NationStates Jolt Archive

If you do believe in God, what singular event materialized your belief, and if you do not, what is your religious belief and what brought you to those?

If you are atheist, agnostic, or otherwise inclined against god please stay put and read.

Read my signature.

I believe in something, but it isn't other people's idea of God. It's personal.

:headbang: Hasn't this question been beaten to death already in several threads with close to the same question already? Furthermore, won't this just spawn the same curcituous debates you were criticizing in your other thread?

:headbang: Hasn't this question been beaten to death already in several threads with close to the same question already? Furthermore, won't this just spawn the same curcituous debates you were criticizing in your other thread?

Welcome to Nationstates General. You've never been here before, I presume.

:d

Fass, if biting sarcasm was acid...wow, you're acidic.


I'd like to point out you've made similar comments just like mine before...

:d

Fass, if biting sarcasm was acid...wow, you're acidic.

People here tell me. I am in a mood atm, but meh.

I'd like to point out you've made similar comments just like mine before...

Thousands of posts ago - it's n00bish China town. ;)

there's absolutely no reason to.

If you do believe in God, what singular event materialized your belief, and if you do not, what is your religious belief and what brought you to those?

If you are atheist, agnostic, or otherwise inclined against god please stay put and read.

I have found every single religion or cult I have become familiar with so inane, unmature and just plain stupid that I gatecorize them all as shitofabull. I believe that no matter how the world was created, it wasn't because of Zeus giving shit that dropped down and formed islands, or Christian God who did it all in a week before the week was even invented and then had sex with Josef's wife.

I believe that science will explain the creation of the universe at some point. Just like lightning was said to be Thors anger before it got explained scientifically, will the creationism look retarded when we have the real explanation.

If you do believe in God, what singular event materialized your belief, and if you do not, what is your religious belief and what brought you to those?

If you are atheist, agnostic, or otherwise inclined against god please stay put and read.

Answering the first question: I've never believed in any god(s) and have no religious beliefs.

For the second statement: Let me know if anyone comes up with something resembling evidence or reason to believe.

You can't prove if there is or isn't a god/gods. Therefore I'm agnostic. Very simple, really.

Eventhough I'm Buddhist

I actually believe in this God (http://www.titane.ca/igod/main.html).

:D

You can't prove if there is or isn't a god/gods. Therefore I'm agnostic. Very simple, really.

x2

If you do believe in God, what singular event materialized your belief, and if you do not, what is your religious belief and what brought you to those?

If you are atheist, agnostic, or otherwise inclined against god please stay put and read.

I am an atheist. Somewhere in the midst of going to Catholic school for 9 years I decided Christianity sucked. Then studying religion and philosophy in college, I decided that ALL organized religion sucks. Listening to religious people and what I believe to be their complete lack of logic along with being diagnosed and hospitalized with a chronic disease I will never be cured of is probably what pushed me from agnostic/deist to strict atheist. And of course, listening to die hard Christians in this very forum has made me reevaluate again- I am now Pastafarian. I am no longer content to "live and let live". I am now compelled to mock religion every chance I get. ESPECIALLY Christianity.

I'm a Christian. As silly and quaint as it may seem to all you "smart peoples," it's what I was raised with, and it makes a lot of sense to me. It's not something up for debate as far as I'm concerned, and none of you have to agree with me to make it so. I don't like to debate religious stuff, because I think it's one of those things we all have to agree to disagree about. I doubt I'll be changing your mind, and there's really no way you can change mine, unless you can prove you've found the body of Christ lying around somewhere.

You can't prove if there is or isn't a god/gods. Therefore I'm agnostic. Very simple, really.

You can't prove/disprove there are no pixies, either. Are you a fence sitter on that issue as well?

I'm a roman catholic, and i belive primarily cause i am born into it. (i didn't do a years worth of confermation papers for nothing). also, i sort of view it as insurance for when i die. (not like life insurance, but more of a safty-net if god DOES exist).

I'm a roman catholic, and i belive primarily cause i am born into it. (i didn't do a years worth of confermation papers for nothing). also, i sort of view it as insurance for when i die. (not like life insurance, but more of a safty-net if god DOES exist).

Do you seriously think that you can use religion as simply a safety net? Saying you're Catholic because you don't want to risk hell (as the singular reason) is such utter bullshit. There's no real belief there, and if hell does exist, you're just as screwed as everyone else. If you're going to be apathetic about religion, that's fine. But this is just ignorance.

