scbriml wrote:

Calder wrote:

A better question, does it matter?

It does when folks go around killing others in the name of their “god”.

Yes, whatever their "god" is ....

There are those, that would "thin out" the earth's human population, for the sake of "Mother Earth".

You can assign or not assign a "god" to that movement.

I don't know if God exists, but for certain there are some members of this forum who think they are him.

If there is a god, it probably is the most abused entity in the universe.

Define God.

What is the purpose of arguing over the existence of something that lacks a definition? Through time, people's conception has changed and even today, no two people agree on what God is. Yet plenty claim to believe they know what God wants.

I get the need for a God that some people have. They need an explanation of the universe and man's presence. They need a creator. But would that creator necessarily be moral? Or are morals just something else developed by people to help them live in society? Was God invented so that man had someone to blame for his flaws and weaknesses?

Define God. Then we can discuss whether it exists.

Just a warning: It is pretty hard to define humans using typical philosophical terms. So could we say humans don't exist. Many would agree. LOL, or as Lily Tomlin put it in a play I unfortunately never got to see, The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe.

zrs70 wrote:

Disclaimer... I'm a rabbi.

I look at the bible as my story, not my science book. If I want to learn about science, I don't look at the story of creation as the bible shares it.

In Judaism, we don't typically obey or submit to God. We engage with God. If we find something that we don't agree with, we challenge God. (Characters in the bible did this all the time).

Why do bad things happen? There's a difference between an illness taking a young child's life, or an earthquake decimating a city - and shooter murdering people.

The former are acts of nature. People often say that acts of nature are the same as acts of God. But that's not the God I believe it. I don't think God sends the earthquake. I think God sends the people to help us once disaster strikes.

The latter (the shooting) is an act of humanity exercising free will. We learn that humans are in the image of God. But when a human does a horrible act, there is nothing Godly about it.

People often ask me, "Why don't miracles happen today the way the did according to the bible." Keep in mind that the people who saw miracles in the bible also doubted. They built the Golden Calf. Seeing a miracle does not truly deepen proof of the existence of God.

Is it ask a Rabbi time now? Judaism is the original abrahamic religion and I've been told there have been a few things lost in translation. In example - that Satan means nothing more than "adversary" and God has no gender, it's the word for God that has a gender. I'm sure there's more of these than what I've heard of, do you know any others?

The problem with this debate as a society is that there is no proof that there is not a God either, so it is useless for someone to convince a believer otherwise. At the same time, you can't conduct a scientific experiment on "faith" and prove God that way, but there have been some studies finding links to a higher being as well as confirmations of science depicted in the Bible. Maybe one day we can revive a dead person and ask them who was right

stl07 wrote:

The problem with this debate as a society is that there is no proof that there is not a God either, so it is useless for someone to convince a believer otherwise.

An hypothesis without evidence can be rejected without evidence. The believer has to proof God exists. Or I send my fire breathing dragon to eat you.

At the same time, you can't conduct a scientific experiment on "faith"

Of course you can, unless your God does not ever interfere with anything in this universe, answering prayers, miracles and so on, you can test that hypothesis.

but there have been some studies finding links to a higher being

No such links have been found, if the had been, you would.read about it in "Nature" and from a Nobel prize acceptance speech.

as well as confirmations of science depicted in the Bible.

Nope, not a single piece of science has ever been found in scripture without being known to science before. The Quran is much more scientific advanced than the Bible, because it is newer and Mohammed could steal much more from Greek and Roman scientists.

Maybe one day we can revive a dead person and ask them who was right

We already have people coming back from the dead.
Their experiences can be replicated by putting electrodes into you brain and trigger the right areas of it.

Best regards
Thomas

stl07 wrote:

The problem with this debate as a society is that there is no proof that there is not a God either,

proving a negative is almost impossible, prove that elves don't live in the forest somewhere.

