Do you believe in God?

[Imari]

Well, I've been praying for a miracle for my autistic sons for about 14 years now...

It's a pretty textbook example of uncritical acceptance. There is no response to your prayers that doesn't simply confirm your belief.

You may be fine with that. Many people aren't. Mostly because they'd rather gain knowledge than be right.

 

[RikkiGT-R]

@RacerTed let me ask you; are you afraid to not believe in God (or doubt Him)? Or do you genuinely and wholeheartedly believe in His existence?

A thousand years ago, the plausibility of God was much more realistic given humans' total lack of understanding (as a whole, there were of course many exceptions - philosophers, thinkers, scientists, astronomers and so on). But as time goes by we are learning more and more about the Universe, Earth, our own species, evolution, physics and so on.

The more we learn, the less plausible God is becoming. Christianity is being painted into a corner of borderline nonsense. Believers in the Bible are more and more claiming that the verses within are "metaphors" rather than literal instruction, because as we advance as a species we realise that things like slavery, marrying your rape victim, infanticide, subjugation of women, mass genocide (of which God is guilty) etc - I could go on - are utterly absurd.
Christians pick and choose which verses to take literally in order to align with modern law and thinking, and those verses are being slowly but surely ruled out. The Bible is so primitive in its entirety that eventually the whole thing will be known as a work of total fiction.

Then what?

 

[Rallywagon]

@RacerTed let me ask you; are you afraid to not believe in God (or doubt Him)? Or do you genuinely and wholeheartedly believe in His existence?

A thousand years ago, the plausibility of God was much more realistic given humans' total lack of understanding (as a whole, there were of course many exceptions - philosophers, thinkers, scientists, astronomers and so on). But as time goes by we are learning more and more about the Universe, Earth, our own species, evolution, physics and so on.

The more we learn, the less plausible God is becoming. Christianity is being painted into a corner of borderline nonsense. Believers in the Bible are more and more claiming that the verses within are "metaphors" rather than literal instruction, because as we advance as a species we realise that things like slavery, marrying your rape victim, infanticide, subjugation of women, mass genocide (of which God is guilty) etc - I could go on - are utterly absurd.
Christians pick and choose which verses to take literally in order to align with modern law and thinking, and those verses are being slowly but surely ruled out. The Bible is so primitive in its entirety that eventually the whole thing will be known as a work of total fiction.

Then what?

I would imagine at that time, those keen on believing will continue too, and continue to say that the Bible isn't the work of god, but rather, humans best try at understanding the word of God. And continue to say that everything in it is a metaphor.

 

[RikkiGT-R]

@Rallywagon that's a fair comment, and definitely a realistic possibility.

 

[Rallywagon]

I mean, as RacerTed inadvertently alludes to, at this point, religion is more about disillusionment and confirmation bias. A thousand times you can pray to no avail, without ever batting an eye at questioning your faith. But that one time something you did pray for, no matter how insignificant or even likely to happen, that one time out of a thousand clearly proves god. Confirmation bias to be sure.
And the disillusionment comes in when, excluding even the "holy texts" of any given religion, you still think that your God, who created polio, meningitis, TB, congenital diseases and disorders and uh "miswiring" people's brains into making them think they are gay (psshh, eye roll hard and rudely) and so much more, is not a capricious, hateful, sinister jerk, but rather the perfect embodiment of all that is good, pure and just...
PS. Sorry for the run-on, I was on a roll.

 

[Lain]

You can even abuse your own confirmation bias by asking your god for signs that you know the likelihood of actually receiving (AKA sans Godly intervention).

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/york-father-admits-killing-cancer-052601502.html

And of course, if you don't get the specific answer you were seeking, you could always rephrase and re-ask God your question. Give God the 'ol Mom-and-Pop routine.

 

[Imari]

You can even abuse your own confirmation bias by asking your god for signs that you know the likelihood of actually receiving (AKA sans Godly intervention).

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/york-father-admits-killing-cancer-052601502.html

And of course, if you don't get the specific answer you were seeking, you could always rephrase and re-ask God your question. Give God the 'ol Mom-and-Pop routine.

