God

[Dyst]

I've been against organized religion as far as I can remember as well.

By organized religion I mean the line of thought that the Church and every religious society has created up through the years. Believing in such stories is to me exactly like believing in stories for children, one would of thought any sane person would pass it as mumble-jumble.

However, philosophically, I can see why many believe in God. This does not mean I can see why many belong to a religion, though. Personally I like to think of all the world as numbers. Not the kind of numbers you probably think of, like 1-9 and the symbols we have made for them, but amounts. Thinking like this, it is easy to come to the conclusion that the universe is infinite (infinite numbers) and, I suppose, that there is a God, which would be the number one. The number 1 has generated all other numbers and you gotta have 1 or else there would be no other numbers.

So even though I do believe there exists reasons to believe in God on a philosophical level (one could say, taking a scientific approach to the subject) I agree with the general opinion, that believing in religions' Book of Lies is reactionary bullshit.

What I am saying is that don't just consider it all the same. Some thinks through things like this.

[mzalendo]

hell NO theres no god thats the capitalists strategy of holding at ransom the world....lets face it comrades how come african brothers have always been at the receiving end ever since the days of yore...slavery colonialism AIDS just to name a few....where is this god in all these....let nobody tell u different man god is just a manifestation of your imaginatio.PERIOD!

[Sentinel]

hell NO theres no god thats the capitalists strategy of holding at ransom the world....lets face it comrades how come african brothers have always been at the receiving end ever since the days of yore...slavery colonialism AIDS just to name a few....where is this god in all these....let nobody tell u different man god is just a manifestation of your imaginatio.PERIOD!

Now THAT was the kind of first post I enjoy to see! Welcome to RevLeft comrade! :)

How indeed would the "loving god" let shit like that happen to his "children".

It's essential for us communists, as advocates of truth in this world, to realise that religion has to go. If you are having problems with ignorant folks who try to "convert" you into such bullshit, read our excellent Burden of Proof Thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457). The arguments presented therein will give them something to think about.
;)

[dusk]

I just can't believe it!

[BillHicks]

I believe in myself, that counts I suppose.

[Ol' Dirty]

Both realist and religious philosophies can't be proven either way, as god is a theory, nothing more.

[Free Left]

I'm a devout humanist, I suppose all Communists are but I think people should STOP looking to Gods to solve their problems and just start believing that THEY can do something.
I am not afraid of death regardles of whether there is something afterwards or not. In my view non-existence is heaven because Life is a constant struggle and to be freed of that struggle would be bliss, pure and simple.

[Olly1990]

I am an agnostic cos my theory is that if there is a god, hopefully he would forgive any ignorance and if there isn't... well we have not devoted our lives to a lost cause. ;)

[Gunman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 03:25 AM
How can there be a god if such horrors as harlequin ichtyosis exist?

No.
That´s one of the best arguments in favor of Atheism I´ve ever heard. Seriously.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

think about it, the Universe is bigger than God himself. To me "god" or that superior being is the Universe, everything that surrounds us, nature. The god spoken in the Bible, and other religious books, are mere creations of the human mind.

and to ask if he exists, well, do you believe you exist? what is the point of life? what is our purpouse? nothing, life is meaningless. That is why even if we try to change things, the human nature, and nature itself always gets passed it.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

also to those who talk about death etc. please, dont worry, it is pointless to worry about the inevitable, but like someone once said, which i cant remember his name, "The first step in inmortality, is death"

[Bannockburn]

Of course there is no God. God is simply the ghost of an old culture haunting us today. God was simply an explanation for primitive people's.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Gunman+Mar 7 2006, 11:10 PM--> (Gunman @ Mar 7 2006, 11:10 PM)
[email protected] 31 2006, 03:25 AM
How can there be a god if such horrors as harlequin ichtyosis exist?

No.
That´s one of the best arguments in favor of Atheism I´ve ever heard. Seriously. [/b]
But they were sinners of course...

[Tre]

I believe there is a god, but I don't follow any particular religion. Life is not about worship of a god or gods, live life fair, honest and if there is a god i think that would be better in his/hers eyes than following a religion to the letter.

[Zak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 03:20 PM
how about marxism as "a way of life" kind of like "rasta"
Without a doubt, the best post on the thread.

[Eleutherios]

No. There is simply no evidence that the universe was created by some sort of disembodied intelligence, some kind of "information" that is just out there and not made of anything, but nevertheless is capable of generating matter and energy through some mysterious process. The very idea is absurd.

The popular conception of God is even more absurd than that. God is commonly construed to be an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe. How could such a being tolerate horrible events like the Holocaust or 9/11? Why didn't the all-powerful, all-loving hand of God give the hijackers simultaneous heart attacks on 9/10?

[Dyst]

No. There is simply no evidence that the universe was created by some sort of disembodied intelligence, some kind of "information" that is just out there and not made of anything, but nevertheless is capable of generating matter and energy through some mysterious process. The very idea is absurd.

How exactly? And care to brief us on your own theories?

And how come it would be a mysterious process? What you describe sounds scientific.

[Eleutherios]

How exactly? And care to brief us on your own theories?
It's absurd because it doesn't make any sense. How can God not be made of anything? How can there just be information that isn't stored in some kind of medium? Information, in order to exist, has to manifest itself in some configuration of matter and energy. If you want to claim otherwise, you'll have to tell me just what the hell this information is made out of!

As for "my own theories" on how the universe began, well, I'd have to be pretty arrogant to pretend I know anything about how or why it happened. I don't have the in-depth knowledge of quantum physics, Einsteinian relativity, and other fields of science that are necessary to understand the kinds of physical processes that were going on at the beginning of the universe. Even those who understand these sciences can't come to an agreement about what caused the Big Bang. The simple answer is: we don't have a whole lot of evidence, so nobody knows. Not me, not you, not anybody. Pretending it all came from a disembodied intelligence whose existence is no less inexplicable than the existence of the universe itself is just as absurd as believing the cosmos was hatched from an egg or created by the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And how come it would be a mysterious process? What you describe sounds scientific.
Scientific means backed up with observation and logic. The idea of a disembodied source of information not stored on any medium spontaneously generating matter and energy is not scientific at all, because there isn't one shred of evidence or logic which would lead us to that conclusion. People who believe it happened never tell us how it happened. They just say "God did it, end of story" and we're supposed to be satisfied with that.

