NationStates Jolt Archive

When I was around 9 or 10 I wanted to become a preacher. When I hit 11 or 12 I know longer had faith, I became an atheist.

There was no soul searching or horrible event. I simply stopped believing.


So I was wondering. How did you come to the belief system that you have now? Some wonderful or horrible event? born and rasied? how?

6+ years of internet debates, political leanings, fundamental disagreements with religion, and learning from those who tend to not be of particular faiths.

I was born and raised, but never felt forced. Even if I didn't start practicing the religion I do when I was an infant, I think I would still eventually join it, or at least believe something similar.

When I was around 9 or 10 I wanted to become a peacher.

:eek: What have peaches ever done to you? :(

my parents always said if i wanted to go to church, or wherever, they'd take me. but i never wanted to. religion never entered my realm of experience till i had a friend who was christain in secondary school. even then, religion didn't matter two shits to me.

i grew up a-religious, and as such athiest.

No, no, a peacher helps peaches.

Oh. Whew. :)

:eek: What have peaches ever done to you? :(

Happy? :p I fixed the typo.

:eek: What have peaches ever done to you? :(
No, no, a peacher helps peaches.

i was a reluctant christian til i was about 14, then i got confirmed and became a bit pious for a little over a year, then i just realised i was just going through the motions and never really believed when i actually thought about it. so i'm an atheist, although i accept the agnostic position i'd just rather not bother with the debate.

Cancer changed my view.

I went to Catholic schools all my life, and my parents are Anglicans, I went to church as a child and I guess my parents wanted me to be religious etc, but eventually I just told them I didn't buy what they were selling, now I am an atheist. The only leanings I really have are catholic social teachings, such as subsidiarity, but those are just political stuff really.

Cancer changed my view.

In favor or against religion?

Cancer changed my view.
What did it change your views to, and from what?

I was raised to be an agnostic. I felt, somehow, that this was not right. I spent many decades church-hopping as each "one true religion" attempted to lay a claim on me. On fine day, as I was talking to a pagan, it hit me, there was no "one true religion." For a time I was a fat, happy Wiccan then it hit me again - I was right the first time. I am now, once again, a happy agnostic.

Perhaps someday, deity will appear and hit me with something, possibly a rubber chicken, in which case I will believe. Until then, it just doesn't seem important.

Btw, I don't think I could ever be an atheist, it requires too much faith.

What did it change your views to, and from what?

From Agnostic to Atheist.

I went to Catholic schools all my life, and my parents are Anglicans, I went to church as a child and I guess my parents wanted me to be religious etc, but eventually I just told them I didn't buy what they were selling, now I am an atheist. The only leanings I really have are catholic social teachings, such as subsidiarity, but those are just political stuff really.

"I went to Catholic school for 12 years. When I tell my friends I'm an athiest, they ask why, and I tell them '... well, I went to Catholic school for 12 years.'"

I grew up religious, never much thinking about it.
It was only when left my home town, family and "culture" that I started thinking about what it was I believed. I then compared it with the religion I so far had thought to believe in and found that the two sets of beliefs were not compliant. The religion would require me to believe things I simply find ridiculous, as well as condemning many things I believe to be right.
I dabbled around with a few other religions for a while, half-heartedly attempting to custom-make a religion for my beliefs, but soon discovered that none was needed.
So now I'm atheist.

When I was around 9 or 10 I wanted to become a preacher. When I hit 11 or 12 I know longer had faith, I became an atheist.

There was no soul searching or horrible event. I simply stopped believing.


So I was wondering. How did you come to the belief system that you have now? Some wonderful or horrible event? born and rasied? how?

My belief system was pieced together from the back of cereal boxes. *nod*

I 'believed' due to my Christian school. I wasn't really religious; I thought it was silly, really, for quite some time. However, I decided to at least try to believe, just in case God was real, so in that event I didn't get sent to hell for eternity. This also went on for some time. At about twelve I gave up on this and admitted my atheism.

My belief system was pieced together from the back of cereal boxes. *nod*

"First, there was the proof of purchase, and the barcode, and the back of the box said 'Let there be scissors, that the proof of purchase may be sent out into the world, and we shall receive a decoder ring' - and the proof of purchase was sent out, and for three to five business days there was confusion and darkness, but on the sixth day the ring came, and it was good."

In favor or against religion?

Against.

My belief system was pieced together from the back of cereal boxes. *nod*

It wouldn't have been this cereal by any chance, would it?

http://productsfromnz.com/pics/big_2004.jpg

My belief system was pieced together from the back of cereal boxes. *nod*

You praise André Breton?

"First, there was the proof of purchase, and the barcode, and the back of the box said 'Let there be scissors, that the proof of purchase may be sent out into the world, and we shall receive a decoder ring' - and the proof of purchase was sent out, and for three to five business days there was confusion and darkness, but on the sixth day the ring came, and it was good."


It wouldn't have been this cereal by any chance, would it?

http://productsfromnz.com/pics/big_2004.jpg

You praise André Breton?

For me, Piety is about Pies. :)

For me, Piety is about Pies. :)

Johann Heinrich Lambert?

Grew up christian, but got completely disillusioned with organized religion after attending a Southern Baptist university (and it was VERY Southern Baptist - they didn't allow dancing on campus until 1988). Since then I've read quite a bit from various religions/philosophies and have formed my own beliefs.

However, I decided to at least try to believe, just in case God was real, so in that event I didn't get sent to hell for eternity.
That's Pascal's Wager, isn't it?
It's admirable you tried to believe something you disagreed with, even if it was just to save you from eternal damnation. Everyone should try to do that once in a while.

Johann Heinrich Lambert?

Pies are irrational. :)

When I was around 9 or 10 I wanted to become a preacher. When I hit 11 or 12 I know longer had faith, I became an atheist.

There was no soul searching or horrible event. I simply stopped believing.


So I was wondering. How did you come to the belief system that you have now? Some wonderful or horrible event? born and rasied? how?

My parents never gave me a religion, so I gew up an atheist. I labeled myself as such when I was 8 or 9, and found the word in a dictionary.

Pies are irrational. :)

Hippasus?

:eek: What have peaches ever done to you? :(

:eek:

Not a Peacher! Anything but that!

Hippasus?

Except I can swim. :)

That's Pascal's Wager, isn't it?
It's admirable you tried to believe something you disagreed with, even if it was just to save you from eternal damnation. Everyone should try to do that once in a while.

Why is that admirable? And why should I try to do that?


Personally I don't think I ever was religious. Some time ago I thought about it and came to the conclusion that I was an atheist, it hasn't changed since, and I don't believe it ever will.

Except I can swim. :)

Drats.

Drats.

I believe it was Pennywise who said it best; "We all float down here. You will too." *nod*

I came to my current religious beliefs the same way I came to all my other beliefs, it's a long and windy road and I am not done yet.

I came to my current religious beliefs the same way I came to all my other beliefs, it's a long and windy road and I am not done yet.

So there's still hope for you..

I believe it was Pennywise who said it best; "We all float down here. You will too." *nod*

Bleh. Pruney fingers.

So there's still hope for you..

depends on what you mean.

Religion is a powerful force on earth not to be taken lightly.

Through religion, man bears much power, for with religion comes the power to create, to destroy, to break up or build up families, nations, cultures, relationships, to bend or break a rebellious people, to control entire masses of people, to console, to give hope and meaning, while at the same time the ability to take away such.

With it, comes the ability to illusion, delusion, vision, prophetize, imagine, control, persuade, profit.

It is God's power here on earth, and mankind has the ability to wield it to his pleasure. This has shown both benevolent and dispicable in our history past.


It is the most dangerous weapon known to man.

Whether you believe in it or not, you cannot deny it's formidable potency.

I believe it was Pennywise who said it best; "We all float down here. You will too." *nod*

Pennywise? From Stephen King's "It"?

Why is that admirable? And why should I try to do that?


Personally I don't think I ever was religious. Some time ago I thought about it and came to the conclusion that I was an atheist, it hasn't changed since, and I don't believe it ever will.
Not trying to think the way other people do leads to mental atrophy. I don't mean you should actually change your beliefs, you should just try, once in while, to understand something through someone else's point of view.

When I was around 9 or 10 I wanted to become a preacher. When I hit 11 or 12 I know longer had faith, I became an atheist.

There was no soul searching or horrible event. I simply stopped believing.


So I was wondering. How did you come to the belief system that you have now? Some wonderful or horrible event? born and rasied? how?
A gradual realisation that the patterns of religious shit they fed me matched the same patterns of BS lies that were fed to me. I was passively ok with religion age 5, and by around age 8 was silently dubious. I didn't actively make a thing of rejecting religion until the 'second wave' of conversion attempts came around Highschool age 12.

On the topic of a horrible event? Yes and No. there was horrible event, but it can only be casually linked to my atheism. When I was 5, my mother died. The consequent rush of self-contradictory BS from the relgious, combined with their fervent attempts to take advantage of my position to suck me into active faith, pissed me off a little- and made me first question religion as a whole.

depends on what you mean.

"Welcome to Atheismville!"

I was raised as an atheist/agnostic. Religion and spirituality were taught to me as social forces or conventions rather than as a preferred belief system.

During my late teens and early twenties, I had a series of visions. Now I self identify as a mystic, though I am not sure that is the correct word.

Pennywise? From Stephen King's "It"?

Best extraterrestrial spider clown ever. :)

From Agnostic to Atheist.
Good work, another bastard off the fence.

It is the most dangerous weapon known to man.
I keep hearing this, and am growing more and more wary of its truth. Here's why:
1. All societies have had some system of beliefs, all different to varying degrees.
2. All societies have humans, all very much the same.
3. All societies have acted, at one time or another, inhumanly.
ERGO
Religion causes societies to act inhumanly? I'd take another look at number 2.

I keep hearing this, and am growing more and more wary of its truth. Here's why:
1. All societies have had some system of beliefs, all different to varying degrees.
2. All societies have humans, all very much the same.
3. All societies have acted, at one time or another, inhumanly.
ERGO
Religion causes societies to act inhumanly? I'd take another look at number 2.


I'm not saying religion is bad, per se

But I am acknowledging that in the NAME of religion, some pretty horrible atrocities have been committed

but the reverse is also true, some magnanimous charity has also been committed in the name of religion

religion is like nuclear technology, it can be used for either good or bad, example, we can either power entire cities in a clean, relatively safe manner, or detsroy the planet with nuclear capability

same with religion

So I was wondering. How did you come to the belief system that you have now?
Not that you could call what I have now a belief system, but -

Childlike ignorance -> Christianity: Sunday school under parents' belief regime

Christianity -> Atheism: Consideration of the problem of pain, opposition to religious tactics

Atheism -> Nihilism: Disenfranchisement with explicit Atheism as a philosophical position

Nihilism -> Agnostic/Mystic: Development with thought over time, aided by study of arts and humanities and discourse with others of different positions.

So I was wondering. How did you come to the belief system that you have now? Some wonderful or horrible event? born and rasied? how?

Always been atheist because I was not raised into a religion and my parents never talked about it. When I first heard about it sometime when I was like 7-8, I thought it all sounded inordinately stupid like Santa or something.

religion is like nuclear technology, it can be used for either good or bad, example, we can either power entire cities in a clean, relatively safe manner, or detsroy the planet with nuclear capability

same with religion
That's an interesting analogy; it makes sense.

"Welcome to Atheismville!"

atheism was depressing and empty. I could totally be agnostic though, if you know I got to that point.

atheism was depressing and empty. I could totally be agnostic though, if you know I got to that point.

Wow... an "opium of the masses" statement from you? :eek:

Wow... an "opium of the masses" statement from you? :eek:

I am totally in that mood today. I have dealt with way to many idiots on Sunday this week.

I became neo-pagan at around the age of 11, by the time I was in my 20's my experiances showed me that there are certianly things that our sciences cannot explain. All Gods eventualy merged into one God for me, and then when I reached the age of 33 I found that the Sikh religion was the one who's belifes matched more or less exactly with all of the ideas that I had formulated about God over my life.

So I stopped being neo-pagan and converted.

Born into a religious family, but it didn't last very long. I started asking questions because the entire thing sounded ridiculously stupid, and all they offered were deflections and counter-questions instead of answers... so I walked away from it, despite their best efforts.


Now I'm debating between Atheism and Nihilism. Concisely put, my position on religion is best put as, "Your God/beliefs don't matter to me, so just leave me alone."

I'm not saying religion is bad, per se
Just say it. :mad:

atheism was depressing and empty. Just like life. Learning to find purpose and meaning in life for it's own sake is a part of philosophical maturity.

Just like life. Learning to find purpose and meaning in life for it's own sake is a part of philosophical maturity.

Hold it right there boyo!

You just said that life is depresing and empty? It's not you know, to some of us that suffer from depression perhaps.

By no means to all people is life depresing nor empty, and that goes for atheist and theists both.

I was raised in a culturally Catholic home, which means...totally non-practising, no idea about anything Catholic, it was just a name. Stronger was native spiritualism. Now, I did flirt with Christianity for about...oh, three months, when I was a kid. But I just couldn't buy into it. Our traditional beliefs just make more sense to me. Some of us believe in a Creator that is sort of like a god...but not all of us do. More, the belief in the interconnectedness of things is fascinating and awesome enough without needing to add in some omnicient power into the mix.

Bleh. Living with Catholics.. Being forced to go to mass every Sunday for 13 years.. They're probably the most boring form of Christianity.

Hold it right there boyo!

You just said that life is depresing and empty? It's not you know, to some of us that suffer from depression perhaps.

By no means to all people is life depresing nor empty, and that goes for atheist and theists both.Allow me to rephrase 'Reality' is depressing and empty. Life doesn't have to be if you can get past that.

Bleh. Living with Catholics.. Being forced to go to mass every Sunday for 13 years.. They're probably the most boring form of Christianity.

Yeah, the last season of Catholicism sucked. I love the earlier stuff though...

Best extraterrestrial spider clown ever. :)

Not many competitors for that trophy.

Hold it right there boyo!

You just said that life is depresing and empty? It's not you know, to some of us that suffer from depression perhaps.

By no means to all people is life depresing nor empty, and that goes for atheist and theists both.

No, life is pretty depressing and empty when you think about it. Granted, I suffer from depression, but even when I don't, I realize that it's still empty.

Spiritually, I mean. Sure, you live on a world of six billion people, and you go out of your way to not see your neighbor in the morning because you don't want to spend the time to get to know him, not because he's a bad person, but because you just don't want to bother. Pretty much everyone feels like that, especially in the cities. Six billion people that don't want to talk to eachother. Pretty empty. Sure, I exaggerate a bit, but just a bit. Giving the benefit of the doubt, let's assume all of China is the most brotherly and caring populace mankind has ever seen - five billion people still don't want to talk to them.

Yeah, the last season of Catholicism sucked. I love the earlier stuff though...

Man Catholocism is all show. In a real streetfight that stuff would get you killed against someone who was just really spiritual. Looks great in talent shows, but not very practical.

I don't remember when but at some point during primary school somebody asked if I believed in God.. That's when I realised I didn't.

I don't ever remember believing as such. I accepted some things from my parents and the church we went to, but it never really mattered nor made much sense to me. I'd say I'm an agnostic atheist. Atheism is the default position without evidence, but to flat out say 'there is no God' is as arrogant as any religious person.

I'd say I'm an agnostic atheist. Atheism is the default position without evidence, but to flat out say 'there is no God' is as arrogant as any religious person.

That's something I've never understood about atheism. Many of its proponents are just as self-righteous as the followers of the religions they decry. On the other hand, agnosticism is too close to sitting on the fence for my comfort.

In conclusion, everybody is wrong.

'there is no God' is as arrogant as any religious person.

No, it isn't, because someone made it all up. There is no arrogance involved at all in dismissing someone's invented magical poppycock.

No, it isn't, because someone made it all up. There is no arrogance involved at all in dismissing someone's invented magical poppycock.
That's true. The arrogance is deciding what is and what isn't invented magical poppycock. I find the ideas behind relativity* just as ridiculous as the ideas behind religion.




*I believe the theories of relativity are true. I just think they're ridiculous.

No, it isn't, because someone made it all up. There is no arrogance involved at all in dismissing someone's invented magical poppycock.

mmm... poppycock...
http://nuptialcelebrations.ca/Poppycock%20Original%20Gourmet%20Popcorn%20-%20Kosher%20PWL%2008149.jpg

mmm... poppycock...
http://nuptialcelebrations.ca/Poppycock%20Original%20Gourmet%20Popcorn%20-%20Kosher%20PWL%2008149.jpg

It is the nuttiest...

That's true. The arrogance is deciding what is and what isn't invented magical poppycock.

Oh, it's quite easy to decide that. You just ask: Does it involve magic or magical creatures or the "supernatural" or other such stupid nonsense? If it does, it's magical poppycock.

I find the ideas behind relativity* just as ridiculous as the ideas behind religion.

That says more about your lack of acuity than it says about the general and special theories of relativity. That you would even compare a scientific theory and the scientific method with just making up a pixie in the sky that magically does stuff shows how little you understand the difference between science and just making ludicrous shit up.

Religion is indefensible. It is an affront to the intellect.

I was born in a pretty much agnostic/atheistic family. My dad was raised in a Jehovah's Witness home and my mom was raised in a Southern Baptist home, but they both never attended religious services or spoke of it when I was growing up.

From this I was originally an atheist, because quite frankly it all sounded like a bunch of silly bullshit, but eventually moved to agnosticism because I do believe some sort of 'higher power" was involved in the creation/evolution of the universe and every in between, but not a God per se.

That says more about your lack of acuity than it says about the general and special theories of relativity. That you would even compare a scientific theory and the scientific method with just making up a pixie in the sky that magically does stuff shows how little you understand the difference between science and just making ludicrous shit up.


No, rather you are showing little understanding about the difference between truth and what makes sense. "What makes sense is what is intuitive to people, and what is logical. Relativity is neither intuitive nor logical, at first glance. That does not mean it is not true.
I will risk being labeled an ignoramus and say that creationism, at first glance, makes much more sense than evolution. We live in a complicated world, someone must have made it. However, when we see the evidence, and learn more about the world, we realize that it cannot be true.
I am not comparing science to fantasy. I am saying that because something is not intuitively right to you does not make it false.

Finally, I would like to suggest you not get so riled up on this forum. Although I am not personally insulted by what you say, that doesn't make it less annoying.

I will risk being labeled an ignoramus and say that creationism, at first glance, makes much more sense than evolution.

"It's magic!" makes sense to you at first glance? That's just pitiable. And that there are so many of you among humanity is testament to how little we've progressed from the cave-dwellers thinking it rains because you didn't rub your juju-bag two times yesterday.

Finally, I would like to suggest you not get so riled up on this forum. Although I am not personally insulted by what you say, that doesn't make it less annoying.

I really don't give a shit. Enough is enough. Religious nonsense has been coddled with for far too long.

"It's magic!" makes sense to you at first glance? That's just pitiable.

The way you use "magic" is entirely meaningless. I am assuming you believe in nuclear fission. What do you think someone in 1500 would call that? Alchemy, maybe?

If you were to find a watch in the forest, what would you suspect: someone made the watch, or it evolved out of a sundial?

The way you use "magic" is entirely meaningless. I am assuming you believe in nuclear fission. What do you think someone in 1500 would call that? Alchemy, maybe?

They'd still be idiots for thinking it's magic. So your point is?

If you were to find a watch in the forest, what would you suspect: someone made the watch, or it evolved out of a sundial?

I would assume someone made it because I know that people - and not magical beings in the sky someone made up - make watches. I would most certainly not go: "The watch is there because of magic" which is the sort of nonsense that religion is.

They'd still be idiots for thinking it's magic. So your point is?

Ah, everyone unaware of modern science and technology is an idiot. I can only imagine what people in 3000 will think of us (especially if they find this forum thread).

I would assume someone made it because I know that people - and not magical beings in the sky someone made up - make watches. I would most certainly not go: "The watch is there because of magic" which is the sort of nonsense that religion is.
I happen to know gods make planets. Can you refute that?

Ah, everyone unaware of modern science and technology is an idiot.

Yup, if when they see something they don't understand, they go: "Magic!" they're idiots.

I can only imagine what people in 3000 will think of us (especially if they find this forum thread).

They would think the same of us - if we were to go "magic" at their technology. Rightfully so.

I happen to know gods make planets. Can you refute that?

I don't have to, because you just made it up. It's sort of like how I don't have to refute that there is really an imaginary friend there that my niece talks to - she's just made him up. That someone else's imaginary friend is called "God" makes no difference whatsoever.

I don't have to, because you just made it up. It's sort of like how I don't have to refute that there is really an imaginary friend there that my niece talks to - she's just made him up. That someone else's imaginary friend is called "God" makes no difference whatsoever.
I can say the same thing about whatever you say (I'd be lying, probably, but that's not the point). You don't know that I just made that up (in fact I didn't. People have believed it for centuries). What it sounds like is you accept facts if they are science, and do not accept facts if they are not.

I can say the same thing about whatever you say (I'd be lying, probably, but that's not the point). You don't know that I just made that up (in fact I didn't. People have believed it for centuries).

