Which Religion do you follow?

[Die Rote Fahne]

So, I thought it would be cool to find out what we believe, religion-wise.

So, which Religion/belief/lack thereof do you have?

I, am an Agnostic.

**I am aware we have a poll asking if we believe, but this is about what we may or may not believe.

[mikelepore]

Which lack of a religion do I practice? That's difficult to answer.

Atheism and agnosticism have a large overlap and are often impossible to distinguish. Agnosticism means I have no religious belief because, as in the case of ghosts and other paranormal phenomena, people shouldn't make any definitive statement in the absense of evidence. Atheism means I have no religious belief, period -- the reason for that conclusion may not have been indicated by the speaker. Two people with the same conclusion, one having expressed a particular reason for reaching it, and the other not having expressed that particular reason for reaching it.

I don't really know which kind of a lack of religion I practice. my various reasons merge together.

[OrganisedRandomness]

Agnostic atheism.

Though I chose atheism, I think the Richard Dawkins quote best represents what I'm saying:


I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.

[danyboy27]

Agnostic atheism.

Though I chose atheism, I think the Richard Dawkins quote best represents what I'm saying:

dont forget the tea pot circling around the earth!

i am atheist, religion dont make sense anyway.

[RedRise]

I'm pagan but I reckon that religion is something for your mental health (i.e. to keep you from losing your lolly when THE WORLD IS AGAINST YOU). At any rate, I strongly believe that while everyone should have freedom of religion, it and politics should be kept well separate.


dont forget the tea pot circling around the earth!

:laugh::laugh::laugh: i loved that book

[danyboy27]

I'm pagan but I reckon that religion is something for your mental health (i.e. to keep you from losing your lolly when THE WORLD IS AGAINST YOU). At any rate, I strongly believe that while everyone should have freedom of religion, it and politics should be kept well separate.


i really dont agree with you on that point.

i used to believe in god and since i became an atheist i have less troubles to deal with the difficulties of life, mainly beccause you know what you endure is not the fault of some imaginary friend but from exterior factor.

when i do an error or a good thing, i am fully able to savor them, no god is helping me or are trying to smite me, if i fail its beccause of my incompetence and if i succede its beccause of my answomeness.

religion is keeping people in a state of infancy, you cant expect adult who believe such fairy tale to actually do rational choice for th future generation.

[brigadista]

after coming back from Cuba im quite interested in Santeria

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'm not a Muslim, but I have been interested in Islam lately and have been considering converting so I voted Islam.

[danyboy27]

I'm not a Muslim, but I have been interested in Islam lately and have been considering converting so I voted Islam.

why on earth would you believe in those insanes idea?

[Il Medico]

why on earth would you believe in those insanes idea?
Why would anybody believe in the insane ideas of any religion?

[LOLseph Stalin]

why on earth would you believe in those insanes idea?

I have my reasons. Besides, I have been forcing atheism onto myself for too long, realizing it's not really what I truly believe.

[Invincible Summer]

Atheist. I'm also very sympathetic towards Transhumanism which can be considered a "religion" by some people

[danyboy27]

I have my reasons. Besides, I have been forcing atheism onto myself for too long, realizing it's not really what I truly believe.

if you tried to force atheism on yourself, you did it all wrong.

anyway, its just logic man.
you die, you crap in your pants and your brain die.
maybe its just too simplistic but that the way it work man.

the rest can be explained by science: how the world was created, how we became what we are today.


you dont need fairy tales to explain that.

[spiltteeth]

Orthodox Christianity.
And science points to theism.

[Bud Struggle]

Orthodox Christianity.
And science points to theism.

Catholicism and what he said about science. ^^^

[LOLseph Stalin]

The Qur'an actually has alot of scientific points in it too.

[danyboy27]

The Qur'an actually has alot of scientific points in it too.

like?

[danyboy27]

Orthodox Christianity.
And science points to theism.

your science.
if science really point to theism no real scientific evidence so far demonstrate it, otherwise they would teach it in school.

faith=/= science.

[the last donut of the night]

Christian.

[spiltteeth]

your science.
if science really point to theism no real scientific evidence so far demonstrate it, otherwise they would teach it in school.

faith=/= science.

They teach big bang theory in school.
And last I checked they didn't teach atheism.
Also, in some states they teach that evolution is a false theory, so I really wouldn't go by such a ridiculous measure "only what my teacher says is true!"

[spiltteeth]

The Qur'an actually has alot of scientific points in it too.

I think the ancient Islamist philosophers of Kalam have some of the greatest arguments in favor of theism.
They teach so much western philosophy, but there have been some truly great, great thinkers from Islam.

[danyboy27]

They teach big bang theory in school.
And last I checked they didn't teach atheism.
Also, in some states they teach that evolution is a false theory, so I really wouldn't go by such a ridiculous measure "only what my teacher says is true!"

its beccause atheism isnt something that we learn.
atheism is, well not be grown up in a universe of fiction and trusting scientific method over fairy tales.

the big bang is something that have been scientificly proven and the only link it have with religion is that some wacko think it was created by god..

[Jazzratt]

They teach big bang theory in school.

I've read your tortorous wall of text on the subject (well, skimmed it until I wanted to punch someone, which is about the same thing) and I'm not at all convinced at all.I honestly do not want this to turn into another fucking interminable "debate" against a stuck record.


And last I checked they didn't teach atheism.

They don't need to. Anyone who has spent more than 10 minutes in any halfway decent school can draw atheistic conclusions for themselves.


Also, in some states they teach that evolution is a false theory, so I really wouldn't go by such a ridiculous measure "only what my teacher says is true!"

I agree.

[Robert]

Also, in some states they teach that evolution is a false theory, so I really wouldn't go by such a ridiculous measure "only what my teacher says is true!"

What states? You may be referring to Louisiana, which merely mandated equal time to alternative theories of creation (alternative to evolution), but even that law has been thrown out by the Supreme Court.

Creationists in Louisiana passed a law requiring that public schools should give "equal time" to "alternative theories" of origin. The Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard) that the Louisiana statute, which required creation to be taught alongside evolution every time evolution was taught, was unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education

Also, who is "they"? If you mean it is policy of a school board anywhere in the USA to "teach that evolution is a false theory," I am very skeptical of the claim and would like to see a link.

Not even Catholic schools reject evolution as a false theory. http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

And if it is true that some American public school is teaching creationism as official state policy (which I doubt), they are in violation of law and will soon be stopped. Sorry to be long-winded on this, but it is getting really tiresome hearing continued crazy claims regarding the supposed encroachment of religion in public schools.

[VeganLiz]

An anti-theist but I'm not militant about it. However if you ask me my thoughts on religion I'm going to be honest and I might be offensive without meaning to.

I was raised Mormon but I don't think I ever really believed in a god.

[Comrade Gwydion]

You forgot Paganism, wanker :P (joke)
Also, I'm a pagan.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I am an atheist. Anti-theist to some extent. But I have no problem with anyone following theism and most of my friends do.

[spiltteeth]

I've read your tortorous wall of text on the subject (well, skimmed it until I wanted to punch someone, which is about the same thing) and I'm not at all convinced at all.I honestly do not want this to turn into another fucking interminable "debate" against a stuck record.



They don't need to. Anyone who has spent more than 10 minutes in any halfway decent school can draw atheistic conclusions for themselves.



I agree.

Well, my beliefs aside, I've never heard an argument to justify atheism. Only agnosticism, I was hoping someone would have an argument for what they believe, but until then, as far as I know, there are no good arguments for atheism.
Also, it's not my argument, its 1,200 yrs old, pretty much every physicist has wrestled with it, and Stephen Hawking mentions it as a major impetus in the last 20 yrs of his work.

[spiltteeth]

What states? You may be referring to Louisiana, which merely mandated equal time to alternative theories of creation (alternative to evolution), but even that law has been thrown out by the Supreme Court.

Creationists in Louisiana passed a law requiring that public schools should give "equal time" to "alternative theories" of origin. The Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard) that the Louisiana statute, which required creation to be taught alongside evolution every time evolution was taught, was unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education

Also, who is "they"? If you mean it is policy of a school board anywhere in the USA to "teach that evolution is a false theory," I am very skeptical of the claim and would like to see a link.

Not even Catholic schools reject evolution as a false theory. http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

And if it is true that some American public school is teaching creationism as official state policy (which I doubt), they are in violation of law and will soon be stopped. Sorry to be long-winded on this, but it is getting really tiresome hearing continued crazy claims regarding the supposed encroachment of religion in public schools.

Oh. I guess I'm wrong. Thanks for the correction.

[danyboy27]

Well, my beliefs aside, I've never heard an argument to justify atheism. Only agnosticism, I was hoping someone would have an argument for what they believe, but until then, as far as I know, there are no good arguments for atheism.
.

how about we dont need a superior force to guide us or to control us?
atheism bring freedom. free of religions restraint, free of fear of an all powerful being, free of that imaginary slavery that form some reason you have a fetish for.
i am not the toy of a heaven dictatorship.




Also, it's not my argument, its 1,200 yrs old, pretty much every physicist has wrestled with it, and Stephen Hawking mentions it as a major impetus in the last 20 yrs of his work.

the big bang and evolution are all natural phenomenon. extraordinary, yes, but all of them are scientificly explained.

i know it feel comforting to feel that there is something bigger than us that will protect us if we worship it, but having the feeling that you are the master of your existance and not someone else toy is way more comforting.

[spiltteeth]

how about we dont need a superior force to guide us or to control us?
atheism bring freedom. free of religions restraint, free of fear of an all powerful being, free of that imaginary slavery that form some reason you have a fetish for.
i am not the toy of a heaven dictatorship.




the big bang and evolution are all natural phenomenon. extraordinary, yes, but all of them are scientificly explained.

i know it feel comforting to feel that there is something bigger than us that will protect us if we worship it, but having the feeling that you are the master of your existance and not someone else toy is way more comforting.

So what's the scientific explanation for the cause of the big bang ?

[Comrade B]

My religion has nothing to do with my politics and is no one's business other than my own. Politically religion should be entirely ignored. I voted, but I will not say my religion. I am very secular anyway.

[danyboy27]

So what's the scientific explanation for the cause of the big bang ?

the cause have yet to be explained, but the lack of scientific explanation of a physical phenomenon dosnt mean it should be automaticly associated with god.

trying to explain something with religion rather than trying to find a scientific explanation is a verry ignorant way to think.

an unknown phenomenon is just an unknown phenomenon, not the work of some god out there playing with its toys.

[jesper]

I am agnostic since in my opinion proving whether a super natural entity exists or not is beyond what we will ever be able to.

[The Accomplice]

Agnostic.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

atheist who isn't a militant antitheist douche

[Bud Struggle]

My religion has nothing to do with my politics and is no one's business other than my own. Politically religion should be entirely ignored. I voted, but I will not say my religion.

Or boxers or briefs. Excellent point. It's a private matter--ones politics are otherwise.

[spiltteeth]

the cause have yet to be explained, but the lack of scientific explanation of a physical phenomenon dosnt mean it should be automaticly associated with god.

trying to explain something with religion rather than trying to find a scientific explanation is a verry ignorant way to think.

an unknown phenomenon is just an unknown phenomenon, not the work of some god out there playing with its toys.

Ok, so you were wrong when you said :

the big bang and evolution are all natural phenomenon. extraordinary, yes, but all of them are scientificly explained.

And the initial conditions of the universe? What is the explanation for them?

Your saying there really is a naturalistic explanation, even though science says there can't be because by definition it would have to transcend matter and energy which did not exist before the big bang, but you can't tell me what it is because we haven't discovered it yet -but we will - so you have faith in an imaginary explanation that science suggests doesn't exist that will be revealed to us in the future... I wish I had yr faith in imaginary things!

And at what point, if this true "imaginary explanation" doesn't reveal itself, can we then be justified to use logic and common sense to explain the phenomenon?

Or should we all just have faith that an answer is coming even though it defies rationality...?

[heylelshalem]

i am an atheist, an occultist and primarily a buddhist. I believe in divinity i guess, but i believe that GOD is a puppet made up by the church to control us.

[danyboy27]

Ok, so you were wrong when you said :


And the initial conditions of the universe? What is the explanation for them?

Your saying there really is a naturalistic explanation, even though science says there can't be because by definition it would have to transcend matter and energy which did not exist before the big bang, but you can't tell me what it is because we haven't discovered it yet -but we will - so you have faith in an imaginary explanation that science suggests doesn't exist that will be revealed to us in the future... I wish I had yr faith in imaginary things!

And at what point, if this true "imaginary explanation" doesn't reveal itself, can we then be justified to use logic and common sense to explain the phenomenon?

Or should we all just have faith that an answer is coming even though it defies rationality...?
i have a great confidence in science and technology, no faith involved.
i dont know the answer about the big bang, but i am confident that one day we might find out.

you on the other hand have the utter conviction that god created all that.

that what difference us, i dont know, and i hope we will find out, you think you know and that its all fine and dandy.

i believe in science and technology beccause it work.
faith dosnt.

ps: i dont have nothing against people who believe in god, just against those who claim god have something to do with science. such reasonning is deeply dangerous for our society.

[RedStarOverChina]

Orthodox Christianity.
And science points to theism.
Only if your nose points to your ass.

[spiltteeth]

Only if your nose points to your ass.

Only if you understand basic physics...but thats an incredibly scientific refutation.

[spiltteeth]

i have a great confidence in science and technology, no faith involved.
i dont know the answer about the big bang, but i am confident that one day we might find out.

you on the other hand have the utter conviction that god created all that.

that what difference us, i dont know, and i hope we will find out, you think you know and that its all fine and dandy.

i believe in science and technology beccause it work.
faith dosnt.

ps: i dont have nothing against people who believe in god, just against those who claim god have something to do with science. such reasonning is deeply dangerous for our society.

Actually, science says there will never be a naturalistic explanation, for obvious reasons (the cause would have to be immaterial etc) so it is I who have faith that science is correct about this, you have the irrational idea that science can deal with supernatural causes.

I don't think I know, I guess I just trust and know the science, thats what it points to.

You claim knowledge that refutes sciences claim that it can never verify a cause of the universe. I don't know what knowledge you have, and your idea of science is radically different from the academic definition (dealing with naturalistic phenomena) and thus far you won't share it.

[danyboy27]

Actually, science says there will never be a naturalistic explanation, for obvious reasons (the cause would have to be immaterial etc) so it is I who have faith that science is correct about this, you have the irrational idea that science can deal with supernatural causes.

I don't think I know, I guess I just trust and know the science, thats what it points to.

You claim knowledge that refutes sciences claim that it can never verify a cause of the universe. I don't know what knowledge you have, and your idea of science is radically different from the academic definition (dealing with naturalistic phenomena) and thus far you won't share it.

well, i dont remember nobody saying that science say that we will never find this shit out.

science evolve, and until louis pasteur found out the germ tehory people where thinking that germs would just appear like that out of nowhere.


if there is something i know about science, its that verry verry fews scientist will affirm that they will NEVER find out the answer of something.

i think you are making this shit out man, you dont really have no scientific who actually affirm that we will never find out the origin of big bang.

unless of course that you watched a documentary similar to this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16562ZGNuoM

[GayEpilepticFightingRobot]

Islam is pretty interesting, but I consider myself a Deist.


Was about 2 days away from converting to Mormonism, but then I realized those 15 minute classes we took didn't explain much of anything.

[spiltteeth]

well, i dont remember nobody saying that science say that we will never find this shit out.

science evolve, and until louis pasteur found out the germ tehory people where thinking that germs would just appear like that out of nowhere.


if there is something i know about science, its that verry verry fews scientist will affirm that they will NEVER find out the answer of something.

i think you are making this shit out man, you dont really have no scientific who actually affirm that we will never find out the origin of big bang.

unless of course that you watched a documentary similar to this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16562ZGNuoM

Yea, Stephan Hawking's an idiot. And Valekin. And the numerous other physicists that I've quoted in my previous posts.

And screw what scientists say about science, it really can deal with supernatural phenomena.

All scientists are wrong - dannyboy knows a secret science that can deal with nonmaterial (super -natural)

Ah, it's hilarious that the people who have the most faith in science are completely ignorant.

As I say, there can be theories, but they can, by the very nature of science (since everyone but you defines science as dealing with the natural world) never be confirmed.

P. C. W. Davies muses,


What caused the big bang?’ . . . One might consider some supernatural force, some agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the big bang, or one might prefer t[QUOTE]o regard the big bang as an event without a cause. It seems to me that we don’t have too much choice. Either . . . something outside of the physical world . . . or . . . an event without a cause (Davies 1995: 8-9).

and


Science tells us that the universe came into existence as the result of the Big Bang. Billions of years ago, all matter in the universe was compacted into an infinitely small dot.
Science is the search for causes. What was the cause for the dot? A science that requires naturalistic causes cannot answer the question because all of nature began with the dot. A thing can't cause itself. Nature can't cause nature. Therefore, any "scientific" discussion of origins isn't really "scientific" at all, if you accept the definition that requires that the explanation be naturalistic, because the origin of all nature can't be more nature.

[danyboy27]

wow, you are an assole.



Yea, Stephan Hawking's an idiot. And Valekin. And the numerous other physicists that I've quoted in my previous posts.

And screw what scientists say about science, it really can deal with supernatural phenomena.

All scientists are wrong - dannyboy knows a secret science that can deal with nonmaterial (super -natural)

and
no, those scientist are not idiots, they are considering that a supernatural force MIGHT be the cause of all this. from a scientist, especially in those field, its completly normal to include every possibilities, even the most insane ones.




All scientists are wrong - dannyboy knows a secret science that can deal with nonmaterial (super -natural)
Ah, it's hilarious that the people who have the most faith in science are completely ignorant.

fuck off



As I say, there can be theories, but they can, by the very nature of science (since everyone but you defines science as dealing with the natural world) never be confirmed.

how so?




What caused the big bang?’ . . . One might consider some supernatural force, some agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the big bang, or one might prefer t(Davies 1995: 8-9).
and
this could refers to alien, also dont forget the MIGHT in that quote, that verry important.

unlike you, they consider things, evaluate, study stuff.
its ridiculous to jump on the conclusion that beccause scientist consider the possibilities that there MIGHT be a god, THERE IS A GOD.

i too, think there MIGHT be a god, unicorn and vampires might exist has well.
but seriously, what are the actual chances that god really exist? 1%, 0.5%?

and wich god is the good one, yours? hallah? the mormon god?

how do you come to conclusion that your god is the good one?
maybe you worship the wrong god!