[REDboots1990]

Well im not sure what to beleive i mean is there any solid evidence to prove there is a god. i mean what if we all followed islam for our lives and when we die it turns out christianity is right we would all be going to hell. Im not going to blindly follow some religion untill i fully understand the theology and true meaning of all religion. Im not saying there is or is not a god i just have no evidence that there is a god

[RevMARKSman]

Yes, there is a God. We have free will to do what we want--that's why all this crap like the Holocaust and 9/11 happens.
HOWEVER--Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught in schools as that's a personal matter, and certainly not a theory of SCIENCE as is the Big Bang & evolution. My question is, why do all the ID people think evolution and ID are mutually exclusive?


Again, just my opinion.

[Orange Juche]

I don't believe or disbelieve, I have no proof and therefore reserve judgement.

Although, as an agnostic, I tend to lean more towards the atheistic side of things... I feel more than likely there is no "God," and if there is, it isn't a sentient being but probably more of some natural energy force. Either way, the concept seems silly to me.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:49 PM
Yes, there is a God. We have free will to do what we want--that's why all this crap like the Holocaust and 9/11 happens.
So if God never intervenes with human affairs, how do you know he exists? And how is he not an asshole for choosing not to intervene in such events? Anybody who had the power to prevent 9/11 and didn't is not worthy of one ounce of respect. Worship is totally out of the question.

If God doesn't DO anything in our lives, then what IS God? Just some name for an abstract concept that created the universe? I don't get it.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 01:50 PM
I don't believe or disbelieve, I have no proof and therefore reserve judgement.

Although, as an agnostic, I tend to lean more towards the atheistic side of things... I feel more than likely there is no "God," and if there is, it isn't a sentient being but probably more of some natural energy force. Either way, the concept seems silly to me.
Sort of waht I belive as well.

[Enver_Hoxha]

I think there should be a GOD. Unfortunately, he is dead now. He was Enver Hoxha, the former albanian President.

He did the best a person can do. He closed all the mosques and churches in Albania in 1967.

Rroftë Enver Hoxha (Viva la Enver)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Enver_Hoxha
He did the best a person can do. He closed all the mosques and churches in Albania in 1967.

But, alas, he did not have them all demolished.

Big mistake. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[LSD]

I think there should be a GOD. Unfortunately, he is dead now. He was Enver Hoxha, the former albanian President.

There are several epithets that would be appropriate for the late Secretary Hoxha, but "God" is not one of them! :D


He did the best a person can do.

You mean build hundreds of thousands of useless pillboxes across a baren countryside for absolutely no concievable reason whatsoever?

Or were you perhaps refering to his industry policy of...well...not having one? :lol:

[Fistful of Steel]

I'm not sure. Belief or disbelief in God is entirely dependant upon faith. The way that some atheists act though, they may as well be in a religion because they try to force their beliefs down other people's throats, the same way most organized religion does. And force atheists acting so smugly that the existence of God can't be proven, the unexistence of God can't be proven either, so there line of thinking is as much about belief as theists. Thus my agnosticism.

[cenv]

I don't believe that there's a God, simply because I have absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. It's really quite astonishing (and a little depressing in my opinion) how many people are eager to subscribe the idea of a God when there isn't a shred of evidence, reason, or logic behind it. However, that's irrelevant. Regardless of whether or not a God exists, I think we have enough to worry about on our own earth without fantasizing about somebody whose existence we will never be able to prove (or disprove)... after all, there are millions of problems on this globe that need our attention far more than the aforementioned being.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Fistful of [email protected] 21 2006, 11:01 PM
I'm not sure. Belief or disbelief in God is entirely dependant upon faith. The way that some atheists act though, they may as well be in a religion because they try to force their beliefs down other people's throats, the same way most organized religion does. And force atheists acting so smugly that the existence of God can't be proven, the unexistence of God can't be proven either, so there line of thinking is as much about belief as theists. Thus my agnosticism.
Agnosticism? (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1111678407&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Hegemonicretribution]

If you aren't comfortable with atheism, why not be an atheistic agnostic?

You realise that there is no proof for god, but because it can't be shown untrue you hold out hope. Now this can be shown reducto ad absurdum to be bollocks, especially when you think that existence and non-existence of god are just as likely as each other. If you realise that "of cause you don't for definite that the god created in dogma doesn't exist" but live your life as if you do until something shows up, then you are as good as an atheist.

To be honest I don't care whether or not god exists, if there was a god, however benevolent, I would seek to destroy them. The point is that wasting time on such an idea is e3xactly that, a waste of time. What makes it worse is that the practices often involved are actually harmful. So as for the metaphysical crap surrounding "god" it doesn't matter, it is the practices that are harmful you should oppose even as an "agnostic" as it were. If not then you are no revolutionary.

[Enver_Hoxha]

I agree with you Red Star, he didn't demolish all of them. This was due to the reason that a lot of them were of cultural value.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 09:08 AM
I agree with you Red Star, he didn't demolish all of them. This was due to the reason that a lot of them were of cultural value.
I expect we'll hear a lot of that after proletarian revolution in the "west".

People will say it's "ok" to shut down all the "holy buildings" but they'll balk at actually tearing them all down.

Oh, you can't tear down that one, it's "historic", it's "part of our cultural heritage", it's "beautiful", blah, blah, blah.

Suppose the Third Reich "had" lasted "a thousand years", would we hear the same kinds of arguments in 2934 about the demolition of Nazi architecture?

In my view, "holy architecture" is no different than Nazi architecture...just older!

They were/are both intended to do the same thing: intimidate the hell out of people.

Screw that! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:37 PM
Suppose the Third Reich "had" lasted "a thousand years", would we hear the same kinds of arguments in 2934 about the demolition of Nazi architecture?

In my view, "holy architecture" is no different than Nazi architecture...just older!

They were/are both intended to do the same thing: intimidate the hell out of people.

Screw that! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
HEIL JESUS (http://www.sprengmeister.org/nsfw/jesusishitler/)

[Enver_Hoxha]

I only told the reason why he didn't demolish all of them. If it were up to me i would bomb one by one.

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

ASH-HADU AN LA ILAHA ILA ALLAH WA MUHAMMADAN RASUL ALLAH

[Phalanx]

That's great that you're a pious Muslim and all, but you need to say that in English, if you can.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by hassan monwar al-[email protected] 24 2006, 12:03 AM
ASH-HADU AN LA ILAHA ILA ALLAH WA MUHAMMADAN RASUL ALLAH
If you want to be a communist, you got to chuck the religion. You cannot serve a God that is inherently anti-revolutionary.

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

thats the problem with u marxists. u r too dogmatic, too close-minded, unable to except new ideas....too...all the things u accuse religion of being. i am confident in my beliefs thank u

[cenv]

Originally posted by hassan monwar al-[email protected] 24 2006, 01:57 AM
thats the problem with u marxists. u r too dogmatic, too close-minded, unable to except new ideas....too...all the things u accuse religion of being. i am confident in my beliefs thank u
Since when has religion been a new idea?

