Adventure Game Studio

Whatever your faith please take a moment to step into this thread, look around and realize the message I'm putting forth.    I have not been an atheist for long.   In fact when I was a freshman I met a girl who I thought would go to hell,  as in some sort of abyss below the earth.  She was atheist & actually turned out to be the worst person i ever met.   Somehow, years later I found myself looking back at the horrible example of a person she was & realized that she and I were both suffering from the same dilemma.

We had been good Christians for the wrong reasons, &  that world was knocked out from under us.  When I chose atheism, I found myself bashing Christians because the doctrine & followers had led me astray for so many years.   I could not express myself in the open because the majority of Christians feel negative emotions against atheists.    During college I walked past the atheist & agnostic group & thought that they looked like the scum of the earth.     Something about doubt really scared me.   And its that fear over the years that led me straight to atheism.

I'll spare you the story and share with you someone's personal expression of their atheism.  Its a film he made as a tribute to his family  ( who believe in an afterlife )  & its something I've thought about doing.   The problem is that I'm  resentful of my childhood & my own selfish reasons for clinging onto my faith.   I get very negative about other people's faith and I don't want to do that.    Very easily, I could be one of those loud atheists who make the concept look unappealing and scary.   So I still cannot properly express my atheism.   This is the video I wish I had made:

http://www.vilekyle.com/Documentary/Why%20We%20Believe/index.htm

Can I just ask: do you not believe there is a God, or do you believe there is not a God?

the first one.   Not sure what you're getting at but I'm an agnostic atheist.  I do not deny the possibility of a god.


However, the god in the bible (AKA God) is one that I definitely do not believe in.

I don't quite believe in atheism. I myself am not atheist, but then again, I am not much of a religious person too, I don't follow some written manifest. Therefore, I quite cannot understand atheists, how can someone believe in nothing? I know some atheists who tend to believe in ghosts, now how can they be atheists because ghosts resemble some kind of afterlife? I believe that most people still believe in something, be it God or karma, in deep inside, they are just too buzy and happy to think about it. Take signs of zodiac for example, people are always interested what their sign is. And to be honest, by looking at people, it is quite easy to guess what zodiac sign they are and it somehow fits. Now tell me if it is pure science.

Quote from: evenwolf on Tue 31/07/2007 09:33:30
I get very negative about other people's faith and I don't want to do that. Very easily, I could be one of those loud atheists who make the concept look unappealing and scary. So I still cannot properly express my atheism.

When I started debating with theists I was like "Hey I think you're a total idiot for believing that crap but let's talk", which obviously is not the way to go. If you're hostile towards them from the begining they're not going to listen to you and won't be willing to explain what's behind their faith, no communication will be possible. If you want someone to listen and share their views, you have to be nice to them. This doesn't always work however. Sometimes the mere statement that you don't believe in god is such an offense for some people even if you make clear it's only your opinion and you don't want to force it onto them and you are willing to change it if given proper arguments or evidence. No matter if you're a quiet or a "militant" atheist you're going to be automatically unappealing and scary for some theists. Duh! You DON'T believe in god! You're EVIL! You don't want to talk with someone who's EVIL, do you? I got banned from many theist chatrooms without saying a word just for having "atheist"(or a variation) in my nickname.

Now what about the discussions that do "work"? Honestly I end up being quite annoyed and upset with those people. Most of the time it's dogmatic crap and no logical reasoning at all:

- "How do you know god exists?"
-"Because it's written in the bible."
-"How do you know the bible says the truth?"
-"Because god has written it."

-"How do you know god created the universe?"
-"Because everything that exists needs a creator"
-"So who created god?"
-"God has always existed."

I could go on and on. There's no "argument" for god I haven't heard and most if not all of them are fallacies that crumble in the face of logic. The problem is that belief != logic. And since logic is required for a proper debate, no proper debate with a believer is possible no matter how nice you fake to be. That is why I haven't had a religious debate in ages. It just changes nothing and leaves me very upset. When it comes to the god question, debates are useless. There's gotta be something more powerful than mere words to prove your point to the other side.

And if anyone should ask, I'm a weak atheist(or agnostic atheist).

Quote from: radiowaves on Tue 31/07/2007 11:37:47
I don't quite believe in atheism. I myself am not atheist, but then again, I am not much of a religious person too, I don't follow some written manifest. Therefore, I quite cannot understand atheists, how can someone believe in nothing? I know some atheists who tend to believe in ghosts, now how can they be atheists because ghosts resemble some kind of afterlife? I believe that most people still believe in something, be it God or karma, in deep inside, they are just too buzy and happy to think about it.

Let's get some facts right. Atheism = lack of belief in god specifically(weak atheism) or belief in the nonexistence of god specifically(strong atheism). You can be an atheist but still belief in ghosts or the afterlife. Atheism is equivalent to the statement "I don't believe in god" or "I believe there is no god". Ghosts and the afterlife are different subjects and don't fall under atheism.  I think you're confusing atheism with some materialistic world view.

Quote
Take signs of zodiac for example, people are always interested what their sign is. And to be honest, by looking at people, it is quite easy to guess what zodiac sign they are and it somehow fits. Now tell me if it is pure science.

Bullcrap.

I started to question the bible as soon as I found out there's no Santa or Easter bunny.
When I was 12 or 13, my religion teacher got me to become a convinced atheist (he didn't plan to do that, of course).
Right now I'd call myself an agnostic. I really don't care about religion. Something must have caused the big bang, but that's it.
I certainly don't believe in the cruel or the loving god of the bible.

Catholics are just another sect, as far as I'm concerned. They are simply numerous, which somehow gives them the right to call themselves religious. I understand that they are still looking for something, for answers, maybe. I don't claim I found them, but I'm not looking for them, either.
If I had to choose an -ism, I'd choose hedonism.

What really irritates me, though, are the esoteric people. E.g. people who believe that the zodiac sign has ANY significance. There are six billion people on earth. So 500 mil share the same character traits and day-to-day fates? Right.

QuoteAnd to be honest, by looking at people, it is quite easy to guess what zodiac sign they are and it somehow fits.

I bet my ass you can't guess my zodiac sign even if I stood right in front of you and you had known me for years.

@spaceboy: Seconded.

I wonder why everyone seems to act like missionary, why not just let them believe what they want... You also may want to make a difference between reiligous people and religious fundamentalists. Reading the thread "Meaning of life" gives me impression that quite many atheists aren't quite exactly atheists at all.

Its idiots like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGMuIyBK5P4 who make religion look bad.

And KhrisMUC, yes, 500 million people share similar personality. But daily basis zodiac readings are just wrong. Peoples personality can only be calculated from exact birth time etc. Sodiac sign in general just shows a certain level, like activeness. So generalized daily fates are just wrong.

Quote from: radiowaves on Tue 31/07/2007 12:01:12
I wonder why everyone seems to act like missionary, why not just let them believe what they want...

And let them force their creation myths into science class and blow up innocent people who don't believe in their imaginary friend. Sure.

Ah, yea America :) A fucked up country.

Quote from: radiowaves on Tue 31/07/2007 12:12:30
Ah, yea America :) A fucked up country.

Why do you think I'm talking only about america?

Quote from: radiowaves on Tue 31/07/2007 11:37:47
I myself am not atheist, but then again, I am not much of a religious person too, I don't follow some written manifest. Therefore, I quite cannot understand atheists, how can someone believe in nothing? I know some atheists who tend to believe in ghosts, now how can they be atheists because ghosts resemble some kind of afterlife?

There are days where I don't believe in afterlife as it makes us responsible of the world around us, it gives our actions, good or bad, much more weight, importance and emphasis, and the sole thing you'll keep on your short passage on this big blue ball will be how the world will remember you, and in which state you'll leave the place for the world's future generations. There are also days, where I'm forced to eat news about absurd genocides and other horror stories, where I see people suffering years of agony before dying in the most horrible way, where I do hope for them that there is actually something good and peaceful on the other side.

But there is a big difference between believing in some sort of afterlife and believing in god(s) from books written in a different era, who are responsible for/created everything careless of what science discovers everydays, and, while making some of us capable of the best things, made/makes the rest of us capable of horrible things that haunt and affect us for centuries to come and will leave unforgettable scars to this world.

That goes for the whole world..

I don't believe in a God, but I don't think I'm completely atheistic. Call me an agnostic. I don't respect christians for their beliefs, but I let them be because they are impossible to argue with due to their lack of logic while discussing religion.

The reason I've become an agnostic is probably because my brain don't have the thinking power to cope with the fact that we are just the lovechild of extreme coincidence! :) As many other people, it's probably also the "death" part of life that leads me over to the agnostic side. As with the whole coincidence thing, my brain can't calculate 'nothing'.

Quote from: space boy on Tue 31/07/2007 12:09:40
And let them force their creation myths into science class....

I wish it was just science classes. No one pays attention in those.  Get this.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/canyonflood.htm


Who is honestly going to step up to the world's most renowned geologists and tell them that a 2 billion year old land feature was created by a flood six thousand years ago?       Our president, that's who.   Separation of church & state anyone?    We are creating a delusional world for our children.



And a nice quote from the article.   "Now that the book has become quite popular, we don't want to remove it."   

Quote from: radiowaves on Tue 31/07/2007 12:01:12And KhrisMUC, yes, 500 million people share similar personality. But daily basis zodiac readings are just wrong. Peoples personality can only be calculated from exact birth time etc. Sodiac sign in general just shows a certain level, like activeness. So generalized daily fates are just wrong.

I can disprove the first sentence easily. My mother, my younger sister and I share the same zodiac sign. We are one family, I was raised mostly by my mother and spent half of my childhood in the company of my sister. Yet my personality isn't even remotely similar to neither my sister's or my mother's, e.g. I'm a convinced rationalist while my sister is heavily on the emotional side. So even though our birthdays are only three days apart (and four years), we are different on a very basic level.
How do you explain that?

Btw, evenwolf, if this is too much OT, we can take it to PMs.

KhrisMUC, not that I really care about astrology, but it has more to do with the day of birth. It has to do with stuff like the zodiac, yes, but also exact time of birth, day of birth, and place of birth (to calculate the position of planets, sun, moon, and stars when you were born).

About the actual topic....well....I believe in God, but it's not because I fear the afterlife or some such thing. If you knew of the existence of God, what would the afterlife have to do with believing in God?

I think Zodiac is a little extreme for the subject.    If another thread popped up I would gladly chime in about how stupid it is.  But yes,  here just makes no sense at all.  Year of the dog represent!


This community is full of atheists.  I mean, percentage wise... I've never seen so many in one place.  Does anybody have trouble bringin it up in public or among friends?   I get the feeling I'm becoming that guy who laughs about something I find ridiculous & the person next to me is silently offended.    The internet helps with anonymity but moreso I think it offers an escape from a regional conformity.

Eh, I sort of have a shopping cart religion. Which is awesome, because I can believe whatever I want, and not really care. Is that atheism? Maybe, maybe not.
But, I respect other people's beliefs, and I don't really think much of it when someone says "I'm a Christian" or "I'm Jewish."I just say "That's nice.", and we get along fine.
In other news, Shopping Cart Religions are awesome. You take a little of the Christian shelf, a little of the Wiccan shelf, a bit from the Bhuddist shelf...it's great.
That said, I'll probably end up being a Christian again. Because well, I tend to just bounce back to it.
In any case, believe what you want to believe. Don't let anyone tell you what to think. Not even me.

Hey, Macaulay Culkin is exactly 4 years older than (to the day) and I still haven't broken out as a child actor, let alone gone to rehab and made a comeback!

As far as I can tell, the only universally acceptable way of defending one's beliefs is to live honestly and compassionately. One of the advantages of being an atheist, is that there needn't be any moral weight placed upon spreading the non-Gospel, or declaring atheism's superiority. Christians, in contrast, are placed in the unpleasant position of believing that they MUST spread their beliefs, or people will suffer forever. For us, no afterlife is at stake, so there is no need to convert anyone. The only time when one needs to express one's atheism is when atheism is being misunderstood or abused - and defenses should never be petulant.

It's too easy to damage the public perception of agnosticism and atheism by looking too dogmatic. Here's one trap.

A) If you are an atheist for rational reasons, then you must believe that it is rational to be an atheist.
B) Therefore, you must consider all religious people irrational.

This seems sane enough, but it's completely off-base. First, a person may be rational in evaluating some pieces of evidence, and completely biased in other respects. Second, a religious upbringing can give a person a strong, consistent perception that a benevolent God is hovering somewhere just out of sight. The rest of us might well say that this is just indoctrination, but to tell another person, without strong positive evidence, to disregard a consistent sense - even if it's a hallucinatory one - seems to be unreasonable. Better to say that this sort of feeling can't be evidence for anybody but the believer.

Summary: Don't express atheism by knocking religion. Express it by celebrating and perpetuating critical thought.

All what you just said was inspiring, in that sort of way I wish I could think same as you.   But I'm afraid it'll be some time before I can attack it that way.

the thing about fighting for an afterlife or lost souls.... I actually do see the delusions of children as sort of the same thing.    Getting them to believe in santa clause and then ripping that away from them.    People conform to that too easily I think.

Quote from: evenwolf on Tue 31/07/2007 13:38:01
This community is full of atheists.  I mean, percentage wise...

I also am quite surprised at the number of atheists/non-believers on these forums. It was rather refreshing to be able to speak to people in real life at Mittens who are either atheists or non-believers about subjects usually stuck on the internet.

I tire very easily of people and their religions. When I hear someone talking about giving something up for lent I just want to fall asleep. When I hear about someone praying to a saint to help them find a lost watch I fall into a coma. When I hear someone thanking the lord for a quick birth for their wife I want to first ask them about all the people who have very painful and long births or where someone dies in the process or the baby is suffocated by the umbilical chord, if we have the lord to thank for that... And then going to bed straight after. Somethings make me sleepy and some things make me angry and then sleepy.

QuoteDoes anybody have trouble bringin it up in public or among friends?

I am mostly silent because True Believers will never be able to talk or discuss something without falling into various logical holes full of phalluses that make me even more tired.

I hate when people say Richard Dawkins is rude or whatever... How can one be rude when the majority of the world believes that you will go to another dimension and burn in a lake of fire FOR ETERNITY? What can I possibly say to someone that is more rude or condescending than that? When entering a debate with someone and you feel that this person is mistaken and carries awkward beliefs brought about by history, fear of the unknown and ignorance towards natural science and they believe that you deserve to be punished in FLAMES for an eternity...

This is why I don't feel too bad about my dismissive/sleepy/angry reaction to people of the popular faiths, Evenwolf.

I was impressed when Jess wrote a little biography for herself to be published in the back of a comic collection she was in [that or a newspaper article, I don't remember!] and she wrote "I am an atheist" among the things about herself. I never would have done that because I'm maybe overly sensitive to statistics and polls about atheists being the last socially acceptable group to openly hate...

Quote from: MrColossal on Tue 31/07/2007 17:18:32


I hate when people say Richard Dawkins is rude or whatever... How can one be rude when the majority of the world believes that you will go to another dimension and burn in a lake of fire FOR ETERNITY? What can I possibly say to someone that is more rude or condescending than that? When entering a debate with someone and you feel that this person is mistaken and carries awkward beliefs brought about by history, fear of the unknown and ignorance towards natural science and they believe that you deserve to be punished in FLAMES for an eternity...

They're not being rude, they're just giving you the facts!

(I got told this to my face once after I asked a girl why she thought she had the right to tell me I was going to burn in hell for eternity... "I'm not telling you, I'm just giving you the facts")

Quote
I never would have done that because I'm maybe overly sensitive to statistics and polls about atheists being the last socially acceptable group to openly hate...

There's an interview with Douglas Adams, by (I think) American Atheist magazine, and one of the questions is "have you ever felt discriminated against because of your atheism?" His reply was something like, "the idea is ridiculous to me", which is pretty much what I felt. Is it really that serious a concern? (Also, if anyone has 'The Salmon of Doubt' handy, could they look this up to make sure I'm not imagining things?)

I class myself as an atheist. It's not something I say often - not because it's difficult, just because I don't often talk to people who much care one way or the other. The closest was a Jehova's Witness who called round and left a magazine for me to read. They called back a few days later, I said "I don't believe in God", they said "thank you for your time" and left. When people who go out and knock on doors specifically to spread a religion are that accepting, things like polls claiming atheists are the least trusted minority in the US seem a little daft.

I was brought up by parents who didn't care about religion at all. In primary school, RE classes and bible stories just seemed like something you learnt. "Jesus was this dude, he did stuff, Kicking rad lets go have some juice." I wish I could remember how I felt about religion as a child, I don't really think it bothered me. I had a mental image of God being a 100-foot tall Santa Claus who sort of.. was wider than the universe and was inescapable.

Clearly I was never going to be an award winning Christian, but I didn't understand enough about the world until I was about 9 or 10 to be able to definitely say I didn't believe in God.

Expressing Atheism is hard, I tend not to because it's simply never an issue. I don't like poking fun at religious people either, although, I make two exceptions. Firstly, I would say something against teaching creationist theories in Science classes or burning children's books which contain magic.... Secondly, I cannot stand it when people seem to pity me for being an atheist. I don't know if anyone else has experienced that, but it's incredibly frustrating.

I mean, I don't pity religious people unless they're completely blinded by their faith and it causes them to act stupidly... so I don't enjoy being pitied for my atheism when I don't do anything wrong. I have a happy life and I help people around me, it's not as if I go out at night and slaughter orphans.

I believe in [a] God ... but I also believe in Science.

I believe "God" = "Nature" ... I think, through-out time, those worshipping a God or Gods were all, in effect, worshipping the same thing.  They just interpret it in different ways.  They see lightning and the power of it and to their primitive minds they assume it must be some other form of life causing it thus they give it a human(esque) appearance and call it a god.  Who's to say it's not?

I think religions are a sign of the times.  When the idea of creation (in christianity) came 'round the people at the time had no concept of evolution, so they interpretted "where do we come from?" in the only way that, at the time, made sense to them.  You don't eat meat on Fridays 'cause by Friday (without refridgeration) the meat would have gone bad and would make you sick if you ate it.

I think it's somewhat silly to assume that we humans are the highest form of life given how inconvenient organic life is.  We're incredibly fragile (very easy to harm/kill).  We have to constantly fuel ourselves (eat/drink) and we must constantly rid ourselves of bodily waste (potty time) and we're only around for a very short amount of time (universally speaking).  If that's a higher form of being I'm ashamed to call myself one!

I don't have a problem with religion.  It comforts a lot of people and makes them feel like life isn't completely pointless (which, if you think about it, it really is).  I admire people that can devote themselves to a relgion and have the discipline to follow through (as long as they aren't using their religion as a means to justify hatred and killing of their "enemies"... that's just dumb)

I know a lot of Christians that are smart, normal people who just follow a different path.  They aren't stupid because they believe in God and the Bible.  The very nature of faith is, in my opinion, believing in something you can't prove.

I have a policy of ignoring people's beliefs.  If you don't believe in god, good for you.  But don't assume that those who do are ignorant just 'cause you don't.  That's the same thing as calling somebody ignorant 'cause they don't like the same kind of food you do.

My favorite line from the movie/book "Contact" was when Ellie tells Palmer that she would need some proof to know that God existed. 

Palmer says, "Did you love your father?".
"Yes ... very much." Ellie replies.
"Prove it."

Ashen, I checked for you, he said "Not even remotely.  It's an inconceivable idea."

Expressing my atheism is easy.  Someone asks "do you believe in a god?", and I say "no".  I don't understand why a lot of time needs to be devoted to that.

I never would have openly said I was an atheist.   There's just no need to.     But one christmas my brother actually started digging into me and was goading me on.   I soon after declared myself atheist.

I had been an agnostic out of courtesy.    My family doesn't want me to go to hell.  But here I was with my brother...during Christmas... and he keeps digging and digging.   Laughing like he's got some bet with God.    Now what's the point in isolating me?  There are only two scenarios:

1.    We interact with each other until we die.   Then there is nothing and we never see each other again.

2.   We interact with each other until we die.   My brother relaxes and drinks martinis in heaven while I burn in a lake of fire.  My brother is in paradise...oh except he can never see his brother anymore.  He's damned for all eternity.   That's heaven.  Knowing your friends and loved ones are forever in agony.

Quote from: Becky
Ashen, I checked for you, he said "Not even remotely.  It's an inconceivable idea."

Thank you.

     I am not a church going Christian, however I believe in the moral code of the bible and the existence of God. The bible illustrates a set of laws and morals for living, this is its most important contribution to modern society. The biblical text teaches basic stuff such as not to commit murder or adultery, to respect ones parents. I live my life based on the principles of what is right and what is wrong using this document as a basic outline. The problem is not with the teachings of the bible but rather with modern religious establishments. Money and evangelical teachings have become so ingrained in Christian culture that it has become ludicrous. People are pushing their sects farther and farther apart with extreme beliefs in order to differentiate their faith from other Christian faiths.
     The belief in God does not mean total disregard for science. I believe in evolution both micro and macro, however I also believe that god created the original organism from which all life stemmed. I believe that God set in motion the universe in such away as it doesn't require constant interaction. This is a rather deist view but I hold to it. The laws of science are so advanced that there has to be a greater being, a being that scientists have not been able to disprove for over two millenniums. Atheists that challenge the existence of God are dolts, you can challenge a religion, however challenging the existence of God without proof for the contrary is nothing more then pure madness derived from a mind that wishes for there to be no God. Faith in God is not the same as faith in a religion. Faith in God could very well be engraved in our psyches. Epileptic seizures have been found to give even atheists faith experiences. Science has no explanation for these visions much like it has no way to disprove the existence of God. I want to finish up this post with a joke I read the other day that is fitting of this thread.

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, “Lord, we don't need
you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of
nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the ‘beginning.'”

“Oh, is that so? Tell me…” replies God.

“Well, ” says the scientist, “we can take dirt and form it into the likeness
of You and breathe life into it, thus creating man.”

“Well, that's interesting. Show Me.”

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil.

“Oh no, no, no…” interrupts God,


“Get your own dirt.”

Quote from: Becky on Tue 31/07/2007 18:38:11
Expressing my atheism is easy.  Someone asks "do you believe in a god?", and I say "no".  I don't understand why a lot of time needs to be devoted to that.

I don't think it's that easy for everyone. In some parts of the world your environment won't care about you being an atheist. In that case it's just as easy as you said. In other areas someone who admits they're an atheist may be rejected by their family and friends or even get harmed physically. When you're faced with consequences like that you can't simply answer "no".

Quote from: Moox on Tue 31/07/2007 18:58:32
The biblical text teaches basic stuff such as not to commit murder or adultery, to respect ones parents. I live my life based on the principles of what is right and what is wrong using this document as a basic outline.

What about the parts in the bible that say that you should stone your inobedient child or kill people who work on the sabbath?

Quote from: Moox
Atheists that challenge the existence of God are dolts, you can challenge a religion, however challenging the existence of God without proof for the contrary is nothing more then pure madness derived from a mind that wishes for there to be no God.

Can you disprove shiva, quetzalcoatl, swarog, baal or seth? No? That means all of these gods exist.

The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. "There is no god" is not an extraordinary claim just like saying "there are no smurfs".

Personally I'm not trying to disprove god. I'm asking believers to show me evidence for god which apparently is a great difficulty for them.

Quote from: Moox
Epileptic seizures have been found to give even atheists faith experiences.

So does fever, alzheimers and marihuana.

To me God simply doesn't exist and it frustrates me that so many otherwise intelligent people can possibly believe that he does.

I'm a bit of an atheist preacher myself.  I used to say I respect other peoples religions, but I've lost my patience.  How can people so blind be in charge of our countries, and our armies.  It's unbelievable.

Let me tell you a little story...
When I was about 10/11 I went to Sunday school, called myself a Christian and sang hymns and ate biscuits with the other kids.
Then one day my Sunday school teacher said the love for your Christian brothers and sisters is the strongest love.  Stronger than blood relations.  So I said "you mean I should love the people in this room more than my own sisters?"... he basically said yeh, thats the answer, and I walked out of the room and my anger at the baptist soon dissipated along with my respect for God...

Then it wasn't long before it became obvious that god doesn't exist.  And it is fucking obvious which is why I get so angry.

Quote from: Stupot on Tue 31/07/2007 19:09:45
To me God simply doesn't exist and it frustrates me that so many otherwise intelligent people can possibly believe that he does.

Belief in God makes one unintelligent?

Quote from: Stupot on Tue 31/07/2007 19:09:45
Then it wasn't long before it became obvious that god doesn't exist.  And it is fucking obvious which is why I get so angry.

Proof?


People like you are the reason why atheists get bad names. You have hatred towards those of differing believes. You skip being rationale and jump straight to name calling. You dont believe in the existence of God because you choose not too just like I believe in the existence of God because I choose too. There is not science to support either of our views, however you turn into an angry dog at the sound of the word God. The reason that most believers mock you is not because you are an atheist, it is because of your attitude. You have a false sense of superiority. "I dont believe in God, I am smarter than you." when in fact you are making claims without scientific backing just as I am. There is no mental superiority in being an atheist. Drop it.

I find it awkward that someone is asking for proof that god DOESN'T exist but this isn't the thread for another series of posts about existance/nonexistance of God. Let's try and keep it to personal views and feelings on being an atheist.

As stated before, regarding the belief in any God or god-like deity, I am resoundingly agnostic.

It is a question that simply cannot be answered. By anyone. Not the Pope, not President Shrub, not even Billy Meier. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier)

The human race strives to give a higher meaning to it's seemingly arbitrary existence, and a reason for thousands of years of pain and suffering. A cosmic reward to make it all worthwhile.

Or humanity just needs a purpose, or maybe even just a point, to justify it's continuing journey on this rotating ball of dirt.

The black and the white: "God does exist" vs "God does not exist."

Both arguments indicate knowledge of an ultimate answer. Both arguments are therefore null. The question itself is flawed, since no finite resolution can possibly be reached from our existential vantage point.

Forget eternal salvation. Forget the theory of evolution. Far more important, to both camps, is clearly the need to be right. To win.

A contest I would rather not be a party to.

Eric, I am asking nothing of the sort. It was a sarcastic comment meant to get Stupot to realize he isn't intellectually superior for not believing in the existence of God. I support people with morals, if an atheist has good morals then I will accept them as a friend just as I would a Christian or a Jew. However when an atheist spends their time bashing people that dont believe what they do I disregard them just as I would a Christian or a Jew. If you have a problem with religious establishments leave it at that, don't cross the line to attack others.

Well its just a matter of time before the theologies start to boil.   I guessed that coming into this thread.   But a part of me did hope as a world minority we'd get some good shared experiences going.   I even like the Christian experiences...  but I hope all challenges can be put aside for whatever afterlife thread pops up later this week.    :)

Quote from: LimpingFish on Tue 31/07/2007 19:25:28

The black and the white: "God does exist" vs "God does not exist."

Both arguments indicate knowledge of an ultimate answer. Both arguments are therefore null. The question itself is flawed, since no finite resolution can possibly be reached from our existential vantage point.

People say this quite a bit and it's never made much sense to me. You can't also prove that there isn't a race of sentient rocks living in the center of Jupiter who are undetectable. You can't prove that a magical, invisible dragon doesn't live in my garage.

What you can do is test claims made by believers/the bible/the koran/the whatever and this is what people do and what science inadvertantly does. The earth is not the center of the universe, man is the product of a loooong chain of small changes through natural selection. These are 2 scientifically accepted truths that destroy arguements made by various religious figures throughout time. Does it disprove the idea of a magical being in another dimension that created the universe? No. Does it mark against Christian/Jewish/whatever teachings? Yes. If one can shed light on the authors, the creation, the inaccuracies, the inconsitancies, the ideological borrowing and the editing of various religious texts on earth, one can start to disprove THOSE gods. But if you just want to start creating new gods to speak about that are not related to these teachings, sure I can't disprove them. But as soon as you make a claim based on that belief, we can test it.

THAT... Is what I love about being an atheist. In fact, the eyeopening that I receive on a pretty much daily basis from being an atheist has made me the happiest I've been in my life. Evenwolf, are you happier now? I used to look back in anger [not that I was particularly religious but URGH! Stupid little kid eric!] but thinking about my life in the now and how I feel is so good.

eric:   I'm not as shy anymore.   Im working on happiness.   At least I'm getting somewhere as a human being because I'm no longer a little kid that runs around and agrees with everything.   That was always my problem.   I cared what everyone thought of me.   So maybe I didn't even believe ever.  The right expression is that I "played along."   

What Ive found is how selfish a person I am.   My fear of death, my jealousy of friends and loved ones, my wanting of an afterlife.   So opening my eyes to atheism actually does give hope.    To live life the right way.   I actually did abstain from sex and girls for all of high school and most of college.    It wasn't out of belief but the pride interpreted from what I  thought others gained from belief.   

One of my best revelations came to me when my sister left me a message.  She said one of her dogs had died.   Selfishly I didnt call her back.  In my delusion,  I deeply felt that if I didnt call I would be keeping all of those dogs alive.   It was comforting.. because calling was to doom one dog to die.   And I realized that's what heaven is.  Its the delusion that things don't really die.   But everything dies.  You have to face it.


My favorite atheist died while I was reading his books.  That's the only despair I have felt thus far.   When my guide to humanity up and quit.

Stephen Jay Gould?

Quote from: MrColossal on Tue 31/07/2007 19:47:13
People say this quite a bit and it's never made much sense to me. You can't also prove that there isn't a race of sentient rocks living in the center of Jupiter who are undetectable. You can't prove that a magical, invisible dragon doesn't live in my garage.

And you can't prove it either. I can camp out in your garage, festooned with all manner of detection equipment, and the best I can hope for is a slight rustling of dust bunnies. It proves nothing, except that any magical dragons inhabiting said garage were possibly out for the evening. I would also have no starting point for which to detect dragons, magical or otherwise, and nothing to base any possible evidence on. You could simply say that the alleged dragon only appears to you. I would be able to neither confirm or deny, and you would have no other evidence to offer other than your word.

Stalemate. A total inability, on either side, to offer tangible proof to confirm or deny the existence of magical dragons. The question is therefore unanswerable without direct intervention of a dragon. Or a sentient Jupiterian rock formation.