I do know you just made it up, just like I'd know that some kid made up the excuse that it wasn't him that broke my window, but that it was gnomes angry that I hadn't left them porridge in my vestibule. It's really easy to see when someone's making stuff up - people do it all the time, I catch them very often in it and I don't have to refute any of their bullcrap, because it is bullcrap. The difference between religion and science is the wonderful thing that when someone makes something up in science and can't prove it they are ignored until they (or someone else) can, if they can, while religion is the equivalent of believing every village idiot's latest gobbledegook and leaving it at that and not requiring proof, but just the abandonment of the intellect that is also called "faith".

What it sounds like is you accept facts if they are science, and do not accept facts if they are not.

That's not a fact. That's just you saying something you made up, or someone's made up and you're foolish enough to ape. And of course I accept facts if they're science - facts are what science is all about. Religion on the other hand is the complete anti-thesis of factuality. It is by design made not to be factual, not to be falsifiable. And as such, it is poppycock.

I came to my current religious beliefs the same way I came to all my other beliefs, it's a long and windy road and I am not done yet.

That sums up how I got to my beliefs too, and yes, I am still on that long and windy road. Actually, I always will be. I am always searching and questioning and I will never stop. None of my beliefs are set in stone, so my beliefs are in a constant state of change.

I distrust people who are so closed minded and set in their beliefs (or lack thereof), that they are not willing to at least accept the possibility that there may be an alternative to their viewpoint.

Don't get me wrong, I fully believe in science as a way to describe the physical world. I believe in evolution, the big bang, quantum physics and global warming, but it is through the scientific method, not faith, that I believe these things.

On the flip side, it is faith and not science, that can answer the question "Is there a God?"

On the flip side, it is faith and not science, that can answer the question "Is there a God?"

Faith can't answer that. All it can do is delude you into believing that it can.

No, it isn't, because someone made it all up. There is no arrogance involved at all in dismissing someone's invented magical poppycock.

Ignoring the irony of your arrogant response....

Clearly some things claimed by religious people are easily dismissed, and I would dismiss all forms of dogma or claims of the supernatural, but what I cannot just dismiss is the notion that the origin of the world was caused by something. I find the Christian God ridiculous, but a pantheist view of it is more plausible, though I don't believe in it. I don't believe in any supernatural, but I don't immediately dismiss any possibility of it.

I do know you just made it up, just like I'd know that some kid made up the excuse that it wasn't him that broke my window, but that it was gnomes angry that I hadn't left them porridge in my vestibule. It's really easy to see when someone's making stuff up - people do it all the time, I catch them very often in it and I don't have to refute any of their bullcrap, because it is bullcrap. The difference between religion and science is the wonderful thing that when someone makes something up in science and can't prove it they are ignored until they (or someone else) can, if they can, while religion is the equivalent of believing every village idiot's latest gobbledegook and leaving it at that and not requiring proof, but just the abandonment of the intellect that is also called "faith".
It's ironic, really. I think the only being able to tell with full conviction when people are making stuff up would have to be god-like.



That's not a fact. That's just you saying something you made up, or someone's made up and you're foolish enough to ape. And of course I accept facts if they're science - facts are what science is all about. Religion on the other hand is the complete anti-thesis of factuality. It is by design made not to be factual, not to be falsifiable. And as such, it is poppycock.

I didn't phrase that very well: it seems as if you accept any fact if it is called science. I doubt that you can actually see protons, or even own the equipment necessary to detect them. But you still believe in them, but a a respectable looking man told you they existed. Why does this sound familiar? Oh right, it's the same reason religious people believe in what they do. You have no more evidence about protons than Tom Cruise does about thetas, and yet you continue to believe they exist.

I love being agnostic, it means I get flak from both sides for no apparent reason. Anyway, my beliefs are the result of parents either too apathetic to make me go to church (like everyone else I knew, pretty much) or willing to trust me to make my own decisions. I didn't believe in God, or any deity, from about 12, a result of an attempt at logical reasoning. I was atheistic until 17 because I didn't know that there was a separation between atheism and agnosticism, seeing as I went to a C of E school surrounded by people who thought me a bit strange for being unbaptised. I figure that, while atheism's far the stronger standpoint than theism from a scientific perspective, it's equally as ignorant to assume there's no chance of a consciousness greater than ours. Reading an article today about Boltzmann Brains, for instance, was a new one for me. The potential for consciousnesses to appear randomly in space creates new possibilities in the whole perception of existence, as well as confusing the fuck out of me :p

Not trying to think the way other people do leads to mental atrophy. I don't mean you should actually change your beliefs, you should just try, once in while, to understand something through someone else's point of view.

Oh I thought you were encouraging me to be christian for a year or something ridiculous like that.


but the reverse is also true, some magnanimous charity has also been committed in the name of religion


Like they wouldn't have happened without religion?

atheism was depressing and empty.

Why?

No, rather you are showing little understanding about the difference between truth and what makes sense. "What makes sense is what is intuitive to people, and what is logical. Relativity is neither intuitive nor logical, at first glance. That does not mean it is not true.
I will risk being labeled an ignoramus and say that creationism, at first glance, makes much more sense than evolution. We live in a complicated world, someone must have made it. However, when we see the evidence, and learn more about the world, we realize that it cannot be true.
I am not comparing science to fantasy. I am saying that because something is not intuitively right to you does not make it false.


this reminded me of this very interesting article (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/why_people_believe_in_bad_idea.php).

Rationalism. ;)

Like they wouldn't have happened without religion?
It's just as hard to say this would have happened without religion as to say the Crusades wouldn't have happened without it.



this reminded me of this very interesting article (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/why_people_believe_in_bad_idea.php).
It was interesting, and I agree with it (except for the part at the end. Clergy are authority, religious authority, and they should be trusted for religious guidance). I also read the article it was referring to, and I suggest others do the same.
It reminds me of the phrase "conventional wisdom", which John Kenneth Galbraith uses in his book The Affluent Society, something else everyone should read. He defines it as information people "know", not because it reflects reality, but because it is what people are familiar with. Often, it is true but outdated, and can only be changed when people can no longer exist because it is so far removed. The book is mostly about economics, so the obvious example would be the Great Depression.
Both of these readings highlight something I think is important to consider: people who believe in creationism, or pixies, or Ricardian economics aren't stupid, they're just wrong.

It's just as hard to say this would have happened without religion as to say the Crusades wouldn't have happened without it.

I'm not saying there would have been less wars, but there certainly wouldn't have been religious wars without religion.

No, it isn't, because someone made it all up. There is no arrogance involved at all in dismissing someone's invented magical poppycock.

The arrogance is that you are asserting something which you cannot possibly know. Just like someone saying "there is a god". It isn't arrogant to say "I believe there is/isn't a God" however.

The arrogance is that you are asserting something which you cannot possibly know. Just like someone saying "there is a god". It isn't arrogant to say "I believe there is/isn't a God" however.

would it also be arrogant to say "there is no sentient magical flying bowl of spaghetti in the sky which created the earth and we should all obey it's will"?

would it also be arrogant to say "there is no sentient magical flying bowl of spaghetti in the sky which created the earth and we should all obey it's will"?
If you say it will absolute assurance, yes. Granted, few people believe there is, so you would tread on fewer toes than saying there is or there isn't a god, which is the real source of ire. People aren't upset you aren't giving credence to other beliefs, but that you aren't giving credence to their beliefs.
But to reiterate what I said above, claiming that you know for a fact there is or is not a god is arrogant, unless one has personally spoken to you.

would it also be arrogant to say "there is no sentient magical flying bowl of spaghetti in the sky which created the earth and we should all obey it's will"?

I submit that it would not!

But to reiterate what I said above, claiming that you know for a fact there is or is not a god is arrogant, unless one has personally spoken to you.

Although that situation gives only progression in the theism direction, a god isn't going to speak to you and tell you it doesn't exist :p

But, that does show the unstable nature of saying there is no god, it is resting on the continual lack of evidence.

Faith can't answer that. All it can do is delude you into believing that it can.

Perhaps, but contrary to what Richard Dawkins says, science can’t answer that either. The problem is that science is partially based on observation and observation is based on our senses which are notoriously unreliable. Of course that is why the scientific method was developed in the first place, but it is still a weak point. If all we know of the universe is what we perceive with our senses, which can be mistaken, how do we know that our knowledge of the universe is not mistaken?

Also, how do we know that structure of the universe can be gleaned though observation? Case in point, Scientific American had an article (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=C420F7DE-E7F2-99DF-3E47CE32FD4AD465&sc=I100322) about how in 100 billion years from know, the universe will have wiped away all evidence of the Big Bang, therefore, scientists of the future will think we live in a static universe, not an expanding one. This will totally affect their cosmology theories, making them all wrong. The article also brings up the point that there maybe structures of the universe that are hidden from us.

My point is that it is arrogant and short-sided to believe that we have all the answers to all the questions. In fact, it is an ignorant person who is so sure of themselves that they are blinded to other possibilities.

would it also be arrogant to say "there is no sentient magical flying bowl of spaghetti in the sky which created the earth and we should all obey it's will"?

Well, it would be less arrogant to assert the non-existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster because an FSM (may you be blessed by His noodly appendage) has certain quallities that make it foolish, such as being made of pasta.

God, on the other hand, is far harder to define. If you posit a god that is not onmiscient, omnipotent or omnibenevolent, then it is far easier to include such a being in a rational and comprehensive worldview.

You can not compare the beliefs of a Biblical literalist without any scientific training to the beliefs of someone like Ian Barbour (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/june99/barbour_bio.html), who is a theologian and a physicist. I would say that it is less arrogant to dismiss the beliefs of the former than the latter.

Well, it would be less arrogant to assert the non-existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster because an FSM (may you be blessed by His noodly appendage) has certain quallities that make it foolish, such as being made of pasta.

pasta is anything but foolish, heathen!

God, on the other hand, is far harder to define. If you posit a god that is not onmiscient, omnipotent or omnibenevolent, then it is far easier to include such a being in a rational and comprehensive worldview.


why would you believe in something not omniscient, -potent, - benevolent? What kind of a god would that be?

Logic, really. No one has ever shown me sufficient proof of any god's existence OR nonexistence, so I'm just content with being a skeptic either way.

And to answer your other question, I was not raised in the church, nor was I raised by Richard Dawkins types (thank goodness); I was raised by two people who couldn't have cared less one way or the other. If I had my way, though, I would rather god be nothing more than a figment of our collective imagination. I just don't like the idea of some unstoppable Big Brother-type watching my every move, be it YHWH, Allah, the Holy Trinity(TM), or otherwise. It's just creepy, man.

Although that situation gives only progression in the theism direction, a god isn't going to speak to you and tell you it doesn't exist :p
Exactly. And to be honest, even a theist like myself would still be doubtful when you told me what He/She/It said.

But, that does show the unstable nature of saying there is no god, it is resting on the continual lack of evidence.
Yes, but there are plenty of things like this we all believe. For example, I believe I live in a world with many people, and that you all are not just constructs of my imagination. I have no proof that is true, but I'm still pretty sure.

Perhaps, but contrary to what Richard Dawkins says, science can’t answer that either. The problem is that science is partially based on observation and observation is based on our senses which are notoriously unreliable. Of course that is why the scientific method was developed in the first place, but it is still a weak point. If all we know of the universe is what we perceive with our senses, which can be mistaken, how do we know that our knowledge of the universe is not mistaken?

Science uses a lot of observations which aren't based on our senses. (X-rays or electron-microscope (sp?) for instance). Of course our knowledge of the universe can be mistaken (it probably is, no hones scientist will tell you they know everything for sure ...). I believe (trying not to sound arrogant ;)) that the creationist view is certainly mistaken, so why not believe a view which actually tries to prove what it says and adjusts it's view accordingly instead of an old book which isn't backed by evidence AT ALL.

My point is that it is arrogant and short-sided to believe that we have all the answers to all the questions. In fact, it is an ignorant person who is so sure of themselves that they are blinded to other possibilities.

Only religion says it has the answers to all questions, find me one respected scientist who says contemporary science has all the right answers (besides, admitting that would make him jobless).

Only religion says it has the answers to all questions, find me one respected scientist who says contemporary science has all the right answers (besides, admitting that would make him jobless).
Not really, that's why you keep hearing about divine mysteries. Religion is usually like non-theist philosophies in that it outlines how one should go about finding answers, but it doesn't give them on a platter.

Yes, but there are plenty of things like this we all believe. For example, I believe I live in a world with many people, and that you all are not just constructs of my imagination. I have no proof that is true, but I'm still pretty sure.

Indeed, people will continue believing the default position until evidence for the other is provided, but they should be open to all possibilities.

I used to be a fairly hardline atheist, but then realised that there was simply no point in antagonising people about having a faith - that's their choice and the idea of there being no God is about as based on rationale as there being one at all.

Or so I see it, anyway.

So I'm an atheist, but not a very militant one.

So I was wondering. How did you come to the belief system that you have now? Some wonderful or horrible event? born and rasied? how?
When I stopped believing it was just because it felt wrong to believe in those things, and it wasn't logical to do so. When I began believing, it was for the same reasons.

would it also be arrogant to say "there is no sentient magical flying bowl of spaghetti in the sky which created the earth and we should all obey it's will"?
"There is" is generally shorthand for "I perceive or understand there to be". In such a context, it is not arrogant, as long as the individual in question is subconsciously making this reduction rather than consciously rejecting it.

:confused: did this topic just take a turn for the argument that was going on over in the "christian monotheistic or polytheistic" thread?



and did it end faster?:confused:

During my late teens and early twenties, I had a series of visions. Now I self identify as a mystic, though I am not sure that is the correct word.

As a friend of mine would say, if you were sure, it wouldn't be the correct word. ;)

In such a context, it is not arrogant, as long as the individual in question is subconsciously making this reduction rather than consciously rejecting it.

could you explain this a little more? because i honestly don't understand it.

When I was around 9 or 10 I wanted to become a preacher. When I hit 11 or 12 I know longer had faith, I became an atheist.

That's really freaky: I went through exactly the same (except I wanted to be a vicar). The only difference is that I lost faith a few years earlier than you.

Not really, that's why you keep hearing about divine mysteries. Religion is usually like non-theist philosophies in that it outlines how one should go about finding answers, but it doesn't give them on a platter.
I don't really think that's true either. It's not about how one "should" "find" "answers". Each Religion provides a framework for ideas and ideology, using constructs such as literature, mythology, art and history as a medium. This framework then takes on the role of a protocol by which to approach our own meditation, the suppositions of the authors and the link with those around us. There's no sense of necessity, correctness or acquaintance implicit within religion itself; these are all properties falsely attributed by people to their own religions.

The same, of course, could equally be said of any attempt to establish a system of shared understanding. It can never be absolutely true, it can never perfectly describe that which we meet, and if it is something on which we have become absolutely dependent then it is something that needs to be challenged.

Oh, it's quite easy to decide that. You just ask: Does it involve magic or magical creatures or the "supernatural" or other such stupid nonsense? If it does, it's magical poppycock.

Or it's mythology, depending on how you choose to look at it.

Faith can't answer that. All it can do is delude you into believing that it can.

But what if you've deluded yourself into thinking it's all delusion?

LOOOOOOOOOT of hellbound nonbelievers in this thread


tsk tsk tsk

Or it's mythology, depending on how you choose to look at it.

as long as people remember it's only mythology and treat it like that it's alright. Unfortunately some people take it further and try to impose the morality from these fairytale into other people, who didn't ask for it, their life.

as long as people remember it's only mythology and treat it like that it's alright. Unfortunately some people take it further and try to impose the morality from these fairytale into other people, who didn't ask for it, their life.

I basically agree, except that the morality they impose on others is their morality, not drawn from but depicted by those fairytales. Whether they treat it one way or another, the stories are not to blame.

could you explain this a little more? because i honestly don't understand it.
I'll try! When I want to tell you that I see a car coming down the road, I may point it out and say "There is a car coming this way". When I'm saying this, I do not necessarily mean to say that the physical construct of the car is a real and objective entity, though this could be understood to be the literal meaning of what I'm saying. What I probably really mean is that the model that I have built of the world is such that the visual information I am currently receiving matches with the concept that a car is positioned in a certain direction at a certain distance and rapidly accelerating. Eep.

If that is all I am trying to tell you then I'm not being arrogant; I'm just making an assumption that you will understand that the existence of the car to which I refer is that which exists in my mind as a result of what my senses are telling me. It is possible to say "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is causing X" in a similar context. In fact, this is the context by which religion has traditionally flourished - as a protocol for understanding rather than assertion of solid fact. Though, of course, what information can be conveyed under the Pastafarian protocol may be somewhat more limited than that under other methods of understanding; its inverse, the unPastafarian protocol, even more so.

Where the arrogance comes in is where we try to use "there is" in such a manner as to try to make assertions about that which is singularly true for everyone rather this more informal interpretation. It's the difference between "Anyone who says otherwise is incorrect" and "This is my understanding". As long as we mean the latter, we're fine, I guess is what I mean.

Not really, that's why you keep hearing about divine mysteries. Religion is usually like non-theist philosophies in that it outlines how one should go about finding answers, but it doesn't give them on a platter.

Bullshit. The religious only rely on the whole 'mysteries' thing after they're backed into a corner they can't answer their way out of. Till then, their book has all the answers, prayer can give you all the answers, can give you guidance, can give you all the help in the world if only you'll simply accept it all without question. Not a week ago I saw internet ads for the Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints saying things like "All the answers are within", attempting to prod at the insecurities of people in that they don't know everything but maybe this one book does. Again: bullshit.

LOOOOOOOOOT of hellbound nonbelievers in this thread


tsk tsk tsk

Fuck you.

I don't remember ever having any religious faith. I had curiousity, and went to church even after my grandmother quit taking me. But both my parents are atheists and I just never could manage to suspend my disbelief. Whatever the religious found in it, I never could find. Finally curiousity gave way to an intellectual dissection of all the things I disliked about religion. Now I can't imagine ever giving "faith" a place in my life. Seems dishonest.

would it also be arrogant to say "there is no sentient magical flying bowl of spaghetti in the sky which created the earth and we should all obey it's will"?

That's not the same thing at all. The belief in a first cause, a prime mover, a creator allows for an infinite amount of possibilities as to what started the universe. It is not a belief in a specific being such as a sentient magical flying bowl blah blah blah, as each description of such a being narrows down the likelihood more and more until it is not worth considering in a rational sense. The question is not what God is, but whether the universe was caused to be. This can only have two possibilities, and since there is no status quo to this question, asking to prove their is no God is not disproving a negative.

That's not the same thing at all. The belief in a first cause, a prime mover, a creator allows for an infinite amount of possibilities as to what started the universe. It is not a belief in a specific being such as a sentient magical flying bowl blah blah blah, as each description of such a being narrows down the likelihood more and more until it is not worth considering in a rational sense. The question is not what God is, but whether the universe was caused to be. This can only have two possibilities, and since there is no status quo to this question, asking to prove their is no God is not disproving a negative.

You're confusing yourself. You can't use the capital-G "God", the Christian God, and then say 'creator'. God is specific. Creator is not. Which are you looking to argue for?

You're confusing yourself. You can't use the capital-G "God", the Christian God, and then say 'creator'. God is specific. Creator is not. Which are you looking to argue for?

I didn't mean the christian God, I didn't intend to mean it by having a capital G.

When I was around 9 or 10 I wanted to become a preacher. When I hit 11 or 12 I know longer had faith, I became an atheist.

There was no soul searching or horrible event. I simply stopped believing.


So I was wondering. How did you come to the belief system that you have now? Some wonderful or horrible event? born and rasied? how?

I haven't had any wonderful or horrible events other than the usual circle of life. At 55 I can tell you that faith goes through many phases. It is very hard to keep the faith of a child when life becomes all to real. When prayers are no longer instantly answered. When you begin to actually read and study the Holy Books of your faith. When you see those that are put forth as the most faithful of the religion as those that are really the most condemned by the Holy Writings. When you see those that break every rule advance in society while those that most closely follow the teachings fall into poverty and the troubles of society. The questioning and falling away from the faith of a child is normal and usual. Those who don't go through that phase, in my opinion, are those that have never studied and learned about the teachings of their religion. They simply go by what they have been told by those afore mentioned least faithful that have gained positions in the religion.

Religion isn't logic although God can be proven by logic. It is a struggle to consolidate the God of nature that can be logically shown and the God of worship which can't. This is something that a searcher rather than just a listener will never fully bring together in the mind. The more you study the harder this will be and yet there will be an understanding that those who only listen to what they are told by the leaders will never understand.

At 55 I now the path you are taking. It will be a hard and difficult path. A path that most won't take. A path that will lead you to understanding and yet many dark holes that will never be filled. Just as in science when one question is answered there will be 10 more, in religion when one question is answered there are 10 more. Those that have no questions in science or religion have never asked any questions

I haven't had any wonderful or horrible events other than the usual circle of life. At 55 I can tell you that faith goes through many phases. It is very hard to keep the faith of a child when life becomes all to real. When prayers are no longer instantly answered. When you begin to actually read and study the Holy Books of your faith. When you see those that are put forth as the most faithful of the religion as those that are really the most condemned by the Holy Writings. When you see those that break every rule advance in society while those that most closely follow the teachings fall into poverty and the troubles of society. The questioning and falling away from the faith of a child is normal and usual. Those who don't go through that phase, in my opinion, are those that have never studied and learned about the teachings of their religion. They simply go by what they have been told by those afore mentioned least faithful that have gained positions in the religion.

Religion isn't logic although God can be proven by logic. It is a struggle to consolidate the God of nature that can be logically shown and the God of worship which can't. This is something that a searcher rather than just a listener will never fully bring together in the mind. The more you study the harder this will be and yet there will be an understanding that those who only listen to what they are told by the leaders will never understand.