[spiltteeth]

I already answered all this to you personally.


danyboy25;1600701]wow, you are an assole.



no, those scientist are not idiots, they are considering that a supernatural force MIGHT be the cause of all this. from a scientist, especially in those field, its completly normal to include every possibilities, even the most insane ones.

Oh? What are the less insane ones that describe the phenomena?


fuck off


how so?

How so? Uh, because science deals with nature, things that can be measured.


[QUOTE=spiltteeth;1600671]

this could refers to alien, also dont forget the MIGHT in that quote, that verry important.

As long as that alien is nonmaterial, timeless, eternal, powerful, intelligent, spaceless, and personal.


unlike you, they consider things, evaluate, study stuff.
its ridiculous to jump on the conclusion that beccause scientist consider the possibilities that there MIGHT be a god, THERE IS A GOD.

It's based on at least 70 yrs of research and science - what are you talking about jumping to a conclusion?


i too, think there MIGHT be a god, unicorn and vampires might exist has well.
but seriously, what are the actual chances that god really exist? 1%, 0.5%?

Statistics doesn't work like that. But I have never heard of any arguments that unicorns ir vampires exist, or that atheism might be true, so there are no good reasons to think vampires or unicorns exist. There are numerous good reasons to think God exists.



and wich god is the good one, yours? hallah? the mormon god?

how do you come to conclusion that your god is the good one?
maybe you worship the wrong god!

I've answered this, too you, personally, but from a being that is personal, timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful and intelligent, personal, and (from that near impossible odds that the universe would be life permitting) one can reasonably believe that this being holds humans in special concern.
Combined with historical evidence and personal experience all these are my reasons that my belief in God is a rationally valid one supported by science, logic, historical evidence, compelling arguments, and direct experience.

[danyboy27]

I already answered all this to you personally.



Oh? What are the less insane ones that describe the phenomena?

a physical anomaly.
hell, there could be more than 1 universe.




As long as that alien is nonmaterial, timeless, eternal, powerful, intelligent, spaceless, and personal.

not necessarly. has i said earlier there might be more than 1 dimention and more than 1 universe. some verry intelligent being could live in another dimension but could have the power to start the big bang or interferred with out developement.




Statistics doesn't work like that. But I have never heard of any arguments that unicorns ir vampires exist, or that atheism might be true, so there are no good reasons to think vampires or unicorns exist. There are numerous good reasons to think God exists.

well, vampires are mentionned in several books all over the world, from all continents. coincidence?
i have no reason to believe in god more than i believe in vampires.
folklore, for now that all it is for me.





I've answered this, too you, personally, but from a being that is personal, timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful and intelligent, personal, and (from that near impossible odds that the universe would be life permitting) one can reasonably believe that this being holds humans in special concern.
Combined with historical evidence and personal experience all these are my reasons that my belief in God is a rationally valid one supported by science, logic, historical evidence, compelling arguments, and direct experience.
personnal experience?
convince me.

[RedStarOverChina]

Wow, I'd never have imaged the day I'd see a "Christiano-Maoist". This world is really messed up. Chances are, we'll all have to prepare to see a future generation of Anarcho-Nazi-Scientologists.

Combined with historical evidence and personal experience all these are my reasons that my belief in God is a rationally valid one supported by science, logic, historical evidence, compelling arguments, and direct experience.
Bollocks. That's all I have to say to these empty boasts.

I've seen far too many "religious communists" over the years to take them seriously...Plus, Im tired of refuting the same stupid and baseless claims they make, yet they just keep coming. Fortunately, the mass majority of the so-called "religious communists" will end up either abandoning their religion or leave leftist politics in a few years...In truth, I can't think of an exception.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

"Science tells us that the universe came into existence as the result of the Big Bang. Billions of years ago, all matter in the universe was compacted into an infinitely small dot.
Science is the search for causes. What was the cause for the dot? A science that requires naturalistic causes cannot answer the question because all of nature began with the dot. A thing can't cause itself. Nature can't cause nature. Therefore, any "scientific" discussion of origins isn't really "scientific" at all, if you accept the definition that requires that the explanation be naturalistic, because the origin of all nature can't be more nature."

Physicists didn't arrive at the conclusion of the "dot" for lack of evidence. There is a cause for the "dot".

It's also really amusing to see someone chalenge scientific theories for their lack of evidence in the same post as he defends the existence of God. You had me loling hard.

[Comrade Anarchist]

no religion.

[spiltteeth]

Physicists didn't arrive at the conclusion of the "dot" for lack of evidence. There is a cause for the "dot".

It's also really amusing to see someone chalenge scientific theories for their lack of evidence in the same post as he defends the existence of God. You had me loling hard.

That was a quote from P.C.Davies, one of the world's greatest physicist's.

I don't understand what yr saying - I'm defending the big bang theory, not challenging it.

So, what's the cause of the dot? Are you referring to the Hawking-Hartle theory?

[spiltteeth]

Wow, I'd never have imaged the day I'd see a "Christiano-Maoist". This world is really messed up. Chances are, we'll all have to prepare to see a future generation of Anarcho-Nazi-Scientologists.

Bollocks. That's all I have to say to these empty boasts.

I've seen far too many "religious communists" over the years to take them seriously...Plus, Im tired of refuting the same stupid and baseless claims they make, yet they just keep coming. Fortunately, the mass majority of the so-called "religious communists" will end up either abandoning their religion or leave leftist politics in a few years...In truth, I can't think of an exception.

Bollocks

and there have been and are millions of Chistian commies that have/are living and dying for revolution, I have no idea why, as a communist, your unaware of them. Many quite famous :Étienne Cabet, Wobblie Thomas J. Haggerty, Ernst Bloch,Camilo Torres Restrepo, Diane Drufenbrock who is a Franciscan nun and Socialist Party USA member; She was the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party USA in the United States presidential election, 1980 to name a very few.

[spiltteeth]

=danyboy25;1602387]a physical anomaly.
hell, there could be more than 1 universe.

Ok. Give me yr argument for a multi-universe.
Uh, before the big bang there was nothing physical so a physical anomalie is...absurd, it helps to think before we speak.


not necessarly. has i said earlier there might be more than 1 dimention and more than 1 universe. some verry intelligent being could live in another dimension but could have the power to start the big bang or interferred with out developement.

Hmmm...some super intelligent being eh? One thats immaterial too? Would have to be pretty powerful...hey it almost sounds like God! But then how did this 'other dimension' come into being?


well, vampires are mentionned in several books all over the world, from all continents. coincidence?
i have no reason to believe in god more than i believe in vampires.
folklore, for now that all it is for me.

Yea, well, I've personally given you several reasons. So far you've done nothiong to discredit them.


personnal experience?
convince me.

Ok, as soon as you convince me other minds exist, and that the universe is older than 5 minutes...etc

[danyboy27]

Ok. Give me yr argument for a multi-universe.
Uh, before the big bang there was nothing physical so a physical anomalie is...absurd, it helps to think before we speak.

the theory of multiverse is still a theory. i dont have to bring proof.
its good to consider multiples possibility, especially for something that complex.
but god is not a valid possibility, or at least, not in the way you describe it.





Hmmm...some super intelligent being eh? One thats immaterial too? Would have to be pretty powerful...hey it almost sounds like God! But then how did this 'other dimension' come into being?


aliens are not gods. they came to be in a logical evolutionary process just like us(if they exist).worship them is completly stupid.
you know, its not beccause we dont have a logical explanation about everything that those thing would remain unexplained forever.

[spiltteeth]

the theory of multiverse is still a theory. i dont have to bring proof.
its good to consider multiples possibility, especially for something that complex.
but god is not a valid possibility, or at least, not in the way you describe it.




aliens are not gods. they came to be in a logical evolutionary process just like us(if they exist).worship them is completly stupid.
you know, its not beccause we dont have a logical explanation about everything that those thing would remain unexplained forever.



[QUOTE=spiltteeth;1608623]

Yea, you have no idea what science is, or else its a language barrier, because yr responses are nonsensical - how could an alien create the cosmos? Where would it exist if it were the product of evolution? Don't you think you need an environment for evolution? I assume yr joking.
Or maybe yr just fuck'n with me, or a little kid.

[danyboy27]

Yea, you have no idea what science is, or else its a language barrier, because yr responses are nonsensical - how could an alien create the cosmos? Where would it exist if it were the product of evolution? Don't you think you need an environment for evolution? I assume yr joking.
Or maybe yr just fuck'n with me, or a little kid.

tanks for assuming that i am a pedophile, tanks you assole.


anyway, what i am trying to say is, our world, our universe, our reality could be many thing, it could be a simulation, could be made by an alien or the result of a physical hazard, who know? NOBODY KNOW.

you cant have the answer of what exactly caused the big bang, this is a verry arrogant claim to say that it was god will and not consider other possibilities.

the possibilities of what caused the big bang are so huuges, for now its just impossible with the current technologies avaliable to accuratly determine what caused it.

you cant just throw assumption that god exist just beccause we dont know what caused the big bang, this is stupid.

[spiltteeth]

[QUOTE=spiltteeth;1609301]

tanks for assuming that i am a pedophile, tanks you assole.


anyway, what i am trying to say is, our world, our universe, our reality could be many thing, it could be a simulation, could be made by an alien or the result of a physical hazard, who know? NOBODY KNOW.

you cant have the answer of what exactly caused the big bang, this is a verry arrogant claim to say that it was god will and not consider other possibilities.

the possibilities of what caused the big bang are so huuges, for now its just impossible with the current technologies avaliable to accuratly determine what caused it.

you cant just throw assumption that god exist just beccause we dont know what caused the big bang, this is stupid.

Uh, I wasn't saying you're a pedophile.

Not only have I considered other explanations, but I've analyzed them in depth in previous posts, including the multiverse theory.

God as an explanation is not an assumption, as I keep saying, but backed up by a plethora of science, which supposedly you say you have faith in.

Also, as I keep saying, science does not deal in the supernatural, so it will never have a supernatural answer (at present, seemingly the only kind possible as numerous scientists have pointed out).
Clearly you don't understand what science is - science measures reality.
Like I say, maybe its a language barrier or maybe your just a little kid, but it's pretty basic.
I just find it amusing for a person to have so much faith in science without understanding the very basics of it. Like blind faith.
Of course you do not have faith in science, since I've quoted numerous physicists on the subject of the universes origins and you refuse all the evidence for absurd theories that are nonsensical and literally impossible (physical anomalies when there WAS NO PHYSICAL MATTER or energy etc)

Hey, don't believe in all the evidence and science, go with yr alien theory. Me, I'll stick to facts.

I believe in science.

[danyboy27]

Uh, I wasn't saying you're a pedophile.

Not only have I considered other explanations, but I've analyzed them in depth in previous posts, including the multiverse theory.

God as an explanation is not an assumption, as I keep saying, but backed up by a plethora of science, which supposedly you say you have faith in.

Also, as I keep saying, science does not deal in the supernatural, so it will never have a supernatural answer (at present, seemingly the only kind possible as numerous scientists have pointed out).
Clearly you don't understand what science is - science measures reality.
Like I say, maybe its a language barrier or maybe your just a little kid, but it's pretty basic.
I just find it amusing for a person to have so much faith in science without understanding the very basics of it. Like blind faith.
Of course you do not have faith in science, since I've quoted numerous physicists on the subject of the universes origins and you refuse all the evidence for absurd theories that are nonsensical and literally impossible (physical anomalies when there WAS NO PHYSICAL MATTER or energy etc)

Hey, don't believe in all the evidence and science, go with yr alien theory. Me, I'll stick to facts.

I believe in science.

okay then, bring it on, stop giving me some small piece of stuff quoted there and here, and give me the complete explanation by scientist of the evidence that god exist..

[The Red Next Door]

agnostic

[spiltteeth]

[QUOTE=spiltteeth;1609489]

okay then, bring it on, stop giving me some small piece of stuff quoted there and here, and give me the complete explanation by scientist of the evidence that god exist..
http://www.revleft.com/vb/two-good-reasons-t120646/index.html

[danyboy27]

ONE - God makes sense of the the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

the universe is not fine tuned, never been, never will.
we are what we are beccause of chance and necessity trought evolution.

there is an already long list of species that died since the life is possible on earth, a LOT of those species died beccause of pure luck, and other species like us survived beccause of luck and evolution.
think about it. Our first ancestor could have died of a terrible disease or just being eaten by animals.
we both evolved and survived beccause of evolution and luck, just like the other species.






TWO - God makes sense of the origin of the universe

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.


from here
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/atheism.html



the more important point is this: not only is there no evidence for the theist's case, there's evidence against it. The claim that the beginning of our universe has a cause conflicts with current scientific theory. The scientific theory is called the wave function of the universe. It has been developed in the past ten years or so by Stephen Hawking, Andre Vilenkin, Alex Linde, and many others. Their theory is that there is a scientific law of nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses. For example, contains intelligent organisms such as humans. This remaining universe has a certain probability very high -- near to a hundred percent -- of coming into existence uncaused.

Hawking's theory is confirmed by observational evidence. This theory predicts our universe has evenly-distributed matter on a large scale, which would be on scales of super-clusters of galaxies. It predicts that the expansion rate of our universe -- our universe has been expanding ever since -- would be almost exactly between the rate of the universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called inflation. Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the background radiation in the universe. So a scientific theory that is confirmed by observational evidence tells us that the universe began without being caused. So if you want to be a rational person and accepts the results of rational inquiry into nature, then we must accept the fact that God did not cause the universe to exist. The universe exists because of this wave-function law.

[Decolonize The Left]

splitteeth and danyboy25, please learn to use the quote function. When you quote someone's text, you need to add [/quote] at the end.

Also, splitteeth this is a verbal warning for flaming/slander here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1609301&postcount=59). Please refrain from this type of comment in the future.

- August

[amonshed]

Lucumi. i guess that kind of sets me apart from other anarchists but I actually prefer the company of godless men

[blank]

where is option for 'none'?
atheism is not a religion
atheism is correct understanding that god(s) not exist
this poll is fails!

[RedAnarchist]

where is option for 'none'?
atheism is not a religion
atheism is correct understanding that god(s) not exist
this poll is fails!

I don't think the poll is claiming that atheism/agnosticism are religions, but the reason that they are options is that a significant portion of the world (and probably the majority of members of this forum) consider themselves to be atheist or agnostic.

[blank]

name of particular poll: Which Religion, or non-religion, do you follow?
where is not imply atheism is religion?
and agnosticism is religion
people who call themselves atheist as religion, and we see this on social networks often are not atheist.
but how dare one such as i have any criticism for neurotypicals' activity.
somethymes just want blow mine own brains out so not have to listen to all crazy monkey gibberish, while mine own monkey gibberish goes unheard or understood.
this species it is most likely evolutionary dead end. hope i am wrong about these.
we are never get along. why bother try.

and some build of church for atheism... a million laughs at from this one. a million sarcastic laughs

[evangelista]

I'm an atheist although I find some aspects of Buddhism very interesting.

[Weezer]

Non-denominational Buddhist.

[Ovi]

Atheist. It's funny to see that there is always someone (aka spliteeth) trying to convert others to some stupid religious beliefs at every single thread that has to do with religion. Seriously, if you want to have any success, the last place you should write this nonsense would be a largely atheist forum. It only makes you look dumb.

[ComradeMan]

Godel proved God's existence thus...:D

Modal logic

The proof uses modal logic (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Modal_logic), which distinguishes between necessary truths and contingent truths.
A truth (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Truth) is necessary if its negation entails a contradiction, such as 2 + 2 = 4; by contrast, a truth is contingent if it just happens to be the case, for instance, "more than half of the earth is covered by water". In the most common interpretation of modal logic, one considers "all possible worlds". If a statement is true in all possible worlds, then it is a necessary truth. If a statement happens to be true in our world, but is false in some other worlds, then it is a contingent truth. A statement that is true in some world (not necessarily our own) is called a possible (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Logically_possible) truth.

A property assigns to each object (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Object_(philosophy)), in every possible world, a truth value (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Truth_value) (either true or false). Note that not all worlds have the same objects: some objects exist in some worlds and not in others. A property has only to assign truth values to those objects that exist in a particular world. As an example, consider the property
P(x) = x is pink and consider the object
s = my shirt In our world, P(s) is true because my shirt happens to be pink; in some other world, P(s) is false, while in still some other world, P(s) wouldn't make sense because my shirt doesn't exist there.
We say that the property P entails the property Q, if any object in any world that has the property P in that world also has the property Q in that same world. For example, the property
P(x) = x is taller than 2 meters entails the property
Q(x) = x is taller than 1 meter. We first assume the following axiom (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Axiom):
Axiom 1: It is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel defines a positive property rather vaguely: "Positive means positive in the moral (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Moral) aesthetic (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Aesthetics) sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995) We then assume that the following three conditions hold for all positive properties (which can be summarized by saying "the positive properties form an ultrafilter (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ultrafilter)"):
Axiom 2: If P is positive and P entails Q, then Q is positive. Axiom 3: If P1, P2, P3, ..., Pn are positive properties, then the property (P1 AND P2 AND P3 ... AND Pn) is positive as well. Axiom 4: If P is a property, then either P or its negation is positive, but not both. Finally, we assume:
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)). This mirrors the key assumption in Anselm's argument. Now we define a new property G: if x is an object in some possible world, then G(x) is true if and only if P(x) is true in that same world for all positive properties P. G is called the "God-like" property. An object x that has the God-like property is called God.


I am not even going to attempt to debate the validity of his axioms.

[Kovacs]

I follow christianity as a spectator sport. Having been raised in the faith I enjoy the occasional denominational dispute. For debating potential anyway.

[AryanWarrior]

Catholic

[ComradeMan]

There is no real word for my belief system but you could call it a kind of Humanistic Judaism with Gnostic beliefs and I also value the mystical teachings of Buddhism, Sufism and indigenous belief systems too.

[spiltteeth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

the universe is not fine tuned, never been, never will.
we are what we are beccause of chance and necessity trought evolution.

there is an already long list of species that died since the life is possible on earth, a LOT of those species died beccause of pure luck, and other species like us survived beccause of luck and evolution.
think about it. Our first ancestor could have died of a terrible disease or just being eaten by animals.
we both evolved and survived beccause of evolution and luck, just like the other species.





from here
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/atheism.html

I went over all thgis in the original post, but to put it differently, in this model, they simply declines to re-convert imaginary to real numbers (in order to avoid the initial singularity). Hawking admits,
"Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities . . . . When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities."
Hawking's model is thus a way of re-describing a universe with a singular beginning point in such a way that that singularity is transformed away; but such a re-description is not realist in character.