Let's be fair, mentally ill people will always be mentally ill, regardless of religion.

Any adult who thinks beating a child to death with a baseball bat because they're getting too much attention is reasonable behaviour is several sandwiches short of a hamper.

 

[FoRiZon]

Wait. I reverse search this image and found that this pic is in fact a North Korean child on hunger.

Thats it fundamentalists. North Koreans doesnt need to die to experience hell. They'll already on it since they're born.

Spoiler

If you know what im talking about. Not to blame them. The government made them like that.

 

[Joey D]

A thousand years ago, the plausibility of God was much more realistic given humans' total lack of understanding (as a whole, there were of course many exceptions - philosophers, thinkers, scientists, astronomers and so on). But as time goes by we are learning more and more about the Universe, Earth, our own species, evolution, physics and so on.

You can still hold onto your belief while accepting science facts and findings. I believe in a higher power, yet I don't for an instance think that the higher power is the answer for scientific questions.

 

[Rallywagon]

You can still hold onto your belief while accepting science facts and findings. I believe in a higher power, yet I don't for an instance think that the higher power is the answer for scientific questions.

While certainly not a view I subscribe too, it's one I can understand. More so than the stance DCP takes for sure. Something more akin to a universal architect than a biblical version of god. Something that could actually have a factual reality. Whether it be an alien species, or the program of some grand computer simulation we all may be a part of.

 

[Imari]

You can still hold onto your belief while accepting science facts and findings. I believe in a higher power, yet I don't for an instance think that the higher power is the answer for scientific questions.

It's certainly true. I think it's only a conflict for fundamentalists and the like who hold that their religious texts are absolutely true.

Those who hold religious beliefs but accept that they may have incomplete or imperfect understanding have little trouble, because that's essentially the same boat that everyone is in.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Why exactly does his creation have to show their love for him? As far as I can tell there didn't have to be a way, he could have just let humans be happy.

Most people aren't so needy as to require the things that they make to love them, and certainly aren't so vindictive that they would punish them and all their descendants for one person's mistakes. Most people would consider that taking it a little too far. Should we still be punishing all Germans for the Holocaust?

Especially when you know...you're a god and all. Which is funny when you read all theology and see various points of Human like qualities in inhuman like beings...

You can still hold onto your belief while accepting science facts and findings. I believe in a higher power, yet I don't for an instance think that the higher power is the answer for scientific questions.

You know I struggled with this for a long time, until I finally met people in highly scientific fields of study with PhD but still believe in a god. I mean I still struggle with the concept to be honest, but when you put it your way it makes a whole lot more sense on how someone can.

 

[Danoff]

You know I struggled with this for a long time, until I finally met people in highly scientific fields of study with PhD but still believe in a god. I mean I still struggle with the concept to be honest, but when you put it your way it makes a whole lot more sense on how someone can.

It has been something of a fascination with me. Some of the brightest people I know are religious. I often wonder how they can possibly reconcile faith (which requires a suspension of critical thinking) with the critical thinking required to be so bright. The videos by TheraminTrees really helped me understand how critical thinking gets systematically attacked in that one aspect of life (religion) and can be suppressed for that one subject alone.

I've also met plenty of people like @Joey D who are religious but only in areas where science can't explain. That's more palatable to me because it's not a denial of critical thinking in areas where it could be applied. But it is an application of imagination or emotion in an area where knowledge is simply lacking. Since, by definition, it doesn't really get in the way of the real world, I don't usually argue with it. That sort of thing though, where God is the answer when Humanity has no answer, has no substantive basis. History, in fact, has done nothing but prove it to be unfounded. Human progress has been an unending slow march of filling in "God" with "Science".

Even if you try to relegate God away from the scientific aspects of reality, science creeps into almost every facet of life. If it isn't in involved in something, it seems likely to show up eventually. The most dangerous route is to say that since morality is not an inherently scientific endeavor, we should reserve it for God. God has a horrible track record on morality.

