NationStates Jolt Archive

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

I am unable to reconcile my perception of reality with the idea of an benevolent, all powerful, all knowing god.

What keeps you from having faith?
Why *SHOULD* we have faith? What good is it? Answer: none. It does no good whatsoever. It's not valid epistemologically, nor is it good psychologically. The use of it has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

I clicked "view post" and will respond to you again this time. Usually Soviestan, you're on my ignore list. I'm too tempted to flame the crap out of you.


Anyway, it's because I've looked and haven't found any real evidence for god. Without some real evidence I can't believe in something. Put yourself in my position for a moment. Imagine you live someplace where everyone believes in dragons. Nobody can show you a dragon alive or dead. There isn't any real hard evidence. Do you go along and believe in dragons anyway? I can't.

I just find it absurd that the natural things in life are considered evil under many religious laws.

Because with pure logic, one can disprove the idea of a omniscient God. Andn because the idea of a benevolent God completely clahses with the world as is.
That, and science is a minor factor.

What keeps you from having faith?

the lack of any deities

Because with pure logic, one can disprove the idea of a omniscient God. Andn because the idea of a benevolent God completely clahses with the world as is.
That, and science is a minor factor.

Well.. go on then. Disprove God.

I clicked "view post" and will respond to you again this time. Usually Soviestan, you're on my ignore list. I'm too tempted to flame the crap out of you.You can do that? Maybe that's why my posts often go unnoticed...

its the part where its not true.

You can do that? Maybe that's why my posts often go unnoticed...

if only.

11,000 posts and im still ignored.

you just dont flame enough.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.Because anyone that says "I know which/that religion is the only answer!" is only deluding themselves. They don't know. So I try to treat people kindly. That's looked upon in a fond manner in most religions.

You can do that? Maybe that's why my posts often go unnoticed...

I doubt it. You haven't done anything annoying enough to get on someone's ignore list, that I know of.

if only.

11,000 posts and im still ignored.

you just dont flame enough.

If you want you can flame me ;) I don't mind..

Same reason I don't believe there is a tea cup orbiting Pluto.

Why *SHOULD* we have faith? What good is it? Answer: none. It does no good whatsoever. It's not valid epistemologically, nor is it good psychologically. The use of it has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

It must do some good or else it wouldn't have lasted so long. And I'm not saying you should have faith, I'm just curious to why it is that you don't

if only.

11,000 posts and im still ignored.

you just dont flame enough.

I blame your sig. Mine's awesome and everyone knows me.


That and there's the spam.........

I'm of normal intelligence and reasonably free from cognative defects.

Same reason I don't believe there is a tea cup orbiting Pluto.

Why not?


There could be, you know?

because the exitence of the god of classical theism refutes the existence of free will... and i'd rather worship my ego... at least there is undisputable evidence it exists


Because with pure logic, one can disprove the idea of a omniscient God. Andn because the idea of a benevolent God completely clahses with the world as is.
That, and science is a minor factor.

please do demonstrate :rolleyes:

I'm atheist because I see no reason to believe in some sort of "higher power." I can admit there are things about the universe I do not know, and that doesn't make me feel bad about myself. I'm comfortable with knowing that there are things I don't know. I don't need ancient myths to be able to determine what is right and wrong, and frankly, it scares me that some people do.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

Religion is used to control masses, it conflicts with science and after realizing nobody will answer your prays, people control their own future and how those who are in power change religion to fit their own needs, I have no faith.
" If god wishes to stop evil, but he can't, he is no almighty. If god doesn't wish to stop evil, he is malicious. If god wishes and can stop the evil, where is it coming from. If he can't nor wish to stop evil, why to call him a god anyway?" -Epikuros

Trilby63;12061475']If you want you can flame me ;) I don't mind..

can i say something mean about being 6 short of trilby69?

It must do some good or else it wouldn't have lasted so long. And I'm not saying you should have faith, I'm just curious to why it is that you don't

That's an arguement to tradition or something like that. That's a logical fallacy. It's a weak arguement. You want to avoid stuff like that.

if only.

11,000 posts and im still ignored.

you just dont flame enough.

I usually notice you. Your name's kind of similar to mine; plus it's hard to miss the whole 'FEMALE' thing. I tend to notice fellow females on general forums. They are in rather short supply. :(

I was brought up Buddhist, but I consider myself agnostic most of the time. I have never experienced a moment where I knew that a higher power existed, and even if I did, I don't feel like I could know what that higher power was. I feel like if I ever did become religious, it wouldn't be to any organised religion. Maybe there is a god of some sort, but it has not shown itself to me yet, and I lack the ability to make a jump of faith with nothing to go on.

because the exitence of the god of classical theism refutes the existence of free will

on the grounds of being all-knowing?

I know the history of religion, usually better than the religious. As such, I know its roots as a mechanism of social control. All religion is bunk, quite simply because it is.

I usually notice you. Your name's kind of similar to mine; plus it's hard to miss the whole 'FEMALE' thing. I tend to notice fellow females on general forums. They are in rather short supply. :(

There's no wimmin on the internet silly ;)

Trilby63;12061488']Why not?


There could be, you know?

not without a saucer!

anything less would be illogical.

can i say something mean about being 6 short of trilby69?

You may. But you must understand that a 63 is what you do when fucking a hermaphrodite worm-like creature.

Trilby63;12061488']Why not?


There could be, you know?

That's the trap, there could be, I can't prove there isn't. But, and this is a big but, it isn't likely. That's the part of the equation so often ignored. Even if you accept that 'anythings possible' it teeters on gulliblity to not think that there are shades of that-that while things may be possible, they are so unlikely as to be practically impossible. A tea cup orbiting Pluto, an invisible bunny named Harvey that gives me advice, an an invisible sky wizard that made us and everything 'cause he wanted creatures to tell him how cool he is all fall into that last category.

It must do some good or else it wouldn't have lasted so long.

actually, all it needs is to not be so bad that believing in it automatically wipes out your society.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

Its because the idea of god, or the ideas behind any religion, just seem ridiculous. It just doesnt seem plausible at all. I cant believe a proposition without any evidence to support it or anything at all to suggest it could even be possible. Especially with so much evidence that it is not true.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

Well first I would like to point out that Atheism and Asnositicism are two totaly different faiths. Also I was born a catholic and at the age of five when no one could give me a answer satisifying to the question "If god made everything what made god?" I turned to Atheism. Then later when I thought "You know, there might be something out there." I became an Asnostic.

It must do some good or else it wouldn't have lasted so long. And I'm not saying you should have faith, I'm just curious to why it is that you don't

I don't think monotheism has been around all that long. At least not in a massively popular way.

Regardless, societies that ignore religion for the most part tend to be far happier and successful than societies that are full of devout whatevers. I don't think it does any good at all.

There's no wimmin on the internet silly ;)

Damn it, Ifreann! You're not supposed to know my secrets...

I was brought up Buddhist, but I consider myself agnostic most of the time. I have never experienced a moment where I knew that a higher power existed, and even if I did, I don't feel like I could know what that higher power was. I feel like if I ever did become religious, it wouldn't be to any organised religion. Maybe there is a god of some sort, but it has not shown itself to me yet, and I lack the ability to make a jump of faith with nothing to go on.

what higher power were you raised to believe in?

not without a saucer!

anything less would be illogical.

And a little bowl to put sugar lumps in. And a teaspoon!

Damn it, Ifreann! You're not supposed to know my secrets...

Denieria told me ;)

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

For me, I started to re-think about religion when I was an altar girl... it just failed to reach me. Until then, I tried everything to be reached by it, but then I saw it as a challenge without a real reward in it. Others could not help me. I went to other masses and informed myself on about every religion, I could think of... I never had the feeling that one of them was right... I however started getting this feeling in philosophy

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

First, it's different for everyone
Second: just because someone is agnostic does not mean she doesn't have a faith. She could have a different faith or could be on her way to believe a certain faith
Third: There are MORE reasons than just those one might not have a faith. A person may have had a faith before and given it up
Fourth: what strengthens you may not strengthen someone else.

And by the way HONESTLY how many 5 year old buy these things for their brothers or sisters? Every SINGLE spencers I've been to has some rules. You do have to be a certain age in order to even be there unaccompanied

Oh, I was also wondering something else: how bad of a parent can you be that you can't control your child from going into a store? Why did such a bad parent even have a child in the first place?

Is this really about religion, or is it about better judgement? I have quite a few christian friends who love spencers (because they have a SENSE OF HUMOR). It does not mean they are swayed from their faith. I know them very well and they have strong wills and morals. Oh - and none of them get boners just from looking at pornaments.

p.s. - science actually does not conflict with religion. most creationism stories are very very VERY similar and the story science tells is basically exactly the same story creationism tells. If you cannot see this link, look at it objectively and metaphorically and symbolically. You'll see that they both tell the same story. You have to relate these things. Nothing is all black and white.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

1. There are over 3,000 religions on Earth today, and every single one of them claims to be the right one. If there was a deity/deities, you'd think the directions on who was right would be more clear.

2. The major religious text of the world's faiths tend to be filled with things that we know are scientifically wrong (like the Biblical cure for leprosy), contradictory, or historically inaccurate.

3. I've seen first-hand how religion can destroy people.

4. Religion is notoriously ineffective. Humanity suffered from various plagues until science determined how disease was spread and how to treat it. The Black death that wiped out close to a third of Europe in the 14th Century? Today, you get a shot and you're done with it.

5. Lack of personal experience. I've died on an operating table, been in combat, and been through cancer. At no time did I have a "religious experience"; probably because I wasn't trained as a child to expect one.

on the grounds of being all-knowing?

that and being all-powerfull

if it is all-powerfull it can at all times alter your will... but it can alternatively grant you true free will

if it is also all-knowing you get a conflict. because he knows exactly every decision you will make... you would still have genuine free will if there wasn't for one little detail... he created you and therefore all your "free decisions" are based on his sole decision to create the world/you. so knowing from the beginning all your decisions, if you go to heaven or hell is determined by his choice of creating you or not :p

Trilby63;12061513']You may. But you must understand that a 63 is what you do when fucking a hermaphrodite worm-like creature.

ohmygod thats nasty!

and it made me laugh out loud.

Trilby63;12061513']You may. But you must understand that a 63 is what you do when fucking a hermaphrodite worm-like creature.

I thought everyone knew that.

I think I replied about two different threads on the same post....

I shall edit this when the reply comes through.

Very sorry.

what higher power were you raised to believe in?

