Howdy, ya'all

[Mike Cl]

God in infallible. The Bible is not infallible,...........................

How do you know this???

[Dreamer]

God has nothing to do with a rainbow or at least it is easy to explain it for what it is--light reflecting through rain.  God is not needed to explain any happening of this world.  I have not come across any theist that can give me any proof or data that god is needed or exists.  and that includes those people in a small community church of which I was a member for a decade or so; if you can imagine, I was even on the board for 3 years and as president for a year.  I very much liked the people, which underscores one of the good things of many of this land's churches; social interactions.  After much study and 'soul' searching, the falseness of the bible (yes, I have read it cover to cover) and the set of beliefs of the christian religion, I simply could not go back.

It was suggested to me that I needed to focus on my 'beliefs' and 'faith' in god.  In other words, nobody could supply data or proof of god's existence--I needed to believe and if I was really good at it, turn to faith (blind belief with no need for facts or data).  I could not suspend my 'thinking', or critical, rational thoughts.  So, I see faith and belief as simply a way for a theist to have no need to 'think' or 'reason'.  So, when I suggest you don't use thinking or rational thought, this is what I mean.  I don't see that as an insult but an observation.  So, you as a theist I see not using or wanting to use reason and thinking, but relying on belief and faith to feed you, not reason and data.  That's your choice, but don't expect me to want to support that point of view. 

Any data or evidence about God's existence could easily be refuted.

Science survives on data, evidence, observations--yet despite all our work and records since that apple fell on that Newton guy, we can't definitively say that gravity both exists and works the way we believe. It's still a theory. It takes belief and faith as well, in different doses. Faith and critical thinking are not enemies or incompatible. Rather, we use them together for nearly everything.

Think about the last chair you sat in. You had lots of evidence to support the idea that it was safe for you to sit there: it's held you before, you're within the weight limit, it was put together well, seems sturdy, or what have you. But, it was an act of faith when you actually sat down--which of course you predicated upon evidence. After all, would you have sat down if it was leaning to one side ready to topple over?

[Dreamer]

How do you know this???

I went into some detail. What are you asking about? 'This'?

[Mike Cl]

Dreamer, you and other theists love to use the word 'sin'.  What is sin and how do we know that certain acts are sinful?

[Mike Cl]

I went into some detail. What are you asking about? 'This'?

Sorry, Dreamer, I had not read your response when I asked this question.  Ignore it.

[Dreamer]

Nature is only beautiful from a distance. Look too closely, and you see it as the bloodbath, cruel struggle for survival that it is. Unless I'm mistaken, most living things die by being eaten alive. Animals at the bottom of the food chain have so many babies because most of them won't make it to adulthood. Some diseases and parasites only seem to exist to cause suffering. Even the human brain, arguably nature's greatest accomplishment, is so fragile, so many things can go wrong for no apparent reason. PTSD and depression seem like pretty huge design flaws.

Brain: "Oh. It appears you've been through a traumatic experience. I know what will help with that! Flashbacks! Constant anxiety! Emotional triggers! Lack of energy! Suicidal thoughts!"

While depression can happen with no apparent reason, PTSD has a root cause. I think I have it because I would have crumbled completely under the weight of such pain; I needed it to be buried, at least somewhat. But, the mind and body want to heal-and it's hard to contain evil.

God created the world, but it's been continuing in sin since pretty much the beginning. This is the disease, germs, natural disasters, etc. Though, I'm not sure I could convey exactly how I have arrived at that conclusion.

[Dreamer]

Dreamer, you and other theists love to use the word 'sin'.  What is sin and how do we know that certain acts are sinful?

I really don't lol I think this is the most I've used it in many years combined. But, sin is what many religious love to harp on, often so they can preen in their sinless states over the pagan rabble.

Sin is simply missing the mark. Some sins are clearly detailed for us, like stealing and murder. Others we are given a framework to evaluate:

 "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

This is what I ask myself: 1. Is it loving God? 2. Is it loving my neighbor as myself? It is not lawful or Biblical if it can't pass through these two sieves, and it's not something I should do.