I don't see what is so hard to understand. We can anyalyse and investigate, test claims until cows give birth to wardrobes, and be none the wiser. Ever. Or at least until somebody comes foward with a God-shaped box and cries "Ta da!".

There exists nothing to prove the existence of God, or nothing to disprove the same. Miracles, Dinosaurs, Darwinism, angel sightings, virgin births...

The agnostic, depending on the basis of their agnostism, doesn't even ask the question. The futility of trying to prove/disprove and the very nature of the question itself are one and the same.

Therefore, my point isn't "Don't even bother."

My point is "Why even bother?."

Quote from: evenwolf on Tue 31/07/2007 20:02:38
And I realized that's what heaven is.  Its the delusion that things don't really die.   But everything dies.  You have to face it.

Death is a concrete certainty, a tangible factor in the equation. Death proves the existence of Life, and vice versa.

But neither Death, nor Life, prove (or disprove) the existence of God. The acceptance of Death is non-variable. To accept something, the possibility to deny it has to be, if not attainable, at least viable. You can't deny the concept of Death to any sustainable degree. Just as you cannot deny the concept of Life. We, Humanity as a whole, can only try to attach meaning to each.

And in defining what we believe Life/Death to be, is where we begin to, if not understand, at least comprehend our existence.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Tue 31/07/2007 20:37:42

My point is "Why even bother?."

Understanding of the universe, understanding of human thought processes, understanding of the evolution of belief, finding a set of rules that the world can agree on. Because people do amazing and dreadful things in the name of faith, because people kill each other and themselves because god told them, because because because... There are thousands of reason why we should discuss this. It's not a matter of "HAHA I'm right!" as it is "Ok, so I'm right, interesting, what's next?"In my opinion

Yes, question what makes people die for their faith. Why appealing to the faith of the masses is a viable political/commercial platform. Why the need for "faith" itself is so prevalent in the mindset of humanity.

But by concentrating on that which cannot be answered, we divert attention from finding answers closer to ourselves. Answers which may actually be attainable. Answers which may make the existence of God moot.

Like I've said, twice now, why confuse the issue with an unanswerable question?

It's like saying "Right, I'm going to climb this mountian, but first I'm going to dig a pit, as deep as this mountain is tall, and start by climbing out of that."

As to why faith makes people do crazy things, ultimate proof of God is more or less superfluous. These people already believe God exists, and will not be shaken in that belief. Ultimate evidence to disprove the existence of God, as to what form this would take I can't even guess, would mean little to them.

We cannot (in our capacity) prove/disprove the existence of God in any tangible form.

You can try to prove/disprove the genesis of life on earth, but even then the answer will be disputed. And more or less unrelated to God's current existence.

To prove the theory of Creationism (again, I have a hard time seeing how) only really tells us that maybe God/a God-like being (in whatever form) did exist. It doesn't clarify any of the religious connotations humanity has attached to the concept of God Almighty. Sure it would be an earth-shattering revelation, but when the dust had settled someone would ask the question "But does God exist now?"

Finding Noah's Ark buried in a mountain equally has little relevance. Or the Ark of the Covenant. They simply raise more questions, few, if any, leading to a possible answer to "Does God exist?".

There is so much we can learn, and strive to define, that it makes the question of God's existence irrelevant.

And beyond, as I said earlier, God making Itself physically known, what other way can that question be answered?

I do believe we are agreeing. I said you can't prove or disprove the random belief in an extra dimensional creator of stuff but you can test the claims attributed to that belief. We agree on this?

I thought I was [because of your apparent frustration in your posts?] misunderstanding you but I'm not. You can test claims made by people as to the nature of religious beliefs but not the various thoughts one has in their head that have no earthly connection. Do we agree to agree? You can test my magical dragon if I say "Every wednesday at 3pm it sneezes visible legos." but if I make no claims then I'm Proof Proofâ,,¢

I have two questions really, one hypothetical, the other more... philosophical.

1. What is the use of the religion? In a micro sense, not macro. Because here we are discussing about expressing Atheism, and while it is almost plainly obvious the usage of religion (=communication, community, law, guidance) in a community sense, what about the personal sense?

There is no reason for proof from neither side really. Is God there? Is god there? Is Zeus there? Is it all empty bullshit? Well I know the answer for me. Can't prove it and I sure don't care to. It would be selfish to think that I'm right and everyone else is wrong!

This netrual line of thinking, shown above, goes into my ideas as well. Yes, there could be somthing, no I don't follow any kind of rules from any religion.

Isn't it nice? It's perfect! There is someone out there, who will take care of me + family + friends, and will destroy all my foes (no one thus far), and after death (s)he will accomodate me + family + friends. No strings attached, no rules to follow (<-the greatest of all).

On the rules part, I will confess that I'm a really nice (=naive) guy. I don't steal, cheat, beat, smoke, drink (much), I'm pretty much fine with the 10 commandments ;D. And if you take the "stupid" -Nikolas 1.1 ;D rules from Catholicism (no premarrital sexual relationships, whoops already done, no condoms, whoops already done, and not planning for a third child), then I'm fine with Christianity as well. But I don't go to church, nor I pray before dinner or whatever else.

So, pretty much, whatever comes handy.

If anyone wants to follow my religion PM me, btw ;D

Second question:

2. To all those (including me actually, although I'm semi there) who say they're atheists, agnostics etc. I am really looking forward to an answer here (more as a curiosity, not a way to prove anything, or prove you wrong, or corner you).

Assuming the following:

You have a family, and some children (1-n, the number is of no difference). At one point your most precious child (though you love all of them equalty) is hit by a hit and run bastard! High speed. The child is in coma to the hospital, the doctors can't say anything really, just raise their arms (won't go into the question of organ donor now...  :-[).

So:

Sitting there next to your commatose child, do you ask someone for something?

I sure do, cause I feel helpless.

Maybe, you atheists have never been in such, or simmilar need?

The above are true and honest questions, not tricks, or anything.

Thank you

Indeed, Mr C'sal, we are in agreement. Just my slight misunderstanding of the wording of an earlier post. Sorry.

So yes, we are free to question the claims people make regarding the existence of God, but not the belief (for or against) itself. Such claims should, of couse, be open to discussion and analysis. How we approach these claims is, however, dictated by the individual.

Questioning the belief itself, for which the existence of God provides the foundation, is, in my opinion, ultimately unanswerable and therefore redundant.

On a side note: I think people are quick to label themselves as Theist/Agnostic/Atheist without first exploring their reasons for doing so.

Some Theists might actually find themselves closer to the Agnostic Theists (who claim that the existence of God is unknown, but believe that he exists).

Or some Atheists might be closer to Agnostic Atheists (Again, the existence of God is unknown, but they believe his doesn't exist).

Nikolas: I think, when faced with overwhelming helplessness, even the most stauch atheist/agnostic may betray his/her's core beliefs. The reasons for doing so would say more about that persons frustration with their inability to control/affect the situation, rather than their opinions on the existence of God. And understandably so.

Nikolas: Not exactly the same situation but I experienced something similar(I'll leave out the details). No, it did not make me ask someone for help. Rather I asked myself the question why this someone would allow something like that in the first place. For some people this might be a situation where they "turn to god" in desperation. For me it reinforces the disbelief in an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful god. And whenever someone says to me that god loves everyone in the world I think of that situation and it fills me with anger. People who say that, are mocking everyone who has ever suffered for no reason or people who had to watch their loved ones suffer for no reason. This is one of the many reasons I am against the notion of belief without evidence.

"pretty much fine with the 10 commandments" except the punishments for breaking a commandment, right? Not many people talk about those anymore.

as per your second question:

It doesn't really apply to religion or having a belief. If I drop a bowl of pudding and then a cup of milk and then stub my toe and I say out loud "Alright! Enough!" I'm not talking to anyone the same way I'd say out loud or in my head "Please just be ok, please just wake up, please I'll do anything just open your eyes and look at me, please please please... Just make him better..."

The more important part of the question for me is when the child does wake up. If the child wakes up and I say "Thank you Jesus." then I have a problem. Unless the team of doctors working around the clock to wake my child up and keep him from dying is collectively named Team Jesus, I've just taken all that is good in human kind and attributed it to a maybe-historical dude who's been dead for 2000 years.

Being in need and asking the air for help is a thing everyone does, I feel. Expecting a reply or for the laws of nature to be suspended because you asked, is what religious people do.

LimpingFish: Hooray, we solved the Case of the Religious Debate! I'll notify Scotland Yard!

And yes, I am having a hard time adjust back to being at work after the Mittens week... Hence all the posts!

God, I do so love these debates! \o/

...

Uh-oh.

A hypothetical scenario:
Pick an earth-like planet, build cities, populate them with young, friendly agnostics who won't teach their children about any god. Provide them with all scientific knowledge currently available.
Is this civilization ever going to build churches? Will it ever have a religion of any kind, or even a pope?
I don't think so.

I believe we're still experiencing evolution. In the Middle Ages, almost every western European person was catholic. Today, it's more like 50/50? Not sure. But visit any church on a Sunday morning, and the only people in there are like 60 or older.

I'm glad I live in a big city in a very tolerant country as far as being religious or not is concerned. I can see myself getting very angry should I ever meet someone who pities me for being agnostic. All of my friends and pretty much all the people I encounter in daily life don't ever express their religious beliefs (if they had those, which I doubt), let alone try to convert somebody. Here it's more like the other way 'round: believers are often afraid to "come out of the closet".
I can remember one person, though. She was living next door and used to come over to visit my Mum, trying to get her to go to church, to get back "on the right path". I also remember I used to pity her because she was alone, frightened and not completely mentally stable.
There's no Sunday school in Germany, and you can choose to attend ethics classes instead of RE as soon as you are out of elementary school.

I'm incredibly glad that neither my surroundings nor my family are remotely religious. It allowed me to enjoy my childhood and youth without the mental oppression of being afraid of somebody watching my every move, condemning me if I made the slightest mistake.

Christians don't have to prove god exists, they have to proof their god exists.

Quote from: Moox on Tue 31/07/2007 19:19:06

Quote from: Stupot on Tue 31/07/2007 19:09:45
To me God simply doesn't exist and it frustrates me that so many otherwise intelligent people can possibly believe that he does.

Belief in God makes one unintelligent?

Quote from: Stupot on Tue 31/07/2007 19:09:45
Then it wasn't long before it became obvious that god doesn't exist.  And it is fucking obvious which is why I get so angry.

Proof?


People like you are the reason why atheists get bad names. You have hatred towards those of differing believes. You skip being rationale and jump straight to name calling. You dont believe in the existence of God because you choose not too just like I believe in the existence of God because I choose too. There is not science to support either of our views, however you turn into an angry dog at the sound of the word God. The reason that most believers mock you is not because you are an atheist, it is because of your attitude. You have a false sense of superiority. "I dont believe in God, I am smarter than you." when in fact you are making claims without scientific backing just as I am. There is no mental superiority in being an atheist. Drop it.

No moox, a lot of believers in God are highly intelligent.  They just have this one small flaw in their logic.  I don't claim to be smarter than religious people.  Just eternally more enlightened.

If I'm slightly bitter about religion it's only because I didn't take to kindly to some guy telling me I should love a room full of strangers more than my own mother and sisters.  This is exactly the kind of person I mean.  I'm sure he was a very intelligent person otherwise.  But this tiny hole in his logic called Christianity had warped his common sense.

The way I say it is that (in my humble opinion, my very logical, humble opinion) to my mind I cannot possibly conceive the idea of God, therefore I don't like to say "I don't believe in God" because it suggests a degree of doubt.  So instead I say "There is no God"... It might sound arrogant but it's the only way I can express my atheism (which is what this thread is about).

You are a highly confrontational chap Moox... I hope you're not sill like this when we're married.

Stupot - you do of course realize that the religious people could make the exact same argument about athiests right?  That you have a logic hole in your brain if you think there is no God?

Are you saying that you truely believe there is no power greater than the human being?  What about the weather?  What about the sun?  What about the "power" that drives the universe?

I don't have a problem at all with your beliefs, it's just that when you state them like they're the end-all be-all explanation it comes across as confrontational.

Religious people can't prove God exists.

You can't prove God doesn't exist.

Stalemate.

Absolutley.
Stalemate.
But what I'm trying to say is that my mind is so made up that God doesn't exist.  To me there is no doubt whatsoever.  I know I can't prove it so that technically means here is doubt, but the reason I state is as a fact is because to me it is fact.

But I think it's more logical to think there is nothing there than it is to think there is a big invisible man (perhaps with a white beard) swirling around answering prayers and keeping an eye on us

God simply doesn't exist.  If other people want to believe he does, then that's up to them but they should go telling a ten-year-old kid not to love his own family.

Where did I say humans were the greatest power?  I don't know what you mean about the sun and the weather.  These are indeed very powerful forces, but they're not gods.  They are occurrences of nature, as are we all and we have science to thank for that.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 31/07/2007 23:59:51
Are you saying that you truely believe there is no power greater than the human being?  What about the weather?  What about the sun?  What about the "power" that drives the universe?

That power is not sentient, while a God in whatever form is considered sentient.

A lot of Christians are of the conviction that atheists are actually religious themselves, and their religion (and doctrine) is the theory of evolution. Wouldn't that make us Darwinists or evolutionists rather than atheist? The definition of atheist is the lack of a religion.

One thing which keeps pissing me off is Christians going "How can somebody believe in nothing?", because not believing in God is equated to not believing in anything.

I'm an atheist, and I thereby deny the existance of a God, in whatever form you can think of. I believe in so many things I can go on listing and fill as many pages as the old testament has, but I'll just mention one, which is the most important on my list anyway.

I believe in myself.

And to most of my friends it seems to be similar. I know 3 Christians. That's it. Rest of my friends are atheist of the lack of God kind. Yet we act with respect to one anothers respective beliefs. They believe in a God, I believe in the lack of one. It doesn't matter to me that they believe in God, since it doesn't affect me. They don't care that I don't, since it doesn't affect them. We're great friends and the mutual respect (and frequent discussions, because we all love discussions) keeps it nice and friendly.

There need not be any conflict between followers of God, Allah or JHVH, or between any of them and those who do not believe in them.

The key to a good and easy world is respect. Problem with humans is that everything that's different from their own group(s) is scary and seen as a danger to the 'purity'/safety of them.

As an atheist I'm of the opinion that everybody has to choose for themselves what they believe in and what to follow. If you choose to believe in God, do so. If it makes you happier, then obviously it was the right religion for you. If you choose Allah, and you're better off, same thing. JHVH? Same thing.

No god? Same effin' thing.

Religions, to me, are like shoes (or similar products). Some like Nike, some prefer Adidas. Some swear by Puma, and others prefer italian leather loafers. In the end it doesn't matter what others think, it's what makes you feel comfortable enough to feel strong and confident. That is what decides whether or not you've made a mistake or not.

I have spoken :)

Disregarding the fact that I dislike labels, I would consider myself to be agnostic. I accept that its not possible to know at the moment whether or not a supreme deity of some sort exists, and generally don't think much more about it. From experiences in my life, I don't think God exists (the Christian God that is), but I don't adamantly *believe* he doesn't. I don't have a problem with people believing in a deity, or following a certain religion, I have problems with what they do in the name of it.

If you want to believe in a god, that's fine and dandy, just don't tell me I'm an evil sinner, who's going to burn in hell because I don't. If your faith gives you comfort and guidance in your life, that's wonderful, just don't tell me my way of life is wrong. I respect that some people feel the need to believe in a god, and follow a religion, and just because I don't share their faith, I don't feel the need to yell at them they're wrong, because who knows, they could be right. I would like to have the same respect returned (and I usually don't - so much for do unto others...). I'm sad to say I've lost a number of friends from this. I don't like to be judged by the standards of a faith I don't believe in, especially not by people who are meant to be my friends. Nor do I take kindly to attempts to convert me, when its clear I'm not interested. Nothing makes me angrier than the 'oh no, my friend will go to hell if I don't save them' attitude.

So generally I don't express my beliefs much. I tend to nip religious conversations in the bud before they get started, because I get terribly frustrated trying to have a sensible debate with people who simply follow their faith blindly without ever having considered why they should. How on earth are you meant to convince me that your faith is right, if you've never even thought about why *you* follow it, never mind why anyone else should? I'm not saying all people with faith are like this, I know they aren't, but I've met far too many that are. There was a time that I did believe in that 'big beard in the sky' but it still never stopped me from wondering why, and asking questions, and challenging it. If you can challenge your beliefs every day and still believe, then kudos to you.

Sorry, rambling a bit. In short, if religion makes someone's life easier, that's nice, but it doesn't work for me, I need to find my own path. And I'd be more inclined to express my beliefs, if they were treated with respect rather than ridicule, or worse, pity.

Quote from: voh on Wed 01/08/2007 00:48:41
Religions, to me, are like shoes (or similar products). Some like Nike, some prefer Adidas. Some swear by Puma, and others prefer italian leather loafers. In the end it doesn't matter what others think, it's what makes you feel comfortable enough to feel strong and confident. That is what decides whether or not you've made a mistake or not.

I have spoken :)

Nice analogy voh. ;)

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 31/07/2007 23:59:51
Stupot - you do of course realize that the religious people could make the exact same argument about athiests right?  That you have a logic hole in your brain if you think there is no God?

Are you saying that you truely believe there is no power greater than the human being?  What about the weather?  What about the sun?  What about the "power" that drives the universe?

I don't have a problem at all with your beliefs, it's just that when you state them like they're the end-all be-all explanation it comes across as confrontational.

Religious people can't prove God exists.

You can't prove God doesn't exist.

Stalemate.

But we can certainly prove that the god of the christian bible does not exist.

Pelican, I agree with pretty much everything you said but about this part

Quote from: Pelican on Wed 01/08/2007 15:09:52
Disregarding the fact that I dislike labels, I would consider myself to be agnostic. I accept that its not possible to know at the moment whether or not a supreme deity of some sort exists, and generally don't think much more about it. From experiences in my life, I don't think God exists (the Christian God that is), but I don't adamantly *believe* he doesn't.

Now I don't want to tell you what you should call yourself but wouldn't such an opinion make you a weak atheist?  As far as I'm concerned an agnostic thinks god is unknowable and they refuse to make up their mind, while a weak atheist(or an agnostic atheist if you will) says what you said("I'm not sure, but from what I've experienced so far I don't think god exists"). I've seen many people who hold such an opinion but they insist on being called agnostic. I don't know, is this a fear of being misunderstood when calling yourself atheist(which frankly happens very often)? Is it because "agnostic" is more "socially acceptable" than "atheist"?

----edit.  Challenge removed--

Quote from: space boy on Wed 01/08/2007 15:28:18
Now I don't want to tell you what you should call yourself but wouldn't such an opinion make you a weak atheist?  As far as I'm concerned an agnostic thinks god is unknowable and they refuse to make up their mind, while a weak atheist(or an agnostic atheist if you will) says what you said("I'm not sure, but from what I've experienced so far I don't think god exists"). I've seen many people who hold such an opinion but they insist on being called agnostic. I don't know, is this a fear of being misunderstood when calling yourself atheist(which frankly happens very often)? Is it because "agnostic" is more "socially acceptable" than "atheist"?

Not at all, I don't have a problem with being considered atheist or agnostic or a weirdo :P. I don't like labels simply because they tend to box people together without acknowledging their uniqueness.

Agnostic (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=agnostic):
A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Atheist (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=atheist):
One who believes that there is no deity

Quite simply, I accept that its impossible to know if there is a supreme deity, and I'm not inclined to believe either way. I accept that it is entirely possible that there is a god, whether I believe so or not. At the moment, from my experiences in life I *think* that there isn't, but should I have experiences to the contrary, I may change that view. Calling myself an atheist would suggest I adamantly believe there is no god, and that is not the case. I am always open to changing my views should I receive new evidence or experiences that require me to.

Also, I am speaking specifically about Christianity as this is the religion I was brought up with. I haven't considered the beliefs of other faiths, as I don't know enough about them to form an opinion.

But anyway, feel free to call me a weak atheist agnostic if you like. ;) (see, this is why I don't like labels, its too hard to make one word explain complex personal beliefs).

Quote from: Meowster on Wed 01/08/2007 15:20:55But we can certainly prove that the god of the christian bible does not exist.

How?

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 01/08/2007 19:41:06

Quote from: Meowster on Wed 01/08/2007 15:20:55But we can certainly prove that the god of the christian bible does not exist.

How?

Exactly what I want to know...

One last time, by testing the claims made by the religion.

A disgusting generalization. There is no way whatsoever to disprove the existence of a God.  Christianity encompasses many people from many cultures. If one Christian in Spain makes a claim that God lives in Idaho does that mean that the Christian God doesn't exist if he can not be found in Idaho? Absolutely not. Typical Pelosi logic. You cant pick and choose things that agree with your point of view and throw out the rest.

The Bible makes claims. We can test them. Sorry!

also: "There is no way whatsoever to disprove the existence of a God" therefore "There is no way whatsoever to prove the existence of a God" It works both ways!

To bring it around to the subject, I think conversations like these are almost subconsciously avoided in real life. Has anyone ever had a true religious debate in real life?

Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 01/08/2007 20:12:00
The Bible makes claims. We can test them. Sorry!

What are these claims in the bible? You are also picking the side of strict interpretation of the bible when in fact there are many Christians that believe in a loose interpretation. Once again, Pelosi logic at its finest. You are attempting to rationalize your disregard for a religion by making generalizations about it. There are many many many Christian denominations with their own beliefs however you encompass them all with one set of beliefs that you feel disproves the existence of God. The bible to some is the word of God, to others it is a book that outlines morals to live by. Picking the first and generalizing all Christians as believers in a false God is just pathetic. I am happy for you finding joy in being an atheist, however when you choose to attack others in order to rationalize it you are creating more animosity between believers and the nonbelievers.

Quote from: Pelican
Quite simply, I accept that its impossible to know if there is a supreme deity, and I'm not inclined to believe either way. I accept that it is entirely possible that there is a god, whether I believe so or not. At the moment, from my experiences in life I *think* that there isn't, but should I have experiences to the contrary, I may change that view. Calling myself an atheist would suggest I adamantly believe there is no god, and that is not the case. I am always open to changing my views should I receive new evidence or experiences that require me to.

See that's what I meant with misunderstanding. Being an atheist doesn't automatically suggest that you have made up your mind on that matter and it cannot be changed. It simply refers to your current opinion. The type of atheist you are talking about would be a strong atheist. And I'm just as critical of that stance as I am of believers. That's why you have those little words like "weak" or "strong" to specify your stance a bit more. If someone knows what a weak atheist is they know my opinion about god.

Quote from: Pelican
But anyway, feel free to call me a weak atheist agnostic if you like. ;) (see, this is why I don't like labels, its too hard to make one word explain complex personal beliefs).

As far as not wanting to label yourself, names like agnostic or atheist shouldn't be seen as something that describes the whole person. These are no ideologies or ways of life but simply opinions about a specific topic. Judging the whole person because they call themselves "atheist" or "deist" or whatever is just stereotyping. These "labels" reflect your opinion towards a certain thing and not your whole personality. As an analogy, I couldn't just say i like missy elliotts music but "refuse to be labeled" as a missy elliott fan. If i like her music, that's what I am. And when I don't believe in god, I am an atheist, no matter if i like to be called that or not.

Any extraordinary claim made by anyone can be tested. I'm not picking and choosing. If there are 1000 denominations of christians out there and each of them make seperate claims about how a god affects the earth, we should test every single one. Not with the express purpose of disproving it but to see if they are right. You're putting words into my mouth and also trying to insult me for no reason.

I don't need to supply the claims because I'm not the one trying to prove an extraordinary claim. Burden of proof and all that.

Bottom line is that there is no way to disprove the existence of God just like there is no way to prove he doesn't exist. Choosing to believe one or another does not make anyone less intelligent, it does not make one superior, and it does not prove one is correct. The animosity exists because people try to cross the line in order to belittle one side in order to create a facade of greatness. There should not be arguments over the existence or lack thereof but rather mutual agreement that either side could be correct. This is why it troubles me when yourself and others attempt to rationalize your beliefs through the attempts at disestablishing the beliefs of others.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about people being less intelligent or me being smarter, sorry. I don't know what you think I'm saying but when someone makes a claim like:

"Putting a bag of skittles under your pillow at night will turn it into gold by morning."

This is a claim that can be tested very easily. We test it, find out that it's false [I'm sure you'll forgive me stating this claim false without actually testing it first] and then move on. "Turns out I was wrong, sorry." And we go on with our lives.

If a religious sect makes a claim like "This shroud has the image of Jesus Christ on it and it is 2000 and some years old and is covered in his blood." We can test it and find out that it is actually paint and dates to around the 1540's [if memory serves]. The claim proves to be wrong, this isn't cherry picking, this is finding a testable claim and testing it.

My superiority hasn't just boosted up but the general ultimate knowledge of the world has just gone up. Now we know something we didn't know before. Everyone wins especially religious people because they can stop worshipping a false relic. Why would you be against that?

Obviously there is a way to prove the existence of god for yourself because you believe in the christian god and not some random forest spirit from the deep amazon. If your proof is testable, why would you not want to test it to see if you're right? "I believe in god because I feel his love." ok fine, go ahead! "I believe in god because I feel his love and it says so in the bible" Getting closer to a discussion on origins of the bible, the authors, the editing, stuff like that "I believe in god because I feel his love, it says so in the bible and he cured my cancer." BING! Now we have a claim! This stuff is important!

I want to have all the knowledge of the world in my brain. I want to know as much as I can about everything, that involves debating, discussing, and testing claims made by countless people. From scientists to teachers to religious figures. I will never just say "I do not want to delve deeper into this conversation..." If it helps me grasp a little more of what I see as truth out of this universe, down the rabbit hole I go. Sorry?

Quote from: Moox on Tue 31/07/2007 18:58:32
The bible illustrates a set of laws and morals for living, this is its most important contribution to modern society. The biblical text teaches basic stuff such as not to commit murder or adultery, to respect ones parents. I live my life based on the principles of what is right and what is wrong using this document as a basic outline.

Quote from: space boy on Tue 31/07/2007 18:59:38
What about the parts in the bible that say that you should stone your inobedient child or kill people who work on the sabbath?

The superiority statement was in reference to Stupot's post, pardon me if that wasn't clear.

Dating of religious relics and investigating the biblical text I am also all for, however that is not relevant to proving or disproving the existence of God.

Quote from: space boy on Wed 01/08/2007 21:00:48

Quote from: Moox on Tue 31/07/2007 18:58:32
The bible illustrates a set of laws and morals for living, this is its most important contribution to modern society. The biblical text teaches basic stuff such as not to commit murder or adultery, to respect ones parents. I live my life based on the principles of what is right and what is wrong using this document as a basic outline.

Quote from: space boy on Tue 31/07/2007 18:59:38
What about the parts in the bible that say that you should stone your inobedient child or kill people who work on the sabbath?

There is also parts of the Bible that say not to eat shellfish. You can find parts in any book that you dont agree with. There are those that go with the strict interpretation and then there are those that go with a loose. I follow the latter. The bible sets moral boundaries for living and as a human I try to live within those as best I can.

and I can't believe I didn't remember this before

Evenwolf: If you're eager to make a video.. Participate in the Blasphemy Challenge! I'm thinking of making an animated Hooray! to take part

http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/

Quote from: Moox on Wed 01/08/2007 21:04:40
There is also parts of the Bible that say not to eat shellfish. You can find parts in any book that you dont agree with. There are those that go with the strict interpretation and then there are those that go with a loose. I follow the latter, the bible sets moral boundaries for living and as a human I try to live within those as best I can.

So loose interpetation means cherrypicking parts that you like while ingoring the ones that would get you in trouble with modern law? With such an approach you could just aswell use the grimm tales as the basis for your morality.

I'd also like to recommend a website
http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/

Quote from: space boy on Wed 01/08/2007 21:10:31
So loose interpetation means cherrypicking parts that you like while ingoring the ones that would get you in trouble with modern law? With such an approach you could just aswell use the grimm tales as the basis for your morality.

Not at all. Loose interpretation means reading the bible and formulating your own set of moral principles based on what you value in life as well as the time period. Just as with interpretation of the constitution there is many ways to look at the bible. The way I interpret the bible might be very different from the way the guy next to me does. It is a personal experience, nothing that should be generalized.

Moox, I have trouble responding here because my intent is not to challenge your religion.

That was sort of the point of the thread.  To avoid such things.   It would be a contradiction I think for me to go after your throat and persecute this or that when I have my own beliefs I feel I should be protected of having.     Sometimes however, I am up for a fiery debate. 

I suppose that's why threads with any religion at all, always turn into the same thing.    Somebody, somewhere wants a fiery debate.


Eric:   The title & website really turned me off.   Like... that would be really fucking bold.   But I was thinking a fictional piece tackling contradictions could be good.   I don't know.   The thing about two brothers, one in heaven and one in hell could be good. 

Spaceboy: the amputee question is a good one.  thanks for presenting it to me

Quote from: Moox on Wed 01/08/2007 21:15:54

Quote from: space boy on Wed 01/08/2007 21:10:31
So loose interpetation means cherrypicking parts that you like while ingoring the ones that would get you in trouble with modern law? With such an approach you could just aswell use the grimm tales as the basis for your morality.

Not at all. Loose interpretation means reading the bible and formulating your own set of moral principles based on what you value in life as well as the time period. Just as with interpretation of the constitution there is many ways to look at the bible. The way I interpret the bible might be very different from the way the guy next to me does. It is a personal experience, nothing that should be generalized.

Since you base your morality on the bible, and I don't think you would kill a person who works on the weekend or kill a child that has stolen candy, I thought you could explain to me how the fragments i mentioned fit into that. I don't understand how that would fit at all and I also don't understand why someone would need an ancient scripture to tell wrong apart from right in the first place, especially a scripture as morally questionable and selfcontradicting as the christian bible. I can't say my question has been answered, but let's leave it at that.

Thanks for the amputee site, space boy. That's one of the best reads about the existence of God ever. I can't help but smile when reading something like that.
It feels great if someone finds the perfect words to prove something you always instinctively thought to be true.

