But what are ideas without people holding them - and spreading them? That the world is made of earth, air, fire and water was quite the idea 2,000 years ago, but not so much today because no one believes it.
I mentioned that people who hold ideas because they are indoctrinated get a pass from me. Whether they live in a totalitarian country where it is illegal to say that Communism isn’t the way, or they get sent to Sunday School for 10 years, many are not intellectually capable of seeing the arguments against. Or emotionally ready. There was an article in the Times Magazine about a preacher who lost his faith and became an atheist - and it was very hard for him. Let’s not criticize people who do not want to lose their jobs too much.
I’ll reserve it for the people who know better, or should, and keep the stupid ideas. The global warming deniers in Congress. Creationists with jobs they’d keep even if they got sense. They are too smart to be indoctrinated. They must believe this bunk because of personality flaws.
Der Trihs, this is a source of a great deal about religious groups in the United States: UFABET ทางเข้า เว็บพนัน ยูฟ่าเบท NO. 1 ของประเทศไทย
Sorry, I’ve forgotten how to make a link. The charts of membership in different denominations are particularly interesting. By percentage of Americans in any particular faith, the first fundamentalist group is 6th in size. They confuse things a little by combining all Baptist Churches into one (which is insane approach). Southern Baptists are much more fundamentalist that just Baptists. Catholics are the largest group and I don’t believe they consider themselves to be a denomination.
There is one comment by a theologian who believes that mainline churches are crumbling. But they are not moving toward a more fundamentalist viewpoint. They are becoming much more open and loving in their approach to their faith.
I am not blind to harrassment myself. I taught in a school with some very out-spoken fundamentalists who wished to “run interference” on my having All Saints’ Day and Ash Wednesday off – even though the contract specified that allowances should be made for different faiths.
The only people who have come to my door in 50 years of adulthood have been Southern Baptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons. All of them were very pleasant and non pushy as I sent them on their way. Certainly I do not intend to generalize about all fundamentalists.
I remain open to Atheists, Buddists, Muslims, and other beliefs. I believe that each person must follow her or his own path.
Human Action, thanks for the statistical support!
I can easily separate the beliefs from the believer. It took getting old and reflecting on my own life to be able to do that. Christians who believe the teachings of the Christ still do horrible things in spite of their beliefs. And other Christians are imperfect also. (That is my belief rather than a statement of fact, but I doubt that many here will disagree.)
I agree. I was somewhat indoctrinated by my mother and I had to go to Sunday School and church every Sunday. It was a young minister friend who helped me to have a broader understanding of Biblical interpretation. (That was over 50 years ago and he is still a friend.) I don’t take the Bible literally. Some college courses in the Bible were helpful. And broadening my reading sources has shaped my beliefs. I don’t know if I choose them or if, when I read an idea that appeals to me, there is recognition of already believing that to be true.
I want to add that my father held pretty much the same beliefs in his later years. He too was open to other faiths. After his death I found out that it was a book on the World’s Great Religions that I had bought when I was seventeen that had influenced his thinking.
Der Trihs, if a person does not know all members of a group and yet makes negative generalizations about those people, is that not the same as prejudice and bigotry? I am just seeking your opinion.
Hardly. “The KKK is composed of bad people” is a bigoted statement now? By your definition of “bigotry”, it is impossible to express any negative opinion towards any large group without being a “bigot”. Nazis, racists, cannibals, the Spanish Inquisition, the Khmer Rouge, torturers, NAMBLA, the Mongol armies of conquest, the Confederacy, and on and on…unless people express unqualified approval of those groups, they are a “bigot” by your logic.
The way I’m gathering it is Gallop asked which of these three statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible.
The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word. 30%
The Bible is the inspired word of God, but not everything in it should be taken literally. 49%
The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts by man. 17%
Look at the middle statement, you will find that while they may not take everything 100% as literally true in the Bible, the vast majority of them certainly still take many of the stories as just that. Wouldn’t you agree? Or am I missing something?