I'm a roman catholic, and i belive primarily cause i am born into it. (i didn't do a years worth of confermation papers for nothing). also, i sort of view it as insurance for when i die. (not like life insurance, but more of a safty-net if god DOES exist).

Actually, that seems to be fairly common. Just like with the Passion of the Christ. You are either guilt-tripped into believing, or you practice because you FEAR what would happen if you end up being wrong. In this way, it makes Churches a little like...Stalin.

I actually accepted Christ as my saviour at a young age, however I never really came to know God until recently when I lost my Fiance, family broke apart, almost died in a car wreck, etc. God slapped me on the back of the head and asked me where I've been for all this time :p !

We're talking a lot now, so everything's good.

Actually, that seems to be fairly common. Just like with the Passion of the Christ. You are either guilt-tripped into believing, or you practice because you FEAR what would happen if you end up being wrong. In this way, it makes Churches a little like...Stalin.

Which is why, ironically, most Christians would go to hell, too, if you believe in such things. Belief like this isn't faith at all.

You can't prove/disprove there are no pixies, either. Are you a fence sitter on that issue as well?

Yes. They could be out there. I doubt it, but it could be.

Yes. They could be out there. I doubt it, but it could be.

Such intellectual lassitude.

I wasn't actually raised with a faith, beyond being told that we're Christian by my mother. She always raised us according to Christian principles (Be nice to each other, specially your sister) but didn't feed us any dogma, feeling that I would make my own decision when the time came.

In junior high I started taking Kempo classes in my town. The classes just happened to be held at the local Presbyterian Church, the denomination my family is, and just happened to be taught by the pastor of said church. The class also happened to hold a great many members of that church's youth group. And while Pastor Greg先生 didn't bring religion into his teachings, he did make mention from time to time about how the ideals of self defense fit in with Christian love.

Eventually my friends/classmates invited me to the youth group and I ended up joining the Church after a very long course of study of other religions to make sure I knew what I was getting into. I was baptized and eventually ordained as a Presbyterian Elder. That's when I started a life long struggle with my faith, my intellect, and everything else.

My current beliefs are... more than a little complex and tend to make people uncomfortable.

Though clearly the religious beliefs - or lack of - that we're raised with will have a lasting impact on our lives, I believe religious belief is not necessary determined by that religion. I was raised, and still am being raised, as a Roman Catholic and many (but not all) of my morals are in accordance with Church teaching, but I am an agnostic.

To renounce one's faith, or to pick one up, I believe usually has no direct correlation with a flash or insight, some bizarre realization, or unusual experience, such as a mystical mental journey or a faith-shattering tragedy. Faith seems to be something that some are born with, something that some are born without.

After I hit puberty, a time of rapid physical and mental growth, I began to ask questions, deeper questions, ones of self-exploration. I asked, "Who am I. Why am I here? What is my purpose?" I wondered not only what was right and what was wrong but why something was right or wrong and whether there is a gray area. Most importantly, I speculated, "Is there a God. Are there Gods? What is his nature? What are their natures?" and slowly, as I aged my faith eroded.

Now, almost 18, I have very little faith. My jihad is all but lost, as I hang onto some superficial, shallow, surface belief because of Man's innate desire for an explanation, for a something to believe in, for God, something to make a chaos, nonsense, evil, and virtue make sense. Unless God is lowered onto the stage and deus ex machina grants me my faith in a dramatic and satisfactory, but somehow bromidic, unclimatic ending, I am afraid I cannot, perhaps genetically cannot, salvage my faith. I'm only afraid the curtain will close before the struggle is over...

Sorry for the length, typos, and awkward wording.

Such intellectual lassitude.

Would you rather I take a position that could, conceivably, be proven wrong?

I can't remember who said it, but I recall this quote: "I am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility of anything"

Yeah, so obviously the point of this particular thread was lost after the first reply. So maybe all the atheist/agnostics would now like to listen to me, listen for once, you know listening is a very good thing, (maybe if I reinforce it enough you will listen.) For supposedly "smart people", that category of people does not listen for anything. I was asking a specific group of people not what they believed but why they believed it. I am an agnostic constantly searching for some kind of truth instead of ambling around being a nay-sayer. It is atrociously easy to sit there and say "God cannot exist because there is no factual evidence." or "Prove that God doesn't exist." What I wanted was pure and simple reasoning by which individuals believed something, maybe a small anecdote, I do not need to hear why people do not believe. That being said, it's a playground people, I doubt you will listen anyways..

I believe in something, but it isn't other people's idea of God. It's personal.
Well isn't that special?