I'm an atheist and so totally support MrC's argument on this whole proof debate, but would like to add that science (and we are applying scientific methods to prove something, right?) does not work as most religious people would like it to.

If a scientist makes a claim, the others who disagree do not have to provide evidence that he is wrong. It is the one making the claim that has to bring forward proofs. What the disagreeing scientists then do is checking whether these proofs are indeed solid. This is something that can be tested. If those presented proofs turn out to be null and void, then the claim has no backing up and is therefore not accepted. If you make a claim, you got to provide evidence. If that evidence crumbles and does not withstand testing, your claim is worth nothing.

I'm still waiting for religions to present evidence for the existence of God that don't fall to pieces the moment they are scientifically tested. Until then, I'll just lean back comfortably without having to disprove some (in my opinion absurd) claim (because that would lead to the situation MrC and LimpingFish described). You can't disprove claims. You can just provide evidence for them and these, in order to make the claim valid, have to withstand scientific tests. And the "evidence" presented by religious people/groups/whatever don't.

EDIT: Fixed some typos...

Quote from: space boy on Wed 01/08/2007 20:23:00
See that's what I meant with misunderstanding. Being an atheist doesn't automatically suggest that you have made up your mind on that matter and it cannot be changed. It simply refers to your current opinion. The type of atheist you are talking about would be a strong atheist. And I'm just as critical of that stance as I am of believers. That's why you have those little words like "weak" or "strong" to specify your stance a bit more. If someone knows what a weak atheist is they know my opinion about god.

Quick clarification, since the labelling issue is getting a little off-topic:
I really don't mind how my beliefs are described, and I will admit to being a little hazy on how people perceive the difference between agnostic and atheist. I am simply hesitant to call myself an atheist, because it is only the Christian god that I don't think exists - because of personal experiences in my life. I am not denying the existence of ANY god or supreme being, just the one view of it that I was brought up with. Anyway, I've said my bit, lets not get bogged down with the labels, ok? If what I've said makes me an atheist, then fine I'm an atheist. :)

Whatever the label, it doesn't make it any less difficult to express my views. Its rather insulting that while I'm perfectly willing to listen to arguments for theism, I'm not afforded the same respect in return.

I'm sure some hardline theists refuse to entertain any discussion about the existence of God, as it is simply unfathomable to them. They believe, without question, that God exists. Just as the hardline agnostic ultimately believes the question itself is irrelevent to both points of view, the hardline theist's belief is absolute.

And I respect that. But to deny non-theists the right to express their views, on all facets of the issue, is simply unfair and unreasonable.

I used to be a diehard Nietzsche/Dawkins fanatic, and vehemently praised rationalism and loathed the idea of God...

Now, I found God, God isn't a book, its every walk I make, every flower I ponder, every cloud I look at under LSD  :o hehe...

I guess I'm a pantheist now, and after looking back at Nietzsche I realised Nietzsche was himself a pantheist too (the clue is 'we have killed him' - which meant that society and religion had murdered the basic spirituality with dogma and ignorance).

So its your choice if you want to be atheist, but I will tell you this... I am 5 times happier a pantheist then I was an atheist, I'm not saying atheists are unhappy, but I'm saying they will miss out on the simple joy of acknowledging the existence of the 'well I'm here'. You don't have to pray, just act loving in every action you do, realise that the world needs more love, and that love can set you free. I don't really care for an afterlife, why should I be afraid of death when I should be afraid of not living?

Quote from: raddicks on Thu 02/08/2007 03:32:22
So its your choice if you want to be atheist, but I will tell you this... I am 5 times happier a pantheist then I was an atheist, I'm not saying atheists are unhappy, but I'm saying they will miss out on the simple joy of acknowledging the existence of the 'well I'm here'. You don't have to pray, just act loving in every action you do, realise that the world needs more love, and that love can set you free. I don't really care for an afterlife, why should I be afraid of death when I should be afraid of not living?

Why do you assume that an atheist can't appreciate reality? I don't believe in god, but that doesn't mean that I don't value nature. Quite the opposite. I worship reality as it were. I don't think you value existence anymore than I do(and vice versa). The only significant difference between our views seems to be that you just decided to call everything "god". If that's your view, fine. I could easily do just the same, I would have a god which would be testable and all. But I don't think tacking the word "god" on everything around solves the question of whether a god exists. Reality is reality. Based on laws that let us predict and control it in some degree. When I think "god" I think of all the deities humanity has ever created. I think all of them were sentient, unpredictable and uncontrolable by humans. That's my image of a god.

When I was a lad, before the whole love-christians-more-than-your-own-family turn-out, I was invited to a  special Christian camp by my friend who was being taken there by his grandmother.  She was (and still is) a lovely old gal, she's a devout Christian and when we were at this camp she asked me if I wanted to be converted, properly.

OK then I said, and I stepped up to this bloke who grabbed my shoulders, whispered some stuff and played with my head for a bit... I started to feel a strange sensation, a happy euphoric feeling that I'd never felt before and when the routine was over everyone asked me "Did you feel God?"... I just said "well I felt something"..."that was God!" they assured me and I was officially a Christian.

I was was never entirely convinced.  I couldn't explain the feelings I had felt that day, but even though at the time I believed in God, I wasn't ready to say that he had "spoken" to me or anything...

It's easy to understand how people like to put things they can't explain down to works of God, but it's a naive and primitive way of thinking...

Before meteorology was invented, primitive people couldn't explain thunder, lightening and snow.   Before astonomy was invented primitive people couldn't explain the sun, the moon, solar eclipses scared the shit out of them.  They made up their own explanations for these phenomena.  They made up Gods... this was the birth of Religion.

Then some people started thinking, hmm maybe a god for each unexplained thing is a bit far fetched, wht if there was one God that was in charge if everything... fuck yeh he must be some powerful motherfucker, we should like, obey him.  And so the one God religion was born.

One cold night in December,  woman called mary had  baby... she could not for the life of her remember having had sex with Joseph or anybody else... So she couldn't explain it... and what do people do when they can't explain something?.....

You're catching on... GOD!!!... only this time she went a step further and claimed that God was ctually the father of her son... She brought him up telling him this.  She told everybody else this. She probably genuinely believed it herself.

Jesus grew up thinking he really was the son of God, but he didn't have any powers, which is why we don't hear from him in the bible between his birth and the age of 37.... It took him 37 years to work on his magic tricks.  The water into wine turnout, feeding 5000 people... don't get me wrong, these are awesome feats, but nobody in their right mind thinks David Copperfield is the son of God, he's just a brilliant illusionist.. as was
Jesus Christ.

People were awed by what he could do... and they (all together now) couldn't explain it.  So they followed him, hung on his every word.  And so Christianity was born.

But in this day and age, we can explain most of the previously unexplained phenomena and  there are people working very hard to scientifically explain the things we can't.... putting it down to God is such a backwards notion that I will never subscribe to unless I have 100% definitive proof...

As for the strange feeling I sensed at the Christian Camp... I still can't explain it, but I would bet my bottom dollar that Derren brown could.

Quote from: Stupot on Thu 02/08/2007 04:03:43
You're catching on... GOD!!!...

Either that or she was drunk like a fish.

If you are going to criticize Jesus at least get his age correct. Most theologians agree that he died at the age of 33 which makes it impossible for him to start preaching at 37...

Why would an atheist care about a theologian's perspective on a historical issue?

(I'm not getting into this debate, that just struck me as an odd thing.)

Quote from: Redwall on Thu 02/08/2007 04:22:55
Why would an atheist care about a theologian's perspective on a historical issue?

(I'm not getting into this debate, that just struck me as an odd thing.)

No, however when someone uses it as a point to belittle the acts of Jesus they should at least know what they are talking about.

I'm not belittling Jesus.  He was told he was the son of God.  He had to believe it and he had to take measures to live up to it.  Poor guy.  He probably felt like Brian from The Monty Python movie.

His exact age is still debated by the highest people in the theology game so telling me off for (possibly) making a mistake is really irrelevant.  The point of my last post was that God was our ancestor's way of explaining the unexplained.  And that now we can explain those things God is irrelevant.  If, hypothetically, he did exist, what the hell does he do anyway? Nothing, so what's the point in worshiping him.

Science tells us how things are.
Religion tells us how things should be.

(FYI: I'm a religious atheist.)

Quote from: space boy on Thu 02/08/2007 04:01:16

Quote from: raddicks on Thu 02/08/2007 03:32:22
So its your choice if you want to be atheist, but I will tell you this... I am 5 times happier a pantheist then I was an atheist, I'm not saying atheists are unhappy, but I'm saying they will miss out on the simple joy of acknowledging the existence of the 'well I'm here'. You don't have to pray, just act loving in every action you do, realise that the world needs more love, and that love can set you free. I don't really care for an afterlife, why should I be afraid of death when I should be afraid of not living?

Why do you assume that an atheist can't appreciate reality? I don't believe in god, but that doesn't mean that I don't value nature. Quite the opposite. I worship reality as it were. I don't think you value existence anymore than I do(and vice versa). The only significant difference between our views seems to be that you just decided to call everything "god". If that's your view, fine. I could easily do just the same, I would have a god which would be testable and all. But I don't think tacking the word "god" on everything around solves the question of whether a god exists. Reality is reality. Based on laws that let us predict and control it in some degree. When I think "god" I think of all the deities humanity has ever created. I think all of them were sentient, unpredictable and uncontrolable by humans. That's my image of a god.

An atheist can appreciate reality, but not in the same conviction. Call it like you will, if you wittle everything down to the firing of neurons and into material realms and lie your thoughts of rationality I'm afraid your algebra will be caused to fail. None the less, I think an atheist is much more meaningful then those who blindly submit to a human-God (the guy in the sky with a stick).

In Quantum mechanics there really isn't so much of a law, research in the psychical has demonstrated there is phenomena which we can influence. And anyway, if you say everything is predictable and can be verified, I disagree. Just because there is material explainations for lets say falling in love does not deny the reality on another level, or if there is a material process of death does not deny that the spiritual interacts with the mental.

I had a remarkable experience whilst under acid once... While many people are confused about LSD (and largely ignorant) its not a case of seeing the world in a hallucinatory delusion, but rather, you see the world for what it REALLY is. The brain has a funny way of filtering information, and when a few key molecules fit into a few neurotransmittors (hallucinogens are in the same family of conciousness, very similar and sometimes identical to seretonin etc) you see the world as it REALLY IS in holographic splendor.

And there is no way I will convince you on this point, but on that day I was telepathic, and talking to plants, I had picked up a stone (everything had a living consciousness I could witness) and asked it 'So if you are God? show me a vision I won't attribute to hallucination'. At that very moment, I had a vision of a very old friend who I hadn't seen in 6 years knock on my door, and I then immediately write it down in my trip journal what I had seen in the future... The very next 2 days, the same old friend knocked round offering a business card as a landscape gardener. Needless to say, I was completely gobsmacked. I don't care if such an anecdote doesn't bode well with scientists, who will dismiss the journal page and will come up with explainations like I am self deceiving myself or wrote it after the event in question, or that it was a 'coincedence'... It's not their validity I seek because 'reality' made itself known that day, and this is partly why I lost my faith in science, I still love science, but the paradigm needs a serious change. Just like laws and politics are ruled by the ignorant, so are some of the academic foundations in the world... Especially Psychology that seeks to impose order where there should be none.

And I've experienced Ego-death whilst on the throws of a very powerful Ayahuasca experience, yes its a 'trip' its a 'hallucinogen' surely I am just setting myself up to believe in a delusion? I don't know? It was the most REAL experience, I felt psychological dead and then reborn, pain and then unimaginable bliss (afterwards... it wasn't an MDMA bliss but spiritually loving bliss),strong ayahuasca has been compared to a pseudo-near death experience.

And read the evidence for the near death experience, there is no material explainations for why the completely blind (destroyed ocular vision due to womb conditions) are able to see colour, shapes and movement in amazingly clear detail (often describing objects they shouldn't see unconciously in hospital). My dwelling into science now confirms my suspicions.

Of course, I still hold my skepticism, but ego-death is such a powerful, powerful experience. To feel as if you died you experience unimaginable love of the infinite, ever since those few experiences I have made it a priority to volunteer in my community every week and I would never have considered it if I was an atheist. The sad thing is my experiences are only subjective, but then Its ok for it to be so because 'being in the dark' really makes you appreciate every moment of the human condition.

And oh yeah, to you people debating about Jesus... havent you seen Zeitgeist yet? The bible is based on astrological myths, and so is most abrahamic religions (which were just a bastardisation of Egyptology). Early religion was sun and nature worship.

Quote from: raddicks on Thu 02/08/2007 08:33:32

Quote from: space boy on Thu 02/08/2007 04:01:16

Quote from: raddicks on Thu 02/08/2007 03:32:22
So its your choice if you want to be atheist, but I will tell you this... I am 5 times happier a pantheist then I was an atheist, I'm not saying atheists are unhappy, but I'm saying they will miss out on the simple joy of acknowledging the existence of the 'well I'm here'. You don't have to pray, just act loving in every action you do, realise that the world needs more love, and that love can set you free. I don't really care for an afterlife, why should I be afraid of death when I should be afraid of not living?

Why do you assume that an atheist can't appreciate reality? I don't believe in god, but that doesn't mean that I don't value nature. Quite the opposite. I worship reality as it were. I don't think you value existence anymore than I do(and vice versa). The only significant difference between our views seems to be that you just decided to call everything "god". If that's your view, fine. I could easily do just the same, I would have a god which would be testable and all. But I don't think tacking the word "god" on everything around solves the question of whether a god exists. Reality is reality. Based on laws that let us predict and control it in some degree. When I think "god" I think of all the deities humanity has ever created. I think all of them were sentient, unpredictable and uncontrolable by humans. That's my image of a god.

An atheist can appreciate reality, but not in the same conviction. Call it like you will, if you wittle everything down to the firing of neurons and into material realms and lie your thoughts of rationality I'm afraid your algebra will be caused to fail. None the less, I think an atheist is much more meaningful then those who blindly submit to a human-God (the guy in the sky with a stick).

In Quantum mechanics there really isn't so much of a law, research in the psychical has demonstrated there is phenomena which we can influence. And anyway, if you say everything is predictable and can be verified, I disagree. Just because there is material explainations for lets say falling in love does not deny the reality on another level, or if there is a material process of death does not deny that the spiritual interacts with the mental.

I had a remarkable experience whilst under acid once... While many people are confused about LSD (and largely ignorant) its not a case of seeing the world in a hallucinatory delusion, but rather, you see the world for what it REALLY is. The brain has a funny way of filtering information, and when a few key molecules fit into a few neurotransmittors (hallucinogens are in the same family of conciousness, very similar and sometimes identical to seretonin etc) you see the world as it REALLY IS in holographic splendor.

And there is no way I will convince you on this point, but on that day I was telepathic, and talking to plants, I had picked up a stone (everything had a living consciousness I could witness) and asked it 'So if you are God? show me a vision I won't attribute to hallucination'. At that very moment, I had a vision of a very old friend who I hadn't seen in 6 years knock on my door, and I then immediately write it down in my trip journal what I had seen in the future... The very next 2 days, the same old friend knocked round offering a business card as a landscape gardener. Needless to say, I was completely gobsmacked. I don't care if such an anecdote doesn't bode well with scientists, who will dismiss the journal page and will come up with explainations like I am self deceiving myself or wrote it after the event in question, or that it was a 'coincedence'... It's not their validity I seek because 'reality' made itself known that day, and this is partly why I lost my faith in science, I still love science, but the paradigm needs a serious change. Just like laws and politics are ruled by the ignorant, so are some of the academic foundations in the world... Especially Psychology that seeks to impose order where there should be none.

And I've experienced Ego-death whilst on the throws of a very powerful Ayahuasca experience, yes its a 'trip' its a 'hallucinogen' surely I am just setting myself up to believe in a delusion? I don't know? It was the most REAL experience, I felt psychological dead and then reborn, pain and then unimaginable bliss (afterwards... it wasn't an MDMA bliss but spiritually loving bliss),strong ayahuasca has been compared to a pseudo-near death experience.

And read the evidence for the near death experience, there is no material explainations for why the completely blind (destroyed ocular vision due to womb conditions) are able to see colour, shapes and movement in amazingly clear detail (often describing objects they shouldn't see unconciously in hospital). My dwelling into science now confirms my suspicions.

Of course, I still hold my skepticism, but ego-death is such a powerful, powerful experience. To feel as if you died you experience unimaginable love of the infinite, ever since those few experiences I have made it a priority to volunteer in my community every week and I would never have considered it if I was an atheist. The sad thing is my experiences are only subjective, but then Its ok for it to be so because 'being in the dark' really makes you appreciate every moment of the human condition.

And oh yeah, to you people debating about Jesus... havent you seen Zeitgeist yet? The bible is based on astrological myths, and so is most abrahamic religions (which were just a bastardisation of Egyptology). Early religion was sun and nature worship.

Dear me, dear me... can we not use our experiences of being on hallucinogenic drugs try and prove points or convince people that atheists can't appreciate the world the same as you do? Possibly I appreciate the world more than you, in fact, because I don't need drugs to "see things for what they really are".

Once, though, I was really stoned and thought that the fourth teenage mutant ninja turtle was called "russell harvey" and was pink.

Must you be so holier-than-thou just because you DONT?

It is unnecessarily demonised, and no you don't need it to have spiritual experiences, however it puts the experiences into a larger context. Need I remind you, I choose not to drink alcohol (only occasionally) and don't take cocaine or ecstasy or any other 'fools gold' substance.

It shouldn't be illegal anyway, what did all the kids in the 60's do? Oh yeah, quit the military, protest against Vietnam, defend womens and civil rights, encourage the message of peace and love, does that sound like a bad thing?. The government got scared, made it illegal and spread disinformation such as it destroying chromosomes or making you go blind in later life...

with the right intention, hallucinogens can be insightful, with the wrong intention, you would lack a real mystical experience. It's good you appreciate nature, but if you look around there is a serious vaccuum in todays worlds, a real disillusionment. There isn't room for spiritual freedom amongst intolerance and people are confined to the streets and homes, of course they're going to do drugs, if not mostly out of boredom. All I'm saying is that LSD really does 'open your mind' if I dare use such a cliche, and for me to describe how it does that is pointless. It's like trying to explain what zero gravity is like, you can talk about the actions of zero gravity but you can never know the experience. And there is more then one path to spirituality, Shamans love their drugs, buddhists love their ascetism, but they all lead to similar conclusion no?

It does, really, open the mind. It creates such big holes of dead tissue in the brain that stuff could fall free.

How much more open does a mind have to be before you realize you're ruining it?

But let's not get into drugs here. This is about religion (atheism in specific, really), and not a place for shamanistic stuff (because basically that's what your story is).

And also, let's not get into personal attacks. They detract from a so-far enjoyable discussion which has yet to turn into what all the other threads about religion turned into - pages and pages of personal attacks and unrelated discussions which people just had to drag into it (which is mostly the fault of people responding to such unrelated issues and not letting go).

So, yeah.

Hail Tyr!

I'm not taking a holier-than-thou attitude because I don't take drugs. Because I have taken drugs before and I know the immense feeling of contentment and "open-mindedness" they can give you (depending on what drug you take).

But to take those hallucinations seriously is ridiculous.

LSD is a mind altering drug by the way. It doesn't simply "allow you to see the world as it really is".

Arguing that there is a god because you were told so by a voice in a drug-induced hallucination is pretty poor. My friend once met a pigeon in her LSD-induced hallucinations, the pigeon started sizing her up and then asked her if she wanted a fight. She said she didn't, because it was so much smaller than her. The pigeon then said it had very many rows of razor sharp teeth with which to bite her, so she should be very afraid indeed.

Pigeons, of course, do not have teeth. No matter how convincingly the pigeon may have told her so in her hallucination, pigeons just don't have teeth. The reason it said it did was because a) it was a liar and b) it was a drug-induced hallucination and they're not real.

Quote from: raddicks on Thu 02/08/2007 12:13:59
Must you be so holier-than-thou just because you DONT?

It is unnecessarily demonised, and no you don't need it to have spiritual experiences, however it puts the experiences into a larger context. Need I remind you, I choose not to drink alcohol (only occasionally) and don't take cocaine or ecstasy or any other 'fools gold' substance.

It shouldn't be illegal anyway, what did all the kids in the 60's do? Oh yeah, quit the military, protest against Vietnam, defend womens and civil rights, encourage the message of peace and love, does that sound like a bad thing?. The government got scared, made it illegal and spread disinformation such as it destroying chromosomes or making you go blind in later life...

with the right intention, hallucinogens can be insightful, with the wrong intention, you would lack a real mystical experience. It's good you appreciate nature, but if you look around there is a serious vaccuum in todays worlds, a real disillusionment. There isn't room for spiritual freedom amongst intolerance and people are confined to the streets and homes, of course they're going to do drugs, if not mostly out of boredom. All I'm saying is that LSD really does 'open your mind' if I dare use such a cliche, and for me to describe how it does that is pointless. It's like trying to explain what zero gravity is like, you can talk about the actions of zero gravity but you can never know the experience. And there is more then one path to spirituality, Shamans love their drugs, buddhists love their ascetism, but they all lead to similar conclusion no?

might I also point out that you're being terribly presumptious. not only have you assumed that atheists don't have as great an appreciation for life as you, but you're also assuming that I'm demonising hallucinagenic drugs and that I'm taking a holier-than-thou stance because I don't "do" them.

You seem to be immediately jumping to the conclusion that everybody who disagrees with you obviously hasn't experienced being in that frame of mind before.

My point is simply that trying to prove there is a god simply because you were told so during an hallucination, is really not a good idea.

Quote from: raddicks on Thu 02/08/2007 08:33:32
An atheist can appreciate reality, but not in the same conviction. Call it like you will, if you wittle everything down to the firing of neurons and into material realms and lie your thoughts of rationality I'm afraid your algebra will be caused to fail.

I don't see what's wrong with calling things by name. The text you are reading now is the result of electrical signals interacting in my brain. Sounds unromantic but it is a scientific fact.

Quote
In Quantum mechanics there really isn't so much of a law, research in the psychical has demonstrated there is phenomena which we can influence. And anyway, if you say everything is predictable and can be verified, I disagree. Just because there is material explainations for lets say falling in love does not deny the reality on another level, or if there is a material process of death does not deny that the spiritual interacts with the mental.

I didn't say anything of that so you have nothing to disagree with. I said we can control and predict nature in some degree. Also I did not say that a materialistic explanation rules out a metaphysical one. If you wanna adress the things I said make sure they are actually the things I said.

Quote
I had a remarkable experience whilst under acid once... While many people are confused about LSD (and largely ignorant) its not a case of seeing the world in a hallucinatory delusion, but rather, you see the world for what it REALLY is. The brain has a funny way of filtering information, and when a few key molecules fit into a few neurotransmittors (hallucinogens are in the same family of conciousness, very similar and sometimes identical to seretonin etc) you see the world as it REALLY IS in holographic splendor.

And there is no way I will convince you on this point, but on that day I was telepathic, and talking to plants, I had picked up a stone (everything had a living consciousness I could witness) and asked it 'So if you are God? show me a vision I won't attribute to hallucination'. At that very moment, I had a vision of a very old friend who I hadn't seen in 6 years knock on my door, and I then immediately write it down in my trip journal what I had seen in the future... The very next 2 days, the same old friend knocked round offering a business card as a landscape gardener. Needless to say, I was completely gobsmacked. I don't care if such an anecdote doesn't bode well with scientists, who will dismiss the journal page and will come up with explainations like I am self deceiving myself or wrote it after the event in question, or that it was a 'coincedence'... It's not their validity I seek because 'reality' made itself known that day, and this is partly why I lost my faith in science, I still love science, but the paradigm needs a serious change. Just like laws and politics are ruled by the ignorant, so are some of the academic foundations in the world... Especially Psychology that seeks to impose order where there should be none.

So basically "I reject your reality and substitute it for my own"(adam savage) Just because it felt good it must have been "more real"? Totally fallacious thinking.

About the clairvoyance thing. One case doesn't prove you right. Why do you rule out coincidence? Because you like the thought of being able to look into the future and you don't want science to get in the way? That's not skeptical thinking. I had some prophetic dreams myself(not kidding, I had some detailed dreams of what actually happened a few days later) but I'm not saying I have the power to look into the future. Coincidence is a reasonable explanation. I mean, if it was happening constantly every couple of nights there might be more behind it. But you have to look at the whole picture. The number of my prophetic dreams is minute compared to the number of my normal dreams. Ignoring the misses while only seeing the hits is called confirmation bias.

And you were telepathic you say? Nothing easier than testing that scientifically. Too bad you don't like scientists anymore.

Quote
And I've experienced Ego-death whilst on the throws of a very powerful Ayahuasca experience, yes its a 'trip' its a 'hallucinogen' surely I am just setting myself up to believe in a delusion? I don't know? It was the most REAL experience, I felt psychological dead and then reborn, pain and then unimaginable bliss (afterwards... it wasn't an MDMA bliss but spiritually loving bliss),strong ayahuasca has been compared to a pseudo-near death experience.

And read the evidence for the near death experience, there is no material explainations for why the completely blind (destroyed ocular vision due to womb conditions) are able to see colour, shapes and movement in amazingly clear detail (often describing objects they shouldn't see unconciously in hospital). My dwelling into science now confirms my suspicions.

Just like stupot said before. You can't explain it so you jump to conclusions about it being of metaphysical nature.
Again, not skeptical thinking.

Quote
Of course, I still hold my skepticism

In this post you have shown that you are not skeptical at all.

Quote
but ego-death is such a powerful, powerful experience. To feel as if you died you experience unimaginable love of the infinite, ever since those few experiences I have made it a priority to volunteer in my community every week and I would never have considered it if I was an atheist. The sad thing is my experiences are only subjective, but then Its ok for it to be so because 'being in the dark' really makes you appreciate every moment of the human condition.

Like I said before, just because it feels good or feels "realer than reality" doesn't mean it's true. It's what's happening in your brain. Your brain can deceive you especially under the influence of drugs. Reality is not based on the experiences of a single person but on a general agreement of many people who constantly test claims about reality.

This post has gotten longer than I want my posts to be but I just had to adress these things.

One difficulty is that the definitions of atheist and agnostic are debated. Generally speaking, people treat agnosticism like a state of indecision. However, a more precise definition of the terms would be that atheism/theism refers to whether or not you believe in God, and agnosticism/gnosticism refers to whether or not you believe that knowledge of the truth of this matter is possible. An agnostic theist could VERY strongly believe in God, but also believe that no evidence one way or the other can be found - in other words, that it's strictly a faith-based position.

I'm a gnostic atheist when it comes to at least some versions of God - I think absolute power, wisdom, and goodness are simply incompatible with eternal damnation. Many theologists have said otherwise, but many theologists would argue that a dog is really a young cow if their religion demanded it.

Diagram time!
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/Agnostic.gif
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/atheist_chart.gif

Everybody needs something to wake up with energies... For me, it's my girlfriend, relatives, and sport... For some others might be finishing a game, or inking their final comic page. Someone needs to believe in God?

If it helps... Great!!!

But no one should label the other' s reasons as ridiculous or silly... Or try to convince the others that "your reason" is better than others.

I think I am moving to be a bit more "pro-religious" than "pro-atheistic" (being 100% atheistic as I am), because I "sense" a feeling of the "atheistics" to reply to "believers" in a too disturbed(*) way.

((*) Correct word? I am using AltaVista... I mean "Unmeasured" manner... hope it makes sense)

I go on with my argument...To be honest, guys, what would you do if I post something like:

Quote"I like living. I love to wake up, make 3 or 4 hours of sport, coming back home, kiss my mum, take a shower and pick my gf up to come home and finish some sprites for an AGS game!"

I think you would reply something like: "Oh, great for you!" or "Congratulations for having such a productive life" or "Great! I want to see those sprites asap!"? Kind words, to summarise.

Now, imagine:

Quote"I like living. God gives me strenght to wake up, make 3 or 4 hours of sport, coming back home, kiss my mum, take a shower and pick my gf up to come home and finish some sprites for an AGS game! I really love God and Jesus!"

Would you think I am the "healthy guy" of the post above, or would you think I am a religious zealot from Waco? I really, honestly, think that the replies wouldn' t be the same than in example "a".

Why this over reaction? Because "believers" want to "convince me" of their "Truth"?  ??? No one  tried it with me in this forums...  :o

Some people tried it in the street (Jehova's Witnesses and simillar), but they have never been to lame or unpolite.

I can even tell that there are more people trying to convince me that Tarot works... And those annoys me inmenselly much than "believers", because I  think that they know Tarot it' s a swindle. I honestly think that "Jehova' s Witnesses" believe in what they say. Why don' t we focus our anger to those CRIMINALS (Tarotists) than in (IMO) wrong/innocent believers?

So, "atheistics" and "skeptics"... relax. I think WE are right, and God does not exist, but being RIGHT does not necessarily mean BEHAVING CORRECTLY, if we go too further with our arguments.

Quote from: Wellington on Thu 02/08/2007 13:45:22
One difficulty is that the definitions of atheist and agnostic are debated. Generally speaking, people treat agnosticism like a state of indecision. However, a more precise definition of the terms would be that atheism/theism refers to whether or not you believe in God, and agnosticism/gnosticism refers to whether or not you believe that knowledge of the truth of this matter is possible.

I agree. To the hardline agnostic the actual existence of God is irrelevant, a view that can frustrate both the theist and the atheist equally.

Limpingfish, I would appreciate if you didn't speak on behalf of the sides you are not a part of.

I don't believe I was. I was speaking, as an agnostic, from experience.

It sounded like a generalization to me, but if I misunderstood you, I apologize.

Which is why I used the word "can" instead of "does".

Either way, no harm done.

EDIT: With Theist/Agnostic/Atheist debating the existence of God, it's interesting to see how, on other facets of religion, agreement is easier to obtain:

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"                                                                                           

Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins), Atheist.

And I agree with him.

