BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 11:03 PM

I believe in empiricism.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 11:06 PM

That's great biLL. I read a book by Gnome a while back

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 01:39 AM

I believe in the power of color to imagine the world.

Stephen Lee

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 01:43 AM

On the other hand, I also believe that Tuesdays are illegal in Bolivia. So, what do I know?

Stephen Lee

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 04:41 AM

I'm not that keen on dogs but I'm not going to deny they exist. I was once bitten by a chihuahua. Apart from that, I'm with you all the way, WYSIWYG.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: theleveller
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 08:03 AM

I believe in keeping my spiritual beliefs to myself as they are, and proably always will be, a work in progress. I believe it would be a better world if more people did the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 08:18 AM

Perhaps we all like to live by our own beliefs butI think it is good to hear what others beliefs are...who knows...perhaps one day we may all find out the 'Truth' whatever it is..but how will we find it unless someone tells us about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: theleveller
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 08:21 AM

In spiritual matters there is no truth, only belief. Isn't that what having faith means?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 08:27 AM

I believe that's an error, Leveler. Or, do you think it is really true?

;>)



A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 08:55 AM

Because you have not found any 'truth' in Spiritual matters theleveller...does not mean there is no truth...and if you cannot accept that there might be some truth in it somewhere then you are unlikely to find it as you have already dismissed it. I believe everyone should be open minded or they might miss something.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 10:19 AM

Mike....you simply don't see the implications buried in that sort of argument. The point you make: "Because you have not found it...doesn't mean it isn't there" also implies directly "it also means it might NOT be there."
You are essentially asking folks to "believe in order to believe".
Having an "open mind" in this context is just a euphemism for "not questioning". A **TRULY** open mind always considers all possibilities, and in doing so sees the weaknesses in assertions about metaphysical claims.
   Remember...*you* are making a claim....which requires you to defend it. It does NOT require others to prove it false.

If I were to make a claim that my house was built by spirits and has ghosts roaming its rooms, you'd see the point easily! You'd shrug and ask me to show you some evidence....and probably just say, "well, go on...believe as you please, but I've walked about your house, and I saw nothing." I doubt that my asking you to 'try harder' would impress you.

If I reply that these spirits have important & meaningful messages, you could rightfully reply, "yes, but I get MY messages from a different spiritual source".

well....you see how it goes. You had a strong experience at one time, and it helps you and supports you, and that's great. We're just not all 'wired' to see truth the same way.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 10:27 AM

I believe in eupraxsophy.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 10:40 AM

"Eupraxsophy (previously "eupraxophy" but updated) [1] is a nonreligious life stance or worldview emphasizing the importance of living an ethical and exuberant life, and relying on rational methods such as logic, observation and science (rather than faith, mysticism or revelation) toward that end. The word "eupraxsophy" was coined by Paul Kurtz, and comes from the Greek words for "good practice and wisdom." Eupraxsophies, like religions, are cosmic in their outlook, but eschew the supernatural component of religion, avoiding the "transcendental temptation," as Kurtz puts it."

A fine belief system, from the looks of it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 10:43 AM

BillD..I don't believe I was making any kind of claim in my last posting...just suggesting that people should have open minds or they might miss the 'truth'...and I did not assert that my understanding of the truth was the correct one. I also suggest that I was not asking anyone to believe in order to believe, rather suggesting that people seek the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 10:52 AM

OF course, when we start dancing with the spiritual side of existence, truth takes on a very shimmery, volatile sort of quality, I would offer. Not the sort of thing that passes for truth in the Common Sphere at all. A mish-mash of imaginary, asserted, revivified or just badly remembered entities and personae, speculations, hokums and pokums of every description, no?





A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 11:00 AM

Who gets to define "Common Sphere"? How would you define it?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: theleveller
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 11:14 AM

Just remember, Georgiansilver, in spiritual matters, one person's truth is another's lies. Perhaps that's why, like Dr David Hope (good name that), the former Archbishop of York, I believe that it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 12:55 PM

I believe in reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 12:57 PM

Ok, Mike....but you have made it clear which 'truth' you espouse, and I have little doubt what you think & hope people will discover AS truth if they seek it openly and carefully for long enough. Not stating it explicitly in a particular post doesn't change the point I was making....that ANY search for absolutes requires that 'open mind' to close when picking one absolute out of a list.

