Semantics, from dictionary.com:
The meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.

In a thread about whether God exists, which will obviously bleed over into discussions of faith, proof, science, and existence, I'm not too surprised that discussions of meanings of terms gets involved as well. I'm digging reading it, at least. :snap:

I'm more interested in discovering what people believe in than in challenging or defending any particular belief. I find the former enlightening and the latter futile in most instances.

And I find what people believe about god to be pretty uninteresting (it is pretty much all equally nonsensical to me) but why they believe it and how they differentiate what they consider nonsense from what they don't consider nonsense that I find interesting.

Though I have tried to avoid actually challenging anybody's beliefs or forcing them to defend them. I try to keep things in terms of exploring the specifics of what they believe. But I may have failed at that (I have certainly challenged how certain words are used but then I think any discussion at all, on any topic, is futile if there isn't some agreement on what the words used mean).

And yet Einstein was very clear that he followed the beliefs of Baruch Spinoza in defining "God" as the sum total of all the laws of the universe. In his famous 1948 letter to a U.S. Navy serviceman asking for a definition on his spiritual beliefs, he indicated that by all modern definitions, he would be an atheist.

Frogberto, I am finding your science rants interesting ... but they are indeed, in compendum, amounting to a constant challenging of people's expressed beliefs. Counterpoint is one thing, but it's almost approaching beratement at this point.

While I cannot direct the course of discussion, my opinion is also that it would be nice to discuss the whys of folks' godish beliefs, the nature of them, how they arose, what experiences reinforce them or challenge them, etc. ... and to have less of the anti-god stance of science that has been presented so exhaustively and eloquently.



just a suggestion.

Well, I don't mean to quash any discussion. It's just that I find the exposition of scientific fact to be not much different than the quoting of scripture. People usually don't come to their beliefs from a point of pure logical reasoning, rather the use such things to bolster and defend beliefs they already hold. So while such arguments may be interesting lesson in logic and a reccounting of the various historical proofs and rebuttles, I find they seldom get to our personal "numinous" experience.

But, you see, I come at this as a way to understand other people, not as an exercise to come to truth or even verisimilitude. Our beliefs make us what we are - or so I believe anyway ;)

Cheers, and keep on posting

:cheers:

Dogma of any ilk isn't fun. Spiritual beliefs are a personal choice and I choose to do what works best for me. There used to be someone floating about on the boards that was a dogmatic atheist. BORING! I'm completely fine wht someone choosing athiesism just as I am ok with someone choosing a particular religion. I just don't want to argue about how my choices and belief differences are "right" or "wrong". I do, however, find it really interesting to find out how others believe and why. Just don't espect me to agree or disagree.

That's excellent!:snap:

And that's what I enjoy about this, and in fact all of these discutions. And it's more than just intertainment (thought it's that as well). It's the same reason I "people watch" at the mall, and at DL. I like to try to figure out where the DL guest came from, and what their home life would be like. If possible I talk with them to see if I'm right.

:cheers: Cheers to you too!

Understood, and suggestion taken. I'm not here to berate anyone, and I am certainly "pro science", if you want to take that as a position. I find it difficult to stand by when people mis-cite findings, are factually incorrect regarding biology, or misquote Einstein, which are specifics, not a particular belief. I'd say, as a matter of belief, that each person is entitled to his opinion, but if they try to justify it using science, or something that is subject to a specific test of science (which is, by definition, then not faith), then they expose themselves to the results of that specific test, embarassing or not.