I give up, why bother flying the government propaganda 'it rot holes in your brain'. It just goes to show our society is ignorant, I sympathise with you atheists because there is too much of a religious domination going on in America. About your friend and the pigeon? consider the possibility he is using hyperbole, exagerating or is just lying, many people bad mouthing LSD do so without ever trying it and because they hear old wives tales about how it 'messes you up' and while it could do, you would have to be already genetically predisposed to schizophrenia (in reality, alcohol and tobacco are miles more damaging). There is nothing 'mickey mouse' hallucinations with LSD and if you don't believe me then look on Erowid or any other websites. When the CIA realised it was an ineffective tool for brainwashing or a 'weapon' to disorientate the Vietnamese (google MKULTRA, they put LSD unwillingly to their own soldier's food and water supplies - hence people were having a bad trip). It sometimes had the opposite effect and that the people doing it were suddenly 'waking up' to the hypocrisy round them the government predictably wants to silence public opinion with fear.

Any society that wants power must remain by fear, it is extremely likely the government, actually there is evidence that the government had a hand in 9/11 and the people bought it hook line and sinker.

I don't know about you, hallucinogens shouldn't fall under the same umbrella as cocaine, heroin, crack etc.

Anyway, to my argument

its not fair to take concepts such as 'telepathy' and use it empirically. Like I said, its impossible to convey the language used. The telepathic thought, I would describe it as tapping into a 'logos' or great conciousness. Whether or not you agree that is what happens or I am deluding myself isn't important. I didn't need drugs to think like this, it only affirmed my preexisting inner-voice that something wasn't right about atheism (I shouldn't have to spend 6 months on a holy trip in Tibet to work that out, thats what philosophy and using your brain is). God is ALL and ALL is God. And I don't see why you think I am not using my skepticism, I am not blind to the obvious deterministic ego-driven patriarchal-dominator culture selfish existing in this planet today.

Limpingfish: i agree aswell

Quote from: raddicks on Thu 02/08/2007 20:14:59
Any society that wants power must remain by fear, it is extremely likely the government, actually there is evidence that the government had a hand in 9/11 and the people bought it hook line and sinker.

If you have the evidence I'd love to see it.

Quote
its not fair to take concepts such as 'telepathy' and use it empirically.

Why is it not fair? Anything that somehow influences or is influenced by the physical world can be tested empirically. The procedure is very simple. You sit in one room, another person sits in a room next to yours. The person is given a sheet of paper with some pictures or text. You are supposed to tell what the person is looking at. If you succeed, your telepathic ability is proven.

Quote from: raddicks on Thu 02/08/2007 20:14:59
I give up, why bother flying the government propaganda 'it rot holes in your brain'. It just goes to show our society is ignorant, I sympathise with you atheists because there is too much of a religious domination going on in America. About your friend and the pigeon? consider the possibility he is using hyperbole, exagerating or is just lying, many people bad mouthing LSD do so without ever trying it and because they hear old wives tales about how it 'messes you up'

My friend wasn't lying, she takes LSD from time to time and enjoys it. As a drug, she likes it. Again, you're making terrible assumptions...

Quote...and while it could do, you would have to be already genetically predisposed to schizophrenia

So how does her experience differ from yours, in which you spoke to plants and everything had a living conciousness... including rocks? What makes her "genetically predisposed" to schizophrenia, while you're not?

Quote(in reality, alcohol and tobacco are miles more damaging).

Debatable, although I would tend to agree that OCCASIONAL use of acid or 'shrooms etc is almost definitely less harmful than the binge drinking and excessive smoking that a lot of people partake in every single day of their lives...

QuoteThere is nothing 'mickey mouse' hallucinations with LSD and if you don't believe me then look on Erowid or any other websites.

My friend imagined that a pigeon was talking to her. She met the pigeon face-to-face in person, she just imagined that it was speaking to her. This is absolutely no different from you speaking to plants, rocks, etc. It's not a "mickey mouse" hallucination. It's no different from yours, you just don't realise that because the idea of talking to a pigeon seems somehow less feasible to you, than speaking with plants.

Quote
its not fair to take concepts such as 'telepathy' and use it empirically. Like I said, its impossible to convey the language used. The telepathic thought, I would describe it as tapping into a 'logos' or great conciousness. Whether or not you agree that is what happens or I am deluding myself isn't important. I didn't need drugs to think like this, it only affirmed my preexisting inner-voice that something wasn't right about atheism

Perhaps you are the one with a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia, and not my friend?

I really do find it interesting that you're using drug-induced hallucinations to confirm the existence of god to yourself. Possibly these posts all belond in a separate thread by now... but yeah... it's a pretty weak argument.

I also wish you'd stop making massive assumptions about things that possibly contradict your argument.

I thought when you were saying 'pigeon' it came out of 'thin air', like something out of fantasia. I totally believe you can communicate, birds and other animals are exceptionally perceptive.

I didn't accuse your friend of being schizophrenic, I'm saying bad trips are going to be common if you are mentally unstable, accelerating the psychotic breakdown.

I will leave this thread, I am very ill right now with a fever and cold and wish to retire to bed.

Peace and good night.

Well... when you return to this thread, I'd like to ask you the likelihood that the pigeon asked her for a fight and then claimed it had many rows of razor sharp teeth with which to bite her.

Do you really think that a pigeon would say that?

Depends. Might've been a chav pigeon.

And we do seem to be the filling in a tangent sandwich at the moment.

The way I boil it down is this:
Agnostics say "I'll believe it when I see it"
Atheists say "You'll never make me believe it."

I call myself an atheist because I'm in the latter camp.  If one day I saw something that seemed to be definitive proof of the existence of God, I would still be shaking my head and trying to come up with more plausible explanations because I'm a stubborn like that.  ;D

As for the whole hallucinogens making you see what's really there, surely if this were the case then anyone who took acid would have seen God swirling about.  If they didn't then either the seeing-what's-really-there thing is rubbish or the notion of God is rubbish.

Personally I think they're both rubbish.

It's all rubbish I tell thee.

Stupot:   that's an interesting, and typical, way of boiling it down.

But it neglects the fact that agnostics & atheists are not organized.     Summing it up like that lends to the ignorance and misconceptions outsiders have towards both groups of people. 

I'm glad to clarify "weak atheist" & what that means every time I say it.  Because the last thing we need is more Christians who lump us into a pile with anarchists or nihilists.   Many of us have beliefs and queries that make us more spiritual than the average person.   Many of us explore God everyday & simply come to the contrary conclusion.

I like to discuss religion whereas many Christians may think an atheist simply revolts at the idea.    I would hate to sponsor that misconception, or add to it... by encouraging such a rudimentary explanation.

To reply to the original point of the thread, I probably wouldn't tell the "believing" end of my family that I'm an atheist. Hell, my grandmother worries about me walking to the grocery store in broad daylight. I don't need her fretting about my soul too. :)

Interesting sidenote.      I probably never would have declared atheism if my grandmother were still alive.    She is the most churchgoing member of the family & would have keeled over had I said anything "in that direction"  in her lifetime.


Anyone else have family situation like that?

My family was never a churchgoing bunch, but my mum believes in God and would always put "Church of England" on any forms etc that required a religion.

But in the last Census I told my mum to put Atheist for me and she was a little disappointed.  I'm not going to put Christian when I don't even believe in God.  Sorry mum.  This is one way of expressing our atheism.  By not lying to those who my be a little disappointed.  Why should we pretend to believe something we don't. Everyone's entitled to their belief.

Another way I have express my Atheism was a couple of years ago when I was summoned for Jury Service.  Every member of the Jury has to swear an oath saying that they will promise to look at all the facts and come to the fairest possible conclusion.  They have to swear by God.

There is an alternative oath for non-believers and people of other faiths.  Everyone before me had just sworn by God and I wondered how many of them actually do believe in God or are they just going along with it because it's less hassle.

But I couldn't just go along with it.  I had to stick by my belief and in front of a room full of lawyers, a judge, the rest of the jury and other complete strangers I plucked up the courage to ask for the alternative oath and I had to explain that I don't beleive in God in front of them.  But I felt proud of myself for sticking to what I believe even though it meant announcing that I was (apparently) the only one in the room who didn't believe in God.

We never really talked about religion or church in our house. My grandfather went to church but I think that was just because his wife died and then all his friends died and he needed something to do and some social interaction [holy shit that's depressing!]. One time my mother was talking to her sister and mentioned that we're not a really a believing family and she said "Oh Joanie... But you gotta believe!" in a sad tone.

That's about as far as that goes in my family. I've had to deal with more discussions with other family members talking about ghosts and taking photos of floating orbs and spiritualism than I have about Jesus loving me from another dimension...

QuoteAnyone else have family situation like that?

My mom teaches Sunday school. Yeah, I don't mention atheism around her.

Actually, to add to my last post.  I went and ruined my proud moment of sticking to my belief by later agreeing to be the Godfather of my friend's son.

But even though it was hypocritical of me to do that, I'm not ashamed.  I like to think of myself as his 'Goodfather'.  I won't be teaching him the way of God like I agreed to in the at his christening, but I certainly like to think I'll be there for him to give him advice if he wants it and help him to be a good person.

I'm not certain that "godfather" is anything to feel hypocritical of.   Whose godfather actually taught them christianity and made them stick to it?   Whose parents here even did that?   Its just a tradition that's meaningless.


Mostly makes you liable if the father dies.   

Quote from: evenwolf on Fri 03/08/2007 05:07:30
I'm not certain that "godfather" is anything to feel hypocritical of.   Whose godfather actually taught them christianity and made them stick to it?   Whose parents here even did that?   Its just a tradition that's meaningless.


Mostly makes you liable if the father dies.   

Yeh the word 'Godfather' has little meaning today, but I still had to go into a church and pray and swear to God that I'd bring the kid up on a Godly path.  I felt uncomfortable doing it.  But he's a cool kid and I'm sure he won't care that his godfather doesn't believe in God.. haha

taking the god out of 'godfather'.... technically that makes you his father.

Quote from: evenwolf on Fri 03/08/2007 05:30:07
taking the god out of 'godfather'.... technically that makes you his father.

Haha, there were one or two people who originally thought that to be the case, but one look at the kid and you can tell who the dad is... and it ain't me... besides I never slept with his mum and I don't really want to thank you very much.. haha.

Quote from: evenwolf on Fri 03/08/2007 04:24:33
Anyone else have family situation like that?

Gramps and gramm were both highly religious and knew about my atheism, as well as my sister's. Because my mom and dad both grew up in highly religious times, and they had a realization not much unlike the topic starter of feeling deceived and lied to, they allowed us to choose ourselves whether we wanted to go to church, and we never did.

We always had the opportunity, but when christmas mass, for example, came along, me and my sister chose to stay behind (after the first try).

The only times I went to church services after that first time was when gramps died, and then when gramm died, as a sign of respect to them. But I didn't partake in communion, because that would just be hypocritical.

Then again, they say fairly clearly that if you don't believe that the body of christ is in the wine and that cookie thing, you shouldn't partake anyway, so I felt quite pleased with that.

I went to mass in Paris, because I wanted to see how it would be at the Notre Dame, and while it was beautiful (the place has beautiful acoustics) and I kinda got the reason people get strength from such a thing, I just can't get into it.

It's too dreamy for me, and my grandparents got that. I respected their religion, and they respected my lack of one.

See? It's easy!

Quote from: voh on Fri 03/08/2007 08:23:47they say if you don't believe that the body of christ is in the wine and that cookie thing, you shouldn't partake anyway

THE COMMUNION WAFER IS NOT A COOKIE!!!!! IT IS NOT TO BE TRIVIALIZED!!!!!!!!!

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1855


Having said that,  I buy the body of Christ in bulk.    Tasting is believing!

http://www.amazon.com/Communion-Wafers-Box-of-1000/dp/0805470859

Quote from: Stupot on Fri 03/08/2007 03:09:48
The way I boil it down is this:
Agnostics say "I'll believe it when I see it"
Atheists say "You'll never make me believe it."

I call myself an atheist because I'm in the latter camp.  If one day I saw something that seemed to be definitive proof of the existence of God, I would still be shaking my head and trying to come up with more plausible explanations because I'm a stubborn like that.  ;D

Red Alert! This is the misunderstanding I'm talking about. The reason why some theists don't want to give an atheist evidence for god is because they assume an atheist won't change their mind anyway(strong atheism). Of course you don't want to waste time with someone who doesn't care what you say. But when I say "prove to me that god exists" I don't say that in a cynical way but honestly ask them to present evidence, and if it proves the existence of god, why deny it? I finally have proof, halleluyah! Unfortunately this generalization about atheists comes up quite often. Let me jumble it up a little bit:

Weak atheists say "I'll believe it when I see it"
Strong atheists say "You'll never make me believe it."

I'm an atheist down to my every bone, and I don't believe in any higher power or whatever. Let's think it over fellers and gals, if let's say your mom would be involved in a car-crash and was severly wounded, she eventually and amazingly/fortunately survives thanks to the doctors' hard work at the hospital. Now, who should you reward and thank for the effort? God or the skilled personell at the hospital? Frankly, I would've been very pissed off if I was a doctor that had saved a persons life, only to hear the relatives to the saved one praise the lord for his generosity.  >:(

Luckily for me, I'm born in a very atheist-friendly environment. I'd even call it atheist-encouraging, since none of my relatives follow any religion whatsoever. :)

On a personal level I believe in God. It gives me a kind of comfort, is that so wrong? On a scientific level I just don't think I have enough data to decide. I believe in an ultimate truth, like though you can't say absolutely wether the earth is spinning counterclockwise or clockwise or wether it is the rest of the universe is spinning in the opposite direction or maybe its just you, but SOMETHING is still spinning. but I don't think we are at the lies-told-to-children stage yet,  let know alone enough to decide one way or the other on the issues that have been plaguing humanity since we became whatever it is we are. I dislike atheists who claim that they have it all figured out and the rest of us are just rubes, ditto with deists who claim the same. I am probably going to get flack for this but it seems to me the sometimes, like with any strong opinion, wether politicks or sports teams, or fanboyism, atheism  becomes at the very least quasi religious. but like any religion if it comforts you then well, good luck I hope you find a lifetime of happiness and fufillment, I just think otherwise. I admit I was brought up in a quite religious family, but I do have the vanity to thnk I am at least a groaper after truth.

People that ask for proof one way or the other kinda make me laugh (not in a rude or condiscending way though, honestly). I mean, you KNOW you're not going to get proof. No one that believes in GOD can offer proof that doesn't start with telling you how God makes them FEEL (not proof), and atheists talk science and logic AROUND the subject, because you can't disprove God. Not to say atheists are wrong automaticly, it's just that God is, if nothing else, an idea, and you can't definitely disprove an idea. I personally believe in God, and I simply can't be convinced that God isn't there. I could be wrong, but good luck proving it to me. And I have a strongly atheist friend who's exactly the same. I just woke up, so I don't if that made any sense. :D

It makes perfect sense, mate.

Quote from: lo_res_man on Sat 04/08/2007 09:36:47
On a personal level I believe in God. It gives me a kind of comfort, is that so wrong?

Unproven personal beliefs are not necceserily wrong. You could believe that black cats bring bad luck and i couldn't care less. The problem for me is when people start to develop extremist thinking like "black cats bring bad luck, so let's kill all black cats". This could go further to "let's kill all owners of black cats". And i'm not exaggarating. Just take a look at what's going on in belfast or the near east. It annoys me every time when people say to let others believe what they want if it gives them comfort. Did they miss that some religious extremists believe non-believers should be killed? Some believe it's ok to behead innocent hostages for their cause and they believe they will get 70-something virgins when they blow up themselves and innocent people around. Also google and youtube peter popoff, sylvia browne, john edward and jose-luis de jesus miranda for other malicious uses of religious faith.

Believe whatever you want, as long as your belief doesnt make you harm or fraud others, or become a victim of violence or fraud yourself. And next time someone says "oh, just let people believe what they want, what harm does it do" bring up the cases i mentioned.

The problem with those people is not that they believe in God, but that they don't believe in man.

("He's a decent man, but with an overweening pride and sense of responsibility borne of a fundamental lack of respect for the human animal. He believes in God, but not in man, in man's ability to choose, to live in freedom. He has Christ in his brain, but not in his heart.")

It would have been nice for you to at least source that quote, I had to google it and while it is very apt I don't think it is quite fair to assume that everyone knows or watches the same tv shows as you.

It's funny how so many people believe in A god. I've been having this sort of discussion relatively often, with friends who range between 19 and 51 years old, and it's interesting how many people believe in A god. Or an entity. Or Destiny. Or pre-destined points of our life with a lot of blanks to fill in.

Yeah, I'm lumping it all into the same bag - because when all else is said and done, religion is faith is belief is "there's something out there". Someone that loves us (God), someone that has planned everything (Fate), something that etc etc etc.

I can understand this necessity - after all, the alternative is to accept that life on this planet is just a fluke, and we came *this close* to not existing at all, or at least not as we know it. That so many things in our daily life, and in our past and future, are so much slaves to accident and chaos. If we don't believe in an entity, we have to accept that we're always one step away from glory and one step away from destruction, and won't even recognize it until we've gone that extra step.

But I ask you, isn't THAT knowledge that makes life so much more precious?

Me, I believe in evolution. I believe that the human species has evolved to where it is now, and that human societies are undergoing constant evolutions, forever trying out different and better ways to live in this big wide world. I believe that what we are is based mostly, if not solely, of our past, our surroundings, our interactions with our surroundings (think Aristoteles)... and a great deal of luck, chance and random. And that is our tragedy, and ultimately that is our glory. I believe in learning from the past to put into the future.

However - in the end, this matter f**k-all. We'll all still see our lives as we see fit. Whether you feel your life is being controlled or whether you think every day is shaped by you and you alone, it'll still be the same day, originated by a chain of events put into action a long long time ago involving people interacting with people and a good deal of luck.

Quote from: lo_res_man on Sat 04/08/2007 20:48:59It would have been nice for you to at least source that quote, I had to google it and while it is very apt I don't think it is quite fair to assume that everyone knows or watches the same tv shows as you.

I didn't think the source was really relevant.

But for anyone else wondering: it's from The X-Files episode "Hollywood A.D.", spoken by a character named Micah Hoffman (who claims to have become Jesus Christ) regarding a Catholic cardinal.

I believe in god and I don't believe in fate, just what are you implying? I guess if we invented gods, it was because we cannot stand the Silence. We cannot stand the universes indifferance to us, it drives us to search for something we can argue with, plead and beg, negotiate with. We want something to shake our fist at.

Quotejust what are you implying?

Who was that directed to? If it was me, I'd say I implied only what I said, that I believe all those entities to be just a comfort, a way to stand the silence, as you said. I just lumped them all together in a single bag.

If it wasn't me, do please disregard this post and go on with the show. :=

Yes it was you sorry, should have made that more clear, Well I find it kind of offensive that you lump them all into one bag, Example, me. One I don't believe in destiny, I don't believe God interferes with everything all the time. I think God gave us free will, and to quote a futurama episode I don't completely understand, "If you do your job right, people won't know if you did anything at all" SO i don't really like your stereotyping, I have doubts and confusion, but I am proud of those doubts, they tell me I'm not a robot to the way I was raised, or to the popular scientific viewpoint. And just because you have a sincere belief in god doesn't mean you can't be a world class scientist. Michael Faraday, one of my hero's growing up believed very much in a Creator , yet, made a lasting impact in both Chemistry and Physics, and creating many of the devises that make this modern world, such as the generator and an electric motor

Fate/destiny is the excuse people give to make themselves feel less stupid when they f*ck up or if something doesn't go to plan.

"It wasn't meant to be", they say, because they fell asleep and missed a hot date.  No... you fell asleep, you loser, and now she's gone off with the captain of the football team and they're probably doing it right now.  Don't try to pin the blame on some unseen force, coz you're not fooling anyone.

I don't think fate/destiny and God can be lumped in the same bag... as LRM says, God promotes free will.  But I don't believe in him either so my bag is pretty empty.

The "whole wide world" and all the "creatures great and small" are products of science, and they are products which are constantly being updated to meet ever-changing demands.  This is evolution.  And as Rui said, everything evolves to try to best fit into the present, which is refined and sculptured by the past.  The future is really irrelevant, except to say that whatever is living in that time will have evolved (or at least tried to) to best live with the climate and conditions of that era.  And good luck to them.

 ah no offence but the creatures aren't trying. The only creatures who might ever try to evolve is humans and then its not technically evolution, its just good new fashioned genetic engineering ( or Eugenics, which freaks me out). To say they are trying is darn well Lamarck. Now admittedly you may just be using verbal short-hand. But when debating one must be precise, otherwise the issue could become confused. Evolution is the accumulation of favourable accidents. There is no goal or design. And it has to do little with the present, its about accidents that favored your ancestors, the mutations happened to them, not you. The only way it applies to the present is in the way the conditions today are similar enough to the past that the lucky breaks still apply.

 I think you know what I meant and are confusing pedantry with debate.

When I say "try" I don't mean that each individual creature or plant necessarily makes a conscious effort to evolve.  Each species, however, is unknowingly doing just that.  When the accidental mutations occur, the ones whose mutations best suit their 'present' environment are more likely to be the ones who survive and keep the species alive (even if a new species is created in its place).

Well now you tell me. ;) Yes I was certain that's what you meant, but I still feel that saying 'try' is a rather unscientific way of putting it. And though I may not have formal scientific training, I don't think myself guilty of 'pedantry' ( which is a know it all way of calling someone a know it all) correct me if I'm wrong

Lo_res_man - For my part, I am sorry that I have been offensive to you and to any other believers who feel it unjust to "lump it all into the same bag", my apologies. However, your view of God is interesting - a friend of mine believes in an entity, who is not God, who has pre-destined some major points of our life, but who doesn't give a toss about what we do - he watches, but he will do nothing about anything. Which is a less comforting version of your God, but rather similar, all the same.

Which illustrates my tendency to lump it all in the same bag. Still, I am occasionally reminded, like this, that not everybody is as "cold" as I am towards these things, and say things that offend other people. So again - my apologies, please don't feel offended, you or anyone else. EVeryone needs a belief. Mine happens not to be in any "entity out there", so it's easy to forget how comforting such an entity can be to someone else.

And I didn't say, or at least didn't mean to say, that an entity would magically clear you of doubts and hardships... but it does give you something to cling on. When BAD something happens, we'll always ask WHY. And it's always better to believe there's a *reason*, and where there's an entity there's a reason, even if the reason is just because. It's just that if you *don't* believe in any entity, you're left with no explanation at all.

QuoteFate/destiny is the excuse people give to make themselves feel less stupid when they f*ck up or if something doesn't go to plan.

When I usually come across it, Fate is rather said to be the originator of that little coincidence that turned your life around... but in any case, I'm tempted to agree with you, only I wouldn't have put it that way. ;)

QuoteI don't think fate/destiny and God can be lumped in the same bag... as LRM says, God promotes free will.  But I don't believe in him either so my bag is pretty empty.

Some would say that Destiny does, as well. Some would believe that some points of your life are marked, but in-between those points, you do whatever you like. It's a fair definition of Destiny, and a point at which distinctions get hazy. In order for it to be *meant*, there must be someone who *means it to happen* - logically. Therefore, we have an entity. An entity who promotes free will. And we'll never really know how much of our life was "planned" and how much space we filled in, by ourselves, between the blanks.

See? I just merged Destiny and God into one. Not a theological discussion here, just a couple of logical arguments.

Re evolution - ah, I thought this would happen. :) Seeing evolution's scientific side is interesting, sure, but I'd urge you to apply it to everything else. To your own personal development - you have evolved, have been ever since you were born. Everyone else has, as well. At that point in time where you go "If I could go back in time I'd do THAT a different way..." is sad, and it's a LIE. If you DID do it a different way, different things would have happened, and you wouldn't be the same person - you'd have evolved a wholly different way.

Re last post (posted while I was typing) - like I said above, who cares about science, let's live! :D

Quote from: lo_res_man on Mon 06/08/2007 10:35:52
I don't think myself guilty of 'pedantry' ( which is a know it all way of calling someone a know it all) correct me if I'm wrong

Haha, probably... I had to check Wiktionary to see if it was really a word.

I'm going to bed this has been fun *yawn*edit: Rui "Trovatore" Pires: I wasn't offended per-say, I just disliked been lumped together into a single group and painted with the same brush. believe me when I say that radical hyper-neo-con 'Christians' freak me out just as much as you. I think beliefs can be worth dying for, but not killing for. that is so wrong its up there with genocide and xenocide to me.

Oh, glad to hear it. Then you'll also like to know that I wasn't talking about the ways beliefs are expressed - I wasn't talking about churches or groups, just about individual (or group) beliefs. And radical thinking tends to happen more in groups - or, if you rather, radicals tend to find some more radicals, and it's only in the plural that they can really do harm.

It's a funny thing to combine God with destiny/fate etc. While belief in God (as an omnipotent, omniscient being) would necessarily entail a belief in predestination, that's not really the only way to come up with that belief.

If one were to take the existence of the present universe as a result of a huge chain of combination of causes and effects that goes back right to the beginning, then the future universe would be a continuation of that chain. So in that way, you could say that it's all predestined, set right from the beginning.

In that way, you missed a...hot date because you fell asleep, because you were exhilarated with the knowledge of the hot date to come, because you had fewer hot dates before + you had slept only 5 hours last night because you had, because you had been watching that movie late at night, because you saw and were attracted to it at the video store in the evening,..., because you were born,.....,because the universe expanded from a single point.

Personally, while I suppose that might be true, nobody can possibly ever have all the variables, so it's irrelevant. I'm happy to use the assumption of free will, because my mind works in a way that makes most of the things I do an effect of me wanting to do them.

Which is what what I call "evolution" is all about. :) We live as we do, as a result of what happened before and what surrounds us now, and we make our own future - a series of choices that interacts with so many other people's lives, in a never-ending chain. As "Anna" said, it might be able to foresee everything if we had all the variables... except that "chance" and "chaos" also exist, therefore making the unpredictable a real part of our lives.

(Babar, it's easy to lump things together when they all mean so little to one, I admit. I wouldn't be able to keep this argument against someone who really diferentiates them. I just wanted to illustrate how little any of those entities mean to me - to the believer it matters, but to the non-believer it's all arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin*)

*a statement that shows how firmly anchored I am on Christian background, despite my beliefs. Cultural background can leave some artifacts like this, which is mighty fun!

Maybe god is the one who knows all the varibles. I once made a metiphore were time is like watching a passing a parade through a knot hole while the complete view is overhead

"Riddle me this, batman!" If all the matter and life in the universe came from god(s)/martha stewart, then where did such (a) god(s) come from?

As a strapping, single young atheist, I theorize that there is no devine proof of, well, devinity! And if there is, well...then

...damnit.

Actually, I suppose I'm more buddhist than atheist, because I do tend to believe in myself, and promote the belief's of self in others.

This thread encouraged me to finally get around to partaking in the Blasphemy Challenge. I wanted to do this some months ago but kept putting it off... So here we go!

http://mrcolossal.livejournal.com/10310.html

Hooray!

p.s. nick.keane, edit your posts don't double post.

Yeah, you *say* you wanted to advertise your Blasphemy Challenge flash, but we all know you just posted to nail me for a double reply  ;)

Psyche, you're cool mrColossal, luv ya photoshop tuts!

Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 08/08/2007 06:12:13
This thread encouraged me to finally get around to partaking in the Blasphemy Challenge. I wanted to do this some months ago but kept putting it off... So here we go!

http://mrcolossal.livejournal.com/10310.html

Hooray!

p.s. nick.keane, edit your posts don't double post.

Well done eric! That's a nice little animation.

Quote from: nick.keane on Wed 08/08/2007 06:08:46
"Riddle me this, batman!" If all the matter and life in the universe came from god(s)/martha stewart, then where did such (a) god(s) come from?
As a strapping, single young atheist, I theorize that there is no devine proof of, well, devinity!

I do have theory , though I am sure it would piss most Christians off as well.
Question: Were does energy come from? If it cannot be created or lost, where did the original energy come from?Well suppose universes pop out an inter universal zone, filled with infinite energy, and a 'leak' or maybe 'bubble' in that extra-cosmic flux makes a universe unfold. Well in that infinite energy is infinite randomness,.infinite possibilities emerge, coincidence can grow to literally god like proportions. Just as if we walked down pi long enough we would find  in binary a picture of your mother, same with god. God is a mind that emerged when the infinite noise created a cosmic coincidence. Okay I don't know math so I have no way of proving it,or even expressing it fully, but it makes a mite more sense then god always existing. which is the standard theist response

Yeh.  This universe is big enough to encompass billions of miliion-to-one coincidences.  But each such coincidence seems so unbelievably uncanny (particularly to an ancient race of humans with no scientific knowledge) that it's understandable they put it all down to a divine presence.

If God(s) had never been 'invented' before today, I don't think they would now.  Knowing what we now know about the Earth and the universe the idea of a god would surely seem too ridiculous.  It's only because the idea is embedded in history that people still believe to this day.

@MrCol : Nice video :D

OMFSM :Still surprise to have this on major tv :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDB3rHOHu4E&mode=related&search=

Anyway : have the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you.

Unfortunately, your fighting an uphill battle, the idea of  god, wether true or not helps many people cope with  Reality. If the idea something bad is  going to happen to them convinces them to do good, is that not better then them doing nothing at all? I am not saying atheism is morally bankrupt, I am just saying we do not all have the strength of character to say 'because' when we ask ourselves why we make moral choices. Hellfire is great motivator. As well before we get into the whole religion starts wars, I don't think organised atheism has existed long enough for us to have really meaningful data as of yet

QuoteIf the idea something bad is  going to happen to them convinces them to do good, is that not better then them doing nothing at all?

No, it's not.

Ends don't justify means.

To use another example then, if a car saves you money, and pollutes less, is it wrong to be it JUST to save money?

I agree with lo_res_man here.

Im my opinion, a belief is something that gets you through the day. If God(s) is/are something that give(s) you relief, then whether god(s) is/are real or not becomes irrelivant. It's like a guy/girl who pokes his/her nipples with a pencil when he/she becomes a depressed person/horny lesbian.

