NationStates Jolt Archive

Reading through the recently created (and hopefully soon to be dead) Atheists versus christian thread i became interested in the Idea of how one would go about defending their choice of religion. Personally I'm Atheist (or extremely agnostic, proving an negative being highly difficult and all) but I'd be interested in seeing how those who are not defend their, personal choice here.
A couple of ground rules here though,
1)Please don't preach be that atheism, christianity, Islam, Satanism etc. this is about why you chose your personal religion not about converting others

2)Please stay away from the Ad hominems if at all possible.

3)Please realize there is no right answer here despite what I and many others would like to believe.

Believe in the Force!

Maybe I am a Druid......

Believe in the Force!

Maybe I am a Druid......

lol nice Druidism :D . .. .or possible .. force . . .ism?

DaWoad, I am devout Christian (and politically socialist, but that's another story). I grew up in the Church and simply accepted the faith I was raised in. It's not that I haven't had doubts, I have, but for me that just proves that I have faith in my chosen belief, because to say that you do not have ENOUGH faith still implies you do have some. Also I personally feel that Christ has been able to guide me throughout my life when times have been tough, and that the heavenly host has celebrated with me when times have been good. If you do not believe this that is fine, you do not have to, but this is what I believe, take it or leave it.

I don't have the slightest clue what i am. I belive there is no god, BUT accept that in the infinity of the universe and all universes that could possible exist there is a chance, indeed a probability, that god could exists, even if i think it's very small.

What does that make me? A logical agnostic?

I was raised as a Lutheran, and simply accepted it as such. However, my faith has since evolved then into a more accepting view of God (though I still consider myself a Christian)

I identify myself as a Christian, because that's what I was raised, and that's the most familiar vision of God that I've experienced. In my life, I've followed a number of different faiths; I was pagan for years, among other things. In the end, I believe they all pay homage to the same Divine power, just in different ways, and under different names. Allah is God is the Mother Goddess is... etc.

Say God is the top of a mountain, so high that it is concealed by clouds, and each person is taking a different path up the mountain. They're all heading in the same place; they may have different ideas of what they will see when they reach the top, but they all have the same goal, ultimately. And each of their paths is taking them there, even though they're different. One might tell another that he's going the wrong way, because his path looks better from his angle, but in the end... we're all right.

I go to Catholic Mass, because I'm Irish Catholic by heritage, and it's familiar; the ritual feels like home. I light candles when I'm praying - a little candle magick from my pagan days. When I *need* God the most, when I *need* to know that he's listening, I adopt the position generally associated with Muslim prayer - because it makes me feel the most humble, I suppose, though that's not quite the right word. I've picked up different traditions along the way, and I pick and choose as suits me. In the end, it's all about the most comfortable way to relate to God, and just because they technically "belong" to one faith doesn't mean they don't work for me.

In the end, there could technically be nothing on that mountain top. But since I'm putting work into making my way uphill, it comforts me - and gives me strength, and purpose - to believe that I'm heading somewhere, and that there will be someone waiting for me when I get there. If that's proved false in the end, I don't lose anything, because my faith got me up that mountain. If I'm right, then... I'm right, with all the comfort and satisfaction that goes along with that.

That's just how I look at it.

How to defend one's chossen religoin?

Well there really is only one way. Admit that you belive irratinaly, figure out which particular facet of God strikes a cord for you, and examine you motives for beoiving so.

The rest, you know what others think of your faith, well it don't really matter now does it.

I'm Christian because I felt that, in looking around at various faiths, or lack thereof, Christianity 'fit' me the best. The more supernatural aspects of it I can take or leave because honestly they don't actually matter to me and will not until I am dead (At which case a whole hell of a lot will cease to matter), but the idea of treating everyone as you want to be treated. Loving one another, doing good works, giving to the poor. Those sounded quite logical to me at the time, and they still do.

Or as Douglas Adams paraphrased, wouldn't it be nice if everyone tried to get along for a change?

I don't have the slightest clue what i am. I belive there is no god, BUT accept that in the infinity of the universe and all universes that could possible exist there is a chance, indeed a probability, that god could exists, even if i think it's very small.

What does that make me? A logical agnostic?
you are an agnostic atheist.

in order not to be an atheist you have to believe in some god(s).

agnostic means that you leave open the possibility of a god existing but realize that there is no way for you to know if there is and what form that god might take.

I blieve in a higher power, and I believe that the God and Goddess are personification of that higher power. Everything else in our nature and universe has a male and female parts, so why not the higher power?

As to which God and Goddess I pray to, Woden and Freya

Or as Douglas Adams paraphrased, wouldn't it be nice if everyone tried to get along for a change?

One analogy Adams put forward about religion was that of the "sentient puddle." This analogy is intended to refute the suggestion that the existence of God and His love for humankind would be proven because the world is perfectly designed for our needs. He compared such thinkers to an intelligent puddle of water. Adams said the puddle is certain that the hole in the ground he occupies must have been designed specifically for him because it fits him so well. The puddle exists under the sun until he has entirely evaporated.

Just throwing it out there.

I blieve in a higher power, and I believe that the God and Goddess are personification of that higher power. Everything else in our nature and universe has a male and female parts, so why not the higher power?

As to which God and Goddess I pray to, Woden and Freya

Ahhhh now I'm likeing you even more.

Ahhhh now I'm likeing you even more.

Hehe thanks. I don't have anything against the Catholic Church, or The Vatican. I just want to pray to the higher power in my own way. Because let's be honest, is it really going to care one way or another?

But for now, I must go to class.

Religion was always absent from my upbringing. It may have been mentioned in conversation but it was merely passing mention. My parents never were big on it and left me alone in regards to my spirituality, allowing me to make my own choices. As I had no indoctrination or introduction to a certain way of thinking, I simply concluded that there was no god. I felt and saw no evidence of it. I tried learning but the ways of the world appeared to contradict what god supposedly stood for. I even looked into religion because I felt I should but nothing manifested from it and I remained outside, and I'm happier like this.

Religion was always absent from my upbringing. It may have been mentioned in conversation but it was merely passing mention. My parents never were big on it and left me alone in regards to my spirituality, allowing me to make my own choices. As I had no indoctrination or introduction to a certain way of thinking, I simply concluded that there was no god. I felt and saw no evidence of it. I tried learning but the ways of the world appeared to contradict what god supposedly stood for. I even looked into religion because I felt I should but nothing manifested from it and I remained outside, and I'm happier like this.

Heh you sound almost the opposite of me. I also was not brought up in a religious household, nope I had to go out and discover God for myself.

Heh you sound almost the opposite of me. I also was not brought up in a religious household, nope I had to go out and discover God for myself.

Yet we are similar in that we both had to discover our own beliefs. I had tried to given religion a fair shake but the relationship was doomed from the outset. The only religion I had seriously considered was Buddhism, but the rules were too strict for me. :$

Yet we are similar in that we both had to discover our own beliefs. I had tried to given religion a fair shake but the relationship was doomed from the outset. The only religion I had seriously considered was Buddhism, but the rules were too strict for me. :$

Ahhh well, each to his own I guess.

Believe in the Force!

Maybe I am a Druid......

That's funny, you don't look Druish.

I do not believe that god exists. There is no sufficient reason to believe otherwise.

I do not believe that god exists. There is no sufficient reason to believe otherwise.

Meh you are wrong of course. I guess you mean that you have no reason, coz plenty of people all over the place have plenty of reasons.

Meh you are wrong of course. I guess you mean that you have no reason, coz plenty of people all over the place have plenty of reasons.
Their reasons may be sufficient for them. I've heard none sufficient for me.

Their reasons may be sufficient for them. I've heard none sufficient for me.

Which is what I thought you meant. But it is a little diffeant from your initial statment huh! Pendant me!:D

I was raised in a pagan household but had to strike out on my own to find what I needed. I recently converted to Islam and found that once you stripped away all the dogma, it was a very sound religion for me.

Their reasons may be sufficient for them. I've heard none sufficient for me.

I'm in complete agreement here.

But now I postulate - why have you not found sufficient reasons? What, to you, would constitute a sufficient reason? Why do you choose this to be your definition of sufficient? Why is what is sufficient to someone else, sufficient to you? Do you choose your definition of sufficient because it seems the most logical? If that is the case, then, at present, you simply cannot accept the existance of god, because it is illogical. You do not choose what is logical and what isn't, logic is intuitive. Intuition is something you are born with and have no control over. Therefore, if there is a god, and this god did indeed create you, along with everyone else, then he created you knowing that the intuition he gave you would result in you not believing in him. Therefore, god does not want all of us to believe in him. However, if god did want us to believe in him, then god has given you no reason at this point in time to believe in him, and it is logical to assume that he would present you with a reason at a later point in time. Either way, it is not gods plan for you to believe in him at this point in time.

Which is what I thought you meant. But it is a little diffeant from your initial statment huh! Pendant me!:D

You're pendanted. Must be a god. You win.

I'm in complete agreement here.

But now I postulate - why have you not found sufficient reasons? What, to you, would constitute a sufficient reason? Why do you choose this to be your definition of sufficient? Why is what is sufficient to someone else, sufficient to you? Do you choose your definition of sufficient because it seems the most logical? If that is the case, then, at present, you simply cannot accept the existance of god, because it is illogical. You do not choose what is logical and what isn't, logic is intuitive. Intuition is something you are born with and have no control over. Therefore, if there is a god, and this god did indeed create you, along with everyone else, then he created you knowing that the intuition he gave you would result in you not believing in him. Therefore, god does not want all of us to believe in him. However, if god did want us to believe in him, then god has given you no reason at this point in time to believe in him, and it is logical to assume that he would present you with a reason at a later point in time. Either way, it is not gods plan for you to believe in him at this point in time.

I see nothing in your statement that gives me any reason to accept the existence of a god(s).

I was raised in a pagan household but had to strike out on my own to find what I needed. I recently converted to Islam and found that once you stripped away all the dogma, it was a very sound religion for me.
the problem with islam isnt the theology, its the day to day practice.

no booze, no pork, praying 5 times a day, too much telling you how to live your life. too much reliance on heirarchy and enforcing local customs with religion.

submitting to the will of god is a good idea, having someone else tell me what the will of god is, not so much.

I see nothing in your statement that gives me any reason to accept the existence of a god(s).

You weren't supposed to. I was just saying that even if there were a god (which, by my own accounts, there isn't), that this god does not want you believing in him at this point in time. You can use this argument whenever those pesky christians try and convert you, as has happened to me a few times.

I tend to stay away from religion threads. Mainly because they tend to degenerate into an all out flame-fest. To me, discussing religion with someone is also a big no-no in conversation (face to face/internet). The history of atheist/agnostics/pagans vs. Christians/Muslims in NSG truly deflates any desire I may have to deffend why I choose to be this certain denomination or other. Suffice it to say I am comfortable with the choice in a belief-system I made. What I do/believe has no impact, negative or positive, in others so... why start deffending?:wink:

I avoid this sort of subject too. I always end up debating - and when it comes to religion, it is futile. :p

personally....i really could care less about religion, religion will be the destruction of the human race all togeather. thats just me though....the world would be a better place without 'isms and anity's.

You weren't supposed to. I was just saying that even if there were a god (which, by my own accounts, there isn't), that this god does not want you believing in him at this point in time. You can use this argument whenever those pesky christians try and convert you, as has happened to me a few times.

Thank you :)
It's just that it seems to complicate the issue. I mean if the existence of the supernatural is so apparent it would seem to be an easy thing to prove it exists in a scientifically verifiable way. Again I say "I do not believe that god exists. There is no sufficient reason to believe otherwise." Very simple. Show sufficient reason.

why start deffending?:wink:

I read that as "why start offending?" the first time...

To which my response was going to be "why not? It's fun.

I read that as "why start offending?" the first time...

To which my response was going to be "why not? It's fun.

Offend me, babe, offend me. I'll spank you hard.:D

Religion was always absent from my upbringing. It may have been mentioned in conversation but it was merely passing mention. My parents never were big on it and left me alone in regards to my spirituality, allowing me to make my own choices. As I had no indoctrination or introduction to a certain way of thinking, I simply concluded that there was no god. I felt and saw no evidence of it. I tried learning but the ways of the world appeared to contradict what god supposedly stood for. I even looked into religion because I felt I should but nothing manifested from it and I remained outside, and I'm happier like this.
I had a similar experience with the opposite result: Rather than concluding that there is no god, I concluded that there are infinite numbers/possiblities of gods/spirits.

I guess it just goes to show: When it comes to religion, we find what is within us.

As to how I would define my beliefs: animist, polytheist type.

While I believe in -- or at least am willing to stipulate to -- the existence of any number of gods, including the Abrahamic one, I have little or no interest in them. I am far more interested day-to-day dealings with the spirits that I believe share my world with me. This world.

Perhaps paradoxically, all my religious interest is strictly practical. I wish to arrange my life, both physically and spiritually, so as to maintain the most harmony, most convenience, and highest level of happiness generally. I do not look to religion for moral rules, nor for creation myths, nor for reassurance about what will happen to me after I die. I get my morals from reason and experience, and I don't care about what happened before this story started or what will happen when it's over.

My beliefs concerning souls, divinity, life/death, good/evil, etc., are a little complicated, but not relevant to this discussion.

I avoid this sort of subject too. I always end up debating - and when it comes to religion, it is futile. :p
Not debating religion is easy. All you have to do is not attack someone else's beliefs. You know, just keep your opinions of what the other person says to yourself.

Wait -- did I say that was easy? Sorry, I forgot where I was. ;)

Thank you :)
It's just that it seems to complicate the issue. I mean if the existence of the supernatural is so apparent it would seem to be an easy thing to prove it exists in a scientifically verifiable way. Again I say "I do not believe that god exists. There is no sufficient reason to believe otherwise." Very simple. Show sufficient reason.

I have a freind from a Catholic family, that grew up in the Ctholic way, and around the age of 15 or so decided that there is no God.

Some time after this he developedn schizorpgrenia, and it took years and I mean years for the doc to find that particular mix of drugs that would eventulay help him to lead an ordinary life.

In the interim his life was heading downhill in ways that most sane people can't fathom, he was ready to take his own life rather than suffer the voices, the alien thoughts, and feelings that bombarded him on a daily basis.

His mother preydhard for many years for him, and eventualy took him to Knock in Ireland, to a certian shrine there.

When they got back from their trip the very next day the doc called up and asked them to come in to try a new treatment.

Well that worked, and he has been good since. He has regained his faith, and when you ask him how he knows that God exists, he will tell you that prayer and pilgrimage worked, that with God's blessing the doc found the right cocktale and dosage of drugs for him.

That IS sufficent reason for him, and although a morelogical apporach would perhaps be to thank the doctors, and belive in them, I can't see any fault in his reasoning, can you?

Thank you :)
It's just that it seems to complicate the issue. I mean if the existence of the supernatural is so apparent it would seem to be an easy thing to prove it exists in a scientifically verifiable way. Again I say "I do not believe that god exists. There is no sufficient reason to believe otherwise." Very simple. Show sufficient reason.

Science can not prove that the supernatural exists or does not. Science already assumes that the supernatural does not exist. See number three. (http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm)

Even if science conceded the possibility of the supernatural, it would be impossible to test for, as it would not follow natural laws, by definition.

I have a freind from a Catholic family, that grew up in the Ctholic way, and around the age of 15 or so decided that there is no God.

Some time after this he developedn schizorpgrenia, and it took years and I mean years for the doc to find that particular mix of drugs that would eventulay help him to lead an ordinary life.

In the interim his life was heading downhill in ways that most sane people can't fathom, he was ready to take his own life rather than suffer the voices, the alien thoughts, and feelings that bombarded him on a daily basis.

His mother preydhard for many years for him, and eventualy took him to Knock in Ireland, to a certian shrine there.

When they got back from their trip the very next day the doc called up and asked them to come in to try a new treatment.

Well that worked, and he has been good since. He has regained his faith, and when you ask him how he knows that God exists, he will tell you that prayer and pilgrimage worked, that with God's blessing the doc found the right cocktale and dosage of drugs for him.