Would you rather I take a position that could, conceivably, be proven wrong?

I can't remember who said it, but I recall this quote: "I am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility of anything"

I would like to see you abandon this cowardice and actually take a position - any position. Currently, you're just going "I guess there could be lizard people in tutus controlling the British royal house, which in turn is involved in a massive conspiracy to hide the pink elephants that could all very possibly be domiciled in all our living rooms - I don't want to rule anything out." You're not being intellectually honest, like you seem to think, but you are being intellectually languid.

What I wanted was pure and simple reasoning by which individuals believed something, maybe a small anecdote
Oh, why, ok. I getcha. There wasn't any flashing lights, the voice of God, or even a call. It's more that after lots of reading up on various religions around the world, Christianity felt right. That and everytime I need to bost my faith, I just look up into the night sky and remember that we can never know everything, that is the place and providence of that which we call God (or any other name).

I would like to see you abandon this cowardice and actually take a position - any position. Currently, you're just going "I guess there could be lizard people in tutus controlling the British royal house, which in turn is involved in a massive conspiracy to hide the pink elephants that could all very possibly be domiciled in all our living rooms - I don't want to rule anything out." You're not being intellectually honest, like you seem to think, but you are being intellectually languid.

The thing is, you really don't know. Sure, it's so highly unlikely that it can be ruled out, but there exists that shred of possibility. Being too certain about things is what leads to fanaticism, my friend.

As far as the possibility or otherwise of there being a God or not is concerned (which is supposed to be the topic), there is absolutely no evidence either way.

PS Thanks for giving me a reason to find the meaning of the word "lassitude". Never heard that one before, I must use it.

Oh, why, ok. I getcha. There wasn't any flashing lights, the voice of God, or even a call. It's more that after lots of reading up on various religions around the world, Christianity felt right. That and everytime I need to bost my faith, I just look up into the night sky and remember that we can never know everything, that is the place and providence of that which we call God (or any other name).

My previously stated point exactly, which clearly has been ignored, buried under the shouting of Fass and other's discussing the purpose of the thread. :p

I have found every single religion or cult I have become familiar with so inane, unmature and just plain stupid that I gatecorize them all as shitofabull. I believe that no matter how the world was created, it wasn't because of Zeus giving shit that dropped down and formed islands, or Christian God who did it all in a week before the week was even invented and then had sex with Josef's wife.

I believe that science will explain the creation of the universe at some point. Just like lightning was said to be Thors anger before it got explained scientifically, will the creationism look retarded when we have the real explanation.

its hard for one to be so skeptical for one who knows so little. What if science, in some inane way, proves a higher being does exist. Although not entirely plausible, there is still a chance of a great deal of organized energy to be able to store information, "a being", not unlike the information stored in DNA. I personally don't believe in god but no ones found the edge of the universe yet so u can't say it isn't possible.

My previously stated point exactly, which clearly has been ignored, buried under the shouting of Fass and other's discussing the purpose of the thread. :p
Eh... It's Fass, you get used to it after a while. ;)

The thing is, you really don't know. Sure, it's so highly unlikely that it can be ruled out, but there exists that shred of possibility. Being too certain about things is what leads to fanaticism, my friend.

And being so much of a recreant of reason as to refuse to take a position, based upon ludicrously listless notions of the possible is what leads to intellectual stagnation.

As far as the possibility or otherwise of there being a God or not is concerned (which is supposed to be the topic), there is absolutely no evidence either way.

Which says nothing. Which is basically what all your statements have said and amounted to so far: nothing.

PS Thanks for giving me a reason to find the meaning of the word "lassitude". Never heard that one before, I must use it.

Stick around. You'll learn more. I'm a veritable word of the day dictionary.

To me, all religions are just theories on how the universe came to be created. Don't get me wrong, I accept the God theory as a likely possibility, but there's also the theory of no God, that maybe we just don't understand how it came to be created, which is why no-God makes little sense.

I may lean to one side more than the other (I favour the non-God theory), but they're all just theories to me.

What bugs me is that people form cults according to what theory they believe is correct and that they have such faith in that one theory. That is illogical. I can understand favouring one theory over another, but not accepting that theory as total truth and forming organized groups devoted to the belief of that theory. It's just a theory!

Something based purely on conjecture should not be treated as such a truth and have so many devotees.

And being so much of a recreant of reason as to refuse to take a position, based upon ludicrously listless notions of the possible is what leads to intellectual stagnation.

