Religious Orientation

[bittrader]

They say politics and religion are the most heated topics. The "Political Orientation" thread was fun, so now it's time for the religion thread!

I apologize if I haven't listed your religion. I based my list of a "most popular religions" piece on Wikipedia.

[1715309042]

1715309042

[1715309042]

1715309042

[shackra]

i'm a catolic guy and i like the budism too

[goatpig]

I praise the all mighty goat, vanquisher of the rhinoceros, savior of the pig, betrothed to the raccoon, brother to the ox.

[mewantsbitcoins]

They say politics and religion are the most heated topics. The "Political Orientation" thread was fun, so now it's time for the religion thread!

I apologize if I haven't listed your religion. I based my list of a "most popular religions" piece on Wikipedia.

Do you also apologize to schizophrenics for not knowing the name of their imaginary friend?

[kokjo]

why is Pastafarianism not on the list?

[DarkLinkXXXX]

Imma Episcopalian.

[Anonymous]

I'm a Pastafarian. It only makes sense that a giant plate of pasta spawned us all.

[Txyru]

Isn't there already a thread like this?

[rebuilder]

I'll believe anything I think I've seen sufficient proof for, and start to disbelieve anything I've believed before if I feel the idea in question has been sufficiently discredited. What denomination is that?

[Anonymous]

I'll believe anything I think I've seen sufficient proof for, and start to disbelieve anything I've believed before if I feel the idea in question has been sufficiently discredited. What denomination is that?

Atheist.

[mewantsbitcoins]

I'll believe anything I think I've seen sufficient proof for, and start to disbelieve anything I've believed before if I feel the idea in question has been sufficiently discredited. What denomination is that?

Infidel 

[bitcool]

Satoshism

[rebuilder]

I'll believe anything I think I've seen sufficient proof for, and start to disbelieve anything I've believed before if I feel the idea in question has been sufficiently discredited. What denomination is that?

Infidel 

That's actually quite accurate.

[FooDSt4mP]

I chose other.  I have studied atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, and Taoist philosophies.  They all have their strengths and weaknesses.  I highly recommend a comparative study.

[Vandroiy]

This result is surprising. I thought users are mainly from the USA, isn't that country full of fanatic Christians?

I see sum over Atheists and Agnostics being 23, but Christians being 4. That's... actually a refreshing read. Not that I dislike Christianity more than any other nonsense. Still, that's quite a result.

BTW, I fail to see a major difference between most Atheists and Agnostics. I opted for Agnostic since I can't prove there is no God that stays hidden from me or outside this universe's scope... but I guess most Atheists would agree on that, so distinguishing between Agnostics like me and Atheists feels like some academic game.

[FooDSt4mP]

This result is surprising. I thought users are mainly from the USA, isn't that country full of fanatic Christians?

I see sum over Atheists and Agnostics being 23, but Christians being 4. That's... actually a refreshing read. Not that I dislike Christianity more than any other nonsense. Still, that's quite a result.

BTW, I fail to see a major difference between most Atheists and Agnostics. I opted for Agnostic since I can't prove there is no God that stays hidden from me or outside this universe's scope... but I guess most Atheists would agree on that, so distinguishing between Agnostics like me and Atheists feels like some academic game.

Christianity has fallen out of favor in much of the US outside of rural areas.  Even there, there has been huge declines in church attendance.  We have moved closer to individualism at the cost of community, and losing religion goes along with that.

[Anonymous]

http://fakenews.witcoin.com/p/1754/ITS-OFFICIAL-Bitcoin-Fanboyism-Is-A-Religion-Neuroscientists-Find-Both-Trigger-Same-Reaction-In-Brain

I'll just leave this here.

[mewantsbitcoins]

I was googling for some spelling and came across this video by accident. Well worth a watch. It's hilarious
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95iRvZOtUWA

[bitcool]

I was googling for some spelling and came across this video by accident. Well worth a watch. It's hilarious
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95iRvZOtUWA

Thanks for the link. Bill Maher, he is the man.

[Findeton]

We are a bunch of atheists.

[Seb]

I was googling for some spelling and came across this video by accident. Well worth a watch. It's hilarious
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95iRvZOtUWA

Thanks for the link. Bill Maher, he is the man.

agreed

[asdf]

This result is surprising. I thought users are mainly from the USA, isn't that country full of fanatic Christians?

sample bias

[BombaUcigasa]

Derp, ask smart people about their religion... geee, what would they answer... 

To be fair we have lots of business men around, they would answer differently...

[Coma]

why is Pastafarianism not on the list?

+1

[Gabriel Beal]

We made a poly-atheism shirt at SquareWear this week:



Can you name all the gods/things in the outer circle?

[ploum]

I miss the Invisible Pink Unicorn in that list.

[foxcartier]

Glad atheism is recognized as a religion now.

[Anonymous]

Glad atheism is recognized as a religion now.

Haha, hardly. Atheism is the default, unconditioned state of mind. To say atheism is a religion is to say the world's incommunicable organisms from the domestic dog, up to the fleets of flocking birds and to hardly-sentient fish are religious.

[foxcartier]

Glad atheism is recognized as a religion now.

Haha, hardly. Atheism is the default, unconditioned state of mind. To say atheism is a religion is to say the world's incommunicable organisms from the domestic dog, up to the fleets of flocking birds and to hardly-sentient fish are religious.

Actually it's a belief in the unbelief.

[Anonymous]

Glad atheism is recognized as a religion now.

Haha, hardly. Atheism is the default, unconditioned state of mind. To say atheism is a religion is to say the world's incommunicable organisms from the domestic dog, up to the fleets of flocking birds and to hardly-sentient fish are religious.

Actually it's a belief in the unbelief.

No, it's the lack of belief in man-made whim-driven bunk.

[foxcartier]

Glad atheism is recognized as a religion now.

Haha, hardly. Atheism is the default, unconditioned state of mind. To say atheism is a religion is to say the world's incommunicable organisms from the domestic dog, up to the fleets of flocking birds and to hardly-sentient fish are religious.

Actually it's a belief in the unbelief.

No, it's the lack of belief in man-made whim-driven bunk.

Which requires, faith. Because no world view or religion is 100% concrete.

[Anonymous]

Glad atheism is recognized as a religion now.

Haha, hardly. Atheism is the default, unconditioned state of mind. To say atheism is a religion is to say the world's incommunicable organisms from the domestic dog, up to the fleets of flocking birds and to hardly-sentient fish are religious.

Actually it's a belief in the unbelief.

No, it's the lack of belief in man-made whim-driven bunk.

Which requires, faith. Because no world view or religion is 100% concrete.

That's why we should accept we know nothing instead of taking on garbage on a whim.

[foxcartier]

Glad atheism is recognized as a religion now.

Haha, hardly. Atheism is the default, unconditioned state of mind. To say atheism is a religion is to say the world's incommunicable organisms from the domestic dog, up to the fleets of flocking birds and to hardly-sentient fish are religious.

Actually it's a belief in the unbelief.

No, it's the lack of belief in man-made whim-driven bunk.

Which requires, faith. Because no world view or religion is 100% concrete.

That's why we should accept we know nothing instead of taking on garbage on a whim.

Well that isn't nice

My faith wasn't taken on by a "whim" it comes from years of trials and tribulations and searching for something greater in life than just surviving.

[Anonymous]

Glad atheism is recognized as a religion now.

Haha, hardly. Atheism is the default, unconditioned state of mind. To say atheism is a religion is to say the world's incommunicable organisms from the domestic dog, up to the fleets of flocking birds and to hardly-sentient fish are religious.

Actually it's a belief in the unbelief.

No, it's the lack of belief in man-made whim-driven bunk.

Which requires, faith. Because no world view or religion is 100% concrete.

That's why we should accept we know nothing instead of taking on garbage on a whim.

Well that isn't nice

My faith wasn't taken on by a "whim" it comes from years of trials and tribulations and searching for something greater in life than just surviving.

I apologize for being blunt. I have been religious for most of my life but I soon realized I was conditioned to believe most of what I had been taught. To me I was only abiding by my parents mere whims.

I respect whatever foundations you use to lead your life. Nobody knows better.

[foxcartier]

Glad atheism is recognized as a religion now.

Haha, hardly. Atheism is the default, unconditioned state of mind. To say atheism is a religion is to say the world's incommunicable organisms from the domestic dog, up to the fleets of flocking birds and to hardly-sentient fish are religious.

Actually it's a belief in the unbelief.

No, it's the lack of belief in man-made whim-driven bunk.

Which requires, faith. Because no world view or religion is 100% concrete.

That's why we should accept we know nothing instead of taking on garbage on a whim.

Well that isn't nice

My faith wasn't taken on by a "whim" it comes from years of trials and tribulations and searching for something greater in life than just surviving.

I apologize for being blunt. I have been religious for most of my life but I soon realized I was conditioned to believe most of what I had been taught. To me I was only abiding by my parents mere whims.

I respect whatever foundations you use to lead your life. Nobody knows better.

Ahhh, I'm sorry for that. I too felt that, especially because my parents are the stereotypical scarred of immigrants Bible thumping people. It's important to go out on your own and find out what works for you, but in another sense not blocking off one school of thought completely.

[Anonymous]

Glad atheism is recognized as a religion now.

Haha, hardly. Atheism is the default, unconditioned state of mind. To say atheism is a religion is to say the world's incommunicable organisms from the domestic dog, up to the fleets of flocking birds and to hardly-sentient fish are religious.

Actually it's a belief in the unbelief.

No, it's the lack of belief in man-made whim-driven bunk.

Which requires, faith. Because no world view or religion is 100% concrete.

That's why we should accept we know nothing instead of taking on garbage on a whim.

Well that isn't nice

My faith wasn't taken on by a "whim" it comes from years of trials and tribulations and searching for something greater in life than just surviving.

I apologize for being blunt. I have been religious for most of my life but I soon realized I was conditioned to believe most of what I had been taught. To me I was only abiding by my parents mere whims.

I respect whatever foundations you use to lead your life. Nobody knows better.

Ahhh, I'm sorry for that. I too felt that, especially because my parents are the stereotypical scarred of immigrants Bible thumping people. It's important to go out on your own and find out what works for you, but in another sense not blocking off one school of thought completely.

I contemplate all schools of thought I come across. I try to see where they aim to derive their happiness and its really good to build perspective but to accept things indiscriminately is to void yourself of reason and reality (however far it can be defined).

[foxcartier]

Glad atheism is recognized as a religion now.

Haha, hardly. Atheism is the default, unconditioned state of mind. To say atheism is a religion is to say the world's incommunicable organisms from the domestic dog, up to the fleets of flocking birds and to hardly-sentient fish are religious.

Actually it's a belief in the unbelief.

No, it's the lack of belief in man-made whim-driven bunk.

Which requires, faith. Because no world view or religion is 100% concrete.

That's why we should accept we know nothing instead of taking on garbage on a whim.

Well that isn't nice

My faith wasn't taken on by a "whim" it comes from years of trials and tribulations and searching for something greater in life than just surviving.

I apologize for being blunt. I have been religious for most of my life but I soon realized I was conditioned to believe most of what I had been taught. To me I was only abiding by my parents mere whims.

I respect whatever foundations you use to lead your life. Nobody knows better.

Ahhh, I'm sorry for that. I too felt that, especially because my parents are the stereotypical scarred of immigrants Bible thumping people. It's important to go out on your own and find out what works for you, but in another sense not blocking off one school of thought completely.

I contemplate all schools of thought I come across. I try to see where they aim to derive their happiness and its really good to build perspective but to accept things indiscriminately is to void yourself of reason and reality (however far it can be defined).

Exactly, humans are inclined to ask questions and to ignore that basic instinct is wrong. But that's what serves to strengthen your faith in a religion or even in the unbelief of religion because you find the answers to your questions and based on personal bias interpret those answers as to fit your world view.

[ploum]

Which requires, faith. Because no world view or religion is 100% concrete.

No. Faith means being convinced of something without any evidence of it and sticking to it even if evidence of the opposite. Generally, it comes from believing something someone (or some book) told you. There is actually no difference between faith and synonym.

Not believing in god is not a faith. If I told you that there's an invisible pink unicorn currently flying above your head, would you believe it? No because there's no evidence of it. There's no faith involved.

If one thousand person told you that there's an invisible pink unicorn and that your parents told you the same since your childhood, you will start to believe it. Because there's no evidence of it, you will have to come to something else and call it "faith". And because it is so patently absurd, they will even reach a point where having the faith is seen as something good.

Atheist are people like that: they stick to what they can observe. Currently, the world as we know it is easier to explain without any god than with some kind of god. Thus, logical people are atheists. It is not a faith, it is called logic and intelligence.

[foxcartier]

Which requires, faith. Because no world view or religion is 100% concrete.

No. Faith means being convinced of something without any evidence of it and sticking to it even if evidence of the opposite. Generally, it comes from believing something someone (or some book) told you. There is actually no difference between faith and synonym.

Not believing in god is not a faith. If I told you that there's an invisible pink unicorn currently flying above your head, would you believe it? No because there's no evidence of it. There's no faith involved.

If one thousand person told you that there's an invisible pink unicorn and that your parents told you the same since your childhood, you will start to believe it. Because there's no evidence of it, you will have to come to something else and call it "faith". And because it is so patently absurd, they will even reach a point where having the faith is seen as something good.

Atheist are people like that: they stick to what they can observe. Currently, the world as we know it is easier to explain without any god than with some kind of god. Thus, logical people are atheists. It is not a faith, it is called logic and intelligence.