That IS sufficent reason for him, and although a morelogical apporach would perhaps be to thank the doctors, and belive in them, I can't see any fault in his reasoning, can you?
The fault in his reasoning is that he jumped to a conclusion.

He has no more evidence of the existence of his god now than he did before. He has merely chosen to ascribe the doctors' success to that god's intervention or guidance because that's the way he feels about it.

Now, his feelings may reflect reality. Or they may not. There is no way to know. So, if he wanted to be strictly and truthfully accurate, he would be 100% correct to say that he believes his god helped him because he feels it in his heart/gut/soul/etc. But not that he knows it. This happy event neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god.

A lot of people might dismiss this as me splitting hairs, and certainly I am doing that. But you asked for a flaw in his reasoning, and jumping to a conclusion is a flaw in reasoning.

For myself, I always try to make sure when talking about my religious beliefs that I use the word "believe," not the word "know."

Offend me, babe, offend me. I'll spank you hard.:D

Promise?

Promise?

Cross my heart and hope to die.;)

I have a freind from a Catholic family, that grew up in the Ctholic way, and around the age of 15 or so decided that there is no God.

Some time after this he developedn schizorpgrenia, and it took years and I mean years for the doc to find that particular mix of drugs that would eventulay help him to lead an ordinary life.

In the interim his life was heading downhill in ways that most sane people can't fathom, he was ready to take his own life rather than suffer the voices, the alien thoughts, and feelings that bombarded him on a daily basis.

His mother preydhard for many years for him, and eventualy took him to Knock in Ireland, to a certian shrine there.

When they got back from their trip the very next day the doc called up and asked them to come in to try a new treatment.

Well that worked, and he has been good since. He has regained his faith, and when you ask him how he knows that God exists, he will tell you that prayer and pilgrimage worked, that with God's blessing the doc found the right cocktale and dosage of drugs for him.

That IS sufficent reason for him, and although a morelogical apporach would perhaps be to thank the doctors, and belive in them, I can't see any fault in his reasoning, can you?

Catholicism: The religion of choice for schizophrenics

The fault in his reasoning is that he jumped to a conclusion.

He has no more evidence of the existence of his god now than he did before. He has merely chosen to ascribe the doctors' success to that god's intervention or guidance because that's the way he feels about it.

Now, his feelings may reflect reality. Or they may not. There is no way to know. So, if he wanted to be strictly and truthfully accurate, he would be 100% correct to say that he believes his god helped him because he feels it in his heart/gut/soul/etc. But not that he knows it. This happy event neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god.

A lot of people might dismiss this as me splitting hairs, and certainly I am doing that. But you asked for a flaw in his reasoning, and jumping to a conclusion is a flaw in reasoning.

For myself, I always try to make sure when talking about my religious beliefs that I use the word "believe," not the word "know."

It is not unreasonable to jump to a conclusion.

However I get what you mean, and yes I agree, but since my point was to show suficent reason, I did just that.

Sufficent for him, perhaps not for you, nor for Shlarg, but 'sufficent reason' is sooooo subjective that it almost becomes meaningless. My point to Shlarg was just that, when s/he says 'sufficent reason' s/he means 'suffient reason for me'.

Yes I agree, it should always be 'I belive' but when you belive strongly enough, you might as well say 'I know'.

Perhaps if we had an example of 'sufficient reason'?

Science can not prove that the supernatural exists or does not. Science already assumes that the supernatural does not exist. See number three. (http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm)

Even if science conceded the possibility of the supernatural, it would be impossible to test for, as it would not follow natural laws, by definition.
Inability to prove something exists isn't sufficient reason to claim that something does.
Although the supernatural may not be proveable (very convenient), events claimed to be the result of the supernatural should be testable. For example; should be pretty easy to find someone who lost an arm or a leg to disease or accident, had it supernaturally restored, and have the event stand up to scientific inquiry.

Perhaps if we had an example of 'sufficient reason'?

Post #37.

Post #37.

hearsay from a schitzophrenic, solid evidence that...
:rolleyes:

It is not unreasonable to jump to a conclusion.
Actually, it is one of the classic forms of unreasonable responses.

However I get what you mean, and yes I agree, but since my point was to show suficent reason, I did just that.

Sufficent for him, perhaps not for you, nor for Shlarg, but 'sufficent reason' is sooooo subjective that it almost becomes meaningless. My point to Shlarg was just that, when s/he says 'sufficent reason' s/he means 'suffient reason for me'.

Yes I agree, it should always be 'I belive' but when you belive strongly enough, you might as well say 'I know'.
Since the measure of "sufficient" in regards to reason to adopt a religious belief is so profoundly subjective, literally anything could be taken as sufficient reason for any given individual.

"Because I feel like it" is sufficient reason.

hearsay from a schitzophrenic, solid evidence that...
:rolleyes:

No not solid evidance at all. Just one mans 'sufficient reason' :wink:

No not solid evidance at all. Just one schitzophrenic's 'sufficient reason' :wink:

fixed :D

No not solid evidance at all. Just one mans 'sufficient reason' :wink:
I think the poster you were originally responding to was asking for a reason that HE would find sufficient -- i.e. some kind of argument or evidence that would meet HIS standards of sufficient.

No shit any given person will consider their own reasons for doing something to be sufficient. It doesn't really carry the conversation forward.

Actually, it is one of the classic forms of unreasonable responses.


Since the measure of "sufficient" in regards to reason to adopt a religious belief is so profoundly subjective, literally anything could be taken as sufficient reason for any given individual.

"Because I feel like it" is sufficient reason.

Yes exactly.

I think the poster you were originally responding to was asking for a reason that HE would find sufficient -- i.e. some kind of argument or evidence that would meet HIS standards of sufficient.

No shit any given person will consider their own reasons for doing something to be sufficient. It doesn't really carry the conversation forward.

If that is what he meant, that is what he should have said huh!:p

fixed :D

You know we are talking about a freind of mine here, it's not nice to take the piss outa his misfourtune.

Inability to prove something exists isn't sufficient reason to claim that something does.
Although the supernatural may not be proveable (very convenient), events claimed to be the result of the supernatural should be testable. For example; should be pretty easy to find someone who lost an arm or a leg to disease or accident, had it supernaturally restored, and have the event stand up to scientific inquiry.

Inability to prove something does not exist is not sufficient reason to claim that it does not exist.

How would you test for the supernatural? You can't do it by excluding every single possible natural cause ,as we have no idea if the number of natural possible causes is finite. Or what that numer is if it is finite. Nor can you test to see if something is true. You test to see if it is false. So we could disporve that it is supernatural in origin, or we could show that it is not disproven, but I don't think it would be possible to prove it true.

You know we are talking about a freind of mine here, it's not nice to take the piss outa his misfourtune.

My apologies, but I still think that your putting up someone with mental problems (especially schitzophrenia) choosing to worship god as rather funny.

Actually, it is one of the classic forms of unreasonable responses.

Really? Execpt in the scientific fields? So dark matter and dark energy are unreasonable suppositions?

Post #37.

I should have been clearer. If we could find a set of criteria that when satisfied, would constitute sufficient evidence.

In science, we would test our hypothesis through experiment and then publish in a peer-reviewed journal. If our hypothesis manages to withstand such rigor, we would accept it as having sufficient evidence.

We need a similar criteria for religious claims.

My apologies, but I still think that your putting up someone with mental problems (especially schitzophrenia) choosing to worship god as rather funny.

Well as I have said, it was really only as an example of how 'sufficent reason' really is a subjective thing. As I also said, I'm not going to point out any flaws in his reasoning, as although I can see some, it is not my reasoning, but his.

I'm an Asatruar, which means I follow Asatru - or Heathenism as you might know it. And I don't defend my religion. I don't feel the need to justify it to anyone. It works for me, and that's all that matters.

I should have been clearer. If we could find a set of criteria that when satisfied, would constitute sufficient evidence.

In science, we would test our hypothesis through experiment and then publish in a peer-reviewed journal. If our hypothesis manages to withstand such rigor, we would accept it as having sufficient evidence.

We need a similar criteria for religious claims.

Well maybe, but religion having no bais in rationality, how can it work?

Well as I have said, it was really only as an example of how 'sufficent reason' really is a subjective thing.
Something which, I think, we all recognize.
As I also said, I'm not going to point out any flaws in his reasoning, as although I can see some, it is not my reasoning, but his.
:)

Really? Execpt in the scientific fields? So dark matter and dark energy are unreasonable suppositions?
Those are not conclusions that were jumped to. They are theories supported by evidence and logical reasoning. All their dots are connected, as it were, and where facts are lacking, reasoning can suggest connections that make sense. They are not undisputed theories, of course, but that's not the point. The scientists who support them did not just jump from "absence of observable matter" to "dark matter" the way your friend jumped from "pilgrimage" to "medical treatment" to "god exists." Where is his reasoning that connects those dots? There is none. He just jumped to his conclusion.

Yes exactly.

If that is what he meant, that is what he should have said huh!:p
Practice what you preach. If your point was to show that each person's reason for believing is sufficient to that person, then you should have said that. :tongue:

I should have been clearer. If we could find a set of criteria that when satisfied, would constitute sufficient evidence.

In science, we would test our hypothesis through experiment and then publish in a peer-reviewed journal. If our hypothesis manages to withstand such rigor, we would accept it as having sufficient evidence.

We need a similar criteria for religious claims.
Why? Why can't we instead have a different set of expectations for religion?

Why should we judge religion by the standards of science, since religion is not science? We don't ask science to satisfy the criteria of religion, and rightly so. We don't expect science to work like religion, so why do we expect religion to work the way science does?

Practice what you preach. If your point was to show that each person's reason for believing is sufficient to that person, then you should have said that. :tongue:

Man I belive I said exactly that.:p

Man I belive I said exactly that.:p

Not right from the start (or if you did I forgot about it)

Those are not conclusions that were jumped to. They are theories supported by evidence and logical reasoning. All their dots are connected, as it were, and where facts are lacking, reasoning can suggest connections that make sense. They are not undisputed theories, of course, but that's not the point. The scientists who support them did not just jump from "absence of observable matter" to "dark matter" the way your friend jumped from "pilgrimage" to "medical treatment" to "god exists." Where is his reasoning that connects those dots? There is none. He just jumped to his conclusion.


Yeah I get that, but the basic principle remains the same.

At some point the idea of dark matter and dark energy was posited, it don't really matter how this idea was mooted, the fact that somebody somewhere said something along the lines of, 'mmm the universe appears to be expanding, but the data don't bear that up, it should not be happening, unless of course there is an unknown source that could account for it'

There could be many reasons for it, but the leap from 'the data don't bear it up', to 'an unknown source', is still a leap, is it not?


We all do this, my girlfreinds late in meeting me for our dinner date, what could have happend to her? Perhaps she has stood me up, perhaps she is in trouble, perhaps she is stuck in traffic, perhaps she forgot.

All leaps, and all reasonable, not only is it reasonable to make them, but they are also reasonable conclusions to make.

Leaping to a conclusion, is reasonable, even if that conclusion is shown to be wrong, it is still a reasonable thing to do, innit?

Not right from the start (or if you did I forgot about it)

Yep yep from about my second post in, in fact!

Why? Why can't we instead have a different set of expectations for religion?

Why should we judge religion by the standards of science, since religion is not science? We don't ask science to satisfy the criteria of religion, and rightly so. We don't expect science to work like religion, so why do we expect religion to work the way science does?

We don't also use science to apreaciate art, yeah I'm with you.

Inability to prove something does not exist is not sufficient reason to claim that it does not exist.

.
Then you have to conclude there's a distinct possibility that Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd are living in a homosexual, extraspecies relationship in the middle of the sun.

Yep yep from about my second post in, in fact!

So I forgot about it...

So I forgot about it...

Wooohooo I win, and you loose, so now you have to buy me beer!:D

No belief in a god here, but I accept that religions exist and I do in fact respect Christianity for its morals and structure.

I believe that America is a Christian nation, we were founded on Christianity, and most (if not all) of our philosophy is based on Christianity; however, I am still not one to believe in a "higher" (or omnipotent) power, spirit or force.

I do not believe I will be going to Hell (or any afterlife, for the matter) because I do not believe in souls or spirits, etc. I only believe in the body (physical), which includes the "mind" (mentality).

Wooohooo I win, and you loose, so now you have to buy me beer!:D

Okay, I'll buy you some American beer and ship it to you.

Okay, I'll buy you some American beer and ship it to you.

Sweet! :D

Why? Why can't we instead have a different set of expectations for religion?

Why should we judge religion by the standards of science, since religion is not science? We don't ask science to satisfy the criteria of religion, and rightly so. We don't expect science to work like religion, so why do we expect religion to work the way science does?

Science and religion are disimilar enough that we would need a different set of criteria. I agree with that, but if we wnat to say that these beleifs have sufficient evidence, and these others do not, we need to have some set of criteria by which to judge if they have sufficient evidence.

Then you have to conclude there's a distinct possibility that Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd are living in a homosexual, extraspecies relationship in the middle of the sun.

No. I don't have to conclude that at all. Since I have evidence that these creatures are imaginary, I can conclude that such a thing would be impossible.

Sweet! :D

Your happy about getting American beer? I think you might have more serious issues than your friend, I suggest going to a psychiatrist ASAP.

Man I belive I said exactly that.:p
Eventually, yes. You could have saved us a bit of trouble if you'd said it at first, though, at the time you posted your example of your friend.

Your happy about getting American beer? I think you might have more serious issues than your friend, I suggest going to a psychiatrist ASAP.

Naaa beer is beer, there are some nice beers you have out thataway.

Yeah I get that, but the basic principle remains the same.

At some point the idea of dark matter and dark energy was posited, it don't really matter how this idea was mooted, the fact that somebody somewhere said something along the lines of, 'mmm the universe appears to be expanding, but the data don't bear that up, it should not be happening, unless of course there is an unknown source that could account for it'

There could be many reasons for it, but the leap from 'the data don't bear it up', to 'an unknown source', is still a leap, is it not?


We all do this, my girlfreinds late in meeting me for our dinner date, what could have happend to her? Perhaps she has stood me up, perhaps she is in trouble, perhaps she is stuck in traffic, perhaps she forgot.

All leaps, and all reasonable, not only is it reasonable to make them, but they are also reasonable conclusions to make.

Leaping to a conclusion, is reasonable, even if that conclusion is shown to be wrong, it is still a reasonable thing to do, innit?
The leaps you describe in re your girlfriend are not based on reason. I find it perplexing that you don't see the difference between such thoughts and the reasoning process of developing a scientific theory/hypothesis.

Naaa beer is beer, there are some nice beers you have out thataway.

Well, I wasn't planning on buying a good one, I was planning on buying the cheapest...
Also shipping it the cheapest way possible.

Science and religion are disimilar enough that we would need a different set of criteria. I agree with that, but if we wnat to say that these beleifs have sufficient evidence, and these others do not, we need to have some set of criteria by which to judge if they have sufficient evidence.

But you would still be wanting religion to work like science in the sense of being provable.

I guess I take exception with the idea of wanting to say that one set of beliefs have sufficient evidence and another does not.

I take exception to it because I also take exception to the notion that the purpose of religion is to provide facts.

It is my view that religion is not about facts, and if it is not about facts, then questions of evidence are never relevant to the worth of a religion.

It is my view that the purpose of religion is to help people create a sense of order in life that accounts for intangible personal feelings and reconciles those feelings with experience. It is entirely subjective and personal, not dependant on external facts at all, and no religious thought system is inherently more right than another.

EDIT: And because religion is so subjective and so personal, there can never be one set of criteria by which all religions could be judged.

I feel that religion is very personal, so I don't really see a need for anyone to "defend" their religion to anyone else.

Religious discussion can certainly be useful in trying to figure out what you do or do not believe, but only if it remains cordial. When it turns into an argument, I think it tends to be counter-productive.

The leaps you describe in re your girlfriend are not based on reason. I find it perplexing that you don't see the difference between such thoughts and the reasoning process of developing a scientific theory/hypothesis.

