Our theists of all labels please answer....

[RoadRunner79]

Do theists really need to be able to articulate *why* they believe in God in order to be justified in believing?  People kept breathing long before they were able to figure out why it's necessary.   But even if we never figured it out, we'd still be justified in actually breathing.  Likewise, it may be that some religious people are never able to answer the question of why they believe.  Still doesn't mean they aren't justified in doing so.

Valyza,

I agree somewhat, and what you are talking about does come up occasionally.  You don't have to understand how or why, to have justified belief.  Lack of knowledge in how gravity works, doesn't effect the observations, and reasons, to believe that there is such a thing as gravity. You don't have to go to school for many years, to believe what the doctor tells you is required for treatment (although sometimes a second opinion may be recommended).   And you don't have to have a scientific study to have justified belief. 

However, I am not an advocate, of having no justified reason outside of yourself for belief (on anything of consequence anyways).  You can't be justified in believing anything you want, or whatever feels right. 

When this normally comes up, is when someone demands that you need to be able to explain everything, in order to believe what is evident.

[Brian37]

---

---

It is about mere feelings otherwise you could answer without trying to point to your particular club and writings.

It is about mere feelings otherwise you would not be afraid of a neutral lab where it isn't trying to point to anything. 

"When you were a non-believer" yep, you were still not armed with enough. I could not care less what you were prior, once you start trying to point to a particular club/writing your are back in the same position as if you were raised with a club. 

Humans move from one position to another, that is not an argument. 

You, "It's not entirely intellectual" ........I wouldn't put it quite like that. I have seen very elaborate apologies from followers of every label worldwide. Don't falsely equate the human ability to make up or swallow elaborate false claims as the claim being true itself. Shakespeare''s plays are also complex but that does not make the characters real.

Men popping out of dirt is not intellectual, Muslims pointing out claims of rivers of milk and wine, also not intellectual, spinning prayer wheels in front of a Buddhist temple, also not intellectual, on top of the fact that the first depictions of the Buddha mythology has him being born of royalty and also avoiding the birth canal.

You certainly can be intelligent AND WRONG. Bernie Madoff scammed rich people and college educated people out of lots of money. Every religion has followers who either fall for or create and sell elaborate apologies. 

Neutrality is the only thing in scientific method that works. If you want neutral intellect and not personal bias, that is the only thing that works. I am sure you might think you are being "intellectual" but complexity of a naked assertion and trying to call it philosophy and or trying to reach back in time after the fact to try to square it to modern science is not being intellectual, it is merely falling for someone's vivid imagination.

Christians have left to become Muslims, Muslims have left to become Christians, Christians have left to become Buddhist, and some leave all of them. The fact you fell back into one of them only means you fell back into one.

Your first sentence here, is ridiculous.  Basically, if I am understanding correctly, you ask for an answer about one belief over another, but then reject anything  trying to point to that belief.  Second, a science lab is not appropriate, for all claims of truth. I'm not afraid of a neutral lab, where it is applicable.

I would also be curious as to how you are defining neutrality here.   It appear to me, that you are just rejecting anything from anyone who believes what they are proclaiming (however I assume you wouldn't do the same when what is proclaimed aligns with what you are selling).  The only question is what is the belief based on. From whom the information comes from, doesn't matter.  What you feel are their motives... doesn't matter.  Once again, I would encourage you to lay out, what these principles you are putting forth are, and we will examine them neutrally, and see where they go  (although note, not in a science lab, as that would be a category error and inappropriate to test this type of assertion).

No, from the start of this thread I have asked for EVERYONE to challenge themselves to ask THEMSELVES why they feel the need to hold the position they do. 

A science lab MOST CERTAINLY is the place where you determine facts. You don't get to make up scientific facts by yourself. If you are attempting to do that that "scientist" should be considered a QUACK.

Now if you are talking about issues of morality in the form of analogy, metaphor or art, those would be mere artificial reflections in the form of human stories reflecting our real evolutionary behaviors.

I can find morality in Star Wars, Charlotte's Web, Star Trek and Harry Potter without turning those fictions into a religion. 