Are you suggesting that there is no evidence to support any religions, and everything that can be observed from history, science and other things points to atheism? Idunno bout dat bro.

Edit: What you were describing is known as "blind faith" total and complete belief in something without true understanding.

[Anonymous]

Which requires, faith. Because no world view or religion is 100% concrete.

No. Faith means being convinced of something without any evidence of it and sticking to it even if evidence of the opposite. Generally, it comes from believing something someone (or some book) told you. There is actually no difference between faith and synonym.

Not believing in god is not a faith. If I told you that there's an invisible pink unicorn currently flying above your head, would you believe it? No because there's no evidence of it. There's no faith involved.

If one thousand person told you that there's an invisible pink unicorn and that your parents told you the same since your childhood, you will start to believe it. Because there's no evidence of it, you will have to come to something else and call it "faith". And because it is so patently absurd, they will even reach a point where having the faith is seen as something good.

Atheist are people like that: they stick to what they can observe. Currently, the world as we know it is easier to explain without any god than with some kind of god. Thus, logical people are atheists. It is not a faith, it is called logic and intelligence.

Are you suggesting that there is no evidence to support any religions, and everything that can be observed from history, science and other things points to atheism? Idunno bout dat bro.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever to support a 'god', a giant spaghetti monster or otherwise.

[foxcartier]

Which requires, faith. Because no world view or religion is 100% concrete.

No. Faith means being convinced of something without any evidence of it and sticking to it even if evidence of the opposite. Generally, it comes from believing something someone (or some book) told you. There is actually no difference between faith and synonym.

Not believing in god is not a faith. If I told you that there's an invisible pink unicorn currently flying above your head, would you believe it? No because there's no evidence of it. There's no faith involved.

If one thousand person told you that there's an invisible pink unicorn and that your parents told you the same since your childhood, you will start to believe it. Because there's no evidence of it, you will have to come to something else and call it "faith". And because it is so patently absurd, they will even reach a point where having the faith is seen as something good.

Atheist are people like that: they stick to what they can observe. Currently, the world as we know it is easier to explain without any god than with some kind of god. Thus, logical people are atheists. It is not a faith, it is called logic and intelligence.

Are you suggesting that there is no evidence to support any religions, and everything that can be observed from history, science and other things points to atheism? Idunno bout dat bro.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever to support a 'god', a giant spaghetti monster or otherwise.

What's the evidence to support the universe was created out of nothing?

[ploum]

What's the evidence to support the universe was created out of nothing?

Logic. If you suppose that the universe was created by a god, then it means that the god himself has to be created. Which doesn't solve the problem. So, having a god of any kind is just worthless. Some say that their god always existed. Then, why not apply the same rule to the universe?

Oh, by the way, yes, Sciences explain how to make something out of nothing : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

I admit that it is not easy to understand. That's why so much people dismiss science: "gasp, not easy to understand, I prefer a big santa claus that create the universe in 6 days. That's something I can understand with my small mind. And if i can understand it, I must be true"

[compro01]

Currently, the world as we know it is easier to explain without any god than with some kind of god.

that depends on how active you consider a god to be.  a clockmaker-style god (note: not watchmaker, different thing) would be effectively irrelevant to any explanation and thus not make it more or less complex.

[Anonymous]

Which requires, faith. Because no world view or religion is 100% concrete.

No. Faith means being convinced of something without any evidence of it and sticking to it even if evidence of the opposite. Generally, it comes from believing something someone (or some book) told you. There is actually no difference between faith and synonym.

Not believing in god is not a faith. If I told you that there's an invisible pink unicorn currently flying above your head, would you believe it? No because there's no evidence of it. There's no faith involved.

If one thousand person told you that there's an invisible pink unicorn and that your parents told you the same since your childhood, you will start to believe it. Because there's no evidence of it, you will have to come to something else and call it "faith". And because it is so patently absurd, they will even reach a point where having the faith is seen as something good.

Atheist are people like that: they stick to what they can observe. Currently, the world as we know it is easier to explain without any god than with some kind of god. Thus, logical people are atheists. It is not a faith, it is called logic and intelligence.

Are you suggesting that there is no evidence to support any religions, and everything that can be observed from history, science and other things points to atheism? Idunno bout dat bro.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever to support a 'god', a giant spaghetti monster or otherwise.

What's the evidence to support the universe was created out of nothing?

Nothing says the universe came out of nothing. We don't know.

[foxcartier]

What's the evidence to support the universe was created out of nothing?

Logic. If you suppose that the universe was created by a god, then it means that the god himself has to be created. Which doesn't solve the problem. So, having a god of any kind is just worthless. Some say that their god always existed. Then, why not apply the same rule to the universe?

Oh, by the way, yes, Sciences explain how to make something out of nothing : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

I admit that it is not easy to understand. That's why so much people dismiss science: "gasp, not easy to understand, I prefer a big santa claus that create the universe in 6 days. That's something I can understand with my small mind. And if i can understand it, I must be true"

If you're suggesting that there is a God, then he would dwell outside the natural universe, therefore not be restricted to the natural laws of this universe.

Ahhhh yes, so the answer of how the universe was created is on wikipedia, I should of known!

[foxcartier]

Which requires, faith. Because no world view or religion is 100% concrete.

No. Faith means being convinced of something without any evidence of it and sticking to it even if evidence of the opposite. Generally, it comes from believing something someone (or some book) told you. There is actually no difference between faith and synonym.

Not believing in god is not a faith. If I told you that there's an invisible pink unicorn currently flying above your head, would you believe it? No because there's no evidence of it. There's no faith involved.

If one thousand person told you that there's an invisible pink unicorn and that your parents told you the same since your childhood, you will start to believe it. Because there's no evidence of it, you will have to come to something else and call it "faith". And because it is so patently absurd, they will even reach a point where having the faith is seen as something good.

Atheist are people like that: they stick to what they can observe. Currently, the world as we know it is easier to explain without any god than with some kind of god. Thus, logical people are atheists. It is not a faith, it is called logic and intelligence.

Are you suggesting that there is no evidence to support any religions, and everything that can be observed from history, science and other things points to atheism? Idunno bout dat bro.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever to support a 'god', a giant spaghetti monster or otherwise.

What's the evidence to support the universe was created out of nothing?

Nothing says the universe came out of nothing. We don't know.

Exactly for someone to say only logical people are atheists and that's the only real truth out there is outlandish.

[Anonymous]

What's the evidence to support the universe was created out of nothing?

Logic. If you suppose that the universe was created by a god, then it means that the god himself has to be created. Which doesn't solve the problem. So, having a god of any kind is just worthless. Some say that their god always existed. Then, why not apply the same rule to the universe?

Oh, by the way, yes, Sciences explain how to make something out of nothing : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

I admit that it is not easy to understand. That's why so much people dismiss science: "gasp, not easy to understand, I prefer a big santa claus that create the universe in 6 days. That's something I can understand with my small mind. And if i can understand it, I must be true"

If you're suggesting that there is a God, then he would dwell outside the natural universe, therefore not be restricted to the natural laws of this universe.

This where it all falls apart. You literally have to make up bunk about the universe you don't understand to justify a theory.

[foxcartier]

What's the evidence to support the universe was created out of nothing?

Logic. If you suppose that the universe was created by a god, then it means that the god himself has to be created. Which doesn't solve the problem. So, having a god of any kind is just worthless. Some say that their god always existed. Then, why not apply the same rule to the universe?

Oh, by the way, yes, Sciences explain how to make something out of nothing : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

I admit that it is not easy to understand. That's why so much people dismiss science: "gasp, not easy to understand, I prefer a big santa claus that create the universe in 6 days. That's something I can understand with my small mind. And if i can understand it, I must be true"

If you're suggesting that there is a God, then he would dwell outside the natural universe, therefore not be restricted to the natural laws of this universe.

This where it all falls apart. You literally have to make up bunk about the universe you don't understand to justify a theory.

And is this Casimir effect any different?

[ploum]

Are you suggesting that there is no evidence to support any religions, and everything that can be observed from history, science and other things points to atheism? Idunno bout dat bro.

Edit: What you were describing is known as "blind faith" total and complete belief in something without true understanding.

If there is any evidence supporting any religion, I would be glad to hear it and I might change my mind. No, everything that can be observed cannot be explained today. Just like thunderstorm were not explainable before the electricity was discovered. But the fact that we cannot explain it doesn't mean it is not explainable. Also, there are in fact very few things that cannot be explained from history or what we can observe. Could you give me one for example?

PS: by definition of the word faith, every faith is blind faith. If you look for evidence, you are not applying your faith. If someone manage to proove the existence of god and that I can reproduce this demonstration, I will say that god exists but it is not a faith. When I was a kid, I had the faith that I could fly but, as I explained, not while my parents where watching (not a joke). As I never managed to proove that to myself afterward, I think that it is sane to say that I cannot fly by myself, even if my faith was really strong ;-)

[Anonymous]

What's the evidence to support the universe was created out of nothing?

Logic. If you suppose that the universe was created by a god, then it means that the god himself has to be created. Which doesn't solve the problem. So, having a god of any kind is just worthless. Some say that their god always existed. Then, why not apply the same rule to the universe?

Oh, by the way, yes, Sciences explain how to make something out of nothing : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

I admit that it is not easy to understand. That's why so much people dismiss science: "gasp, not easy to understand, I prefer a big santa claus that create the universe in 6 days. That's something I can understand with my small mind. And if i can understand it, I must be true"

If you're suggesting that there is a God, then he would dwell outside the natural universe, therefore not be restricted to the natural laws of this universe.

This where it all falls apart. You literally have to make up bunk about the universe you don't understand to justify a theory.

And is this Casimir effect any different?

Haha, not really. Physics can be pseudo-science as well.

[foxcartier]

What's the evidence to support the universe was created out of nothing?

Logic. If you suppose that the universe was created by a god, then it means that the god himself has to be created. Which doesn't solve the problem. So, having a god of any kind is just worthless. Some say that their god always existed. Then, why not apply the same rule to the universe?

Oh, by the way, yes, Sciences explain how to make something out of nothing : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

I admit that it is not easy to understand. That's why so much people dismiss science: "gasp, not easy to understand, I prefer a big santa claus that create the universe in 6 days. That's something I can understand with my small mind. And if i can understand it, I must be true"

If you're suggesting that there is a God, then he would dwell outside the natural universe, therefore not be restricted to the natural laws of this universe.

This where it all falls apart. You literally have to make up bunk about the universe you don't understand to justify a theory.

And is this Casimir effect any different?

Haha, not really. Physics can be pseudo-science as well.

When people start getting down to string theory... and past that it all starts to sound rather fantastic.

Bottom line: We don't know shit.

[Anonymous]

What's the evidence to support the universe was created out of nothing?

Logic. If you suppose that the universe was created by a god, then it means that the god himself has to be created. Which doesn't solve the problem. So, having a god of any kind is just worthless. Some say that their god always existed. Then, why not apply the same rule to the universe?

Oh, by the way, yes, Sciences explain how to make something out of nothing : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

I admit that it is not easy to understand. That's why so much people dismiss science: "gasp, not easy to understand, I prefer a big santa claus that create the universe in 6 days. That's something I can understand with my small mind. And if i can understand it, I must be true"

If you're suggesting that there is a God, then he would dwell outside the natural universe, therefore not be restricted to the natural laws of this universe.

This where it all falls apart. You literally have to make up bunk about the universe you don't understand to justify a theory.

And is this Casimir effect any different?

Haha, not really. Physics can be pseudo-science as well.

When people start getting down to string theory... and past that it all starts to sound rather fantastic.

Bottom line: We don't know shit.

Yep. Glad we can agree.

[ploum]

And is this Casimir effect any different?

Yep. It can be observed in a laboratory. If you have the hardware, you can try by yourself.

Note: I never said that the casimir effect was what created the universe. I just gave an example.

[foxcartier]

Are you suggesting that there is no evidence to support any religions, and everything that can be observed from history, science and other things points to atheism? Idunno bout dat bro.

Edit: What you were describing is known as "blind faith" total and complete belief in something without true understanding.

If there is any evidence supporting any religion, I would be glad to hear it and I might change my mind. No, everything that can be observed cannot be explained today. Just like thunderstorm were not explainable before the electricity was discovered. But the fact that we cannot explain it doesn't mean it is not explainable. Also, there are in fact very few things that cannot be explained from history or what we can observe. Could you give me one for example?

PS: by definition of the word faith, every faith is blind faith. If you look for evidence, you are not applying your faith. If someone manage to proove the existence of god and that I can reproduce this demonstration, I will say that god exists but it is not a faith. When I was a kid, I had the faith that I could fly but, as I explained, not while my parents where watching (not a joke). As I never managed to proove that to myself afterward, I think that it is sane to say that I cannot fly by myself, even if my faith was really strong ;-)

I'll bite, since I'm a Christian lets start with Jesus. How do you explain that historical figure?

Faith: Agree to disagree, to me strengthening faith means questioning it.

I never said that the casimir effect was what created the universe. I just gave an example.

So if I was to understand the jargon and somehow setup the equipment I could turn it on and it would start producing matter out of nothing?

[ploum]

If you're suggesting that there is a God, then he would dwell outside the natural universe, therefore not be restricted to the natural laws of this universe.

If the god is outside the universe, there is no possible interaction with it. Thus, it is not a god as we define it.

If the god is able to communicate with us (observing us and/or listenning to prayer), then it has too be part of the universe. Then, it should respect the laws of that universe. (it could be laws that we still don't know). If it is the case, then, its existence could be easily proved.

So, if there is a god of any kind, its existence should be proved.

Easy, isn't it?

