Can we think this in other way.

Belief does give people freedom to outsource the big questions to bible or whatever anyone believes in. That does give possibility to concentrate other things, like making money and being the best looking candidate in the community.

Churches however restrict this freedom. There is always another person who will tell the person how to think and how to interpret the god's words. Not so good for freedom anymore.

Then we have atheists, who believe in.. well nothing? They might believe in themselves, but what does that mean? What is atheist anyway? Do they believe in themselves or natural laws? Where do they come from and where will they end up?

Belief does give people freedom to outsource the big questions to bible or whatever anyone believes in.

Big questions? A question such as 'why are we here' I can only imagine you mean. A cursory glance should lead anyone to question the validity of the question.

Enter stage left, the best (still found to be fallacious) theistic argument to date is William Lane Craig's first cause variant called the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It does address problems with the other variants but still falters when it comes to the basis for the question... The question cannot be shown to be valid.

Then we have atheists, who believe in.. well nothing?

Why nothing? Theism deals with one single thing which is the existence of an intervening god. I reject the theistic claim of knowing a god exists on the basis that no logical reason has been provided that a god does. The only difference is of a single claim.

Let's bring in....

What is atheist anyway?

A stamp collector collects stamps while an astamp collector does not. I'm not a surgeon so using exactly the same logic I am an asurgeon. Would an asurgeon not believe in anything (nothing)?

With the specifics above and with a view to the topic. In MY experience there IS a difference between theists and atheists on the understanding of rejecting a claim. I have seen enough bleed over from the theistic claim to suggest in no uncertain terms that it is something worth investigating. My worry is of the legal system in that when someone goes to court that are charged with something and it is the jury's job to decide if the charge is valid. It has nothing to do with being innocent, which is not being asked of the jury, but purely and simply if the person is guilty (or not guilty) of the charges put forward. Politics alone points to bleed over it would be fair to say IMO.

I am not convinced that people with religious belief are less intelligent but let's just go with it. I would ask how they factored in culture first up. How culture WAS on the early tests and onward. Without that being established why should I think it's true? Even if I was willing to go with it I would be on the first train back. BTW, always travel first class on Thai trains so one does not embarrass one's friends at one's funeral.

We all have irrational beliefs, every single one of us. It could be said that on the basis of inter-human interaction and relationship, it is predominantly the irrationalities which makes an individual distinct. Hair colour, style, dress, food etc. etc. but while these are irrational they are harmless. These are personal preferences and should not be mixed up with personal beliefs at all. There is nothing 'true' about a preference for a curry over a roast for dinner or jeans over a Sari. What if the subject happened to be more serious, much more serious, in that apocalyptic weaponry was available? What if the belief that a Sari or roast were not a personal preference but actually 'correct' in some way?

So to go back (for reasons related to this post) regarding a slippery slope argument. I've seen a shed full of spill-over, bleed-over whatever, to make me consider just what potential it has to offer. Not good by any standard unless you happen to be a member of a death cult. There are people out there who wantonly wish to see the destruction of mankind, based on the same reason they would like a pool in the back yard. Christians yearn for the end times after being stood up. Israel is grabbing as much land as it can to make it worthy of bringing on the Messiah and who knows about Islam!

I'd rather the person with their finger on the button be someone who had the lowest level of irrational belief regardless of if they were religious or not. If you are able to believe that then what else are you willing to believe is not by necessity a slippery slope / logical fallacy.

Ain't semantics fun?

I'm so happy to be a religious person, so much more intelligent than those stupid atheists.

Everything in creation is bound by the logic which they keep citing. But if there is a creator God, as I believe, why should He be bound by the logic of His own creation? Can't He break the rules He Himself has set? Note that He is outside the thing created, not part of it.

Why do we call it belief, not knowledge? Because it is, by definition, unknowable.

Everything in creation is bound by the logic which they keep citing.

Who, and more to the point, on what basis?