Hubris is found in Oedipus Rex, but you don't treat that play as a holy book do you? Hubris as explained by psychology and psychiatry would be a personality trait of that individual based on their upbringing, life input and individual brain chemistry.

Art and metaphor are fine, but there is no need to think those things should replace a lab. Religion is merely something humans invent and pretend is true, and that pretending does convey our evolutionary behaviors, but it is not a real requirement to understand biological evolution and why humans behave the way we do.

Religion is fiction that humans falsely mistake as fact. It does create real social order, but it is not based on anything real. The ancient Egyptians for 3,000 years were successful centered around the very FALSE belief that the sun had a God named Ra controlling it. They depicted their motifs of bravery, heros and kindness, but none of those depictions made their god/s real.

[RoadRunner79]

Your first sentence here, is ridiculous.  Basically, if I am understanding correctly, you ask for an answer about one belief over another, but then reject anything  trying to point to that belief.  Second, a science lab is not appropriate, for all claims of truth. I'm not afraid of a neutral lab, where it is applicable.

I would also be curious as to how you are defining neutrality here.   It appear to me, that you are just rejecting anything from anyone who believes what they are proclaiming (however I assume you wouldn't do the same when what is proclaimed aligns with what you are selling).  The only question is what is the belief based on. From whom the information comes from, doesn't matter.  What you feel are their motives... doesn't matter.  Once again, I would encourage you to lay out, what these principles you are putting forth are, and we will examine them neutrally, and see where they go  (although note, not in a science lab, as that would be a category error and inappropriate to test this type of assertion).

No, from the start of this thread I have asked for EVERYONE to challenge themselves to ask THEMSELVES why they feel the need to hold the position they do. 

Ok... as people have done.

A science lab MOST CERTAINLY is the place where you determine facts. You don't get to make up scientific facts by yourself. If you are attempting to do that that "scientist" should be considered a QUACK.

---

Now if you are talking about issues of morality in the form of analogy, metaphor or art, those would be mere artificial reflections in the form of human stories reflecting our real evolutionary behaviors.

I can find morality in Star Wars, Charlotte's Web, Star Trek and Harry Potter without turning those fictions into a religion. 

Hubris is found in Oedipus Rex, but you don't treat that play as a holy book do you? Hubris as explained by psychology and psychiatry would be a personality trait of that individual based on their upbringing, life input and individual brain chemistry.

Art and metaphor are fine, but there is no need to think those things should replace a lab. Religion is merely something humans invent and pretend is true, and that pretending does convey our evolutionary behaviors, but it is not a real requirement to understand biological evolution and why humans behave the way we do.

Religion is fiction that humans falsely mistake as fact. It does create real social order, but it is not based on anything real. The ancient Egyptians for 3,000 years were successful centered around the very FALSE belief that the sun had a God named Ra controlling it. They depicted their motifs of bravery, heros and kindness, but none of those depictions made their god/s real.

---

Ok... I agree, a science lab is a good place to find out certain facts. And I don't think that with any facts (scientific or not),  you are free to make up for yourself.

This would include the many claims in your post.

I think your methodology is flawed, but if you would like to lay out your principles of reasoning here, then we can examine them neutrally and unbiased like, and see where that leads us.

[Brian37]

No, from the start of this thread I have asked for EVERYONE to challenge themselves to ask THEMSELVES why they feel the need to hold the position they do. 

Ok... as people have done.

A science lab MOST CERTAINLY is the place where you determine facts. You don't get to make up scientific facts by yourself. If you are attempting to do that that "scientist" should be considered a QUACK.

---

Now if you are talking about issues of morality in the form of analogy, metaphor or art, those would be mere artificial reflections in the form of human stories reflecting our real evolutionary behaviors.

I can find morality in Star Wars, Charlotte's Web, Star Trek and Harry Potter without turning those fictions into a religion. 

Hubris is found in Oedipus Rex, but you don't treat that play as a holy book do you? Hubris as explained by psychology and psychiatry would be a personality trait of that individual based on their upbringing, life input and individual brain chemistry.