Hawking has recently stated explicitly that he interprets the Hartle-Hawking model non-realistically. He confesses,
"I'm a positivist . . . I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is."
Still more extreme,
"I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality."
In assessing the worth of a theory,
"All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements."
The clearest example of Hawking's instrumentalism is his analysis of particle pair creation in terms of an electron quantum tunneling in Euclidean space (with time being imaginary) and an electron/positron pair accelerating away from each other in Minkowski space-time. This analysis is directly analogous to the Hartle-Hawking cosmological model; and yet no one would construe particle pair creation as literally the result of an electron's transitioning out of a timelessly existing four-space into our classical space-time. It is just an alternative description employing imaginary numbers rather than real numbers.

I can expand, but, as Hawking admits, to belive this theory is reality descibing is to belive Abraham Lincoln could be assasinated BEFORE he was born.
Fine with me if yr gonna go with that, but this is not reality descriptive, as they admit, and I'm talking about reality, not theory.

[danyboy27]

I went over all thgis in the original post, but to put it differently, in this model, they simply declines to re-convert imaginary to real numbers (in order to avoid the initial singularity). Hawking admits,
Hawking's model is thus a way of re-describing a universe with a singular beginning point in such a way that that singularity is transformed away; but such a re-description is not realist in character.

Hawking has recently stated explicitly that he interprets the Hartle-Hawking model non-realistically. He confesses,
Still more extreme,
In assessing the worth of a theory,
The clearest example of Hawking's instrumentalism is his analysis of particle pair creation in terms of an electron quantum tunneling in Euclidean space (with time being imaginary) and an electron/positron pair accelerating away from each other in Minkowski space-time. This analysis is directly analogous to the Hartle-Hawking cosmological model; and yet no one would construe particle pair creation as literally the result of an electron's transitioning out of a timelessly existing four-space into our classical space-time. It is just an alternative description employing imaginary numbers rather than real numbers.

I can expand, but, as Hawking admits, to belive this theory is reality descibing is to belive Abraham Lincoln could be assasinated BEFORE he was born.
Fine with me if yr gonna go with that, but this is not reality descriptive, as they admit, and I'm talking about reality, not theory.
We have a rather limited knowledge on this subject, hawkins is doing what he can with the tool and technology he have. he extrapolated and admited that his theory sound like nonsense.with the data we have so far.
when you dont have the proper technology to fully comprehend a phenomenon that what happen. We still a primitive species man.

[The Red Next Door]

agnostic here

[danyboy27]

agnostic here

like the rest of us.

[spiltteeth]

We have a rather limited knowledge on this subject, hawkins is doing what he can with the tool and technology he have. he extrapolated and admited that his theory sound like nonsense.with the data we have so far.
when you dont have the proper technology to fully comprehend a phenomenon that what happen. We still a primitive species man.

Actually I think we have an astonishing array of knowledge on this, backed up by decades of careful study and research.

Then again this is the usual response I get from Christian Fundamentalists who don't believe in evolution - "Well we really don't know anything, science is always changing, tomorrow science could say evolution was really false" etc

Again, the point was aimed for people who respect science and logic, and aren't afraid to draw the necessary conclusions.

[danyboy27]

Actually I think we have an astonishing array of knowledge on this, backed up by decades of careful study and research.

Then again this is the usual response I get from Christian Fundamentalists who don't believe in evolution - "Well we really don't know anything, science is always changing, tomorrow science could say evolution was really false" etc

Again, the point was aimed for people who respect science and logic, and aren't afraid to draw the necessary conclusions.

you can draw a conclusion when you have irrefutable, cristal clear argument on a subject.

we can draw the conclusion that we evolved from monkey, there is solid evidence that this is true.

we cant draw a conclusion about the existance of god, we dont have the sufficent data yet.

we do know a lot about evolution, but we dont know much about physics, otherwise we would be able to do cold fusion, teleportation, and generate matter from nothing using the molecules of other stuff.

i tell you my friend, we just scratched the surface.
and if there is a god, then eventually we will have solid evidence about it, just like evolution.

but we are not there yet.

[spiltteeth]

you can draw a conclusion when you have irrefutable, cristal clear argument on a subject.

we can draw the conclusion that we evolved from monkey, there is solid evidence that this is true.

we cant draw a conclusion about the existance of god, we dont have the sufficent data yet.

we do know a lot about evolution, but we dont know much about physics, otherwise we would be able to do cold fusion, teleportation, and generate matter from nothing using the molecules of other stuff.

i tell you my friend, we just scratched the surface.
and if there is a god, then eventually we will have solid evidence about it, just like evolution.

but we are not there yet.

We really do know an astonishing amount about physics despite the fact we can't teleport people - we have teleported atoms AND sent them back in time!
Just like despite the fact we cannot create life (yet), we really do know alot about evolution as well.

The argument is crystal clear, thus far no one has disputed it.

The form of the kalam argument is valid because it allows for a modus ponens inference. (Here’s a primer on logical reasoning)

if p is true, then q is true
p is true
therefore, q is true
That means that so long as premise 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion follows necessarily.

Proving the premises :

Can the atheist deny that either or both of these premises are true?

1)“Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”
If the atheist denies this premise, then they are denying a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law.
2)“The universe began to exist”
The universe came into being. If the atheist denies this they are denying the state of the art in modern cosmology.

Given the truth of premises (1) and (2) it follows deductively that the universe has a metaphysical cause for its existence: the first cause.

There are usually three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample. If a person wishes to dispute (1) then he must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.

You are trying to appeal to b) it lacks sufficient evidence, but we have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars

So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.

[danyboy27]

there we go.

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/15/a-critical-examination-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
n first glance we might object that the cause of the universe doesn’t have to be anything like a person. But Craig has thoroughly demolished this objection: If there were a mechanical, impersonal cause which created time, it must have existed eternally. But if it had existed eternally, it would have been creating universes from eternity past. This would lead to the conclusion that there were an infinite number of universes, which Craig argues is absurd (more on this later). Therefore, the cause of the universe must have been a free agent who could choose to create only one universe. I find that I agree: If Craig’s premises are true, then his conclusion that a personal being caused the universe makes sense

“The universe began to exist”
he second premise, “The universe began to exist,” is indisputable in one sense and problematic in another. It is indisputable because scientists have made an excellent case that our universe did have a beginning about 13.7 billion years ago in the Big Bang. It is problematic because the fact that our universe had a beginning does not mean that physical existence as a whole (What I refer to as the ‘Metaverse’; Meaning all which exists[6]) had a beginning. For example, some cosmologists believe that our universe began in the black hole of another universe. If this is true, then it may be that there always were universes giving rise to even more universes through black holes.

Craig’s objection to scenarios such as the one above is to argue that an actual infinity cannot logically exist. Here’s an example illustrating Craig’s usual line of argumentation:

“Imagine a library with an infinite number of books. Suppose that half of the books are blue and half of them are green, so that for every blue book there is a green book, and vice versa. It follows that the library contains as many green books as the total books in its collection (an infinity), and as many blue books as green and blue books combined (also an infinity). But this is absurd. Therefore, actual infinities cannot exist.”

This is Craig’s argument, and the reason I (and many other philosophers) believe it fails is because finite numbers cannot be expected to behave as infinite numbers[7], rendering moot the claimed “absurdity” of an actual infinite.

“Therefore, the universe had a cause”
It is also highly problematic to conclude that the universe itself had a cause just because everything within the universe has a cause. The law of cause and effect may hold inside the universe (if we turn a blind eye to radioactive decay and quantum physics), but why should we expect it to be true outside of the universe? A related argument is that God, if he exists outside of time (as Craig supposes), could not cause the universe to exist because causation is a temporal concept (causation requires time)[8].

Yet another nail in the coffin of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is uncovered by turning Craig’s own reasoning against him. He argues this way: since everything which begins to exist has a cause, the universe must have a cause since it had its own beginning. Yet he ignores the fact that every personal being we have ever encountered has an observable physical body. Does that mean that there cannot be a great spirit being like Craig thinks? I imagine if Craig had to answer this question he would tell us that while all the minds within the universe have bodies, there is no reason to accept that this is true outside of the universe. Fair enough. But Craig must either accept that the law of cause and effect only applies inside the universe, in which case his argument is destroyed, or accept that a mind cannot exist without a body, in which case his argument is also destroyed.

The only way for Craig to get out from under this objection is by arguing that the causal principle is not a physical law (like the law of gravity) but a metaphysical law[9]. He must argue that the causal principle holds for anything and everything, regardless of any physical properties. But a “metaphysical law” is clearly false, as we have seen previously: it does not hold in the case of quantum physics[10].

Craig has not at all justified his metaphysical laws: He simply ridicules the idea that the universe could begin without a predecessor, calling it “worse than magic”[11]. However, using Craig’s own logic, having an infinitely-existing creator without a predecessor is just as ridiculous.

[spiltteeth]

danyboy25;1637248]there we go.

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/15/a-critical-examination-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
n first glance we might object that the cause of the universe doesn’t have to be anything like a person. But Craig has thoroughly demolished this objection: If there were a mechanical, impersonal cause which created time, it must have existed eternally. But if it had existed eternally, it would have been creating universes from eternity past. This would lead to the conclusion that there were an infinite number of universes, which Craig argues is absurd (more on this later). Therefore, the cause of the universe must have been a free agent who could choose to create only one universe. I find that I agree: If Craig’s premises are true, then his conclusion that a personal being caused the universe makes sense

so first premise is agreed upon. nice.


“The universe began to exist”
he second premise, “The universe began to exist,” is indisputable in one sense and problematic in another. It is indisputable because scientists have made an excellent case that our universe did have a beginning about 13.7 billion years ago in the Big Bang. It is problematic because the fact that our universe had a beginning does not mean that physical existence as a whole (What I refer to as the ‘Metaverse’; Meaning all which exists[6]) had a beginning. For example, some cosmologists believe that our universe began in the black hole of another universe. If this is true, then it may be that there always were universes giving rise to even more universes through black holes.

No scientist believes in this.

C
raig’s objection to scenarios such as the one above is to argue that an actual infinity cannot logically exist. Here’s an example illustrating Craig’s usual line of argumentation:

“Imagine a library with an infinite number of books. Suppose that half of the books are blue and half of them are green, so that for every blue book there is a green book, and vice versa. It follows that the library contains as many green books as the total books in its collection (an infinity), and as many blue books as green and blue books combined (also an infinity). But this is absurd. Therefore, actual infinities cannot exist.”

This is Craig’s argument, and the reason I (and many other philosophers) believe it fails is because finite numbers cannot be expected to behave as infinite numbers[7], rendering moot the claimed “absurdity” of an actual infinite.

Well, every physicist and mathamatition agrees that infinite numbers can't exist in reality.
If this guy, or anyone, has an argument they can I'll listen.



“Therefore, the universe had a cause”
It is also highly problematic to conclude that the universe itself had a cause just because everything within the universe has a cause. The law of cause and effect may hold inside the universe (if we turn a blind eye to radioactive decay and quantum physics), but why should we expect it to be true outside of the universe? A related argument is that God, if he exists outside of time (as Craig supposes), could not cause the universe to exist because causation is a temporal concept (causation requires time)[8].

First, there was no "outside the universe" before the bigbang.

Second, he's exactly right, it could not cause the universe BEFORE the bigbang, because, as he says, causation is a temporal concept, which is why Craig argues it would have to be a SIMULTANEOUS CAUSE.


Yet another nail in the coffin of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is uncovered by turning Craig’s own reasoning against him. He argues this way: since everything which begins to exist has a cause, the universe must have a cause since it had its own beginning. Yet he ignores the fact that every personal being we have ever encountered has an observable physical body. Does that mean that there cannot be a great spirit being like Craig thinks? I imagine if Craig had to answer this question he would tell us that while all the minds within the universe have bodies, there is no reason to accept that this is true outside of the universe. Fair enough. But Craig must either accept that the law of cause and effect only applies inside the universe, in which case his argument is destroyed, or accept that a mind cannot exist without a body, in which case his argument is also destroyed.

Again, it is SIMULTANEOUS CAUSATION.


The only way for Craig to get out from under this objection is by arguing that the causal principle is not a physical law (like the law of gravity) but a metaphysical law[9]. He must argue that the causal principle holds for anything and everything, regardless of any physical properties. But a “metaphysical law” is clearly false, as we have seen previously: it does not hold in the case of quantum physics[10].

Again, it is SIMULTANEOUS CAUSATION.


Craig has not at all justified his metaphysical laws: He simply ridicules the idea that the universe could begin without a predecessor, calling it “worse than magic”[11]. However, using Craig’s own logic, having an infinitely-existing creator without a predecessor is just as ridiculous.

No metaphysical law was used.

Dude, was this written by a 3rd grader? This is pathetic.

As I say :
There are usually three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample. If a person wishes to dispute one then he must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.

[danyboy27]

well, since i indeed have a hard time understanding all the notions, i can at least make a simple graphic on how i understand things.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c235/spetznaz21/kalammodel.jpg

on the other hand, if things can exist without a cause, god could exist, or not.
if god dosnt exist and that physical phenomenon can happen without a cause, then you have all your explanations right there.
On the other hand, god could have been sponteanously created and after that created the universe.

if this is possible, then other omniscient, all powerful being might be able to control us or modify our environnement, or not.
in that case, how believe in god would matter if there is maybe several other all powerful entities interfering with our universe?
it would just mean that there is another plane of existance parallel to us with people playing with us like toy.

if we fallow the kalam model, god just cant exist. on the other hand, if we fallow the rule that the universe could have been created without a cause or by a being without a cause, then yes, its perhaps possible that god exist.

Maybe i am an ignorant bastard, i dont know has much has you do in theology, but i sure wont waste my time bothering about the prospect of an all powerful being.
life is too short to care about that. IF he exist, who the hell know what are his guidelines anyway?I sure wont bother to wonder if i do X action that maybe it will make a all powerful being that might not exist at all angry.

i just live, i do my stuff, i am good toward other, and the best part of it, i dont need to believe in an imaginary friend to do that.

[spiltteeth]

well, since i indeed have a hard time understanding all the notions, i can at least make a simple graphic on how i understand things.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c235/spetznaz21/kalammodel.jpg

on the other hand, if things can exist without a cause, god could exist, or not.
if god dosnt exist and that physical phenomenon can happen without a cause, then you have all your explanations right there.
On the other hand, god could have been sponteanously created and after that created the universe.

if this is possible, then other omniscient, all powerful being might be able to control us or modify our environnement, or not.
in that case, how believe in god would matter if there is maybe several other all powerful entities interfering with our universe?
it would just mean that there is another plane of existance parallel to us with people playing with us like toy.

if we fallow the kalam model, god just cant exist. on the other hand, if we fallow the rule that the universe could have been created without a cause or by a being without a cause, then yes, its perhaps possible that god exist.

Maybe i am an ignorant bastard, i dont know has much has you do in theology, but i sure wont waste my time bothering about the prospect of an all powerful being.
life is too short to care about that. IF he exist, who the hell know what are his guidelines anyway?I sure wont bother to wonder if i do X action that maybe it will make a all powerful being that might not exist at all angry.

i just live, i do my stuff, i am good toward other, and the best part of it, i dont need to believe in an imaginary friend to do that.

I don't follow yr chart or logic, but in science it is a hard fact that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause - its a law of thermodynamics. Everything that is created has a cause. Denying that would be like denying gravity.

IF the universe did not begin to exist - if it always existed, then it would not need a cause. But the universe BEGAN to exist 13.7 billion yrs ago. So it needs a cause.
God never began to exist - He is uncreated, therefore He does not need a cause.

yr first bubble is unnecessary.

I have not mentioned theology at all, only logic and science.

[danyboy27]

but why god would be uncreated? if everything has a cause god why god dosnt have one?

how god would have amassed enough knowledge to become an all powerful being without being caused by something.

anyway, cause or not, the being you call god if its exist is more likely to be either a form of intelligent energy created by a physical anomaly or a race of extremely evolved alien.

If god is nothing but a form of verry intelligent energy, i dont see the need to worship it. i dont worship black hole or electric current.

if god is a powerful alien race, then there is no need to worship them. They where just more lucky than me.

god dosnt exist, but on the other hand, the possibility that somewhere a form of a verry intelligent life form exist and created the world.
Has i mentionned earlier, this lifeform could be a form of energy due to a physical anomaly. maybe this energy is not 1 single unity but in fact a whole freaking civilisation engineering solar system and planets.

There is a shitload of stuff we cant explain, that why we have to keep digging for more knowledge and answer about our world, or universe.

hell, who know, if the universe was really created by an energitic-based civilisation maybe one day, in thousand of year, we will be able to establish a contact with them.

you call it god, i call it endless posibility. and luck is one of them.

[革命者]

Pantheism.


Scotty

[spiltteeth]

danyboy25;1638912]but why god would be uncreated? if everything has a cause god why god dosnt have one?

As i keep saying, everything does not have a cause - the 2ns law of thermodynamics states everything that begins - or is created - has a cause. The universe began to exist - therefore it had a cause. Whatyever that cause was nessesarily had to be uncreated.


how god would have amassed enough knowledge to become an all powerful being without being caused by something.

anyway, cause or not, the being you call god if its exist is more likely to be either a form of intelligent energy created by a physical anomaly or a race of extremely evolved alien.[/QUOTE]

Then what caused the intelligent evolved alien race? How did they exist BEFORE all time or matter? This makes no sense at all.


If god is nothing but a form of verry intelligent energy, i dont see the need to worship it. i dont worship black hole or electric current.

if god is a powerful alien race, then there is no need to worship them. They where just more lucky than me.

god dosnt exist, but on the other hand, the possibility that somewhere a form of a verry intelligent life form exist and created the world.
Has i mentionned earlier, this lifeform could be a form of energy due to a physical anomaly. maybe this energy is not 1 single unity but in fact a whole freaking civilisation engineering solar system and planets.

There is a shitload of stuff we cant explain, that why we have to keep digging for more knowledge and answer about our world, or universe.

hell, who know, if the universe was really created by an energitic-based civilisation maybe one day, in thousand of year, we will be able to establish a contact with them.

you call it god, i call it endless posibility. and luck is one of them.

It could not be aliens that caused the universe.

As I've said several times :

What can we infer about the cause?