Anyway, why don't you try to explain why we should accept religious beliefs? Calling us "dogmatic" and "closed-minded" isn't going to change anyone's stance (although it is rather ironic that you're the one using those terms IMHO).

[redstar2000]

Hassan monwar al-moudjahid, this thread was made for you!

As Members of the Revolutionary Left, how do you feel about Islam? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48326)

It's long...but you need to read every page!

Seriously.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

thank u, i found it very informative. although i ran into many closed minds and ignorant statements, but its nothing i havent heard before

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by xphile2868+Apr 24 2006, 12:11 AM--> (xphile2868 @ Apr 24 2006, 12:11 AM)
hassan monwar al-[email protected] 24 2006, 12:03 AM
ASH-HADU AN LA ILAHA ILA ALLAH WA MUHAMMADAN RASUL ALLAH
If you want to be a communist, you got to chuck the religion. You cannot serve a God that is inherently anti-revolutionary. [/b]
Maybe, God doesn't want to be served? Have you ever sat down and had a nice little chat with God where he claimed to be an authoritarian?
Homigod religious belief outside of orthodoxy. :o

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
Maybe, God doesn't want to be served?

ALL the purported "holy books" say decisively otherwise...and often go to considerable lengths in describing the "only acceptable rituals" for "serving God".

All fabrications? :o

Well, of course, they are. :lol:

But then why do you speculate on what the "desires" of a "supernatural entity" might "be"?

You have no real evidence that there's any such thing as the "supernatural"...much less one that's "inhabited" by a "conscious entity" capable of "desires".

And you're up against nearly three centuries of accumulated negative scientific evidence.

So what's the point?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Fistful of Steel]

Oh, science hasn't proven there is no God. It's done a damn fine job of discrediting most major world religions and what they claim, and I can see why. That being said I don't buy into such positions and empty rituals, mostly I just think it's a possibility that there may be a God even if it's not the human understanding of one.

[Mariam]

ASH-HADU AN LA ILAHA ILA ALLAH WA MUHAMMADAN RASUL ALLAH


but you need to say that in English, if you can.

" I bare testimony that no one is worthy of worship but Allah, and I testify that Mohammed is the massenger of Allah"

[Horatii]

You have no real evidence that there's any such thing as the "supernatural"...much less one that's "inhabited" by a "conscious entity" capable of "desires".

And you're up against nearly three centuries of accumulated negative scientific evidence.

Now I know that you're not a scientist, but what sort of "evidence" are we speaking of here? Nothing in science has *negated* anything.

In quantum theory, it's been acknowledged that casuality (as we know it) was most likely not present before the Big Bang. Now that leaves an infinite amount of room for speculation, doensn't it? If our *laws* are were nothing before the Big bang, what could have existed?


" I bare testimony that no one is worthy of worship but Allah, and I testify that Mohammed is the massenger of Allah"

Interesting:

"Historians like Vaqqidi have said Allah was actually the chief of the 360 gods being worshipped in Arabia at the time Mohammed rose to prominence. Ibn Al-Kalbi gave 27 names of pre-Islamic deities...Interestingly, not many Muslims want to accept that Allah was already being worshipped at the Ka'bah in Mecca by Arab pagans before Mohammed came. Some Muslims become angry when they are confronted with this fact. But history is not on their side. Pre-Islamic literature has proved this." (G.J.O. Moshay, Who Is This Allah? Dorchester House, Bucks, UK, 1994, pg. 138)

"O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith." (Surah 5:101-102)

So questioning leads to losing faith. Solid stuff there!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Horatii
Now I know that you're not a scientist, but what sort of "evidence" are we speaking of here? Nothing in science has *negated* anything.

In three centuries of scientific research, all efforts to discover a "supernatural effect" have been failures.

Most recently here...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48161

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by Fistful of [email protected] 27 2006, 02:43 AM
Oh, science hasn't proven there is no God. It's done a damn fine job of discrediting most major world religions and what they claim, and I can see why. That being said I don't buy into such positions and empty rituals, mostly I just think it's a possibility that there may be a God even if it's not the human understanding of one.
God is a concept used by humans. That's it. If something is beyond human understanding, we can't have a word for it since we can't even conceive of the idea. Any word we invented for it would be meaningless. If this "God" isn't what we humans understand it to be, then what the hell is it, and why would you attach the label "God" to it? You have to at least be able to define something before you can consider whether or not it exists. I could just as easily say that floobergork exists, and science hasn't disproven it, because floobergork is a concept beyond human understanding. See how meaningless that statement is?

[Horatii]

In three centuries of scientific research, all efforts to discover a "supernatural effect" have been failures.

Most recently here...

I think that's quite irrelevant. The fact still remains that casuality was not present before the big bang, and the Bubble universe theory does little to "disprove" a diety.

Considering that many prominent Die-Hard evolutionists are now beginning to also question their theory (one I believe..or believed in) I don't think the Atheist case is getting stronger.

[Eleutherios]

I think that's quite irrelevant. The fact still remains that casuality was not present before the big bang, and the Bubble universe theory does little to "disprove" a diety.
How is it a fact that causality was not present before the big bang? Show me the proof.

Considering that many prominent Die-Hard evolutionists are now beginning to also question their theory (one I believe..or believed in) I don't think the Atheist case is getting stronger.
This is a classic logical fallacy called appeal to popularity (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html).

Even if it were true that people in general are finding the theory of evolution less and less credible, that would mean nothing. An idea's merit is based on how true it is, not how many people believe it. And whether you like it or not, the theory of evolution is the best theory for the evidence available to us.

[Horatii]

An idea's merit is based on how true it is, not how many people believe it.

Exactly, and Evolution causes more problems then it *solves* I don't care how many people support or don't, but the fact that people are questioning the fundemental steps of evolution is indeed significant.


How is it a fact that causality was not present before the big bang? Show me the proof.

As it stands today, the Big Bang is dependent on three assumptions:

The universality of physical laws
The cosmological principle
The Copernican principle

However, outside of the big bang..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_fluctu...Pair_production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_fluctuations#Pair_production)

"in order to conserve the total fermion number of the universe, a fermion cannot be created without also creating its antiparticle; thus many physical processes lead to pair creation. The need for the normal ordering of particle fields in the vacuum can be interpreted by the idea that a pair of virtual particles may briefly "pop into existence", and then annihilate each other a short while later...
It is sometimes suggested that pair production can be used to explain the origin of matter in the universe. In models of the Big Bang, it is suggested that vacuum fluctuations, or virtual particles, briefly appear. Then, due to effects such as CP-violation, an imbalance between the number of virtual particles and antiparticles is created, leaving a surfeit of particles, thus accounting for the visible matter in the universe."