75% still believe Jesus was literally resurrected. Look at the other specific biblical stories as well. If this is the case, how can one say only 3 in 10 take the bible literally?
It seems according to the OT, that God chose an adulterer and murderer to lead his people, and have his linage through that! Being that God is supposed to be all loving, and knowing, I wouldn’t think sending his child to an eternal hell fire was very loving either. I believe hell is a human invention to lead people by fear or guilt. I expect a supreme being to be more loving than me and I wouldn’t kill any of my children to favor another!When Iknew ahead of time( before they were concieved) they would be evil!
I would add as a post script that even if Howard was a genius he could still desire to have a being he could depend on, belief as I see it has nothing to do with intellect,but desire.Perhaps he needed something to help his mind accept what his mind built for him.
This isn’t much of a miracle. Stuff like this happens all the time.
You bring up some age-old philosophical points that humans have struggled with for centuries. That being said, I really don’t understand what your response has to do with what I posted.
As a lawyer it’s funny to me to keep reading in this thread that there is no “evidence” of the existence of God.
There are two kinds of evidence–testimonial and circumstantial.
There is evidence of the existence of God–people’s experieinces of the divine. I’ve had such an experience myself (which I will not describe except to say that it was internal, contrary to my beliefs and inclinations at the time, and one I can only explain as a vision).
But testimony that is not supported by circumstantial evidence (I.e. established facts from which we can draw conclusions) isn’t evidence that is likely to be accepted, however credible the witness.
Before I had my own experience, I would not have accepted it as genuine if recounted to me by someone else–though I would not have dismissed the person who described it or believed in it as crazy, dishonest or evil.
Hottius Maximus in reference to your post #92 how seriously can you take Howard Storm’s predictions of Jesus or anything about him? And no, Storm didn’t die. NDE (near death experience) means what? Near death, or temporarily without a heartbeat or however one may describe it, is not the same as stinking rotting dead. You’ve got to quit putting so much emphasis on personal testimony. It does sell things, and that’s why they are used exclusively in info-commercials to sell all kinds of worthless junk including books and religion. You said you have no reason to doubt Storm’s claim. There are plenty. Read Hume instead, and apply his scale.
Nobody is mentioning the other problem with testimonial evidence-when gathered together, it is vastly contradictory.
I don’t see why it’s so funny, sounds like normal reasoning to me… Legal system I would think works almost identically.
Not sure I’m understanding your comment correctly, but in law we do not say “no evidence” when we mean “testimonial evidence unsupported by circumstantial evidence” or “testimonial evidence that is not believed”
So that’s what’s funny (peculiar not ha-ha)
Testimonials are evidence, so are anecdotes, but is on the lower scale. Good enough for a court of law, but not for scientific papers.
I did think you meant ha ha funny, that’s made me a bit curious. The “no evidence” thing is why I said “almost identical”. From what I understand a testimony is evidence, but WHAT it is evidence of is questionable, depending on supporting arguments. I treat your post as a “testimony” of sorts. I know there’s TONS of evidence that proves people believe God exists, but it’s not the same thing as evidence that God does exist.
it’s perhaps a rather fine point (lawyers are fine-pointers of course) but testimonial evidence is frequently at least somewhat subjective and dependent upon the witness’s interpretation–unless it’s “I saw Colenol Mustard do it with the revolver in the library” which is not usually the case. So e.g. if the witness says the defendant admitted something what exactly did the defendant say, how did he say it, why did he say it, is the witness biased etc…that’s why I always remind juries to weigh the testimony in light of the circumstances (and of course as pointed out above in light of what other witnesses have said)
But “I saw God” or “I felt God” is still testimony and still evidence, just not evidence most people are inclined to accept unless it fits with their own experiences and thinking.
Defining “evidence” that broadly renders the term essentially useless.