Art and metaphor are fine, but there is no need to think those things should replace a lab. Religion is merely something humans invent and pretend is true, and that pretending does convey our evolutionary behaviors, but it is not a real requirement to understand biological evolution and why humans behave the way we do.

Religion is fiction that humans falsely mistake as fact. It does create real social order, but it is not based on anything real. The ancient Egyptians for 3,000 years were successful centered around the very FALSE belief that the sun had a God named Ra controlling it. They depicted their motifs of bravery, heros and kindness, but none of those depictions made their god/s real.

---

Ok... I agree, a science lab is a good place to find out certain facts. And I don't think that with any facts (scientific or not),  you are free to make up for yourself.

This would include the many claims in your post.

I think your methodology is flawed, but if you would like to lay out your principles of reasoning here, then we can examine them neutrally and unbiased like, and see where that leads us.

No, a science lab is the only place to determine facts.

Do not confuse history or news or metaphor as having the same qualities. That is not the same category nor should it be treated the same.

WHEN you want to find out the effects of gravity on an object, that is done through neutral experiment and neutral peer review.

"The New England Patriots won the Super Bowl" while a factual observation, is not an attempt to say "Since they won that makes Apollo the one real god".

"Donald Trump became president" also while provable fact, is not trying to prove Allah to be the one true God.

Historians report facts, like a reporter.
News reporters also SHOULD , not that they always do, report facts, not pander to what people like to hear.
Anthropologists are also reporters, but not to sell you something, but to say, "These are our neutral observations as to what we recorded as to how this society lived and what they believed", but again, that is also not a sales pitch.

I like Star Wars because the underdog beats the bully. Yea, but again, also not a scientific fact, but a metaphor reflection or human reaction to a threat, done in fictional form.

If you are attempting to point to a religious club, you are not merely reporting, you are selling and a sales pitch is an apology, not neutral reporting.

[RoadRunner79]

Ok... as people have done.


Ok... I agree, a science lab is a good place to find out certain facts. And I don't think that with any facts (scientific or not),  you are free to make up for yourself.

This would include the many claims in your post.

I think your methodology is flawed, but if you would like to lay out your principles of reasoning here, then we can examine them neutrally and unbiased like, and see where that leads us.

No, a science lab is the only place to determine facts.

Do not confuse history or news or metaphor as having the same qualities. That is not the same category nor should it be treated the same.

WHEN you want to find out the effects of gravity on an object, that is done through neutral experiment and neutral peer review.

"The New England Patriots won the Super Bowl" while a factual observation, is not an attempt to say "Since they won that makes Apollo the one real god".

"Donald Trump became president" also while provable fact, is not trying to prove Allah to be the one true God.

Historians report facts, like a reporter.
News reporters also SHOULD , not that they always do, report facts, not pander to what people like to hear.
Anthropologists are also reporters, but not to sell you something, but to say, "These are our neutral observations as to what we recorded as to how this society lived and what they believed", but again, that is also not a sales pitch.

I like Star Wars because the underdog beats the bully. Yea, but again, also not a scientific fact, but a metaphor reflection or human reaction to a threat, done in fictional form.

If you are attempting to point to a religious club, you are not merely reporting, you are selling and a sales pitch is an apology, not neutral reporting.

Is your first statement a fact?

Also your comment about the factual observation about the superbowl seems to contradict your first statement (or was the winner of the superbowl determined in a science lab?)
I'm suspecting more and more, that you are not very neutral in this subject!  

But that all facts are only found in a science lab is self refuting, but we can continue or move on to another principle if you like.

[Valyza1]

[quote='Valyza1' pid='1544927' dateline='1493053927']
When something is really beyond your own personal bias, it can be tested and falsified and then that data and method can be handed over to others and they will be able to come to the same conclusions you did.

I guess this is the part I don't understand. Why should we assume it's either or? Yes, there are things we believe solely because our personal biases have lead us to believe them, and there are other things we believe because they have been objectively shown true. But why can't we believe a third kind of thing that doesn't fall into those two categories? In other words, why should I be compelled to accept that something which can't conceivably be objectively proven must of necessity be solely a bias?