I will drop the subject now..*smile*...and offer you the 'best wishes' you offer to others.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 01:15 PM

A *smile* and Best wishes to you too.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 02:22 PM

The common sphere, Wes, was a phrase I used to indicate the region where viewpoints agree. For example, in human affairs, everyone agrees that gravity is, and that space is contiguous, extensible and so on. These are the fundamentals of agreed-yupon perception that make the physical universe a shared experience. I suppose, though, you can find a few renegade outliers on all those points, come to think of it, so maybe it is really a mere rumour!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 02:25 PM

I also believe that people should put kindness first on their list of priorities. Doesn't mean I think they DO - but I believe we ought to.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 05:04 PM

And I believe that there are no "shoulds" in the universe. Certainly not to impose upon others as moral imperatives. Because I also believe in boundaries.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 06:39 PM

Just to keep the conversation going, I'm tempted to dress up like a god, alert the media in advance, and make sure they observe me catching a freight out of Kansas City...

                   It'd be hard to make the case there are no gods after that!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 06:48 PM

Hey Riginslinger..how do Gods dress then? So I should know if I see one! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 07:06 PM

It doesn't matter. All that has to be done is to get Ann Coulter to convince Bill O'Reilly that a god was seen leaving the Kansas City switch yard. He believes anything she says, so he'll go on the air with it, and it'll be real. Just like Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: number 6
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 07:36 PM

Good one Ringinslinger ... LOL

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 08:19 PM

Give it a rest, Mrzzy.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 09:45 PM

? Putting kindness first is a bad thing? I am confused. How have I offended you?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 12:07 AM

You have definitely offended me. This is a mean-spirited thread, and I've about had it with your anti-religious cheap shots. Claiming that you put kindness first, after all the nastiness and smarmyness that you have posted puts it over the top. Enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 07:33 AM

I also believe that people should put kindness first on their list of priorities. Doesn't mean I think they DO - but I believe we ought to.

Mrr, when you post in opinion of what "people" or "we" should do, you go beyond saying what you expect of yourself, which is one approach to morality... You go beyond stating what you prefer other people to do towards you personally, which is one approach to negotiating relationships... You get into what other people ought to do, according to your values.

And just as you are offended when religious people tell you what you ought to do because of their values, it's offensive. A good number of Mudcatters are independent-minded enough to rankle at that tone, whehter they share the underlying belief or not, because it sets your judgment above their own.



I also share M.Ted's feeling.....

The other thread had quite a lot of deliberately thoughtful dialog in it, and a number of open points still under discussion between thoughtful individuals.... which (IMO) transcended the mean-spirited opening post it had. Then I saw that you had made a deliberate effort-- starting this "new" thread-- that took it right back to the intolerant and mean-spirited tone a number of people had worked hard to rise above.

Now you post about kindness... it's just a bit too much to straddle.


I'd like to suggest that you get off the "save the proselytized" soapbox for a moment and think how you would like your children to be treated if they made an effort to overcome a prejudice and then saw the prejudicial action aimed at them and redoubled by someone proclaiming, of all things, kindness.

If you posted about kindness because I asked what people believe in, here is an opportunity to exercise your belief by demonstrating what kindness YOU have attained.


I wish you well, but in these religion threads I am usually left feeling that you wish me not well, but harm. And you don't even know me.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 10:57 AM

There you have it, Mrrzy. It's pretty obvious, looking at the last few posts, that you have to be addicted to some ancient superstition in order to understand kindness.

                     Maybe if you went out and mugged some old lady, and stole her purse, they'd figure you'd be worth saving.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 11:11 AM

Wow!! Mrrzy posted a belief in direct response to WYS' request--not to say challenge--and all of a sudden she being chewed on for posting it the wrong way?

Please do not take such offense. It could be a lot worse than the relatively polite stuff in these periwinkle posts.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 04:11 PM

Um - I didn't start this thread, you know. Well, I continued the one that had gotten really long, but the ones I had started were long off the front page. And you don't have to read my posts... although I wish you would.