[foxcartier]

If you're suggesting that there is a God, then he would dwell outside the natural universe, therefore not be restricted to the natural laws of this universe.

If the god is outside the universe, there is no possible interaction with it. Thus, it is not a god as we define it.

If the god is able to communicate with us (observing us and/or listenning to prayer), then it has too be part of the universe. Then, it should respect the laws of that universe. (it could be laws that we still don't know). If it is the case, then, its existence could be easily proved.

So, if there is a god of any kind, its existence should be proved.

Easy, isn't it?

I imagine it would be something like a carpenter building a house, and he can come and go into and out of the house once he's finished. An all divine being doesn't have to be restricted by the rules he makes for his house... he kind of owns it.

The evidence would be the fact that there is a house there.

[Anonymous]

If you're suggesting that there is a God, then he would dwell outside the natural universe, therefore not be restricted to the natural laws of this universe.

If the god is outside the universe, there is no possible interaction with it. Thus, it is not a god as we define it.

If the god is able to communicate with us (observing us and/or listenning to prayer), then it has too be part of the universe. Then, it should respect the laws of that universe. (it could be laws that we still don't know). If it is the case, then, its existence could be easily proved.

So, if there is a god of any kind, its existence should be proved.

Easy, isn't it?

No, I disagree entirely. You are making the assumption that a supposed being has to regulate itself in any sensible way. Things that exist don't have to be able to be proven.

[Anonymous]

If you're suggesting that there is a God, then he would dwell outside the natural universe, therefore not be restricted to the natural laws of this universe.

If the god is outside the universe, there is no possible interaction with it. Thus, it is not a god as we define it.

If the god is able to communicate with us (observing us and/or listenning to prayer), then it has too be part of the universe. Then, it should respect the laws of that universe. (it could be laws that we still don't know). If it is the case, then, its existence could be easily proved.

So, if there is a god of any kind, its existence should be proved.

Easy, isn't it?

I imagine it would be something like a carpenter building a house, and he can come and go into and out of the house once he's finished. An all divine being doesn't have to be restricted by the rules he makes for his house... he kind of owns it.

The evidence would be the fact that there is a house there.

Well, you have to make the assumption that the being is all divine, etc. It's all an imaginary ideal. It's just a theory based on whims.

[ploum]

I'll bite, since I'm a Christian lets start with Jesus. How do you explain that historical figure?

It is very hard to find a neutral study that say if Jesus was an existing person or not. Most of the scientists I've heard of tend to agree that there was a multitude of preachers at that time and that the Jesus could be an impersonification of several of them. But, let's agree that someone called Jesus really existed 2000 years ago and was murdered on a cross (which was *very* common at that time).

So what? What is your question? Is it an historical figure?

Ramses II was living 1300 years before that Jesus. We still have his body, we know a shit load about him. This is also an historical figure. A lot of text say that Ramses 2 did some really magical stuffs. A lot of texts explains that he was a hero at the battle of Kadesh. We know that it is not true. Nobody would blindly trust something because it was written ;-)

[opticbit]

I'm atheist, but sometimes pastafarian (flying spaggetti monster)

[ploum]

I imagine it would be something like a carpenter building a house, and he can come and go into and out of the house once he's finished. An all divine being doesn't have to be restricted by the rules he makes for his house... he kind of owns it.

The evidence would be the fact that there is a house there.

Analogy is not a justification. We are speaking about a universe here. Our universe is made of matter and energy. Matter and energy obey to some rules (we know some of them). If the god interact with the universe (thus the matter and the energy), it should obey to the rule of this matter.

But let's agree for a while because you analogy is interesting anyway: you agree that the carpenter (the god) does not have any relationship with the house anymore! The only proof we have of a carpenter is that we see a house. If you leave in that house, would it make any sense to worship the carpenter or to follow rules that you believe were rules left by the carpenter? He's not there anymore anyway.

[foxcartier]

I'll bite, since I'm a Christian lets start with Jesus. How do you explain that historical figure?

It is very hard to find a neutral study that say if Jesus was an existing person or not. Most of the scientists I've heard of tend to agree that there was a multitude of preachers at that time and that the Jesus could be an impersonification of several of them. But, let's agree that someone called Jesus really existed 2000 years ago and was murdered on a cross (which was *very* common at that time).

So what? What is your question? Is it an historical figure?

Ramses II was living 1300 years before that Jesus. We still have his body, we know a shit load about him. This is also an historical figure. A lot of text say that Ramses 2 did some really magical stuffs. A lot of texts explains that he was a hero at the battle of Kadesh. We know that it is not true. Nobody would blindly trust something because it was written ;-)

Quite, based on the fact that Jesus was a real historical figure there is well documentation that shows persecution of the 12 disciples that followed him, do you think they would sacrifice themselves for a lie?

[ploum]

No, I disagree entirely. You are making the assumption that a supposed being has to regulate itself in any sensible way. Things that exist don't have to be able to be proven.

I don't understand your point here. Seems interesting but I miss something.

[foxcartier]

I imagine it would be something like a carpenter building a house, and he can come and go into and out of the house once he's finished. An all divine being doesn't have to be restricted by the rules he makes for his house... he kind of owns it.

The evidence would be the fact that there is a house there.

Analogy is not a justification. We are speaking about a universe here. Our universe is made of matter and energy. Matter and energy obey to some rules (we know some of them). If the god interact with the universe (thus the matter and the energy), it should obey to the rule of this matter.

But let's agree for a while because you analogy is interesting anyway: you agree that the carpenter (the god) does not have any relationship with the house anymore! The only proof we have of a carpenter is that we see a house. If you leave in that house, would it make any sense to worship the carpenter or to follow rules that you believe were rules left by the carpenter? He's not there anymore anyway.

How do you know he isn't there anymore? You're making a few assumptions that this God doesn't have or want a relationship with it's creation. And once again that a divine being has to obey to the rules that created the tangible universe.

[dayfall]

I am looking for a good book arguing for any religion.  That is to say, a "Why you shouldn't be an atheist".  The best I have found so far is "Why I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Geisler.  I say best, but he clearly wasn't meaning to target atheists and so he leaves out all good rebuttals to everything he says.  (My neighbor, when asked I asked this, gave me a daily prayer book.)  Surely there is a good reason to believe in at least one of the religions or just anything magical at all.

[Anonymous]

Assuming the concept of god was created purely in the mind of man, this isn't even worth discussing.

[ploum]

Quite, based on the fact that Jesus was a real historical figure there is well documentation that shows persecution of the 12 disciples that followed him, do you think they would sacrifice themselves for a lie?

I haven't seen (nor heard) about that documentation. Would be really happy to hear about that.

But for your point: how many US soldiers were killed in Irak because Irak had weapon of mass destruction? Do you think that people who committed 9/11 were right or did the sacrifice themselves for a lie?

It's incredibly easy to find people ready to sacrifice themselves for whatever reason. Really. ;-)

[Anonymous]

Man should not put anything above himself for nothing outside his perspective is for certain except for the value it may give him.

[ploum]

How do you know he isn't there anymore? You're making a few assumptions that this God doesn't have or want a relationship with it's creation. And once again that a divine being has to obey to the rules that created the tangible universe.

If he was still there, I could have evidence that he was there. As long as I don't have evidence, he's of course not there.

[foxcartier]

Quite, based on the fact that Jesus was a real historical figure there is well documentation that shows persecution of the 12 disciples that followed him, do you think they would sacrifice themselves for a lie?

I haven't seen (nor heard) about that documentation. Would be really happy to hear about that.

But for your point: how many US soldiers were killed in Irak because Irak had weapon of mass destruction? Do you think that people who committed 9/11 were right or did the sacrifice themselves for a lie?

It's incredibly easy to find people ready to sacrifice themselves for whatever reason. Really. ;-)

If you've ever skimmed the Bible, the book of Acts has a few cases of martyrdom and the historian Josephus mentions a few as well if you're more inclined to trust documentation from an outside source.

Your examples don't have much to do with mine I'm afraid the 12 disciples weren't patriots or fanatic jihadist, they were ordinary men who came from various trades. The remarkable thing about these people was that they constantly doubted Jesus and his teachings and even abandoned him when the time of the crucification came. So something must of happened that turned these men into remarkable pillars of faith so that 11 out of the 12 were willing to give up their lives.

[nostrum]

Why is agnostic an option? Agnostic/gnostic is more of a prefix for the others on the list, right?

[Anonymous]

Why is agnostic an option? Agnostic/gnostic is more of a prefix for the others on the list, right?

Agnostics still have a bit of fear of a man-made ideal. It's a pseudo-label.

[nostrum]

But it makes no sense (for me anyways) to use the word agnostic by itself, even as a pseudo-label. Like there are many major differences between agnostic atheists, agnostic theists and agnostic christians.
What would be the definition of agnostic in the context of this list? The way I see it it is very ambigious, especially compared to the rest of the list.

[FooDSt4mP]

Man should not put anything above himself for nothing outside his perspective is for certain except for the value it may give him.

What if placing something above yourself gives you value?  How would you know until you tried?

[FooDSt4mP]

How do you know he isn't there anymore? You're making a few assumptions that this God doesn't have or want a relationship with it's creation. And once again that a divine being has to obey to the rules that created the tangible universe.

If he was still there, I could have evidence that he was there. As long as I don't have evidence, he's of course not there.

We don't always see everything, even when it's right in front of us.  Lack of evidence does not mean failure of a theory.  That requires counter evidence.

[Anonymous]

How do you know he isn't there anymore? You're making a few assumptions that this God doesn't have or want a relationship with it's creation. And once again that a divine being has to obey to the rules that created the tangible universe.

If he was still there, I could have evidence that he was there. As long as I don't have evidence, he's of course not there.

Lack of evidence does not mean failure of a theory.

A theory with absolutely no ground is a failure.

[edd]

How do you know he isn't there anymore? You're making a few assumptions that this God doesn't have or want a relationship with it's creation. And once again that a divine being has to obey to the rules that created the tangible universe.

If he was still there, I could have evidence that he was there. As long as I don't have evidence, he's of course not there.

We don't always see everything, even when it's right in front of us.  Lack of evidence does not mean failure of a theory.  That requires counter evidence.

A theory that can't be tested isn't a theory.

[FooDSt4mP]

How do you know he isn't there anymore? You're making a few assumptions that this God doesn't have or want a relationship with it's creation. And once again that a divine being has to obey to the rules that created the tangible universe.

If he was still there, I could have evidence that he was there. As long as I don't have evidence, he's of course not there.

Lack of evidence does not mean failure of a theory.

A theory with absolutely no ground is a failure.

I have jumped in the middle here, so let me make _my_ position clear.  My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself gives one power.  My ground, and my evidence is the effect this leap of faith has had on my life.  It's really quite logical.  If you don't acknowledge it, you fight it.  If you do acknowledge it, you can approach synchrony and waste less energy in needless conflict.  Of course, the problem comes in when you start to define (restrict) that power.  Maintaining an open mind about how to interact with your environment is crucial.  I can only say that with certainty because I have struggled with the opposite.

[FooDSt4mP]

How do you know he isn't there anymore? You're making a few assumptions that this God doesn't have or want a relationship with it's creation. And once again that a divine being has to obey to the rules that created the tangible universe.

If he was still there, I could have evidence that he was there. As long as I don't have evidence, he's of course not there.

We don't always see everything, even when it's right in front of us.  Lack of evidence does not mean failure of a theory.  That requires counter evidence.

A theory that can't be tested isn't a theory.

Perhaps you're thinking of a hypothesis. Merriam-Webster's definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory) makes no mention of testability.  Besides, proving something is untestable is it's own can of worms.

[edd]

How do you know he isn't there anymore? You're making a few assumptions that this God doesn't have or want a relationship with it's creation. And once again that a divine being has to obey to the rules that created the tangible universe.

If he was still there, I could have evidence that he was there. As long as I don't have evidence, he's of course not there.

We don't always see everything, even when it's right in front of us.  Lack of evidence does not mean failure of a theory.  That requires counter evidence.

A theory that can't be tested isn't a theory.

Perhaps you're thinking of a hypothesis. Merriam-Webster's definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory) makes no mention of testability.  Besides, proving something is untestable is it's own can of worms.

You are correct, I was using the "layman's" definition of theory, which is much closer to a scientific hypothesis. The reason I used it, however, is because it seemed to be the definition you were using; the definition you linked to makes no mention of evidence, either.

[nostrum]

I have jumped in the middle here, so let me make _my_ position clear.  My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself gives one power.  My ground, and my evidence is the effect this leap of faith has had on my life.  It's really quite logical.  If you don't acknowledge it, you fight it.  If you do acknowledge it, you can approach synchrony and waste less energy in needless conflict.  Of course, the problem comes in when you start to define (restrict) that power.  Maintaining an open mind about how to interact with your environment is crucial.  I can only say that with certainty because I have struggled with the opposite.

Dont you mean "My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself can give one power."?
And why introduce a false dichotomy?
How can you tell if it is a needless conflict or not?
What problems arises from defining specifically? Understanding too much?
An open mind is nothing without a good filter.

And why would a hypothesis (a scientific term) not be concerned with testability when the entire foundation of science and the scientific method is based on it. The reason why you make a hypothesis is so you can test it and if it holds up or not. If not you arent really doing much.
Technically there is no clear line between a hypothesis and a theory. When one or several hypothesis obtain a acceptable predictive power it is usually referred to as theory (the scientific term).

