Do you believe in God(s)? Poll #3

[Sentinel]

Do you believe in the existence of one or several so called 'gods'? Vote!

See also the two previous polls (2004-2006 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/god-t17856/index.html?t=17856&highlight=poll), 2006-2008 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/god-t46875/index.html)) on the subject. The last one has been closed, as the results were no longer accurate due to board software conversion.

My personal take: there is no scientific evidence whatsoever of the existence of such things as 'gods', on the contrary the claims in holy scriptures have been contradicted by science over and over again. Hence my conclusion is as follows: there are no gods, believing in such would be dangerous and irrational in the extreme, and is to be actively discouraged.

[Demogorgon]

No

[apathy maybe]

I am an anti-theist. There is no proof of any sort for the existence of a god or gods (as commonly defined), and that the belief in god or gods is irrational and potentially dangerous.

There are a number of proofs (mostly logical) against the existence of god or gods however.

[Cult of Reason]

Religion should not exist.

[Dystisis]

It's ignorant to claim either way that "god does exist" or "god does not exist". You can believe it if you want but state it as a belief if you must.

There are many things science can't fully cover yet, and there are possibly huge fields that science hasn't even touched (considering f.ex. the thread "What is certain?"). But science has never ever begun to dealt with "Why" the universe started in the first place. They are beginning to approach "How", but tools of science today are unfit to answer "Why". Maybe some time far off in the future though.

Anyways, believing in this entity called God created by roman church is pretty silly. It must be dealt with like all other myths are dealt with, enlightenment. There was a time gods were primarily used in a symbolic fashion...

[Jazzratt]

I voted "No" because "Uncertain" implies that I consider the probability of God's existance is equal to or greater than 0.1, which I don't.

[Colonello Buendia]

It's ignorant to claim either way that "god does exist" or "god does not exist". You can believe it if you want but state it as a belief if you must.

There are many things science can't fully cover yet, and there are possibly huge fields that science hasn't even touched (considering f.ex. the thread "What is certain?"). But science has never ever begun to dealt with "Why" the universe started in the first place. They are beginning to approach "How", but tools of science today are unfit to answer "Why". Maybe some time far off in the future though.

Anyways, believing in this entity called God created by roman church is pretty silly. It must be dealt with like all other myths are dealt with, enlightenment. There was a time gods were primarily used in a symbolic fashion...
Au Contraire, scientists are starting research into why we are here something to do with a swiss lab

[Dystisis]

Au Contraire, scientists are starting research into why we are here something to do with a swiss lab
Ah, well I think we have the answer then.

A swiss lab.

[Bud Struggle]

Here's the deal:

We don't know. We have no proof one way or the other so we can't in any way, shape or form "know". We know that the universe exists. Either someone put it here or it got here on it's own. Both positions are somewhat nonsense. But we are here--and we have NO IDEA how or why. We have no proof. The agnostic position is by far the mostrational.

That being said--there has been contact with God, if he does exist. There are numerous "sacred texts" all saying--by God--"I made this place and I exist." Would human beings even imagine a God exists if he didn't say so? So there are texts of a God "contact." Imagined or not.

Then there is the problem of "faith". Is intrinsic to humans? All kinds of people from all over the place have it. The faith in Jesus, the faith in Marx (and it's a faith) the faith in Buddah or Allah. Why do we have it?

I kind of think, it's not all for nothing. I believe in God, I'm a Catholic, and for what it's worth--even if I didn't believe in God I'd still live as a Catholic because of the wonderful quality of life the Catholic Church has given me. And I know, you all may think I'm an idiot--but I'm extremely happy--always have been and even more important, my family--who I love and adore--are happy as Catholics.

Maybe it's all a chimera, but if one had to chose a life--a happy one is best!

[Sankofa]

No.

What makes the "Abrahamic" God more real than say; Zues, Hera, Hercules, Poseidon, Neptune, Quetzalcoatl, etc.?

Another thing I can't understand is when religious people mock cults like Scientology, Heaven's Gate, and the like. It's not like their fairy tale is any less ridiculous than their own.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I do not believe in any supernatural beings. I consider the possibility of the existance of a supernatural being as commonly depicted in religions to be the same possibility of the existance of unicorns, elves, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In other words, there's no evidence and it's highly unlikely there will be evidence in the future, considering what we already know of the universe.

I am of the opinion that belief in the supernatural is a socially, personally and morally harmful delusion.


We don't know. We have no proof one way or the other so we can't in any way, shape or form "know". We know that the universe exists. Either someone put it here or it got here on it's own.

False dilemma.


Both positions are somewhat nonsense. But we are here--and we have NO IDEA how or why. We have no proof. The agnostic position is by far the mostrational.Bullshit. Evolutionary theory explains the how and the weak anthropic principle explains why.


That being said--there has been contact with God, if he does exist. There are numerous "sacred texts" all saying--by God--"I made this place and I exist." Would human beings even imagine a God exists if he didn't say so? So there are texts of a God "contact." Imagined or not.Not evidence of the existance of divinity, only proof of the human belief in divine beings. Anybody could have written a "sacred text" from delusionary maniacs to fraudsters to people who were honestly mistaken.


Then there is the problem of "faith". Is intrinsic to humans? All kinds of people from all over the place have it. The faith in Jesus, the faith in Marx (and it's a faith) the faith in Buddah or Allah. Why do we have it?If faith was intrinsic to human beings, there would be no atheists.


I kind of think, it's not all for nothing. I believe in God, I'm a Catholic, and for what it's worth--even if I didn't believe in God I'd still live as a Catholic because of the wonderful quality of life the Catholic Church has given me. And I know, you all may think I'm an idiot--but I'm extremely happy--always have been and even more important, my family--who I love and adore--are happy as Catholics.

Maybe it's all a chimera, but if one had to chose a life--a happy one is best!Just because one's religious faith makes one happy does not make one's faith true.

[Jazzratt]

Here's the deal:

We don't know. We have no proof one way or the other so we can't in any way, shape or form "know".

There is a perfectly buttered crumpet just behind your head. It has no odour, is intangible, is invisible, has no heat signature, cannot be detected with any of today's technologies and moves out of the way of anyone who tries to bat it away with supernatural speed. I have no proof of this assertion, you have no way of disproving it so we can't be said to "know" the crumpet isn't there - but it's utterly nuts to say it is.


We know that the universe exists. Either someone put it here or it got here on it's own. Both positions are somewhat nonsense.

Physics disagrees.


But we are here--and we have NO IDEA how or why. We have no proof.

Incorrect. Our knowledge of how we came to be is incomplete, sure, but it is far from non-existent. As for no proof we have (and this is me speaking as a layman so we may well have more than this): an expanding universe (suggesting some kind of explosion or high-energy event at the beginning of the universe), fossils and observations of Mars, Titan and quite a few other planets/moons/planetoids which have helped increase our understanding immensely.


The agnostic position is by far the mostrational.

Most agnostics are functionally atheist, and by far the most rational position (i.e the chance of their being no god is extremely close to 1 (we're talking loadsa nines after the decimel point here) without being 1) is only technically agnostic.


That being said--there has been contact with God, if he does exist. There are numerous "sacred texts" all saying--by God--"I made this place and I exist."

Considering how unreliable these texts are, and how self contradictory, I doubt they are the infallible word of God and find it much more likely they were written by people in order to collect all the oral traditions of that tribe.


Would human beings even imagine a God exists if he didn't say so?

Yes. Very few of the things on this list exist (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/monsters.htm) and quite a lot of them take more imagination than God. (Don't believe me? Check this motherfucker out (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG260.jpg).)


So there are texts of a God "contact." Imagined or not.

Yeah, there's also books about Hobbits - the idea of stating that it doesn't matter whether or not Hobbits exist because there are accounts of them (albiet imaginary) is insane.

Would you take Bubba-Joe-Moron McFatass' account of an alien abduction as proof that the aliens that abducted him are real because he wrote it down - regardless of whether it is real or imagined?


Then there is the problem of "faith". Is intrinsic to humans? All kinds of people from all over the place have it. The faith in Jesus, the faith in Marx (and it's a faith) the faith in Buddah or Allah. Why do we have it?

Your argument rests on two assumptions: Religious faith ("I have faith the pixie in the sky is watching over me") and more informal faith ("I trust I have not put too much faith in your ability to reason") are the same and that there can be no other purpose for faith (which if you're defining it loosely enough to include Marxism is pretty much just *trust*) other than to worship God.


I kind of think, it's not all for nothing.

I'm fairly sure (not 100% certain) it's all for "nothing" given theories like the big crunch, the heat death of the universe and the like.


I believe in God, I'm a Catholic, and for what it's worth--even if I didn't believe in God I'd still live as a Catholic because of the wonderful quality of life the Catholic Church has given me.

Really? I've heard some quite harsh things said about life as a Catholic (usually by people with experience in catholic upbringings); what I hear about most is guilt and fear. I'd rather live as an atheist, able to treat others humanely through my own rational choice without the fear of some sky daddy ready and waiting to chuck me into a lake of fire if I don't follow all the Byzantine rules set down by his "representatives".


And I know, you all may think I'm an idiot--but I'm extremely happy--always have been and even more important, my family--who I love and adore--are happy as Catholics.

This says nothing about god's existance. I'm glad your family are happy though, shame so many others aren't.


Maybe it's all a chimera, but if one had to chose a life--a happy one is best!

Do you not believe, then, that someone could be happy without a belief in god, or at least a play at belief in god? And either way, this once more says nothing for the existance (or otherwise) of God.

[F9]

Clearly no.No clear evidence of god exist!

Fuserg9:star:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Do you believe in the existence of one or several so called 'gods'?
Yes. I also believe that the existence of at least one god or god-like entity is necessary in order to make it possible for humans to live rational lives. We can only make rational decisions if we have a set of moral axioms to base them on and if we have a purpose that is meant to be achieved through those decisions. In the absence of god(s), both the axioms and the purpose can only be arbitrary; therefore all human action is fundamentally irrational.


My personal take: there is no scientific evidence whatsoever of the existence of such things as 'gods'.
That is correct. In some cases, however, scientific evidence would be impossible to provide even if the god(s) in question existed; therefore the absence of evidence shouldn't count against them. Suppose you found some kind of non-human intelligence. How would you go about proving that it is or is not a god?


believing in such would be dangerous and irrational in the extreme
Gods or no gods, no one on this planet applies the scientific method every time they make a decision on whether to believe something or not. Are you saying they should?


I do not believe in any supernatural beings. I consider the possibility of the existance of a supernatural being as commonly depicted in religions to be the same possibility of the existance of unicorns, elves, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I often hear that argument, but one thing is never explained: Are you referring to the existence of such creatures on Earth, or somewhere in the universe at large?

Clearly the probability of them existing on Earth is effectively zero. But, given what we know about the universe, it is possible that life may be abundant. If life is indeed abundant in the universe, it is reasonable to expect that creatures broadly similar to unicorns, elves, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster may exist somewhere.

Likewise, we clearly know that there are no physical gods on Earth...


There is a perfectly buttered crumpet just behind your head. It has no odour, is intangible, is invisible, has no heat signature, cannot be detected with any of today's technologies and moves out of the way of anyone who tries to bat it away with supernatural speed. I have no proof of this assertion, you have no way of disproving it so we can't be said to "know" the crumpet isn't there - but it's utterly nuts to say it is.
The thing is, you've defined this crumpet in such a way that it does not interact with the physical universe in any way whatsoever. Therefore it doesn't really matter whether it exists or not. We don't know if it exists, and I would not consider it crazy to believe that it does. Since it does not interact with the physical universe, however, it has no relevance to our lives. It's not that I disbelieve in its existence - I simply don't care about it.

Oh, and you cannot claim to have knowledge of something that, by definition, does not transmit any information into our universe.

[RebelDog]

Suppose you found some kind of non-human intelligence. How would you go about proving that it is or is not a god?

Why would one believe it could be a god in the first place? There are other creatures here on earth that are intelligent. If we found alien life on other planets we would apply the same logic we do to any life in the universe and trace its biological history. Why do even suppose 'intelligence' should be a trait synonymous with deities?

[Sentinel]

the existence of at least one god or god-like entity is necessary in order to make it possible for humans to live rational lives. We can only make rational decisions if we have a set of moral axioms to base them on and if we have a purpose that is meant to be achieved through those decisions. In the absence of god(s), both the axioms and the purpose can only be arbitrary; therefore all human action is fundamentally irrational.

This makes no sense. Being social animals it is in our rational self-interests to act in a way that is beneficial to society, because that bounces back in the form of respect and acceptance. No morals are needed here, we don't need to decide that something is 'good' or 'bad' in order for society to function.


In some cases, however, scientific evidence would be impossible to provide even if the god(s) in question existed

Applying Occams Razor (http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa051600a.htm), ie following the theory which makes the least assumptions, is the rational course to take in situations of uncertainty.

Hint: in this example, it's not the one that there is a god.


Suppose you found some kind of non-human intelligence. How would you go about proving that it is or is not a god?

By examining it scientifically (or more precisely, letting the most skilled scientists available do that)?


Gods or no gods, no one on this planet applies the scientific method every time they make a decision on whether to believe something or not. Are you saying they should?

I would strongly suggest either that, or at least listening to those who do, yes.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Why would one believe it could be a god in the first place? There are other creatures here on earth that are intelligent. If we found alien life on other planets we would apply the same logic we do to any life in the universe and trace its biological history. Why do even suppose 'intelligence' should be a trait synonymous with deities?
That wasn't the point I was trying to make. There is nothing necessarily godlike about non-human intelligence, of course. The point I was trying to make is the point I discussed in greater detail in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-you-test-t61722/index.html).

Basically, the argument is that there is no way to prove the existence of God because even if God appeared in your living room, you could just say it was a technologically advanced alien claiming to be God.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This makes no sense. Being social animals it is in our rational self-interests to act in a way that is beneficial to society, because that bounces back in the form of respect and acceptance. No morals are needed here, we don't need to decide that something is 'good' or 'bad' in order for society to function.
Yes we do; for example, you just assumed that it is good to do things that are in our self-interest. Why is that?

Of course, people care about their own survival, but this comes from instinct, not reason. To say that something is good just because people are naturally inclined to do it is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.


