Religious Orientation

[nostrum]

I have jumped in the middle here, so let me make _my_ position clear.  My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself gives one power.  My ground, and my evidence is the effect this leap of faith has had on my life.  It's really quite logical.  If you don't acknowledge it, you fight it.  If you do acknowledge it, you can approach synchrony and waste less energy in needless conflict.  Of course, the problem comes in when you start to define (restrict) that power.  Maintaining an open mind about how to interact with your environment is crucial.  I can only say that with certainty because I have struggled with the opposite.

Dont you mean "My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself can give one power."?
And why introduce a false dichotomy?
How can you tell if it is a needless conflict or not?
What problems arises from defining specifically? Understanding too much?
An open mind is nothing without a good filter.

And why would a hypothesis (a scientific term) not be concerned with testability when the entire foundation of science and the scientific method is based on it. The reason why you make a hypothesis is so you can test it and if it holds up or not. If not you arent really doing much.
Technically there is no clear line between a hypothesis and a theory. When one or several hypothesis obtain a acceptable predictive power it is usually referred to as theory (the scientific term).

[1713300249]

1713300249

[1713300249]

1713300249

[FooDSt4mP]

I have jumped in the middle here, so let me make _my_ position clear.  My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself gives one power.  My ground, and my evidence is the effect this leap of faith has had on my life.  It's really quite logical.  If you don't acknowledge it, you fight it.  If you do acknowledge it, you can approach synchrony and waste less energy in needless conflict.  Of course, the problem comes in when you start to define (restrict) that power.  Maintaining an open mind about how to interact with your environment is crucial.  I can only say that with certainty because I have struggled with the opposite.

Dont you mean "My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself can give one power."?
And why introduce a false dichotomy?
How can you tell if it is a needless conflict or not?
What problems arises from defining specifically? Understanding too much?
An open mind is nothing without a good filter.

And why would a hypothesis (a scientific term) not be concerned with testability when the entire foundation of science and the scientific method is based on it. The reason you make a hypothesis is so you can test it. If not you arent really doing much.
Technically there is no clear line between a hypothesis and a theory. When one or several hypothesis obtain a acceptable predictive power it is usually referred to as theory (the scientific term).

You are right "can give one power" would be a better formulation of my statement.  If done incorrectly, it can instead give others power over you.  Can you be more specific about the "false dichotomy" I am introducing?  I describe the conflict as "needless" because it can be avoided or reduced.  There is conflict that is necessary, and you will often find that type to be unavoidable.  The problem with definitions are that they restrict the power.  What you feel that power is capable of will affect how that power manifests itself in your life.  If to you God is some bearded guy who sends angels down to do his bidding, you will not accept a gift from a divine being in a different form.  And yes, I agree a mind can be too open.  Before all of this is explored, a firm basis in rational thinking is prerequisite.  That rationality will certainly be challenged, and many tend to be swept away from it if they are not firmly rooted.  As for the discussion of science and the scientific method, all I have to say is that our modern expression of science is laughable compared to the rigor of previous generations.  In my case, I have explained my hypothesis (acknowledging a higher power can add value to you), my methodology (acknowledging such higher power), and my conclusion (my hypothesis is correct).  The only thing missing is results, but those details are personal.  Unless you want to spend a lot of time becoming my friend, you'll just have to take my word for it.  I can tell you that without my innate curiosity about the subject, I would be locked into a much smaller world than the one I now experience.

[nostrum]

I have jumped in the middle here, so let me make _my_ position clear.  My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself gives one power.  My ground, and my evidence is the effect this leap of faith has had on my life.  It's really quite logical.  If you don't acknowledge it, you fight it.  If you do acknowledge it, you can approach synchrony and waste less energy in needless conflict.  Of course, the problem comes in when you start to define (restrict) that power.  Maintaining an open mind about how to interact with your environment is crucial.  I can only say that with certainty because I have struggled with the opposite.

Dont you mean "My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself can give one power."?
And why introduce a false dichotomy?
How can you tell if it is a needless conflict or not?
What problems arises from defining specifically? Understanding too much?
An open mind is nothing without a good filter.

And why would a hypothesis (a scientific term) not be concerned with testability when the entire foundation of science and the scientific method is based on it. The reason you make a hypothesis is so you can test it. If not you arent really doing much.
Technically there is no clear line between a hypothesis and a theory. When one or several hypothesis obtain a acceptable predictive power it is usually referred to as theory (the scientific term).