[FooDSt4mP]

I have jumped in the middle here, so let me make _my_ position clear.  My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself gives one power.  My ground, and my evidence is the effect this leap of faith has had on my life.  It's really quite logical.  If you don't acknowledge it, you fight it.  If you do acknowledge it, you can approach synchrony and waste less energy in needless conflict.  Of course, the problem comes in when you start to define (restrict) that power.  Maintaining an open mind about how to interact with your environment is crucial.  I can only say that with certainty because I have struggled with the opposite.

Dont you mean "My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself can give one power."?
And why introduce a false dichotomy?
How can you tell if it is a needless conflict or not?
What problems arises from defining specifically? Understanding too much?
An open mind is nothing without a good filter.

And why would a hypothesis (a scientific term) not be concerned with testability when the entire foundation of science and the scientific method is based on it. The reason you make a hypothesis is so you can test it. If not you arent really doing much.
Technically there is no clear line between a hypothesis and a theory. When one or several hypothesis obtain a acceptable predictive power it is usually referred to as theory (the scientific term).

You are right "can give one power" would be a better formulation of my statement.  If done incorrectly, it can instead give others power over you.  Can you be more specific about the "false dichotomy" I am introducing?  I describe the conflict as "needless" because it can be avoided or reduced.  There is conflict that is necessary, and you will often find that type to be unavoidable.  The problem with definitions are that they restrict the power.  What you feel that power is capable of will affect how that power manifests itself in your life.  If to you God is some bearded guy who sends angels down to do his bidding, you will not accept a gift from a divine being in a different form.  And yes, I agree a mind can be too open.  Before all of this is explored, a firm basis in rational thinking is prerequisite.  That rationality will certainly be challenged, and many tend to be swept away from it if they are not firmly rooted.  As for the discussion of science and the scientific method, all I have to say is that our modern expression of science is laughable compared to the rigor of previous generations.  In my case, I have explained my hypothesis (acknowledging a higher power can add value to you), my methodology (acknowledging such higher power), and my conclusion (my hypothesis is correct).  The only thing missing is results, but those details are personal.  Unless you want to spend a lot of time becoming my friend, you'll just have to take my word for it.  I can tell you that without my innate curiosity about the subject, I would be locked into a much smaller world than the one I now experience.

[nostrum]

I have jumped in the middle here, so let me make _my_ position clear.  My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself gives one power.  My ground, and my evidence is the effect this leap of faith has had on my life.  It's really quite logical.  If you don't acknowledge it, you fight it.  If you do acknowledge it, you can approach synchrony and waste less energy in needless conflict.  Of course, the problem comes in when you start to define (restrict) that power.  Maintaining an open mind about how to interact with your environment is crucial.  I can only say that with certainty because I have struggled with the opposite.

Dont you mean "My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself can give one power."?
And why introduce a false dichotomy?
How can you tell if it is a needless conflict or not?
What problems arises from defining specifically? Understanding too much?
An open mind is nothing without a good filter.

And why would a hypothesis (a scientific term) not be concerned with testability when the entire foundation of science and the scientific method is based on it. The reason you make a hypothesis is so you can test it. If not you arent really doing much.
Technically there is no clear line between a hypothesis and a theory. When one or several hypothesis obtain a acceptable predictive power it is usually referred to as theory (the scientific term).

You are right "can give one power" would be a better formulation of my statement.  If done incorrectly, it can instead give others power over you.  Can you be more specific about the "false dichotomy" I am introducing?  I describe the conflict as "needless" because it can be avoided or reduced.  There is conflict that is necessary, and you will often find that type to be unavoidable.  The problem with definitions are that they restrict the power.  What you feel that power is capable of will affect how that power manifests itself in your life.  If to you God is some bearded guy who sends angels down to do his bidding, you will not accept a gift from a divine being in a different form.  And yes, I agree a mind can be too open.  Before all of this is explored, a firm basis in rational thinking is prerequisite.  That rationality will certainly be challenged, and many tend to be swept away from it if they are not firmly rooted.  As for the discussion of science and the scientific method, all I have to say is that our modern expression of science is laughable compared to the rigor of previous generations.  In my case, I have explained my hypothesis (acknowledging a higher power can add value to you), my methodology (acknowledging such higher power), and my conclusion (my hypothesis is correct).  The only thing missing is results, but those details are personal.  Unless you want to spend a lot of time becoming my friend, you'll just have to take my word for it.  I can tell you that without my innate curiosity about the subject, I would be locked into a much smaller world than the one I now experience.

The false dichotomy: "If you don't acknowledge it, you fight it."
How do you determine if a conflict should be avoided or reduced?
Are you saying that making clear definitions will create problems in the form of misrepresented pictures or ideas? If so its not done correctly, because the purpose of having clear definition is exactly the opposite.

How would you test your hypothesis?
Acknowledging something blindly is a strange methology in my mind. I would not consider it to be an efficient method and I am unsure what valuable objective data can be produced from it.
What is your conclusion based on? How can you tell if your hypothesis is correct? And how can you convince others? And how can you make a good conclusion without results?

The problem is that we all have different experiences, and we need good tools to separate the illusions from the facts. We will always be wrong, but we will always get more and more accurate the better tools we use. And our minds are the foundation for it all.

If my writing seems cold and cynical its only because Im trying to be as clear as I can

[dayfall]

Delusion can give one power.  I agree.  The hopeless, the insecure, the frightened, the cowardly, the wrong, and the arrogant.   Weather or not they should, is probably beyond this conversation.  I can certainly see how believing in a higher power can motivate some people.

The only thing missing is results.

My thoughts exactly.  Speaking of higher power, I wonder what those aliens use for money?  

[dayfall]

Perhaps you're thinking of a hypothesis. Merriam-Webster's definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory) makes no mention of testability.  Besides, proving something is untestable is it's own can of worms.

The Wikipedia article does.  A scientific theory is a tested hypothesis.  Scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable.

If you mean that lack of evidence for a hypothesis (layman: theory) doesn't disprove it, then it really depends on if the evidence was predicted by the theory.  Does not finding the evidence sought after make any difference?  I have found that if you only look to confirm something you will succeed in showing it to be "true".  But you only find the real truth when trying to disprove it.  Ask any snake-oil salesman.

[FooDSt4mP]

I have jumped in the middle here, so let me make _my_ position clear.  My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself gives one power.  My ground, and my evidence is the effect this leap of faith has had on my life.  It's really quite logical.  If you don't acknowledge it, you fight it.  If you do acknowledge it, you can approach synchrony and waste less energy in needless conflict.  Of course, the problem comes in when you start to define (restrict) that power.  Maintaining an open mind about how to interact with your environment is crucial.  I can only say that with certainty because I have struggled with the opposite.

Dont you mean "My bottom line is that acknowledging power greater than oneself can give one power."?
And why introduce a false dichotomy?
How can you tell if it is a needless conflict or not?
What problems arises from defining specifically? Understanding too much?
An open mind is nothing without a good filter.

And why would a hypothesis (a scientific term) not be concerned with testability when the entire foundation of science and the scientific method is based on it. The reason you make a hypothesis is so you can test it. If not you arent really doing much.
Technically there is no clear line between a hypothesis and a theory. When one or several hypothesis obtain a acceptable predictive power it is usually referred to as theory (the scientific term).

You are right "can give one power" would be a better formulation of my statement.  If done incorrectly, it can instead give others power over you.  Can you be more specific about the "false dichotomy" I am introducing?  I describe the conflict as "needless" because it can be avoided or reduced.  There is conflict that is necessary, and you will often find that type to be unavoidable.  The problem with definitions are that they restrict the power.  What you feel that power is capable of will affect how that power manifests itself in your life.  If to you God is some bearded guy who sends angels down to do his bidding, you will not accept a gift from a divine being in a different form.  And yes, I agree a mind can be too open.  Before all of this is explored, a firm basis in rational thinking is prerequisite.  That rationality will certainly be challenged, and many tend to be swept away from it if they are not firmly rooted.  As for the discussion of science and the scientific method, all I have to say is that our modern expression of science is laughable compared to the rigor of previous generations.  In my case, I have explained my hypothesis (acknowledging a higher power can add value to you), my methodology (acknowledging such higher power), and my conclusion (my hypothesis is correct).  The only thing missing is results, but those details are personal.  Unless you want to spend a lot of time becoming my friend, you'll just have to take my word for it.  I can tell you that without my innate curiosity about the subject, I would be locked into a much smaller world than the one I now experience.

The false dichotomy: "If you don't acknowledge it, you fight it."
How do you determine if a conflict should be avoided or reduced?
Are you saying that making clear definitions will create problems in the form of misrepresented pictures or ideas? If so its not done correctly, because the purpose of having clear definition is exactly the opposite.

How would you test your hypothesis?
Acknowledging something blindly is a strange methology in my mind. I would not consider it to be an efficient method and I am unsure what valuable objective data can be produced from it.
What is your conclusion based on? How can you tell if your hypothesis is correct? And how can you convince others? And how can you make a good conclusion without results?

The problem is that we all have different experiences, and we need good tools to separate the illusions from the facts. We will always be wrong, but we will always get more and more accurate the better tools we use. And our minds are the foundation for it all.

If my writing seems cold and cynical its only because Im trying to be as clear as I can

That is only false if you assume the power does not exist.  I can't create a clear definition because my mind is not capable of comprehending on that level.  That's why I delegate to the power above that is capable of applying rational behavior on such a scale.  Yes, my methodology is strange when compared to other scientific methodologies, but we are discussing faith.  It wouldn't be called a leap of faith if the term wasn't in some way representative.  Unfortunately, I know of no other way to test my hypothesis.  If you can devise such a way, please share it.  I agree separating illusions from facts is crucial, however throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a danger as well.  Just because it is beyond the limits of my logic doesn't mean I can dismiss it at illogical.  Sometimes I can, but sometimes I have to accept my limits and trust things will work out.  And in those times when I can't see the logic, fighting with it rarely brings it to a head.  When I relax and let it go is when things resolve themselves.  Either things work out in my favor, and I am pleasantly surprised at how things unfolded, or it fades away.  Either way, I get to relax and not worry about it.  Finally, don't worry about your tone.  I'm used to much worse.  You hear a lot of strife when you have faith at an engineering school.  If I seem confident, it's because I am.  I have been overconfident at times, and have gotten myself into quite a bit of trouble.  But, by refining my tools I am much better now about catching my arrogance before it leads to problems.  I appreciate you taking the time to debate with me.  I truly enjoy a good discussion, but it will probably be a while before I come back to this one.  I'm leaving town for a week tomorrow morning.  If anything I've said sparks your interest, ask for a sign, then forget about it.  If your time is right, you will find what you seek.  If not, you've wasted 2 seconds talking to yourself.

[FooDSt4mP]

Delusion can give one power.  I agree.  The hopeless, the insecure, the frightened, the cowardly, the wrong, and the arrogant.   Weather or not they should, is probably beyond this conversation.  I can certainly see how believing in a higher power can motivate some people.

The only thing missing is results.

My thoughts exactly.  Speaking of higher power, I wonder what those aliens use for money?  

I explained why it's missing.  Do you want to divulge to us all your personal thoughts, feelings, habits, and challenges?  The results are real, and the fact that I'm spending so much effort trying to convince people is evidence of one of two things: I'm telling the truth and I want to be helpful to others, or I'm defending my beliefs out of a sense of self-preservation.  You seem to have already decided which it is, and if you're right I hope it is made plainly clear to me, but that's not something you can do.  I have made no mention of aliens, and your snap judgments show you have not taken the time to consider these issues in any detail.  Please add to the conversation, or stay quiet.  There is no need for snarky comments and name calling.  I would love to hear any well developed ideas you have on the topic.

[dayfall]

I would love to hear any well developed ideas you have on the topic.

"I explained why it's missing."

I will "explain" also.  It isn't true.

"Do you want to divulge to us all your personal thoughts, feelings, habits, and challenges?"

I don't think everyone here wants to know.   Why should I.  As for challenges, HA!  Religions are by design unchallengeable.  I have debated religious folk for years, and I have realized the first sign of a faithist is that nothing reasonable can possibly convince them they are wrong.  Same goes for all mystics.  Asking for a challenge (unless you will seriously accept one) is a deception.

You did mention a higher power, right?  Aliens!  Oh, well if you meant a personal god then just say that instead.  You certainly made the leap quickly enough.

When you say you are telling the truth, do you mean that you aren't lying and you actually believe the things you say, or do you mean that your god is real?  The former is understood, and the latter is ... contended.  "I want to be helpful to others"  Yeah, I believe it.  You have the TRUTH and want everyone to believe YOU. 

It seems you have decided what I thought of you too. 

"shows you have not taken the time to consider these issues in any detail"

Your powers of reasoning are lacking.  Sorry, but you are wrong.  No matter how wright you think you are and how much "explaining" you do. 

Do you have any good anti-atheist books you want to recommend?

[FooDSt4mP]

Shambhala: Sacred Path of the Warrior.  It is not anti-atheist, but it get's at my point in a more atheist-friendly way then I am capable of.  There are many aspects that can be understood without the need for a God concept.  But progress comes from surrender when it is time to surrender, and from fighting when the time is to fight.  I was not referring to "challenges" as in a religious challenge.  I was referring to my own challenges.  Tendencies I have that I must be mindful of.  If I'm mindful, I can use them as talents, but if I get lazy, they can cause problems.  Everyone has their own idiosyncrasies.  The only truth I will proclaim is that there is value to acknowledging your limits and acknowledging you can go beyond them by following a higher order.  If you disagree, can you please explain why?  Also, why do you feel you need to attack me personally?  Have my beliefs somehow hurt you?  Do you even know what I believe, or are you lumping me in with other "believers" that I likely share very little in common with?  I will be the first to admit religions often perpetuate dogma, but they are built on wisdom that has been cast aside for more reductionist ideas.  Both ways have their place, and the new can not cast aside the old without having to relearning the same mistakes.