At 55 I now the path you are taking. It will be a hard and difficult path. A path that most won't take. A path that will lead you to understanding and yet many dark holes that will never be filled. Just as in science when one question is answered there will be 10 more, in religion when one question is answered there are 10 more. Those that have no questions in science or religion have never asked any questions

I'm intrigued. how do you logically prove god?

When you see those that break every rule advance in society while those that most closely follow the teachings fall into poverty and the troubles of society

That post really got me thinking... look at the situation we have now. Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell (burn in hell mofo) and so many others are just like the Pharisees Jesus described in the Bible.

"They know the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law"

Bullshit. The religious only rely on the whole 'mysteries' thing after they're backed into a corner they can't answer their way out of. Till then, their book has all the answers, prayer can give you all the answers, can give you guidance, can give you all the help in the world if only you'll simply accept it all without question.

I don't like bringing up the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, because it refers to a specific event and I think people use it way to much to defend ESP, or telepathy. In this instance though, I think it works as an analogy.
The principle basically says that it is impossible to know both the velocity and direction of a particle. Now, how is this different from a religious mystery? I know, it's scientific, but it still explains how we cannot know something.
Another example is Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, which says that there are statement we cannot prove right or wrong in mathematics. This isn't a mathematician relying on mystery when he was backed into a corner, it was rigorously proved true.
The point is, religion is not alone when it says there are some things impossible for us to know, or that require work to find.

I'm intrigued. how do you logically prove god?

In the same way you logically prove evolution. Through the indirect evidence you observe. When there is a theory that can't be disproven because every piece of evidence found supports it. When one piece of evidence would make the theory invalid, but as hard as people look they can't find one piece of evidence that doesn't fit.

Begin with: What would the universe look like if the "big bang" were truly random? And when you (or an archaeologist) look at an object how do you know if it is just a random object or something that was created by intelligence? Answer the second and ask if the first is true.

I'm intrigued. how do you logically prove god?

The same way you logically disprove god. Logic is a good whore, give her the proper coin and she'll say anything.

The same way you logically disprove god. Logic is a good whore, give her the proper coin and she'll say anything.
Logic is pretty consistent, there are some things you cannot logically prove.
That being said, it is also a system created by humans, and in the cosmic sense, not necessarily infallible.

I'm intrigued. how do you logically prove god?

Not this shit again.

I don't like bringing up the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, because it refers to a specific event and I think people use it way to much to defend ESP, or telepathy. In this instance though, I think it works as an analogy.
The principle basically says that it is impossible to know both the velocity and direction of a particle. Now, how is this different from a religious mystery? I know, it's scientific, but it still explains how we cannot know something.
Another example is Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, which says that there are statement we cannot prove right or wrong in mathematics. This isn't a mathematician relying on mystery when he was backed into a corner, it was rigorously proved true.
The point is, religion is not alone when it says there are some things impossible for us to know, or that require work to find.

Bullshit, again. Religion is not the same as science. Science says we cannot prove something because it never promised the answers in the first place - religion cannot prove something because it simply does not have the answers. It does not search for the answers. Its answers it gives will never change. It will never update a thesis, it will never have an experiment that can empirically prove something. It has a book. It starts with the answers it gives, and when those answers are incorrect, it says the question is what is wrong.

It bears repeating: religion will -never- have the answers.

I didn't mean the christian God, I didn't intend to mean it by having a capital G.

Heheh I've been here before. I use G for God, for the same reason I use M for Mr, and S for Sir. God is the title of the God which created the creation.

I'm intrigued. how do you logically prove god?

You can certianly proove to your self using subjective logical proof that God exists?

Bullshit, again. Religion is not the same as science.
So far, no complaints.
Science says we cannot prove something because it never promised the answers in the first place - religion cannot prove something because it simply does not have the answers.
I'm not sure what you mean by answers. If it is the answer to a question like "How should we live?" or "What is the purpose?" then I agree. However, I'm pretty sure that scientists are confident in what they proclaim as true. I've never heard a scientist say, "gravity is just a suggestion" (not that he should).
It does not search for the answers. Its answers it gives will never change. It will never update a thesis, it will never have an experiment that can empirically prove something.
Wrong. Theology, meditation, prayer, etc... all these are ways of searching for the answers.
The part about no experiments is true, though.

It has a book. It starts with the answers it gives, and when those answers are incorrect, it says the question is what is wrong.
If that were true, how do you explain the numerous denominations that follow the same book, or even the numerous interpretations of it among a single denomination?

It bears repeating: religion will -never- have the answers.
Again, I'm not sure what the answers are, because we've never established what the questions are. If it is "How do organism pass on their genetic information to offspring?" or "How far away is Saturn?" I'd agree, but I doubt that's what you're talking about.

Heheh I've been here before. I use G for God, for the same reason I use M for Mr, and S for Sir. God is the title of the God which created the creation.

Right, but you don't capitalize president unless it becomes a proper noun such as President Bush, therefore you wouldn't capitalize the title of 'god' unless it's A: his name, as it is in Christianity, or B: followed by his name, i.e. God Yahweh. Notice how "christ" is incorrectly capitalized all the time, just like god is - christ is a title. Unless it's preceded by Jesus, it's not a proper noun.

Right, but you don't capitalize president unless it becomes a proper noun such as President Bush, therefore you wouldn't capitalize the title of 'god' unless it's A: his name, as it is in Christianity, or B: followed by his name, i.e. God Yahweh. Notice how "christ" is incorrectly capitalized all the time, just like god is - christ is a title. Unless it's preceded by Jesus, it's not a proper noun.

What about Allah? or would it be allah? What if you say the President? Or the Prime minister? Anyways like I sometime write sumtimes, I guess I'll always write God.

I guess from my point of view, God is the biggest, indeed the Alpha nad the Omega, to my mind God should always be capitalised, there really is no other word that conveys so much, it is the title of titles, the King of Kings, meh I guess it is just a respect thing for me.

So far, no complaints.

I'm not sure what you mean by answers. If it is the answer to a question like "How should we live?" or "What is the purpose?" then I agree. However, I'm pretty sure that scientists are confident in what they proclaim as true. I've never heard a scientist say, "gravity is just a suggestion" (not that he should).

By "answers", I mean anything at all. Such as why do atoms have electrons spinning around them? What is the next-smallest building block of existence below 'quarks'? Religion will never know, because it's not designed to know. Even things it specifically mentions in its book, it will still sometimes get wrong: is this person a witch? No, this person is not a witch, because witches don't exist. Science will tell you that, but religion will have you burn her just to be sure.

Wrong. Theology, meditation, prayer, etc... all these are ways of searching for the answers.
The part about no experiments is true, though.

Theology encompasses all religions and is, in itself, a type of science, much like archaeology. Meditation and prayer are not ways to look for answers, because there is no outside information being gotten - there is no new factor to take into account while you're praying. It's still just you. If you happen to come up with an answer while praying, it's because you were thinking, not because you were praying.

If that were true, how do you explain the numerous denominations that follow the same book, or even the numerous interpretations of it among a single denomination?

Denominations don't follow the same book. By their very definition, they follow different books - they wouldn't be a different denomination at all unless they disagreed with part of the book and branched out, creating their own version.

Interpretations say more about the person interpreting than it does about the book.

Again, I'm not sure what the answers are, because we've never established what the questions are. If it is "How do organism pass on their genetic information to offspring?" or "How far away is Saturn?" I'd agree, but I doubt that's what you're talking about.

The fact that the idea of blasphemy and heresy are held by the church and the bible are a testament enough to how they cannot objectively gather and interpret information. In science, there is no heresy, there is no blasphemy, there is only information. There can be lies, but that comes not from science, but from the practitioners.

What about Allah? or would it be allah? What if you say the President? Or the Prime minister? Anyways like I sometime write sumtimes, I guess I'll always write God.

I guess from my point of view, God is the biggest, indeed the Alpha nad the Omega, to my mind God should always be capitalised, there really is no other word that conveys so much, it is the title of titles, the King of Kings, meh I guess it is just a respect thing for me.

Right. But when you say "a god", you're not talking about God. You're talking about a generic superbeing that may or may not have had a hand in creating or controlling the universe.

Also: I seriously doubt God really gives two craps about whether or not you capitalize his name or his title. If he did, I'd be seriously concerned about where his priorities lie.

By "answers", I mean anything at all. Such as why do atoms have electrons spinning around them? What is the next-smallest building block of existence below 'quarks'? Religion will never know, because it's not designed to know. Even things it specifically mentions in its book, it will still sometimes get wrong: is this person a witch? No, this person is not a witch, because witches don't exist. Science will tell you that, but religion will have you burn her just to be sure.
I have yet to hear of any religion that says witches should be burned. Plenty of people have said it, but no religions.



Theology encompasses all religions and is, in itself, a type of science, much like archaeology. Meditation and prayer are not ways to look for answers, because there is no outside information being gotten - there is no new factor to take into account while you're praying. It's still just you. If you happen to come up with an answer while praying, it's because you were thinking, not because you were praying.
There are more specific types of theology, some concentrate on just one faith. And it's true, most ideas you get while meditating or praying come from yourself, but that doesn't mean it isn't a real answer. I've never seen empirical evidence for existentialism or humanism, but that doesn't mean they aren't valid ways to live one's life.



Denominations don't follow the same book. By their very definition, they follow different books - they wouldn't be a different denomination at all unless they disagreed with part of the book and branched out, creating their own version.
I was think specifically of Christianity, and there are many denominations which use the same book, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian...even Mormons use the same book (with additions).




The fact that the idea of blasphemy and heresy are held by the church and the bible are a testament enough to how they cannot objectively gather and interpret information. In science, there is no heresy, there is no blasphemy, there is only information. There can be lies, but that comes not from science, but from the practitioners.
A heresy is simply an error, according to the Church. There are plenty of heresies in science, it's information that's "wrong".

By "answers", I mean anything at all. Such as why do atoms have electrons spinning around them? What is the next-smallest building block of existence below 'quarks'? Religion will never know, because it's not designed to know. Even things it specifically mentions in its book, it will still sometimes get wrong: is this person a witch? No, this person is not a witch, because witches don't exist. Science will tell you that, but religion will have you burn her just to be sure.


And by the same token, science will not be able to answer the questions that religion does.

What is the purpose of life? What happens to our souls when after we die?

Right. But when you say "a god", you're not talking about God. You're talking about a generic superbeing that may or may not have had a hand in creating or controlling the universe.

Also: I seriously doubt God really gives two craps about whether or not you capitalize his name or his title. If he did, I'd be seriously concerned about where his priorities lie.

Maybe you say that only because you can’t understand God (or god)’s priorities. When I walk my dog and he poops in my neighbor’s lawn I have to pick up my dog’s poop and throw it in a garbage can. To the dog, putting poop in a garbage can is a serious misplacement of priorities. But we humans have our own purposes and priorities, which the dog does not understand, and so we clean up dog poop anyways. In the same way, God may have his or her own priorities which we humans don’t understand. So it could be fair to say that we are God’s dogs, in terms of our limited understanding of the universe compared to His or Her infinite understanding of the universe.

Right. But when you say "a god", you're not talking about God. You're talking about a generic superbeing that may or may not have had a hand in creating or controlling the universe.

Also: I seriously doubt God really gives two craps about whether or not you capitalize his name or his title. If he did, I'd be seriously concerned about where his priorities lie.

Heh true but you will not really see me saying 'a God' but always God. I belive that all such God's are one and the same God. And correct again, God does not care if I show God respect or not(how does one go about insulting God?), but I do, and so I choose to show respect also in this manor.

And accordingly you will not find me sexualising God, I do not say he, or she but always God.

Maybe you say that only because you can’t understand God (or god)’s priorities. When I walk my dog and he poops in my neighbor’s lawn I have to pick up my dog’s poop and throw it in a garbage can. To the dog, putting poop in a garbage can is a serious misplacement of priorities. But we humans have our own purposes and priorities, which the dog does not understand, and so we clean up dog poop anyways. In the same way, God may have his or her own priorities which we humans don’t understand. So it could be fair to say that we are God’s dogs, in terms of our limited understanding of the universe compared to His or Her infinite understanding of the universe.
Interesting analogy, but I am uncomfortable with the idea of God cleaning up after all of us;)

pasta is anything but foolish, heathen!



why would you believe in something not omniscient, -potent, - benevolent? What kind of a god would that be?

You make the assumption that belief is always a choice. And it would make god the type of being that makes sense in my world. I may be wrong, though.

Not this shit again.

Bullshit, again. Religion is not the same as science. Science says we cannot prove something because it never promised the answers in the first place - religion cannot prove something because it simply does not have the answers. It does not search for the answers. Its answers it gives will never change. It will never update a thesis, it will never have an experiment that can empirically prove something. It has a book. It starts with the answers it gives, and when those answers are incorrect, it says the question is what is wrong.

It bears repeating: religion will -never- have the answers.

Religion will usually not have the same answers to the same questions that science does, nor will the answers provided by religion be able to be scrutinised the same way scientific answers are.

Religion and science are both ways of knowing. There are qualitiative differences between the two that determine the answers and questions that each deal with, but they both provide answers.

"Welcome to Atheismville!"

Not going to happen. If Atheists ever founded a town then we'd start by fighting a bloody civil war over whether it should be called Atheismville or Atheopolis, then a few people would found a new religion out of sheer contrariness, and eventually everyone would get bored and wander off to find tacos. Herding cats is nothing compared to organising Atheists.

I speak from experience.

*nods*

I have yet to hear of any religion that says witches should be burned. Plenty of people have said it, but no religions.

Fairly certain the bible says "Thou shalt not suffer that a witch shall live".

There are more specific types of theology, some concentrate on just one faith. And it's true, most ideas you get while meditating or praying come from yourself, but that doesn't mean it isn't a real answer. I've never seen empirical evidence for existentialism or humanism, but that doesn't mean they aren't valid ways to live one's life.

We're dealing with such vague terms, and my mind is so fried from dealing with Muravyets crap in the other thread, that I can't come up with a reply to this right now. Maybe later, I'm sorry.

I was think specifically of Christianity, and there are many denominations which use the same book, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian...even Mormons use the same book (with additions).

Well the two main denominations are Catholic and fuck I can't remember the other. -_-

I'm far too frazzled for any specific argument here, but I can say Mormons don't use the same book. By having added things, it becomes an entirely different book, especially where it mentions Jesus having visited the Americas and black people being soulless descendants of Cain. I don't have a source right now, but feel free to search it, and maybe later I'll have enough of my brain back to be able to do so myself.

A heresy is simply an error, according to the Church. There are plenty of heresies in science, it's information that's "wrong".

A heresy is an error, and a heretic is someone who's always wrong, and may or may not deserve to die for it?

And by the same token, science will not be able to answer the questions that religion does.

Religion does not answer anything with proof, the way science does. Religion telling you the purpose of life and what happens to your souls after you die carries about as much weight and credibility as if I came up to you on the street and told you the same answer out of nowhere and then walked away.

Heh true but you will not really see me saying 'a God' but always God. I belive that all such God's are one and the same God. And correct again, God does not care if I show God respect or not(how does one go about insulting God?), but I do, and so I choose to show respect also in this manor.

Insulting God is easy. Here: God sucks. There, that was fun. =)

And accordingly you will not find me sexualising God, I do not say he, or she but always God.

I appreciate the effort, but I'm fairly certain I saw you say "His" somewhere on the last page of the thread. Capital H. I could be entirely wrong and that might've been someone else, though.

You make the assumption that belief is always a choice. And it would make god the type of being that makes sense in my world. I may be wrong, though.

If belief is not a choice, then we have no free will.

Religion will usually not have the same answers to the same questions that science does, nor will the answers provided by religion be able to be scrutinised the same way scientific answers are.

Right, because there's nothing to scrutinize. There's no data, there's no math, there's no repeatable exercises that we can do to get the same result and be sure of the findings. It's just "This is the answer." - and that's all you get from religion. Ever. If you want more than that, then you're screwed by looking in religion's direction.

Religion and science are both ways of knowing. There are qualitiative differences between the two that determine the answers and questions that each deal with, but they both provide answers.

Nono. Science is knowing, and science is learning; religion is believing, and religion is insisting. Heavy differences.

When I was around 9 or 10 I wanted to become a preacher. When I hit 11 or 12 I know longer had faith, I became an atheist.

There was no soul searching or horrible event. I simply stopped believing.


So I was wondering. How did you come to the belief system that you have now? Some wonderful or horrible event? born and rasied? how?

I was raised Baptist and Catholic alternatively by my babysitter when I lived with my mom and grandparents when I lived with them but could never be bothered to give a shit about either religion. I still believed in God but religion escaped me. When I was in mid-grade school I stopped believing in God because it seemed really illogical as I had never experienced this God.

As a sophomore in HS I had a really powerful spiritual experience out of nowhere. It was like an epiphany but ... more(?). The things I 'learned' during that experience all seemed so obvious that I had no choice but to accept it. After that, whenever I read something from Eastern, general shamanic or pagan phoilosophy (and other things like these), much of it would resonate with my spiritual experience and I felt like I was getting a much deeper glimpse than some who had not had such an experience would get when reading it.

I still don't find any use in religion for myself but can see how others might need it in one way or another. I used to rail against it when I felt that religion did more harm than good or when someone would espouse their beliefs as the one true faith, but I've grown past that when I saw how negative I was being, while dismissing the positives.

I'm far too frazzled for any specific argument here, but I can say Mormons don't use the same book. By having added things, it becomes an entirely different book, especially where it mentions Jesus having visited the Americas and black people being soulless descendants of Cain. I don't have a source right now, but feel free to search it, and maybe later I'll have enough of my brain back to be able to do so myself.

I'm pretty sure Mormons use the regular Bible, but they also use the Book of Mormon. Maybe that's where it mentions the lost tribe of Israel, and things like that.

I'm pretty sure Mormons use the regular Bible, but they also use the Book of Mormon. Maybe that's where it mentions the lost tribe of Israel, and things like that.

Mormons use the "Inspired Version" of the King James Version. What happened was Joseph Smith put notes in the margins of his Bible. After he died they took the bible and inserted the notes into the text. So it is sort of a commentary of the King James using the notes of Joseph.

The Book of Mormon is the book alleged to come from gold plates that gives history of the New World.

The Doctrine and Covenants are supposed to be the writings of other church leaders that are supposed to be prophesies.

The Pearl of Great Price is the "translation" of some papyrus books that Smith got when he bought a couple mummies. They are also supposed to be inspired, although they have been proven to not be a true translations of the papyrus.

What about Allah? or would it be allah?

Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. Allah and God are the same thing only in different language.

Religion will usually not have the same answers to the same questions that science does, nor will the answers provided by religion be able to be scrutinised the same way scientific answers are.

Religion and science are both ways of knowing. There are qualitiative differences between the two that determine the answers and questions that each deal with, but they both provide answers.

This is a box that religious "pharisees" of all of the religions of the world have built. This isn't a box built by the books of the religions or the true followers of any major religion.

Looking at the foundation of any of the major religions, there is no conflict with science. In fact, each scientific discovery supports the existence of God. But, humans get locked into the ribbon rather than the package. They look at the frills of their belief rather than the foundation. Religion should embrace science. Science shows how things work, religion shows why they work. There really is no conflict.

I happen to know gods make planets. Can you refute that?

As a fellow theist I can point out that you can't know that. Unless you ARE a god. :eek: Are you a god???:eek:

why would you believe in something not omniscient, -potent, - benevolent? What kind of a god would that be?

My kind. A kind that makes a hell of a lot more sense than an all powerful being that although allegedly good lets people who have done nothing wrong suffer horribly. Or an allegedly good deity that is prone to periodic acts of genocide (including children).

My kind. A kind that makes a hell of a lot more sense than an all powerful being that although allegedly good lets people who have done nothing wrong suffer horribly. Or an allegedly good deity that is prone to periodic acts of genocide (including children).

ok, it makes more sense, and I understand your critique of the omniscient, -potent, - benevolent god. But why do you still believe in a "less powerful god", and how would you describe it? Why not go for the logical, obvious option, "there is no god".
I honestly don't get why people seem to search for a god while there is obviously not a single shred of evidence for such a being. It's like people want to be deluded.

ok, it makes more sense, and I understand your critique of the omniscient, -potent, - benevolent god. But why do you still believe in a "less powerful god", and how would you describe it? Why not go for the logical, obvious option, "there is no god".
I honestly don't get why people seem to search for a god while there is obviously not a single shred of evidence for such a being. It's like people want to be deluded.

I can't argue with anything objective, all my experiences were subjective to me. I know only that in the past when I have been in hard times that I made requests of my gods and I offered them incense and alcohol and sweets and things got better. Hell I was depressed about my inability to find love, prayed to Aphrodite lit some incense for her and in less than a week the woman I eventually married entered my life through remarkable coincidence.

Science shows how things work, religion shows why they work.
That, too, I believe to be "Pharisaic", and for two reasons. Firstly, it's arguably the most defining trait of the Pharisees as they're portrayed in Christian literature that they hold their own laws and teachings to be sufficient at describing the direct nature of the divine entity, when that which they describe is only a construct of their own understanding rather than the entity which lies at the root cause of their experience (Christ even goes so far as to say so himself on numerous occasions). To say that either science or religion do show how/why is to ignore the fact that we don't and can't know whether they are or not; particularly in the case of religion, where there are multiple and often conflicting understandings as to the nature of existence. Both are just humanity's attempts, limited by our own ability to perceive and model reality.