So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.
Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.
And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.
So what could the cause be? Craig notes that we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see! So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe. As Sherlock Holmes says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.“

This cause created the entire physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself.

[Klaatu]

What religion am I? You might as well ask me what political party I am.
Religion and politics are a master-and-slave relationship.
Only education can break this curse.

[Raúl Duke]

I usually say that I don't follow any certain religion.

But I would suggest psychedelics to you all.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm an atheist with Satanic leanings, & please don't refer to satanism as the belief in an evil entity, for it grows tiresome to see many people still falling for the religious propaganda that they've been fed in their past. Satanism is merely the belief of oneself in the highest of ways, against all Gods & rulers, for we are the gods & we are the rulers!

[ComradeMan]

Only one Jew...? :D

[LeninBalls]

Only one Jew...? :D

Yes were all anti-Semites havent you established that

[ComradeMan]

Yes were all anti-Semites havent you established that


Sigh.....

[Weezer]

I'm an atheist with Satanic leanings, & please don't refer to satanism as the belief in an evil entity, for it grows tiresome to see many people still falling for the religious propaganda that they've been fed in their past. Satanism is merely the belief of oneself in the highest of ways, against all Gods & rulers, for we are the gods & we are the rulers!

Enjoy your religious Randism. 'Cuz that's what Satanism is.

[ComradeMan]

The Qabbalah has a lot of stuff which could be interpreted as a spiritual analogy to sicence. Isaac Newton was indeed much influenced by the Qabbalah.

[smellincoffee]

I'm a Humanist. To the extent that I'm religious, I'm a Unitarian Universalist.

[originofopinion]

I am a Pantheistic Zen Buddhist :)

BTW: Science should answer our questions about the world.

[RedAnarchist]

I'm an atheist with Satanic leanings, & please don't refer to satanism as the belief in an evil entity, for it grows tiresome to see many people still falling for the religious propaganda that they've been fed in their past. Satanism is merely the belief of oneself in the highest of ways, against all Gods & rulers, for we are the gods & we are the rulers!

It would be strange if someone who didn't believe in an Abrahamic religion considered Satanism evil. Also, evil is subjective.

[Decolonize The Left]

I have re-opened the poll indefinitely. Enjoy.

- August

[Sogdian]

"By simple common sense I don't believe in God, in none."

- Ch. Chaplin

I believe in him. :)

[Dimentio]

I find atheism insufficient due to its inherent division of reality. Yet, I do not believe in a "God" or in any professed religion. I find the idea of pantheism attractive, but thoroughly insufficient.

[originofopinion]

I'm a Pantheist and a believer in New Age Thought. Taoism and Buddhism are also appealing.

[Che a chara]

i'm a catholic, but i wouldn't call myself a practising one. i hardly, if ever, go to church anymore (except for weddings and funerals). i beleive in the basics of Christianity (be good to others etc) and i have a belief in God, but i'm am not at all brainwashed by catholicism or the oppressive ideals it holds. I would also oppose the vatican and would call for it's abolishment.

[ComradeMan]

Two Jews now.... LOL!!!

[The Red Apostle]

Anglican Christian.

Oh, yes, and all those who think religion is insane and stupid...you have been spoon-fed sweeping generalizations and misinterpretations by the atheist elite. Religion, most notably Christianity, is a lot deeper, more complex, and all together more left-wing than you have been led to believe. Also, most of the atheist elite are neo-cons, and they care nothing for the plight of the poor.

[The Red Apostle]

Might I also say that we cannot understand everything. Science can only go so far.

[index]

I'm just like Quarterback, I'd say. I'm not a religious catholic. If god is real then well, he is real... if he is not real then too bad. I don't care either way. I believe in evolution (I like science) and I like the idea of a secular state. Not an atheist state. A separation of church and state, also I'd like the business of religion to fall, not religion. Because of all the ideas I have stated, I voted other.

[danyboy27]

I'm just like Quarterback, I'd say. I'm not a religious catholic. If god is real then well, he is real... if he is not real then too bad. I don't care either way. I believe in evolution (I like science) and I like the idea of a secular state. Not an atheist state. A separation of church and state, also I'd like the business of religion to fall, not religion. Because of all the ideas I have stated, I voted other.

a secular state is an atheist state.

[index]

I've been reading this thread and this is all militant anti theist atheists arguing against theists and such. Can we all stop fighting over religion? It is so childish. Religion is separate from politics and this isn't a thread for saying which religion / philosophy is better. Jesus Christ....

[index]

a secular state is an atheist state.
No...
A secular state is seperate from religion. It is not taking any religious standpoint (atheism, theism, agnosticism, etc.). An atheist state is for atheists only. A secular state is for people of all religions.

Edit:

Secular state-
A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion

Atheist state-
State atheism has been defined by David Kowalewski as the official "promotion of atheism" by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom and practice

[Anti-Zionist]

I'm not a Muslim, but I have been interested in Islam lately and have been considering converting so I voted Islam.

I used to be a practicing Muslim. When I left the religion of hate and injustice, I felt the shackles drop from my body.

[DJ-Anarcho-Redist]

I am Odian Asatru. I believe religion is a part of ones ethnic culture. Also accepting who you are and embracing it. Unfortunately capitalism broke the culture grid into pieces and gave it a Christian overlay for most peoples.

The philosophy of the Rojismo Orden Illuminati and International Order of Gnostic Templars is also a big influence on me spiritually.

runegild.org

runestone.org

gnostictemplars.org

orden-illuminati-societas-oto.angelfire.com

[Argument]

None, which I guess makes me an atheist.

[Invincible Summer]

I've been reading this thread and this is all militant anti theist atheists arguing against theists and such. Can we all stop fighting over religion? It is so childish. Religion is separate from politics and this isn't a thread for saying which religion / philosophy is better. Jesus Christ....

It's a thread in the religion forum, which is pretty much dedicated to the discussion of religion. And although religion and politics should be separate, they both affect each other. That's reality.

[ComradeNihil]

I am a follower of the Asatru faith because it is of my ancestors.
However, as obviously because I am a member of this board, I am NOT one of those Neo-Nazi, Fat, Militant douches.

This is why I could never be a Neo-Nazi and admire Adolf Hitler. He perverted the noble and peaceful symbols of my ancestors.

[MellowViper]

I'm a staunch Atheist, but I admire Buddhism, which is ultimately a godless religion.

[Weezer]

Buddhism and Jediism.

Don't laugh. I'm a serious Jedi.

[toenails69]

i dont understand atheists. they act like theyve nevr seen an angel.

[Ocean Seal]

The debate on science is very interesting. But I'll tell you this. Science neither points to theism or anti-theism. I understand that most atheists will quote the book of Dawkins to tell me how ridiculous religion is and how infantile it is, but I'd just like to make a simple point. Science observes the empirical. I've never conducted an experiment, or read a *scientific* paper that told me that there was reason to believe that God did or did not exist.
Sure you can tell me that science has created synthetic life, that science has created all that you wish, but when you state that such a creation is proof that God doesn't exist I frankly find as ridiculous as pointing to stigmata as proof that God exists.
Maybe its because I am an ex-atheist, but these arguments just don't do it for me.
The most scientifically based approach is agnosticism. See look at it this way. Newton would have been perplexed by the developments of relativity and to him if I had stated that gravity did not exist in the manner which he perceived it and that instead it curved space he would have said I was batshit insane. Interestingly enough modern science would have said that I was right, and perhaps science in the future will tell me that I am wrong. Following alchemy's declaration as a psedoscience few would have believed that we can turn lead into gold. Guess what *we can*.

So here's what I want. I want every religion to stop playing the science card because ultimately science has several interpretations some which defy our current logic. Science in the future will defy the way we view the universe today as science in our day has done to the past. Science has multiple interpretations and using it to bolster your own is alright, but being dogmatic about it is not. There is no dogma in science. In fact stating that science belongs to your religion or non-religion is purely anti-scientific. Science belongs to all of us. We don't know all the facts yet.

So yes. Many of you are going to look at my page and see that I am a Christian leftist. Many of you will dismiss this post because of it. If you don't want to keep an open mind then so be it. My religion is based on faith and my interpretation of science, but I understand that my interpretation is not the only interpretation. I think that everyone should take a step back and acknowledge that.

[Mumbles]

I saw this really beautiful woman I referred to as an angel once, but that's the extent of it.

[NGNM85]

I'm an atheist.

[NGNM85]

The debate on science is very interesting. But I'll tell you this. Science neither points to theism or anti-theism. I understand that most atheists will quote the book of Dawkins to tell me how ridiculous religion is and how infantile it is, but I'd just like to make a simple point. Science observes the empirical. I've never conducted an experiment, or read a *scientific* paper that told me that there was reason to believe that God did or did not exist.
Sure you can tell me that science has created synthetic life, that science has created all that you wish, but when you state that such a creation is proof that God doesn't exist I frankly find as ridiculous as pointing to stigmata as proof that God exists.
Maybe its because I am an ex-atheist, but these arguments just don't do it for me.
The most scientifically based approach is agnosticism. See look at it this way. Newton would have been perplexed by the developments of relativity and to him if I had stated that gravity did not exist in the manner which he perceived it and that instead it curved space he would have said I was batshit insane. Interestingly enough modern science would have said that I was right, and perhaps science in the future will tell me that I am wrong. Following alchemy's declaration as a psedoscience few would have believed that we can turn lead into gold. Guess what *we can*.

So here's what I want. I want every religion to stop playing the science card because ultimately science has several interpretations some which defy our current logic. Science in the future will defy the way we view the universe today as science in our day has done to the past. Science has multiple interpretations and using it to bolster your own is alright, but being dogmatic about it is not. There is no dogma in science. In fact stating that science belongs to your religion or non-religion is purely anti-scientific. Science belongs to all of us. We don't know all the facts yet.

So yes. Many of you are going to look at my page and see that I am a Christian leftist. Many of you will dismiss this post because of it. If you don't want to keep an open mind then so be it. My religion is based on faith and my interpretation of science, but I understand that my interpretation is not the only interpretation. I think that everyone should take a step back and acknowledge that.


First, it sounds like you might be misunderstanbdin atheism. Even Dawkins readily admits one cannot 'prove' to 100% metaphysical certitude, that there is no god. However, I can't prove 100% etc., that there are no unicorns. That doesn't mean I should seriously entertain the possibility, or that the study and contemplation of unicorns is a legitimate exercise.

All scientific evidence we have so far, to the extent that we know, strongly suggests there is not a god, as there is no evidence of his/her/it's/their existence, and what we do see seems to suggest the opposite is true. Moreover, were such evidence to exist 'god' would simply be an advanced extraterrestrial. See,words like 'magic', or, 'god', or 'supernatural', when used in the literal sense these words essentially mean 'not real.' The only truly supernatural things are things that don't exist. All that exists has properties that can be analyzed, classified, etc.

[Adi Shankara]

My religious beliefs are rather complex by my own admission, but to sum it up:

I believe in Hindu principles of Dharma, and am syncretic with beliefs of Universalism and strong beliefs of Pantheism (that is, nature is god, as it provides everything we need).

However, I do not believe in anthropomorphic deities, as I think that it is an insult to a higher power to compare that to a human being.

atheism makes no sense to me. there is a 1 in 1 trillion (I don't know the real figure, but it's approximate ;)) chance that, in our given universe, which is only 4 billion years old (relatively young, indeed), there would be such optimal conditions for life and water, and oxygen, etc.

now technically, under atheism, the question is: "why exist at all"? and that seems to be the bigger picture that atheism is missing. there is a reason why we are here, and I don't know it, I'll never know it in my lifetime, but the fact that we exist period is testament to the fact a higher power exists.

For the record: my beliefs in religion are rather close to Albert Einstein (who himself distrusted atheism as another fervent religion), while he himself didn't believe in an anthropomorphic god, as he thought it was ridiculous that an imperfect being such as a human can be close to perfection.

[Adi Shankara]

i'm a catholic, but i wouldn't call myself a practising one. i hardly, if ever, go to church anymore (except for weddings and funerals). i beleive in the basics of Christianity (be good to others etc) and i have a belief in God, but i'm am not at all brainwashed by catholicism or the oppressive ideals it holds. I would also oppose the vatican and would call for it's abolishment.

I used to be a catholic, until I saw their position on Nicaragua and communism, that, and I begun to find it ridiculous to compare a heavenly being to a human being, which, in my mind, is inconceivable.

[phoenixashes]

I am a Satanist. I started out as LaVeyan but saw some flaws in his writings so i just built apon it myself, added some of my own beliefs to the mix and now am the sole practitioner of my own flavour of Satanism.

Not sure if it has been discussed yet since I didn't read this entire topic but before you throw some 'devil worship' or 'animal sacrifice' or whatever other misconceptions you may have about Satanism at me please read a bit about it first, unless of course you still believe Anarchy is all about destruction and chaos. In that case, go ahead.

[4 Leaf Clover]

I'm not a Muslim, but I have been interested in Islam lately and have been considering converting so I voted Islam.
i voted atheist

will you force your wife to wear hijab ? cause if you allow other man to look at your wife's body , you are not a real muslim

relligion is bollocks , its full of idiotic rules , silly claims , if you need control , then damm human , control yourself

[Invincible Summer]

Verbal warnings to Svante and 4 Leaf Clover for spam (Svante) and flaming (4 Leaf Clover).


Let's keep it civil, no need to make wild, baseless accusations.

[ChrisK]

i voted atheist

will you force your wife to wear hijab ? cause if you allow other man to look at your wife's body , you are not a real muslim

relligion is bollocks , its full of idiotic rules , silly claims , if you need control , then damm human , control yourself

InsertNameHere is female. Nice assuming there.

[RedRise]

I'm not a Muslim, but I have been interested in Islam lately and have been considering converting so I voted Islam.

I considered Islam too. Actually, I considered lots of things. But I've swung back to my old conglomeration of Celtic and Norse (in other words, European pagan) beliefs although I don't go a bundle on anything occult, nor do I go all out on religious celebrations. I tried to - once. Now I just stick to quiet belief in a handful of the relevant deities and a use of the Runic alphabet which, from the point of view of someone very interested in ancient scripts, is really cool.

[CountryKid]

Deist.

This may change at any time.

[leftace53]

a use of the Runic alphabet which, from the point of view of someone very interested in ancient scripts, is really cool.

ballin, I learnt elder futhark a while ago, runic alphabet is pretty cool:thumbup1:

I'm an Atheist

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

Another atheist here in case my name didn't give it away.

[Weezer]

Another atheist here in case my name didn't give it away.

According to your name, you're an athei.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

According to your name, you're an athei.
Well I guess I'm just a big liar then aren't I?

[Raúl Duke]

Agnostic Atheist

[Klaatu]

I believe in a "think for yourself" philosophy, because all religions are just someone else's ideas anyway. If shamans, Thomas Aquinas, Buddha, Enoch, et al, can dream up religions and ideas of their own, then so can I. ;)

[Raúl Duke]

If shamans, Thomas Aquinas, Buddha, Enoch, et al, can dream up religions and ideas of their own, then so can I. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/wink.gif

I was once part of a "religion" (it was more like a odd "supernatural" subjective perspective, there was no rules except to be authentic/genuine) we made up with a few friends.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am an atheist.

[Weezer]

I am an atheist.

Secular or religious atheist?

[qmyers25]

I'm an atheist, however when I tell people that, they seem to get severely alarmed, so I now introduce myself as a humanist, and if I get to know that person, I lay out my full views(or lack of them).

[28350]

I am a Satanist. I started out as LaVeyan but saw some flaws in his writings so i just built apon it myself, added some of my own beliefs to the mix and now am the sole practitioner of my own flavour of Satanism.

I used to be a Satanist. Then I turned 14.

Seriously, Satanism (leVayan, at least) is essentially psychodramatic ritualistic "libertarianism" (or minarchist propertarianism, more accurately). It's just enlightenment ideals, a reversal of christianity, and "evil" themes.

From its (crappy) website:

Stratification—The point on which all the others ultimately rest. There can be no more myth of “equality” for all—it only translates to “mediocrity” and supports the weak at the expense of the strong. Water must be allowed to seek its own level without interference from apologists for incompetence. No one should be protected from the effects of his own stupidity.

Also, in the satanic bible, there's quite a bit about KILL THE WEAK, DO WHAT YOU WANT and what not.

I hope your version of satanism is substantially different.

[Klaatu]

Didn't LeVay base some of his Satanic views on the views of Ayn Rand? What does this tell us about Rand?

[Leonid Brozhnev]

What does this tell us about Rand?

Nothing we didn't already know :lol:

I'm an Athiest, I come from a Church-of-Scotland-turned-Catholic family... even from an early age, during Sunday School or some Religious Assembly at School I always thought the concept of God was nonsensical. Despite my mother being Catholic, she seems to pride herself on the fact that one day at School when I was 6 or 7, I stood up in Assembly and told the local Minister that Evolution led to life as it is and not his Adam and Eve bullshit.

[ChrisK]

Also, in the satanic bible, there's quite a bit about KILL THE WEAK, DO WHAT YOU WANT and what not.

I hope your version of satanism is substantially different.

Not a Satanist, nor have I ever been. But the Satanic Bible explicity states that a Satanist is not allowed to do that. They're more do what you want so long as it does not harm others.

Not the most informed ideology, but not what you say.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Secular or religious atheist?

My philosophies are secular and non-supernatural, if that's what you're asking.

[Adi Shankara]

I am a Satanist. I started out as LaVeyan but saw some flaws in his writings so i just built apon it myself, added some of my own beliefs to the mix and now am the sole practitioner of my own flavour of Satanism.

Not sure if it has been discussed yet since I didn't read this entire topic but before you throw some 'devil worship' or 'animal sacrifice' or whatever other misconceptions you may have about Satanism at me please read a bit about it first, unless of course you still believe Anarchy is all about destruction and chaos. In that case, go ahead.

I agree with the poster who said that is like Ayn Rand's philosophy on life; it's basically one step below psychopathy.


me personally, at the end of the day, I dislike atheism, but not atheists...if that makes sense. kind've like how I dislike Christianity, but not Christians. I challenge every atheist (in a friendly way, and if you haven't already) on here to read about Dharmic beliefs--that is, read the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, Bardo Thodol, etc.--it'll open your eyes to religion that isn't simply based on "this god is real because so-and-so" said so, but within a framework of reason.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

me personally, at the end of the day, I dislike atheism, but not atheists...if that makes sense. kind've like how I dislike Christianity, but not Christians. I challenge every atheist (in a friendly way, and if you haven't already) on here to read about Dharmic beliefs--that is, read the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, Bardo Thodol, etc.--it'll open your eyes to religion that isn't simply based on "this god is real because so-and-so" said so, but within a framework of reason.