And I don't think it a kindness anymore to allow people their insistence on refusing reality. I have said again and again that I'm not talking about rational people who accept reality and nonetheless, for no other reason than their faith, have faith.

I don't feel chewed on, by the way, but thanks! I am reminded of the old joke about the two sociologists who come across someone bleeding in the ditch, and say Whoever did this needs our help!

And being an atheist says absolutely nothing but good about the rational person's morals - after all, if it's only your invisible friends keeping you moral, I'd be afraid of you. I prefer to assume it's your intelligence and humanity. Are you really saying, WYSIWYG, that your values don't agree with kindness? Your posts to date belie that.

And I don't say people should be kind because I don't believe in superstitions, but because it's the right thing to do - whereas you (plural) seem to be arguing that people doing good because of their faith are somehow different (better?). I would agree that my thinking their motivation strange doesn't minimize the good they do. Again, I reiterate that my argument is that if you base your actions on superstitions, you justify an awful lot of horrors that are impossible to justify rationally by anyone with an ounce of kindness.

I maintain that the fact and threat of harm far, far outweigh the possibility of good, which good would happen anyway - but not the harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 05:13 PM

"And I don't think it a kindness anymore to allow people their insistence on refusing reality"

One aspect or version of reality, anyway. Aspect if you accept there may be more beyond the empirical that is also real; version if you deny it.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 05:22 PM

Bill - "Having an "open mind" in this context is just a euphemism for "not questioning". A **TRULY** open mind always considers all possibilities, and in doing so sees the weaknesses in assertions about metaphysical claims"

Fair enough. But I think some element of discrimination must of necessity come into it as we go thorugh life. For example, one might come to accept the reality of physical forces such as gravity, while recognising with an open mind that such forces may not exist or may act differently in certain circumstances. But that's a long way from being so open-minded that we are willing to test the theory out at any time, on any cliff.....

Another point "A **TRULY** open mind always considers all possibilities".... so, in this case (i.e under the topic of this thread) then, a truly open mind would at least accept there may be a God and not flatly deny it, correct? (and no, I have no-one in particular in mind here just in case anyone on the thread rushes to get offended, just a general observation)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 05:32 PM

A truly open mind, on the other hand, would happily agree that there's never been even a smidgen of evidence that there is now, or ever had been, any kind of a goD.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 05:48 PM

Kindness is a tricky proposition. Anyone trained in tough love knows the doctrine that you have to stick to the truth in order to dispel the obsessive rationalizations and justifications the mind manufacturers in an effort to somehow integrate its delusions with its more accurate data.

But it is ALSO true that the growth of a changing mind finding newer, richer, or wiser ways to see things only comes about in spaces where the individual's sovereign ownership of his own world view is not challenged or choked off. It is extremely hard to change a point of view WHILE you are having to defend it.

In the strange mixup of universes that leads people to generate religious propositions, there are some facts and some speculation and some downright inventions, just as, for example, there were all three present in the borning of the phlogiston theory, the caloric model of heat, or the invisible-ether explanation for the transmission of waves through vacuum. Intellectually, we outgrew all three of those models as we acquired better knowledge through experience (or so it seemed).

So -- both the learning and growing mind AND the mind that wishes to help and be kind, have to proceed with a modicum of appropriate humility just to be effective at what they are setting out to do, and for no bigger reason than that.


A
WHose-mouth-is-on-another-damned-roll...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 05:52 PM

I don't know, Ringslinger, once again it all boils down to what kind of evidence you look for. If you are looking for height, weight and length, you might have some trouble spotting God, but on the other hand if you speak to people who've felt the effect of His presence in their lives, and seen some of the changes He's wrought in people you might form other opinions... and I do say a truly open mind will, as BillD says, consider all the possibilities.

But I agree it's a tough one. As Madonna sang "I'm an empirical girl, in an empirical world..." and if you've been raised in that, or trained to think that way, then it requires some effort to break out of it and look for other kinds of evidence and realities beyond the mere five senses.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:03 PM

A Cherokee Legend [from the www]. I love the message, btw.


An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. "A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.