Secondly, it is itself an appeal to traditional explanation rather than an analysis of the direct cause/nature of that of which it speaks. Religion collectively has always traditionally claimed that the Reason for that which we experience is something that has always (or, at least, previously) been a real and solid fact, but the "why" is not itself what Religion does to the exclusion of other kinds of cultural phenomenon. God is not an answer to an enquiry into purpose (though some may choose to wrap God up in a mythology that provides many possible answers to that question). God is that which is experienced through what some call "divine revelation", and Religion is the attempt in response to describe such experience and interact with the underlying entity responsible for it. In this respect, it serves exactly the same purpose as Science: not why, nor how, but "what?" Or, if one's explanation so implies, "who?"

There really is no conflict.
While I agree with the general sentiment that there is not necessarily "conflict", I would say that there is tension, precisely because the two are attempting to describe the same thing for the same purpose from different perspectives. Of course, this tension is necessary in amassing the whole picture, but it is something that we would be wise not to ignore.

In fact, each scientific discovery supports the existence of God

could you give some examples please? I really can't imagine a scientific discovery which supports the existence of god.

As a fellow theist I can point out that you can't know that. Unless you ARE a god. :eek: Are you a god???:eek:
As a matter of fact...
No, I don't really know that. Fassigen said something to the effect of he knew God was impossible, or something like that, and I was trying to show what someone knows, beyond a doubt, inconclusively, to the degree there is not a yoctogram of doubt in his or her head, doesn't mean it's true.

And yoctogram is a real unit. It is 10^-24th of a gram.

As a matter of fact...
No, I don't really know that. Fassigen said something to the effect of he knew God was impossible, or something like that, and I was trying to show what someone knows, beyond a doubt, inconclusively, to the degree there is not a yoctogram of doubt in his or her head, doesn't mean it's true.
Wait, you confused me there. Isn't a statement or thought only knowledge if it is verified to be true? :confused:

Wait, you confused me there. Isn't a statement or thought only knowledge if it is verified to be true? :confused:
Maybe. I don't think of it that way, just because for centuries, people have believed things with just as firm a conviction as I believe something like "I'm in front of a computer" that turn out to be wrong. For example, plenty of people "knew" the sun went around the earth.
I don't distinguish knowledge from beliefs that much, only because there is so much cross-over. Generally, I find people use the word "believe" in a phrase like, "Elton believes he is going to be fed today" when they really mean, "Elton is convinced he is going to get food today, whereas the speaker is doubtful."

In other words, a belief is what someone else knows is true, and you know is wrong.

could you give some examples please? I really can't imagine a scientific discovery which supports the existence of god.

The simplest answer to this is the universe is not chaotic. The universe is totally orderly. The only limitation is that in so many things there are so many inputs that the human mind can not comprehend them. The usual example is the butterfly that effects where a drop of water will land. There is no limit to the orderliness and each scientific discovery finds more orderliness not mindless randomness. If the "big bang" randomly sent whatever it was it sent out (energy-matter?) totally randomly then the universe should show randomness somewhere. It shows randomness nowhere. Order is the sign of intelligence.

Order is the sign of intelligence.
Two points. Firstly, we can only really strictly say that order is the sign of machination rather than intelligence. It is true that the two often go hand in hand, but the notion of system allows for a machine to construct itself from the most chaotic of components.

Secondly, all Chaos must contain within it the possibility for Order; otherwise, it is not true Chaos.

Secondly, it is itself an appeal to traditional explanation rather than an analysis of the direct cause/nature of that of which it speaks. Religion collectively has always traditionally claimed that the Reason for that which we experience is something that has always (or, at least, previously) been a real and solid fact, but the "why" is not itself what Religion does to the exclusion of other kinds of cultural phenomenon. God is not an answer to an enquiry into purpose (though some may choose to wrap God up in a mythology that provides many possible answers to that question). God is that which is experienced through what some call "divine revelation", and Religion is the attempt in response to describe such experience and interact with the underlying entity responsible for it. In this respect, it serves exactly the same purpose as Science: not why, nor how, but "what?" Or, if one's explanation so implies, "who?"


While I agree with the general sentiment that there is not necessarily "conflict", I would say that there is tension, precisely because the two are attempting to describe the same thing for the same purpose from different perspectives. Of course, this tension is necessary in amassing the whole picture, but it is something that we would be wise not to ignore.

I would agree that there is obvious tension, but it is totally illogical tension. The tension is only among those that don't understand the other side. Both sides think the other is on the attack, and in fact there are attacks by the ignorant of both sides. I don't know of anyone who has looked at both sides that don't see a mutual support at the foundation of both. It is interesting that this is a struggle of the deep thinkers on both sides because of outside agitation not internal agitation. Darwin (and many other scientists) was a divinity student. He struggled between his peers in science and his religious wife. But found mutual support within himself. He didn't express belief much because neither side was ready to accept that mutual support.

Two points. Firstly, we can only really strictly say that order is the sign of machination rather than intelligence. It is true that the two often go hand in hand, but the notion of system allows for a machine to construct itself from the most chaotic of components.

Secondly, all Chaos must contain within it the possibility for Order; otherwise, it is not true Chaos.

All things are Chaos. Order is only the most prevalent form of Chaos.

The simplest answer to this is the universe is not chaotic. The universe is totally orderly. The only limitation is that in so many things there are so many inputs that the human mind can not comprehend them. The usual example is the butterfly that effects where a drop of water will land. There is no limit to the orderliness and each scientific discovery finds more orderliness not mindless randomness. If the "big bang" randomly sent whatever it was it sent out (energy-matter?) totally randomly then the universe should show randomness somewhere. It shows randomness nowhere. Order is the sign of intelligence.

I know the laws of physics are orderly (or so we assume). You must consider though that there might have been a bazillion big bangs before our own which all resulted in disorderly universes, which made life impossible. The only reason why we live in an orderly universe is because living in a disorderly universe might be impossible. The order you see in the laws of nature might just be the result of total randomness. (like those monkeys typing the exact works of Shakespeare given enough time)
I'm also not sure if the universe is as orderly as it looks. Isn't it so that in a few 10^100^100 years everything will have floated away from eachother leaving nothing but cold isolated atoms? Of course it looks orderly to a human, who only sees a snapshot of the universe. It's like a photo of an explosion which doesn't seem to move and looks constant.
Even we are a result of total randomness, random point mutations, random crossing over, random separation of parental chromosomes, random partners etc. and this is only talking about one person. can you imagine how randomly we evolved from smaller organisms? A small difference in one of our one-cellular ancestors could have made an extremely large difference in the way we are now.
All I'm trying to say is that you can probably use science to prove anything you want when it comes to stuff like religion.

Two points. Firstly, we can only really strictly say that order is the sign of machination rather than intelligence. It is true that the two often go hand in hand, but the notion of system allows for a machine to construct itself from the most chaotic of components.

Secondly, all Chaos must contain within it the possibility for Order; otherwise, it is not true Chaos.

If an archaeologists finds a machine s/he assumes the machine to be made by an intelligence from less orderly materials.

I know the laws of physics are orderly (or so we assume). You must consider though that there might have been a bazillion big bangs before our own which all resulted in disorderly universes, which made life impossible. The only reason why we live in an orderly universe is because living in a disorderly universe might be impossible. The order you see in the laws of nature might just be the result of total randomness. (like those monkeys typing the exact works of Shakespeare given enough time)
I'm also not sure if the universe is as orderly as it looks. Isn't it so that in a few 10^100^100 years everything will have floated away from eachother leaving nothing but cold isolated atoms? Of course it looks orderly to a human, who only sees a snapshot of the universe. It's like a photo of an explosion which doesn't seem to move and looks constant.
Even we are a result of total randomness, random point mutations, random crossing over, random separation of parental chromosomes, random partners etc. and this is only talking about one person. can you imagine how randomly we evolved from smaller organisms? A small difference in one of our one-cellular ancestors could have made an extremely large difference in the way we are now.
All I'm trying to say is that you can probably use science to prove anything you want when it comes to stuff like religion.

The only thing one needs to do to disprove the thesis is to find something in physics, chemistry, etc. that is at random, not totally organized. But every time a scientist does an experiment or makes an observation (no matter if it's macro-space, normal space, or micro-space) the observation confirms the thesis that the universe is orderly.

I did the math once and a monkey could type the works of Shakespeare in a normal lifetime, working 8 hr. days, 2 wks vacation and coffee breaks. The operation would have to operate like evolution where the errors disappear and the correct strokes are saved.

In biology there seems to be randomness, but a line of correct changes and a loss of incorrect changes has made for the development of life designed for the environment in which it lives. And that orderliness improves with each generation rather than the usual argument that things degenerate. What causes that improved orderliness?

After my dad died my mom starting going to church and started me going there. After about 3-4 years I decided not to go any more cause I relized that i'm gay and also i'm a liberal. Most of the people were like hard core republicans and social conservatives. I also felt isolated never felt I fit there.

After my dad died my mom starting going to church and started me going there. After about 3-4 years I decided not to go any more cause I relized that i'm gay and also i'm a liberal. Most of the people were like hard core republicans and social conservatives. I also felt isolated never felt I fit there.

And that is why Jesus condemned the Pharisees.

My family was Christian and took me to church when I was little, but stopped around eight. Now, I am a Christian, because one day, it just hit me. I cannot really explain it. Funny since I have been in a hugely liberal/ New Age place.

In the same way you logically prove evolution. Through the indirect evidence you observe. When there is a theory that can't be disproven because every piece of evidence found supports it. When one piece of evidence would make the theory invalid, but as hard as people look they can't find one piece of evidence that doesn't fit.

Begin with: What would the universe look like if the "big bang" were truly random? And when you (or an archaeologist) look at an object how do you know if it is just a random object or something that was created by intelligence? Answer the second and ask if the first is true.

I think you've got that backwards. The evolution theory was formulated as an explanation for observable processes and evidence. We had the evidence and needed the explanation, and evolution seems the most logical with more and more evidence showing up for it every day.

I've got no evidence for god, so why would I formulate a theory that involves god(s)? In what way would that be logical?

What causes that improved orderliness?

As said before, it's probably the only thing that works. Unorderliness fails, and disappears.
A lot like evolution : Mutations that are beneficial remain, those that aren't don't.

And that is why Jesus condemned the Pharisees.

Because of the Republicans? :confused:

I never came into contact with religion as a child. None of my grandparents were even baptised. We are a family of athiests through and through. I was raised on books about the classification of animals and the like from about the age of 4. My parents never presured me, but they taught me to think criticaly from a young age. It got me into some serious disagreements in my younger years of primary school as I always gave my oppinion and many fellow students were deeply religious. I got a spade thrown into my eye at the age of 6.:p

What is reality is inherently subjective. A person may accept science, because they can't rationalize what is truth for themselves (Truth cannot be rationalized .)

If a person believes in a flying spaghetti monster, it is impossible for a person to confirm nor deny that it exists. A rational person may say that idea is stupid, but that person has no proof that it is not so.

As for me, I'ven been raised a Roman Catholic, but not in an oppressive setting. The only thing that was stressed to me was the power of prayer, meditation and spirituality. Believing in something far greater than oneself is humbling, comforting and deeply personal. Prayer is the acceptance that I know nothing of the world and my reality is trivial in comparison to the greater reality that I am a part of, what ever that may be.

It is important to be humble and that is stressed in every religion, through shared experiences and personal reflections.

I'm not saying religion is bad, per se

But I am acknowledging that in the NAME of religion, some pretty horrible atrocities have been committed

but the reverse is also true, some magnanimous charity has also been committed in the name of religion

religion is like nuclear technology, it can be used for either good or bad, example, we can either power entire cities in a clean, relatively safe manner, or detsroy the planet with nuclear capability

same with religion

Wow based on what I'm reading here, apparently, only people that believe in god commit atrocities :eek: you learn something new everyday huh?
and I'm not just talking about this thread I read you guys crap all the time.

Just like life. Learning to find purpose and meaning in life for it's own sake is a part of philosophical maturity.

or basic stupidity :headbang:

Bleh. Living with Catholics.. Being forced to go to mass every Sunday for 13 years.. They're probably the most boring form of Christianity.

no arguments here :p

Wow based on what I'm reading here, apparently, only people that believe in god commit atrocities :eek: you learn something new everyday huh?
and I'm not just talking about this thread I read you guys crap all the time.

Well, you might want to work on your reading comprehension, then.

Not many competitors for that trophy.



No, life is pretty depressing and empty when you think about it. Granted, I suffer from depression, but even when I don't, I realize that it's still empty.

Spiritually, I mean. Sure, you live on a world of six billion people, and you go out of your way to not see your neighbor in the morning because you don't want to spend the time to get to know him, not because he's a bad person, but because you just don't want to bother. Pretty much everyone feels like that, especially in the cities. Six billion people that don't want to talk to eachother. Pretty empty. Sure, I exaggerate a bit, but just a bit. Giving the benefit of the doubt, let's assume all of China is the most brotherly and caring populace mankind has ever seen - five billion people still don't want to talk to them.

that mentality is deranged...and yet can be argued in either direction.
one things for sure, life is only empty for people stuck listening to you.

No, it isn't, because someone made it all up. There is no arrogance involved at all in dismissing someone's invented magical poppycock.

how the hell would you know if it's ALL made up. which meeting did YOU sit in on. it seems to me that even though a lot of you won't admit it, you hope there's no God, so that there won't be a time where you have to answer for your self righteous bullshit. :gundge:

Well, you might want to work on your reading comprehension, then.

I doubt it. See, I have never seen a single thread describing those people that were mass murderers, and found religion only after they received a life/death sentence. :mad:

I doubt it. See, I have never seen a single thread describing those people that were mass murderers, and found religion only after they received a life/death sentence. :mad:

Then make one.
What was said here was that religion inspired humans to commit horrors and justified the most extreme forms of violence. I don't think anyone claimed that only religious people are violent so far.

The only thing one needs to do to disprove the thesis is to find something in physics, chemistry, etc. that is at random, not totally organized. But every time a scientist does an experiment or makes an observation (no matter if it's macro-space, normal space, or micro-space) the observation confirms the thesis that the universe is orderly.

what do you mean with totally organized? that the results of most experiments are predictable and can be repeated?

In biology there seems to be randomness, but a line of correct changes and a loss of incorrect changes has made for the development of life designed for the environment in which it lives. And that orderliness improves with each generation rather than the usual argument that things degenerate. What causes that improved orderliness?

that's simple, if it doesn't work for the environment in which it lives it dies or it adopts to a habitat in which it can live.

To OP:
How I came to my stand on religion?

Began with a fuzzy idea that science explains everything. At around 6, I thought that if someone understood enough science, you could explain everything. Probably had something to do with my father being an engineer, he would always explain how everything works.
Then again, my family (and extended) is Buddhist. We don't practise the rites though. But I was too caught up with the physical world to worry about any other question.

Presbytarian school for three years, I kinda left it to my friends and teachers to answer all the funny questions I thought of. You could say I was a half-believer, accepting that God exists and created the world, but busy asking funny questions like how he did it, and what technology did he employ.
Yes, I did think that God made the world using machines, just fantastically good ones... *Shrug* the workings in the mind of a six year old are unfathomable, even if it was me. =(

Later, I went to a Methodist school... ! ... there I met a friend who tried to convert me....
So he asked me the funny questions, that was when I started to ask the more serious questions than "how does the crane keep up?" and "why do the fish eat bubbles?"
In a sense, my friend asked me questions about more than the physical world. So that told me that there just might be more deeper questions than how to cook an omelette. So I asked them myself.
Boy, was I shocked when no one gave me a straight clear answer. I naively thought religion was nice and simple like science, if you believed enough, you get all the answers. I was disillusioned about 10 minutes into the discussion.
In essence, I thought religion could be the Theory of Everything I was so hankering to know. I couldn't more wrong.

Now I find out I'm doing it wrongly. A religion is about faith, about not asking funny questions. But I thought, and still think, that if you want to explain something, you have to be able to asnwer any question that comes to mind. Simply not answering the questions was (and is) never good enough.

So I'll say I'm atheist, up until someone conclusively shows me a religion that works, and stands up to experiment.
And I still think we can explain everything. One day, we'll do it.

Sometimes I envy the way my friend (the same one) can believe so strongly in something. I'll never have the same conviction he has, the same driving force; all I'll have is my questions.
But I'm more sure of my conclusions than he is, and I don't dodge those bullets coming from an angle I didn't see.

The only thing one needs to do to disprove the thesis is to find something in physics, chemistry, etc. that is at random, not totally organized. But every time a scientist does an experiment or makes an observation (no matter if it's macro-space, normal space, or micro-space) the observation confirms the thesis that the universe is orderly.Rubbish. The universe is not the least bit orderly past the macro level. The order we macro-beings get comfy with, is nothing more than emergent properties. Sort of like the thoughts in your head are the result of electricity zapping around in interesting ways.

Further, the notion that reality as we know it could have been intended roughly as it is, is bunk too. On the most basic level of the universe, as it is now, there's nothing capable of containing the kind of specific information you'd need to cause even a vaguely defined result on the macro-scale. Everything's random, basically.
Worse still, assuming the Big Bang happened, even that most basic information channel didn't exist with the present properties, when it happened. That means there's no way for any 'design' to carry over.

I'm afraid teh creator is just as silly as proposing the world's covered in 3ft thick invisible pink fur.I did the math once and a monkey could type the works of Shakespeare in a normal lifetime, working 8 hr. days, 2 wks vacation and coffee breaks. The operation would have to operate like evolution where the errors disappear and the correct strokes are saved.What corners did you cut without telling us? Oh well, it's besides the point. It would be animal cruelty to force a monkey to type Shakespeare. If you've got it bad, just become an English Lit teacher. They're allowed to do it to kids for a few years.In biology there seems to be randomness, but a line of correct changes and a loss of incorrect changes has made for the development of life designed for the environment in which it lives. And that orderliness improves with each generation rather than the usual argument that things degenerate. What causes that improved orderliness?The improved orderliness isn't a 'force' in it's own right. It's one of those complexities born of lots of little simple things exchanging information. It's not possible to give you anything like an exhaustive answer in a forum post (and I'd be the wrong guy for it anyway), but basically, everything from the genetics of the organism to the environment, with all it's little separate parts, determine what information is preserved and what isn't. If it's viable information under the circumstances, it survives. If it's not, it doesn't. Again, the thoughts in your own head are created in exactly the same manner. The capacities of carbon sinks on planet Earth are regulated like this too, and so on and so forth. An army greater than you can imagine all 'talk' together and 'decide' what's preserved and what isn't.

The Pro is there's no intelligence at work, so nothing can prevent communication or the tilt decisions from the pt. optimal.
The Con is that humans apparently evolved a persistent racial inability to fathom that a natural information flow doesn't give two shits about anything, so bribing it, smooth talking, whining, prostrating oneself to it and so on, is all utterly meaningless.

Still, I can't shake the feeling that if the world could actually pay attention to anything but our actions, we'd all be dead long ago. Either because we're a fucking nuisance, or because we'd talk the thing into doing shit that'd kill us. Probably the latter. We're more than suicidal enough.

that mentality is deranged...and yet can be argued in either direction.
one things for sure, life is only empty for people stuck listening to you.

Glad you read my post, then. =D

I doubt it. See, I have never seen a single thread describing those people that were mass murderers, and found religion only after they received a life/death sentence. :mad:

What's the fun in that? I have no doubt that the majority of people who do that only do it for sympathy and more leverage when they get scared of death and apologize to try and get out of it.

Glad you read my post, then. =DHey, at leastt you reminded me of Manic Street Preachers. Rain down alienation... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIirv-XEidc)

Hey, at leastt you reminded me of Manic Street Preachers. Rain down alienation... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIirv-XEidc)

Can't watch that at werk, I'll try to remember to when I get home. =D

Religion does not answer anything with proof, the way science does.

Science does not answer anything with proof either. Scientists can accumulate evidence for a theory, but they can never prove it. There is always the possibility that another better theory will come along and replace it, as Einstein's relative universe replaced Newton's mechanical one.

In this way, religion and science are similar. Both give us ways of knowing the universe, but both are limited by the incompleteness of the information available to us. And both can change as new information comes along.

If belief is not a choice, then we have no free will.

That is a general statement. Sometimes belief is not a choice, but that doesn't mean I don't have free will in all other aspects of my existence.

Right, because there's nothing to scrutinize. There's no data, there's no math, there's no repeatable exercises that we can do to get the same result and be sure of the findings. It's just "This is the answer." - and that's all you get from religion. Ever. If you want more than that, then you're screwed by looking in religion's direction.
Nono. Science is knowing, and science is learning; religion is believing, and religion is insisting. Heavy differences.

Actually, there is data. The accumulated history of personal and communal revelation as recorded in scriptures can be considered data. It is more subjective than scientific data, but scientific data is not purely objective either.

Also, many Zen practices can be considered repeatable exercises.

Szanth, the relationships between science and religion is more complex than can be decribed in a single post. There are similarities that you are dismissing.

ok, it makes more sense, and I understand your critique of the omniscient, -potent, - benevolent god. But why do you still believe in a "less powerful god", and how would you describe it? Why not go for the logical, obvious option, "there is no god".
I honestly don't get why people seem to search for a god while there is obviously not a single shred of evidence for such a being. It's like people want to be deluded.