I think what we have here is a crossover of intent and understanding.

It is reasonable to jump to conclusions. I say this because it is perfectly normal for us to do so.

The conclusions that we jump to mostly have grounds in our thought process, so we can say that these conclusions can also be resonable(based in reason).

Why do you find it unreasonable to posit that your girlfriend my be stuck in traffic, if she is late meeting you?

I do indeed see the differance, but it is of no consequence as we are talking about 'sufficent reasons' for having one faith or the other, and as I have said elsewhere on this thread, as religion is an unreasonable supposition then any reason for such a belife is sufcient.

I think what we have here is a crossover of intent and understanding.

It is reasonable to jump to conclusions. I say this because it is perfectly normal for us to do so.

The conclusions that we jump to mostly have grounds in our thought process, so we can say that these conclusions can also be resonable(based in reason).

Why do you find it unreasonable to posit that your girlfriend my be stuck in traffic, if she is late meeting you?

I do indeed see the differance, but it is of no consequence as we are talking about 'sufficent reasons' for having one faith or the other, and as I have said elsewhere on this thread, as religion is an unreasonable supposition then any reason for such a belife is sufcient.
I do not think a thing is reasonable just because it is a natural reflex to do it.

Also, positing that something may have happened is NOT the same as concluding that it did happen.

It seems you are conflating "to conclude" with "to suppose" or "to wonder" or "to theorize."

Well, I wasn't planning on buying a good one, I was planning on buying the cheapest...
Also shipping it the cheapest way possible.

Meh thats also fine, I'll decant and fortify with me fave ' Dragon Stout'.

I do not think a thing is reasonable just because it is a natural reflex to do it.

Also, positing that something may have happened is NOT the same as concluding that it did happen.

It seems you are conflating "to conclude" with "to suppose" or "to wonder" or "to theorize."

Ahhh there may be some truth it that one.

Meh thats also fine, I'll decant and fortify with me fave ' Dragon Stout'.

Well, just post your name and address, and I'll get right on it...

It is my view that the purpose of religion is to help people create a sense of order in life that accounts for intangible personal feelings and reconciles those feelings with experience. It is entirely subjective and personal, not dependant on external facts at all, and no religious thought system is inherently more right than another.

EDIT: And because religion is so subjective and so personal, there can never be one set of criteria by which all religions could be judged.

So then I take it 'organised religion' doesn't fit your criteria? As they are almost always dogmatic and based on historic ritual and not personal truth? Not to mention the fact they make all sorts of crazy assertions. You sound more like you are describing a personal spiritual interpretation of the world.

People need to 'defend' their religion if they assert that it is the one and only truth, even if it is an internal truth, because at that point they are denying the truth of everything else.

All hail the mighty Odin!

Which God?

Second one on the left. Next to the teddy bear. :D

All hail the mighty Odin!

I'm a firm believer in the holiness of my left foot's toe. *nod*

Im the one true God.

Im the one true God.

Nah, that would be LG, you're just a pretender...

I woke up one morning to the realization that I was not required to believe in anything. It was the most liberating day of my life.

But you would still be wanting religion to work like science in the sense of being provable.

I guess I take exception with the idea of wanting to say that one set of beliefs have sufficient evidence and another does not.

I take exception to it because I also take exception to the notion that the purpose of religion is to provide facts.

It is my view that religion is not about facts, and if it is not about facts, then questions of evidence are never relevant to the worth of a religion.

It is my view that the purpose of religion is to help people create a sense of order in life that accounts for intangible personal feelings and reconciles those feelings with experience. It is entirely subjective and personal, not dependant on external facts at all, and no religious thought system is inherently more right than another.

EDIT: And because religion is so subjective and so personal, there can never be one set of criteria by which all religions could be judged.

No. There was some discussion as to what constituted sufficient evidence for religious belief. I said that it would be impossible to even discuss that intelligently unless we had some sort of criteria. You seem to think that I was suggesting some sort of scientific criteria. Perhaps I was not clear.

All hail the mighty Odin!

Hail!

I thought It was Scientifically proven the Morgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Almighty) Freeman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Almighty) was god?

I am an athiest, because it comforts me to think that our own decisions matter, and that we can't just be struck down by god at any time. Also, God never struck me as a "good" kind of person, I mean he destroyed the world, because people were not praying. I am also a very logical person, so the evidence against stuff in the bible, like the lack of dinasaurs being mentioned in it helped me decide against religion.

So then I take it 'organised religion' doesn't fit your criteria? As they are almost always dogmatic and based on historic ritual and not personal truth? Not to mention the fact they make all sorts of crazy assertions. You sound more like you are describing a personal spiritual interpretation of the world.

People need to 'defend' their religion if they assert that it is the one and only truth, even if it is an internal truth, because at that point they are denying the truth of everything else.
No, organized religions can and do fit my criteria.

They do purport to offer each person a sense of order in life and to reconcile feelings with experience (like the classic "why do bad things happen to good people" kind of question).

And no, I do not think the presence of dogma and historical ritual formula in any way negates an experience of personal truth.

And non-religious people and organizations make crazy assertions, too. Pretty routinely, in fact.

So, although I do not particularly like organized religion myself, I see nothing in organized religion that does not meet my ideas of what the function of religion is.

As for when and why people have to defend their religious beliefs, I would disagree with you only on a rather narrow point of focus, but yielding a pretty big difference. I think people never have to defend their beliefs, but they always have to defend their actions. I would never call upon someone to defend their beliefs to me. I would only call on them to defend/justify their choice to intrude upon my life with their beliefs.

So if, for example, a Christian thinks his beliefs are the only true beliefs and that my beliefs are false, I have no reason to care about that. His opinion shaves no skin off my nose. It is only if he seeks to establish laws that would interfere with my ability to follow my own beliefs that I need to care -- and then I am caring about what he does, not what he believes. I don't care if he thinks he is making room for false beliefs, just so long as he allows room in society for beliefs other than his own.

I'm a firm believer in the holiness of my left foot's toe. *nod*
Which toe? ;)

No. There was some discussion as to what constituted sufficient evidence for religious belief. I said that it would be impossible to even discuss that intelligently unless we had some sort of criteria. You seem to think that I was suggesting some sort of scientific criteria. Perhaps I was not clear.
Oh. Well then. Never mind. *Emily Litella voice*

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/images/emily-litella.jpg

Which toe?

The big toe.:D

No, organized religions can and do fit my criteria.

They do purport to offer each person a sense of order in life and to reconcile feelings with experience (like the classic "why do bad things happen to good people" kind of question).

And no, I do not think the presence of dogma and historical ritual formula in any way negates an experience of personal truth.

And non-religious people and organizations make crazy assertions, too. Pretty routinely, in fact.

So, although I do not particularly like organized religion myself, I see nothing in organized religion that does not meet my ideas of what the function of religion is.

I think dogma and ritual can negate the attempts of organised religion in providing personal truth. You are not allowed to believe your own interpretation. You are not allowed to behave in particular ways. You are not allowed to accept any personal truths outside of dogma. You have to pervert whatever personal truth you might have had and mold it to be accepted. You gain a sense of community and belonging, but at the expense of personal truth.


As for when and why people have to defend their religious beliefs, I would disagree with you only on a rather narrow point of focus, but yielding a pretty big difference. I think people never have to defend their beliefs, but they always have to defend their actions. I would never call upon someone to defend their beliefs to me. I would only call on them to defend/justify their choice to intrude upon my life with their beliefs.

So if, for example, a Christian thinks his beliefs are the only true beliefs and that my beliefs are false, I have no reason to care about that. His opinion shaves no skin off my nose. It is only if he seeks to establish laws that would interfere with my ability to follow my own beliefs that I need to care -- and then I am caring about what he does, not what he believes. I don't care if he thinks he is making room for false beliefs, just so long as he allows room in society for beliefs other than his own.

But one problem is when a fundamental belief is one which insists you proselytize. And it's perfectly understandable, they only want to save your soul. But it's almost a natural progression from believing you hold the sole truth.

Beliefs inform your behavior, I don't think it's so simple to separate the two so easily.

I'm undecided...or confused. I'm leaning more towards confused. In a way, a part of me wants to believe there is a higher being and a better place after we die. But then again, science has always reverted by beliefs. Some people say they were born for a reason. That I do believe in, and the reason of that is because you swam faster. That's just my opinion though. No intentions to disrespect anyone here.

Oh. Well then. Never mind. *Emily Litella voice*

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/images/emily-litella.jpg

It did get me thinking about different criteria we could apply to analysing different beliefs.

For example, if I walk into almost any Christian church in North America and say that God spoke to me and that He said we have to kill all the Belgians, most would not believe me.

But if I said that God told me that we should love our neighbour as if he were God, and that we should love God with all our heart, a good percentage would believe me.

So, there must be some criteria that the second claim passes while the first one doesn't. And this website seems to offer an example of such a criteria:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/denomchg.htm
Though it discusses how religious communities change their beliefs, it could also be used to judge the validity of differing beliefs.

I'll believe what I want to believe, live life with my code of honour, and see what happens when I die.

I'll believe what I want to believe, live life with my code of honour, and see what happens when I die.

5 billion people are of the opinion that you will be royally fucked!

(Please feel free to correct my estimate of believers, I can't be bothered to fact check this crap)

I think dogma and ritual can negate the attempts of organised religion in providing personal truth. You are not allowed to believe your own interpretation. You are not allowed to behave in particular ways. You are not allowed to accept any personal truths outside of dogma. You have to pervert whatever personal truth you might have had and mold it to be accepted. You gain a sense of community and belonging, but at the expense of personal truth.
I don't really believe that's true. I mean I do believe it's true that many people DON'T think for themselves and look for or find their own inner truth, but instead blindly conform to the dogma, but I don't think it's necessarily true that they are not allowed to think for themselves and find their own inner truth. And even in those religions where it is true, that doesn't mean they CAN'T do it, as in they lose the ability to do it.

That's why I say that I do not believe that organized religion is inherently hostile to finding inner truth.


But one problem is when a fundamental belief is one which insists you proselytize. And it's perfectly understandable, they only want to save your soul. But it's almost a natural progression from believing you hold the sole truth.
So? Most people are fairly well convinced of the rightness of their own beliefs to the exclusion of all others. Proselytizing does not create that mindset all on its own.

And as I was trying to say, believing that your belief is the sole truth does not interfere with a religion meeting my criteria for the proper function of a religion. Such a religion does offer the sense of order and reconciliation that I spoke of. It just does it in a manner that creates conflict with other people.

Beliefs inform your behavior, I don't think it's so simple to separate the two so easily.
Lots of people do it every day. Every person who has a religious belief but also supports the US First Amendment, for example.

I'm undecided...or confused. I'm leaning more towards confused. In a way, a part of me wants to believe there is a higher being and a better place after we die. But then again, science has always reverted by beliefs. Some people say they were born for a reason. That I do believe in, and the reason of that is because you swam faster. That's just my opinion though. No intentions to disrespect anyone here.
Well... half of you swam faster... ;)

I don't really believe that's true. I mean I do believe it's true that many people DON'T think for themselves and look for or find their own inner truth, but instead blindly conform to the dogma, but I don't think it's necessarily true that they are not allowed to think for themselves and find their own inner truth. And even in those religions where it is true, that doesn't mean they CAN'T do it, as in they lose the ability to do it.

That's why I say that I do not believe that organized religion is inherently hostile to finding inner truth.

But then isn't organised religion sort of irrelevant to inner truth? If you ignore most of it, you are just paying lip service to it but in fact believing something else. I agree in that sense it isn't hostile (as long as you're not found out of course......)


So? Most people are fairly well convinced of the rightness of their own beliefs to the exclusion of all others. Proselytizing does not create that mindset all on its own.

And as I was trying to say, believing that your belief is the sole truth does not interfere with a religion meeting my criteria for the proper function of a religion. Such a religion does offer the sense of order and reconciliation that I spoke of. It just does it in a manner that creates conflict with other people.

I was specifically thinking about organised religion promoting that mindset as a primary dogma. And I don't think people believe they are infallible in their beliefs. It's organised religion that makes that claim for them.

Lots of people do it every day. Every person who has a religious belief but also supports the US First Amendment, for example.

Isn't that a compromise because it's the law of the land? I'm sure plenty of people want to abolish particular amendments because of their religious beliefs, it's just bloody difficult.

Which God?

Erm, I'll say the hilariously cruel God which sets bears on children for mocking slapheads or who wipes out whole groups of people in the Old Testament is probably my favourite one.

I chose atheism because every religion either has something that automatically disqualifies it or just isn't right for me.

But then isn't organised religion sort of irrelevant to inner truth? If you ignore most of it, you are just paying lip service to it but in fact believing something else. I agree in that sense it isn't hostile (as long as you're not found out of course......)
What you are saying is only true if the person in question does not believe what the religion teaches. Why do you assume a person cannot find inner truth THROUGH the dogma and ritual formula? Why do you assume that, if they do find such inner truth, it would not agree with the dogma/ritual?

I was specifically thinking about organised religion promoting that mindset as a primary dogma. And I don't think people believe they are infallible in their beliefs. It's organised religion that makes that claim for them.
You and I disagree on that then. I believe the assumption of infallibility of one's beliefs comes from the believer.

Isn't that a compromise because it's the law of the land? I'm sure plenty of people want to abolish particular amendments because of their religious beliefs, it's just bloody difficult.
And I'm sure plenty of people have no such desire.

To state categorically that it's "a compromise because it's the law of the land" suggests the assumption that everyone who thinks their religious beliefs are true also wants to impose those beliefs on others. But I think that's just not the case. Many, many religions do not proselytize or seek converts, so those believers have no incentive to spread/impose their beliefs. And among those that do proselytize, there are many individuals who believe, and also churches that teach, that imposition by law is the wrong way to spread their beliefs. So those people also have little incentive to impose on others, even if they do think they are privy to the sole and only ultimate truth. I believe that those who seek to impose their "one true belief" over others are actually a minority of religious people.

Bugger. It appears we need a psychologist, sociologist and statistician to be able to settle this!

Hail!

Strange? Why hail Odin when your pic is a Seax Wiccan' symbol?

I am an athiest, because it comforts me to think that our own decisions matter, and that we can't just be struck down by god at any time. Also, God never struck me as a "good" kind of person, I mean he destroyed the world, because people were not praying. I am also a very logical person, so the evidence against stuff in the bible, like the lack of dinasaurs being mentioned in it helped me decide against religion.

Heheh welcome to our umm healthy NSg club.

It always makes me laugh when I see that some body has denouced the misdeeds of God due to just the one interuprtation, and you say you are a very logical person.

I think dogma and ritual can negate the attempts of organised religion in providing personal truth. You are not allowed to believe your own interpretation. You are not allowed to behave in particular ways. You are not allowed to accept any personal truths outside of dogma. You have to pervert whatever personal truth you might have had and mold it to be accepted. You gain a sense of community and belonging, but at the expense of personal truth.

Naaaa I don't agree with that. If you find that your personal truth changes, then change your faith, or leave it. They don't stop you from doing that y'know.

Bugger. It appears we need a psychologist, sociologist and statistician to be able to settle this!
No problem. NSG has plenty of those. :D

Believe in the Force!

Maybe I am a Druid......

Funny, you don't look Druish. :D

Funny, you don't look Druish. :D

Zing! :D

well im in a sort of "love triangle" (for lack of a better term) between deist, agnostic and atheist

though they are all almost the same thing there minuscule differences make all the difference
I'm being raised in a christian household, but for some reason i do not subscribe to the theory of god (from the christian veiw) i dont know why i just dont,

and when i think about it... how many religions have there been in the history of mankind? (thousands upon thousands) so how does one know that there religion was right?

fun fact Jesus is Jewish, but Christians call him there savior, but Catholics consider him there lord so Jesus is a sort of universal figure between three completely different religions

but i STRONGLY support freedom of religion, for all i care you could be a Muslim and i wouldn't care (untill you went jihad on me)

Reading through the recently created (and hopefully soon to be dead) Atheists versus christian thread i became interested in the Idea of how one would go about defending their choice of religion. Personally I'm Atheist (or extremely agnostic, proving an negative being highly difficult and all) but I'd be interested in seeing how those who are not defend their, personal choice here.
A couple of ground rules here though,
1)Please don't preach be that atheism, christianity, Islam, Satanism etc. this is about why you chose your personal religion not about converting others

2)Please stay away from the Ad hominems if at all possible.