"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:06 PM

Amos, I think one problem though with 18th century rationalism is that humility went out the window in fact. While there is no doubting the empirical sciences' success in explaining the physical world, there has been a paradign shift over the last two hundred years that tends to assume that if science has dispelled old models about how the physical world works, it can equally do so in relation to our spiritual needs. Now, there's no humility in that, more hubris rather.

Some empiricists seem to have this anthropological view of religion, i.e that it served some useful need in ancient times, such as explaining why thunder clapped (eg God sneezed) or the crops failed, and that we have now outgrown such babyish explanations. But I posit that such 'explanations' existed first and foremost in the minds of the anthropologists themselves, who, perhaps because of the social darwinism of the cultures from which they sprang (now, there's a anthropological area ripe for study!), tended to assume technologically inferior societies were also intellectually inferior. This is not humility, it's self-delusion.

One of the best books I've come across dealing with this is Sale Kirkpatrick's "The Conquest of Paradise", though Richard Erdoes & John Fire Lame Deer "Sioux Medicine Man" makes several of the same points. And you can also see this clearly in Thomas O Crothan's "The Islandman" (he lived in a stone-age society both by lifestyle and technology, in the 1800s, but had an intellect and objectivity that would put many to shame today).

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:10 PM

Excellent Cherokee story. It's so true.... but I find I need a little help in order not to feed the bad wolf!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:14 PM

Me too, Nick. Amos, btw, is one of God's angels on this planet. But he's very independent.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 07:04 PM

Hell, what good would an angel be if he weren't independent?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 07:12 PM

Nick,

Thanks for the thoughtful posts.

A couple of observations. Although scientific method can fall into the entanglement of materialism, this is not a flaw in the method but in the individual use of it. The logic of sound heuristic and empirical method does not go away because it approaches a spiitual question, but obviously, you have to apply the principles intelligently for the domain you are addressing. One example I have brought up many times before is that while material constructions above the quantum level tend to perform nearly identically under identical situations -- all hydrogen atoms, for example, have the same mass -- there is no reason to assume that that kind of repeat performance is a standard trait of any spiritual phenomenon.   Of course, even getting a fair grasp of what the differences are is difficult to do in a testable way, because of the intimacy of spiritual phenomena.

But whatever you may have encountered in a spiritual realm which you bless with the label God, it is a bit too facile to consider you have not only touched the face of the Infinite but have touched the face the face of the same Infinite that another would experience if only he or she is open to the experience.

It is perfectly possible that what you touched was the face of God filtered through some prior definition or other. It is pretty common in stories of meeting an embodiment of God to have him say that He appears in forms the individual can experience comfortably.

To impose a label on Infinity may be necessary for the preservation of one's individual sanity. But to impose that label on any other being alive is just arrogance, and self-serving, no matter how big or grandiose a label it is.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 07:25 PM

"...a truly open mind would at least accept there may be a God and not flatly deny it, correct? "

That's correct.

But do be careful what inferences you draw from my admission. A truly open mind may admit that it is 'possible' that the spirit of Abe Lincoln is guiding George Bush....but such a claim would get few bets...or even any idea of how to test it. But I guess anyone is free to believe it. Further...IF you get 129,000,000 people to believe it, all you have is a 'force to be reckoned with', not necessarily a 'truth'.

One way of testing the status of a claim is to substitute other terms and see if it still seems like a reasonable construction.
This in no way addresses the possible metaphorical value of whatever story, religious view, custom, cultural value...etc. being discussed.

It is very hard to discuss these issues that mean so much to many people in ways that neither insult them on one hand nor grant their basic premises on the other hand.

A famous philosopher, Blaise Pascal, once argued that belief in a god was a 'good bet', because you won a lot if you bet right, and lost a lot if you were wrong. ("Pascal's Wager"). Trouble is, Pascal didn't consider all the possible ways one could bet...and philosophers ever since have waged an uphill struggle trying to explain why such a great argument was flawed.

still...Yes, an open mind is always ready to receive new evidence....but always with a pretty strict notion of what counts as 'evidence'.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 07:40 PM

Amos,

"But whatever you may have encountered in a spiritual realm which you bless with the label God, it is a bit too facile to consider you have not only touched the face of the Infinite but have touched the face the face of the same Infinite that another would experience if only he or she is open to the experience"

This part seems to carry the implication that there is more than one God. From the Christian persepctive, obviously by definition that's impossible, as God is seen as being a supreme being. You can have many tall buildings, but only one tallest.