It would depend on how they came to their knowledge of god. Would you consider someone who had a personal revelation as someone who wants to be deluded? What about intelligent, rational people who have come to the conclusion that the obvious and logical position is that god exists?

When I was around 9 or 10 I wanted to become a preacher. When I hit 11 or 12 I know longer had faith, I became an atheist.

There was no soul searching or horrible event. I simply stopped believing.

So I was wondering. How did you come to the belief system that you have now? Some wonderful or horrible event? born and raised? how?


A spirit quest that resulted in my becoming *one* with ... God? The Goddess? The OVERMIND?? With a deific force at any rate.

I'm not really surprised you stopped believing. Without actually encountering that force it would be anti-intelligencia to continue.

I *am* that little part of me in you. And you're that little part of you in me. You *could* experience being the whole for a time, if you really wanted to. But perhaps that part of me that is you wants to remain cut off for now. That IS a large part of the meaning of "life", after all.


Ahem. Now on to semantics. Atheism is a word that means, to me (and people I know), to religiously believe in nothing. Therefore it IS a religious belief. Agnostic is to not believe in anything. Which is not a religion. Just FYI, in case that's not how you personally meant things, as an interesting point in word meanings and how other people interpret things.


Alternate word point... Spirituality tends to be about the study of the spirit... and it's something I don't often see in 'religions'. Perhaps that's why so many people turn against it, they quickly discover that there is not really a lot of spirituality involved (in many cases, not all.)

Note, however, that this is not the case for everyone. For some people there is plenty of spirituality in a number of more prevalent religions. And *faith* IS the key there. If you don't look too deeply your spirit can fill in the missing bits... if you don't care to get too deep what does it matter if there isn't much depth?

A gradual realisation that the patterns of religious shit they fed me matched the same patterns of BS lies that were fed to me.


I think a lot of people discover this about religion. Indeed were I to postulate the existence of an evil force, an Anti-Deity, called perhaps Satan for arguments sake, this sort of thing is exactly what I would do. Firstly form a "godly" religion with little or no actual spirituality present IN it, and then go on to destroy and corrupt any religion with any actual spirituality. "The Church of Satan" I call it. Although not really to the face of anyone who GOES there. (It's a very large group of churches after all!!)

And, of course, outlaw where possible and ridicule any actual spiritual practices. You certainly don't want anyone becoming one with the actual deific force.

The beauty of the plan there is that you get so many people on your side. Everyone who joins the Church of Satan is there to ridicule those who don't, and the one's that look harder and discover nothing there are also often on your side, as they quickly give in, close their mind to all possibilities because the few they examined turned up negative, and they also ridicule the seeker.

"Give up, give in, worship with US" is not significantly different from "give up, give in, there is nothing out there to find."



Religion is indefensible. It is an affront to the intellect.

I'll counter that with stating that only the one's you've encountered so far are this. There exists spirituality that *CAN* be seen, felt, touched, tasted, and measured. I'm not suggesting that you must look at it or for it, but it exists, but if you ever want to experience it you'll most likely have to leave (or not be in) the United States. Go to where such things exists, experience them, and THEN you can have an actual informed opinion.


"It's magic!" makes sense to you at first glance? That's just pitiable. And that there are so many of you among humanity is testament to how little we've progressed from the cave-dwellers thinking it rains because you didn't rub your juju-bag two times yesterday.

"It's magic" does make more sense to humanity at first glance. Indeed it makes the most sense of all... since it's just a statement of mystery, a saying of "we don't understand it".

Indeed your seemingly angered slur there shows that you know this. If it's, as they say, "So simple a cave-man can understand", well then how can you imagine that it's not easier to understand??


I really don't give a shit. Enough is enough. Religious nonsense has been coddled with for far too long.


Of course, you must intelligently acknowledge that the above quote is in and of itself a religious statement.


The way you use "magic" is entirely meaningless. I am assuming you believe in nuclear fission. What do you think someone in 1500 would call that? Alchemy, maybe?

They'd still be idiots for thinking it's magic. So your point is?


I assume that his point is that even YOU think it's magic, you've just used a different word for it 'nuclear fission', and assumed that therefore you understand how and why it works "It's Nuclear" you say. Heh Ok, enough of this sillyness, as you seem to be at this point to be being contrary for contraryness sake.

Until you actually *know* what you're talking about, you're simply theorizing.

Faith can't answer that. All it can do is delude you into believing that it can.


I'm going to have to agree here. While it's a useful starting point for some, and for a limited amount, it won't actually get you there. (Until you die anyhow)


I distrust people who are so closed minded and set in their beliefs (or lack thereof), that they are not willing to at least accept the possibility that there may be an alternative to their viewpoint.


Claps! Now there's a perfect viewpoint to start from, IMO.

"If you always keep an open mind, you'll be surprised at what can find it's way in."

You should distrust all those who attempt to close your mind, for they are clearly either attempting to deceive you or have been deceived themselves and want to pass that along.


I'm pretty sure Mormons use the regular Bible, but they also use the Book of Mormon. Maybe that's where it mentions the lost tribe of Israel, and things like that.


Definitely. They use the King James version of the Bible. You could pick up any King James bible, go to a Mormon church, and you'd be on the same page as any of the mormons there (if they were reading from the bible at the time).

They do put extensive notes and cross-references in however. A very complete bible, is the Mormon version. Back in the day I would greatly prefer it for any religious debate, it's easy to use and to find references when you haven't completely memorized the book.

My kind. A kind that makes a hell of a lot more sense than an all powerful being that although allegedly good lets people who have done nothing wrong suffer horribly. Or an allegedly good deity that is prone to periodic acts of genocide (including children).

That does require a level of understanding that a lot of people never achieve. It may help to theorize that, along with this allegedly good god, there is some form of afterlife, and that there is a purpose to this life and the experiences gained here.

Or that might not help you. Depends.




***

Well, It's been fun reading this from the veiwpoint of people who've never been there. ~_^

Science does not answer anything with proof either. Scientists can accumulate evidence for a theory, but they can never prove it. There is always the possibility that another better theory will come along and replace it, as Einstein's relative universe replaced Newton's mechanical one.

So what will replace Christianity? A more logical, accurate form of worship?

In this way, religion and science are similar. Both give us ways of knowing the universe, but both are limited by the incompleteness of the information available to us. And both can change as new information comes along.

Not really. There is no new information for religion. Individual religions do not change - their followers may change, and may take the dogma lighter or advocate only certain parts of the doctrine, but as a whole, the book remains the same within the religion.

If it did change after it stopped making sense, that would simply invalidate the whole thing - it's the word of God - was God wrong the first time? Did he have a typo? If it's truly the word of God, then there is only one version, only one book, however longass it may have to be.

Of course, there's no proof of it being the word of God. Therefore, this being the basis of the entire religion, it's so far from science that while standing on science you can't see it with even the most powarful telescope.

That is a general statement. Sometimes belief is not a choice, but that doesn't mean I don't have free will in all other aspects of my existence.

Right, but something such as religion, especially when it's not your choice, can change the rest of your life dramatically.

Actually, there is data. The accumulated history of personal and communal revelation as recorded in scriptures can be considered data. It is more subjective than scientific data, but scientific data is not purely objective either.

No, you're really just stretching it far more than it's meant to go. It's gonna snap if you pull it any farther.

For example, lets use Christianity: it has two testaments in one book. The first book, the Old Testament, is essentially the Torah of the Jewish faith, which is a collection of local religious texts dating back for many hundreds of years. Along with the Torah, there were also random fables and stories to go along with it, to help understand and broaden the faith - these tales were passed down mostly verbally from generation to generation. Now, for the New Testament, they waited roughly two-hundred years after the death of their messiah, Jesus Christ, before deciding that they need a singular bible - at the time, there were about three main bibles floating around, each coming from different regions. The politicians and higher-ups in the church wanted to create a solid bible that the majority of people could relate to, while still keeping some of the more heretical ideas distanced from canon. They took various stories and letters from people they felt related to the general idea they wanted to convey - they took various stories passed down verbally and put them on paper - they took diary entries, personal notes, judgements, rants, and even a few Jewish tales used as parable to convey ideas. They took writings of the life of Jesus, tales of his heroics and his deeds, and voted on which chapters, which stories, which books would be part of the final product, and which would be labeled as lies. It was up to them. When they were finished, they dubbed it to be the one true word of God.

Now that being said: What the fuck is scientific in any of that process? Not a word of it. Nothing. There is no data. There is no experiment. There is no process. There is bias, there is agenda, there is politics, that is all.

Also, many Zen practices can be considered repeatable exercises.

Szanth, the relationships between science and religion is more complex than can be decribed in a single post. There are similarities that you are dismissing.

I find this to be a cop-out - you're really stretching the definition of science and simply ripping it to shreds in an attempt to make it fit around religion. It doesn't work, no matter what.

It would depend on how they came to their knowledge of god. Would you consider someone who had a personal revelation as someone who wants to be deluded? What about intelligent, rational people who have come to the conclusion that the obvious and logical position is that god exists?

If they had a personal revelation then of course they aren't deluded. But I'm sure that most revelations are just hallucinations or wishful thinking (http://www.freethinker.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/gid.jpg).
I would want to see their reasons for coming to that conclusion. Even if they have a solid reasoning their god won't be the biblical god, but some metaphor or something.

If they had a personal revelation then of course they aren't deluded. But I'm sure that most revelations are just hallucinations or wishful thinking.
I would want to see their reasons for coming to that conclusion. Even if they have a solid reasoning their god won't be the biblical god, but some metaphor or something.

That statement is inherently contradictory, when you look at it closely.

Personal revelation is, by definition, personal and cannot be shared as such. So you can't actually see those reasons by definition.

Saying that it can't be the biblical god is even greater foolishness. Firstly for that statement to be true at all to be true the biblical god HAS to be a real, definable, and defined.

Second that statement is patently false since you don't know what any personal revelation IS, so you don't know that it doesn't meet the real, defined biblical god that you're simultaneously postulating must exist (or the revelation must be wrong) and saying doesn't (so the revelation must be wrong).


Additionally: Why can't someone delude themselves? As such personal revelation could be someone being deluded.

snip

Randomly aggressive noob ON THE ATTACK. GRR.


PATENTLY! *HUNGH!*

INHERENTLY! *ERGAH!*

SIMULTANEOUSLY! POSTULATING!



ADDITIONALLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY *a'splode*




I have too much fun. I really do.

Randomly aggressive noob ON THE ATTACK. GRR.


PATENTLY! *HUNGH!*

INHERENTLY! *ERGAH!*

SIMULTANEOUSLY! POSTULATING!



ADDITIONALLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY *a'splode*




I have too much fun. I really do.

Hrm. I didn't *feel* aggressive.
If'n it were teh words you were feeling ... unsure of : www.dictionary.com
I forgets sometimes that not everyone talkses in similar ways. :eek:


Edit: Are you 100% sure you didn't mean to write "Randomly aggressive attack ON THE NOOB!" ?

Heheh. Although I will admit it's on topic. Name calling and mud slinging posing as argument is definitely par for a religious type discussion.

Saying that it can't be the biblical god is even greater foolishness. Firstly for that statement to be true at all to be true the biblical god HAS to be a real, definable, and defined.
lol informal fallacy :D

lol informal fallacy :D

Tell me more how you mean there. I can see two options there

1) The 'biblical god' is not real or not definable/defined.

In which case you can't accurately state that any random definition is about it. If it's not concrete then it's malleable.

2) It IS a "real", set, defined thing. In which case it could be determined whether or not any particular 'revelation' matches with that which is measurable.

Now, you may have issue with the word "real". I'm referring here to a real, set concept. Concepts, even fictional ones, can be 'real' for such a definition.

So what will replace Christianity? A more logical, accurate form of worship?
...snip...I find this to be a cop-out - you're really stretching the definition of science and simply ripping it to shreds in an attempt to make it fit around religion. It doesn't work, no matter what.

The data of religion is personal revelation, historical accounts of such revelation, and the rituals and stories of the religion. You may argue that such data is not data because it is not entirely objective, but I would counter that scientific data is also influenced by the subjectivity of those observing it.

Christianity, like other religions, changes as new information comes along. Mormonism came about when an individual had a personal revelation. Catholic belief changed with new information about evolution.

New information does not necessarily invalidate the whole thing. Just as Newtonian mechanics are still useful for designing a building even though Einstein is more correct. Yes, if you believe the Bible to the unaltered, direct, and literal Word of God, then new information would invalidate it. If you see the Bible as a human record of divine revelation, then new information does not invalidate the whole belief system.

I am not trying to equate science with religion. I understand that the two share similarities, but I do not delude myself into thinking they are the same thing. The compilation of the Bible is not the same as the peer review process of scientific journals, and I never claimed it was.

What I am trying to do is to get you to stop judging religion according to the methodology of science. Religion will obviously fail in that regard. Any attempt to define religion as science would also fail. Just like using religion to describe scientific events also fails (creationism, anyone?). By looking at the similarities and difference between religion and science, we learn more about both.

Now, you may have issue with the word "real". I'm referring here to a real, set concept. Concepts, even fictional ones, can be 'real' for such a definition.
Meh, thought I'd perform my oldest trick and incorrectly interpret the meaning of the argument. In other words, I picked that phrase and took it out of context. My bad. :p

Because of the Republicans? :confused:

The Pharisees were the conservative religious leaders that enjoyed political power. (They pulled off a night time trial with two of the most powerful political leaders in the area) Their goal was to protect that position in life not to project the teachings of their god.

I think you've got that backwards. The evolution theory was formulated as an explanation for observable processes and evidence. We had the evidence and needed the explanation, and evolution seems the most logical with more and more evidence showing up for it every day.

I've got no evidence for god, so why would I formulate a theory that involves god(s)? In what way would that be logical?

From the beginnings of the human animal there were observations that showed an order where there should be disorder. Just as with evolution there was a pile of evidence that demanded a theory to explain. Nearly every human civilization independently solved that dilemma the same way. Each time the theory fit the available evidence and there has never been any evidence that disproves the theory. In fact, with each observation of humans (both scientists and not) the pile of evidence grows. Just like evolution.

what do you mean with totally organized? that the results of most experiments are predictable and can be repeated?


That's of course a small part of the observations of science. What would happen if the universe were a random explosion? What would happen if chemistry or physics reacted randomly?

Rubbish. The universe is not the least bit orderly past the macro level. The order we macro-beings get comfy with, is nothing more than emergent properties. Sort of like the thoughts in your head are the result of electricity zapping around in interesting ways.

Further, the notion that reality as we know it could have been intended roughly as it is, is bunk too. On the most basic level of the universe, as it is now, there's nothing capable of containing the kind of specific information you'd need to cause even a vaguely defined result on the macro-scale. Everything's random, basically.
Worse still, assuming the Big Bang happened, even that most basic information channel didn't exist with the present properties, when it happened. That means there's no way for any 'design' to carry over.


If the universe doesn't have laws and order past the normal level, there are a lot of quantum physicists wasting a lot of time because any theory they have today will change tomorrow. At the quantum level different rules apply than at the macro level, but the quantum rules apply every time.

And as we look the other direction, we observe gravity working the same way at the most distant galaxy. We observe chemistry gives off the same wavelengths of light. We observe that science is the same everywhere. Total order. No exceptions.

The data of religion is personal revelation, historical accounts of such revelation, and the rituals and stories of the religion. You may argue that such data is not data because it is not entirely objective, but I would counter that scientific data is also influenced by the subjectivity of those observing it.

And I would counter that counter by saying that the objectivity of scientific data far, far, far exceeds that of a man who may or may not have been drunk off his ass, claiming to see Jesus rise from the dead.

Christianity, like other religions, changes as new information comes along. Mormonism came about when an individual had a personal revelation. Catholic belief changed with new information about evolution.

Mormonism came about when an individual decided he wanted to start his own religion, just like Scientology. Catholic belief changed? Please, specify this - as far as I know, Catholic belief has been fighting information about evolution, tooth and nail.

New information does not necessarily invalidate the whole thing. Just as Newtonian mechanics are still useful for designing a building even though Einstein is more correct. Yes, if you believe the Bible to the unaltered, direct, and literal Word of God, then new information would invalidate it. If you see the Bible as a human record of divine revelation, then new information does not invalidate the whole belief system.

But to see the bible as a human record of divine revelation, you have to, from the get-go, automatically assume that all those involved had revelations of a divine origin. I'm not one to jump to such conclusions, and cannot be convinced of such with the frail and pitiful 'evidence' they put forth, which ultimately ends up breaking down to faith, which goes back to the assumption of divine revelation, which we've circled into once again having me state that I do not assume such.

I am not trying to equate science with religion. I understand that the two share similarities, but I do not delude myself into thinking they are the same thing. The compilation of the Bible is not the same as the peer review process of scientific journals, and I never claimed it was.

Good, we're on the same page there.

What I am trying to do is to get you to stop judging religion according to the methodology of science. Religion will obviously fail in that regard. Any attempt to define religion as science would also fail. Just like using religion to describe scientific events also fails (creationism, anyone?). By looking at the similarities and difference between religion and science, we learn more about both.

The methodology of science is the best way to find an objective truth. It allows for logic and experiments. Religion, by definition, is incompatible with such scrutiny, because it has no evidence, and relies on faith. I have no automatic faith in the supernatural, therefore I'm instantly unable to go along with the formula of proof that requires you to assume truth in faith of a particular religion and lies in faith of all others.

If the universe doesn't have laws and order past the normal level, there are a lot of quantum physicists wasting a lot of time because any theory they have today will change tomorrow. At the quantum level different rules apply than at the macro level, but the quantum rules apply every time.

I think you've said it yourself, earlier in the thread: the human mind cannot comprehend the universe. It's simply too vast, too complicated, and too unknown for us to even begin to understand even a small piece of it.

Therefore I must insist that your deduction of "Everything seems to work so there must have been a creator for it" is simply a reaction to your inability to correctly diagnose said universe, using a fallback of faith to explain what you cannot understand. We simply see things differently.

And as we look the other direction, we observe gravity working the same way at the most distant galaxy. We observe chemistry gives off the same wavelengths of light. We observe that science is the same everywhere. Total order. No exceptions.

Except for at the micro level. And with antimatter. And black holes. And lots of paranormal beliefs. We don't understand much of any of it, really. We're just tapping the 15-foot-thick glass at this point.

From the beginnings of the human animal there were observations that showed an order where there should be disorder. Just as with evolution there was a pile of evidence that demanded a theory to explain. Nearly every human civilization independently solved that dilemma the same way. Each time the theory fit the available evidence and there has never been any evidence that disproves the theory. In fact, with each observation of humans (both scientists and not) the pile of evidence grows. Just like evolution.

Why "should" there be disorder? Or order? By that logic, the fact that my key stuck in the lock for a second this morning before I could turn it would be evidence for god.

We live in this universe because circumstances allowed it. We evolved because circumstances happend to be such. It's called coincidence. Are you saying that coincidence is evidence for god?
And I would very much contest the claim that nearly every human civilisation invented one or more gods to explain the world to them. Most of them didn't. Just because the culture with the very clearly defined god happened to take over the world a few centuries back and did (and still does) it's utmost to stamp out the competition doesn't mean that all cultures independtly discovered that god. On the contrary.

That's of course a small part of the observations of science. What would happen if the universe were a random explosion? What would happen if chemistry or physics reacted randomly?

We wouldn't have evolved. Simple.
The universe would probably collapse again, possibly to expand in a different form again. As might have happened millions of times in the past.

I was raised Catholic, but religion was a very small part of my life. I became a confirmed Catholic partly out of loyalty to family tradition, but, let me make this clear, it was never, ever, forced on me. My mother wanted me to become a confirmed Catholic, and I saw no reason to particularly fuss about it. Once more neither I, nor her for that matter, are particularly "devout".

So, since I was born and raised Catholic, I am naturally the most familiar with it. And, for some reason, I have a certain level of "loyalty" to it: I want to see it thrive, I don't like to see people mock it, y'know. But by the same light...I wish the Vatican would...see the light...and make reforms to bring it into the modern world.

But at heart. I'm more...confused...than anything. I don't particularly like religion, since it tends to limit more than enlighten. And yet by the same token it can be a source of comfort and support. Faith certainly helped me when I was in the hospital.

I believe in a higher being...but ultimately that is the extent of it. I decided that organized religion can only, for the time being at least, limit an individual, and needs to catch up with the modern world.

But! I haven't any issue with the faithful. As per my own set of morals, I respect their decisions and their beliefs, so long as they respect mine.

And I would counter that counter by saying that the objectivity of scientific data far, far, far exceeds that of a man who may or may not have been drunk off his ass, claiming to see Jesus rise from the dead....The methodology of science is the best way to find an objective truth. It allows for logic and experiments. Religion, by definition, is incompatible with such scrutiny, because it has no evidence, and relies on faith. I have no automatic faith in the supernatural, therefore I'm instantly unable to go along with the formula of proof that requires you to assume truth in faith of a particular religion and lies in faith of all others.

You don't have to assume that all those people honestly had divine revelations if you believe scripture to be a human account of divine revelation. Just as there are criteria for judging the quality of scientific theories, there are criteria for judging the validity of religious beliefs. So if someone says they believe the drunk guy who said he saw Jesus walking, you can apply those criteria to his or her beliefs before deciding if they are valid.

