Do you think it's important whether others believe in God or not?

[sandandfoam]

I don't think so.
I find I have more in common with an atheist who stands in awe of nature than a dogmatic literalist who loves the city.
Yet the dogmatic atheist who shouts SCIENCE at me and has no appreciation of poetry seems as alien as the fundamentalist.
Is dogmatic or not a more important distinction than theist or not?

 

[doppelganger]

It's more important whether a person has the tools of introspection to understand with a "belief" is in the first place. There are plenty of "theists" and "atheists" who have a great deal more in common than either would like to admit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A person's beliefs affect their actions, and other people's actions will affect the people around them, potentially including people I care about or me.

I think that these actions tend, on average, to have better consequences when they're based on true beliefs, and when it comes right down to it, the question of God is one of the truth or falsehood of a particular factual proposition.

I want to base my beliefs on truth as much as possible, and I'd prefer if other people felt the same way. If God exists, I'd rather people not believe he didn't exist. If God doesn't exist, I'd rather people not believe he did.

This is the same for any factual matter: if the Blue Whale is the largest animal, I'd rather people not think that the elephant is; if the bottle contains poison, I'd rather not people think it contains water.

 

[sandandfoam]

A person's beliefs affect their actions, and other people's actions will affect the people around them, potentially including people I care about or me.

I think that these actions tend, on average, to have better consequences when they're based on true beliefs, and when it comes right down to it, the question of God is one of the truth or falsehood of a particular factual proposition.

I want to base my beliefs on truth as much as possible, and I'd prefer if other people felt the same way. If God exists, I'd rather people not believe he didn't exist. If God doesn't exist, I'd rather people not believe he did.

This is the same for any factual matter: if the Blue Whale is the largest animal, I'd rather people not think that the elephant is; if the bottle contains poison, I'd rather not people think it contains water.

Is there any factual matter?
I don't accept that there is. Everything we know should always be open to revision in the face of new information.

 

[sandandfoam]

There are plenty of "theists" and "atheists" who have a great deal more in common than either would like to admit.

If only I could draw, my masterpiece would be a cartoon depicting this .

 

[fallingblood]

For me, it doesn't matter. However, if one believes in God or doesn't, I do wish they keep from saying their belief or lack of belief is fact.

I believe God exists, and I accept it on faith. I can't prove he exists and neither do I want to. I am happy with the idea that God has many paths, be they religious or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is there any factual matter?
I don't accept that there is. Everything we know should always be open to revision in the face of new information.

What I mean is that God either exists or he doesn't.

Our own beliefs may be subject to change, and they may be incorrect to various degrees, but they still inhabit some point on the spectrum between correct and incorrect, even if we can't say with certainty exactly where on the spectrum they are.

 

[swamplizard]

Greetings,

I tend to think that acceptance of other's views, whether extreme or "balanced" is a reflection of a true acceptance of one's inner path.

best,
swampy

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For me, it doesn't matter. However, if one believes in God or doesn't, I do wish they keep from saying their belief or lack of belief is fact.

In case that was directed at me, I should probably explain what I meant by "factual": I wasn't trying to suggest that I'm correct with certainty; I'm saying that the premise "God exists" does have some real truth value; it is either correct or incorrect. Even if we can't say which conclusion is right or even if we'll ever be able to figure out which is right, we can still say that one, and only one, right answer exists "out there".

I believe God exists, and I accept it on faith. I can't prove he exists and neither do I want to. I am happy with the idea that God has many paths, be they religious or not.

I find the suggestion that my non-theism is a form of theism to be rather chauvinistic and insulting. It kinda reminds me of the line in Full Metal Jacket: "inside every gook is an American trying to get out."

 

[swamplizard]

The terminology connected with the concept of God is a mirror of the thoughts. The defined God resides within these mental constructs. God is, no definition is required.