- If the dude loses his girlfriend, he pokes his nipples
- If the dude is lit on fire, or is fired from work, he pokes his nipples
- If the dude gets abandoned by his family, his friends, and his loyal dog, he pokes his nipples

It doesn't really matter if poking your nipples gets you through the day; the concept of whether it's feasible or not is unimportant, what matters is if the concept means anything to oneself. Other people might agree with nipple-prodding; a rare few might even be moderately offended with giving their udders a quick tug, but even those people have some unorthodox ways of getting through the day that they believe is a normal occurence to them. But in any case, the system works for everyone in it's own way, so I find arguing about the existance of a god to be an endless endeavor, not one to be partaken in by a machine such as myself.

There is also the argument of defining 'good' and 'evil.' Are all things really good? Are people we see as evil truly evil, or do they deserve a chance? (unlike most of the stuff I say, the following sentence is not a joke) A black kid named Frank beat me up and exposed my dick in public in the 1st grade over... get this... a torn calandar - easily reprintable, easily repairable. Do you think I have a vendetta against that kid? No, he was probably abused by his parents. So was the famed serial killer Iceman. No one is truly evil to the core. And who says good people are so good? How do you know they aren't truly doing evil deeds - that compassion isn't an evil deed - when the majority of the world seems willing to believe in blind faith? What if 'good' was actually 'evil' and we didn't know it - feeding the starving means less food for us, giving birth (a sacred ritual of sorts) leads to overpopulation, etc. Not all good is good and not all evil is bad.

Still, in any case, there is no god. Sorry christians  :(.

Yeh, I mean it's all well and good poking your nipples for comfort, but if nipples didn't exist then the people who do it would be considered slightly eccentric, to say the least.

[edit]
You've got to laugh really haven't you..

Quote from: Stupot on Thu 09/08/2007 08:16:37
Yeh, I mean it's all well and good poking your nipples for comfort, but if nipples didn't exist then the people who do it would be considered slightly eccentric, to say the least.

[edit]
You've got to laugh really haven't you..

Well, for the first part, people without nipples who play with their nipples are some of the most intelligent people I've ever met! Now, Ive never seen these smart people play with their nipples in their spare time, but I really bet they do! Seriously though, the whole over-the-top nipple thing is just a metaphor, an example of sorts, for what people do to find comfort in life. Brushing your teeth might give you comfort. Watching TV might calm you down. It doesn't matter - the concept is that people need beliefs independent of the verity of said beliefs.

I'm at a loss as to what you mean by the edit, though

Quote from: nick.keane on Thu 09/08/2007 07:55:30
Still, in any case, there is no god. Sorry christians  :(.

Your probably right, but like you said, it pokes my nipples, its part of the personal collection of beliefs that me get through the day, my little collection of illusions that make the world, a little less scary place. I am  mildly clinically depressed, and I think a few illusions are better then drugs. We all have illusions that make up who we are. Its just as important a part of being human, as  reason, which is so lauded.

Quote from: lo_res_man on Thu 09/08/2007 09:33:32
my little collection of illusions that make the world a little less scary place.

The fact that you view these beliefs as an illusion is a sign to me that you will one day come to question them seriously.    Hopefully when that day comes you'll feel OK not knowing. 

Quote from: nick.keane on Thu 09/08/2007 08:54:35
I'm at a loss as to what you mean by the edit, though

It was a funny metaphor.

I won't deny the fact that some people gain comfort and reassurance in their love for God, but why is it necesary to believe he actually exists.

I get my kicks from watching Lost.  It makes me feel better, I think about it when I'm bored.  And you know what?  I think it's even taught me a few lessons.   But I don't actually believe theres a mysterious Island out there, or a Dharma Initiative, or a Jacob.  Just as gaining strength from worshiping a God doesn't have to mean believing that he literally exists.

Alright, this thread has gone too far... Blaspheming against Jacob... I just can't take that... HE LOVED US LIKE JESUS DID!

I wish there was a hamburger called the Jacob. I'd eat it! (Munch, munch, mmmm... religious blasphemy. graaaaaaawl)

QuoteYou've got to laugh really haven't you

I seriously have no clue what that means... Is the punctuation right? "You've got to laugh, really, haven't you?" or "You've got to laugh at this, really." Maybe I'm just focusing to hard, I should sleep more - I feel nappy and it's only 4:30 PM here on the east coast!

Quote from: nick.keane on Thu 09/08/2007 21:35:43
I wish there was a hamburger called the Jacob. I'd eat it! (Munch, munch, mmmm... religious blasphemy. graaaaaaawl)

Speaking of blasphemious food (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnum_(ice_cream) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnum_(ice_cream))):

Quote
2003 saw the launch of (...) the limited edition "7 Deadly Sins" series of ice creams, whose flavors were named after the seven deadly sins.

I wonder how well a "10 commandments" edition would sell. Mmmmm..... "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"-flavour....

ROTFL ;D

Quote from: evenwolf on Thu 09/08/2007 10:49:36

Quote from: lo_res_man on Thu 09/08/2007 09:33:32
my little collection of illusions that make the world a little less scary place.

The fact that you view these beliefs as an illusion is a sign to me that you will one day come to question them seriously.    Hopefully when that day comes you'll feel OK not knowing. 

I do question it seriously, believe me on this, I am admitting I am most likely wrong, I am just hoping that God exists.

Wait, I thought 'false witness' was a type of fruit smoothie...
I guess "Mary's" Old Fashioned Holy Burgers is under new management

Do you think 'murder' will be chocolate or coffee flavoured? ;D

George Carlin is an atheist and he's expressing it....

George Carlin on religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vb_vVJqqd8

George Carlin eats the 10 commandments(but he won't tell what flavour they are :( )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CitfTtMIx8


Also watch the rest of his vids on youtube. I especially like this one... George Carlin talks about stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac

I find George Carlin funny most of the time. What I DON"T understand is why they asked him to narrate shinytime station, aka Thomas the tank engine. I grew up with that show, so when I first heard him do stand up, it was so twisted, hearing this voice I grew up with (it was a cd) saying such twisted funny shit. WTF?

Same thing with Ringo Starr... I didn't know he was a Beatle unitl I was about 10 or 11... before that he was just the scouse bloke from Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends.

Quote from: lo_res_man on Thu 09/08/2007 23:24:27
Do you think 'murder' will be chocolate or coffee flavoured? ;D

BLOOOD flavored!!!
lol, nah I'm kidding! Murder tastes like coffee.

The internet knows everything o_o

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0440508428/ref=dp_image_0/104-8263355-2973530?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

Quote from: space boy on Sat 11/08/2007 11:46:17
The internet knows everything o_o

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0440508428/ref=dp_image_0/104-8263355-2973530?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

Dude, is that cake bleeding or something?! I want that!

George Carlin routine is pretty funny.


I'm sure you've seen Ricky Gervais' standup regarding the book of genesis?    http://youtube.com/watch?v=NaEj3g5GOYA

Thanks evenwolf! That guy is awesome!

Gods big test
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UwnONuP2Arc

The rational response squad takes on christians on ABC(pay attention to what's happening from 6:02 to about 6:30)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=D-rKiGJrcNw

Soldier in Gods army!
http://youtube.com/user/SoldierInGodsArmy

Names have changed to seal their identity ::)

Quote...
Scott: "But, you know, the idea of an 'omnicient being' who's in total control of
everyone's fate?"
Garrett: "Scott, it isn't a proven fact scientifically, no, but, if you've ever read the Bible..."
Scott: "The Bible. You know what I think?"
Garrett: "I knew where this was leading. No more, Scott, we already know what you think, anyway."
Scott: "I call it the 'Santa Clause Theory'. Parents only tell their kids there's a Santa so that they'll behave
themselves all year. Same thing."
Garrett: "What?!"
Scott: "Come on! It's just a false sence of security. It's all bullshit."
Mitch looks at Scott, then at Garrett and sees his attitude change...
Garrett: "The accusations you're making, Scott, are bullshit. Who are you to judge what people
believe in? If you don't believe in God, fine. You don't need to ridicule everyone else for doing
the opposite."
Scott: "Ha! The only reason why YOU believe in God is because your parents made you go to church with
them when you were a kid."
Garrett: "Well, Scott, that's what you do when you're brought up in a religious family. You GO TO CHURCH.
Mitch: "Scott, come on. You don't hear us knock you because you're an athiest.
Why are we doing this? AGAIN?"
Scott: "I wouldn't say a total athiest, but..."
Mitch sighs
Mitch: "Oh my GOD..."
Garrett: "You just need to stop! Open your mind and respect other people's beliefs. No matter HOW
stupid you think they are. You're being nothing but ignorant."
Scott: "Ignorant!? Alright then, can you explain to me why it's okay for GOD to decide who lives and who dies?"
Garrett: "Well, Scott, for one, he IS GOD. And secondly, there's always a reason for what he does."
Scott: "So what you're saying is, we've got to just sit back and let GOD decide when we've lived enough of our life?"
Garrett gives up...
Scott: "How can you be the creator of the human race, make them intellegent enough to learn
how to communicate, experience love and advance into civilization, but yet kill them off whenever
it fits YOUR fuckin' schedule? If there's any Satan, it's God himself."
...

--Snake

Which was your part in that discussion, Snake (or which would be your side if you didn' t participate directly on it)?

I don' t really get it, because seems that the "Atheistic" said the last sentence and apparently it is a "pro-atheism" text... But the Atheistic has expressed his feelings even when gently told not to, being rude and unpolite. I don' t think this person is really "helping the cause". My sympathies for the other two guys, though.

A discussion i just had with a christian:

christian: why do you think there is no god?
me: why do innocent children have to suffer for years and die eventually of starvation and sickness?
christian: god wants to have them with him in heaven.
me: so why does he make them suffer on earth in the first place?
christian: jesus suffered for us on the cross. why can't we suffer a bit for him?

bottom line: the following is no big deal
(http://www.sheepoverboard.com/passingparade/img-mature/starving-child-4.jpg)

On that subject, Space Boy, I recommend listening to Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God" [I haven't heard it all yet, just excerpts on This American Life] and in it she says that watching her brother die of cancer for years, chapped lips, reduced body weight, hair falling out, bleeding, chemo, pain, sleeplessness, morphine shots and all that... She concludes that compared to her brother "Jesus had a really bad weekend for your sins"

Organized Religion has nothing to do with the existence of God, the salvation of humanity, or the unity of man.

It teaches us nothing but to how to divide, scorn, and condemn.

It tells us that we are we are born into sin regardless. That it's our fault that mankind is denied it's glory in fields of elysium.

It tells us that punishment awaits if we embrace the very things that make us human.

Mankind's greatest spoiling is Organized Religion.

Douglas Adams.
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=DUfDWwWKXqQ&mode=related&search=

For a sci-fi writer, he makes remarkebly a lot of sense.

Thanks eric. I've heard of julia sweeney and "letting go of god" but havent taken a look at it yet.

jetxl: thanks for that vid. it's incredibly satisfying to listen to words that make sense, as opposed to the stuff you have to endure from believers. just some more examples of what ive been told by christians yesterday and today:

- the flood in new orleans was gods punishment for the debauchery that was going on there
- satan is responsible for the holocaust
- the reason why jesus' suffering is more important than the suffering of people in concentration camps is faith and purpose(sic)... if someone knows what that means please tell me.

and just to be fair i actually talked to a christian who said that she didnt know what "jesus died for our sins" means, since people still sin(and can go to hell for it) despite jesus dying on the cross. also she said that the suffering of many people over years is worth more than the suffering of one person over days(with an aditional resurection and eternity in paradise). so yeah, a believer who questions parts of her own belief. a geniune rarity.

Quote from: radiowaves on Tue 31/07/2007 12:01:12
I wonder why everyone seems to act like missionary, why not just let them believe what they want

Because religion is bad for health (both spiritual AND physical health, considering of the current world-conjecture)
(short and exaggeratedly aggressive post.  ;) For further comprehension, read Platoon, Pascal, Descartes, Marx, etc.  :P)

Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Tue 14/08/2007 11:17:22
(short and exaggeratedly aggressive post.  ;) For further comprehension, read Platoon, Pascal, Descartes, Marx, etc.  :P)

(with the exception of Blaise Pascal of course...or Descartes. But hay, they lived a long time ago, so just stick to more modern people...like those in this forum-subject.   ::) )

Earlier I would have been all over the place telling how bad religion is for you. But in the end, I don't really care. I would never believe in God, never did, and never will, and I don't care if people believe in something I think is utter bullsh*t, as long as they don't come preaching to me. I don't consider myself as atheist, I don't like the idea of including myself in a group of enthusiasts, one way or another. So having said this, I'll just restrain.

Sunday I visited a church for the first time in years.   How ironic!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQpwF-oq1_Q


I was filming a short documentary piece on a local boxer.

Quote from: Tuomas on Tue 14/08/2007 12:30:52
Earlier I would have been all over the place telling how bad religion is for you. But in the end, I don't really care. I would never believe in God, never did, and never will, and I don't care if people believe in something I think is utter bullsh*t, as long as they don't come preaching to me. I don't consider myself as atheist, I don't like the idea of including myself in a group of enthusiasts, one way or another. So having said this, I'll just restrain.

It seems to be a popular opinion that calling yourself an atheist means counting yourself to a radical movement of people who "share a goal" or something(about the enthusiasm part. enthusiasm varies. saying that all atheists are equally enthusiastic about their views is not really true). Atheism is not a movement or ideology. It's an opinion. "I don't believe in god" = atheism, and that's all there is to it. Everything else atheism is sometimes associated with(materialism, anarchism, nihilism) is artificially tacked on and distorts the essential meaning of "atheism". Because of all the negative associations and misunderstandings in some areas people, who are actually atheists, refuse to call themselves atheist. So, saying that you don't believe in god but don't want to be called an atheist is a contradiction and further enforces the view that it's "not good" to call yourself that, even for people who lack belief in a god.

Quote from: evenwolf on Tue 14/08/2007 13:36:33
I was filming a short documentary piece on a local boxer.

The funny thing is that the answer to his question of "If evolution is a continual process, why did we stop at being human?" is so simple it's painful.

Evolution is the process of adapting to one's surroundings to ensure the species lives on. The moment we picked up tools we started the process of evolution stopping, since we don't HAVE to adapt to anything anymore. We adapt the world to suit US.

That's why evolution seems to have stopped.

But it hasn't - evolution just switched from being mostly physical to being mostly psychological and intellectual. We're getting smarter and smarter, but our bodies aren't changing much.

Makes perfect sense to me :)

And aside from the fact of cultural evolution physical evolution takes a heck of a lot longer than a few thousand years to demonstrate the kind of results they seem to expect.

Evolution only occurs if individuals less fit for survival are somehow less likely to reproduce, as with most animals. However, humans typically get children no matter how physically or mentally weak they are (since we have a "civilization" that cares for the weak. On the contrary, people who are really stupid tend to get more children than others.

So therefore, no, humans don't get smarter and smarter genetically. We are practically standing still evolutionary, and all changes are due to external circumstances that start to take effect after we're born.

Quote from: space boy on Tue 14/08/2007 15:03:17

It seems to be a popular opinion that calling yourself an atheist means counting yourself to a radical movement of people who "share a goal" or something(about the enthusiasm part. enthusiasm varies. saying that all atheists are equally enthusiastic about their views is not really true). Atheism is not a movement or ideology. It's an opinion. "I don't believe in god" = atheism, and that's all there is to it. Everything else atheism is sometimes associated with(materialism, anarchism, nihilism) is artificially tacked on and distorts the essential meaning of "atheism". Because of all the negative associations and misunderstandings in some areas people, who are actually atheists, refuse to call themselves atheist. So, saying that you don't believe in god but don't want to be called an atheist is a contradiction and further enforces the view that it's "not good" to call yourself that, even for people who lack belief in a god.

This is where I usually bring in the difference between stating ones believes/unbelieves and not doing so, or perhaps doing so, but not making a point out of it. I'm basically arguing about atheism as it exists both as a word and then as an idea. Whereas I do find myself as an atheist by my ideology, I do not feel comfortable including myself within the boundaries the word sets. It pretty much depends how you define it in your own mind. If it's strictly lingual, you're basically saying, that you don't believe in God. Then if you think of it as promoting your non-believes, that's completely different. I don't see anything worth expressing in my view, that would be like promoting nothing. Whereas if you take the road of spreading atheism, you're promoting or expressing something that means something to you. And I believe that these two things are completely different in their deepest meanings. So my point is, how you feel about not believing. Should you consider it not believing, or just being as it is. And then how you feel about being an atheist. Do you feel like an atheist, or do you just not feel and be like me. I like the way Hannah Arendt puts it. As in, if there is a belief, there must be something opposite to it. Just as the only thing to define the colour blue is the other colour one uses to tell it from. So there must be something that's opposite to believing, and that, in my opinion would be atheism. But as I don't believe in religions, I can't see myself believing in atheism either.

A bit out of topic, but I have been thinking in that lately, and I think that maybe the human evolution is slowing down.

For example, we are taller each day (well, not me) so, it' s true that we are still changing (who says we aren' t in defense of religion is making a mistake, IMHO) BUT:

[reduction to absurd]Imagine the noses, the lips and the tits... In a world without plastic surgery, girls without big tits, lips and with big noses would have less success with boys than the girls who have those atributes, and with million of years, all the girls would have big tits, big lips and small noses. Now, with plastic surgery, girls without those atributes have children and their DNA is transmitted.

(Girls, you can imagine an example with boys, I don' t care, the example is bad, but I just want to tell a theory)[/reduction to absurd]

Same happens with disabled, or dwarfs, or retarded... Some millions ago people with those attributes would die of starving, but not now (fortunately)... But I wonder that in million of years the nowadays social care politics (I thankgive everyday for them, don' t missunderstand me) would make a weaker human being.

I am reading my post, and sounds terrible similar to some of the Nazi racial/Darwinist theories  :'(... I am ashamed of that, but I just want to discuss from the SCIENCE point of view a theory (I am not telling that I believe my theory, I am just saying that I am curious to receive a scientific/non-political oriented reply)

Quote from: Tuomas on Tue 14/08/2007 18:58:01
This is where I usually bring in the difference between stating ones believes/unbelieves and not doing so, or perhaps doing so, but not making a point out of it. I'm basically arguing about atheism as it exists both as a word and then as an idea. Whereas I do find myself as an atheist by my ideology, I do not feel comfortable including myself within the boundaries the word sets. It pretty much depends how you define it in your own mind. If it's strictly lingual, you're basically saying, that you don't believe in God. Then if you think of it as promoting your non-believes, that's completely different. I don't see anything worth expressing in my view, that would be like promoting nothing. Whereas if you take the road of spreading atheism, you're promoting or expressing something that means something to you. And I believe that these two things are completely different in their deepest meanings. So my point is, how you feel about not believing. Should you consider it not believing, or just being as it is. And then how you feel about being an atheist. Do you feel like an atheist, or do you just not feel and be like me. I like the way Hannah Arendt puts it. As in, if there is a belief, there must be something opposite to it. Just as the only thing to define the colour blue is the other colour one uses to tell it from. So there must be something that's opposite to believing, and that, in my opinion would be atheism. But as I don't believe in religions, I can't see myself believing in atheism either.

I get what you mean. We can only define an idea if we have an opposite to compare it to. If there was no concept as "religion" there would be no concept as "secular". The thing is, religion is real and it does influence our lives in one way or the other. I would probably not care if religion was that pesky little thing that annoys you sometimes but otherwise does no harm. Then i would see no point in explicitly stating that I'm an atheist. But religion does do harm. From "why give a shit, god will sort out everything"(refer to my post with the starving child) to "you drew a picture! i must burn a building!". I see absolutely no benefits in religion, except the "personal comfort" bullshit. but if you have to draw comfort from a delusion then something is seriously wrong. There are so many real and natural things that give you mental and emotional comfort, you don't have to make up stuff. So that's not really an excuse for me. All the other things religion is good for are basically of political or commercial nature. The more i debate with believers and the more i look whats going on in the world the more i become anti-religious rather than just "neutral". Considering what religion does to people you just cant be neutral towards it. So yeah, call me a militant atheist but i get seriously pissed off at people who say that the flood in new orleans is gods punishment for sinners. If someone said that right in front of me they would earn a good smack in the face.

Yes, Farl

It does make sense that human "evolution" in science, and advancement has managed to break the very reasons of evolution.

You know what though?

When it comes time that my kids will ask me about humans, and stuff like that (where are we, where are we coming from, where are we going, etc), which might be in a few years time, I will have two options, both acceptable:

1. The religion option. God made us, we are here to serve God, blah blah
2. The scientific view. We evolved from the apes, we are here to reproduce (or something), blah blah

Both, at the age of my children, will sound like fairy tales to them. Now considering to what fairy tales I've heard in my youth, a loooooong time ago, I had a mixture of Christian tales (Christ, Xmas, Easter, etc), Ancient Greek mythology (Hercules, Theseas, Ulesses, etc), scientific tales (the little blood cell and his stories in the human body), and other weird stuff. All coming from my own father, who is a doctor (thus a scientific mind, first and foremost). I've heard everything with interest, and I had favourites from all "genres". I also learned how to think "properly" from him, and the scientific methods of experiment, and proof (since he was in the university and he had once a week experiments, a cardiologist).

In the end, all I can say of the above tales, is that they all have benefited me to the maximum. My scientific views and mind, goes along with my imagination mind, and all work nice and cuddly in my brain...




Now,

I've been following this thread for quite some time now, remaining a lurker here, but I do have to comment on this:

Why on earth can both sides stop?

I find that the religion/non religion part of ones life, is personal. I have no need to express to anyone if I believe in a God, two Gods, or 12 Gods, or no God at all. I don't want anyone coming in my faces and telling me what they believe, and this involves, both religous and non religious zealots!

This passion to make people believe what you believe, is somewhat too much. I know that the States are going through some rough times with the evolutionists and creationists and so on, and I've never seen anyone here even talk about it. They just mind their own business. Of course, last night there was a program in the BBC, about some guy and the enemies of reason and so on. :-\

We are all so happy and fast to proclaim "I believe in this, and evolution is that, and God is that". Why? I do see that zealots from both sides would like to "save" the others from doom, because this is what it's about from both sides, no matter what people claim. "enemies of reason", BBC1! Religious people are enemies, bad people, bad bad bad bad! They mean harm! And they are enemies of reason (=science). Don't you think for a sec, that aetheists, or religious people are any different.



Other than that re: "expressing Atheism", I can see one wanting to express it, but also they should keep in mind that it is one of the most dangerous subjects around, so it's bound to get some notice.

In response to humans breaking the chain of evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13NPZ5Nv_fc

Richard Dawkin's wonderful program "The Big Question:  Why Are We Here?"

But I'm not certain I agree that humans have stopped evolving.  Perhaps "paused" is a better word.   One major catastrophe would start the process back again.   Imagine for instance, that a group of humans get stranded and one guy with a clubbed foot becomes better suited than the others.  Or a woman with thicker skin.    Try to read Vonnegut's "Galapagos" which has a similar concept.

The principle of evolution doesnt change. The criteria for survival do.

Can today's criteria be defined?   Its a simple answer but how would you ever explain it to someone who just thinks that humans are better than animals, and therefore evolution doesn't apply to us?


It seems that the poorest, most unattractive, least intelligent people are better "suited" for distributing their genes here and now.  If the chain of evolution would be restored one day, wouldn't that group of people be more likely to survive based on probability alone?   I know we don't have a clue what conditions humans will be tested on.   But isn't safe to say that one of the poorest, most unattractive, least intelligent persons is MOST likely to find themselves in a survival situation when the rest of us are dead?  Say from a meteor collision?

Let's start with saying that the "chain of evolution" never was broken in the first place. Evolution is constantly happening in tiny steps. Also I don't see why the ugliest, dumbest and poorest people would be more likely to survive... it depends on the conditions of course, but i can't really imagine that being dumb and ugly would be more beneficial than being intelligent and attractive.

Spaceboy:     Sorry, not evolution.   But evolution through natural selection.

Mike Judge made a movie called Idiocracy about how the future of mankind is becoming dumber & dumber.   The claim is that human society effects evolution is this way:   Instead of survival of the "fittest" (which you would expect to be smart, attractive people) what we are seeing is that the people with the lowest socio-economical positions are having the most babies.   

That might be because they can't afford birth control, or because intelligent people are avoiding having children because of their careers.   Some women have babies JUST to receive more food stamps, you see.


So what I'm asking is this:   Since there are more of these people, wouldn't they actually be more fit to survive if a catastrophe occurred?    The argument isnt that they are more fit for the survival AFTER the catastrophe.   That they are more likely to survive based on numbers alone.    The tiny sampling of human survivors consists of them & only them.

I suppose what happens is that only ugly idiots survive.  But then over time, natural selection resumes.   So human society was a chink on a chain that comes and goes away.   

Who are these dumb people?
Knowlage is more accessable now than ever before, from car mechanics to quantum physics. And, when you work with new electronic devices, there is a learning curve. People never stop learning.
Maybe people don't get dumber but layzier, but that layzieness can be a drive itself to make life as combfortable as posible for everyone.
Plasic surgery is just one step to look good. There are other, like working out, eating healthy and buying good clothes, which means a good job, which means a college education or the drive and edurance to climb the corpered ladder, whith means competition.
The dumb arch type is, as far as I'm concerned, a myth.

A big population is helpful but not enough. The circumstances and genes still play a big role. Let's say you have a population of 1000 people with 50 of them being exceptionally smarter than the rest. Now let's say this population is affected by an earth quake. You might think that since there are far more dumb people they have a higher chance of survival. But the 50 smart people might work out better ways to survive the catastrophe while the rest has no clue what to do. The smarter minority reduces casualties using their intelligence while the dumb people might actually kill themselves by accident. Generally I think that being smarter is more helpful in a survival situation, rather than relying on numbers and chance alone.

Still that says very little for a meteor collision.   

Theoretical:    The entire world is obliterated by this meteor INSTANTLY but a group of rednecks were in an inflatable moonwalk at Walmart.... so they survive by sheer dumb luck.     :)


I understand the concept that smart people SHOULD be better equipped to survive.    I really don't need that explained.

Quote from: space boy on Wed 15/08/2007 11:54:17
A big population is helpful but not enough. The circumstances and genes still play a big role. Let's say you have a population of 1000 people with 50 of them being exceptionally smarter than the rest. Now let's say this population is affected by an earth quake. You might think that since there are far more dumb people they have a higher chance of survival. But the 50 smart people might work out better ways to survive the catastrophe while the rest has no clue what to do. The smarter minority reduces casualties using their intelligence while the dumb people might actually kill themselves by accident. Generally I think that being smarter is more helpful in a survival situation, rather than relying on numbers and chance alone.

Well, it still depends on what you mean by smart or dumb people. If a train is moving at 60 mph into a smart wuss, that smart guy will probably die - He'll definately make good time getting to his proposed destination as a greasy smear anyway, so it isn't all that bad. Then again, if the man being hit was a retarded mini-hulk, that train (depending on its mass) would stop for him. Then again, if a nuclear reactor was in a state of meltdown and the only way of getting the core to cool down was to play hacker with SHODAN (the bioshock demo just came out, btw, go download it), I'd probably be more inclined to follow in the steps of the smart wuss.

Then again, if 'mini-hulk' were to be blasted by radiation into 'incredible' hulk...  :-*

For the most part, just look at the Multiple Intelligence Theories - not just one archtype or aspect of human intelligence can be considered a representation of total smart-i-ness in all potential situations.

of course not, its like love,  PET studies showed that people feeling the differant kinds of love( parental love , physical love in love love) showd differant areas been active. Just because we  don't have differant words for it doesn't mean its not differant emotions. I think even the greeks list wasn't conclusive. (Eros, Philia, Agapē, Storge Thelema)

Ok, to be more specific, in my example i assumed that the "smart" group are potential mensa members while the "dumb" group are people who would poke a land mine to see if it works. A very simplified and exagarated example for the sake of argument.

Btw: we went pretty offtopic. that's an interesting discussion but shouldn't we start a new topic for discussing evolution?

Hmm.   well not many people are jumping in so I presume the tangent is dying fast.

Plus, the thread's pretty well run its course eh?

Quote from: evenwolf on Thu 16/08/2007 11:29:06
Hmm.   well not many people are jumping in so I presume the tangent is dying fast.

Plus, the thread's pretty well run its course eh?

So before this (finally) dies out,  this would be the right moment to ask: is anyone here actually a scientist?

Misj'

nope, i'm jesus. Because when you've got jesus, why need anything else?

I am a biologist, with a special interest in evolution and behavior.

On topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YSXKlO7qjA

Does majoring in computer science make you a scientist?  If so, I want my white lab coat and beaker, demmit.

Quote from: nick.keane on Fri 17/08/2007 09:19:44
nope, i'm jesus. Because when you've got jesus, why need anything else?

I don' t get it... does that imply that the human being doesn' t beed to investiagate, because Jesus is going to do the work anyway?

I don' t think so... Sorry, I don' t imagine Jesus coming to my home, and saying "hey! I know you want to go Mittens, but as mankind trusts in my and, therefore, you haven't invented aircrafts, I am here to fix the mess... Climb into my back, I' ll take you to Ontario!!!"

So, according to you, Jesus is for me what David Hasselhoff is for SpongeBob? Curious... O_o

Its a lot like a great story I heard once.

God also sent her aid in the form of the bible and religious leaders.   And so it was His will that she become delusioned and die.

Okay let me condense what I meant by the story
"Pray to God, but swim for shore"

That' s my favourite joke ever. Acting pretending that God is going to directly help you is so sacrilege, contradictorious and shows such lack of respect of God' s affairs that all those who believe that deserve everything that happens to them.

Quote from: Misj' on Tue 14/08/2007 11:59:26

Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Tue 14/08/2007 11:17:22
Reading Platoon, Pascal, Descartes, Marx, etc.  will help you understand why religion is bad for health

(with the exception of Blaise Pascal of course...or Descartes. But hay, they lived a long time ago, so just stick to more modern people...like those in this forum-subject.   ::) )

If you mean by that that they both believed in God, it didn't prevent them from paradoxally giving the arguments for not believing in God (everybody but them saw how logical their philosophies were, and in total opposition with the idea of the existence of a God).

I'm quite astonished by this kind of sentence : "stick to more modern people"  ??? Reading here "new" formulations of what has already been said by these geniuses centuries ago (but in a poorer version, since none of us is able to present the problematic in a clear and clever way, as they did) won't help.