The same criteria should be applied to your own beliefs, and the beliefs of the religious community you belong to, if any. And while it may require faith to actually believe these religious beliefs, all it takes is an open mind to judge the validity of such beliefs.

I agree that the subjectivity of religious data is more subjective than that of scientific data. That is why you are correct in saying that the methodology of science is the best way to find an objective truth. Religion is better for finding other, more subjective, truths.

As for the Catholic church and its changing stance towards evolution...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

And if you are going to assume that Mormonism was not actually the product of divine revelation, there are other examples. St. Francis of Assisi definitely had moments that he believed were visions, and I think that the vast majority of Catholics believe that as well. The data from the visions has since been included into Catholicism.

...Therefore I must insist that your deduction of "Everything seems to work so there must have been a creator for it" is simply a reaction to your inability to correctly diagnose said universe, using a fallback of faith to explain what you cannot understand. We simply see things differently...

I don't want to get involved too much in this discussion except to say that Good Lifes is making a mistake by basing a belief in god on our inability to explain scientific data. When the data is explained with a scientific theory later on, belief suffers. The most we can say about the apparent order of the universe is that the data is consistent with the hypothesis of a benevolent creator, though it does not prove the existence of one.

From Agnostic to Atheist.
I'm going to ask you something not because I don't understand it, by all means I understand it but it's something that I anticipate would be asked to me if I mentioned my day of diagnosis with type 1 diabetes influencing my beliefs; why did your personal experience have more influence than worldly knowledge of problems in the world?

Good Lifes, I sent you a TG. Partly because I thought the thread was dead, and partly because I'm probably gonna get flamed to hell for my response.Therefore I must insist that your deduction of "Everything seems to work so there must have been a creator for it" is simply a reaction to your inability to correctly diagnose said universe, using a fallback of faith to explain what you cannot understand. We simply see things differently.while I agree with your general sentiment; that one should not assume, as reality habitually puts even the best imagination to shame, I disagree with what you & pretty much everyone else have said thus far about what can be known, and the nature of this universe we live in.

I'll probably fail at explaining this, even though it really isn't that complicated at the core. But here goes nothing...

The 'apparent order' you guys are talking about, isn't order. You're probably calling it order because it involves predictability, but a far better word would be patterns.

It exists because there's a multitude of things, on a multitude of levels, exchanging information. Good Lifes already mentioned chaos theory (though I think he called it something else). This is what it's about. When you have sufficient complexity, patterns emerge. Those patterns gives rise to predictability, or 'order' as you lot call it.

Thing is, the 'order' doesn't come from anywhere in particular. It is emergent. It doesn't exist in and of itself.

Now.. The itty bitty shit reality is made up of, cannot carry a full set of instructions about itself. All the quantum hilarity is about this. Particles existing in multiple states at once and so on. It happens because they cannot carry enough information to exist as fully defined objects.

And that's relevant here, because they didn't always exist. at least not in their current form. Go back to something like 1^36th of the first second after the inflation of the universe began, and those itty bitty building blocks aren't there.

The implication for universe designers is pretty clear. Assuming the scientific consensus is right about how this place came to be this place, it is physically impossible for any kind of instructions - or design, if you prefer - to have carried over. Even if such instructions at some point existed, they could not possibly have had any impact on how this universe turned out. Because nothing of what is the universe, could have 'know' about the instructions, assuming there were any. It's one of the great big problems of the great big bang. It's damn hard to go back to a time before the existence of the universe as we know it, even though such a time clearly was. Because apart from the energy, none of the information carried over.

It doesn't mean Allah didn't create the universe. But it does mean that if the scientific consensus is right (and I for one, tend to trust it), Allah cannot have had anything particular in mind when he caused this place to exist. Or if he did, he got sorely disappointed. The 'grand entry' thing simply cannot work. Perhaps a 'blow it all up and see what happens' can. I wouldn't know. But the design idea isn't possible. At least no in any way I've ever come across.

Why "should" there be disorder? Or order? By that logic, the fact that my key stuck in the lock for a second this morning before I could turn it would be evidence for god.

We live in this universe because circumstances allowed it. We evolved because circumstances happend to be such. It's called coincidence. Are you saying that coincidence is evidence for god?
And I would very much contest the claim that nearly every human civilisation invented one or more gods to explain the world to them. Most of them didn't. Just because the culture with the very clearly defined god happened to take over the world a few centuries back and did (and still does) it's utmost to stamp out the competition doesn't mean that all cultures independtly discovered that god. On the contrary.

A random explosion should produce at least one randomness not total without exception order. Your key stuck because of a law of physics. Every time the same conditions occur your key will stick.

Coincidence really doesn't happen. We only think of it because we don't know all of the factors. It's like the butterfly in Japan influencing where a drop of rain will fall in the US. If we knew every factor we could predict where every individual drop of rain will fall. The universe is that organized. It's our knowledge of contributing factors that is lacking.

Which culture didn't come to the same conclusion upon study of their environment? I doubt if you can find one.

We wouldn't have evolved. Simple.
The universe would probably collapse again, possibly to expand in a different form again. As might have happened millions of times in the past.

How many times would you have to roll unloaded dice to get 7 a billion billion billion times in a row without exception?

The methodology of science is the best way to find an objective truth. It allows for logic and experiments. Religion, by definition, is incompatible with such scrutiny, because it has no evidence, and relies on faith. I have no automatic faith in the supernatural, therefore I'm instantly unable to go along with the formula of proof that requires you to assume truth in faith of a particular religion and lies in faith of all others.


Religion is only partially faith. It's faith based on logical observation. Every time anyone makes an observation of nature it confirms the logic.

I think you've said it yourself, earlier in the thread: the human mind cannot comprehend the universe. It's simply too vast, too complicated, and too unknown for us to even begin to understand even a small piece of it.

Therefore I must insist that your deduction of "Everything seems to work so there must have been a creator for it" is simply a reaction to your inability to correctly diagnose said universe, using a fallback of faith to explain what you cannot understand. We simply see things differently.

I depend on the observations of all mankind since the human animal came about. Every observation shows complete without exception order. If someone can show disorder we would all have to start over, both science and religion. By the way, have you read the book "The Day The Universe Changed"? Sometimes the fundamental theories of science change, but they always change toward more order not less.

Except for at the micro level. And with antimatter. And black holes. And lots of paranormal beliefs. We don't understand much of any of it, really. We're just tapping the 15-foot-thick glass at this point.

The interesting thing is every time we tap the glass even the micro scientist expects order. And the laws of quantum physics have order. They are just different order than matter at the macro level. I'm sure you have heard of the "theory of everything". String theory was thought to be a start in that direction. Whatever the "theory of everything" turns out to be, I'll bet it shows order.

It doesn't mean Allah didn't create the universe. But it does mean that if the scientific consensus is right (and I for one, tend to trust it), Allah cannot have had anything particular in mind when he caused this place to exist. Or if he did, he got sorely disappointed. The 'grand entry' thing simply cannot work. Perhaps a 'blow it all up and see what happens' can. I wouldn't know. But the design idea isn't possible. At least no in any way I've ever come across.

Time means nothing if you live forever. If there was nothing in particular in mind, then each burst of energy, each atomic particle would be doing it's own thing. If that first burst were random each corner of the universe would have developed according to it's own rules. There may have developed order out of chaos but each area would have its own order. Instead each burst of energy is following orders from headquarters no matter what galaxy or dead end corner of the universe.

You don't have to assume that all those people honestly had divine revelations if you believe scripture to be a human account of divine revelation.

Well if you don't assume they had divine revelations, then how could the scripture, written by those people, have an account of something that didn't happen unless you assume it happened?

Just as there are criteria for judging the quality of scientific theories, there are criteria for judging the validity of religious beliefs. So if someone says they believe the drunk guy who said he saw Jesus walking, you can apply those criteria to his or her beliefs before deciding if they are valid.

And what are these criteria? So far I'm just seeing this one guy believing in someone else's bullhoggery, but I'm sure the crazy rantist that sees everyone as painted balloons on the corner of 8th and Main has at least one guy that considers it possible, if not entirely believes it. Just because people believe something doesn't, in any line of logic whatsoever, make it true, or plausible.

The same criteria should be applied to your own beliefs, and the beliefs of the religious community you belong to, if any. And while it may require faith to actually believe these religious beliefs, all it takes is an open mind to judge the validity of such beliefs.

I'm still not seeing how you can weigh the validity of something like religion. Either you believe it or you don't. There's no evidence, so it goes on faith and wishful thinking. Belief doesn't entail validity, I understand, but when it comes down to it you can't call Christianity or anything else valid without any sort of proof, which there is none of. An open mind will do nothing for you, either way.

I agree that the subjectivity of religious data is more subjective than that of scientific data. That is why you are correct in saying that the methodology of science is the best way to find an objective truth. Religion is better for finding other, more subjective, truths.

Subjective truth is a pseudo-oxymoron. All truth is subjective, but when it's iffy enough to actually be called subjective truth, it just comes down to "Do I believe it enough, despite the lack of hard evidence". Religion itself cannot find any kind of truth - individual religions find their own 'truths', and very often they will contradict quite sharply with one or more other religion's 'truths'. You simply can't rely on it.

As for the Catholic church and its changing stance towards evolution...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

Hrm, it's got two tags on it: "factual accuracy" is being called into question, as is the quality of the article itself.

And if you are going to assume that Mormonism was not actually the product of divine revelation, there are other examples. St. Francis of Assisi definitely had moments that he believed were visions, and I think that the vast majority of Catholics believe that as well. The data from the visions has since been included into Catholicism.

But again, any random loon can have a vision, and even more random loons can claim to have them, but that won't mean it's divinely inspired, not even if there's a bunch of people that really really want it to be.

I don't want to get involved too much in this discussion except to say that Good Lifes is making a mistake by basing a belief in god on our inability to explain scientific data. When the data is explained with a scientific theory later on, belief suffers. The most we can say about the apparent order of the universe is that the data is consistent with the hypothesis of a benevolent creator, though it does not prove the existence of one.

The "apparent order" is simply our observation from what we know. Given that we know precisely dick about the universe, our simple observations about the nature and order of such is very flimsy, to say the least.

A lot of what happens on our planet is painful, is terrible, horrible - looking at such things, I don't see how you can just automatically assume that not only do we have a creator, but he's benevolent. It seems like such a giant leap that I can't even imagine what kind of backwards logic is being used to clear the distance.

Religion is only partially faith. It's faith based on logical observation. Every time anyone makes an observation of nature it confirms the logic.

No, it's entirely faith. All of it. Nobody saw the world and suddenly knew the story of Genesis - that shit came from nowhere, and to believe it requires hardcore faith and nothing else.

I depend on the observations of all mankind since the human animal came about. Every observation shows complete without exception order. If someone can show disorder we would all have to start over, both science and religion. By the way, have you read the book "The Day The Universe Changed"? Sometimes the fundamental theories of science change, but they always change toward more order not less.

As has been said before, within chaos is always order. Chaos is the theoretical everything - all possibilities, all things, all times, all types of cheese - it's everything. The fact that we most likely have more than one dimension to this universe shows that we are simply one result of such chaos. I'm fairly certain that if you took a peek at the edge of the universe or looked into another dimension, your head would explode with how little sense everything makes.

The interesting thing is every time we tap the glass even the micro scientist expects order. And the laws of quantum physics have order. They are just different order than matter at the macro level. I'm sure you have heard of the "theory of everything". String theory was thought to be a start in that direction. Whatever the "theory of everything" turns out to be, I'll bet it shows order.

He can expect order all he wants, because order happens to be a redundant trait in our particular dimension. Again, though, order is simply a form of chaos. You have to understand this.

As has been said before, within chaos is always order. Chaos is the theoretical everything - all possibilities, all things, all times, all types of cheese - it's everything. The fact that we most likely have more than one dimension to this universe shows that we are simply one result of such chaos. I'm fairly certain that if you took a peek at the edge of the universe or looked into another dimension, your head would explode with how little sense everything makes.

He can expect order all he wants, because order happens to be a redundant trait in our particular dimension. Again, though, order is simply a form of chaos. You have to understand this.

Ok, Chaos can create order.

Let's look at what happened.

BOOM!!

Bits of energy start to fly in every direction, North South East West Up Down. (I know there are no directions in space but don't know how else to show the movement.

The energy going in every direction starts to show patterns. The energy going north shows patterns the energy going south shows patterns, etc. The energy up is many many light years from the energy down but the same exact patterns appear.

The patterns begin to condense into matter. Matter forms east, matter forms west, matter forms north, matter forms south, matter forms up, matter forms down.....now the particles are tens of thousands of light years apart. They have no contact with each other. Out of that chaos all of this matter forms patterns by random chance. And out of random chance? the matter to the north south east west up down is exactly the same. Out of random chance the exact same patterns emerge even though the energy condensing into matter has absolutely no contact being many many many light years apart.

Then the matter starts to follow the exact same gravity (where did it come from and why is the pattern of gravity the exact same in every direction?) and becomes stars...exactly the same in every direction. The stars live and explode. And in exploding they make heavier matter. And an exploding star forms matter into heavier matter totally in chaos with patterns emerging. But the exact same patterns are emerging to the north south east west up down.

Then that matter condenses (again that gravity that, out of chaos, formed a pattern that is exactly the same everywhere) and galaxies, and stars and planets are formed....the same everywhere, by pure chance of the exact same pattern forming out of chaos everywhere we look. And chemistry begins. Of course there are patterns to the chemistry, developed out of chaos. Interesting isn't it that the chemistry to the north emerges exactly the same as the chemistry to the south and to the east and to the west and up and down even though the chaos is now spread over millions and millions of light years.

And a pattern that we call light emerges somewhere in this chaos, or is it everywhere in this chaos? Of course the chaos to the north and south can't interact over such distances so the pattern would logically be different, but out of dumb luck, the pattern we call light forms the exact same pattern to the north, south, east, west, up, down.

I could of course go on through the entire history of the universe. But I think you should get the idea that I agree that patterns are forming out of chaos. But what are the odds of exactly the same patterns in every field of study forming in absolutely every direction far beyond the distance in which these things can blindly interact.

Now that's real faith, to look at the universe and see nothing.

Well if you don't assume they had divine revelations, then how could the scripture, written by those people, have an account of something that didn't happen unless you assume it happened?...But again, any random loon can have a vision, and even more random loons can claim to have them, but that won't mean it's divinely inspired, not even if there's a bunch of people that really really want it to be.

There are several ways to judge the soundness of a scientific theory, right? If a theory agrees with the data, is simple, is consistent with other accepted theoris, describes a large scope of phenomena, and leads to other theories, it is a better theory than those that do none of these things.

In religious belief, there are also criteria. Agreement with data such as scripture or personal revelation, consistency with other beliefs and the findings of science, the scope of such of a belief and its impact on other aspects of our lives, and their ability to form new beliefs and perspectives.

So when a religious person reads scripture, they can ask themselves if the beliefs written in the Book satisfy the criteria above. This is what I mean when I say that you don't have to assume all the accounts in a piece of scripture are true. You judge them according to these criteria. When I take the leap from merely witnessing a divine revelation to creating a belief about such a revelation, I also use these criteria.

This is also why St, Francis Of Assisi was canonised while the crazy guy on the corner of 8th and Main will only be tolerated. St. Francis inspired beliefs that were consistent with scripture, consistent with the current belief system, did not contradict the findings of science, and had a far-reaching and beneficial impact on his community.

The crazy guy on the corner spouts random crap interjected with uncontrollable swearing. If someone were to believe his ranting, it would not make it valid, as you stated. But if his rantings were valid according to a set of rational criteria as outlined above, then a belief in those rantings would be valid, according to those criteria. Or even if you don't believe any of it, you can still use these criteria to judge the relative merits of different beliefs.

By using a set of rational criteria such as this, we end up with beliefs that are 'more true', just as scientific theories that satisy scientific criteria are also considered 'more true'. An example: the Bible says in Leviticus that all homosexuals should be killed. Some Christians believe this. Other Christians, using the above criteria, note that such a belief is inconsistent with the idea of universal love, inconsistent with the current cultural belief that homosexuality is just fine (or tolerable, if we want to look at it more realistically), inconsistent with scientific theories concerning homosexuality, and has a negative impact on society. Consequently, this latter group of Christians have a more valid belief than the former.

Yes, religious truths are subjective. That does not mean you can not rely on them. It just means you can't rely on them the same way we rely on scientific truths. We rely on scientific truths to make our engineered infrastructure work. A subjective truth such as "avoid evil, do good" will not be used in the design of a hydroelectric dam. But it can be relied on when we are taking care of our children, or telling the old lady who owns the bakery that she gave you too much change.

The Catholic church has changed its stance on evolution over the years. This is a fact. You may argue that the Wiki article is not perfect, but that does not change this fact. Consequently, we can see that religious beliefs do change when presented with new scientific information. The same can be said in regards to new religious information. This is a general rule and there are, of course, exceptions.

Ok, Chaos can create order.

Let's look at what happened.

BOOM!!

Bits of energy start to fly in every direction, North South East West Up Down. (I know there are no directions in space but don't know how else to show the movement.

The energy going in every direction starts to show patterns. The energy going north shows patterns the energy going south shows patterns, etc. The energy up is many many light years from the energy down but the same exact patterns appear.

The patterns begin to condense into matter. Matter forms east, matter forms west, matter forms north, matter forms south, matter forms up, matter forms down.....now the particles are tens of thousands of light years apart. They have no contact with each other. Out of that chaos all of this matter forms patterns by random chance. And out of random chance? the matter to the north south east west up down is exactly the same. Out of random chance the exact same patterns emerge even though the energy condensing into matter has absolutely no contact being many many many light years apart.

Then the matter starts to follow the exact same gravity (where did it come from and why is the pattern of gravity the exact same in every direction?) and becomes stars...exactly the same in every direction. The stars live and explode. And in exploding they make heavier matter. And an exploding star forms matter into heavier matter totally in chaos with patterns emerging. But the exact same patterns are emerging to the north south east west up down.

Then that matter condenses (again that gravity that, out of chaos, formed a pattern that is exactly the same everywhere) and galaxies, and stars and planets are formed....the same everywhere, by pure chance of the exact same pattern forming out of chaos everywhere we look. And chemistry begins. Of course there are patterns to the chemistry, developed out of chaos. Interesting isn't it that the chemistry to the north emerges exactly the same as the chemistry to the south and to the east and to the west and up and down even though the chaos is now spread over millions and millions of light years.

And a pattern that we call light emerges somewhere in this chaos, or is it everywhere in this chaos? Of course the chaos to the north and south can't interact over such distances so the pattern would logically be different, but out of dumb luck, the pattern we call light forms the exact same pattern to the north, south, east, west, up, down.

I could of course go on through the entire history of the universe. But I think you should get the idea that I agree that patterns are forming out of chaos. But what are the odds of exactly the same patterns in every field of study forming in absolutely every direction far beyond the distance in which these things can blindly interact.

Now that's real faith, to look at the universe and see nothing.

*shrugs* So it's weird. But to look at all the coincidences and jump to "There's a creator! And he loves us, specifically, even though there's an infinite amount of space in the universe and we're just one small lowly planet in a solar system of roughly 9ish planets in a galaxy of roughly thousands of other solar systems in a sector of thousands upon thousands of other galaxies, but HE LOVES US and sent his son HERE for US!" seems very stupid as well.

With such an observation as you've outlined above, you could guess there might be a creator. Guess. Might be. But even then, you wouldn't be able to know anything past that. At all. You wouldn't know ANYTHING other than "Eh, maybe something created all this because there's a bunch of coincidences.", nevermind the fact that the universe is STILL being created and is expanding as we speak at, theoretically, the speed of light.

I'm just saying, we don't know shit, so to assume to know why the universe (I feel the point isn't getting across, so imagine for every second you stretch the word "big" out loud as in "biiiiiiiiig", every second of that "iiiiii" is another million stars, and consequently, another ten million or so planets, now say "big" and stretch it out for roughly five minutes - you MIGHT - MIGHT - have enough metaphorical "iiiii" to represent our galaxy, the Milky Way. Now keep doing that for the rest of your life - you STILL will not have enough to represent the universe. It's fucking BIIIIIIIIG. Big as shit. I just wanted to point this little demonstration out in case you took the word "universe" for granted.) was created or what it's doing or why we're here is just a bit more than a little arrogant and illogical.

There are several ways to judge the soundness of a scientific theory, right? If a theory agrees with the data, is simple, is consistent with other accepted theoris, describes a large scope of phenomena, and leads to other theories, it is a better theory than those that do none of these things.

In religious belief, there are also criteria. Agreement with data such as scripture or personal revelation, consistency with other beliefs and the findings of science, the scope of such of a belief and its impact on other aspects of our lives, and their ability to form new beliefs and perspectives.

Yes, but again, no matter what data you have, no matter what corroborating evidence it might pick up along the way, no matter who has a divine revelation and who believes he had one, it all starts with faith and an assumption of truth. If you don't have that, from the get-go, then all the rest of it just gets flushed down the drain, and all the mail sent to the address is automatically burned in a furnace in the center of the sun.

So when a religious person reads scripture, they can ask themselves if the beliefs written in the Book satisfy the criteria above. This is what I mean when I say that you don't have to assume all the accounts in a piece of scripture are true. You judge them according to these criteria. When I take the leap from merely witnessing a divine revelation to creating a belief about such a revelation, I also use these criteria.