You are right "can give one power" would be a better formulation of my statement.  If done incorrectly, it can instead give others power over you.  Can you be more specific about the "false dichotomy" I am introducing?  I describe the conflict as "needless" because it can be avoided or reduced.  There is conflict that is necessary, and you will often find that type to be unavoidable.  The problem with definitions are that they restrict the power.  What you feel that power is capable of will affect how that power manifests itself in your life.  If to you God is some bearded guy who sends angels down to do his bidding, you will not accept a gift from a divine being in a different form.  And yes, I agree a mind can be too open.  Before all of this is explored, a firm basis in rational thinking is prerequisite.  That rationality will certainly be challenged, and many tend to be swept away from it if they are not firmly rooted.  As for the discussion of science and the scientific method, all I have to say is that our modern expression of science is laughable compared to the rigor of previous generations.  In my case, I have explained my hypothesis (acknowledging a higher power can add value to you), my methodology (acknowledging such higher power), and my conclusion (my hypothesis is correct).  The only thing missing is results, but those details are personal.  Unless you want to spend a lot of time becoming my friend, you'll just have to take my word for it.  I can tell you that without my innate curiosity about the subject, I would be locked into a much smaller world than the one I now experience.

The false dichotomy: "If you don't acknowledge it, you fight it."
How do you determine if a conflict should be avoided or reduced?
Are you saying that making clear definitions will create problems in the form of misrepresented pictures or ideas? If so its not done correctly, because the purpose of having clear definition is exactly the opposite.

How would you test your hypothesis?
Acknowledging something blindly is a strange methology in my mind. I would not consider it to be an efficient method and I am unsure what valuable objective data can be produced from it.
What is your conclusion based on? How can you tell if your hypothesis is correct? And how can you convince others? And how can you make a good conclusion without results?

The problem is that we all have different experiences, and we need good tools to separate the illusions from the facts. We will always be wrong, but we will always get more and more accurate the better tools we use. And our minds are the foundation for it all.

If my writing seems cold and cynical its only because Im trying to be as clear as I can

[dayfall]

Delusion can give one power.  I agree.  The hopeless, the insecure, the frightened, the cowardly, the wrong, and the arrogant.   Weather or not they should, is probably beyond this conversation.  I can certainly see how believing in a higher power can motivate some people.

The only thing missing is results.

My thoughts exactly.  Speaking of higher power, I wonder what those aliens use for money?  

[dayfall]

Perhaps you're thinking of a hypothesis. Merriam-Webster's definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory) makes no mention of testability.  Besides, proving something is untestable is it's own can of worms.

The Wikipedia article does.  A scientific theory is a tested hypothesis.  Scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable.

If you mean that lack of evidence for a hypothesis (layman: theory) doesn't disprove it, then it really depends on if the evidence was predicted by the theory.  Does not finding the evidence sought after make any difference?  I have found that if you only look to confirm something you will succeed in showing it to be "true".  But you only find the real truth when trying to disprove it.  Ask any snake-oil salesman.

[FooDSt4mP]

I have jumped in the middle here, so let me make _my_ position clear.  My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself gives one power.  My ground, and my evidence is the effect this leap of faith has had on my life.  It's really quite logical.  If you don't acknowledge it, you fight it.  If you do acknowledge it, you can approach synchrony and waste less energy in needless conflict.  Of course, the problem comes in when you start to define (restrict) that power.  Maintaining an open mind about how to interact with your environment is crucial.  I can only say that with certainty because I have struggled with the opposite.

Dont you mean "My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself can give one power."?
And why introduce a false dichotomy?
How can you tell if it is a needless conflict or not?
What problems arises from defining specifically? Understanding too much?
An open mind is nothing without a good filter.

And why would a hypothesis (a scientific term) not be concerned with testability when the entire foundation of science and the scientific method is based on it. The reason you make a hypothesis is so you can test it. If not you arent really doing much.
Technically there is no clear line between a hypothesis and a theory. When one or several hypothesis obtain a acceptable predictive power it is usually referred to as theory (the scientific term).

