Hi, Aurino.

I think we've had this same conversation about fifteen times before, so forgive me if my reply isn't as long as yours, but I need to get to the heart of the matter fast before we go off track. :)

I know that most religious people aren't fundamentalists, however that does not mean that those non-fundies don't make religious statements intended to objectively describe the universe. The vast majority do, and I view that as fallacious. But, let's explore both possibilities:

A) Person X's religious beliefs about God and the universe comfort him, and he genuinely believes that his beliefs are true outside of himself. He thinks that God exists in the way he thinks of him. (In my opinion, most religious people)

B) Person Y takes a great deal of comfort from his religious beliefs as well, although he thinks it to be a psychological phenomenon and nothing more (his beliefs help him, though he doesn't think of them as objectively true)

In my opinion, the first guy is mistaken because he is making absolute statements about the nature of reality without sufficient evidence to do so, and hence his beliefs are unverifiable and unteneble. In addition, his beliefs are perfectly disprovable by science, since it falls smack dab into science's ballpark. (observational reality)

The second guy's beliefs may avoid science, but I don't think that beliefs that are entirely internal and subjective should be classified as religion, nor should they provide comfort or solace. Why should a belief that is admittedly purely psychological and internal make you happier about the outside world?

You can't be a religious person and not fall into one of the two categories. Either you think your beliefs are universally true or you don't.

• I noticed that - aurino_s - September 17, 2002 - 18:19 UTC
  • You're a cruisin' for a bruisin' - stormcrow - September 17, 2002 - 19:29 UTC
    • Jeez - stormcrow - September 17, 2002 - 19:30 UTC
      • Here you go... - phillipmartin - September 17, 2002 - 21:44 UTC
        • I know, it was a joke - stormcrow - September 17, 2002 - 22:00 UTC
          • Ohh, that explaines the "finger"... - phillipmartin - September 17, 2002 - 22:24 UTC
    • The universe "exists"??? - aurino_s - September 17, 2002 - 19:44 UTC
      • The universe is DEFINED as what exists - stormcrow - September 17, 2002 - 20:47 UTC
        • God is DEFINED as the cause of what exists - aurino_s - September 18, 2002 - 12:51 UTC
          • God cannot be defined - yanniru - September 19, 2002 - 11:59 UTC
            • I think that was sort of like perhaps I guess my point - aurino_s - September 19, 2002 - 12:45 UTC
              • (:-)) - yanniru - September 19, 2002 - 20:24 UTC
      • Also - stormcrow - September 17, 2002 - 21:01 UTC
        • Also 2 - aurino_s - September 18, 2002 - 13:13 UTC
          • Ya think so? - stormcrow - September 18, 2002 - 14:30 UTC
            • I sure do - aurino_s - September 18, 2002 - 17:03 UTC
  • hmm... - ibelieveingod - September 18, 2002 - 05:32 UTC
    • If you think God cares about your personal finances... - aurino_s - September 18, 2002 - 15:23 UTC
      • yes He does, especially when it results in me growing spiritualy - ibelieveingod - September 23, 2002 - 15:07 UTC
• Stormcrow likes Bickering but whimpers when I analyze his ideas - quiet - September 18, 2002 - 03:01 UTC
  • I also whimper when I get bit my mosquitoes :) - stormcrow - September 18, 2002 - 03:06 UTC
    • You probably need to intermarry to the north, then. - carefuluniverse - September 19, 2002 - 03:45 UTC