No, it's simply a matter of me being unwilling to dismiss everything which conflicts with one viewpoint. That's like saying that you have to vote Republican or Democratic, even if you think both parties are completely full of crap.


Which says nothing. Which is basically what all your statements have said and amounted to so far: nothing.

IMO, it gives me a damn good reason to not go either way on this. Neither side has any sort of evidence whatsoever. It's like asking me to put all my money on the toss of a coin.


Stick around. You'll learn more. I'm a veritable word of the day dictionary.

I've got "recreant" now too. :)

No, it's simply a matter of me being unwilling to dismiss everything which conflicts with one viewpoint. That's like saying that you have to vote Republican or Democratic, even if you think both parties are completely full of crap.

Exactly. Almost like a laziness when it comes to examining the merits of either position. "The Republicrats are the same!" when, in fact, they are not. One is sometimes the lesser evil, but you won't know that, because you don't intend to get off your fence.

IMO, it gives me a damn good reason to not go either way on this. Neither side has any sort of evidence whatsoever. It's like asking me to put all my money on the toss of a coin.

Then what is the point of making any sort of "comment," here, when what you are saying is basically nothing. I could invent any sort of ridiculous notion that is unfalsifiable in its nature and instead of contemplating around the crux of the matter - why it is unfalsiable - you will be forced to acknowledge it. And where is the intellectual honesty in that? It is what I said at the beginning - lassitude, and nothing else.

I've got "recreant" now too. :)

Goody.

IMO, it gives me a damn good reason to not go either way on this. Neither side has any sort of evidence whatsoever. It's like asking me to put all my money on the toss of a coin.


Can you really be sure, though? What if it really weren't like asking you to put all your money on the toss of a coin? After all, there's no reason for you to go either way. A good, intellectually careful person such as yourself wisely avoids making any assertions; you'd better stop doing so, or I'll be forced to call you a hypocrite. Even though you really might not be, and I could just be imagining that you are.

Exactly. Almost like a laziness when it comes to examining the merits of either position. "The Republicrats are the same!" when, in fact, they are not. One is sometimes the lesser evil, but you won't know that, because you don't intend to get off your fence.

No, I'd be perfectly happy to get off my fence, if someone gave me a good reason to. I think you misinterpreted me. I have no problem with evaluating the positions of two parties, and deciding on one. But if there is no way of telling, then I should just pick a side anyway?


Then what is the point of making any sort of "comment," here, when what you are saying is basically nothing. I could invent any sort of ridiculous notion that is unfalsifiable in its nature and instead of contemplating around the crux of the matter - why it is unfalsiable - you will be forced to acknowledge it. And where is the intellectual honesty in that? It is what I said at the beginning - lassitude, and nothing else.

The point was to actually answer the question in the OP. Now, there's a strange concept.

No, I'd be perfectly happy to get off my fence, if someone gave me a good reason to. I think you misinterpreted me. I have no problem with evaluating the positions of two parties, and deciding on one. But if there is no way of telling, then I should just pick a side anyway?

You need to ask yourself why there is no way of knowing.

The point was to actually answer the question in the OP. Now, there's a strange concept.

You know of another strange concept? This being an actual discussion forum, and not just a place where you postcount++ anwers to an OP that didn't make any sort of effort to provide something to discuss. Some of us are trying to get something like that going here, lest this be turned into another "384th identical answer to the OP" thread.

You need to ask yourself why there is no way of knowing.

Fair enough. On this particular question (that is, why I'm an agnostic), it's because science isn't capable of proving it either way, and I've had no personal experiences that would suggest that I should believe in anything.



You know of another strange concept? This being an actual discussion forum, and not just a place where you postcount++ anwers to an OP that didn't make any sort of effort to provide something to discuss. Some of us are trying to get something like that going here, lest this be turned into another "384th identical answer to the OP" thread.

The OP asked a question, and I answered it. Is that now a crime?

While I believe that a higher power created the Universe/Universes, I can't believe that that higher power would actually take an active interest in my life.

I would also hope that if there is a heaven I get into based on how behaved in life, not what church I belonged too. Afterall, if God is so caring for us why does he/she/it require us to worship him/her/it? Does he/she/it have some kind of superiority complex?

"Oh, look at me! I created the universe! I am soooo important!! Now worship me!!! HA HA HA!!!"

I picture Homer Simpson as God

Eventhough I'm Buddhist

I actually believe in this God (http://www.titane.ca/igod/main.html).

:D

That God could use some better software. Even Eliza gives more pertenint answers than He does.