Just your boggy reptilian,
swampy

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It in itself is hardly important. Most people don't reflect on the nature of belief enough for their belief in god to be meaningful anyway. What's important to me, is that people have the ability and desire to develop insight, retrospection, and understanding. Most people I've been friends with have had various beliefs in god, however, I've never been friends with someone who would be classified as fundamentalist, or even "very religious." I don't have a fundamental problem with religion, but I've found that people for whom religion is too large a part of their identy, are generally blocked off from pursuing any real understanding. They are essentially caricatures. And not very interesting ones at that.

 

[Storm]

I don't think so.
I find I have more in common with an atheist who stands in awe of nature than a dogmatic literalist who loves the city.
Yet the dogmatic atheist who shouts SCIENCE at me and has no appreciation of poetry seems as alien as the fundamentalist.
Is dogmatic or not a more important distinction than theist or not?

Absolutely.

 

[Storm]

In case that was directed at me, I should probably explain what I meant by "factual": I wasn't trying to suggest that I'm correct with certainty; I'm saying that the premise "God exists" does have some real truth value; it is either correct or incorrect. Even if we can't say which conclusion is right or even if we'll ever be able to figure out which is right, we can still say that one, and only one, right answer exists "out there".

I understand that. What I don't understand is why you're focusing on whether God exists. That wasn't the question.

I find the suggestion that my non-theism is a form of theism to be rather chauvinistic and insulting. It kinda reminds me of the line in Full Metal Jacket: "inside every gook is an American trying to get out."

I don't think that's what he meant, but I'll refrain from speaking for him.

 

[Breathe]

I don't think so.
I find I have more in common with an atheist who stands in awe of nature than a dogmatic literalist who loves the city.
Yet the dogmatic atheist who shouts SCIENCE at me and has no appreciation of poetry seems as alien as the fundamentalist.
Is dogmatic or not a more important distinction than theist or not?

I don't think so either.
For me, being a nice person is more important than one's belief or lack thereof.

 

[swamplizard]

I don't think so either.
For me, being a nice person is more important than one's belief or lack thereof.

Hi again Odion,

Being "nice" is one's true beliefs manifesting in the walk.

best,
swampy

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't think so.
I find I have more in common with an atheist who stands in awe of nature than a dogmatic literalist who loves the city.
Yet the dogmatic atheist who shouts SCIENCE at me and has no appreciation of poetry seems as alien as the fundamentalist.
Is dogmatic or not a more important distinction than theist or not?

As far as anyones belief in God or the lack of goes, I dont regard it as being terribly important in the overall scheme of things. There are appropriate and inappropriate ways of expressing ones dogmatic views obviously.

On one end, look at Westboro Church pushing a dogmatic front and on the other end look at the reactions and protests expressed when Pluto was offically declassified as a planet.

I think that distinction lies with ones own passion over any given thing especally when a strong view or belief is challenged on a personal level.

 

[Breathe]

Hi again Odion,

Being "nice" is one's true beliefs manifesting in the walk.

best,
swampy

That it is swampy, that it is. Here's an IOU for frubals.

 

[AdamEve]

Since beleif in god is in contrast to logical thinking those that beleive in god do not think logicaly and therefore they represent danger both to themselfs and to the others. Beleivers tend to follow without thinking making them easy target for manipulation leading to wars, discriminiation and all sorts of other crimes in the name of god. They also extend they way of blind obediance to every day life allowing polititions to manipulate them as easy as priests does. All because they don't practice critical thinking and rather beleive in what they would like wourld to be rather then what world acctually is. Their blond beleif to priests/politions does a lot of harm to everybpdy else.

 

[ChristineES]

I like kind-hearted people. I enjoy having conversations with the highly intelligent about some things, the very wise for other things, and the very religious about even others, and so on and so forth- and people who are all or more than one quality (or more) are a bonus! But on the top of my list, I like kind-hearted people best- and if they are atheist, I still like them.

 

[sandandfoam]

. Their blond beleif to priests/politions does a lot of harm to everybpdy else.

I especially like that bit