Open-minded Skepticism

Really ... be a skeptic, as long as there is no concrete proof of the subject. In the face of absolute proof, skepticism = "Mary, Mary, quite contrary!"Since the site is supposed to be about evolution versus creation ... I pose a question. What is the purpose of "God"?
Are we all put on this Earth to prove ourselves worthy to be ... God's friend? Only those who meet his criteria get to sit at his table? Is this the purpose?
I am skeptical.
I believe the purpose of "God" is to give people purpose. Period. Man created "God" so that he sees himself as more than just another animal in the evolutionary chain. Most people cannot conceive the fact that, when the chemical/electrical processes of the brain stop, so do you.
My skepticism fades ... body dies, brain ceases to function ... you cease to exist."God" is a creation of man to avoid that conclusion.

I thought being skeptical of ideas or theories IS being open minded. If you take everything at face value, THEN you don't investigate options.Anyway, thank you for the quotation help. I just asked about that on another thread.And thanks for the welcome.

So, as long as you believe the rock is soft, like a nerf ball, it won't hurt you when it hits you in the head???The cat's alive !!

I wasn't intending to be "uncivil" ... nor was I saying I'd throw a rock at you. I just used that as an example to disagree with the statement, Facts are concrete ... what you believe does not change the facts. Circumstantial evidence might be interpreted incorrectly ... factual evidence cannot, no matter what you believe.
Facts and evidence of facts should change how one believes, if previous beliefs were proven wrong.

I replied to "pop science" (your inference that it's false) with "pop bible".
I disputed that belief can alter the facts or the evidence of facts ... a premise you subscribe to and seem to believe and I don't.I guess you can consider my uncivil, since I did respond to you without agreeing with you ... but I don't understand how I didn't "engage" you? I countered your statements ... that's part of a debate, no?

Sorry, but no. Your ripples die out as soon as your brain does. Yes, your memory lingers in those who choose to remember you, but if no one does, then you don't ripple. Exactly my point. Everyone likes to believe they'll "live on". But it's just not true. Granted, you might leave a memory, but those only last until they no longer are important to the "rememberer". You ceased to exist long before that. It is blind belief that causes "nothing would get done". Skepticism drives the search for truth. Belief does not require truth, or action, it just "is". And it causes stagnation.

Since all brain activity is electro-chemical, once it stops, death. Once the body dies, there is no way to continue the thoughts that made the person. That person ceases to exist. Actually, no they don't. It's been an accepted fact for some time, the skin recedes, the nails and hair don't grow. No, I was referring to the fantasy of a "soul" that will know heaven or hell. True ... memories will live on. Books keep some memories around longer. But memories aren't "Souls" and the individual is not alive just because memories are. That argument could be said of anybody. But being skeptical means you question the validity of something. Sure, you could stop at that, but most don't. If only to prove your skepticism, most will research and discover the truth.
By your argument, the "faithful" have no need to research ... they believe and that's enough for them.

LOL Maybe I am confusing issues that aren't so confusing. I was talking about my perceptions and conclusions that there is no "soul" that lives on after a person dies. There is no heaven or hell, and even if there was, there's no electro-chemical way for a person to know where they ended up because the brain activity has ceased. I am cool with this. Memories of you can live on long after you are gone.Thank you for the welcome, Omnivorous. I stand by what I say, this time. Factual evidence can only be misinterpreted by those who refuse to accept it. Refusal to accept a fact does not change that fact.

You're like my Wife. I've told her god's 6 days took about 12 billion of our years. We're somewhere in the middle of the 7th day and he's still resting. (which explains his lack of interaction) She likes that explanation. Fact requires physical proof of existence. Fact requires observable cause and effect.Edited by mikechell, : No reason given.

Your own definition of "fact" is that cause and effect must be repeatedly observable.

You're right ... I was mistaken.
Facts mean nothing.
Observation is worthless.
Your beliefs win and nothing in the world is definite fact.Off I go into my own world, you can keep this one.

YOU seem to believe I was talking to you and your statements.You're observational skills might need a little ... honing.

If facts are tainted by my belief, then my observation that facts mean nothing is no less "real" than any other observation.

I am not beating any drum. I was ... when I was stating what I know to be the definition of a fact.
From the dictionary ... But since you've all "piled on" to push your point that a fact is indeed NOT concrete, I've put down the drum. It's you who still wants to argue a pointless "fact".

Again ... I will point out that a fact is a hard, cold truth that shapes the way we think. The way we think does not change the fact. You cannot call a thought, or an idea, or a half truth ... a fact. Once it is a set, repeatable truth or result, only then can it be considered a fact. It is NOT a true fact. The FACT is that the Earth rotates. Just because someone wants to BELIEVE the sun rises and sets does NOT make it a fact.