Thus, casuality and laws of physics as we know it are *not* universal, and there's simply no reason to believe that they functioned then as they do now.

[Eleutherios]

Exactly, and Evolution causes more problems then it *solves* I don't care how many people support or don't, but the fact that people are questioning the fundemental steps of evolution is indeed significant.
Of course people are questioning it. That's what science is. Questioning the data and the available theories to increase knowledge. The theory of evolution wasn't just pulled out of somebody's ass. It has arisen out of careful examination of the evidence, and correction of the theories over time as the body of evidence increases. Of course we don't know everything about how evolution happened, but pretty much all biologists agree that it did, and that natural selection is a main driving factor. And until you can provide me with a more convincing alternative model that better fits the evidence, I see no reason to abandon it.

As it stands today, the Big Bang is dependent on three assumptions:

The universality of physical laws
The cosmological principle
The Copernican principle

However, outside of the big bang..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_fluctu...Pair_production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_fluctuations#Pair_production)

"in order to conserve the total fermion number of the universe, a fermion cannot be created without also creating its antiparticle; thus many physical processes lead to pair creation. The need for the normal ordering of particle fields in the vacuum can be interpreted by the idea that a pair of virtual particles may briefly "pop into existence", and then annihilate each other a short while later...
It is sometimes suggested that pair production can be used to explain the origin of matter in the universe. In models of the Big Bang, it is suggested that vacuum fluctuations, or virtual particles, briefly appear. Then, due to effects such as CP-violation, an imbalance between the number of virtual particles and antiparticles is created, leaving a surfeit of particles, thus accounting for the visible matter in the universe."

Thus, casuality and laws of physics as we know it are *not* universal, and there's simply no reason to believe that they functioned then as they do now.
I'm not going to stick by some theory about the creation of the universe. I don't know what caused the universe to exist, and unlike theists, I'm not going to pretend that I do. That hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis. Even if it is true, it doesn't mean that no form of causality existed before the Big Bang. Even now, we know that some random, uncaused events do occur on the quantum level, yet nobody denies that causality presently exists. Even if you're correct in saying that "there's simply no reason to believe that they functioned then as they do now", you have not proven that they did not function as they do now, and that causality did not exist before the Big Bang. That is pure speculation on your part, and you have no proof of it.

And even if you are correct that causality did not exist before the Big Bang, it does not necessarily follow that there is a God just because you can't think of any other way it could have happened. Did it ever occur to you that the universe might simply be causeless?

[redstar2000]

I have not heard of a reputable biologist "questioning evolution". There are indeed many arguments among evolutionists over the details...but I have not heard of any credible theory offered as a serious alternative to evolution.

The only people who "question evolution" are the professional godsuckers.

That is, dumbasses trying to protect their racket!

As to the numerous on-going controversies among cosmologists, your suggestion that somewhere "in there" there's "some room for God" is entirely speculative.

It's called "the god of the gaps"...if there's some natural phenomenon that we don't completely understand yet, just stick "God" in there and that "explains everything".

It's pathetic bullshit and NO rational person would bother to consider it for even a second.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[RevMARKSman]

I gotta agree with Redstar on this one. Scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution; right now the only conflicts are about the details.

In response to the first post/thread title: I don't know whether there is a God. Most likely I never will. I'm pretty much lost in my beliefs about a supernatural power or god today. :unsure:

And if somehow there is a god and he is like the Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Jewish/etc/etc fundamentalists, I'd rather be in hell. I'd much rather go to hell a free thinker than heaven as a slave.

[Sentinel]

Your above post made me, as a 'hardcore' atheist, feel warm inside, MonicaTTmed. You are a questioning person, and therefore clearly rational. ;)

I think I used to be under the impression that you were a convinced christian rather than agnostic. :)

Sorry if I was mistaken, as well as congratulations for progress, if the debates here have made you change your point of view! They can have that effect! :P

Have you read the Agnosticism Debate (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38361&st=0)? One of the many specific threads that made myself progress from a kind of mild agnosticism to atheism. Yes, it happened partly here on RevLeft, before I started posting myself though.. :lol:

[RevMARKSman]

Your impression was right. I'm just changing every day. It's very hard to accept "I don't know" as an answer.

And if I end up believing in God, my concept of him will be something along the lines of: If he isn't one of the fundamentalists listed above, he wouldn't mind me being atheist. If he is, that's too bad for him because I'm a free thinker. So being an atheist is safe for now.

Oh, and some more stuff here: http://planetthinktanks.com/comm-thread.as...d=13235&forum=4 (http://planetthinktanks.com/comm-thread.asp?thread=13235&forum=4)

[Horatii]

id it ever occur to you that the universe might simply be causeless?

How is that possible? Nothing is causeless, so if it was, all of our physics premises are turned upside down.



Of course people are questioning it. That's what science is. Questioning the data and the available theories to increase knowledge. The theory of evolution wasn't just pulled out of somebody's ass. It has arisen out of careful examination of the evidence, and correction of the theories over time as the body of evidence increases. Of course we don't know everything about how evolution happened, but pretty much all biologists agree that it did, and that natural selection is a main driving factor. And until you can provide me with a more convincing alternative model that better fits the evidence, I see no reason to abandon it.

Read "Darwin's Black Box" and quit putting full faith into something that you don't understand; apparently, most of the scientific community does not understand either!


Scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution; right now the only conflicts are about the details.

Not really:


Based on nineteenth century drawings, the embryos of fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals were thought to look virtually identical. Much was made of the resemblance as evidence for evolution. Probably the majority of American schoolchildren in the past 50 years have seen drawings of the embryos in their biology textbooks. Carl Sagan once wrote in Parade magazine (circulation in the tens of millions) that human embryos have "something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian." And eminent scientists declared that the great similarity only made sense in the light of evolution. But the embryos don't look like that. Recent research has shown that these century old drawings, by Ernst Haeckel, an admirer of Darwin, are quite misleading. In reality the embryos are significantly different from each other (although there are similarities). This turns out to be a real puzzle. If fish evolved into amphibians, then the program that turns a fertilized egg into a fish had to have changed into the program that makes an egg into an amphibian. Drawing on Haeckel's work, scientists thought they understood how that could happen. Crucial early development was conserved, while later, less important stages could vary. But now that scenario has been falsified. In trying to decide what we know about evolution and how we know it, the embryo fiasco is quite instructive. The scientists and textbook authors who touted the nineteenth century drawings with utter confidence are now exposed as clueless. (They include the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts, whose textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell prominently cites Haeckel's work.) They assured the public that they had strong evidence for evolution, but they didn't even know what the embryos looked like. Their " facts" didn't come from nature, but from their Darwinian premises.