I'm a very agnostic Deist. I believe in a god(and am open to multiple dieties) but I figure we have no evidence as to which religion is right, and I figure we never will. The odds of picking the right one are so ridiculously astronomical as to convince me that it's futile even picking a full religion, and simply leaving it at 'I believe in a higher power.' I do believe in reincarnation though... but I'm not quite sure where that leaves me spritually.

Fair enough. On this particular question (that is, why I'm an agnostic), it's because science isn't capable of proving it either way, and I've had no personal experiences that would suggest that I should believe in anything.

And why can't science prove it either way? Because it is designed on purpose to elude science by being outside its realm. You can go on about how you're "keeping an open mind," when in fact what you are doing is making a decision to equivalue things that are not equivalent. Any old cockamamie thing someone thinks up on the spot is not equivalent to that which can be falsified just because the thing invented was designed to be unfalsifiable. Rather, the unfalsifiability of it is what robs it of any value what so ever.

The OP asked a question, and I answered it. Is that now a crime?

Of course not, but don't use it as an excuse to shun discussion and debate.

If you are atheist, agnostic, or otherwise inclined against god please stay put and read.I saw God TV at my dad's once. Watching four people feel sorry for someone one of them knew because she didn't think what they did disgusted me.

And why can't science prove it either way? Because it is designed on purpose to elude science by being outside its realm. You can go on about how you're "keeping an open mind," when in fact what you are doing is making a decision to equivalue things that are not equivalent. Any old cockamamie thing someone thinks up on the spot is not equivalent to that which can be falsified just because the thing invented was designed to be unfalsifiable. Rather, the unfalsifiability of it is what robs it of any value what so ever.

Doesn't the unfalsifiability of the statement "there is no God" rob atheism of any value? Or have I just missed the point here?

Of course not, but don't use it as an excuse to shun discussion and debate.

I didn't. If I didn't want a debate, I wouldn't have replied

its hard for one to be so skeptical for one who knows so little. What if science, in some inane way, proves a higher being does exist. Although not entirely plausible, there is still a chance of a great deal of organized energy to be able to store information, "a being", not unlike the information stored in DNA. I personally don't believe in god but no ones found the edge of the universe yet so u can't say it isn't possible.

My point was that it very propably wasn't any of these gods I am familiar with. They are made up, as the cultural, social and enviromental factors that effected the people that came up with the god/-s/religion are so clearly visible in each one, that I find it impossible to believe the Creator Of Universe would be any of those. Not Zeus, not Odin, not Pink Elephants and Lizardmen.

These have been developed to explain things we haven't been able to explain with logical thinking, studying and testing. Science, that is. But as evidence of evolution have overcome the "made-in-six-days", as the Ark of Noah-thingy has been proven to be untrue, as the Earth is proven older than 6000years, all these pieces have been cut off and left behind, so to speak.

Religions have been pushed back, step by step, untill we have left only this very last question the science cannot explain with logical thinking, studying and testing.

I find it ridiculous to try to fill that hole with the Bible.

And why can't science prove it either way? Because it is designed on purpose to elude science by being outside its realm. You can go on about how you're "keeping an open mind," when in fact what you are doing is making a decision to equivalue things that are not equivalent. Any old cockamamie thing someone thinks up on the spot is not equivalent to that which can be falsified just because the thing invented was designed to be unfalsifiable. Rather, the unfalsifiability of it is what robs it of any value what so ever.
There is a perfectly reasonable reason why the supernatural is apart from the natural ....it is its opposite.

Everything in existence has an opposite: energy/matter and void; heat and cold; left and right; light and dark; forces of good vs forces of evil; etc.

Why shouldn't existence itself have an opposite state? In other words, why should it be exempt?

Why shouldn't existence itself have an opposite state?

Existence has an opposite. It is non-existence. But that is precisly what those who believe in the power of pyramids or immaculate conception through devine intervention (and even devinity itself) are denying - their non-existence.

Doesn't the unfalsifiability of the statement "there is no God" rob atheism of any value? Or have I just missed the point here?

Ever heard of a zero hypothesis? And how that is not what is to be proved?

I didn't. If I didn't want a debate, I wouldn't have replied

But you use it to elude the accusation of not really saying anything.

Ever heard of a zero hypothesis? And how that is not what is to be proved?

And there's a reason why a religious viewpoint isn't just as suitable as a zero hypothesis?

But you use it to elude the accusation of not really saying anything.

I'm yet to see how I said nothing. I stated my beliefs.