---

[quote='Valyza1' pid='1544927' dateline='1493053927']
However, I am not an advocate, of having no justified reason outside of yourself for belief (on anything of consequence anyways).  You can't be justified in believing anything you want, or whatever feels right. 

I would likewise agree if I thought that anyone could change any kind of belief. But I'm not sure that all beliefs fit into that category. If a belief is sufficiently unchangeable, it would seem pointless to attempt to justify it.

[Brian37]

No, a science lab is the only place to determine facts.

Do not confuse history or news or metaphor as having the same qualities. That is not the same category nor should it be treated the same.

WHEN you want to find out the effects of gravity on an object, that is done through neutral experiment and neutral peer review.

"The New England Patriots won the Super Bowl" while a factual observation, is not an attempt to say "Since they won that makes Apollo the one real god".

"Donald Trump became president" also while provable fact, is not trying to prove Allah to be the one true God.

Historians report facts, like a reporter.
News reporters also SHOULD , not that they always do, report facts, not pander to what people like to hear.
Anthropologists are also reporters, but not to sell you something, but to say, "These are our neutral observations as to what we recorded as to how this society lived and what they believed", but again, that is also not a sales pitch.

I like Star Wars because the underdog beats the bully. Yea, but again, also not a scientific fact, but a metaphor reflection or human reaction to a threat, done in fictional form.

If you are attempting to point to a religious club, you are not merely reporting, you are selling and a sales pitch is an apology, not neutral reporting.

Is your first statement a fact?

Also your comment about the factual observation about the superbowl seems to contradict your first statement (or was the winner of the superbowl determined in a science lab?)
I'm suspecting more and more, that you are not very neutral in this subject!  

But that all facts are only found in a science lab is self refuting, but we can continue or move on to another principle if you like.

Yes and no inconsistency on my part so KNOCK IT OFF.

If you are going to agree with me that a science lab is where you determine SCIENTIFIC FACT, then stop being half assed about it.

You are trying to falsely paint me as being hypocritical which I am not being.

You are trying to confuse the issue of CONTEXT of how the word "fact" is used in determining scientific reality, so you can later go " AH HA, therefore religion is equal to a lab".

NOPE it is not.

A history of recorded claims do not make the claims true, otherwise Ra is a real God because the Egyptians had a history of believing that for 3,000 years. 

You are trying to treat your definition of "fact" as being equal in every context, which allows you to pretend the word is being used the same.

Religion will NEVER replace a telescope, or microscope. One is what people invent and sell and like, and the other are tools that produce objective universal FACT.

Scientific method is why we know gravity affects time, which is why if a Muslim uses a GPS device in Saudi Arabia, and a Christian uses a GPS in Mexico, and a Shinto Buddhist uses a GPS in Japan, the GPS works the same way regardless.

Today is April 24th is reporting, not selling. 

"Jesus turned water into wine" is selling not reporting.

Anthropologist, "We found old claims that people made about a character named Jesus claimed to have turned water into wine" 

Is the same as,

Anthropologist, " We unearthed the Tomb of King Tut, and all the artwork we found on the walls and all the items depict the society and beliefs of that time"...... THAT is neutral. 

"Trump became president" neutral, not selling.

"Trump is a great president" selling not neutral.

"Obama was our prior president" also neutral not selling.

"Obama was a horrible president" selling not neutral.

"Trump farts Lamborghini's out of his ass", selling not neutral.

"Obama is a Kenyan" selling not neutral.

"Mecca is a real place" neutral, not selling.

Muslim, "Mecca is a real place so that proves Allah is real", that is selling, not neutral.

Christian, "My bible has real places in it, so Jesus is the one real God" that is selling, not neutral. 

So don't cherry pick, don't be half assed about it, either you value objectivity, or you merely have a sales pitch.

[RoadRunner79]

Is your first statement a fact?

Also your comment about the factual observation about the superbowl seems to contradict your first statement (or was the winner of the superbowl determined in a science lab?)
I'm suspecting more and more, that you are not very neutral in this subject!  

