Christian and Skeptic??

[rppa]

In other words, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I believe that.

Why should religious claims be exempt from Hume's test?

What's Hume's test? The statement above?

Well, I'm not trying to push any belief system on anyone else. So I have nothing I'm "claiming", nothing I'm trying to prove to you. Since I have no argument to make, I can't see that it requires any evidence at all, extraordinary or otherwise.

If the answer is: there was only one Jesus, and it all happened 2000 years ago so can't be tested, then one might say that belief in Odin and Thor are also justifiable.

Of course they are. I'm not going to claim I can prove to you that there is no Thor.

 

[jmercer]

If the answer is: there was only one Jesus, and it all happened 2000 years ago so can't be tested, then one might say that belief in Odin and Thor are also justifiable.

Yep. Of course, I believe that my God is the real one, but if I believed in Ubu the God of Crap and Thunder, I'd be saying the same thing.

Without proof or evidence to the contrary, all belief systems are equally valid - or invalid, depending on your point of view.

 

[voidx]

What I'm seeing is people hiding their belief in God within the realm of opinion, or personal experience/belief. By making no specific claim about the existence of God, then anyone challenging that opinion is merely being over-bearing. I personally think this is a mistake. Opinions and personal experiences can be looked upon with a skeptical eye by both those holding them, and others. This really changes nothing.

Since there is nothing quantifiable to go on we merely look at the reasons behind personal beliefs, the logic, the justification. And it is my opinion that most peoples justification for their belief in God, whatever that might be, is generally quite weak, from a truly skeptical viewpoint. It all comes down to a feeling, a sense of something, an illuminating personal experience. So arguably its the resulting feelings and emotions from these experiences that fuel the search for a cause. And this is turn then fuels the search for the justification of this cause or belief, and if there are no really valid justifications, then it falls back into the realm of personal experience and belief.

It feels safe there because no one can truly know what you feel and experience. You believe simply because you do, and that's enough for you. But I'd argue its not being truly skeptical of your own beliefs, and I'd argue that its very much inconsistent with how you apply skepticism to other subjects.

Some might counter that they are open to changing their mind, that they have left the door open and that's fine in and of itself. However, my point is, why at this point, why with the information we have now, why with what you can see and quantify now, do you hold this belief? What leads you to believe this particular thing in the here and now?

I'm sure I have some sacred cows myself that are perhaps not very well informed and so not very justifiable. However I would never make the mistake of saying those things are compatible with my larger sense of being skeptical. I'm merely being inconsistent with my application of my own skepticism.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

No, the skeptical position is that all mediums who have claimed to communicate with the dead and have been examined in detail have proven to be frauds -- therefore, all mediums are assumed to be frauds.

In other words, frauds like the Fox Sisters and Lamar Keene have "queered the pitch" for everyone else. There is evidence to support the claim that all mediums are frauds; there is no evidence at all to support the claim that some mediums are frauds and some aren't, or even that there are some nonfraudulent mediums.

Have the many religious frauds in no way "queered the pitch" (not a term I sympathize with) for religious claims?

I thought most sceptical folk here believed some mediums might be deluded or delusional, therefore not intentionally fraudulent.

 

[drkitten]

I thought most sceptical folk here believed some mediums might be deluded or delusional, therefore not intentionally fraudulent.

Sorry -- I'm using the terms 'fraud' here in the broad sense to include deluded/delusional, although of course the vast majority of professional mediums have, in fact, been genuinely fraudulent (like the Fox sisters).

And, yes, the vast number of religious frauds have indeed raised the bar considerably for the people who make the same sorts of religious claims. Anyone, for example, who claims to be able to heal by faith alone will instantly trigger a skeptic's "fraud alert" and be held to a fairly strict scrutiny exactly because this kind of behavior has so often been abused in the past.

There's a similar phenomenon going on in the medium/spiritualism business. A skeptic can genuinely believe in life after death in some sort of intangible abstraction -- something about which we have not only no evidence, but no possibility of obtaining evidence. It's when someone makes tangible, concrete claims -- this particular house is haunted, this particular person can talk to the dead -- where evidence can reasonable be expected and evaluated, that you have to start looking at evaluation.