[nostrum]

That is only false if you assume the power does not exist.  I can't create a clear definition because my mind is not capable of comprehending on that level.  That's why I delegate to the power above that is capable of applying rational behavior on such a scale.  Yes, my methodology is strange when compared to other scientific methodologies, but we are discussing faith.  It wouldn't be called a leap of faith if the term wasn't in some way representative.  Unfortunately, I know of no other way to test my hypothesis.  If you can devise such a way, please share it.  I agree separating illusions from facts is crucial, however throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a danger as well.  Just because it is beyond the limits of my logic doesn't mean I can dismiss it at illogical.  Sometimes I can, but sometimes I have to accept my limits and trust things will work out.  And in those times when I can't see the logic, fighting with it rarely brings it to a head.  When I relax and let it go is when things resolve themselves.  Either things work out in my favor, and I am pleasantly surprised at how things unfolded, or it fades away.  Either way, I get to relax and not worry about it.  Finally, don't worry about your tone.  I'm used to much worse.  You hear a lot of strife when you have faith at an engineering school.  If I seem confident, it's because I am.  I have been overconfident at times, and have gotten myself into quite a bit of trouble.  But, by refining my tools I am much better now about catching my arrogance before it leads to problems.  I appreciate you taking the time to debate with me.  I truly enjoy a good discussion, but it will probably be a while before I come back to this one.  I'm leaving town for a week tomorrow morning.  If anything I've said sparks your interest, ask for a sign, then forget about it.  If your time is right, you will find what you seek.  If not, you've wasted 2 seconds talking to yourself.

I think there is at least one more thing we can agree on; we are talking too much past each other to have a constructive debate. If we wanted to go somewhere with this we have to build the debate from the basics that we agree on. We are debating apples and oranges but we are not sure if the opposing part has the same definition of fruit, if you understand what Im getting at

If you see this before you go or after you get back let me know what you think of these two quotes:

"Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further."

"Christian faith requires that faith persists in the face of the impossible, and that humans have the capability to simuntaneously believe in two contradictory things."

[ploum]

If you've ever skimmed the Bible, the book of Acts has a few cases of martyrdom and the historian Josephus mentions a few as well if you're more inclined to trust documentation from an outside source.

The problem with christians is that they stick to one book. They proove everything by stating that "everything is true in the bible". If I do the same for any book (let's take the first harry potter), I can tell you a lot of thing.

But there's no point to argue because the fact that the bible is the truth is so deeply engraved in christians brains that they can told you that "the bible is the truth because it is told in the bible" without even realizing how stupid it is.

Your examples don't have much to do with mine I'm afraid the 12 disciples weren't patriots or fanatic jihadist, they were ordinary men who came from various trades. The remarkable thing about these people was that they constantly doubted Jesus and his teachings and even abandoned him when the time of the crucification came. So something must of happened that turned these men into remarkable pillars of faith so that 11 out of the 12 were willing to give up their lives.

Why are the examples different? The Jihadist were, at the beginning, very normal people, with wifes and kids. At some point, they were so deeply convinced by someone that they wanted to give their life for that. It happens all the time in human history that some people are willing to die for ideas.

That's for me when I consider people to be dangerous extremists : when they are considering their ideas more important than their own lives.

I would die myself to protect other human beings. But, if someone point a gun at me and say "I kill all atheists", I will gladly reply that "I believe in God".

[dayfall]

Shambhala: Sacred Path of the Warrior.  It is not anti-atheist, but it get's at my point in a more atheist-friendly way then I am capable of.  There are many aspects that can be understood without the need for a God concept. 

I would rather a non-friendly atheist book.  As long as Occam's razor doen't cut out most of the pages.  If I am wrong, I demand to be shown as such.  It doesn't have to be friendly.  Also, I don't know of anything that is understood WITH a god concept.  It seems to me everything is understood best without it.  In any case, I'll definitely check the book out.  I am looking for some good twist your mind philosophy, anyhow.

I was referring to my own challenges.  Tendencies I have that I must be mindful of.

Who can claim they are "right"?  Is it moral to propose information with out making it known first how you know it to be true?  Is there a difference between belief and fact?  Which is more important?

Just some "challenges".  Do you have any for me?

you can go beyond them by following a higher order.  If you disagree, can you please explain why?

Well, considering i apparently have no idea what you mean by "higher order" or "higher power".   I can't agree nor disagree.  Is this "higher order" real or imaginary?

Also, why do you feel you need to attack me personally?  Have my beliefs somehow hurt you?

I don't remember doing that.

[Xenland]

Although ones beliefs aren't important to anyone else or possible to relevantly talk about beliefs with out confusion involved.
My belief is that everything in front of me is there, was there, and always will be there.
Maybe not in the same molecular structural patterns as my past might once perceived it but its still a fact.

Personally to me there are 6 billion people on the planet so that must mean their are 6 billion ways to perceive one thing or subject(but there are a million things and subjects!).
So my conclusion is that everyone has the same god, it just goes through a their brain or filter as I like to call them differently.
I've seen some interesting things happen, miracles maybe. They say that those who are in awe or think they see miracles happen don't understand the processes that are happening behind the Curtin. I beg to differ that I realise that the universe has rules that was, is and always will be, and if there is this infinite thread holding it all together that some like to call God I would hope that man in the sky would stay true to his word and keep the rules how they are, and always will be.
 If the universe was chaotic such as one day I get up eat my cereal gravity is in place, then the all of a sudden "Just be cause the universe feels like" it and no particular cause and effect all the molecules start to disperse at high speeds in multi-dimensional directions then I die instantly because of actions that were out of my own personal control, I'd say there is no god and there is no laws or rules of invisible thread of infiniteness holding it all together.

Hope you guys and gals, liked my interpretation on the infinite vastness of creation and decaying....

[Xenland]

Don't mean to double post but im skimming over a couple of posts on this thread and it seems like some people know what im talking about filters, and different experiences; awesome. Glad to hear that we are all closer then we think in differences

[foxcartier]

If you've ever skimmed the Bible, the book of Acts has a few cases of martyrdom and the historian Josephus mentions a few as well if you're more inclined to trust documentation from an outside source.

The problem with christians is that they stick to one book. They proove everything by stating that "everything is true in the bible". If I do the same for any book (let's take the first harry potter), I can tell you a lot of thing.

But there's no point to argue because the fact that the bible is the truth is so deeply engraved in christians brains that they can told you that "the bible is the truth because it is told in the bible" without even realizing how stupid it is.

Your examples don't have much to do with mine I'm afraid the 12 disciples weren't patriots or fanatic jihadist, they were ordinary men who came from various trades. The remarkable thing about these people was that they constantly doubted Jesus and his teachings and even abandoned him when the time of the crucification came. So something must of happened that turned these men into remarkable pillars of faith so that 11 out of the 12 were willing to give up their lives.

Why are the examples different? The Jihadist were, at the beginning, very normal people, with wifes and kids. At some point, they were so deeply convinced by someone that they wanted to give their life for that. It happens all the time in human history that some people are willing to die for ideas.

That's for me when I consider people to be dangerous extremists : when they are considering their ideas more important than their own lives.

I would die myself to protect other human beings. But, if someone point a gun at me and say "I kill all atheists", I will gladly reply that "I believe in God".

Well considering the Christian Bible has a wealth of geological and historical value thats has been proven time and time again it does have some significant value as a historical text, whether you dispute the religious aspects or not.

As for the examples being different... the disciples had a chance to run away from the teachings of Jesus in order to save their own lives much like your current perspective, what I'm saying is that something amazing happened to literally change them.

[MarketNeutral]

Buddha was an atheist.
 

[dayfall]

There needs to be a Atheist/Buddhist option.  And an Atheist\Agnostic option too.  Actually I think I might be both of those.  (Except for the Buddhist version of reincarnation)

[asdf]

If you're suggesting that there is a God, then he would dwell outside the natural universe, therefore not be restricted to the natural laws of this universe.

If the god is outside the universe, there is no possible interaction with it. Thus, it is not a god as we define it.

If the god is able to communicate with us (observing us and/or listenning to prayer), then it has too be part of the universe. Then, it should respect the laws of that universe. (it could be laws that we still don't know). If it is the case, then, its existence could be easily proved.

So, if there is a god of any kind, its existence should be proved.

Easy, isn't it?

No, I disagree entirely. You are making the assumption that a supposed being has to regulate itself in any sensible way. Things that exist don't have to be able to be proven.

The alleged god either interacts with the universe in an observable way or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it exists only as an abstraction; it existence or not makes no difference to the universe.

If it does, then we are observing that interaction; god is part of the observable universe. Should this be the case, what do we observe that is god? It seems that the universe operates consistently according to some laws (physics). One might say that these laws are the observable interactions of god, then we might as well define god as the universe.

Actually, this whole debate stems from the illusion of separation. God is a silly artifact of this illusion. There are no separate "things"; things are only mental objects. Before you think, nothing exists! Tell me what exists that isn't a thought.

There is no self and other; all is one. We are not separate from the world, we are the world. When you look into the eyes of another human being, god is looking at god.

[ploum]

Well considering the Christian Bible has a wealth of geological and historical value thats has been proven time and time again it does have some significant value as a historical text, whether you dispute the religious aspects or not.

no. The bible says that the world was created in 6 days. It is false. Thus, we know that there are mistakes in the bible. We know also that there should be some truth in the bible (because writing an entire book full of false stuffs looks improbable to me).

Thus, the bible contains some good stuffs and some false stuffs. It also contains some stuffs that are neither good or bad, merely an opinion.

Thus, the fact that something is in the bible has no logical value. You have to use your judgement anyway.

Thus, you finally use your judgement, not the bible.

The problem is that religious zealot use their judgement then try to fit this judgement into the bible by calling the "interpretation" magic.

I did the experiment several times: give me a random book, give me a random sentence (like "you should eat babies for breakfast"). I will open that random book at a random page and proove you, with some interpretation, that this very same page order you to eat babies for breakfast. Then I will proove the opposite.

For people who litteraly believe what's in the bible word by word, well, I'm not sure we cannot do anything for them anymore ;-)

[foxcartier]

no. The bible says that the world was created in 6 days. It is false. Thus, we know that there are mistakes in the bible. We know also that there should be some truth in the bible (because writing an entire book full of false stuffs looks improbable to me).

Where you there? Do you know what really happened? You are rather quick to dismiss things which no one has a way of proving or disproving.

Thus, the bible contains some good stuffs and some false stuffs. It also contains some stuffs that are neither good or bad, merely an opinion.

Considering its a text that has survived for other 2000 years and has given priceless historical and geological information, why yes, thanks for saying there are some good stuff.

The entire message of the Bible could be boiled down to "love your neighbor as thyself". Not necessarily such a bad thing.

The problem is that religious zealot use their judgement then try to fit this judgement into the bible by calling the "interpretation" magic.

Same thing could be said for anything, whether its the sociopath murdering atheist who does the things they do because they can, or a religious fanatic nutjob that goes to an abortion clinic and shoots up the place. People are sinful in nature, that has an effect on whatever beliefs they hold.

I did the experiment several times: give me a random book, give me a random sentence (like "you should eat babies for breakfast"). I will open that random book at a random page and proove you, with some interpretation, that this very same page order you to eat babies for breakfast. Then I will proove the opposite.

Confusion.

For people who litteraly believe what's in the bible word by word, well, I'm not sure we cannot do anything for them anymore ;-)

Hey if its not all true, what is the point in believing only a segment of it?

[bleedkira]

Where you there? Do you know what really happened? You are rather quick to dismiss things which no one has a way of proving or disproving.

So your proof that it did happen that way is that he can't disprove that it didn't happen that way? Some great logic there.

Anyways, I'm new to this thread and I'm an atheist and I pull somewhat from Buddhist teachings as well.

[foxcartier]

Where you there? Do you know what really happened? You are rather quick to dismiss things which no one has a way of proving or disproving.

So your proof that it did happen that way is that he can't disprove that it didn't happen that way? Some great logic there.

I think so, in the end either everything came from something or everything came from nothing. I can't prove my beliefs and I'm pretty confident that atheists don't have concrete evidence in their theories of how everything came into existence.

[nostrum]

I think so, in the end either everything came from something or everything came from nothing. I can't prove my beliefs and I'm pretty confident that atheists don't have concrete evidence in their theories of how everything came into existence.

The important thing is that we keep trying to figure things out in the most efficient way possible.
We might never now everything but our knowledge is growing exponentially every day.

[BombaUcigasa]

I think so, in the end either everything came from something or everything came from nothing. I can't prove my beliefs and I'm pretty confident that atheists don't have concrete evidence in their theories of how everything came into existence.

So you're saying the religious view is that everything came from nothing? Pretty strong belief you got there...

[Marlsfarp]

I am basically an atheist, but I put "other" just to avoid semantic traps. I don't believe in anything that I call "god," but it is certainly possible to define "god" in such a way that I would believe in "him" (the universe, natural law, etc.) And I've found that oftentimes the definition of "god" used is so logically incoherent that it would be wrong to say I don't believe in it, as that would imply an actual concept to negate. Rather, they are "not even wrong," and literally speaking nonsense.

[nostrum]

I am basically an atheist, but I put "other" just to avoid semantic traps. I don't believe in anything that I call "god," but it is certainly possible to define "god" in such a way that I would believe in "him" (the universe, natural law, etc.) And I've found that oftentimes the definition of "god" used is so logically incoherent that it would be wrong to say I don't believe in it, as that would imply an actual concept to negate. Rather, they are "not even wrong," and literally speaking nonsense.

