ahh yes post limits..we all had that one aj
[its why i usually avoid articles section]

but were here and debaiting our opinion
about what words mean..[and that gets me every-time]

i note that we all accord meaning to things..[ie materialism]
god isnt matter..god is annimous..[active/movement/flow..
..deeds not words

your parents abused you
because they had..*the wrong idea of good/god
[its not gods fault..god still does the things only god can do]

to reject the whole[god/good]
because your parents thought the wrong about god
isnt their fault nor gods..its the fault of religeons
DEMANDING FAITH in their materialistic mission...[not serving god nor goiod nor gods good creation...but ionly their materialistic adgenda]

im prepared to allow athiests spiritualism
even if strictly speaking they reject..the most holy SPIRIT
most wholly..*not materialistic..spirit of god/good..

that animates all life/living
much like electricity
animates our computers

they obsess about the computer
fully ignoring the power/program..that makes it go

its not your parents fault
it was the materialistic perversions of human thought/

limited thinking
blind leding the blind

mote in the eye
seeing others as sinner
not saved*..like you..

and at least..being spiritual
opens the mind to spirit...[good/god..]
that animates/activates/inputs..*life...into..the matter-ial

somer see things as they appear to be
and thats all they want to see

others need to see more
how/why/what/when/who/

ie logus logic...
that sheds the good light
/logic/love/life/good grace..mercy..;[god]

Dear Yuyutsu,

Sorry for causing confusion here. I should have been more specific in my post - my fault, no offence intended.

My post was directed to A J, Trav, and Pericles, who have been conducting something of a marathon discussion centred on Christianity. However, their deliberations were not restricted to Christianity, and anyway I should have avoided my broad-brush statement, with its unintentional coincidental inferences regarding non-theist belief systems generally. Sorry for that.

I quite agree with your rebuke, and I have come across a number of non-theist, but very spiritual religious, or cultural, "belief" systems to be found in various sectors of human reverence - including Buddhism and Confucianism. I am not a student of religious practice, and didn't really think about it much until prodded into contemplation by some of the articles on this forum, including this one, the SRI one, and the Exclusive Jesus one. Much to contemplate, and much soul-searching.

Some of the belief systems I came across also appear to hold a view that, although they don't subscribe to the proposition of an "external" God or spiritual entity, they seem to hold to a belief in the human soul as a spiritual force within the individual - so they don't "pray" to or revere any supernatural force, but only contemplate, and strive to perfect, the force for good within. I find this quite "pure" and beautiful, with much to commend it.

As for Christianity, and I can only speak for myself in this, God is held to be an external spirituality, with a connection to the inner soul. It is my task to keep my soul pure and without blemish - and that's no easy task I assure you, for one must strive to maintain a respectful and fully harmonious code of conduct at all times. So in my belief system God is a universal presence, but not an entity, and not fathomable. The only way to be "closer" to God is to strive for perfection in external and internal relations, as you have also said.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

AJ,

I work up to 10 hours a day and have plenty to do outside of those times.

I’m over responding to implications you clearly made, only to have you deny that you made them, and so forth.

The time it’ll take me to scroll up the page and quote the part where you did imply such a thing (for example) simply is no longer worth it. It would be worth it if the points we were discussing were more substantive but they not longer fit in that category.

A few quick things on the points you have made on substantive issues.

You have said time and time again that Opinions are not evidence, and cannot be evidence.

So, what is evidence? Lets do a 5 second google search:
from Wikipedia:

“Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion”

dictionary.com:

“that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.”

So clearly, if one can show that their opinion is true, or at least more plausible than the alternative views (on any given subject) then an opinion absolutely can be used to demonstrate the truth of some other thing, and thus an opinion can be evidence.

An opinion cannot be SCIENTIFIC evidence, but it can undoubtedly can be evidence.

continued....

Regarding naturalism and authority, your argument misses the point I was making.

You say that there is nothing “inherently” authoritative about naturalism and thus referring to it as “dogmatic” is ludicrous.

This is irrelevant, because my point was that people DOGMATICALLY stick to their BELIEF in naturalism and refuse to consider opposing views. This means that for THOSE people, naturalism becomes a dogmatic belief system. This precludes them from being free thinkers.

