I love religion!

[tackattack]

---

[quote='Zen Badger' pid='50527' dateline='1263648027']
[quote='tackattack' pid='50515' dateline='1263646038']

The fact it is written is implied since it is a book. Men can write, God doesn't that's also assumed. Since interpretation is subjective and God should be personal he probably assumed it would be individual (read as mis) interpreted. That is assuming that God has a consciouness. The machines at the Hershey Company make reese's pieces put people still argue which candy is the bestand how it's made. Me I appreciate the goodness of the end result (Sorry I'm really hungry and craving sweets).

I don't have a right interpretation, just my interpretation which is a right fit for me. I go about validating my interpretation with intuition, logic and trying the stip as much humanity out of the bible as possible.

Awful lot of assumptions in that post Tacka.

Though why God would need to make assumptions when he is All Knowing is a bit strange

wouldn't you think.

But again my point, Why didn't God make the Bible resistant to interpretation.

This is what I mean, no argument, no mistake, no changing! yours truly God.

He is Perfect( it is claimed) wouldn't His Word be as well?

---

Well first off, God doesn't make assumptions people do. We assume he makes assumptions, based on the assumption he has a consciouness. I disagree with all of them. I try and strip as much subjective truth based on human preconceptions as possible. Secondly, God didn't make the Bible anything. Men made the Bible to best interpret their ideas of God and Jesus. God did (according to the Bible) write down guidlines for us to follow once, but we destroyed those. Everything since then has been our best guess. This doesn't preclude God from being perfect. It's just fuel for man being less than perfect.

---

Objective truth would be observable, able to be described, peer-reviewed and lead to the best knowable truth. Atheists who ascribe to materialistic views only see scientific evidence as proof. How can reason (being an intangible construct) then be evidence. All of religion is intangible since religion itself is a construct. It can be objectified if reason, logic and intuition count as observations. Knowing anything is just establishing a universally accepted definition of something. The fact you use the word God in a sentce actually takes it from your electrical synapses of thought and ascribes a definition to it. The details of that definition are subjective and debatable, but a definition none-the less. Religion is about universally defining the concept of God. If religion would get out of the self-service industry and talk more to people it might appear less subjective to outside observers... must work at some point today.... .
grrrr

Tell me tackattack are all these words meant as a reply to my question or as diversion? I bluntly put that question to you because I find it somewhat dissapointing that you seem to think I would take it for an answer. You must know I really have liked your inquisitive postings so far but it seems some other thing is creeping in now.

Objective truth, ah that ever elusive treasure of knowledge. According to Kant it (the noumenon) never will be observable, so I don't know how you came to conclude that it is observable?

"Atheists who ascribe to materialistic views", is that the category you had in mind for me dear friend? By now you should know I value more than the material. The atheistic part has nothing to do with what follows ("only see scientific evidence as proof"). And please don't put the distinction of what is tangible and what is intangible on evidence. Mathematics and logic are part of science and they both are intangible yet they constitute proof. 1 + 1= 2 you see?

If all of religion really is only intangible we're surely done here. But that is not what they tell in church don't they?

logic and intuition do not count as observation only as logic and intuition. You cannot conclude anything about reality from those two things alone.

"Knowing anything is just establishing a universally accepted definition of something." So there is some universal lexicon you have access to? Definitions are words, my friend, human language, and words alone do not necessarily constitute reality. Hell, it's even debatable whether words can get us anyway near truth. As Wittgenstein said "a new word is like a fresh seed sown on the ground of the discussion". But then again, he also said "our greatest stupidities may be very wise".

When you objectify religion it becomes a comparitative study of religions and the most obvious fact it presents is that religion is a subjective experience all over the globe and through all ages.

I don't use the word 'God' in sentences. I only use the word 'god' in sentences because writing in capitals would mean that I know the guy and I won't feign that. See it as my token of respect for truth.

Work? You'd better take a good nap and think things over.

Oh and yes that question. It kind of still stands. So here is it again: How can you distinguish between subjective interpretation and objective interpretations if you have only access to your own subjective judgement?

---

It was intended as an answer, not a diversion. What seems to be creeping in now?!? I'm lost on that one.

OK objective truth I'll redefine. Truth is subjective information because it's what? unobservable, non-subject to peer review, able to be counted, imitated, describable. If it is the antithesis of theese things I'm calling it objective. Perhaps I should have used the term "non-subjective informational truth", but objective seemed better for brevity.