3)Please realize there is no right answer here despite what I and many others would like to believe.

<sarcasm>
Don't be silly, of course there is only one right asnwer, in the same way that there is only one true religion! duh! :p
</sarcasm>

How do I defend my choice of religion? Honestly, I don't, and I don't see why I should have to. I don't ask anyone else to believe or follow it, and I don't stop them believing in their own religion or lack thereof, so why is it any of their business what I believe?

I made a conscious decision to follow my religion, because I believe it holds certain extremely valuable truths. That is the primary reason. Secondly, it means a lot to me, holding much indirect ethical teaching which I value. Thirdly, it means a lot to me personally. I love the gods :hail:

It is for those reasons that I follow it.

It has also fundamentally shaped my outlook and approach to life and proven to me that religion can make a positive impact, and contribute something of worth to the world, spirtually, culturally, ethically, creatively.

well im in a sort of "love triangle" (for lack of a better term) between deist, agnostic and atheist

though they are all almost the same thing there minuscule differences make all the difference
I'm being raised in a christian household, but for some reason i do not subscribe to the theory of god (from the christian veiw) i dont know why i just dont,

and when i think about it... how many religions have there been in the history of mankind? (thousands upon thousands) so how does one know that there religion was right?

fun fact Jesus is Jewish, but Christians call him there savior, but Catholics consider him there lord so Jesus is a sort of universal figure between three completely different religions

but i STRONGLY support freedom of religion, for all i care you could be a Muslim and i wouldn't care (untill you went jihad on me)

Catholics are christian.

Zarquon.

all gods are really the same one very strainge thing no one knows anything about, except maybe one person every thousand years, give or take a few hundred, that IT chooses to be channeled by.

all the names different people call it by are just words we've made up, unless any of them actually came from one of those people it chose to have tell us about it, but i kindof doubt any of them did.

Judeism sprung out of a polytheistic babylonian religion where a cult rose one god, Yaweh, above all others. The Christian and Islamic religions then sprang from cultic offshoots of Judeism, who then followed their deific prophets in the form of Jesus and the Archangel Gabri-el respectively. Conclusion: All relgions are cults pushing their philosophies upon the world. Read your history people.

First, atheism isn't a religion...being an atheist means that you accept the severe lack of evidence for anything super natural...there are no dogmas; faith does not play any role; and it isn't an answer/placeholder used to replace or examine an unknown (or known) phenomena. Atheism is a system of logic, understanding, healthy skepticism, and acceptance...religions are (and I am being very nice and way over simplifying all of the things religions are) organizations based on dogmatic faiths and personal mysticism. Long answer shorten...atheism shouldn't be in a religious conversation and religion shouldn't be a part of any discussion that deals with the natural world.

First, atheism isn't a religion...being an atheist means that you accept the severe lack of evidence for anything super natural...there are no dogmas; faith does not play any role; and it isn't an answer/placeholder used to replace or examine an unknown (or known) phenomena. Atheism is a system of logic, understanding, healthy skepticism, and acceptance...religions are (and I am being very nice and way over simplifying all of the things religions are) organizations based on dogmatic faiths and personal mysticism. Long answer shorten...atheism shouldn't be in a religious conversation and religion shouldn't be a part of any discussion that deals with the natural world.
What about religions that worship the natural world?

Naaaa I don't agree with that. If you find that your personal truth changes, then change your faith, or leave it. They don't stop you from doing that y'know.

Apparently you have never come across the terms 'Apostate' or 'Heresy' and the ensuing difficulties one might experience with them

First, atheism isn't a religion...being an atheist means that you accept the severe lack of evidence for anything super natural...there are no dogmas; faith does not play any role; and it isn't an answer/placeholder used to replace or examine an unknown (or known) phenomena. Atheism is a system of logic, understanding, healthy skepticism, and acceptance...religions are (and I am being very nice and way over simplifying all of the things religions are) organizations based on dogmatic faiths and personal mysticism. Long answer shorten...atheism shouldn't be in a religious conversation and religion shouldn't be a part of any discussion that deals with the natural world.

Atheism isn't a religion in a traditional sense, but it's still a belief system. It has an opinion on the metaphysical - that it doesn't exist.

It has faith in it's axiom's primacy. It has faith that logic as a system is sufficient to describe the universe. It has faith that empirical evidence expresses the sum total of the universe. None of these assumptions can be be proved empirically, so one must have faith in them.

Heheh welcome to our umm healthy NSg club.

It always makes me laugh when I see that some body has denouced the misdeeds of God due to just the one interuprtation, and you say you are a very logical person.

Hey, he turned some person into salt, flooded the world, ect. ect. At least that is what I get. Then again I'm only a kid.

i am a cross between a catholic, a unitarian universalist, a buddhist and an agnostic ...

yay !!!

hahaha

What about religions that worship the natural world?

Are you speaking of people who incorporate nature into rituals? Or wicca? Or Gaia worshipers? or animisms? really it doesn't matter the key word you use that makes nature itself a deity is "worship" and in doing so placing an idea of nature being a conscious entity. There is a vast difference between having and understanding of nature and respecting it, and worshiping nature to the point where you do not make rational decisions.

Catholicism: The religion of choice for schizophrenics

You didn't read the story properly did you?

He stopped believing in God and he developed schizophrenia, after he started believing again he has now managed to control the illness.

I believe in my god because she felt more "right" to me. I of course have no proof that she or the others in her circle exist, but neither does anybody else about what they believe spiritually.

I grew up Catholic and Unitarian Universalist, eventually the religious pluralism of the latter caused me to question the strict doctrines (many of which I disagreed with) of the former. And I realized that what I believed was entirely up to me.

Catholic-turned-Taoist.

Are you speaking of people who incorporate nature into rituals? Or wicca? Or Gaia worshipers? or animisms?
Yes.

really it doesn't matter the key word you use that makes nature itself a deity is "worship" and in doing so placing an idea of nature being a conscious entity. There is a vast difference between having and understanding of nature and respecting it, and worshiping nature to the point where you do not make rational decisions.
The bolded part is quite a leap there, friend. By what argument do you justify the suggestion that worship is not a rational decision?

Actually, now that I think of it, I'll highlight by underscoring another leap that I would like see explained. Please see underscored part of above quote and explain just what is your understanding of how the various groups (or any one of them) "worships" so that it supports your assertion that "nature" is being understood as "a conscious entity."

Full disclosure: I am an animist, and I know how my religion works, so be mindful that there will be a critique.

Allah= He who is called I am= Christian Trinity, therefore, God superiority is moot. End of thread?

Allah= He who is called I am= Christian Trinity, therefore, God superiority is moot. End of thread?

Lolwut?

Please restate your opinion in a form that makes sense.

Lolwut?

Please restate your opinion in a form that makes sense.

Oh fine. The Muslim god, Allah, is the same entity worshiped by the Jews, He Who Is Called I Am, (Voldemort much?) and the Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are all one and the same. Mindfuck? Youbetcha.

Atheism. I am an atheist because I cannot believe for a minute that an all-knowing and loving God would say and do most of what is in the Bible/Koran/whatever. If I had to pick a religion, it'd be Satanism, because I scarcely think Lucifer is gonna be any more evil than the dude upstairs.

There are non-Abrahamic religions I find relatively sensible, but they don't really exercise any pull on me. I'm just not very spiritual.

Oh fine. The Muslim god, Allah, is the same entity worshiped by the Jews, He Who Is Called I Am, (Voldemort much?) and the Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are all one and the same. Mindfuck? Youbetcha.

Yes, but how does it make that god superior or god superiority moot? We all know that said family of religions shares one god.

Yes, but how does it make that god superior or god superiority moot? We all know that said family of religions shares one god.

So what other gods are there to discuss? Other than the Indian gods, which are left?

What about religions that worship the natural world?

Atheism isn't a religion in a traditional sense, but it's still a belief system. It has an opinion on the metaphysical - that it doesn't exist.

It has faith in it's axiom's primacy. It has faith that logic as a system is sufficient to describe the universe. It has faith that empirical evidence expresses the sum total of the universe. None of these assumptions can be be proved empirically, so one must have faith in them.

Atheism isn't a system of methods that try to assert a "why"...atheism is really just one thing...and understanding that the super natural doesn't exist...how one gets to that point is a journey onto themselves...the only place I was "wrong" was speaking as if atheists were a group unified under methods that make sense to me. my methods and the evidence or lack of evidence that points me to the extreme high probability there are no deities...my understanding of the universe isn't because I am an atheist...it doesn't shape my philosophies, my morals, or anything else that is a part of how I live my life and interact with others.

Just believing there is a god or isn't a god isn't a religion either...atheism and being an atheist is just stating that I have an understanding there are no gods...therefore it isn't a religion because you are absolutely wrong in saying it is a system of beliefs.

So what other gods are there to discuss? Other than the Indian gods, which are left?

Um... lots of gods, actually.

Hindu gods, as you've mentioned, Asatru gods, Celtic gods, Slavic pagan gods, there's been a resurgence in the Greek and Roman gods as well, in addition to the Egyptian gods, one of which has been continuously worshiped by small groups for a couple thousand years.

Then of course, there are the various pantheons of Native American groups, who in many cases are still worshiped. There's a lot of religion that has nothing to do with the Abrahamic god.

Atheism isn't a system of methods that try to assert a "why"...atheism is really just one thing...and understanding that the super natural doesn't exist...how one gets to that point is a journey onto themselves...the only place I was "wrong" was speaking as if atheists were a group unified under methods that make sense to me. my methods and the evidence or lack of evidence that points me to the extreme high probability there are no deities...my understanding of the universe isn't because I am an atheist...it doesn't shape my philosophies, my morals, or anything else that is a part of how I live my life and interact with others.

Just believing there is a god or isn't a god isn't a religion either...atheism and being an atheist is just stating that I have an understanding there are no gods...therefore it isn't a religion because you are absolutely wrong in saying it is a system of beliefs.
Why are you analyzing HC&S's atheist comments to me?

Have you decided just not to answer the questions I did ask you?

Um... lots of gods, actually.

Hindu gods, as you've mentioned, Asatru gods, Celtic gods, Slavic pagan gods, there's been a resurgence in the Greek and Roman gods as well, in addition to the Egyptian gods, one of which has been continuously worshiped by small groups for a couple thousand years.

Then of course, there are the various pantheons of Native American groups, who in many cases are still worshiped. There's a lot of religion that has nothing to do with the Abrahamic god.
Native American, North and South. And don't forget the gods of indigenous African cultures, indigenous Asian cultures, and the Pacific/Oceanic regions. Not to mention the culturally syncretic gods of religions such as Voudoun and Santeria.

Yes.


The bolded part is quite a leap there, friend. By what argument do you justify the suggestion that worship is not a rational decision?

Actually, now that I think of it, I'll highlight by underscoring another leap that I would like see explained. Please see underscored part of above quote and explain just what is your understanding of how the various groups (or any one of them) "worships" so that it supports your assertion that "nature" is being understood as "a conscious entity."

Full disclosure: I am an animist, and I know how my religion works, so be mindful that there will be a critique.

1>what is your definition of worship? and do you realize that worship is only really viewed as "healthy" only when it is in a religious context?

2>assuming you believe that there are souls, which you assert you are an animist...p.s. any religion that has a belief in "souls", "spirits", etc. are animists...so you are a Shintoist? christian? pagan?....so souls are what exactly? the conscious entity that resides in everything?

3>Dreams are what exactly to you? I am asking you these questions because just stating you are an animist makes it difficult to critique your religion and make a single argument...but wait...it real doesn't matter.

There is no evidence of souls, spirits, etc. utilizing the argument of a soul as an explanation in any context is arguing for the super natural and therefore it is irrational.

Native American, North and South. And don't forget the gods of indigenous African cultures, indigenous Asian cultures, and the Pacific/Oceanic regions. Not to mention the culturally syncretic gods of religions such as Voudoun and Santeria.

I knew I'd forgotten some.

But yes, to assume that the Abrahamic god is the only one besides the Hindu pantheon currently worshiped is quite ignorant/naive.

Native American, North and South. And don't forget the gods of indigenous African cultures, indigenous Asian cultures, and the Pacific/Oceanic regions. Not to mention the culturally syncretic gods of religions such as Voudoun and Santeria.

As I rember someone created a list of gods and it was over a thousand long. . .Can't remeber who though (it was on NS)

1>what is your definition of worship?
When it comes to defining words, I like to use dictionaries. Here's one example: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship[2]

Click on option 2 to cut to the verb definition as well.

and do you realize that worship is only really viewed as "healthy" only when it is in a religious context?
No shit, really? Just what are you trying to imply here?

2>assuming you believe that there are souls, which you assert you are an animist...p.s. any religion that has a belief in "souls", "spirits", etc. are animists
Actually, that is not accurate. For instance, Christianity, although it includes a belief in souls is not an animist religion because souls are not objects of veneration and neither are spirits (for those animists who view spirits as distinct from souls).

...so you are a Shintoist? christian? pagan?....
I do not belong to any group because I am a Shintoist-style animist but not Japanese and not living in Japan. (EDIT: And also because I'm the only non-Portuguese-speaking animist in my neighborhood.) I venerate (note: not "worship") the spirits of my European ancestors and the spirits that I believe reside in the location where I live (Boston, Massachusetts), and I do so in the manner which suits my culture, which is also not Japanese. But in terms of my concepts of spiritual reality and the ways in which I conduct myself, Shinto is the closest still fully practiced religion that serves as an illustrative example.

so souls are what exactly? the conscious entity that resides in everything?
I take the old-Europe folk view of souls, namely that the soul is more or less equivalent to the self. With any being that you interact with, you are interacting with a soul that inhabits a form. Souls are individual and have identity (which may change from time to time). In a limited way, one might say soul = ghost.

3>Dreams are what exactly to you?
Um...they are things you have while you sleep. What are they to you?

I am asking you these questions because just stating you are an animist makes it difficult to critique your religion and make a single argument...but wait...it real doesn't matter.

There is no evidence of souls, spirits, etc. utilizing the argument of a soul as an explanation in any context is arguing for the super natural and therefore it is irrational.
Oh, I see, it doesn't matter because you had no intention of treating my answers seriously, as your prejudice had already given you all the answers you want, so you were just setting me up for the big dismissal?

And I notice you still have not answered my questions. Dodge much?

1. I asked you your definition because it is very obvious that you are passionate about this and since it is so personal i would think you would use your noggin, search your soul for an answer.

2. Souls are not objects of veneration in christianity? try using your references and get back to me on that, please.

3. I was using shinoist as a basic example of a religion who believes that objects, organisms, and such have spirits within...i wasn't accusing you of being a shintoist...again i asked because you claim to be a animist...which if you use your reference is what exactly?


4. Why don't you give me the less limited definition...maybe if you explain it to me i will not shrug you off as someone who doesn't really know that much about their religion as they say they do just because they think it is a "cool" label...which is the way that you pretty much come off.


The dreams question was to gauge what part of your religions you believe in or you even know about...again it is hard to determine since you obviously don't understand much about your label, or don't choose to, or are to busy being angry to see that I am not attacking you, but hey prove my point.

I took you as seriously as i could considering you had an attacking tone from the your first post...I asked you questions from the, what i though was a limited understanding of a term/topic and thought that you could give me a better understanding...instead you proved my point...

I wasn't dodging I was trying to get more information to formulate a better set of examples to prove my point...instead you have proven yourself irrational in that you argue for your faith because you base a part of your life on it and can't defend it in a civil RATIONAL way.

My implications were not directed to you as I didn't know anything about you...i have a better understanding of you now...my implication were towards people who "worship" who think it is a rational thing to do so are in fact irrational...