I was brought up a Japanese-Buddhist, but my parents were very vague about it. I prayed to "kami-sama" as a kid, which just translates to "god". The only vision of that god is this huge golden statue which hangs from the main room of the temple that I go to when I'm in Japan (which I do every year, as I go to Japan during a religious holiday and my grandparents are very religious).

And I recognise you! Both your sig and your location stick in my head!:)

I blame your sig. Mine's awesome and everyone knows me.


That and there's the spam.........

but i love my sig. its almost paradoxical.

yeah. armistria needs to join in the spam threads if she wants to be noticed.

and post a provocative pic of herself.

Denieria told me ;)

Oh, did he now... Well, what would he know... How could I prove that I am, in fact, female?

that and being all-powerfull

if it is all-powerfull it can at all times alter your will... but it can alternatively grant you true free will

if it is also all-knowing you get a conflict. because he knows exactly every decision you will make... you would still have genuine free will if there wasn't for one little detail... he created you and therefore all your "free decisions" are based on his sole decision to create the world/you. so knowing from the beginning all your decisions, if you go to heaven or hell is determined by his choice of creating you or not :p

doesn't work out quite so cleanly. all-knowing just means knowing all of and only the true propositions. but if we have free will of a certain type, statements about the future would not yet have truth values. so god couldn't know those, but that's no slight on god. he would still know everything it is possible to know.

The default position is agnostic atheism. I have yet to witness any evidence of god. Therefore, I retain the default position.

I thought everyone knew that.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? You'd be amazed by the amount of people who've never even thought about having carnal relationships with worms, much less the positions you can get yourself into. Especially if you're flexible.

I personally feel that the existence of God/soul is more likely than nonexistence, but I do not yet have the kind of knowledge or evidence necessary for me to commit to that belief. I'm an agnostic, but I lean towards agnostic theism.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

I just don't ...

It does not feel real at all to me

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

Many people have said faith is a gift.

Guess some lucky people just didn't get stuck with that particular white elephant.

I cannot speak for agnostics as I find them as odd as people with religion,
I also cannot speak for atheists as many people call themselves atheists
for many different reasons

For myself, and I do describe myself as an atheist,
there is simply no reason to believe any god exists
but even if one did accept for example that the god described in the bible
existed there would be no reason to worship him.


In someone elses words:
"Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby"

I was brought up a Japanese-Buddhist, but my parents were very vague about it. I prayed to "kami-sama" as a kid, which just translates to "god". The only vision of that god is this huge golden statue which hangs from the main room of the temple that I go to when I'm in Japan (which I do every year, as I go to Japan during a religious holiday and my grandparents are very religious).

And I recognise you! Both your sig and your location stick in my head!:)

thank you.

thats very interesting. i was wondering the other day what "gods" the japanese buddhists would have. is there a formal belief system that you are supposed to subscribe to about kami-sama? is all japanese buddhism zen or do y'all have various schools?

Why *SHOULD* we have faith? What good is it? Answer: none. It does no good whatsoever. It's not valid epistemologically, nor is it good psychologically. The use of it has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.


I disagree.

Plato's Republics brings up this issues. Plato said Atheist would be illegal. For all men need something higher then another man giving them morals... and they need fear of something high then them

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

I disagree.

Plato's Republics brings up this issues. Plato said Atheist would be illegal. For all men need something higher then another man giving them morals... and they need fear of something high then them

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

what a strange first post - so stereotypical, and yet name dropping plato at the same time

what a strange first post - so stereotypical, and yet name dropping plato at the same time

Maybe that's the point.

I disagree.

Plato's Republics brings up this issues. Plato said Atheist would be illegal. For all men need something higher then another man giving them morals... and they need fear of something high then them

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

The gods Plato referred to would basically give anyone with morals the heebie
jeebies as indeed does the god described in the Bible.

Furthermore, if people cannot have morals without them being
provided to them and without them being enforced upon them
then quite frankly they are less than human, mere puppets for others.

Well, if there would be a powerful god - why he is ignoring me? Why he doesn't speak to me like he did to all these prophets?

I simply think the god-hypothesis is quite absurd. I never saw any indicators that there must be a divine ... thing. So why I should belive in one?

I disagree.

Plato's Republics brings up this issues. Plato said Atheist would be illegal. For all men need something higher then another man giving them morals... and they need fear of something high then them

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Plato also said that men and women would exercise naked with each other, and that children would be taken from their birth parents and raised by the city.

Do you have any problem with those?

doesn't work out quite so cleanly. all-knowing just means knowing all of and only the true propositions. but if we have free will of a certain type, statements about the future would not yet have truth values. so god couldn't know those, but that's no slight on god. he would still know everything it is possible to know.

oh but it does... allow me to explain

there are two interpretations of god:
1) god is immanent and always maifests himslef in the world... he is within time and space and evlolves with through time - this is the view of god you were refering to: i.e. it knows all he can know at the given time and therefore genuine free will can exist wherever it wills it
- the problems with this view are the is is therefore not omniscient (its knowledge is temporaly limited at least), and it could not have been the eternal uncreated creator as it exists within the universe - this is not the god of classical theism but it is how some people choose to interpret god even if it limits its nature of all-everything (if you'll excuse the term)
2) god is transcendent, i.e. outside of time and space, and therefore it is not subject to following the line of time so it is indeed omniscient as it knows past, present and future simultaneously and this is the view of classical theism - in this context my previous argument applies and stands

Well, if there would be a powerful god - why he is ignoring me? Why he doesn't speak to me like he did to all these prophets?

I simply think the god-hypothesis is quite absurd. I never saw any indicators that there must be a divine ... thing. So why I should belive in one?

Because Eris is nice.

She likes kittens.

You'd like her.

Same reason I don't believe there is a tea cup orbiting Pluto.

The aren't British orbiting it also?

I disagree.

Plato's Republics brings up this issues. Plato said Atheist would be illegal. For all men need something higher then another man giving them morals... and they need fear of something high then them

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

try society... like in the social contract

and fucking :gundge: cut it :sniper: out with :mp5: stupid smilies:upyours: (n00b)

thank you.

thats very interesting. i was wondering the other day what "gods" the japanese buddhists would have. is there a formal belief system that you are supposed to subscribe to about kami-sama? is all japanese buddhism zen or do y'all have various schools?

I know very little about it... I think that my family follows a type of buddhism that is closely associated with shinto. I know that my aunt used to go on top of mountains to fast for a month or so every year (she was a monk). I never paid that much attention to it, and like I said, my parents didn't talk much about it. I don't think that there is a set of rules that you have to follow about it, or else no one has ever introduced me to them. I know my grandfather prays at the various shrines in our house every day, once a day, but he's the only person I know of who does it.

thank you.

thats very interesting. i was wondering the other day what "gods" the japanese buddhists would have. is there a formal belief system that you are supposed to subscribe to about kami-sama? is all japanese buddhism zen or do y'all have various schools?

Actually, there are many, but a few predominate. I'm American, but was introduced to Buddhism through my mother as a child and converted as a young adult. I am now on the ministerial track in the Buddhist Churches of America, a Jodo Shinshu Buddhist denomination which traces its origins to Japan, and was established by a 12th century teacher, Shinran Shonin.

Jodo Shinshu Buddhism is probably the most widely practiced form of Buddhism in Japan. Zen, while it has strong historic roots in Japan, is more popular in the West.

I regard myself as agnostic - I'm simply not concerned about the existence of gods or God, and I don't believe it has any bearing upon my spiritual or physical life. Buddhism, as a religion or philosophy, doesn't rely upon the existence of deities, and my denomination in particular discourages its members from praying to deities for assistance or aid.

I don't believe religion is bad - obviously - but like any institution, there is tremendous opportunity for abuse. There is also tremendous opportunity for compassion and aid to others.

....well....my answer would be my expiriance with religion was basically being told what to do....after going to a catholic school i realized how screwed up christianity is...i just couldn't be the sexist cannibal that everyone around me was...not to mention the fact that religion today is way too radical...not just in Asia...

but i love my sig. its almost paradoxical.
It is rather funny.....

yeah. armistria needs to join in the spam threads if she wants to be noticed.

and post a provocative pic of herself.
Very true.
Oh, did he now... Well, what would he know... How could I prove that I am, in fact, female?
What Ashmoria said:
and post a provocative pic of herself.
Trilby63;12061576']You'd think so, wouldn't you? You'd be amazed by the amount of people who've never even thought about having carnal relationships with worms, much less the positions you can get yourself into. Especially if you're flexible.
I blame the Greyface.
Trilby63;12061623']Because Eris is nice.

She likes kittens.

You'd like her.
And she's hot.

And she's hot.

Yes.

She has holy breasts.

Trilby63;12061700']Yes.

She has holy breasts.

Which are the best kind.

Which are the best kind.

Indeed.

Though I stared through my pineal gland and she caught me looking so she poked my in the eye. Not hard, like, but it hurt. I must endevour to stare only when she's not looking.

yeah. armistria needs to join in the spam threads if she wants to be noticed.

and post a provocative pic of herself.

If I did that, then Ifreann's view of women would be drastically tainted... It would be too cruel. I wouldn't have such a nightmare haunt him...

....well....my answer would be my expiriance with religion was basically being told what to do....after going to a catholic school i realized how screwed up christianity is...i just couldn't be the sexist cannibal that everyone around me was...not to mention the fact that religion today is way too radical...not just in Asia...

Alas for the youth in Asia.

Trilby63;12061727']Indeed.

Though I stared through my pineal gland and she caught me looking so she poked my in the eye. Not hard, like, but it hurt. I must endevour to stare only when she's not looking.
When she's not looking is the best time to stare. Though when she is distracting her can work.
If I did that, then Ifreann's view of women would be drastically tainted... It would be too cruel. I wouldn't have such a nightmare haunt him...

I doubt that highly. :fluffle:

its the part where its not true.
It's not because it's "not true", it's because you haven't yet felt the existence of God. I think we all need to recognise that nobody is likely to acquire faith through logical reasoning; it's an emotional experience.

If I did that, then Ifreann's view of women would be drastically tainted... It would be too cruel. I wouldn't have such a nightmare haunt him...


i dunno. most guys prefer a pic of a real woman to the airbrushed perfection of magazines.

its just a matter of getting the right picture taken.

A basic principle that I follow whenever viable is "always concider, never assume". Assumptions are no arguments, and acting according to one if there is a significant possibility of it being false is stupid.

There are very few things that can be known with absolute certainty. Examples of them are:
* Something exists.
* I perceive [that something].
* I am [thereby].