You are right "can give one power" would be a better formulation of my statement.  If done incorrectly, it can instead give others power over you.  Can you be more specific about the "false dichotomy" I am introducing?  I describe the conflict as "needless" because it can be avoided or reduced.  There is conflict that is necessary, and you will often find that type to be unavoidable.  The problem with definitions are that they restrict the power.  What you feel that power is capable of will affect how that power manifests itself in your life.  If to you God is some bearded guy who sends angels down to do his bidding, you will not accept a gift from a divine being in a different form.  And yes, I agree a mind can be too open.  Before all of this is explored, a firm basis in rational thinking is prerequisite.  That rationality will certainly be challenged, and many tend to be swept away from it if they are not firmly rooted.  As for the discussion of science and the scientific method, all I have to say is that our modern expression of science is laughable compared to the rigor of previous generations.  In my case, I have explained my hypothesis (acknowledging a higher power can add value to you), my methodology (acknowledging such higher power), and my conclusion (my hypothesis is correct).  The only thing missing is results, but those details are personal.  Unless you want to spend a lot of time becoming my friend, you'll just have to take my word for it.  I can tell you that without my innate curiosity about the subject, I would be locked into a much smaller world than the one I now experience.

The false dichotomy: "If you don't acknowledge it, you fight it."
How do you determine if a conflict should be avoided or reduced?
Are you saying that making clear definitions will create problems in the form of misrepresented pictures or ideas? If so its not done correctly, because the purpose of having clear definition is exactly the opposite.

How would you test your hypothesis?
Acknowledging something blindly is a strange methology in my mind. I would not consider it to be an efficient method and I am unsure what valuable objective data can be produced from it.
What is your conclusion based on? How can you tell if your hypothesis is correct? And how can you convince others? And how can you make a good conclusion without results?

The problem is that we all have different experiences, and we need good tools to separate the illusions from the facts. We will always be wrong, but we will always get more and more accurate the better tools we use. And our minds are the foundation for it all.

If my writing seems cold and cynical its only because Im trying to be as clear as I can

That is only false if you assume the power does not exist.  I can't create a clear definition because my mind is not capable of comprehending on that level.  That's why I delegate to the power above that is capable of applying rational behavior on such a scale.  Yes, my methodology is strange when compared to other scientific methodologies, but we are discussing faith.  It wouldn't be called a leap of faith if the term wasn't in some way representative.  Unfortunately, I know of no other way to test my hypothesis.  If you can devise such a way, please share it.  I agree separating illusions from facts is crucial, however throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a danger as well.  Just because it is beyond the limits of my logic doesn't mean I can dismiss it at illogical.  Sometimes I can, but sometimes I have to accept my limits and trust things will work out.  And in those times when I can't see the logic, fighting with it rarely brings it to a head.  When I relax and let it go is when things resolve themselves.  Either things work out in my favor, and I am pleasantly surprised at how things unfolded, or it fades away.  Either way, I get to relax and not worry about it.  Finally, don't worry about your tone.  I'm used to much worse.  You hear a lot of strife when you have faith at an engineering school.  If I seem confident, it's because I am.  I have been overconfident at times, and have gotten myself into quite a bit of trouble.  But, by refining my tools I am much better now about catching my arrogance before it leads to problems.  I appreciate you taking the time to debate with me.  I truly enjoy a good discussion, but it will probably be a while before I come back to this one.  I'm leaving town for a week tomorrow morning.  If anything I've said sparks your interest, ask for a sign, then forget about it.  If your time is right, you will find what you seek.  If not, you've wasted 2 seconds talking to yourself.

[FooDSt4mP]

Delusion can give one power.  I agree.  The hopeless, the insecure, the frightened, the cowardly, the wrong, and the arrogant.   Weather or not they should, is probably beyond this conversation.  I can certainly see how believing in a higher power can motivate some people.

The only thing missing is results.

My thoughts exactly.  Speaking of higher power, I wonder what those aliens use for money?  

I explained why it's missing.  Do you want to divulge to us all your personal thoughts, feelings, habits, and challenges?  The results are real, and the fact that I'm spending so much effort trying to convince people is evidence of one of two things: I'm telling the truth and I want to be helpful to others, or I'm defending my beliefs out of a sense of self-preservation.  You seem to have already decided which it is, and if you're right I hope it is made plainly clear to me, but that's not something you can do.  I have made no mention of aliens, and your snap judgments show you have not taken the time to consider these issues in any detail.  Please add to the conversation, or stay quiet.  There is no need for snarky comments and name calling.  I would love to hear any well developed ideas you have on the topic.

[dayfall]

I would love to hear any well developed ideas you have on the topic.

"I explained why it's missing."

I will "explain" also.  It isn't true.

"Do you want to divulge to us all your personal thoughts, feelings, habits, and challenges?"

I don't think everyone here wants to know.   Why should I.  As for challenges, HA!  Religions are by design unchallengeable.  I have debated religious folk for years, and I have realized the first sign of a faithist is that nothing reasonable can possibly convince them they are wrong.  Same goes for all mystics.  Asking for a challenge (unless you will seriously accept one) is a deception.

