Is science atheism?

Phat writes: Of course I do. You act as if relativism is the norm. It isn't.

Of course it is, everything is relative. Why are you denying such an obvious truth?

Im not sure. I was taught that beliefs are absolute. Nearly all Biblical Christians (as jar calls us) believe nearly the same basic thing. Although I suppose that I am not a creationist in the strict sense of the definition. Ken is a Ham, and the planet is quite obviously millions if not billions of years old. Adam & Eve were a metaphor. The snake in the garden was an archetype of satan, and my jury is still out regarding Biblical Literalness.

My point is that You cant just lump all gods into the same pile. One of them actually is GOD. An absolute. Not one of many.

Phat writes: You act as if relativism is the norm.

Of course it is. If you think there's anything objective about your views, you have to demonstrate that.

Phat writes: My point is that You cant just lump all gods into the same pile.

But of course you can. There is nothing objective to distinguish one from another.

Phat writes: One of them actually is GOD

You can't possibly know that.

Phat writes: Adam & Eve were a metaphor [...] and my jury is still out regarding Biblical Literalness.

Clearly your jury has called it non-literal.

Phat, you are a Monotheist Trinitarian. That pretty much tells us how rational your thinking is.

One of them actually is GOD

right, king of kings, lord of lords, Odin the Allfather

Phat writes: Stile writes: ...humanists are in love with the idea that we determine our destiny... And we see it differently. I perceive or feel that I DO have another choice.

This response implies that you do not understand the point I'm trying to make.
Which is probably my fault - I'll try to be clearer here.

I understand that you feel like you have another choice.
And I don't have any issues with you feeling such a way.
I don't even care if you can prove it to me or not - you're free to feel any way you'd like.

My issue is that you seem to think that humanists are IN LOVE with this idea.
That is - you seem to think that humanists are choosing or desiring to be "in control" of their own destiny.

But - that's not what's happening.

Humanists are "stuck with" the idea of humans/the-natural-world being "in control" of their own destiny (as much as one can control a possible meteor strike that kills us all?)

Simply because there's no one else doing it.

Your feeling that you have another option is great for you - but it's useless to a humanist because the option does not exist for them.

This doesn't mean the humanist "loves" the option they have - some will and some won't. It only means they are stuck with it regardless of what they want.

It's like someone telling Stile that he's having pepperoni pizza for dinner.
Then they tell Phat that he can choose between the pizza or steak.

Then Phat tells Stile he's IN LOVE with pepperoni pizza because he didn't choose steak.

Stile didn't get the choice. There's only pepperoni pizza available.
Stile may like pizza, or not - it doesn't matter. There's no other option available.
Stile eating pepperoni pizza doesn't mean he's in love with it or wants it or desires it.
Stile is only eating pepperoni pizza because Stile has to eat and its the only option that's available.

I like your analogies. They are so explanatory.

I think that when I use the term "in love with" it is projecting my feelings about why I make the choice that I perceive that I have been given. It never occurred to me that you don't feel that you honestly have such a choice, but now that you have explained it, I can better understand your perspective.

I was assuming that both of us were "in love" with the choice which we made. I get defensive sometimes when my critics/opponents dismiss my perceived choice as fantasy-driven and out of touch with reality. They really have no clue. And I respect and appreciate that you acknowledge how I think also.

Phat writes: I was assuming that both of us were "in love" with the choice which we made.

You slipped back into your original phrasing, using the word "choice." Another analogy is math. We do not choose that 2+2=4. There's just no other option.

I get defensive sometimes when my critics/opponents dismiss my perceived choice as fantasy-driven and out of touch with reality.

Whether criticism is deserved depends. Is belief in God a spiritual choice? Or, as with Raphael, is it a reasoned conclusion based on what he'll insist is evidence. Do you know of any science or mathematics, fields that we know tell us things that are very likely true about the real world, that accepts revelation as an answer?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typos.

Percy writes: Is belief in God a spiritual choice? Or, as with Raphael, is it a reasoned conclusion based on what he'll insist is evidence. Do you know of any science or mathematics, fields that we know tell us things that are very likely true about the real world, that accepts revelation as an answer?

For me, I became convinced when my entire inner feeling changed. I don't believe that I initiated the change and certainly didn't expect it.

Since that initial time, it has largely been confirmation bias.

Phat writes: I get defensive sometimes when my critics/opponents dismiss my perceived choice as fantasy-driven and out of touch with reality. ... For me, I became convinced when my entire inner feeling changed.

Nothing changed but your thinking/feelings. No new information became available to you, and nothing in the real world changed.

Since that initial time, it has largely been confirmation bias.

Why are you knowingly applying a fallacious non-objective method? Announcing this is like bragging, "I'm an idiot only interested in cementing what I already believe while ignoring evidence of other possibilities."

--Percy

My reply was a bit tongue-in-cheek. When I was taught (or read) the formative beliefs which I adapted, I adapted them becuae they sounded rational and correct to me. New information is considered by me based on how it feels to me rather than any evidence attached to it. I am unmoved by only evidence...for evidence is never final..it is by nature progressive.

A living Jesus speaks to my heart. An evolving concept of religion and human responses to it does not.

Percy writes: Nothing changed but your thinking/feelings. No new information became available to you, and nothing in the real world changed.

I would argue assert that awareness of the Holy Spirit was in fact new information.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Phat writes: I am unmoved by only evidence...for evidence is never final..it is by nature progressive. A living Jesus speaks to my heart. An evolving concept of religion and human responses to it does not.

So you reject progressive knowledge based on evidence - in favor of the absolute knowledge that you already have. How arrogant.

Phat writes: My reply was a bit tongue-in-cheek. When I was taught (or read) the formative beliefs which I adapted, I adapted them because they sounded rational and correct to me. New information is considered by me based on how it feels to me rather than any evidence attached to it.

How is this not pretty much the same claptrap as what you said before?

I am unmoved by only evidence...for evidence is never final..it is by nature progressive.

Not even you believe this. If you look out your window and see rain you are immediately convinced by the evidence that it is raining out. If you're driving and see an oncoming car drifting into your lane you're immediately convinced by only evidence that you're in danger and should seek ways to maneuver to the right. You are "moved" by only evidence constantly all the time throughout your life.

I think what you're trying to say is that you feel free to accept or reject evidence based on how you feel about it when it comes to things that can't hurt you or negatively affect you in some way.

--Percy