-Dr. Behe

I also was a die-hard evolutionist, but the evidence just isn't there anymore...

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:45 AM

id it ever occur to you that the universe might simply be causeless?

How is that possible? Nothing is causeless, so if it was, all of our physics premises are turned upside down.
How does everything being causeless turn our physics premises upside down?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Horatii
Read "Darwin's Black Box" and quit putting full faith into something that you don't understand; apparently, most of the scientific community does not understand either!

I think the scientific community understands Michael Behe quite well.

an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html)

He's an "Intelligent Design" hack making a living lying to people.

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/3593/celebrityape4ye.jpg

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Eleutherios]

How is that possible? Nothing is causeless,
So what caused God then?

so if it was, all of our physics premises are turned upside down.
Not really. We know that causeless events do occur on the very small scale. And the Big Bang originated *gasp* on the very small scale.

Read "Darwin's Black Box" and quit putting full faith into something that you don't understand; apparently, most of the scientific community does not understand either!
"Read this book! It argues my point so that makes me right!" Sorry dude, that argument isn't going to work on me.

And neither is presuming that I don't understand the theory of evolution. How do you know what I do and do not understand?

P.S. Why is this guy not restricted? Is there really such thing as a creationist communist?

[Goatse]

Originally posted by hassan monwar al-[email protected] 23 2006, 11:48 PM
ASH-HADU AN LA ILAHA ILA ALLAH WA MUHAMMADAN RASUL ALLAH
I hope you choke.

[Lord Testicles]

Here's quite an amusing quote from Kurt Vonneguts book "Galapagos" concerning evolution.


What was so thought-provoking about all sorts of Galapagos finches to young Charles Darwin, though, was that they were behaving as best they could like a wide variety of much more specialized birds on the continents. He was still prepared to believe, if it turned out to make sense, that God Almighty had created all creatures just as Darwin found them on his trip around the world. But his big brain had to wonder why the Creator in the case of the Galapagos Islands would have given every conceivable job for a small land bird to an often ill-adapted finch? What would have prevented the Creator, if he thought the islands should have a woodpecker-type bird, from creating a woodpecker? If he thought a vampire was a good idea, why didn’t he give the job to a vampire bat instead of a finch, for heaven's sakes? A vampire finch?

[Johnny Anarcho]

There is most definatly a God, His Name is Allah.

[RevMARKSman]

Shit, can I change my vote to "no"? :huh:

[LSD]

There is most definatly a God, His Name is Allah.

:lol:

Prove it!

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 04:38 AM

There is most definatly a God, His Name is Allah.

:lol:

Prove it!
Disprove it -_-

[LSD]

I have no obligation to.

A positive conjecture must be supported before it can even be considered. In the lack of any sound rational basis, the "God" concept cannot even be recognized, let alone "disproved".

After all, how can you disprove my divinity? Maybe I'm "God"! Hell, maybe you're Mohammad and you're having a "vision" right now! :o

See? Once you abandon religion and start operating based on "faith", nothing makes sense any more.

[Johnny Anarcho]

ISLAM IS SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE



History and archeology
Sura 6.11
Say, `Go about in the earth and see what was the end of those who treated the Prophets as liars.'
Sura 10.90-92
And We made the children of Israel to pass through the sea, then Firon and his hosts followed them for oppression and tyranny; until when drowning overtook him, he said: I believe that there is no god but He in Whom the children of Israel believe and I am of those who submit.
What! Now! while thou wast disobedient before this and wast of the mischief-makers.
So this day WE will save thee in thy body alone that thou mayest be a Sign to those who come after thee. And surely many of mankind are heedless of Our Signs.
[edit]
Astronomy
Sura 3.190
In the creation of the heavens and the earth and in the alternation of the night and the day there are indeed Signs for men of understanding.;
Sura 67.3-4
Who has created seven heavens in harmony. No incongruity canst thou see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again. Seest thou any flaw?
[edit]
Embryology
Sura 23.12-14
Verily, WE created man from an extract of clay; Then WE placed him as a drop of sperm in a safe depository; Then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump of flesh, then We made (in) the lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators. [1]
[edit]
Atmospheric Science
Sura 23.43
Seest thou not that ALLAH drives the clouds slowly, then joins them together, then piles them up so that thou seest rain issue forth from the midst thereof? And HE sends down from the sky clouds like mountains wherein is hail, and HE smites therewith whom HE pleases, and turns it away from whom HE pleases. The flash of its lightning may well-nigh take away the sight. [2]
[edit]
Geology
Sura 78.6-7
Have WE not made the earth as a bed, And the mountains as pegs?
Sura 16.15
And HE has placed in the earth firm mountains lest it quake with you and rivers and routes that you may find the way to your destination. [3]
[edit]
Physical cosmology
Sura 21.30
Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed up-mass, then WE opened them out? And WE made of water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
Sura 41.11
Then HE turned to the heaven, while it was something like smoke, and said to it and to the earth; `Come ye both of you in obedience, willingly or unwillingly.' They said, `We come willingly. [4]

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

so do you want the 30% of people on here that believe in a God to be banned?

[LSD]

ISLAM IS SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE

:lol:

That is quite possibly one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

Not only is Islam not "supported" by modern science, but it is actually intrinsically opposed by basic rationality.

The existance of a "God" goes against all basic natural laws and is, by definition, contrary to the entire field of science. It doesn't matter how many selective quotes you cherry pick out of old documents; the foundations will always be incongruous.

Remember, every religion is right every so often -- as the old expression goes, a broken clock is right twice a day. Still, I somehow doubt that you are as generous in your reading when it comes to the Hindu Vedas as when it comes to the Quron.

Oh well, what more can you expect from a dogamtist? <_<

Still, mainly for the fun of it, let&#39;s look at some of your "examples" of Islam&#39;s scientific "soundness": :rolleyes:


Say, `Go about in the earth and see what was the end of those who treated the Prophets as liars.&#39;

Ok ....what?

The "end of those who treated the prophets as liars" has been, for the most part, pretty damn good&#33;

I mean think about it; who dominates the world today? Which religion is it who&#39;s followers live in the best conditions?

Muslims are, overwhelmingly, poorer and worse off than their Christian counterparts. As far as I can see, the people who reject the Muslim "prophets" are doing much better than those who embrace them.

Oh well, so much for "historical"&#33; :lol:


Who has created seven heavens in harmony. No incongruity canst thou see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again. Seest thou any flaw?


Wow, this is a fun one.