 

[Winters Noble]

I think this is a common misunderstanding regarding the topic these days. "Being smart/educated=non-religious". Being a scientist does not conflict with being religious (creationist and the such aside). Being a scientist is simply applying "science" to one's duty (research, projects, etc). Like being a police officer, bound to duty on the clock, anything goes in other facets of life. Critical thinking does not and should not always end in one interpretation of the world.

 

[Danoff]

I think this is a common misunderstanding regarding the topic these days. "Being smart/educated=non-religious". Being a scientist does not conflict with being religious (creationist and the such aside). Being a scientist is simply applying "science" to one's duty (research, projects, etc). Like being a police officer, bound to duty on the clock, anything goes in other facets of life. Critical thinking does not and should not always end in one interpretation of the world.

Faith is the antithesis of the scientific method. It requires acceptance uncritically, whereas science requires skepticism (critical thinking). Religion is the exact opposite mental approach to the world. Religion says "I know everything", science says "I know nothing". There is a conflict, about as much conflict as you can have. A scientist who is religious is kinda like a cop who busts drug dealers all day and then sells drugs in his off time.

 

[Winters Noble]

Faith is the antithesis of the scientific method. It requires acceptance uncritically, whereas science requires skepticism (critical thinking). Religion is the exact opposite mental approach to the world. Religion says "I know everything", science says "I know nothing". There is a conflict, about as much conflict as you can have. A scientist who is religious is kinda like a cop who busts drug dealers all day and then sells drugs in his off time.

I agree with you that faith is not of empirically supported. Here's how I see it. What does it mean to be a scientist? A bit redundant, but a scientist is simply one who applies the scientific method to a specific field or discipline. One does not have to apply the scientific method at all points in life retain his rank as a scientist, just at his station. I think the misunderstanding is people seem to think that you can't be both as you have to be one all the time. Think of it this way, they're not religious scientists, but scientists that just happen to religious. Do you agree with their personal worldview? Probably not, but you have to respect their contribution to science .

As for religion saying "I know everything" and science saying "I know nothing", It depends who you ask. It's all a matter of perspective. Most religious people I know are all for science and it does not conflict with their beliefs. I hear this alot online toward some people. ie "You're a Christian, so your viewpoint automatically skews what science says." As aforementioned, it it depends on who you ask. If you ask the hardcore Creationists, you'll hear the "was created in 6 days and is 6000 years old" comment. The average christian would say "it's a few billion years old". Yes they say "it was by God's hand", but does it conflict with what science says? No, it's an added perspective of what is there. As someone stated earlier, Their faith lies in facets of life that science has not yet covered (or cannot determine).

Science is a tool. Religion/belief is a perspective. Scientism is the antithetical perspective of Religion.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It has been something of a fascination with me. Some of the brightest people I know are religious. I often wonder how they can possibly reconcile faith (which requires a suspension of critical thinking) with the critical thinking required to be so bright. The videos by TheraminTrees really helped me understand how critical thinking gets systematically attacked in that one aspect of life (religion) and can be suppressed for that one subject alone.

I've also met plenty of people like @Joey D who are religious but only in areas where science can't explain. That's more palatable to me because it's not a denial of critical thinking in areas where it could be applied. But it is an application of imagination or emotion in an area where knowledge is simply lacking. Since, by definition, it doesn't really get in the way of the real world, I don't usually argue with it. That sort of thing though, where God is the answer when Humanity has no answer, has no substantive basis. History, in fact, has done nothing but prove it to be unfounded. Human progress has been an unending slow march of filling in "God" with "Science".

Even if you try to relegate God away from the scientific aspects of reality, science creeps into almost every facet of life. If it isn't in involved in something, it seems likely to show up eventually. The most dangerous route is to say that since morality is not an inherently scientific endeavor, we should reserve it for God. God has a horrible track record on morality.

My best example was a Professor I had who was a PhD in Aerospace but during his office hours would listen on end to sermon. And this was my biggest confusion, his day one speech in class even was him telling us the importance of his belief to him and how it was his highest priority even before family. I've met other religious prof. in science fields like chemistry and physics but this was one of the more strange encounters for me.

