What is a miracle?

[Ghel]

The truth of God for me will not be the truth of God for the next person. The truth of God for you is that there probably isn't one.

Why is this sort of thing only stated with regards to a god? If somebody said that flying purple elephants existed, would you say that was true for them? Why this special pleading in the case of god-claims?

The only time it should matter to anyone else is if those people try to impose their ideas on anyone else.

I agree, for the most part. If a religionist's beliefs cause him or her to do something that could harm another, that matters, too.

Science may not be a religion, but there sure are a hell of a lot of science evangelicals out there.

If you mean that there are a lot of people advocating science as the best way of knowing how the world works, I agree.

Nature won't change. It is how it has always been and will continue to be so regardless of whether or not you have received sufficient proof in what would have always been there in the first place.

The only difference after that point will be you perception.

As Richard Dawkins so eloquently said, "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." If there were a god who created it all, I would expect things to be different. I would expect prayer (at least, the prayers of one religion) to work. I would expect there to be evidence of divine intervention. If humans had some special property compared to other animals (such as a soul), I would expect there to be some way to demonstrate that. (Plus I wouldn't expect our DNA to be so similar to other primates.)

My boyfriend was actually surprised to learn I wasn't agnostic...

Actually, every person is agnostic regarding god-claims, unless they claim to know that a god exists. And then, if they can't demonstrate that a god exists, they're lying about knowing.

[Ipecac Drano]

The reason that all replies as regards religion are vague is that religion is subjective. The truth of God for me will not be the truth of God for the next person. The truth of God for you is that there probably isn't one.

Then that isn't "truth". Truth is rooted in fact; something that can proven or disproven. The "truth" you speak of is based on feeling, which is totally different. It's more like an opinion than a fact.

For absolutists who will have nothing to do with that which cannot be tested and examined, religion has no place in your lives. And, by that measure, there are no such things as miracles because anything you can examine or explain, no matter how improbable, won't be a miracle in their eyes.

And not just the absolutists.

This is the sort of bullshit that makes people not bother with these sorts of threads.

Thank you for bothering!

Certainly, there are many, many people who need a God in order for them to face the day. So fucking what? What does it matter to you or anyone else what they need to believe in to keep on keeping on? The only time it should matter to anyone else is if those people try to impose their ideas on anyone else.

And don't you forget it. As for it mattering to me, whether they intend to or not, they are imposing their ideas on everyone else. Whenever I go to my friend's house on Easter or Xmas, his mom says grace and my friend looks around to see who's praying and gives me looks of uneasiness. Plus, I feel sorry for his dad for working his ass off all these years and seeing the praise go to someone else. But these are just a couple of examples of unwitting imposition of religion.

Science may not be a religion, but there sure are a hell of a lot of science evangelicals out there.

And they still need that coping mechanism. What Francis Collins does in his pew is his own business, but some of the things he had said in order to "make God real" really didn't add up. He would have been better off in a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Smart scientists know that there are four means of determining truth and that elements from one realm shouldn't mingle with the others:

Rhetorica is determining truth via rhetoric, such as in a courtroom.

Mystica is religious truth.

Logica is finding truth through reason.

Empirica is finding truth through empirical results: experiments.

By taking something from Mystica and claim that it has a foothold in Empirica is a dangerous feat for the Mystic. Scientists (at least the ones who know better) aren't invading Mystica; they're keeping Empirica untainted by ousting any notions from Mystica.

I, personally, have always believed in God. Actually, my mother informs me that I used to hold conversations with him when I was 3 or 4.

How do you know it was God as opposed to just a good feeling in your mind?

Certainly, there are many, many people who need a God in order for them to face the day. So fucking what? What does it matter to you or anyone else what they need to believe in to keep on keeping on? The only time it should matter to anyone else is if those people try to impose their ideas on anyone else.

Actually, I have a question for you: figurative speaking, why should someone need to see the sky as a red and green plaid when it is really blue?

[Ghel]

By taking something from Mystica and claim that it has a foothold in Empirica is a dangerous feat for the Mystic.

And yet, they do it all the time. Theists frequently make empirically or logically testable claims, and in most cases, they don't stand up.

How do we test the claims of religion? With science. For example, how would we know whether the Earth was flat or round if we didn't use science?

[Hyena Dandy]

To answer the question earlier: If you want to believe flying purple elephants exist, I am TOTALLY down with that. If that makes life more fulfilling for you, I have no problem with the belief in flying purple elephants.