I was not ascribing you to any goup particularly, just stating that some athesits prescribe to materialistic views. That's not a fallacy so no need to paint it as such. As far as intangible evidence as proofs; mathmatical evidence supports mathmatical findings, logical thought progression supports a theoretical premise, historical evidence or provenance provide historical proofs. My point was the type of proof is relative (as it should be) to it's summation. You can use math or logic or history to prove some areas of let's say astronomy, but astronomical evidence that is observable is the best proof.
While I "cannot conclude anything about reality from those two things alone" (refferencing logic and intuiton) I am not concluding anything about the definition of reality you're using in the above quote. I am concluding spiritual truths based off spiritual evidence supported by logic, intuition, peers, and observations.

Do you have a "universal lexicon" that states that blue is blue? No we take the largest concensus of the broadest idea with as little specifics as possible and try and define common universal truth.

So an answer to your question of how to define subjective truths from a subjective perspective and attain a level of objectivity? Use objective language and tools stated above (observable, imitatable, describable, peer-review able, etc.) and constantly analyze your own perspective for as clear a view as possible.

[Violet]

If there are no higher powers, there cannot possibly be any objective meaning to life, or morality, or existence

And even if there were some sort of 'higher powers'... we still couldn't be sure of any objective meanings to anything, because that would require objective evidence, which we can't be sure we have :S

If there is an objective meaning to life, morality, or even existence: we cannot know it as subjective beings. And what is objectivity to begin with? As far as i can be aware: this is all my delusion. I can only define things for myself... and since i can define them in any way at all: it follows that anything can be defined in any way, thus the definition for anything is entirely based upon the subjective viewpoint of the definer... and thus there is no meaning without a definer (existentialism). Because there is no meaning without a definer (which is subjective): there is no objective meaning for anything (nihilism).

So my nihilism and existentialism are because of my subjectivism. Actually, i wonder if one can possibly be an existentialist without being a nihilist, or vise versa :S I can't see how they don't logically follow from one another... and i can't see how agnosticism doesn't logically lead to subjectivism... and how that doesn't logically lead to existentialism and nihilism. :S <--would like to discuss :S

[Purple Rabbit]

OK objective truth I'll redefine. Truth is subjective information because it's what? unobservable, non-subject to peer review, able to be counted, imitated, describable. If it is the antithesis of theese things I'm calling it objective. Perhaps I should have used the term "non-subjective informational truth", but objective seemed better for brevity.

I didn't urge you to redefine objective truth but my point is that you are asserting that objective truth is observable. Objective truth in my book is the same as reality itself. The question however is if we can directly observe raw objective truth. Since the nature of observation is interpretation of phenomena presumably associated with objects instead of direct knowledge of truth itself, it is always impossible to be 100% sure if you're indeed observing truth itself. So the combination of observable objective truth is what I disagree with not with objective truth as such.

As far as intangible evidence as proofs; mathmatical evidence supports mathmatical findings, logical thought progression supports a theoretical premise, historical evidence or provenance provide historical proofs. My point was the type of proof is relative (as it should be) to it's summation. You can use math or logic or history to prove some areas of let's say astronomy, but astronomical evidence that is observable is the best proof.
While I "cannot conclude anything about reality from those two things alone" (refferencing logic and intuiton) I am not concluding anything about the definition of reality you're using in the above quote. I am concluding spiritual truths based off spiritual evidence supported by logic, intuition, peers, and observations.

You said of religion that "It can be objectified if reason, logic and intuition count as observations." But objectification must mean something like "compare it objectively with reality itself", since it is not self-evident that what is thought up is true in our reality. In order to do so you need direct access to reality or objective truth. When you mean by this that from conceptual truths you can conclude other conceptual truths, I agree, but the truths you obtain are still dependent on the premises from which you depart.

I sense an underlying question: Is logic absolute, non-contigent, independent of everything? To answer this one you can break it down in two questions:
1) is logic dependent on a basic set of rules that do not follow from logic itself?
2) does logic apply to reality?

Please let me know what your answer on these questions would be.

---

If there is an objective meaning to life, morality, or even existence: we cannot know it as subjective beings. And what is objectivity to begin with? As far as i can be aware: this is all my delusion. I can only define things for myself... and since i can define them in any way at all: it follows that anything can be defined in any way,..