[/quote]

stl07 wrote:

The problem with this debate as a society is that there is no proof that there is not a God either

Thats not how it works, things that aren't there can't possibly disproved, it is impossible to have evidence for nothing. There is the same scientific evidence for god(s) as there is for the full scale plastic model of the USS enterprise under my house. The difference being however is that no one thinks there is a full scale plastic model of the USS enterprise under my house.

stl07 wrote:

, so it is useless for someone to convince a believer otherwise.

agree, it's mostly useless to try and convert believers although it does happen. It is possible to ensure that those on the cusp are swayed by the facts and not fairytales, it is particularly important that children are not brainwashed and are allowed to understand for them selves. We should protect the vulnerable form all cults including organised religion until such time they are able to make their own decisions

stl07 wrote:

At the same time, you can't conduct a scientific experiment on "faith" and prove God that way,

of course you can, it just provides no evidence of god.

stl07 wrote:

but there have been some studies finding links to a higher being

Cool! Post a link.

stl07 wrote:

as well as confirmations of science depicted in the Bible

what has that got to do with anything? Because a story book has scientifically explainable phenomena in it doesn't mean it's true. Gravity was correctly depicted when the villain fell from the Nakatomi plaza but Hans Gruber still isn't or never was a real person

stl07 wrote:

. Maybe one day we can revive a dead person and ask them who was right

meh, someone will just say god wiped his memory so the test of faith remains. There is enough evidence now to say there is no god, we don't need to waste good time and money on that to appease people when there are much more important things to research and understand.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

stl07 wrote:

The problem with this debate as a society is that there is no proof that there is not a God either

You can't prove something doesn't exist.

High religion exists. Probably a necessary component of post-agricultural humans.

Whether or not religion involves a God different than mere spirits most high religions involve a god or gods.

Whether you like it or not successful cultures seems to adopt, more often co-opt some sort of religion. There actually is good evidence that high cultures created gods, usually with the high ruler a special envoy of the high god.

The Buddha and Jesus seem to have rejected tribal interpretations of religion and developed more universal ethic, but high culture quickly co-opted them into a tribal system. The orthodoxies of most modern Buddhism and Christianity promulgate a violent war loving tribal god as much as any other religion which started off from a tribal system.

The more intellectual or rational Buddhism (my adjectives are not quite accurate) is a non-theistic religion. There are broad hints in all of the Abrahamic religions that God is not and cannot be described. In logical terms it is close to a non-theistic God. More a reference to the mystery beyond the cloud of unknowing in a universe in which meaning is possible and existing.

scbriml wrote:

stl07 wrote:

The problem with this debate as a society is that there is no proof that there is not a God either

You can't prove something doesn't exist.

See, that just proved the point. You are assuming God doesn't exist based on the perception/description of God given to you by exposure to a particular religion's understanding of God. There is no proof here that God does not exist, just a statement.

During the enlightenment in Europe, people said that God was a clockmaker, who, after creating the universe, didn't ever intercept in it. So, in that definition of God, He/She/It was just a personified version of the big bang theory. Also, in that definition, God does not exist , but He/She/It was around at a certain period in time. It is impossible to disprove the supernatural when people have such varying idea of what that is. Saying that you can't disprove something that doesn't exist is incorrect these people I have described believe he didn't exist either.

Unrelated to my previous posts but this is an interesting read. I don't agree with everything in it, but it was still worth my time.
http://time.com/77676/why-science-does- ... prove-god/

flipdewaf wrote:

stl07 wrote:

The problem with this debate as a society is that there is no proof that there is not a God either

Thats not how it works, things that aren't there can't possibly disproved, it is impossible to have evidence for nothing. There is the same scientific evidence for god(s) as there is for the full scale plastic model of the USS enterprise under my house. The difference being however is that no one thinks there is a full scale plastic model of the USS enterprise under my house.

stl07 wrote:

, so it is useless for someone to convince a believer otherwise.

agree, it's mostly useless to try and convert believers although it does happen. It is possible to ensure that those on the cusp are swayed by the facts and not fairytales, it is particularly important that children are not brainwashed and are allowed to understand for them selves. We should protect the vulnerable form all cults including organised religion until such time they are able to make their own decisions

stl07 wrote:

At the same time, you can't conduct a scientific experiment on "faith" and prove God that way,

of course you can, it just provides no evidence of god.

stl07 wrote:

but there have been some studies finding links to a higher being

Cool! Post a link.

stl07 wrote:

as well as confirmations of science depicted in the Bible

what has that got to do with anything? Because a story book has scientifically explainable phenomena in it doesn't mean it's true. Gravity was correctly depicted when the villain fell from the Nakatomi plaza but Hans Gruber still isn't or never was a real person

stl07 wrote:

. Maybe one day we can revive a dead person and ask them who was right

meh, someone will just say god wiped his memory so the test of faith remains. There is enough evidence now to say there is no god, we don't need to waste good time and money on that to appease people when there are much more important things to research and understand.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
The link was in a magazine article I had read. Ill see if I can find it. It more or less was commenting on how orderly cells and DNA are, but I forgot the important statistics. Now the question is, is that higher being God? and was the Big Bang orchestrated? Hopefully I can find it.

stl07 wrote:

The problem with this debate as a society is that there is no proof that there is not a God either

Surely the problem with society is that education has fallen to a level where people don't understand that a lack of evidence for something not being true does not meant that it is true. The existence of god has the same evidence as you half alien half brother.

stl07 wrote:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The link was in a magazine article I had read. Ill see if I can find it. It more or less was commenting on how orderly cells and DNA are, but I forgot the important statistics. Now the question is, is that higher being God? and was the Big Bang orchestrated? Hopefully I can find it.[/quote]

DNA being ordered is vital to its operation, if it weren't we wouldn't be here to answer the question, it is by default that it an even be questioned. It is however explainable.

Even if an answer to a question isn't known then we leave that as an unknown answer, we don't fill it with whatever shite we were told at the last cult meeting.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do we still have so many people in science and universities who believe in God?

patineta89 wrote:

Why do we still have so many people in science and universities who believe in God?

Because the evolutionary short circuit that makes it useful to believe elders is powerful enough to overcome that rationality of the specific thinker. We still get scared of the horror film even though we know it's fiction, that's playing to evolutionary short circuits. We see faces in inanimate objects, that's the same.

Do you think the moth really likes candles or that it might be trying to follow a different light source that was there before humans arrived?

The question isn't really about specific humans who happen to partake in the scientific process but tests for god that pass the process itself.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Human brains do not have a 'rationality' function versus an emotional or evolutionary function. Our thinking is entirely emotional/evolutionary. Using philosophical and scientific methods, rationality can emerge as a human tool. Individual scientists are no more rational than anyone else. Peer review (which can also be subverted) is one of the tools allowing reason to emerge. Another function of the evolutionary brain is a strong tribal-istic element which is obviously closely related to how religion actually functions. Early humans who were not loyal to the tribe likely were pushed out. (sounds like our political system, No?)

patineta89 wrote:

Why do we still have so many people in science and universities who believe in God?

It makes sense for those in science to believe in God. After all, scientists embrace the concept of infinity, right?! Something without end. Something that is beyond reach. It's not all that far off from a concept of God.

zrs70 wrote:

patineta89 wrote:

Why do we still have so many people in science and universities who believe in God?

It makes sense for those in science to believe in God. After all, scientists embrace the concept of infinity, right?! Something without end. Something that is beyond reach. It's not all that far off from a concept of God.

Actually, there is a causality between being religious and education.

zrs70 wrote:

patineta89 wrote:

Why do we still have so many people in science and universities who believe in God?

It makes sense for those in science to believe in God. After all, scientists embrace the concept of infinity, right?! Something without end. Something that is beyond reach. It's not all that far off from a concept of God.

Other than there being no link between the things you just said surely the opposite would be true. Infinity would suggest no end and surely that is exactly what a god is... infinity would surely mean bigger than god.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

zrs70 wrote:

patineta89 wrote:

Why do we still have so many people in science and universities who believe in God?

It makes sense for those in science to believe in God. After all, scientists embrace the concept of infinity, right?! Something without end. Something that is beyond reach. It's not all that far off from a concept of God.

There isn´t really anything special about the concept of infinity and especially nothing god like.

patineta89 wrote:

Why do we still have so many people in science and universities who believe in God?

We are good in compartmentalizing our thinking. That is also why enormous amounts of suffering in distant lands doesn´t drive us insane as the same devastation where we life would or the reason why the same people complaining about China stealing jobs then go and buy stuff made in China. The "i should buy local" part of our thinking is separated from the "i want good value for my money" compartment.

That being said, a scientist can believe and manage to leave their faith at the lab door, but becoming a successful scientist correlates with leaving religion behind for good. Among the US national academy of sciences just 7% believe in a personal god, among recent science Nobel laureates there are none iirc. It is quite interessting to go through this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... _laureates
and check what those people actually had to say about God. The NOMA principle is often tossed around by apologists, but i think none of them ever read Stephen Jay Gould definition of that god.... a god that in no way interferes with reality (no miracles, no resurrection, no answer to prayer etc.).

best regards
Thomas

The problem is that most people mix up two things that have nothing to do with each other.