But this is only when a religious person reads the scripture. When a nonreligious person reads the scripture, he'll automatically toss it out, because again, no faith. It doesn't matter how much or how little prophecy is fulfilled over the course of the next billion or so years before the sun kills us all, because that prophecy is based on a book which states things which demand faith.

This is also why St, Francis Of Assisi was canonised while the crazy guy on the corner of 8th and Main will only be tolerated. St. Francis inspired beliefs that were consistent with scripture, consistent with the current belief system, did not contradict the findings of science, and had a far-reaching and beneficial impact on his community.

So he was consistent with scripture - but I just got done telling you how scripture came to be, it was total crap the way they put that book together. Scripture itself is under question here, so if something relies on being consistent with something that's very questionable, that thing has no more reliability than the guy on 8th shouting about golden eggs and big swords.

The crazy guy on the corner spouts random crap interjected with uncontrollable swearing. If someone were to believe his ranting, it would not make it valid, as you stated. But if his rantings were valid according to a set of rational criteria as outlined above, then a belief in those rantings would be valid, according to those criteria. Or even if you don't believe any of it, you can still use these criteria to judge the relative merits of different beliefs.

If it were valid according to rational criteria? The bible, and scripture in general, is not rational criteria. You can't have a double-standard like that.

By using a set of rational criteria such as this, we end up with beliefs that are 'more true', just as scientific theories that satisy scientific criteria are also considered 'more true'. An example: the Bible says in Leviticus that all homosexuals should be killed. Some Christians believe this. Other Christians, using the above criteria, note that such a belief is inconsistent with the idea of universal love, inconsistent with the current cultural belief that homosexuality is just fine (or tolerable, if we want to look at it more realistically), inconsistent with scientific theories concerning homosexuality, and has a negative impact on society. Consequently, this latter group of Christians have a more valid belief than the former.

As inconsistant as it may be with scientific data and the idea of universal love, it's still in the bible. The latter is no more correct than the former, they're simply going by what the bible says. None of it is 'valid', though, because again, it's the bible - it's faith - and therefore cannot be solidified or proven. It'll always be manipulated and misquoted and misinterpreted and the sad thing is, we can't ever tell when it's being done, we just have to kind of assume based on our beliefs of Christianity which parts are literal, which are not, which are to be taken in a modern context, which are to just be there as teaching tools - we don't know, the bible doesn't come with a reading guide, and even if one was written, it wouldn't be correct because it wasn't written by the people that wrote the bible.

Yes, religious truths are subjective. That does not mean you can not rely on them. It just means you can't rely on them the same way we rely on scientific truths. We rely on scientific truths to make our engineered infrastructure work. A subjective truth such as "avoid evil, do good" will not be used in the design of a hydroelectric dam. But it can be relied on when we are taking care of our children, or telling the old lady who owns the bakery that she gave you too much change.

No, not even then - evil and good are subjective. Good is always subjective, as seen in the quote I like to refer to every so often ("The road to hell is paved with good intentions"), what one may see as good and will encourage may be evil to others. Evil is the only thing that can sometimes be objective - when one specifically seeks to go out and do what one considers to be evil. Otherwise, perspective comes into play and anything can be rationalized. But even then there are times when it can't be objective, such as when someone seeks to do evil, and ends up doing good - like if someone were to decide to randomly go out and kill someone just for the sake of doing it, with the intention of being evil, but then they go out and kill a serial killer while he was on his way to his next victim. Nothing is concrete.

The Catholic church has changed its stance on evolution over the years. This is a fact. You may argue that the Wiki article is not perfect, but that does not change this fact. Consequently, we can see that religious beliefs do change when presented with new scientific information. The same can be said in regards to new religious information. This is a general rule and there are, of course, exceptions.

"Religious beliefs", as a whole entity, do not exist. There are people in Oklahoma who consider themselves Christian, going by the bible, and insist that the world is only 6000 years old. Still others, still considering themselves to be Christians, going by the bible, disagree with them and rely on science. As such, "religious beliefs" as an entity, cannot change with scientific evidence. The book will never be edited with new information.

I've never believed in God, god, or gods. My parents made sure to educate me about many different religions and theological perspectives, but we didn't have any "official" family religion.

I continue to lack god-belief because I don't see any use for it. Nobody has ever been able to provide a single example of something I need or want that can only be obtained through God-belief. Everything God-belief can provide is something I could obtain elsewhere without having to profess belief in some suspiciously anthropomorphic diety and his many arbitrary rules.

*shrugs* So it's weird. But to look at all the coincidences and jump to "There's a creator! And he loves us, specifically, even though there's an infinite amount of space in the universe and we're just one small lowly planet in a solar system of roughly 9ish planets in a galaxy of roughly thousands of other solar systems in a sector of thousands upon thousands of other galaxies, but HE LOVES US and sent his son HERE for US!" seems very stupid as well.

With such an observation as you've outlined above, you could guess there might be a creator. Guess. Might be. But even then, you wouldn't be able to know anything past that. At all. You wouldn't know ANYTHING other than "Eh, maybe something created all this because there's a bunch of coincidences.", nevermind the fact that the universe is STILL being created and is expanding as we speak at, theoretically, the speed of light.

I'm just saying, we don't know shit, so to assume to know why the universe (I feel the point isn't getting across, so imagine for every second you stretch the word "big" out loud as in "biiiiiiiiig", every second of that "iiiiii" is another million stars, and consequently, another ten million or so planets, now say "big" and stretch it out for roughly five minutes - you MIGHT - MIGHT - have enough metaphorical "iiiii" to represent our galaxy, the Milky Way. Now keep doing that for the rest of your life - you STILL will not have enough to represent the universe. It's fucking BIIIIIIIIG. Big as shit. I just wanted to point this little demonstration out in case you took the word "universe" for granted.) was created or what it's doing or why we're here is just a bit more than a little arrogant and illogical.

Take one step at a time.

Don't worry about the Love part until you get the Creator part.

The very fact the the universe is Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig and there is not one exception to the order. How could the chemistry of the furthest known galaxy as you look to the south sky be exactly the same as the chemistry of the furthest known galaxy as you look to the north sky. And as the universe expands the rules apply exactly to the newly created territory.

I believe in evolution and there have only been a few hundred thousand observations that all fit. All of them over the last 200 years. When we talk of observation of nature from the time of the first human animal, when we talk of the observations of every known culture, when we talk about the observations of every scientist that's ever lived, when we see not one exception regardless of which direction we look....how much evidence do you want?

How does an archaeologist determine if a pile of rock is a pile of rock or a wall built with intelligence? A wall shows more order to the stones.

Yes, but again, no matter what data you have, no matter what corroborating evidence it might pick up along the way, no matter who has a divine revelation and who believes he had one, it all starts with faith and an assumption of truth. If you don't have that, from the get-go, then all the rest of it just gets flushed down the drain, and all the mail sent to the address is automatically burned in a furnace in the center of the sun.

But this is only when a religious person reads the scripture. When a nonreligious person reads the scripture, he'll automatically toss it out, because again, no faith. It doesn't matter how much or how little prophecy is fulfilled over the course of the next billion or so years before the sun kills us all, because that prophecy is based on a book which states things which demand faith.

Szanth, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I am debating with you. I am not. I am explaining something to you.

Obviously, there are elements of faith in the formulation of religious beliefs. And this element of faith is one of the many things that differentiates it from a scientific theory. A lack of faith on the part of the observer in no way affects the fact that people can use these criteria to judge the validity of their religious beliefs.

So he was consistent with scripture - but I just got done telling you how scripture came to be, it was total crap the way they put that book together. Scripture itself is under question here, so if something relies on being consistent with something that's very questionable, that thing has no more reliability than the guy on 8th shouting about golden eggs and big swords.

I think you would like Elaine Pagel's book The Gnostic Gospels. It has an interesting discussion about the various political and religious considerations went into the decisions of the Nicene council and Bishop Iraneus. Your objection is really only applicable to the mainstream Christian movements. And is only applicable if someone is basing their beliefs solely on the Bible. If someone is using a set of criteria, they would not base their belief solely on one source of data.

Back to the example: Let's assume that the crazy street preacher has just as much agreement with scripture as St. Francis, but his beliefs do not meet the other criteria that St. Francis met so well. Therefore, the beliefs of St. Francis were incorporated into the Catholic belief system while the crazy street guy's weren't.

If it were valid according to rational criteria? The bible, and scripture in general, is not rational criteria. You can't have a double-standard like that.

The Bible, or any scripture is not supposed to be the criteria. It is the data. One of the criteria is agreement to the data. In other words, you are judging the belief according to its agreement with scripture, as well as many other things. Do not confuse the two things.

As inconsistant as it may be with scientific data and the idea of universal love, it's still in the bible. The latter is no more correct than the former, they're simply going by what the bible says. None of it is 'valid', though, because again, it's the bible - it's faith - and therefore cannot be solidified or proven. It'll always be manipulated and misquoted and misinterpreted and the sad thing is, we can't ever tell when it's being done, we just have to kind of assume based on our beliefs of Christianity which parts are literal, which are not, which are to be taken in a modern context, which are to just be there as teaching tools - we don't know, the bible doesn't come with a reading guide, and even if one was written, it wouldn't be correct because it wasn't written by the people that wrote the bible.

The part I bolded up there is a positive assertion. How do you intend to back that up? By defining a set of rational criteria and then judging these beliefs against these criteria, I assume. But you really don't have to. I already did that. I showed why one belief is more valid than the other. If you would like to claim that they are equally valid, please show why you think they are.

I would also like to point out that the set of criteria I defined is actually from the brain of Ian Barbour. I'm not that smart.:(

While this set of criteria can also be used to judge which parts of the Bible Christians should follow and which they should not, most people use their existing beliefs to interpret the data instead. This is analogous, but not the same as, scientists interpreting data in the context of accepted theories. Let's leave this for later, shall we?

No, not even then - evil and good are subjective. Good is always subjective, as seen in the quote I like to refer to every so often ("The road to hell is paved with good intentions"), what one may see as good and will encourage may be evil to others. Evil is the only thing that can sometimes be objective - when one specifically seeks to go out and do what one considers to be evil. Otherwise, perspective comes into play and anything can be rationalized. But even then there are times when it can't be objective, such as when someone seeks to do evil, and ends up doing good - like if someone were to decide to randomly go out and kill someone just for the sake of doing it, with the intention of being evil, but then they go out and kill a serial killer while he was on his way to his next victim. Nothing is concrete.

I don't see how the inherent subjectivity of morality negates a religious truth. It would negate a scientific theory, but not a religious belief. This is why science rarely touches on morality.

"Religious beliefs", as a whole entity, do not exist. There are people in Oklahoma who consider themselves Christian, going by the bible, and insist that the world is only 6000 years old. Still others, still considering themselves to be Christians, going by the bible, disagree with them and rely on science. As such, "religious beliefs" as an entity, cannot change with scientific evidence. The book will never be edited with new information.

I'm confused about what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that because two different people, with different beliefs, both self-identify as Christian, then Christian beliefs don't exist? Or that the beliefs can't change?

I have never believed, ever.

My Mum is a liberal christian (supports evolution, science, gay rights etc..) and my dad's an atheist.

Being British school is very secular, we were taught about the Bible but I just never ever believed a word it said.

I've never believed in God, god, or gods. My parents made sure to educate me about many different religions and theological perspectives, but we didn't have any "official" family religion.

I continue to lack god-belief because I don't see any use for it. Nobody has ever been able to provide a single example of something I need or want that can only be obtained through God-belief. Everything God-belief can provide is something I could obtain elsewhere without having to profess belief in some suspiciously anthropomorphic diety and his many arbitrary rules.

Can I just ask out of interest. Where do you find meaning and purpose in life? Because I don't see any meaning in life, and sometimes that pisses me off.

Can I just ask out of interest. Where do you find meaning and purpose in life? Because I don't see any meaning in life, and sometimes that pisses me off.

Life can have any meaning you like on a personal level. It's a make of it what you will kind of affair. However cosmically the only meaning is pass on your genes.

In a church (actually a school attached to a church), they were mocking the beliefs of some old myth and I went, "Hey, how is that any more or less plausible than a burning bush handing out stone tablets?"

Then, while sitting in the front pew during one of the little meetings we had I read a book next to me that had a mark in it telling some personal story. Then the preacher got up and told the same story like it happened to him.

It all seemed like so much bullshit to me, so I went agnostic. Then someone forwarded the teacup essay which made total sense, how much bullshit was I going to accept as 'possible' no matter how unlikely?

So here I am now.

So I was wondering. How did you come to the belief system that you have now? Some wonderful or horrible event? born and rasied? how?

Until I was about 13 or 13 I was in the Catholic Church. Born and raised.

After being Confirmed I left. Right out left. Never went back.

After a year or two (I still believe in God) I tried attending a friend's church, it was much better than my old Catholic one but I found I could not attend any service but Catholic, which I did not want to do anyways. They bored me.

That same year I attended my friend's WHY group (Y group basically) where practicing religion was very relaxed, very fun and very educational. I've been going for a year or two now and I love it.
So I guess that makes me Christian, but I am of no denomination. I just believe in God.

((For the record...I am 16))

Take one step at a time.

Don't worry about the Love part until you get the Creator part.

The very fact the the universe is Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig and there is not one exception to the order. How could the chemistry of the furthest known galaxy as you look to the south sky be exactly the same as the chemistry of the furthest known galaxy as you look to the north sky. And as the universe expands the rules apply exactly to the newly created territory.

Which shows that it probably came all from one source. Not really anything is hinted at intelligence.

I believe in evolution and there have only been a few hundred thousand observations that all fit. All of them over the last 200 years. When we talk of observation of nature from the time of the first human animal, when we talk of the observations of every known culture, when we talk about the observations of every scientist that's ever lived, when we see not one exception regardless of which direction we look....how much evidence do you want?

Well considering we can just barely see outside of our own solar system, and even then for some of our own planets we haven't been able to see the surface of because of a gaseous atmosphere, we don't know what works on the other end of the galaxy. There could be an entirely different set of elements on those planets, we have no friggin idea. There's parts of our own planet, the surface, where we have never stepped foot to explore. We have yet to see the entirety of the ocean which makes up the majority of our Earth.

Again: We don't know shit!

How does an archaeologist determine if a pile of rock is a pile of rock or a wall built with intelligence? A wall shows more order to the stones.

I remember a thing on the discovery channel showing an underwater thing - basically a huge wall with a 90 degree angle, and then a flat surface at the top. They couldn't decide if it was naturally occurring or manmade - it was far underwater, and there were a few ideas about how the currents and such could've formed such a thing.

We don't know shit!

Szanth, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I am debating with you. I am not. I am explaining something to you.

And I'm disagreeing. =D

Obviously, there are elements of faith in the formulation of religious beliefs. And this element of faith is one of the many things that differentiates it from a scientific theory. A lack of faith on the part of the observer in no way affects the fact that people can use these criteria to judge the validity of their religious beliefs.

Then I'm stumped.

I think you would like Elaine Pagel's book The Gnostic Gospels. It has an interesting discussion about the various political and religious considerations went into the decisions of the Nicene council and Bishop Iraneus. Your objection is really only applicable to the mainstream Christian movements. And is only applicable if someone is basing their beliefs solely on the Bible. If someone is using a set of criteria, they would not base their belief solely on one source of data.

The Christian religion is entirely based off of the bible. From the bible came the church. Without the bible, it would simply cease to exist.

Back to the example: Let's assume that the crazy street preacher has just as much agreement with scripture as St. Francis, but his beliefs do not meet the other criteria that St. Francis met so well. Therefore, the beliefs of St. Francis were incorporated into the Catholic belief system while the crazy street guy's weren't.

But it wouldn't make it any less possible that his rants were true.

The Bible, or any scripture is not supposed to be the criteria. It is the data. One of the criteria is agreement to the data. In other words, you are judging the belief according to its agreement with scripture, as well as many other things. Do not confuse the two things.

But all the data is subjective. It's all hearsay. None of this data would hold up in court, and rightfully so, none of it really makes any sense.

The part I bolded up there is a positive assertion. How do you intend to back that up? By defining a set of rational criteria and then judging these beliefs against these criteria, I assume. But you really don't have to. I already did that. I showed why one belief is more valid than the other. If you would like to claim that they are equally valid, please show why you think they are.

I explained it in the rest of the paragraph, silly. :P

I would also like to point out that the set of criteria I defined is actually from the brain of Ian Barbour. I'm not that smart.:(

Well I disagree with that guy too. :p

While this set of criteria can also be used to judge which parts of the Bible Christians should follow and which they should not, most people use their existing beliefs to interpret the data instead. This is analogous, but not the same as, scientists interpreting data in the context of accepted theories. Let's leave this for later, shall we?

I disagree with it entirely, but we can do it later if you want.

I don't see how the inherent subjectivity of morality negates a religious truth. It would negate a scientific theory, but not a religious belief. This is why science rarely touches on morality.

The religious truth of "do good, do not do evil" is negated by its subjectivity.

I'm confused about what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that because two different people, with different beliefs, both self-identify as Christian, then Christian beliefs don't exist? Or that the beliefs can't change?

I'm saying there is no universally agreed-upon Christian faith, even among the sects themselves, but many of them still derive their faith directly from the bible and are therefore equal in terms of 'validity'.

And I'm disagreeing. =D

This made me laugh.

Then I'm stumped.

It's easy to figure out when you stop assuming things aren't true simply because they're subjective. I like you, Szanth. That is both true and subjective.

The Christian religion is entirely based off of the bible. From the bible came the church. Without the bible, it would simply cease to exist.

You are correct that many Christian religions are based on the Bible as we know it. But not solely based on the Bible. Back to St. Frank, we see how his beliefs were incorporated into Catholic thought. Catholicism, therefore is based on the Bible and other teachings.

But it wouldn't make it any less possible that his rants were true.

By 'true', I assume that you mean objectively factual. If my assumption is correct, then yes, it has nothing to do with the truth of the rantings. It has to do with how useful or valid those beliefs are.

But all the data is subjective. It's all hearsay. None of this data would hold up in court, and rightfully so, none of it really makes any sense.

Of course it wouldn't hold up in court. Legal proofs are another matter entirely. I have no idea how they compare or contrast to either religious beliefs or scientific theories.

I explained it in the rest of the paragraph, silly. :P

Then pretend I'm stupid and explain it again. When I read it, you seems to be discussing the inherent subjectivity of interpreting the Bible. I don't see what this has to do with the relative validity of two different beliefs concerning homosexuality.

Well I disagree with that guy too. :p

He is a theologian and a physicist (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/june99/barbour_bio.html). There are also rumours he is a jiu-jitsu expert, and kicks your ass if you disagree with him publicly.

I disagree with it entirely, but we can do it later if you want.

Thanks. This whole discussion is demanding, but that's cool, because it's helping me clarify my thoughts.

The religious truth of "do good, do not do evil" is negated by its subjectivity.

Why? The truth of my love for my children is not negated by its subjectivity.

I'm saying there is no universally agreed-upon Christian faith, even among the sects themselves, but many of them still derive their faith directly from the bible and are therefore equal in terms of 'validity'.

Why would they all be equal just because they all share one source of data? The heliocentric model of the solar system and the geocentric model both shared the same set of data, yet one was obviously the better theory. Would you then argue that both of those were equally valid?

Which shows that it probably came all from one source. Not really anything is hinted at intelligence. What is that "one source"?

There's parts of our own planet, the surface, where we have never stepped foot to explore. We have yet to see the entirety of the ocean which makes up the majority of our Earth.You won't live long enough to see everything about anything. If you wait that long you won't be able to operate because you can't step out the front door with the belief that the earth will hold you up.

Again: We don't know shit!
Agreed. But we have to live with what we know not what we don't know.

I remember a thing on the discovery channel showing an underwater thing - basically a huge wall with a 90 degree angle, and then a flat surface at the top. They couldn't decide if it was naturally occurring or manmade - it was far underwater, and there were a few ideas about how the currents and such could've formed such a thing.
And the conflict was because the stones were apparently organized which is the sign of intelligence. Of course, there will be times of questioning. That's why we still have scientists. When the decision is made it will be based on organization.

Can I just ask out of interest. Where do you find meaning and purpose in life? Because I don't see any meaning in life, and sometimes that pisses me off.
As shitty as this sounds, I have to make my own meaning.

I don't believe there's any outside source that can provide me with a neat and tidy answer to that question. I don't believe any other person can solve that problem for me. It's one of those things I have to work out for myself.

And yes, that sucks sometimes.

It's liberating, obviously, but it's also a lot of pressure. I can't just check the back of the book to see if I picked the right answer. I can't teacher to tell me if I've solved it the right way.

The only way I know if my choices about meaning and purpose were good ones is by looking back and seeing if I like how my life has turned out.

As shitty as this sounds, I have to make my own meaning.Doesn't sound the least bit shitty to me :)

I fucking love the world. It's more amazing, fantastic and mindblowingly vast, complicated and diverse than any human mind has ever imagined. And the magic of it is that it's all perfectly simple. All the life here on this planet just happened, because it could. And look how it's ended up so far. Isn't that completely fantastic?! I think so at any rate.

Hell, even the history of the chair I'm sitting is a sprawling tale of generations of constant innovation, all to make my ass comfortable. I get all giddy over it sometimes. And really, 'the meaning of life' isn't so very different from the history of my chair. Not to me, at least. We have the opportunity to improve our lot in whatever way we desire, and improve the lot of those who replace us. And the only limitation to how much we can do it, is our own stupidity.