It is a shame that you have to claim I am prejudice towards your faith...but then it seems I might have a better understanding of your faith...and since a prejudice is a prejudgment before I understand something, and you refuse to answer any of my questions seriously before you understand me...you get where i am going with this? maybe youre the bigot??? I am just saying, maybe if you looked yourself up in the dictionary you could find out?

Just because you claim to be something doesn't mean you aren't ignorant to some or apparently a lot of what you think you are.

It's silly to assume that all members of a religion follow every part of that religion.

Zarquon.

His second coming may be a little late.

When it comes to defining words, I like to use dictionaries. Here's one example: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship[2]

I share your preference for dictionaries, but I've noticed a lot of users on NSG, particularly when it comes to metaphysical issues, will dismiss a dictionary defintion as arbitrary.

Even if a defining characteristic is directly stated in the dictionary, they will dismiss those aspects of the definition they don't like if they feel it imposes a rule with no functional or practical necessity to it.

I've tried to be more accomodating of that. Not sure where Gondoras is going with this, though.

Judeism sprung out of a polytheistic babylonian religion where a cult rose one god, Yaweh, above all others. The Christian and Islamic religions then sprang from cultic offshoots of Judeism, who then followed their deific prophets in the form of Jesus and the Archangel Gabri-el respectively. Conclusion: All relgions are cults pushing their philosophies upon the world. Read your history people.

these you mention are not even close to being all religeons, but you do seem to have gotten the history of these few you mention more or less right.

however, each of these, moses, christ, mohammid, again, along with the founders of other beliefs, are not unlikely to have been, as baha'u'llah claimed, chosen by that same unknown and unknowable god/tao, to be a channel for it.

it is not unusual for these manifestations to appear within the context of previously existing beliefs. they do only come along once every thousand years though, give or take a few hundred.

I'm open to the possibility of a god, but I sincerely doubt human beings matter all that much in terms of the Creator.

Judaism sprung out of a polytheistic Babylonian religion where a cult rose one god, Yaweh, above all others. The Christian and Islamic religions then sprang from cultic offshoots of Judaism, who then followed their deific prophets in the form of Jesus and the Archangel Gabri-el respectively. Conclusion: All religions are cults pushing their philosophies upon the world. Read your history people.

I do read my history. Though it's most likely not a Babylonian god from which Judaism springs, but most likely an off-shoot from the Levantine cult of El and Asherah, the former giving his name as the stem for the Hebrew ilah and Arabic allah are derived. SOURCE (http://www.jstor.org/stable/673270?seq=1) (for the history, not the etymology)

I could also talk about the origins of my religion (and do so, since it's part of my uni work) but academia and faith are two different things. I am willing to scrutinise and dissemble the origins and theocratic maneuvering of my own and any other religion, but that doesn't mean I don't have faith in it. It just means that, like anything, it can be used for multiple ends, some good, some bad, some just downright bizarre.

That's not the fault of religion, that the fault of people, usually politicians (and politicians can wear the clothes of a priest just as easily as the big hair of a president)

I often ponder the existance/non-existance of a divine being, and during these times I have generally bemused myself sensless. How can there be a deity when there are so many? I would like to believe that a God does exist, but I just can't. Science has proven so many thing; answered so many questions. The human race is slowly unravelling the mysteries of the Universe.

Every day, the thought of a Creator becomes less and less likely. I have come to believe that the idea of a Supreme Being was just put in place to stop people going insane. If one thinks that there is nothing after death, then onee has nothing to live for. It is all, in the grand scheme of things, pointless to exist. If, however, one believes that when it is all over he will have an eternal reward in a spiritual world, then he has something to look forward to.

I find myself Agnostic, even though I am of Catholic decent and belong to a rather heavily Religous family. There are just too many reasons to why a God might not exist. Why would he favor Human Kind, for existance, above any other form of life in the Universe? It is impossible to thing that in an infinite Universe, we are alone. It would be pompous to believe that a deity has created life on a single planet in some far flung galaxy somewhere in an ever-expanding Universe, and decided they shall live to worship him.

So, in my own mind, I must believe that a God cannot exist. Why would he ask us to worship him if he knew that it would cause so much bloodshed? Why would he create a species that is filled with hate? And why, please tell me, would he create a creature as POINTLESS as the Koala Bear.
Seriously, it doesn't really DO anything. It eats and it sleeps. And then it walks around like it's on drugs, before sleeping some more.

Anyway, that's just my belief. You all have your own, and if it helps you live happily, then stick to it.

-The Social Ninjas

Apparently you have never come across the terms 'Apostate' or 'Heresy' and the ensuing difficulties one might experience with them

Yes of course I have. But really heresy in this day?

1. I asked you your definition because it is very obvious that you are passionate about this and since it is so personal i would think you would use your noggin, search your soul for an answer.

2. Souls are not objects of veneration in christianity? try using your references and get back to me on that, please.

3. I was using shinoist as a basic example of a religion who believes that objects, organisms, and such have spirits within...i wasn't accusing you of being a shintoist...again i asked because you claim to be a animist...which if you use your reference is what exactly?


4. Why don't you give me the less limited definition...maybe if you explain it to me i will not shrug you off as someone who doesn't really know that much about their religion as they say they do just because they think it is a "cool" label...which is the way that you pretty much come off.


The dreams question was to gauge what part of your religions you believe in or you even know about...again it is hard to determine since you obviously don't understand much about your label, or don't choose to, or are to busy being angry to see that I am not attacking you, but hey prove my point.

I took you as seriously as i could considering you had an attacking tone from the your first post...I asked you questions from the, what i though was a limited understanding of a term/topic and thought that you could give me a better understanding...instead you proved my point...

I wasn't dodging I was trying to get more information to formulate a better set of examples to prove my point...instead you have proven yourself irrational in that you argue for your faith because you base a part of your life on it and can't defend it in a civil RATIONAL way.

My implications were not directed to you as I didn't know anything about you...i have a better understanding of you now...my implication were towards people who "worship" who think it is a rational thing to do so are in fact irrational...

It is a shame that you have to claim I am prejudice towards your faith...but then it seems I might have a better understanding of your faith...and since a prejudice is a prejudgment before I understand something, and you refuse to answer any of my questions seriously before you understand me...you get where i am going with this? maybe youre the bigot??? I am just saying, maybe if you looked yourself up in the dictionary you could find out?

Just because you claim to be something doesn't mean you aren't ignorant to some or apparently a lot of what you think you are.

Why don't you answer the questions that were asked of you, instead of going such a round-about way to suggest that I'm a liar or an idiot?

I share your preference for dictionaries, but I've noticed a lot of users on NSG, particularly when it comes to metaphysical issues, will dismiss a dictionary defintion as arbitrary.

Even if a defining characteristic is directly stated in the dictionary, they will dismiss those aspects of the definition they don't like if they feel it imposes a rule with no functional or practical necessity to it.

I've tried to be more accomodating of that. Not sure where Gondoras is going with this, though.

I'm a pessimist, so I suspect Gondaras is going the route of attacking me personally, denouncing my personality, and suggesting that I don't know what I'm talking about concerning my own beliefs, possibly because he doesn't have answers to the questions I asked him.

I'm a pessimist, so I suspect Gondaras is going the route of attacking me personally, denouncing my personality, and suggesting that I don't know what I'm talking about concerning my own beliefs, possibly because he doesn't have answers to the questions I asked him.

Again, wasn't attacking you, youre just a little unsure in your faith I think. You and I did a great job of answering your initial questions...worship, devotion to deities, reverence offered to something that there is no proof of is irrational. the decisions you make in the name of that devotion is irrational...you are being irrational. See, now i am attacking you personally, since you goaded me into calling you an idiot...you think I made a snap judgment on you? I was trying and still am to figure out what your philosophies are...instead you started out being defensive and refusing a civil argument...i've answered your questions, you've shown through your responses that my assertions are justified, sure i might have some mistakes in logic, but you don't have the ability it appears to call me out and help me understand the error of my ways...don't misunderstand me by saying I am attacking your personality...you could be a tolerable person...I am questioning your beliefs...if your beliefs are so wrapped up in your personality, I would suggest a better understanding of them...youre an idiot.

Again, wasn't attacking you, youre just a little unsure in your faith I think. You and I did a great job of answering your initial questions...worship, devotion to deities, reverence offered to something that there is no proof of is irrational. the decisions you make in the name of that devotion is irrational...you are being irrational. See, now i am attacking you personally, since you goaded me into calling you an idiot...you think I made a snap judgment on you? I was trying and still am to figure out what your philosophies are...instead you started out being defensive and refusing a civil argument...i've answered your questions, you've shown through your responses that my assertions are justified, sure i might have some mistakes in logic, but you don't have the ability it appears to call me out and help me understand the error of my ways...don't misunderstand me by saying I am attacking your personality...you could be a tolerable person...I am questioning your beliefs...if your beliefs are so wrapped up in your personality, I would suggest a better understanding of them...youre an idiot.

Ohhhh fight fight fight fight......!


Yeah of course belife in God is irrational, then again many things are.

Again, wasn't attacking you, youre just a little unsure in your faith I think. You and I did a great job of answering your initial questions...worship, devotion to deities, reverence offered to something that there is no proof of is irrational. the decisions you make in the name of that devotion is irrational...you are being irrational. See, now i am attacking you personally, since you goaded me into calling you an idiot...you think I made a snap judgment on you? I was trying and still am to figure out what your philosophies are...instead you started out being defensive and refusing a civil argument...i've answered your questions, you've shown through your responses that my assertions are justified, sure i might have some mistakes in logic, but you don't have the ability it appears to call me out and help me understand the error of my ways...don't misunderstand me by saying I am attacking your personality...you could be a tolerable person...I am questioning your beliefs...if your beliefs are so wrapped up in your personality, I would suggest a better understanding of them...youre an idiot.

Ohhhh fight fight fight fight......!


Yeah of course belife in God is irrational, then again many things are.

Sadly, the bloodletting must wait until tonight, because I can't really hand down the full religion-themed smack-down at the law office I'm on assignment to today. They'd give me the hinky-eyeball for having NSG open so long.

But this guy taking this opportunity to turn this into a personal war -- and blame me for it, into the bargain -- really does indicate that I was right from the start. He doesn't have real answers for me because he's talking crap about stuff he knows nothing about and was not prepared to be challenged even on something as mild and minor as how he defines his terms. Weak. He will hardly amount to dinner entertainment, but my only other option tonight is poor Rufus Sewell's lousy tv show.

Oh, well, lunch time. :D

Ohhhh fight fight fight fight......!


Yeah of course belife in God is irrational, then again many things are.

Hahaha...I realize that this has gone way off the topic of the forum and I tried to initially explain that atheism isn't a religion (sort of failed at that because I made it seem like all atheists practice common methods to read an understanding...which is wrong)...some one asked me in regard to people who worship nature...worship is not a method of understanding (a rational one). Making/ willing something super natural resides in something natural doesn't make that super natural spirit or soul or fairy or god a part of nature...it is inevitable that people will take things way too personally. ah well, i hope at least reading two idiots arguing is semi-entertaining...

Hahaha...I realize that this has gone way off the topic of the forum and I tried to initially explain that atheism isn't a religion (sort of failed at that because I made it seem like all atheists practice common methods to read an understanding...which is wrong)...some one asked me in regard to people who worship nature...worship is not a method of understanding (a rational one). Making/ willing something super natural resides in something natural doesn't make that super natural spirit or soul or fairy or god a part of nature...it is inevitable that people will take things way too personally. ah well, i hope at least reading two idiots arguing is semi-entertaining...


heh now I can see by thevery choice of your words that you do not belive in a God of some form or other.

So I'll just point out that for many people it is not a case of making or willing something super natural in the nautural, some might instead call it a realistation.

I am indeed one of these, I see God prevalant throughout the creation indeed it seems odd to me to say that athis or not does not contain God, a rock, a plant, even you!

Sadly, the bloodletting must wait until tonight, because I can't really hand down the full religion-themed smack-down at the law office I'm on assignment to today. They'd give me the hinky-eyeball for having NSG open so long.

But this guy taking this opportunity to turn this into a personal war -- and blame me for it, into the bargain -- really does indicate that I was right from the start. He doesn't have real answers for me because he's talking crap about stuff he knows nothing about and was not prepared to be challenged even on something as mild and minor as how he defines his terms. Weak. He will hardly amount to dinner entertainment, but my only other option tonight is poor Rufus Sewell's lousy tv show.

Oh, well, lunch time. :D

You fired the first shots...and it isn't a war because I am not trying to win anything or convert you by any means...that is a fools errand...for someone who works in a law office you aren't very good at figuring out that I have answered your questions, numerous times over (i am assuming you are trying to state you are or are working on being an attorney)...and if defining terms is such a minor thing, why can't you give me a definition of your personal religion? I would feel bad if you actually are a lawyer and had to defend a case, sir...and if you don't have time to give me a religious smack down, why not talk to one of your ghost buddies to come and try and explain it to me? and "dark city" was awesome...that is a rufus reference.

You fired the first shots...and it isn't a war because I am not trying to win anything or convert you by any means...that is a fools errand...for someone who works in a law office you aren't very good at figuring out that I have answered your questions, numerous times over (i am assuming you are trying to state you are or are working on being an attorney)...and if defining terms is such a minor thing, why can't you give me a definition of your personal religion? I would feel bad if you actually are a lawyer and had to defend a case, sir...and if you don't have time to give me a religious smack down, why not talk to one of your ghost buddies to come and try and explain it to me? and "dark city" was awesome...that is a rufus reference.
The only thing I started was asking you to justify two remarks that I saw as logical leaps, and I asked you to do so by explaining your understanding of the particular groups you mentioned.

Apparently, in your world, that's an attack, and the appropriate way to answer it is to insult, belittle and otherwise flame me. However, you apparently do not consider it appropriate to answer the questions that were put to you. (I'm aware that you claim to have answered them "numerous times." It is my position tht your "answers" have been non-responsive.)

But do keep posting attacks against me, please. It is my intention tonight to highlight your argumentative and non-responsive tactics and thus reveal you as the poor debater (at best) or troll (at worst) that you appear to be. The more you post, the more I have to work with.

Like in the above comment, where you try to put words in my mouth. Did I say I was a lawyer? Why, no, I did not. *adds that to the list*

The only thing I started was asking you to justify two remarks that I saw as logical leaps, and I asked you to do so by explaining your understanding of the particular groups you mentioned.

Apparently, in your world, that's an attack, and the appropriate way to answer it is to insult, belittle and otherwise flame me. However, you apparently do not consider it appropriate to answer the questions that were put to you. (I'm aware that you claim to have answered them "numerous times." It is my position tht your "answers" have been non-responsive.)

But do keep posting attacks against me, please. It is my intention tonight to highlight your argumentative and non-responsive tactics and thus reveal you as the poor debater (at best) or troll (at worst) that you appear to be. The more you post, the more I have to work with.

Like in the above comment, where you try to put words in my mouth. Did I say I was a lawyer? Why, no, I did not. *adds that to the list*

oh boy, don't waste your time as i am wasting mine...why even mention you work at a law office, doesn't matter...our argument will always be cyclical and never work out, we're both too thick headed, friend...i am not conceding by any stretch I am just tired of you...flat out, and I don't care if I offend you or anyone...believing in anything supernatural and then using it as an explanation or remedy or whatever is irrational.

Are you speaking of people who incorporate nature into rituals? Or wicca? Or Gaia worshipers? or animisms? really it doesn't matter the key word you use that makes nature itself a deity is "worship" and in doing so placing an idea of nature being a conscious entity. There is a vast difference between having and understanding of nature and respecting it, and worshiping nature to the point where you do not make rational decisions.

Before you get into more trouble, I will clarify something.

First of all, venerating nature in any form does not mean that you believe that nature is conscious the way you and I are. You can believe nature is sacred without thinking it is conscious. For example, taoists believe that the yin and yang forces exist in nature, but they do not think that those forces are conscious.

Now, I will ask you something. What do you mean by rational decisions?