1: believing in a "maker of things I can't explain". This is a personal thing of each individual, and everybody should decide this for themselves. In old times people couldn't fugure out what makes lightning hit a tree, or a solar eclipse, or the seasons. Since they couldn't explain these phenomena, they made up a mysterious ghost in the sky who did these things, problem solved.

2: church or organized religion. This has exactly two purposes: it's a business to make money, and it's used to control and influence populations. Millions of people work for the church, and it's easy money. They will tell you they're doing good charitable work too, that benefits the community and the poor children in Africa, but that's bullcrap and they could be doing much more charity work if there wasn't any religion involved. And besides, much of the misery the churches are helping fight wouldn't be there in the first place without organized religion. Ask any pastor, rabbi, imam if they'd prefer working in a factory or office, or continue telling people fairy tales and getting good cash for it. But there will always be enough stupid people who go to church and empty their pockets.

If there's really a god, you don't need to go to church.

zrs70 wrote:
But when a human does a horrible act, there is nothing Godly about it.

Could you expand on this a bit? I read in the Bible that we are created in the image...ergo ANY act is Godly......how does mental illness, replication errors and things not "perfect" fit in? Seems God has as much baggage as humanity...

Looks like they're burying Billy Graham in a steamer trunk. Steerage to dirtlandia, please.

About scientists and religion, consider where these scientists live. There are places, the US being one of them, where telling you're religious is much simpler than admitting you're an atheist and facing incredulous people.

Aesma wrote:

There are places, the US being one of them, where telling you're religious is much simpler than admitting you're an atheist and facing incredulous people.

When I used to visit the US on business, if my trip happened to include a weekend many American colleagues would invite me to attend their church on the Sunday. After telling the first few that I didn't attend church because I'm an atheist, I decided it was much simpler for everyone if I just said I already had plans.

Are there any openly atheist American politicians, or do they all "trust in God"?

Most of the early US statesmen were deists, and that was not unacceptable for many of the churches. And it still isn't. Churches have a number of functions, contrary to some of the biased comments on this thread. Most fellow religious people I know would, if asked "just who is this god worshipped at your meetings" would run in the other direction. Religion is about people, and good religion, in my view, is about believing and acting upon the belief that we humans need to live in community, on the face of the whole earth. We really don't care how you express that belief.

"I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers." This is what most religions, without much success, are against.

scbriml wrote:

Aesma wrote:

There are places, the US being one of them, where telling you're religious is much simpler than admitting you're an atheist and facing incredulous people.

Are there any openly atheist American politicians, or do they all "trust in God"?

There are at the State and Local levels, but in US Congress there are no currently serving open atheists. Bernie Sanders has given hints that he is one, but he won't come out and say so. He is the only one i can think of.

Tugger wrote:

I am always intrigued by the idea that people think there is supposedly a gigantic, galactic-sized penis swinging around out there..... (and I it must be uncircumcised?).... somewhere...

Tugg

probably wrapped up with some hive mind sentient spaghetti ?

There is this Heinlein novel around: "Book of Job, a Comedy of Justice".

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Most of the early US statesmen were deists, and that was not unacceptable for many of the churches. And it still isn't. Churches have a number of functions, contrary to some of the biased comments on this thread. Most fellow religious people I know would, if asked "just who is this god worshipped at your meetings" would run in the other direction. Religion is about people, and good religion, in my view, is about believing and acting upon the belief that we humans need to live in community, on the face of the whole earth.

Considering the strong correlation between disfunctional societies and religion I don't think so.

We really don't care how you express that belief.

No one is born a religious nutjob, belief without evidence is at best harmless, but often harmful.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Most of the early US statesmen were deists, and that was not unacceptable for many of the churches. And it still isn't. Churches have a number of functions, contrary to some of the biased comments on this thread. Most fellow religious people I know would, if asked "just who is this god worshipped at your meetings" would run in the other direction. Religion is about people, and good religion, in my view, is about believing and acting upon the belief that we humans need to live in community, on the face of the whole earth.

Considering the strong correlation between disfunctional societies and religion I don't think so.

We really don't care how you express that belief.

No one is born a religious nutjob, belief without evidence is at best harmless, but often harmful.

