How flawed are your beliefs

So your god did not create the earth as your bible says so? Did he also tweak apes into humans?

Evolution is not part of a belief system but rather part of natural science. It requires understanding, not belief.

Science is part of a belief system.

The belief system is called Naturalism. More specifically it's Methodological Naturalism, but the general form is Naturalism.

Belief systems don't necessarily have to have flaws because belief systems don't require justification. They are simply choices which are made.

The only way a belief system can be "flawed" is if it is logically inconsistent with itself.

Beyond that, a person's behavior can be flawed in relation to their belief system if they claim to believe something yet exhibit behaviors which are inconsistent with that belief.

Its part of my culture. I come from a line of Jews who converted to Christianity to keep from being tortured in the Pogroms.
ANYWAY, I call em as I sees em.

Sheeny means "brite like tinfoil" inotherwords a phony. Schmuck is a cobined term and Dick is just one of the accepted meanings is a detestable fellow (That's Yinglish).

Good response . . . a god-botherer is someone who always has god in his or her mouth, who is always telling others what god says, what god wants, what god expects us to believe. I saw your response to your own question, which seemed rather wishy-washy--it seemed that you were trying to dodge your own question. My comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Then Professor Herr Doktor Doktor Know-it-all came along to make the matter nasty. Don't take it too hard, but do consider that you have avoided giving a clear answer to your own question.

My answer is simple. Evolutionary theory is the best answer i've seen to the question of why we see such a diversity of life on this planet. It's not an "ism" because it is not a belief that i hold religiously, and it's not a political position. If it didn't come up online, i'd very likely never discuss the matter.

There is a view that in general it is perfectly normal to hold what logically appear to be contradictory beliefs. Their significance is essentially to serve as action schemas with respect to different needs within the same individual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk
From that point of view beliefs are only "flawed" if they don't work out for the life of the holder. Logic has little to do with it except perhaps in debate situations where self respect or social relations may be at stake. If for example, as an atheist, I were a teacher of biology to a "mixed belief class" I might be faced with a social issue of promoting evolution over creationism.

They are called belief systems for a reason, not Truth Systems, and everyone has one, and they all have one or more fallacies as their basis.
They resort to circular reasoning, they are self supporting.
This does not mean they are incorrect, fallacies are not a guarantee of being incorrect, just of being beyond the rules of logic.
A fallacy is a weakness that should put doubt in the mind of the believer.
This doubt needs to be overcome, or at least realized and accepted.

A very strong believe system may have only one fallacy, a very weak belief system will be a house of card, teetering on 3 or 4 fallacies.

From my experience representatives from all belief systems will deny they have fallacious beliefs, not all representatives, but some.

Most religionists recognize this. They realize their beliefs are built on the words of god, or their sacred text, or supernatural experiences other have not experienced.

Atheists are different.
Many, certainly not all, maybe not even most, are in denial.
They do not admit that a lack of proof is not proof, and to accept a lack of proof that something is false, is fallacious.

Someone who says 'With science I can show that the supernatural does not exist.' is mistaken.
What they should say is 'Science can not show the supernatural exists.'
'Science lacks evidence to show the supernatural exists, so I do not accept it.'

Science, as a discipline, makes no pronouncement about the supernatural except to say "We have no evidence."

Science is not a basis for morality, and Atheists have moral beliefs, even those who are considered amoral. As they say, even if you do not decide, you have decided.
So for their morality they must go outside of science, they must use some form of circular reasoning to justify their beliefs.



Lets give this a try.
"BeHereNow is the absolute judge of the cosmos, anyone who doubts what BeHereNow says, is immoral, and deserves death. If BeHereNow says something is true or false, there is nothing else to be said. If anyone thinks BeHereNow is incorct on any issue, they are delusional and immoral, and so is anyone who sides with them."
Any logical inconsistency?
An insane person can be logically consistent in their beliefs, does not make them right.

Belief systems have as their basis a fallacy, and fallacies indicate a flaw in logic.

It is easy to imagine that some belief system is true.
In a philosophy discussion forum, logic should be an issue, even if it is discarded.
A good belief system will "work" for an individual, and they will not be plagued by doubts.
If by "flawed" you mean something that should be discarded, we agree.
An individual does not need logic for a good, working, belief system.

the wishy washy response was more likely a result of my low iq than design. I'll try again.

On the scale of agnosticism I am more inclined to creation probably due to nurture. I spent best part of 15 years arguing in the local churches with people who claim to have answers, 3 years ago I stopped trying.

How can a loving God create Hell to torment his creations
How could a loving God wipe the Earth of his creation in a worldwide flood
Why would a god create the earth for a "testing ground" and claim no responsibility for what goes on thereafter.
Why would a loving God step back and allow the devil to take over
If a baby dies, and we are here for a necessary test, how can that baby avoid hell if it has not passed the test? if it gets a free pass into heaven then how is murdering your child a bad thing? If the test is not necessary for a baby then why is it necessary for any of us?

the list goes on. Too many questions, not enough answers. I will sit and have a chat with anyone over it but I tend to get pissed off when it gets silly.

Are you agreeing with what I wrote or disagreeing?

You can keep that "low IQ" crapola to yourself. If i wanted to insult you, i would be explicit. The problem i had with your OP and your subsequent answer to your own question was that it seemed that you wanted others to provide a response, but were unwilling to do so yourself. The problem i had with "evolutionist" is that it is a polemical term. I don't think a continued discussion here would benefit either of us.

Agreed.

A strange premise. I can't see what that has to do with the rest of your post which seems to be endorsing my point.

moi aussi !

Belief systems have one or more fallacies at their very base.
If you consider a fallacy to be a flaw, than I am disagreeing.

We agree that they do not 'need' justification.

We believe what we believe, and that is enough.

What you call a 'premise', I say is part of the definition of a 'belief system', not at all strange, and not even a premise.

How can you describe a belief system, without mentioning that it is built on one or more logically fallacious pillars?
This is there nature.

It certainly does not stop us from choosing the best we can make or find, as we all have one.

"A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs of any such system can be classified as religious, philosophical, ideological, or a combination of these. Philosopher Jonathan Glover says that beliefs are always part of a belief system, and that belief systems are difficult to completely revise."

"mutually supportive" is another way of saying circular reasoning.

~ ~ ~quote
Science as a Belief System

Despite all the measures science takes to seek the truth and explain the universe, it is still easy to be skeptical of its claims. However, it is far easier to be skeptical of religious claims. Since no better alternative belief systems exist for explaining the universe, the choice between those we have is easy.
http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html

Most of us have a belief system combining what we consider the best of science and - "religion", or more accurately, philosophy.

I have a feeling that you ask questions not to get theological answers but to provoke people and you do not even want an answer which would satify you.


How can a loving God create Hell to torment his creations?
As far as I have seen and heard only sects talk about hell not the traditional denominations. In my experience you are decades behind what is preached in church.
How could a loving God wipe the Earth of his creation in a worldwide flood?
He never had a worldwide flood. The world for the people in those days was very limited. There probably was a great flood, but hardly a worldswide.
Why would a god create the earth for a "testing ground" and claim no responsibility for what goes on thereafter?
Testing what???? Maybe he gave us the responsibility to take care of our earth?
Why would a loving God step back and allow the devil to take over?
This a not only a theological question but also a psychological and a human question - we are a mixture of good and evil - how we cooperate with this is to a great extent our problem, not that of God.
If a baby dies, and we are here for a necessary test, how can that baby avoid hell if it has not passed the test? if it gets a free pass into heaven then how is murdering your child a bad thing? If the test is not necessary for a baby then why is it necessary for any of us?
A very good example of your questions which you do not want any anwers to. Your problem is that you ask questions and do not want an answer otherwise you would not have asked the same questions year after year in local chuches and probably in different denominations.

If the god is a fictitious creation who enjoys tormenting its creations...he does it with no difficulty whatsoever.



You mean like Catholicism and Anglicanism?

Are you kidding here?