On the other hand you may mean (I'm not sure) that probably no two people experience the same God the same way.

I don't deny that any two individual's experiences of what they call God may be different in ways. But it's like the 'can two people agree the colour is blue?' question. Even if another person sees a slightly different shade of blue, and even if we can never be 100% certain about this because of the subjectivity of each person's senses, both can agree to call that particular colour blue. It may even be a completely different colour to both (though this seems unlikely). It matters not, only that they both realise that it is not like other colours and that they can both recognise it when they see it.

Experiences of God may be a bit like this too. At least that's what I've found talking to other people with similar experiences: we find enough in common to agree we have both touched the same thing in some tangible way.

"It is perfectly possible that what you touched was the face of God filtered through some prior definition or other"

Perhaps, I don't know. I hear that people who've seen apparitions of Our Lady (Mary) have seen her according to their culture. I've never seen her, so I don't know. Perhaps God reveals Himself in ways people can cope with, to approach them in a familiar form. I don't know from your post if you're speaking about some physical / visual / auditory perception of God or something more abstract. Again, from speaking to people from all over the world the 'extra-sensory' perception (i.e not physical empirical) of what people call God seems to have many common traits, regardless of cultural background.

"But to impose that label [on Infinity] on any other being alive is just arrogance, and self-serving, no matter how big or grandiose a label it is"

I'm intrigued by this part. What do you mean? I don't think I understand it very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 07:50 PM

Bill, we're singing from the same hymn sheet so. I agree that just because 50 million Frenchmen... etc.,

"One way of testing the status of a claim is to substitute other terms and see if it still seems like a reasonable construction'

In the absence of concrete examples here to clarify what you mean, I'll go out on a limb by observing that the terms used as substitutes may themselves be culturally loaded with significance that has a major influence on whether one views them as being reasonable constructions. A bit like the student of langauges who guesses the verb has this or that ending 'because it sounds right'.

But from what you write overall in that post, I get the impression you do believe there are some truths to be had. "But I guess anyone is free to believe it. Further...IF you get 129,000,000 people to believe it, all you have is a 'force to be reckoned with', not necessarily a 'truth' " It seems to me (I may be wrong) that for that statement to have any practical value, one would have to hold the view that there is some such thing as truth, that some things are true (and conversely, others are not) and that there is some way to recognise truth. Otherwise it would become a entertaining but otherwise redundant academic exercise to even ponder the question. Am I on the right track?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 08:19 PM

Right track? Yes...mostly....but even science does not usually proclaim any data or theory to represent some sort of absolute truth. They (researchers) might often bet that IF all data were known, theory 'X' would be true....stuff like gravity and the co-efficient of friction...whatever.

What they are most interested in is ideas which CAN be tested and new knowlege gained. Most religious ideas just don't fit that category...thus the very USE of the term 'belief' instead of 'know'. The problems arise, as we see, when EITHER believers wish to suggest that their belief ought to be adopted by everyone, or when NON-believers try to deny believers freedom to practice their beliefs. Both attitudes lead to conflict.

Now...I will likely not be on for a few days. I'll trace the thread and see what's happening later.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 08:25 PM

... problems arise, as we see, when EITHER believers wish to suggest that their belief ought to be adopted by everyone, or when NON-believers try to deny believers freedom to practice their beliefs. Both attitudes lead to conflict....

Bill,

What I am having trouble with is not that people deny me freedom to practice my faith-- they can't, actually, since it's mostly a freedom of the mind and spirit: a freedom of motivation.

What's getting to me these days is when there is insistence from non-believers that their non-belief ought to be adopted by believers-- in particular, me. It's just a crazy way of thinking; I have trouble reconciling that with their insistence that I better not try to tell them what to believe-- I already DON'T-- so when they try it on me in reverse, it just seems nuts to me!

~Susan