Hi,

It might be advised to start with the post scriptum first, but it is not a necessity. Also, I apologize if the tone of this post is considered hostile...this was not my intention, but I can understand if through these words I sound like I'm attacking certain members on this forum (including, but not limited to, Monsieur OUXX to whom I addressed this post).

Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Tue 28/08/2007 12:14:06
If you mean by that that they both believed in God, it didn't prevent them from paradoxally giving the arguments for not believing in God (everybody but them saw how logical their philosophies were, and in total opposition with the idea of the existence of a God).

Pascal expressed doubts about religion (mainly because he wanted to return to the basis of Christian faith rather than stay within falsities caused by taking texts out of context and incorporating heathen traditions that had become part of the Catholic church of his days...based on this he wrote his lettres provinciales which were convicted by Rome; to which he reacted in several other writings (including calling the order of the Jesuits and the inquisition 'the two scourges of the truth)) and about his relationship with God.

Reading these doubts outside of the context (outside of Pascal's life) indeed would lead to a false conclusion, that these were arguments for not believing in God. However, within the context of their lives, these words lead to completely different conclusions (Pascal's writing can - and has been - even compared to the psalms, in which a similar stress is expressed (pressure/stress is coincidentally the unit named after Pascal...and at the same time a perfect description of his life and search for God. There was continuously stress and doubts; which felt to him as a weakness, but in reality was his strength)).

This 'stripping' Pascal's words out of their context was already done in the age of enlightenment, and has been done ever since. The conclusions derived from this stripping, however, are products of both lack of understanding and lack of knowledge. In contrast, Pascal himself understood the context in which these words were said, and he had the knowledge to understand them...consequently, they did not weaken but strengthen his faith in and relationship with God.

The truth is not, that everybody but them saw how logical their philosophies were, and in total opposition with the idea of the existence of a God, but that many did (and still do) not see that by logic these philosophies led to their relationships with God.

Quote
I'm quite astonished by this kind of sentence : "stick to more modern people"  ??? Reading here "new" formulations of what has already been said by these geniuses centuries ago (but in a poorer version, since none of us is able to present the problematic in a clear and clever way, as they did) won't help.

I feel your own words to be the argument for mine. Because these 'poorer versions' are caused by this lack of knowledge and understanding. That is why they are poorer. But since only these poorer versions (and not the originals when truly understood) lead to the conclusion that God is only an idea and that you should not believe in Him, I would still have to advise anyone who wants to come to that conclusion to stick with these poorer versions (the irony that I find in what I wrote above is described and summarized in the emoticon ( ::) ) at the end of the quoted sentence; without going into the details that I wrote in this post, it expressed the same thoughts).



Misj'

Ps. These words I wrote here are independent of whether I agree with Pascal or not. They are based on the knowledge that he was a genious; and that honour and respect demands of me that I cannot let a misinterpreted version of him be used to 'proof' those things that he himself disagreed with; especially since he is dead and cannot defend himself. They are also written - as much as reasonably possible - based on the understanding of his ideas rather than my own (or anyone else's). I would express in the same manner if it regarded - for example - Stephen Gould.

It would be the greatest arrogance on our parts to think we in this modern age, have discovered all wisdom.

Well, I don't want to offend everyone but personally I strictly dislike atheism. In my opinion, it gives no hope to the people who experience troubles and tragedies. And, as I suppose, most atheists suffer from thanatophobia.

As an athiest I can tell you resolutly that I do not fear my own death in any way, and when I have experienced troubles or tragedies I have found hope in friends and family, tangible things that I can touch and see and talk to. Seeing as you have dug this thread up, would you like to elaborate as to why you believe what you have just stated, and whether you'd be open to reviewing your opinions if faced with conflicting accounts? They are rather sweeping generalisations after all.

Cyrus - still digging old threads, eh? At any rate, I take it that you prefer a hope that comes with belief in a God that gives us no sign of his existence, no answer to prayers, and in fact no reason at all to believe in him. Logically and sensorially speaking.

Atheists do have hope - to suggest otherwise is to believe that only an invisible God, whose existence is debatable, can give hope. That reduces human beings a lot, which might be why the church has insisted so much on it in its dark past. However, instead of hoping "God will help me in my time of need", they hope "I can do this, and I have the help of my friends, and I have the strength to pull through".

It's like a Mac. If you believe in God, everything's easy. But if you want a PC (atheist), you'll find things are just not that simple... but you ARE in control of everything you like, and all responsibility falls on YOU.

Hmm, I quite like this metaphor. :)

EDIT - Just looked up "thanatophobia" (fear of death). Heck, yeah, I fear death, don't you? I fear it now and I hope there'll be a time when I'm ready to accept my inpending death. Until then, though, there's a lot I still have to do. What's that have to do with religion?

At any rate, logically shouldn't it be religious people who fear death and thus have to make fantasies about a paradise and an afterlife?

Why can't some people just stick to the definition of atheist instead of tacking various disorders to a lack of belief in deities.

As far as fear of death: Of course I fear my own death. That's called self preservation instinct. Comes in handy. Though I must admit, it gets in the way if you're planning to blow yourself up in the name of your imaginary friend.

I'm an atheist and I don't fear death. It's inevitable, so fearing it seems quite stupid to me. Also, I have hopes and dreams, and I have things that I can get support from when bad things happen, it's just not God. And I don't mind, because I've found I'm strong enough to handle said bad things, and I've yet to achieve many of the things I hope to do.

Also, I strictly dislike religious people who lump atheists together and get all "I'm fairly sure they have disorder [y]'. Cyrus, you obviously have no idea what it's like to be an atheist, and using difficult words isn't going to make you seem knowing either.

Atheists aren't afraid of death. People are. There's religious people who are terrified of it, and atheists. There's even buddhists who fear it. It's a human thing. Not a "what belief do you have" thing.

I fear death. It has little to do with my agnosticism. I fear my own death and the death of those close to me. Who doesn't? But I fear it because it means an end to living, not because of what may or may not lie beyond.

I'm sure theists fear death also, perhaps for many different reasons. Perhaps simply because they, like myself, quite like being alive.

Yes most of us tend to fear that state of being. Wether there is an afterlife or not will probebly be debated till the stars grow cold and the universe itself draws to a close. If there is a hell, which I really don't know one way or other, I think it would be total sensory deprivation not pitchforks and hellfire. If there IS a god or gods or at least someone I can say hi to, I hope I get the choice of skimming through the cosmos on th endless wings of night seen all the things in the universe I have always wanted to see, the ultimate cosmonaut

@Everybody: Recommended reading: C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity"
http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926 (http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926)

This man started out as an atheist too. He is a master logician and states the Christian  position well. (though I do not agree with him on some of his doctrine, but he was a thinker, not a theologian.)

Cyrus, are you implying that you do not fear your own death?   Neither do hundreds of teenagers who commit suicide under the impression that there is an afterlife where they get a second chance.


I put the "delusional" hat on those without fear of death.   Thank you very much.

Also recommended: "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.
Took me three days and is one of the best books I've ever read.

So Cyrus, you "suppose" that most atheists are afraid of their death? Really.
(I'll consider his dig-up the act of a troll until he gets back here.)

Speaking theoretically, I'm not afraid of death but if I had to face any danger I would be. Now about my opinion on atheism... The problem is that atheists don't believe in life after death, so it would be much more horrible for them than for religious people.

Oh yeah. It's much more horrible to believe that what we have while alive is all that we have than to believe we might spend an eternity in *anywhere*. Paradise or not, an eternity is a hell of a long time. And I WOULD be afraid of death if I knew that what I did in 80 years (unless I die earlier) dictated my whole life afterwards.

Cyrus, where's the logic?

Think of an ordinary door.

Person A believes that there's a room behind the door that contains either huge amounts of gold or a raving beast, dependent on how they lead their life. Plus, this decision is made by an omnipotent, mind-reading being who will punish even the most trivial sins (by todays standards).

Person B believes that there's nothing behind the door, just a wall or an empty room.

Who's likely to be more afraid of having to open said door?

Eternity may seem scary counting on what we feel, see and think here, on Earth. But that's absolutely alternative form of being, and even burning in Hell is better than disappearing FOREVER. So your comparison is not right, if we find a wall we may turn away and return, but in this case we can't.
I would like to touch one more aspect of that discussion: suicide in the name of Afterlife. I'm not among these crazy fellows, and no one true believer is. Absolutely EVERY TRUE religion (it means "not sectant and not wrongly interpreted") strictly forbiddens it.

Quoteeven burning in Hell is better than disappearing FOREVER

You base your generalisms in personal opinions? So-long pretensed objectivism.

Also, the guys who kill themselves are much truer believers than the rest of us - they honestly believe they're doing the right thing and going to a better place. It's true for them. Considering the large amount of existing religions, I don't think it's possible to talk about a TRUE religion. Even putting apart the religions we know, my personal religion is linked with evolution of the human being, of the human society, of life, the universe and everything. I have no bible, and my masses are performed every day my bettering myself. Does that mean my religion is not a true religion? But it does for me what all those stories do for other believers, doesn't it? It helps me try to become a better person.

Killing yourself is very egoistic, it's a real tragedy for the nearest people of such fellows. About the true religions... It's not a simple question... Maybe every religion that helps people become better can be called true. But I can't think of any situation when atheism may be helpful in such way.

Come on, burning in hell for eternity is better than not feeling anything because one ceases to exist?
I'll remind you when you are diagnosed with incurable cancer and must choose between a clean, quick death and having to suffer from massive pain and nausea for months while virtually being tied to a hospital bed (this is just another analogy that ignores everything after dying).

And if we find a wall, me may not turn away and return, that's the whole point of the previous analogy.

And since you brought it up:
-I'm free of sin, looking forward to an eternity in paradise, but I'm not allowed to kill myself to get there sooner? Even though my earthly live is infinitely shorter, which rids it of all relevance?
-Absolutely "EVERY TRUE religion" started out as a sect once.

It's sad that your way of arguing is so predictable.
It lacks any aspect of rational reasoning, exactly what I expected from a brain-washed "believer" who got indoctrinated by their parents/upbringing/etc.

Edit:
I just read your latest post. I knew it.
Being an atheist automatically prevents one from becoming "better"? What complete, utter nonsense. Jesus Christ.

Your "arguments" have absolutely nothing to back them up. You're just repeating what you were taught.
They are like a huge house of cards; a single, weak, rational blow anywhere brings them down.

Not "prevents". It just doesn't help. However, it's my very personal opinion, and if someone can prove the opposite statement, he's welcome.

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Mon 08/10/2007 10:58:05
exactly what I expected from a brain-washed "believer" who got indoctrinated by their parents/upbringing/etc.

Well, maybe I'm kind of brainwashed, who knows  ;), but some atheists have the same diagnosis, atheism doesn't always mean freedom from predjuce. For example, look at the history of USSR.

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Mon 08/10/2007 10:58:05
-I'm free of sin, looking forward to an eternity in paradise, but I'm not allowed to kill myself to get there sooner? Even though my earthly live is infinitely shorter, which rids it of all relevance?

I've already mentioned it. It's a sin because you make people who love you suffer.
And let's stop using such analogies as that one about the cancer. I'm not superstitious but such metaphors border on threat.

On the contrary, it does help.
Because if somebody is good and an atheist, there's a pretty good chance that he is honestly good. A believer might only do it to get into heaven; with an atheist, you can rule out that possibility*.

Citizens of the USSR were required to be atheists, so what? That doesn't prove anything.
Being an atheist doesn't include believing in an economical system that's bound to fail.

Why would people who love me suffer? Shouldn't they be happy for me, knowing that I'm in paradise now? Plus, shouldn't they kill themselves, too, so everybody can enjoy an eternity in paradise together?

Any how are my analogies bordering on threats? That's not superstitious but paranoid.


*To elaborate a bit:
Most modern Christians around the globe agree that times have changed and many rules introduced by the bible are outdated or barbaric. No sane person would honestly suggest that it's ok to stone homosexuals to death just because the bible says so.
On what grounds do they base that decision?  On what basis do they pick which rules of the bible are to follow and which aren't? The answer is simple: there's a set of universal or humanist morals the average, modern person agrees to.
This completely negates the belief that our modern morals are based on the bible's.

Come on, KhrisMUC, everybody knows you're planning to go to his house and force him to smoke 5 packs a day, thus giving him lung cancer. Most obvious threat I've ever seen.

Yeah, guess I should have lumped some ;)s in there to avoid my posts from being seen as threats when they were everything but that ;)

If you buy the packs of cigarettes myself, you can book a flight to the Netherlands as soon as possible, because I'd love to smoke for free :D

Best threat ever! (just not 5 packs a day, please ;))

What a fascinating thread. There are some excellent arguments being posted here.

Here is some further reading from Wikipedia that people might find interesting. I haven't had time to read the whole of this thread (just the first and last pages) so these subjects might have been mentioned before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockmaker_hypothesis

There are plenty more articles on atheism and related subjects in Wikipedia, but I think these are most likely to be of interest to people contributing to this thread. Oh, and I'm not affiliated with Wikipedia or trying to plug it - it's just a very useful and interesting resource.

Yes, that threat line was an exagerration. It's just, in my personal opinion, a VERY bad comparison.

I'll just quote myself from a different topic.

"I'm understanding of the fact that people believe, but I react harshly whenever a religious person tries to tell me I'm bad because I don't believe, or that I'm worth less in the world than them due to it. Really harshly. I don't go out of my way to tell religious people that God doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned or that I think they might be wrong, so where do they get the right to tell me he does exist, and tell me in no uncertain ways that I am wrong?"

Yeah.

Cyrus: It was just meant to illustrate my point, and I still think it does that well.
If the example is too radical, look again at the door-analogy.

Or forget all analogies, just look at the original: burning in hell for eternity vs. ceasing to exist.
If you really prefer the former, please explain why. (Using rational terms, preferably, not quoting the bible or else.)

(IMO, believing in an afterlife is a perfect example of wishful thinking when the fragile human being is confronted with how unimportant, short and easily ended his own life is in the grander scheme of things.)

Maybe it's just my own interpretation, but repentance seems a key to the soul's rescue. Even in Hell. God can force all the sinners to suffer, but the penitent ones have a chance to overcome it. And I don't think atheists are bad, there are many noble and honest people among them. There's much more of pity than blame.

Such things as repentence being a key to the soul's rescue, and penitent sinners overcoming God's torture are all very poetic ideas.  And it's understandable that someone brought up under this cloud of bible-speak would follow such powerful words in their daily lives.

But what of those who didn't have a religious upbringing... or those whose logic can't bring them to believe a word of it (like myself)?  Just because someone doesn't live by the words of a big book doesn't make them any less of a person.  It doesn't make them bad.

To avoid sinning because one is afraid of God forcing them to suffer is selfish and isn't a true measure of goodness.
To avoid sinning because one cares about the world and other people and doesn't give a monkeys what God thinks or whether he even exists is surely a truer measure of a good person.

No, I don't mean that. If you are selfish and seem noble to get to the Heaven, that's Sisyphean. In fact, the God always reads your mind and you will never be able to fool Him. Atheists, if they are good people and can admit and repent of their sins, can also save their souls.

I don't want God to read my mind, and I'm not trying to fool him... and I don't want to repent my sins.  I'd rather just not sin in the first place if I can help it.  But that's because I don't like hurting anybody or causing any grief, not becasue I'm scared of what God might do to me.

The God knows everything about you, no matter if you wish it or not. But doing good things just because you're scared of Him is useless, if your essense is evil good behaviour doesn't count. So here your position is right.

Quote from: Cyrus on Tue 09/10/2007 12:54:00There's much more of pity than blame.

Oh my, this is so arrogant and ignorant at the same time.

QuoteAtheists, if they are good people and can admit and repent of their sins, can also save their souls.

Save my soul? From what?

Your posts are textbook parroting the people who brought you up. Rid of all personal thought.
Childhood indoctrination at its finest.
You'd no doubt believe in forest ghosts, had you been born in some jungle, or in Brahma and Vishnu, had you been born in India.

Here's a quote that sums it up nicely:

QuoteI would wager that you don't believe in any of the thousands of gods that humanity has dreamed up throughout human history â€" except for the one you were brought up to believe in â€" so you're more than 99% on my side of the question. I simply believe in one god less than you do!

No, I was born in civilization and I'm not from Asia. My posts are my personal thoughts, not parroting. By the way, are you a "calm" atheist or a militant one?

I'm not here to teach grammar, but note my use of "you'd" and "had".
If you were born elsewhere, you would believe in some other god(s).

It is your own personal conclusion, based on your observations of the world around you, that there's an omnipotent "guy in the sky" who reads your every thought? Gee, really? Please elaborate.

I'm a "calm" atheist, but reading posts like yours wakes up the militant one.

Apparently, you're the militant religious person. :P

I don't really care what you believe, Cyrus, same as I don't think anyone cares what I believe - I explained, earlier in this thread, what I believed in, and why, and I think for a couple of posts later I discussed it. Then it was over. I was careful not to thread on anyone's toes, not to go in tricky ground.

Then you come along and start saying that "atheists have a chance to save their souls", and I go, WTF?

I concur with KhrisMUC - if you can provide something logical, or rational, or ANYTHING other than "He justs exists, and you're all wrong, and I pity you" to support everything you're saying, you're parroting (loved that word) what you were taught. And missing his point aboung being born elsewhere was extremely obtuse of you. :P

One upon a time, there were two sisters.

One was called Topsy, and the one who wasn't called Topsy was called Henrietta. Topsy and Henrietta had a pet cat, and the cat was called Tuesday. Tuesday was a flighty, nervous, independent sort of a cat, and wouldn't let either Topsy or Henrietta near it.

Henrietta thought that Tuesday was a boy, while Topsy thought that she was a girl. Since Tuesday was too jumpy and quick, it was impossible for the girls to ever get hold of it, and so they could never find out for sure whether Tuesday was a boy or a girl.

Tuesday obviously had to be either one or the other, but they could never ever know which it was. Neither Henrietta or Topsy ever stopped believing that their view was right, and they never stopped arguing constantly about it, either.

Eventually, Tuesday got fed up with the constant squabbling, and moved in with the old lady next door.

I wish answering this big question was as easy as looking at a cats genitals.

They *can't * look at its genitals,  it's too spry.

Respect my metaphor, damn you.

I'm sure everybody got your point, and I pretty much agree. Everyone who has ever posted in this topic is a total moron, apart from creed who has opened our eyes with this witty anecdote. But as thought provoking this little story might be, it isn't a perfect analogy. I won't go into detail because nobody reads posts that are longer than 5 sentences so why waste time. Why can't you all just admit that atheists are right with a chance of 99,9999%.

Why don't Topsy and Henrietta just bring in a new, female cat.
If Tuesday Fucks its brains out, then I will happily hang up my atheist cape and go on a spending spree at the local Gideons outlet.

I don't believe they even have a cat in the first place... THAT is the point.

Say you lock Tuesday in a steel soundproof box containing a radioactive substance, a geiger counter and a vial of gas set to be released when the geiger counter detects the radioactive substance decaying. There's a 50/50 chance of the gas being released.

Is Tuesday alive or not? Is this verifiable without compromising the situation within the box? Is the outcome such, if verified, that it was caused by the compromise?

And if it is unverifiable if Tuesday's alive, does God even exist?

I am so confused right now...

I don't understand why everybody gets so up in arms over this.

Creed's metaphor is, in my opinion, perfect for this particular debate.

Atheists - you aren't ANY more correct than the religious people are.

Religion People - you aren't ANY more correct than the atheists are.

Atheists - you can't prove (no matter how you try) that [a] God doesn't exist.

Religion People - you can't prove (no matter how strong your faith) that [a] God exists.

It's nothing more than a matter of personal opinion.  One person's personal opinion is no stronger/weaker than anothers.

Everybody stop thinking you're better/right and just agree to disagree.

I'm not sure if you're referring to me, too. Just want to point out that I didn't try to disprove God. My position on this is simple: IMO it's very very likely that there's no God. (The chance that there's a God as described by the bible is even smaller, of course. Way smaller. Like 0.)

My point is, it's the religious people who make an extraordinary claim. So the burden of proof is on them. IMO it's simply not necessary to (try to) disprove God.

Seconding Eric, Creed's metaphor is perfect for a debate between two believers who believe in different Gods.

Being an atheist is different. Religious people often claim, atheists are just like them, but their god is science. But that's simply not true, there's a big difference.
Religious people believe in things that can't be proven nor disproven. Inexplicable things are miracles, end of story.
Atheists "believe" in things that can only be disproven, so called "scientific theories", like gravity or evolution. The key point being: every honest atheist/scientist would immediately ditch the whole, elaborate theory, if there's a singe piece of conclusive evidence against it. (Compare that attitude to religious beliefs!)
Plus, miracles are viewed as simply another phenomenon that can't be explained yet.

If the earth were suddenly populated by religious fundamentalists only, all scientific advancement would come to a screeching halt.
-Look! I've discovered some unknown [insert scientific term]! Let's research it!
-Why bother? God did it. Let's pray.
-Oh, right.

I wasn't specifically saying that to you, just to everybody in general.

But the argument you made in your last post does prove the my point quite well.

To you, with your beliefs, what you said makes total sense to you.  That doesn't, no matter how obvious it is to you, make it "correct" and/or "accurate".  It's your belief, not somebody elses.  However, that doesn't mean you're "wrong" and/or "inaccurate" either.

For every conceivable argument an atheist can make against religion, a religious person can counter just as effectively based on their beliefs.  To an atheist, the religious person's arguments seem foolish and naive.  The religious person will think the atheists beliefs are the same.

So all the atheists on this board can make all the claims, state their beliefs, argue their points and the only thing it'll accomplish is making other atheists agree with you.  The religious people aren't going to start denying their god!  Just as, conversely, the religious people can argue their faith till they're blue in the face and all you godless heathens will just call them stupid :P

Seriously ... there's no winning this debate.  It is, however, a fun debate to take part in.

I can see and understand your point perfectly. That's doesn't change the fact that you obviously fail to see or understand mine.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 10/10/2007 04:35:44For every conceivable argument an atheist can make against religion, a religious person can counter just as effectively based on their beliefs.  To an atheist, the religious person's arguments seem foolish and naive.  The religious person will think the atheists beliefs are the same.

The mistake you're making here is that you're putting religious and atheistic arguments/viewpoints/etc. on the same level, suggesting they're competing with each other like two different, contradicting sets of beliefs.
However, as I've tried to explain in my previous post, there's a fundamental difference between the two world-views.

The claims of an atheist are logical, rational conclusions based on observable facts. They can only be disproved.
The claims of religious people simply are not; they are extraordinary, supernatural claims specifically designed so that they can neither be proven nor falsified.

If the atheist (or hypothetical "perfectly atheist" scientist) encounters something inexplicable, he goes "I don't know the mechanisms behind this phenoma yet. Let's find out!"

To a truly religious person, there's no need to find a rational explanation. In the end, it's God's work, end of story.

Just like the previous example: the atheist doesn't argue about the form, color or existence of the cat's genitalia; to him there's simply no cat to begin with. Instead, he is trying to find a rational explanation for the phenomena that led Topsy and Henrietta to believe there's a cat.

I, obviously, see the point you're trying to make ... I just don't agree with it.

It's not a mistake to put religion and atheism on the same level.  The debate going on in this thread is about comparing Atheism and Religion.  So, as far as this thread is concerned, they are on the same level.  They are what is being compared/debated.

You're so sure that what you believe is correct that you trivialize other's beliefs.

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Wed 10/10/2007 05:04:53To a truly religious person, there's no need to find a rational explanation. In the end, it's God's work, end of story.

This statement totally proves my point.  You're extremely generalizing religious people.  My father is a religious person.  He believes in god and I've NEVER once heard him cast off something so casually.  In fact, I've met very few religious people like that.  A belief in a religion doesn't, by default, make somebody ignorant and/or close minded.  There are a LOT of ignorant and/or close minded religious fanatics sure, but there are just as many ignorant and close minded atheists too.

Me personally; I tend to lean more towards science than religion.  However, I think it's a bit odd to think that we humans are the highest form of life out there.  Sure, I don't have any solid, scientific, proof of God's existence ... but it's a tad naive (even foolish) to think that just 'cause I can't prove it, (s)he/it/God doesn't exist.

I don't argue for or against either side of this debate.  Rather I'm stating my opinion that this is a debate that will, 14 pages in, achieve nothing.

I look at it like this:  If, after death, there is "nothing" and you just simply end... then the point/proof will never be given 'cause it's just over after you die so there'd be no "I told you so!" possible.  However, if there is a heaven/hell and believing in a God gets you into Heaven rather than burning in eternal fire and damnation just 'cause I couldn't prove the big guy existed ... well ... it seems a safe bet to go with a God.

We're all gonna find out someday...

Precisely because atheism and religion were being put on the same level in this thread, I provided simple, logical arguments why this shouldn't be done.

I'm aware that I was generalizing religious people (and atheists, btw.), but it's necessary to do that to get my point across, otherwise this debate would have to take all different kinds of religious flavors into account, distinguish them from one another and so on. This would probably take 14 pages, if not many more.
I don't consider religious people as being close-minded or irrational in general, and I'm aware of the fact that there are many religious scientists.
But, and I'm repeating myself, this debate isn't about male cat vs. female cat, it is (or should be) about cat vs. no cat.

This thread is about expressing atheism, so when Cyrus barged in, spilling his textbook religious sermons about how "even us atheists will be forgiven", I decided to do exactly that, express my atheism.

Plus, I don't see how it's a bad thing to trivialize other's beliefs. To an atheist, believing in god is not different in any way from believing in mermaids, unicorns or Santa Claus.
Dawkins is criticized for talking about religion without having a theological education. The thing is, theology isn't even a subject in a scientific sense, like marine biology or astronomy.
From a strictly scientific viewpoint, theology is no formal field of education.

Your last paragraph is basically the same as Pascal's Wager. Going with God is not a safe bet at all. See it explained: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 10/10/2007 04:35:44
So all the atheists on this board can make all the claims, state their beliefs, argue their points and the only thing it'll accomplish is making other atheists agree with you.  The religious people aren't going to start denying their god!

I'd settle for one specific religious person to stop saying atheists are immoral, without question afraid of death and definitely going to hell until we embrace Christ.

Really, I don't aim all that high. I'm easily pleased.

You're all missing the point of Creed's story! In reality, Topsy is my beautiful, chocolate coloured labrador, and all that matters is you rub her belly when she flops on the floor in front of you.

I'm curious why non-religious people care when someone tells them "You are going to burn in hell for eternity!". I mean, if you don't believe in the existence of the place, why should it hurt you? The best reply would be "You are going to rot in mud for eternity!".

This being the real world, where atheists would not have any connection to any God, real world stuff is more important. Calling someone ignorant and close-minded is probably worse than telling someone "You are going to hell!", although one would probably be a good reply to the other. Then again, you'd be a very strange person to be hanging about that kind of people so much that you get told that you are going to hell so often.

Who of the non-believers is scared of hell?

Quote from: voh on Wed 10/10/2007 10:04:29

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 10/10/2007 04:35:44
So all the atheists on this board can make all the claims, state their beliefs, argue their points and the only thing it'll accomplish is making other atheists agree with you.  The religious people aren't going to start denying their god!

I'd settle for one specific religious person to stop saying atheists are immoral, without question afraid of death and definitely going to hell until we embrace Christ.

Really, I don't aim all that high. I'm easily pleased.

Oh there are such religious people actually! I've met a few, online and in real life. It's not amazingly hard to find.
Not all are attempting to save the rest of us.
Not all consider that the atheist are an awful "species"

But really, atheists should stop projecting so much as well.

In all, religious in one side, atheists in the other, the thread dead...

That is what I mean! Nobody! Or at least, nobody should be. So then why does it matter?


DAMN YOU! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

I think I'm going to believe in the ancient Egypt gods. At least, you know where you are with THESE guys, and you can argue for or against them in the same fashion as you can for any other belief. Also, some questions just don't occur if you have gods like that.

Q: How can they allow suffering to get in the world?
A: Duh, because they HATE you.

See?  ;D

I don't think you can just choose to start believing in something. If so, it's not real at least, but fake belief, and thus makes no sense.

This turned out to be a longer post than I meant, and while I was typing it, Tuomas made one of my points far more concisely then me...

Quote
I'm curious why non-religious people care when someone tells them "You are going to burn in hell for eternity!". I mean, if you don't believe in the existence of the place, why should it hurt you?

It's not so much being scared of the idea of going to hell, or having your feelings hurt by their opinion of you, it's more finding them forcing their beliefs on to you in the first place offensive. At least, I think that's what it is, I can honestly say I don't think I've ever been told I'm going to hell for not believing. The closest I think was when I was about 9/10, in the playground, when someone 'tricked' me into saying "I 8 (hate) god". I said something like "so what if I do?" (at least, that's how I remember it now, I know I was agnostic even then), they looked a bit startled and said "if you hate God, you die". I did mention we were 9 or 10, right?

"You're going to rot in mud" seems like a slightly childish response to me, it has the same slightly patronising, 'so there' sound (depending on context, obviously). Surely the better reply would be "No. No, I am not."

Can you actually choose what/if you believe? I said waaay back on page 2 that I class myself as an atheist, but I'm not sure how much of that is a choice. I don't believe in God or gods in any form I've yet heard of (and as far as I can remember never have, even when I believed in Santa and the Tooth Fairy). From that I took a conscious step (but only within the last couple of years) from 'not believing in the presence of' to 'believing in the absense of'. So, OK 'athesist' is a choice (but not quite a 'rational' one, it just 'felt' more right), 'agnostic' wasn't. The initial lack of belief, however, wasn't a rational decision any more than a deep and profound faith in whatever would be - you can probably rationalise it after the fact, but it's something that's either there or not. I could shop around and choose a religion that works for me, and maybe I'd become a better person because of it; but, barring some life-changing epiphany along the way, I'd only be a follower, not a 'believer'. And I definitely choose not to be a part of something that favours paying lip-service to some arbitary rules, over trying to be a better perSon on your own terms. Again, I'll paraphrase/misquote the Douglas Adams interview I mentioned last time - "If there is a god, and he's swayed by the 'fingers-crossed', 'just to be on the safe side' sort of belief, I think I'd choose not to worship him anyway." (Which, reading into it, is also one the arguments against Pascal's Wager - does saying "I believe' just to be safe, actually count?)