It does not follow from subjectivity of knowledge that anything can be defined in any way without consequences. It turns out that the definition matters in respect of predictiveness of reality. If you define things you perceive arbitrarily, dealing with reality might become impossible. Suppose for instance that you define a lemmon as a sourish fruit on one occasion and as sweet fruit on another occasion. So for a reality that to a large extent obeys a certain logic as perceived by our senses, it might be advantageous to assume a certain logical consistency of reality reflected in perception. Of course that would not be truth itself, just a working hypothesis.

...thus the definition for anything is entirely based upon the subjective viewpoint of the definer... and thus there is no meaning without a definer (existentialism). Because there is no meaning without a definer (which is subjective): there is no objective meaning for anything (nihilism).

Moral judgement is indeed based on the subjective viewpoint of the definer, but its definition is not without consequences. When dealing with other humans (of which their existence for the sake of logical consistency of reality reflected in perception is assumed (see above)) one might therefore assume other moral judgement, but dealing with these other humans generally means some sort of syncing or sharing of moral judgement. Sharing of moral values is the basis of cultural demarcation and provides an 'infrastructure' for the individual to operate and survive in. So I agree there is no objective moral truth, but it is shared moral truth that makes reality tick for you.

[tackattack]

---

OK objective truth I'll redefine. Truth is subjective information because it's what? unobservable, non-subject to peer review, able to be counted, imitated, describable. If it is the antithesis of theese things I'm calling it objective. Perhaps I should have used the term "non-subjective informational truth", but objective seemed better for brevity.

I didn't urge you to redefine objective truth but my point is that you are asserting that objective truth is observable. Objective truth in my book is the same as reality itself. The question however is if we can directly observe raw objective truth. Since the nature of observation is interpretation of phenomena presumably associated with objects instead of direct knowledge of truth itself, it is always impossible to be 100% sure if you're indeed observing truth itself. So the combination of observable objective truth is what I disagree with not with objective truth as such.

As far as intangible evidence as proofs; mathmatical evidence supports mathmatical findings, logical thought progression supports a theoretical premise, historical evidence or provenance provide historical proofs. My point was the type of proof is relative (as it should be) to it's summation. You can use math or logic or history to prove some areas of let's say astronomy, but astronomical evidence that is observable is the best proof.
While I "cannot conclude anything about reality from those two things alone" (refferencing logic and intuiton) I am not concluding anything about the definition of reality you're using in the above quote. I am concluding spiritual truths based off spiritual evidence supported by logic, intuition, peers, and observations.

You said of religion that "It can be objectified if reason, logic and intuition count as observations." But objectification must mean something like "compare it objectively with reality itself", since it is not self-evident that what is thought up is true in our reality. In order to do so you need direct access to reality or objective truth. When you mean by this that from conceptual truths you can conclude other conceptual truths, I agree, but the truths you obtain are still dependent on the premises from which you depart.

I sense an underlying question: Is logic absolute, non-contigent, independent of everything? To answer this one you can break it down in two questions:
1) is logic dependent on a basic set of rules that do not follow from logic itself?
2) does logic apply to reality?

Please let me know what your answer on these questions would be.

---

If there is an objective meaning to life, morality, or even existence: we cannot know it as subjective beings. And what is objectivity to begin with? As far as i can be aware: this is all my delusion. I can only define things for myself... and since i can define them in any way at all: it follows that anything can be defined in any way,..

It does not follow from subjectivity of knowledge that anything can be defined in any way without consequences. It turns out that the definition matters in respect of predictiveness of reality. If you define things you perceive arbitrarily, dealing with reality might become impossible. Suppose for instance that you define a lemmon as a sourish fruit on one occasion and as sweet fruit on another occasion. So for a reality that to a large extent obeys a certain logic as perceived by our senses, it might be advantageous to assume a certain logical consistency of reality reflected in perception. Of course that would not be truth itself, just a working hypothesis.

...thus the definition for anything is entirely based upon the subjective viewpoint of the definer... and thus there is no meaning without a definer (existentialism). Because there is no meaning without a definer (which is subjective): there is no objective meaning for anything (nihilism).