Applying Occams Razor (http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa051600a.htm), ie following the theory which makes the least assumptions, is the rational course to take in situations of uncertainty.

Hint: in this example, it's not the one that there is a god.
The rationality of various courses of action depends on what exactly you are trying to achieve. Occam's Razor applies in cases where the goal is to find the simplest theory to explain natural phenomena and make predictions. The reason you should not make unnecessary assumptions in such cases is because they will make your theory unnecessarily complicated and will therefore make it harder for you to make predictions.

In the case of God, however, the purpose of the inquiry is not to find the best theory for making predictions. Therefore there is no reason to prefer simpler theories over more complicated ones.


By examining it scientifically (or more precisely, letting the most skilled scientists available do that)?
Right, but what would they be looking for? Suppose you have an object or entity and you wish to determine if it is a god. What kind of tests could you perform?


I would strongly suggest either that, or at least listening to those who do, yes.
Listening to those who do is the key phrase there. It is impractical, not to mention a huge waste of time and effort, to insist on performing an experiment or applying the scientific method for every bit of information you receive. In most cases, you believe something because you heard it from a source you trust. There is nothing irrational about putting trust in other people to provide you with accurate information - in fact, you have to do it in order to function in modern society. Why then do you say that it is "dangerous and irrational in the extreme" when religious people believe in the supernatural because they put trust in people or written sources that talk about the supernatural? Perhaps they are misguided; perhaps they put trust in people who don't deserve it; but, fundamentally, they are doing what every human being must do in some cases - trust other people to provide accurate information. It is absurd to say that trust is irrational.

[Sentinel]

Yes we do; for example, you just assumed that it is good to do things that are in our self-interest. Why is that?

Nope, I didn't. What's rational and beneficial, isn't necessarily 'good' in the moral sense. And especially not in the religious moral sense, ie claiming that 'god' has made a set of inafllible rules which are to be followed in absolutum. Demanding set values in the way moral codes do is entirely unnecessary and not practical at all. See what happens when the churches try to apply morals from year 1 and 2 in modern, sexually liberated society..


Of course, people care about their own survival, but this comes from instinct, not reason. To say that something is good just because people are naturally inclined to do it is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

I'm not claiming that either. As a matter of fact I'm a staunch opponent of such an approach, being a transhumanist. Now some traits we carry are beneficial, other's aren't, but objectively beneficial is not the same as 'good' in a moral sense. What I am saying here is that if we act in our rational self interests, which in a modern society requires cooperation, it makes morals superfluous.

This is something most humans are capable of and also do, because we are (by evolutionary development, mind you) constructed in such a way, despite the misanthropic claims of religion. We are social. Also, human reason is not something opposed to human instincts, but rather something that has developed with the help of those.


In the case of God, however, the purpose of the inquiry is not to find the best theory for making predictions. Therefore there is no reason to prefer simpler theories over more complicated ones.

There is however, a reason to not make baseless assumptions which can't be proven in any way: belief in the unprovable has the potential to lead to extremely irrational behavior.


Right, but what would they be looking for? Suppose you have an object or entity and you wish to determine if it is a god. What kind of tests could you perform?

Well, if we wanted to see if it was the Judeo-Christian 'god', we would obviously compare to Judeo-Christian scripture. We could perhaps start by asking it whether it hates homosexuality or not. :glare:

But seriously speaking.. It would be more likely, however, that we'd try to examine what it is on it's own merits rather than even starting from the assumption that it was a 'god'. If there is any truth in the god myths, which I don't believe there is, then the most likely explanation would in my opinion be that 'god' was a more advanced species of some sorts.

After all, most 'supernatural' phenomena have turned out to have very 'natural' explanations -- 'god' has basically been a code word for 'something we don't understand'. This is why religions likely emerged in the first place, after all: to explain the at the moment unexplainable.


In most cases, you believe something because you heard it from a source you trust.

No, no, and no. Simply trusting others would be having 'faith'. What matters is why I trust them, ie, because they are on demand capable of logically explaining why their claims are true. This is what science does, and religion fails to do.

Very nice try though. :D


It is absurd to say that trust is irrational.

That any kind of trust is, yes. But blind trust is highly irrational.

[RHIZOMES]

No.

And even if there is, it is irrelevant to how we live our lives in the here and now.

[apathy maybe]

Heh, here is a quote by me from January 2004

I do believe in a non interventionist God.
I also think that the poll should have four options; yes; no; don't care; don't know but do care.
I take yes. (Oh and the God I believe in is not a 'Boss'.)
I've changed I think ;), become more mature.

Quote from June 2006,

What is "God"? All the gods I've heard of could not exist.

However, that is not to say that a 'God' couldn't exist. But I find the prospect unlikely and more to the point it doesn't matter anyway.
So I went from a believer, did some philosophy and said the above, and now? What I said above.

[Black Dagger]

There is (arguably) a creator - not in any religious sense - but in the sense (if the big-bang theory has any merit) that how things came to be as they are now was triggered by something or a combination of things (as in a process of reactions - though i doubt these were set in to motion by sentient beings - there's no evidence for that - but i guess it's possible? If unlikely).

No doubt we'll figure out more as time goes by - but at this point - whilst i can't discount that a 'god' in this sense exists -I.E. that something may have consciously 'created' the big-bang as opposed to it just happening 'naturally' - i think i can comfortably (philosophically and intellectually speaking) dismiss the constructs of 'god' and 'gods' as they exist in mono and polytheistic religions - in the same way that i can dismiss the existence of 'Ra', 'Apollo', or the 'Rainbow serpent' - as culturally/socially/historically constituted icons/myths etc. stemming from an understandable ignorance of the natural world. And a part from this, that as a political position - i can identify as an atheist - despite not being able (or wanting) to make a truth claim on the creation of the universe - i nevertheless reject the notion, nature and role of religion and 'god'/'gods' as they have been constructed over time by humans - and that this is a conscious political choice.

For these reasons, i voted 'no'.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm agnostic, so I don't really care either way.

[Jazzratt]

The thing is, you've defined this crumpet in such a way that it does not interact with the physical universe in any way whatsoever. Therefore it doesn't really matter whether it exists or not.We don't know if it exists, and I would not consider it crazy to believe that it does. Since it does not interact with the physical universe, however, it has no relevance to our lives. It's not that I disbelieve in its existence - I simply don't care about it.

Okay, let's refine this a bit and say that you get to eat the crumpet when you die as a reward for good behaviour. It now interacts with world.


Oh, and you cannot claim to have knowledge of something that, by definition, does not transmit any information into our universe.

The crumpet does though, it tastes simply scrumptious to the dead.

[pusher robot]

Okay, let's refine this a bit and say that you get to eat the crumpet when you die as a reward for good behaviour. It now interacts with world.

Well, this should be easy to test: simply observe a person when they die and watch to see if any crumpet-eating takes place.

Oh, did you mean that you get to eat it in some otherworldy realm that cannot be detected or interacted with in any way? Then you haven't actually changed anything in your scenario. It is still not interacting with the world, which makes it an utter irrelevancy.

We can only speak intelligently about things we are actually capable of detecting. We can only speculate intelligently about things we are at least theoretically capable of detecting. Things outside our local bubble of space-time called the Universe fall into neither category.

[proleterian fist]

Well I don't believe in it.
My view about religion is,that it is an opium to people.It's a theory that science didn't prove yet though they can't prove evolution,too.
I don't care about it anyway.

[Lord Testicles]

No, I don't believe in God/s.

[Awful Reality]

Yes. I also believe that the existence of at least one god or god-like entity is necessary in order to make it possible for humans to live rational lives. We can only make rational decisions if we have a set of moral axioms to base them on and if we have a purpose that is meant to be achieved through those decisions. In the absence of god(s), both the axioms and the purpose can only be arbitrary; therefore all human action is fundamentally irrational.


That is correct. In some cases, however, scientific evidence would be impossible to provide even if the god(s) in question existed; therefore the absence of evidence shouldn't count against them. Suppose you found some kind of non-human intelligence. How would you go about proving that it is or is not a god?


Gods or no gods, no one on this planet applies the scientific method every time they make a decision on whether to believe something or not. Are you saying they should?


I often hear that argument, but one thing is never explained: Are you referring to the existence of such creatures on Earth, or somewhere in the universe at large?

Clearly the probability of them existing on Earth is effectively zero. But, given what we know about the universe, it is possible that life may be abundant. If life is indeed abundant in the universe, it is reasonable to expect that creatures broadly similar to unicorns, elves, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster may exist somewhere.

Likewise, we clearly know that there are no physical gods on Earth...


The thing is, you've defined this crumpet in such a way that it does not interact with the physical universe in any way whatsoever. Therefore it doesn't really matter whether it exists or not. We don't know if it exists, and I would not consider it crazy to believe that it does. Since it does not interact with the physical universe, however, it has no relevance to our lives. It's not that I disbelieve in its existence - I simply don't care about it.

Oh, and you cannot claim to have knowledge of something that, by definition, does not transmit any information into our universe.

Restriction?

[Lord Testicles]

What for?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

often hear that argument, but one thing is never explained: Are you referring to the existence of such creatures on Earth, or somewhere in the universe at large?

Clearly the probability of them existing on Earth is effectively zero. But, given what we know about the universe, it is possible that life may be abundant. If life is indeed abundant in the universe, it is reasonable to expect that creatures broadly similar to unicorns, elves, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster may exist somewhere.

An octopus is "broadly similar" to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but that's not proof of His Noodlyness.

Similarly, a being with God-like powers is not proof of the existance of the human conception of what a god is, let alone a specific human god like Jehovah. Their abilities may be granted through technology, natural evolution, or augmentation. In other words, they may only give the appearance of suspending natural laws (a requirement for being supernatural, rather than just powerful natural beings), when in actual fact there's a lot of trickery, technological and otherwise, going on behind the curtain.

It is entirely possible that there is an Earthlike planet somewhere in the universe that has single-horned horse-analogues that human beings with the right cultural traits would come to call unicorns. But they would not be the unicorns of legend, with quicksilver for blood and tractable only by virgins.

Is the Jesus Lizard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basiliscus_%28genus%29) proof of the miracle of Jesus walking on water?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

From the Revleft FAQ:


Personal beliefs/positions on religion/spirituality should not affect an individuals overall status on RevLeft if kept within the Religion forum.

Now that we got that sorted, let's continue with the discussion:


What's rational and beneficial, isn't necessarily 'good' in the moral sense.
What is the difference between "beneficial" and "good"? Morality doesn't have to mean traditional Christian or Muslim or Zoroastrian or Epicurean or Stoic morality. A moral code is any set of guidelines regarding human behaviour. There is an infinite number of possible moral codes.


Demanding set values in the way moral codes do is entirely unnecessary and not practical at all. See what happens when the churches try to apply morals from year 1 and 2 in modern, sexually liberated society.
I'm not sure what you mean by "set values." A moral code can be deontological, consequentialist or a combination of the two. Not all moral codes require you to follow a rigid set of rules that determine your actions.


I'm not claiming that either. As a matter of fact I'm a staunch opponent of such an approach, being a transhumanist. Now some traits we carry are beneficial, other's aren't, but objectively beneficial is not the same as 'good' in a moral sense. What I am saying here is that if we act in our rational self interests, which in a modern society requires cooperation, it makes morals superfluous.
Again, what is the difference between "beneficial" and "good"? To say that humans should do X is to say that X is good. At least that's my definition of "good." As far as I'm concerned, saying that humans should act in their rational self interest is equivalent to saying that rational self interest is morally good. So, why is it good? Or, if you prefer that I phrase the question differently, why should humans act in accordance with their rational self interest?


This is something most humans are capable of and also do, because we are (by evolutionary development, mind you) constructed in such a way, despite the misanthropic claims of religion.
But as a transhumanist, you just said a few lines above that we should not let our evolutionary traits determine our behavior. I am confused. Are you saying that we should do things because "we are constructed in such a way" as to be inclined to do them, or are you not saying that?


There is however, a reason to not make baseless assumptions which can't be proven in any way: belief in the unprovable has the potential to lead to extremely irrational behavior.
That's very vague. People can act irrationally at any time for any reason - simply getting angry is usually enough to lead to extremely irrational behavior. I don't see how a belief in an unprovable axiom, followed by a construction of a logical argument based upon that axiom, is in any way more likely to lead to irrational behavior than normal human emotion.

In fact, I believe that all human beings base their actions on unprovable axioms, whether they admit it or not.


But seriously speaking.. It would be more likely, however, that we'd try to examine what it is on it's own merits rather than even starting from the assumption that it was a 'god'.
What if it claims to be a god? How would you determine whether it is telling the truth?


After all, most 'supernatural' phenomena have turned out to have very 'natural' explanations -- 'god' has basically been a code word for 'something we don't understand'. This is why religions likely emerged in the first place, after all: to explain the at the moment unexplainable.
The early, shamanistic or earth-based religions emerged that way, true. But the religions that dominate the world today are mostly messianic - they emerged when one individual or group started claiming to have some sort of divine revelation about the purpose of life, and began converting people to that belief. Christianity, Islam and Buddhism are the most prominent examples of such messianic religions.


No, no, and no. Simply trusting others would be having 'faith'. What matters is why I trust them, ie, because they are on demand capable of logically explaining why their claims are true. This is what science does, and religion fails to do.

Very nice try though.
Ok, so the difference between you and me can be reduced to a difference of criteria for trusting people. You are simply saying that I have trusted some people I shouldn't have trusted. Fair enough. But that's hardly the massive gulf between reason and unreason that you were describing earlier. ;)

The kind of trust that religion usually relies on is trust in people who claim to have been eyewitnesses to supernatural events. Such people are in fact capable of explaining on demand why their claims are true - because they saw them with their own eyes (or so they say).


That any kind of trust is, yes. But blind trust is highly irrational.
What kind of trust counts as blind trust?

[Faux Real]

I'm uncertain, but it would be entertaining if his/her non-interventionist position on humanity was over with and some supernatural shit got going again. :)

[Demogorgon]

Really? I've heard some quite harsh things said about life as a Catholic (usually by people with experience in catholic upbringings); what I hear about most is guilt and fear. I'd rather live as an atheist, able to treat others humanely through my own rational choice without the fear of some sky daddy ready and waiting to chuck me into a lake of fire if I don't follow all the Byzantine rules set down by his "representatives".