I've read bits of the Baghavad Gita. It's a beautiful bit of prose, even translated, but I fail to see how it could provide moral or philosophical guidance.

[Demogorgon]

Didn't LeVay base some of his Satanic views on the views of Ayn Rand? What does this tell us about Rand?
Straight from the horses mouth: "just the philosophy of Ayn Rand with added ritual" (I paraphrase slightly for better syntax). The philosophy may sound great to the teenage rebel (both Satanism and Objectivism actually) but it is about as right wing as you can get.

As for me, I firmly believe that there is no God. I do not however get upset by others disagreeing. My religious outlook is firm secularism, religion should not influence public affairs and public affairs should not impede free religious practice.

[Adi Shankara]

I've read bits of the Baghavad Gita. It's a beautiful bit of prose, even translated, but I fail to see how it could provide moral or philosophical guidance.

It just is an alternative outlook, is what I mean; most atheists usually start with a total disillusionment with Christianity or Judaism. Dharmic religions are usually a breath of fresh air, for most atheists--even if they retain their atheism, I find that almost every atheist I know who has read into Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. has never disregarded it as propaganda or fairy tales, even if they don't agree with it.

[Lampang]

It depends what you mean by fairy tales. I've looked at Buddhism fairly closely and whilst there was clearly an historical Buddha, the philosophical underpinnings of Buddhism (with the possible exception of Zen) rest on dualism...which is fucking nuts. There's some OK stuff about non-attachment and insight meditation clearly has psychological benefits but I can't take seriously anything which says that there's some nebulous mind-stuff floating around and, historically, Buddhism has been - and continues to be - tied up with hideously repressive social structures. The best you get is fluffy socially-engaged Buddhism, which is all fair-trade coffee and tree-planting; even the Catholics managed to do better with liberation theology.

[Adi Shankara]

It depends what you mean by fairy tales. I've looked at Buddhism fairly closely and whilst there was clearly an historical Buddha, the philosophical underpinnings of Buddhism (with the possible exception of Zen) rest on dualism...which is fucking nuts. There's some OK stuff about non-attachment and insight meditation clearly has psychological benefits but I can't take seriously anything which says that there's some nebulous mind-stuff floating around and, historically, Buddhism has been - and continues to be - tied up with hideously repressive social structures. The best you get is fluffy socially-engaged Buddhism, which is all fair-trade coffee and tree-planting; even the Catholics managed to do better with liberation theology.

I am talking about Vajrayana esoteric Buddhism, which is basically, an alternative philosophy to Aristotle, Plato, and other western philosophers; Padmasambhava and other such philosophers believed in the disregard of social structures, as he basically said, to paraphrase "we all die, we all suffer, we are all the same, none of us are more deserving than others".

I don't see where people get the idea of Buddhism as oppression. I really don't.

[mollymae]

Atheist, with a touch of naturalistic pantheism (non-supernatural).

[Lampang]

I don't see where people get the idea of Buddhism as oppression. I really don't.

I don't think it's necessarily oppressive but the history of Buddhism is certainly oppressive. You're a fan of Tibetan Buddhism - just look at Tibet's history. I'm much more familiar with Thai history and society and the sangha here is up to its armpits in the maintenance of the social hierarchy. Near enough every day the TV will broadcast, at prime time and on all terrestrial channels, footage of the royal family and members of the sangha together. It's really important in maintaining social control.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It just is an alternative outlook, is what I mean; most atheists usually start with a total disillusionment with Christianity or Judaism. Dharmic religions are usually a breath of fresh air, for most atheists--even if they retain their atheism, I find that almost every atheist I know who has read into Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. has never disregarded it as propaganda or fairy tales, even if they don't agree with it.

While Abrahamic religions have their own peculiar nastiness, all religions that I am aware of exhibit what is called magical thinking ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking[/url), which can have disasterous consquences.


I am talking about Vajrayana esoteric Buddhism, which is basically, an alternative philosophy to Aristotle, Plato, and other western philosophers; Padmasambhava and other such philosophers believed in the disregard of social structures, as he basically said, to paraphrase "we all die, we all suffer, we are all the same, none of us are more deserving than others".

It is a grave mistake to ignore social structures; after all, we are social creatures, and to ignore that aspect of our nature is to blot out a significant proportion of human activity.

Human existence involves suffering and death, that's true; but beyond pointing it out, which I think doesn't need to be done for any adult of average or greater intelligence, what do Eastern religions think we should do about it? My impression is that they consider such things to be ephemeral or otherwise unimportant, which is a huge mistake. My view is that we (as a species) should try to reduce or eliminate such things in the long term, through active change and manipulation of material reality rather than disappearing up our own eternal fundaments.

To say we are all the same is a statement of pure ignorance. We are all human, but that does not mean we are identical.

As for deserving; deserving of what? It's this obscurantist vagueness that Eastern religions engage in that really gets on my tits.

[Invincible Summer]

It just is an alternative outlook, is what I mean; most atheists usually start with a total disillusionment with Christianity or Judaism. Dharmic religions are usually a breath of fresh air, for most atheists--even if they retain their atheism, I find that almost every atheist I know who has read into Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. has never disregarded it as propaganda or fairy tales, even if they don't agree with it.

Hinduism is polytheistic, with elephants and multi-armed people as gods or whatever. How is that not a fairy tale?

[Dimentio]

Atheist, with a touch of naturalistic pantheism (non-supernatural).

This.

[Adi Shankara]

Hinduism is polytheistic, with elephants and multi-armed people as gods or whatever. How is that not a fairy tale?

Depends on which aspect of Hinduism you follow; what you just described as Hinduism is only one of many many branches that fall into hinduism; in Hinduism, there are even atheists (the Nastika), and those who, while not really regarding the traditional gods, believe deeply in the concepts of Dharmic thought and the metaphysical world. this is what I mostly believe in.


Why does everyone always bring up the multi-armed gods and such? Hinduism is so much more complicated than a singular, dogmatic religion like christianity. I wish people would take the time to learn about it, even if they're atheists, because then they maybe they'll stop comparing it to christianity =(

[danyboy27]

i think dealing with the material world has it is is WAYYY more simple than seeking some kind of guidance from an invisible being.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Strong Christian here :)

[Adi Shankara]

Strong Christian here :)

while I don't agree with christianity at all, I will say, it's a good thing when someone isn't afraid to go against the norm (at least, to communists) to stand for what they believe in.

I say the same to atheists in mainstream society as well too :P

[IslamicMarxist]

like?

Oh my God! You need some researching to do. There is not one religion out there that is more scientific, and has discovered more scientific facts and chemistry and such than ISLAM. you need to do some studying. go on a search engine and search "Islam and Science" and you will be blown away, Christianity has little science at ALL and the bible usually makes no sense, not to be offensive to christians, but the bible has been changed over ten thousand times one hunred years after the death of Jesus.

[IslamicMarxist]

well, since i indeed have a hard time understanding all the notions, i can at least make a simple graphic on how i understand things.


on the other hand, if things can exist without a cause, god could exist, or not.
if god dosnt exist and that physical phenomenon can happen without a cause, then you have all your explanations right there.
On the other hand, god could have been sponteanously created and after that created the universe.

if this is possible, then other omniscient, all powerful being might be able to control us or modify our environnement, or not.
in that case, how believe in god would matter if there is maybe several other all powerful entities interfering with our universe?
it would just mean that there is another plane of existance parallel to us with people playing with us like toy.

if we fallow the kalam model, god just cant exist. on the other hand, if we fallow the rule that the universe could have been created without a cause or by a being without a cause, then yes, its perhaps possible that god exist.

Maybe i am an ignorant bastard, i dont know has much has you do in theology, but i sure wont waste my time bothering about the prospect of an all powerful being.
life is too short to care about that. IF he exist, who the hell know what are his guidelines anyway?I sure wont bother to wonder if i do X action that maybe it will make a all powerful being that might not exist at all angry.

i just live, i do my stuff, i am good toward other, and the best part of it, i dont need to believe in an imaginary friend to do that.

Something too hard for you people to Understand, is that if you DO believe in a God, heres how it is. God has never been born nor will he die. It is too complex for a Human being to understand, it is far out of our way of thinking. He has never been born, nothing created him. He created the universe, but probably billions and billions and billions, and billions before the milky way galaxy was created. I hold the belief that God created evolution. I do not judge athiests, nor do i want to argue, because this isnt a religion forum, it is a political one.

[Adi Shankara]

I do not judge athiests, nor do i want to argue, because this isnt a religion forum, it is a political one.

Amen to that.

[danyboy27]

Oh my God! You need some researching to do. There is not one religion out there that is more scientific, and has discovered more scientific facts and chemistry and such than ISLAM. you need to do some studying. go on a search engine and search "Islam and Science" and you will be blown away, Christianity has little science at ALL and the bible usually makes no sense, not to be offensive to christians, but the bible has been changed over ten thousand times one hunred years after the death of Jesus.

well, the guy who wrote the qran had some skill, so what? newton believed in alchemy for sake.

that dosnt make islam itself more scientific, i mean if you believe god wrote the qran you are nothing but an ignorant at best.

trust me, if i want to learn about science, i know where to look.
http://www.amazon.ca/Science-Book-Everything-About-World/dp/1426203373/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277580472&sr=8-1

[danyboy27]

Something too hard for you people to Understand, is that if you DO believe in a God, heres how it is. God has never been born nor will he die. It is too complex for a Human being to understand, it is far out of our way of thinking. He has never been born, nothing created him. He created the universe, but probably billions and billions and billions, and billions before the milky way galaxy was created. I hold the belief that God created evolution. I do not judge athiests, nor do i want to argue, because this isnt a religion forum, it is a political one.

hoo i used to believe in god, and i know exactly how it work thanks you.

i dont reject the possibility that a powerful being might have created earth, or the human for that matter.

i got a problem with the whole principle that we should worship that person/being that might or might not exist.

after all, if he is all so powerful has you like to claim, why should he care about us worshiping him,why would he send us misterious clues instead of making us with that knowledge?

My hypothesis about all this, if there is really powerful being that created the universe trillion of year ago, they dont fucking care, beccause we are ants to them, so we might has well grow some ball and start doing things by ourselves, stop worshipping them, and do our stuff.

they might stop considering us has ants if we do that.

[IslamicMarxist]

hoo i used to believe in god, and i know exactly how it work thanks you.

i dont reject the possibility that a powerful being might have created earth, or the human for that matter.

i got a problem with the whole principle that we should worship that person/being that might or might not exist.

after all, if he is all so powerful has you like to claim, why should he care about us worshiping him,why would he send us misterious clues instead of making us with that knowledge?

My hypothesis about all this, if there is really powerful being that created the universe trillion of year ago, they dont fucking care, beccause we are ants to them, so we might has well grow some ball and start doing things by ourselves, stop worshipping them, and do our stuff.

they might stop considering us has ants if we do that.

Than Good for you. For me, it is either you believe or you don't, and I think it is injust to judge the other side. If you do not believe in God, I am no one to judge you. like I said. this is a political forum. Not a religion one. I'm sure we could talk about Religion on another one. I said IF YOU DO believe in God, if you do not, than I do not wish to argue, this is a political forum, not a religious one.

[danyboy27]

Than Good for you. For me, it is either you believe or you don't, and I think it is injust to judge the other side. If you do not believe in God, I am no one to judge you. like I said. this is a political forum. Not a religion one. I'm sure we could talk about Religion on another one. I said IF YOU DO believe in God, if you do not, than I do not wish to argue, this is a political forum, not a religious one.


but...this is the religious sub-forum....we can talk about religion here, it is the purpose of this section of the forum.

[Pretty Flaco]

I'd consider myself an Atheist with a soft spot for Buddhism.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

I'd consider myself an Atheist with a soft spot for Buddhism.
Same but I couldn't get myself to believe in reincarnation or karma.

[CountryKid]

Converting to Scientology


I like books :D

[The Ben G]

Im an independent Agnostic.

[Invincible Summer]

Oh my God! You need some researching to do. There is not one religion out there that is more scientific, and has discovered more scientific facts and chemistry and such than ISLAM. you need to do some studying. go on a search engine and search "Islam and Science" and you will be blown away, Christianity has little science at ALL and the bible usually makes no sense, not to be offensive to christians, but the bible has been changed over ten thousand times one hunred years after the death of Jesus.


Something too hard for you people to Understand, is that if you DO believe in a God, heres how it is. God has never been born nor will he die. It is too complex for a Human being to understand, it is far out of our way of thinking. He has never been born, nothing created him. He created the universe, but probably billions and billions and billions, and billions before the milky way galaxy was created. I hold the belief that God created evolution. I do not judge athiests, nor do i want to argue, because this isnt a religion forum, it is a political one.

Although this is the religious sub-forum, this site has a no-preaching policy. The posts I have quoted are considered preaching, as you are praising Islam/God in such a way that resembles evangelizing.

Consider this a verbal warning for preaching. Please abstain from such posts in the future.

[Bud Struggle]

Although this is the religious sub-forum, this site has a no-preaching policy. The posts I have quoted are considered preaching, as you are praising Islam/God in such a way that resembles evangelizing.

Consider this a verbal warning for preaching. Please abstain from such posts in the future.

Not on your or anyone's case--but such warnings and authoritarian behavior make it hard for anyone of any religious faith to post in this forum to explain their position. A religious poster has to continually look over their sholder as to how much "faith" is too much to put into a post. Though, one can certainly preach here "against" religion without any problem, but you have to be crazy to think that any amount of relgious "explainations" are going to turn the average RevLefter against Communism, to become some sort of religious Zealot.

Not that it really matters--but such rulemongering makes this particular forum somewhat less than a friendly discussion place. Intellectually this forum is something of a waste land--if you don't want free espression of ideas as one would expect in OI--that's fine, but don't pretend otherwise. It's understandable to make such rules for other parts of this website--but this is after all a RELIGION form--can't the expression of religious ideas be allowed here with a bit of freedom?

[danyboy27]

Not on your or anyone's case--but such warnings and authoritarian behavior make it hard for anyone of any religious faith to post in this forum to explain their position. A religious poster has to continually look over their sholder as to how much "faith" is too much to put into a post. Though, one can certainly preach here "against" religion without any problem, but you have to be crazy to think that any amount of relgious "explainations" are going to turn the average RevLefter against Communism, to become some sort of religious Zealot.

Not that it really matters--but such rulemongering makes this particular forum somewhat less than a friendly discussion place. Intellectually this forum is something of a waste land--if you don't want free espression of ideas as one would expect in OI--that's fine, but don't pretend otherwise. It's understandable to make such rules for other parts of this website--but this is after all a RELIGION form--can't the expression of religious ideas be allowed here with a bit of freedom?
discussing religion is one thing bud, being supremacist about his own religion, its another thing.

But i have to admit, we should lets those supremacist express their views in this section, but this section only, or at least until the preaching reach the level of spam and trolling.

[Invincible Summer]

Not on your or anyone's case--but such warnings and authoritarian behavior make it hard for anyone of any religious faith to post in this forum to explain their position. A religious poster has to continually look over their sholder as to how much "faith" is too much to put into a post. Though, one can certainly preach here "against" religion without any problem, but you have to be crazy to think that any amount of relgious "explainations" are going to turn the average RevLefter against Communism, to become some sort of religious Zealot.

Not that it really matters--but such rulemongering makes this particular forum somewhat less than a friendly discussion place. Intellectually this forum is something of a waste land--if you don't want free espression of ideas as one would expect in OI--that's fine, but don't pretend otherwise. It's understandable to make such rules for other parts of this website--but this is after all a RELIGION form--can't the expression of religious ideas be allowed here with a bit of freedom?

If users want to promote the "benefits" or "wonders" of their religion - because you and I don't understand until they explain to us how great God is - then they should join a forum dedicated to discussing religion.

It's not that we're "afraid religion will turn people against communism." Preaching does nothing but essentially spout the propaganda of a given religion. There's a difference between discussion/debate and preaching. Telling someone they don't "get it" because they need to realize the wonderousness of God or whatever is not the kind of posting that is encouraged here. It is the critical examination of religion that should be carried out - this means discussing specific things about religion and not just doling out the candy-coated, please-be-a-believer-today stuff.

Besides, I think users in general are pretty good about not preaching, and I think the moderators/admins sort of let a certain amount of pseudo-preaching slide anyway. I suppose I'm just one of the first to give a visible verbal warning for it.

[FreeBird541]

Scientifically speaking, I believe there is no real proof for or against the existence of God. Plenty of arguments have been used by both sides as "proof" of their belief, but although many seem convincing, the reality is that we don't know. Seeing as we have no proof, we should let people believe what they believe. Each to his own.

Many people on this forum believe that religion is opposed to Communism. While it is true that religion has been used in the past to control the masses, this does not necessarily make it opposed to Communism on principle. In fact, some elements of religion are similar to the core principles of communism. I believe that a Communist state should be neither atheist of religious, but should allow all beliefs.

[RedRise]

In fact, some elements of religion are similar to the core principles of communism.

This is true. I'm not praising anything in particular here but I do know that Islam seems to be in favor of a democracy (rather than what they have in most Islamic states) if not communism. Even Jesus said a lot of things that would get him branded as a commie today.


I believe that a Communist state should be neither atheist of religious, but should allow all beliefs.

I'm with this. Religion and politics should be kept completely separate. Everyone should be allowed to practice whatever religion they choose (as long as it doesn't involve sacrifices I suppose:rolleyes:) and not force their beliefs on anyone else but whatever
goes on in the religious domain should be kept well out of the political scene.
As everybody should have figured out by now, mixing the two only leads to unnecessary disputes and blah, blah, blah...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Scientifically speaking, I believe there is no real proof for or against the existence of God. Plenty of arguments have been used by both sides as "proof" of their belief, but although many seem convincing, the reality is that we don't know. Seeing as we have no proof, we should let people believe what they believe. Each to his own.

There's no evidence for the God Hypothesis, so why should we even consider it as an intellectually legitimate concept?

Isn't the complete lack of objective evidence for god(s), and absurdity of trying to disprove their existence, not reason enough for us all to be de facto atheists?


Many people on this forum believe that religion is opposed to Communism. While it is true that religion has been used in the past to control the masses, this does not necessarily make it opposed to Communism on principle. In fact, some elements of religion are similar to the core principles of communism. I believe that a Communist state should be neither atheist of religious, but should allow all beliefs.

