How valid are belief systems?

[2Dbunk]

At the Royal Cemetery of Ur (ancient city in southern Iraq ), in 2,100 BCE, an entire entourage of court members were prescribed to take poison at the funeral of their exalted leader. The six oxen that pulled the carts into the unearthed grave, were killed after the entourage had succumbed. This is not fake news. This site was unearthed by archaeologist Sir Leonard Wooley in 1926 and later reconstructed at UK’s British Museum.
Do theists consider the evolution of belief systems through the ages, as bizarre as they can be? Heritages similar to the above have been reduced and refined considerably, but to a much lesser degree they still exist. In contrast, non-theists have pretty much wiped such activity from their minds and actions. Can anyone dispute this? Is this not an example of why one should question belief?

[Tcg]

It is a straw man if you decontextualize my words.

Then place them in what you claim is the proper context and show the support you claim that would provide. Of course, if you can't do that, you can simply retract your claim and admit that it is unsupported.


Tcg

[Eloi]

Straw man again ... My post was intended to comment about the initial post. I said what I said, not what you said I said.

I'm moving on to other posts and waiting for other comments. Thanks for your time.

[Tcg]

I said what I said, not what you said I said.

I quoted verbatim from your post. Your accusation is false.


Tcg

[FWI]

A belief system is simply any set of ideas used to make sense of the world and to help distinguish truth from falsehood, right from wrong.

This can't be correct…Case in point: There are two belief systems related to the existence of God. One claims that God doesn't exist, the other claims that God does exist. Yet, both can't be right and both can't be wrong…So, making sense of right from wrong or truth from falsehood is determined by a source which is above the human understanding. Therefore, if we look at a basic tenet of a civil society, murder is considered wrong…So, who determined this? Of course it was God, not man!

Religion is a closed belief system while science is an open belief system. In other words, religion claims a monopoly on the whole truth based on doctrine, accepting no criticism or change. To challenge that is sacrilege or blasphemy.

There may be some religious tenets, which could be viewed as a closed belief, but to suggest that all religions and their beliefs are closed is untrue. There are hundreds of different religious belief systems, which don't adhere to the same doctrines. So, these belief systems are opening themselves up to criticism by not following certain beliefs of others, showing a lack of being closed minded! Most, also show a willingness to present their case of "why they believe, what they believe." Thus, their beliefs surely cannot be closed beliefs, as related to the big picture of the belief systems of others! Therefore, it seems that those who are trying to define what an open or closed belief system is, are being bias and exhibiting a closed attitude, themselves…

So, just because a religious group refuses to accept the idea that God doesn't exist or any other beliefs, is not grounds to label their belief system as a closed one…Mainly, because it is not true and would only nullify their current belief system for another one, which their adversaries would deem more acceptable.

In contrast, science constantly opens itself up to criticism and testing in a quest to discover new knowledge.

Science is not an open belief system! Science is only related to the natural or physical…Hence, science has taken the position that it cannot prove or disprove the existence of the non-physical. So, suggesting that science is open to new knowledge and truths (outside the natural sphere) is a non-starter and not true. Where, science expects the masses to accept their conclusions of how our universe and life came to be and refuses to consider non-physical means. This is conveniently included (though masked) in their creeds…But, rightfully so, because most scientists are "closed" to the idea that the non-physical exists, which would put them in a closed belief system.

Thus, it seems that the distinction, which is claimed to be clear…Really, isn't.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 34 by FWI]

Diagoras wrote:
A belief system is simply any set of ideas used to make sense of the world and to help distinguish truth from falsehood, right from wrong.


This can't be correct…Case in point: There are two belief systems related to the existence of God. One claims that God doesn't exist, the other claims that God does exist. Yet, both can't be right and both can't be wrong…So, making sense of right from wrong or truth from falsehood is determined by a source which is above the human understanding. Therefore, if we look at a basic tenet of a civil society, murder is considered wrong…So, who determined this? Of course it was God, not man!

Really! Such moral understanding is beyond humanity? Take for example Capitol punishment: the ratio of non-theists (mostly liberal) against such punishment is larger than evangelical Christian community's (conservative) viewpoint. To dismiss this example for pre-biblical times is ludicrous.

Diagoras wrote:
Religion is a closed belief system while science is an open belief system. In other words, religion claims a monopoly on the whole truth based on doctrine, accepting no criticism or change. To challenge that is sacrilege or blasphemy.