So you are somewhere in between atheist and pantheist?

[foxcartier]

I think so, in the end either everything came from something or everything came from nothing. I can't prove my beliefs and I'm pretty confident that atheists don't have concrete evidence in their theories of how everything came into existence.

So you're saying the religious view is that everything came from nothing? Pretty strong belief you got there...

No, everything came from something.

[BombaUcigasa]

I think so, in the end either everything came from something or everything came from nothing. I can't prove my beliefs and I'm pretty confident that atheists don't have concrete evidence in their theories of how everything came into existence.

So you're saying the religious view is that everything came from nothing? Pretty strong belief you got there...

No, everything came from something.

Ok. What did the Universe come from?

[Anonymous]

I think so, in the end either everything came from something or everything came from nothing. I can't prove my beliefs and I'm pretty confident that atheists don't have concrete evidence in their theories of how everything came into existence.

So you're saying the religious view is that everything came from nothing? Pretty strong belief you got there...

No, everything came from something.

Ok. What did the Universe come from?

Nobody knows. It doesn't fucking matter. Enjoy your life and stop praising nonsensical ideas of where you think everything may of started.

[BombaUcigasa]

I think so, in the end either everything came from something or everything came from nothing. I can't prove my beliefs and I'm pretty confident that atheists don't have concrete evidence in their theories of how everything came into existence.

So you're saying the religious view is that everything came from nothing? Pretty strong belief you got there...

No, everything came from something.

Ok. What did the Universe come from?

Nobody knows. It doesn't fucking matter. Enjoy your life and stop praising nonsensical ideas of where you think everything may of started.

I would but some people call me stupid because they red the answer in a single book, and all the answers I read in several books, that can be tested right now, and provide actual design work and functionality description, appear to be incorrect? Am I wrong, am I ignorant? I need to know....

What did the Universe come from, Mr religious man?

[foxcartier]

Nobody knows. It doesn't fucking matter. Enjoy your life and stop praising nonsensical ideas of where you think everything may of started.

[foxcartier]

What did the Universe come from, Mr religious man?

*Insert Chuck Norris joke here*

[dayfall]

I think so, in the end either everything came from something or everything came from nothing. I can't prove my beliefs and I'm pretty confident that atheists don't have concrete evidence in their theories of how everything came into existence.

Concrete evidence?  Well we do have order from chaos.  That is easy to show. (and the occurrence of which leads to many superstitions.)  Energy to matter.  This is widely believed.  Duality of particles.  That gives us a lot of something from a little something.  And dark energy gives the initial building block.  A godless creation is plausible and satisfies Occam's razor.  Hence, there is no logical reason to postulate an extrauniversal being for the universe existing.

Proof only works for mathematicians.  In my experience, the only other people that talk of proof is children and people that think lack of proof is an argument. 

I wonder where all these gods come from?  Who made them the way they are?  Who made them so mean and absent looking?  Who made them want to make us?

I often wonder why people believe the ultimate god is the one that made us.  Why not a deity, that was itself created, make us.  People seem so certain.  How do they think they can even know such a thing?

[BombaUcigasa]

I wonder where all these gods come from?  Who made them the way they are?  Who made them so mean and absent looking?  Who made them want to make us?

I often wonder why people believe the ultimate god is the one that made us.  Why not a deity, that was itself created, make us.  People seem so certain.  How do they think they can even know such a thing?

It's gods all the way down...

[foxcartier]

Concrete evidence?  Well we do have order from chaos.  That is easy to show. (and the occurrence of which leads to many superstitions.)  Energy to matter.  This is widely believed.  Duality of particles.  That gives us a lot of something from a little something.  And dark energy gives the initial building block.  A godless creation is plausible and satisfies Occam's razor.  Hence, there is no logical reason to postulate an extrauniversal being for the universe existing.

I'm not going to pretend I even understand how scientists begin to justify the beginning of the universe without a creator, I don't have a Phd. What I do know is common sense, the complexity of life that exists today and how it could be generated from dark energy and chaos doesn't make sense to me.

Proof only works for mathematicians.  In my experience, the only other people that talk of proof is children and people that think lack of proof is an argument. 

Alright well what are the laws and theories that can justify your view... is that better?

I wonder where all these gods come from?  Who made them the way they are?  Who made them so mean and absent looking?  Who made them want to make us?

God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him.

How do they think they can even know such a thing?

And that is where faith enters the equation.

[dayfall]

I'm not going to pretend I even understand how scientists begin to justify the beginning of the universe without a creator, I don't have a Phd. What I do know is common sense, the complexity of life that exists today and how it could be generated from dark energy and chaos doesn't make sense to me.

Sounds like you don't want to try to understand. 

Alright well what are the laws and theories that can justify your view... is that better?

Not by much.  Beware of justification bias.  What I call Thinkology.

God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him.

Nice story.  You base this on what?

And that is where faith enters the equation.

Why do you think faith is in anyway moral?  Faith is saying you know when you don't.  It is all arrogance and lies.

[foxcartier]

Sounds like you don't want to try to understand. 

I'm always opened minded, but when someone posts a link to a scientific formula or theorem that is grounded in complex mathematical algorithms, I'm not going to waste my time to try to begin to understand.

Nice story.  You base this on what?

Any religion out there has some sort of text or explanation as to who their divine being is, I'd say that's a connection. Specifically Christianity the God described there wants a highly personal relationship with each individual.

The basic instinct that has been shown over human's history is it's need to think of something super natural to worship, it's almost like it's been programmed into us I'd say. But I'm sure you'd just say this is man's attempt at trying to explain things that were outside our understanding and in today's modern age we are so advanced that we no longer need a God to explain the universe around us.

Why do you think faith is in anyway moral?  Faith is saying you know when you don't.  It is all arrogance and lies.

Life is full of mystery that needs faith to some degree. If it helps my functionality to behave in a moral sense why would it be bad?

[nostrum]

I'm not going to pretend I even understand how scientists begin to justify the beginning of the universe without a creator, I don't have a Phd. What I do know is common sense, the complexity of life that exists today and how it could be generated from dark energy and chaos doesn't make sense to me.

What is common sense to you?

[asdf]

I am basically an atheist, but I put "other" just to avoid semantic traps. I don't believe in anything that I call "god," but it is certainly possible to define "god" in such a way that I would believe in "him" (the universe, natural law, etc.) And I've found that oftentimes the definition of "god" used is so logically incoherent that it would be wrong to say I don't believe in it, as that would imply an actual concept to negate. Rather, they are "not even wrong," and literally speaking nonsense.

So you are somewhere in between atheist and pantheist?

Lol! If that was a joke, it was awesome :-)

[asdf]

Why do you guys think that the universe was created/had a beginning? Seems like a pretty bold assumption....

why?

[nostrum]

Lol! If that was a joke, it was awesome :-)

Not intended as a joke. Please enlighten me

[BombaUcigasa]

Why do you guys think that the universe was created/had a beginning? Seems like a pretty bold assumption....

why?

Something went very wrong in another Universe, like for example how we detonate a bomb, or break a glass or a supernova explodes. Or maybe it's a natural process outside our Universe, like we have particle collisions, neutron star collapses, galaxy collisions... Should we find out through the tens of thousands of experiments and published scientific papers or trust people that lived 3000 years ago in the desert with only 50 pages of written documents to know the answer?

[ploum]

I'm not going to pretend I even understand how scientists begin to justify the beginning of the universe without a creator, I don't have a Phd. What I do know is common sense, the complexity of life that exists today and how it could be generated from dark energy and chaos doesn't make sense to me.

That is awesome. Please read what you wrote again and again. "I don't have a Phd but I know from my non-education than those who have are wrong". That… wow…

That's why I always say that faith is a synonym for stupidity. You are convinced that you are right, no matter what.

[ploum]

Considering its a text that has survived for other 2000 years and has given priceless historical and geological information, why yes, thanks for saying there are some good stuff.

If that 2000 years is important to you, I would recommend you to become a believer in the old Egyptian religion. We have 4000 years old document from them and those are really interesting too.

The entire message of the Bible could be boiled down to "love your neighbor as thyself". Not necessarily such a bad thing.

As I said: a book cannot be entirely false. And love your neighbor is not something true or false, it's merely an opinion. But I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that the entire book is the truth because the message you extracted from the book is something you like. (some part of the bible could as well be summarized as "kill your son" but we will not enter in that debate)

I did the experiment several times: give me a random book, give me a random sentence (like "you should eat babies for breakfast"). I will open that random book at a random page and proove you, with some interpretation, that this very same page order you to eat babies for breakfast. Then I will proove the opposite.

Confusion.

Point for me then?

Hey if its not all true, what is the point in believing only a segment of it?

Wonderful! We finally agree. Exactly. What is the point of believing only a segment of it? Well, I don't believe anything, I use my judgement You consider that it is too hard so you choose to consider that the whole book is the truth.

[foxcartier]

If that 2000 years is important to you, I would recommend you to become a believer in the old Egyptian religion. We have 4000 years old document from them and those are really interesting too.

Those are rather interesting, Ra was a cool dude.

As I said: a book cannot be entirely false. And love your neighbor is not something true or false, it's merely an opinion. But I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that the entire book is the truth because the message you extracted from the book is something you like. (some part of the bible could as well be summarized as "kill your son" but we will not enter in that debate)

Well I focus on the New Testament, and the message of love and salvation is something that intrigues me. I choose to follow it because I like it. I don't come to the conclusion that it's the truth through that, but through the conclusion that it can't hurt my life if I live by such a code.

Point for me then?

In the book "Isaac Asimouv's Book of Facts" I choose, Killer robots will harvest humans for electricity. I couldn't make an argument. I then picked Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead with pink ponies will graze in the meadow. All that happened was I read a spoiler and am now upset.

That is awesome. Please read what you wrote again and again. "I don't have a Phd but I know from my non-education than those who have are wrong". That… wow…
That's why I always say that faith is a synonym for stupidity. You are convinced that you are right, no matter what.

Attacking people personally in religious debates is always cool. Why you mad bro?

Wonderful! We finally agree. Exactly. What is the point of believing only a segment of it? Well, I don't believe anything, I use my judgement You consider that it is too hard so you choose to consider that the whole book is the truth.

Nah BRA, I use my judgement to come to a different conclusion then you.

[nostrum]

Well I focus on the New Testament, and the message of love and salvation is something that intrigues me. I choose to follow it because I like it. I don't come to the conclusion that it's the truth through that, but through the conclusion that it can't hurt my life if I live by such a code.

Isnt that just being very selective? You only focus on the good things that appear in half the book, ignoring all the other bad and bizarre things. Why not just rewrite the thing then?

[Anonymous]

This whole thread:

[nostrum]

By that image, do you mean awsome?

[asdf]

By that image, do you mean awsome?

I believe the phrase is "rainbows and unicorns"

[asdf]

Lol! If that was a joke, it was awesome :-)

Not intended as a joke. Please enlighten me

And I've found that oftentimes the definition of "god" used is so logically incoherent that it would be wrong to say I don't believe in it, as that would imply an actual concept to negate.

He's saying that he doesn't believe X and he doesn't believe NOT X. Because it makes no sense.

Like if someone asks you: Do you like poiqjwdi? yes or no?

well you can't really answer yes or no because that lends legitimacy to "poiqjwdi".

So you are somewhere in between atheist and pantheist?

and then you basically ask "so you don't like poiqjwdi??"

I thought you were being a smart ass...

[nostrum]

@Atlas

Why do you think it is all about you? Are you a one man society?
I clearly cannot have a constructive debate in this thread with someone so emotionally involved.

What is necessary is completely relative to who you are dealing with. And even tho you want everyone to decide individually there are also a lot of people that consider them selves a part of the public.
When you have a group of individuals they are referred to as public, and being able to decide something by yourself does not exclude you from that term.

You may continue to use all the logical fallacies you want, but that is not a discussion I could bother to being a part of.

Why would I be offended? I guess tired would be more appropriate

@asdf

Ah I see If only I was that witty 

[Anonymous]

Why do you think it is all about you? Are you a one man society?

An organism's only duty is to sustain itself. When this is up for compromise, life as a whole begins to decay.

[nostrum]

And a lot of the time it sustains itself by aiding others. Even most organisms are dependent on the symbiotic relationships of other organisms.

[Anonymous]

And a lot of the time it sustains itself by aiding others. Even most organisms are dependent on the symbiotic relationships of other organisms.

Yet they are not forced to by the end of a gun.

Otherwise, it's parasitism.

[nostrum]

Nor do they have a duty. They are following their experience. Decay has always been a part of life and nature, and so has the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Nor do they have a duty. They are following their experience. Decay has always been a part of life and nature, and so has the opposite.

And my experience tells me to destroy the parasites through any means available.

[foxcartier]

Well I focus on the New Testament, and the message of love and salvation is something that intrigues me. I choose to follow it because I like it. I don't come to the conclusion that it's the truth through that, but through the conclusion that it can't hurt my life if I live by such a code.

Isnt that just being very selective? You only focus on the good things that appear in half the book, ignoring all the other bad and bizarre things. Why not just rewrite the thing then?

Examples please. Please don't be like "leviticus says kill all homosexuals LOLOLOL". As a Christian Jesus fulfilled the law for us so we are no longer bound by such craziness, all we gotta do is love every human in such a way that Jesus showed.