What "elements of religion" are these? Submission to a cosmic authority? Doesn't sound very communist to me.

As for a communist society's position on religion, it should be considered something private, like taking a shit. Public preaching should be considered the social equivalent of dropping one's trousers and pinching one out in public.

[Bud Struggle]

As for a communist society's position on religion, it should be considered something private, like taking a shit. Public preaching should be considered the social equivalent of dropping one's trousers and pinching one out in public.

As should your, or my or anyone elses opinion of what others should believe about religion.

People should be allowed to do whatever they want. In a Communist society if someone chooses to preach and someone chooses to listen--that's no one's business but the preacher and the listener. As to why people choose to do what they do--it doesn't matter. That's what freedom is all about. It doesn't even matter if it's logical--freedom trumps logic everytime.

We have to be careful that in giving people some freedoms we don't take away other freedoms.

[Wobblie]

Humanistic Judaism

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As should your, or my or anyone elses opinion of what others should believe about religion.

People should be allowed to do whatever they want. In a Communist society if someone chooses to preach and someone chooses to listen--that's no one's business but the preacher and the listener. As to why people choose to do what they do--it doesn't matter. That's what freedom is all about. It doesn't even matter if it's logical--freedom trumps logic everytime.

We have to be careful that in giving people some freedoms we don't take away other freedoms.

I don't see why people should have the freedom to be a public nuisance just for the hell of it. Someone could claim that it's part of their belief system to let off fireworks outside my flat at 3AM, but I'm still going to throw things at them for doing it.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't see why people should have the freedom to be a public nuisance just for the hell of it. Someone could claim that it's part of their belief system to let off fireworks outside my flat at 3AM, but I'm still going to throw things at them for doing it.

That's kind of a mixed metaphor. Having a church on a street corner isn't bothering anyone. And even things like a public discussion--like that Speakers Corner they have in Hyde Park--comrades should be allowed to discuss ANY issues they care about with anyone to anyone, freely.

You shouldn't make laws against free speach--no matter how repugnant the particular speach is to you.

[FreeBird541]

There's no evidence for the God Hypothesis, so why should we even consider it as an intellectually legitimate concept?

Isn't the complete lack of objective evidence for god(s), and absurdity of trying to disprove their existence, not reason enough for us all to be de facto atheists?

As long as we can't prove thad god doesn't exist, we shouldn't really asssume anything. We don't have a 100% certain explanation of how the universe started, so scientific method dictates that we should consider all hypotheses. By no means should we claim that a god definitely does exist, but by no means should we say that god definitely doesn't exist either. We just have to let people believe what they want to believe, and not press our personal opinions on others.



What "elements of religion" are these? Submission to a cosmic authority? Doesn't sound very communist to me.

No, I mean helping the poor and opressed, charity, social justice, and egalitarianism. Even Mikhail Gorbachev once referred to Jesus as "the first socialist."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As long as we can't prove thad god doesn't exist, we shouldn't really asssume anything.

By that idiotic logic, we shouldn't really assume anything at all, including those things which to any reasonable person are obvious, such as the observation that water is wet.

After all, we can't prove that we aren't being constantly decieved about the true nature of water.

Can you grasp why it's an exercise in futility to prove a negative?


We don't have a 100% certain explanation of how the universe started, so scientific method dictates that we should consider all hypotheses.

Wrong. The scientific method dictates that we should consider all hypotheses in the light of what is already known.

Otherwise scientists would have to give serious thought to the idea that the universe was created by two pan-dimensional crabs called Esmerelda and Keith.


By no means should we claim that a god definitely does exist, but by no means should we say that god definitely doesn't exist either.

Absolute knowledge is impossible, except possibly in mathematics. But even then, there is still the question of probability.

Given what we observe about the universe, the existence of a personal supernatural entity is as close to zero as you can get.


We just have to let people believe what they want to believe, and not press our personal opinions on others.

A lesson the believers seem incapable of absorbing. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible for a believer not to attempt to spread their religion and get it into law, even if they consciously don't want to. Why? Because all the genuinely non-proslytising religions got wiped out by those religions good at propagating themselves.


No, I mean helping the poor and opressed, charity, social justice, and egalitarianism. Even Mikhail Gorbachev once referred to Jesus as "the first socialist."

You seem to be under the impression that communism is about charity, rather than liberation. Not to mention that poverty and injustice are supposedly "part of God's plan" and that charity gives believers an opportunity to win brownie points to get into heaven. As for egalitarianism - are you kidding? Humans may be equal to each other in a given religion, but they still have to submit to God, The Great Universal Spirit, or whatever else the Dictator of the Cosmos is called.

None of that shit has anything to do with socialism. Jesus was no more a socialist than he was a punk. The concept did not exist back then, and it is sheer anachronism to suggest he was one.


You shouldn't make laws against free speach--no matter how repugnant the particular speach is to you.

So according to you, people should be allowed to publicly discuss the best way to groom children for sex?

[Bud Struggle]

So according to you, people should be allowed to publicly discuss the best way to groom children for sex?

(As repugnant as it is to me) yes. They just should not be allowed to actually groom them, etc.

On a more political note: I think (before and after the Revolution) people should be allowed to preach things like Fascism--and if people listen to the Fascists, so be it. (I don't have to say--I'm against Fascism completely.) I think freedom of speech is the best defense against Fascism. As long as it's discussed freely and openly and arguments can be made both for and against it I think people are rational and smart enough to see through its false promises.

If we don't have faith in people's abilities to listen and understand what is best for them--there is no point whatsoever in advocating Communism because it will be just another "imposed" system on people's freedom.

[Adi Shankara]

I don't see why people should have the freedom to be a public nuisance just for the hell of it. Someone could claim that it's part of their belief system to let off fireworks outside my flat at 3AM, but I'm still going to throw things at them for doing it.

but see, I believe you have a right to throw shit at him just as one should have a right to talk about things, whether religion or whatever (as long as it doesn't advocate violence or oppressing one people over another) openly.

I mean, who gets to decide what is "public nuisance" or not? because if we go by pure demography, at least in most of the world and in the poorest of nations, Atheism would lose, and be outlawed as a "public nuisance", because the majority of people on earth aren't atheists, and would choose atheism over religion if one or the other had to be banned.. I'd hate to see that happen, just like I'd hate to see the same happen to religion.

[praxis1966]

I don't see why people should have the freedom to be a public nuisance just for the hell of it. Someone could claim that it's part of their belief system to let off fireworks outside my flat at 3AM, but I'm still going to throw things at them for doing it.

Yeah, but that's a reducto ad absurdum and you know it. Not to mention that banning everything that's a public nuisance is bad for our movement considering protests and the like have a funny way of holding up automobile traffic. I'm not saying this is you, but I don't know where some people get the idea that it's a human right to live an annoyance free existence.


Can you grasp why it's an exercise in futility to prove a negative?

Yes, which is why even though I am for all intents and purposes an atheist, I will go on self-identifying as an agnostic.


Given what we observe about the universe, the existence of a personal supernatural entity is as close to zero as you can get.

And given that it isn't zero, I'll go on calling myself an agnostic and behaving as an atheist. Incidentally, this is something I've never fully been able to wrap my head around. Why, exactly, is it that atheists seem more bothered by agnostics than theists? It doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense to me; we're on your side.:)


So according to you, people should be allowed to publicly discuss the best way to groom children for sex?

Another reducto ad absurdum, but since you asked, yes. Perhaps our differing opinions on this have something to do with culture, you being a Brit and me being an American, but I believe firmly in freedom of speech as long as it's not an imminent threat to public safety. Your example wouldn't meet that standard, but if the people in your example were actively encouraging people to have sex with children, then yes that should be illegal in the same way it's already illegal to stand in front of a large group of people and tell them to bomb abortion clinics.

[People's War]

I won't believe in anything unless I see proof, and I have seen no real proof of there being any deity. Therefore, I am, as I always have been, an atheist.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

I don't see why people should have the freedom to be a public nuisance just for the hell of it. Someone could claim that it's part of their belief system to let off fireworks outside my flat at 3AM, but I'm still going to throw things at them for doing it.

Then football should be banned because it has proved to be a greater nuisance, hooligans and all. Just about anything can be banned following your view, as people will always have a different idea as to what nuisance is.

For you, it is preaching in public; for others it could be people drinking and dancing and celebrating; and for still others, football or whatever. Where will it end? And who the bloody hell has the right to decide on these matters?

[MarxSchmarx]

Oh my God! You need some researching to do. There is not one religion out there that is more scientific, and has discovered more scientific facts and chemistry and such than ISLAM. you need to do some studying. go on a search engine and search "Islam and Science" and you will be blown away, Christianity has little science at ALL and the bible usually makes no sense, not to be offensive to christians, but the bible has been changed over ten thousand times one hunred years after the death of Jesus.

The scientific accomplishments in Islamic societies, and by particular muslims, are certainly substantial and more advanced than Christian societies, at least until the enlightenment. But to attribute this to Islam the religion is exaggeration.

Basically a lot of the accomplishments noted are the result of a developed, cosmopolitan and urban civilization with a nascent bourgeoisie intent upon improving production, techniques especially in agriculture. Indeed the same could be said for confucian society or, to a lesser extent, the polytheistic cultures of India and the meditteranean.

Now, there is a hostility to intellectual pursuits in Christianity, but that is present in most religions. The emphasis has a resonance in Christianity largely due to the fact that it was largely the religion of a poor, severely underdeveloped, backward and provincial shithole known as Europe throughout most of its history.

[BeerShaman]

Agnostic!

[TheSamsquatch]

Militant atheist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

(As repugnant as it is to me) yes. They just should not be allowed to actually groom them, etc.

At least you're consistent.


On a more political note: I think (before and after the Revolution) people should be allowed to preach things like Fascism--and if people listen to the Fascists, so be it. (I don't have to say--I'm against Fascism completely.) I think freedom of speech is the best defense against Fascism. As long as it's discussed freely and openly and arguments can be made both for and against it I think people are rational and smart enough to see through its false promises.

If we don't have faith in people's abilities to listen and understand what is best for them--there is no point whatsoever in advocating Communism because it will be just another "imposed" system on people's freedom.

The problem as I see it is that religion (and possibly fascism too) have a disturbing tendency to subvert people's reasoning abilities, or far more commonly, prevent them from being properly developed at all through childhood indoctrination and accultration.

There's nothing to say that this subversion of reasoning abilities cannot be selective either - there are plenty of believers who are perfectly reasonable on matters unrelated to their religion, but as soon as one broaches the subject, reason is thrown out or inverted into some kind of twisted parody.


Yeah, but that's a reducto ad absurdum and you know it.

I find a reducto can be very good at unveiling faulty logic.


Not to mention that banning everything that's a public nuisance is bad for our movement considering protests and the like have a funny way of holding up automobile traffic. I'm not saying this is you, but I don't know where some people get the idea that it's a human right to live an annoyance free existence.

If a bit of noise on the street during daytime was the only problem with religion I would not make such a fuss about it. But the more obviously obnoxious behaviours of the most ebullient believers are only the tip of the festering boil.

I'm advocating social disapproval, not legal sanctions. They have a tendency to create martyrs, and that's the last bloody thing I want.


Yes, which is why even though I am for all intents and purposes an atheist, I will go on self-identifying as an agnostic.

And given that it isn't zero, I'll go on calling myself an agnostic and behaving as an atheist. Incidentally, this is something I've never fully been able to wrap my head around. Why, exactly, is it that atheists seem more bothered by agnostics than theists? It doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense to me; we're on your side.:)

Small enough probabilities can be ruled out as impossibilities. There may be a greater than zero probability that I will suddenly teleport to San Francisco via some spooky quantum effect, but that probability is so tiny I can rule it out within the predicted lifespan of the universe.

If one agrees with the notion that absolute certainty is impossible, the one must subsitute certainties for statisitical probabilities.


Another reducto ad absurdum, but since you asked, yes. Perhaps our differing opinions on this have something to do with culture, you being a Brit and me being an American, but I believe firmly in freedom of speech as long as it's not an imminent threat to public safety. Your example wouldn't meet that standard, but if the people in your example were actively encouraging people to have sex with children, then yes that should be illegal in the same way it's already illegal to stand in front of a large group of people and tell them to bomb abortion clinics.

So what, for you, constitutes the difference between discussion and advocacy?

[Bud Struggle]

At least you're consistent. One of the (many) pleasures in posting here on RevLeft is it gets one's thoughts on different subjects arranged to a certain logical consistency. :)


The problem as I see it is that religion (and possibly fascism too) have a disturbing tendency to subvert people's reasoning abilities, or far more commonly, prevent them from being properly developed at all through childhood indoctrination and accultration. Agreed. But that goes for anything--Communism included. The problem is that logic in may ways can be a subjective thing. Once one accepts a particular overall world view then everything that follows can be measured quite logically in the internal working of that world view.

The problem with children is that raising them in a completely logical and scientific way without any indoctrination of any sort is virtually impossible. You'd slip in Communism for your kid--I'd slip in Catholicism for mine, because you would not be an impartial teacher and neither would I.

The best we could do is always, always, is try to maintain the fairest playing field by just giving people ALL of the facts and let them choose for themselves. The second you begin to skew things to far one way or another you end up with a Medieval Europe or a North Korea. If you want people to think freely--you have to give them the opportunity to think for themselves and be prepaired that the outcome may not be one you desire.


There's nothing to say that this subversion of reasoning abilities cannot be selective either - there are plenty of believers who are perfectly reasonable on matters unrelated to their religion, but as soon as one broaches the subject, reason is thrown out or inverted into some kind of twisted parody. I agree there too. Some of the best businessmen I know--people that can understand and work the present system in all sorts of complicated and well thought out ways are believing Christians. (I count myself in this group.)

Still--the only answer is freedom of choice and freedom of speech. If you don't let people choose what they want in how they live their lives--you are headed and always will be headed for totalitarianism.

[Adi Shankara]

random but related: Stephen D Unwin, a British mathematician and physicist, using Baye's Theorem within the Anthropic Principle, says he has discovered that the probability of god existing is exactly 67%:


In addition, to simplify the math, Unwin uses a scale of 1 to 3 to evaluate each piece of evidence, indicating no, weak or strong support...To put this into the equation, he uses a 5-level scale, setting the Bayes factor to be 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2 or 10 depending on the comparison of evidence.http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/mar/08/highereducation.uk1

Note: no where in the book does he claim which god or whether it is a god, goddess, whatever, etc. but he says the probability of any higher power existing period is at least 67%.

[Adi Shankara]

Small enough probabilities can be ruled out as impossibilities. There may be a greater than zero probability that I will suddenly teleport to San Francisco via some spooky quantum effect, but that probability is so tiny I can rule it out within the predicted lifespan of the universe.

If one agrees with the notion that absolute certainty is impossible, the one must subsitute certainties for statisitical probabilities.

the funny thing is though, that our very own earth creating intelligent life being subject to the Anthropic Principle is theoretically impossible, considering that there is such a slim chance of life at all:


Watson's model suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low — less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years. http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/19/the-odds-of-intelligent-life-in-the-universe/ And yet, we beat those odds, over a period of 4 billion years, a near mathematical impossibility. some odds are even more ridiculous, with Hugh Ross giving a probability of intelligent on earth 10^100, which is such a huge number it could fill a few lines.

yet we did it anyways, we're all here.

considering the impossible odds we beat...how can we simply just "be here"?

I'm not claiming to know what it is, but I definitely don't think that we are just here by chance, because believing in such a chance is putting as much faith into probability as most people put into god.

[mcg]

I'm excited to see so many Atheists!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

the funny thing is though, that our very own earth creating intelligent life being subject to the Anthropic Principle is theoretically impossible, considering that there is such a slim chance of life at all:

And yet, we beat those odds, over a period of 4 billion years, a near mathematical impossibility. some odds are even more ridiculous, with Hugh Ross giving a probability of intelligent on earth 10^100, which is such a huge number it could fill a few lines.

yet we did it anyways, we're all here.

considering the impossible odds we beat...how can we simply just "be here"?

For the very simple reason that if things were otherwise, we wouldn't be here wondering about it.


I'm not claiming to know what it is, but I definitely don't think that we are just here by chance, because believing in such a chance is putting as much faith into probability as most people put into god.

It's not a matter of faith. If we're here, then that means that intelligent life only had to arise once in the entire span and history of the universe. Considering the sheer size in space and time of the universe I don't think that's asking too much.

[Adi Shankara]

For the very simple reason that if things were otherwise, we wouldn't be here wondering about it.

It's not a matter of faith. If we're here, then that means that intelligent life only had to arise once in the entire span and history of the universe. Considering the sheer size in space and time of the universe I don't think that's asking too much.

It's asking very much. in our own universe, there is, as stated above, between 0.01% and 10^100 odds that we'd even have intelligent life form anywhere, let alone bipedal intelligent life, within the constant of the anthropic principle. the physicist in the book I cited, while he personally believes in a higher power (but he doesn't try to prove or disprove god in his book, just find the probability) says in an interview I found somewhere, that there is more chance of a deck of cards getting caught in a whirlwind, and then falling to create a card castle, where every single layer consists of a different suit.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Considering the chance of this universe being the way that it is and looking at the similarities within all the religious groups from the early tribalistic religions to Hinduism to Zoroastrianism to now... to me that is proof that there is something out there because to me, if there weren't then these similarities wouldn't exist to the degree that they do. Also, with all of the religious phenomena recorded throughout history, yeah some of them were just things of nature that people didn't understand, but there is a lot of stuff that have left some of my former atheistic science teachers questioning themselves.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's asking very much. in our own universe, there is, as stated above, between 0.01% and 10^100 odds that we'd even have intelligent life form anywhere, let alone bipedal intelligent life, within the constant of the anthropic principle.

So? it only had to happen once. You are letting yourself get bamboozled by large numbers. Between 0.01% and 10^100? So what? There are 3e22 to 7e22 stars in the universe that we can see, and it's by no means certain that we can see all of the universe. If inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)) is correct, we are currently only observing a infinitesimal piece of the entirety of existence. Also, 13 billion years is a long time. To give you an idea, that's long enough for life to evolve at least four times on one planet.

Also, who says that a bipedal simian is the only way for an intelligent lifeform to be? That's unwarranted anthropocentrism.


the physicist in the book I cited, while he personally believes in a higher power (but he doesn't try to prove or disprove god in his book, just find the probability) says in an interview I found somewhere, that there is more chance of a deck of cards getting caught in a whirlwind, and then falling to create a card castle, where every single layer consists of a different suit.