FWI wrote:
There may be some religious tenets, which could be viewed as a closed belief, but to suggest that all religions and their beliefs are closed is untrue. There are hundreds of different religious belief systems, which don't adhere to the same doctrines. So, these belief systems are opening themselves up to criticism by not following certain beliefs of others, showing a lack of being closed minded! Most, also show a willingness to present their case of "why they believe, what they believe." Thus, their beliefs surely cannot be closed beliefs, as related to the big picture of the belief systems of others! Therefore, it seems that those who are trying to define what an open or closed belief system is, are being bias and exhibiting a closed attitude, themselves…

I think, by and large, religious systems are closed -- at least the more successfully rooted ones are. Cases in point: indigenous people of Africa and the Americas original faith was no match for Christian indoctrination. Likewise the Polynesians (who incidentally refused to go all the way but adapted their original beliefs to merge with the newer religion) concurred somewhat. Science, on the other-hand, is open to even the supernatural if it can at anytime prove its validity.

So, just because a religious group refuses to accept the idea that God doesn't exist or any other beliefs, is not grounds to label their belief system as a closed one…Mainly, because it is not true and would only nullify their current belief system for another one, which their adversaries would deem more acceptable.

From my experience with religion (and what I have studied), they are for the most part CLOSED belief systems, Amen.

Diagoras wrote:
In contrast, science constantly opens itself up to criticism and testing in a quest to discover new knowledge.

DWI responded:
Science is not an open belief system! Science is only related to the natural or physical…Hence, science has taken the position that it cannot prove or disprove the existence of the non-physical. So, suggesting that science is open to new knowledge and truths (outside the natural sphere) is a non-starter and not true. Where, science expects the masses to accept their conclusions of how our universe and life came to be and refuses to consider non-physical means. This is conveniently included (though masked) in their creeds…But, rightfully so, because most scientists are "closed" to the idea that the non-physical exists, which would put them in a closed belief system.

Thus, it seems that the distinction, which is claimed to be clear…Really, isn't.

Nope! the three Abrahamic belief systems are closed (with possible exception to Judaism of which the other two inadvertently sprung forth from).

And SCIENCE is the one true open system!

[FWI]

[Replying to post 35 by 2Dbunk]

Really! Such moral understanding is beyond humanity? Take for example Capitol punishment: the ratio of non-theists (mostly liberal) against such punishment is larger than evangelical Christian community's (conservative) viewpoint. To dismiss this example for pre-biblical times is ludicrous.

Yes, it's my position that moral understanding is beyond humanity! Because, if it wasn't, we wouldn't still have human sex trafficking, the decline of the family and education, the young being taught that moral categories are nothing more than personal (or societal) preferences, accepting that one must acknowledge that at the core of the argument for the redefinition of marriage is that gender doesn’t matter and the increase in the belief that there are no moral truths, because there is no longer a religious basis for morality. These are only few of the many examples…

Hence, the idea against Capital punishment, is a prime example of where morals are beginning to be lost on humanity. There are crimes and horrors committed against humanity that should not permit the perpetrators to continue to live…Where, living in the world's prison system could be considered even worse than death by many. So, it seems, what is really ludicrous is individuals/groups avoiding the reality of the moral decay of the modern day thought…

From my experience with religion (and what I have studied), they are for the most part CLOSED belief systems, Amen.

Well, that would depend on what a person would believe: "What is a closed belief system?" and if that person or group is being bias, relating to such a definition. So, please supply your definition of a closed religious belief system.

Nope! the three Abrahamic belief systems are closed (with possible exception to Judaism of which the other two inadvertently sprung forth from).

There seems to some confusion here, where you state that the three Abrahamic belief systems are closed, yet there are only two! Christianity doesn't follow the Abrahamic belief system. However, you also question yourself, related to Judaism and possibly Islam, where you suggest that Christianity and Islam sprung forth from Judaism.

And SCIENCE is the one true open system!

So, you are suggesting that the claims, related to the facts that science has settled or closed the books on: evolution, animal testing is necessary, embryonic stem cell research is necessary, vaccines don't cause autism, alternative medicine is bunk, large hadron collider won't destroy the earth, cold fusion isn't real, nuclear power is safe, climate change is largely manmade and GMD's (genetically-modified organisms) are safe, shows that science is an open belief system…I don't think so! These examples clearly shows that science can and does settle issues that really can't be proven 100% factual…Where, the truth is that "nothing" can be proven 100% true by science. This is made clear by the scientific claim that science cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exists. Therefore, if science was an open belief system, there would be no settling or closing the book on any issues!

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 36 by FWI]

2Dbunk wrote:

Really! Such moral understanding is beyond humanity? Take for example Capitol punishment: the ratio of non-theists (mostly liberal) against such punishment is larger than evangelical Christian community's (conservative) viewpoint. To dismiss this example for pre-biblical times is ludicrous.

FWI responded:

Yes, it's my position that moral understanding is beyond humanity! Because, if it wasn't, we wouldn't still have human sex trafficking, the decline of the family and education, the young being taught that moral categories are nothing more than personal (or societal) preferences, accepting that one must acknowledge that at the core of the argument for the redefinition of marriage is that gender doesn’t matter and the increase in the belief that there are no moral truths, because there is no longer a religious basis for morality. These are only few of the many examples…

Hence, the idea against Capital punishment, is a prime example of where morals are beginning to be lost on humanity. There are crimes and horrors committed against humanity that should not permit the perpetrators to continue to live…Where, living in the world's prison system could be considered even worse than death by many. So, it seems, what is really ludicrous is individuals/groups avoiding the reality of the moral decay of the modern day thought…

Morality is a relative thing with each and everybody. Al Capone was a devout Catholic: where did that religion go wrong in setting him straight? Yeah, it is the charge of religions to teach morality, but their getting through to many seems oblivious. On the other hand you have Albert Schweitzer having done wonderful things in Africa. Stephen Weinberg said: "Even without religion you have good people doing good and bad people doing bad, but it takes religion for good people to do bad." Where is your "divine morality" in that?

2Dbunk wrote:

From my experience with religion (and what I have studied), they are for the most part CLOSED belief systems, Amen.

FWI responded:
Well, that would depend on what a person would believe: "What is a closed belief system?" and if that person or group is being bias, relating to such a definition. So, please supply your definition of a closed religious belief system.

I am thinking of a closed system as defined by thermodynamics, where energy and matter are confined in vacuum. Of course, even that state of confinement isn't truly 100%. Like your religions, there is some wiggle-room for alien influence but not much. Western religions like to think they have all the answers (hence closed system) and pronounce anything different as blasphemy, or am I mistaken?

2Dbunk wrote:

Nope! the three Abrahamic belief systems are closed (with possible exception to Judaism of which the other two inadvertently sprung forth from).

FWI responded:

There seems to some confusion here, where you state that the three Abrahamic belief systems are closed, yet there are only two! Christianity doesn't follow the Abrahamic belief system. However, you also question yourself, related to Judaism and possibly Islam, where you suggest that Christianity and Islam sprung forth from Judaism.

If you read Genesis 16 you may understand how Islam separated from Judaism. Ishmael was the first child of Abraham, born of the servant Hagar because his wife Sarah was barren. Later, God realized Ismael was not appropriate to carry on the covenant allowed Sarah to conceive a child who would do so. That child was Isaac, who then carried on Judaism. God provided both children with nations of their own.

Of course, Christianity came later -- also sprung from Judaism. I believe you know that story.

2Dbunk wrote:

And SCIENCE is the one true open system!

FWI Responds:
So, you are suggesting that the claims, related to the facts that science has settled or closed the books on: evolution, animal testing is necessary, embryonic stem cell research is necessary, vaccines don't cause autism, alternative medicine is bunk, large hadron collider won't destroy the earth, cold fusion isn't real, nuclear power is safe, climate change is largely manmade and GMD's (genetically-modified organisms) are safe, shows that science is an open belief system… I don't think so!

No, I am not suggesting anything of the sort. The book isn't closed on all you say, but until the naysayers come up with valid evidence that what has so far been determined by Scientific Method is not correct, then we go by the best info we have.

These examples clearly shows that science can and does settle issues that really can't be proven 100% factual…Where, the truth is that "nothing" can be proven 100% true by science. This is made clear by the scientific claim that science cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exists. Therefore, if science was an open belief system, there would be no settling or closing the book on any issues!

Your words! There is the remote possibility that a God exists; GMO's may alter how Monarch butterflies lay their eggs; autism is the result of inoculations -- the book IS NOT closed on any of that -- but science has so far found little merit for those things you bring up. I'm a retired engineer and I assure you we, and others in the STEM community, have NO AGENDA to falsify the facts!

[FWI]

[Replying to post 37 by 2Dbunk]

Morality is a relative thing with each and everybody.

This is the point of where the problem begins: individuals or groups attempting to "decide" what is right and what is wrong. The concept is flawed and has caused much harm to the inhabitants of this world…

Case in point: You have stated: Like your religions, where it seems that you have decided that I accept the tenets of all religions, which I do not. Hence, causing harm by a false statement. Thus, your premise is flawed! The truth is, I am not a member of any organized religion. Yet, this doesn't mean that I can't agree with a general tenet of most religions that accept: "Thou shall not murder." However, I don't agree, because of the religion! I agree, because God gave the command…

So, can someone exhibit proper morality (deciding right or wrong) by making unverified comments? I don't believe so…

I am thinking of a closed system as defined by thermodynamics, where energy and matter are confined in vacuum. Of course, even that state of confinement isn't truly 100%. Like your religions, there is some wiggle-room for alien influence but not much. Western religions like to think they have all the answers (hence closed system) and pronounce anything different as blasphemy, or am I mistaken?

Firstly, a closed system, as defined by thermodynamics is a type of thermodynamic system where mass is conserved within the boundaries of the system, but energy is allowed to freely enter or exit the system. Where, an open system exchanges energy and matter with its surrounding. Thus, trying to apply these understandings to the issue at hand, is just spin or wishful thinking. So, it is obvious that you are mistaken…Where, most religions are completely open to discussing their position and allowing others to present their ideas. But, the premise doesn't required agreement…Therefore, the idea that religion is a closed system, just seems to be an attempt by the anti-God to box the religious in and to use this idea as propaganda…

I also disagree that Western religions think they have all the answers…This idea is contrary to the biblical writings, where there are several verses that contradict the accusation. Therefore, belief systems are what they are and both sides of the line are firm in them. Yet, for the religious, if it can be proven (correctly) that there is an error, then most will consider the point in question. But, that doesn't require them to turn their belief system upside down. However, this is not the case of the secular…Where, there is ample evidence that the seculars believe that their position is the only true one and to believe otherwise is foolishness.

If you read Genesis 16 you may understand how Islam separated from Judaism. Ishmael was the first child of Abraham, born of the servant Hagar because his wife Sarah was barren. Later, God realized Ismael was not appropriate to carry on the covenant allowed Sarah to conceive a child who would do so. That child was Isaac, who then carried on Judaism. God provided both children with nations of their own. Of course, Christianity came later -- also sprung from Judaism. I believe you know that story.

This isn't biblical…The birth of Ishmael came to be, because of Sarai's impatience. Genesis 17, clearly outlines that it was always the intent of God that the covenant would come through the first born of Abraham and Sarah, who had a blood line connection, not from a foreigner or an Egyptian woman.

No, I am not suggesting anything of the sort. The book isn't closed on all you say, but until the naysayers come up with valid evidence that what has so far been determined by Scientific Method is not correct, then we go by the best info we have.

The naysayers have already produced valid evidence! Yet, you state that the evidence must come from the rules set-up by the ruling class or the scientific community to be accepted as valid. This is what's known as: "stacking the deck" and is unacceptable!

Your words! There is the remote possibility that a God exists; GMO's may alter how Monarch butterflies lay their eggs; autism is the result of inoculations -- the book IS NOT closed on any of that -- but science has so far found little merit for those things you bring up. I'm a retired engineer and I assure you we, and others in the STEM community, have NO AGENDA to falsify the facts!

Again, this is not what is claimed and argued…It just seems to be spin. Where, the truth seems to be that the scientists have always had an agenda and it also seems that overlooking certain problems in their theories is part of that agenda, because of the belief that science knows what is best. Where, in the STEM community, the belief that global warming can be controlled is unrealistic…Therefore, trying to convince the populous otherwise is in a way falsifying the facts and there are plenty of facts to discredit the ideas behind climate change! Hence, it's not the science that is determining the supposed cause of the global warming theory, it's the scientists…So, to suggest that there is no agenda is surely questionable…

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 38 by FWI]

[Replying to post 38 by FWI]

2Dbunk wrote:
Morality is a relative thing with each and everybody.

FWI says:
This is the point of where the problem begins: individuals or groups attempting to "decide" what is right and what is wrong. The concept is flawed and has caused much harm to the inhabitants of this world…

Case in point: You have stated: Like your religions, where it seems that you have decided that I accept the tenets of all religions, which I do not. Hence, causing harm by a false statement. Thus, your premise is flawed! The truth is, I am not a member of any organized religion. Yet, this doesn't mean that I can't agree with a general tenet of most religions that accept: "Thou shall not murder." However, I don't agree, because of the religion! I agree, because God gave the command…

So, can someone exhibit proper morality (deciding right or wrong) by making unverified comments? I don't believe so…

Well then, Morality is NOT a relative thing with each and everybody.

Dbunk wrote:
I am thinking of a closed system as defined by thermodynamics, where energy and matter are confined in vacuum. Of course, even that state of confinement isn't truly 100%. Like your religions, there is some wiggle-room for alien influence but not much. Western religions like to think they have all the answers (hence closed system) and pronounce anything different as blasphemy, or am I mistaken?

FWI says:
Firstly, a closed system, as defined by thermodynamics is a type of thermodynamic system where mass is conserved within the boundaries of the system, but energy is allowed to freely enter or exit the system. Where, an open system exchanges energy and matter with its surrounding. Thus, trying to apply these understandings to the issue at hand, is just spin or wishful thinking. So, it is obvious that you are mistaken…Where, most religions are completely open to discussing their position and allowing others to present their ideas. But, the premise doesn't required agreement…Therefore, the idea that religion is a closed system, just seems to be an attempt by the anti-God to box the religious in and to use this idea as propaganda…

Okay, okay, you are right, energy can pervade a closed system in thermodynamics . . . I guess that's why I got a D in the course. But I still stand with my assertion that religions, formal or in cult form, are unreceptive to change. Their dogma hogties them from being anywhere close to flexible!

I also disagree that Western religions think they have all the answers…This idea is contrary to the biblical writings, where there are several verses that contradict the accusation. Therefore, belief systems are what they are and both sides of the line are firm in them. Yet, for the religious, if it can be proven (correctly) that there is an error, then most will consider the point in question. But, that doesn't require them to turn their belief system upside down. However, this is not the case of the secular…Where, there is ample evidence that the seculars believe that their position is the only true one and to believe otherwise is foolishness.

I guess this is one (of many) reasons I gave up on religion -- it is SO complex! Does it need to be so very complicated? To beat a dead horse, the whole system of narrow religious belief needs to be turned up-side down if not slapped side-to side to see if anyone is thinking.

2Dbunk wrote:
If you read Genesis 16 you may understand how Islam separated from Judaism. Ishmael was the first child of Abraham, born of the servant Hagar because his wife Sarah was barren. Later, God realized Ismael was not appropriate to carry on the covenant allowed Sarah to conceive a child who would do so. That child was Isaac, who then carried on Judaism. God provided both children with nations of their own. Of course, Christianity came later -- also sprung from Judaism. I believe you know that story.

FWI says:
This isn't biblical…The birth of Ishmael came to be, because of Sarai's impatience. Genesis 17, clearly outlines that it was always the intent of God that the covenant would come through the first born of Abraham and Sarah, who had a blood line connection, not from a foreigner or an Egyptian woman.

That's what I basically said (and Genesis 16 and Genesis 17 are in the same Bible!).

2Dbunk wrote:
No, I am not suggesting anything of the sort. The book isn't closed on all you say, but until the naysayers come up with valid evidence that what has so far been determined by Scientific Method is not correct, then we go by the best info we have.

FWI say:
The naysayers have already produced valid evidence! Yet, you state that the evidence must come from the rules set-up by the ruling class or the scientific community to be accepted as valid. This is what's known as: "stacking the deck" and is unacceptable!

Now THAT is blasphemy -- saying that an axiom of science is "stacking-the deck; " that science has an agenda! The scientific community, as imperfect as it may be, has no dog in the fight concerning who's notion of God is superior.

2Dbunk wrote:
Your words! There is the remote possibility that a God exists; GMO's may alter how Monarch butterflies lay their eggs; autism is the result of inoculations -- the book IS NOT closed on any of that -- but science has so far found little merit for those things you bring up. I'm a retired engineer and I assure you we, and others in the STEM community, have NO AGENDA to falsify the facts!

FWI says:
Again, this is not what is claimed and argued…It just seems to be spin. Where, the truth seems to be that the scientists have always had an agenda and it also seems that overlooking certain problems in their theories is part of that agenda, because of the belief that science knows what is best. Where, in the STEM community, the belief that global warming can be controlled is unrealistic…Therefore, trying to convince the populous otherwise is in a way falsifying the facts and there are plenty of facts to discredit the ideas behind climate change! Hence, it's not the science that is determining the supposed cause of the global warming theory, it's the scientists…So, to suggest that there is no agenda is surely questionable…

Again, I reiterate: -that science is not perfect, nor have few scientists ever asserted that notion. If you have cogent, provable reasons to disavow any of science's claims, I suggest you publish them now, or go about some other business.