I was brought up Catholic and it really wasn't any different from being brought up non-religiously other than being dragged to church every Sunday. Similarly Catholic school was identical to normal school, minor religious education notwithstanding. They certainly never told us we would go to hell if we disobeyed God, indeed they repeatedly taught no one ever went to hell no matter what. Now you may think that is bad theology or whatever, but that is what Catholic Children are taught. I have long since left the church and am completely non religious, but I have no complaints about my Catholic upbringing.

A fundamentalist Christian upbringing would be a different kettle of fish though and would presumably be as you describe.

[Bud Struggle]

I agree:

Catholics are substantially different than Born Again Christians.

[Sentinel]

What is the difference between "beneficial" and "good"?

Something can be objectively beneficial, ie bring concrete material/social benefits while not being 'good' according to any moral code.


I'm not sure what you mean by "set values." A moral code can be deontological, consequentialist or a combination of the two. Not all moral codes require you to follow a rigid set of rules that determine your actions.

Maybe not, but what I'm arguing is that they are superfluous none the less. Looking to your concrete benefit is enough -- and as having the respect and acceptance of society makes most people happy, moral codes are unnecessary for society to function.


But as a transhumanist, you just said a few lines above that we should not let our evolutionary traits determine our behavior. I am confused. Are you saying that we should do things because "we are constructed in such a way" as to be inclined to do them, or are you not saying that?

I'm wasn't initially talking about what we 'should do' at all, but how we function as a species. I later only brought up transhumanism because you threw me with the strawman that I was implying that all natural things are 'good', while I was merely stating the fact that we naturally act in a social way.

I sure do think that we should attempt to transcend beyond our genetic limitations, but that doesn't negate the fact that we are social animals which seek acceptance and respect of others. Moreover the fact that we transhumanists object to the 'sacredness of the natural' does not mean that we consider every evolutionary trait negative.


That's very vague. People can act irrationally at any time for any reason - simply getting angry is usually enough to lead to extremely irrational behavior. I don't see how a belief in an unprovable axiom, followed by a construction of a logical argument based upon that axiom, is in any way more likely to lead to irrational behavior than normal human emotion.

In fact, I believe that all human beings base their actions on unprovable axioms, whether they admit it or not.

It may be hard to understand that not all need that kind of safety nets, but that's just how it is. I try to behave well in social situations, because I know there would be unpleasant consequences otherwise, both in form of punishments and feelings of regret. That's reason enough for me.


The early, shamanistic or earth-based religions emerged that way, true. But the religions that dominate the world today are mostly messianic - they emerged when one individual or group started claiming to have some sort of divine revelation about the purpose of life, and began converting people to that belief. Christianity, Islam and Buddhism are the most prominent examples of such messianic religions.

Yet, people believe in them all because they need a way to explain the what they don't understand, ie why we are here, why we have to die, etc. People are scared of this existence, scared of death, and need comfort -- but religion provides false comfort.


Ok, so the difference between you and me can be reduced to a difference of criteria for trusting people. You are simply saying that I have trusted some people I shouldn't have trusted. Fair enough. But that's hardly the massive gulf between reason and unreason that you were describing earlier. ;)

The kind of trust that religion usually relies on is trust in people who claim to have been eyewitnesses to supernatural events. Such people are in fact capable of explaining on demand why their claims are true - because they saw them with their own eyes (or so they say).

No, Edric, it's not the same at all. There is a huge difference between trusting someone who can prove their point, and someone who can not. Claiming to have seen a something is not proof of it's existence. Logically explaining how it can be possible and/or showing up concrete proof is.


What kind of trust counts as blind trust?

See the above.

[Black Cross]

I'm uncertain. There is no way to prove/disprove a "supernatural" being; to say something is supernatural is to say that it is unexplainable by natural law. all we can do is speculate.


I'm uncertain, but it would be entertaining if his/her non-interventionist position on humanity was over with and some supernatural shit got going again. :)

If it's any god that has been written about to date, I think we'd all be fucked. People on the far left don't tend to share the same morals as "gods".

[Cult of Reason]

Marxist-rev: Anything that is not falsifiable (to use Karl Poppers term) is probably a load of crap. ;)

[Sendo]

where's the option for neither (non-theism as opposed to monotheism/polytheism and antitheism/atheism)? How can there be a Creator outside of Creation? I don't believe in an old man on a rain-cloud (Judeo-Christian God), nor do I discount something that transcends physical "existence." I don't understand why so many let Western Christianity dominate them, by their fierce submission to a constructed boss of the cosmos, or their steadfast refusal to believe in anything when by "anything" they mean a personified God--you're still having your very premise of reality and/or divinty be defined by Christianity. There's more to religion than acceptance or rejection of Jehovah.

Anyway, to be atheist is to be as doctrinaire as any religion. And when I say that, I don't mean people who see the nonexistence/existence of a God irrelevant to the entirety of human life, I mean guys like that British dude who have unshakable conviction that something beyond our here and now could never exist, and holding this conviction without proof (...it's still a form of faith).

He also campaigns that the end of religion would be the end of all war, too. As if 9-11 was in no way influenced by post-WWII Presidents of the US. Very religious in that belief, too.

And then there's the lovely irony of bitter people who actively hate a god they don't believe in for the crime of not existing, thereby ruining their ability to be blissfull.

[Apollodorus]

I feel rather redundant. The atheists on this forum seem to be doing fine by themselves. How refreshingly different: normally it is me against the world.


It's ignorant to claim either way that "god does exist" or "god does not exist". You can believe it if you want but state it as a belief if you must.

Adding 'I believe' to the beginning of 'God does exist' is redundant. Everyone knows it is our opinion: it is coming from us and is unsupported. That is an opinion.



There are many things science can't fully cover yet, and there are possibly huge fields that science hasn't even touched (considering f.ex. the thread "What is certain?"). But science has never ever begun to dealt with "Why" the universe started in the first place. They are beginning to approach "How", but tools of science today are unfit to answer "Why". Maybe some time far off in the future though.

I beg to differ. Science does need to answer 'Why the universe exists'. It is tautological: like asking why do things which exist exist.


Here's the deal:

We don't know. We have no proof one way or the other so we can't in any way, shape or form "know". We know that the universe exists. Either someone put it here or it got here on it's own. Both positions are somewhat nonsense. But we are here--and we have NO IDEA how or why. We have no proof. The agnostic position is by far the mostrational.

Evidence is not needed to oppose the idea of God. The whole idea of God is meaningless. As for whether we know whether the 'universe was put here or got here on its own', saying that it was created only raises the question of how God got here. Theists tell us that he came into existence without outside influence. If this is so, then why do we need a God? Why can not we just say that the universe got here on its own? 'God' is superfluous; a device for deferring the problem of the origin of cause and effect so that it is no longer relevant.



That being said--there has been contact with God, if he does exist. There are numerous "sacred texts" all saying--by God--"I made this place and I exist." Would human beings even imagine a God exists if he didn't say so? So there are texts of a God "contact." Imagined or not.

You make it sound like alien contact. Which is about as much credibility as it does have.



Then there is the problem of "faith". Is intrinsic to humans? All kinds of people from all over the place have it. The faith in Jesus, the faith in Marx (and it's a faith) the faith in Buddah or Allah. Why do we have it?

Faith is not intrinsic to humans. God was a solution to philosophical problems thousands of years ago. This problem-solving process is intrinsic to humans. Another intrinsic attribute is stubbornness. Refusing to believe the obvious for no reason other than that is the one firmly entrenched in one's mind. That is what faith is: stubbornness and old philosophical theories.



I kind of think, it's not all for nothing. I believe in God, I'm a Catholic, and for what it's worth--even if I didn't believe in God I'd still live as a Catholic because of the wonderful quality of life the Catholic Church has given me. And I know, you all may think I'm an idiot--but I'm extremely happy--always have been and even more important, my family--who I love and adore--are happy as Catholics.

It is being the same thing as your family that brings the happiness, not the Catholicism. My family are atheists. I get the extreme happiness too. Only without the bullshit.



Maybe it's all a chimera, but if one had to chose a life--a happy one is best!

Nah, truth does not matter does it? Ignoring things is the key to good morality!


Yes. I also believe that the existence of at least one god or god-like entity is necessary in order to make it possible for humans to live rational lives. We can only make rational decisions if we have a set of moral axioms to base them on and if we have a purpose that is meant to be achieved through those decisions. In the absence of god(s), both the axioms and the purpose can only be arbitrary; therefore all human action is fundamentally irrational.

If there were moral laws, then there would not be any rapists, apostates or homosexuals, would there? A law of the universe that can be broken is not a law of the universe. That would be like immoral people using perpetual motion machines.



That is correct. In some cases, however, scientific evidence would be impossible to provide even if the god(s) in question existed; therefore the absence of evidence shouldn't count against them. Suppose you found some kind of non-human intelligence. How would you go about proving that it is or is not a god?

Haraldur nailed this one, I think, with Popper. I can't top that.



Gods or no gods, no one on this planet applies the scientific method every time they make a decision on whether to believe something or not. Are you saying they should?

I do, when there is scientific evidence available. Obviously I do not for, say, whether to lace my shoelaces right over left instead of left over right. But there is no scientific evidence about that, is there? There is loads about God, however.



I often hear that argument, but one thing is never explained: Are you referring to the existence of such creatures on Earth, or somewhere in the universe at large?

Clearly the probability of them existing on Earth is effectively zero. But, given what we know about the universe, it is possible that life may be abundant. If life is indeed abundant in the universe, it is reasonable to expect that creatures broadly similar to unicorns, elves, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster may exist somewhere.

Likewise, we clearly know that there are no physical gods on Earth...

Defining feature of God: omnipresence. What God do you speak of?



The thing is, you've defined this crumpet in such a way that it does not interact with the physical universe in any way whatsoever. Therefore it doesn't really matter whether it exists or not. We don't know if it exists, and I would not consider it crazy to believe that it does. Since it does not interact with the physical universe, however, it has no relevance to our lives. It's not that I disbelieve in its existence - I simply don't care about it.

Oh, and you cannot claim to have knowledge of something that, by definition, does not transmit any information into our universe.

Does God? That is news to me.


Yes we do; for example, you just assumed that it is good to do things that are in our self-interest. Why is that?

Because mankind is inherently good. Men always conduct themselves in a way that is right. They may doubt this at times, but ultimately they will convince themselves that it is right. And only then do they act.



Listening to those who do is the key phrase there. It is impractical, not to mention a huge waste of time and effort, to insist on performing an experiment or applying the scientific method for every bit of information you receive. In most cases, you believe something because you heard it from a source you trust. There is nothing irrational about putting trust in other people to provide you with accurate information - in fact, you have to do it in order to function in modern society. Why then do you say that it is "dangerous and irrational in the extreme" when religious people believe in the supernatural because they put trust in people or written sources that talk about the supernatural? Perhaps they are misguided; perhaps they put trust in people who don't deserve it; but, fundamentally, they are doing what every human being must do in some cases - trust other people to provide accurate information. It is absurd to say that trust is irrational.

There is truth in what you say. I am not blaming you for your ideas. I am merely trying to do exactly what you are talking about: to sway your beliefs.


Well, this should be easy to test: simply observe a person when they die and watch to see if any crumpet-eating takes place.

Oh, did you mean that you get to eat it in some otherworldy realm that cannot be detected or interacted with in any way? Then you haven't actually changed anything in your scenario. It is still not interacting with the world, which makes it an utter irrelevancy.

We can only speak intelligently about things we are actually capable of detecting. We can only speculate intelligently about things we are at least theoretically capable of detecting. Things outside our local bubble of space-time called the Universe fall into neither category.

Who's side are you arguing for here? The first to paragraphs led me to believe you were against us, but then the last led me to believe you were with us.



That's very vague. People can act irrationally at any time for any reason - simply getting angry is usually enough to lead to extremely irrational behavior. I don't see how a belief in an unprovable axiom, followed by a construction of a logical argument based upon that axiom, is in any way more likely to lead to irrational behavior than normal human emotion.

That sort of irrationality is only rationality disguised. Make a fuss and get what you want. Works quite well, actually.


I was brought up Catholic and it really wasn't any different from being brought up non-religiously other than being dragged to church every Sunday. Similarly Catholic school was identical to normal school, minor religious education notwithstanding. They certainly never told us we would go to hell if we disobeyed God, indeed they repeatedly taught no one ever went to hell no matter what. Now you may think that is bad theology or whatever, but that is what Catholic Children are taught. I have long since left the church and am completely non religious, but I have no complaints about my Catholic upbringing.

A fundamentalist Christian upbringing would be a different kettle of fish though and would presumably be as you describe.

Anglican upbringings are a pain in the arse though, I assure you that.


He also campaigns that the end of religion would be the end of all war, too. As if 9-11 was in no way influenced by post-WWII Presidents of the US. Very religious in that belief, too.

It would fix a lot of things, yes. How can you deny that?

[anarchy666]

Why can't people just be patient and wait? I am an athiest, but that doesn't mean I think I rot in the ground when I die. I don't believe in a god or gods because like Emma Goldman, I believe in man. I don't believe in a higher power, I believe in the equal power of humanity. Organized religion is just a power trip most of the time. If you are a Catholic, pray to Christ, not the pope. Your religion is yours to practice, not someone's to dictate. Be individual about your spirituality, and don't take orders from religous officials. And when people in religion tell you who you can be married to and who not, well that is just homophobia. Be yourself, not someone your priest tells you to be.

[Module]

No, I don't believe in God.
To put it simply, the idea of there being a God is scientifically absurd - and I won't go on about religion itself here, however I will mention I consider myself a strong anti-theist, partially driven to this position by primary school scripture classes. ;)

[al8]

I voted no. Belief in a God or any other religous stuff is idiotic and imbarrasing. I am in favor of the suppression of religion; usurpation of religious property (land, church building ect.), smashing of cherished and noticeable relgious symbols, including a ban on religious expression in public.

[Marsella]

Do you believe in god(s)?

No more than I believe in faeries.