But as Sagan pointed out (and TLN misunderstood), a genuinely unfalsifiable belief cannot be subjected to evidence-based inquiry.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

In other words, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I believe that.

Why should religious claims be exempt from Hume's test?

What's Hume's test? The statement above?

Well, I'm not trying to push any belief system on anyone else. So I have nothing I'm "claiming", nothing I'm trying to prove to you. Since I have no argument to make, I can't see that it requires any evidence at all, extraordinary or otherwise.

If the answer is: there was only one Jesus, and it all happened 2000 years ago so can't be tested, then one might say that belief in Odin and Thor are also justifiable.

Of course they are. I'm not going to claim I can prove to you that there is no Thor.

Hume's test was:

From David Hume. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation....

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.

From David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, L. A. Selby Bigge, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902), pp. 114-16.

[my bold]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hume-miracles.html

So, why should Christianity be exempt? It is based on the supposed testimony laid out in the NT. The testimony of religious believers (whether St. Paul, then or John Paul, now) in supernatural intervention in the affairs of humans should receive the same sceptical test as the anecdotes of believers in mediumship.

Is God not supernatural and paranormal?

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Those Christians who say they are not actively proselytizing must have missed the evangelical injunctions in the NT. Those Christians who regard other religions as equally valid are missing one of the major claims of Christianity -- it's universality.

So, are such folk "weak" Christians?

The "comfort blanket" is very alluring. I understand this. So is the power of tradition.

However, the fact that most religious people retain the beliefs of their parents or the culture they were raised in, seems to point to religion as a mainly social construct.

I know there are exceptions, and some spectacular converts. But, on the whole, people believe in the gods of their fathers.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Interesting thread!

I sense here a lot of believer's Christian apologism and contortion of perception and logic in order to attempt to avoid having to face one's cognitive dissonance.

Like others, I simply cannot see how belief in a deity differs from belief in any other woo - except, perhaps, that belief in deities (religion) appears to be characterized by a much stronger and more prevalent cultural and social conditioning than, say, astrology, spiritism or Tarot reading. How many Christians would be Christians if they had not been conditioned to become so by their society, families and peers? How many Christians cling to their faith for conscious or subconciuos fear of social isolation if they renounced their faith? (Many, I'm sure - I've been there myself.)

I'm essentially with El Greco, TLN, VoidX and Mighty Thor on their sentiments. I believe that if one applies the same scepticism to one's religious faith as one does to any otherwoo (for want of a better word to describe any concept totally lacking supporting evidence, flying fully in the face of all knowledge and totally flawed in inherent logic) concept or claim, then logically and rationally, that faith has got to be discarded.

As the saying went (can't remember exact wording and who coined it): We're all atheists - except I believe in one less god than (say) the Christian. Once the Christian (or any other believer in deity) understands why he rejects all other gods, he'll understand why I must also reject his.

It also appears to me (and I may have this impression wrong!) that most of the posters here that (still) subscribe to and practise rituals of the Christian faith are US-based - and that they appear to have more to loose socially than their European counterparts. Somehow, and I might be wrong, this also seems to connect with the foothold of Creationism, ID and even GWB in the US - the Christian religion simply has a stronger social 'stranglehold' in the US than it does in, say, Scandinavia.

Bottom line, IMHO being a Christian is incompatible with scepticism - although I do see it practised. I also think that religion is the dummest human invention to retain, but in real-World terms I'm quite convinced I'll just have to accept religion is here to stay. It takes, IMO, more courage to live a life without religion than one with the way the World is shaped today, simply due to social pressure and conditioning. Relion may have had some merit once - not anymore. We just have to get used to humans being human without fear of gods or fasle promises of paradise or hell. Ethics are not incompatible with atheism and scepticism.

BTW - Philosophy is a wonderful thing - it'll allow anyone an excuse for anything. Accepting solipsism as useful is, well, useless http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/solipsis.htm

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Interesting thread!

I sense here a lot of believer's Christian apologism and contortion of perception and logic in order to attempt to avoid having to face one's cognitive dissonance.