The nature of such things make them possible to prove using pure logic. Thereby they are undisputable facts, not relying on anything external to be true. Things such as the existance of other people, the world, etc. cannot ultimately be proven, though, as one or more links in the chain are uncertain, relying on assumptions, rendering the result so as well.

Faith is error, as it involves making blind assumptions, and holding it is irrational and thereby stupid. (I concider all irrationality to be stupidity. in fact, I differentiate between lack of capacity for intelligence, and error - stupidity) I have reason to concider the existence of supernatural stuff, but holding faith in it would go against my core principles and render me defective.

It's not because it's "not true", it's because you haven't yet felt the existence of God. I think we all need to recognise that nobody is likely to acquire faith through logical reasoning; it's an emotional experience.

no really, its because its not true

should i feel the existence of "god" i would still have the problem of figuring out what to do about it. "god" does not imply any particular religion or belief system.

i dunno. most guys prefer a pic of a real woman to the airbrushed perfection of magazines.
Lies, lies I say.
Real women>photoshop artworks

*baptises everyone in the thread*

*goes to bed*

It's not because it's "not true", it's because you haven't yet felt the existence of God. I think we all need to recognise that nobody is likely to acquire faith through logical reasoning; it's an emotional experience.

So is the love some women have for owning shoes
but it doesn't make it something anyone who doesn't have the same
emotional experience would wish to have and quite frankly people
who experience an emotional experience of either nature, ought to be ashamed.

because the concept of gods existing is unrealistic, IMO.

Lies, lies I say.
Real women>photoshop artworks

lol

my favorite tabloid issues are the ones that (cruelly) show candid photos of famous actors and actresses. the truth is startlingly different from the movies.

It must do some good or else it wouldn't have lasted so long. And I'm not saying you should have faith, I'm just curious to why it is that you don't

do you know why it lasted so long? because until 200+years ago everything they couldn't explain was the work of something supernatural.

Fear. the religions use to constantly killing people to get silence them. people were hung, burned tortured because they didn't believe in the right god. or followed the right branch of a religion.

Humans are gullible.

lol

my favorite tabloid issues are the ones that (cruelly) show candid photos of famous actors and actresses. the truth is startlingly different from the movies.
I dare say they're just as airbrushed in some cases. Still amusing though, at least until I realise I don't really care who's ass isn't "perfect".
Trilby63;12061825']*baptises everyone in the thread*

*goes to bed*

Wooo, double baptised!

Greetings one and all. Sorry for the extended absence, but this question intrigued me so I will respond.
While I realize this is different from the original intent from the thread creator, I wish to respond to a couple of ideas. I feel these responses might help provide an atmosphere where I can learn something new about why atheists/agnostics think as they do. I request flames, insults, and personal jabs be left at home, they really just detract from the conversation.
So with that disclaimer I will jump right in. So one common response seems to be that religion has not helped humanity. Ok, while I might debate this point asking how vehement cynicism has furthered humanity, I will for the sake of time assume religion has not helped the world previously. Yet, does the act of a religion's former followers deny the validity within itself? Why, Britain openly has engaged in piracy on the high seas, taking over colonial territories, engaging in the slave trade, and numerous other now horrific acts. Yet, do I say Britain is terrible? No, I do not hold modern Britain responsible for acts committed previously by other wo/men. Why do you hold all of Islam responsible for some foolish martyrs? This argument seems somewhat off, I mean it really just seems unfair to judge an entire faith on the acts of individuals. Therefore, I feel this is inadequate reasoning. However, it rarely stands alone, so let me check out the next idea presented.
Next argument, I never connected with a deity figure. Good! This is the best argument yet actually, the first I feel I can truly understand and say "hey, that'd good reasoning!" So if this is your thought, props to you!
The next idea is that I cannot see a deity, therefore I have no proof of his existence, therefore I do not believe in him. Odd, do you believe there is an Antarctica? I would say there is, but have you seen it? Why do you believe in it? Well other people have told you about it, you may have even seen a supposedly accurate picture of it, but you also have seen pictures of dragons. What makes a picture of Antarctica any less fictional? This idea of sensory belief seems also contradictory, you refuse to believe what you cannot see, yet you have seen so little you must believe 98% of the world may not exist. This point only makes sense if you refuse to accept the existence of reality on the whole, as in you believe only Cogito Ergo Sum, otherwise I would say this argument too is faulty.
Another idea is that science cannot allow a deity. Quite to the contrary, it seems odd that the universe would have such order in it without some sort of design behind it. I mean with the ideas of random chance evolution what are the chances the universe would end up in such a nicely structured pattern? Ok, let me assume everything I just said was wrong. This point still seems off because you are trying to disprove religion by using science, in other words using the seen world to disagree with an unseen world. It's like trying to unscrew something with a hammer, the tool just doesn't can't make it work, even if the screw isn't faulty the hammer will still be unable to unscrew it. I therefore state this argument is in desperate need of support.
So thus I begin my conclusion. I feel there are good reasons for agnosticism and atheism (there must be if so many adhere to it), but I feel the reasons provided here are insufficient, somewhat basic reasons. I want to hear stronger reasons, reasons I can use to support an atheistic/agnostic stance and not get torn apart by other logicians. Oh, and props to Nomanslanda for a good point.
- Seth Turner

i dunno. most guys prefer a pic of a real woman to the airbrushed perfection of magazines.

its just a matter of getting the right picture taken.

No picture has ever done me justice! Which is why I got into painting/drawing self-portraits in the first place. Now they can be very deceptive!

...but I feel the reasons provided here are insufficient, somewhat basic reasons. I want to hear stronger reasons, reasons I can use to support an atheistic/agnostic stance and not get torn apart by other logicians. Oh, and props to Nomanslanda for a good point. ....
- Seth Turner

I'm sure somebody will try and pretty it up for you but fundamentally
the reasons are basic.
People do not believe because the proposition is ludicrous.

Without claims of proof and claims of a benefit you'd never have had
religion take off at all.
So you get claims of prophecy, claims of miracles and claims of life everlasting.
For some reason life everlasting wasn't deemed to be good enough so it
was contrasted with life everlasting in hell.
None of the claims made however can be backed up and claims of miracles
in Christianity either by JC himself or by others later on are contrary to
the religion and yet still used as the vital tool to draw the desperate and/or
ignorant in.

The gods were born from and grow with fear and ignorance,
there is still a lot of it around.

No picture has ever done me justice! Which is why I got into painting/drawing self-portraits in the first place. Now they can be very deceptive!

so many people have no idea how to take a flattering but candid picture of someone. it leaves many people with the impression that they are not photogenic when its much more likely that they have just never had their pic taken by a good photographer.

do you have a self-portrait posted online that we could look at? its a talent that is so far beyond me that it boggles my mind to think that someone could do themselves justice.

so many people have no idea how to take a flattering but candid picture of someone. it leaves many people with the impression that they are not photogenic when its much more likely that they have just never had their pic taken by a good photographer.

do you have a self-portrait posted online that we could look at? its a talent that is so far beyond me that it boggles my mind to think that someone could do themselves justice.

Not at the moment. But I will get back to you on that. Maybe when I get my Christmas holidays I can work out where to host a picture.

So one common response seems to be that religion has not helped humanity. Ok, while I might debate this point asking how vehement cynicism has furthered humanity, I will for the sake of time assume religion has not helped the world previously. Yet, does the act of a religion's former followers deny the validity within itself? Why, Britain openly has engaged in piracy on the high seas, taking over colonial territories, engaging in the slave trade, and numerous other now horrific acts. Yet, do I say Britain is terrible? No, I do not hold modern Britain responsible for acts committed previously by other wo/men. Why do you hold all of Islam responsible for some foolish martyrs? This argument seems somewhat off, I mean it really just seems unfair to judge an entire faith on the acts of individuals. Therefore, I feel this is inadequate reasoning.Religion has both helped humanity and has also hurt it, like all things that involve humans.

Next argument, I never connected with a deity figure. Good! This is the best argument yet actually, the first I feel I can truly understand and say "hey, that'd good reasoning!" So if this is your thought, props to you!Yeah. Kind of hard believing something you don't have any reason to.

The next idea is that I cannot see a deity, therefore I have no proof of his existence, therefore I do not believe in him. Odd, do you believe there is an Antarctica? I would say there is, but have you seen it? Why do you believe in it? Well other people have told you about it, you may have even seen a supposedly accurate picture of it, but you also have seen pictures of dragons. What makes a picture of Antarctica any less fictional? This idea of sensory belief seems also contradictory, you refuse to believe what you cannot see, yet you have seen so little you must believe 98% of the world may not exist. This point only makes sense if you refuse to accept the existence of reality on the whole, as in you believe only Cogito Ergo Sum, otherwise I would say this argument too is faulty.Thing is, there is no one that can tell me something I can verify about God. No one. I see a map of somewhere I've never been, I use that map, I verified it. The person who wrote that map is now more trustworthy than someone whose maps I cannot verify. I use Googlemaps around my home, I've seen their accuracy. I know that the ones around my area are correct. Because they've always been correct in the past, I can fairly safely assume that they will be correct on things I cannot verify myself.

Likewise, when people tell me antartica exists, I can look it up on google maps. I trust google because they have given me good reason to. There are myriad ways to establish such trust, but none of them involve unverifiable information.

Another idea is that science cannot allow a deity. Quite to the contrary, it seems odd that the universe would have such order in it without some sort of design behind it. I mean with the ideas of random chance evolution what are the chances the universe would end up in such a nicely structured pattern? Ok, let me assume everything I just said was wrong. This point still seems off because you are trying to disprove religion by using science, in other words using the seen world to disagree with an unseen world. It's like trying to unscrew something with a hammer, the tool just doesn't can't make it work, even if the screw isn't faulty the hammer will still be unable to unscrew it. I therefore state this argument is in desperate need of support.Yeah. It's called the teleogical argument, and it means nothing to science. There is no accurate conclusion that can be drawn from it. If someone's trying to use science to disprove god, they need a better understanding of science.