While it might've shifted towards it (perhaps inevitably), I don't think this thread was originally meant as 'Atheism vs. Religion: which is right". It was originally about expressing your atheism - and I think expressing your faith is a valid offshoot of that. The ' debate' may never be settled, but so what? Unless it devolves to everyone yelling 'You're going to Hell!', 'No we're not, you're just deluded fools!', the discussion itself is interesting enough to me.
(The most interesting and intelligent posts seem to be on the 'side' of atheists, but then I'm biased ;))

Quote from: Babar on Wed 10/10/2007 11:22:58
I'm curious why non-religious people care when someone tells them "You are going to burn in hell for eternity!". I mean, if you don't believe in the existence of the place, why should it hurt you? The best reply would be "You are going to rot in mud for eternity!".

Because 'hell' is for bad people. If all atheists are going to hell, they're bad people. So, if a religious person tells me I'll be going to hell because I don't believe, they're judging me based on one simple fact. It doesn't matter whether hell exists or not, what matters is the connotation the theist places it in. Which is that I'm a bad person and will be spending time in eternal damnation for my wicked ways. And I don't like that. It actually pisses me off. Some atheists are assholes. Yes. Some theists are assholes. Equally yes. There's no difference there. Assholes are everywhere, in every religion and every culture.

I try to be tolerant, and respectful towards other's beliefs, but I do question them, yes. I, however, try not to offend anyone because it's everyone's personal choice what to believe.

And then, what I get back, is usually offensive in a multitude of ways. I'm immoral because I don't follow God. I'm without principles. I have no hopes or dreams. It's this hypocrisy I don't like. As an atheist I'm not allowed to say I think it's stupid to believe in something unverifiable (for example), but as a religious person, they're more than allowed (mostly from their own viewpoint) to tell me I'll be burning in hell together with murderers, rapists and megalomaniac dictators.

Does that sound fair to you?

That's why it annoys me. The meaning it carries (from THEIR religion) makes it an insult.

edit: Addendum!

Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 10/10/2007 11:33:11
Oh there are such religious people actually! I've met a few, online and in real life. It's not amazingly hard to find.
Not all are attempting to save the rest of us.
Not all consider that the atheist are an awful "species"

Nikolas, you quoted it yourself, and I'll quote it again.

Quote from: voh on Wed 10/10/2007 10:04:29
I'd settle for !! one specific religious person !! to stop saying atheists are immoral, without question afraid of death and definitely going to hell until we embrace Christ.

See between the double exclamation marks? Yeah. ONE specific theist. And since all the things I listed (immorality, fear of death, etc.) were mentioned by Cyrus, that was who I was aiming for. As my previous post states, I'm not unaware of the fact that there's respectful theists as well - and my respect for them, because at least with them discussion and conversation is possible.

Voh, read this, if you please.  http://www.firstbaptistgranitefalls.org/salvation.htm (http://www.firstbaptistgranitefalls.org/salvation.htm)

Uhm, yeah, that's nothing new. What's your point? I don't see the relevance to what I posted, really.

At a guess:

Quote
Because 'hell' is for bad people. If all atheists are going to hell, they're bad people.

What I managed to understand of Caleb's link says it's not about 'bad' or 'good', 'moral' or 'immoral', as such, but about accepting that you need to believe in Jesus to be 'saved'. Nothing you as an individual can do, can make you a 'good' person. If anyone - regardless of their actions - who doesn't accept Jesus is going to hell, then obviously atheists are, whether they're otherwise 'good', 'moral' people or not. This is still kind of offensive, but not in quite the same way you describe.
The flip side of that would seem to be, if you do "place your faith in Jesus Christ's righteousness to save you from hell", then you'll be saved ALSO regardless of your actions. Which is exactly the kind of thing that would make me choose not to worship, even if I believed.

Obviously, that only applys to Christianity, and I don't think it's all branches of that, either. Catholicism (as I understand it) allows/requires you to 'earn' salvation through your actions. I'm pretty sure 'believing in God' is still necessary, though...

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Wed 10/10/2007 07:16:39Plus, I don't see how it's a bad thing to trivialize other's beliefs. To an atheist, believing in god is not different in any way from believing in mermaids, unicorns or Santa Claus.

Just because you don't happen to agree with somebody else's beliefs does not, in any way, give a person the right to trivialize them.  In my opinion, to do so on the grounds that those you disagree with are ignorant and/or close minded (for believing in something you don't) ironically, makes the one doing the trivialization the very thing they accuse the others of.

Quote from: KhrisMUC on Wed 10/10/2007 07:16:39Your last paragraph is basically the same as Pascal's Wager. Going with God is not a safe bet at all. See it explained: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager

Again ... this is just somebody's elses opinion.  Somebody else's belief.  If people want to jump on board with it, so be it, that doesn't mean it's right or wrong as, again, it cannot be proven or disproven until a person takes their final journey.

Quote from: Ashen on Wed 10/10/2007 12:17:35While it might've shifted towards it (perhaps inevitably), I don't think this thread was originally meant as 'Atheism vs. Religion: which is right". It was originally about expressing your atheism - and I think expressing your faith is a valid offshoot of that. The ' debate' may never be settled, but so what? Unless it devolves to everyone yelling 'You're going to Hell!', 'No we're not, you're just deluded fools!', the discussion itself is interesting enough to me.

Yeah, I agree with the "intent" of this thread ... but anytime a thread says ANYthing against religion (which, intended or not, a thread about Atheism does) it will turn into a religious debate.  That's just the way it goes.

Quote from: Ashen on Wed 10/10/2007 12:17:35(The most interesting and intelligent posts seem to be on the 'side' of atheists, but then I'm biased ;))

Haha ... thank you for that.  Totally lends support to my point :P

Oh ... and just to clarify.  I had never read about Pascal's wager Wagner (thanks Andail - my dyslexia strikes again!).  I was, mostly, making a joke in my statement about a "safe bet".  I more choose to believe in a higher power simply because it makes sense to me.  I've witnessed some things (personally) that make me sure there is a higher power at play.  Conversely, I've witnessed things (personally) that make me doubt.

I considered posting my personal beliefs to this thread ... however, they are mine and I don't really want to try and push them on others.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 10/10/2007 13:47:59
Oh ... and just to clarify.  I had never read about Pascal Wagner.

In case you're not joking: The argument was written by Blaise Pascal, formulated as a wager.

So when do beliefs cross into the realm of "I'm sorry, you're wrong!", Darth? Surely it must at some point.

Joe believes in the Christian God [albeit his own version because it's nigh-impossible to find people with the same exact beliefs, like this is probably the first time I've heard that you can escape hell] and you accept his belief as personal.

Frank believes that he IS God. Is this a personal belief that you don't want to get tangled up in?

To continue my post with a hypothetical answer: "As long as he's not hurting anyone or himself, let him believe!"

What if Frank doesn't take his various medications that keep his body alive or treat infections because he can cure himself with the slightest thought? What if people start following him and believe that he is indeed God? What he says that he can take them all to heaven if they all kill themselves at the same time? Has this encroached on the idea "If people want to jump on boart with it, so be it!" at all? Extreme example but I'm trying to find when you'd cut this belief off.

I do not accept this laissez faire attitude. Learn about it, understand it, deconstruct it, accept or reject it. This applies to EVERYTHING THAT HUMANS DO, in my opinion.

And my question would be, what about the millions of people hurt by various religions all throughout the world?

The rebuttal to that is "Well, secular society hurts people too!" But I don't accept that as a proper rebuttal because it's not an answer, just trying to deflect attention and get out of an answer.

Anyway, most of this was hypothetical, I'd just like to know when things go from "I respect your belief" to "You are wrong."

I don't know ...

And to be honest, I really don't care :P

My beliefs are my beliefs.   I may think somebody is wrong if their beliefs don't "jive" with my own, but who am I to say they are wrong?

I think I am guilty of falling into the very same "trap" that I am talking about with my point.  To me, what I'm saying makes total sense ... apparently the rest of you don't share my beliefs.

So, peace/God/nothing be upon you all.

I'm out :)

I know you're out but I HAVE to register my confusion...

You're reserving judgment on Jim Jones because you just don't know if he was God or not? Or Heaven's Gate? Maybe there was a spaceship behind Haley's Comet waiting to beam up their souls and bring them to heaven... We just don't have all the facts!

Confused.

It's safe to assume there isn't a planet somewhere in the far reaches of the universe that happens to resemble a giant Puff-Daddy-in-a-skirt statue.  It's also safe to assume that Elvis Presley's soul was not reincarnated as Paris Hilton's pet dog, Tinkerbell.  These things cannot be proved or disproved much in the same way as the existence of God.

People are welcome to believe these things all they like.  I wont try to stop them.  They should just be aware how ludicrous it sounds to straight thinking logicians like myself.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 10/10/2007 13:47:59Just because you don't happen to agree with somebody else's beliefs does not, in any way, give a person the right to trivialize them.  In my opinion, to do so on the grounds that those you disagree with are ignorant and/or close minded (for believing in something you don't) ironically, makes the one doing the trivialization the very thing they accuse the others of.

I didn't say all religious people are ignorant or close-minded at any time, and I reminded you of that in my last post. If you think I have this opinion because I was comparing belief in god to belief in a unicorn, that's unfortunate, but not really my fault.

The things Christians believe in (immaculate conception, walking on water, turning it into wine, healing blind/crippled/"possessed" people [just stuff from the NT, btw, OT-miracles are on a whole other level]) aren't magically "more normal" or "not as far-edged" as e.g. Voodoo or the believe that getting photographed will steal the soul.

Just because we are so used to hearing about Christian mythology and just because it is so widespread in the part of the world we live in, religious people somehow deduct the right to treat the supernatural bible stuff in a different way than other supernatural stuff. On what grounds?

Believing that somebody walked over water isn't just ridiculous to atheists, it's ridiculous to followers of many other religions, too. It's just that the atheist is the only one of those groups who doesn't believe in anything supernatural.

Quote from: Stupot on Wed 10/10/2007 19:45:01
It's safe to assume there isn't a planet somewhere in the far reaches of the universe that happens to resemble a giant Puff-Daddy-in-a-skirt statue.  It's also safe to assume that Elvis Presley's soul was not reincarnated as Paris Hilton's pet dog, Tinkerbell.

Prove it.

Quote from: space boy on Wed 10/10/2007 20:01:06

Quote from: Stupot on Wed 10/10/2007 19:45:01
It's safe to assume there isn't a planet somewhere in the far reaches of the universe that happens to resemble a giant Puff-Daddy-in-a-skirt statue.  It's also safe to assume that Elvis Presley's soul was not reincarnated as Paris Hilton's pet dog, Tinkerbell.

Prove it.

Exactly my point.

Agnosticism. Embrace it. Accept that the question itself is flawed and be done with it.

To prove/disprove God isn't a viable pursuit; as human beings, creatures of logic within a finite sphere of existence, we have neither the ability to investigate nor the awareness of what, if anything, lies beyond what we define as "reality". To obtain "proof" of God is to become as God; to be able to recognize The Omnipotent, you would have to know omnipotence.

Quote from: Stupot on Wed 10/10/2007 19:45:01
...These things cannot be proved or disproved much in the same way as the existence of God.

People are welcome to believe these things all they like.  I wont try to stop them.  They should just be aware how ludicrous it sounds to straight thinking logicians like myself.

So proof that you're a 'straight thinking logician'.  ;)

(or at least more straight, more thinking, and more logic than others (who come to the opposite conclusion about this ludicrousity))

Quote from: Ashen on Wed 10/10/2007 12:17:35
(The most interesting and intelligent posts seem to be on the 'side' of atheists, but then I'm biased ;))

Yeah...you're biased  ;D ...haven't found much intelligence (or logic) in the atheists' posts...but then again, neither did I see much intelligence in the you-are-all-wrong-religious posts. Nikolas' and Darth's (among a few other) posts show the most intelligence I've read in this thread (although I naturally disagree with them on several points)...Just my personal opinion.

Finally, I just want to say one other thing...

...but I think it's wiser not to.

Misj'

Instead of just coming in here and insulting everyone who posted, why don't you point out problems with arguments and contribute to a better understanding of life?

Quote from: Stupot on Wed 10/10/2007 20:06:58
Exactly my point.

Actually that was a reference to people who say "if you can't disprove god that means he exists". I was trying to make another point: extraordinary claims CAN be proven, but as long as they are not proven you should assume that they are  false. I can't disprove god but I won't believe in him or even give him a 50/50 chance of existing without having any evidence for him. And if you take an agnostic stance towards god you have to take the same stance towards fairies, santa claus, the easter bunny and your little brothers imaginary friend. And if you don't then it's an indication that it's not the question thats flawed but the idea of "god" has a greater cultural and psychological significance than the idea of "easter bunny". The reluctance to answer that question might result from a fear of coming off as closeminded and arrogant for denying a being thats "bigger than you". There has to be some kind of filter, a point at which you say that something is just ridiculous. Theoretically the idea of god is something thats bigger and wiser than me but i don't feel I'm being arrogant, close minded or even "trying to be god" by saying that god doesnt exist. It's all because of lack of evidence.

I recommend for you guys to read the book "The End of Faith" from Sam Harris. It discusses problems with faith and religion (some statements are fairly harsh, too), but it does that in a very clear, logical fashion.

Even if you decide after reading it that it's crap, I think it's still has a lot of very valid points that should be considered when talking about religion. (I found it a very good book.)

Note that some chapters are written from a purely 2004 US American perspective, but most of the book applies generally and for the present/future.

OK, since I've been quoted twice now, I feel I should make a further post even though I don't really know (or care) what I'm talking about.

Quote from: Me
(The most interesting and intelligent posts seem to be on the 'side' of atheists, but then I'm biased ;))

This was a JOKE. I figured Darth understood that and was joking back; Misj', I'm not so sure (could be taken as a joke, but context doesn't really read like it). Obviously, there's more overall in an atheist's post I'm going to agree with, than in a post from a believer of any religion, even if I don't like a specific poster's tone. That's beside the point. "You're all wrong" posts, on either side, are pointless and irrelevant, but I don't see a particular imbalance in them. (Discounting a prejudice to see any posts that don't agree with me as shouty and irrational. (Another joke, BTW))

That said, to answer Misj' specifically: Nikolas and Darth I both respect and like, and their posts obviously show intelligence, but (IMO) aren't that interesting. (In the last few pages - I'd have to re-read all 14 to be sure.) They both go towards the 'it won't be resolved, so stop talking' point of view which (again, in MY opinion only) bypasses, if not the intent of this thread, the way it SHOULD continue. (Apologies if I've misunderstood either of you).

Thank you for your time, and my natural apathy will probably prevent me from any further comment for at least another 2 ½ months...


P.S.

Quote from: Misj'
Finally, I just want to say one other thing...

...but I think it's wiser not to.

I should probably have followed your example.

Quote from: space boy on Wed 10/10/2007 22:43:58

Quote from: Stupot on Wed 10/10/2007 20:06:58
Exactly my point.

Actually that was a reference to people who say "if you can't disprove god that means he exists". I was trying to make another point: extraordinary claims CAN be proven, but as long as they are not proven you should assume that they are  false. I can't disprove god but I won't believe in him or even give him a 50/50 chance of existing without having any evidence for him. And if you take an agnostic stance towards god you have to take the same stance towards fairies, santa claus, the easter bunny and your little brothers imaginary friend. And if you don't then it's an indication that it's not the question thats flawed but the idea of "god" has a greater cultural and psychological significance than the idea of "easter bunny". The reluctance to answer that question might result from a fear of coming off as closeminded and arrogant for denying a being thats "bigger than you". There has to be some kind of filter, a point at which you say that something is just ridiculous. Theoretically the idea of god is something thats bigger and wiser than me but i don't feel I'm being arrogant, close minded or even "trying to be god" by saying that god doesnt exist. It's all because of lack of evidence.

Aye, I'm pretty much with you on that Spaceboy (sorry I misread the tone of your "Prove it" post).

I think it's a shame that most non-believer's have to tread on egg-shells around the believers and say "Oh, I just don't think God exists, but please don't judge me".

Why can't we just say what we really think (certainly whatI really think) "God blatently does not exist and why should I have to prove it?"  If that comes across as arrogant, then so be it.  I'm not saying I'm better than believers, just that I know one thing more then them...
...and I know people are gonna start saying "but you don't know, coz it can't be proved".  But again, why should I go out of my way to try to prove something I can't to someone who wouldn't believe my results even if I could.

If I told you I was thinking of a number, but i wasn't 4... you could say "prove it because I believe you were thinking of the number 4",  I would say "I can't, but I know I'm right"... would that be arrogant of me?... no... it's just what I know to be the case.

(no, I probably shouldn't write this, and just stick to my 'it's wiser not to'-statement...but consider me weak :'( )

Quote from: Ashen
(The most interesting and intelligent posts seem to be on the 'side' of atheists, but then I'm biased ;))

Quote from: Misj' on Wed 10/10/2007 21:26:29
Yeah...you're biased  ;D ...

Quote from: AshenThis was a JOKE. I figured Darth understood that and was joking back; Misj', I'm not so sure (could be taken as a joke, but context doesn't really read like it).

Somehow the smiley should have given some of the intent away (or the fact, that I understood you were joking in the first place)... :-\

That does however not imply, that I don't stand for what I said (just like you explained that you stand by the words written in your joke). I've read a great lack of intelligence throughout this tread both from the side of the atheists and from the side of the theists...This has nothing to do with the initial post (expressing atheism) or the subject of atheism in general; although it tends to cause fanaticism both on the side of the believers and non-believers (and to make it sound confusing, in this case 'believers' are defined as 'those believing in atheism', and 'non-believers' as 'those not believing in atheism'...if you're willing to accept atheism as a believes-system but not a religion (possibly similar - but not the same as - Buddhism (not zen-Buddhism which is highly intertwined with Hinduism...which makes zen-Buddhism a religion)).
Maybe this is where I should go into the word 'fanaticism' a little...since the definition of this word is (partly) emotionally defined, and I don't want to offend anyone here the wrong way (I don't want to offend anyone here at all, but when I do it, I'd prefer to do it in the right way...whichever way that is ;) ). There are several definitions of the word given on http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=fanaticism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=fanaticism), but there are three that I want to point out: The American Heritage Dictionary calls it 'Excessive, irrational zeal.', WordNet refers to it as 'excessive intolerance of opposing views', and the Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) defines it as '(too) great enthusiasm, especially about religion'. I first want to make it clear, that I disagree with the definition given by the AHD; for while I believe that fanaticism is often associated with irrationality, I also believe people can be very fanatic in a very rational way about very rational things. The other two definitions are however - in my opinion - very much applicable to many of the posts written here by either theists or atheists. Both show excessive intolerance towards the views of the other side; saying things like (and I exaggerate slightly here...but just slightly unfortunately) "you're gonna burn in hell if you don't accept the truth" or "you're an irrational moron who doesn't see the truth when it hits him in the face". Also, both express too great an enthusiasm about their views regarding religion (or simply the believes-system they accept)...which kinda brings me back to the definition in the AHD: when I read the posts in this thread as objectively as possible, I found that - as so often - indeed fanaticism and irrationality go hand in hand (even though several people have expresses that they consider themselves to be - and I'll exaggerate again - the epiphany of rationality).

This - by the way - does not imply that there's anything wrong with being enthusiastic about whatever drives you. It's the enthusiasm that will lead to a better understanding (when correctly applied)...but the opposite is true when the enthusiasm 'circles out of proportions': it will cause a blind narrow mindedness. It's much the same with nationalism. There's nothing wrong with nationalism (except if you believe that everyone should consider himself a citizen of the world rather than of a country)...but the risk exists that someone looses sight of proportions, and ends up being a chauvinist; who doesn't just think his own country is great, but also considers everyone else less worthy.

Which brings me to MrCollosal:

Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 10/10/2007 22:21:17Instead of just coming in here and insulting everyone who posted, why don't you point out problems with arguments and contribute to a better understanding of life?

In reaction to the 'insulting everyone', I'll just refer to the smilies again and pretend to be very deeply hurt when I say: "Can't you guys get a joke?" :D

But as to the second part of your remark, the 'why not' is quite simple based on what I wrote above: if you try to discuss with a fanatic in the end the only two things that will happen are: the fanatic will consider himself a martyr (which for some reason inevitably proves to him that he's right), and secondly, your own mental peace will be very much disturbed. The first result I don't care about, because I don't feel like making anyone a martyr...either for God or for Non-God. And the second one I don't feel like it's something I should actively seek out...I very much like my mental peace...don't want it to be disturbed.

But then why react at all, you may ask, and the answer to that question is simple: I've followed this thread from the beginning (and this is not the first time I've posted...but somehow no one every stopped to ask the intention of my previous posts), and sometimes you feel the need to get something off your chest. That is what I felt, and that is what I did. The reason why I didn't say (and still don't say) everything that's on my chest is, because A. some people would consider themselves martyrs (people on both sides of the discussion by the way), and B. several of the things that are on my chest are also caused by people outside of this forum. I don't feel like burdening (or punishing if you want to use a more aggressive word) you for the things said/shouted by other (a)theists. I do follow the statements made by several of these people in silence and have yet been able to defy the urge to react to them. Due to the nature of this forum, however chose at times to break that silence; I do consider the fanatics on this forum to be less fanatic and more rational than most (or the loudest) of those others. I also consider them wrong in many ways, and lacking objective logic (there's also something you could call subjective logic, which is not necessarily a lesser form of logic; and many of them do propagate arguments based on this form...and that's fine by me).

Just to explain the difference between what I read here, and some other people that I read, on one of the sites, the blogger wrote (and I'll translate it as literal as possible): "...more important and revealing is the fact that [a certain organization] straight out denies a scientific theory [the theory of evolution]. This is on the same level as denying the Holocaust, which is punishable" [between brackets added by my to clarify the subject]. I assume that even the most enthusiastic atheist on this board agrees, that there's a slight difference between not believing in millions of years ago, and denying the holocaust. And there's also a difference between believing theists "just haven't seen the light yet" (to use a nice religious term), and voting for reinstating the Spanish Inquisition (because nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition), and to start punishing those who disagree with a given scientific theory (be it that the Earth is flat, or that it's millions of years old). Similar examples can of cause be given form theistic people...it was just an example I happen to have close at hand.

The example also brings me to my final point, because the person who wrote it down on his blog is a biologist (or at least a claims to be, so I'll just accept his word for that), also, he - and his blog - have a close relationship with a female evolutionary biologist (whom I know for certain to be one) who also - at times - posts on this blog. The problem is, that on their blog - but also in other 'popular' publications of hers - she partly claims that science makes no claim about God, but at the same time keeps saying that if you believe in science you can't believe in God (which is somewhat strange because she has also claimed at times to be (though non active) a member of a church...I consider that strange for if you say you can't believe in God and science at the same time then what's the purpose of the church (except of course for meeting the community). Why did I mention this? - Well, because also in this thread several people wrote about science and religion that you cannot accept at the same time; and thus that science leads to atheism. The point is, that this is a misconception of science - very much caused by people trying to mythify and mystify their point of view to some über-scientific state - and about the limitations of science. Science - in it's most basic form - is a tool to examine the mechanisms of the universe by measurements; biology for example is specified in the mechanisms/building blocks of life(forms), which is where the cell-theory comes into the picture...but that's a whole different story. It also implies, that if you're talking about something that isn't a mechanism or about something non-measurable, that you've stepped outside of the realm of science and into the realm of something else. A simple example is 'beauty'. There is no scientific test possible to proof the existence of beauty (for it cannot be measured (especially not with the reductionistic approach which is all the rage in science nowadays))...nevertheless we all know it exists. It should - by the way - be noted here, that by the strict definition of science (which is not a definition made up by me), mathematics is not a science, so you can't do anything with the golden ratio used in many paintings.

Having said that mathematics is not a science - however - does not imply that it should be considered it a less worthy or valuable approach than the scientific approach. It's just a different branch, a different field to get answers not possible using another tool (like science, theology, arts, etc). There's also no problem in combining different approaches. That science combined with mathematics does not lead to a pseudo-science is logical to most of us; but if that is true, that the same is true about combining science and art or science and philosophy. To perform research (I'm not talking about science here) you sometimes need to go beyond the limits of one thing and into the realm of another...there's nothing wrong with this; as long as you know what you're doing, and as long as your goal and approach are clearly defined. This inevitably leads to another conclusion: if science and mathematics do not produce a pseudo-science, than - logic dictates - that neither does a combination of science and theology. If course if the latter is a pseudo-science (and certain people try to claim that), than the same is true about combining science with atheology (atheism)...since they both impose pre-assumptions that are beyond the realm of science onto a scientific approach. Proper (pure) science can however not make any claims regarding anything that's outside of it's realm. So if God is something that cannot be measured (with present-day techniques), than science has to be oblivious about the existence or non-existence of God; and is thus agnostic.

It should be noted, that logic and rationale are not limited to the realm of science, nor does a rational logic approach automatically indicate that you're talking about science (although many people tend to use it that way). Art can be very logical, and so can philosophy. The same is true about (a)theology: certain conclusions can be made regarding the 'universe' that are logical from a certain point of view (certain pre-assumptions); and if certain observations (or scientific results) can be explained using this point of view as a staring point, than this in itself shows logic.

The problem is - though - that increasingly certain people try to force certain - non testable - pre-assumptions onto people (one could think about my spanish inquisition example above, or certain schools that want to force you to learn creationism but not evolutionism) were they claim that science (or the Bible) has shown that certain non-scientific pre-assumptions are true, and thus that others are stupid/false. Some of these ideas could also be found (in a lesser form) within this thread where people said something along the lines of: "I don't have to disproof that God exists, science is about proving. So they have to proof God exists". However, if God exists but cannot be measured than he's not within the realm of science. So the point should not have been: proof to me that God exists, but: proof that your pre-assumptions (that God exists) are more viable than mine (that God does not exist). There is however an important consequence of this...if the (non)existence of God is beyond the realm of science, and science itself is thus agnostic (just doesn't know), than the questions: "if God does not exist, then how does everything work" is as viable a scientific question as "if God does exist, then how does everything work"...and both should be worth investigating (as long as the pre-assumptions are made clear beforehand). And in most cases the scientific results will be the same; because the function of the insulin receptor will not change depending on your pre-assumption (and if it does, than you're doing terrible science...though possibly good interdisciplinary research).

This is just a very short summary ('very short' being a relative term); I did not spell-check it, I did not proof-read it...my apologies for that. Technically this post is also not about (a)theism, but about misconceptions of science and the value of science (which is not the ultimate road to all knowledge and wisdom in the universe...). That being said, I have no wish to discuss the existence or non-existence of God, and thus to discuss theism or atheism; nor do I feel like discussing creationism or creationisic-evolution. I have no problem discussing science (or specifically biology), it's limitations, and it's strengths...but I do not think this is the right topic to do so (because it should have nothing to do with 'expressing atheism'), and I was therefore hesitant to talk about that in this thread, although certain people clearly had some misconceptions about it. I feel, that I have made my point (as much as the subject here is concerned). And as a final remark towards MrCollosal, it's up to you to see if it "contributes to a better understanding of life?"

Misj'

You are making one of the most understandable and common mistakes: you are taking things for granted that aren't.
The paragraph I disagree with the most is the one about mathematics not being a science.
While this may be true (it's all a question of definition), mathematics is the basis for science. There wouldn't be science without mathematics.

Now the most illogical part is probably this one:

Quote from: Misj' on Thu 11/10/2007 15:08:52if science and mathematics do not produce a pseudo-science, than - logic dictates - that neither does a combination of science and theology.

Seriously, what were you thinking? Who on earth says science and mathematics produced a pseudo-science in the first place? That's plain BS.
But back to your argument: that's like saying "mashing potatoes and berries together doesn't produce dogshit, then - logic dictates - mashing potatoes and pebbles together doesn't produce dogshit either." Seriously, WTF?
Or, more mathematically: 2+3 != 10 =>  2+6 != 10.  A textbook logical fallacy.

There's a thing called the scientific method.
Observation -> hypothesis -> hypothesis is tested
a) -> hypothesis is confirmed over and over again -> theory
b) -> hypothesis isn't confirmed over and over again -> hypothesis gets ditched

Now, mathematics is simply a formal language used to describe hypothesis and theory.
Theology doesn't make use of the scientific method in the least bit. There are neither hypothesis nor theory, just beliefs.
And there isn't any progress, no additional insight, it's the same superstitious stuff time and again.

Dear KhrisMUC,

You are making one of the most understandable and common mistakes: you base your interpretation on a misunderstanding of the information. This is especially clear by the paragraph you disagree with most (indicating that you disagree with several other things too).

If you had understood my writing, that you would have seen, that science - unlike what some people claim - does not posses some  mythological character, making it the ultimate expression of logic. Also you would have seen that there's logic outside of science. Therefore, your remark that 'mathematics is the basis for science. There wouldn't be science without mathematics' is true (at least for physics, and most of modern chemistry...biology would have developed anyway...although it would have developed in a different direction clearly)...but that does not make mathematics a science (and even most mathematicians that I know (personally) agree on this; mathematics is based on axioms (mathematical dogmas that cannot change)). Because if it would a theist could use the same logic: without God the world would not exist, and therefore there would be no science...So God is the basis of  science; hence God is science. Now you have to agree that that argument doesn't make sense...and neither does the same argument when applied to mathematics.

But your quoted 'most illogical part' also show that you did not (or did not want to) understand my point. Maybe I did not explain is as clear as I could have, but I assumed that the reader (that's you in this case) is intelligent enough to understand the point I was making, without having to take his hand every single step of the way. The argument I made was this: pseudo-science cannot be defined simply as an implementation of a non-science with science, because if that were the case, than a combination of science and mathematics would also have to be regarded as a pseudo-science; a conclusion that wouldn't make sense. Therefore, if a science and a non-science combined do not automatically create a pseudo-science than the argumentation why something is a pseudo-science is a pseudo-science has to be based (also) on other 'symptoms'. I've never in my post mentioned which symptoms that would be...because I assumed it not to be necessary.

