I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

Do you think it is likely to be true that British imperialism was helpful in improving aboriginal australian art? Could you use the scientific method to determine that? How would you determine it? Figure out what you mean by helpful, find a way to determine if something is helpful or not, look at a part of the bible, use that way to see if it helpful.

I can run about as fast as Usain Bolt compared to the speed of a bullet. But if I were to simply say "I can run about as fast as Usain Bolt" people would quite reasonably point out that this isn't the case unless there is some serious misuse of the word "about" going on. Well you've made your distinction and we all seem to agree (even jar eventually) that the reasons people adopt a belief in gravity aren't the same as the reasons people adopt a belief in God.

You and Usain Bolt are a lot closer together than Usain Bolt and a bullet. Moses and I are a lot closer together than I and Stephen Hawking. You could have saved us all a lot of time by just cheering me in the first place.

You have taken the same route as jar and abandoned the "likely to be true" stipulation. Belief in biblical stories may well be "helpful" in the sense it invokes feelings of comfort or whatever. But so what? Nobody believes in gravity because it gives them a warm fuzzy glow. Well I certainly think looking for empirical evidence of British Imperial influence on Aboriginal art would have to be starting point for even considering such a question. Far more helpful than seeking divine revelation for example.Don't forget it is jar's contention such methods are "totally useless and worthless". Frankly I am bewildered how one would go about answering your question without using empirical methods to discern whether or not there had been any effect at all.

I still think you still underestimate just how much an understanding of gravity permeates modern thinking in ways that were completely unavailable to Moses. I'd put you somewhere midway between Moses and Hawking.(I did a search for posts by you including 'gravity' and found you asking intelligent questions about the inverse square law - Questions that Moses wouldn't understand but which Hawking could presumably answer) If it makes you happy I'll do it now.

Why must you continue to misrepresent my position.You have never asked me about how one adopts a belief in God and I have always said that the reasons and methods people adopt a belief in god are not the same as for gravity.Have you no honesty or morality?

Anything else except conclusions about gravity, apparently....You may not have noticed but the bible contains quite a lot of parts about God. I have about as much honesty and morality as you do. (See Ringo's use of "about" for further clarification)Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes, lots of parts about god. But again as I have pointed out to you repeatedly, you use tools and methods appropriate to the specific question.No when it comes to whether you should believe in god or not, no one really gives a damn. If you wish to believe there is no god then fine.

Well no, you would have found if it is likely to be true that the particular part of the Bible is helpful. You can use science to determine if the stories were true, like how we know there wasn't a Flud. Looking for empirical evidence for the part of the Bible helping you would also be better.I don't think I'm getting your point.

As I think I have stipulated a number of times - The aim is to believe things that are likely to be true.Is this not an aim you also share? Well I have repeatedly asked you about some of the non-scientifc tools and methods that might be applied to assess the veracity of theological claims (e.g. the very obvious theological claim that God exists). But you have yet to reveal any of these mysterious methods or tools.The closest you got to an answer related to how people's and cultures are formed and youir advice on that was to dismiss the methods of psychology, history, sociology, anthropology, archaeology etc. as "totally useless and worthless" and to instead ask a Rabbi. Was that what the Rabbi said?

You seem to be suggesting that theological claims can be assessed empirically much like theories of gravity can.

Well that would depend on the claim, wouldn't it?

You're one of them moon conspiracy freaks aren't you? The whole thing was a fake you know.Besides, they're not in my version of the bible so ... who cares? It's success is wholly contained in the fact that I prayed upon it, thought about it and consulted with god about it. It's to my liking and, just so happens, god agrees. He told me so. Himself.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I think it is a pitiful sophomoric question."True" often has very little meaning as I have pointed out to yo several times in this very thread. There are things that are true and false at the same time and things where it is totally irrelevant whether they are true and false.

Belief is for the things whose truth value we can not assess.