<snip>
The next idea is that I cannot see a deity, therefore I have no proof of his existence, therefore I do not believe in him. Odd, do you believe there is an Antarctica?
<snip>
I feel there are good reasons for agnosticism and atheism (there must be if so many adhere to it), but I feel the reasons provided here are insufficient, somewhat basic reasons. I want to hear stronger reasons, reasons I can use to support an atheistic/agnostic stance and not get torn apart by other logicians. - Seth Turner

well seth, while i have never been to antarctica i have seen photos and accounts of those who have been there. it fits my understanding of the shape and structure of the world. i have noticed that the farther north i go, the cooler the climate. that tends to support the idea that both poles are frigid. there are no claims as to the non-existence of antarctica. i feel secure in my belief that such a place exists.

there are no such proofs of god's existence. no photos, no eye witness accounts, no recent visits to heaven, not even a recent prophet. there are lots of claims of the non-existence of god.

seems very different to me.

i find it odd that you think that there needs to be a justification of atheism beyond "there is no proof of the existence of god or that any religion is true". what stronger reason is there?

Firstly, hello all,

I know full well the incindiary nature of debating religion, let it be known i use facts, not ego-stroking "holier then thou" biased opinion.

I am Pagan.

I find that easier to say then "Atheistly Pagan" "or Paganly Atheist"

IOW (in other words) - I am, and can be both, because Science and Religion ask different questions.

Religion = -Why- am i here.
Science = -How- did i get here.

So, answers i do not find in one area, i look for in another. They do not confilict. at. all.

Secondly, the Free Will (if it harms none, do what you will) bit, the Karmic/3-Fold Law bit (do good = 3^3 return on good, same with bad)

-as far as i know, the above "laws" have caused:
no crusades,
no jihadists,
no raped alter boys,
no ecocidial destruction,
never treated women/gays/lesbians/non-whites/left-handers as 2nd class citizens.

i LIKE the clean record!

even science gave us the atomic bomb!

im not recruiting, im speaking up.

Rafe

because the exitence of the god of classical theism refutes the existence of free will... and i'd rather worship my ego... at least there is undisputable evidence it exists

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

Why... why shoud have have faith... and in what ? What keeps me from believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Celestial Teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn ? I don't have any reason to have faith in a gratuitous random affirmation why, why should I have faith in any god at all?

Back,

I think the term is "Devil's Advocate"

yes, im giving both sides :confused: = you?

You theists say you are muslim, catholic, baptist, rasta, nudist...etc.

therefore, by your own admittion, you say the other religions are false, untrue, lies.

Their belief is wrong, yours is right. THEY do not know the truth, YOU do.

Well, Atheism is the same as you but for one regard, we/they :confused: believe in one less god then you do.

Rafe

So one common response seems to be that religion has not helped humanity. Ok, while I might debate this point asking how vehement cynicism has furthered humanity, I will for the sake of time assume religion has not helped the world previously. Yet, does the act of a religion's former followers deny the validity within itself? Why, Britain openly has engaged in piracy on the high seas, taking over colonial territories, engaging in the slave trade, and numerous other now horrific acts. Yet, do I say Britain is terrible? No, I do not hold modern Britain responsible for acts committed previously by other wo/men. Why do you hold all of Islam responsible for some foolish martyrs? This argument seems somewhat off, I mean it really just seems unfair to judge an entire faith on the acts of individuals. Therefore, I feel this is inadequate reasoning. However, it rarely stands alone, so let me check out the next idea presented.

this argumet for or against religion is invalid... utility does not render religion true or false because its truths (or falsehoods) do not lie in how useful it is to mankind (aka believing in fairies makes people happy does not imply that fairies exist)

Next argument, I never connected with a deity figure. Good! This is the best argument yet actually, the first I feel I can truly understand and say "hey, that'd good reasoning!" So if this is your thought, props to you!

it is indeed a valid justification for agnosticism but not for atheism (it is justification for skepticism but not for belief to the contrary)

The next idea is that I cannot see a deity, therefore I have no proof of his existence, therefore I do not believe in him. Odd, do you believe there is an Antarctica? I would say there is, but have you seen it? Why do you believe in it? Well other people have told you about it, you may have even seen a supposedly accurate picture of it, but you also have seen pictures of dragons. What makes a picture of Antarctica any less fictional? This idea of sensory belief seems also contradictory, you refuse to believe what you cannot see, yet you have seen so little you must believe 98% of the world may not exist. This point only makes sense if you refuse to accept the existence of reality on the whole, as in you believe only Cogito Ergo Sum, otherwise I would say this argument too is faulty.

well put. but the existence of antarctica is necessary in the reality of a round earth (for which there is plenty evidence even to the naked eye) while the existence of god is not (for which there is no empirical evidence what so ever)

Another idea is that science cannot allow a deity. Quite to the contrary, it seems odd that the universe would have such order in it without some sort of design behind it. I mean with the ideas of random chance evolution what are the chances the universe would end up in such a nicely structured pattern? Ok, let me assume everything I just said was wrong. This point still seems off because you are trying to disprove religion by using science, in other words using the seen world to disagree with an unseen world. It's like trying to unscrew something with a hammer, the tool just doesn't can't make it work, even if the screw isn't faulty the hammer will still be unable to unscrew it. I therefore state this argument is in desperate need of support.

well actually science cannot disprove religion because science relies on empiricism which cannot operate in metaphysics. (what you said but more technical :P )
oh and please do not bring forth the design argument... your post was rather good but when i saw this i laughed... HARD. the apparance of design means absolutely NOTHING: why is it more reasonable to assume there is a god who designed the universe than that the current structure of the universe came about by chance? both are possible but there is not enough evidence for an a posteriori conclusion to be drawn in either direction... it could as well be another explanation altogether (like say the FSM)

So thus I begin my conclusion. I feel there are good reasons for agnosticism and atheism (there must be if so many adhere to it), but I feel the reasons provided here are insufficient, somewhat basic reasons. I want to hear stronger reasons, reasons I can use to support an atheistic/agnostic stance and not get torn apart by other logicians. Oh, and props to Nomanslanda for a good point.
- Seth Turner

while i admit the reasons for agnosticism are insuficient, it is a better supported position than both atheism and theism but i'm still looking forward to anyone finding a suitable logical conclusion to the dilemma of god

oh and cheers and greetings:p

Firstly, hello all,

I know full well the incindiary nature of debating religion, let it be known i use facts, not ego-stroking "holier then thou" biased opinion.

I am Pagan.

I find that easier to say then "Atheistly Pagan" "or Paganly Atheist"

IOW (in other words) - I am, and can be both, because Science and Religion ask different questions.

Religion = -Why- am i here.
Science = -How- did i get here.

So, answers i do not find in one area, i look for in another. They do not confilict. at. all.

Secondly, the Free Will (if it harms none, do what you will) bit, the Karmic/3-Fold Law bit (do good = 3^3 return on good, same with bad)

-as far as i know, the above "laws" have caused:
no crusades,
no jihadists,
no raped alter boys,
no ecocidial destruction,
never treated women/gays/lesbians/non-whites/left-handers as 2nd class citizens.

i LIKE the clean record!

even science gave us the atomic bomb!

im not recruiting, im speaking up.

Rafe

uh uh.... i got quoted:D

but may i ask what is the point of your post? it does not answer the OP, it does not even promote a religion and of course it has no logic reasoning to it: just because your religion did not create the social damage (subjectively used) the others have does not make it true.

No picture has ever done me justice! Which is why I got into painting/drawing self-portraits in the first place. Now they can be very deceptive!
That's really cool. I've always been teh fail at anything more artistic that graffity-ing my books.
so many people have no idea how to take a flattering but candid picture of someone. it leaves many people with the impression that they are not photogenic when its much more likely that they have just never had their pic taken by a good photographer.

People with cameras are far more numerous than people who are can use them well.

Why... why shoud have have faith... and in what ? What keeps me from believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Celestial Teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn ? I don't have any reason to have faith in a gratuitous random affirmation why, why should I have faith in any god at all?

why not? :D

why not? :D

well the flying spaghetti monster sounds pretty scary for starters.

well the flying spaghetti monster sounds pretty scary for starters.

ok, ok... maybe (but just maybe) they went a bit too far with his almighty noodely appendages:p

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

I'm an agnositc... I just don't care if there is a god or not. If there is, fine, if there isn't, fine too. Assuming there is, I think it'll not be the god described by contemporary Christians, though. There's too much incoherence in the description of his/her character for me to believe that.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.
It's because I don't believe in something without any proof other than a book [insert unicorns analogy here] and also that if a God exists, s/he's a jerk, what with the smiting and damning and all.

What keeps you from having faith?

What a ridiculous question.

Next time, ask questions that aren't slanted, and perhaps I'll give you an answer.

Why should there be a god and if there is one why does it need to be worshipped? I wouldn't change my life depending on the existance or non existance of a god so I don't see this as an important thing to address. Belief and faith require effort so since I am making no effort I would say I dont believe.

*Is currently reading "The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins*

Because even if there was a god, even if you proved that there was a god, then i still wouldnt be Christian/Muslim/whatever because i dont see why i should devote my life to them/him/her/it...

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

Are we born with faith?

Are we born with faith?

Can we know if we did?

I have no memory of myself at that age, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there were no memories. It's kind of the limit of our self-knowledge.

Can we know if we did?

I have no memory of myself at that age, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there were no memories. It's kind of the limit of our self-knowledge.

We could likely determine if faith were some sort of a priori predilection, however.

It would manifest itself in individuals completely devoid of any teaching of faith.

We could likely determine if faith were some sort of a priori predilection, however.

It would manifest itself in individuals completely devoid of any teaching of faith.

The only problem is that the only individuals I can think of that truly fit that category are feral children, and they are generally unable to communicate to begin with without the help and instruction of others.

Why am I an athiest?


Well let's look at it this way:

If, and that's a massively large IF, god exists he is either malevolent or ambivalent. My definition of god being an omnipotent being. Though it's possible god could not be omnipotent in which case he's not really a god.

So, either there's no god, or there's one not worth worshipping.

Trilby63;12061437']I am unable to reconcile my perception of reality with the idea of an benevolent, all powerful, all knowing god.

me too. I'm extremely theistic, though. apathetic, all-causing (not necessarily all powerful), unknowing god.

It must do some good or else it wouldn't have lasted so long.

Intestinal worms must do some good or else they wouldn't have lasted so long.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

My general reasoning goes like this: (The basis' overlap and are derived from each other, so don't expect them to be wholly separate.)

Philosophical reasoning:
Faith is an invalid proposition, bringing one no closer to any facts about the outside world (if it exists), and thus, should be minimized to only the most basic postulates (there is an I, I exist, there is a universe, etc.) needed for a purpose, beyond which some forms of empiricism/rationalism can take over.