I voted no. Belief in a God or any other religous stuff is idiotic and imbarrasing.

Its embarrassing that you spelled it imbarrasing. :P


I am in favor of the suppression of religion; usurpation of religious property (land, church building ect.), smashing of cherished and noticeable relgious symbols, including a ban on religious expression in public.

I agree, but I would also add that education will probably serve the greatest tool utilized for the elimination of religion.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I voted no. Belief in a God or any other religous stuff is idiotic and imbarrasing. I am in favor of the suppression of religion; usurpation of religious property (land, church building ect.), smashing of cherished and noticeable relgious symbols, including a ban on religious expression in public.
You're a psychopath.

[Sentinel]

You're a psychopath.

I'd say she's one of the more sensible new members in a while, and I'm almost in complete agreement with her. I think religious propaganda should be deprived all publicity -- as a popular measure, of course -- but a ban on religious expressions by individuals might prove to be both hard to implement and unnecessary in practice.

Unnecessary, because people who 'praise' the sky wizard publicly in a post revolutionary society are likely to be either laughed out as fools, or pitied as insane, anyway. Which will lead to their natural withdraval into basements and other such hiding places.

Deprived the 'credibility' caused by public approval, the once mighty religions will be reduced into small, pathetic cults.

[Partisano]

Doesn't matter to me.

[Marsella]

Which will lead to their natural winthraval into basements and other such hiding places.

:lol:

[al8]

Thnak yuo ofr lagnhuig, yuor gmaramr polise iniatitive is graelty apriceatped. Il'l bee focred to do betetr in hte fuutre. Hewre wuold we be if nto ofr teh lainughg gramamr cortercion uint?

[AlleyKat]

I'm a strong Deist, however I am partial to Judaism and Zoroastrianist scripture.

[La Comédie Noire]

No, because believing in god has all kinds of audacious implications.

I live in a secular society and live a wonderful life compared to people in Africa or Latin America, even though they are a thousand times more reverant than I am. If I were to believe in an all powerful god than I'd have to believe he thought me intrinsically better than his most devout followers.

So either god's an ass or he doesn't exist.

[Marsella]

Thnak yuo ofr lagnhuig, yuor gmaramr polise iniatitive is graelty apriceatped. Il'l bee focred to do betetr in hte fuutre. Hewre wuold we be if nto ofr teh lainughg gramamr cortercion uint?

I wasn't laughing at his grammar, I was laughing at the idea that theists will be forced to resort to living in their basements. <_<

[al8]

Ah, mine eyes are open.

[Crest]

As a weak atheist, I found it most accurate to put "no".

[TheLuddite]

Spiritually agnostic

my "God" is nature

[Dystisis]

Well, I don't believe in a "God" per se. I don't believe in anything physically capable of altering the universe or bringing about change, like many of todays believers do.

With that being said, I recognize that atheism does not have an answer to the question of why the universe was created. Neither do, of course, the believers (who fail to prove/state the origin of the "creator").

Personally, I do not believe in any of this. I do not care about it. What I do believe in, or care about, is the universe itself. I believe "God", if you really have a fetish for seeing that word, is in the nature of the universe and how it behaves.

If you look at matter even down to the atomic level, it is always organized. The same way numbers (and of course geometry) is organized. Even on a bigger scale, matter seems to "confine" itself to a certain pattern, or to systematization.

Of course, I realize there is chaos theory, etc... But then again, I also realize there are irrational numbers, and numbers like Pi. These are infinite, and no computer can actually write one -- which is why they were called "unspeakables" by pythagoreans. Same with perfect circles. You could say they are "virtual". My point is, these numbers, even though we popularly use them for "mundane" human business, represents how the universe is constructed.

So... In other words, I do not believe in the "organizer", I believe in systematization itself, or the organization of matter.

[RedAnarchist]

I don't know and I don't care, because he/she/they/it is irrelevant.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I once thought I knew, but I don't know for sure either way.

I am Uncertain!

[Kami]

I don't believe in God, to the point of anti-theism/militant atheism (gah, I hate that phrase, it seems to be attempting to reduce us to their level, that is, killing each other and blowing themselves up). I accept, however, that there is no evidence either way, but it seems to me to be odd to call this agnosticism. Therefore, I adopt what only seems the logical position, the negative, i.e. God does not exist.


I wasn't laughing at his grammar, I was laughing at the idea that theists will be forced to resort to living in their basements. <_<
But if that were to happen, how would we differentiate between theists and geeks? =o

[Kronos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqUD_dVOYB0

[chimx]

I haven't believed in God since I was 12. At times I've wavered to agnosticism and agnostic misotheism, but by-and-large I have always been an outspoken atheist. Generally I try not to be a dickhead about it though.

[durdenisgod]

"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.... yeah, makes perfect sense."
come on an invisible all supurme chairfellow who demands praise.
sounds like a megalomaniac to me.
religion come on guys grow up >.<

[chimx]

Deprived the 'credibility' caused by public [dis]approval, the once mighty religions will be reduced into small, pathetic cults.

Good. The transhumanists and technocrats need the company.

[Peacekeeper]

It's okay for Leftists to not believe in our Creator, Allah (swt), but I think anti-theists are taking things to far. I am your comrade, not the enemy, I will fight alongside you in the coming revolution. Why would you seek to exclude me for my religion if I am your brother and comrade?

[Bright Banana Beard]

It's okay for Leftists to not believe in our Creator, Allah (swt), but I think anti-theists are taking things to far. I am your comrade, not the enemy, I will fight alongside you in the coming revolution. Why would you seek to exclude me for my religion if I am your brother and comrade?

You have general misunderstanding what they are, they are against the human organization of religion, not the personal faith or Koran. The Religion organization is against losing their power because they will excuse as using God for their action. I hope you understand this. We only against the human institution, since there is no God institution. However, for anti-theist, they trying to prove their point that just rational mind in a society can also appear.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's okay for Leftists to not believe in our Creator, Allah (swt), but I think anti-theists are taking things to far. I am your comrade, not the enemy, I will fight alongside you in the coming revolution. Why would you seek to exclude me for my religion if I am your brother and comrade?

Because when it comes to the crunch, you're going to have to make a choice between religion and a classless society. A genuine proletarian revolution gets rid of all "the old shit", including oppression of women, the idea of people as some kind of property (which still currently exists in some form or another even in advanced capitalist countries), all of which forms an integral part of much of superstitious nonsense.

There is also the consideration that religious superstition is inherently hierarchical... there is a master in "Heaven", which throughout human history has meant a master on Earth!

Speaking of the historical role of religion, it has been thoroughly reactionary almost without exception... and those religious groups and individuals who have not been reactionary have been utterly marginal, merely "nibbling at the edges" of the greater whole.

As for the matter of anti-theism... you need not worry about your own personal safety or that of your fellow believers... history has shown that violence against individual believers is completely useless at eradicating religion, except in highly specialised circumstances. By far the best way of "killing" a religion is to deprive it of public presence - close down and/or demolish places of worship, ban public processions and acts of worship, and so on and so forth just as the early Christians did to the old Pagan religions.

How can we expect to break the chains on our bodies if we don't break the chains in our heads?

[apathy maybe]

As for the matter of anti-theism... you need not worry about your own personal safety or that of your fellow believers...
No, you should rather watch out for your fellow believers. After all, to kill an infidel Muslim is even better then killing an infidel Christian or Jew!

Throughout history the religious have been the most successful at killing off other religious people (not to mention anyone who dared question the status quo or the present religion).

[Peacekeeper]

No, you should rather watch out for your fellow believers. After all, to kill an infidel Muslim is even better then killing an infidel Christian or Jew!

Wait, what? :confused:

[apathy maybe]

I have read in a number of places that after the death of the prophet that different groups considered it better, and more likely to win a place in heaven, to kill an infidel Muslim, that is a Muslim that doesn't believe the correct way, then to kill a person of another religion.

Of course, now I can't just find a source for this claim, so you are welcome to take it with a grain of salt. But ask your Iman about it, if you have one.

[Peacekeeper]

I have read in a number of places that after the death of the prophet that different groups considered it better, and more likely to win a place in heaven, to kill an infidel Muslim, that is a Muslim that doesn't believe the correct way, then to kill a person of another religion.

Of course, now I can't just find a source for this claim, so you are welcome to take it with a grain of salt. But ask your Iman about it, if you have one.

Um... that's not in the Koran. In fact, it's just the opposite. To hurt someone who claims to be a fellow Muslim, but you do not think they are a true believer, is a sin, because only Allah (swt) knows what is in someone's heart. Patience and forgiveness and positive criticism are emphasized in Islam.

Also, "Iman" is "faith." I think you meant "Imam." I, being Shia, have Ayatollahs as my modern-day religious leaders, not what Sunnis refer to as Imams.

Also, you are only allowed to kill someone if you have a very strong case against them, like if they committed murder or are occupying your country. :bored:

[High Voltage]

I think the bible is like a war story, mostly exaggeration so you are instilled with a certain feeling. So any scientific argument against the bible as evidence to god(s) or not is void because the bible is using fiction, not fact. But because of the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, we can never be certain of anything so if we do not really exist fesibly does that mean whatever thinks us up is god(s) or do we not exist mentally and everything we accept as a truth or an idea that is false are non-existant? But I think the idea of Heaven (utopia) and classless society coincide with a common longing for peace and prosperity. :closedeyes:

[CheGuevaraRage]

Well i do belive in God...but i dont belive in church nor the curch hierarchy...
They are full of bullshit.I belive in God in my own way...

[CheGuevaraRage]

Well i do belive in God...but i dont belive in church nor the curch hierarchy...
They are full of bullshit.I belive in God in my own way...
In my community they call me a heretic...
But to tell the truth i have more moral and honour,honesty then them wich makes me a better person then them...but they see that i dont go to church and they see me as a criminal,as a sinner.

[High Voltage]

Well i do belive in God...but i dont belive in church nor the curch hierarchy...
They are full of bullshit.I belive in God in my own way...
In my community they call me a heretic...
But to tell the truth i have more moral and honour,honesty then them wich makes me a better person then them...but they see that i dont go to church and they see me as a criminal,as a sinner.

That is how religion is used unjustly. It is used to make these people seem normal and everyone else is crazy or evil. But I believe that the root of organized religion (as a tool) begins with black and white (right and wrong) thinking. If people weren't so easy to manipulate any implications of religion being "evil" (how ironic :rolleyes:) would not be a central issue of religion.
But then compare the core teachings of love and compassion against the hate and persecution that exists from religion. Someone is defying God(s) and its either the non-believers that are kind to people (defying for not believing) or the closet xenophobes of fundamentalism that believe but don't practice the core values of religions (defying for believing but not practicing).

[CheGuevaraRage]

Well fuck those hipocrits...



P.S. sorry for the double post..

[Svante]

m y family i s Lutheran, s o yes.

[Bilan]

I am a non-answer. I have reasonable doubt that there is any god. But how can we ever be absolutely positive?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Proper Tea - It depends how stringent you want to be when you say "asbolutely positive"? If you mean utterly 100%, then probably not. But then, it is impossible to be absolutely positive of any notion, by that definition.

I think a more useful question is "how much credence should we give the idea of god?". In that case the answer is simple - there is no evidence in favour of god, so we should view it with the same regard as we would belief in fairies or the man in the moon. :)

-Alex

[Mirage]

Technically, God is a fairy.

From wikipedia:
A fairy is the name given to a type of mythological being or legendary creature, a form of nature spirit, often described as metaphysical, supernatural or preternatural.

Also, we can be even more certain about the lack of existence of many certain Gods, such as Yahweh, as they are self-contradictory.

[Peacekeeper]

Technically, God is a fairy.

From wikipedia:
A fairy is the name given to a type of mythological being or legendary creature, a form of nature spirit, often described as metaphysical, supernatural or preternatural.

Also, we can be even more certain about the lack of existence of many certain Gods, such as Yahweh, as they are self-contradictory.

How is JHVH contradictory?

[Mirage]

Have you read the bible? An omnipotent, omniscient, and all loving God does not fit in with these verses:

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Matthew 10:34-35
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household."

Oh, and here are A few of God's forgotten commandments.
Exodus 21, 22, and 23
[21:2] "... When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing."
[21:7-8] "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do."
[21:26-27] "When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free for the eye's sake. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free for the tooth's sake."
[22:18, KJV] "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
[22:19] "Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death."
[22:20] "He that sacrificeth unto any god save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed."
[22:29] ... "The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me."
[23:19] ... "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk."

The entire thing reeks with contradiction. I mean, the justification for God's "testing" Adam and Eve and flooding the entire human population is that they were corrupted. But, God made them corrupted, did he not? Here's an interesting mind experiment. You are God, about to create the universe. You are omniscient, so you have all the possible universes, all infinite of them, laid before you. You are omnipotent, so you can create any one. Why on Earth did he make humanity so corrupt? Just to flood them? Doesn't sound very all loving to me.

Edit: PS: At least, an all-loving, omnipotent, and omniscient God cannot be the God of the Bible. I'm not actually sure if the Bible says God is, but that's what most Christians seem to believe, at least. I also doubt that an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving God could be the God to make this imperfect world, even if that God was not the Christian God.

[Peacekeeper]

Have you read the bible? An omnipotent, omniscient, and all loving God does not fit in with these verses:

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I see no contradiction there... :huh:



Matthew 10:34-35
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household."

Wasn't that a Prophet speaking, not God?


Oh, and here are A few of God's forgotten commandments.
Exodus 21, 22, and 23
[21:2] "... When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing."

Sounds pretty merciful and progressive to me.


[21:7-8] "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do."
Not go out... not sure what that means.


[21:26-27] "When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free for the eye's sake. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free for the tooth's sake."

Do you have a problem with freeing slaves or something??

[quote][22:18, KJV] "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
I believe this is one of the many verses that were changed by the religious hierarchy.


[22:19] "Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death."

Good to know...

[22:20] "He that sacrificeth unto any god save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed."

Not seeing a contradiction. This is shirk.

[22:29] ... "The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me."

Not sure what is meant by giving a son to God. F*cking Bible. So obscure.

[23:19] ... "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk."

Okay...


The entire thing reeks with contradiction.

