What actually do JREF religious believers believe?

[tsig]

Sam, if I misread your intent and meaning, please accept my apologies.

What is my faith for me?
A path to peace.
It's farking hard, and I freely admit that my faith journey is far harder than the agnosticism that I practiced for decades.

I still have plenty of ahsshole in me, but I hope it's a bit less than a few years ago. I find that my faith community, up close and personal, looks a hell of a lot better from the inside than it ever did from the outside. I appreciate the problems folks have who had bad or unsatisfactory experiences with religion. Sometimes, I suspect that it's not so much what you are doing, but who you are doing it with.

As of this writing, I am far closer to my wife than I have ever been before. This has a lot to do with the inner transformation my spiritual life has taken. That's not something you can package, I think. But it is what it is.

The conventional 10.

If you want to try and confuse yourself, please chase down the 613. I've read some interesting commentaries on how Jesus was of a mind with the Pharisees (and not so much with the Saducees) in that he'd more often be quoted as emphasizing the spirit of the law than the letter ... but let's not derail.

http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/romancatholic-tencommandments.html

You will find them there. Even distilling it down to just ten, you can see that there is grounds for disagreement when resorting to legalism. I must say that the Early Christians, and their successors, sure followed their forefathers in faith, the Jews, in the penchant to bicker and argue about the details. Hmmm, even skeptics do that.

If you want utter pith, try the following Scripture:

Matthew 22: 36-40.

Take it, or leave it, that's the answer. Feel free to look for reasons to be confused, if you like. You are free to do that, and much else.

The hililited needs work.

 

[tsig]

I honestly can't tell if you're deliberately misunderstanding or not.

I was pointing out that whether the bible (or any other religious book) is fact or fiction has nothing to do with the possibility of a god-like being existing.

There probably isn't such a creature so I'm not going to waste my life worrying about it. But there's nothing wrong with keeping my mind open to the tiny possibility.

How that means I believe harry potter/dragons/fairies/'pick a god any god' exist I have no idea. Or how I must be livivg my life as if they do.

I've never said that belief in any religions definition of a deity is correct. I'm saying that just because every religion can reasonably be called fiction doesn't mean there could never ever be a being out there that could fit the description 'god'.

Please see post #49. Bruto explained it better than I ever could.

We know that the human mind creates gods, there's no evidence that god created the human mind.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Sam, if I misread your intent and meaning, please accept my apologies.

What is my faith for me?
A path to peace.
It's farking hard, and I freely admit that my faith journey is far harder than the agnosticism that I practiced for decades.

I still have plenty of ahsshole in me, but I hope it's a bit less than a few years ago. I find that my faith community, up close and personal, looks a hell of a lot better from the inside than it ever did from the outside. I appreciate the problems folks have who had bad or unsatisfactory experiences with religion. Sometimes, I suspect that it's not so much what you are doing, but who you are doing it with.

As of this writing, I am far closer to my wife than I have ever been before. This has a lot to do with the inner transformation my spiritual life has taken. That's not something you can package, I think. But it is what it is.

DR thanks for this. It's really the nearest thing to an actual answer to the question in the OP, as neither Llwyd nor Prof. Yaffle claims to be a believer in the literal sense.

I'd note that neither do you. You say that faith- or at least being a member of a faith-based community is beneficial to you and I assuredly have no problem with that- it's true for many people. It's the sort of answer I get to this question from most people and I admit one I find a bit disappointing. I keep hoping for an insight into belief itself, as I keep hoping for insights into mathematics. No luck there either.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Indoctrination since childhood, apparent acceptance by the majority of peers, general societal pressures (so you see it challenged less often and less scathingly than say believers in fairies or unicorns - the free pass it gets 'cos apparently it's impolite to point your finger and laugh at supposed grown-ups who still believe in a magical sky-fairy so long as that fairy is called 'god') and fear of death. In other words, brain-washing (both overt and subtle but pretty universal) to pander to an existing fear.