One can have faith in absolutely anything, and having such faith has absolutely no bearing on the actual nature of the universe. (Unless the universe is created by my faith, but not only is that a whole other subject, would I not then be god?)

I follow, beyond only the most basic postulates, empirical principles, supported by rationalistic methodology. Empiricism supported my rationalism, in essence. Nowhere does faith have a place.

Psychological reasoning:
Virtually all who maintain some sort of faith so do for reasons such as "feeling god" or something like that, And as I have not "felt god" I don't believe.

My response to such is that even if I did "feel god" (I do believe I have experienced the same thing that many others are describing, actually) I could not consider anything deriving from the mystical state as having any bearing of reality external to my own mind, for the reason that emotional experiences are a horrible way to decide what is and is not factual.

Much like faith, deciding things on the basis of emotion invariably produces horrible results compared to empirical/rational inquiry. Modern psychology does a much better job of describing (and even inducing) supposedly mystical experiences then any conception of the universe having some sort of god.



There's more to it, but that's the basis of it. I could go into more detailed arguments about the limitations and nature of god given this universe, the uncaused cause vs infinite regress, and god's lack of place in either, but for anyone who's willing to read more then I wrote, I'm guessing that they'd also be willing to read the far more eloquent writings of others, easily found by Google.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

I may not be a Muslim, but I believe that we as humans are different from any other creature because we are self-aware (we have a soul). I believe that the existence of our souls must be contingent on the existence of a deity. Are you familiar with Descartes?

Much like faith, deciding things on the basis of emotion invariably produces horrible results compared to empirical/rational inquiry. Modern psychology does a much better job of describing (and even inducing) supposedly mystical experiences then any conception of the universe having some sort of god.

Psychology hasn't explained mystical experiences. They can explain the causes of mystical experiences from a neurological standpoint (and even that's iffy), but that has nothing to do with the validity of mystical experience. It's entirely possible, most likely even plausible, that those are very real experiences with God and the supernatural.

Just because something can be explained has nothing to do with whether or not it is valid. That's jumping to a conclusion that is unsupported by the data.

It must do some good or else it wouldn't have lasted so long.
Non sequitur.

And I gave you several reasons why I don't have faith. Another is that I refuse to pollute my mind with things I know aren't true.

I disagree.
Free free all you like--but your disagreement doesn't change the fact that faith is, by nature, irrational and has no redeeming qualities.


Plato's Republics
...should consult with Plato's Euthyphro, vis-a-vis holiness, which can also be used for "moral".

I may not be a Muslim, but I believe that we as humans are different from any other creature because we are self-aware (we have a soul). I believe that the existence of our souls must be contingent on the existence of a deity. Are you familiar with Descartes?

A soul doesn't necessarily need to be dualistic a la Descartes. For example, the soul may be a physical entity that produces consciousness at the quantum level or something equally strange. The immortal soul may be a property composed of immortal matter created by God in the beginning.

Faith, as described by the dictionary, is best said to be belief in something without evidence. Stupidity, as described by the dictionary, is best said to be unreasoned thinking, which includes belief in something without evidence.

So, according to the dictionary, if you have faith, you're stupid.

I think that sums up my point nicely.

So, according to the dictionary, if you have faith, you're stupid.

I think that sums up my point nicely.

Everyone has faith in something at some point in the chain of reasoning. That's what axioms are all about...by that definition, everyone on Earth is stupid.

Which is actually rather true...

I don't know really. I guess I just don't "sense" there is one. I suppose my atheism is based on faith.:confused:

Psychology hasn't explained mystical experiences. They can explain the causes of mystical experiences from a neurological standpoint (and even that's iffy), but that has nothing to do with the validity of mystical experience. It's entirely possible, most likely even plausible, that those are very real experiences with God and the supernatural.

Two words: Alien abductions.

Those can and have been explained psychologically. They can even be induced. Mystical experiences are no different.

I never said the mind was fully unlocked, just that no god is needed in the explanation of the mystical. The experience may be valid, just like the abduction experience. But the conclusion drawn, as in the abduction experience, isn't.

It is possible that mystical experiences are a connection with god. It is, however, highly unlikely, considering that such experiences can and have been explained materialistically. I can choose to induce that which someone else might call a mystical state in myself, undergo the needed preparations, and, in all probability, have one. Same with encountering "grays" on their "spaceship".

Just because something can be explained has nothing to do with whether or not it is valid. That's jumping to a conclusion that is unsupported by the data.

If something can be explained without god, and that explanation corresponds to reality, then in all probability, god has nothing to do with it.

The experience is valid. The conclusions generally drawn from it is, by all standards that do not require faith (which I have already explained is a philosophical cop-out) is not.

...by that definition, everyone on Earth is stupid.

Which is actually rather true...


Ding ding ding! You win a free internet!

what keeps me from having faith?

i find it ridiculous, pure and simple. there's nothing more to it. i think the idea of a supreme being and any sort of chosen people/religion to be the most moronic idea since chocolate kettles (well before then, but, you know, whatever, this is god-bothering we're talking about).

I never said the mind was fully unlocked, just that no god is needed in the explanation of the mystical. The experience may be valid, just like the abduction experience. But the conclusion drawn, as in the abduction experience, isn't.

Well, then we're talking about the same thing. There's plenty of evidence that mystical experiences are caused in the brain; whether they are real or not is something else entirely. People who have used hallucinogenic mushrooms, for example, believe overwhelmingly that their experiences were real and it's impossible to argue for or against that using scientific techniques.

Now, mind you, mystical experiences have not been really induced successfully in lab conditons. Persinger's experiment had some problems and its results were far from conclusive. The existence of God has nothing to do with the physiological causes of experiencing God.

It is possible that mystical experiences are a connection with god. It is, however, highly unlikely, considering that such experiences can and have been explained materialistically. I can choose to induce that which someone else might call a mystical state in myself, undergo the needed preparations, and, in all probability, have one. Same with encountering "grays" on their "spaceship".

Well, humans are material beings; it stands to reason that our experiences have physical basis.

Of course, you run in to the idea that the "supernatural" may very well be as equally physical in nature as us, albeit in a different physical environment altogether. I mean, the real question is: What is God to begin with?

Ding ding ding! You win a free internet!

A winrar is me.

The only problem is that the only individuals I can think of that truly fit that category are feral children, and they are generally unable to communicate to begin with without the help and instruction of others.

I don't think a person must be completely devoid of any exposure to faith to at least provide some valuable observations.

I don't think a person must be completely devoid of any exposure to faith to at least provide some valuable observations.

Well, it would be incredibly difficult to determine if faith is a priori or not if the person in question has been exposed to the concept of religious faith at an age where they are capable of understanding it.

Which is actually rather true...

I have found even the dumbest person I have met to be incredibly intelligent in relation to any other thing I have yet encountered on Earth.

I have found even the dumbest person I have met to be incredibly intelligent in relation to any other thing I have yet encountered on Earth.

Touche. Personally, I'm happy that humans have the mental capabilities to concieve of faith, let alone debate it on human-designed and built software, internet connections, and computers.

I have found even the dumbest person I have met to be incredibly intelligent in relation to any other thing I have yet encountered on Earth.

How do you know?

Well, then we're talking about the same thing. There's plenty of evidence that mystical experiences are caused in the brain; whether they are real or not is something else entirely. People who have used hallucinogenic mushrooms, for example, believe overwhelmingly that their experiences were real and it's impossible to argue for or against that using scientific techniques.

Depends on what aspects of their experiences you're talking about. As one who frequently experiences the effects of hallucinogenic mushrooms, I can say that my experiences generally are rooted in my own brain, and as such, can only tell me things about my own psyche. No definitive conclusions about the objective should be drawn.

As for what is "real", that depends on your postulates about the nature of reality, and thus, requires it's own discussion. At this point, I fail to see why you argue that the mystical experience counts as more evidence for god then any other aspect of reality. Which is, as I've stated, none. (Is that what you're arguing? If not, I may have missed your point.)


The existence of God has nothing to do with the physiological causes of experiencing God.

Exactly.


Well, humans are material beings; it stands to reason that our experiences have physical basis.

Why are we debating, then?


Of course, you run in to the idea that the "supernatural" may very well be as equally physical in nature as us, albeit in a different physical environment altogether. I mean, the real question is: What is God to begin with?

Possible, but a proposition with no evidence. It is then, an unneeded concept, adding nothing to our understanding of the universe.

God has many variations, but I believe a theistic god is what was meant by the OP.

Everyone has faith in something at some point in the chain of reasoning. That's what axioms are all about
No. Axioms are self-evident starting points that, if denied, must be used in the denial. No faith required.

I'm pretty sure that we don't exist.

that, if denied, must be used in the denial.

What of it? That hardly justifies them.

It's fun. I like to be delusional.

How do you know?

I'm going by the common guages that we use to judge the intelligence of other people.

I'm going by the common guages that we use to judge the intelligence of other people.

Then something that cannot communicate with you is at a disadvantage whatever its intelligence, yes?

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.
I am sure this has been said frequently enough, but allow me to contribute to the avalanche.

Nothing keeps me from having faith. I plan on taking it up as soon as I am presented with even minutely convincing evidence from any of the major religions. First in first served.

What's the point of trusting sensory perception? I don't think that matters to me. Is it without consequence? Hmmm....another thread entirely.

Depends on what aspects of their experiences you're talking about. As one who frequently experiences the effects of hallucinogenic mushrooms, I can say that my experiences generally are rooted in my own brain, and as such, can only tell me things about my own psyche. No definitive conclusions about the objective should be drawn.

I'm looking at some recent experiments with psilocybin at UCLA which suggest this. Of course, it's not the same for everyone so I can't say it's definitively true for all experiences. I also read that many people consider their experiences while taking DMT to be entirely real and proof of a spiritual realm.

Either way, they've been shown to have highly positive effects, including mood improvement, reducing the symptoms of clinical depression, and even having benefits treating cluster headaches. So, mystical experiences aside, they have some very promising mental health benefits.

As for what is "real", that depends on your postulates about the nature of reality, and thus, requires it's own discussion. At this point, I fail to see why you argue that the mystical experience counts as more evidence for god then any other aspect of reality. Which is, as I've stated, none. (Is that what you're arguing? If not, I may have missed your point.)

I don't think they're evidence, but they are important because they reflect the power of the human mind to concieve of the supernatural. I feel mystical experiences in particular are important because they show the innate power of the mind to construct ideas about superhuman beings and how it is capable of having profound spiritual experiences that are often life-changing.

Possible, but a proposition with no evidence. It is then, an unneeded concept, adding nothing to our understanding of the universe.