Of course, to me, life would be pointless in the face of things like divinity and heaven or hell. Our existence would be reduced to something not unlike hanging out in the waiting room at the ER. That's hardly the kind of epic fulfillment that'll keep me trying to improve myself, the world, or even just care to draw breath.

In a way I'm like you, Hydesland. I'll never understand what keeps Abrahamites and similar people going. I'm married to one, so I try not to think about it... But if it was me, I'd be massively depressed and very probably suicidal if I held such beliefs. Everything would just seem so... Futile.

Doesn't sound the least bit shitty to me :)

I fucking love the world. It's more amazing, fantastic and mindblowingly vast, complicated and diverse than any human mind has ever imagined. And the magic of it is that it's all perfectly simple. All the life here on this planet just happened, because it could. And look how it's ended up so far. Isn't that completely fantastic?! I think so at any rate.

Like I said, it's quite liberating to know that my options are as diverse as the world itself. I also have no fear of ever running out of things to do. :D

But it's also very daunting. I believe that this life is the only one I will have, so I really don't want to look back and feel like I forgot to do something really important.


Hell, even the history of the chair I'm sitting is a sprawling tale of generations of constant innovation, all to make my ass comfortable. I get all giddy over it sometimes. And really, 'the meaning of life' isn't so very different from the history of my chair. Not to me, at least. We have the opportunity to improve our lot in whatever way we desire, and improve the lot of those who replace us. And the only limitation to how much we can do it, is our own stupidity.

Well...yeah. That's where the pressure comes in, for me.

If I end up doing a crappy job with my lifetime, I have nobody to blame but me. I can't say that somebody else "had a plan" and I was just drifting along in it. If my life lacks purpose, it's because I was too lazy or stupid or whatever to make it happen.

The kid in me would like to have somebody else taking responsibility for those choices. It would be relaxing, in a way, to know that it was out of my hands and I just had to follow directions and all would be well.


Of course, to me, life would be pointless in the face of things like divinity and heaven or hell. Our existence would be reduced to something not unlike hanging out in the waiting room at the ER. That's hardly the kind of epic fulfillment that'll keep me trying to improve myself, the world, or even just care to draw breath.

Agreed.

Personally, I find the concept of Heaven to be far more depressing than the concept of Hell. Heaven basically strips all value and meaning from our world.

Like I said, it's quite liberating to know that my options are as diverse as the world itself. I also have no fear of ever running out of things to do. :D'Zaktly. I get lost in it all on a regular basis. Reality is the ultimate drug :D But it's also very daunting. I believe that this life is the only one I will have, so I really don't want to look back and feel like I forgot to do something really important. Daunting? I don't know. Perhaps it's a question of temperament, but other than having a laugh and not screwing everything up, I don't think there's anything in particular I have to 'live up to', so daunting isn't a word I'd use. I mean.. It's like calling an all you can eat buffet daunting, yeh? Then again, despite being vegan, I'm not a very picky sort, so even though it's obviously impossible to do (or even know about) all the shit I'd like to do in life, I don't expect to regret not doing something at the end of it. I mean, I have regrets like everyone else, but those are things I've done, not things I haven't gotten around to. The kid in me would like to have somebody else taking responsibility for those choices. It would be relaxing, in a way, to know that it was out of my hands and I just had to follow directions and all would be well.To me, that's more of a social thing than anything to do with the world at large. And I don't know about you, but if I felt that way, I'd just go look for someone to take care of me. It's not like they don't exist. I know a couple who'd fit the description and by all apparences, they're both quite happy with that arrangement.

And surely, a real person who's actually there to take care of you, is a hell of a lot better than a superstition if that's what you feel like. Or am I missing something? Personally, I find the concept of Heaven to be far more depressing than the concept of Hell. Heaven basically strips all value and meaning from our world.Agreed. At least in hell one can hope for redemption. Heaven's just... The ultimate rut.

'Zaktly. I get lost in it all on a regular basis. Reality is the ultimate drug :D Daunting? I don't know. Perhaps it's a question of temperament, but other than having a laugh and not screwing everything up, I don't think there's anything in particular I have to 'live up to', so daunting isn't a word I'd use. I mean.. It's like calling an all you can eat buffet daunting, yeh?
But they ARE daunting!!!

Amg, I can only fit so much in my stomach, and what if I eat the cheesecake but then wish I'd had more ribs?!

I need a second stomach and at least three more lifetimes.


To me, that's more of a social thing than anything to do with the world at large. And I don't know about you, but if I felt that way, I'd just go look for someone to take care of me. It's not like they don't exist. I know a couple who'd fit the description and by all apparences, they're both quite happy with that arrangement.

To be sure, I think the desire to have a diety providing my life with meaning is a lot like the desire to have a sugar daddy/momma taking care of me.

I can understand how people might sometimes wish life were easier or simpler, or that there could be somebody else making the hard decisions and cleaning up the messes. I have those feelings, too. I just don't think it's appropriate or healthy for me to let my life's path be dictated by the feelings I have in my weakest moments.

As somebody who once had a coke problem, I've learned that lots of things which feel good right now will end up feeling pretty damn shitty down the road.


And surely, a real person who's actually there to take care of you, is a hell of a lot better than a superstition if that's what you feel like. Or am I missing something? Agreed. At least in hell one can hope for redemption. Heaven's just... The ultimate rut.
The advantage to using God for this is that you construct God to fill whatever ideals you want. (Or you pick your God from the many options offered by existing religions.) Unlike a real person, God can be editted however you like. God also can "work in myseterious ways," so that God never actually makes a mistake or a bad decision.

But they ARE daunting!!!

Amg, I can only fit so much in my stomach, and what if I eat the cheesecake but then wish I'd had more ribs?!

I need a second stomach and at least three more lifetimes.Me too!!!

... But I still don't think it's daunting. Then again, I'm both impulsive and tend to stuff myself. Besides, you can always stick two fingers down your throat, right? :P

Damn, that analogy of mine's a regular trainwreck.I just don't think it's appropriate or healthy for me to let my life's path be dictated by the feelings I have in my weakest moments. I agree personally, but I've never seen anything to suggest it's a universal truth. Evidently lots of people are much happier being someone's pet (for lack of a better term). As somebody who once had a coke problem, I've learned that lots of things which feel good right now will end up feeling pretty damn shitty down the road.Teh natsy bugs crawling under you's skins? - But being serious; I had/have one too, so this is one of the rare occasions where I really can emphasise. Do you have an evil twin too? Unlike a real person, God can be editted however you like. God also can "work in myseterious ways," so that God never actually makes a mistake or a bad decision.That makes a lot of sense. Can't believe I never thought of it that way before. Somehow though, it's probably not one of those ideas I'll be throwing at my spouse. I'm just too fond of my spleen, I guess.

This made me laugh.

Good. =)

It's easy to figure out when you stop assuming things aren't true simply because they're subjective. I like you, Szanth. That is both true and subjective.

I don't see how it's subjective. Thank you though, I like you as well. We should push eachother on the swings during recess.

You are correct that many Christian religions are based on the Bible as we know it. But not solely based on the Bible. Back to St. Frank, we see how his beliefs were incorporated into Catholic thought. Catholicism, therefore is based on the Bible and other teachings.

But the other teachings are based on the bible, too. It's simply another perspective on the same thing, someone else's opinion and take on the same lessons.

By 'true', I assume that you mean objectively factual. If my assumption is correct, then yes, it has nothing to do with the truth of the rantings. It has to do with how useful or valid those beliefs are.

Well therein lies the rub. We can't suggest how useful or valid something is if we can't objectively say if it's true or not.

Of course it wouldn't hold up in court. Legal proofs are another matter entirely. I have no idea how they compare or contrast to either religious beliefs or scientific theories.

Right, but that's my point: the dogma doesn't make sense enough for plain logic unless you taint said logic with a religious belief in the assumption that they are true from the start.

Then pretend I'm stupid and explain it again. When I read it, you seems to be discussing the inherent subjectivity of interpreting the Bible. I don't see what this has to do with the relative validity of two different beliefs concerning homosexuality.

Kay, here we go:

If I look at the bible and say "This passage says to do nice things, and I believe that that passage holds the true spirit of Christianity. This other passage says to do bad things sometimes, but I have faith that that's just allegory and metaphor, so it's not really saying that." and someone else reads the same bible and says "This passage says to do bad things, and I believe that that passage holds the true spirit of Christianity. This other passage says to do good things sometimes, but I have faith that that's just allegory and metaphor, so it's not really saying that." then I start the "Church of Goodness" and the other guy starts the "Church of Badness", and we both got our faiths from the same book. We're both just as correct as the other, because our faiths are based upon belief and preference, both of us.



He is a theologian and a physicist (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/june99/barbour_bio.html). There are also rumours he is a jiu-jitsu expert, and kicks your ass if you disagree with him publicly.

I've accepted an asskicking for less than this before, I'll do it again. =D


Thanks. This whole discussion is demanding, but that's cool, because it's helping me clarify my thoughts.

That's the good part about NSG. Lots of debate, and some of it is even coherant and enjoyable! =)

Why? The truth of my love for my children is not negated by its subjectivity.

Well what's subjective about it? An objective observer, one without bias, would look at you and look at your children, see how you interact, how you take care of them, and most likely will conclude that you love them.

Why would they all be equal just because they all share one source of data? The heliocentric model of the solar system and the geocentric model both shared the same set of data, yet one was obviously the better theory. Would you then argue that both of those were equally valid?

They would be if they were religious faiths.

What is that "one source"?

The place where the big bang occurred. The one spot in the universe where everything is spreading out from.

You won't live long enough to see everything about anything. If you wait that long you won't be able to operate because you can't step out the front door with the belief that the earth will hold you up.

True, but I don't have to believe the earth will hold me up for gravity to work.

We don't have to know everything, because we won't know everything. Ever. At all.

That's my point. We don't, won't, will not, cannot know everything. That is why faith is an assumption - an assumption that I do not choose to make.

Agreed. But we have to live with what we know not what we don't know.

And again, we know very little. You can't know anything in faith - you can believe your heart out, but it's still not actually knowing.

And the conflict was because the stones were apparently organized which is the sign of intelligence. Of course, there will be times of questioning. That's why we still have scientists. When the decision is made it will be based on organization.

No, they weren't stones - it was, like, a giant slab of granite or something that was smoothed to a flat surface by something - some said it was smoothed by humans, others contested that it could've been the water currents.

The place where the big bang occurred. The one spot in the universe where everything is spreading out from.


But a split second after that one piece of mindless energy had no effect on a piece of mindless energy going the opposite direction. Since both were randomly and mindlessly flying in opposite directions, how did one piece of mindless energy say to the other, "Let's become electrons and protons and start to form little balls of energy that are exactly the same in all directions"?

What are the odds of that happening? Every little mindless blip of energy (without even one exception ever being found) forming exactly the same atoms in every direction with no communication possible. If you can make that happen you better live in Vegas.

And again, we know very little. You can't know anything in faith - you can believe your heart out, but it's still not actually knowing.

So every archaeologist is totally wasting time because they can believe their heart out that some object is made through intelligence, it shows every sign of intelligence, the iron atoms are in order, but it's still not actually knowing.

But a split second after that one piece of mindless energy had no effect on a piece of mindless energy going the opposite direction. Since both were randomly and mindlessly flying in opposite directions, how did one piece of mindless energy say to the other, "Let's become electrons and protons and start to form little balls of energy that are exactly the same in all directions"?

What are the odds of that happening? Every little mindless blip of energy (without even one exception ever being found) forming exactly the same atoms in every direction with no communication possible. If you can make that happen you better live in Vegas.

Don't. Just Don't. Don't bring probability and science into a religious arguement. You just end up going around in circles.

Seriously, here's the arguement summerised:

1) If the probability of a universe without a God is lower than the probability of a universe then God exists.
2) The probability of a godless universe is smaller than a godfull universe.
3) Therefore God exists.

I mean you see the problem, right? Who on Earth could calculate the probability of God existing and then claim it to be greater than the probability of the universe coming into existance without the need for God? You have two unknowns and to seriously claim one is more likely is really nothing more than an arguement from personal belief.

The place where the big bang occurred. The one spot in the universe where everything is spreading out from.

I don't think there is such a spot, it's not like an expanding sphere. I think it's more like the expanding surface of an expanding sphere, where there is no middle.
Normally, I wouldn't be this finicky, but because it's Mr. Science...;)

So I was wondering. How did you come to the belief system that you have now? Some wonderful or horrible event? born and rasied? how?

I observed my surroundings, concluded that there was no way I could believe anything to do with the nature of this 'reality' I was perceiving, also concluded that pure scepticism would get me no-where, and decided to take absolutely everything with a pinch of salt.

Oh, and somewhere along the line decided that if there was some superior being that wanted my obedience, he could damn well convince me himself, and not leave it up to any stories or men in odd hats with ringlets.

Trilby63;13002759']Don't. Just Don't. Don't bring probability and science into a religious arguement. You just end up going around in circles.

Seriously, here's the arguement summerised:

1) If the probability of a universe without a God is lower than the probability of a universe then God exists.
2) The probability of a godless universe is smaller than a godfull universe.
3) Therefore God exists.

I mean you see the problem, right? Who on Earth could calculate the probability of God existing and then claim it to be greater than the probability of the universe coming into existance without the need for God? You have two unknowns and to seriously claim one is more likely is really nothing more than an arguement from personal belief.
There is evidence for one and a lack of evidence for the other. That is why I think evolution is a proper theory. There is evidence that the universe is organized and consistent and no evidence that it is random. I am not asking for faith I'm asking that you look at the evidence and give it as much credence as the evidence for evolution.

But a split second after that one piece of mindless energy had no effect on a piece of mindless energy going the opposite direction. Since both were randomly and mindlessly flying in opposite directions, how did one piece of mindless energy say to the other, "Let's become electrons and protons and start to form little balls of energy that are exactly the same in all directions"?

You don't know that. Again, we've hardly been outside our own little planet, and don't even understand a large amount of that. We have no idea what's on the other side. There could be things we've never imagined just in the next solar system.

I'll say it again, because it bears repeating: We don't know anything!

What are the odds of that happening? Every little mindless blip of energy (without even one exception ever being found) forming exactly the same atoms in every direction with no communication possible. If you can make that happen you better live in Vegas.

But again, it's not so hard to believe, because the universe is quite old, and has had time to cool off, settle down, compose itself - I'm sure that for a billion or so years after the big bang, the universe was still fucking insane and hot and not at all like the one we know now.

So every archaeologist is totally wasting time because they can believe their heart out that some object is made through intelligence, it shows every sign of intelligence, the iron atoms are in order, but it's still not actually knowing.

I don't remember archaeology being a faith.

I don't think there is such a spot, it's not like an expanding sphere. I think it's more like the expanding surface of an expanding sphere, where there is no middle.
Normally, I wouldn't be this finicky, but because it's Mr. Science...;)

I was fairly certain they were pretty sure it all came from one source, one spot. If it's expanding, it has to be expanding at the same rate in all directions, therefore the universe is ultimately a sphere shape. Also, I can't remember if this is true or not, but didn't they do a calculation using the red spectrum and triangulating it to come to the conclusion that the center was roughly in one direction whatever amount of distance away?

There is evidence for one and a lack of evidence for the other. That is why I think evolution is a proper theory. There is evidence that the universe is organized and consistent and no evidence that it is random. I am not asking for faith I'm asking that you look at the evidence and give it as much credence as the evidence for evolution.

Nono, there is evidence for both, if you take it that way. The only thing that makes it evidence moreso for one than the other would be a personal bias, or a wish that one were true and the other were not.

I'll say it again, because it bears repeating: We don't know anything!True, but he's massively underestimating just how much shit's in this universe. I was fairly certain they were pretty sure it all came from one source, one spot. If it's expanding, it has to be expanding at the same rate in all directions, therefore the universe is ultimately a sphere shape. Also, I can't remember if this is true or not, but didn't they do a calculation using the red spectrum and triangulating it to come to the conclusion that the center was roughly in one direction whatever amount of distance away?No. The universe has no particular center. The stuff in the universe expands omnidirectionally, or at least, all the stuff within range of us do. There's not much point in trying to assign a shape to existence, but if you have to, think of it as the inside surface of a growing torus. Yes, the spatial dimensions of this universe expands too. It isn't just the physical stuff in it that's zipping off in all directions, everything is.Nono, there is evidence for both, if you take it that way. The only thing that makes it evidence moreso for one than the other would be a personal bias, or a wish that one were true and the other were not.No, he's quite right. There's only evidence for one. He's just wrong about which one. Everything that exists on the macro scale is the result of events on the micro scale, and on the micro scale, randomness rules. The illusion of a non-random universe is simply a result of how information gets organised, and that again came about in a completely random manner.

True, but he's massively underestimating just how much shit's in this universe.

Mhm. I tried, though.

No. The universe has no particular center. The stuff in the universe expands omnidirectionally, or at least, all the stuff within range of us do. There's not much point in trying to assign a shape to existence, but if you have to, think of it as the inside surface of a growing torus. Yes, the spatial dimensions of this universe expands too. It isn't just the physical stuff in it that's zipping off in all directions, everything is.

Yeah I remember that now. Admittedly, though, I can't imagine how it would eventually begin to contract after having finished expanding, as I've heard it does. This is most likely due to me being human with a limited understanding of the universe.

No, he's quite right. There's only evidence for one. He's just wrong about which one. Everything that exists on the macro scale is the result of events on the micro scale, and on the micro scale, randomness rules. The illusion of a non-random universe is simply a result of how information gets organised, and that again came about in a completely random manner.

Well I was trying to be diplomatic and give him the benefit of the doubt. If I wanted to be a hardass, yeah, I'd simply shut him out and say "No, you're wrong. Entirely. Don't try again.", but that's no fun. The thread would end.

Mhm. I tried, though.:)



Yeah I remember that now. Admittedly, though, I can't imagine how it would eventually begin to contract after having finished expanding, as I've heard it does. This is most likely due to me being human with a limited understanding of the universe.The basics of that are actually fairly easy to explain. It's a question of whether the momentum of the stuff in the universe is too great for the gravity of the stuff in the universe to overcome it. At present, there's no clear answer. If the various 'Dark' stuff theories aren't wishful thinking, the universe will probably collapse on itself (aka Big Crunch). If they are wishful thinking, the gravitic pull isn't enough and the universe will keep expanding until time eventually has it's way with the last particle and nothing at all exists (aka Heat Death). Personally I'm hoping for the latter, but only because I think the idea has some really nifty possibilities. Might explain how this universe came about in the first place, for example.The thread would end.Sorry, I'll try not to be a spoil sport :(

The basics of that are actually fairly easy to explain. It's a question of whether the momentum of the stuff in the universe is too great for the gravity of the stuff in the universe to overcome it. At present, there's no clear answer. If the various 'Dark' stuff theories aren't wishful thinking, the universe will probably collapse on itself (aka Big Crunch). If they are wishful thinking, the gravitic pull isn't enough and the universe will keep expanding until time eventually has it's way with the last particle and nothing at all exists (aka Heat Death). Personally I'm hoping for the latter, but only because I think the idea has some really nifty possibilities. Might explain how this universe came about in the first place, for example.

Lol. Yeah, it'll explain it right before everything dies and reality blinks out of existence. "Oh so that's how--" dead.

Sorry, I'll try not to be a spoil sport :(

That's right. That's a bad rational debator. Bad boy. Go outside.

Lol. Yeah, it'll explain it right before everything dies and reality blinks out of existence. "Oh so that's how--" dead.Heh, what I meant is that a 'true' nothing may have some pretty funny possibilities. For example: given that anything has a chance, however small, of being true, and given that nothing means the complete absence of time and other such annoying constraints, the chance of everything being true, however small, invariably rises to the inevitable. So if you've ever fancied a universe made entirely of cotton candy and wearing a pink tutu, Heat Death's the ticket. Or, it might be. Probably won't be. But who cares, the idea is fucking cool :D That's right. That's a bad rational debator. Bad boy. Go outside.B..but.. I'm working... Does this mean I get to RUN OUTSIDE NEKKID DRINKING BEER AND STEALING HATS FROM OLD LADIES WITH PURPLE HAIR?! BYE BYE!! LADIES, BEER, FREEEEEDOOOM! HERE I COME!!!

... Arse. Bosslady sayz no. Szanth, you've crushed my dreams. You bastard.

Heh, what I meant is that a 'true' nothing may have some pretty funny possibilities. For example: given that anything has a chance, however small, of being true, and given that nothing means the complete absence of time and other such annoying constraints, the chance of everything being true, however small, invariably rises to the inevitable. So if you've ever fancied a universe made entirely of cotton candy and wearing a pink tutu, Heat Death's the ticket. Or, it might be. Probably won't be. But who cares, the idea is fucking cool :D

Indeed, you got me there.

B..but.. I'm working... Does this mean I get to RUN OUTSIDE NEKKID DRINKING BEER AND STEALING HATS FROM OLD LADIES WITH PURPLE HAIR?! BYE BYE!! LADIES, BEER, FREEEEEDOOOM! HERE I COME!!!

... Arse. Bosslady sayz no. Szanth, you've crushed my dreams. You bastard.

What nazi fascist workplace do you live under the power of that they don't allow you to leave at random times with the goal of ripping off your clothes, becoming drunk off your ass and stealing head ornaments from senior citizens?

It's damned near a right where I'm from.