Like others, I simply cannot see how belief in a deity differs from belief in any other woo - except, perhaps, that belief in deities (religion) appears to be characterized by a much stronger and more prevalent cultural and social conditioning than, say, astrology, spiritism or Tarot reading. How many Christians would be Christians if they had not been conditioned to become so by their society, families and peers? How many Christians cling to their faith for conscious or subconciuos fear of social isolation if they renounced their faith? (Many, I'm sure - I've been there myself.)

I'm essentially with El Greco, TLN, VoidX and Mighty Thor on their sentiments. I believe that if one applies the same scepticism to one's religious faith as one does to any otherwoo (for want of a better word to describe any concept totally lacking supporting evidence, flying fully in the face of all knowledge and totally flawed in inherent logic) concept or claim, then logically and rationally, that faith has got to be discarded.

As the saying went (can't remember exact wording and who coined it): We're all atheists - except I believe in one less god than (say) the Christian. Once the Christian (or any other believer in deity) understands why he rejects all other gods, he'll understand why I must also reject his.

It also appears to me (and I may have this impression wrong!) that most of the posters here that (still) subscribe to and practise rituals of the Christian faith are US-based - and that they appear to have more to loose socially than their European counterparts. Somehow, and I might be wrong, this also seems to connect with the foothold of Creationism, ID and even GWB in the US - the Christian religion simply has a stronger social 'stranglehold' in the US than it does in, say, Scandinavia.

Bottom line, IMHO being a Christian is incompatible with scepticism - although I do see it practised. I also think that religion is the dummest human invention to retain, but in real-World terms I'm quite convinced I'll just have to accept religion is here to stay. It takes, IMO, more courage to live a life without religion than one with the way the World is shaped today, simply due to social pressure and conditioning. Relion may have had some merit once - not anymore. We just have to get used to humans being human without fear of gods or fasle promises of paradise or hell. Ethics are not incompatible with atheism and scepticism.

BTW - Philosophy is a wonderful thing - it'll allow anyone an excuse for anything. Accepting solipsism as useful is, well, useless http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/solipsis.htm

I agree. With regard to the folk in the USA having a stronger social impetus to claim to be Christian, I think it takes extraordinary courage to stand up as an atheist in the current political climate.

Perhaps it is a hangover from the Cold War "commi-atheist" scaremongering. Perhaps it is post 9/11 "you are either with us or against us" polarization But . . ..

"When the USA sneezes, Britain gets a cold".

There are evangelical missions based on the US model cropping up all over the UK. The pendulum is swinging.

The "Ten Commandments display" debate in the USA is worrying, in my opinion. The Constitution is in threat from this partisan campaigning instigated by a quasi-Masonic "fraternal society" and championed by the religious Right. What they are advocating is exactly what American advisors DO NOT WANT to happen in Iraq -- i.e. a theocracy.

 

[ilk]

For the record, even though I'm a Catholic and go to mass, I do not agree with a lot of the dogma- but that's a problem I have with the church, not God. A lot of the crap written by just about all the mainstream religions was created to ensure that they wouldn't lose any of their believers.

Sad, but I believe true...

This statement and others that are similar is something that bothers me a little.

How can you be a Catholic and not agree with dogma? Is there an injunction in Catholicism for each person for each person to define their own version of Catholicism?

This kind of behaviour is a misuse of labels. Why go through the effort of saying "I'm a Catholic, except..."? The more logical thing, to my mind, is the schism. "I believe in these doctines, but not these, so I'm now calling my self a jmercerian."

This is kind of similar to the issue of Gay marriage. By the definition of marriage within christianity, two people of the same sex cannot marry. I don't see how you can say "I'm a good Christian, except I do not believe that the homosexual acts I perform are a sin, no matter what the bible says."

I suppose my problem these kinds of statements is merely semantics. If you believe you can be a Catholic without fitting the common definition, then I suppose I can't stop you. I personally think it is annoying when people use words in a fashion that adds confusion to their use, as in the whole skeptics vs. sceptics malarky. For instance, there is nothing stopping me from calling myself a doctor. I have no PhD or medical training, but I don't have to believe that these things are necessary.

edit: Fixed a circular sentence.

 

[ilk]

:snips:
Very simply: Respect and Love one another. Or at the very least be tolerant of other people's opinions and lifesytles in a way that's non intrusive, non violent, non insulting and non aggressive.