Moral judgement is indeed based on the subjective viewpoint of the definer, but its definition is not without consequences. When dealing with other humans (of which their existence for the sake of logical consistency of reality reflected in perception is assumed (see above)) one might therefore assume other moral judgement, but dealing with these other humans generally means some sort of syncing or sharing of moral judgement. Sharing of moral values is the basis of cultural demarcation and provides an 'infrastructure' for the individual to operate and survive in. So I agree there is no objective moral truth, but it is shared moral truth that makes reality tick for you.

---

OK so objective truth is reality to you. Let's go through an excercise. Remember vividly what you had for dinner last night and the events that led up to it. Is that an objective truth? It happened there is no denying and your memory isn't faulty and it involves real observable objects and is duplicatable, verifiable by peer review, and describable. Vividly remember an important aspect in your life from a few years ago, something you focused some will on. You remember it well and are adament that you're remembering it correctly, however thoughts/ memories when subject to time lose their objectivity as they lose the focus of will. I think a lot of atheists are under the impression that theists have this one moment where God makes sense and all our belief is based off tha one moment. God and the spirit is a continuing evolution and revelation focusing our will on every second of every day keeping as much objectivity on perception as possible.

I don't think "raw objective truth" is observable directly. That doesn't mean you can't derive truths from your direct or indirect observations. If you friend says he just came from dropping the kids off. You may observe that the toilet paper stuck to his shoe lends evidence to his claim and indirectly assert his truth. It is unlikely that he spent the time trying to decieve you and supported it by attacing toilet paper to his shoe.

I agree that just because something is thought doesn't necessarily mean it's part of reality. Personal reality though, "you world", is made up of those that affect your life and the observations of your surroundings and your thoughts on those is as objective as we can achieve. The concept of the world as it is is just as "pie in the sky" as God. You assert that you can know what the real world is as I assert I can know what God is, from what we observe in our personal world and rationally and logically extrapolate and test theories based on that. We all have "direct access to reality" and extrapolate what general reality is based off of our personal reality. I as a theist have access to "objective truth regarding God" and extrapolate a global idea of God based off of my personal truths revealed by God. The first is just objectively tangible and the second is objective informational.

Answers to your questions:
1) is logic dependent on a basic set of rules that do not follow from logic itself?
examples Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.
Law of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense. I don't see these as based off human thinking. They are and are not subject to mutual agreement. Laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions like the laws of physics. Laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth. I don't know where they came from from your perspective so I propose the same perspective.

2) does logic apply to reality? Certainly if it's a part of science, physics, defining characteristics. We draw usefull conclusions from it. A fire is fire. We use reason to assert that fire is hit. Cause and affect teaches if fire is hot, it can burn us. You first must define using logic, but yes I think it's apllicable to reality.


Perhaps I won't use the term objective truth. I'll say true objective truth isn't observable. Personal conclusions off globally agreed subjective truths could be defined and observed though I believe. Regardless both terms boil down to truth. Truth itself is probably just subjective. That doens't make it any less true to others, especially to you personally. My brain hurts and I think I'll step back and gergitate.

[Purple Rabbit]

OK so objective truth is reality to you. Let's go through an excercise. Remember vividly what you had for dinner last night and the events that led up to it. Is that an objective truth? It happened there is no denying and your memory isn't faulty and it involves real observable objects and is duplicatable, verifiable by peer review, and describable.

Yes there is a way to deny these facts. Think of the brain in a jar scenario or think of implanted memory. Also from a long history of justice human memory is known to be a very unreliable source of information. The brain tends to fill gaps in the record with fabulation.

Please observe that it is entirely another matter whether denial of these 'facts' is useful or sensical. In most instances it is not.

Vividly remember an important aspect in your life from a few years ago, something you focused some will on. You remember it well and are adament that you're remembering it correctly, however thoughts/ memories when subject to time lose their objectivity as they lose the focus of will.

Yes, memory is not perfect.

I think a lot of atheists are under the impression that theists have this one moment where God makes sense and all our belief is based off tha one moment.

I find it irrelevant to this discussion what you think what atheists might think. If you have a question for me on what I am thinking, please say so.

God and the spirit is a continuing evolution and revelation focusing our will on every second of every day keeping as much objectivity on perception as possible.