Atheism isn't a system of methods that try to assert a "why"...atheism is really just one thing...and understanding that the super natural doesn't exist...how one gets to that point is a journey onto themselves...the only place I was "wrong" was speaking as if atheists were a group unified under methods that make sense to me. my methods and the evidence or lack of evidence that points me to the extreme high probability there are no deities...my understanding of the universe isn't because I am an atheist...it doesn't shape my philosophies, my morals, or anything else that is a part of how I live my life and interact with others.

Just believing there is a god or isn't a god isn't a religion either...atheism and being an atheist is just stating that I have an understanding there are no gods...therefore it isn't a religion because you are absolutely wrong in saying it is a system of beliefs.

I agree I was also wrong in making the claim it was a whole belief system - it is quite specific.

However it can be the central tenet of a belief system, and influence your ethics and philosophy on life. I think it's just as important an assertion to say there is no god, as it is to say there is, or that there is a certain type of God. They all would inform how you formulate your system of ethics.

Before you get into more trouble, I will clarify something.

First of all, venerating nature in any form does not mean that you believe that nature is conscious the way you and I are. You can believe nature is sacred without thinking it is conscious. For example, taoists believe that the yin and yang forces exist in nature, but they do not think that those forces are conscious.

Now, I will ask you something. What do you mean by rational decisions?

Trouble? Hardly...having a healthy respect for nature, an understanding of nature is different than believing the the sanctity of it...you can't say something is sacred and not imply that it has a mystical, holy, spiritual element to it...secondly the yin and the yang are not forces onto themselves...they are a description of the natural forces that we can witness...day turns into night night into day etc. Yin and yang are not elements of a mystical nature...they are labels that you can place on anything to show that there is some kind of a relationship between natural forces.

Taoism is a religion or rather a ton of religions (some even use it as a philosophy) that aren't unified and focus on certain aspects of life that might not relate to each other and the journey to get to them...maybe it is; long life, living forever, humility, wealth, the way of the open palm whatever it is...and some of them do have a healthy respect for nature...of course some believe or try to sell feng shui as a way to get you qi in line by making your living room look nicer...even if they think it is conscious or not, that seems to be a bit irrational to me. I am not saying that all taoists believe in feng shui...what i am saying is that just because you respect nature isnt the same as being religious and worshiping nature.

Rational decisions are ones made using the best tangible evidence that is known to have the highest probability...for instance if i asked you if the sun will rise tomorrow...you'd say of course it will because we have evidence to support that the sun will probably come up tomorrow...and irrational answer would be saying that the sun will come up tomorrow if (insert deity here) deems it worthy to do so....that is making a decision not on logic and understanding, but on blind faith that has no evidence even though there is very reliable, testable, tangible, and most importantly falsifiable evidence to the contrary.

...of course some believe or try to sell feng shui as a way to get you qi in line by making your living room look nicer...even if they think it is conscious or not...

Okay, so you admit that there are people who think divine or supernatural things (like qi) exist in nature but are not conscious. One does not automatically mean the other.

What do you mean by worship?

Rational decisions are ones made using the best tangible evidence that is known to have the highest probability...and most importantly falsifiable evidence to the contrary.

So, Newton's theories of physics were proven wrong (i.e. falsified) by Einstein's theories. So, the rational decision would be to use Einstein's theories, right? Now, the structure you are sitting in was probably designed according to the Newtonian model by qualified structural engineers. They use falsified theories. Are they being irrational? You obviously do not think so, as you aren't running outside in a panic.

So it is possible to make rational decisions with evidence that you know is not the best or has been falsified.

I agree I was also wrong in making the claim it was a whole belief system - it is quite specific.

However it can be the central tenet of a belief system, and influence your ethics and philosophy on life. I think it's just as important an assertion to say there is no god, as it is to say there is, or that there is a certain type of God. They all would inform how you formulate your system of ethics.

My ethics and not all of my philosophies do not stem from the fact that there is no higher power...ethics don't need to stem from the divine...in fact they are very natural...when you put labels like "good" and "bad" on somethings it is for you the observer to say...being and atheist doesn't mean you don't have an understanding that if you hurt someone you not only mess up their life, but the lives of others around them...it is a pack dynamic...so no ethics shouldn't be influenced by one's lack of belief, but rather from an understanding of empathy and consequence. philosophies are formulated from experiences...they are the pursuits of of wisdom and knowledge that can stem from any science...understanding that there aren't supernatural forces at play in our existence just means we get our understand from natural things...you might be saying that atheism=hopelessness, or maybe pointlessness...atheism doesn't say one way or another that life is pointless because there is no god...that is also a personal choice made by everyone regardless of belief...I find life very fulfilling, wonderful, and amazing. I know people who claim to be very spiritual but are hopelessly depressed.

Gods don't formulate ethics...god didn't give us the golden rule or tell us not to murder/kill...for social species that live close to one another it kinda makes sense, don't you think...we feel comfortable around other people like us...if we have a killer in around then we no longer feel comfortable and the group dynamic is all screwy...so don't kill and we all feel good about being around each other.

I am not trying to persuade you into being an atheist...that isn't for me to do...however you have to be careful when you say that ethics are divine because people can use that to their advantage and cause horrible things to happen...and I am not talking about huge horrible things like Jim Jones did, but even the small stuff like hurting yourself mentally, feeling shame, where there really doesn't need to be any can snowball into bad mind states.

If you were starving, had no money, and no one is willing to help you, but you have the opportunity to take sustenance that isn't yours would you take it even though one of the commandments says not to steal?

Okay, so you admit that there are people who think divine or supernatural things (like qi) exist in nature but are not conscious. One does not automatically mean the other.

What do you mean by worship?

Worship...practices to appease a divine or supernatural force through rituals or traditions.

So, Newton's theories of physics were proven wrong (i.e. falsified) by Einstein's theories. So, the rational decision would be to use Einstein's theories, right? Now, the structure you are sitting in was probably designed according to the Newtonian model by qualified structural engineers. They use falsified theories. Are they being irrational? You obviously do not think so, as you aren't running outside in a panic.

So it is possible to make rational decisions with evidence that you know is not the best or has been falsified.

Newton's laws were only falsified at the quantum level by Einstein, but his theories have an extremely high probability of being successful for you and I because we don't perform tasks at that extremely small scale. your example is slightly off in that Newton's laws work great on a macro scale...objects that are extremely small, extremely fast, have weird relativity were not and are not address by newton...it is just that for 200 years we used them to explain things we can see at our level of perception with the technology we have.

What I mean by falsifiable is that if there is a better understanding of something in the real world a new paradigm..then that paradigm can be adopted. if science or ideas weren't able to be falsified then there would still be people in the world who think that the earth is the center of the universe.

My ethics and not all of my philosophies do not stem from the fact that there is no higher power...ethics don't need to stem from the divine...in fact they are very natural...when you put labels like "good" and "bad" on somethings it is for you the observer to say...being and atheist doesn't mean you don't have an understanding that if you hurt someone you not only mess up their life, but the lives of others around them...it is a pack dynamic...so no ethics shouldn't be influenced by one's lack of belief, but rather from an understanding of empathy and consequence. philosophies are formulated from experiences...they are the pursuits of of wisdom and knowledge that can stem from any science...understanding that there aren't supernatural forces at play in our existence just means we get our understand from natural things...you might be saying that atheism=hopelessness, or maybe pointlessness...atheism doesn't say one way or another that life is pointless because there is no god...that is also a personal choice made by everyone regardless of belief...I find life very fulfilling, wonderful, and amazing. I know people who claim to be very spiritual but are hopelessly depressed.

Gods don't formulate ethics...god didn't give us the golden rule or tell us not to murder/kill...for social species that live close to one another it kinda makes sense, don't you think...we feel comfortable around other people like us...if we have a killer in around then we no longer feel comfortable and the group dynamic is all screwy...so don't kill and we all feel good about being around each other.

I am not trying to persuade you into being an atheist...that isn't for me to do...however you have to be careful when you say that ethics are divine because people can use that to their advantage and cause horrible things to happen...and I am not talking about huge horrible things like Jim Jones did, but even the small stuff like hurting yourself mentally, feeling shame, where there really doesn't need to be any can snowball into bad mind states.

If you were starving, had no money, and no one is willing to help you, but you have the opportunity to take sustenance that isn't yours would you take it even though one of the commandments says not to steal?

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying ethics are divine.

But saying ethics are not divine is something you would find more commonly said by an agnostic or atheist than by a theist. The belief has informed one of the axioms of an ethical system.

When you talk about 'good' or 'bad' you have already given definitions that relate to atheistic belief i.e. no absolutes, no arbiter, a pack dynamic (social norms and the concept of social contract).

For what it's worth I agree, and I'm an agnostic or weak atheist depending on your point of view. I just think that this perspective informs how you build your system - because you DON'T build it around absolutes, you DON'T build it around punishment or guilt or reward, you DON'T consider it immutable and you DON'T consider it the one truth.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying ethics are divine.

But saying ethics are not divine is something you would find more commonly said by an agnostic or atheist than by a theist. The belief has informed one of the axioms of an ethical system.

When you talk about 'good' or 'bad' you have already given definitions that relate to atheistic belief i.e. no absolutes, no arbiter, a pack dynamic (social norms and the concept of social contract).

For what it's worth I agree, and I'm an agnostic or weak atheist depending on your point of view. I just think that this perspective informs how you build your system - because you DON'T build it around absolutes, you DON'T build it around punishment or guilt or reward, you DON'T consider it immutable and you DON'T consider it the one truth.


I agree that it can be a part of forming a philosophy about one part of your life. Even though I formulate my own ethics or adapt myself to my environment that isn't to say that i don't build it around absolutes, rewards/punishments, guilt etc. It is just that mine stem from different aspects of my life. i don't murder because i think it is messed up...I don't first say to myself...well some people think there is a god who think murder is wrong...hey, i don't believe in that god...Does my lack of faith in that god mean I can kill? no I still think I won't murder...I am agreeing with you to a certain extent and understand your argument, but because it should just be common sense to me means that gods shouldn't be in conversations of ethics as much as atheism shouldn't be in conversations about religions. obviously.

the idea that a theist is less likely to say that their ethics stem from the divine seems a bit odd to say, because...if they follow their religions belief system, laws, tenets, traditions, whatevers, aren't they practicing its ethics? the 10 commandments are an ethical code...Buddhism is an ethical code...all of those are common sense, but spun to seem divine and thought sacred. now we are getting into a matter of brain washing me thinks.

I would like to thank you for being civil and engaging in good conversation.

Worship...practices to appease a divine or supernatural force through rituals or traditions.

Oh. In that case, my theism involves no worship. Nor does certain types of animism, depending on your definition of divine.

What do you mean by divine?

Newton's laws were only falsified at the quantum level by Einstein....

So, you agree with me that people are capable of making rational decisions with falsified information. Good.

im an athesist because every thing has been proven scietificaly except the creation of the universe. but im sure that man kind will figure that out oe day. plus i dont think that there is life aftr death just infinite nothing ness. but i respect religion but do not endorse it

...I just think that this perspective informs how you build your system - because you DON'T build it around absolutes, you DON'T build it around punishment or guilt or reward, you DON'T consider it immutable and you DON'T consider it the one truth.

It is possible to be a theist and have such a metaphysical system.

Oh. In that case, my theism involves no worship. Nor does certain types of animism, depending on your definition of divine.

What do you mean by divine?


So, you agree with me that people are capable of making rational decisions with falsified information. Good.

Godlike...supernatural...implying something is supernatural or has supernatural qualities.

The fact that you state you a theist doesn't imply at all that you are religious, belong to a religion, or practice any traditions towards a deity...it just asserts you believe in the supernatural...

No I am not agreeing with you. no good. again newton's laws are not false, their probability of success on the quantum level is highly unlikely...your example is wrong...newton's laws are rational decisions to base a house to be built on...but irrational if you wanted to travel at the speed of light...just like it is a rational decision to wear a parka in the arctic, but irrational to wear on in the tropics. parkas are a concept that works well in cold climates...not so well in hot ones...get it...good

Godlike...supernatural...implying something is supernatural or has supernatural qualities.

So, if one believes that god is wholly natural and not supernatural, then one can not worship it, according to you.

The fact that you state you a theist doesn't imply at all that you are religious, belong to a religion, or practice any traditions towards a deity...it just asserts you believe in the supernatural...

That depends on how you define religion.

No I am not agreeing with you. no good. again newton's laws are not false, their probability of success on the quantum level is highly unlikely...your example is wrong...newton's laws are rational decisions to base a house to be built on...but irrational if you wanted to travel at the speed of light...just like it is a rational decision to wear a parka in the arctic, but irrational to wear on in the tropics. parkas are a concept that works well in cold climates...not so well in hot ones...get it...good

Newton's theories have been falsified.
Structural engineers use Newton's theories.
Therefore, structural engineers use falsified theories.

Where's the confusion?

the confusion is on your end...newtons laws AGAIN are not false until you get to a quantum level, but the fact that they were open to being falsifiable at any level is the point...just because the law's do not apply at a quantum level doesn't falsify on the levels they applied...know what this is pointless...

just stating you believe there are gods (deist) doesn't imply you are religious...religions have a pretty specific definition


gods by definition are not natural

just because you believe doesn't make it a high probability it is there.

the confusion is on your end...newtons laws AGAIN are not false until you get to a quantum level, but the fact that they were open to being falsifiable at any level is the point...just because the law's do not apply at a quantum level doesn't falsify on the levels they applied...know what this is pointless...

So, you're now saying that rational decisions are those that are made with the best evidence on some levels, but not necessarily all. How do you decide which levels are worth using and which can be dismissed?

Now remember, you can't use rationality. That would be circular logic.

just stating you believe there are gods (deist) doesn't imply you are religious...religions have a pretty specific definition

What is that definition? Some people would say that 'a coherent set of spiritual beliefs arising from events that are deemed divine in nature' would be a good definition of religion.

gods by definition are not natural

So, people who believe god to be wholly natural are not involved with the divine or religion at all? What about nature gods such as Gaia?

just because you believe doesn't make it a high probability it is there.

I have yet to claim anything to be true.

You didn't read the story properly did you?

He stopped believing in God and he developed schizophrenia, after he started believing again he has now managed to control the illness.

Actually all that can be inferred is that he stopped believing and was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and it was a joke.

I believe in my god because she felt more "right" to me. I of course have no proof that she or the others in her circle exist, but neither does anybody else about what they believe spiritually.

I grew up Catholic and Unitarian Universalist, eventually the religious pluralism of the latter caused me to question the strict doctrines (many of which I disagreed with) of the former. And I realized that what I believed was entirely up to me.

Bravo

To get around to answering the OP's question for those of you who don't know (or remember) I am Agnostic...
Whether I am an Agnostic Atheist or an Agnostic Theist tends to vary, although usually I tend towards Atheist.

OK, not addressing anything that Gondoras said to other people since I last logged off, I would like to examine the contents of his posts in this thread that were either about me or directed to me. The content of these posts are, I believe, an example of a person arguing from a positon of unquestioned and unexamined prejudice. They serve to show how a person can enter a conversation more motivated to shut down discussion than engage in it, unwilling to argue points but apparently willing to engage in hostility with anyone they even think they may disagree with.

I will illustrate what I mean with the following quotes from Gondoras with links to his full posts. I highlight specific phrases that illustrate points I intend to make, but anyone who wishes to judge the remarks in their full context may use the links. Note: The highlights in the quotes below do not appear in the originals.

G's first post seemed innocuous enough on the surface:
Are you speaking of people who incorporate nature into rituals? Or wicca? Or Gaia worshipers? or animisms? [really it doesn't matter] the key word you use that makes nature itself a deity is "worship" and in doing so placing an idea of nature being a conscious entity. There is a vast difference between having and understanding of nature and respecting it, and worshiping nature to the point where you do not make rational decisions.
However, I focused on the phrases that are bolded and underscored as indicative of prior assumptions that I suspected were overbroad, and I challenged Gondoras to justify his statements by explaining his views and his defintions of some terms.