Religion is based on rules, and rules say "you have to do this and that to know God."

Spirituality is based on principles, and principles say "this is what WORKS...and has for centurys that helped people to know God. How you work it is all up to you."

So to answer your question, no...you'd be considered a spiritual person.
:snips:

You could very easily live your life with those values and not call yourself a Christian.

I disagree with your use of spirituality. "This is what works" could easily apply to principles arrived at through the scientific method. How is it spiritual to operate under values which were arrived at by rational thought as opposed to emotionality?

Once again I guess I'm just complaining about semantics. I'm a person that believes that dictionaries are there for a purpose. Communication is a difficult process. It becomes increasingly more difficult when everyone has a different set of meanings for the same word.

You would consider the person I described spiritual. I would consider them good. According to dictionary.com, sprituality is interlinked with religion and the belief in the paranormal. Simply thinking of something as good, whether subjectively or objectively, has a lot less baggage in my view.

 

[jmercer]

This statement and others that are similar is something that bothers me a little.

How can you be a Catholic and not agree with dogma? Is there an injunction in Catholicism for each person for each person to define their own version of Catholicism?

This kind of behaviour is a misuse of labels. Why go through the effort of saying "I'm a Catholic, except..."? The more logical thing, to my mind, is the schism. "I believe in these doctines, but not these, so I'm now calling my self a jmercerian."

This is kind of similar to the issue of Gay marriage. By the definition of marriage within christianity, two people of the same sex cannot marry. I don't see how you can say "I'm a good Christian, except I do not believe that the homosexual acts I perform are a sin, no matter what the bible says."

I suppose my problem these kinds of statements is merely semantics. If you believe you can be a Catholic without fitting the common definition, then I suppose I can't stop you. I personally think it is annoying when people use words in a fashion that adds confusion to their use, as in the whole skeptics vs. sceptics malarky. For instance, there is nothing stopping me from calling myself a doctor. I have no PhD or medical training, but I don't have to believe that these things are necessary.

edit: Fixed a circular sentence.

You're acting as if the Church's dogma is infallible and unchanging. It's not - such as when it condemned Galileo, and stated that the earth was the immutable center of the spheres... Or when it blamed the Jews for the death of Christ... Or how about during the Spanish Inquisition, which was, after all, only following the dogma of the church of that time? Or how about the days when it claimed that the host and wine were transformed into the literal, physical body and blood of Christ? All of these dogma's have been changed by the Church... and if you think that the current dogma's won't also change, then I suspect you'll be in for a surprise.

Even the wording of the central "mysteries" change over time - the current version of the Apostles Creed has changed multiple times over the centuries, and there are actually two competing creeds today - the "old roman" version and the "received form" version. Then there's the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and probably others I don't know about.

So.

What makes you think that the current dogma of the Catholic Church is immutable? Aside from the fact that the Church isn't happy about it, why can't I disagree with it - or parts of it - and still consider myself Catholic?

If you truly feel that way, then I suppose you should inform all the members of the Greek Orthodox Church that they're no longer Catholic, either, because the GOC has significant differences in dogma from Rome. Of course, you'll then have to debate the point with Rome, because they accept the GOC as Catholic, too.



As far as gay marriage goes... the Church .doesn't recognize civil marriages as 'marriage', even though the government recognizes a religious marriage done by a Priest. So, if you get married civilly by a Mayor or other official, you still need a Priest to marry you again later on. So - if two gay people get married by an official, the Church isn't even involved. Why, then, should they care? They don't recognize this type of marriage even if it's between two straight people of opposite sex...

Regarding those of you who disagree with the idea that someone can have faith in God and still consider themselves a skeptic... there have been some very clear arguments made for and against the concept.

I would like, however, to see someone address the Seti question. It seems to me that the answer might have some bearing one way or the other on this discussion.

 

[rppa]

My, my, the insults are flying fast and furious. Too many to respond to. I see my logic is twisted, I see I am denied the right to call myself a skeptic (at least one guest skeptical commentator of the weekly column also called himself a Christian, FYI), I see that I attend church for social reasons (that would be a little more compelling if the church I attended was the same as the one I grew up in, or the one my wife currently attends), that I am *afraid*, especially around church friends, to say I'm not a Christian (that would be a little more compelling if I attended a congregation of self-identified Christians rather than one in which Christians are a very small minority)... the assumptions, the prejudgments are thick on the ground.