I'm seeing a disconnect there. You'll have to elaborate.

I mean, the justification for God's "testing" Adam and Eve and flooding the entire human population is that they were corrupted. But, God made them corrupted, did he not?

No. God gave man free will, the ability to choose to be sinful or faithful. They decided to become corrupt.

Here's an interesting mind experiment. You are God, about to create the universe. You are omniscient, so you have all the possible universes, all infinite of them, laid before you. You are omnipotent, so you can create any one. Why on Earth did he make humanity so corrupt? Just to flood them? Doesn't sound very all loving to me.

You don't seem very well versed in this whole religion thing. He created man with the ability to choose between sin and living justly. Humanity corrupted itself.


Edit: PS: At least, an all-loving, omnipotent, and omniscient God cannot be the God of the Bible. I'm not actually sure if the Bible says God is, but that's what most Christians seem to believe, at least. I also doubt that an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving God could be the God to make this imperfect world, even if that God was not the Christian God.
Man made the world imperfect, not God. This life is just a test, as they say.

[Pifreak]

If you do a simple Google search on Matthew 10, you will see that there's only ONE person speaking.

And yes, slavery is definitely merciful and progressive.

Giving your first-born to God? That doesn't remind me of the Ten Plagues or anything.

[Mirage]

And you don't seem to have a problem with slavery, which I find somewhat disturbing... It's progressive and merciful to have a slave for 7 years do your bidding without any compensation or choice? Giving a son to God probably means sacrificing, but I'll not be the one to misinterpret it. Killing anyone who sacrifices to any other Gods... What happened to being forgiving and all loving (this is known as a... CONTRADICTION!). Regarding this bit:

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

God fooled the people, and then punished them for believing something false. What the heck? An all loving God would delude you into believing a falsity and then condemn you for it?

But, the most important thing. This "free will" junk is an illusion. God made humanity; not only did he know humans would go bad, he made them in such a manner that they would go bad. It's not much to make an evil species and then say, "Oh, I gave you free will, but you screwed up and it's your fault, even though I am omniscient and knew it would happen, and omnipotent and made it happen." Why would an all loving God make humanity in such a manner that it would corrupt itself? Remember, he's omniscient and omnipotent. It's not like there's some "default" humanity and he punished that for being evil, he made a race that he knew would become corrupt and then punished them for it. Plus, an all-loving God doesn't burn people in hell for eternity, whether they're evil or not. Burning them in hell is already a stretch of the imagination (even if it wasn't his fault they were evil, even if he couldn't just cure them), but for eternity?

[Peacekeeper]

No, no. At the time, slavery was the norm. The Old Testament was one of the first documents that popularized the idea of freeing slaves. Not related to the current discussion, but the Prophet Muhammad sal allahu alayhi wasalaam bought slaves so he could immediately free them. Islam is very anti-slavery.

I'd have to see the passage before that one, it probably says they did something wrong before that.

Well, in Islam, it's pretty hard to go to hell. You can make up pretty much anything by doing lots of good deeds. You've got to do some serious evil and then not do anything good in order to go to hell.

He made us in a way that we might corrupt ourselves. He knew some of us would, and he knew exactly which ones, this is true. But he needed to "weed out" the impure souls from the good ones in order to admit the righteous into jennah (paradise).

And I don't know where God is described as all-loving. Compassionate, yes. But loving everyone, even the incredibly sinful rapists and murderers? I don't know about that.

[Mirage]

The point isn't just that he knew we would be corrupted. The point was that not only did he know, but he made us in a manner that we would anyway, and sent those to hell to burn for eternity. And those sinful rapists and murderers wouldn't have existed in one of the other universes God could have created. I'm not as familiar with Islam, so I can't say anything about that. And the Old Testament didn't popularize freeing slaves, it had many verses talking about how one can treat slaves, that it's okay to beat them but not kill them, and on and on. It was pro-slavery.

[Kronos]

No.

I believe in Spinoza.

[Peacekeeper]

It was progressive for its time.

I guess there's not much more to say here.

[Pifreak]

The Bible doesn't condemn or promote slavery...

[Lost In Translation]

Well Pifreak, even though the Bible didn't promote slavery, they didn't condemn it (as you said). Therefore, there was nothing against slaves. It may be strongly unfavoured (what isn't, these days?), but nobody cared...

If we follow the determinism theory that Mirage has put forth, then I believe that God is not only horribly disoriented, but ultra-conservative.

[Mirage]

Don't you think talking about how one should treat one's slaves hints that it's okay to have slaves? If you were Abraham Lincoln, would you be talking about how to treat your slaves? Of course not. By not condemning it, and telling one how to go about it, the Bible is saying it's okay.

[Killfacer]

can i also point out that putting god in the context of the time is fucking stupid. Hes effing omnipotent; If he is omnipotent then i dont think that his veiws follow the same development as ours.

Also can somone tell me the poll results, i cant read them cus im restricted.

[Lost In Translation]

Yes: 19
No: 70
Uncertain: 13

[Kronos]

That being said--there has been contact with God, if he does exist. There are numerous "sacred texts" all saying--by God--"I made this place and I exist." Would human beings even imagine a God exists if he didn't say so? So there are texts of a God "contact." Imagined or not.


That is ridiculous, Tom. There are also numerous text saying that reptilians exist. According to your logic, people wouldn't imagine that reptilians exist if the text didn't say so.

The whole idea of God was invented. The people who write religious texts invent the very idea of God. The fact that a specific religious text is historical doesn't mean anything other than that it was written a long time ago.

Of course the people who wrote the bible are going to write portions of it as if it were narrated by God. Jesus man, you think that simply because parts of the bible are spoken from a first person perspective of God, that it necessarily means it is true?

I can't believe I even have to explain this to you man. You really have no capacity to think logically.

Then you say "contact with God" "imagined or not". No, you can't have contact with God is he is only imagined....so that was wrong too.

What you are trying to say, but failing miserably at it, is that if God exists (in the monotheistic anthropomorphic transcendent sense) he would know that we at least consider that he might exist.

Let me ask you something. Are even the slightest bit curious in the atheist perspective and the philosophies which have developed that position? Have you read Nietzsche? Hume? Feuerbach? Spinoza? Have you even glanced at Rosa's essay about ruling class metaphysics and hermetic mysticism? No. The fact is, you want to believe that God exists....so you make excuses for not inquiring further. If you successfully lie to yourself and avoid becoming convinced that God does not exist, you can continue to believe that everything is fine here on planet earth, and that you are doing the "right" thing. No, everything is not fine, and this is because of religion and capitalism.

Religion and capitalism is a two-part comic tragedy. The two of them believe that everything is fine, and that there is a meaning and purpose to the universe. The truth is, there is no meaning and purpose to the universe (and there doesn't have to be), but because this is believed, the only possible meaning and purpose to the universe, or life, rather, is compromised and threatened because of the irrational mistakes believed by the people, and the actions that follow those beliefs. Look at the irony. The idiots who "mean well" are the ones responsible for destroying everything, and the bad guys, the marxist atheists, are the ones trying to stop the the incompetent idiots from ruining the world.

[Korey]

I myself am a Norse Pagan.

[FreeMe]

Everything That Is Happening Now Is In The Bible In The Book Of "Revelations"
Its True.
GOD does Exist.
And There Is Only One.:)

[Random Precision]

Everything That Is Happening Now Is In The Bible In The Book Of "Revelations"

Can you elaborate on this? What modern events specifically do you think correspond to the ones recounted in the Patmos Apocalypse?

[redSHARP]

if i was wrong, let God(s) strike me down now!!

*pause* :crying:

alright! still alive:thumbup1:

[Dros]

Religion should not exist.

This.

[JazzRemington]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/funny-pictures-agnostic-cat-shadows-window.jpg

[Charliesoo]

No I do not.

I am interested in Roman Paganism for historical purposes and have researched their customs and rituals. That is not because of a belief in those ancient "gods". But because of a general interest I have in them.

[Socialist18]

No, not really. I believe religion is irrational and the people that follow it are being outright stupid. Believing it comes from a fear of death in my opinion.
Agnosticism is rational as we really can't prove whether there are Gods either way. If there is a God,he hasn't made an appearance to me or anyone I know and I certainly don't believe he wrote a book.

[Chapter 24]

I am unsure of the concept of there being a god but I lean toward the doubtful side.

[Mala Tha Testa]

i voted no. lol, my mom being a religious conservative influenced me onto the complete opposite path. just a story/stories to make people accept death/behave good, so they kill people in it's name.

[comrade stalin guevara]

man is god, science can not prove god, god was a tool used by imperailist to colonize my country, i belive jesus was a person god is a fake icon used by capitolist to control and exploit the masses


BAN RELIGION EVERYWHERE NOW...RELIGION IS FACISIM:hammersickle::blackA::hammersickle:

[Kronos]

...now as they are aware, that they found these conveniences and did not make them they think they have cause for believing, that some other being has made them for their use. As they look upon things as means, they cannot believe them to be self-created; but, judging from the means which they are accustomed to prepare for themselves, they are bound to believe in some ruler or rulers of the universe endowed with human freedom, who have arranged and adapted everything for human use. They are bound to estimate the nature of such rulers ( having no information on the subject) in accordance with their own nature, and therefore they assert that the gods ordained everything for the use of man, in order to bind man to themselves and obtain from him the highest honors. Hence also it follows, that everyone thought out for himself, according to his abilities, a different way of worshipping God, so that God might love him more than his fellows, and direct the whole course of nature for the satisfaction of his blind cupidity and insatiable avarice. Thus the prejudice developed into superstition, and took deep root in the human mind; and for this reason everyone strove most zealously to understand and explain the final causes of things; but in their endeavor to show that nature does nothing in vain, i.e., nothing which is useless to man, they only seem to have demonstrated that nature, the gods, and men are all mad together. Consider, I pray you, the result: among the many helps of nature they were bound to find some hindrances, such as storms, earthquakes, diseases, etc.: so they declared that such things happen, because the gods are angry at some wrong done them by men, or at some fault committed in their worship. Experience day by day protested and showed by infinite examples, that good and evil fortunes fall to the lot of pious and impious alike; still they would not abandon their inveterate prejudice, for it was more easy for them to class such contradictions among other unknown things of whose use they were ignorant, and thus to retain their actual and innate condition of ignorance, than to destroy the whole fabric of their reasoning and start afresh. They therefore laid down as an axiom, that God's judgments far transcend human understanding. Such a doctrine might well have sufficed to conceal the truth from the human race for all eternity....

http://users.erols.com/nbeach/spinoza.html

[Captain Morgan]

Dunno. Maybe. Probably not. I don't bother my head with things like that considering I have no means to actually toss in any kind of factual basis to support my opinion.

[Uber]

I'm an atheist. I was brought up in a non-religious environment so i've always been an atheist save for about a year when i was (like a lot of other people) attracted towards Buddhism.

However i grew out of that into the atheist i am today.

[revolution inaction]

if got did exist we would have to abolish him :)
so its good he doesn't, it will make things much simpler.

[Faction2008]

If God does exist then all of his religions are illogical.

[TheGonz]

Let me start by directly answering the question: no, I do not believe in god(s). I do, however, believe in the fact that this is a conscious decision: a personal opinion that I hold as sacred as any Christian might hold his own. That is the point though, there are too many damned people out there trying to push people one way or another, too many loud-mouthed advocates yammering on constantly for both sides of the spectrum. I've been accosted too many times by ignorant Christians who think that the world doesn't already understand what they're all about, and that constantly repeating the same ideology is going to change that. At the same time I've been guilty of the opposite of this imposition: in anger, or sometimes just in spite, I've been guilty of trying to talk people into dropping the whole faith issue altogether, either to eliminate what I saw as stupidity, or to goad them toward potential enlightenment.

The fact is--and this, too, is strictly my opinion--that religion is becoming outdated and unnecessary. Humanity no longer needs this unifying body to hold it up and sustain its existence. People don't have to rely on the presence of God to explain the world anymore, and fundamental features of many, many religious texts have been proven wrong time and again. Even though our collective conscious no longer really needs mythology--because that's really what religion is, modern mythology--society feels the need to cling to this archaic and outdated system as nothing more than a process of its own routine. By that I mean that society holds to religion because religion did, at some point, work to lead people into structure, togetherness, and (for some) happiness.

I mentioned before that I myself have been guiltiy of trying to change the minds of those who disagreed with me. This was an immature and rash action, and I have subsided my loud and radical ideas--at least in an oppressive sense--of late. The truth is that some people still need religion(and hereafter I will refer solely to Christianity, as I don't feel I know enough about any other religion to really comment on it, let alone criticize). They need it because it is endemic in our society, it is ingrained so heavily into the fabric of all we know and are used to, that it is impossible for many to step into the realm of any other possibility. Even though human nature may have outgrown its reliance on religion to guide us through times of naivety and constant fear of unexplained phenomena, I believe that it will take much longer for the poison to wash from our collective body. Maybe it worked for the middle ages, but the fact is that we no longer need religion.

The other main reason I do not believe in God (other than common sense and past experience), is my absolute loathing for many of the organizations that propogate Christianity: those who work under a veil of seeming compassion and leadership, and yet are, almost always, the complete antithesis of what they so loudly promote. I'm not talking about the local pastor, not the average Christian or the people who really are religious in order to be closer to what they believe to be God. No, like every other corrupt system, I'm talking about those in charge, those who seek to exploit the hearts of those who trust them in order to feed their own hunger for control and power. I'm talking about the evangelist leaders who rally up so many with a good name, and ride around in bentleys and do meth, those who have long relationships with male prostitutes while bashing gay marriage--bashing homosexuality in general--on a regular basis. I'm talking about the priests who are still molesting children, and the bishops and cardinals that don't assert any punitive measurements, simply move them a hundred or so miles away. I'm talking about the Catholic church's turning a blind eye to Genocide, I'm talking about the ancient alterations of the bible in order to suit the needs of the upper class, the clergy. I'm talking about the burying of the Gnostic Gospels, the burying of fact and the excerption of certain biblical texts to make room for those that would be advantageous. I'm talking about wars for religion, about blind faith and stupidity, about the disgusting conservatism that is the first male child of Christianity, and has inherited each one of its foul and unforgivable traits.