I believe people have the right to believe what they want without being persecuted for it. Even if the belief seems silly to me, if that makes life fulfilling for you, go ahead and believe it.

[Ipecac Drano]

To answer the question earlier: If you want to believe flying purple elephants exist, I am TOTALLY down with that. If that makes life more fulfilling for you, I have no problem with the belief in flying purple elephants.

I believe people have the right to believe what they want without being persecuted for it. Even if the belief seems silly to me, if that makes life fulfilling for you, go ahead and believe it.

Having a fun idea is one thing, but why would somebody want to believe in something that isn't real?

[Talon]

Whenever I go to my friend's house on Easter or Xmas, his mom says grace and my friend looks around to see who's praying and gives me looks of uneasiness.

Why the look of uneasiness? In a religious context, that makes no sense. If the person really believes in a god, and he/she/it can perceive their words of devotion, shouldn't the person see a non-believer speaking the grace as a hypocrite? I would think they'd be more uncomfortable hearing prayers from an atheist.

Unless of course we view the grace as an artificial tribalist "fitting in" ritual, and the person who doesn't participate isn't fitting in, is the dreaded Other. Then it makes perfect sense.

[Ghel]

To answer the question earlier: If you want to believe flying purple elephants exist, I am TOTALLY down with that. If that makes life more fulfilling for you, I have no problem with the belief in flying purple elephants.

Ok, but would you agree with them that flying purple elephants exist? Would you say that they actually, really exist just because that person believes in them?

Or, in the way Andara was saying, would you say that for that person, flying purple elephants really exist, even if they don't exist for anybody else?

Reality doesn't change based on people's beliefs. If it did, there would be no such thing as schizophrenia, faith healing would actually work, and I would be skinny (as I am in my mind's eye).

[Ipecac Drano]

Why the look of uneasiness? In a religious context, that makes no sense. If the person really believes in a god, and he/she/it can perceive their words of devotion, shouldn't the person see a non-believer speaking the grace as a hypocrite? I would think they'd be more uncomfortable hearing prayers from an atheist.

Unless of course we view the grace as an artificial tribalist "fitting in" ritual, and the person who doesn't participate isn't fitting in, is the dreaded Other. Then it makes perfect sense.

Oh, it's definitely the latter.

[Hyena Dandy]

Ok, but would you agree with them that flying purple elephants exist? Would you say that they actually, really exist just because that person believes in them?

Or, in the way Andara was saying, would you say that for that person, flying purple elephants really exist, even if they don't exist for anybody else?

Reality doesn't change based on people's beliefs. If it did, there would be no such thing as schizophrenia, faith healing would actually work, and I would be skinny (as I am in my mind's eye).

The hell do I care if there are flying purple elephants or not? If flying purple elephants make you happy, then go ahead and believe in them. If your belief doesn't hurt anyone, and it makes you happy, I don't care what you say, and I won't try to contradict you. Life is far too short to let reality spoil the fun.

Oh, it's definitely the latter.

Or possibly your friend believes that saying Grace is an important part of going to heaven, and he's uneasy because he's afraid you'll end up in trouble. Maybe he's not afraid of you because you're different, but because he believes the difference is going to end up harming you. He's your friend, so he's concerned about you.

However, if you ask what I believe, he's in bigger trouble than you are. If he's spending so much time policing everyone else, and feeling uneasy, how much effort can he really be putting into praying?

[Ipecac Drano]

The hell do I care if there are flying purple elephants or not? If flying purple elephants make you happy, then go ahead and believe in them. If your belief doesn't hurt anyone, and it makes you happy, I don't care what you say, and I won't try to contradict you. Life is far too short to let reality spoil the fun.

What people who say that fail to see is that once the Flying Purple Elephant believer realizes that there are no Flying Purple Elephants they will come down pretty hard. Not to mention that if it is a cornerstone of their beliefs, they have to alter other parts of reality in order to accommodate those Elephants.

Say for example, in order to make such accommodation they have to believe that 2 + 2 = 3. They have to develop an new set of rules in order to keep their precious Elephants. The person would have a tough time getting through life, especially school, since their beliefs hinge on their going against proven methods.

Or possibly your friend believes that saying Grace is an important part of going to heaven, and he's uneasy because he's afraid you'll end up in trouble. Maybe he's not afraid of you because you're different, but because he believes the difference is going to end up harming you. He's your friend, so he's concerned about you.