To call it really objective you should be able to trace your thoughts down to its very roots, meaning to the level where you can precisely account how (as an example) your adrenaline level influenced your judgement. This is clearly impossible. Your thoughts are therefore subjective, they have no absolute basis you can give a detailed account of. To strive for as much objectivity as possible starts with acknowledging the fact that thought is a subjective account of reality.

I don't think "raw objective truth" is observable directly. That doesn't mean you can't derive truths from your direct or indirect observations. If you friend says he just came from dropping the kids off. You may observe that the toilet paper stuck to his shoe lends evidence to his claim and indirectly assert his truth. It is unlikely that he spent the time trying to decieve you and supported it by attacing toilet paper to his shoe.

The truths you arrive at are tentative truths, new information might disqualify the tentative truths you arrive at. For instance when you later learn that your friend has no kids the shadow of doubt is cast. Of course I agree that tentative truths are not worthless by default. Science is build on tentative truths and it has done quite well IMHO.

I agree that just because something is thought doesn't necessarily mean it's part of reality. Personal reality though, "you world", is made up of those that affect your life and the observations of your surroundings and your thoughts on those is as objective as we can achieve.

"as objective as we can achieve" sounds like subjective to me, but I agree that it might suffice in many cases.

The concept of the world as it is is just as "pie in the sky" as God. You assert that you can know what the real world is as I assert I can know what God is, from what we observe in our personal world and rationally and logically extrapolate and test theories based on that.

I do not assert what you attribute to me. I have a Kantian stance: absolute reality (or the Noumenon as Kant would say) is not knowable to us. I do assert that the tentative truths of science are the best around based on the criterion what gives the most accurate description and best predictions of the phenomena we perceive.

We all have "direct access to reality" and extrapolate what general reality is based off of our personal reality. I as a theist have access to "objective truth regarding God" and extrapolate a global idea of God based off of my personal truths revealed by God. The first is just objectively tangible and the second is objective informational.

You have shown nothing of the kind. Rather you in the above have given ample account of the fact that all your perception and thought is as relative as mine. It is closer to reality to acknowledge this fact than to redefine objective in the way you do.

Answers to your questions:
1) is logic dependent on a basic set of rules that do not follow from logic itself?
examples Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.
Law of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense. I don't see these as based off human thinking. They are and are not subject to mutual agreement. Laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions like the laws of physics. Laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth. I don't know where they came from from your perspective so I propose the same perspective.

Firstly, the LoI and the LoNC are assumptions for which there is no proof. They are axioms, statements that form the basis of traditional logic on assuming their truth and validity in reality.
Secondly, to build rigorous logic you also need the Law of Excluded Middle. An alternative for this axiom would be allowing for multiple values. Indeed a rigorous quantum logic can be build from this alternative quantum logic.

2) does logic apply to reality? Certainly if it's a part of science, physics, defining characteristics. We draw usefull conclusions from it. A fire is fire. We use reason to assert that fire is hit. Cause and affect teaches if fire is hot, it can burn us. You first must define using logic, but yes I think it's apllicable to reality.

Logic consists of truth statements, i.e. thought which is fundamentally subjective. The truth statements thought up do not necessarily hold in nature. There is no deductional proof that says that logic should hold in reality. Science is besides deductional reasoning (i.e. logic) also based on inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is partly based on assumption as shown in the Problem of Induction.

[tackattack]

Sorry if I asserted things not attributable to you. I will research this Kantian stance of absolute reality.

I do agree that by definition thought (to include ideas, assumptions, perspective, etc.) is subjective and relative. I contend that it's not always as unreliable as they are painted. I'm not trying to redefine words, just trying to get a grasp on the differences between definition, connotation and perception. So after all this we have objective truth and subjective truth. If I look at it on a scale @ 90% of the truths are on one side and are subjective and the elusive objective truths are on the other. I'd like to gradiate the scale of subjective information/truth to at least uniformely accepted subjective truth (blue is blue) and personal subjective truth (completely true to individuals ie. I prefer steak over chicken) and irrational subjective truth (no one believes in unicorns you idiot).

1) OK I dind't intentionally leave out LoEM just cited a few examples. So they are axioms, where do you suppose they stem from? We agree they require no proof and are assumptions that could change but haven't yet. I barely am grasping quantum physics.. I don't think I'm ready for quantum logic just let

2) OK so anything is possibible. Everytime I have touched fire it's hot, but won't necessarily next time. Arrived at through begging the question of inductive reasoning. How then can you know anything without faith? Logic isn't a direct correlation to reality, but it holds informational uniformly accepted subjective truth. With a little faith the statement , "Fire is hot to me, isn't it hot to you?" then shouldn't be contested.

