Religious Orientation

[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)