[Mike Cl]

Any data or evidence about God's existence could easily be refuted.

Science survives on data, evidence, observations--yet despite all our work and records since that apple fell on that Newton guy, we can't definitively say that gravity both exists and works the way we believe. It's still a theory. It takes belief and faith as well, in different doses. Faith and critical thinking are not enemies or incompatible. Rather, we use them together for nearly everything.

Think about the last chair you sat in. You had lots of evidence to support the idea that it was safe for you to sit there: it's held you before, you're within the weight limit, it was put together well, seems sturdy, or what have you. But, it was an act of faith when you actually sat down--which of course you predicated upon evidence. After all, would you have sat down if it was leaning to one side ready to topple over?

I agree with your first sentence. :)
Most people misuse the word 'theory'.  A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested using the scientific method.  The key, is that if the hypothesis was tested and found to be accurate, it becomes a theory.  If not, it is discarded as being not accurate.  In other words, a theory is a tested statement.  That does not mean that a theory is considered true for all time.  If other evidence is presented that shows a theory is wrong, it is changed or no longer considered to be a theory.

I use the words 'faith' and 'belief' differently than you.  Using the chair as an example--I never had 'faith' that my chair was/is safe for me.  I think the chair will be safe and comfortable, and I think that because the last several hundred times I sat in it it has been safe.  But I am fully aware that material things break or malfunction. 
Another example.  I don't believe or have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.  I know it will based upon a lifetime of evidence that it will--and I know from the past that it has for billions of years.  I don't need faith to think the sun will rise.  And I know from the scientific evidence that the sun does not really 'rise', but that because of the rotation of Earth makes it seem so.  It seems to me that theists use belief and faith as a way to blunt thinking, suggesting the best way to find and keep god is to simply believe in him and, even better, use faith and that way one does not have to worry about losing god. So, from my perspective, faith and critical thinking are not the same, but opposite ways to view the universe.  That thought of mine was underscored by my membership of the the church I was a decade long member of. 

[Dreamer]

There are several psychological studies which bring the idea of free will into question. Tests which predict choices made seconds before the subjects consciously made their choices. Identical twins, separated at birth, living very similar lives, right down to the names of their wives. I think it's a mistake to think we're in the driver's seat, when the seat itself is in question.

People with their corpus collosum (the tissue connecting the left and right halves of the brain) surgically separated end up with two competing personalities. Each half is capable of certain functions the other is not, and the lack of communication causes some weird stuff to happen. Limit information to one side of the brain, giving it instructions the other is unaware of, and then asking the other half why they did what they did, they'll come up with an explanation out of thin air. Totally confident in their answer, but completely wrong. Each half may have different preferences. Different favorite colors, different life goals. So what happened? Did their soul split in half? I don't think so. Some take this as evidence there are two minds in the brain, with one (the nonverbal side) taking a backseat and just cooperating with the other mind, and basically forgetting it even exists until it is separated from the other. I think it's more that the mind is a whole multitude of different, modular pieces, all cooperating and yet fighting for control. And all those parts have simply fooled themselves into thinking they're one.

Damn you. This kept distracting me while I was watching the series finale of The King's Affection, and I had to keep rewinding it! #1stWorldProblems

I am going to read some more about studies on the corpus callosum; I love psychology and how the brain works.

Btw, that was completely facetious about the free will question being an easy question to answer. It's absurdly involved.

[Dreamer]

I agree with your first sentence. :)
Most people misuse the word 'theory'.  A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested using the scientific method.  The key, is that if the hypothesis was tested and found to be accurate, it becomes a theory.  If not, it is discarded as being not accurate.  In other words, a theory is a tested statement.  That does not mean that a theory is considered true for all time.  If other evidence is presented that shows a theory is wrong, it is changed or no longer considered to be a theory.