Specifically, I felt that the bolded remark about how worship turns nature into a deity and casts it as a conscious entity indicated a pre-existing belief about what "worship" among nature-based religion entails. Being a practitioner of a nature-based religion, I happen to know that many nature-based religions do not ascribe conscious entity status to nature or natural phenomena, and so I asked him to explain what he thought nature worship was. My hope was that he would lay out some examples of what he had in mind so that I would know where he was coming from and whether/how to correct him about that.

Also, I felt that the underscored remark about how it's okay to respect nature as long as one does not worship it to the point of being irrational indicated a possible prejudice against religious belief in general. I considered that it was possible he was referring to an extreme of religious zeal that could be called irrational in any kind of belief system, but the fact that he made the leap directly from rational respect for nature to irrational worship of nature hinted otherwise. So I challenged him to make an argument about the rationality or irrationality of worship so that I could see what his real position in re worship and religious people was.

I also call attention to the bracketed phrase "really it doesn't matter". At first I did not think that was a significant turn of phrase, but in subsequent posts, I came to realize that, in fact, it was the first clue as to G's attitude coming into this discussion -- essentially nothing a person who professes a religion says will matter to him, because his mind is already made up. One wonders then, why he bothers to talk to religious people at all.

G responded to my post to him not by answering the questions with which I challenged him, but by asking questions of his own:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=14149752

His questions already show a condescending edge and wording that suggests that he is challenging my honesty when I say that I am an animist, or suggesting that I don't know what an animist is. I remind everyone here that G has no idea who I am, nor am I aware that he and I have ever interacted in any other religion threads (he may be an alternate identity for someone else, but I've been only Muravyets for years), so as far as I know, he has absolutely no basis on which to make any assumptions about what I believe, what I know, or what I do and why. Nevertheless, before he even gets the answers to his first round of questions, he goes ahead and suggests that I don't know what animism is, that I am not really an animist, etc.

He ends his list of questions with this remark:


There is no evidence of souls, spirits, etc. utilizing the argument of a soul as an explanation in any context is arguing for the super natural and therefore it is irrational.
Like the "it doesn't matter" remark, this asserted conclusion, which is completely unrelated the questions he asked me and the questions I asked him, is another indicator that he is not really open to hearing what the other person has to say and that his position on religion is a negative one.

Despite this, I went ahead and gave him answers to his questions. His response is telling. He did not reciprocate by answering the questions I originally asked him, nor did he respond by asking follow-up questions to what I told him, nor by attempting to present arguments in challenge to my beliefs. Rather, he increased his condescension and began accusing me of initiating hostility against him -- when all I had originally done was challenge him to a debate -- and began what proved to be an ongoing round of insulting and belittling me personally. The links go to the full posts. I quote specific phrases.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=14149923

... since it is so personal i would think you would use your noggin, search your soul for an answer.
Considering his attitude towards me and religion in general, I wonder if he meant the above to sound sarcastic?


3. I was using shinoist as a basic example of a religion who believes that objects, organisms, and such have spirits within...i wasn't accusing you of being a shintoist
Accusing? Strange choice of word.

...again i asked because you claim to be a animist...which if you use your reference is what exactly?


4. Why don't you give me the less limited definition...maybe if you explain it to me i will not shrug you off as someone who doesn't really know that much about their religion as they say they do just because they think it is a "cool" label...which is the way that you pretty much come off.
Note: G has read all of one or two posts from me about my religious beliefs. One has to wonder just what basis he thinks he has for the above bolded remark.

The dreams question was to gauge what part of your religions you believe in or you even know about...again it is hard to determine since you obviously don't understand much about your label, or don't choose to, or are to busy being angry to see that I am not attacking you, but hey prove my point.
The bolded part for the nerve, and the underscored part for the irony.

And then it just gets personal:
I took you as seriously as i could considering you had an attacking tone from the your first post...

...instead you have proven yourself irrational in that you argue for your faith because you base a part of your life on it and can't defend it in a civil RATIONAL way.
In fact, I have not been arguing for my beliefs at all, nor have I been defending them. Nobody, including Gondoras, has challenged me specifically about my beliefs. Gondoras has decided to insult me by claiming that I don't understand my own religion, even though he has virtually no information about what my beliefs really are, but he has not challenged my beliefs in such a way that they need defending. I mean, it's not like he's said anything like "animism is a horrible religion that ruins people's lives!!!! Prove it isn't!!!" (the way someone once did to me here a number of years ago; that was a fun one).

So, since my beliefs have never been an issue of debate here, I have no idea what G is basing this particular insult against me on.

And finally, G acknowledges his a priori prejudice against religion in general:
my implication were towards people who "worship" who think it is a rational thing to do so are in fact irrational...

And then another inexplicable remark about something that didn't happen in the thread:
It is a shame that you have to claim I am prejudice towards your faith...
In fact, I didn't say that at all. I specifically stated that his prejudice was against religion -- not MY religion. And I suggested that he was being hostile against me personally. I said nothing at all about him being negative about my religion, because in fact, he had said nothing critical, positive or negative, about my religion in particular at all.

And finally:
but then it seems I might have a better understanding of your faith ... maybe youre the bigot??? ...maybe if you looked yourself up in the dictionary you could find out?

Just because you claim to be something doesn't mean you aren't ignorant to some or apparently a lot of what you think you are.

And it just went downhill from there:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=14150984

Again, wasn't attacking you, youre just a little unsure in your faith I think. ...worship, devotion to deities, reverence offered to something that there is no proof of is irrational. the decisions you make in the name of that devotion is irrational...you are being irrational ... since you goaded me into calling you an idiot ... you started out being defensive and refusing a civil argument ... you don't have the ability it appears to call me out ... I am questioning your beliefs...if your beliefs are so wrapped up in your personality, I would suggest a better understanding of them...youre an idiot.
Prejudiced and unsupported assertions. Presumption to know my mind better than I do. Flames.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=14151091

...worship is not a method of understanding (a rational one)...
A prejudiced and unsupported assertion.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=14151118

... for someone who works in a law office you aren't very good at figuring out that I have answered your questions, numerous times over (i am assuming you are trying to state you are or are working on being an attorney)
Insult. Putting words in my mouth. Presumption. Also falsehood. He has not answered my questions with anything but insults.

...and if defining terms is such a minor thing, why can't you give me a definition of your personal religion?
I did that in my first anwers to his questions.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=14151500

... and I don't care if I offend you or anyone...believing in anything supernatural and then using it as an explanation or remedy or whatever is irrational.
And finally affirmation of his prejudice and that he never had any intention of treating opposing views with respect.

IN CONCLUSION: Gondoras, needing little incentive to launch personal attacks, starting from a position of lack of respect for opponents, making no attempt to explore the other person's statements, even if only so he could attack them substantively, ended up contributing very little to this discussion. He presented no debatable points. His argument consists of nothing but a short list of assertions that he does not even try to support in any way. The majority of his posts to me have been borderline or full-on flames with no other content.

Although he has been politer to other posters, his statements to them have not contained any more substantive content, but rather just repetitions of the same unsupported assertions and dismissals of any suggestion that he might disagree with.

It is my opinion that this does not add up to good debate practice. And he did it all in response to only one challenge. Wow.



And I was able to get all that done before "The Eleventh Hour" (Rufus Sewell's show), even though I worked a little late today. :D

im an athesist because every thing has been proven scietificaly except the creation of the universe. but im sure that man kind will figure that out oe day. plus i dont think that there is life aftr death just infinite nothing ness. but i respect religion but do not endorse it

Please don't be on our side anymore. Thank you.

im an athesist because every thing has been proven scietificaly except the creation of the universe.
Fail

So, if one believes that god is wholly natural and not supernatural, then one can not worship it, according to you.


I know you directed this at Gondoras, but I'd like to make an observation.

I think you can worship anything you want, it doesn't have to be divine.

That said, somebody earlier emphasized dictionaries, and if something is "supernatural" then, by definition it is:

Supernatural, adjective,

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.


So, if you present something as a deity, or divine, or miraculous, it is supernatural, a priori.

I don't happen to be into any of those things myself, but I'm not sure if Gondoras has made any good case that they are inherently irrational.

I know you directed this at Gondoras, but I'd like to make an observation.

I think you can worship anything you want, it doesn't have to be divine.

That said, somebody earlier emphasized dictionaries, and if something is "supernatural" then, by definition it is:

Supernatural, adjective,

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.


So, if you present something as a deity, or divine, or miraculous, it is supernatural, a priori.

I don't happen to be into any of those things myself, but I'm not sure if Gondoras has made any good case that they are inherently irrational.
I think you and I possibly once got into a bitter and stupid fight about this dictionary/supernatural thing, so I'm not going to pursue this much, but I do just want to point out that "while all poodles are dogs, not all dogs are poodles."

Just because something that is supernatural can refer to a deity, that doesn't mean that ONLY supernatural ideas can refer to deities.

I think you and I possibly once got into a bitter and stupid fight about this dictionary/supernatural thing, so I'm not going to pursue this much, but I do just want to point out that "while all poodles are dogs, not all dogs are poodles."

Just because something that is supernatural can refer to a deity, that doesn't mean that ONLY supernatural ideas can refer to deities.

Well, I'm not sure that definitions are parallel as a linguistic operator to subsets (like dogs and poodles). But even in that dynamic, as its described in the dictionary, dieties would be a subset of the supernatural, not the other way around. That is to say, as the dictionary gives it, "supernatural" is the dog and "diety" is the poodle, one type of dog given in the dictionary (#3).

So you could have things that are supernatural but not dieties (like ghosts or whatever), but dieties would be a subset of the supernatural.

One definition of "supernatural" is "of or relating to a diety". Thus, if something is a diety, then by definition, it can be described as "supernatural" and has that property.

But I can accept that we don't meet up on this one. And under either construct, I don't see Gondoras really making a solid case that any and all worship is by definition irrational.

It's not that worshipping a 'natural' God is inherently flawed, but it is an utterly futile practice. There is no utility that can be derived from worshipping something natural, other than a waste of time, and perhaps a bit of wishy washy discourse with other like minded people.

It's not that worshipping a 'natural' God is inherently flawed, but it is an utterly futile practice. There is no utility that can be derived from worshipping something natural, other than a waste of time, and perhaps a bit of wishy washy discourse with other like minded people.

Well, suppose you have some kind of semi-sentient ecosphere on a planet somehwhere. Its bound by natural law.

I agree its not really a "diety", because if it were "of or relating to a diety", it would be supernatural, per the dictionary.

But suppose some group of organisms living on it achieve there own moderate intelligence, and think the planet is a god, so they worship it. By worshipping it, they engage in some behaviour or other that is good for the planet, and thus good for them.

They aren't wasting their time, they're just using an unknowingly exagerrated motivation. The end result can still be useful.

Well, I'm not sure that definitions are parallel as a linguistic operator to subsets (like dogs and poodles). But even in that dynamic, as its described in the dictionary, dieties would be a subset of the supernatural, not the other way around. That is to say, as the dictionary gives it, "supernatural" is the dog and "diety" is the poodle, one type of dog given in the dictionary (#3).

So you could have things that are supernatural but not dieties (like ghosts or whatever), but dieties would be a subset of the supernatural.

One definition of "supernatural" is "of or relating to a diety". Thus, if something is a diety, then by definition, it can be described as "supernatural" and has that property.
That's a leap, in my opinion.

But I can accept that we don't meet up on this one.
Me too.

And under either construct, I don't see Gondoras really making a solid case that any and all worship is by definition irrational.
He has not tried to make a case for it.

But suppose some group of organisms living on it achieve there own moderate intelligence, and think the planet is a god, so they worship it. By worshipping it, they engage in some behaviour or other that is good for the planet, and thus good for them.


Right, but I take it that there is no direct use that comes out of worshipping this thing, just the general motivation or values or whatever that ideas about this thing gives them. So sure, it would have a use, but it's kind of just the use of blissful ignorance. If at any point they start to realise that worshipping this thing doesn't bring any direct good, then they're just purposefully denying this reality in order to make themselves happier, kind of irrational.

That's a leap, in my opinion.


Me too.


He has not tried to make a case for it.

He pretty much just tries to state it as fact. He acts as if there is no possible potential model for worship that can be internally consistent.

I know you don't like it when I say that "this or that is possible and could be the case", but I think Gondoras is jumping to the conclusion that "this or that is impossible and could not be the case", which requires a different standard of proof, I believe.

Well, suppose you have some kind of semi-sentient ecosphere on a planet somehwhere. Its bound by natural law.

I agree its not really a "diety", because if it were "of or relating to a diety", it would be supernatural, per the dictionary.

But suppose some group of organisms living on it achieve there own moderate intelligence, and think the planet is a god, so they worship it. By worshipping it, they engage in some behaviour or other that is good for the planet, and thus good for them.

They aren't wasting their time, they're just using an unknowingly exagerrated motivation. The end result can still be useful.
With the caveat that I disagree on your notion of why a natural "deity" would not really be a "deity," and with the further proviso that I find arguments among atheists over what constitutes a "real" deity rather ironic, I would say you are not far off the mark.

The purpose of worship in nature-based religions is to establish and maintain what the worshippers consider a beneficial relationship with whatever presumably sentient force, spirit or being governs the natural phenomena that most affect human life. It often becomes a matter of quid pro quo. The spirit demonstrates that it has the ability to either help or harm human beings. The human beings make nice with the spirit -- giving it offerings, taking care of its river or forest or whatever, and living in a way that, presumably, does not harm the things the spirit cares about -- and it is hoped the spirit will be more inclined to carry on its business in a way that does not harm humans.

Now if this leads to cleaner water and air, more healthy forests, wetlands, etc., if it leads to a greater sense of wellbeing among the humans because they feel as if they are in greater harmony with their surroundings, then the worship is shown to deliver a practical benefit.

This is not to say that nature religions are not at risk for the kinds of power trips and corruption that other religions often suffer from. It's just meant to show how nature worshippers are not necessarily wasting their time.

Right, but I take it that there is no direct use that comes out of worshipping this thing,

I think that's a separate premise to be proven. Some of these folks may think there is some kind of direct use, that communion with some greater being (not the Greater Being God Thing they think it is, but a naturally more powerful being) may allow some sort of reciprocation. Essentially, symbiosis on some order of magnitude differential.


just the general motivation or values or whatever that ideas about this thing gives them. So sure, it would have a use, but it's kind of just the use of blissful ignorance. If at any point they start to realise that worshipping this thing doesn't bring any direct good, then they're just purposefully denying this reality in order to make themselves happier, kind of irrational.

A psychosomatic phenomena can have real utility. If hearing the "wolf" in your heart keeps your parasympathetic nervous system from releasing this chemical rather than that, and the resulting mental state leaves you more likely to survive, the fact that the actual "wolf" is just another mammal and could give a shit about you doesn't change the fact that you're alive.

He pretty much just tries to state it as fact. He acts as if there is no possible potential model for worship that can be internally consistent.

I know you don't like it when I say that "this or that is possible and could be the case", but I think Gondoras is jumping to the conclusion that "this or that is impossible and could not be the case", which requires a different standard of proof, I believe.
I know that is what he is doing. In my opinion, that does not constitute making a case for his assertion.

In my world, "making a case for your assertion" involves actually explaining the logical reasoning by which you arrived at it and construct it in your own mind. It may also involve responding to challenges to it by using that logical construct to counter the objections of the challengers. He has not done that.

Also, where did you get the idea that I don't like it when you say "this or that is possible and could be the case"? Obviously, everything is possible to some degree, and anything that is possible could also be the case. Why would anyone object to an argument like that?

With the caveat that I disagree on your notion of why a natural "deity" would not really be a "deity," and with the further proviso that I find arguments among atheists over what constitutes a "real" deity rather ironic, I would say you are not far off the mark.

Now, Muravyets, :) I've seen you engage in thought excercises in belief systems you yourself eschewed, and I've seen you become very angry when other's won't join you in them. Thus, for athiests to discuss the criteria for a potential premise of "diety" is no more ironic then things you've done yourself.

