The Pandemic And Religious Beliefs

[DBT]

God is inferred through a filter of faith and culture/worldview. A person raised in a culture that believes in a God or gods and accepts its teachings is likely to see the activity of their God or gods in their daily lives.

No doubt this happens. Is this the case for everyone, like for example those who were not raised in that culture?

God is inferred through a filter of faith and culture/worldview... WUT?

infer
/ɪnˈfəː/
verb
past tense: inferred; past participle: inferred
deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements

DBT has the horse and cart back to front.

Even if we DID inherit our religion/faith [God] from the culture in which we live, it makes no sense then to see atheists living side-by-side with their predominantly religious neighbors. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens...etc. Born and raised in religious households/cultures.

I was born and grew up in a western, liberal, consumerist, hedonistic post-modern society. And yet my religion is attributed to Bronze Age goat herders.

It's not I who have it backwards. Inference can be based on an interpretation of events. The significance of an event may be interpreted by a believer through a filter of ther faith, seeing signs from God, inferring God, where someone else sees nothing more than normal causality.

 

[Learner]

Theists have no issue with normal causality or how the natural world runs. Obviously then, it's who has what belief in 'how the universe and it's systems came about'.

(we do touch upon the point now and then)

 

[bilby]

Theists have no issue with normal causality or how the natural world runs.

Sure you do. Normal causality and the way the natural world runs has no place at all for any gods.

Theists, by definition, do not find this acceptable.

 

[Learner]

Well I don't know about "no place at all for gods etc...."

I edited previous post a little further just as you posted:

"Obviously then, it's 'about' who has what belief in 'how the universe and it's systems came about'."

 

[bilby]

Well I don't know about "no place at all for gods etc...."

I know you don't. But it remains true, nonetheless.

I edited previous post a little further just as you posted:

"Obviously then, it's 'about' who has what belief in 'how the universe and it's systems came about'."

It's obvious to me that belief has no place in any attempt to understand reality. Observation always trumps belief. If you try to elevate belief above observation, your predictions fail, your ideas founder, and your expectations are dashed. Every. Single. Time.

 

[Learner]

I know you don't. But it remains true, nonetheless.

So no gods then, ok. There may be a place at least for the idea that, very advanced aliens could have seeded mankind on the earth. Just as Dawkins once said... he was "opened to the idea" just like prof. Kaku thought of outthere-somewhere god-like advanced civilizations could exist (as long as it's not anything biblical in discription).


yes, to Lion's post- a little like having other religions beside us

It's obvious to me that belief has no place in any attempt to understand reality. Observation always trumps belief. If you try to elevate belief above observation, your predictions fail, your ideas founder, and your expectations are dashed. Every. Single. Time.

We discuss the bible in terms of the interpretation, debating on what one individual reads from it. If you talk about apsects outside the bible to make an argument against the theology i.e. the natural world V creationism... which are NOT opposed to each other. I was just trying to make that clarity in this regard.

 

[bilby]

I know you don't. But it remains true, nonetheless.

So no gods then, ok. There may be a place at least for the idea that, very advanced aliens could have seeded mankind on the earth.

Not as any kind of answer to the question of the origin of life (or even mere intelligence). All the aliens conjecture does is kick the can down the road - we still need an explanation for how the aliens came to be, and hypothesising them has just made our task harder.

Where we previously didn't know how mankind came to be, we now don't know how aliens with the technology to create mankind (a technology beyond ours) came to be.

You have replaced a difficult question with a more difficult question, and suggested that you made things easier by doing so. How very theistic of you.

Just as Dawkins once said... he was "opened to the idea" just like prof. Kaku thought of outthere-somewhere god-like advanced civilizations could exist (as long as it's not anything biblical in discription).


Ah yes, to Lion's post- like having other religions beside us

Other people have no place in a discussion between us. They can speak for themselves, or not at all.

It's obvious to me that belief has no place in any attempt to understand reality. Observation always trumps belief. If you try to elevate belief above observation, your predictions fail, your ideas founder, and your expectations are dashed. Every. Single. Time.

We discuss the bible in terms of the interpretation, debating on what one individual reads from it. If you talk about apsects outside the bible to make an argument against the theology i.e. the natural world V creationism....then these are NOT opposed to each other - I was just trying to make the clarity in this regard.

The Bible is just more 'other people'. They can speak for themselves, or not at all.

What it says in the bible is not your opinion, or your knowledge, or even your beliefs. If I was to want to know what the bible says, I could read it again. But here, it's you and me. Not Dawkins, not James I of England and VI of Scotland, not the pope, not Jesus Christ, not Prof. Proton. Just us.

 

[Learner]

Not as any kind of answer to the question of the origin of life (or even mere intelligence). All the aliens conjecture does is kick the can down the road - we still need an explanation for how the aliens came to be, and hypothesising them has just made our task harder.

Where we previously didn't know how mankind came to be, we now don't know how aliens with the technology to create mankind (a technology beyond ours) came to be.

We are at the same spot in terms of explaning and demonstrating the origns of the universe... in the modern world. Theists can't use bibliclal verses for formulating scientific methods - we ALL understand this, but... some atheists insist we have to.... because you think we believe this.

You can make all sorts of contradicting fallacy arguments from the "bible v science" notion.

