It's obvious that our personal comfort in believing something has no bearing on the truth of it. To the extent one can choose to believe or not when there's a lack of evidence of something, that would be a nod towards pragmatism. That is, if I choose to believe in a fantastical claim that in no way interferes with my daily existence, but it does offer me comfort, then that would be a basis to believe in it, while admittedly not making the belief true. I choose to believe for the positive effects, not because of a delusion that I have arrived at empirical evidence or that my position is logically entailed. — Hanover

No. It's a nod towards favoritism. There are many ideas that have no evidence. So why choose to believe in one idea with no evidence over another if not for some emotional attachment?

That's all well and good if some idea makes you feel good. The problem is that when you participate in a discussion about the true nature of the universe and it's causes, your emotional attachments to some explanation isn't useful. In a discussion about what is true, it is a category error, or at least off-topic, to inject your feelings into it.

This began as a comparison of alcohol to faith as in either could offer meaning.
— Hanover

I can’t tell if you’re kidding.
— praxis

Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful".
— 180 Proof — Hanover

Hmmm, well now, seems I’ve gotten myself into quite the pickle. :brow:

Perhaps @180 Proof can rescue my dignity.

Your "dignity" is fine, praxis; @Hanover, however, ain't looking so good (re: denialism) it seems to me.

Hmmm, well now, seems I’ve gotten myself into quite the pickle. :brow:

Perhaps 180 Proof can rescue my dignity. — praxis

:clap: :fire:

our "dignity" is fine, praxis; Hanover, however, ain't looking so good (re: denialism) it seems to me. — 180 Proof

Strawman. Non-sequitur. :roll:

:lol:

The addict looks for comfort or relief in a world devoid of meaning, except for the empty, though world-stuffing, ephemeral meaning looked for in the sciences we are hung in from young age on, hold at our Achilles heel while struggling against it in vain. The drugs merely fill an unsatisfied emptiness, unable, while giving a temporary high, to substantially provide a smoking pistol for the bright flash. Religion might do the trick. So any atheist claim is or an attempt to climb the power hierarchy of science, or a striking disability (a birth defect maybe) to understand or to even try to understand, the motives of the theists.

"Subjectivity is truth." Discuss.

Subjectivity is truth." Discuss. — Hanover

In sincere humbleness I can do no other than agree. If we truly love the human being and want to fully explore our humanity we have to admit that all objective truths, and I mean all of them, are basically subjective stories. Which doesn't mean denying the absolute truth as independent of us, an idea initiated in ancient Greece (Xenophanes) which propagated in history to find a climax in the world of science, trying to land on this independent true reality but without actually touching it. An idea embraced by oldies like Plato (the mathematical realm, approximated by mathematical expressions) or youngsters like Sir Karl PimplePopper, claiming indeed we never will actually touch upon reality as we should always nervously try to falsify.

No. We don't have to deny that idea. But what we do have to deny, is that, self-contradictory (paradoxically) as it might sound, the uniqueness of that absolute objective reality. It depends on who, or which cultural ensemble, or even which creature existing besides of us (which are created by the gods just as us) it's asked. They all have their objective stories. None of these stories should be given an advantage over the others. If we want to be truly human we have to admit that and let them all be part of humanity. For the benefit of all.

It's the subjective truth!

So, while I think gods exists independently of us, for all people and creatures, the atheist's objective reality is one of matter only. Or whatever other image. A tesseract reality maybe. Or a mathematical. Or a dreamtime reality. Take your pick. Why is so hard to concede? Because of that old Greek initiative still echoing today? And pretty strongly, I might add...

Is that your view or just a random sentence?

Empiricism is something. I am more inclined to lean towards empiricism I would say. What does what it does, does what it does. If it makes no logical sense to me it still does what it does.

Is that your view or just a random sentence? — I like sushi

Well, this is what got me thinking about all this;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concluding_Unscientific_Postscript_to_Philosophical_Fragments

Atheists often have a strong sense of morality. Such cannot be said for typical Christian doctrine. How can the act of one person transfer its merit to another person. In Christianity you owe an infinite debt to God for sins which means you owe infinite repentance. In Christianity Jesus does most of the repenting for you so that his soul becomes your soul and you can enter where only the clean can enter. So we have unworthy people living with someone's soul in them. That's really how it is for Christians. Isn't it more reasonable to say a person can change his ways by his own through karmic purging?

Atheists often have a strong sense of morality. — Gregory

And theists don't? Maybe it's a different kind though.

Religion can make good people believe bad things, like that God can order slayings of any person at anytime.

Religion can make good people believe bad things, like that God can order slayings of any person at anytime. — Gregory

It's always people who do the slayings, whether in the name of God or, more topically, Putin. At least we can define God as the good and deny unholy acts are decreed by him, but only falsely in his name. The same cannot be said of Putin. He is not an ideal or representation of the good.

It's always people who do the slayings, whether in the name of God or, more topically, Putin. At least we can define God as the good and deny unholy acts are decreed by him, but only falsely in his name. The same cannot be said of Putin. He is not an ideal or representation of the good. — Hanover

Didn't God flood the world?