Snappy one-liner, but I'd be more impressed if he showed his working.

[praxis1966]

I find a reducto can be very good at unveiling faulty logic.

Assuming that there is faulty logic to begin with, and I don't know that there was.


If a bit of noise on the street during daytime was the only problem with religion I would not make such a fuss about it. But the more obviously obnoxious behaviours of the most ebullient believers are only the tip of the festering boil.

I agree completely. The problem is that I find your initial statement troublingly heavy handed.


I'm advocating social disapproval, not legal sanctions. They have a tendency to create martyrs, and that's the last bloody thing I want.

From this statement it sounds to me like we're actually a lot closer to agreeing than I initially thought. This wasn't clear when I made my post, though...


Small enough probabilities can be ruled out as impossibilities. There may be a greater than zero probability that I will suddenly teleport to San Francisco via some spooky quantum effect, but that probability is so tiny I can rule it out within the predicted lifespan of the universe.

This comes down to a difference of opinion in my estimation. You're willing to make that last leap, I'm not. That's not to say at some point I won't, but for the time being...


If one agrees with the notion that absolute certainty is impossible, the one must subsitute certainties for statisitical probabilities.

Again, I agree that the probability of the existence of the divine is remote. For me, identifying as an agnostic achieves the dual purpose of denying the probability of god but admitting the impossibility of certainty one way or the other. As far as I'm concerned, simultaneously admitting the impossibility of certainty and identifying as atheist (which by definition implies certainty) demonstrates a certain level of cognitive dissonance.


So what, for you, constitutes the difference between discussion and advocacy?

This is a difficult one, but I'd say that advocacy would result in action while discussion does not. It's a bit of mental gymnastics to be sure, but I just can't agree to labeling speech criminal unless it leads to a real criminal act, ie something that infringes upon someone's rights. At that point, what you have is a criminal conspiracy rather than an intellectual discussion.

And yes, I do realize that the above was not immediately clear from my initial statement. Chalk it up to poor word choice.

[Adi Shankara]

So? it only had to happen once. You are letting yourself get bamboozled by large numbers. Between 0.01% and 10^100? So what?

so wait: a higher power is illogical, but incredibly unlikely odds that go into the hundreth power happening is not? I just don't get it.

either way, if an atheist thinks that, given those odds, this all just happened, that they, almost religious faith, into improbable numbers.


There are 3e22 to 7e22 stars in the universe that we can see, and it's by no means certain that we can see all of the universe.

exactly. so the very fact that we all live on the planet earth is baffling to the human mind to imagine that we beat those incredible odds.


If inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29) is correct, we are currently only observing a infinitesimal piece of the entirety of existence. Also, 13 billion years is a long time. To give you an idea, that's long enough for life to evolve at least four times on one planet.

but 4 times for a such a large universe? 13 billion years? that means there is only one single chance every 3.25 billion years for life to evolve. and you think that it was just dumb luck that it happened at all? there is more chance a tornado will hit tampa bay tomorrow, which will cause a pencil to fly into a jet engine, creating a crash to hit the white house killing Obama and his children.


Also, who says that a bipedal simian is the only way for an intelligent lifeform to be? That's unwarranted anthropocentrism.

it was an observation that life is so improbable, and that bipedal simian life--even more so, since such optimal conditions would be required for proper evolution.




Snappy one-liner, but I'd be more impressed if he showed his working.

that's what he does in the book. he shows the equations and the way he reached his conclusions, in layman terms.

[Devrim]

so wait: a higher power is illogical, but incredibly unlikely odds that go into the hundreth power happening is not? I just don't get it.

Incredibly unlikely things happen all the time. The odds against one individual winning the lottery are immensely high, yet week after week, somebody wins the lottery.

If, for example, there is a ten percent chance that player A will beat player B at tennis, we would expect him to win roughly one in ten matches. Would we expect him to win ten matches? Well yes, if they played one hundred matches. Would we expect him to beat her a million times? Yes, if they played ten million matches.

Given the size of the universe and the amount of time involved, it is actually highly likely that individual events which seem, at first glance, statistical unlikely will happen.

Devrim

[Adi Shankara]

Incredibly unlikely things happen all the time. The odds against one individual winning the lottery are immensely high, yet week after week, somebody wins the lottery.

If, for example, there is a ten percent chance that player A will beat player B at tennis, we would expect him to win roughly one in ten matches. Would we expect him to win ten matches? Well yes, if they played one hundred matches. Would we expect him to beat her a million times? Yes, if they played ten million matches.

Given the size of the universe and the amount of time involved, it is actually highly likely that individual events which seem, at first glance, statistical unlikely will happen.

Devrim

But the lottery is a poor analogy, seeing as there are multiple chances for increased odds (i.e, the constant purchasing of lottery tickets, multiple drawings, etc.) whereas with the universe, there has always been one constant.

also, the lottery is an artificial construct. we know where it came from. it was designed by it's creator to have highly improbable odds. the earth came out of no where, and works like a perfect mechanism. If no one or no higher power designed the probability of creation to be so high, then why is it so high?

[Adi Shankara]

And in the end, strong atheism is still faith based; it's based in the faith that highly improbable math that would be theoretically impossible in terms of odds on earth, were beaten and life just sort've was.

I don't see how that is different from religion, which is based on the belief that a highly improbable created the earth in what is theoretically impossible in terms of actually happening.

tl;dr: strong atheism and religion are based on the exact same principles of faith.

[Invincible Summer]

And in the end, strong atheism is still faith based; it's based in the faith that highly improbable math that would be theoretically impossible in terms of odds on earth, were beaten and life just sort've was.

I don't see how that is different from religion, which is based on the belief that a highly improbable created the earth in what is theoretically impossible in terms of actually happening.

tl;dr: strong atheism and religion are based on the exact same principles of faith.

The thing is, the "faith" of atheists doesn't go beyond that, unlike religious discourse.

[Devrim]

But the lottery is a poor analogy, seeing as there are multiple chances for increased odds (i.e, the constant purchasing of lottery tickets, multiple drawings, etc.) whereas with the universe, there has always been one constant.

also, the lottery is an artificial construct. we know where it came from. it was designed by it's creator to have highly improbable odds. the earth came out of no where, and works like a perfect mechanism. If no one or no higher power designed the probability of creation to be so high, then why is it so high?


The lottery is only an analogy. I was trying to demonstrate a point about statistics. The lottery in itself and any details about it are unimportant.

Let's take another example, let's say that the odds for finding a $100 bill on the side-walk are 100,000,000 to one on any given day*. If we take people's lives as about 250,000 days long, which would give you a 400-1 shot of it happening in your life, still pretty unlikely.

However, on any given day the odds say that 3 people in the US will actually find a $100 bill on the street however unlikely it may be that it will happen to one specific individual. In fact if a week went by without it happening to somebody, we would be quite shocked.

The human brain has not evolved to intuitively understand statistics on a large scale. It evolved for us to deal with things that would happen in our everyday lives. When we think about things that appear to us to be so unlikely as to be almost impossible, they are in fact actually so probable as to be virtually inevitable on a universal scale.

Also a point to note is that we have no idea how likely life is as we don't have a large enough sample to judge from.

Devrim

*The actual odds aren't important. It is a demonstration of how statistics work, not the chance of finding money.

[eclipse]

Lifelong Atheist, and even very intense examination of all kind of religions and their belief didn`t change that. I have no problems with religious people as long as they do not try to search political power for their faith or try to indoctrinate children.
Of course, I cannot be sure about the existence of gods, or about invisible, pink unicorns but I have encountered nothing pointing in that direction so far.

Some arguments:
To quote Xenophanes, "if horses had gods, they would look like horses". The Gods of all the religions are human-like concepts and even the abstract ones rely on human prophets. If the causa sine causatis (or the unknown source of the universe) is the argument for a god, this i quite pathetic i think. Why should the "source of the universe" be intelligent in a humanlike kind of way, or comprehensible as a "being" at all intead of a force of nature. If there might be other life out there, what do you think they might believe? ^^

Also, i find it strange that religious people argue with ultimate truth but deny the ultimate truth of all the other religions. There are pan - religious iniatives, Baha`i and the like come to mind, but even they fit not together with the others.
If something godlike is out there, human religion is seemingly unable to grasp its truth in any way.

Third point for me, if there is something like this, it obviously does not influence my life in any way. So why pay reverence? I could hope for a kind of afterlife, but all this religions are contradicting themselves there, and I commit sins anyhow. So I jut be surprised. If there really is a christian hell, well, i`ll meet all my friends there. ;)

But after all, I believe in similar absurd concepts to keep me up ("free will" and such) and religion works for many people in a similar way, keeping morals high.
If they need it, fine with me. If they suscribe to certain dogmas, well too, but it puzzles me. If they try to influence politics to favor religious concepts, fight them if it doesn`t fit into a progresive direction.

[Crimson Commissar]

I'm an Atheist and an Anti-Theist. I believe that religion is harmful to human society and slows down technological and social progress, and therefore it must be removed from our society in some way. I don't advocate extreme methods of dealing with religion however, I think it is necessary that people are educated about the flaws of religion and taught why it is both impossible and illogical, until after some time Atheism simply becomes the logical way of thinking and any religious person that was left would just keep his faith a personal, private matter.

[Adi Shankara]

Lifelong Atheist, and even very intense examination of all kind of religions and their belief didn`t change that. I have no problems with religious people as long as they do not try to search political power for their faith or try to indoctrinate children.
Of course, I cannot be sure about the existence of gods, or about invisible, pink unicorns but I have encountered nothing pointing in that direction so far.

[QUOTE=onewayticket;1801991]To quote Xenophanes, "if horses had gods, they would look like horses". The Gods of all the religions are human-like concepts and even the abstract ones rely on human prophets. If the causa sine causatis (or the unknown source of the universe) is the argument for a god, this i quite pathetic i think. Why should the "source of the universe" be intelligent in a humanlike kind of way, or comprehensible as a "being" at all intead of a force of nature. If there might be other life out there, what do you think they might believe?


I really am not trying to be rude or sarcastic,and say this with respect, but I don't think you have done as much close religious research as you meant to. I am a follower of Dharmic religion (that is, the sort of religions that originate in Hinduism and Buddhism, Jainism, etc.) and there is no "god" with human attributes that creates everything; in Hinduism, it's called the Brahman, which is a synonym for "the unknowable".


Also, i find it strange that religious people argue with ultimate truth but deny the ultimate truth of all the other religions. There are pan - religious iniatives, Baha`i and the like come to mind, but even they fit not together with the others.
If something godlike is out there, human religion is seemingly unable to grasp its truth in any way.

Mainstream Hinduism as taught by Adi Shankara in the 8th century doens't agree with this notion. I don't deny any religious notion, even a complete total positive disbelief in God (btw: even Hinduism, in the form of Nastika, has atheists)


Third point for me, if there is something like this, it obviously does not influence my life in any way. So why pay reverence? I could hope for a kind of afterlife, but all this religions are contradicting themselves there, and I commit sins anyhow. So I jut be surprised. If there really is a christian hell, well, i`ll meet all my friends there. ;)

once again, it seems you based your entire dialectical analysis in only Western theology. in Hinduism, there are those who worship for boons, yes, but there are many schools, including many ascetic monk traditions, that don't worship for boons. they worship strictly to simply celebrate the concept of their own living within an earth that they also admit has a very high probability. I fit more into the latter than the former.



If they need it, fine with me. If they suscribe to certain dogmas, well too, but it puzzles me. If they try to influence politics to favor religious concepts, fight them if it doesn`t fit into a progresive direction.

I couldn't agree more; it's whatever works for you. and that's why I recognize the validity of true Hinduism as taught in the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, and the works of Adi Shankara, and not this caste-dividing, cow-worshipping variety that seems to have perverted the mainstream hindu thought.

I used to be a catholic. I was born and raised as one, and for many years, I was a practitioner. then I started getting into the works of Christopher Hitchens and what not, and became an atheist. for many years I was an athiest, though I never was opposed to religion on any grounds, because that wasn't for me to proselytize or "convert", so to speak, anyone to my beliefs.

then I realized it wasn't the belief in a higher power I had a problem with...it was just the belief in one supreme god that rules all with an iron fist. however to this day I still deeply respect anyone who has beliefs that guide them to do good things, whether it be Christopher Hitchens (though his politics suck these days) before he became a right-wing apologist, or the Catholic bishops of Nicaragua who stood by the Communist revolution of Nicaragua. I think that if a belief makes someone better, they should keep it.

[Pretty Flaco]

I've been reading into Daoism recently and I'm starting to love a lot of their philosophies. :lol:
Tao Te Ching was actually a pretty interesting read.

[eclipse]

I really am not trying to be rude or sarcastic,and say this with respect, but I don't think you have done as much close religious research as you meant to. I am a follower of Dharmic religion (that is, the sort of religions that originate in Hinduism and Buddhism, Jainism, etc.) and there is no "god" with human attributes that creates everything; in Hinduism, it's called the Brahman, which is a synonym for "the unknowable".


Well, certainly its impossible to know every religion by heart.
There are all kinds of religions, the anthropocentric views are mostly in there, in all kinds of forms. Ok, it gets difficult in religions who have a more philosophic aproach, self enlightment (Bhodisattvas, Tirthankaras, Gurus) and such things.
The Brahman might be an abstract concept, like the modern, abrahamic god is too, to many, but they all packed into a narration conceiving them in a humanlike form.
Doesn`t Brahma have a wife? If you leave the narration aside, in the case of abstract gods, you are left with a force of nature that has no relation to you other than that you might be a part of it. If you reach that level, i could ay I could believe in that kind of god, but it has no relevance to my life at all.

Hinduism is quite good in integrating other deities in its cosm though. I knew a man in Chennai who had Jesus lined up next to Shiva in his house, believing in both. ^^


to simply celebrate the concept of their own living within an earth
If I want to do that, why do I need religion in any form or the notion of unproveable spiritual beings and forces for it? ^^

Sometimes I come to the conclusion, that progressive religions must work like a language. It`s a cultural rich language that speaks mainly in metaphors and parables with a long tradition. Many people are used to speaking it, it`s an integral part of their lives they don`t want to miss. There are people who take the metaphors for real, that might be fundamentalists, some time in history they might have been the majority, perhaps they are still.
I for my part, have not learned the language, and when I try to, I find that I can maybe express exactly the same things in a much easier and direct way. Reverence for life on earth and the fascination of the whole universe and the unsolveable questions? Sure. But I do not need to call it god.
Virtuous life, authencity and consequence in ones actions? Its a good goal which I share. But I don`t believe it leads to an end of reincarnation or that there even is something like that at all.

[FreeBird541]

By that idiotic logic, we shouldn't really assume anything at all, including those things which to any reasonable person are obvious, such as the observation that water is wet.

After all, we can't prove that we aren't being constantly decieved about the true nature of water.

Can you grasp why it's an exercise in futility to prove a negative?

Of course we cannot prove the true cause of the creation of the universe. And yes, by this logic, we shouldn't assume most things to a complete extent. However, there are two things that distinguish the creation of the universe question from all others.

First, we have absolutely no actual idea what caused the universe. Religion is a theory, and just that. There is no proof for it, it is true, but until we can come up with a theory with proof, you cannot say that religion is necessarily untrue. And what does this mean? Does it mean that God exists? No. Does it mean that God doesn't exist? No. It only means that we should all shut up and stop being religiously/antireligiously militant.

Second, most logical questions have consequences for our lives, and to obtain sucess, we must come to one conclusion. In these cases, we must assume the most likely choice in order to obtain the highest chance of sucess. However, in matters of religion, there is basically no impact on daily life. Therefore, there is no need to assume anything. Everybody can believe what they feel is right.

In the few cases that religion does have an impact on everyday life, such as when a person's behaviour are regulated by religious rules, it's impact is generally limited to the person. Therefore, his choice in religion/lack of religion affects only himself/herself. This is just like somebody making a decision, for themselves, to smoke or drink inside their home, or not to. The only problem is when religious choices affect other people negatively. Then, and only then, must it be controlled, just like smoking in a childcare centre should be controlled.



A lesson the believers seem incapable of absorbing. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible for a believer not to attempt to spread their religion and get it into law, even if they consciously don't want to. Why? Because all the genuinely non-proslytising religions got wiped out by those religions good at propagating themselves. True enough, many believers are extremely militant about spreading their religion. However, many atheists are just as bad. People on both sides can discuss religion, but we should avoid pressing our beliefs on others. Is it possible? Of course. Even if a religion has attempted to propagate itself, it does not mean that militant propagation is an inherent part of the religion. Believers and nonbelievers can still make a decision to shut up.




You seem to be under the impression that communism is about charity, rather than liberation. Not to mention that poverty and injustice are supposedly "part of God's plan" and that charity gives believers an opportunity to win brownie points to get into heaven. As for egalitarianism - are you kidding? Humans may be equal to each other in a given religion, but they still have to submit to God, The Great Universal Spirit, or whatever else the Dictator of the Cosmos is called.

None of that shit has anything to do with socialism. Jesus was no more a socialist than he was a punk. The concept did not exist back then, and it is sheer anachronism to suggest he was one.

Communism is about a lot of things. It's about liberation, social justice, freedom, and equality. Charity is an attempt to work towards these things within the capitalist system. And while I believe that it will ultimately get nowhere, it is still well intentioned. And can it help sometimes? I believe so, in certain limited cases (although it won't make much of an impact on the general picture).

And as for egalitarianism, although humans are still not, within religion, equal to god, equality with each other was already a major step in Jesus' time. And really, if we assume we won't come into contact with god within this lifetime, equality within humans is all that is necessary. Although the principles of christianity are still far from the principles of communism, at the time, it was still much closer towards it than previous ideals of society.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Of course we cannot prove the true cause of the creation of the universe. And yes, by this logic, we shouldn't assume most things to a complete extent. However, there are two things that distinguish the creation of the universe question from all others.

We can observe the universe and deduce what happened (how it formed) from what we observe. The only assumption it requires is that our senses are not deceiving us. If they are, then all bets are off.

However, belief in the supernatural requires multiple assumptions. I go with the simplest hypothesis.


First, we have absolutely no actual idea what caused the universe.

I would argue that since universe comprises the entirety of space and time, and causes need space and time to happen in, then it seems reasonable to propose the possibility that the universe is acausal, multiple universes notwithstanding.


Religion is a theory, and just that.