 

[Imari]

Being a scientist does not conflict with being religious (creationist and the such aside). Being a scientist is simply applying "science" to one's duty (research, projects, etc). Like being a police officer, bound to duty on the clock, anything goes in other facets of life. Critical thinking does not and should not always end in one interpretation of the world.

I think if you're simply turning your ability to think critically on at 9 and off at 5 you almost certainly aren't a good scientist. It is not a job, it's a skill. And if it's not good enough for you to apply it to your daily life then why would anyone pay you to do it for them?

I agree with you that faith is not of empirically supported. Here's how I see it. What does it mean to be a scientist? A bit redundant, but a scientist is simply one who applies the scientific method to a specific field or discipline. One does not have to apply the scientific method at all points in life retain his rank as a scientist, just at his station.

To you to be a scientist apparently means "to have scientist in your job title".

I can tell you now that a lot of people will think differently.

Yes they say "it was by God's hand", but does it conflict with what science says?

Yeah, it kind of does. In science, just because something is poorly understood doesn't mean that any explanation goes. It means that you either do more work, or lean towards whatever is deemed to have the best explanatory power. Or both.

Religion/belief is a perspective.

What are some other perspectives and how do they differ?

 

[FoRiZon]

@Imari He means life stuff such as human interaction which touches social studies rather than science.

There's some things in life you cant measure.

 

[Imari]

@Imari He means life stuff such as human interaction which touches social studies rather than science.

There's some things in life you cant measure.

If you can experience it, it can be measured. We may not be able to measure it now, but that doesn't mean that it can't be measured.

For the rest, I'm sure he can explain himself what he meant.

 

[Winters Noble]

I think if you're simply turning your ability to think critically on at 9 and off at 5 you almost certainly aren't a good scientist. It is not a job, it's a skill. And if it's not good enough for you to apply it to your daily life then why would anyone pay you to do it for them?

I think this is the root of the misunderstanding. Thinking critically ≠ science. Science is simply a tool for us acquire understanding of the observable world. Thinking critically is just that, thinking critically, but does it have to involve applying the scientific method all the time? No. Indeed, you are right being a scientist involves acquiring skill, but that's like any other trade. Let's say I'm a software programer. I'm not obligated to think in code outside of my job. It's not that it's not good enough, it just it's outside the realm of its intended usage.

Yeah, it kind of does. In science, just because something is poorly understood doesn't mean that any explanation goes. It means that you either do more work, or lean towards whatever is deemed to have the best explanatory power. Or both.

You're right. Just because science currently has a limited understanding of a subject doesn't mean that one can come up with any crack pot theory. Well..., they can, but that wouldn't be science. Yes, involving God or some other entity in the equation is not of science. That's where belief comes in. Though it is not of scientific understanding, people can use critical thinking to come to the conclusion that there is a god. There is not only one perspective.

What are some other perspectives and how do they differ?

Can you elaborate please?

@Imari He means life stuff such as human interaction which touches social studies rather than science.

There's some things in life you cant measure.

Pretty much this.👍

 

[Danoff]

Let's say I'm a software programer.

If you're software programmer you'll be well-versed in logic. It will set your hair on fire when you read that an omniscient being who exists in all time, knowing all outcomes, having unbounded power, will regret having created humanity (Genesis 6:5-6), or any decision at all. For that matter, the notion of human beings having free will has to make your head explode as well if God knows the future. If it doesn't, it's because you've suppressed your ability to evaluate logic (as you do for a living if you're a software programmer) in this one particular area. All day long you set up conditions like if A then B, but when you read the bible you tolerate logic violations consistently?

The way this happens is that people are taught that there are different rules for different aspects of life (as perhaps was done with you). The notion that logic applies in some instances and does not apply in others, of course, is ridiculous. The universe does not suddenly stop being logical, in any facet. If you were to proceed with that as a basis for science, that the universe could suddenly stop being logical, you'd be incompetent as a scientist.