At that point, it’s a little hard for me to say that they “believe” what they say, as much as they are simply mouthing it for purposes of partisan advantage. I was mostly thinking of the people who, in all good faith, really do believe the ideas in question (or have simply never given it much thought at all, but simply repeat what they have been taught all their lives.)
For these people of good faith, I separate the belief from the person…delicately. If they truly do believe it, there is a better chance that they have formed an emotional attachment for it.
For those people of bad faith, I haul 'em down to the BBQ Pit and tell 'em what I really think of 'em! :mad:
Oops; my apologies. I was seeing the questions as having more room for overlap, such that simply adding the numbers would have been grotesquely fallacious. I failed to perceive that the questions are intended not to overlap. My blunder.
On the first day God created man.
OR
On the first day Man created God
You decide (neither is wrong neither is right,spiritual beliefs cant be proved especially by science as science only deals with things that we already know)
They may be a God, they may be many Gods and they may not be any. Arguing doesnt make any of these sentiments any more true, no point really
There are denominations that teach that the Bible is literal (dictated by God, I suppose) – that every story really happened and nothing is contradictory. There are other denominations that teach that the Bible is [not the literal word of God, but rather inspired by God and a general guideline on faith and practice. Who knows? Can’t we learn from many sources, including some myths? Do we have to believe that everything written in the Bible is rock solid literal or everything is trash? There are other viewpoints between those two extremes.
At least a couple of us have expressed that we have “seen” evidence. Why should we expect Atheists to see things as being created by God? Fractals are evidence to me, but not necessarily to scientists.
Are you talking about testimony in a literal courtroom? I can understand that – especially with eye witnesses. Some personal religious experiences are different too, but not necessarily contradictory.
You can read minds now and know people’s motives? That is an unscientific stance. Do you think that people with beliefs similar to yours are tolerant of Christians? Do you feel that I am beating on you with my questions to you? (If you do, I will stop posting in this thread.) Do you feel that I am beating on you when I disagree with you? I think honest answers from you might be helpful to both of us, but I certainly don’t insist that you respond to them if you wish to avoid them.
Evidence can be very minor and still be useful. We aren’t talking of proof. When I said that I have had evidence of the existence of God, I specified that it wasn’t scientific evidence. My evidence was personal to me. I don’t expect anyone to believe it except for the ones that have experienced something similar. Even then, some just don’t know what they think about it.
Technically, I didn’t give you a definition of “bigot” or “bigotry.” I did ask you a question about bigotry. I try to label behavior instead of people. I think that many people in the KKK do or have done very bad things. Some have seen the “error of their ways.” Are they still “bad people” to you? Some people judged a KKK member here in Middle Tennessee as being bad since they didn’t know him. Actually he had infiltrated the Klan. He was a journalist who wanted to expose the truth. It took a lot of courage to do what he did. I’m sure that I have loved many KKK members as a kid without knowing that they were members of the KKK. But as a whole, I will admit that I am a bigot when it comes to the KKK.
As for Nazi’s, I am old enough to have memories about plans to hide from them. But I don’t think all Nazi’s were bad. Oskar Schindler was a Nazi. He did some good things and some bad things. I would think maybe other Nazis did too. But am I bigoted against Nazis? Generally, yes.
I think racists, some cannibals, Spanish Inquisitors, the Khmer Rouge, torturers, the Mongol armies of conquest, members of the Confederacy, and members of the Union did some very bad things. I think anyone who held slaves did bad things. But I won’t label our Founding Fathers as “bad” people. I don’t think of male chauvinists as bad, but they have done many bad things. Like some slave owners, some chauvinists didn’t realize that they were doing anything bad. Would you say that the rugby players that crashed in the Andes were “bad” to consume their dead mates? By definition torturers do bad things. Members of the Khmer Rouge did horrible things in Cambodia. Did they all participate? I don’t know.
I don’t see that I am very different from anyone in these groups. We are all more alike than we are different. I am the Nazi. I am the Jew, I am the Arab, I am the neo-con, and the slave owner. Do you understand?