Firstly, what&#39;s a "seven heavens"? Our knowledge of the upper stratosphere is pretty detailed at this point, but to my knowledge we have yet to encounter any "heaven", let alone seven of them.

More importantly, though, this notion of a "perfect" universe is pure aristotilean bullshit.

It&#39;s now basic common knowledge that the universe is anything but "flawless" and any assertion to the contrary is clearly the product of an archronistic reasoning.


Seest thou not that ALLAH drives the clouds slowly, then joins them together, then piles them up so that thou seest rain issue forth from the midst thereof?

Sorry, but again that&#39;s incorrect.

We know why clouds move and "Allah" has nothing to do with it. Not to mention that it&#39;s not "piles" of clouds that cause rain, it&#39;s the altitude of clouds that cause rain.


Have WE not made the earth as a bed, And the mountains as pegs?

Um...no, "you&#39; haven&#39;t.

The earth is not a "bed" of any sort, and mountains have absolutely no bearing on "earthquakes" or geological stability.

I mean really, "pegs"? :lol: Come on&#33;

[MurderInc]

Johnny Anarcho,

Islam is a crock of shit. It would have me believe that my womanhood is to be defined by a scripture written only by men, interpreted only by men, and where comentary by women is against its precepts.

Johnny, There is only one God, and Her name is what ever the fuck I say it is.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by hassan monwar al&#045;[email protected] 7 2006, 09:04 PM
so do you want the 30% of people on here that believe in a God to be banned?
No that is nowhere in the guidelines. Besides if we wanted to do anything we&#39;d just restrict you.

The poll has been running for what? 2 years and some months. Do you think the religious climate of the board hasn&#39;t changed? I haven&#39;t been here but a year and I&#39;ve noticed a big change. Militant atheism is growing popular among members here. Tolerance for religious bullshit has dropped and atheists risen. I am probably accurate in guessing that many members who voted in the poll don&#39;t even post here anymore.

[Le People]

I view God as the only resonable explanation for our exstistence. I am speaking of the soul, not flesh and bone.

[MurderInc]

In my opinion, there is nothing anti-socialist about believing there is Something greater than all of us, and that the universe itself could be something we are a part of that is God.

We are currently in the U.S. having a debate at the court level along these lines. An athiest wishes to remove from the Pledge of Aliegence to the Flag of the United States (a long sentence our children say at school at the beginning of the day), the words "under God", that was inserted into the pledge in 1954.

It is a California case that one at both the trial and appelate court level, requiring the words be removed. The appelate court, however, issued a stay to its own ruling, allowing an appeal to occur to the Supreme Court. This case was eventually bounced out becuase the plaintiff did not have proper standing to sue. But he eventually found a couple with a child and resued, and the new case is moving up through the courts again.

Because of the way our judicial system works, the lower courts will have to apply the rule made at the appelate case, even though the Supreme Court threw out the decicion itself.

Simply put, the Court will HAVE to address the issue in about 2 or 3 years at most.

One of the arguments made by the state (which supports the Pledge continue to use the "under God" clause) is that God is no longer a guy in a white robe and long beard, supporting only Judeo-Christian concepts, but that God is beyond religion itself. This may sound like a weird thing to do, but if you redefine the word, then you might get away with it.

It will be interesting to see whether God, at least in the classrooms, is a concept our citizen children will have to celebrate in words, as determined by the Court.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Le [email protected] 7 2006, 09:43 PM
I view God as the only resonable explanation for our exstistence. I am speaking of the soul, not flesh and bone.
What "soul"?

Any evidence?

[Le People]

Ok, flesh and bone are made of cells, which are made of chemicals, which are made of atoms. The concept of inantimate matter power our thoughts does not make sense. There is something, like a mind, or soul, or just a life force.

[MurderInc]

I view God as the only resonable explanation for our exstistence. I am speaking of the soul, not flesh and bone.


What "soul"?

Any evidence?


Trying to use evidence to prove the existence of God is absurd. God is approached by belief, based upon the individual spirit. God cannot, and should not, be "proven".

Trying to "believe" in science is just as rediculous. Science is factual, experimented and examined for proofs and hypothesis. Having "faith" in science is just as silly. One accepts, applies and uses science. One doesn&#39;t believe in it. If you were to tell me you "believed" the sun will "rise" tomorrow morning, I would laugh at you for using a faith based concept to describe a daily occurrence.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:21 AM

I view God as the only resonable explanation for our exstistence. I am speaking of the soul, not flesh and bone.


What "soul"?

Any evidence?


Trying to use evidence to prove the existence of God is absurd. God is approached by belief, based upon the individual spirit. God cannot, and should not, be "proven".

Trying to "believe" in science is just as rediculous. Science is factual, experimented and examined for proofs and hypothesis. Having "faith" in science is just as silly. One accepts, applies and uses science. One doesn&#39;t believe in it. If you were to tell me you "believed" the sun will "rise" tomorrow morning, I would laugh at you for using a faith based concept to describe a daily occurrence.
Agreed.

[Le People]

I believe the question is in realtion to the exsistence of the soul, not God.

[Johnny Anarcho]

I agree no matter if its about soul or God, she make an simple yet interesting point.

[Le People]

I see the validity in the reasoning. Faith is absurd because it poses the possibility of being wrong. Therfore, knowing is truth.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

All things on this earth occur because they have logic to back it up. Now try applying logic and/or sense to religion and god and see what you get.

[MurderInc]

Hi Johnny,

I always thought the character you use on your avitar is just the cutest thing&#33; I see him in the paper on Sundays and want to just scruffy his hair with my hand.


Le People,

I cannot agree with you that faith is absurd. It may be one of the most compelling forces that moves humans to achieve an end. Many revolutionaries or those who made great changes throughout history eventually had to have some kind of faith. General Washington called it "Providence", and used to capitalize it that way. How could you blame him? He was leading a revolution against what was at the time the greatest military on Earth. Ghandi had faith; without it what would he have been? I suppose Sparticus had to have something like it.

I don&#39;t know you and your personal life, but faith comes a little easier after you have a couple of kids.

If you can&#39;t rationally demonstrate faith, the same would probably true of love, and a bunch of other stuff.

[Johnny Anarcho]

You should try telling LSD that, he&#39;s an atheism extremist.

[Le People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:34 AM
Hi Johnny,

I always thought the character you use on your avitar is just the cutest thing&#33; I see him in the paper on Sundays and want to just scruffy his hair with my hand.


Le People,

I cannot agree with you that faith is absurd. It may be one of the most compelling forces that moves humans to achieve an end. Many revolutionaries or those who made great changes throughout history eventually had to have some kind of faith. General Washington called it "Providence", and used to capitalize it that way. How could you blame him? He was leading a revolution against what was at the time the greatest military on Earth. Ghandi had faith; without it what would he have been? I suppose Sparticus had to have something like it.