So maybe you're saying that one can be spiritual, not necessarily believe in Biblical myths, and still be a scientist. In my experience this is a far more common position for scientists and engineers - nebulous spirituality without subscribing to any of the rules of organized religion (because most scientists and engineers cannot shut down their logical faculties to absorb a new set of contradictory rules for reality). I've met scientists/engineers who subscribe to organized religion, creationism, scientology... all of it. One of the brightest people I ever met was a true believer in the power of crystal healing, and was a certified crystal healer. I asked him about why he subscribed to it, and he described to me a logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc, it's a classical fallacy). It was exactly the kind of thing that he'd rebuke in his professional career, yet that kind of flawed reasoning was perfectly acceptable as the basis for why he'd set up various stones around his office to block the negative powers coming from the edges of nearby buildings.

But, like I said, that is uncommon for scientists and engineers. Most of them, as has been mentioned here, just leave room for the spiritual to exist in the dark places of knowledge - where there are few answers. They'll say things like... "I don't believe in the bible, but I believe that death is not the end", or "a supreme being must have set the universe in motion". Even that sort of assertion goes directly against logic and the scientific method. Some do it out of a sense of fitting in with what everyone else is doing (there is a lot of power in group think), ask anyone who is gay how hard it is to admit to yourself that you're different from the rest of society. Some do it out of a desire for comfort. Death is hard for anyone to confront, whether it's a loved one or their own. They'd like to think that death is not the end, and so they buy into a fairytale notion that something wonderful happens to them when they die. The human mind is very powerful and can hold quite a few contradictory thoughts. It even has built-in mechanisms (confirmation bias) to support those contradictory thoughts, and has a built-in propensity to avoid critical analysis of comforting thoughts.

I'm gonna just go ahead and give out all of the answers to all of these questions. The universe is the equivalent of nothing. This is what nothing looks like. Every variation of nothing exists. 0 exists, -1 + 1 exists, -2 +2 exists, -3.14159 + 3.14159 exists, nothing exists in all of its forms, including our universe. When you die, you cease to exist. Your perception of the world is created via the biological mass between your ears, and it has been carefully honed over a very long period of time to believe that it is special and needs to reproduce. You confuse your emotions for a soul. You know what it's like to be dead, you were dead for billions of years before you were born. When you die, that's what it's like... exactly as miserable as you were in 1856. Remember 1856? Me neither, because we were both dead in 1856.

Do I know any of that for sure? No. But it makes sense given all of the evidence, and until I get information that contradicts any of that, I'll continue on that assumption. That's how science works, you proceed based on an understanding that fits the facts until new facts contradict that understanding. Inserting an afterlife is not supported by any facts. Inserting a god creation of the universe answers nothing, it just shifts the question of where the universe came from to the question of where god came from. Anything about the nature of god that you can follow that up with (exists without time, etc.) can be applied to the universe. That invention accomplishes exactly zero in light of the facts, and actually just introduces tougher questions.

There you go. All the big answers in one post.

 

[Winters Noble]

If you're software programmer you'll be well-versed in logic. It will set your hair on fire when you read that an omniscient being who exists for all time in all time, knowing all outcomes, having unbounded power will regret having created humanity (Genesis 6:5-6), or any decision at all. For that matter, the notion of human beings having free will will make your head explode as well. If it doesn't, it's because you've suppressed your ability to evaluate logic (as you do for a living) in this one particular area. All day long you set up conditions like if A then B, but when you read the bible you tolerate logic violations consistently.

This is done by teaching people that there are different rules for different aspects of life (as perhaps was done with you). The notion that logic applies in some instances and does not apply in others, of course, is ridiculous. The universe does not suddenly stop being logical, in any facet. If you were to proceed with that as a basis for science, that the universe could suddenly stop being logical, you'd be incompetent as a scientist.