This thread was certainly enlightening.

Now, how about that SETI question?

 

[ilk]

You're acting as if the Church's dogma is infallible and unchanging. It's not - such as when it condemned Galileo, and stated that the earth was the immutable center of the spheres... Or when it blamed the Jews for the death of Christ... Or how about during the Spanish Inquisition, which was, after all, only following the dogma of the church of that time? Or how about the days when it claimed that the host and wine were transformed into the literal, physical body and blood of Christ? All of these dogma's have been changed by the Church... and if you think that the current dogma's won't also change, then I suspect you'll be in for a surprise.

Even the wording of the central "mysteries" change over time - the current version of the Apostles Creed has changed multiple times over the centuries, and there are actually two competing creeds today - the "old roman" version and the "received form" version. Then there's the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and probably others I don't know about.

So.

What makes you think that the current dogma of the Catholic Church is immutable? Aside from the fact that the Church isn't happy about it, why can't I disagree with it - or parts of it - and still consider myself Catholic?

If you truly feel that way, then I suppose you should inform all the members of the Greek Orthodox Church that they're no longer Catholic, either, because the GOC has significant differences in dogma from Rome. Of course, you'll then have to debate the point with Rome, because they accept the GOC as Catholic, too.



As far as gay marriage goes... the Church .doesn't recognize civil marriages as 'marriage', even though the government recognizes a religious marriage done by a Priest. So, if you get married civilly by a Mayor or other official, you still need a Priest to marry you again later on. So - if two gay people get married by an official, the Church isn't even involved. Why, then, should they care? They don't recognize this type of marriage even if it's between two straight people of opposite sex...

Regarding those of you who disagree with the idea that someone can have faith in God and still consider themselves a skeptic... there have been some very clear arguments made for and against the concept.

I would like, however, to see someone address the Seti question. It seems to me that the answer might have some bearing one way or the other on this discussion.

Ok, so dogma can change. I didn't mean to imply that it couldn't, I am well aware of Catholicisms history of flip flopping. I only wish it would hurry up and change it's positions that I consider harmful, such as those which contribute to overpopulation and the spread of infectious disease.

So, when you are saying that you disagree with current dogma, but are still Catholic, are you saying all the other people who still follow this dogma are wrong? Are you both Catholic?

My points regarding Gay marriage were regarding Christian homosexuals who want a church marriage. As you say, the two are inconsistent, but this doesn't stop people trying.

 

[ilk]

I see I am denied the right to call myself a skeptic

As far as I can tell, you can call yourself a skeptic all you like. However, to my mind, a Christian Skeptic will always have the proviso "...except for the whole God thing. I don't question that." hanging over them.

 

[Chocolate Chip]

By the way, I completely agree with this. For the record, I'm not offended by people challenging my beliefs. (Although I have to admit that I was a bit stung by TLN's labeling me a hypocrite simply because I think that one can have a belief in God and still be a skeptic. Perhaps I'm over sensitive to that particular label.)

This may not be a challenge per se, but a few questions for you, because I've always wondered how someone could be skeptical and believe in something that cannot be proven or disproven.

1-How did the universe start? Was it a big bang, or a creator? You believe in a god, catholic style (for lack of better term). You understand that one of the pillars of catholicism is that god created the universe. This to me, seems another difference in your belief in god and your sketicism.

2-Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Another pillar of catholic faith. No human has ever been able to do this before. How can you reconcile these two differing points between faith and skepticism? If Jesus was indeed human, how could he have pulled this off?

You're acting as if the Church's dogma is infallible and unchanging. It's not - such as when it condemned Galileo, and stated that the earth was the immutable center of the spheres... Or when it blamed the Jews for the death of Christ... Or how about during the Spanish Inquisition, which was, after all, only following the dogma of the church of that time? Or how about the days when it claimed that the host and wine were transformed into the literal, physical body and blood of Christ? All of these dogma's have been changed by the Church... and if you think that the current dogma's won't also change, then I suspect you'll be in for a surprise.