It's interesting to know that to justify the reason for lack of logic, reason has to be employed.

But if there is a creator God, as I believe, why should He be bound by the logic of His own creation?

A creator has not been established so why should ANYONE consider anything further, as in any way true? Why should I or anyone believe that reason should not be used to ascertain whether it should or should not be used?

Why do we call it belief, not knowledge? Because it is, by definition, unknowable.

Or more correctly, faith. Belief is the what, faith is the why. I've spoken about this before in another place for sure, though you may not have seen it. Should I consider it bleed-over?

A theistic god is an intervening god, not a deistic non intervening god.

An old trick, notmyself. You are limiting God by excluding any idea that He is the creator. This is very odd; how can you place limits on something which you don't believe, and which is not, according to you, an entity? (Then you go on, in other posts, to try to disprove your version of God).

No, it has not been established that He is the creator; that is a matter for belief.... and faith. That is why I used the word IF.

An old trick, notmyself. You are limiting God by excluding any idea that He is the creator. This is very odd; how can you place limits on something which you don't believe, and which is not, according to you, an entity? (Then you go on, in other posts, to try to disprove your version of God).

No, it has not been established that He is the creator; that is a matter for belief.... and faith. That is why I used the word IF.

In my youth I regarded 'God' as a means to explaining that which lay outside the limits of logical comprehension for a given civilization. There is perhaps a distinction between recognizing where this boundary is, and trying over time to roll it back, as oppose to shoving it in a box called unknown, please refer to our deity for lack of clarification.

An old trick, notmyself. You are limiting God by excluding any idea that He is the creator. This is very odd; how can you place limits on something which you don't believe, and which is not, according to you, an entity? (Then you go on, in other posts, to try to disprove your version of God).

No, it has not been established that He is the creator; that is a matter for belief.... and faith. That is why I used the word IF.

Cinderella's carriage, in the fairy tale, reverted to a pumpkin at midnight but that does not mean that a perfectly valid question has a use by date, after which it miraculously turns into a trick.

No, it has not been established that He is the creator; that is a matter for belief.... and faith. That is why I used the word IF.

Faith is the label used to describe belief without reason. If the god of Abraham gave us free will and the ability to think then should it not be used? Slavery holds a divine warrant yet we no longer take part in it, is faith the reason we no longer take part in it, or is it because we looked at it with the eye of reason only to see it wasn't Kosher? The enslavement of other humans is not in my view a trivial matter, this alone should in all honesty make anyone suspicious of the 'god' character portrayed in books of dubious origin.

Belief in gods has been around for ages. I think the number of distinct gods adds up close to six thousand. For argument's sake I'll take five thousand. An atheist rejects the claim of all five thousand while a theist also rejects four thousand nine hundred and ninety nine claims for exactly the same reason as atheists. For some reason, theists have selected one (I wouldn't insult you by going into monotheism) god of their flavour which does not need scrutiny. If it were always the same god then you might think wow! but it is not.. It's all manner of gods both past a present including some thirty thousand variants of Christianity alone. Why do some humans decide (?) to suspend reason? Fear of death perhaps?

An old trick, notmyself. You are limiting God by excluding any idea that He is the creator. This is very odd; how can you place limits on something which you don't believe, and which is not, according to you, an entity? (Then you go on, in other posts, to try to disprove your version of God).

No, it has not been established that He is the creator; that is a matter for belief.... and faith. That is why I used the word IF.

Cinderella's carriage, in the fairy tale, reverted to a pumpkin at midnight but that does not mean that a perfectly valid question has a use by date, after which it miraculously turns into a trick.

No, it has not been established that He is the creator; that is a matter for belief.... and faith. That is why I used the word IF.

Faith is the label used to describe belief without reason. If the god of Abraham gave us free will and the ability to think then should it not be used? Slavery holds a divine warrant yet we no longer take part in it, is faith the reason we no longer take part in it, or is it because we looked at it with the eye of reason only to see it wasn't Kosher? The enslavement of other humans is not in my view a trivial matter, this alone should in all honesty make anyone suspicious of the 'god' character portrayed in books of dubious origin.