So maybe you're saying that one can be spiritual, not necessarily believe in Biblical myths, and still be a scientist. In my experience this is a far more common position for scientists and engineers - nebulous spirituality with subscribing to any of the rules of organized religion (because most scientists and engineers cannot shut down their logical faculties to absorb a new set of contradictory rules for reality). I've met scientists/engineers who subscribe to organized religion, creationism, scientology... all of it. One of the brightest people I ever met was a true believer in the power of crystal healing, and was a certified crystal healer. I asked him about why he subscribed to it, and he described to me a logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc, it's a classical fallacy). It was exactly the kind of thing that he'd rebuke in his professional career, yet that kind of flawed reasoning was perfectly acceptable as the basis for why he'd set up various stones around his office to block the negative powers coming from the edges of nearby buildings.

But, like I said, that is uncommon for scientists and engineers. Most of them, as has been mentioned here, just leave room for the spiritual to exist in the dark places of knowledge - where there are few answers. They'll things like... I don't believe in the bible, but I believe that death is not the end. A supreme being must have set the universe in motion. Even that sort of assertion goes directly against logic and the scientific method. Some do it out of a sense of fitting in with what everyone else is doing (there is a lot of power in group think), ask anyone who is gay how hard it is to admit to yourself that you're different from the rest of society. Some do it out of a desire for comfort. Death is hard for anyone to confront, whether it's a loved one or their own. They'd like to think that death is not the end, and so they buy into a fairytale notion that something wonderful happens to them when they die. They human mind is very powerful and can hold quite a few contradictory thoughts. It even has built-in mechanisms (confirmation bias) to support those contradictory thoughts, and has a built-in propensity to avoid critical analysis of comforting thoughts.

I'm gonna just go ahead and give out all of the answers to all of these questions. The universe is the equivalent of nothing. This is what nothing looks like. Every variation of nothing exists. 0 exists, -1 + 1 exists, -2 +2 exists, -3.14159 + 3.14159 exists, nothing exists in all of its forms, including our universe. When you die, you cease to exist. Your perception of the world is created via the biological mass between your ears, and it has been carefully honed over a very long period of time to believe that it is special and needs to reproduce. You confuse your emotions for a soul. You know what it's like to be dead, you were dead for billions of years before you were born. When you die, that's what it's like... exactly as miserable as you were in 1856. Remember 1856? Me neither. Because we were both dead in 1856.

Do I know any of that for sure? No. But it makes sense given all of the evidence, and until I get information that contradicts any of that, I'll continue on that assumption. That's how science works, you proceed based on an understanding that fits the facts until new facts contradict that understanding. Inserting an afterlife is not supported by any facts. Inserting a god creation of the universe answers nothing, it just shifts the question of where the universe came from to the question of where god came from. Anything about the nature of god that you can follow that up with (exists without time, etc.) can be applied to the universe. That invention accomplishes exactly zero in light of the facts, and actually just introduces tougher questions.

There you go. All the big answers in one post.

I actually agree with this.

 

[FoRiZon]

If you can experience it, it can be measured. We may not be able to measure it now, but that doesn't mean that it can't be measured.

For the rest, I'm sure he can explain himself what he meant.

Still you cant predict how trustful people are, for example. Its the main part of everyday life.

Im not saying religion is compulsory in life. Hell I dont like its concept between the adherents atleast. But still theres something you cant make a scientific thought. Example are social norms, freedom of living, happiness, etc. Its all relative.

 

[Danoff]

Still you cant predict how trustful people are, for example. Its the main part of everyday life.

Yes you can. Magicians and identity thieves do it all the time. I know that you're saying you can predict how trustful people are, just not using science. However, scientific reasoning is exactly what you're using to predict how trustful people are. You establish a pattern of evidence for any given individual (or for groups of individuals, or aggregate across all individuals), and you apply that pattern based on observed probability to a sampling of individuals. You can even develop individual-specific statistics if you know someone well enough. But still that interpersonal interaction prediction is based on an accumulation of evidence over time and the application of that evidence, in a statistical sense, to a scenario.

Are you suggesting that we use some other sort of method for this? Do you take it on faith that people will trust you? Do you have faith that certain social norms exist? No, you base your understanding of those social norms on observations of human behavior.