But that all facts are only found in a science lab is self refuting, but we can continue or move on to another principle if you like.

Yes and no inconsistency on my part so KNOCK IT OFF.

If you are going to agree with me that a science lab is where you determine SCIENTIFIC FACT, then stop being half assed about it.

You are trying to falsely paint me as being hypocritical which I am not being.

You are trying to confuse the issue of CONTEXT of how the word "fact" is used in determining scientific reality, so you can later go " AH HA, therefore religion is equal to a lab".

NOPE it is not.

A history of recorded claims do not make the claims true, otherwise Ra is a real God because the Egyptians had a history of believing that for 3,000 years. 

You are trying to treat your definition of "fact" as being equal in every context, which allows you to pretend the word is being used the same.

Religion will NEVER replace a telescope, or microscope. One is what people invent and sell and like, and the other are tools that produce objective universal FACT.

Scientific method is why we know gravity affects time, which is why if a Muslim uses a GPS device in Saudi Arabia, and a Christian uses a GPS in Mexico, and a Shinto Buddhist uses a GPS in Japan, the GPS works the same way regardless.

Today is April 24th is reporting, not selling. 

"Jesus turned water into wine" is selling not reporting.

Anthropologist, "We found old claims that people made about a character named Jesus claimed to have turned water into wine" 

Is the same as,

Anthropologist, " We unearthed the Tomb of King Tut, and all the artwork we found on the walls and all the items depict the society and beliefs of that time"...... THAT is neutral. 

"Trump became president" neutral, not selling.

"Trump is a great president" selling not neutral.

"Obama was our prior president" also neutral not selling.

"Obama was a horrible president" selling not neutral.

"Trump farts Lamborghini's out of his ass", selling not neutral.

"Obama is a Kenyan" selling not neutral.

"Mecca is a real place" neutral, not selling.

Muslim, "Mecca is a real place so that proves Allah is real", that is selling, not neutral.

Christian, "My bible has real places in it, so Jesus is the one real God" that is selling, not neutral. 

So don't cherry pick, don't be half assed about it, either you value objectivity, or you merely have a sales pitch.

I only responded to your statement "No, a science lab is the only place to determine facts." If I mis-interpreted this statement; please accept my apology (though I don't think I was wrong to interpret your statement in the way that I did. Would you agree with the following then; that science is not the only or in some instances even the best methodology for justified belief or knowledge?


Also, you keep mentioning my motivations, and what you think I'm doing. You are bad at it. I'm responding to what you say, attempting to discuss what you are selling here. I'm not interested in what your straw men are. I'm looking for the principles, reasons, or evidence behind your claims.

[Brian37]

A science lab is the only place you determine scientific fact, you cannot mix that with religion. PERIOD

You can report religious history, but only as NEUTRAL, you cannot mix it with science.

You are trying to treat the word "FACT" as meaning the same and equal in all contexts.

I am talking about HOW NEUTRAL SCIENCE WORKS.

A theologian may TRY to mix religion with science, but that is not OBJECTIVE, once you start trying to do that you are an apologist, selling something, you are no longer scientifically NEUTRAL.

[RoadRunner79]

A science lab is the only place you determine scientific fact, you cannot mix that with religion. PERIOD

You can report religious history, but only as NEUTRAL, you cannot mix it with science.

You are trying to treat the word "FACT" as meaning the same and equal in all contexts.

I am talking about HOW NEUTRAL SCIENCE WORKS.

A theologian may TRY to mix religion with science, but that is not OBJECTIVE, once you start trying to do that you are an apologist, selling something, you are no longer scientifically NEUTRAL.

Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy.   Because that is what it appears you are doing. 
Can you clarify what you meaning by selling something?  How would this relate to a scientist trying to sell me on climate change (or as I like to call it... fine tuning of the atmosphere)?   Or how about your trying to sell me this idea now... are you neutral?  There may be some things on which I agree, but this wording seems awkward.

Also... wrong again, on what you imagine I am trying to do.   I should start a counter or something.  But just a tip... if you let me speak for myself, then I can't claim a straw man.