No, I do not believe in God.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Humanity no longer needs this unifying body to hold it up and sustain its existence.


Precisely. Moreover, it never has done. We have never needed terrifying myths to sustain us - we need a good dose of the ultimately uplifting reality of things. We need to focus on what is true and good, like one another, like community, friendship, love, hope, et cetera. There is where serious consolation to our existential problems lies, if there is any serious consolation to be had.

I thought your post was very good, by the way. :)

What do you think of Islam?

-Alex

[TheGonz]

What do you think of Islam?

Thank you, first of all, for the compliment.
I'll be honest, of the three major monotheistic religions, Islam is the one I know the least about. I feel about it as I do about most other organized religions: that it is oppressive on a fundamental basis, that it forces people into an irradic way of thinking, and that it is utterly false. However, I took a class last semester about sexuality and religion (not sure why, but I really needed the credit), and from what I understood, Islam is very much misinterpreted. Yes, it is somewhat oppressive to women. Yes, it can steer people toward a radical and often violent path. Yes--like all other religions--it relies on blind faith and moral manipulation in order to keeps its members in check. This said, we read many excerpts from the Q'ran and other sources, most of which have been lost to the throes of alcohol, substance, and time, but from what I remember the religion has changed drastically since its creation, and that the laws of its origin were much more broad, and at least marginally more lax. So, I hate it on principal, but I don't think it any worse than Judaism, and certainly have less loathing for it than Christianity.

[OI OI OI]

I believe in GODzilla

[Black Sheep]

Anti-theist.
I find it sad to see comrades believing in god.

Since u have taken a step past the burgeoisie bullshit about capitalism, you should also take a step past the burgeoisie bullshit about god.

[XII Bones IIX]

Gods are nothing more that a fiction thought up to keep people feeling safe.

[maverick]

I'm agnostic and am uncertain of whether their are spiritual entities, gods, etc. or not. I'd say that its safe to assume that religious beliefs as man sees them are more than likely false. I though don't totally rule out their being a life force, collective energy, or even a god like entity that exists. I unlike a theist don't put my faith in a more mystical view of life, yet I don't put my faith completely in that naturalistic method. I simply keep an open mind and say that I don't know.

I think its foolish to assume, as some do that believing in a God or gods makes you an idiot. I've met plenty of smart, rational people who do. It should simply be a private manner.

[Killfacer]

ok to refine jazzratts butter crumpet example, an example worthy of kings i must say. The butter crumpet controls all of our lives and makes your decision for you. Also the Butter crumpet will turn you into a giant invisible butter crumpet when you die and send you to a magical land which doesnt physically exist called paradise.

Now Kwisatz, you cannot deny that the butter crumpet plays a pretty important role in your life. In other words, this is a powerful crumpet.

[AhhDiddums]

I mean, technically you have to be agnostic. Just like I'm not 100% sure faeries don't live in my TV whose farts contribute to global warming. But, like God, the idea is so absurd and baseless that it would be impractical to consider myself anything other than atheist.

So... yeah, its beyond unreasonable to believe in God.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

yes, we have something with in us all that call us to humanity and the common good, we a times lose sight of this based on greed ect. but we don't all act like animal there is a force of love that keeps us together and separtes us from the animals.

[valientejv]

If all of you athiest want want to believe you came from monkeys then it's OK I know I didn't thank God.

[Killfacer]

If all of you athiest want want to believe you came from monkeys then it's OK I know I didn't thank God.


Pardon?

[Red Anarchist of Love]

I think she mean alls you athiest monkey motherfuckers can go to hell.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

just an interpritaion

[Rosa Provokateur]

Gods are nothing more that a fiction thought up to keep people feeling safe.
That doesnt make sence considering that God calls us to serve and be willing to put our lives on the line for the cause of justice. I'll admit that organized religion has watered down what Jesus intended but by no means did he mean for us to live safe lives; christian means to be like Christ and Christ lived dangerously, all christians must be willing to do the same.

[Lord Testicles]

That doesnt make sence considering that God calls us to serve and be willing to put our lives on the line for the cause of justice.

Because God is a big fan of justice, there isn't anyone or anything more just than God. I like your sig as well,
"I guess that’s why God invented highlighters, so we can highlight the parts we like and ignore the rest."
I take it you don't like ignoring parts of your holy book, like when God drowned the world (for great justice of course) or when he killed all the innocent first born of Egypt and when he kills everyone (see: genocide) in Sodom and Gomorra or maybe the time God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son to him for a laugh. God really is a loving, caring God.


If all of you athiest want want to believe you came from monkeys then it's OK I know I didn't thank God.

Magic man dun it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg1kJJ-5Bg4

[Killfacer]

That doesnt make sence considering that God calls us to serve and be willing to put our lives on the line for the cause of justice. I'll admit that organized religion has watered down what Jesus intended but by no means did he mean for us to live safe lives; christian means to be like Christ and Christ lived dangerously, all christians must be willing to do the same.


Thats not even an argument, you just answered a question that he did not pose.

[Armand Iskra]

I believe in god, and that god we worship today is a proxy from the religious oppressor, in which they use him for capitalist purposes and not of enhancing the spiritual capabilities of every being. the real god is a victim of man's religion, the real god is love, the real god is justice, the real is REVOLUTION. And through him, with him, in him-his kingdom is in YOU and thus our response is to REVOLT!

[Armand Iskra]

That doesnt make sence considering that God calls us to serve and be willing to put our lives on the line for the cause of justice. I'll admit that organized religion has watered down what Jesus intended but by no means did he mean for us to live safe lives; christian means to be like Christ and Christ lived dangerously, all christians must be willing to do the same.

I belive on what are you saying. In fact, what you have said about Jesus is more like he is really a rebel against the flow. Perhaps, in my own perspective, Jesus Christ is an example of a bourgeois whom integrates himself with the rest of the people, whom advocated justice, love and peace, and how did he do? Sacrifice.

Perhaps,
THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS IN YOU
and thus,
Through christ's word, we will materialize what he have said-through revolution.

[Plagueround]

I don't remember what I voted because it's been so long. It was either no or uncertain, depending on how I felt that day. I don't rule out there could be a creator's hand behind all this because I have no proof, but I don't believe it's as simple and concrete as some guy in the sky with a beard. If there is something out there, it must have liked me enough to create me, so I don't concern myself with it otherwise. I suppose one could call that agnostic, although I'm functionally atheist.

I do believe that many if not all human beings tend to be "spiritual" creatures in some way shape or form, but it's likely just a mechanism used to focus or center oneself...that whole using sigils for focus nonsense LaVey talked of...which once broken down, isn't necessarily even spiritual.

[Malezani]

To be anti-theist is to be an idealist petit bourgeois.
Us materialists understand the origins of God and religion to be due to social-relationships, scarcity and objective material conditions in general and not because "the masses are stupid".

Therefore we need to accept that even though we can make the best arguments against the theists , we cannot possibly convert everyone to anti-theism and we cannot eradicate religion.

To do so. the objective material conditions need to be there for it and that means a post-scarcity society.

[hajduk]

in what kind of god you dont believe comraders?

[Vlad tdf]

None
I used to belive but now i think all those who belive are ignorant fools:rolleyes:
And i also know that lots of peple just belive but they don't search for answers they are so blind .They don't know almost anything about god or religion they just have faith and that makes me sick

[PostAnarchy]

Hell to the NO - God is reactionary :)

[PostAnarchy]

Bakunin once called Satan "the first progressive" or something to that effect, I would rather support that than a god..but since niether exist I have the luxury of supporting neither!! :D

[Jazzratt]

Bakunin once called Satan "the first progressive" or something to that effect, I would rather support that than a god..but since niether exist I have the luxury of supporting neither!! :D

Well, most churches adopt the doctrine that satan was cast from heaven because he wished to make humans equal to gods - immortal and with full knowledge of good and evil. It's a possible reason that they are so afraid of giving up ignorance.

I can't recall if that's actually codified in the bible or whether it was a sanctioned heresy [I'm sure there is a different term for it, but I can't remember it], though

[Sean]

Well, most churches adopt the doctrine that satan was cast from heaven because he wished to make humans equal to gods - immortal and with full knowledge of good and evil. It's a possible reason that they are so afraid of giving up ignorance.

I can't recall if that's actually codified in the bible or whether it was a sanctioned heresy [I'm sure there is a different term for it, but I can't remember it], though
There are one or two lines about it in the bible, here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10:18-20) and Revelations says that the angels fought satan here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:7-9) and of course here. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:7-9;&version=%3Cmarquee%3E%3Cfont%20size=7%3ENONE%20OF% 20THIS%20SHIT%20IS%20REAL%3C/font%3E%3C/marquee%3E;)

[Jazzratt]

There are one or two lines about it in the bible, here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10:18-20) and Revelations says that the angels fought satan here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:7-9) and of course here. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:7-9;&version=%3Cmarquee%3E%3Cfont%20size=7%3ENONE%20OF% 20THIS%20SHIT%20IS%20REAL%3C/font%3E%3C/marquee%3E;)

I'm aware that the devil fighting with god, being cast out and all that is in the bible, I meant the story of his wishing to elevate people to godhood and whether or not that was biblical or apocryphal.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, most churches adopt the doctrine that satan was cast from heaven because he wished to make humans equal to gods - immortal and with full knowledge of good and evil. It's a possible reason that they are so afraid of giving up ignorance.

No wonder fundies think Transhumanism is a Satanic conspiracy!

[Sasha]

yes in his holyness the flying spaghetti monster and his noodlyappendage! (http://www.revleft.com/vb/world-church-f-t95889/index.html?p=1299545#post1299545)

RAmen

[Sprocket Hole]

Well, not in the common way of interpreting it. I beileve I am my own god.

I studied Budhism and Jainism for a while, and I learned a lot of things. I didnt take either as worshiping a higher being, I just learned. In both, it was more so respecting those who have reached enlightenment, nivana, or moksha.

[Invincible Summer]

I was born and raised in a Christian household with devoutly Christian parents (not fundamentalist, at least), but I was always pretty skeptical.

I say that God can't be proven and people who say that they can prove God exists (especially in some really cheesy, "See! This man turned his life around because of God!" way) are fools.

I remember when I was maybe 13, I was at church at some youth group thing and I asked the youth leader what he would say if someone called Christianity a cult. He then got really defensive and said that cults are only for people who don't believe in Jesus Christ and all that, totally ignoring the cult-like aspect of blind following of a moral code in hopes of dubious prospects and promises.

It was funny at the time. Now, I look back and wished that I was intelligent enough to debate him.

[casper]

i consider myself beyond religion. how most people define god and religion makes it obvious that their god is self-contradictory, or is defined in such a way that knowledge about their existence is impossible. however if god is defined in such a way that its down to earth,perhaps something like a unconscious unified monastic system, instead of a white bearded invisible magician in the sky, then knowledge about god might be possible. it all depends on categorization, how we define and associate qualities and traits. the popular christian god is clearly impossible, its so self-contradictory. it'll be nice if more people asked questions that are never asked, but their entire reality exist on the truth value of their delusions...it'll be nice if more people asked the basic questions, "absurd" questions, like if objects are man's creation, and what are the limits of man's knowledge of knowledge, and such, basic fundamental questions that don't even cross most peoples minds.

[scarletghoul]

'Uncertain' and 'no'

[lombas]

I didn't believe but I tried. Then I read Stirner and gave up:

You have much profound information to give about God, and have for thousands of years "searched the depths of the Godhead," and looked into its heart, so that you can doubtless tell us how God himself attends to "God's cause," which we are called to serve. And you do not conceal the Lord's doings, either. Now, what is his cause? Has he, as is demanded of us, made an alien cause, the cause of truth or love, his own? You are shocked by this misunderstanding, and you instruct us that God's cause is indeed the cause of truth and love, but that this cause cannot be called alien to him, because God is himself truth and love; you are shocked by the assumption that God could be like us poor worms in furthering an alien cause as his own. "Should God take up the cause of truth if he were not himself truth?" He cares only for his cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all is his cause! But we, we are not all in all, and our cause is altogether little and contemptible; therefore we must "serve a higher cause." - Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well pleasing to him. He serves no higher person, and satisfies only himself. His cause is - a purely egoistic cause.

[Comrada J]

When I look at how 'spirituality' works I'm constantly thinking it's a belief that was created simply as tool for people to reassure them selves with i.e. an imaginary friend. There are just so many inconsistencies in most religions it borders on mental illness for me.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Religion is anti-revolutionary.

[RedSonRising]

Religion is anti-revolutionary.

Did I miss something or did this thread just ignore liberation theology and its contributions to revolutionary movements?

[butterfly]

Could god be a manifestation of a person's super-ego?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Did I miss something or did this thread just ignore liberation theology and its contributions to revolutionary movements?

Yes, because they don't amount to anything meaningful.

[Hit The North]

I believe in God. He came to my room last night and gave me a hand-job and a lollipop.

I love God. :wub:

[AIM Correspondent]

Religion should not exist.

Sometimes religion is good sometimes its evil... you know?

[Blackscare]

I wish there was an "i don't care" option, because unsure or no just aren't accurate enough.

I mean, if god exists, fuck him and the fucked up shit his religious wackos have done anyway.

[Coggeh]

No ... just ... just .. no dear god is their still people around who buys this shit ?:confused:

[Coggeh]

Religion is anti-revolutionary.
Cold ,emotionless and precise .

I concur

[Rjevan]

I wish there was an "i don't care" option, because unsure or no just aren't accurate enough.

I mean, if god exists, fuck him and the fucked up shit his religious wackos have done anyway.
Totally agreed! Well, maybe a god exists, maybe not. Every culture had its own gods, "miracles" and "manifestations", so if you believe in a god it's totally ridiculous to assume that there's only one god. And it's even more ridiculous that he speaks through a senile old idiot, who claims to be infailible. But who cares anyway?