Belief in gods has been around for ages. I think the number of distinct gods adds up close to six thousand. For argument's sake I'll take five thousand. An atheist rejects the claim of all five thousand while a theist also rejects four thousand nine hundred and ninety nine claims for exactly the same reason as atheists. For some reason, theists have selected one (I wouldn't insult you by going into monotheism) god of their flavour which does not need scrutiny. If it were always the same god then you might think wow! but it is not.. It's all manner of gods both past a present including some thirty thousand variants of Christianity alone. Why do some humans decide (?) to suspend reason? Fear of death perhaps?

Most of the posters on this forum are Westerners, and God to us means the creator god of Judaeism, Christianity and Islam. Of course we have freewill and the right to think.

Those arguing against the Christian God love to use the Old Testament to back up their ideas. I have news for you. The Old Testament was superseded by the New two thousand years ago. Some of the laws are still valid, and it is obviously of interest as a lead-in to the NT. While I don't think Christ speaks specifically against slavery, it is true that Christianity in the Roman Empire appealed strongly to slaves.

As a Catholic, I'm not going to defend the myriad of variants which have sprung up since the Reformation. The latter was largely our fault, and we didn't respond strongly enough at the Council of Trent.

Why do we decide to suspend reason? We don't. We go above and beyond it.

Why do we decide to suspend reason? We don't. We go above and beyond it.

Getting late in the UK so better head off but...

We as in the maelstrom of contradictory gods? You come across as a very pleasant chap who would take a stand if put in the position of needing to do so. Kind of fella who would take a stand on principle at an immigration office for example. You may in the end have to pay (for example) an additional fee but sure you would do your best not to. Why?

I have a genealogy that embraces Christianity strongly and Judeaism less strogly.

I also have an IQ that has been tested several times over the past 60+ years at a level between 158 and 167. This does not mean that I am a genius, merely that I am good at IQ tests, such as Mensa and so on.

However I also have a deep faith in an overall Creator and the laws of society developed by mystics and philosophers who share such a belief. It does not make me a devout Christian or Jew, but it does mean that I have faith in religion and a Creator. Without such a faith I would be a far lesser person.

Why do we decide to suspend reason? We don't. We go above and beyond it.

Getting late in the UK so better head off but...

We as in the maelstrom of contradictory gods? You come across as a very pleasant chap who would take a stand if put in the position of needing to do so. Kind of fella who would take a stand on principle at an immigration office for example. You may in the end have to pay (for example) an additional fee but sure you would do your best not to. Why?

At immigration offices I smile, do everything I am told, and so far it has worked. But I need all my tolerance to do so. I am also very tolerant of those who differ from my religious beliefs..... because I also believe that everyone has to come to their own decision. You too, not myself; I respect your position even though I think it is wrong..... but I know you love an argument.

If only the warring faiths/sects could be as tolerant!

I also have an IQ that has been tested several times over the past 60+ years at a level between 158 and 167. This does not mean that I am a genius, merely that I am good at IQ tests, such as Mensa and so on.

That would mean that you have an IQ at the same level as Einstein. Not too shabby.

I used to get my golf scores and IQ mixed up. They were both in the mid 70's.

I also have an IQ that has been tested several times over the past 60+ years at a level between 158 and 167. This does not mean that I am a genius, merely that I am good at IQ tests, such as Mensa and so on.

That would mean that you have an IQ at the same level as Einstein. Not too shabby.

As I said, I have a brain that looks at IQ tests in a simple way.

The down side was my school reports with comments such as

"He may be a genius, but he needs to do his homework." That, and many other similar remarks, set me up for yet another thrashing at home.

It has also meant that I coast through life, with a character that is rather shallow.

