Why don't you believe in God/s?

[nPeace]

And you think you’re the tutor, do you?

No No No Nooooooooooooooooo. Don't get me wrong B. I am a student 1000%.
I'm looking to get the big green tick at the end of the day.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No No No Nooooooooooooooooo. Don't get me wrong B. I am a student 1000%.

But the only person trying to “correct” the other “students’” answers is you.

 

[nPeace]

When it comes to someone proclaiming, "I have the truth, and you believe in a lie. You're going to hell," this is in fact something that does affect their own "salvation", such as that may be, and it impacts those to whom they take such an arrogant position with. It affects everyone. Understand the scope of the reality of things, results in a lot more humility and grace, and that has a direct impact on one's relationship with God, themselves, and the world as a whole.

Okay. Let's consider that.
Someone 'A' say that they own the house they live in. Someone else 'B' claims not.
A has all the documents that proves he is right. Is A wrong to say he knows the truth, and the other person believes a lie?

To quite a few it's perfect in the literal, absolute sense. What do you think the whole Chicago Statement is about? Those who subscribe to such a belief, more often than not hide their own responsibility in how they read and interpret and apply the meanings they see behind that statement. "It's not my words! It's God's words!", to justify all their darkness they project upon the Divine Will.

I'm quite sure otherwise. I was part of a group that thought this way, and I have encountered plenty of examples of this here on RF as well as elsewhere. It is a problem of their thinking, that creates this trap of the mind in which they hide self-responsibility within.

I understand that sometimes we can misunderstanding - we're human. Sometime when in conversation, we can be saying the same thing and still disagreeing.
A person may say God's word is truth, and not at the same time mean absolute truth.
A person may say God's word is perfect and not mean absolutely perfect.
In both cases a listening person who is concerned with precision of words and technicalities of meaning, can create an argument that's unnecessary.

I usually would question the person as to what they mean. Do you mean... so so so? You don't mean....so so so, do you? When I do that, I find we are on the same page.
The person believe it's as perfect as it can be, considering the circumstances - it hasn't escaped attempts to corrupt it etc.

I find questions work nicely, because even if a person is speaking without thinking - sometimes happens - the question sets them thinking, and in no time, you are having a friendly conversation, where you agree on most things - not all - but most.

If someone holds the conventions of language lightly, I understand and respect that. I too use language for convenience sake, or because there really isn't a good way to talk about something otherwise, that I appreciate when someone understands I'm not being literal. But a great many people, a huge number in fact, are unable to think in terms of metaphor. Adam and Eve and the story of the Garden of Eden, are literal, historical and scientific facts in their mind. They are unable to see the meaning of the story, the truths of it, apart from the "facts" of it. And that creates definite problems.

Okay. Now you got my attention - even more. I'm all ears.
How is it that the Adam and Eve account is not a reality? What are the facts that led you to that conclusion?

What it has to do is to challenge the way we think about things and open up our understanding to other perspectives of truth, which results in us loosening our grips on what we assume to be the facts of reality. Reality is in fact, a perceptual reality, and when we challenge "normal" ways of looking at something, that broadens our experience of it. We end up seeing things we normally could not see, because how we framed its reality in our minds, blinds us to it. What I just said there, is key to this.

I understand that, and agree to some measure. I too love to grow in knowledge and understand of new perspectives. I like to look beneath the superficial, and have conversation with individuals, but I don't share it with everyone, because I keep in mind that everyone is not deep, and you could throw off a person - in order words stumble them, and I am not about doing that.

Yes, I see it quite important, as you can see. Thoughts?

I'm interested in hearing how you think it's relevant to the search for truth.

 

[nPeace]

But the only person trying to “correct” the other “students’” answers is you.

I wasn't aware of that. Could you give me a few examples.
I know I might have been a bit tough on Valjean, but I figured he could handle it. Have I been consistently doing that?

 

[nPeace]

So how, by this definition, is atheism a religion or belief system?

Sorry for being so tough on you buddy.
I consider you one of the tough guys - in a good way, and figured you could take a push, just as you pushed.
I really enjoyed your steadiness. So, I do apologize.

 

[Windwalker]

Okay. Let's consider that.
Someone 'A' say that they own the house they live in. Someone else 'B' claims not.
A has all the documents that proves he is right. Is A wrong to say he knows the truth, and the other person believes a lie?

In that particular example there is a clear line of ownership in papers which exist for that one single purpose. Do you think that example applies to all situations in life and all questions of validity? Were that life were so simple it could be reduced to things like that! (It would actually be quite boring if it were).

For fun's sake though, let's imagine these papers were ancient and were claiming ownership for the descendants of the person whose name they were originally in. No one actually knows who the attorney was who drafted them up, whether they actually were an attorney even. And then the person claiming they own the house is arguing with others who likewise claim they own the house, each with their pile of arguments to support their claim to ownership. Add to this, the original documents were quite confusing in a great many places, it was written in a language long ago that no modern person speaks, and in a culture where the nuances of the language would be challenging at best to understand in order to properly sus out intent, and so forth.

Now, that's a little bit more to the point of what we are talking about. It's actually far more messy than that even.

I understand that sometimes we can misunderstanding - we're human. Sometime when in conversation, we can be saying the same thing and still disagreeing.
A person may say God's word is truth, and not at the same time mean absolute truth.

That statement I can agree with. Truth can be truth, without being absolute. In fact, that would be my default understanding, were the other person not making me question that was their understanding too by speaking in very clear absolutistic terms, such as "God said it! I believe it! That settles it for me!". That makes me realize they are not understanding these things in terms of relative to themselves. There is no wiggle room there for multiple perspectives.

A person may say God's word is perfect and not mean absolutely perfect.

When they say that in the context of them saying things like, "I can trust everything I see in this Bible to be words of God himself," there's not much wiggle room either, since they are clearly thinking in absolutist terms.

In both cases a listening person who is concerned with precision of words and technicalities of meaning, can create an argument that's unnecessary.

That is true, but we do rely largely on context and other variables to help us discern meaning. One of those variables we don't have here is body language, which offers a great deal of context from which to discern the meanings in how they are using those words.

Okay. Now you got my attention - even more. I'm all ears.
How is it that the Adam and Eve account is not a reality?

It is a reality, of human perception. It is a story to talk about human reality, using symbolic characters in a timeless story about how we see ourselves here in the great expanse of the infinite night sky. It is the story of ourselves, told through our eyes gazing into an imagined past.

What are the facts that led you to that conclusion?

Why do you assume I speak of this as a conclusion, or that consider it as a statement of facts?

I understand that, and agree to some measure. I too love to grow in knowledge and understand of new perspectives. I like to look beneath the superficial, and have conversation with individuals, but I don't share it with everyone, because I keep in mind that everyone is not deep, and you could throw off a person - in order words stumble them, and I am not about doing that.

That is a truly fascinating statement to me. You hold back your knowledge and insights when speaking to others because you are afraid their faith is not ready for deeper truths? Why is that? Do you assume the deeper knowledge and understandings are dangerous to them? Do you intend to protect their beliefs?

How will they ever grow? Why not share, if they honestly aren't ready, they aren't going to get what you're saying anyway. It's over their heads. If they are ready, and you don't share knowledge, that too may be a stumbling block, or rather a hindrance by leaving them without needed information at that time. So, you could suppose if we are to be worried about that, in this case, 'you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.'. So I choose not to worry, and just share. Let the chips fall where they may. The Sower and the seed.

I'm interested in hearing how you think it's relevant to the search for truth.