I don&#39;t know you and your personal life, but faith comes a little easier after you have a couple of kids.

If you can&#39;t rationally demonstrate faith, the same would probably true of love, and a bunch of other stuff.
Here is my opinion, "Everything is rational and logical". This applies to God, the only metaphysical objective condition. Faith is merely blindly follwing something. To have Faith is to say you are placing your eggs into a basket which you are not sure of. Essentially, you say it is there and say it is not there. To know, to reason the exstitence of God is a much higher act of theism. Perhaps I&#39;m a Deist.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

You should try telling LSD that, he&#39;s an atheism extremist.

What&#39;s wrong with Militant Atheism? That&#39;s something I&#39;m all for.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:33 AM

You should try telling LSD that, he&#39;s an atheism extremist.

What&#39;s wrong with Militant Atheism? That&#39;s something I&#39;m all for.
Militant Athiesm is okay but peacfully practicing religion is not, that makes no sence.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Johnny Anarcho+Jun 12 2006, 09:39 PM--> (Johnny Anarcho @ Jun 12 2006, 09:39 PM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 02:33 AM

You should try telling LSD that, he&#39;s an atheism extremist.

What&#39;s wrong with Militant Atheism? That&#39;s something I&#39;m all for.
Militant Athiesm is okay but peacfully practicing religion is not, that makes no sence. [/b]
Religion makes no "sence [sic]." It&#39;s completely irrational, illogical, submissive, and dogmatic.

[RedAnarchist]

I&#39;ve been Agnostic for a few years now, but my belief in the possibility of a deity or deities is waning. I think my agnosticism may be the last remnants of my former Protestant faith - I may be trying to hang on to the possibility of a god even when presented with huge evidence to the contrary.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Look at it this way, no evidence of God doesnt mean He/She doesnt exist. We have no evidence that communism will work but we nonetheless strive for it. We have no evidence that a revolution will ever happen in the United States but we all still preach that it will and we all strive for it to come. The USSR crumbled, China has backfired, North Korea is practically fascist, and Castro might die any year now. While this happens the wage a CEO makes rises, globaliaztion increases, and wars and weapons happen every day. Yet in the face of all of this we hope, we believe, we know that it will end and a new society will begin. A society without poor or rich, without racism, sexism, oppression, or inequality. A society where every human being works together for the common good and benefit of mankind. Critics call us dreamers, Conservatives call us radicals, and society looks at us as a dead movement whos day died after 1969. Yet in the face of all of this we keep on; we continue to write pamphlets, we continue to hold meetings, we continue to organize, knowing that one day we will win. That one day the millions of men and women in America will rise up and say "Enough", thus beginning the greatest mass-movement the Earth has ever seen. If this is not faith I dont know what is, but its a faith I love; one that I embrace and teach to those I can. Yes there have been those whove tried to use our beliefs for their personal gain, becoming "evidence" for those who fight us that we are wrong. We know better though that what they accuse is not true. Is it not possible that we have committed the same crime against religion? That we have taken the ones whove used religion for personal gain and called it "proof" that religion is a fraud. If so then how are we different from those whove persecuted us. Religion is a revolution, a revolution designed to inspire and create potential, a revolution that gives hope in the eyes of fear. Thus I say to you all that the Religious man is a Revolutionary man and the Spiritual man is a Socialist man.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 14 2006, 10:20 PM
That one day the millions of men and women in America will rise up and say "Enough", thus beginning the greatest mass-movement the Earth has ever seen.
Oh sorry, my great American superior, I forgot that global change can only start in your wonderful country&#33; <_<


As for the rest of your post -

NK is not nearly fascist, it is Stalinist.

Castro could live for quite a while longer. Cuba has a very good health system, far better than your country&#39;s.

We don&#39;t hate religion because it has been "abused" by some. We hate it becuse it demens women, turning them into slaves. It preaches hate for those who don&#39;t adhere to a certain religion. It tries to rule over almost all aspects of it&#39;s followers lives, telling them what to do with their bodies, their minds and their lives.

[violencia.Proletariat]

We have no evidence that communism will work but we nonetheless strive for it.

Sure we do. Collective action and direct democracy has worked in the past. The increase in technology and decrease in negative societal influences have only pointed in the direct that it can work.


We have no evidence that a revolution will ever happen in the United States but we all still preach that it will and we all strive for it to come.

Same as above.


The USSR crumbled, China has backfired, North Korea is practically fascist, and Castro might die any year now.

All these revolutions took place in third world nations, places where communism does not have the material conditions to work.


While this happens the wage a CEO makes rises, globaliaztion increases, and wars and weapons happen every day.

And this shows up the destabalization and irrationality of capitalism. How is this not a clue for another stage in historical development? Oh and why are weapons a bad thing?


Yet in the face of all of this we hope, we believe, we know that it will end and a new society will begin.

No we think. It won&#39;t be true until it happens. But I (and many others) think there is enough evidence that points in a succesful direction.


If this is not faith I dont know what is, but its a faith I love; one that I embrace and teach to those I can.

It&#39;s not "faith." It&#39;s not divine. It&#39;s all phsyical. If the working class doesn&#39;t do it then it won&#39;t happen.


Is it not possible that we have committed the same crime against religion? That we have taken the ones whove used religion for personal gain and called it "proof" that religion is a fraud.

The difference is, those with religion have done nothing that isn&#39;t approved of in their holy books. If one were to read Marx and look at what the west calls communism, you can see its obviously not true.


Religion is a revolution, a revolution designed to inspire and create potential, a revolution that gives hope in the eyes of fear.

It is not a revolution nor does it play a revolutionary role in anything. Being lied to does not create hope, it makes me want to kick the con man&#39;s ass.


Thus I say to you all that the Religious man is a Revolutionary man and the Spiritual man is a Socialist man.

Actually thats not true at all. The religious man is a dillusional fool or a conman. The spiritual man is an idiot who can&#39;t accept reality.

[guerillablack]

God is logic. God is order.
If you don&#39;t believe in God, whatever, that&#39;s your issue.

We don&#39;t hate religion because it has been "abused" by some. We hate it becuse it demens women, turning them into slaves. It preaches hate for those who don&#39;t adhere to a certain religion. It tries to rule over almost all aspects of it&#39;s followers lives, telling them what to do with their bodies, their minds and their lives.


You got religion really twisted. Because it seems you are really focusing on tha mainstream relgions. Do some research on other religions/spiritual systems before being so brass.

Trying to force someone to not beleive in God, is just as bad as forcing your religion on them.


