really believe in God, they believe in belief. (http://bhttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Belief_in_belief)
I met two dozen atheists the second week I was in this area. I went to Meetup.com and looked for like-minded groups in this area.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 19, 2018, 01:26:20 PM
Yeah, many people don't really believe in God, they believe in belief. (http://bhttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Belief_in_belief)
Couldn't get that link, but I know what you mean. I have friends who admit that they only go to Church on Sunday because they think they "should" rather than they want to for any reason. They go because their neighbors or family does. And you have to wonder if the friends and family are doing it for the same sad reasons. Maybe they should just all talk to each other and stop. Right?
In the US, the church is one main area of socializing outside of work, relatives and friends. It is a source of community, that political meetings do no achieve. Of course church involves conformity, and politics involves dispute.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 19, 2018, 01:43:58 PM
I met two dozen atheists the second week I was in this area. I went to Meetup.com and looked for like-minded groups in this area.
Thanks for the meetup.com/ I'm checking it out.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 19, 2018, 01:49:27 PM
Thanks for the meetup.com/ I'm checking it out.
Those numbers are for St. Louis. YMMV
Quote from: Cavebear on May 19, 2018, 01:45:52 PM
Couldn't get that link, but I know what you mean. I have friends who admit that they only go to Church on Sunday because they think they "should" rather than they want to for any reason. They go because their neighbors or family does. And you have to wonder if the friends and family are doing it for the same sad reasons. Maybe they should just all talk to each other and stop. Right?
I don't know what's wrong with the link, but this one seems to work:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Belief_in_belief
They're all afraid to talk about their religious apathy to each other, since each thinks the other is on fire for God, and they're afraid of being ostracized. So to avoid ostracism they turn into ostriches and hide their heads from themselves.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 20, 2018, 06:02:52 PM
I don't know what's wrong with the link, but this one seems to work:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Belief_in_belief
They're all afraid to talk about their religious apathy to each other, since each thinks the other is on fire for God, and they're afraid of being ostracized. So to avoid ostracism they turn into ostriches and hide their heads from themselves.
Human caterpillar strikes again ;-(( Sounds like something from the irrational.org wiki. See it is turtles all the way down ... belief_in_belief_in_belief ... on it does, proving the Halting problem is insoluble.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 20, 2018, 06:02:52 PM
I don't know what's wrong with the link, but this one seems to work:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Belief_in_belief
They're all afraid to talk about their religious apathy to each other, since each thinks the other is on fire for God, and they're afraid of being ostracized. So to avoid ostracism they turn into ostriches and hide their heads from themselves.
They say the things they're expected to say. It ends there for so very many of them. But the nuts take it and run with it
I'm not afraid to talk to the cult-visitors about religion. I just ask them to prove their originator actually existed. That usually confuses them enough.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 22, 2018, 05:09:37 AM
I'm not afraid to talk to the cult-visitors about religion. I just ask them to prove their originator actually existed. That usually confuses them enough.
"Millions of cults, but YOURS is the right one. Arrogant much?"
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 22, 2018, 05:51:13 AM
"Millions of cults, but YOURS is the right one. Arrogant much?"
Millions of political dogmas, but YOURS is the right one. Arrogant much? Real skepticism means never opening one's mouth about anything.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 22, 2018, 05:51:13 AM
"Millions of cults, but YOURS is the right one. Arrogant much?"
I don't have one. I have a belief like bald is a hair color...
You really can't quite grasp the concept of "not having a belief", can you?
I had a friend who was riding in my car, and as I approached a traffic light I knew was very long, I said I hoped it would last til I got through. My friend declared that to be a "prayer" since I was desiring an outcome out of my control. I tried to explain I was merely hoping the light timing was in my favor. And he is no longer a friend (not explicitly for that reason, but his belief in superstition wore on me after a while).
I don't take to superstitious people very well.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 22, 2018, 09:08:56 AM
I don't have one. I have a belief like bald is a hair color...
You really can't quite grasp the concept of "not having a belief", can you?
I had a friend who was riding in my car, and as I approached a traffic light I knew was very long, I said I hoped it would last til I got through. My friend declared that to be a "prayer" since I was desiring an outcome out of my control. I tried to explain I was merely hoping the light timing was in my favor. And he is no longer a friend (not explicitly for that reason, but his belief in superstition wore on me after a while).
I don't take to superstitious people very well.
I wasn't talking about you, Bear. It's a comment I've made before and followed directly from yours, in support.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 22, 2018, 09:35:59 AM
I wasn't talking about you, Bear. It's a comment I've made before and followed directly from yours, in support.
My bad...
Quote from: Cavebear on May 22, 2018, 10:43:02 AM
And who cares?
Oh, I'm tremendously concerned about whatever it is we're talking about.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 22, 2018, 10:55:05 AM
Oh, I'm tremendously concerned about whatever it is we're talking about.
Well if it about Trump I don't care.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 22, 2018, 10:56:38 AM
Well if it about Trump I don't care.
Remember what Jubal Harshaw told Ben Caxton?
Quote from: Baruch on May 22, 2018, 06:22:39 AM
Millions of political dogmas, but YOURS is the right one. Arrogant much? Real skepticism means never opening one's mouth about anything.
Uh, no. Real skepticism is questioning the words that come out of other people's mouths. Keeping quiet when others make unsubstantiated claims is compliance, not skepticism.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 22, 2018, 12:45:09 PM
Uh, no. Real skepticism is questioning the words that come out of other people's mouths. Keeping quiet when others make unsubstantiated claims is compliance, not skepticism.
Every political claim ever made is unsubstantiated and unverifiable. There is no physics of politics.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 22, 2018, 12:45:09 PM
Uh, no. Real skepticism is questioning the words that come out of other people's mouths. Keeping quiet when others make unsubstantiated claims is compliance, not skepticism.
Swooshed another one.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 22, 2018, 11:11:36 AM
Remember what Jubal Harshaw told Ben Caxton?
I have to admit I haven't the book in decades. So Ben Caxton was "out of mind". I had to look him up. And that didn't remind me of much about him. So what DID he say that interested you?