Remember, the context of our discussion is who can and cannot be a free thinker (ie: Critically think and be willing to examine presuppositions). This depends more on the person’s epistemological beliefs and their attitude towards thinking than it does on the other beliefs that they hold.

Therefore, I do not claim that naturalism is a dogmatic belief system for everyone who adheres to it. This is why I said “there are plenty of atheists” for whom naturalism is a dogmatic belief system. I said plenty, which clearly implies SOME but NOT all.

Likewise, there are Christians who think critically and are willing to examine their presuppositions. And there are also many Christians who refuse to question certain beliefs. Thus contra your claim, there are undoubtedly some Christians for whom Christianity is a dogmatic belief system, but equally there are some who are willing to examine their presuppositions, and thus they are free thinkers who do not hold to a dogmatic belief system without question.

The issue of whether or not each belief system is “inherently” against critical thinking is a separate issue, and it is irrelevant to the question of whether adherents of said belief systems can think freely, because that depends on a person's epistemology and their view of thinking. Clearly, Christianity is a big enough tent to contain both epistemologies.

Pericles, I haven’t forgotten about your post, btw

Trav,

Every time I see that you’ve posted again, I think to myself, “Now what on Earth could this guy possibly have left to say?” Then you disappoint me with the same old discredited arguments.

<<You have said time and time again that Opinions are not evidence, and cannot be evidence.>>

Correct. Opinions are formed on evidence but opinions do not constitute evidence as they say nothing about how the holder of the opinion arrived at their conclusion.

<<So, what is evidence? Lets do a 5 second google search:>>

This’ll be fun.

<<...from Wikipedia: “Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion”>>

Yes, and opinions don’t come under that definition for the reasons I just mentioned. An opinion doesn’t say anything about how it was arrived at. The explanation does that and the explanation would describe the evidence.

<<dictionary.com: “that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.”>>

Same as above.

<<So clearly, if one can show that their opinion is true, or at least more plausible than the alternative views (on any given subject) then an opinion absolutely can be used to demonstrate the truth of some other thing...>>

Exactly!

You said it yourself: “...if one can show that their opinion is true, or at least more plausible than the alternative views...”

And they do that with the explanation, not the opinion.

You used an opinion [that you personally would expect the 7% figure to be higher if religion were divisive] as a control mechanism to gauge whether or not the7% of religious wars was adequate for my claim. To back this up (i.e. your explanation), you failed to take into account the fact that external factors cause people to cherry-pick the good bits in the doctrines of their chosen religion and assumed that everyone who adhered to an inherently divisive belief system would necessarily be out for blood and war.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Regarding naturalism and authority... my point was that people DOGMATICALLY stick to their BELIEF in naturalism and refuse to consider opposing views.>>

How do you know this? You don’t know how others think and basing your argument on such an assumption is asinine. All we can really look at is the belief system itself and whether or not it encourages others to, or dictates that others, be dogmatic.

Nice try though.

<<This means that for THOSE people, naturalism becomes a dogmatic belief system. This precludes them from being free thinkers.>>

And it’s at this point that I would remind you of what I mentioned about the contrast between theists and atheists in regards to the attitude that is often displayed towards evidence and whether or not it would change their minds.

<<Remember, the context of our discussion is who can and cannot be a free thinker (ie: Critically think and be willing to examine presuppositions).>>

No, not so much “examine”, but the willingness to “change” them if the evidence dictates.

<<This depends more on the person’s epistemological beliefs and their attitude towards thinking than it does on the other beliefs that they hold.>>

Precisely.

The difference with religious belief, though, is that is has the ability to completely change the all important “attitude” that you mention.

<<Likewise, there are Christians who think critically and are willing to examine their presuppositions.>>

Oh they "examine" them all right, but the nature of the belief (as I have demonstrated) prevents them from "changing" their presupposition (i.e. that a god exists).

<<The issue of whether or not each belief system is “inherently” against critical thinking is a separate issue...

No, it’s not, because the belief system has the ability to influence the epistemology greatly.

They are not separate issues at all.