Didn't God flood the world? — Jackson

No.

No. — Hanover

The Bible lied?

The Bible lied? — Jackson

Must we really start this discussion from the simplistic strawmen or can we fast forward to a place of higher sophistication? Modern fundamentalist readings are absurd. There weren't polar bears and camels on an ark bouncing around in a violent storm for 40 days and nights.

I also don't recall remotely suggesting the Bible was the work of God.

But to your question, a work of fiction doesn't lie. Winnie the Pooh isn't a lie. It's a tale of talking bears and donkeys, but I don't think you'd read it thinking it were non-fiction. By the same token, that it is fiction doesn’t mean it can't contain truths.

So your Bible / Qur'an is a "work of fiction"? Thus, it's protagonist "YHWH" / "Allah" is also fictional?

So your Bible / Qur'an is a "work of fiction"? Thus, it's protagonist "YHWH" / "Allah" is also fictional? — 180 Proof

The Bible is fiction, but fiction doesn't mean it can't contain truths. That a fictional book speaks of God (or trees) doesn't mean God (or trees) don't exist. I assume that's the drift of your question.

The Bible lied? — Jackson

No, Gilgamesh lied. By the time the Bible hit it was misinformation.

At least we can define God as the good ... — Hanover

The God of the Hebrew Bible cannot be defined as good without ignoring all the bad things attributed to him. The stories may be myth but as you say:

By the same token, that it is fiction doesn’t mean it can't contain truths. — Hanover

So what is the truth about God as depicted in the stories of wrath and destruction? Do you think the depictions are false because they do not conform to God as you define him? One might just as well say that God as you define him is a fiction. It seems far more simplistic and lacking in sophistication.

So what is the truth about God as depicted in the stories of wrath and destruction? Do you think the depictions are false because they do not conform to God as you define him? One might just as well say that God as you define him is a fiction. It seems far more simplistic and lacking in sophistication. — Fooloso4

You submit a strawman that certainly no significant group adheres to, which is that the Hebrew Bible is to be read literally and in isolation. No one does that. If they did, adherents would be stoning little girls. That they don't should give you pause as to what they must be looking at to decide how to act.

So, unless you really want to study the theology of religious groups that hold the Bible sacred, and you think that somehow this bears on the question of whether God is evil (which is the impetus of this recent turn in discussion), we can do that.

That discussion will in itself be a response to a strawman because I've never stated that God's definition is to be found in the Bible, but the conversation would be instructive to the fact that your own understanding of how the Hebrew Bible is interpreted and applied is incorrect.

No one does that. If they did, adherents would be stoning little girls. That they don't should give you pause as to what they must be looking at to decide how to act. — Hanover

Indeed. Do you know have a view why it is that Jewish fundamentalism hasn't gone down this path, given that Islamic fundamentalism (by contrast) seems quite ready to kill women, children and apostates in the name of Koranic fidelity?

So what scriptures say about "God" is fictional but "God" itself is not a fictional character (like "Abe Lincoln" in that old Star Trek episode "The Savage Curtain" or "Jesus" in Monty Python's Life of Brian)? :chin:

Indeed. Do you know have a view why it is that Jewish fundamentalism hasn't gone down this path, given that Islamic fundamentalism (by contrast) seems quite ready to kill women, children and apostates in the name of Koranic fidelity? — Tom Storm

I tend to draw very blurred lines between theology and politics, meaning why a civilization behaves as it does might be related to underlying worldviews and religious views, but also to wars, leadership, and all sorts of political forces. I also don't subscribe to the belief that religious beliefs are immutable, as they change with demographic changes, economic issues, and all things political as well.

So why are Muslims where they are right now? Maybe look at the Koran in part, but look at the whole picture. A single invasion, for instance, can change history more quickly than theological shift.

As to what I was getting at about the use of the Hebrew Bible for the Orthodox views, the Talmud (the supposed oral tradition) and the rabbinic law arising from that, dramatically altered the religion. The Torah does not have priority over the Talmud. See, generally, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah

So what scriptures say about "God" is fictional but "God" itself is not a fictional character (like "Abe Lincoln" in that old Star Trek episode "The Savage Curtain" or "Jesus" in Monty Python's Life of Brian)? — 180 Proof

I can only repeat what I've said, which is that the fictionality of the Bible neither affirms nor negates its literal statements. I mean could there have been a Tiny Tim and Ebenezer Scrooge? I guess, but who cares? The story's literal truth doesn't impact its meaning.

Weak dodge.

Weak dodge. — 180 Proof

Nah, you're trying to make the fact that it's fictional mean that every fact contained in it is false. To be fictional simply means the factual claims in the book need not be true for the relevance of the story, but it doesn't require they be false.

Nah, you're trying to make the fact that it's fictional mean that every fact contained in it is false. To be fictional simply means the factual claims in the book need not be true for the relevance of the story, but it doesn't require they be false. — Hanover

If you are saying the Bible is fictional the same way Shakespeare's Hamlet is fictional then I would agree.