Recently seen one documentary on the Conquistadores.
One theory pushed was that the Spaniards absolute and unwavering belief in their religion
entailing their anointed superiority over anything else pretending to be human
(hand in hand with complete lack of mirror empathy ) was instrumental to their
subjugating vast areas with very limited manpower.

So belief provides some kind of power over more objective, less self centric sentients.

The same kind of unwavering belief even in the face of dismal failure to achieve
anything worthwhile brought the dark ages.
Only starting to actually think logical and look at cause and results
brought today's standards of achievements ( health, living, ...but also weapons. )

A good balance between reason and belief would be nice.

What we see today is the return of the staunch unwavering believer.
Today they win, tomorrow they will defecate into their water supply because "god wants it this way".

Next cycle.

When looking at the Spanish behavior in the Americas, it is necessary to keep in mind that the very year that Columbus sailed was the year that the decades long slaughter of Muslims and Jews came to its climax. They just shifted the targets of their venom to the native Americans: they never missed a beat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisiti ... nquisition

salttee wrote:

When looking at the Spanish behavior in the Americas, it is necessary to keep in mind that the very year that Columbus sailed was the year that the decades long slaughter of Muslims and Jews came to its climax. They just shifted the targets of their venom to the native Americans: they never missed a beat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisiti ... nquisition

The numbers!
A majority of Spaniards against a Jewish minority.
A miniority of Conquistadores against a vast majority of natives in the Americas.

Cultures and societies often behave in a tribal-istic fashion. If you are not aware of that, and I include every religion (or lack thereof), culture, society, philosophy, then you haven't read much history, sociology, anthropology, or evolution. But the news is not all bad. Read Steven Pinker, The better Angels of our Nature, or just out, Enlightenment Now. Religion is no more violent than human nature. I recommend studying both.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Like the myth of Darwinian Evolution ? ? ?

The proven fact of Darwinian Evolution. No Adam and Eve, sorry for you, no original sin, no need for Jesus to die on a cross.....

The Evidence for evolution is beyond overwhelming, no theory has ever been more thoroughly tested and no one could ever come up with a threat of evidence against it.

And scripture and revelation have never, ever, not once, shown to be correct over the results of science.

But please, keep believing that a whale can swallow you and keep you alive inside for 3 days.....

best regards
Thomas

I don't buy into your errors, and there are so many Thomas !!!

But let's just take one, Evolution.... It is still a Theory, and until science "proves" it, it will remain a "theory", even if fellows like your self insist that is is "proven", when it hasn't been.

Nice Try T

Just look up what a theory means in the scientific form. A theory is proven in so far that it explains all current scientific evidence. People being on the religious trip often confuse hypothesis and theory. A theory is as far as it gets if one talks about proven in a scientific way. If different viewpoints still exists, than you talk about a hypothesis.

Evolution is the current scientific fact, only religious nutters do not accept that, because religion is not fact or evidence based and impervious to argument

mjoe - actually evolution has a lot to say about religion, I referenced what is probably the best book on the subject early on in this thread. I will guarantee the books I have mentioned will not compel you to adopt a religion, but will compel you to understand why and how people act from an evolutionary point of view. The whole societal enterprise of safety, meaning, loyalty, virtues (that is a amazingly mixed bag), and power all cohere into a belief structure that "everyone knows is true". And of course that 'truth' is merely an agreed upon set of convictions.

Using these tools we can even look at Hitler, Stalin, Mao and explore what they said and thought they believed, how they actually acted, and how reality and basic human nature tends to co-opt the strongest held beliefs. Or, and a lot more fun, how the everyday people we know believe and act upon their convictions, especially those we admire.

Modern philosophy was very late coming to a proper study of humans. It was assumed that we could think our way to reality about our convictions and beliefs. In my observations as a student, it seemed a fool's errand, but fascinating. Cognitive science PLUS anthropological observations of the last groups of 'primitive' tribes, as well as looking at modern society are resulting in an emerging hard science of how and what people really are.

An interesting study is American civil religion, and how various presidents have expressed it. The current president is heavy into civil religion, and has strong support from much of the major evangelical religions.

Anyone seriously interested in this topic should watch Jordan Petersons Biblical series on Youtube.
Among other things, he discusses the concept of God in the judea christian culture.
The ideas in the lectures are mainly based in the Jungian concept of archetypes, but it really makes a lot of sense, even for an atheist like myself.
The guy never argues for the existence of a creator.

https://youtu.be/f-wWBGo6a2w

Dahl... I read wonky hard books, but don't like to watch, which of his books would you most recommend as a first to read?