Yes, you have been exposed to most of the same but for some of us, the natural reaction to societal pressures is non-conformance so it is easier for us to question - indeed, being encouraged not to absolutely guarantees it from some of us contrary buggers! Suspect you are closer to this camp than Rolfe.

Good tactic though - asking religious people what they actually believe gets a very interesting reaction... at least from the non-zealots... especially if you ask them to explain it without using socially coded words like 'god'. <Anecdote>Reactions I've had range from a very vague and apologetic 'Well it would be nice if there was something' to a garbled explanation where the 'god' word keeps drifting back in which usually tails off to 'Well it sounds a bit silly when I can't use the word 'god''</Anecdote> That 'god' word is a powerful excuser - hmm, very like brain washing then.

NB I used to be much more polite about believers but tbh I've realised it's this free pass that helps keep the whole lot going. Religion should be given the same amount of respect as every other form of woo - perhaps even less so as some of the others can (initially) appear to have some (albeit imperfect if you look deeper) evidence on their side.

Having said all that, I do respect Rolfe and other posters who contribute far more to this forum than I do... won't stop me dissing their woo beliefs though, just as I wouldn't expect them to give me a free pass on any of mine.

This is pretty much my own position.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

We know that the human mind creates gods, there's no evidence that god created the human mind.

I completely agree. A super-being didn't create us. Doesn't mean there isn't one out there. There's a teeny tiny chance. It won't affect how I live though.

 

[HansMustermann]

I completely agree. A super-being didn't create us. Doesn't mean there isn't one out there. There's a teeny tiny chance. It won't affect how I live though.

But again, the same can be said about Harry Potter or Cthulhu. You don't have any evidence for a super-secret mage school, nor for a city in a warped bubble of curved space-time beneath the Pacific. But obviously, it's impossible to full disprove either.

But nobody would have a problem if you just said "I don't believe in magic" or "I don't believe in Cthulhu". There wouldn't be such a rush to tack BS on it about needing to keep an open mind, and acknowledge the infinitesimal probability that secretly sorcerous schoolboys exist.

In fact, I dare say it would be clear to anyone that IF one day Hogwarts went public and showed everyone that it exists, most of us would just go, "oh, hey, so it was real all along." Or that if one day deep R'lyeh rose and Great Cthulhu started eating people like popcorn, there wouldn't be anyone looking at him and going, "nah, THAT can't exist." It would be clear that IF good evidence existed, we'd accept magic or monstrous aliens, but as it is, there is none.

Only for religion if you mention disbelief, there's this insulting implication that surely you're not just lacking evidence, but you're absolutely close-minded to it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ginger

What evidence would that be? Seriously. Unless you've studied some different aspect of the problem than I have, we have both seen all the evidence there is. No surprise if so; it's a quick read.

Hans posted a thorough answer. I would add we also observed the Cargo Cults invent a religion in recent historical times. Is it possibly that you can't see current god myths in the same light as such god myths as Zeus and Thor?

Now, perhaps we simply disagree about its bearing. That could easily be. But it is unremarkable to call a thin-seeming gruel thin - maybe even the same soup that someone else pronounces filling. Anybody who finds the evidence thin and still forms an opinion will do so based mostly on something else besides the evidence that isn't there, in their estimation.

The evidence is thicker than any fiction section of the largest libraries combined.

And um, I wasn't aware that deists had anything to apologize for, nor anybody to apologize to. They just disagree with both of us about a matter of opinion. This happens.

An 'apology' in this case, is making an excuse for why god beliefs are continually inconsistent with scientific discovery.

Nor should it, anymore than your opinion can be expected to bear on theirs. Questions about deism, however, would need to be addressed to deists. All I can say is that deism is well within the range of possible conclusions that could be drawn, and are drawn. It has nothing to do with political correctness, so I am unsure why that came up.

Deism besides being a belief in an irrelevant god, has that huge logical flaw I noted. If a god got the ball rolling and no longer interferes, there is no way for people to be aware of said god. Adding a god layer to the creation of the Universe adds nothing to our understanding.