Yes, agreed that the church does change it's doctrine from time to time. But as the church changes, so are the followers are expected to fall in line with the changes, or risk excommunication (the severest of penalties I think). But my point is, that even as the church's dogma is changed, if you don't follow those changes, you are no longer considered a catholic.

Anders W. Bonde
As the saying went (can't remember exact wording and who coined it): We're all atheists - except I believe in one less god than (say) the Christian. Once the Christian (or any other believer in deity) understands why he rejects all other gods, he'll understand why I must also reject his.

This is not correct. The christian believes in only one god because he/she is told so in the ten commandments by that one god.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
That is why a christian does not believe in other gods.
A skeptic does not believe in god because he/she has no proof of ANY type of god.

 

[jmercer]

So, when you are saying that you disagree with current dogma, but are still Catholic, are you saying all the other people who still follow this dogma are wrong? Are you both Catholic?

Sure, unless I get excommunicated or declare myself otherwise.

 

[tommyz]

You could very easily live your life with those values and not call yourself a Christian.

Right on. The same could be said of Jews, Muslims, Buddists, Taoists, atheists, agnostics and so on. We are all brothers and sisters of the SAME race...the HUMAN race, and are all here to love and serve one another REGARDLESS of what we may think and believe in. Is that asking too much???

OK, so I'm starting to sound like Mohandas Ghandi or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Not everyone can reach the same level these distingushed gentleman have, granted. But I believe it was Dr. Martin Luther King who said it best by saying "we can all be great because we can ALL serve." Even a simple random act of kindness such as a friendly "hello" to a complete stranger is better than doing nothing at all for your fellow man.

On a purely rational and scientific level, no...this is not credible evidence or "proof" that it can bring you any "closer to God." That's a purely personal decision that you and ONLY you can make...not some whacko right wing fundamentalist Christian preaching on a stage in front of thousands of people or anyone else for that matter. Only YOU!

But what it IS guaranteed to bring you is a renewed sense of serenity and an improved social atmosphere with those around you...REGARDLESS of whether you choose to believe in
god (or any other number of godS) or not.

The choice, then ultimately boils down to this: PEACE or CHAOS?

I disagree with your use of spirituality. "This is what works" could easily apply to principles arrived at through the scientific method. How is it spiritual to operate under values which were arrived at by rational thought as opposed to emotionality?

I wasn't making this claim with an appeal to emotionality, but rather with an appeal reason and common sense. I strongly recommend reading Steven Covey's "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" (www.stevencovey.com) to get a better understanding of what I'm trying to convey here in as amiably non-intrusive way as possible.

I've mentioned the principles of love, respect, compassion, tolerance, honesty, integrity, and fairness in my original post. Just to prove it to yourself, try the exact opposite of each and every one of these, and see how far you'll get. Really, if you do, PLEASE share your success stories here on this board; I'd really be interested!

Once again I guess I'm just complaining about semantics. I'm a person that believes that dictionaries are there for a purpose. Communication is a difficult process. It becomes increasingly more difficult when everyone has a different set of meanings for the same word.

You would consider the person I described spiritual. I would consider them good. According to dictionary.com, sprituality is interlinked with religion and the belief in the paranormal. Simply thinking of something as good, whether subjectively or objectively, has a lot less baggage in my view.

OK, thanks for that. I use the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, and here's what it says about that:

One entry found for spirituality.

Main Entry: spir·i·tu·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: "spir-i-ch&-'wa-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : something that in ecclesiastical law belongs to the church or to a cleric as such
2 : CLERGY
3 : sensitivity or attachment to religious values
4 : the quality or state of being spiritual


So OK...you got me there on that. But what about the definition under #4? Here's what is says for spiritual:

3 entries found for spiritual.
To select an entry, click on it.
spiritual[1,adjective]spiritual[2,noun]spiritual bouquet

Main Entry: 1spir·i·tu·al
Pronunciation: 'spir-i-ch&-w&l, -i-ch&l, -ich-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French spirituel, from Late Latin spiritualis, from Latin, of breathing, of wind, from spiritus
1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : INCORPOREAL <man's spiritual needs>
2 a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3 : concerned with religious values
4 : related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5 a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : SPIRITUALISTIC
- spir·i·tu·al·ly adverb
- spir·i·tu·al·ness noun



I prefer to use the term in the context of definition #2, and I absolutely BELIEVE (even if it turns out that there is indeed NO god at all) in the value of human life; in the values of love, respect, compassion, tolerance, fairness, honesty and integrity as
ALL BEING SACRED MATTERS!