[freedom]

God may or may not exist the chance is 50:50 simply because there is no proof either way. Those who defend atheism are just and crazy as those who defend the existence of god. People tend to get the idea that god is a giant man in the clouds with a big white beard, this is obviously wrong. But the existence of something, a law, or consciousness that has control over the universe in one way or another, is possible. Another misconception is that the existence of god condones some type of religion like Christianity or Islam. In fact if there is a god she knows what shes doing and no amount of prayer would change what happens, so all religions would be equal. I personally have no affiliation with any church, but until I'm proven without a doubt god doesn't exist, i wont believe there isn't one.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

God may or may not exist the chance is 50:50 simply because there is no proof either way.

Wrong. There is plenty of evidence for the universe and it's contents arising through natural forces.


Those who defend atheism are just and crazy as those who defend the existence of god.The theists have belief but no evidence. The burden of proof is on them.


People tend to get the idea that god is a giant man in the clouds with a big white beard, this is obviously wrong. But the existence of something, a law, or consciousness that has control over the universe in one way or another, is possible.All conceptions of deities so far have proved to have no evidence behind them. What makes you think the next delusion will have any more substance to it than the one before?


Another misconception is that the existence of god condones some type of religion like Christianity or Islam. In fact if there is a god she knows what shes doing and no amount of prayer would change what happens, so all religions would be equal.Considering the lack of evidence for any deity at all, there is absolutely no basis for this assertion.


I personally have no affiliation with any church, but until I'm proven without a doubt god doesn't exist, i wont believe there isn't one.You don't seem to get the whole "burden of proof" thing do you? Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Celestial Teapot since their non-existance has not been proven "without a doubt"? No? Then why is your vaguely-defined conception immune?

[brigadista]

did you go to a convent school?

[Glorious Union]

I hate organised religion.

I am a neo-pagan or, to be more precise, a Gaian (respect for Mother Earth). I have made my own conclusions about God. By personal beleif is that God should be respected, but not worshipped. She doesn't even need to be recognised or beleived in, just so long as her creations are respected and treated kindly. But she won't do anything about it if you do disrespect them, which is why God hasn't punished the capitalists.

[Comrade B]

I am a secularist. My religion and politics have nothing to do with each other.

[Ephydriad]

I believe that everybody and every living thing that I encounter every day is divine with the power to create and destroy and mold humanity --
the ones who have really tapped into their divinity though are the ones who try to create/destroy to really better humanity...
idk, just ranting :)

[Rousedruminations]

no i do not believe there is a so called GOD. I have been brain-washed with the rhetoric coming out of my parents mouths, institutions, colleges and friends, and after much contemplation my rationale its of my belief that a god is non-existent, a radical shift of my view that i will stick to

[ibn Bruce]

I believe that any question about the nature of existence is subjective and therefore a choice. I believe that scientific refutations of religious reasoning ignore the accumulated philosophical traditions from which scientific theory itself springs. I believe that theories based around the 'social harm' that religion causes are similar to those that claim that culture is a cause in and of itself and I do not believe they are valid.

I find some of the rabid Atheism that exists within some movements extremely problematic, as it often manifests itself as shockingly exclusionary, especially of the majority of the religious people in the world (most of whom happen to not be White and or in those countries at the 'lucky' end of Capitalism). If debates are to occur about religious issues, it should be on the way religious practice manifests itself, not upon subjective beliefs themselves.

That said, la Ilaha Ill-Allah, Mohammedan Rasul'Allah.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I believe that any question about the nature of existence is subjective and therefore a choice.

Except that existance isn't subjective. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.


I believe that scientific refutations of religious reasoning ignore the accumulated philosophical traditions from which scientific theory itself springs.Those "philosophical traditions" have been proven to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. As opposed to scientific reasoning, which actually works.


I believe that theories based around the 'social harm' that religion causes are similar to those that claim that culture is a cause in and of itself and I do not believe they are valid. Both religion and culture are used to justify horrific practices, but as justifications go they're utter shite.


I find some of the rabid Atheism that exists within some movements extremely problematic, as it often manifests itself as shockingly exclusionary, especially of the majority of the religious people in the world (most of whom happen to not be White and or in those countries at the 'lucky' end of Capitalism).Which has got nothing to do with atheism. If african countries were as prosperous and educated as the "West", then they would have similar levels of unbelief. Skin colour doesn't come into it.


If debates are to occur about religious issues, it should be on the way religious practice manifests itself, not upon subjective beliefs themselves.

That said, la Ilaha Ill-Allah, Mohammedan Rasul'Allah.Why should we not criticise wrong-headed views about the nature of the universe? The human brain is not divided into airtight compartments - one's philosophical leanings do have an impact on one's behaviour.

Religious belief encourages despicable behaviour.

[ibn Bruce]

Except that existance isn't subjective. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.Are someone's hallucinations then real? They are what they see.. what about post traumatic stress? Is an immersive flashback the same event occurring again? One can argue for one's own perception of reality, one cannot argue on behalf of others, as their reality is not yours, and yours is not theirs.


Those "philosophical traditions" have been proven to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. As opposed to scientific reasoning, which actually works.Scientific theory has never come up with any coherent, indisputable theory of either societal structure or 'morality'. 'Science' does not represent a book of objective answers sitting somewhere waiting to be looked at, it is shifting, uncertain and in the end only describes one aspect of existence.


Both religion and culture are used to justify horrific practices, but as justifications go they're utter shite.They are merely that, justifications, they are not causal. If one does not believe in erasing culture because of the things it justified, why can one treat religion differently. The reason people fight from Palestine to Mindanao is not religion, it is power struggles, religion is simply there as a ready excuse.


Which has got nothing to do with atheism. If african countries were as prosperous and educated as the "West", then they would have similar levels of unbelief. Skin colour doesn't come into it.There is a difference between education and logic. I reject any characterisation of the rest of the world as ignorant because of a lack of education as 'Western' education is just as full of its own bias as any other. What this idea does is disenfranchise those 'ignorant' people, assuming that all we have to do is bring them education and then they will see the light and become like us. Christianity justified colonialism like that, secular extremism is no different.


Why should we not criticise wrong-headed views about the nature of the universe? The human brain is not divided into airtight compartments - one's philosophical leanings do have an impact on one's behaviour.

Religious belief encourages despicable behaviour. No, situation encourages behaviour, religion is used to justify it. It is also used to justify community, resistance to oppression and anti-racism.

The Prophet Mohammed (sws) said in his final khutbah: 'an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.' Does one then dismiss such a notion as it occurs within a religious context?

Pushing one's own idea of what constitutes 'wrong headed' views about the nature of the universe is just another form of imperialism. It is easy to argue about the internal logic of religions, and the way they manifests themselves, but coming into a conversation with the conviction 'my reality is right, and yours is wrong' is asking for disaster. Science can justify oppression just as easily as any other 'world view' if one twists it right.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Are someone's hallucinations then real? They are what they see.. what about post traumatic stress? Is an immersive flashback the same event occurring again? One can argue for one's own perception of reality, one cannot argue on behalf of others, as their reality is not yours, and yours is not theirs.

Simply because subjective interpretations of reality exist doesn't mean reality is subjective. I may see plants growing out of the walls after ingesting some LSD, but that doesn't mean they exist outside of my perception.

Objective reality exists. Live with it.


Scientific theory has never come up with any coherent, indisputable theory of either societal structure or 'morality'.It doesn't need to, and neither is that it's purpose. Science can however tell you the consequences of a given social structure or moral code.

Science doesn't tell you that it's "wrong" to burn "witches"... but it can give you some horrifying details about what it's like to burn to death.


'Science' does not represent a book of objective answers sitting somewhere waiting to be looked at, it is shifting, uncertain and in the end only describes one aspect of existence.Science, as a body of knowledge, continually improves itself, replacing poor knowledge with more and better knowledge. This is a vast improvement over static philosophies with a priori assumptions.

Also, science has a staggeringly vast scope. Admittedly it is primitive in some areas, but it improves steadily by the year.

Oh yeah, and it works. Modern civilisation would not exist without science.


They are merely that, justifications, they are not causal. If one does not believe in erasing culture because of the things it justified, why can one treat religion differently. The reason people fight from Palestine to Mindanao is not religion, it is power struggles, religion is simply there as a ready excuse.Certain cultural and religious practices are vile and should be wiped off the face of the Earth. If female circumcision is so integral to a given culture, then the world will be a better place if it's gone. Similarly, if combating the AIDS epidemic in Africa means destroying the Catholic Church, then it should be done with alacrity.


There is a difference between education and logic. I reject any characterisation of the rest of the world as ignorant because of a lack of education as 'Western' education is just as full of its own bias as any other.Define a "Western" education. Are you saying that Africa and Asia have no schools, no universities? They do. Just not enough of them/they're underfunded/whatever.


What this idea does is disenfranchise those 'ignorant' people, assuming that all we have to do is bring them education and then they will see the light and become like us. Christianity justified colonialism like that, secular extremism is no different.We don't have to "bring them" education, as they can educate themselves. The problem being that they are denied the resources and opportunities to do so not only by imperialist exploitation but by their own racketeers as well.


No, situation encourages behaviour, religion is used to justify it.How is being born into a deeply religious society anything else but a situation?


It is also used to justify community, resistance to oppression and anti-racism.Those things can be justified without reference to fairytales. Religion tacks on a whole load of other bullshit on top of the "good stuff".


The Prophet Mohammed (sws) said in his final khutbah: 'an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.' Does one then dismiss such a notion as it occurs within a religious context?The idea (apart from the whole piety thing) is sound - but the justification for it - "Mohammed said so" is not.

Racism is wrong because scientifically speaking, there's no such thing as "race", not because some hallucinating "prophet" wants to bag as many suckers as possible.


Pushing one's own idea of what constitutes 'wrong headed' views about the nature of the universe is just another form of imperialism.Argumentation is imperialism now? :rolleyes:


It is easy to argue about the internal logic of religions, and the way they manifests themselves, but coming into a conversation with the conviction 'my reality is right, and yours is wrong' is asking for disaster.It's not "my" reality. It's objective reality as far as I'm aware of it. There's no evidence for Russel's Teapot or the Abrahamic God, so as far as can be objectively determined they do not exist.

On the other hand, if you have any evidence, I'm all ears...


Science can justify oppression just as easily as any other 'world view' if one twists it right.Science justifies nothing. It explains a lot.

[ibn Bruce]

Objective reality exists. Live with it.

It is interesting that burden of proof is required for belief in anything unseen, and yet that same burden of proof is not required in terms of objective reality.



Science doesn't tell you that it's "wrong" to burn "witches"... but it can give you some horrifying details about what it's like to burn to death.

Indeed it can, though it does not somehow refute religion. It may dispute individual claims of some religious groups, but it does not somehow replace any systems of what constitutes appropriate or inappropriate action.


Certain cultural and religious practices are vile and should be wiped off the face of the Earth. If female circumcision is so integral to a given culture, then the world will be a better place if it's gone. Similarly, if combating the AIDS epidemic in Africa means destroying the Catholic Church, then it should be done with alacrity.

I personally believe that Anthrax, Napalm and the combustion engine are vile, and they are all a product of science? Does that mean that science should be erased?

If genocide was sensible in the circumstances, would it be justified? I would hope not.


Define a "Western" education. Are you saying that Africa and Asia have no schools, no universities? They do. Just not enough of them/they're underfunded/whatever.

Of course I am not, I was responding to your assertion that a lack of education was what led to people in Asia and Africa not being atheists. The European experience of education was a secular one, because in Europe the Catholic church was directly oppositional to many forms of education. In the Muslim world for example, many of the greatest scientists were also religious scholars. The only conflict between science and religion in Islamic thought is when science is used as a tool of oppression, when its 'advances' only lead to death.


We don't have to "bring them" education, as they can educate themselves. The problem being that they are denied the resources and opportunities to do so not only by imperialist exploitation but by their own racketeers as well.
No doubt, my point exactly. However what currently occurs in most is the 'higher' forms of education are specifically secular, defined as such by both external funding and government pressure. Therefore your assumption that more education will bring atheism seems based upon the idea that secular education will bring atheism, which is a no brainer, considering that secular education systems are in many cases an external force, I think my statements stand.


How is being born into a deeply religious society anything else but a situation?
The form of any society is defined by its situation, not its beliefs. By situation I mean economically, socially etc.


Those things can be justified without reference to fairytales. Religion tacks on a whole load of other bullshit on top of the "good stuff".

Justify them then. Why should I not be racist? Or bigoted? Why should I have any respect at all for anyone, what value does anyone have outside of me?

I do not wish to make the common claim that atheists are without morality, but similarly that morality does not come from the ether.


Racism is wrong because scientifically speaking, there's no such thing as "race", not because some hallucinating "prophet" wants to bag as many suckers as possible.

So if, scientifically speaking, I came to the conclusion that it would be beneficial to society as a whole to wipe out anyone who is unemployed, would that be okay? Or if, scientifically speaking, I realised that the present growth levels of human population are unsustainable, would then nuking Delhi, New York, Bangkok and Mexico City be permissible? As far as I understand it, racism for a long time was justified through evolutionary theory, as that was what science thought at the time, who is to say that down the road science will not again change 'its' mind?


Argumentation is imperialism now?

No, though the implications of what you believe are. The belief that your personal view of reality is the only correct one, and that anyone who contradicts it must be educated, even if those take up the majority of the earth, is problematic on many levels. This is expanded upon when it just so happens that secular society also happens to be capitalist society and many of the justifications for imperialist interventions are made in the name of 'eradicating' those 'cultural and religious practices' that you abhor.


It's not "my" reality. It's objective reality as far as I'm aware of it. There's no evidence for Russel's Teapot or the Abrahamic God, so as far as can be objectively determined they do not exist.

Your 'proof' for objectivity was saying 'Objective reality exists. Live with it.', I am not convinced. The fact that you say 'as far as I'm aware of it' is telling, it points specifically to the subjectivity of it in the first place.

Everything is 'as far as you are aware', the fact that you exist at all is only as far as I perceive you through the computer screen, and eyes lie. In the same way, your proof of my existence is no more compelling. To believe that there is some objective reality that sits outside all of our perceptions requires a proof that I do not see in your arguments.

So in turn I ask you, where is your proof?






Also, science has a staggeringly vast scope. Admittedly it is primitive in some areas, but it improves steadily by the year.