Behold the problem of induction, in its crudest form. To figure out to your own satisfaction? As many as satisfies you. To insist that someone else agree with you? As many as satisfies them. To rise above it being a matter of opinion? There is no such "many." The question is inherently contingent. At best, you might get unanimous interpersonal agreement; and then, when all the opinions agree, there may be no felt uncertainty. The smart money isn't holding its breath waiting for even that much in the case of (G)(g)od(dess)(e)(s).

Nonsense. We generalize about most things we are certain of. According to your position we cannot say evolution is a fact until we decipher the genomes of every life form on the planet.

Looking at individuals, it is perfectly reasonable to be guided by evidence when there is evidence. When there isn't, then you can either refrain from forming an opinion, or else form an opinion based on something else. For uncertain contingencies, the "something else" differs in many ways from person to person.

I would encourage you to broaden the evidence gods don't exist. Instead of only asking can we prove they don't, ask the question, what best explains the evidence we have for god beliefs.

 

[HansMustermann]

Just to make it clear what apologist means -- I thought it wasn't necessary, but here we actually have someone mistaken about it -- let's look at what apology and apologist mean:

apologist

a·pol·o·gist [uh-pol-uh-jist]
noun
1.
a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.
2.
Ecclesiastical. a.
Also, a·pol·o·gete [uh-pol-uh-jeet] . a person skilled in apologetics.
b.
one of the authors of the early Christian apologies in defense of the faith.​

Which in turn comes from meaning 2 of...

apology

a·pol·o·gy [uh-pol-uh-jee]
noun, plural a·pol·o·gies.
1.
a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another: He demanded an apology from me for calling him a crook.
2.
a defense, excuse, or justification in speech or writing, as for a cause or doctrine.
3.
(initial capital letter, italics) a dialogue by Plato, centering on Socrates' defense before the tribunal that condemned him to death.
4.
an inferior specimen or substitute; makeshift: The tramp wore a sad apology for a hat.​

Basically it's the original meaning of the word, which was in continuous use since ancient Greece. An "apologia" didn't mean expressing regret or anything, but simply meant "defense". As in, for example, the defendant's speech in his own defense before a court of law.

Such as for example the defense of Socrates when accused of impiety and crimes against the city. He's not expressing any regret in it. In fact in his final chance to argue for a milder penalty, he's so defiant that he actually manages to alienate even half of those who voted innocent in the first phase of the trial. Not only he doesn't say he's sorry, but even thinks that a fitting "punishment" would be a permanent seat at the establishment where prestigious figures and foreign diplomats were fed. You can't get any less apologetic than that. But that's how an apologia worked. Overwhelmingly it meant a chance to explain why you're right, not how much you're sorry.

Ditto for the early Christian apologists, thanks to which we still have the word "apologist" for religious propagandists. They're not called apologists for being sorry for being Christians, since they weren't sorry at all. Their "apologies" were the same kind of "apologia", i.e., a defense of their faith as being right.

 

[truethat]

I've discussed this before and have been accused of being a "Closet Christian" so I'll give up halfway through if it starts going that way again.

People who believe and have a faith usually have experienced a sense of hierophany in their lives where they know that "something" is out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierophany

 

[I Ratant]

Ginger



What evidence would that be? ...

.
Actually, it's the lack of evidence that is most obvious relating to the existence of the supernatural.
Not a single physical item proves there is a supernatural.
ALL the "evidence" comes from people's thinking on the subject and those thoughts wander all over the possibilities of anything supernatural.

 

[I Ratant]

The hililited needs work.

.
I'd been told years back that I'd had an ******* implant, and it rejected me.

 

[I Ratant]

...
Ditto for the early Christian apologists, thanks to which we still have the word "apologist" for religious propagandists. They're not called apologists for being sorry for being Christians, since they weren't sorry at all. Their "apologies" were the same kind of "apologia", i.e., a defense of their faith as being right.

.
That's what surprised me about Augustine and Aquinas... obviously very intelligent, and yet failing to determine the basic errors in the faith which they defended very well, working with the same information we have, that shows some of us the blatant problems with the ideas.