I'd say it's important and valuable to human culture and ethics, but not vital. It does merit further investigation, however.

God has many variations, but I believe a theistic god is what was meant by the OP.

And I think that's way too narrow a depiction of God to really produce meaningful discussion about it from an "Atheists vs. Theists" perspective.

No. Axioms are self-evident starting points that, if denied, must be used in the denial. No faith required.
What of it? That hardly justifies them.
It justifies them perfectly. For instance, the little joke above about "being pretty sure we don't exist" requires the denial of existence. Now you can't deny existence without existing. Performative contradiction. And given that you can't do anything without existing, existence is an axiom.

Now then, I trust your brain is no longer 404'd.

Here's my thing, I believe in God, i just don't believe in any of you or myself.

There are degrees of faith. I my mother told me my tea would be ready in half an hour I would believe her, without checking on the state of the food. If she told me the kitchen was overrun with talking gorillas I would have to check. I suppose Im an atheist because I lack the capacity to believe something insane without at least checking if its true.

It justifies them perfectly. For instance, the little joke above about "being pretty sure we don't exist" requires the denial of existence. Now you can't deny existence without existing. Performative contradiction. And given that you can't do anything without existing, existence is an axiom.

Now then, I trust your brain is no longer 404'd.

But at a more rudimentary level, how can we be prove that we do, in fact, exist? "I think, therefore, I am" is a logical fallacy at best.

I believe that if God exists, he either doesn't think, or isn't perfect. We think to eat, drink, sleep, reproduce, stay sane, and all of that good stuff. In short, we think because we need to to survive. A perfect God wouldn't need to do that, He wouldn't need to eat, sleep, reproduce, or stay sane. Therefore, where's His motive for thinking? It is nonexistant.

Similarly, if God is perfect, why does He need us? What would His motive be to produce us? Why would he give a damn?

Either way, I don't think I'll be praying to Him any time soon.

It justifies them perfectly. For instance, the little joke above about "being pretty sure we don't exist" requires the denial of existence. Now you can't deny existence without existing. Performative contradiction. And given that you can't do anything without existing, existence is an axiom.

But that's a self-evident statement that has to be true by virtue of my existence; an axiom is not necessarily the same because it is not necessarily self-evident.

There are degrees of faith. I my mother told me my tea would be ready in half an hour I would believe her, without checking on the state of the food. If she told me the kitchen was overrun with talking gorillas I would have to check. I suppose Im an atheist because I lack the capacity to believe something insane without at least checking if its true.

Why check? It seems a worthless effort. Gorillas are known for making wonderful tea.

For instance, the little joke above about "being pretty sure we don't exist" requires the denial of existence. Now you can't deny existence without existing.

Why can't you?

Performative contradiction.

And why can't contradictions exist?

But at a more rudimentary level, how can we be prove that we do, in fact, exist?
We don't need to. The fact that we make such assertions and questions demands that we necessarily exist.


"I think, therefore, I am" is a logical fallacy at best.
No, it's not.

And why can't contradictions exist?

Do you really want another political party?

But that's a self-evident statement that has to be true by virtue of my existence; an axiom is not necessarily the same because it is not necessarily self-evident.
Main Entry: ax·i·om
Pronunciation: 'ak-sE-&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin axioma, from Greek axiOma, literally, something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios worth, worthy; akin to Greek agein to weigh, drive -- more at AGENT
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

For the last time people: I EXIST!

There, I've said it...

not without a saucer!

anything less would be illogical.
You are a saucerian?! Our doctrines specifically exclude the mention of a saucer in their venerations of the teacup of pluto. The blasphemous saucerians must die! Die Infidel Ashmoria! Die and suffer the pain of one thousand scaldings by our endlessly loving teacup.

We don't need to. The fact that we make such assertions and questions demands that we necessarily exist.



No, it's not.

I don't see how though. It doesn't prove any physical presence or any metaphysical presence. I have absolutely no reason to believe in you.

For instance, the little joke above about "being pretty sure we don't exist" requires the denial of existence. Now you can't deny existence without existing.
Why can't you?
You aren't serious, are you? Please tell me that you're not. I mean, how can you make a statement (i.e. denying existence) if you do not, in fact, exist? If you don't exist, you can't make any statements, since you do not exist. Are you trying to say that nonexistence is just another type of existence?


And why can't contradictions exist?
They're logically impossible. That's sorta what they mean.

3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

The problem is, in formal logic and mathematical logic that is not necessarily true. Now, in an epistemological context, it is always self evident. In that case, it's correct that all axioms are self-evident.

I don't see how though.
It necessarily must.


It doesn't prove any physical presence or any metaphysical presence.
Yes, it does.

And if you have no reason to believe me, why are you talking? Your mere exchange with me necessitates your acceptance of it. Otherwise, you're guilty of stealing the concept.

The problem is, in formal logic and mathematical logic that is not necessarily true. Now, in an epistemological context, it is always self evident. In that case, it's correct that all axioms are self-evident.
We're discussing this from an epistemological standpoint.

"I think" implies that the thought is originally yours or at least produced on your own, but can you ever verify that the thought was your own?

How can existence be derived from a function that seems unrelated?

None of these are my point though: If someone is absolutely convinced about the validity or stupidity of a argument that is strictly philosophical, no one's proving anything to anybody.

You aren't serious, are you? Please tell me that you're not.

Half. I don't really doubt that you can't deny existence without existing. What I doubt is that your justification for axioms actually works without faith, and I'm trying to illustrate why.

I mean, how can you make a statement (i.e. denying existence) if you do not, in fact, exist?

Why can't a non-existent entity make a statement?

They're logically impossible.

Logically impossible?

But logic depends on self-evident axioms - exactly what you have been trying to prove with this whole "performative contradiction" thing.

Stop using circular arguments.

It necessarily must.



Yes, it does.

And if you have no reason to believe me, why are you talking? Your mere exchange with me necessitates your acceptance of it. Otherwise, you're guilty of stealing the concept.

And that's why I am no longer allowed in Massachusettes, California, Hawaii, or North Dakota. You're only allowed to go there if you exist. That's discrimination.:D

"I think" implies that the thought is originally yours or at least produced on your own, but can you ever verify that the thought was your own?

It's begging the question. "I think" - but you have not even yet established "I", so how can you say so?

Maybe - maybe - you can establish that "thought exists." But even that is questionable; how do you know that thinking is occuring?

Half. I don't really doubt that you can't deny existence without existing. What I doubt is that your justification for axioms actually works without faith, and I'm trying to illustrate why.



Why can't a non-existent entity make a statement?



Logically impossible?

But logic depends on self-evident axioms - exactly what you have been trying to prove with this whole "performative contradiction" thing.

Stop using circular arguments.

But isn't philosophy is all circular in its very nature? And aren't you doing a good job of philosiphizing if you can end all of your sentences with question marks?

That's what I thought?

I'm looking at some recent experiments with psilocybin at UCLA which suggest this. Of course, it's not the same for everyone so I can't say it's definitively true for all experiences. I also read that many people consider their experiences while taking DMT to be entirely real and proof of a spiritual realm.

Either way, they've been shown to have highly positive effects, including mood improvement, reducing the symptoms of clinical depression, and even having benefits treating cluster headaches. So, mystical experiences aside, they have some very promising mental health benefits.

Actually, those highly positive effects were why I began using them. I researched before consuming, and will/have never consumed anything without at least a basic level of research.

As closely as I can describe, it's like exercise for your mind. Looking at the experience itself, it seem to wreak havoc. But as the mental stresses are repaired, the mind becomes, not only stronger, but also more aware of itself.

I'd say it's important and valuable to human culture and ethics, but not vital. It does merit further investigation, however.

Granted. The concept in itself is not valueless, just valueless as a factor in determining the realities of the objective universe, as we have no access to such a space in order to study it.

And I think that's way too narrow a depiction of God to really produce meaningful discussion about it from an "Atheists vs. Theists" perspective.

Mayhap. Define god then. Personally, I've never met a conception of a god that stood up to logical examination. Therefore, there is no concept in my own mind that I could rightly apply the term "god" to. Only an increasingly powerful graduation of entities, which, beyond a certain point, become illogical.

Maybe god would be the term applied to the illogical entities? Or the most powerful logical one? I have no need to make such a decision, and, as my term would likely correspond well with the concept of "god" as used by virtually anyone I'd be speaking with, it's better to have a fluid definition of god, that changes with the person I'm dealing with at the moment.

But isn't philosophy is all circular in its very nature?

No. Why do you think it is?

And aren't you doing a good job of philosiphizing if you can end all of your sentences with question marks?

Not really, but sometimes it's helpful.

It's begging the question. "I think" - but you have not even yet established "I", so how can you say so?

Maybe - maybe - you can establish that "thought exists." But even that is questionable; how do you know that thinking is occuring?

Personally, I don't. Never claimed to. Well, knowingly...

*laughs at the ironic nature of these paradoxi-if thats what they're called*

"I think" implies that the thought is originally yours or at least produced on your own, but can you ever verify that the thought was your own?
Where else does it come from? How can you show that it comes from somewhere else? Why even bring it up?


How can existence be derived from a function that seems unrelated?
Because it isn't unrelated. Thinking requires a being to think.

You are a saucerian?! Our doctrines specifically exclude the mention of a saucer in their venerations of the teacup of pluto. The blasphemous saucerians must die! Die Infidel Ashmoria! Die and suffer the pain of one thousand scaldings by our endlessly loving teacup.

ohmygod! you anti-saucerians make me SICK! who has ever heard of a tea cup without a saucer? what universe do you live in where the one doesnt automatically imply the other? NOT MINE!

freaking anti-saucerian heretic.

No. Why do you think it is?



Not really, but sometimes it's helpful.

Okay, seriously here, I think that philosophy is circular in nature because there is only so much anyone will ever be able to prove.

Now, there may be an infinite expanse to what one can believe, but there's only so much anyone ever will know.

Half. I don't really doubt that you can't deny existence without existing. What I doubt is that your justification for axioms actually works without faith, and I'm trying to illustrate why.
But you can't.


Why can't a non-existent entity make a statement?
Because then it would exist.


Logically impossible?
Yes.


But logic depends on self-evident axioms - exactly what you have been trying to prove with this whole "performative contradiction" thing.
No.


Stop using circular arguments.
I'm not.

Start using your brain.

Thinking requires a being to think.

You just think that because of the evil demon trying to fool you. (Or the machine manipulating your brain in a vat, alternatively.)