You did mention a higher power, right?  Aliens!  Oh, well if you meant a personal god then just say that instead.  You certainly made the leap quickly enough.

When you say you are telling the truth, do you mean that you aren't lying and you actually believe the things you say, or do you mean that your god is real?  The former is understood, and the latter is ... contended.  "I want to be helpful to others"  Yeah, I believe it.  You have the TRUTH and want everyone to believe YOU. 

It seems you have decided what I thought of you too. 

"shows you have not taken the time to consider these issues in any detail"

Your powers of reasoning are lacking.  Sorry, but you are wrong.  No matter how wright you think you are and how much "explaining" you do. 

Do you have any good anti-atheist books you want to recommend?

[FooDSt4mP]

Shambhala: Sacred Path of the Warrior.  It is not anti-atheist, but it get's at my point in a more atheist-friendly way then I am capable of.  There are many aspects that can be understood without the need for a God concept.  But progress comes from surrender when it is time to surrender, and from fighting when the time is to fight.  I was not referring to "challenges" as in a religious challenge.  I was referring to my own challenges.  Tendencies I have that I must be mindful of.  If I'm mindful, I can use them as talents, but if I get lazy, they can cause problems.  Everyone has their own idiosyncrasies.  The only truth I will proclaim is that there is value to acknowledging your limits and acknowledging you can go beyond them by following a higher order.  If you disagree, can you please explain why?  Also, why do you feel you need to attack me personally?  Have my beliefs somehow hurt you?  Do you even know what I believe, or are you lumping me in with other "believers" that I likely share very little in common with?  I will be the first to admit religions often perpetuate dogma, but they are built on wisdom that has been cast aside for more reductionist ideas.  Both ways have their place, and the new can not cast aside the old without having to relearning the same mistakes.

[nostrum]

That is only false if you assume the power does not exist.  I can't create a clear definition because my mind is not capable of comprehending on that level.  That's why I delegate to the power above that is capable of applying rational behavior on such a scale.  Yes, my methodology is strange when compared to other scientific methodologies, but we are discussing faith.  It wouldn't be called a leap of faith if the term wasn't in some way representative.  Unfortunately, I know of no other way to test my hypothesis.  If you can devise such a way, please share it.  I agree separating illusions from facts is crucial, however throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a danger as well.  Just because it is beyond the limits of my logic doesn't mean I can dismiss it at illogical.  Sometimes I can, but sometimes I have to accept my limits and trust things will work out.  And in those times when I can't see the logic, fighting with it rarely brings it to a head.  When I relax and let it go is when things resolve themselves.  Either things work out in my favor, and I am pleasantly surprised at how things unfolded, or it fades away.  Either way, I get to relax and not worry about it.  Finally, don't worry about your tone.  I'm used to much worse.  You hear a lot of strife when you have faith at an engineering school.  If I seem confident, it's because I am.  I have been overconfident at times, and have gotten myself into quite a bit of trouble.  But, by refining my tools I am much better now about catching my arrogance before it leads to problems.  I appreciate you taking the time to debate with me.  I truly enjoy a good discussion, but it will probably be a while before I come back to this one.  I'm leaving town for a week tomorrow morning.  If anything I've said sparks your interest, ask for a sign, then forget about it.  If your time is right, you will find what you seek.  If not, you've wasted 2 seconds talking to yourself.

I think there is at least one more thing we can agree on; we are talking too much past each other to have a constructive debate. If we wanted to go somewhere with this we have to build the debate from the basics that we agree on. We are debating apples and oranges but we are not sure if the opposing part has the same definition of fruit, if you understand what Im getting at

If you see this before you go or after you get back let me know what you think of these two quotes:

"Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further."

"Christian faith requires that faith persists in the face of the impossible, and that humans have the capability to simuntaneously believe in two contradictory things."

[ploum]

If you've ever skimmed the Bible, the book of Acts has a few cases of martyrdom and the historian Josephus mentions a few as well if you're more inclined to trust documentation from an outside source.

The problem with christians is that they stick to one book. They proove everything by stating that "everything is true in the bible". If I do the same for any book (let's take the first harry potter), I can tell you a lot of thing.

But there's no point to argue because the fact that the bible is the truth is so deeply engraved in christians brains that they can told you that "the bible is the truth because it is told in the bible" without even realizing how stupid it is.