But since you bring it up again, I stand by the dictionary (a reference first espoused here by not me): If its "of or relating to a diety", then it can be described as "supernatural". A diety is "of or relating to a diety".

That said, I respect you take a different view.



The purpose of worship in nature-based religions is to establish and maintain what the worshippers consider a beneficial relationship with whatever presumably sentient force, spirit or being governs the natural phenomena that most affect human life. It often becomes a matter of quid pro quo. The spirit demonstrates that it has the ability to either help or harm human beings. The human beings make nice with the spirit -- giving it offerings, taking care of its river or forest or whatever, and living in a way that, presumably, does not harm the things the spirit cares about -- and it is hoped the spirit will be more inclined to carry on its business in a way that does not harm humans.

Now if this leads to cleaner water and air, more healthy forests, wetlands, etc., if it leads to a greater sense of wellbeing among the humans because they feel as if they are in greater harmony with their surroundings, then the worship is shown to deliver a practical benefit.

This is not to say that nature religions are not at risk for the kinds of power trips and corruption that other religions often suffer from. It's just meant to show how nature worshippers are not necessarily wasting their time.

Digestive bacteria in humans seems to indicate that symbiosis doesn't have to have parity between complexity of life....prokaryotes can cooperate with crown eukaryotes. It doesn't seem unreasonable that people could work out a deal with something more complex. Essentially just a bigger and more powerful organism, but that's all the more reason to work with it, if there is such a thing.

I think that's a separate premise to be proven.

Well, I think by definition, if worshipping something actually brings about a direct good, other than one generated psychologically themselves, then I can't see how it could be anything other than supernatural.


A psychosomatic phenomena can have real utility. If hearing the "wolf" in your heart keeps your parasympathetic nervous system from releasing this chemical rather than that, and the resulting mental state leaves you more likely to survive, the fact that the actual "wolf" is just another mammal and could give a shit about you doesn't change the fact that you're alive.

In this case, I say that it's merely irrationality having a direct use - so I guess I'll rephrase what I'm saying. Either you worship an actual natural phenomenon which you fully understand, in which case such a practice would be directly useless, or you're believing something inherently impossible about such a natural phenomenon but which is giving you a direct psychological utility, so it is irrational but not useless. To put it shortly: rational but useless, or irrational but useful.

I know that is what he is doing. In my opinion, that does not constitute making a case for his assertion.

In my world, "making a case for your assertion" involves actually explaining the logical reasoning by which you arrived at it and construct it in your own mind. It may also involve responding to challenges to it by using that logical construct to counter the objections of the challengers. He has not done that.

Also, where did you get the idea that I don't like it when you say "this or that is possible and could be the case"? Obviously, everything is possible to some degree, and anything that is possible could also be the case. Why would anyone object to an argument like that?

When you've said I was "rejecting" a given idea, and I've pointed out that the idea "is very possible and could well be the case", you've told me, in all caps, that that is somehow "beside the point" and you don't care whether I think it could be the case.

That said, Gondoras didn't really seem to take the diligence to really find out about your position, he just decided it was wrong and you didn't know your own beliefs. I guess he could be right, in the same sense that you could be the person who shot Kennedy. He provided about as much evidence of the first as the second.

That said, Gondoras didn't really seem to take the diligence to really find out about your position, he just decided it was wrong and you didn't know your own beliefs. I guess he could be right, in the same sense that you could be the person who shot Kennedy. He provided about as much evidence of the first as the second.

Are you just trying to force a union by mutual bitching? :p

Well, I think by definition, if worshipping something actually brings about a direct good, other than one generated psychologically themselves, then I can't see how it could be anything other than supernatural.

Suppose the eco-sphere mind thing has the ability to release more or less of a particular element into its atmosphere. By "praying" to this thing, they learn that it needs them to stop doing X, and in exchange, it will release an optimized amount of the element for them.

I agree its not really "worship", because its just a powerful organism, not a "god" in the dictionary sense, but since they think its a god and get the real, utilitarian benefit, its not a waste of time.



In this case, I say that it's merely irrationality having a direct use - so I guess I'll rephrase what I'm saying. Either you worship an actual natural phenomenon which you fully understand, in which case such a practice would be directly useless, or you're believing something inherently impossible about such a natural phenomenon but which is giving you a direct psychological utility, so it is irrational but not useless. To put it shortly: rational but useless, or irrational but useful.

The second isn't a waste of time, though.

Are you just trying to force a union by mutual bitching? :p

Well, then you show me where Gondoras made a solid point and I'll try to look at it more directly.

I'll be gone in a week, and even if I woudln't have been, Muravyets and I wouldn't be on the same side often enough for it to be meaningful.

Now, Muravyets, :) I've seen you engage in thought excercises in belief systems you yourself eschewed, and I've seen you become very angry when other's won't join you in them. Thus, for athiests to discuss the criteria for a potential premise of "diety" is no more ironic then things you've done yourself.
I didn't mean ironic as a pejorative. I meant it literally. It's an irony. And I don't want y'all to stop.

But since you bring it up again, I stand by the dictionary (a reference first espoused here by not me): If its "of or relating to a diety", then it can be described as "supernatural". A diety is "of or relating to a diety".

That said, I respect you take a different view.
Though you are determined to get in the last word about it. I think I see how that last fight happened. ;)

Digestive bacteria in humans seems to indicate that symbiosis doesn't have to have parity between complexity of life....prokaryotes can cooperate with crown eukaryotes. It doesn't seem unreasonable that people could work out a deal with something more complex. Essentially just a bigger and more powerful organism, but that's all the more reason to work with it, if there is such a thing.
They don't even have to be more powerful or bigger. For instance, many of the spirits that many animists believe in and venerate with shrines and offerings, are not specifically MORE powerful than humans. It's just that they have power over things that humans don't have power over. It becomes kind of like dealing with professionals. If I tried to do my own electrical wiring, the result would be bad. So I go to an electrical contractor for that, and I pay him for his service to me, performed at my request and to my requirements, but in his way. Likewise, if I believe that there is a spirit that governs, oh, say, traffic flow through my city, and I want help with my efforts to avoid accidents while crossing town regularly and swiftly, I may make offerings at the traffic god's shrine in an effort to, essentially, contract his/her assistance with my goal.

While I can control my own driving, I can't control other people's, but, presumably, this spirit does have some control over general traffic flow and, thus, the power to prevent accidents. Maybe.

This way of thinking can also, among some animists, acknowledge that humans have abilities that spirits and maybe even gods don't have, which puts us in a position to have reciprocal relationships with them. There may be something we can do for them.

Also, in my own ancestral cultures, many of the spirits most venerated were not beyond human or above human or other than human. They WERE/ARE human, literally. Because in parts of my (mixed) European ancestry, the dead were the most highly revered spirits.

Fighting over religion is like fighting over who has the better imaginary friend. Im not atheist, im just saying no religion can be proven

I didn't mean ironic as a pejorative. I meant it literally. It's an irony. And I don't want y'all to stop.


Though you are determined to get in the last word about it. I think I see how that last fight happened. ;)

Well, you'll have it on this one, I'm on a clock, y'know.


They don't even have to be more powerful or bigger. For instance, many of the spirits that many animists believe in and venerate with shrines and offerings, are not specifically MORE powerful than humans. It's just that they have power over things that humans don't have power over. It becomes kind of like dealing with professionals. If I tried to do my own electrical wiring, the result would be bad. So I go to an electrical contractor for that, and I pay him for his service to me, performed at my request and to my requirements, but in his way. Likewise, if I believe that there is a spirit that governs, oh, say, traffic flow through my city, and I want help with my efforts to avoid accidents while crossing town regularly and swiftly, I may make offerings at the traffic god's shrine in an effort to, essentially, contract his/her assistance with my goal.

This way of thinking can also, among some animists, acknowledge that humans have abilities that spirits and maybe even gods don't have, which puts us in a position to have reciprocal relationships with them. There may be something we can do for them.

Also, in my own ancestral cultures, many of the spirits most venerated were not beyond human or above human or other than human. They WERE/ARE human, literally. Because in parts of my (mixed) European ancestry, the dead were the most highly revered spirits.

I think the use of the term "venerate" here is key. To venerate something is to give "respect, reverence, and heartfelt deference". That seems like a clearer interaction and doesn't necessarily have all the same connotations as "worship". I can see where one could venerate a buffalo herd, or a river, or a dead ancestor.

When you've said I was "rejecting" a given idea, and I've pointed out that the idea "is very possible and could well be the case", you've told me, in all caps, that that is somehow "beside the point" and you don't care whether I think it could be the case.
I have a feeling the context of that would play an important role. Because I know that I have on occasion gotten breaking-up-with-you angry at you because I felt you were just pointlessly jerking me around over a point that you really did not disagree with me on at all.

That is NOT an invitation to dig up old threads.

That said, Gondoras didn't really seem to take the diligence to really find out about your position, he just decided it was wrong and you didn't know your own beliefs. I guess he could be right, in the same sense that you could be the person who shot Kennedy. He provided about as much evidence of the first as the second.

Suppose the eco-sphere mind thing has the ability to release more or less of a particular element into its atmosphere. By "praying" to this thing, they learn that it needs them to stop doing X, and in exchange, it will release an optimized amount of the element for them.

I agree its not really "worship", because its just a powerful organism, not a "god" in the dictionary sense, but since they think its a god and get the real, utilitarian benefit, its not a waste of time.


In any case, believing in such a thing in this world is highly irrational, since if it's bound by natural laws, then it's part of the scientifically observable universe, meaning there should be some empirical evidence to justify such a belief, and it should be falsifiable also. All scientific evidence suggests that no such natural entity exists in our world.


The second isn't a waste of time, though.

Yeah, that's why I altered my original statement. It's not a waste of time, but it is irrational.

I'll be gone in a week

Not if I can help it. Didn't you say until your last thread dies? Bumping ftw!

I have a feeling the context of that would play an important role. Because I know that I have on occasion gotten breaking-up-with-you angry at you because I felt you were just pointlessly jerking me around over a point that you really did not disagree with me on at all.

That is NOT an invitation to dig up old threads.

You did liken me to some guy you broke up with :).

But then, I'm a law school student, and according to Gondoras, you're a lawyer because you were assigned to work at one once, so we should be at eachother's throats. Apparently.

You bitch.

Well, you'll have it on this one, I'm on a clock, y'know.



I think the use of the term "venerate" here is key. To venerate something is to give "respect, reverence, and heartfelt deference". That seems like a clearer interaction and doesn't necessarily have all the same connotations as "worship". I can see where one could venerate a buffalo herd, or a river, or a dead ancestor.
That's my bad.

I was using the terms I apply to myself, not the terms that nature religions generally use to describe what they do.

Most animists, pagans, polytheists, etc, who focus on the natural world, do use the word "worship."

I just prefer the word "venerate" to describe the way I relate to my world, spiritually. "Venerate" is such a habit with me that I often forget it's not a synonym for "worship." That was a mistake on my part.

That's my bad.

I was using the terms I apply to myself, not the terms that nature religions generally use to describe what they do.

Most animists, pagans, polytheists, etc, who focus on the natural world, do use the word "worship."

I just prefer the word "venerate" to describe the way [i]I[/b] relate to my world, spiritually. "Venerate" is such a habit with me that I often forget it's not a synonym for "worship." That was a mistake on my part.

In your defense, I've seen them together in Thesauri.

You did liken me to some guy you broke up with :).

But then, I'm a law school student, and according to Gondoras, you're a lawyer because you were assigned to work at one once, so we should be at eachother's throats. Apparently.

You bitch.
You remind me of a few men I have ceased having sex with because they annoyed me once too often. :tongue:

Actually, "breaking-up-with-you angry" describes a degree of anger so great that it creates the impulse to yell "I never want to see you again, you bastard!" and then throw a drink at the person and leave them in the restaurant with the bill. The frustration of realizing that one is not dating the person and, thus, cannot do that, only fuels the anger.

Scumbag.

You remind me of a few men I have ceased having sex with because they annoyed me once too often. :tongue:

Actually, "breaking-up-with-you angry" describes a degree of anger so great that it creates the impulse to yell "I never want to see you again, you bastard!" and then throw a drink at the person and leave them in the restaurant with the bill. The frustration of realizing that one is not dating the person and, thus, cannot do that, only fuels the anger.

Scumbag.

Well...I guess that's better than being reminiscent of men you ceased having sex with because they were bad at it.

On thread topic, I wonder to what extent I'll have to prove that Walken is a reasonable subject of worship to get recognition for my temple...

Well...I guess that's better than being reminiscent of men you ceased having sex with because they were bad at it.

On thread topic, I wonder to what extent I'll have to prove that Walken is a reasonable subject of worship to get recognition for my temple...
Fuck anyone who would question the obvious worshipfulness of Walken. They are clearly space aliens and who cares what space aliens think? Let the Scientologists deal with them.

EDIT: Also, you have never been in a position to demonstrate to me that you are bad at sex.

It's not that worshipping a 'natural' God is inherently flawed, but it is an utterly futile practice. There is no utility that can be derived from worshipping something natural, other than a waste of time, and perhaps a bit of wishy washy discourse with other like minded people.

How is this different from worshipping something supernatural? Is there any utility derived directly from worship? I don't see how the nature of the deity (natural or supernatural) would be important.

In any case, believing in such a thing in this world is highly irrational, since if it's bound by natural laws, then it's part of the scientifically observable universe, meaning there should be some empirical evidence to justify such a belief, and it should be falsifiable also. All scientific evidence suggests that no such natural entity exists in our world.

What would this evidence look like?

It is possible to be a theist and have such a metaphysical system.

Absolutly.

Actually all that can be inferred is that he stopped believing and was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and it was a joke.

Actualy what did happen is that he stoped beliving he got a cure(as such) and then started to belive again. Ohh and it's no joke at all.

It's not that worshipping a 'natural' God is inherently flawed, but it is an utterly futile practice. There is no utility that can be derived from worshipping something natural, other than a waste of time, and perhaps a bit of wishy washy discourse with other like minded people.

Meh I don't belive that at all. People get great enjoyment out of something as abitary as what team they support.

A belife in God can, and does enrich a persons life. The worshiping of a rock or a tree, or the ocean can be similarly satisfying.

if anything, im a christian, but i dont believe that God controls our every action and will punish us for ones he doesn't like. i think he just kinda watches over, and if we do something with a blackened soul, ya know, out of anger and everything then punishment ensues.

Meh I don't belive that at all. People get great enjoyment out of something as abitary as what team they support.

A belife in God can, and does enrich a persons life. The worshiping of a rock or a tree, or the ocean can be similarly satisfying.

People can also be incredibly depressed and bankrupt themselves via something as arbitrary as what team they support.

It's not all good you know. Need I elaborate?

People can also be incredibly depressed and bankrupt themselves via something as arbitrary as what team they support.

It's not all good you know. Need I elaborate?
No, you needn't. You have fully satisfied the incredibly urgent need to remind us all that there are two sides to every story. If not for you, we might have forgotten that. Thanks.

Actualy what did happen is that he stoped beliving he got a cure(as such) and then started to belive again. Ohh and it's no joke at all.

I was referring to my comment, not your friend's condition...

I chose my religions for the lulz. When I find it amusing to do so, I become a devout Pastafarian or Discordian. I don't actually believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Eris, but sometimes it's fun to pretend I do.

No, you needn't. You have fully satisfied the incredibly urgent need to remind us all that there are two sides to every story. If not for you, we might have forgotten that. Thanks.

It's a constant pleasure.

As you rightly point out, most people around here seem to forget there is more than their own point of view.

How is this different from worshipping something supernatural? Is there any utility derived directly from worship? I don't see how the nature of the deity (natural or supernatural) would be important.


If it's supernatural, then there is nothing to stop the deity reciprocating the worship with direct rewards (here or in the after life), which gives a rational reason to be happy about it. There is no rational reason to be euphoric about worshipping a natural phenomena, the fact that someone is experiencing euphoria from engaging in a pointless activity just means the utility from that worship is artificial.


What would this evidence look like?

I don't know, you tell me? If there can be no evidence for it, then there is no rational reason to believe in it.