Because then it would exist.

Why does the being need to exist in order to make a statement?

No.

So what is it based on, then? Justify logic for me.

Start using your brain.

Make me.

You just think that because of the evil demon trying to fool you. (Or the machine manipulating your brain in a vat, alternatively.)
Descartes tried that route. Doesn't work.

Why does the being need to exist in order to make a statement?
How can something that doesn't exist make a statement? Justify that for me.


So what is it based on, then? Justify logic for me.
Your use of it justifies it.


Make me.
Silly child. *pats you condescendingly on your head*

Descartes tried that route.

But he didn't follow it to its natural conclusion. He ends up unintentionally being one of the most effective purveyors of skepticism just by utterly failing to meet the task he sets for himself.

Doesn't work.

Why not?

Where else does it come from? How can you show that it comes from somewhere else? Why even bring it up?



Because it isn't unrelated. Thinking requires a being to think.

Well, what proof or reason do I have? Dang it. I'm posing everything as questions.

Let me try that again.

I don't have reason. Proof is still questionable to the extent that I can just as easily deny or accept anything. Anyone can. It can have consequences, effects, etc., but it comes down to just what someone believes.

Reality is ultimately a choice.

Hmmm..."requires a being to think"

What is that based on? No argument for or against it can be productive just from the very contradictory nature of what I propose.

And what is propose is absurd, but why so?

That last question isn't rhetorical. Please tell me what you think.

Descartes tried that route. Doesn't work.

Prove to me that it is not true.

But he didn't follow it to its natural conclusion. He ends up unintentionally being one of the most effective purveyors of skepticism just by utterly failing to meet the task he sets for himself.
Only if you steal concepts.


Why not?
See above.

Well, what proof or reason do I have?
The very act of making that statement. Denial of it presupposes your own existence and that you've thought of the denial.

Prove to me that it is not true.
There is no need to disprove the unproven.

Prove to me that it is not true.

Anything can be believed, nothing can be proven.

Anything can be believed, nothing can be proven.

Including axioms, which brings us back to where we started.

How can something that doesn't exist make a statement?

I don't know. I don't know lots of things, however. That has little bearing on their truth value.

Your use of it justifies it.

Really? I didn't know that whatever I used was justified. Who am I, God?

Silly child.

Wish I were. Life might be more fun.

The very act of making that statement. Denial of it presupposes your own existence and that you've thought of the denial.

So, as long as someone with this point of view endorses it as stubbornly as I just did, there isn't an argument in the world that will change his mind.

By the way, I'm pretty sure that I actually do exist. Just an a random tangent sort of view. :)

There is no need to disprove the unproven.

So if the non-existence of the aforementioned evil demon is unproven, then your existence is also unproven.

I don't know.
Then don't posit it.


Really? I didn't know that whatever I used was justified.
Lovely strawman.

Please start thinking.

Oh--you're only hurting yourself with your irrational responses.

So, as long as someone with this point of view endorses it as stubbornly as I just did, there isn't an argument in the world that will change his mind.
Such is life.


By the way, I'm pretty sure that I actually do exist. Just an a random tangent sort of view. :)
Random tangent? Hmmmm.

tan (pi/3)

So if the non-existence of the aforementioned evil demon is unproven, then your existence is also unproven.
Non sequitur and burden of proof shift.

You're only hurting yourself by acting this way.

Then don't posit it.

I didn't posit it. I suggested it was possible.

Lovely strawman.

So... what did you actually mean?

Non sequitur and burden of proof shift.

Can you disprove the existence of the evil demon? No? Then it's possible that the evil demon's fooling you and everything you think is true, including your own existence, is just a delusion he has implanted in you.

Possible. Not certain. So, no, there is no "burden of proof" shift.

I didn't posit it. I suggested it was possible.
Which is positing it.


So... what did you actually mean?
Simply that your use (in the general sense of usage by a generic anyone) is the justification.



Can you disprove the existence of the evil demon?
Burden of proof shift fallacy. Yes, there is one. No, you can't whine about that without hurting yourself.

What keeps you from having faith?
Nothing. I have faith in a fair few things. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have faith that the cacti I planted will grow. I have faith that I'll still have my job on Monday. These are things that I have no empirical proof of, yet I still have faith that they will occur.

Just because I'm capable of faith doesn't mean I have to have faith in the same things as you. Furthermore, you ought to separate people who believe in God and don't follow His laws (Where you said Atheists "don't want to follow rules", for instance) and people who don't believe in God at all.

ohmygod! you anti-saucerians make me SICK! who has ever heard of a tea cup without a saucer? what universe do you live in where the one doesnt automatically imply the other? NOT MINE!

freaking anti-saucerian heretic.

:fluffle: I love you Ash!

Which is positing it.

pos·it
–verb (used with object)
1. to place, put, or set.
2. to lay down or assume as a fact or principle; postulate.

I didn't "assume" it. Again, I suggested it was possible.

Simply that your use (in the general sense of usage by a generic anyone) is the justification.

Yeah, okay. So we're collectively God?

Burden of proof shift fallacy.

Answer the question. It doesn't require you to prove anything; it merely asks if you can.

I didn't "assume" it. Again, I suggested it was possible.
Which is positing.


Yeah, okay. So we're collectively God?
Only if you want to continue to strawman.


Answer the question.
I have no need to, O Ye Who Thinks That Shifting The Burden Of Proof Is Not A Fallacy.

Only if you want to continue to strawman.


Rather than both of you screaming "logical fallacy!" every time the other posts something, why don't you actually discuss the issues? I mean, Jesus, at least go somewhere with your argument. It's well boring.

Rather than both of you screaming "logical fallacy!" every time the other posts something, why don't you actually discuss the issues?
Tried that. Didn't get anywhere with Soheran. The reasoning just bounced off, like pebbles hitting a streched sheet of rubber.

Why *SHOULD* we have faith? What good is it? Answer: none. It does no good whatsoever. It's not valid epistemologically, nor is it good psychologically. The use of it has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

I disagree. It encourages people who have difficulty making higher moral judgements on their own to adhere to a system of beliefs that will promote moral judgement and ideas.


Also, if I died and somehow had conciousness for a moment after death to know that all I had believed in was false and that my conciousness was about to dissapate I would not regret my life or my religious beliefs.

Rather than both of you screaming "logical fallacy!" every time the other posts something, why don't you actually discuss the issues? I mean, Jesus, at least go somewhere with your argument. It's well boring.

This is a politics-oriented forum is it not?

**looks around**

Why check? It seems a worthless effort. Gorillas are known for making wonderful tea.

not when theyre running amok.

Soviestan, where do you come from? ... I'm just curious.

Which is positing.

No, it isn't. You can't just re-define words arbitrarily.

I provided the definition. What I did did not fit it.

Only if you want to continue to strawman.

Okay, then, like I said before - what did you actually mean?

How does the fact that everyone uses logic mean that logic actually corresponds to truth? The only way I can see this as possible is if we cannot be in error, that is, if we are God.

I have no need to, O Ye Who Thinks That Shifting The Burden Of Proof Is Not A Fallacy.

Since I didn't ask you to prove anything, I can't be committing any such fallacy. Obviously.

Rather than both of you screaming "logical fallacy!" every time the other posts something,

Um... I've accused BAAWA once of a logical fallacy, when he actually made a circular argument, and the circularity is key to the whole issue.

The fact that he is consistently incoherent is not my fault.

I disagree. It encourages people who have difficulty making higher moral judgements on their own to adhere to a system of beliefs that will promote moral judgement and ideas.
Like it does for all those muslims killing other muslims in Iraq? How about all those crusaders who killed muslims?

I have no inclination to believe in God, and no reason to. I mark this down to how my brain is hard-wired.

No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.


I provided the definition. What I did did not fit it.
Yes, it does.


Okay, then, like I said before - what did you actually mean?
I told you. Clearly, you are illiterate.


How does the fact that everyone uses logic mean that logic actually corresponds to truth?
Without logic, one cannot arrive at truthful statements except by somehow chancing it, and even then one needs some method to deduce the truth or falsity of the statement.


The only way I can see this as possible is if we cannot be in error, that is, if we are God.
That's because you like to strawman.


Since I didn't ask you to prove anything,
Yes, you did.

The fact that you are illiterate is not my fault.

I do believe in a god or creating force of some kind, if only for the reason that it's otherwise too damn hard to explain everything coming into being in any other way. Aristotle's "prime mover" theory describes this belief well.

However, I do not believe in religion, or at least in many of the effects of religion on people. For one, I believe that religious people, especially Christians, are as a whole are typically narrow-minded. Historically, religion has been used as a way of controlling people and the way the think. Considering every aspect of things is the best way of thinking, and the binary thinking of religion does not promote that. Religion can also be such a divisive force. One word supports this: Jerusalem.

People uniting in order to express and practice their spirituality can be a great thing. The sense of community and strong moral values that religion can support. But the fear-mongering, especially in the form of "do or believe this or you're going to Hell" is the biggest deterrent for me.

I've always been an avowed atheist. My main reasoning being that no concept of God could hold up to close scrutiny and not be revealed as absurd.
Recently I had a DMT experience during which I sensed an intelligence trying to contact me, and saw an impossibly complex 4-dimensional folding organic space that surrounded and enveloped me.
After the trip I had difficulty holding onto the complexity of what I'd experienced - even just trying to remember it accurately seems impossible, let alone describing it to anyone else, even other DMT users.
And I wonder if the reason my concepts of God always failed to make sense was because God is, by definition, impossible for a human mind to comprehend.
Now I haven't started worshipping the vision I saw however, no multi-planar fractal lord has dominion over my mind suddenly (well, except Cthulhu obviously). Still very much an atheist.
I just saw the futility of trying to 'prove' God, and finally realised just what the word 'faith' truly meant. You either have it or you don't, explanations simply don't even come into it.

Organised religion, on the other hand, has to be the cruellest hoax we've ever played on ourselves...

Yes, it does.

How?

I told you. Clearly, you are illiterate.

Yes, and I told you that your explanation did not clarify the relevant point - the jump between "people think/assume x, even its deniers" and "x is actually true."

So, go ahead - explain it. Like I've asked you to twice already.

Without logic, one cannot arrive at truthful statements except by somehow chancing it,

How do you know that? There may be other methods.

And if logic does not hold - and you have not shown that it holds - then logic hardly helps us arrive at truthful statements anyway.

and even then one needs some method to deduce the truth or falsity of the statement.

