Religious Orientation

[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.