Your examples don't have much to do with mine I'm afraid the 12 disciples weren't patriots or fanatic jihadist, they were ordinary men who came from various trades. The remarkable thing about these people was that they constantly doubted Jesus and his teachings and even abandoned him when the time of the crucification came. So something must of happened that turned these men into remarkable pillars of faith so that 11 out of the 12 were willing to give up their lives.

Why are the examples different? The Jihadist were, at the beginning, very normal people, with wifes and kids. At some point, they were so deeply convinced by someone that they wanted to give their life for that. It happens all the time in human history that some people are willing to die for ideas.

That's for me when I consider people to be dangerous extremists : when they are considering their ideas more important than their own lives.

I would die myself to protect other human beings. But, if someone point a gun at me and say "I kill all atheists", I will gladly reply that "I believe in God".

[dayfall]

Shambhala: Sacred Path of the Warrior.  It is not anti-atheist, but it get's at my point in a more atheist-friendly way then I am capable of.  There are many aspects that can be understood without the need for a God concept. 

I would rather a non-friendly atheist book.  As long as Occam's razor doen't cut out most of the pages.  If I am wrong, I demand to be shown as such.  It doesn't have to be friendly.  Also, I don't know of anything that is understood WITH a god concept.  It seems to me everything is understood best without it.  In any case, I'll definitely check the book out.  I am looking for some good twist your mind philosophy, anyhow.

I was referring to my own challenges.  Tendencies I have that I must be mindful of.

Who can claim they are "right"?  Is it moral to propose information with out making it known first how you know it to be true?  Is there a difference between belief and fact?  Which is more important?

Just some "challenges".  Do you have any for me?

you can go beyond them by following a higher order.  If you disagree, can you please explain why?

Well, considering i apparently have no idea what you mean by "higher order" or "higher power".   I can't agree nor disagree.  Is this "higher order" real or imaginary?

Also, why do you feel you need to attack me personally?  Have my beliefs somehow hurt you?

I don't remember doing that.

[Xenland]

Although ones beliefs aren't important to anyone else or possible to relevantly talk about beliefs with out confusion involved.
My belief is that everything in front of me is there, was there, and always will be there.
Maybe not in the same molecular structural patterns as my past might once perceived it but its still a fact.

Personally to me there are 6 billion people on the planet so that must mean their are 6 billion ways to perceive one thing or subject(but there are a million things and subjects!).
So my conclusion is that everyone has the same god, it just goes through a their brain or filter as I like to call them differently.
I've seen some interesting things happen, miracles maybe. They say that those who are in awe or think they see miracles happen don't understand the processes that are happening behind the Curtin. I beg to differ that I realise that the universe has rules that was, is and always will be, and if there is this infinite thread holding it all together that some like to call God I would hope that man in the sky would stay true to his word and keep the rules how they are, and always will be.
 If the universe was chaotic such as one day I get up eat my cereal gravity is in place, then the all of a sudden "Just be cause the universe feels like" it and no particular cause and effect all the molecules start to disperse at high speeds in multi-dimensional directions then I die instantly because of actions that were out of my own personal control, I'd say there is no god and there is no laws or rules of invisible thread of infiniteness holding it all together.

Hope you guys and gals, liked my interpretation on the infinite vastness of creation and decaying....

[Xenland]

Don't mean to double post but im skimming over a couple of posts on this thread and it seems like some people know what im talking about filters, and different experiences; awesome. Glad to hear that we are all closer then we think in differences

[foxcartier]

If you've ever skimmed the Bible, the book of Acts has a few cases of martyrdom and the historian Josephus mentions a few as well if you're more inclined to trust documentation from an outside source.

The problem with christians is that they stick to one book. They proove everything by stating that "everything is true in the bible". If I do the same for any book (let's take the first harry potter), I can tell you a lot of thing.

But there's no point to argue because the fact that the bible is the truth is so deeply engraved in christians brains that they can told you that "the bible is the truth because it is told in the bible" without even realizing how stupid it is.

Your examples don't have much to do with mine I'm afraid the 12 disciples weren't patriots or fanatic jihadist, they were ordinary men who came from various trades. The remarkable thing about these people was that they constantly doubted Jesus and his teachings and even abandoned him when the time of the crucification came. So something must of happened that turned these men into remarkable pillars of faith so that 11 out of the 12 were willing to give up their lives.

Why are the examples different? The Jihadist were, at the beginning, very normal people, with wifes and kids. At some point, they were so deeply convinced by someone that they wanted to give their life for that. It happens all the time in human history that some people are willing to die for ideas.

That's for me when I consider people to be dangerous extremists : when they are considering their ideas more important than their own lives.