And perhaps "deduc" that is impossible.

At best, you have shown that logic, if true, is useful. I agree. But that has no bearing on its truth.

That's because you like to strawman.

No, that's because I realize that the fact that something is inherent in human thought doesn't mean that it actually corresponds to reality.

That is to say, I do not make random leaps when it arbitrarily suits me.

Yes, you did.

Yes, on a different subject, but not here (which, obviously, is what I was referring to). I merely asked you if you [i]could disprove it. It's true that if you had answered in the affirmative, I would have asked you to actually prove it - but then, that is merely challenging you to justify your own statements, and is not at all the burden of proof shift fallacy.

The fact that you are illiterate is not my fault.

Ah, but if you really thought I were illiterate, you would not respond to my posts with the expectation that I could read them. Performative contradiction. You are a liar. ;)

Soviestan, where do you come from? ... I'm just curious.

my mother's womb

my mother's womb

What country was that in at the time of your birth?

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

Why do we have to not want to believe in God?

I don't believe in God, it's not because I don't want to, it's because I have a strong belief in not wasting my time.

What country was that in at the time of your birth?

Actually, I was more interested in Sovestian's current location than where he was born.

Actually, I was more interested in Sovestian's current location than where he was born.

Oh, suit yourself.

Actually, I was more interested in Sovestian's current location than where he was born.

No offense or anything but I don't feel right about a poster with all 3 posts asking my location on the very 1st one.

No offense or anything but I don't feel right about a poster with all 3 posts asking my location on the very 1st one.

Lighten up, man. A lot of people put their location in their profile anyway, and something as vague as the answer you gave isn't exactly giving anything away.

Lighten up, man. A lot of people put their location in their profile anyway, and something as vague as the answer you gave isn't exactly giving anything away.

Alright fine. Somewhere in the US. Oh, and its not Alaska or Hawaii, I dont really consider them states, more like military strategic points:p

"And they (jews and Christians) say, 'none shall ever enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.' These are wishful beliefs. Say, 'Bring forth your vivid proof if you are right.' The truth of the matter is, whosoever submits himself entirely to Allah and he is a doer of good to others shall have his reward with his lord. They shall have nothing to fear and nothing to grieve at." (2:111-112)-The Holy Qur'an So to translate "The Jews and Christians say that they are the only ones who get to go to heaven. They wish! Show us some proof! In actual fact muslims are the only ones who go to heaven!"

Thanks Sovie, gave me a bit of a giggle.

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

Mainly the simple fact that, in the experience of my life, I really can't tell for certain what's right, and if I were to choose a faith, it would seem to be awfully disengenuous, like picking it randomly out of a hat.

But I wouldn't choose Islam, I like to drink to much.

Alright fine. Somewhere in the US.

thx. that's all I wanted to know. ... I just thought your ns-country's interesting (islamic republic of soviestan / un-category: anarchy) and wondered wether you live in an islamic country or whatever.

Weren't we all born atheist? Why do we need to believe in anything else?

Weren't we all born atheist? Why do we need to believe in anything else?

Because we're told to by parents or teachers, or because we get scared of dying and need something to fall back on.

Or we get hot off submission to a big bearded guy in a loose robe.

By the way, to contribute something to your thread: I've got faith. But I don't see the point in organised religion. Why should some dead guy or ancient book have a better interpretation of what god is and wants than me?

Trilby63;12061459']Well.. go on then. Disprove God.

You can't prove something does not exist. You can only lack a reason to believe in something for which no proof exists.

The fact that he is consistently incoherent is not my fault.

though you might be seen as an enabler

what makes people want to beleive in God?

what makes people want to beleive in God?

all the hawt church ladies.

me, i'm still waiting for john frum to come from america and bring lots of cargo to my people.

No one can prove an unrestricted negative" is the reply usually given to those who claim that science can prove that God does not exist. An unrestricted negative is a claim to the effect that something doesn't exist anywhere. Since no one can exhaustively examine every place in the universe, the reply goes, no one can conclusively establish the non-existence of anything.

The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself an unrestricted negative. It says, in effect, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false. What I intend to show here is not only that unrestricted negatives can be proven, but that a number of them have been proven.

So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false. What I intend to show here is not only that unrestricted negatives can be proven, but that a number of them have been proven.

What you intend to show where?

Methinks you've nicked the quote from someone else, you cheeky monkey, you.

Yeah, I'm not really that smart. It from an article by Theodore Schick. here is the link to it. http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Schick/Can%20Science_and_existance_of_god.htm

I dont like the idea of organised relegion - arnachy is much more fun

Yuck I dont like anarchy

Mind you thats only my opinion people should be allowed to do what they want... (religion wise, we cant have someone going and stealing all the cheese can we?)

What keeps you from having faith? And I'm not talking about just in Islam, I'm saying in general. Is it because you don't want to follow rules, you think science conflicts with religion, you don't want there to be a God, you weren't brought up in it? So what is it? I'm curious.

I'm a scary agnostic.

I sat down one day and realised the inherent flaw in all religions...when related to God(s), the founders are human. If supreme being(s) exist then they would be pretty much beyond our comprehension even more so in the olden days. Now the majority of religions are based off of scripture reportedly handed down by God(s) to their prophets, this scripture will then have been filtered through the prophets mind and then is further interpreted by followers and whatnot to create the official dogma. It is because of this filtering that the problems would occur as concepts and ideas are sadly twisted to fit with what the prophet and the interpreters are capable of understanding. If you've been following what I've been saying you now know why God(s) keep having to come on down with new prophets and religions, because the old ones keep getting caught up with the interpreted letter of the scripture not the true spirit in which it was originally given. Looking at the world today I can't help wondering if we're not due a new prophet soon or if God(s) has/have finally given up on us, if the new prophet is reading this I'm game for a disciplehood as long as the beer is cold and the women are hot. ;)

I'll also own up to disliking atheists saying science proves the non existence of God(s), as much as I do religious types saying that creation stories etc disprove scientific discovery and theory.

What would I do with faith? Would it feed me? Keep me comfortable? Help me learn faster? Make me lose weight?

Nope.... So there you are.

Besides which, I don't think that it is possible to follow an externally enforced moral law and still be moral.

how about:

I just don't think it is sane. I have seen far too many people claim faith means they can act unreasonably toward me, and I have every reason to believe that God or Spirituality is a delusion created by our own minds when they become desperate need for something safe to cling to. Which I don't particularly feel. I don't mind if someone fills that need. As long as they don't try to rule my life with it. There is just too much reasonable evidence that shows its a mental thing medically, and by comparative cross cultural analysis. Every culture has some form of religion. Most are deswigned very tightly fitted to meet the needs of that society only. When exported to othersw they are resisted as heretical. This hints that its a socially adaotive mental condition that all humnas are succeotable to. No more, nor less.


I just took an ambien and I can barely hang i here soo if my tyoing sucks and I make bo sense...tell me and I'll edit it later.

oh but it does... allow me to explain

there are two interpretations of god:
1) god is immanent and always maifests himslef in the world... he is within time and space and evlolves with through time - this is the view of god you were refering to: i.e. it knows all he can know at the given time and therefore genuine free will can exist wherever it wills it
- the problems with this view are the is is therefore not omniscient (its knowledge is temporaly limited at least), and it could not have been the eternal uncreated creator as it exists within the universe - this is not the god of classical theism but it is how some people choose to interpret god even if it limits its nature of all-everything (if you'll excuse the term)

but under this view it would be logically impossible to know anything more. and therefore god would be omniscient - it knows all that is possible to know.

and the god in quest most certainly could be both eternal and uncreated. what makes you think otherwise?

2) god is transcendent, i.e. outside of time and space, and therefore it is not subject to following the line of time so it is indeed omniscient as it knows past, present and future simultaneously and this is the view of classical theism - in this context my previous argument applies and stands

eh, 'classical theism' is obviously rubbish. not only does it run into a whole host of obvious logical contradictions, but it isn't even remotely related to the holy texts it claims to be coming out of. not to mention the sheer lunacy of excluding all the other theists from being 'classical'...

I have faith, just not in a god or gods.



Why not? Because I honestly don't have a reason to believe and never have.

I dont like the idea of organised relegion - arnachy is much more fun

arnachy? is that some sort of mormonism?

I don't have faith because I am physically incapable of having it. I don't have the gene.

How?
Positing that it's a possibility. How can it even be such, though?


Yes, and I told you that your explanation did not clarify the relevant point
It did. I've explained it. Your lack of reading comprehension of English is in NO WAY my problem.


How do you know that? There may be other methods.
No, there are not. If there might be, you must show that there might be.


And if logic does not hold - and you have not shown that it holds
I have.


And perhaps "deduc[ing]" that is impossible.
Your mere utterance of that means that it is.


At best, you have shown that logic, if true, is useful.
No, I've shown that logic (insofar as Aristotlean) is necessary and true.


No, that's because I realize that the fact that something is inherent in human thought doesn't mean that it actually corresponds to reality.
So you're telling me that it is possible for a ball to be all-red and all-green at the same time and respect.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Next you'll be telling me that logic is just a tool of the oppressive Eurocapitalophallocentrists.



Yes, on a different subject, but not here
Yes, you did so here as well.



Ah, but if you really thought I were illiterate, you would not respond to my posts with the expectation that I could read them.
But I don't. I'm simply mocking you.

Please, for the love of whatever you feel is correct, start using your brain.

I don't have faith because I am physically incapable of having it. I don't have the gene. It must take a lot of faith for you to believe that.

It must take a lot of faith for you to believe that.

Believe what? I simply cannot accept anything without evidence, and never have been able to. Recently, a gene was discovered for which the presence of allows one to accept something without evidence. As such, the evidence points towards me not possessing said gene.

Believe what? I simply cannot accept anything without evidence, and never have been able to. Recently, a gene was discovered for which the presence of allows one to accept something without evidence. As such, the evidence points towards me not possessing said gene.

Prove it. Prove there are genes. Prove you're real. Prove I'm real. Prove proof.

Do it! :mad:

:)

Why does the being need to exist in order to make a statement? Because non-existence means that there is no being.

Believe what? I simply cannot accept anything without evidence, and never have been able to. Recently, a gene was discovered for which the presence of allows one to accept something without evidence. As such, the evidence points towards me not possessing said gene.
Acceptance is acknowledgment of belief.

Acceptance is acknowledgment of belief.

Not under any language I'm familiar with.

Not under any language I'm familiar with.
Context #3 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0304696.html) in the dictionary. :)