I use the words 'faith' and 'belief' differently than you.  Using the chair as an example--I never had 'faith' that my chair was/is safe for me.  I think the chair will be safe and comfortable, and I think that because the last several hundred times I sat in it it has been safe.  But I am fully aware that material things break or malfunction. 
Another example.  I don't believe or have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.  I know it will based upon a lifetime of evidence that it will--and I know from the past that it has for billions of years.  I don't need faith to think the sun will rise.  And I know from the scientific evidence that the sun does not really 'rise', but that because of the rotation of Earth makes it seem so.  It seems to me that theists use belief and faith as a way to blunt thinking, suggesting the best way to find and keep god is to simply believe in him and, even better, use faith and that way one does not have to worry about losing god. So, from my perspective, faith and critical thinking are not the same, but opposite ways to view the universe.  That thought of mine was underscored by my membership of the the church I was a decade long member of. 

Some churches hate critical thinking. They often have limited views on God, and they demand blind faith and adherence since otherwise their god is threatened. I will never understand Christians who think evolution is not something God could design. I don't impose my own limits on God (more accurately, I root these out and question everything, changing as evidence warrants).

Critical thinking and faith are not the same, but they are far from incompatible. The fact that so many treat them as enemies does not change that they can be quite harmonious and complimentary.

[Mike Cl]

Dreamer, I actually don't see you as the typical theist--I see us as interfacing the world in much the same way. I simply do not think one has to be a theist to be 'moral' or 'ethical' (In fact, I often see the religious as being without ethics or morals--but that is another discussion is defining what each of those mean).  Personally I use the rule of reciprocity (commonly called the do unto others rule) added to the Wicca, first do no harm.  Kindness goes a long way.

Which I was a member of the Unity church, I grew to appreciate one of it's main tools.  Charles Fillmore developed the Unity movement and favored the use of study centers and not churches.  Anyway he also wrote the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary where he presented many bible verses as parables that pertain to our personal, daily lives.  I will give you a tiny, brief example--but remember this is based on the memory of an old guy trying to recall something I wrote 15 or so years ago.  The story about David and Goliath is a parable for how to meet and hopefully defeat those very difficult or impossible problems we all face, time to time.  David comes from the mountains (safety) after spending his life honing his skills, such as the sling, and abilities.  He has to face Goliath but he rejects the tools Saul would give him and uses his instead.  He descends into the valley, where the rubber meets the road.  Because he is so sure of his abilities and his use of his tools, he does the impossible and wins.  Tackle the problems of life by being prepared and sure of yourself.  Anyway, that is how I remember the parable going--probably left stuff out.  If you are not familiar with that book I do think you would like it.

[Hydra009]

God created the world, but it's been continuing in sin since pretty much the beginning. This is the disease, germs, natural disasters, etc. Though, I'm not sure I could convey exactly how I have arrived at that conclusion.

Wait...what? 🤨

I mean, that would sound sorta okay if one grew up in a religious household and didn't have any formal education and lived like 300 or so years ago, but man, that's a jarring sentence to read with a passing understanding of deep time, the evolution of life, and raw physical processes that underpin natural disasters.

You might as well be talking about astrology or faith healing in a serious way.

[Unbeliever]

Yeah, or homeopathy... 🙄

[Dreamer]

Wait...what? 🤨

I mean, that would sound sorta okay if one grew up in a religious household and didn't have any formal education and lived like 300 or so years ago, but man, that's a jarring sentence to read with a passing understanding of deep time, the evolution of life, and raw physical processes that underpin natural disasters.

You might as well be talking about astrology or faith healing in a serious way.

But I'm not speaking about science nor negating those processes.

Neither is that thought a well-considered position; just a wo/andering. Maybe I shouldn't post after smoking, but that's when I feel most connected.

I'm okay with having some things wrong in my understanding of the spiritual world, as long as I have the big things right and continue to work towards love and healing, bearing ever in mind that I just might be wrong. :)

[Hydra009]

I mean...earthquakes are happening and we can go with tectonic plates, fault lines, etc or we can go with sin (i.e. disobedience towards some cosmic lord).  One explanation is a just a tiny bit more testable and logical and reasonable than the other, lol.

Mind-wandering is okay I guess, as long as you remember where you put it.  Cheers.