Religion

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)

35. That's only true

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 08:02 PM

Dec 2011

if you've morphed your concept of "god" into something that you hope will render it immune to rational examination and inquiry, as some "liberal" and "progressive" religionists and apologists have tried desperately to do, in an attempt to cling to some semblance of "faith" but not appear irrational. The problem being that such versions of "god" bear little or no resemblance to what most religious people worship. But any "god" that is claimed to influence, and be influenced by, events in the physical world, the "matter and energy of things", IS amenable to scientific and rational inquiry, and most people's god concept falls under that umbrella.

In fact, it is people who try to justify the things they have "faith" in by trumpeting empirical evidence for "god" who are perverting the definition and nature of "faith"

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Geocentrism? Really? Galileo not yet forgiven by *all* Catholics. [View all] Silent3 Dec 2011 OP

If you say you have faith and then don't follow up with deeds Angry Dragon Dec 2011 #1

And then, there are atheists who beieve in reincarnation. rug Dec 2011 #2

Does reincarnation require a deity? cleanhippie Dec 2011 #3

It requires a supernatural explanation. Skinner Dec 2011 #4

There is nothing supernatural about a blow fly's eggs, larva, pupa, and adult which.. MarkCharles Dec 2011 #6

But reincarnation, by definition, applies to the soul or spirit of something. cbayer Dec 2011 #7

If one looks at the root of that word, ... MarkCharles Dec 2011 #9

Now do a search for reincarnate and see if you can find a definition that cbayer Dec 2011 #10

OKAY! Let's look together! MarkCharles Dec 2011 #11

Interesting. The same site gives a different definition when used as a noun. cbayer Dec 2011 #12

Hey look! You are BOTH right! cleanhippie Dec 2011 #15

What is your definition of the word "reincarnation"? cbayer Dec 2011 #16

Does it matter? Unless you are stating that one needs a deity for reincarnation... cleanhippie Dec 2011 #19

It only matters insofar as I am interested in whether cbayer Dec 2011 #21

Me personally? I don't believe any such thing exists at all. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #22

Thanks for that reply. I would also be interested in the views cbayer Dec 2011 #23

Buddhist view on rebirth: tama Dec 2011 #43

While recycling of biomaterials... Silent3 Dec 2011 #27

Haster bin readin' "On Ilkla Moor Baht 'at"? Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #41

Belief in the supernatural has nothing to do with atheism. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #8

Not at all. mr blur Dec 2011 #13

Most, but not all, atheists are skeptics about the supernatural Silent3 Dec 2011 #26

Depends on whether you believe karma is divine. rug Dec 2011 #5

I concur Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #42

The bible is "proof" of nothing. nt mr blur Dec 2011 #14

Well, its "proof" if you are able to use your "other ways of knowing"!!! cleanhippie Dec 2011 #17

That must be the same proof for reincarnation. rug Dec 2011 #18

Agreed, but I'm not seeing your point. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #20

That "proof" has no essential relevance to belief ot nonbelief. rug Dec 2011 #24

Atheism is typically, even if not by definition... Silent3 Dec 2011 #28

No it isn't. rug Dec 2011 #30

A rejection based upon logic, or? MarkCharles Dec 2011 #32

It's a rejection based on a logical conundrum. rug Dec 2011 #33

It is a rejection of *a* God concept... Silent3 Dec 2011 #40

Nothing in science or rational inquiry skepticscott Dec 2011 #29

That's obviously true. rug Dec 2011 #31

That's only true skepticscott Dec 2011 #35

The topic is the relevance, or irrelevance, of science to atheism and theism. rug Dec 2011 #36

Uh, this old argument, for one skepticscott Dec 2011 #38

I remember that well, although what your post had to do with it eludes me. rug Dec 2011 #39

"We cannot teach people anything; we can only... MarkCharles Dec 2011 #25

I wonder his thoughts on the number pi... Taverner Dec 2011 #34

Doubtless irrational. rug Dec 2011 #37