Actually, religion is a heck of a lot more than just a hypothesis for the origin of the universe. Since day one, the clergy have been making hay of the fact that we don't know the full story of how the universe came to be, using it to justify themselves.


There is no proof for it, it is true, but until we can come up with a theory with proof, you cannot say that religion is necessarily untrue.

Science describes an origin of the universe that is at variance with all but the vaguest readings of ancient creation myths.


And what does this mean? Does it mean that God exists? No. Does it mean that God doesn't exist? No. It only means that we should all shut up and stop being religiously/antireligiously militant.

Fuck that. Religion needs to be criticised, not protected from same.


Second, most logical questions have consequences for our lives, and to obtain sucess, we must come to one conclusion. In these cases, we must assume the most likely choice in order to obtain the highest chance of sucess. However, in matters of religion, there is basically no impact on daily life. Therefore, there is no need to assume anything. Everybody can believe what they feel is right.

The problem is that religion has real-world clout.


In the few cases that religion does have an impact on everyday life, such as when a person's behaviour are regulated by religious rules, it's impact is generally limited to the person. Therefore, his choice in religion/lack of religion affects only himself/herself. This is just like somebody making a decision, for themselves, to smoke or drink inside their home, or not to. The only problem is when religious choices affect other people negatively. Then, and only then, must it be controlled, just like smoking in a childcare centre should be controlled.

I agree. The thing is, you don't seem to realise how saturated with religion society generally is. We may not all live in theocracies, but religion colours the culture of the vast majority of the human population.


True enough, many believers are extremely militant about spreading their religion. However, many atheists are just as bad. People on both sides can discuss religion, but we should avoid pressing our beliefs on others.

I'm criticising religion on the internet, while some shithead elsewhere is having some poor unfortunate beheaded or chased out or disowned for "apostasy".

How am I (and most militant atheists for that matter) "just as bad" as militant religionists?


Is it possible? Of course. Even if a religion has attempted to propagate itself, it does not mean that militant propagation is an inherent part of the religion. Believers and nonbelievers can still make a decision to shut up.

Sure, individuals may decide not to propagate their worldview, but others will. The more a religion's adherents proselytise, the more likely the religion is to spread. This has been going on for thousands of years, hence the religions with billions of followers.


Communism is about a lot of things. It's about liberation, social justice, freedom, and equality. Charity is an attempt to work towards these things within the capitalist system. And while I believe that it will ultimately get nowhere, it is still well intentioned. And can it help sometimes? I believe so, in certain limited cases (although it won't make much of an impact on the general picture).

As you admit yourself, charity won't liberate us, so even by that absurd measure Jesus was no communist.


And as for egalitarianism, although humans are still not, within religion, equal to god, equality with each other was already a major step in Jesus' time. And really, if we assume we won't come into contact with god within this lifetime, equality within humans is all that is necessary. Although the principles of christianity are still far from the principles of communism, at the time, it was still much closer towards it than previous ideals of society.

You can't just brush off God as unimportant to Christianity - certainly many Christians would be horrified at your heresy. Which brings me to another point - the nice fluffy Christians are a rare breed. There are plenty of believers who would happily murder atheists.

[Stephen Colbert]

Buddhism is not a religion

[eclipse]

Buddhism is not a religion
Why is that? How would you define religion? I think the concept of reincarnation sounds pretty spiritual for example?

[Adi Shankara]

Buddhism is not a religion

a religion is more than just a belief in god(s) and of an afterlife.

[tigerlily]

I'm currently a Liberal Quaker.

But, as there is a Reform Temple within walking distance from my house, I was looking into Reform Judaism.

But after all this isht with Israel, and after the whole Rotem Conversion Bill being presented, I've kind of lost that spark for Judaism.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

mm... I just kinda junked this poll because I voted Christian, but I recently converted to Zoroastrianism.... :p

[Stephen Colbert]

Why is that? How would you define religion? I think the concept of reincarnation sounds pretty spiritual for example?

Buddhism has absolutely nothing to do with the afterlife or anything divine. It is introspective, and enlightenment comes from within, on earth. There is no doctrine per se.

[Adi Shankara]

Buddhism has absolutely nothing to do with the afterlife or anything divine. It is introspective, and enlightenment comes from within, on earth. There is no doctrine per se.

It has much to do with the afterlife; buddhists believe we keep reincarnating until we escape the cycle of life and death through the understanding the nature of non-reality.

[Aloysius]

I'm Christian by choice, because I think everyone needs to be loved and I'm pretty sure Christianity is the only faith with a deity that loves you.

[Urko]

I'm Christian by choice, because I think everyone needs to be loved and I'm pretty sure Christianity is the only faith with a deity that loves you.
this is sarcasm right?

[Invincible Summer]

It has much to do with the afterlife; buddhists believe we keep reincarnating until we escape the cycle of life and death through the understanding the nature of non-reality.
I'm still learning, but isn't that the view of Theravada Buddhism? From what I understand, Mahayana Buddhism states that the elimination of samsara is desired, not just transcending it.


I'm Christian by choice, because I think everyone needs to be loved and I'm pretty sure Christianity is the only faith with a deity that loves you.
That sounds really needy. And what is different about an invisible, impersonal deity's love that's better than the love from my gf, or friends?

[Urko]

And what is different about an invisible, impersonal deity's love that's better than the love from my gf, or friends?
You don't go to hell if you disagree with them

[eclipse]

You don't go to hell if you disagree with them
depends ^^


It has much to do with the afterlife; buddhists believe we keep reincarnating until we escape the cycle of life and death
This was my understanding too.

[FreeBird541]

We can observe the universe and deduce what happened (how it formed) from what we observe. The only assumption it requires is that our senses are not deceiving us. If they are, then all bets are off.

However, belief in the supernatural requires multiple assumptions. I go with the simplest hypothesis.Fine, but you can't expect everyone else to do the same. Since there are many hypotheses, simple or non-simple, people should be free to pick what seems right to them. Anyway, the theories of mast major religions, while not being supported by scientific observation, are not strictly incompatible with it either.



I would argue that since universe comprises the entirety of space and time, and causes need space and time to happen in, then it seems reasonable to propose the possibility that the universe is acausal, multiple universes notwithstanding. Perhaps. But how would a universe come about without a cause, given that the universe arose at a point in time (the Big Bang) and was not around for eternity?



Actually, religion is a heck of a lot more than just a hypothesis for the origin of the universe. Since day one, the clergy have been making hay of the fact that we don't know the full story of how the universe came to be, using it to justify themselves.
Yeah, clerics have historically used religion to abuse power, but if we seperate social structures from religion, their influence is minor. Already, the clerics' influence in most countries, outside of theocracies, is relatively minor, and is still reducing. Priests may have some power to influence the religious beliefs of the people they are preaching to, but this doesn't really influence power structures of society and does not have much of a negative influence, unless the beliefs are extremist. Essentially, in a society with structures seperate from religion, preaching is just providing another viewpoint for a person to choose from, and as long as everyone has enough exposure to various viewpoints, this is not harmful.


Fuck that. Religion needs to be criticised, not protected from same.And why is atheism immune to criticism? If you open religion to criticism, it means you must be tolerant of some conservative fucker on some extremist website ranting about atheism.


I agree. The thing is, you don't seem to realise how saturated with religion society generally is. We may not all live in theocracies, but religion colours the culture of the vast majority of the human population. The problem with today's society in religion is that religious people often try to portray themselves as morally superior to others. As long as we eliminate this, by spreading the ideal of free choice of belief, and everyone has freedom to choose their own belief, then we're fine.

The thing is, while I oppose cultural domination of a society by religious forces, cultural domination by atheist forces would be just as bad. People should have a freedom to choose their own belief. When an atheist-dominated culture makes it a shameful thing to have a religion, then it is just as damaging to freedom as a culture which makes it a shameful thing to not have a religion.


I'm criticising religion on the internet, while some shithead elsewhere is having some poor unfortunate beheaded or chased out or disowned for "apostasy".

How am I (and most militant atheists for that matter) "just as bad" as militant religionists?How are militant atheists not as bad? I'm not comparing a militant atheist who criticises religion over the internet to someone who uses coercion and cruelty to force religion on others; I'm comparing them to religious people who militantly promote religion over the internet. Militant religionists who use force can only be compared to militant atheists who use the same force.

All I'm saying is you shouldn't be militant in promoting your belief, regardless of what it is.


Sure, individuals may decide not to propagate their worldview, but others will. The more a religion's adherents proselytise, the more likely the religion is to spread. This has been going on for thousands of years, hence the religions with billions of followers.If we discourage militant propagation, proselytising among religions can be reduced. The main thing is that we must expose everyone to a significant amount of information, from a various amount of sources, in order to give them true freedom of choice. Preachig and proselytising, as long as it is not overly agressive, is, as I have said, just another viewpoint a person can choose from. If we can control militant propagation, moderate preaching and propagation is not harmful.

Anyway, isn't atheism a belief which propagates itself?


As you admit yourself, charity won't liberate us, so even by that absurd measure Jesus was no communist.
Jesus may not have been a communist, but his values of equality among people was a significant step forwards from the values of previous religions, which did not promote equality. I think that Jesus had a positive influence on the world, as he moved the world from far less egalitarian social structures to a society which at least has the beginnings of egalitariansm, although there's still a long way to go.

Sure, there were abuses of power by clerics and the like, but these abuses would have happened anyway, probably worse, under previous beliefs. So while Jesus may not have been a perfect communist, he was one of the steps towards communism. Progress has to be made in steps. If we exposed communism to the people of the time, I doubt they would accept it. Christianity's core values were probably as close you could get. Even now, many people (and unfortunately many Christians who don't seem to understand their religion) can not accept the level of equality in Christianity.


You can't just brush off God as unimportant to Christianity - certainly many Christians would be horrified at your heresy. Which brings me to another point - the nice fluffy Christians are a rare breed. There are plenty of believers who would happily murder atheists.I've known plenty of Christians, and really, most of them are pretty moderate. There are a few extremists, but there aren't that many, and if we enforce anti-extremism, there would be even fewer. However, anti-extremism is a double-edged sword - Christians who whould happily murder atheists should be criticized just as much as atheists who would do the same to Christians.

I'm not brushing off God as unimportant to Christians. All I'm saying is that in a society where everyone can choose what they believe, the importance of God is different in every person's mind. Essentially, everyone gets to choose how important God is to them. Since human-God relationships are on a completely different plane to human-human relationships, a person's chosen importance of God has no effect on human-human relationships, and is therefore not damaging to an egalitarian society. And since a person gets to choose how important God is to them, this is not damaging to egalitarianism either.

[Stephen Colbert]

It has much to do with the afterlife; buddhists believe we keep reincarnating until we escape the cycle of life and death through the understanding the nature of non-reality.

Could have sworn actual Buddhist "doctrine" focuses on life and attaining heaven on earth. I dont think it covers a lot of the afterlife. I could be wrong though. I know Zen is very focused on earthly meditation maybe im wrong idk

Ive heard arguments both ways-- religion vs philosophy

[Theoneontheleft]

I regard the Bible and other religious text as a good books on morality, but I generally think that organized religion is becoming a sham today. I personally like to pray, meditate, and get in touch with the "Marvel of the Universe" in my own home.

[Adi Shankara]

well I was watching a debate today between Cees Dekker a prominant biophysicist Christian in the Netherlands and an atheist philosopher, and the question of "is altruism explainable by evolution" and what was interesting was the atheist couldn't really answer the question beyond the idea of ulterior motivation--but anyone who has given a dollar to a homeless man knows that we don't all do it so people look at us and say "geez aren't we cool!"

or we aren't all communists so others say "look how revolutionary those dudes are over there!"

No. Altruism is almost universally inherent, and has been throughout history in one form or another, and you'd think that it'd leave us at a biological disadvantage, but nonetheless, people continue to be altruistic.

whether this is inspired by an inherent religious subconcious is debatable and controversial, but I find it interesting whenever we have traits that are seemingly unexplained by evolution.

[Invincible Summer]

I regard the Bible and other religious text as a good books on morality, but I generally think that organized religion is becoming a sham today. I personally like to pray, meditate, and get in touch with the "Marvel of the Universe" in my own home.

Ew. So you're socially conservative?


But all the "moral lessons" are pretty much the same though, aren't they? More or less, "Don't be a dick?"

[Adi Shankara]

Ew. So you're socially conservative?


But all the "moral lessons" are pretty much the same though, aren't they? More or less, "Don't be a dick?"

Hinduism and Buddhism do not really preach morality, per se; they pretty much use analytical arguments to say "if you do this, then this shit happens to you".

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Hinduism and Buddhism do not really preach morality, per se; they pretty much use analytical arguments to say "if you do this, then this shit happens to you".

That is true of all pagan traditions - 'anything goes' is their philosophy. Abrahamic traditions were the first to openly condemn murder, theft etc. Until then, these things were considered 'normal'.

[Invincible Summer]

That is true of all pagan traditions - 'anything goes' is their philosophy. Abrahamic traditions were the first to openly condemn murder, theft etc. Until then, these things were considered 'normal'.

Your Eurocentric Christianness is revolting.

"Pagan" (I'm assuming you're using this as a pejorative against non-Christian traditions) beliefs do not just say "Anything goes." Things still have consequences. For instance, in Wicca, if you intentionally do something harmful to someone else, they believe that it will come back threefold.

So what is your proof?

[Adi Shankara]

I'm still learning, but isn't that the view of Theravada Buddhism? From what I understand, Mahayana Buddhism states that the elimination of samsara is desired, not just transcending it.


Well yes and no; in Therevada, the freedom of nirvana/nibbana can be obtained by becoming arhatta, that is, someone who has risen to high enough of a spiritual practice that they can live free from reaction to want and desire, so it is sort've nirvana, it kind've isn't.

to think of it, see an "arhat" as vice president, and "buddha" as president; arhat is second only to obtaining full nirvana, only they don't have knowledge of all dharma like a buddha would, but they have knowledge of the emptiness of self and the unreality of the world.

[x371322]

That is true of all pagan traditions - 'anything goes' is their philosophy. Abrahamic traditions were the first to openly condemn murder, theft etc. Until then, these things were considered 'normal'.

:blink:

Mr. Gandhi, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


... Haha. Movie references.

[Adi Shankara]

That is true of all pagan traditions - 'anything goes' is their philosophy. Abrahamic traditions were the first to openly condemn murder, theft etc. Until then, these things were considered 'normal'.

I've come to the conclusion you're just a poorly skilled troll; the word "pagan" has been a pejorative for quite some time; would you enjoy it if I disrespected your religion (if it even is your religion) by calling Jesus "some man who hung on a cross for no reason?" you'd find it gravely disrespectful. hence why I find the label "pagan" quite chauvinistic.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

"Pagan" (I'm assuming you're using this as a pejorative against non-Christian traditions)

The dictionary gives the following meaning: someone motived by sensual pleasures.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

I've come to the conclusion you're just a poorly skilled troll;

Maybe so, but tell me one thing: is Bin Laden a hero or terrorist?;)

[Devrim]

No. Altruism is almost universally inherent, and has been throughout history in one form or another, and you'd think that it'd leave us at a biological disadvantage, but nonetheless, people continue to be altruistic.

Why would you think that, and why would it even be relevant?

Devrim

[Adi Shankara]

Maybe so, but tell me one thing: is Bin Laden a hero or terrorist?;)

Touche.


Why would you think that, and why would it even be relevant?

in a historical context, time that could've been used for harvesting food and sexual reproduction, or used for rearing one's own child, has been used for the advancement of others. also, the monastic/nomadic traveller traditions, of which almost every culture has in one way or another.

[Devrim]

in a historical context, time that could've been used for harvesting food and sexual reproduction, or used for rearing one's own child, has been used for the advancement of others.

I think that you are looking at evolution in the wrong way. Natural selection as a process does not favour things that are 'good' for the individual. If that were the case the lives, and deaths of male Black Widow spiders would be something that would be very difficult to understand.

What natural selection does favour is genes that make versions of them selves appear in the next generation.

In this way altruism can become a genetically programmed response. Humans respond to small children. We think they are sweet etc and take care of them. Incidentally in many humans the response is generalised to lots of other baby mammals. Now, I would imagine that one of the reasons for this is that the infants that we come across most are our own kin, i.e. those who share our jeans. and that mamals that weren't programmed to look after their own babies would go extinct as a species pretty quickly.

As a species that evolved in small kin based groups it is quite natural that humans developed feelings of altruism as most of the people in a group would share your own genes, and genes that made the collective successful would have a tendency to survive, and flourish.

Richard Dawkins discusses altruism at length in his book 'The Selfish Gene'.


also, the monastic/nomadic traveller traditions, of which almost every culture has in one way or another.

I don't really understand what your point is here.

Devrim

[Invincible Summer]

The dictionary gives the following meaning: someone motived by sensual pleasures.

Uh... okay... well what religions are motivated by sensual pleasure, other than Laveyan Satanism?

[Optiow]

None. I believe religion to be a lie that is used to control people.

[BLACKPLATES]

agreed. That separation has to be unequivocal (in a constitution.) Outside of that i think that belief, spirituality of whatever kind seems to be a human imperative and cant be educated out of us. I dont see this as being a problem in a democracy as long as its contained by a wall of separation. Science cant provide solutions to philisophical problems, and (outside of democratic government, rule of law and Marxist economics), philosophical questions are best solved by individuals to their own satisfaction.
BTW im fascinated with polytheism. one God is completely insufficient.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Uh... okay... well what religions are motivated by sensual pleasure, other than Laveyan Satanism?

All of them except Abrahamic ones. They simply clothe it in respectable terms, that's all. Their sensual and materialistic desires become their new 'gods'. That's why most of the pagan gods are nothing more than man's desires, hopes etc. In other words, pagan gods aren't gods: they are simply projections of man's greed and cruelty.

[x371322]

All of them except Abrahamic ones. They simply clothe it in respectable terms, that's all. Their sensual and materialistic desires become their new 'gods'. That's why most of the pagan gods are nothing more than man's desires, hopes etc. In other words, pagan gods aren't gods: they are simply projections of man's greed and cruelty.

Now do you have any actual evidence of this? Other than more tripe pulled out of your ass?



That's why most of the pagan gods are nothing more than man's desires, hopes etc.

Yeah, because the Egyptian Gods of the sky, the desert, the sun, cats, and embalming (Nut, Seth, Ra, Bastet, and Anubis respectively) are just projections of man's carnal greed and lust.

:rolleyes: