u/Voldemort1023

This one term frequently comes up in discussions about God. I am a naturalist and thus don't believe in anything metaphysical.

But stuff like Logic and reasoning don't have purely physical footings. I reconcile with this by saying that we can't function without having a belief in both those things.

But, does that warrant further metaphysical claims about God? Are there any naturalistic explanations for those things?

And as an extension, what do you think about belief in things without any apparent physical evidence supporting it, i.e. faith?

Hey guys, I'm an atheist and I'm trying to understand more about the theistic worldview. I made a post a while back about religious reinterpretation, and I realised my views were wrong about it since the natural world still comes under God.

A followup question, when there seemingly arises a conflict between scripture and science, what takes precedence?

​

Guys, I am having a hard time understanding why there are progressive people in religious spheres. And, I don't mean those who don't consider religion as an important part of daily life but still consider themselves religious(majority of people), but those that actively debate over the interpretations of their holy books and try to fit them in modern contexts.

Now, as an atheist, I agree that the bible condemns me. It's clearly written there. I don't have a problem with it, the orthodoxy doesn't have a problem with it. Why do the progressives? Why do they feel the need to redefine the words themselves replacing "unbelief" with active rejection of god (as they do to defend their view)?

I understand debating over genuinely ambiguous topics and passages but debate over something as clear as stating that homosexuality is a grave sin, seems pointless. If everyone is free to reinterpret the words, then the orthodoxy is just as correct in the exclusivity of the bible.

Now, of course, if you genuinely don't like the passages, then bloody change it. Redact and rewrite instead of this middle ground sketchiness of following and not following your books at the same time. I value intellectual honesty and it seems like progressive theists are doing more damage than good, because they're validating the genuinely good religious people who are uncomfortable with the bad stuff in their religion while trying to placate the non-religious by showing that nothing in their religion is actually bad.

I apologize if I came accross as hostile, but I wish for a resolution on this topic.

Guys, this is the second time posting this. I originally posted this in r/debatereligion and some people responded. I'd like to see more views here that can clarify this for me. Thanks.

Why is religion "progressive"?

Guys, I am having a hard time understanding why there are progressive people in religious spheres. And, I don't mean those who don't consider religion as an important part of daily life but still consider themselves religious(majority of people), but those that actively debate over the interpretations of their holy books and try to fit them in modern contexts.

Now, as an atheist, I agree that the bible condemns me. It's clearly written there. I don't have a problem with it, the orthodoxy doesn't have a problem with it. Why do the progressives? Why do they feel the need to redefine the words themselves replacing "unbelief" with active rejection of god (as they do to defend their view)?

I understand debating over genuinely ambiguous topics and passages but debate over something as clear as stating that homosexuality is a grave sin, seems pointless. If everyone is free to reinterpret the words, then the orthodoxy is just as correct in the exclusivity of the bible.

Now, of course, if you genuinely don't like the passages, then bloody change it. Redact and rewrite instead of this middle ground sketchiness of following and not following your books at the same time. I value intellectual honesty and it seems like progressive theists are doing more damage than good, because they're validating the genuinely good religious people who are uncomfortable with the bad stuff in their religion while trying to placate the non-religious by showing that nothing in their religion is actually bad.

I apologize if I came accross as hostile, but I wish for a resolution on this topic.

So, I've applied for it, because I like math. But, my name is also on the merit list for Bsc. Math at Jai hind. So out of the two, which one would you suggest I take up?

Edit: Applied statistics and Data Analytics*

Does the first sentence mean that the place \"Lalpur\" is uphill while \"Kuna\" is down the hill? These are names of Indian cities and bear no significance to the meaning of the sentence. And I request everyone to be very honest with me here as this is deeply personal to me.