And there's a reason why a religious viewpoint isn't just as suitable as a zero hypothesis?

Because religious belief itself precludes the creation of a zero hypothesis. The zero hypothesis is the non-existence of the effect you wish to prove.

I'm yet to see how I said nothing. I stated my beliefs.

Which were nothing, were they not?

Because religious belief itself precludes the creation of a zero hypothesis. The zero hypothesis the is non-existence of the effect you wish to prove.

In this case, it seems to me that you wish to prove that there is no God. Therefore, the zero hypothesis in this case, is that there is some sort of god.

Which were nothing, were they not?

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Although, it's hardly a reason to accuse me of intellectual lassiditude.

In this case, it seems to me that you wish to prove that there is no God. Therefore, the zero hypothesis in this case, is that there is some sort of god.

Proving the non-existence of something is a logical fallacy. You can never prove non-existence. Just ask Saddam Hussein about the WMD he was supposed to prove he did not have. The zero-hypothesis - the basis of scientific inquiry and what needs to be overcome is the non-existence of the effect you are looking for. How do you overcome it? By showing the effect - i.e. the exitence of it, and calculating the probablity of the zero hypothesis to still be true despite the proof you have to your effect.

Take an example of a drug trial. Your zero hypothesis is that the drug you are testing has no effect on the disease you want to cure. You set your study up to try to find evidence of the existence of the effect (because those are what you can find) and when you do find them, you calculate the probability (called the p-value) of the zero-hypothesis still being true. Unless there is a very high probabilty for the effect (and thus a very low probability for the non-effect), you cannot reject it. And as long as you cannot reject it, your drug will never get prescribed (apart form by people who "believe" in its effect despite there being no proof for it, like they do with homeopathy and healing, on whom the onus still remains to prove it!)

And God is purposefully created to not be able to overcome the zero-hypothesis. That is the whole thing that is so silly about religious belief - faith in that which you have designed never to be able to get an answer to, because you have removed it from your only way of actually getting answers. To then turn around and try to stuff it into the process again and claim "proof" or "non-proof" is pointless. There is no reason to reject the zero-hypothesis, and you will never find one.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Although, it's hardly a reason to accuse me of intellectual lassiditude.

I do that because of the weak argument you give for - this whole "Just because someone can think of it and make it so it cannot possibly be disproven means there can be something to it." The whole point is they have made it so it can't be disproved. For a reason. And that reason is because religious faith cannot exist without it.

I do believe in God, I believe in God because God has been a major part of my life. I was born two month early, mainly because my jaw was blocking my airways, and I was basically drowning in my mom's womb. After birth, I stopped breathing and was rushed to surgery. I believe that if God (and the great surgeon team) wasn't there, I would be dead today. My religion shaped me who I am. I don't believe that God is going to come out of the clouds. You're not going to see a giant hand reaching down towards earth anytime soon. God works in two ways, through nature or divine intervention. I too have denounced my faith in God, Jesus, Mary, and the Saints. However, Jesus has brought me back to his flock. I am 21 years old and a devoult Roman Catholic.

Proving the non-existence of something is a logical fallacy. You can never prove non-existence. Just ask Saddam Hussein about the WMD he was supposed to prove he did not have. The zero-hypothesis - the basis of scientific inquiry and what needs to be overcome is the non-existence of the effect you are looking for. How do you overcome it? By showing the effect - i.e. the exitence of it, and calculating the probablity of the zero hypothesis to still be true despite the proof you have to your effect.

Take an example of a drug trial. Your zero hypothesis is that the drug you are testing has no effect on the disease you want to cure. You set your study up to try to find evidence of the existence of the effect (because those are what you can find) and when you do find them, you calculate the probability (called the p-value) of the zero-hypothesis still being true. Unless there is a very high probabilty for the effect (and thus a very low probability for the non-effect), you cannot reject it. And as long as you cannot reject it, your drug will never get prescribed (apart form by people who "believe" in its effect despite there being no proof for it, like they do with homeopathy and healing, on whom the onus still remains to prove it!)

And God is purposefully created to not be able to overcome the zero-hypothesis. That is the whole thing that is so silly about religious belief - faith in that which you have designed never to be able to get an answer to, because you have removed it from your only way of actually getting answers. To then turn around and try to stuff it into the process again and claim "proof" or "non-proof" is pointless. There is no reason to reject the zero-hypothesis, and you will never find one.