Evidence is the most rudimentary form of acquisition of knowledge. Abstraction came later. Grog noticed that Grogette, Ung, and Obo all died when they ate the red berries from that bush. Grog decided it might be a bad idea to eat the red berries from that bush. Science.

(Grog followed that observation up with a double-blind set of controlled observations based on his hypothesis)

 

[FoRiZon]

Okay, maybe not predict. Lifes do has many probabilities that we can count by statistics.

Problem is can the probability we desired be in real life? For example you bet on a horse race. 80 percent probability says you'll lose money. 20 percent says you'll gain it. It means its possible to reach either scenarios. Just you'll likely lose money than otherwise, but still possible to gain it anyways.

The point is, life is like walking while blind. No matter how organized you are, there will be something unexpected that obstruct your life.

 

[Joey D]

I think this is a common misunderstanding regarding the topic these days. "Being smart/educated=non-religious". Being a scientist does not conflict with being religious (creationist and the such aside). Being a scientist is simply applying "science" to one's duty (research, projects, etc). Like being a police officer, bound to duty on the clock, anything goes in other facets of life. Critical thinking does not and should not always end in one interpretation of the world.

I think religion does conflict with science in a way since religion often puts its higher power in the same realm as us, meaning they need to conform to our laws of nature. Religion also has a fairly defined set of beliefs that have withstood for thousands of years with minimal change meaning that it's rarely looked at critically. What science doesn't conflict with is belief in a higher power not of this realm, call it spirituality if you will or even just theism.

I am very much against religion of all kinds when it comes to explaining things about the natural world. In some cases it works well to explain good vs. evil or right vs. wrong, but I think that's about it.

 

[Winters Noble]

I think religion does conflict with science in a way since religion often puts its higher power in the same realm as us, meaning they need to conform to our laws of nature. Religion also has a fairly defined set of beliefs that have withstood for thousands of years with minimal change meaning that it's rarely looked at critically. What science doesn't conflict with is belief in a higher power not of this realm, call it spirituality if you will or even just theism.

I am very much against religion of all kinds when it comes to explaining things about the natural world. In some cases it works well to explain good vs. evil or right vs. wrong, but I think that's about it.

Yeah I agree. I dived right into the conversation without fully analyzing the argument. You and Danoff kind of drilled into me the difference between adhering to spiritual beliefs rather than religion itself.

 

[Imari]

I think this is the root of the misunderstanding. Thinking critically ≠ science. Science is simply a tool for us acquire understanding of the observable world.

One would inquire at this point exactly what you think science is.

Though it is not of scientific understanding, people can use critical thinking to come to the conclusion that there is a god. There is not only one perspective.

No. No they can't. That wouldn't be critical thinking. That would be just thinking.

How about you provide an example of critical thinking leading someone to come to the conclusion that there is a god.

Can you elaborate please?

That's going to be difficult, because you made the statement.

You say that religion/belief is a perspective. For that to make any sense, it can't be the ONLY perspective. There must be others. Can you give me an example of one, and how it is different from religion/belief?

Pretty much this.👍

What is an example of something you can experience but not measure?

I'll give you a hint: anything that you can experience can be measured by using you to measure it. You are in large part a great big walking detector for all the things that happen to and around you.

Still you cant predict how trustful people are, for example. Its the main part of everyday life.

Predict is not the same as measure. We often cannot predict things because we have limited information. Even more often we cannot predict things because our understanding of them is imperfect. That doesn't mean that it's not possible.

If someone were to have a perfect understanding of how human brains, psychology and all the associated guff worked along with perfect information about a person's life and all relevant factors, I'd suggest that it would be totally reasonable that they could predict how trusting someone would be.

But still theres something you cant make a scientific thought. Example are social norms, freedom of living, happiness, etc. Its all relative.

Nope.

The point is, life is like walking while blind. No matter how organized you are, there will be something unexpected that obstruct your life.

Yes, but that's because of imperfect information, not because it's impossible to measure things.

 

[DCP]

@DCP Here is Numbers 31 from biblegateway.com. The passage in bold is what the earlier posts were discussing.