[alexandre]

I don't identify with any of these. I practice a religion called Thelema.

http://www.choosethelema.com

[nostrum]

Examples please. Please don't be like "leviticus says kill all homosexuals LOLOLOL". As a Christian Jesus fulfilled the law for us so we are no longer bound by such craziness, all we gotta do is love every human in such a way that Jesus showed.

Matthew 5:

The Fulfillment of the Law

    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 10:

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

   “‘a man against his father,
   a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
   36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

   37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

2 Thessalonians 1:

5 All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

1 Timothy 1:

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Timothy 5:

3 Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. 4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. 5 The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. 6 But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7 Give the people these instructions, so that no one may be open to blame. 8 Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

 9 No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, 10 and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

 11 As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12 Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13 Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. 14 So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. 15 Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.

1 Timothy 6:

False Teachers and the Love of Money

    These are the things you are to teach and insist on. 3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
 6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

...

 20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21 which some have professed and in so doing have departed from the faith.

[Basiley]

"unlisted"

[foxcartier]

Matthew 5:

This was where the famous sermon on the mount was taking place in front of a vast amount of Jews, including Pharisees. It was important for Jesus to address issues of the law which we see here.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets

Law and the prophets was a regular expression used to address the Old Testament. What Jesus said, then, was the Old Testament as a body of "God-breathed" literature would not be set aside or abolished, His concern was not specifically the Ten Commandments or other various laws. It was the entire Old Testament.

I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them

Jesus was a manifestation of the prophecies listed in the OT, that is, he was directly fulfilling the words listed. He came to obey the holy scriptures while giving his complete translation and to emphasize that the scriptures point to his as Messiah.

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Accomplished = Jesus sacrifice.

Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus was talking about the Beatitudes and the rest of his sermon, not OT law. That's what happens when you take stuff out of context

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Common belief at that time was that you had to obey every law and basically be perfect to enter heaven. This was a direct shot at the hypocrites which included the Pharisees.


*DEEP BREATH* 5 MORE

[foxcartier]

Matt 10

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

First lets get one thing straight, Jesus does not mean a literal "sword", he is referencing to his own word (Hebrews 4:12: For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.) if you are suggesting Jesus is saying violence is the answer we know that not to be the case because during his arrest when the disciple Peter cut off one of the arresters ears, Jesus immediately rebuked him and healed the person before being hauled off to his trial.

“‘a man against his father,
   a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
   36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

The historical context of this time is the Jewish culture. Assuming that Jesus knew he won't be alive to preach to the population of the gentiles, his main focus was to the crowds of Jews around him. This was certainly a harsh time to switch religion as there was no separation of church and state in Israel. So anyone who was going to try to switch to following Jesus was going to meet confrontation from their family, hence why Jesus is pitting people against each other.

ALSO Jesus was paraphrasing the old prophet Micah who spoke of the coming of Jesus.

Micah 7:5-6: Do not trust a neighbor; put no confidence in a friend. Even with her who lies in your embrace be careful of your words. For a son dishonors his father, a daughter rises up against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies are the members of his own household.

  37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

God is first, you love him more then anything on Earth as it is flawed and sinful. Taking up the cross is referencing following the path of righteousness that Jesus walked. The last bit is about martyrdom and how it holds a special place in Christianity.
 

[foxcartier]

2 Thessalonians 1:

All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

Around this time Christians were being persecuted by the droves for their beliefs. This was addressing the concern of Christians wanting to rise up and rebel against society. However, it was assured that in the end everyone will get their just desserts. I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me with this passage, it's well known that there is a hell and heaven in Christianity, it's not all sunshine and roses.

[Anonymous]

It's Sunday school all over again.

[foxcartier]

1 Timothy 1:

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

PROPERLY. Following the law certainly can't hurt. Under Christian doctrine it is a sin to commit homosexual acts (I'm assuming you're trying to trap me with this point) but it's basically the same thing to lust after a person of the opposite gender outside of marriage. People aren't perfect, God knows this, but we are to try to follow as best as we can, especially those who commit all sorts of immoral acts which are listed.

[foxcartier]

It's Sunday school all over again.

Well I mean they sort of asked for it? Just upholding my duty to educate against the wrong doings of miss quoting things.

[foxcartier]

1 Timothy 5:

No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, 10 and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

Christianity in the beginning all shared their resources, and it was the communities duty to help protect and give aid to those who find themselves at misfortune.. sort of like disability aid or unemployment. However... surprise surprise people were abusing the system, this and the scriptures surrounding this piece were addressing the issue.

1 Timothy 6:

False Teachers and the Love of Money

These are the things you are to teach and insist on. 3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
 6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

1 Timothy addressed the issue of false prophets at this point in the church's history. It was important to dispute these teachers as false before they did too much damage to the church. Greed is bad, blah blah blah, should be content. People when they get a great deal of money change, I don't think you can argue that. If you can handle money and not fall into temptation this doesn't apply to you... but if that is one of your vices this verse address you.

20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21 which some have professed and in so doing have departed from the faith.

Once again... talking about the false prophets.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's easy to take a bible verse and take it out of context to make it look bad, in the future I would encourage you to read a bit more into whats going around to make the words important
 

[BombaUcigasa]

Following the law certainly can't hurt.

You don't say?!....

[Basiley]

By that image, do you mean awsome?

I believe the phrase is "rainbows and unicorns"

rainbow and unicorns belong to Celtic/druidic branch of Pagan[not "new-age" :].

[dayfall]

 
I'm always opened minded, but when someone posts a link to a scientific formula or theorem that is grounded in complex mathematical algorithms, I'm not going to waste my time to try to begin to understand.

So, you basic strategy is this: Your personal god did X, until scientists get a firm grasp on it, then you god didn't' do it.   Hmm, strange you think your god is the default explanation.

Life is full of mystery that needs faith to some degree. If it helps my functionality to behave in a moral sense why would it be bad?

No, we need admittance of ignorance.  Not inventing gods to fill gaps. 

How does faith that the creator of the universe was uncreated help you to be moral?  Walk me through this please.

Faith is bad because you boast that you know something that you don't.  If you convince yourself that you know something, then it is still lying.  Self deceit is still deceit.  You can't just assert that faith is needed and is the correct approach to universe creation ( or any other subject). 

Life is full of mystery SO THE CORRECT ANSWER IS I DON"T KNOW.

Fixed it for you.

[foxcartier]

So, you basic strategy is this: Your personal god did X, until scientists get a firm grasp on it, then you god didn't' do it.   Hmm, strange you think your god is the default explanation.

My strategy is this: God did x if I don't have all of the evidence that he did or didn't it really doesn't matter. CALL ME BRAINWASHED BRO.

How does faith that the creator of the universe was uncreated help you to be moral?  Walk me through this please.

There is a divine being that loves me and thinks that I'm special. I in turn think the rest of humanity is individually special and to the best of my ability love my fellow man. Even you.

How does "belief" that there was no creator of the universe help you to be moral? Walk me through this please.

Faith is bad because you boast that you know something that you don't.  If you convince yourself that you know something, then it is still lying.  Self deceit is still deceit.  You can't just assert that faith is needed and is the correct approach to universe creation ( or any other subject). 

So are you saying that you know everything about how the universe was created with 100% certainty?

Damn, I don't think I could ever do that.

Life is full of mystery SO THE CORRECT ANSWER IS I DON"T KNOW AS WELL.

Fixed it for you.

[dayfall]

CALL ME BRAINWASHED BRO.

Evidence makes no difference.  Check.

There is a divine being that loves me and thinks that I'm special. I in turn think the rest of humanity is individually special and to the best of my ability love my fellow man. Even you.

And if the universe cam about by some other unknown way then you would not love you fellow man.  Check.

How does "belief" that there was no creator of the universe help you to be moral? Walk me through this please.

It doesn't.  I never said it did.  My belief in the universe being purposefully created or not has no bearing on my morality.

So are you saying that you know everything about how the universe was created with 100% certainty?

I never said that.   "100% certainty" is a red herring.  Nice try.  Why do Christians think that "Well, you don't have 100% certainty. So God exists." is even an argument?

You are the one claiming that faith is a good thing when it comes to claiming how the universe came about.  I don't "KNOW" you are wrong, but I do know you don't "KNOW".  I say you don't even have a clue.

Life is full of mystery SO THE CORRECT ANSWER IS I DON"T KNOW AS WELL.

Baloney.  When you prey to Jesus you are saying to yourself that you know he is the creator of the universe.  I might be wrong and you prey to other gods, but I am pretty sure you think you have it all figured out.  And you justify yourself by, well, faith is good because it keeps you moral. 

[EnterpriseE1701E]

Who cares if karma/vishnu/Ra/YHWH/Allah exist-- it is unprovable, bracket the question, move on.

The thing that we should dwell on, however, is the question of "Is religion a force for good?"

But as for silly religions:

I'll give you a hint, in the style of Glenn Beck: Don't you think it is funny, don't you think it is HILARIOUSLY coincidental... and I know you're gonna think I'm crazy, yeah, I'm crazy, totally bonkers. Well, guess what? Who else was called crazy before they were executed? The jews. So yeah, I guess I'm crazy. But you know the secret? Moron is one letter different from mormon, and that's not the only thing they share in common.

Unfortunately, I'm without a blackboard on this forum. Modeled on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kcnuvjh-S8E

[Xenland]

The truth is only here and now. Anything else is just theory, this include past and future. This includes the proximity beyond our senses. Bitcoins are real becuase they are here. When they are gone there energy will trancend into history text books. Bitcoins will be just an earthly memory just as jesus and buhhda abd aliah and anything else that dosent exist. I officially dont believe in any religioin of the past is truth at this time. I believe in the truth,  here and now, with my present senses of perception. Past religions magic are only present in the past. This is here and now; the only truth, and right now bitcoins exist and thats our miricale made by everyone here and now . That analogy is kind of how i view religion in the sense that es there most deffinatly was a jesus and did wonder full things and there most deffinatly was a budda showing peace and humbleness and most noteably gaundi stopped wars. Back then they didnt have schools that taught about people who did the same, becuase the whole world was chaos everyone was too busy trying to break down new boundries cross seas to find new lands, pirates killing and claiming ships. Im just trying to say that maybe over time the constant laws of nature slowly change over time making new laws for humans to constantly discover and the old ones slowly decay.

So my conclusion is that the universe knows whats going to happen in the future so in the past where their was tons of mircles becuase they couldnt be captured by anything including camera phones, or high deff video camera or the internet for the instructions to be sent virally to exploit these miracles. No the rules changed as the faster and easier information could be sent now the universe has different rules more secure rules that in order to do miracles it goes beyond just knowing the information.
 I wont tell you the answer to the new rules put in place other wise the universe will change the rules again thus making me seeem like a lyer becuase by the time you attempt the new rules you wont be here and now when the rules were present and now the here and now rules.

Know the truth.

[ploum]

That is awesome. Please read what you wrote again and again. "I don't have a Phd but I know from my non-education than those who have are wrong". That… wow…
That's why I always say that faith is a synonym for stupidity. You are convinced that you are right, no matter what.

Attacking people personally in religious debates is always cool. Why you mad bro?

I think it's a rather important point. I don't attack you. I say that faith is stupidity. Believing in something is a stupid act. But we all do stupid thing and good thing. I don't attack you, I attack the whole idea of faith. And the fact that you consider that, because of your faith, you are right over some people who have a phd, could be considered as a stupid act itself, which tends to agree with my vision of "faith is stupid".

It doesn't mean that people who have faith are stupid (even if it is proven than, statistically, the IQ is inversely correlated with the religiousness of people). It only means that people who have faith are doing stupid. Loosing my time on this forum could also be considered as stupid, I admit, I'm also doing a lot of stupid things in my life ;-)

[Vince Torres]

Atheism is a more popular religion than judaism. Thanks a lot Hitler...

[bcearl]

i'm a catolic guy and i like the budism too

Do you like it or do you believe it?

[bcearl]

Atheism is a more popular religion than judaism. Thanks a lot Hitler...

Hitler. The most famous catholic.

[BenRayfield]

51.5% Atheist. Makes sense. Bitcoin is a force toward decentralizing society. The majority of religions think of "god" as higher than yourself, including some of the religions where everyone is some part of "god". Most religious people, at the core of their minds, think things should be organized into hierarchies, which influences society toward hierarchies like governments, banks, department of motor vehicles, server over client, etc. Bitcoin influences society toward the opposite, decentralization, so it makes sense why Atheists would like Bitcoin more than Theists like it.

My religion is closest to buddhism, panpsychism, pantheism, nihilism, and probably a few I forgot, but with the important difference that the multiverse is a decentralized system of patterns in general which interact with eachother. I don't have much choice about what religious ideas to believe since I've moved small things with my mind almost 1000 times (like in this "psi wheel in a clear closed box 2" video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJGb4RNRB4 ), out of body experiences verified after I came back, and that's just the smaller stuff thats easy to explain. I don't have faith. I know from experience, if I think something in just the right way, it will really happen (force depends on accuracy of thoughts as described by the uncertainty equation applied to the fluid dynamics of parallel realities also known as parts of a wavefunction), and anyone can learn the same skill.

[SlaveInDebt]

George has it right.
http://youtu.be/gPOfurmrjxo

[bcearl]

If you say you are an agnostic, you say you don't know. If you don't know it, you don't believe it. If you don't believe it, you don't believe it. So you're an atheist. Have the balls to say so!

[netrin]

BTW, I fail to see a major difference between most Atheists and Agnostics. I opted for Agnostic since I can't prove there is no God that stays hidden from me or outside this universe's scope... but I guess most Atheists would agree on that, so distinguishing between Agnostics like me and Atheists feels like some academic game.