<b>Is "god" a myth?</b>

Yes...of course.


A couple of years ago, a pair 'believers' came 'knocking...

Politely, I said "Ladies, you really don't wanna go there with me..."

Believers: "Oh yes we do, sir, we believe everyone is deserving of salvation."

I lead them from my door out into the sunshine.

I asked them, 'So how solid, how devote is your faith'

Believers:"Very solid, absolute! With a doubt!"

I replied: Okay great, now, do you see that? (pointing skyward...to the Sun)

I asked: 'Engage me for a sec, now point to the sun, and tell it this'..."that you will OUT LIVE it (the sun) becuz you have special 'Get out of Death free card"
as promised by a bunch of Ancient sexist old men who couldn't find their asses using both hands."

They asked "why would I say that, those wise old men were inspired by God."

I said, 'just remember...every sunny day (and So Calif. has many) , take a moment and look at the Sun and tell it (in your mind, you have an eternal promise..'

I then followed up on the wise old men.

I asked, 'What is the worst word a man can call a woman not his wife (well actually wives should be included)

'the 'B' word' said one.

"I'd say the 'C word' said the other..."

I replied, how about the terms use by the wise old dudes who wrote/told you that 'you'd have ever lasting life as long you believed'?
"They coined the term 'harlot & whore'..."

Me: "Now, why on earth did they fail (miserably) with coming up with an equally stinging term for males who are sexually promiscuous (and beyond). If fact, men throughout history have for the most part been the aggressor in matters sexual in nature. Sure some women are quite adept to taking the initiative in sexual situations (trade professionals excluded of course) by a galactic mile heterosexual men have set the terms and rules governing acceptable (and unacceptable) sexual conduct. That being the case, so why did the wise old bastards (didn't say that part) come up with an equally or far more offensive term for their pervasive behaviors?"

Stumped, they wished me a good day, but one asked if she could return for further discussion...I said 'Sure, why not?'

It's been a couple of years, nothing yet. But were I to guess, I'd say looking at the sun every day for a few weeks and telling themselves
they'd really out live the gas giant burning 700 Million Tons of Hydrogen per second...they either concluded, that they were
seriously delusional in their devoted beliefs or cognitive dissonance kicked in and they're still merrily knocking on doors. to this very day...

...so umm, yeah. The Bible (pronounced Buy-Bull)..is Bogus.
BN747

There are many gods that many serve, but there is only one God who rules over the universe.

BN747 : I believe I can outlive the sun, but it won't be thanks to a deity, I put my "faith" in science and technology.

redngold wrote:

There are many gods that many serve, but there is only one God who rules over the universe.

Yup, and her name is "Physics"..

Best regards
Thomas

redngold wrote:

There are many gods that many serve, but there is only one God who rules over the universe.

There are lots of gods inside your head, but at the end you are nothing but dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ooops ...cognitive dissonance meant to = consonance dissonance, my bad

BN747

redngold wrote:

There are many gods that many serve, but there is only one God who rules over the universe.

So our universe is in her hobby basement?

Equally free market, justice, beauty, free will, consciousness in the sense traditionally described, and the American Way are myths. We live by myths. We also need to understand and evaluate those myths. All of us have our various myths by which we live. Feel free to criticize mine, I may criticize yours. LOL

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Equally free market, justice, beauty, free will, consciousness in the sense traditionally described, and the American Way are myths. We live by myths. We also need to understand and evaluate those myths. All of us have our various myths by which we live. Feel free to criticize mine, I may criticize yours. LOL

No, those things aren't myths they are means to codify the morals by which we choose to live as a society. I don't live by myths, I live by my own morals and hopefully those fit with the society within which I live. I won't criticise your belief in the myth but I will criticise your assertion that your myth is true when there is no evidence to back it up.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those asserting any set of values would say the same thing, flip. Values are really slippery once they are closely evaluated. I don't know what it means to say that a myth is true. Myths can be useful, dysfunctional, etc. I would never claim my myths are true and yours aren't. Rather it is more useful to describe how they function in a particular society. Then again I am more agnostic about these things than my friends are who claim to be non-believers. It kind of got to be a running joke.