Do you believe in miracles?

[Ozme52]

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant.

Well, not really because, unfortunately, while you look for a way to "know" and to prove what is "true" most people are

... arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth.

That's also the reason that your personal search will have to be just that. Personal. You're being entirely too rational... and that's anti-faith. The 'faithful' are all sure God is their best friend and approves wholeheartedly and solely with the way they believe.

[TomOfSweden]

That's also the reason that your personal search will have to be just that. Personal. You're being entirely too rational... and that's anti-faith. The 'faithful' are all sure God is their best friend and approves wholeheartedly and solely with the way they believe.

I think you're totally wrong. All religions are very common sensicle and make perfect sense on some level. If you want a bizarre theory of the Universe, read Aristotle. They all make perfect logical sense and was totally dominant in the west for 1900 years. His theories covers the whole theological spectrum from Darwin to Theism. But by applying modern science we know for a fact that all his theories are wrong.

I think people believe in God based on rational decisions. I can't see how anybody could take any decision in life that wasn't. The question is just what we use and accept as valid in data.

We also have a huge problem specific for our modern world. The body of science is so huge that nobody can understand all of it today. Unless we are religious of course. It's the only way today to do away with the unknown and understand the Universe. Religion wins out here. I think it's a logical back-flip because it means trusting people who haven't done their homework, (priests) over people who have, (scientists). But I do think it is rational decision, because it makes us feel better. It's always more fun dealing with definites than vagueries. I'll use the great sales of the Sims computer game as evidence. We can be rational in many ways.

[Ozme52]

I think you're totally wrong.

Perhaps. I will admit I had fundamentalist types in my mind as I wrote my comment. Those who out and out reject any possible interpretation of the world that implies that the bible isn't the actual word of God. Those who reject science and would prefer blind obedience... and who would force it on you if only they could.

All religions are very common sensicle and make perfect sense on some level.

I'd have a better acceptance of that statement if I saw any real evidence that their perspectives were occassionally updated... (and by that I mean updated and the current crop of believers were open to the possibility that their current understanding wasn't perfect.

If you want a bizarre theory of the Universe, read Aristotle. They all make perfect logical sense and was totally dominant in the west for 1900 years. His theories covers the whole theological spectrum from Darwin to Theism. But by applying modern science we know for a fact that all his theories are wrong.

I think people believe in God based on rational decisions. I can't see how anybody could take any decision in life that wasn't. The question is just what we use and accept as valid in data.

heh. Irrelevent... having valid data is paramount. Even a paranoid psychotic thinks he's being rational.

We also have a huge problem specific for our modern world. The body of science is so huge that nobody can understand all of it today. Unless we are religious of course. It's the only way today to do away with the unknown and understand the Universe. Religion wins out here. I think it's a logical back-flip because it means trusting people who haven't done their homework, (priests) over people who have, (scientists). But I do think it is rational decision, because it makes us feel better. It's always more fun dealing with definites than vagueries. I'll use the great sales of the Sims computer game as evidence. We can be rational in many ways.

Why must we do away with the unknown? Is it in our nature to want to know? Sure. But I think being accepting that I don't know everything and may never know everything is absolutely fine.

Tom, to me, it's like saying that it makes a difference to me, should make a difference to me, to know whether or not you are using a desktop or a laptop to write your posts. And not knowing should make me insecure. So let's just assume it's a laptop because it will make me feel better about my own conduct.

My perspective of how religion serves us today though, is that they would have me believe you're using a teletype machine.... or maybe it appears here transmitted directly from your stone tablet

[TomOfSweden]

I'd have a better acceptance of that statement if I saw any real evidence that their perspectives were occassionally updated... (and by that I mean updated and the current crop of believers were open to the possibility that their current understanding wasn't perfect.

And this is of course why all holy texts will eventually fail being true. At least if scientists are doing their job. And is a problem for any religion with a static holy text.

But then again. This shouldn't really apply to Christianity since the original Bible only was a bunch of ever expanding collection loose articles. It's a shame that little tid bit of information got lost somehow.

heh. Irrelevent... having valid data is paramount. Even a paranoid psychotic thinks he's being rational.

I was speaking from the sense of perception. If we perceive we have valid data, then we will perceive that the conclusions we draw are correct. The world is full of opinionated people who haven't done all their homework. People who read theories from the wrong angle, misinterpret and then draw conclusions. I've been guilty of this many many times. It is very difficult to get every theory right. Sometimes we cannot understand a theory, like molecular biology. I don't know enough maths to understand even the simplest of their theories. I have to depend on second hand interpretations. Which comes down to trust. Valid Data is an elusive animal. Especially when it comes to the big theories. I mean Quantum Theory! Even the greatest minds of physics can't understand that one. So let's say we're Christian and we want to reconcile it with known theories of physics. Even if we have all the valid data it is impossible. I'd personally see this as a victory for agnosticism. How can we have faith in something we don't fully understand?

Why must we do away with the unknown? Is it in our nature to want to know? Sure. But I think being accepting that I don't know everything and may never know everything is absolutely fine.

Doing away with the unknown is the goal of our curiousness. Is it not? But let's for sake of argument say you're lazy. You don't want to do your homework, but you still want the answers. I'm certain the latest surge of finding God in the west is simply a symptom of people becoming more comfortable and lazy. They can't be arsed to study the data out there because it is hard to understand. Any buffoon can accept God. It's a superficially an easy concept. Even though it isn't really. But that's just my highly personal opinion.

Tom, to me, it's like saying that it makes a difference to me, should make a difference to me, to know whether or not you are using a desktop or a laptop to write your posts. And not knowing should make me insecure. So let's just assume it's a laptop because it will make me feel better about my own conduct.

That is why neither of us is religious. I have no problems with using the "unknown" column in my spread sheet of the universe.

My perspective of how religion serves us today though, is that they would have me believe you're using a teletype machine.... or maybe it appears here transmitted directly from your stone tablet

I'm really posting here with my fax. Now you know.