I see exposing information that might be important to where some people may be on their paths is a gift of sorts from someone who himself has struggled having very few insights from others that resonated for me. If what I have learned that helped me, can be of benefit to others, then I will share. To those it doesn't speak to, it doesn't matter. They don't hear it.

 

[nPeace]

In that particular example there is a clear line of ownership in papers which exist for that one single purpose. Do you think that example applies to all situations in life and all questions of validity? Were that life were so simple it could be reduced to things like that! (It would actually be quite boring if it were).

For fun's sake though, let's imagine these papers were ancient and were claiming ownership for the descendants of the person whose name they were originally in. No one actually knows who the attorney was who drafted them up, whether they actually were an attorney even. And then the person claiming they own the house is arguing with others who likewise claim they own the house, each with their pile of arguments to support their claim to ownership. Add to this, the original documents were quite confusing in a great many places, it was written in a language long ago that no modern person speaks, and in a culture where the nuances of the language would be challenging at best to understand in order to properly sus out intent, and so forth.

Now, that's a little bit more to the point of what we are talking about. It's actually far more messy than that even.

That seems a bit too complicated.
Let's put it precisely how it is, so that we don't make things more difficult than they really are.
A collection of ancient letters,, allowing everyone to get a piece of land. The letters contained the name of the owner, and his instructions.
There has obviously been some tampering with the letter. Perhaps some individuals got greedy.
Everyone can gain access to these letters, and examine them for themselves. They are not hidden from anyone.
There are two keys to being able to gain your piece of land. Once you possess these keys, no person can stop you from getting your piece of land.
All who wants to fight and kill, can go ahead. When they are dead and buried, that means there is more land available for the offspring of those who already possess land.

This seems a lot less complicated - even a teenager or young child can join the conversation. Can we work with this?

That statement I can agree with. Truth can be truth, without being absolute. In fact, that would be my default understanding, were the other person not making me question that was their understanding too by speaking in very clear absolutistic terms, such as "God said it! I believe it! That settles it for me!". That makes me realize they are not understanding these things in terms of relative to themselves. There is no wiggle room there for multiple perspectives.


When they say that in the context of them saying things like, "I can trust everything I see in this Bible to be words of God himself," there's not much wiggle room either, since they are clearly thinking in absolutist terms.

Well there is a reason the person says what they say. It's not expected that you agree with them, nor should you expect that they agree with you.
It's now the duty of each person to put forth reasons for why they believe what they do.
If by the end of the 'argument' - which hopefully doesn't go into the night, nor end up with one killing the other - you can both go your separate ways - agree to disagree. Nobody dies that way.
You see that debate - evolution vs creation? Do you think that will ever end?

That is true, but we do rely largely on context and other variables to help us discern meaning. One of those variables we don't have here is body language, which offers a great deal of context from which to discern the meanings in how they are using those words.

True.

It is a reality, of human perception. It is a story to talk about human reality, using symbolic characters in a timeless story about how we see ourselves here in the great expanse of the infinite night sky. It is the story of ourselves, told through our eyes gazing into an imagined past.

You've simply repeated your claim. Can you give me the facts or evidence that let to your conclusion?

Why do you assume I speak of this as a conclusion, or that consider it as a statement of facts?

The way you said it sounded so final, as though you could back up what you said. I didn't know you were just making a claim in which you didn't mind could be taken as empty. Sorry.

That is a truly fascinating statement to me. You hold back your knowledge and insights when speaking to others because you are afraid their faith is not ready for deeper truths? Why is that? Do you assume the deeper knowledge and understandings are dangerous to them? Do you intend to protect their beliefs?

It like you said. Body language - when speaking with persons, I like to be discerning and use what I consider good judgment. That just me.

How will they ever grow? Why not share, if they honestly aren't ready, they aren't going to get what you're saying anyway. It's over their heads. If they are ready, and you don't share knowledge, that too may be a stumbling block, or rather a hindrance by leaving them without needed information at that time. So, you could suppose if we are to be worried about that, in this case, 'you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.'. So I choose not to worry, and just share. Let the chips fall where they may. The Sower and the seed.

Well, I personally believe there is someone bigger than I am, and just as he allows persons to grow at their own pace. I strive to do the same.
I believe in giving what I think is necessary. If I don't think it's necessary, I don't push it.
It's as I told you, a leaf dies, a flower dies, it goes in the ground... dust you are - dust you return. That's necessary. I'm not going to fill the "child's" head with anything more. If as an "adult" we are having conversation that goes a little deeper - no problem. That's just me.

I see exposing information that might be important to where some people may be on their paths is a gift of sorts from someone who himself has struggled having very few insights from others that resonated for me. If what I have learned that helped me, can be of benefit to others, then I will share. To those it doesn't speak to, it doesn't matter. They don't hear it.

Cool. That's you.

It's good to share. Note - share. Not demand that someone accept. So, if you are sharing, fine. That's what I try to do too.
On debate forums... you debate.

 

[Windwalker]

Everyone can gain access to these letters, and examine them for themselves. They are not hidden from anyone.

But having eyes to see, does not mean one can see. Having ears to hear, does not mean one can hear.

The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.​

Apparently, they are hidden, albeight in plain sight, according to Jesus himself. Experience confirms this.

I think to try to compare Divine Truth, with legal documents is a grave misunderstanding of the human mind, one which blinds others to very Nature of God itself.

There are two keys to being able to gain your piece of land. Once you possess these keys, no person can stop you from getting your piece of land.

Except yourself. But I must ask, what to you are these "two keys", specifically?

This seems a lot less complicated - even a teenager or young child can join the conversation. Can we work with this?

If we get rid of talking about God as a legal entity and salvation as a legal status, then that would be a start for others to actually see something meaningful about God that may benefit them. Yes, even a teenager will be attracted to unconditional Love. It's built into all of us, not this nonsense about Divine legal contracts that Anselm of Canterbury introduced into the minds of Christian theology in the 11th century, thus poisoning multiple streams of Christian thought for almost a millennium.

Well there is a reason the person says what they say.

Of course there is a reason. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a valid reason, of course.

It's now the duty of each person to put forth reasons for why they believe what they do.

Actually, I see it more the duty of each person to set aside how they see things and try to genuinely see it from the perspective of the other, and try to understand the basis for that. If one can see that basis is error, then don't we have the duty to correct bad information? A lie, is not an "alternative fact", as some seem to imagine in this world of "post truth" (which in actually reality is "pre-truth", not having yet arrived at truth as a basis for functioning in reality).

If by the end of the 'argument' - which hopefully doesn't go into the night, nor end up with one killing the other - you can both go your separate ways - agree to disagree.
You see that debate - evolution vs creation? Do you think that will ever end?

Actually, there is no debate on that topic. You only basically have two camps, those who accept the evidence and deal with how it makes them rethink reality, and those who don't. I don't personally see that as "agreeing to disagree", inasmuch as that term applies only if each side having strong supporting evidence. It cannot be used to validate nonsense, such as someone saying "Everyone is entitled to their opinion," regarding a conspiracy theory, as if it that somehow magically makes their view valid. We never "agree to disagree" with completely invalid opinions.

What you can have however, is that those who are left trying to understand and deal with those who choose to live in denial of evidence, we can try to understand the basis behind their denialism. Understanding things like existential fear behind this, and the failure of religion to help society deal with what science reveals in light of modern scientific discovery, in particular, etc., can create a more compassionate response to help them maybe transition from the mythic world to the modern world, where the Light of God is just as luminous and brilliant, just in a new land of his Creation we can, and should explore with this knowledge before us. Hallelujah, Brother! Embrace the truth! Amen.

You've simply repeated your claim. Can you give me the facts or evidence that let to your conclusion?

The way you said it sounded so final, as though you could back up what you said. I didn't know you were just making a claim in which you didn't mind could be taken as empty. Sorry.

I didn't actually just repeat it, I expressed how I saw it. I had merely stated before that I don't see it as a fact of science and history. That's not the same thing as saying how I read the story in Genesis, which is what you asked.

Now as far as facts of evidence, you miss the point here. It's a mythology. A mythology is about inspiring our imaginations about realms of our own existence which puts us in touch with these timeless and eternal truths within us. That's why I shared how I see it, how I read it. It's an expression of the human soul in story form.

What is my evidence for reading it that way? My mind. The human mind. It's how humans think symbolically in the world. We create images of reality symbolically, and then later in the development of the mind we come up with words and languages to wrap around these preverbal symbols. Stories like the serpent and that garden are common archetypal themes which tap into and inspire from these deep symbolic systems of meanings we have inherited through our ancestors and the world itself. It underlays all language, and it transcends all languages, all words, and all cognitive thought. They are eternal truths in symbolic forms.

You see them in other cultures, and throughout the Bible. The only "huh" there is in this is that when they are the stories of our culture and its traditions, we see them more as givens, that they are facts, not quite able to separate out the meaning from the symbol, and thus allow for the "facts" of the symbol to be separated out from the meaning, which when you can do that, you can see the same story told in all other religions, and all religions creation stories are following this same human impulse, creating common symbols for common human existential experience.

That's a part of what is behind the basis for how my mind sees this, along with the various supports for why I understand it this way.

How about you? How do you read it?

 

[nPeace]

But having eyes to see, does not mean one can see. Having ears to hear, does not mean one can hear.

The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.​

Apparently, they are hidden, albeight in plain sight, according to Jesus himself. Experience confirms this.

I think to try to compare Divine Truth, with legal documents is a grave misunderstanding of the human mind, one which blinds others to very Nature of God itself.


Except yourself. But I must ask, what to you are these "two keys", specifically?


If we get rid of talking about God as a legal entity and salvation as a legal status, then that would be a start for others to actually see something meaningful about God that may benefit them. Yes, even a teenager will be attracted to unconditional Love. It's built into all of us, not this nonsense about Divine legal contracts that Anselm of Canterbury introduced into the minds of Christian theology in the 11th century, thus poisoning multiple streams of Christian thought for almost a millennium.

Good point. I guess I failed miserable trying to come up with something we could work with.

Of course there is a reason. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a valid reason, of course.

Scrap that.

Actually, I see it more the duty of each person to set aside how they see things and try to genuinely see it from the perspective of the other, and try to understand the basis for that. If one can see that basis is error, then don't we have the duty to correct bad information? A lie, is not an "alternative fact", as some seem to imagine in this world of "post truth" (which in actually reality is "pre-truth", not having yet arrived at truth as a basis for functioning in reality).

Isn't that sort of like demanding the person see things your way?
You are assuming that the person hasn't already genuinely seen it from the perspective of the other.

Actually, there is no debate on that topic. You only basically have two camps, those who accept the evidence and deal with how it makes them rethink reality, and those who don't. I don't personally see that as "agreeing to disagree", inasmuch as that term applies only if each side having strong supporting evidence. It cannot be used to validate nonsense, such as someone saying "Everyone is entitled to their opinion," regarding a conspiracy theory, as if it that somehow magically makes their view valid. We never "agree to disagree" with completely invalid opinions.

What you can have however, is that those who are left trying to understand and deal with those who choose to live in denial of evidence, we can try to understand the basis behind their denialism. Understanding things like existential fear behind this, and the failure of religion to help society deal with what science reveals in light of modern scientific discovery, in particular, etc., can create a more compassionate response to help them maybe transition from the mythic world to the modern world, where the Light of God is just as luminous and brilliant, just in a new land of his Creation we can, and should explore with this knowledge before us. Hallelujah, Brother! Embrace the truth! Amen.

A believes they have evidence. B believes they have evidence.
A believes B should accept A's evidence.
B believes A should accept B's evidence.
A believes B is in denial. B believes... You know the rest.
Both will hold to what they believe.

I didn't actually just repeat it, I expressed how I saw it. I had merely stated before that I don't see it as a fact of science and history. That's not the same thing as saying how I read the story in Genesis, which is what you asked.

Now as far as facts of evidence, you miss the point here. It's a mythology. A mythology is about inspiring our imaginations about realms of our own existence which puts us in touch with these timeless and eternal truths within us. That's why I shared how I see it, how I read it. It's an expression of the human soul in story form.

What is my evidence for reading it that way? My mind. The human mind. It's how humans think symbolically in the world. We create images of reality symbolically, and then later in the development of the mind we come up with words and languages to wrap around these preverbal symbols. Stories like the serpent and that garden are common archetypal themes which tap into and inspire from these deep symbolic systems of meanings we have inherited through our ancestors and the world itself. It underlays all language, and it transcends all languages, all words, and all cognitive thought. They are eternal truths in symbolic forms.

You see them in other cultures, and throughout the Bible. The only "huh" there is in this is that when they are the stories of our culture and its traditions, we see them more as givens, that they are facts, not quite able to separate out the meaning from the symbol, and thus allow for the "facts" of the symbol to be separated out from the meaning, which when you can do that, you can see the same story told in all other religions, and all religions creation stories are following this same human impulse, creating common symbols for common human existential experience.

That's a part of what is behind the basis for how my mind sees this, along with the various supports for why I understand it this way.

How about you? How do you read it?

I don't see it as mythology. What are your reasons for seeing it as such - Oh right. You said your mind - what you believe. Did I understand you correctly? I want to be sure I didn't misunderstand you.

 

[Windwalker]

Good point. I guess I failed miserable trying to come up with something we could work with.

Scrap that.

Sarcasm?

Isn't that sort of like demanding the person see things your way?

To point out error and be truthful about that is "demanding the other person see things your way" somehow? You see being truthful in pointing out the errors of others regarding things that are clearly inaccurate as an attempt at "controlling" them? Why is that your first go-to? I can think of other non-selfish reasons to tell someone they are believing half-truths and lies. Perhaps you care about them?

You are assuming that the person hasn't already genuinely seen it from the perspective of the other.

In these cases, when you asked them to restate what it is you're saying, it's quite rare when they actually can. So, it's not much of an assumption when their words and actions paint a very different story, a story where there aren't actually seeing it from your perspective, but rather an assumption of all sort of things, like ulterior motives on your part, and such, but no actual comprehension of the meanings you are speaking.

A believes they have evidence. B believes they have evidence.

Correction: A has evidence. B doesn't have evidence, but make believes he does. A looks as B's data he calls evidence and shows it to not be valid evidence. B refuses to play the game and says A is inspired by Satan. B says, "Let's agree to disagree". A, hangs his head in his hands.

I don't see it as mythology. What are your reasons for seeing it as such - Oh right. You said your mind - what you believe. Did I understand you correctly? I want to be sure I didn't misunderstand you.

You did not read carefully what I said. I said my mind - the human mind. Not just "in my head", but in all our heads. You should re-read what I wrote and see there was quite a lot there to unpack.

But I would like to know your reasons why you do not consider it to be mythology, in the context in which I spoke of it, not some imagined idea that I might have meant myth as "falsehood" or something. I gave quite a few supporting reason behind my thoughts.

But to briefly answer your question, no, you did not understand me correctly.

 

[nPeace]

Sarcasm?

Far from. Genuine truth (relative, of course.)

To point out error and be truthful about that is "demanding the other person see things your way" somehow? You see being truthful in pointing out the errors of others regarding things that are clearly inaccurate as an attempt at "controlling" them? Why is that your first go-to? I can think of other non-selfish reasons to tell someone they are believing half-truths and lies. Perhaps you care about them?

That's not what I'm saying.

In these cases, when you asked them to restate what it is you're saying, it's quite rare when they actually can. So, it's not much of an assumption when their words and actions paint a very different story, a story where there aren't actually seeing it from your perspective, but rather an assumption of all sort of things, like ulterior motives on your part, and such, but no actual comprehension of the meanings you are speaking.

Correction: A has evidence. B doesn't have evidence, but make believes he does. A looks as B's data he calls evidence and shows it to not be valid evidence. B refuses to play the game and says A is inspired by Satan. B says, "Let's agree to disagree". A, hangs his head in his hands.

Are you the same person that said truth is relative? Then I'm going to go along with you in this regard. Sorry A - Beeeeeeeeeep

You did not read carefully what I said. I said my mind - the human mind. Not just "in my head", but in all our heads. You should re-read what I wrote and see there was quite a lot there to unpack.

Windwalker,....
I don't mean this in a bad way, but... are you hearing yourself?
That's a strong accusation to make, in light of the fact that I asked you to verify what you said. So obviously - I am not God to know exactly what you are saying, when it is not said perfectly, and I am not perfect.
This is what I am trying to help you to appreciate.
When a person believes so firmly that they are right, and want others to accept it. Sometimes they don't realize that they are actually demanding that persons accept it.

I'm not sure I will get through to you on that, because I understand the situation. I've been trying to explain it throughout our conversation.

But I would like to know your reasons why you do not consider it to be mythology, in the context in which I spoke of it, not some imagined idea that I might have meant myth as "falsehood" or something. I gave quite a few supporting reason behind my thoughts.

But to briefly answer your question, no, you did not understand me correctly.

I hope you don't mind refreshing my memory. I'm not sure I recall getting an answer with a valid reason. If you did give me, forgive me. Just point / link to the post. Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

Are you the same person that said truth is relative?

I did yes. And this is not an inconsistency. Let me explain. A scientific truth is truth relative to a scientific/rationalist worldspace. A mythological truth is relative to a mythic worldspace. A transrational truth is relative to a transrational worldspace. Do you follow that?

But now having stated that, a mythological view is not a truth in scientific worldspace. It doesn't follow the rules of that relative truth. You can't read the book of Genesis from a symbolic mythological creation story worldspace into a scientific one. Nor can you go the other direction. Truth being relative, does not mean it has no rules of how it functions. Relative truth does not mean anything whatsovers is equally true, including nonsense claims. You can't take Divine Revelation for instance, and say that is a scientific truth. That is nonsense.

So, if I am correcting someone, it's not saying the religious perspective of the world is wrong. I would never argue that. But I would say that when someone starts a Website like Answers in Genesis as a challenge to modern science, as "scientific" this is just plain error, like reading a stop sign on the street as a go sign. Likewise, when the neo-atheist uses the tools of science to tear apart the stories of the Bible as "not factual", they blind themselves to the truth that is there - just as the religionist blinds himself to the truth that science offers. Both are in error.

To point that out, is not to "prove them wrong", but rather to hopefully open their eyes on both sides of that fence to appreciate the value of what these are. But that requires one loosening their grip on reality with their relative ideas of truth as absolute. Again, relative truth does not negate veracity.

When a person believes so firmly that they are right, and want others to accept it. Sometimes they don't realize that they are actually demanding that persons accept it.

All I care about is the integrity of that truth, no matter where it is. Science and mythology shouldn't be confused. Yet, even though you hear me say that, I realize it would take a bit to convey just how I actually do hold these things in my mind. Frankly, it would take me a several whole books to unpack all that. I'll try to say in just a few short words though that the stories of our ancient ancestors woven into the fabric of our conscious minds plays and deep and integral role in discovering who we are. Coupling this with the beauty and the power of science to pull back the curtains on this great Mystery that is our world, is to be honest, like Holy Scripture, revealing the Word of God on every atom, molecule, quark, string, universe, the human mind, the unfolding of life everywhere.

It saddens me when I hear those who claim to love God, try to turn their faces away from this, for no good reason other than it unsettles and shakes how they have tried to imagine God and see themselves in the light of that. To say error is error, frankly, is a duty the world. Yes, I do understand some just cannot grasp these higher perspectives on reality yet, and that they may just be afraid. I feel empathy for that, but to say Ken Ham and Bill Nye are playing on the same field of human knowledge, is grossly inadequate and a pure disservice to the truth.

Again, I don't hold that a scientific truth is an absolute truth. I'm quite quick to jump on the excessive notion that science is the end all be all authority on Truth. It's not at all. But the power of science needs to remain science, and not some "Bible predicted science" type idea be considered science. Science and myth can in fact be good friends, but not by blending them into some "every opinion is equal" nonsense. That is a disservice to the world. It destroys faith. It destroys truth. It is not an act of love at all. And my saying that is from a place of genuine love.

I'm not sure I will get through to you on that, because I understand the situation. I've been trying to explain it throughout our conversation.

Am I giving a better picture of where I am at and what I am saying?

I hope you don't mind refreshing my memory. I'm not sure I recall getting an answer with a valid reason.
If you did give me, forgive me. Just point / link to the post. Thanks

Ask me what isn't clear. My valid reason for believing Genesis is a creation myth? I thought I had explained that.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

I always found it interesting that when we need an example of something ridiculous, we often use religious ideas that have just fallen out of popularity (genies, fairies, leprechauns, Zeus throwing thunderbolts, etc.).

I have no doubt that people will use angels the same way once Christianity becomes less popular.

Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark!

 

[nPeace]

I did yes. And this is not an inconsistency. Let me explain. A scientific truth is truth relative to a scientific/rationalist worldspace. A mythological truth is relative to a mythic worldspace. A transrational truth is relative to a transrational worldspace. Do you follow that?

But now having stated that, a mythological view is not a truth in scientific worldspace. It doesn't follow the rules of that relative truth. You can't read the book of Genesis from a symbolic mythological creation story worldspace into a scientific one. Nor can you go the other direction. Truth being relative, does not mean it has no rules of how it functions. Relative truth does not mean anything whatsovers is equally true, including nonsense claims. You can't take Divine Revelation for instance, and say that is a scientific truth. That is nonsense.

So, if I am correcting someone, it's not saying the religious perspective of the world is wrong. I would never argue that. But I would say that when someone starts a Website like Answers in Genesis as a challenge to modern science, as "scientific" this is just plain error, like reading a stop sign on the street as a go sign. Likewise, when the neo-atheist uses the tools of science to tear apart the stories of the Bible as "not factual", they blind themselves to the truth that is there - just as the religionist blinds himself to the truth that science offers. Both are in error.

To point that out, is not to "prove them wrong", but rather to hopefully open their eyes on both sides of that fence to appreciate the value of what these are. But that requires one loosening their grip on reality with their relative ideas of truth as absolute. Again, relative truth does not negate veracity.

What does that have to do with what you said in response to what I said.

A believes they have evidence. B believes they have evidence.

Correction: A has evidence. B doesn't have evidence, but make believes he does.
A looks as B's data he calls evidence and shows it to not be valid evidence. B
refuses to play the game and says A is inspired by Satan. B says, "Let's agree to
disagree". A, hangs his head in his hands.

Could you put it all in perspective, so that I can at least begin to understand what you are saying.
Better yet...
Let's get real.
How did the earth form?
Basic answer - (if you have another, feel free to insert it)
A answers

The Earth forms. The Earth is thought to have been formed about 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that also formed the Sun. Gravity slowly gathered this gas and dust together into clumps that became asteroids and small early planets called planetesimals.

B answers

The earth was created be God, as the Biblical writers say.

So from this, explain please, why A has evidence and B doesn't.

All I care about is the integrity of that truth, no matter where it is. Science and mythology shouldn't be confused. Yet, even though you hear me say that, I realize it would take a bit to convey just how I actually do hold these things in my mind. Frankly, it would take me a several whole books to unpack all that. I'll try to say in just a few short words though that the stories of our ancient ancestors woven into the fabric of our conscious minds plays and deep and integral role in discovering who we are. Coupling this with the beauty and the power of science to pull back the curtains on this great Mystery that is our world, is to be honest, like Holy Scripture, revealing the Word of God on every atom, molecule, quark, string, universe, the human mind, the unfolding of life everywhere.

It saddens me when I hear those who claim to love God, try to turn their faces away from this, for no good reason other than it unsettles and shakes how they have tried to imagine God and see themselves in the light of that. To say error is error, frankly, is a duty the world. Yes, I do understand some just cannot grasp these higher perspectives on reality yet, and that they may just be afraid. I feel empathy for that, but to say Ken Ham and Bill Nye are playing on the same field of human knowledge, is grossly inadequate and a pure disservice to the truth.

Again, I don't hold that a scientific truth is an absolute truth. I'm quite quick to jump on the excessive notion that science is the end all be all authority on Truth. It's not at all. But the power of science needs to remain science, and not some "Bible predicted science" type idea be considered science. Science and myth can in fact be good friends, but not by blending them into some "every opinion is equal" nonsense. That is a disservice to the world. It destroys faith. It destroys truth. It is not an act of love at all. And my saying that is from a place of genuine love.

Am I giving a better picture of where I am at and what I am saying?

No. I'm completely befuddled.
Are you saying that science can be in harmony with myth, science is myth, science is not myth, science is not truth, but yet it is truth....?
Ignore those questions. I'm just completly lost as to what you are trying to say.
I was following you - or so I thought - until this post.

Ask me what isn't clear. My valid reason for believing Genesis is a creation myth? I thought I had explained that.

This is the only post I find where you seem to have provided an explanation of why you believe it's a myth.
So let me tell you what answer I get, and you tell me if I got you correctly.

Your view:
It's a mythology. It's an expression of the human soul in story form.
Because ...
My mind tells me that it is, because that's how humans think symbolically in the world. We create images of reality symbolically, and then later in the development of the mind we come up with words and languages to wrap around these preverbal symbols.
I've heard many similar stories, so this must be just another one.
So there you go. It's a myth.

Did I get you right?
If I did, then my response to that is - You determined in your mind that it's a myth, with no proof, nor solid evidence that it is.
So my question to you is this: Why should I accept your view, for which you can provide no evidence that you are right, over those who believe otherwise, based on evidence they have that it is in fact, not a myth, but true as... quite literally... gospel.

Aside from that, why should I believe anything anyone says, if "that's how humans think"?

 

[Windwalker]

What does that have to do with what you said in response to what I said.

Too many points of reference there. Not sure what you meant. I believe I was explaining how I understood what relativism was, because you had cited that I embrace relativism, but then seemed to contradict myself by saying we more or less have a duty to correct error. In other words, how can I call something an error if I see that all truth is "relative" in the sense that "there is no truth". Something like that? My response was in response to that, showing how that works in my mind, how it is not a contradiction to relativism, in general.

Could you put it all in perspective, so that I can at least begin to understand what you are saying.
Better yet...
Let's get real.

Oh, I was about to roll my sleeves up and try to explain more concisely, if possible. But it appears you ask some easy questions to maybe help you see. I'll answer, but it may take some explaining....

How did the earth form?
Basic answer - (if you have another, feel free to insert it)
A answers
"The Earth is thought to have been formed about 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that also formed the Sun. Gravity slowly gathered this gas and dust together into clumps that became asteroids and small early planets called planetesimals."

B answers
"The earth was created be God, as the Biblical writers say."

My answer: Both A and B are true.

A is true as the scientific perspective of how the material universe took shape. B is true as the religious, spiritual, or metaphysical perspective of the Great Mystery. Both are valid.

Now, let me now put a sharp point on this, and tie it back to what I said in my last post you seemed confused about. When you said, "as the Biblical writers say", I'll need to stop you there. It is not a matter of "what they said", but a matter of how you are reading that. Are you reading that as symbolic truth, that in fact speaks to a real reality that the words themselves fall short of saying? Or are you reading that as a statement of science? If the latter, that is the error. That is not the language of science, is not using scientific terms, nor modes of investigation. It's not science in any sense of the word whatsoever.

Likewise, science can't use the tools and the language of science and examine what the Bible says in the text and conclude it's bad science. It's not bad science! It's not science at all. What is in fact bad however, is those who read the Bible expecting it to be scientific. That's the error. Not the Biblical writers, but the Biblical readers! There are making a gross category error attempting to make metaphor and religious symbols a type of science.

So from this, explain please, why A has evidence and B doesn't.

Because B's interpretation of words of an ancient text and belief that they can bypass scientific methodologies, is not evidence. B's belief it is science, does not make it evidence. It does not pass the criteria for being considered scientific. So, B does not have scientific evidence. He has his beliefs. They don't qualify.

No. I'm completely befuddled.
Are you saying that science can be in harmony with myth, science is myth, science is not myth, science is not truth, but yet it is truth....?
Ignore those questions. I'm just completly lost as to what you are trying to say.
I was following you - or so I thought - until this post.

Hang in there, it'll perhaps come. You're making a good effort, and admittedly I'm sure it sounds confusing. There's a lot of misconception out there about these things, and it takes some prying them loose for what I'm saying to make more sense.

This is the only post I find where you seem to have provided an explanation of why you believe it's a myth.
So let me tell you what answer I get, and you tell me if I got you correctly.

Your view:
It's a mythology. It's an expression of the human soul in story form.
Because ...
[My words:]

"My mind tells me that it is, because that's how humans think symbolically in the world. We create images of reality symbolically, and then later in the development of the mind we come up with words and languages to wrap around these preverbal symbols."

[Your words:]

'I've heard many similar stories, so this must be just another one.
So there you go. It's a myth."

Did I get you right?

No, you did not get me right. It is not just a matter of reading similar stories. It's a matter of understanding what mythology is, how it functions, what its common symbols are, how they speak to our minds in archetypal forms which both reflect and shape our psychological, cultural, and spiritual lives. It's a matter of reading Genesis as it is, and hearing its messages about us as humans. It's not a matter of because it "looks like" a creation myth. It speaks as a creation myth. It communicates truth in the stories. The characters, Adam and Eve, are us. It's our story as humans. It's all our story. That is what good mythology does. That is what Genesis does. It speaks truth, even though it has nothing to do with a scientific or historical understanding of truth.

There are different types of truth. People commonly mistake symbolic truth, and evidence I'll add, with scientific and historical truths and evidence. It's honestly comparable to picking up the Bible, and reading it as an account of early American history. It throws the baby of spiritual truth straight into the mud path, doing that. It seriously cheapens God, IMHO.

If I did, then my response to that is - You determined in your mind that it's a myth, with no proof, nor solid evidence that it is.
So my question to you is this: Why should I accept your view, for which you can provide no evidence that you are right, over those who believe otherwise, based on evidence they have that it is in fact, not a myth, but true as... quite literally... gospel.

Aside from my trying to show the supporting reasons for this, and there is far more than I just mentioned in both these posts so far, you cannot cite your belief the Bible is scientific evidence and have it actually be considered valid scientific evidence. It categorically is not. And there are substantive justifications for disqualifying it as such, too much to go into at this moment.

Aside from that, why should I believe anything anyone says, if "that's how humans think"?

Understanding how our human minds work, that they are symbolic, pattern seeking things, amongst much more, does not suddenly mean what we can know can't be trusted as reliable. It simply means, 'be careful in assuming just because you think a thing to be true that is actually is, because it's how our human mind works. We have to work with it, to help steer us clear of common errors. We use our minds, to improve our minds. That's how this works.

Does this help any yet?

 

[nPeace]

Too many points of reference there. Not sure what you meant. I believe I was explaining how I understood what relativism was, because you had cited that I embrace relativism, but then seemed to contradict myself by saying we more or less have a duty to correct error. In other words, how can I call something an error if I see that all truth is "relative" in the sense that "there is no truth". Something like that? My response was in response to that, showing how that works in my mind, how it is not a contradiction to relativism, in general.

I got you.

Oh, I was about to roll my sleeves up and try to explain more concisely, if possible. But it appears you ask some easy questions to maybe help you see. I'll answer, but it may take some explaining....


My answer: Both A and B are true.

A is true as the scientific perspective of how the material universe took shape. B is true as the religious, spiritual, or metaphysical perspective of the Great Mystery. Both are valid.

Now, let me now put a sharp point on this, and tie it back to what I said in my last post you seemed confused about. When you said, "as the Biblical writers say", I'll need to stop you there. It is not a matter of "what they said", but a matter of how you are reading that. Are you reading that as symbolic truth, that in fact speaks to a real reality that the words themselves fall short of saying? Or are you reading that as a statement of science? If the latter, that is the error. That is not the language of science, is not using scientific terms, nor modes of investigation. It's not science in any sense of the word whatsoever.

Likewise, science can't use the tools and the language of science and examine what the Bible says in the text and conclude it's bad science. It's not bad science! It's not science at all. What is in fact bad however, is those who read the Bible expecting it to be scientific. That's the error. Not the Biblical writers, but the Biblical readers! There are making a gross category error attempting to make metaphor and religious symbols a type of science.


Because B's interpretation of words of an ancient text and belief that they can bypass scientific methodologies, is not evidence. B's belief it is science, does not make it evidence. It does not pass the criteria for being considered scientific. So, B does not have scientific evidence. He has his beliefs. They don't qualify.

So B has evidence now?
So what I said before was correct then - which you contradicted?

A believes they have evidence. B believes they have evidence.

Why do you keep bringing in science here?
I get the feeling you are talking to me as though I am one of those persons you argue with on a regular basis. No offense.

I have said nothing to you about science evidence.
If we need to call a scientist to verify that we have evidence that we think, or that we are alive, then I'm sorry for us.
Please forget the science bit, and deal with evidence.
I saw a man walk on hot coals, and breath fire from his mouth. I saw a man eat glass, and rock, and tin, and kick a cat.
Are you saying I don't have evidence because it needs to be tested by the scientific method? So nobody has evidence unless science verifies it? Is that what you are saying?
History is not evidence, nor eyewitness testimony?

If you are saying that the only evidence that is evidence, is scientific evidence, that simply isn't true, is it?

In many cases, there is even no scientific or organizational evidence available, so we have no option but to make a decision based on the personal experience of colleague’s. In those cases, some (experiential) evidence is still better than no evidence at all.

Hang in there, it'll perhaps come. You're making a good effort, and admittedly I'm sure it sounds confusing. There's a lot of misconception out there about these things, and it takes some prying them loose for what I'm saying to make more sense.

Thanks for bearing with me.

No, you did not get me right. It is not just a matter of reading similar stories. It's a matter of understanding what mythology is, how it functions, what its common symbols are, how they speak to our minds in archetypal forms which both reflect and shape our psychological, cultural, and spiritual lives. It's a matter of reading Genesis as it is, and hearing its messages about us as humans. It's not a matter of because it "looks like" a creation myth. It speaks as a creation myth. It communicates truth in the stories. The characters, Adam and Eve, are us. It's our story as humans. It's all our story. That is what good mythology does. That is what Genesis does. It speaks truth, even though it has nothing to do with a scientific or historical understanding of truth.

You say you are "reading Genesis as it is", and "The characters, Adam and Eve, are us".
Others say you are wrong.
What makes you right, and them wrong?

There are different types of truth. People commonly mistake symbolic truth, and evidence I'll add, with scientific and historical truths and evidence. It's honestly comparable to picking up the Bible, and reading it as an account of early American history. It throws the baby of spiritual truth straight into the mud path, doing that. It seriously cheapens God, IMHO.


Aside from my trying to show the supporting reasons for this, and there is far more than I just mentioned in both these posts so far, you cannot cite your belief the Bible is scientific evidence and have it actually be considered valid scientific evidence. It categorically is not. And there are substantive justifications for disqualifying it as such, too much to go into at this moment.


Understanding how our human minds work, that they are symbolic, pattern seeking things, amongst much more, does not suddenly mean what we can know can't be trusted as reliable. It simply means, 'be careful in assuming just because you think a thing to be true that is actually is, because it's how our human mind works. We have to work with it, to help steer us clear of common errors. We use our minds, to improve our minds. That's how this works.

Does this help any yet?

I don't need any help in this regard buddy. Thanks for trying though.
I get the feeling you are not having a conversation with me, but rather trying to preach your ideas, imho.

All you have said are mere ideas in your head.
What you consider symbolic truth, is all in your head - not true by any measure, and you know this, because you are just talking, but lending no supportive backing to your ideas.

You keep talking about the Bible and scientific evidence, although I believe that more than one person has told you before that the Bible is not a science text book, but when discussing things about nature, it is scientifically accurate.

You keep talking about how our minds works, as though it's a general rule of how all human brains work, except for the scientists... and yours - of course. Actually in your mind it only seems to be the case with the minds of those who accept the Bible.
These are all ideas in your head, bro. Ideas of which you cannot give any valid support, imho.

So it seems as though, in your efforts to preach your ideas, we are talking past each other... at times... at times. We can't get anywhere with that kind of dialogue?
You are the same person that said, persons should let go of their preconceived ideas, and try to understand the viewpoint of the other, but you are not doing that.

Even when I try to question you in an effort to get us at least to a point where we can reasonably go forward, you start up your sermon again.
I understand you think you know,, but that doesn't mean you are right, does it?
I'd still like to hear your response to my last response,

So my question to you is this: Why should I accept your view, for which you can provide no evidence that you are right, over those who believe otherwise, based on evidence they have that it is in fact, not a myth, but true as... quite literally... gospel.

and questions.

 

[Windwalker]

I got you.

Good. I ask if you do because if you don't, that's the time to ask me for clarification. However, instead, as you'll see at the end of your reply, you respond to that question sarcastically and get all personal on me with your assumptions about me. That's really unfortunate and uncalled for.

Take me at my words, not read crap into this as you do. I'll address that more to the point later when I get there, and hopefully bring you back into discussion. I am not preaching my ideas. I'm explaining them for you, in the hope you actually do want to understand, rather than just dismiss them, by distracting from the points by saying such things as I'm preaching, and whatnot. There is nothing I have said that justifies that comment of yours about me. Plus, calling me "buddy"? Are you sure the problem in this discussion is not yourself, and you're just projecting culpability onto me to not look at yourself in this?

So B has evidence now?
So what I said before was correct then - which you contradicted?

I said B does not have scientific evidence. I stand by that. "I believe" is not scientific evidence. And when we are talking about science, that's what it needs to be. I'm not talking about other types of evidences. I'll clarify that later. When I say "scientific evidence" I am being very specific.

Why do you keep bringing in science here?

Because specifically I am talking about different types of relative truths. I was comparing science to mythology specifically, and how crossing the boundaries, trying to make mythology scientific, or to make scientific truth invalidate mythological truth are category errors. When someone says, "I believe the Bible", that may be evidence in a different system of perceiving truth, but it categorically is NOT considered evidence when you are dealing in scientific terms.

It's liking using a basketball when playing a game of chess. It's not the right set of rules or pieces used in the game. A basketball is perfectly fine in basketball, but not in chess. Correct? Or do you disagree with this?

I get the feeling you are talking to me as though I am one of those persons you argue with on a regular basis. No offense.

I get the feeling based on your responses to me, you expect me to be something you argue with on a regular basis. Either you genuinely don't understand me, or you're not listening becasue you are assuming my mind. Based on the fact you are getting flippant with me, I'm sadly leaning to the latter.

But yes, we all bring assumptions into discussion. I'm hoping you'll set yours aside, as much as I have been trying to set mine aside and work off the assumption you are sincerely wanting to understand, not just find fault to dismiss me out of hand by lumping me into some pile. Had I not been talking about God, you might probably be assuming I'm an atheist by now. I respect what restraint you have been trying to show, until this last post.

I have said nothing to you about science evidence.

You did say "A has evidence (which was scientific evidence), and then said B likewise has evidence just like A. You in fact did bring scientific evidence into this by comparing B's belief as equal to A's evidence, which is scientific. This is in essence saying bouncing a basketball is just as valid a move as the move of a bishop in the game of chess. I was showing how that is an invalid comparison. A was talking science, and B was bringing non-scientific evidence in to refute A's scientific evidence.

When I say "category error", I mean just that. B's evidence belongs in a different category. You cannot pit the Bible against science. That is a category error. Plus, you are arguing that Adam and Eve are scientific truths. Right? If not, then what are they, if not what I am saying?

If we need to call a scientist to verify that we have evidence that we think, or that we are alive, then I'm sorry for us.

That's ridiculous. It doesn't apply. I don't need to call a scientist to know I'm breathing. I also don't need a scientist to know I'm in love with another person. I don't need a scientist to know I experience the Divine. I don't think like you seem to be assuming. You would do better to stop assuming so much about me and my motives. I'm not ascribing motives to you, am I? If I am, please show me, and out of respect for you I will stop, and apologize.

Please forget the science bit, and deal with evidence.

What sort of evidence, for what sort of area of focus? The evidence to support God, is not the same evidence one uses to support scientific theories. You have for instance: empiric analytic evidences, hermeneutic evidence, mystical evidences, etc. I wouldn't typically claim a personal mystic experience qualifies as scientific evidence that God exists (in one way it might however). I don't need scientific evidence to know that, just like I don't need it to know I love someone, or that they love me.

I saw a man walk on hot coals, and breath fire from his mouth. I saw a man eat glass, and rock, and tin, and kick a cat.
Are you saying I don't have evidence because it needs to be tested by the scientific method?

You had an experience of something. You saw something. That does not automatically qualify it as evidence in a discussion of scientific truths. It's not applying the scientific method, so it cannot be called a scientific anything. It's something to consider, but it can't be called scientific evidence.

So nobody has evidence unless science verifies it?

Nope. I don't believe that. Let me put it the other way around, if science finds the experience of God is created by stimulating the amygdala, is this evidence that God is not real? Would you accept that as evidence of a spiritual question? These are all category errors. The error is conflating evidences all on the same playing field. The types of evidences in one domain, do not necessarily translate over to the types of evidences you find in other domains.

Is that what you are saying?

I'll ask again now, is what I am saying clearer yet? I'm simply trying to clarify in your mind what I actually believe. I'm not "preaching". I'm correcting. Whether you see and agree with how I think, is entirely your thing. I don't have any skin in that game. But when you don't correctly state what reflects my thoughts, then I will correct that. Not sure how that can be considered, "preaching"?

History is not evidence, nor eyewitness testimony?

History is one type of evidence. Eyewitness accounts are another. Are either of them considered scientific proofs? No. There are many factors which makes both of these unreliable when someone is doing science.

If you are saying that the only evidence that is evidence, is scientific evidence, that simply isn't true, is it?

Correct, that is not true. It is also nothing I have ever said. It's what you have mistakenly assumed I've said.

Thanks for bearing with me.

I have no problem doing that, But when you start calling me "buddy", that begins to wear thin that graciousness pretty quickly.

You say you are "reading Genesis as it is", and "The characters, Adam and Eve, are us".
Others say you are wrong.
What makes you right, and them wrong?

First, I never said I am right and they are wrong. Why are you projecting these things on me like this? What I would say is if they said that Adam and Eve were scientifically the first humans created whole-cloth out of nothing, they are "wrong" because that is a scientific statement. And when it comes to science, you can't just come to the table without any scientific proofs. The are scientifically "wrong".

But, and let me know if you don't follow my thoughts here, if they say they were the first humans, and the context in which they spoke was as "progenitors" of who we are as humans today, then even if they themselves don't understand that they are speaking in symbolic terms, then I would agree with them. They are using the figures appropriately. They are right. Adam and Eve were the first humans. They symbolize who we are today as humans, facing such existential questions of why we experience separation from the world and others, and our own selves. They symbolically represent all of us. Scientifically speaking however, no actual humans created out of nothing without the process of evolution. To claim otherwise, and say science is wrong without using science to challenge that, is a categorical error.

What makes me "right" about the scientific perspective, is science. I present to you as evidence the entire body of work of the modern sciences regarding biology, geology, cosmology, and so forth. I find that reliable and trustworthy as can be in that area. But I'm not going to ask a geologist about God. At that point, science is not the right tool to use. As they say, "the right tools for the job". Theology is not the right tool for understanding natural processes. The empirical sciences are not the right tool for spiritual growth.

That's a fairly simple principle to understand. Do you disagree with that? If so, how do you support that?

I don't need any help in this regard buddy. Thanks for trying though.
I get the feeling you are not having a conversation with me, but rather trying to preach your ideas, imho.

And here's where you fell backwards off your chair and made a big scene. I asked, not rhetorically about what I just said, but the overall post if my explanations were helping you understand. All the rest of this has nothing to do with what I am actually doing, but appears as a form of self-projection on the screen and I'm just the screen for you. Do you feel that's it's actually you who is trying to preach?

All you have said are mere ideas in your head.

No they aren't. There are entire fields of research in all of these areas. As I said, it would take several books to try to explain all of where this is formed from. I draw from the work of ethnologists, sociologists, developmentalists, anthropologists, cosmologists, biologists, various religious scholars, philosophers, mystics, etc. To say this is "mere ideas in my head", sounds like a hope you have that would be convenient for you if true. However, these are substantive and well-researched ideas, along with direct personal experience.

How about yourself? What is the bases for your ideas?

What you consider symbolic truth, is all in your head - not true by any measure, and you know this, because you are just talking, but lending no supportive backing to your ideas.

Like I said, you're falling over backwards in your chair right here and wildly cluting to find support for yourself. That's ok, once you pick yourself back up, maybe we can continue this discussion.

 

[nPeace]

Good. I ask if you do because if you don't, that's the time to ask me for clarification. However, instead, as you'll see at the end of your reply, you respond to that question sarcastically and get all personal on me with your assumptions about me. That's really unfortunate and uncalled for.

Take me at my words, not read crap into this as you do. I'll address that more to the point later when I get there, and hopefully bring you back into discussion. I am not preaching my ideas. I'm explaining them for you, in the hope you actually do want to understand, rather than just dismiss them, by distracting from the points by saying such things as I'm preaching, and whatnot. There is nothing I have said that justifies that comment of yours about me. Plus, calling me "buddy"? Are you sure the problem in this discussion is not yourself, and you're just projecting culpability onto me to not look at yourself in this?


I said B does not have scientific evidence. I stand by that. "I believe" is not scientific evidence. And when we are talking about science, that's what it needs to be. I'm not talking about other types of evidences. I'll clarify that later. When I say "scientific evidence" I am being very specific.


Because specifically I am talking about different types of relative truths. I was comparing science to mythology specifically, and how crossing the boundaries, trying to make mythology scientific, or to make scientific truth invalidate mythological truth are category errors. When someone says, "I believe the Bible", that may be evidence in a different system of perceiving truth, but it categorically is NOT considered evidence when you are dealing in scientific terms.

It's liking using a basketball when playing a game of chess. It's not the right set of rules or pieces used in the game. A basketball is perfectly fine in basketball, but not in chess. Correct? Or do you disagree with this?


I get the feeling based on your responses to me, you expect me to be something you argue with on a regular basis. Either you genuinely don't understand me, or you're not listening becasue you are assuming my mind. Based on the fact you are getting flippant with me, I'm sadly leaning to the latter.

But yes, we all bring assumptions into discussion. I'm hoping you'll set yours aside, as much as I have been trying to set mine aside and work off the assumption you are sincerely wanting to understand, not just find fault to dismiss me out of hand by lumping me into some pile. Had I not been talking about God, you might probably be assuming I'm an atheist by now. I respect what restraint you have been trying to show, until this last post.


You did say "A has evidence (which was scientific evidence), and then said B likewise has evidence just like A. You in fact did bring scientific evidence into this by comparing B's belief as equal to A's evidence, which is scientific. This is in essence saying bouncing a basketball is just as valid a move as the move of a bishop in the game of chess. I was showing how that is an invalid comparison. A was talking science, and B was bringing non-scientific evidence in to refute A's scientific evidence.

When I say "category error", I mean just that. B's evidence belongs in a different category. You cannot pit the Bible against science. That is a category error. Plus, you are arguing that Adam and Eve are scientific truths. Right? If not, then what are they, if not what I am saying?


That's ridiculous. It doesn't apply. I don't need to call a scientist to know I'm breathing. I also don't need a scientist to know I'm in love with another person. I don't need a scientist to know I experience the Divine. I don't think like you seem to be assuming. You would do better to stop assuming so much about me and my motives. I'm not ascribing motives to you, am I? If I am, please show me, and out of respect for you I will stop, and apologize.


What sort of evidence, for what sort of area of focus? The evidence to support God, is not the same evidence one uses to support scientific theories. You have for instance: empiric analytic evidences, hermeneutic evidence, mystical evidences, etc. I wouldn't typically claim a personal mystic experience qualifies as scientific evidence that God exists (in one way it might however). I don't need scientific evidence to know that, just like I don't need it to know I love someone, or that they love me.


You had an experience of something. You saw something. That does not automatically qualify it as evidence in a discussion of scientific truths. It's not applying the scientific method, so it cannot be called a scientific anything. It's something to consider, but it can't be called scientific evidence.


Nope. I don't believe that. Let me put it the other way around, if science finds the experience of God is created by stimulating the amygdala, is this evidence that God is not real? Would you accept that as evidence of a spiritual question? These are all category errors. The error is conflating evidences all on the same playing field. The types of evidences in one domain, do not necessarily translate over to the types of evidences you find in other domains.


I'll ask again now, is what I am saying clearer yet? I'm simply trying to clarify in your mind what I actually believe. I'm not "preaching". I'm correcting. Whether you see and agree with how I think, is entirely your thing. I don't have any skin in that game. But when you don't correctly state what reflects my thoughts, then I will correct that. Not sure how that can be considered, "preaching"?


History is one type of evidence. Eyewitness accounts are another. Are either of them considered scientific proofs? No. There are many factors which makes both of these unreliable when someone is doing science.


Correct, that is not true. It is also nothing I have ever said. It's what you have mistakenly assumed I've said.


I have no problem doing that, But when you start calling me "buddy", that begins to wear thin that graciousness pretty quickly.


First, I never said I am right and they are wrong. Why are you projecting these things on me like this? What I would say is if they said that Adam and Eve were scientifically the first humans created whole-cloth out of nothing, they are "wrong" because that is a scientific statement. And when it comes to science, you can't just come to the table without any scientific proofs. The are scientifically "wrong".

But, and let me know if you don't follow my thoughts here, if they say they were the first humans, and the context in which they spoke was as "progenitors" of who we are as humans today, then even if they themselves don't understand that they are speaking in symbolic terms, then I would agree with them. They are using the figures appropriately. They are right. Adam and Eve were the first humans. They symbolize who we are today as humans, facing such existential questions of why we experience separation from the world and others, and our own selves. They symbolically represent all of us. Scientifically speaking however, no actual humans created out of nothing without the process of evolution. To claim otherwise, and say science is wrong without using science to challenge that, is a categorical error.

What makes me "right" about the scientific perspective, is science. I present to you as evidence the entire body of work of the modern sciences regarding biology, geology, cosmology, and so forth. I find that reliable and trustworthy as can be in that area. But I'm not going to ask a geologist about God. At that point, science is not the right tool to use. As they say, "the right tools for the job". Theology is not the right tool for understanding natural processes. The empirical sciences are not the right tool for spiritual growth.

That's a fairly simple principle to understand. Do you disagree with that? If so, how do you support that?


And here's where you fell backwards off your chair and made a big scene. I asked, not rhetorically about what I just said, but the overall post if my explanations were helping you understand. All the rest of this has nothing to do with what I am actually doing, but appears as a form of self-projection on the screen and I'm just the screen for you. Do you feel that's it's actually you who is trying to preach?


No they aren't. There are entire fields of research in all of these areas. As I said, it would take several books to try to explain all of where this is formed from. I draw from the work of ethnologists, sociologists, developmentalists, anthropologists, cosmologists, biologists, various religious scholars, philosophers, mystics, etc. To say this is "mere ideas in my head", sounds like a hope you have that would be convenient for you if true. However, these are substantive and well-researched ideas, along with direct personal experience.

How about yourself? What is the bases for your ideas?


Like I said, you're falling over backwards in your chair right here and wildly cluting to find support for yourself. That's ok, once you pick yourself back up, maybe we can continue this discussion.

After all of that...
One statement. One question.
When I spoke of evidence, nowhere did I specify scientific evidence.
Where did I say anything about scientific evidence, that you conclude

You did say "A has evidence (which was scientific evidence)

?

 

[Windwalker]

After all of that...
One statement. One question.
When I spoke of evidence, nowhere did I specify scientific evidence.
Where did I say anything about scientific evidence, that you conclude ?

Forget it. I'm not going to waste my time anymore. Thanks for the discussion, such as it could have been. Oh well. I understand.

 

[Milton Platt]

Atheists, what caused you to stop believing? Or for those who never believed, why not?

inability of theists to properly support their assertions.