No disrespect; I don't know you personally and for all I know, you could be the greatest individual in the world. But if these matters are NOT sacred enough for you, and if you wonder why you lead such a miserable, unhappy and unfulfilled life, then perhaps you may want to think about these things for yourself. Otherwise, please advise how I'm in any way, shape or form incorrect in my usage of the word "spirituality."

 

[jmercer]

This may not be a challenge per se, but a few questions for you, because I've always wondered how someone could be skeptical and believe in something that cannot be proven or disproven.

1-How did the universe start? Was it a big bang, or a creator? You believe in a god, catholic style (for lack of better term). You understand that one of the pillars of catholicism is that god created the universe. This to me, seems another difference in your belief in god and your sketicism.

Actually, I'm not sure how the universe started. The big bang sounds good to me, though - there's sure a lot of evidence that it happened. Nor am I sure what the exact role God played in this. Nor does the bible help out much, in my opinion. Genesis - which is what most people refer to when discussion creation - was actually written by Moses. (Or edited by Moses, depending on who you believe.) So that's a pretty poor reference about how God did his job, in my opinion.

I also don't see how God creating the universe prevents the big bang from being the tool He used. Heck, I've read wilder theories about how it started from physicists - although admittedly, they have some math to back them up.

2-Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Another pillar of catholic faith. No human has ever been able to do this before. How can you reconcile these two differing points between faith and skepticism? If Jesus was indeed human, how could he have pulled this off?

Yes, I believe that Jesus rose from the dead, because it's a central part of my faith. I have no evidence either way, and there really can't be any evidence, unless He shows up and proves He's alive. That's why I keep stressing that this is a personal belief, and not an objective one.

But you're wrong about Jesus being the only one - for example, there was Lazarus. And unless I'm mistaken, there were a few others... and again, unless I'm mistaken, there have been other, non-Christian figures that also supposedly rose from the dead as well. All of them are pretty controversial... here's some reading on resurrection , if you want to glance at it. (It's interesting - don't know if I agree with it or not, but it's good reading.)

And let's not forget the reincarnationists out there, like the Dalai Lama, etc. If they come back from the dead in another body, does that count?

Yes, agreed that the church does change it's doctrine from time to time. But as the church changes, so are the followers are expected to fall in line with the changes, or risk excommunication (the severest of penalties I think). But my point is, that even as the church's dogma is changed, if you don't follow those changes, you are no longer considered a catholic.

Nope. Unless I declare myself otherwise or I'm excommunicated, the most I can be branded is a heretic. And even heretics are considered Catholic - they're just heretical Catholics.

This is not correct. The christian believes in only one god because he/she is told so in the ten commandments by that one god.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
That is why a christian does not believe in other gods.
A skeptic does not believe in god because he/she has no proof of ANY type of god.

No... an ATHEIST does not believe in God. Or are you saying that to be a skeptic, you also have to be an atheist? I'd like to see the debate about that notion here.

Also, you may want to examine the ten commandments a bit closer... how can I have any other God before Yaweh unless there are other Gods? I don't see any reference to "false Gods" in there, do you?

Look, all kidding aside, using the bible to argue about God is like using science fiction to argue about life on other worlds. It may make for a good argument, but it's not going to be definitive - fundamentalists notwithstanding.

(Edited for minor spelling errors)

 

[gecko]

I really like what you said there tommyz at the beginning. As a christian, I know how judgmental christians can be, how condescending, how thinking they are "above" everyone else.

In reality, we all make so many mistakes, are so fallible, and are all so similar. Besides, how can you expect someone born in Saudi Arabia to take up christianity in its entirety? How can you expect me to just randomly pick of Buddhism?

Our religion is determined by our location. That is as good as a fact. We can only assume that God is a presence we cannot wholly understand, and that none of the doctrines we currently uphold are wholly, 100% correct.