NYAME NNWU NA MAWU

[violencia.Proletariat]

GuerillaBlack lots of people claim there are these religions that are socially "perfect" but I have yet to see one.

[Dyst]

God is logic. God is order.
If you don&#39;t believe in God, whatever, that&#39;s your issue.

What you describe sounds like a philosophical theory, perhaps.

If so, and that&#39;s it, why do you brag about "believing" in it?

Why do you feel the need to impose this theory upon others when it is just a theory?

Why do you even feel the need to be a part of a religion when you can simply hold your philosophical thoughts to yourself, or discuss the subject in a philosophical manner?

Why must you align yourself with groups who&#39;s practices are amongst the most reactionary normal people can associate themselves with?

This is not the time to ponder about the meaning, the truth behind it all, what everything is, symmetry, etc. Allthough these questions can be interesting, they do not have a direct consequence or relevance to human society.

Above all, this is the time for people to think for themselves. Act upon your own research, your own experiences and rational thoughts. Don&#39;t let anyone dictate you or your thoughts. And don&#39;t try to dictate others.

I like that you said "if you don&#39;t believe in God, whatever". Strictly keep it to yourself, and if you actually have rational reasons to believe in God, then don&#39;t act like everyone should. Don&#39;t call it religion, call it philosophy.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 05:30 PM

God is logic. God is order.
If you don&#39;t believe in God, whatever, that&#39;s your issue.

What you describe sounds like a philosophical theory, perhaps.

If so, and that&#39;s it, why do you brag about "believing" in it?

Why do you feel the need to impose this theory upon others when it is just a theory?

Why do you even feel the need to be a part of a religion when you can simply hold your philosophical thoughts to yourself, or discuss the subject in a philosophical manner?

Why must you align yourself with groups who&#39;s practices are amongst the most reactionary normal people can associate themselves with?

This is not the time to ponder about the meaning, the truth behind it all, what everything is, symmetry, etc. Allthough these questions can be interesting, they do not have a direct consequence or relevance to human society.

Above all, this is the time for people to think for themselves. Act upon your own research, your own experiences and rational thoughts. Don&#39;t let anyone dictate you or your thoughts. And don&#39;t try to dictate others.

I like that you said "if you don&#39;t believe in God, whatever". Strictly keep it to yourself, and if you actually have rational reasons to believe in God, then don&#39;t act like everyone should. Don&#39;t call it religion, call it philosophy.
It&#39;s actually a hypothesis. Theories are supported by empirical, scientific evidence. I&#39;m not sure how one can conduct research on linguistics but...oh well.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

God is logic.

The God concept is not logical, it is an unnecessary object in explaining phenomena.

[Dyst]

It&#39;s actually a hypothesis. Theories are supported by empirical, scientific evidence.

Ok.



The God concept is not logical, it is an unnecessary object in explaining phenomena.

Yes it is, it is completely illogical when explaining phenomena.

Some people like to think of "God" as the laws of nature or even its structure itself. For example "order" or "symmetry". I&#39;ve had this view before, but not anymore.

I simply do not understand why one would apply the name God to these things. As God means in most peoples eyes something completely illogical, such as a creature somehow interfering with life on Earth.

[EwokUtopia]

In a way I believe in God, but it is completely different than what the religious believe. I believe that there is a certain indescribable force completely unimaginable to humans that is the begining, duration, and end of all things. This ultimate reality surrounds us and is in us as well as everything. Tackling these beliefs is hard, especially with the use of language. For me to describe my understanding of this existance (which is in me as well, therefore one must look within for the answers, not to the words of some clergyman or the babblings of some holy book) would be as difficult as it would be to describe what Green looks like to a person who was blind from birth. It simply is. nothing has to exist, yet I have perception, so therefore something must exist. I believe that there will be existance after my death, and that there was existance before my birth. I dont know what it will be like after I die because I no longer remember what it was like before I was born. Then again, I dont remember what it was like to learn english (my first language) either, so I am led to believe that since we think in language, language limits our understanding of the essence of our existance. This ultimate existance could be called God, or Allah, or Brahma, or anything, the danger is not in naming it so much as it is in personifying it. It is NOT human by any means, so therefore it is not a he, it does not have a wrath and it does not go nuts and flood the world as well as nuke two cities. This is absurd thinking. So....do I believe in God? I suppose in a way, I am closer to being a Sufi or a Hare Krishna than I am to being an Atheist, but I am also closer to being an Atheist than I am to being a mainstream Christian or Jew or whatever.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

-Alex

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Jun 13 2006, 10:42 AM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Jun 13 2006, 10:42 AM)
Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 12 2006, 09:39 PM

[email protected] 13 2006, 02:33 AM

You should try telling LSD that, he&#39;s an atheism extremist.

What&#39;s wrong with Militant Atheism? That&#39;s something I&#39;m all for.
Militant Athiesm is okay but peacfully practicing religion is not, that makes no sence.
Religion makes no "sence [sic]." It&#39;s completely irrational, illogical, submissive, and dogmatic. [/b]
Didn&#39;t you vote &#39;yes&#39; in this poll? What the hell is going on?&#33; :blink:

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Jun 13 2006, 10:42 AM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Jun 13 2006, 10:42 AM)
Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 12 2006, 09:39 PM

[email protected] 13 2006, 02:33 AM

You should try telling LSD that, he&#39;s an atheism extremist.

What&#39;s wrong with Militant Atheism? That&#39;s something I&#39;m all for.
Militant Athiesm is okay but peacfully practicing religion is not, that makes no sence.
Religion makes no "sence [sic]." It&#39;s completely irrational, illogical, submissive, and dogmatic. [/b]
Didn&#39;t you vote &#39;yes&#39; in this poll? What the hell is going on?&#33; :blink:

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Jun 13 2006, 10:42 AM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Jun 13 2006, 10:42 AM)
Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 12 2006, 09:39 PM

[email protected] 13 2006, 02:33 AM

You should try telling LSD that, he&#39;s an atheism extremist.

What&#39;s wrong with Militant Atheism? That&#39;s something I&#39;m all for.
Militant Athiesm is okay but peacfully practicing religion is not, that makes no sence.
Religion makes no "sence [sic]." It&#39;s completely irrational, illogical, submissive, and dogmatic. [/b]
Didn&#39;t you vote &#39;yes&#39; in this poll? What the hell is going on?&#33; :blink:

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:25 PM
Shit, can I change my vote to "no"? :huh:
Go back a page and you&#39;ll find this post.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:25 PM
Shit, can I change my vote to "no"? :huh:
Go back a page and you&#39;ll find this post.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:25 PM
Shit, can I change my vote to "no"? :huh:
Go back a page and you&#39;ll find this post.