Those arguing against the Christian God love to use the Old Testament to back up their ideas. I have news for you. The Old Testament was superseded by the New two thousand years ago. Some of the laws are still valid, and it is obviously of interest as a lead-in to the NT.

Matthew 5:17-19 Introduction to the Sermon on the Mount

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&version=NIV

Somewhat explicit.

I also believe that everyone has to come to their own decision. You too, not myself; I respect your position even though I think it is wrong..... but I know you love an argument.

lol

Decision? The decision to suspend reason?

If only the warring faiths/sects could be as tolerant!

What is stopping them?

Those arguing against the Christian God love to use the Old Testament to back up their ideas. I have news for you. The Old Testament was superseded by the New two thousand years ago. Some of the laws are still valid, and it is obviously of interest as a lead-in to the NT.

Matthew 5:17-19 Introduction to the Sermon on the Mount

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&version=NIV

Somewhat explicit.

It is interesting that it is always the atheist who quotes the Bible!

Jesus also said that there were two commandments, love God, and love thy neighbour as thyself. "On these two commandments, all the law and the prophets depend." (Matt. 22.40)

I also believe that everyone has to come to their own decision. You too, not myself; I respect your position even though I think it is wrong..... but I know you love an argument.

lol

Decision? The decision to suspend reason?

If only the warring faiths/sects could be as tolerant!

What is stopping them?

The quote marks seem to have got misplaced in this post!

Faith/belief are positive approaches; the suspension of disbelief is negative.

What is stopping them being tolerant? Ask an Islamist that one. (or indeed a Christian fundamentalist).

I don't need to see any IQ tests to work out that many of you chaps are both erudite and intelligent, indeed an inquiring mind would by definition exempt anyone from a lack of mental development, which I think is what the OP was driving at when people submit without question to religious dogma.

Richard Dawkins made the observation the the great majority of scientists were not religious, which I guess argues that scientific methodology of testing hypothesis is not a good match to taking something on faith. The paradox here being that some discoveries cause such wonderment that the reflex emotion is to see a creator behind such things.

Those arguing against the Christian God love to use the Old Testament to back up their ideas. I have news for you. The Old Testament was superseded by the New two thousand years ago. Some of the laws are still valid, and it is obviously of interest as a lead-in to the NT.

Matthew 5:17-19 Introduction to the Sermon on the Mount

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&version=NIV

Somewhat explicit.

It is interesting that it is always the atheist who quotes the Bible!

Everyone should at the very least read it IMO. Investigating it is easy with a 'net connection and there is a lifetime worth of reading written about it.

Jesus also said that there were two commandments, love God, and love thy neighbour as thyself. "On these two commandments, all the law and the prophets depend." (Matt. 22.40)

Indeed, so long as the god of Abraham is loved along with neighbours then the law is safe. The same laws spoken about in 5:17-19 above.

Point is, many of the laws are no longer followed including genocide which could get you an RSVP from the ICC. What caused this change? Did we do it out of thought process or did we do it out of faith? Why does that not lead everyone into questioning the supposed positive value of faith itself? I'm not talking about Christian faith but the mechanism of faith, belief without reason.

"Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself."

The above is attributed to the late Christopher Hitchens but I've seen this put forward using other words from long before he was born and not just the once. So no link.

Have I not presented a good case for humanity to put some effort into at least having a look?

I don't need to see any IQ tests to work out that many of you chaps are both erudite and intelligent, indeed an inquiring mind would by definition exempt anyone from a lack of mental development, which I think is what the OP was driving at when people submit without question to religious dogma.

Could be true but they don't have the data to show it is true. To be perfectly honest, I have serious doubts whether it would have any effect either way. For the most part, our species only takes a perfunctory attitude toward rearing its young. Should be top priority but it's way down the list.

The quote marks seem to have got misplaced in this post!

My mistake.

Faith/belief are positive approaches; the suspension of disbelief is negative.