I do that because of the weak argument you give for - this whole "Just because someone can think of it and make it so it cannot possibly be disproven means there can be something to it." The whole point is they have made it so it can't be disproved. For a reason. And that reason is because religious faith cannot exist without it.

You've almost proven my point. You can't prove non-existence. In this case, it's impossible to prove the existence of God. Which is why I don't believe in anything.

Can I ask why you're so certain that all religions are created with the intent of not being able to be proven? Do you have any evidence of that?

Do you not understand that trying to prove or disprove God's existance is counter to what spirituality is about, knowledge is indeed the enemy of faith.

You've almost proven my point. You can't prove non-existence. In this case, it's impossible to prove the existence of God. Which is why I don't believe in anything.

And the whole point then is that the zero hypothesis stands. The basic premise is not "maybe existence, I don't know, I'm 'keeping an open mind'." It is "non-existence, lest I prove otherwise." You think there are pink elephants? Find one! Until you do, the zero-hypothesis stands. But that is a false analogy, as you can actually devise a way to prove the existence of a pink elephant.There is no way to prove the existence of a deity - that's what makes it so pointless of you to say "well, you can't prove the non-existence either" - it is intellectual lassitude to in such an instance forget what our whole method of finding answers is - being able to prove something, not to disprove it. It shouldn't be up to you to prove to Phizer that Viagra doesn't work when it hits the market - it is up to Phizer to prove that it does before it hits the market (again, false analogy, as you would use the same process to see if Viagra has a measurable effect by doing what Phizer would have done themselves - tried to find an effect that you can measure, and in your case you would hope that such an effect doesn't show up, rendering the claims if Phizer as to the effect of their drug to be quite suspect indeed).

Shift the onus of proof to those who deny from those who claim, and you will be committing a logical phallacy (heh, get it? Viagra - phallacy? Oh, I slay myself.)

Can I ask why you're so certain that all religions are created with the intent of not being able to be proven? Do you have any evidence of that?

That's what religions are - supernatural. And the supernatural in itself is a ridiculous notion.

That's what religions are - supernatural. And the supernatural in itself is a ridiculous notion.
Really now, an opinion =/= fact. Yes, I'm sure we all learned that back in elementary or Kindergarten.

Really now, an opinion =/= fact. Yes, I'm sure we all learned that back in elementary or Kindergarten.

You would claim religions to not be supernatural, you who jumps into a discussion with a one-liner, cutting out someone else's entire major answer and feebly attempting to mount a straw man (through semantics, I would assume, this time) against one single part of it?

And you know where this will go again - you will claim the existence of the supernatural, but be unable to prove it, because, duh, it is supernatural. And the zero-hypothesis will still stand, and you will console yourself with the fallacy that is "you can't prove it doesn't exist, so there!"

I was discussing this with an agnostic because I was hoping to be able to get beyond that - you will cling to it, I fear, so there will be no point to go further, will there?

I have found every single religion or cult I have become familiar with so inane, unmature and just plain stupid that I gatecorize them all as shitofabull. I believe that no matter how the world was created, it wasn't because of Zeus giving shit that dropped down and formed islands, or Christian God who did it all in a week before the week was even invented and then had sex with Josef's wife.

I believe that science will explain the creation of the universe at some point. Just like lightning was said to be Thors anger before it got explained scientifically, will the creationism look retarded when we have the real explanation.
good for you show the god loveing crazy people the truth Carl Sagan rules

You would claim religions to not be supernatural, you who jumps into a discussion with a one-liner, cutting out someone else's entire major answer and feebly attempting to mount a straw man (through semantics, I would assume, this time) against one single part of it?
:rolleyes:

No, I wasn't going to claim that religions are either supernatural nor that they aren't supernatural. But no, since I believe in a God, I'm a part of a broad group of billions of people who think the same and believe the same. How boring.

And you know where this will go again - you will claim the existence of the supernatural, but be unable to prove it, because, duh, it is supernatural. And the zero-hypothesis will still stand, and you will console yourself with the fallacy that is "you can't prove it doesn't exist, so there!"
That second paragraph could've been put to better use.

I was discussing this with an agnostic because I was hoping to be able to get beyond that - you will cling to it, I fear, so there will be no point to go further, will there?
Hopefully you've learned not to waste time by making unbased and assumptuous (sp?) posts.

Do you not understand that trying to prove or disprove God's existance is counter to what spirituality is about, knowledge is indeed the enemy of faith.
In other words, ignorance is the friend of faith. What a recommendation! However, it does perhaps explain why religious belief is commoner amongst the less well-educated.