[Purple Rabbit]

Sorry if I asserted things not attributable to you. I will research this Kantian stance of absolute reality.

I took no offense.

1) OK I dind't intentionally leave out LoEM just cited a few examples. So they are axioms, where do you suppose they stem from? We agree they require no proof and are assumptions that could change but haven't yet. I barely am grasping quantum physics.. I don't think I'm ready for quantum logic just let

The axioms are truth statements formulated by humans. So they as statements are definitely of human origin. If you ask where humans got the idea from, I really don't know, but I guess that it was instigated by nature itself somehow. On the macro level of human experience these laws are recognizable in how nature is perceived to behave. A thing in nature is not the other thing it seems. But on closer inspection there's more to it. Leibniz Identity of Indsicernables can be seen as the physical counterpart of the logical law of identity.

2) OK so anything is possibible. Everytime I have touched fire it's hot, but won't necessarily next time. Arrived at through begging the question of inductive reasoning. How then can you know anything without faith? Logic isn't a direct correlation to reality, but it holds informational uniformly accepted subjective truth. With a little faith the statement , "Fire is hot to me, isn't it hot to you?" then shouldn't be contested.

We don't know if it is possible for anything to happen next. We do know that reality as perceived by us so far has behaved in a pattern we have named the laws of nature. It is indeed wise to assume that these laws will hold the next time for we have nothing better to go by.

Naturalism, the philosophy asocioated with the scientific viewpoint, nowadays makes use of Bayesian formulation of knowledge in terms of probabilities. So truth statement are interpreted in terms of probabilities assuming the laws of nature will hold.

The difference between the basic assumptions being made and faith is that a basic assumption will be dropped the minute we can do without it. The basic assumptions of Euclidean Geometry were overthrown by Einsteins General Theory of Relativity in curved spacetime (Minkovsky space). Nobody in the scientific community however wept a tear for that. There were no faith groups splitting of from the scientific community to form their own church of truth based on Euclidean dogma. Instead scientists welcomed the deep insights and the better desciption of nature Relativity Theory brought us. Faith on the other hand is not only an assumption but also a promise to oneself to pledge allegiance to dogma even when it is contradicted by evidence. Faith is also a moral obligation to stick to the dogma.

[tackattack]

Wow a lot of good research topics for me thanks, really. Actually I disagree with your last 2 statements. Faith isn't alegiance to a dogma in spite of contradictory evidence, it's more of a solution in the absence of evidence. Example:
I, as a Christian, allow my belief to wane until it no longer supports my belief. However, I still can call myself a Christian because of my Faith. Faith is completely internal and subjective and is the belief in something, despite lack of evidence. Counter-evidence diminishes my Faith but only indirectly affects my belief in theism if the variable are in place for my working premise to be based off of Faith

I veer very far from anything political, but I think this is an apropos metaphor (I'd be suprised if min doesn't tear this one up). I see my belief as an american ballet poll of known truths. The highest votes are the winners and considered beliefs. They're typically between A and B which are the (best case) antethisis of each other. My faith is abstaining from a vote but still succoming to the resulting votes on everything else. I have not enough evidence to vote for either A or B so I don't make that vote. That to me is Faith. If there's counter evidence alone then I'd just vote B instead of A, etc.

[Purple Rabbit]

Wow a lot of good research topics for me thanks, really. Actually I disagree with your last 2 statements. Faith isn't alegiance to a dogma in spite of contradictory evidence, it's more of a solution in the absence of evidence. Example:
I, as a Christian, allow my belief to wane until it no longer supports my belief. However, I still can call myself a Christian because of my Faith. Faith is completely internal and subjective and is the belief in something, despite lack of evidence. Counter-evidence diminishes my Faith but only indirectly affects my belief in theism if the variable are in place for my working premise to be based off of Faith

Why not suspend judgement? There's nothing wrong with not knowing yet.

[tackattack]

no there isn't, and I accept that I don't know 100% what is when my belief doesn't support my stance (which by the way hasn't happened in a long time). However in my life, order is better than anarchy and I'd rather elect an idiot then not elect anyone.