I would die myself to protect other human beings. But, if someone point a gun at me and say "I kill all atheists", I will gladly reply that "I believe in God".

Well considering the Christian Bible has a wealth of geological and historical value thats has been proven time and time again it does have some significant value as a historical text, whether you dispute the religious aspects or not.

As for the examples being different... the disciples had a chance to run away from the teachings of Jesus in order to save their own lives much like your current perspective, what I'm saying is that something amazing happened to literally change them.

[MarketNeutral]

Buddha was an atheist.
 

[dayfall]

There needs to be a Atheist/Buddhist option.  And an Atheist\Agnostic option too.  Actually I think I might be both of those.  (Except for the Buddhist version of reincarnation)

[asdf]

If you're suggesting that there is a God, then he would dwell outside the natural universe, therefore not be restricted to the natural laws of this universe.

If the god is outside the universe, there is no possible interaction with it. Thus, it is not a god as we define it.

If the god is able to communicate with us (observing us and/or listenning to prayer), then it has too be part of the universe. Then, it should respect the laws of that universe. (it could be laws that we still don't know). If it is the case, then, its existence could be easily proved.

So, if there is a god of any kind, its existence should be proved.

Easy, isn't it?

No, I disagree entirely. You are making the assumption that a supposed being has to regulate itself in any sensible way. Things that exist don't have to be able to be proven.

The alleged god either interacts with the universe in an observable way or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it exists only as an abstraction; it existence or not makes no difference to the universe.

If it does, then we are observing that interaction; god is part of the observable universe. Should this be the case, what do we observe that is god? It seems that the universe operates consistently according to some laws (physics). One might say that these laws are the observable interactions of god, then we might as well define god as the universe.

Actually, this whole debate stems from the illusion of separation. God is a silly artifact of this illusion. There are no separate "things"; things are only mental objects. Before you think, nothing exists! Tell me what exists that isn't a thought.

There is no self and other; all is one. We are not separate from the world, we are the world. When you look into the eyes of another human being, god is looking at god.

[ploum]

Well considering the Christian Bible has a wealth of geological and historical value thats has been proven time and time again it does have some significant value as a historical text, whether you dispute the religious aspects or not.

no. The bible says that the world was created in 6 days. It is false. Thus, we know that there are mistakes in the bible. We know also that there should be some truth in the bible (because writing an entire book full of false stuffs looks improbable to me).

Thus, the bible contains some good stuffs and some false stuffs. It also contains some stuffs that are neither good or bad, merely an opinion.

Thus, the fact that something is in the bible has no logical value. You have to use your judgement anyway.

Thus, you finally use your judgement, not the bible.

The problem is that religious zealot use their judgement then try to fit this judgement into the bible by calling the "interpretation" magic.

I did the experiment several times: give me a random book, give me a random sentence (like "you should eat babies for breakfast"). I will open that random book at a random page and proove you, with some interpretation, that this very same page order you to eat babies for breakfast. Then I will proove the opposite.

For people who litteraly believe what's in the bible word by word, well, I'm not sure we cannot do anything for them anymore ;-)

[foxcartier]

no. The bible says that the world was created in 6 days. It is false. Thus, we know that there are mistakes in the bible. We know also that there should be some truth in the bible (because writing an entire book full of false stuffs looks improbable to me).

Where you there? Do you know what really happened? You are rather quick to dismiss things which no one has a way of proving or disproving.

Thus, the bible contains some good stuffs and some false stuffs. It also contains some stuffs that are neither good or bad, merely an opinion.

Considering its a text that has survived for other 2000 years and has given priceless historical and geological information, why yes, thanks for saying there are some good stuff.

The entire message of the Bible could be boiled down to "love your neighbor as thyself". Not necessarily such a bad thing.

The problem is that religious zealot use their judgement then try to fit this judgement into the bible by calling the "interpretation" magic.

Same thing could be said for anything, whether its the sociopath murdering atheist who does the things they do because they can, or a religious fanatic nutjob that goes to an abortion clinic and shoots up the place. People are sinful in nature, that has an effect on whatever beliefs they hold.

I did the experiment several times: give me a random book, give me a random sentence (like "you should eat babies for breakfast"). I will open that random book at a random page and proove you, with some interpretation, that this very same page order you to eat babies for breakfast. Then I will proove the opposite.

Confusion.

For people who litteraly believe what's in the bible word by word, well, I'm not sure we cannot do anything for them anymore ;-)

Hey if its not all true, what is the point in believing only a segment of it?