Knowing him and his mom for 31 years, it's the Gestapo angle.

[the_std]

What people who say that fail to see is that once the Flying Purple Elephant believer realizes that there are no Flying Purple Elephants they will come down pretty hard. Not to mention that if it is a cornerstone of their beliefs, they have to alter other parts of reality in order to accommodate those Elephants.

I am as atheistic as you, but this comes across as condescending. They shouldn't believe it unless it can be proven because they might get hurt? Then they shouldn't believe in other things, such as truth, beauty, love, all of these human constructs that are conceptual but still hold enormous presence over our lives. And so what if they have to alter their reality if they find out that flying purple elephants aren't real? People alter their realities in small ways every day. Something huge and earth-shattering might break them down completely, but then again, it might not. It would be very similar to a loved one dying unexpectedly, or your house burning down, other major things that have impact on our lives. Yet no one is saying "don't buy a house" or "ditch your family".

The only reason I disagree with religion is because of the people who use it to hurt other people. But if they are only hurting themselves with it, then it is a learning experience and they are welcome to it.

[Ghel]

The hell do I care if there are flying purple elephants or not? If flying purple elephants make you happy, then go ahead and believe in them. If your belief doesn't hurt anyone, and it makes you happy, I don't care what you say, and I won't try to contradict you. Life is far too short to let reality spoil the fun.

That's not what I was asking. Andara made a statement that sounded like she thought that reality actually changed based on what people believe (even if it only changes for that one person). What I was asking in my last post is if you agree with her.

The only reason I disagree with religion is because of the people who use it to hurt other people. But if they are only hurting themselves with it, then it is a learning experience and they are welcome to it.

I generally agree with this. I also go a step further and try to lead people away from harmful situations (including most religions). If we can learn from other people's mistakes, isn't that better than having to learn everything from direct experience?

[Hyena Dandy]

Well to basically answer your question, I don't give a damn whether reality changes or not, but I believe she was talking about a more inner, spiritual truth.





But I would object to calling 'most religions' harmful. Most religions don't harm you, and even when there are those that inflict bodily harm to you, physical harm, then I don't care. I believe your emotional, spiritual health is more important than your bodily health.

See, saying 'we should lead people away from harmful situations, including most religions' is exactly the logic religious people use when they pepper you with pamphlets and demand you come to church with them. They believe they're leading you away from a harmful situation. And I can't stand prosthelytizing (sp) to those who don't ask you first. Its a good way to drive a hammer into a relationship, and you'll both end up unhappy.

I say the best choice is for you to go your way, and them to go theirs. What they get from their religion is a deep, emotional, spiritual fulfillment. I am not trying to say that religion is the only way to get that. But I am trying to say that its one way to get that, and its such a good feeling, I wouldn't want to deny it to them unless them getting that feeling hurt someone else.

[Ghel]

inner, spiritual truth

What does "spiritual" mean? What is "spiritual truth"? How does it differ from real truth? What is "spiritual health"? How does it differ from other types of health (for example, mental health)? What is "spiritual fulfillment"?

I say the best choice is for you to go your way, and them to go theirs.

In general, I agree with that. But there are situations where I feel that I have to say something. One is on boards such as this, where objections are expected and encouraged. Another is when someone is trampling another person's rights.

[Ipecac Drano]

I am as atheistic as you, but this comes across as condescending. They shouldn't believe it unless it can be proven because they might get hurt?

That's one danger posed to them.

Then they shouldn't believe in other things, such as truth, beauty, love, all of these human constructs that are conceptual but still hold enormous presence over our lives.

Believing something that is arguably tangible exists is different than believing something philosophical. Big difference.

And so what if they have to alter their reality if they find out that flying purple elephants aren't real? People alter their realities in small ways every day.

I'm not talking about their perception of reality, I'm talking about reality; that which is empirically tested and proven.

Something huge and earth-shattering might break them down completely, but then again, it might not.

But there is still that possibility that it could.

It would be very similar to a loved one dying unexpectedly, or your house burning down, other major things that have impact on our lives. Yet no one is saying "don't buy a house" or "ditch your family".

It's not anything like that at all.

The only reason I disagree with religion is because of the people who use it to hurt other people. But if they are only hurting themselves with it, then it is a learning experience and they are welcome to it.

But the thing is that those people don't necessarily keep their beliefs to themselves and that they tend to affect others whether they (or anybody else) realize it.