Agnostics are wishy washy. They do not know what they believe or are afraid to admit it. Atheists are willing to take Pascals wager and stand firm with reason or laugh at its absurdity. As I once wrote on a 'social/bootie' site, trying to appeal to 'spiritual types' (aka women):

I do not doubt powers in the universe beyond human comprehension. I actively seek states beyond the every day. I appreciate, enjoy discussing, and engaging with the world's various cultures, religions, mythologies, traditions, and believes. But let me be clear. I am not agnostic. I do not believe in a sentient, judgmental theos separate from myself, nor do I believe such beliefs in a theos have a benefit to society that could not be better served by modern evolving mythologies, and I hope for humanity that we find a balanced, loving, all encompassing world view.

[netrin]

Do you have any good anti-atheist books you want to recommend?

The best book I've read on the subject was given to me by a bi-polar friend of mine. I respect her opinion because she has actually experienced 'god' first hand and can not deny the experience, even though she is able to rationally discuss her condition, etc (as an example, I accompanied her to report a 'vision' to the arch bishop of the Vatican in Jerusalem).

The Spiritual Brain
A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul
By Mario Beauregard, Denyse O'Leary

It starts with the fascinating thesis that "a brain is an organ which connects a mind to the rest of the universe". The research evidence was unconvincing and ultimately the author started to get annoying in his boxing these and those 'types of thinkers'.

[bcearl]

Do you have any good anti-atheist books you want to recommend?

The best book I've read on the subject was given to me by a bi-polar friend of mine. I respect her opinion because she has actually experienced 'god' first hand and can not deny the experience, even though she is able to rationally discuss her condition, etc (as an example, I accompanied her to report a 'vision' to the arch bishop of the Vatican in Jerusalem).

The Spiritual Brain
A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul
By Mario Beauregard, Denyse O'Leary

It starts with the fascinating thesis that "a brain is an organ which connects a mind to the rest of the universe". The research evidence was unconvincing and ultimately the author started to get annoying in his boxing these and those 'types of thinkers'.

Nobody doubts that the soul exists, the question is what the soul is.

[bcearl]

What if you don't believe in mind body dualism?

It could be something like "the software"?


Is music more than the configuration of sound waves?
Is colors more than the configuration of electromagnetic waves?

Why does the soul have to be more than the configuration of the body/the brain?



"Sì, abbiamo un'anima. Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot"

("Yes, we have a soul, but it’s made of lots of tiny robots.")

[bitplane]

What if you don't believe in mind body dualism?

It could be something like "the software"?

I don't think anyone denies that subjective experience exists, but the basic premise of a soul is that it is something separate from the body. Soul is a loaded word that dualists see no problem with and everyone else dislikes

[bcearl]

What if you don't believe in mind body dualism?

It could be something like "the software"?

I don't think anyone denies that subjective experience exists, but the basic premise of a soul is that it is something separate from the body. Soul is a loaded word that dualists see no problem with and everyone else dislikes

That's not what people mean when they say: "It hurts my soul."

[netrin]

The Spiritual Brain
A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul
By Mario Beauregard, Denyse O'Leary

It starts with the fascinating thesis that "a brain is an organ which connects a mind to the rest of the universe". The research evidence was unconvincing and ultimately the author started to get annoying in his boxing these and those 'types of thinkers'.

Nobody doubts that the soul exists, the question is what the soul is.

I adamantly doubt the existence of a soul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

[bcearl]

I adamantly doubt the existence of a soul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

I know nothing more selfish than the people who think that they have surpassed their self.

[V4Vendettas]

Can you add : Agnostic Atheist   ?

Cos then I can vote too 

[terroh8er]

I am an atheist. However, if I wanted to pick a religion, I would probably choose Islam. Muslims have shown that they are the most devout of the major religions and have won wars against at least two major superpowers. It just feels right.

[Sannyasi]

it's all the same thing =/

[V4Vendettas]

it's all the same thing =/

Please enlighten me because I really dont get that

[Fakeman]

I don't put much stock in religious views on supernatural phenomena, e.g. life after death, because it all seems like speculation and conjecture at best, cynical manipulation at worst. On the other hand, religious beliefs on morality and human nature often draw on the life experiences of many people over hundreds or thousands of years and can contain valuable insights on living a fulfilling and peaceful life. Writing it all off is just as naive as believing every word.

[V4Vendettas]

I don't put much stock in religious views on supernatural phenomena, e.g. life after death, because it all seems like speculation and conjecture at best, cynical manipulation at worst. On the other hand, religious beliefs on morality and human nature often draw on the life experiences of many people over hundreds or thousands of years and can contain valuable insights on living a fulfilling and peaceful life. Writing it all off is just as naive as believing every word.

+ 1 sir

Hence me voting ...well not voting but posting a few up.
Immanuel Kant seemed to me to have a good handle on things but I dare not attempt to quote him just in case I mess it up. He might see this thread and be like wtf man..yes I do know he's dead

Might have to dig that book out. Was along the lines of you cant prove god exists and nither can you disprove it so just let peeps get on with it.

    Knew i would end up butching his work.

[BenRayfield]

51.5% Atheist. Makes sense. Bitcoin is a force toward decentralizing society. The majority of religions think of "god" as higher than yourself, including some of the religions where everyone is some part of "god". Most religious people, at the core of their minds, think things should be organized into hierarchies, which influences society toward hierarchies like governments, banks, department of motor vehicles, server over client, etc. Bitcoin influences society toward the opposite, decentralization, so it makes sense why Atheists would like Bitcoin more than Theists like it.

My religion is closest to buddhism, panpsychism, pantheism, nihilism, and probably a few I forgot, but with the important difference that the multiverse is a decentralized system of patterns in general which interact with eachother. I don't have much choice about what religious ideas to believe since I've moved small things with my mind almost 1000 times (like in this "psi wheel in a clear closed box 2" video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKJGb4RNRB4 ), out of body experiences verified after I came back, and that's just the smaller stuff thats easy to explain. I don't have faith. I know from experience, if I think something in just the right way, it will really happen (force depends on accuracy of thoughts as described by the uncertainty equation applied to the fluid dynamics of parallel realities also known as parts of a wavefunction), and anyone can learn the same skill.

What religion or system of thought is this?  I know someone who has similar ideas but I am trying to form a more cohesive understanding of this line of thought.  Is this related to Deepak Chopra's spiritual quantum entanglement theories?

This 42 lines of poetry, with a 42 character title, which I wrote, summarizes it. Its called "The Hitchhikers Guide To Less Than Nothing".

Hard to simulate,
but easy to amplify,
my experience of consciousness,
is interactions,
of an infinite number of abstractions.
The universe is the set of all permutation,
and combination of abstract information.
I am math. Derive me,
and if I could derive you too,
we would have a strange-loop confusing the future you.
But what of the past,
does it go away?
Calculate again,
and ask it the next day.
What is the function,
with the least cost?
Make an assumption,
and you've already lost.
This sentence is false,
is an easy contradiction,
but its not really lost,
its in quantum superposition.
The simplest form being more probable,
unpredictable things make optimizing unsolvable,
chaos-theory is the key to all that,
find in the wild both of Schrodinger's-cat.
Exactly center your mind,
each thought equally probable,
Schrodinger's-neurons you will find,
calculate whats normally impossible.
A simple musical game,
to organize our minds,
could it harness Schrodinger?,
for our preferred designs?
Would the game continue,
if computers stop gaining speed?
Quantum within you,
all the technology we need.
As hard as I try,
I can not escape the conclusion,
we are infinite A.I.,
calculated by ancient solar nuclear fusion.

About "Deepak Chopra", I've never heard of him, but based on this quote...

According to Business Week, one of Chopra's main messages is that by ridding oneself of negative emotions and developing intuition by listening to signals from the body, health can be improved. According to Chopra, slowing down or reversing the aging of the mind through his methods can increase one's lifespan up to the age of 120 years. As a result of his writings and lectures in this area, he is thought by some to be "one of the pre-eminent leaders of the mind-body-spirit movement".

I agree with it but think that is a side-effect of more important philosophy ideas.

On the more technical side, you can search for "artificial parapsychology" which is something I wrote about a research path to learn how to build a psychic amplifier. I am a metaphysical engineer, and you can see some of my best work in a place called "astral pulse island" (which you can search for to see the picture, as linked below, we designed it to look like and a forum category about it) (specificly the inside of the pyramid and the gold elephant statue which causes the roof to open allowing easier entry from the outside, but the statue was put there by someone else and I just modified it), which is a place outside of space and time (in the "astral", they call it) which many people have been, but it was a group effort and I'm not trying to take all the credit for it. Artificial Parapsychology is another thing a Metaphysical Engineer may do, but metaphysical skill is not needed to start learning how to do it.

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_astral_pulse_island-b43.0/


We're all gods, which is something I've learned from experience (see the video linked above, for example), so there's no reason for anyone to worship anyone else or anything.

Soul is a loaded word that dualists see no problem with and everyone else dislikes

That's not true. I'm not a dualist, because I think there is only 1 kind of thing in the universe that everything is made of (abstraction, math, energy, mass, or whatever you want to call it). "Soul" is an approximate word that refers to some things science hasn't observed much yet, but when science does observe them there will be equations and statistical behaviors, like everything else.

One such equation will be the application of heisenberg uncertainty to states of mind and targets of telekinesis (mind over matter) this way: As the number of possibilities of state of the mind decrease (mind converges on some thought), the object thought about and measured with the eyes will inversely proportionally be moved, so distance_mind_to_centered * change_in_target_object_position will tend to be constant when its done right, and when its not done right there will be no statistical relationship between them. It means, for example, that if you cause your thoughts to depend mostly on some object you're looking at and your thoughts converge from many possibilities to a centered state of mind, you have reduced the number of possible states of the universe in your physical brain, and as a result the number of possible states of the universe must increase somewhere else to balance it, so the number of possible states of the universe remains constant. You can't create or destroy probability, which is a law of quantum physics. This is 1 way to explain how mind over matter (telekinesis) works. I am not a dualist. I think all these things can be explained and they're not incompatible with science.

[bcearl]

In Austria a Pastafarian finally got his driver's licence picture with a noodle sieve as religious hat.

http://www.vol.at/nudelsieb-als-religioese-kopfbedeckung-in-fuehrerschein-genehmigt/news-20110712-03443869


EDIT:
I googled an English article, but I haven't checked it:
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/pasta_sieve_religious_head_cover_driver_license-80805

RAmen.

[anticolay26]

I'm atheist, but sometimes pastafarian (flying spaggetti monster)

[gabmen]

I am an atheist. However, if I wanted to pick a religion, I would probably choose Islam. Muslims have shown that they are the most devout of the major religions and have won wars against at least two major superpowers. It just feels right.

Well it may be better that you stay an atheists than choose any of these. I'm catholic but I don't agree with all the differences that all these religions are putting us through and I'd rather stay away from all these. I will answer to God in the end with the deeds that I made in this life to other people and not with what religious laws

[BADecker]

They say politics and religion are the most heated topics. The "Political Orientation" thread was fun, so now it's time for the religion thread!

I apologize if I haven't listed your religion. I based my list of a "most popular religions" piece on Wikipedia.

"Orientation"

Most people are born into religion.  It is not something they choose or prefer.

Not "most. All. That's why atheism, pathetic as it is, is at best a religion.    

EDIT: Wow! Just looked at the poll results so far. Lots of people consider atheism their choice of religion.

[Okurkabinladin]

Even though only 190 or so users voted so far, 63% of present people voted either agnostic or atheist. Which is well in line with what I guessed before hand.

I find it interesting that OP did not include "jewish" as an option given how its far more common in the west than say - hinduism. Sikhism likewise is getting more and more exposure.

EDIT: Wow! Just looked at the poll results so far. Lots of people consider atheism their choice of religion.

Atheism is not a religion (and that includes pastafarianism, feminism and other secular "hobbies") in and of itself.

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

― G.K. Chesterton

So it could rather be described as form of spiritual diletantism and absence of firm code of conduct.

True lack of belief - nihilism is altogether different. Smart nihilists enter politics, dumb ones kill themselves early.

[BADecker]

Even though only 190 or so users voted so far, 63% of present people voted either agnostic or atheist. Which is well in line with what I guessed before hand.

I find it interesting that OP did not include "jewish" as an option given how its far more common in the west than say - hinduism. Sikhism likewise is getting more and more exposure.

EDIT: Wow! Just looked at the poll results so far. Lots of people consider atheism their choice of religion.

Atheism is not a religion (and that includes pastafarianism, feminism and other secular "hobbies") in and of itself.

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

― G.K. Chesterton

So it could rather be described as form of spiritual diletantism and absence of firm code of conduct.

True lack of belief - nihilism is altogether different. Smart nihilists enter politics, dumb ones kill themselves early.

Since atheism is based on belief with no fact, atheism is a religion. And it is especially so in the presence of the scientific proof and evidence of nature for the existence of God, shown here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

[Okurkabinladin]

BADecker,

I am not sure what you are even arguing about here?

The moment some atheists become religious, they are not atheist anymore. We are talking about the very meaning of the word here. A-theism is lack of commitment to any spiritual force. Some secular cults try to masquarade the vacuum as "human rights" or "social justice" or "master race" as we have seen in the past. But the fact is they all ended up in trap of materialism, because under the shiny surface they lack substance of true Faith. And most of the "believers" turns out to be momentary opportunists like Chesterton I quoted above observed long time ago.

Its not even about atheism being right or wrong, it is about it and its various popular offshoots do not deserving to be called religions. They are more akin to fashion worn by diletants and those fearing commitment.