I'll sleep on that.

What is stopping them being tolerant? Ask an Islamist that one. (or indeed a Christian fundamentalist).

Doing their god's work you will find. Hard to find fault when they are doing what it says on the tin. You need to ask who the radicals are really, are they the ones following the clear rules or are the radicals the ones who decide, pick and choose, what they want.

As simply an observation. What drives people of otherwise good moral standing into blowing themselves up in the middle of a market in downtown Baghdad, or on a school bus or on a plane.

The quote marks seem to have got misplaced in this post!

My mistake.

Faith/belief are positive approaches; the suspension of disbelief is negative.

I'll sleep on that.

What is stopping them being tolerant? Ask an Islamist that one. (or indeed a Christian fundamentalist).

Doing their god's work you will find. Hard to find fault when they are doing what it says on the tin. You need to ask who the radicals are really, are they the ones following the clear rules or are the radicals the ones who decide, pick and choose, what they want.

As simply an observation. What drives people of otherwise good moral standing into blowing themselves up in the middle of a market in downtown Baghdad, or on a school bus or on a plane.

Indeed the fundamentalists would argue they are doing exactly what it says on the tin, western politicians and so called moderates, who argue the fundamentalists somehow misunderstand the user manual don't quote refutations from said manual, but just fall back on saying take our word for it. Whoever is correct the custodian of authority is flesh and blood, not scientifically proven fact.

Indeed the fundamentalists would argue they are doing exactly what it says on the tin, western politicians and so called moderates, who argue the fundamentalists somehow misunderstand the user manual don't quote refutations from said manual, but just fall back on saying take our word for it. Whoever is correct the custodian of authority is flesh and blood, not scientifically proven fact.

Yes, the fundamentalists are doing exactly what it says on the tin, and that's where they're wrong. Life is constantly changing, and we have to change with it, without compromising the basics of our faith, such as the incarnation and the resurrection. Note that these do not directly affect our relations with the rest of the world.

The Church is very slow at making such changes, and is currently way out-of-gear on matters concerning sex. This will change. Meanwhile, Pope Francis has made overtures of friendship towards Muslims, though I don't think he will get much response, as Islam has nothing like a central authority

Yes, the fundamentalists are doing exactly what it says on the tin, and that's where they're wrong. Life is constantly changing, and we have to change with it, without compromising the basics of our faith, such as the incarnation and the resurrection.

I'm sure they would argue the opposite and it is the very act of changing that causes the problem.

Faith/belief are positive approaches; the suspension of disbelief is negative.

So I've slept on this and it comes across as wordplay as far as I can see. I am doing something is for all intent and purpose exactly the same as I am not doing nothing. Each have a 'feel' factor (approach?) which is nothing other than arbitrary as is your own. However, I could well have missed the point.

Indeed the fundamentalists would argue they are doing exactly what it says on the tin, western politicians and so called moderates, who argue the fundamentalists somehow misunderstand the user manual don't quote refutations from said manual, but just fall back on saying take our word for it. Whoever is correct the custodian of authority is flesh and blood, not scientifically proven fact.

Yes, the fundamentalists are doing exactly what it says on the tin, and that's where they're wrong. Life is constantly changing, and we have to change with it, without compromising the basics of our faith, such as the incarnation and the resurrection. Note that these do not directly affect our relations with the rest of the world.

The Church is very slow at making such changes, and is currently way out-of-gear on matters concerning sex. This will change. Meanwhile, Pope Francis has made overtures of friendship towards Muslims, though I don't think he will get much response, as Islam has nothing like a central authority

If the words on the tin are believed to be literally divine there is no room for earthly reinterpretation, which is Infact what happened with Islam. A consensus was reached centuries ago and no further debate was allowed. The Ahmadiya sect are an exception, but many Muslims view them as apostates. I believe the current Pope also said something more progressive and concilliatory towards gay people, so Catholicism is moving, albeit slowly.