As for the scientific method...really? - is there such a thing? - Man...if only I had known before... <good, got the sarcasm out of my system> Now, the first thing I have to say is, that you apparently haven't been paying attention to anything regarding theology in the last - well - 2000 years. If there were no progress, no addition insights, than people would still believe the same things as they did 2000 years ago. And maybe to the untrained eye that might appear to be true, but in reality theology is continuously in development too...with the exception - maybe - on the subject of the existence of God (but even that is not true, if you read theologists). They too have hypotheses, they too try to test them - maybe not based on tools that you accept, but that really doesn't matter, now does it? - and they too accept those hypotheses that stand, and ditch those that fail (well...not always correctly, but neither does science). So based on that argument you would have to consider theology as much a science as mathematics. The fact that certain 'truths' cannot change within theology - which is probably what you refer to when you say that "it's the same superstitious stuff time and again" - cannot be used as an argument of 'no progression', since the same is true about mathematics: the axioms cannot change. I'm not saying that theology is a science (although the definition that includes mathematics also includes theology)...but unlike you I'm also not mixing up 'logic' and 'science'.

Misj'

It is true, that mathematics is not a science, but it's also not a pseudo-science. Pseudo-science is "bad science", something that misleads people. Mathematics, even though it's not a science, still has a deep connection to reality, even though it's not understood why. But this missing understanding aside, the application of mathematics and the scientific method formulated statements about the world that can be verified experimentally and they tell us what reality IS.

This is what gives such a power to science: you can make a statement, verify it and then others can also verify it, so it becomes common knowledge about the world. When it turns out that the statement is not exactly right (like Newton's gravitational laws), the laws can be restated in a new form and re-verified. The old, now incorrect law can be abandoned or it can be used only in certain scenarios. There is no unquestioning faith involved in science or in mathematics. Everything in science is up for questioning but when you do so, you need to prove it and any new statements must explain all related previous experimental results.

Theology is pseudo-science, because it is based on unquestioning faith and unreasonable assumptions. There is no reason to assume the existence of a god, becuase the world can be explained in much simpler terms which can also be verified experimentally. Just because there are topics that cannot be scientifically explained today it doesn't mean that we should throw away all the results of science. What would've happened if you showed the effects of radiation to a person in the 14th century? No amount of science at that time would've explained it for what it is. So was science bad then? Science was just as good (a lot weaker though), it was humankind that was ignorant.

Faith only works if you don't question the existence or the omnipotence of a god. It requires one to be ignorant of the world and do not ask questions, because once you do (and apply logic), you very quickly reach contradictions. Just because theology makes statements that some people accept, it doesn't mean that those statements have anything to do with reality.

The only reason the christian church ever changes is because people simply find it too silly, and they have to give up on certain points to be accepted in society. It's not like the priests themselves conceive scientific methods to deduce what the bible says, and discover groundbreaking facts on a regular basis.

Oops, suddenly after x amount of years they concur that women can be priests (at least in some countries). Please tell me that this is the result of meticulous and pioneering studies and from the holy scriptures, and not just a compromise to soothe upset activist groups.

"Should we stop believing that homosexuals go to hell?" Yes, but not because some cardinal suddenly discovered a hidden message in Romans 3:23, but because they need to adapt to the real world, where dynamic disciplines such as the humanities, anthropology, psychology and biology bring mankind forward.

And when they actually do find new writings that are likely to belong to the original bible, such texts are considered blasphemy and are hushed up by the clergy.

Religion may have many benefits for the little man (I don't question its role to give comfort and faith) but it does not bring humanity forward, in any way.

Quote from: Andail on Thu 11/10/2007 20:20:52
Religion may have many benefits for the little man (I don't question its role to give comfort and faith) but it does not bring humanity forward, in any way.

I do question the role of faith and religion. Ethics and morals are independent of religion and one can comfort another human being in ways that are independent of the Bible. This book has a historical value, but nothing else. Keep in mind: most of the Bible was written 2000 years ago, when it was common "knowledge" that the Earth is flat and illnesses are a revenge from God, not something caused by a virus. Even most religious people nowadays don't think like that, but - as Andail said - it's not because new wisdom was discovered in the 2000-year old texts, but because science shed some light on illnesses and we know it better. Even they know it and when they become sick, they take medicine, not rush to the church to pray for forgiveness.

Do read the book "End of Faith". It discusses faith and religion, the problems with them and possibilities to replace them with things that are based on reason but still provide comfort and answers to spiritual questions.

Just to clarify my stance: To prove or disprove the existence of God(s) is beyond the realms of human ability.

Organized Religion, on the other hand, is a fat bag of wank that cripples whatever potential humanity has for peaceful co-existence.

While I agree on several points - when interpreted from your point of view - I have to indicate that several of your statements can also be interpreted differently. My apologies if I sound harsh doing such.

Quote from: Traveler on Thu 11/10/2007 18:54:25It is true, that mathematics is not a science, but it's also not a pseudo-science.

It should be noted, that I never said it was (on the contrary, I've indicated it's importance; including it's importance to the field of science)

QuotePseudo-science is "bad science", something that misleads people.

While I am completely willing to agree with this, the problem of course resides in the question what is 'misleading'. Simply because what you consider 'misleading' is directly associated with your personal point of view. However...if your personal point of view affects the results and how think someone is allowed to interpret them, than you've lost sight of one of the goals of science: it tries to be objective; as opposed to subjective science which by some itself is considered to be a pseudo-science.

QuoteTheology is pseudo-science, because it is based on unquestioning faith and unreasonable assumptions

Well...first of all, theology is not a science at all, but we already kinda agreed that out. Secondly, what should be considered 'unreasonable' is also open to interpretation (based on your point of view) and thus subjective.

QuoteThere is no reason to assume the existence of a god, becuase the world can be explained in much simpler terms which can also be verified experimentally.

Using Occam's razor doesn't apply here, simply, because while it states: 'all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one', the decision about which one is the simplest solution will be different when you ask a theist and an atheist in this case. Which again shows that the solution depends on a persons pre-assumption, and thus that is subjective.

QuoteFaith only works if you don't question the existence or the omnipotence of a god. It requires one to be ignorant of the world and do not ask questions, because once you do (and apply logic), you very quickly reach contradictions.

Atheism only works if you don't question the non-existence of God (because if you start to question that fundamental principle, you can't maintain being an atheist technically), so being an atheist requires someone to be as ignorant as being a theist (yes, I know several of you fundamentally disagree with me on this...you don't have to react to this to tell me; since I'll know you're wrong, and you'll think I'm wrong  ;) ...so let's not waste any more words on that). Consequently, non-ignorant people will be agnostic...which brings us back to good science being agnostic.

Why by the way does logic not allow you to believe in (seemingly) contradicting things? - I mean, the most fundamental law/theory of biology (the cell theory) seemingly contradicts with the creative evolutionary theory (please note the excessive use of the word 'seemingly' here, before anyone starts to write that I misunderstand either or both theories :-X ).

Oh, and why do you need an omnipotent God (as in ALL powerful)? - Just really, amazingly, more than you could ever imagine powerful would do the job I think (which would make him all powerful from your point of view; this is - by the way - what most rabbies indicated as far as I know)...a simple idea - for example - could be, that such an entity completely understands quantum physics, and is able to purposely affect the universe using it...so faith does not need any omnipotent entities whatsoever.

QuoteJust because theology makes statements that some people accept, it doesn't mean that those statements have anything to do with reality.

And just because some people don't accept it, doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with reality...now does it? ;) - Furthermore, if you interpret it form a different point of view - namely that God did create everything and that the creator is intertwined with the created (like quantum physics which states that the observer automatically affects the observed, and that they cannot be separated) - than God automatically has everything to do with reality. Again it depends on your point of view, and therefore your interpretation is subjective.

While it's obvious that much of what you say makes sense when interpreted from your point of view (as far as I know your point of view), much of what you say is subjective. It should be noted here, that if quantum physics is correct, and if the observed is automatically affected by the observer, than a truly objective state is physically impossible. That's one of the reasons why I try to interpret data/information from as many different points of views as possible...it's the closest I can come to objectivity. But the closest I can get to objectivity leads me to come to conclusions that are not yours. Since I know my own reasoning, and since I know the pre-assumptions that I make, and why I (have to) make them, and since I know which data I possess, and different ways to interpret that data from different points of view...I have to stick to the conclusions I made myself based on science, art, philosophy, mathematics/statistics, and theology (I never use a single approach to tackle a problem); all of which - I can assure you - are logical and rational. Logic dictates that I base my point of view (and associated pre-assumptions) on my own research of the world...and logic also dictates that you do the same even if it leads to other conclusions.

Misj'

Ps. To Andail, I'm still not willing to discuss (a)theism. But your description fits very well the (christian) church of the middle ages...a time which none of the religious people I know lives in.

Pps. "when it was common "knowledge" that the Earth is flat" both the Babylonians and the Egyptians knew otherwise. No one has even been able to show me a text in the bible stating that the Earth is flat; I'm very curious as to where this text is. Religious people haven't been able to show me, atheists haven't been able to show me...and I would just really like to know.

Ppps. To LimpingFish, I agree with you. Organized Religion (the organization) has caused several problems in the past (and present...and most likely the future). Of course the same is true for any other Organized Thingy the past present and future will know...unfortunately. Organization seems to lead to fanaticism, which in turn leads to hatred, pain, and whatever variation on the Spanish Inquisition; non of which is ever expected... :)

Pppps. It's funny that although I've never mentioned whether I were a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic, some people still react to my post by attacking a religious believes system (thus apparently assuming that me disagreeing with their (atheistic) point of view automatically makes me blatant ignorant irrational and stupid religious fanatic) to me that's fanaticism; and as I stated before, if I continue this discussion, it will only lead to two things...neither of which I'm willing to accept. So this will be my final post regarding this subject (until my next reaction that is... :P )

Quote from: Misj' on Thu 11/10/2007 22:35:54
Ps. To Andail, I'm still not willing to discuss (a)theism. But your description fits very well the (christian) church of the middle ages...a time which none of the religious people I know lives in.

Hmhm? So the christian church changed its "official" opinion about female priests, homosexuality and whatnot 500 years ago, and not quite recently? Exactly what part of my argument fits the middle ages better than the past decades?

Also, you keep saying that you're not willing to discuss this and that - and intermittently claiming that you will cease all posting whatsoever - but instead you keep writing these extremely lengthy posts. Just play the game will ya....

Misj writes too much, my eyes started bleeding at his first post and are yet to stop doing so. I'm out of this one :P

Quote from: Misj' on Thu 11/10/2007 22:35:54
While I agree on several points - when interpreted from your point of view - I have to indicate that several of your statements can also be interpreted differently. My apologies if I sound harsh doing such.
It should be noted, that I never said it was (on the contrary, I've indicated it's importance; including it's importance to the field of science)

I didn't say that. And don't worry, so far you didn't seem to come through as harsh, but you do seem to be incosistent. :) See below.

QuoteWhile I am completely willing to agree with this, the problem of course resides in the question what is 'misleading'. Simply because what you consider 'misleading' is directly associated with your personal point of view. However...if your personal point of view affects the results and how think someone is allowed to interpret them, than you've lost sight of one of the goals of science: it tries to be objective; as opposed to subjective science which by some itself is considered to be a pseudo-science.

No. A statement is not misleading and can be considered a scientific truth if it can be experimentally verified. It has nothing to do with my point of view, because my statement can only be considered scientific if you (and anyone else) can do the same experiment and get the same results. In that sense even science involves some faith, since most of us simply believe the scientists that gravity works the way it does - most of us do not actually verify it. But this kind of belief is different from religious belief, because any of us can question the laws of gravity, devise a new law, implement experiments and show that the new law is correct and the old one is not. The only requirement is that the new law must explain all phenomena related to gravity just as well as the old one did.

While scientific truth is not "absolute truth", because measurements depend on properties of physical devices and results are biased by measurment errors, they still can be considered true and they're still not affected any personal views.

QuoteUsing Occam's razor doesn't apply here, simply, because while it states: 'all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one', the decision about which one is the simplest solution will be different when you ask a theist and an atheist in this case. Which again shows that the solution depends on a persons pre-assumption, and thus that is subjective.

The problem with your logic is that a scientific approach excludes personal preferences and views, while a religious answer is deeply corrupted with it. You might just as easily get different answers from two theists, but you will not get different answers from two scientists. (If you do, there will be a logical explanation for the difference and there should be a way - maybe in the future - to evaluate them. Something like this is fundamentally impossible with religion, because of the very nature of it: you cannot question the basics of it, because you become a heretic.)

QuoteAtheism only works if you don't question the non-existence of God (because if you start to question that fundamental principle, you can't maintain being an atheist technically), so being an atheist requires someone to be as ignorant as being a theist

This is a patently incorrect statement. Science doesn't even concern itself with a god (just like I don't.) I don't need to "not question" the nonexistence of a god, because the whole topic is irrelevant. Describing reality doesn't require the use of a god, because it can already be done in simpler (and verifiable) terms. I'd only need to even think of questioning the nonexistence of a god if I really, really wanted to somehow pull it into the solution. This would be a result corrupted by a personal view, as you pointed out.

QuoteAnd just because some people don't accept it, doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with reality...now does it?

You consistently seem to forget about an important detail: not a single theological/religious statement can be experimentally verified. All the claims (which are by the way, 2000 years old) are such that there is not even the theoretical possibility to verify them.

If I told you that I just healed 500 people by the touch of my hand, would you believe me? You wouldn't (rightly so.) Yet religious people do this on a regular basis, based on a text that was written some 2000 years ago and then translated multiple times by people of different times and cultures. Does that seem unreasonable to you?

QuoteThat's one of the reasons why I try to interpret data/information from as many different points of views as possible...it's the closest I can come to objectivity.

You can make any statements and come to any conclusions you like. You're free to interpret anything in any way. But your interpretation will only relate to reality if it can be verified by others. If I come to a conclusion about reality and you show that my conclusion is wrong, my conclusion has no value anymore. I might stick to it but that'd make me a medical case.

Science only has contradicting theories because we are ignorant about details of nature that are important enough to have a big effect on our experiments. History shows us that most such contradictions were cleared up when science advanced.

One example is classical physics and quantum physics: Planck had to introduce the concept of quantum to be able to explain heat radiation. There was a massive fight againts quantum mechanics, but it was shown that it is more successful in describing nature than classical physics.

We now have a contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Does this mean that they're equally useless and we should throw them away? By no means! It only means that one (or both) theories have missing parts because we're unaware of something important. But just because of this, there is no need to pull a god out of a hat and say "nature is so effing complicated, only a god could possible have made it."

The solution to these contradictions (especially if they really bother you) is to study up on those areas of science and think about these problems in a clear and logical way. That's the only chance we have to advance.

Historically, religion (and I'm refering mainly to Christianity here) was used as a means of increasing territory and basically invading countries without obvious force.

Whenever Europe discovered countries, the jesuits were always there straight away, telling the natives about this God character who is like this cuddly but strict judge in the sky will look after you for all eternity if you obey his (ie their) rules.

The majority of the natives would embrace these new ideas and before you know it, there are churches being built, natives being baptised and everybody wants a peice of this God dude...

...well not everybody... some of the natives didn't like these new ideas, and would speak out about it.  But then they'd start getting imprisoned, even executed for daring to speak against God.  Even the brainwashed natives would turn on them.  And the few left who still didn't beleive would suffer in silence.

Through this method Christianity became a global phenomenon, bigger than Pirates of the Carribean and Pokemon put together.  It was never even about worshipping a bearded ghost, it was merely one of the worlds first multinational corporations and was as much about exploiting the natives as many of todays MNCs.

Dear Misj',

I did understand your writing, I just don't agree with it. And that's why you apparently feel the need to insult me (or rather: my intelligence). To make it clear: I don't think mathematics is science.
I did say "The paragraph I disagree with the most is the one about mathematics not being a science."
That probably wasn't worded very well; I only wanted to identify the paragraph is was going to refer to.

I'm fully aware of the "logic reasoning" you are using to try to make us believe theology was a science.
I just don't agree. So would every logician.

Please look up a definition of pseudo-science first, in order to allow us to continue the discussion properly (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-science)).

In my own words: mathematics is the basis for science in much the same way as a spoken or written language is the basis for a discussion.
It's necessary to establish axioms in mathematics in much the same way as it's necessary to establishing grammatical rules and vocabulary of a language.
Once a basis (mathematics/language) is established, people can start doing the real work (science/discussion).
So much for me mixing up science and logic, btw.

Now Theology is a completely different thing. It takes things for granted (immaculate conception, rising from the dead) and simply teaches them. Those things are never questioned or researched, just taught from one generation to the next. The degree of fundamentalism might vary over time, but that's it.
Laughing off my mentioning of the scientific method sarcastically doesn't change that.
Once again: a honest atheist is ready to throw his whole "set of beliefs" right out of the window at any time. It just takes a new, ground-breaking discovery.
Can you say the same thing about a theist? (In case you are unsure: no.)*

IMO, every newborn child is a perfect atheist. You might disagree, but that's my understanding of being an atheist: to have no idea of a god.
The point is: shouldn't the child rather be taught the mechanics behind observable facts only? Why push all those superstitions into it's young mind? It's free to choose any religion once it's old enough to make up it's own mind.

To conclude this post, I'll try to outline a piece of Dawkins:
Strong Christians constantly question the ways of science, plus, they try to drag it down to their level, calling it "a pursuit of beliefs", ignoring the fact that true science is trying to be as objective as possible.
Now imagine that suddenly new, conclusive scientific evidence is discovered: an immaculate conception is a biological possibility.
Do you think those Christians would be like "well, what do I care, it's just science"?
No way. They'd rave and pat each others shoulders and tell everybody "I told you so".
That doesn't tell us much about science or religion, but it's telling a lot about the average believer.

*If you decide to write a lengthy answer to my post, please address this point first. That way I have an indication whether it's worth my time to read the rest of your answer. Sounds harsh, I know.

[not really part of the discussion so I can safely post this without being in disagreement with my own words: So this will be my final post regarding this subject (until my next reaction that is...  :P)]

I've sent a response to KhrisMUC and Traveler via PM (a more appropriate place). If you're not one of them just be happy that you don't have to read it all.  :P

To Stupot (very shortly): True (especially for post-Constantine Christianity, but it more likely already started at Paul who - if look at objectively - at times acted more as a godfather than disciple of god (as he claimed to be). The same is also true for Incaism (or however you call their religion), which 'conquered' South America not with weapons but with missionaries...Power corrupts, and organized power corrupts even more.

Misj'

Ps. To quote Douglas Adams' God's final message to his creation: "We apologise for the inconvenience."

Pps. From www.phdcomics.com (while exaggerated, it's closer to the truth than I wish it to be  :-\):

(http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd091606s.gif)
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761 (http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761)

Quote from: Misj' on Fri 12/10/2007 12:17:05
...than disciple of god (as he claimed to be).

He claimed to be a messenger of God. The Pope claims to be one. Jerry Falwell claimed to be one.

How can we prove them otherwise? Does the inabilty to ultimately test their claims leave them exempt from all but the weakest counter-claims of "Oh no you're not!"?

We are engaged in two seperate debates. The existence of God, and the place of Organized Religion in a modern healthy society.

I don't subscribe to Organized Religion, though I was born into a catholic community. Religion plays no part in my everyday life, as it simply has no bearing on my world views or how I live.

I don't believe in Organized Religion, and I can do so because it's basic concept is tangible.

Only a God can Prove that It exists. But once It's existence is verified, then the concept of Faith becomes moot, and thus the need to believe in a God is rendered obsolete.

I can't believe or disbelieve in the existence of God, because it lies beyond my ability to do so.

All evidence to support either stance on It's existence is inadmissible on the basis that these facts are bound to minds without the intrinsic ability to comprehend anything beyond their very own sphere of existence.

seen this pic today, feel free to discuss.

(http://dasjoe.de/tmp/science.jpg)

It weren't possibly 4chan you saw this today? ;)

i probably got it from 4chan but no, i saw it on my own space, uploaded ages ago :)

Quote from: dasjoe on Fri 12/10/2007 20:41:53
seen this pic today, feel free to discuss.

The diagram to the left confuses and scares me. The one to the right looks easier to memorize.

I have reconsidered my position and consider myself a christian agnostic, I just think the concept of faith and science don't get along that well. Faith is believing because you believe and it helps you live your life, hopefully for the better. Science is the repeted testing of ideas to find more univeral ideas. Niether can give all the answers. No scientest can  tell me how I can get an 'I' out of a  few pounds of intercontected hydrogen carbon and a bunch of other elements. On the other hand faith can't tell me how a cell works. I am certin that I am uncertin scientificly.
ANd I find that chart a tad offensive. I have faith yes, but I question it all the time ask myself why I believe whatI believe. I know I have touted this guy before, but Michiel Fareday was a christian, AND he was a great scientist. The idea isn't inconcieveble.

Quote from: Stupot on Tue 09/10/2007 23:50:52
Why don't Topsy and Henrietta just bring in a new, female cat.
If Tuesday Fucks its brains out, then I will happily hang up my atheist cape and go on a spending spree at the local Gideons outlet.

Topsy and Henrietta thought that Stupot's suggestion was an excellent idea, and bought a new cat, naming it Wednesday. Tuesday and Wednesday had a wonderful time together making (ahem) "the beast with two backs" (see http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/58450.html).

Unfortunately, Henrietta insisted that this proved Tuesday was a boy, while Topsy insisted that this proved that Tuesday (and Wednesday, for that matter) was a lesbian. So nothing was proved at all, and the arguing continued as fiercely as ever.

This might sound like a flippant comment, but I am making a serious point. This sort of shift of position to suit current knowledge happens all the time in religion. Science comes along and demonstrates that a natural phenomenon can be explained in scientific terms rather than religious ones (such as the Flood or the Creation), and religious believers simply move the goalposts to fit their argument. This has happened over and over again in history - one of the worst examples was the persecution of Galileo over his publication of the heliocentric model of the solar system, which contradicted the Biblical geocentric model. The Catholic Church did not apologise for this until the 1990s, a full 350 years after Galileo's death and well after the universal acceptance of the heliocentric model.

You'd be hard pressed to find a Christian these days who would insist that the universe revolves around the Earth (unless they happened to be a Flat Earther), but that was once an accepted and supposedly unshakable part of Christian belief. (Sure, scientists believed it too, but they were happy to give up that theory once another came along that gave a better fit to astronomical observations, and they didn't go around putting Christians who continued to believe in the old theory under house arrest.)

Quote from: lo_res_man on Sun 14/10/2007 22:52:36
Niether [religion nor science] can give all the answers. No scientest can  tell me how I can get an 'I' out of a  few pounds of intercontected hydrogen carbon and a bunch of other elements. On the other hand faith can't tell me how a cell works. I am certin that I am uncertin scientificly.

True, neither religion nor science can give all the answers, and it never will, as each answer leads to more questions. However, science comes up with many, many more answers than religion does, and its answers are based on sound logic, unlike religion's answers, which are based on faith alone. ("God made it so - just believe rather than questioning it.")

Yes, science can't currently tell you how you come to be out of hydrogen and carbon, etc, but it is entirely feasible that one day it might. That's not scientific arrogance, by the way - several centuries ago, science could not explain how the heart worked, for example, but nowadays, it can.

I don't think I will ever be intellectually complex enough for this sort of debate. My, in my nieve little world, brain always just assumed rotten people were rotten people, and good people were good people. Religion is just a +1. A christian nut would simply be a nut without religion. But a nut none the less.

And the idea that all Christians (and I single Christians out because we really are the worst offenders) are too blinded by God to see science is silly. Any religious person that says there can't be evolution because God just made it all and that's that are short sighted, narrow minded, and a little dumb to boot. I'm a fairly well rounded, mentally stable (mostly), intelligent human being that dosn't feel the need to quote seemingly randon bits of the bible when asked a question. I just believe what I believe, because of how I feel. I didn't make a scientificly sound, conscious desicion to believe in something I KNOW sounds ridculous.

I feel like this was kind of off topic, but I've felt that way about the last couple pages of this thread. I have been reading, but I never posted an opinion because these always tend to be touchy, and everyone here seems to be pretty nice people who I could otherwise get along with. So I just wanted to chose my words wisely.

Well, maybe religion does now blind people to see science... But it definitelly doesn' t help. For instance, Einstein wasted his last 40 years trying to reply Heisemberg' s theory, because it was too "anti-God". Who knows how far could the physics be now if he used his brain to think ideas in the appropiate direction...  :-\

I've noticed this thread and I've decided to post. Forgive me but I didn't really want to read all 17 pages of this, I am a poor reader, but I will post what I believe in or what I've heard. Forgive me if i say the wrong thing or put things out of context, I won't say that I'm greatly knowlegable with this, and if you prefer, you could just say I'm a rambling fool (I personally consider myself one).

There are a few problems i find with religion. Some are selfish, some are hypocritic, some are extremists. At one point every religion has displayed these problems in history, If you feel that I'm exaggerating please feel free to argue your point.

I used to be in the Christian Faith but I was driven away by hypocrisy other Christians have, but I won't lie, I myself live with hypocrisy and continue living with this. I've noticed Christians always talk about being persecuted, and how they are treated, but then persecute the other religions. I won't say all Christians do this, I would say the extreme Christians would. Christians like to say they believe in this that they do this, but they don't live like that. Christians lack the tollerance that they wish they would be given. Again I will say not all Christians are like this, but from my point of view, most Christians I know are like this. People could say they are religious but not give a damn about other people outside their religion, even I have been kicked when I was down by Christians (metaphorically of course). And this is why I no longer believe in Christianity, but I won't say I hate Christians, I would say many are misinformed or are mislead. I myself have a few Christian friends who I would personally say are Christians in the truest sence.

QuoteOne of the advantages of being an atheist, is that there needn't be any moral weight placed upon spreading the non-Gospel, or declaring atheism's superiority.

This is not necessarily true.  Athiest groups have tried to show their superiority, I remember about a year ago, or atleast half a year ago an Athiest group tried to have crosses removed that honored troopers who were killed in the line of duty. News Link (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/atheist_group_wants_utah_to_remove_crosses_honorin/) And I've heard of reports that Atheist Groups want crosses removed from cemetaries.  I won't say all Athiests are like this, that would be a gross exaggeration, I have plenty of Athiest friends who don't care either way.

As I said in my opening statement there are selfish, hypocritical, extremely crazy religions out there and all religions have become this at one point, but that statement is a bit of a lie, atleast depending on your religious belief. Supposedly the Pharisees of the Jewish religion ploted the death of Jesus, the Christians had the Spanish Inquisition, The Muslims had the suicide bombers and terrorist attacks, correct? No. Sadly I fear most people believe that, that all other religions are plotting to kill them and force us to believe in their ways. Only a hand ful of these people (atleast in comparison of the total ammount of believers), the extremists, have harmed people for their religion. Everyone who believes in these religions are peaceful and could live together in harmony or close to it, but the extremists make us fear everyone.

Saying "the terrorists are Muslim" is not the same as "the Muslims are terrorists", but people treat them that way. Remember when we first had the terroist attack at 9-11? I heard a Muslim boy was brutally killed in school within the following week. Why? Because he was Muslim. This isn't fair. I won't say I know alot about the Muslim religion, but I'm very sure that they would like nothing less than peace with the world.

There is one more problem I find with religion. Many people find it hard to defend their religion without brutal force, whether physical or verbal. I'm sure if you challenge a Christian's belief instead of arguing their point, they would argue. Some may even go as far as saying "I'm right, you're wrong, you're going to hell." and then end the discussion. This has happened to me once, but I have to admit that I started the debate in a mean way, "Did you know the bible has 2 contradictory creation stories?" I know that was mean to attack the first book, the first chapter of the Bible, but if you can't defend the "corner stone" of your religion why believe in it. This is a problem I have with religion, they can't defend their beliefs if their beliefs aren't strong enough. But, I do tend to be a cruel person at times. I'm sure people would find me wrong to challenge someone's religion but, someone has to test them, to tug at their belief, and see if they could prove me wrong. If enough people could, perhaps I could believe in Christianity again.

I'm not trying to say believe in what I believe. I'm not saying religions are evil. But I will say this no matter what you believe in, you have to know there are people who are bigots in these religions that cannot tollerate other religions. And I ask you, whoever you are, whatever you believe in, whatever you do, don't become like that. Our world has enough prejudice without religious influence, we don't need a World Wide Holy War to see who's religion reigns supreme.

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 15/10/2007 17:55:38
For instance, Einstein wasted his last 40 years trying to reply Heisemberg' s theory, because it was too "anti-God".

That's a bit of a stretch. Einstein's faith or lack of faith is a complicated issue that I won't discuss at length now, and opinions diverge regarding whether he believed in some manner of a God. The way I interpret Einstein's own words on the topic of religion, he seems to have been an agnostic or agnostic atheist, and if he could imagine some sort of god it was of the deist kind (setting stuff in motion and then leaving it running), and certainly not a personal god that interferes with anything. But whatever the case, giving religion as a reason for Einstein's suspicion of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is really something of a misinterpretation.

Sure, there's the famous "He [God] does not throw dice" quotation. But Einstein often used God as a metaphor for the awesomeness of the universe in general. Many scientists, of which many are atheists of one persuasion or another, do the same. (The legendary mathematician Paul Erdos, when seeing an elegant mathematical proof, used to say, "This one's from the book!", referring to a hypothetical book where God keeps all his elegant mathematical proofs. He also talked of  Erdos was certainly not a very religious man.)

When Einstein talked about God not playing dice with the universe, a perfectly plausible interpretation is that he merely meant that the universe is not governed by randomness. All pre-quantum-mechanics physics had described a universe that was governed entirely by rules. In theory, one would think based on this, if we knew all of the rules, as well as all the facts about the current state of the universe, everything should be predictable. The ultimate goal of physics is, of course, to know all the rules, or at least as many as possible. Einstein might have thought, and I find it reasonable, that by just accepting any degree of randomness we're taking a short cut, and missing out on all the real rules that are still unknown.

Einstein was human, and it's easy for us now to say that he made a mistake here (if he did--this one I'm not touching with a pole the size of Texas--I'm not a physicist!). But I believe that it was an intellectually honest mistake, not at all influenced by potential religion.