31 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”

3 So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites so that they may carry out the Lord’s vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel.” 5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.

7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

19 “Anyone who has killed someone or touched someone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselves and your captives. 20 Purify every garment as well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood.”

21 Then Eleazar the priest said to the soldiers who had gone into battle, “This is what is required by the law that the Lord gave Moses: 22 Gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, lead 23 and anything else that can withstand fire must be put through the fire, and then it will be clean. But it must also be purified with the water of cleansing. And whatever cannot withstand fire must be put through that water. 24 On the seventh day wash your clothes and you will be clean. Then you may come into the camp.”

Dividing the Spoils
25 The Lord said to Moses, 26 “You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. 27 Divide the spoils equally between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. 28 From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the Lord one out of every five hundred, whether people, cattle, donkeys or sheep. 29 Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the Lord’s part. 30 From the Israelites’ half, select one out of every fifty, whether people, cattle, donkeys, sheep or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the Lord’s tabernacle.” 31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses.

32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.

36 The half share of those who fought in the battle was:

337,500 sheep, 37 of which the tribute for the Lord was 675;
38 36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the Lord was 72;
39 30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the Lord was 61;
40 16,000 people, of whom the tribute for the Lord was 32.
41 Moses gave the tribute to Eleazar the priest as the Lord’s part, as the Lord commanded Moses.

42 The half belonging to the Israelites, which Moses set apart from that of the fighting men— 43 the community’s half—was 337,500 sheep, 44 36,000 cattle, 45 30,500 donkeys 46 and 16,000 people. 47 From the Israelites’ half, Moses selected one out of every fifty people and animals, as the Lord commanded him, and gave them to the Levites, who were responsible for the care of the Lord’s tabernacle.

48 Then the officers who were over the units of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—went to Moses 49 and said to him, “Your servants have counted the soldiers under our command, and not one is missing. 50 So we have brought as an offering to the Lord the gold articles each of us acquired—armlets, bracelets, signet rings, earrings and necklaces—to make atonement for ourselves before the Lord.”

51 Moses and Eleazar the priest accepted from them the gold—all the crafted articles. 52 All the gold from the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds that Moses and Eleazar presented as a gift to the Lord weighed 16,750 shekels. 53 Each soldier had taken plunder for himself. 54 Moses and Eleazar the priest accepted the gold from the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds and brought it into the tent of meeting as a memorial for the Israelites before the Lord.

So @Danoff You posted "Like when he condones slaughtering the men, women, and male children of his enemies and raping their female children"

Where are these words there in the chapter above? I don't see "raping children" there
God accepts that you sin and fornicate and commit adultery and hatred and jealousy in your heart. Does that mean He likes it?

Perhaps you should brush up on your secular history and see how nations in those days fought and offered sacrifices to their gods. Yes, it was normal for them to destroy their enemies completely and take captives in those days.

You see, when you "choose" to understand Gods covenant with the Jews, you will understand that "EVERY" other nation at the time worshipped their own gods, and had their own ways of doing things, and had their own plans to destroy the Jews. As you can see, they haven't succeeded, and won't, obviously because God said so, once the Jews are re-born in a day. Check your history, and see what happened in 1948 with the Jews.
Check how many nations since 1948 tried to destroy the Jews yet failed. Look today how many still try, openly chanting "kill the jews" and notice the anti-Semitism.

I really feel sorry for those now saying in their hearts and minds, "Wonder what he'll say when the jews get destroyed"
Yip, woe to you brothers.


Today is no different. Atheism has the same god those nations worshipped. god of logic and boastful education.
Where did it all come from, "eh, I don't know, some explosion with no energy, centrifugal forces, matter etc", but yeah, we here by chance today, and can't see this foolishness, because we follow the scientists that are flawed like us.

You come from that generation, or as you would put it, "one of the many missing common ancestors"
See, you have that same spirit. You are your own god, and you know as much as you want to, because you can't be wrong over the bible. Don't worry, the days are coming. You'll know the truth.

Can I ask you, the events in the chapter above. Did it really happen?