:rolleyes:

No, I wasn't going to claim that religions are either supernatural nor that they aren't supernatural. But no, since I believe in a God, I'm a part of a broad group of billions of people who think the same and believe the same. How boring.

That second paragraph could've been put to better use.

Hopefully you've learned not to waste time by making unbased and assumptuous (sp?) posts.

I will commence ignoring you for the purposes of this thread now because of the emptiness in substance of that last post of yours. Time has been wasted, and it has been mine for reading that waste of space.

I will commence ignoring you for the purposes of this thread now because of the emptiness in substance of that last post of yours. Time has been wasted, and it has been mine for reading that waste of space.
:rolleyes:

Whatever.

(See? One word. You: I won't even count)

I do believe in God, I believe in God because God has been a major part of my life. I was born two month early, mainly because my jaw was blocking my airways, and I was basically drowning in my mom's womb. After birth, I stopped breathing and was rushed to surgery. I believe that if God (and the great surgeon team) wasn't there, I would be dead today.
Presumably what the surgical team did was sufficient to save your life, so what role does that leave for god? If god didn't/doesn't exist, the surgeons would have done exactly what they did and you'd still be alive. It's a logical fallacy to assume extra causes of an event when the causes we know about are all that is necessary.

My son was born nine weeks early and was very lucky to survive. He, too, owes his life to the actions of doctors and surgeons, and it has never occurred to me (or him) to attribute his survival to anything or anybody else.

My religion shaped me who I am.
Your belief may have helped shape who you are (along with your genes and many other environmental factors), but it does not follow that the belief is correct.

good for you show the god loveing crazy people the truth Carl Sagan rules

Uh... Right. Whatever you say, Mr.Sarcasmwithnotalent... :rolleyes:

Well I don't believe in a god, but I do believe there is a set of morals we should live by. If you consider that to be a religon the yes I am, but I'd say I'm more Buddhist than anything. I don't believe in any sort of devine creation, and I believe that we are meant to choose our own roads in life there is no set plan.

Well when I was 6 I realized that universe had to exist for a 'normal' reason, not a 'magic' reason, everything since then has just backed that up.

Existence has an opposite. It is non-existence. But that is precisly what those who believe in the power of pyramids or immaculate conception through devine intervention (and even devinity itself) are denying - their non-existence.
D'oh!

I was thinking along the lines of an opposite existence. Non-existence is simply a non-issue. :) (It made more sense at 12 a.m.!)

I lack belief in the supernatural because I find it both unnecessary and boring.

Welcome to Nationstates General. You've never been here before, I presume.
*cough* Burn


in all my illogicallity, my sub-concious (dare I use the word soul) fails to understand how there could be no greater being than whatever it is that makes up the atom.

[QUOTE=Zanzibare]Well I don't believe in a god, but I do believe there is a set of morals we should live by. QUOTE]

Do you beleive that there is some kind of transcendant and objective single set of correct morals?

In other words, ignorance is the friend of faith. What a recommendation! However, it does perhaps explain why religious belief is commoner amongst the less well-educated.

I'm not even going to attempt a digestion of the atrocious grammar and awkwardness of your sentence. There are a shit-ton of people that are less educated on both sides of the fence, trust me, you need only look at this forum to understand that. Knowledge is an enemy of faith because the more knowledge you have the less faith you need to have. Faith is all about understanding the facts and making an educated guess based on the information currently available, the more knowledge you have, the less it has to be about faith. Belief in God and belief in his/her/its creation, in my humble opinion, is a facet of science itself. Most of what science is is gathering facts and coming to the best conclusion. Honestly, having faith is like betting on the roll of a six-sided die, you may believe you have to roll a 2 or higher and another might believe you have to roll a 6 but there is always that small amount of chance you could be right or wrong, that is called faith.

I am an atheist. Somewhere in the midst of going to Catholic school for 9 years I decided Christianity sucked. Then studying religion and philosophy in college, I decided that ALL organized religion sucks. Listening to religious people and what I believe to be their complete lack of logic along with being diagnosed and hospitalized with a chronic disease I will never be cured of is probably what pushed me from agnostic/deist to strict atheist. And of course, listening to die hard Christians in this very forum has made me reevaluate again- I am now Pastafarian. I am no longer content to "live and let live". I am now compelled to mock religion every chance I get. ESPECIALLY Christianity.

Which just proves what the author of Toothpaste For Dinner said - "Never send your child to a religious schoool, as they'll learn just enough about religion to hate it for life."
Pastafarians rock. All hail the FSM.