Honest question. Is this site a religious site?

[follderol]

It seems to me there's a large amount of Christian posts. I've also noticed a fair amount of disapproval for other religions.

I am an atheist. I don't really want to be part of a christian site posing as a parenting site.

So is this actually a Christian place?

OK, what about socio-biology and its analyses of morality in terms of evolutionary imperatives favouring various sorts of cooperation. It is probably perfectly correct to explain many of out moral values in this reductionist way. Nothing wrong with reductionism at all. But you can't conclude straight from that explanation that there is not"really" any such thing as moral truth. Regardless of the history of our arrival at it, there is moral truth.

We may in the past have misconstrued the nature of that truth -- we might have fantasised about some Moral Law extant in the universe. But the reconstrual of it is not in any sense an undermining of it.

Similarly (possibly) with spititual/religious truth. We may have misconstrued it as a 'thing' out there. It may (does) have reductionist explanation. But there might still be such a thing as religious truth. (Don't know exactly what or whether -- but this seems to me like a worthwhile idea and it therefore also seems that regardless of whether or not there is religius truth, religion is not something that should be cheaply ridiclued.)

Typos

"Moral truth" is far too nebulous and debatable a term to be used as if we all knew what it was.

I understand what you are getting at, threadworm, but I am not offering a "reductionist interpretation" of "religious/spiritual truth". I am saying that if anyone wants to claim there is any such thing they need to provide evidence. That's all.

Is flat-earthism something that can be cheaply ridiculed? Or should it be respected as a fair alternative? And is round-earthism reductionist?

that should be 'vague and misleading religious language'

I think that we would probably all agree that there are moral truths, even if we wouldn't agree what they were.

kayH - you're right, it is anecdotal. Not necessarily dismissed by the skeptic, just dismissed by the open-minded with no evidence that it happens.

What's the difference, in the above, between prayer and just muttering nice things to yourself?

Nothing at all, if there isn't a God.

UQD.. would you say that you were a skeptic, or just an open-minded observer?

Kay, KitKats are NOT bicuits. They are chocolate bars.

UQD I don't think most people who pray expect anything to actually happen, not that they can see anyway (am going to be upset if anyone else gets whizz bangs and big booming voice that sounds like Brian Blessed saying "God has heard you my child!") other than that you feel better/comforted/lighter. I certainly don't expect someone to get well who is ill just because I pray that they will. As someone else said (I don't think they were joking) Thy will be done.

actually i have once in my life had a very profound and dramatic experience through prayer, even though i was not a fervent believer at the time [and still am not] It was physically and emotionally extremely powerful. [wanders off to get tablets]

Depends on the definition of "skeptic"... (or sceptic...)

God's Voice has to be played by Brian Blessed. It's the Law.

Out of interest, is there anyone on here who still seriously believes in the Greek or Roman or Norse or Egyptian gods? If so, I'd be interested to know why. If not, but you do believe in the Christian God, I'd be interested to know what makes it different from these.

And why it is not reductionist to consider the world without considering that there might be an Apollo. Or a Horus.

I'd also be interested to know what makes "god" any different from a character in any randomly-chosen work of fiction. What qualities does it possess which make it more than fictional, and how does one demonstrate that these make it any more real than Holden Caulfield, Miss Marple or Mr Pickwick?

I really think you misunderstand what I meant by invoking reductionism UQD. There is nothing wrong with a reductionist expl -- i didn't mean it as a term of abuse. It's just that it doesn't warrant certain conclusions.

My DS (9) has an (almost) serious shrine to Athena... Sacrifices (biscuits) are left, and we are instructed to follow the instructions 'Worship the Owl. Dont be dumb and stupid'.

Does this count UQD?

Incidentally, I was very pleased that Obama mentioned "non-believers" in his speech.

Not the ideal term, but it's leagues away from George H and his "atheists aren't citizens" bollocks, and indicates that America might be moving intellectually into the 19th century at last. Perhaps they will catch up with the 21st somewhere near the end of it...

I think maybe what Threadworm calls reductionist I might call Occam's Razor?

UD, I do love you and atheists/agnostics like you.

You ask questions so earnestly, I actually think you would genuinely like it if someone really could point to something and say "there, that is the proof you require. Prayer works, God exists, Jesus weeps real tears when we do bad things, now join us!" and you actually would.

I can't do that. It is called faith. I neither have nor require proof.

Have you ever read American Gods by Neil Gaiman (you aren't Neil Gaiman are you? Am determined to work out who you are one day). It deals with many of your questions about why beliefs in gods die out and what happens to the gods in question when they do.

I believe that those who believed in the Greek/Roman/Norse gods were responding to the same presence that I respond to when I believe in God. I don't "disbelieve" in their gods, I think that our understanding of what God is like has changed over time.

Similar to the different emphasis between the Old Testament (lots of fire and judgement and rules) and the New Testament (love, forgiveness, challenge).

It's on my reading list.

I realise that the answer to a lot of my "questions" is just a variation on "I don't have any evidence, I just feel it." I just want to make sure.

One thing people often overlook is that I, too, neither have nor require proof. I neither have nor require proof of God's non-existence either. But I neither have nor require proof of the non-existence of Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Celestial Teapot. I tend to use the sense I was born with about those.

Reductionism and occam's razor not same. Have a google.

You're gonna be in big trouble when you die.

The Tooth Fairy and the Invisible Pink Unicorn are less forgiving than St Peter. They can do some pretty nasty things with that Celestial Teapot.

[excited]

Subtlemouse - what kind of biscuits does ds offer to Athena?

But they both start from the idea that the argument's subject is a "complex thing." Which is an assumption that I'd want to challenge from the start.

There is no proof either way. That is why atheism is as indefensible a position as belief in God.

I am agnostic.

I agree Cote. I am a Christian Agnostic. As is at least one of the former ArchBishops of Canterbury. I kid you not.