You have replaced a difficult question with a more difficult question, and suggested that you made things easier by doing so. How very theistic of you.

How very secular of them (Dawkins and Kaku) to think of those interesting ideas.

Other people have no place in a discussion between us. They can speak for themselves, or not at all.

Or we can quote or mention them when giving examples for an explanation or viewpoint.

The Bible is just more 'other people'. They can speak for themselves, or not at all.

In normal everyday life we speak ABOUT other people, past and present all the time. The news, history, study and learning etc..

What it says in the bible is not your opinion, or your knowledge, or even your beliefs. If I was to want to know what the bible says, I could read it again. But here, it's you and me. Not Dawkins, not James I of England and VI of Scotland, not the pope, not Jesus Christ, not Prof. Proton. Just us.

Well ok that's also fine by me.

 

[DBT]

Theists have no issue with normal causality or how the natural world runs. Obviously then, it's who has what belief in 'how the universe and it's systems came about'.

(we do touch upon the point now and then)

Why should anything be assumed or believed about how the Universe came about?

 

[atrib]

We are at the same spot in terms of explaning and demonstrating the origns of the universe... in the modern world. Theists can't use bibliclal verses for formulating scientific methods - we ALL understand this, but... some atheists insist we have to.... because you think we believe this.

You can make all sorts of contradicting fallacy arguments from the "bible v science" notion.

Many Christians claim that science supports Biblical claims. In fact, in these very forums, you have often made attempts to rationalize your belief in Biblegod using science and set aside scientific findings that contradict Biblical claims. Now you appear to be claiming that Christians don't believe that Biblical claims can be supported by science, but should be accepted on faith. How conveniently you forget.

You also imply that the Biblical story of the universe's creation is somehow equivalent to scientific models that attempt to describe the origin event. They are not equivalent. They are not even close. The Bible is a collection of Bronze Age mythological stories, while science is a system that has been, and continues to be used to successfully explain how reality works.

But most importantly, there is this question on the table that Christians will not touch. Why should we assume that the Biblical claims regarding the origins of the universe are true? When the Biblical claims are unsupported by evidence. And when so many other claims of the Bible are demonstrably wrong, like the age of the earth and the universe, the origin of species, the Noachian flood, and so on?

I would bet good money that you will not answer this question. That you will continue to pretend that this question has never been asked.

 

[Learner]

Theists have no issue with normal causality or how the natural world runs. Obviously then, it's who has what belief in 'how the universe and it's systems came about'.

(we do touch upon the point now and then)

Why should anything be assumed or believed about how the Universe came about?

For some... Curiosity, then creating theories.

 

[DBT]

Theists have no issue with normal causality or how the natural world runs. Obviously then, it's who has what belief in 'how the universe and it's systems came about'.

(we do touch upon the point now and then)

Why should anything be assumed or believed about how the Universe came about?

For some... Curiosity, then creating theories.

Curiosity and theory, hypothesis, speculation and wonder is fine...but is that what religions teach? Or teach as a part of their mission purpose?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Competing descriptions of God are not a credence issue for me. Every single theist who claims God is an elephant trunk, or a tusk, or a flapping ear, or a tail - all unanimously agree that God IS a something real.

That just means we're still collecting data and it's too early to develop a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Otherwise you're just doing what the Raelians are doing. They look at evolution and conclude that we're the creation of aliens and then have faith in that. I think you agree that that is a stupid way to reason?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Competing descriptions of God are not a credence issue for me. Every single theist who claims God is an elephant trunk, or a tusk, or a flapping ear, or a tail - all unanimously agree that God IS a something real.

That just means we're still collecting data and it's too early to develop a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Otherwise you're just doing what the Raelians are doing. They look at evolution and conclude that we're the creation of aliens and then have faith in that. I think you agree that that is a stupid way to reason?

Thoughts are real. Thoughts about gods are real. So gods are thoughts.

 

[bilby]

Competing descriptions of God are not a credence issue for me. Every single theist who claims God is an elephant trunk, or a tusk, or a flapping ear, or a tail - all unanimously agree that God IS a something real.

That just means we're still collecting data and it's too early to develop a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Otherwise you're just doing what the Raelians are doing. They look at evolution and conclude that we're the creation of aliens and then have faith in that. I think you agree that that is a stupid way to reason?

Thoughts are real. Thoughts about gods are real. So gods are thoughts.

Sure. All stories are real stories. But they're not necessarily true stories.

Superman is real, insofar as almost everybody knows who that is, and what makes him different and special.

But stories about Superman are not true. Even though they are obviously real.

And the claim that Batman, Ironman, and Wonder Woman are all aspects of one single superhero are just dumb. All superheroes share some common traits that allow us to categorise them under that 'superhero' umbrella; But to claim that they are therefore just different perspectives of a single and sole superhero, and are therefore all the same person, is frankly nuts.

But, importantly, even if we accepted ad argumentum the daft idea that the Incredible Hulk is just The Flash as seen by a different fan-base, that STILL wouldn't imply that any superheroes exist outside of fiction.

And the only difference between gods and superheroes is that the fans of the former are generally less embarrassed to publicly claim that their utterly implausible works of fiction are the truth.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be embarrassed, just that they are not.