 

[westprog]

Nor do I. I didn't intend to suggest I do. Did you read me that way?
Indeed that's precisely my question. People like Rolfe, Kittynh, Hal, yourself are sceptical rationalists and in no sense stupid. I'm asking what they see in religion that I don't.

What I find interesting is that people who don't have religion in any form can accept that the universe is purposeless and valueless, and still live their lives as if they had purpose and value.

 

[westprog]

Just because you don't understand the proof doesn't mean it hasn't been proven. And it doesn't mean someone more intelligent wouldn't understand.

When no one, after thousands of years of the majority of people on earth trying, can produce one bit of evidence that god exists, well . . .

When no one can produce one bit of evidence that god doesn't exist, well...

 

[I Ratant]

What I find interesting is that people who don't have religion in any form can accept that the universe is purposeless and valueless, and still live their lives as if they had purpose and value.

.
Mine is quite important to me. I value it, as problem wracked as it is.
And the lives of those near and dear and those not anything like near and dear.
Their lives are important to them, so it behooves us to respect everyone, and not make arbitrary waves in the lives of others.
Hit'em up side the head wif a stob when they misbehave, but don't go looking for misbehavior.
Our "purpose" is to get to the cemetery at an advanced age, with few self-generated difficulties impeding the trip. And, being remembered after we've made the journey as nice people who valued other people.

 

[I Ratant]

When no one can produce one bit of evidence that god doesn't exist, well...

.
You're stuck at the starting point then. No evidence for or against.
"If there is..." needs more evidence than "if there isn't..." which has all of it right now.

 

[AdMan]

When no one can produce one bit of evidence that god doesn't exist, well...

The positive claim is that God exists. That's the one with the burden of proof.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

But again, the same can be said about Harry Potter or Cthulhu. You don't have any evidence for a super-secret mage school, nor for a city in a warped bubble of curved space-time beneath the Pacific. But obviously, it's impossible to full disprove either.

But nobody would have a problem if you just said "I don't believe in magic" or "I don't believe in Cthulhu". There wouldn't be such a rush to tack BS on it about needing to keep an open mind, and acknowledge the infinitesimal probability that secretly sorcerous schoolboys exist.

In fact, I dare say it would be clear to anyone that IF one day Hogwarts went public and showed everyone that it exists, most of us would just go, "oh, hey, so it was real all along." Or that if one day deep R'lyeh rose and Great Cthulhu started eating people like popcorn, there wouldn't be anyone looking at him and going, "nah, THAT can't exist." It would be clear that IF good evidence existed, we'd accept magic or monstrous aliens, but as it is, there is none.

Only for religion if you mention disbelief, there's this insulting implication that surely you're not just lacking evidence, but you're absolutely close-minded to it.

Except we know who the authors are and they have never claimed these were real.

I understand what your saying about people tip-toeing around religion. I've met a few atheists I've had to tiptoe around too. I have witnessed some truly massive freak outs from both sides. Mostly they are hilarious

I think some people avoid saying for definite because they don't want someone trying to convert them.

I usually try to avoid religious topics because it fills me with rage. People calling themselves 'good christians' have done a lot to my family. I'm fine with people beliving in whatever they want but once they start trying to control the way people act and think I see red

I think that's part of some peoole's need for religion too. They need someone else to tell them what to do and think or they will feel lost. Someone to say "If you do X and Y everything will be ok".

 

[truethat]

What I find interesting is that people who don't have religion in any form can accept that the universe is purposeless and valueless, and still live their lives as if they had purpose and value.

Why? Aren't you just pretending your life has purpose and value when you know that it doesn't? How does magical thinking and pretend make your life more meaningful?

Isn't the meaning of life in and of itself a gift that encourages you to live every day as if it were your last, because it well could be. Atheists understand this. They aren't "waiting for the magic" they are making it now.

When no one can produce one bit of evidence that god doesn't exist, well...

Which god?

 

[DreamingNaiad]

The positive claim is that God exists. That's the one with the burden of proof.

Yeah you can't prove a negative (IIRC. It's been ages since I took Philosophy).