We went from gunpowder and greek fire, to mustard gas and howitzers, to napalm and atom bombs, to neutron bombs, anthrax and ICBMs, who knows where this bright future of science will lead us next. Maybe even science can fix the massive environmental degradation it allowed us to do in the first place :D



Oh yeah, and it works. Modern civilisation would not exist without science.

Progress is great, now we can exploit EVERYBODY, we can pollute not just our own backyards, but everywhere else. Now, instead of looking someone in the eyes in a fight, forced to face our own decision, we press a button and children die.

I love science and modern 'civilisation'.


Modern Civilisation is not 'civilised' it just pushes its oppression to the fringes and hides it under sterile lights. Science does not constitute progress, progression of humanity can not be measured in medicine or bombs, it must be measured by the human condition, and frankly, unless you are white and living in a 'lucky' country, you would be better without the effects of 'civilisation'.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is interesting that burden of proof is required for belief in anything unseen, and yet that same burden of proof is not required in terms of objective reality.

The Earth orbits the Sun no matter how many people are convinced it ain't so. Reality is not decided by either the individual or by consensus


Indeed it can, though it does not somehow refute religion. It may dispute individual claims of some religious groups, but it does not somehow replace any systems of what constitutes appropriate or inappropriate action.On the contrary, it disputes the central claims of all known religions - in the case of the Abrahamic faiths, that includes God.


I personally believe that Anthrax, Napalm and the combustion engine are vile, and they are all a product of science? Does that mean that science should be erased?Anthrax is a naturally evolved disease that, like all diseases, we should seek to greatly reduce if not eradicate. Napalm is a weapon of war and is thus morally neutral - it can just as easily be deployed as an area denial weapon defending against military aggressors as it can against civilians. The combustion engine, while widespread use causes pollution, also enables a great many good uses too - fire engines, ambulances, search & rescue helicopters, disaster relief trucks, as well as the many agricultural machines that help to feed millions, to name a few.

On the other hand, female genital mutilation and the Catholic Church's long-standing policy against birth control have caused, are causing and will cause nothing but suffering and misery.


If genocide was sensible in the circumstances, would it be justified? I would hope not.I've yet to see a single instance where genocide would be sensible or justified. Although I suspect the only reason you're talking about genocide is to "poison the well" - I'm talking about eradicating human constructs, not humans themselves.


Of course I am not, I was responding to your assertion that a lack of education was what led to people in Asia and Africa not being atheists. The European experience of education was a secular one, because in Europe the Catholic church was directly oppositional to many forms of education.Wrong, actually. Before corruption in the Church lead to the Reformation, the best way to become an "educated man" was to join the clergy.

But in the end, education and academia escaped from the shadow of the Church and became something so much more.


In the Muslim world for example, many of the greatest scientists were also religious scholars. The only conflict between science and religion in Islamic thought is when science is used as a tool of oppression, when its 'advances' only lead to death.And then they went and lost it.


No doubt, my point exactly. However what currently occurs in most is the 'higher' forms of education are specifically secular, defined as such by both external funding and government pressure. Therefore your assumption that more education will bring atheism seems based upon the idea that secular education will bring atheism, which is a no brainer, considering that secular education systems are in many cases an external force, I think my statements stand."Secular" is not the same thing as "atheist". If people educated in a secular environment reach atheist conclusions, doesn't that tell you something about religion?


The form of any society is defined by its situation, not its beliefs. By situation I mean economically, socially etc.Well if you're talking in general as opposed to specific terms, then the religiousity of a society tends to be negatively correlated with quality of life. I do not think this to be a coincidence.


Justify them then. Why should I not be racist? Or bigoted? Why should I have any respect at all for anyone, what value does anyone have outside of me?The question should be "why should you be racist or bigoted?" Respect is a mutual thing - if you show no respect to someone, odds are good they will show no respect towards you. As for the value of others, remember that you're a member of society - no man is an island.


I do not wish to make the common claim that atheists are without morality, but similarly that morality does not come from the ether.True. But human reason is a much better source of morality than it's competitors.


So if, scientifically speaking, I came to the conclusion that it would be beneficial to society as a whole to wipe out anyone who is unemployed, would that be okay?How would you some to such a conclusion, scientifically speaking?

Also, by wiping out the unemployed, you're objectively shooting yourself in the foot - unemployed people can become employed and contribute to society. It's therefore in the interests of society, and by extension the individual, to ensure that unemployed people become employed. Killing the unemployed prevents this.


Or if, scientifically speaking, I realised that the present growth levels of human population are unsustainable, would then nuking Delhi, New York, Bangkok and Mexico City be permissible?Again, I wonder what method of scientific reasoning would lead one to such a conclusion.

Major cities are the economic powerhouses of modern civilisation, and destroying and/or depopulating them in such a manner would have negative reverberations worldwide. This is quite apart from the psychosocial trauma of slaughtering millions to gain... what, precisely? Living people, even if destitute, have more potential than dead people.


As far as I understand it, racism for a long time was justified through evolutionary theory, as that was what science thought at the time, who is to say that down the road science will not again change 'its' mind?For the same reason that geocentrism will never return. Scientific discoveries have ruled it out.


No, though the implications of what you believe are. The belief that your personal view of reality is the only correct one, and that anyone who contradicts it must be educated, even if those take up the majority of the earth, is problematic on many levels. This is expanded upon when it just so happens that secular society also happens to be capitalist society and many of the justifications for imperialist interventions are made in the name of 'eradicating' those 'cultural and religious practices' that you abhor.Those are not justifications - they are excuses, and pretty pathetic ones at that. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were imperialist adventures and had nothing to do with "toppling dictators" or "spreading democracy" - a cursory glance at the history of imperialism will reveal that imperialists have been perfectly willing to support tyrannical and theocratic regimes if it furthers their goals. "Saudi" Arabia ring any bells?

In any case, you are making a tremendous leap in logic to assume that since I dislike what I percieve to be wrong-headed views of reality and argue against them on the internet, that I would support imperialist interference. Well I have some shocking news for you; I don't. In fact, I think there is a good case to be made that imperialism actually hobbles progressive development in the affected countries.


Your 'proof' for objectivity was saying 'Objective reality exists. Live with it.', I am not convinced. The fact that you say 'as far as I'm aware of it' is telling, it points specifically to the subjectivity of it in the first place.No, it is an admission that I am not omniscient. But I do not have to know everything to know that reality has an existance independant of my own mind.


Everything is 'as far as you are aware', the fact that you exist at all is only as far as I perceive you through the computer screen, and eyes lie.Eyes are not 100% reliable (is anything?), but it is an incredible stretch to say that they "lie". If that were the case, then humans would be long extinct as none of them would be able to spot the tiger in the long grass.


In the same way, your proof of my existence is no more compelling. To believe that there is some objective reality that sits outside all of our perceptions requires a proof that I do not see in your arguments.

So in turn I ask you, where is your proof?Because the world "behaves" as if that were true. Subjective experiences are unique to the person having them, but on July 22, 2009, everyone who isn't blind in Shanghai will experience a total solar eclipse. Everyone dies if sufficiently deprived of food, water or oxygen.


We went from gunpowder and greek fire, to mustard gas and howitzers, to napalm and atom bombs, to neutron bombs, anthrax and ICBMs, who knows where this bright future of science will lead us next. Maybe even science can fix the massive environmental degradation it allowed us to do in the first place :DScience has greatly magnified human abilities, both creative and destructive, across the board. So far we've not managed to destroy ourselves or throw ourselves into a new Dark Age, so generally I'm optimistic.


Progress is great, now we can exploit EVERYBODY, we can pollute not just our own backyards, but everywhere else. Now, instead of looking someone in the eyes in a fight, forced to face our own decision, we press a button and children die.

I love science and modern 'civilisation'.
Is that a primitivist peeking behind the page?


Modern Civilisation is not 'civilised' it just pushes its oppression to the fringes and hides it under sterile lights.Oppression is a consequence of a social system that demands it. In case you haven't noticed, civilisation is not the same thing as capitalism.


Science does not constitute progress, progression of humanity can not be measured in medicine or bombs, it must be measured by the human condition, and frankly, unless you are white and living in a 'lucky' country, you would be better without the effects of 'civilisation'.So we should deny people outside of the "lucky" countries (and non-whites everywhere :rolleyes:) the benefits of civilisation such as modern medicine (including vaccines, AIDS medicine and anti-malarial treatments), modern sanitation, cities, industrial agriculture (capable of feeding large amounts of people on relatively small amounts of land), electricity, running water (cold and hot), education (especially for women!), and all sorts of other things?

Are you sure you're in the right forum?

[ibn Bruce]

The Earth orbits the Sun no matter how many people are convinced it ain't so. Reality is not decided by either the individual or by consensusThat again proves nothing. To you the Earth orbits the Sun, yet their is nothing to say that either exist beyond your perception. Consensus within the realm of your perception does not give objectivity, it merely shows that your subjectivity is internally consistent.


On the other hand, female genital mutilation and the Catholic Church's long-standing policy against birth control have caused, are causing and will cause nothing but suffering and misery.
Yet female genital mutilation is prohibited Islamically, and I do not support the beliefs of the Catholic Church. This merely shows that some religious people or cultures do things that we perceive as abhorrent.


I've yet to see a single instance where genocide would be sensible or justified. Although I suspect the only reason you're talking about genocide is to "poison the well" - I'm talking about eradicating human constructs, not humans themselves.Ethnic cleansing must be economically beneficial for some individuals, else it wouldn't be done. Slavery is happily justified through economics. It does not mean that we are happy instituting them.


Wrong, actually. Before corruption in the Church lead to the Reformation, the best way to become an "educated man" was to join the clergy.'So before corruption in the church', I don't think we are disagreeing here. The formation of secularist attitudes to education came as partly a reaction to corruption in the church.


And then they went and lost it.
Yeah, invasion by the Mongols and ethnic cleansing by the Spanish has to suck.


"Secular" is not the same thing as "atheist". If people educated in a secular environment reach atheist conclusions, doesn't that tell you something about religion?If you look at the way many secular education systems manifest themselves, it is as anti-religious. When women are given a choice in Turkey between wearing the Scarf and going to University, what is it that is expected to happen?


Well if you're talking in general as opposed to specific terms, then the religiousity of a society tends to be negatively correlated with quality of life. I do not think this to be a coincidence.So we can attribute the economic degradation in religious societies to the fact that they were religious. I read in a politics textbook once 'it is no coincidence that no Liberal-Democracy has ever had a famine'. It seems a very confused view, they are economically destitute because they are religious, not because they have been exploited?


Respect is a mutual thing - if you show no respect to someone, odds are good they will show no respect towards you. As for the value of others, remember that you're a member of society - no man is an island.Why does one need respect? Or need to be valued by others?


True. But human reason is a much better source of morality than it's competitors.
Really? Which societies are based upon rationalism? What is a coherent moral code specifically based upon reason?


How would you some to such a conclusion, scientifically speaking?I must not be explaining myself adequately, I ask the question: What if 'science' or rather, scientists say that the best solution is one that you find morally abhorrent. What do you do?


Major cities are the economic powerhouses of modern civilisation, and destroying and/or depopulating them in such a manner would have negative reverberations worldwide. This is quite apart from the psychosocial trauma of slaughtering millions to gain... what, precisely? Living people, even if destitute, have more potential than dead people.So we can kill all the rural folk then?


For the same reason that geocentrism will never return. Scientific discoveries have ruled it out.What guarantee is there that 'science' will not find something further? Or find something else that justifies such bigotry?


In any case, you are making a tremendous leap in logic to assume that since I dislike what I percieve to be wrong-headed views of reality and argue against them on the internet, that I would support imperialist interference. Well I have some shocking news for you; I don't. In fact, I think there is a good case to be made that imperialism actually hobbles progressive development in the affected countries.Of course it does, as economic 'development' is specifically designed to open up such markets for more effective exploitation. Similarly of course Iraq had nothing to do with 'installing' democracy.

The United States happily backs Uzbekistan (a secular dictatorship) and at the same time Saudi (a Wahhabist Monarchy) they do not care whom they back, they merely care about stability. I am not arguing that point.

Rather I am arguing against a universalist attitude towards culture, as in practice (usually through 'aid' agencies) it does more harm than good. One cannot go into another society with the assumption that you are possessed of all the answers. To do so is to assume that the people whom you are talking about are unable to rationally come to their own conclusions about existance.

I would say that making the assumption that the vast majority of the world is wrong, and that you have the answers to give them, is doing just that.


No, it is an admission that I am not omniscient. But I do not have to know everything to know that reality has an existance independant of my own mind.How do you know? The logic and reason that you laud is not consistantly applied in this case. It is simply an argument based upon what you percieve, which according to logic, supports nothing more than your perception, which is naturally subjective.


Because the world "behaves" as if that were true. Subjective experiences are unique to the person having them, but on July 22, 2009, everyone who isn't blind in Shanghai will experience a total solar eclipse. Everyone dies if sufficiently deprived of food, water or oxygen.The world you PERCIEVE behaves as though that is true, but this does not give it truth. For all you know, your entire self may have been created but an instant ago, with all your memories and the room around you intact, yet you would be none the wiser and in no position to 'prove' anything, as all your 'proof' would come from within the frame of your own memories and perception.


Science has greatly magnified human abilities, both creative and destructive, across the board. So far we've not managed to destroy ourselves or throw ourselves into a new Dark Age, so generally I'm optimistic.I do not know you, therefore I do not know your experiences. I am guessing you have not lived in the economic degradation caused by this economic system, enabled through scientific advancement. Nor have I for that matter, I feel that were we both living in a town in Bangladesh facing the rising water, or were we sitting in hospital beds as land mine victims, I doubt such optimism would be so felt.


Is that a primitivist peeking behind the page?
One does not need to be a primitivist to reject the idea that further scientific discoveries bring advancement in the human condition. Having seen what hollow points do to a human body, I am hesitant to claim that science brings advancement at all. What brings us to a better condition cannot be found in labs, it exists within communities and individuals. What point is a longer life when that life is wasted in oppression and pointlessness?


Oppression is a consequence of a social system that demands it. In case you haven't noticed, civilisation is not the same thing as capitalism.Yet you refer to 'Modern civilisation' which is itself a product of Capitalism. Would it really have been possible for such scientific advancements to be made were the economies of 'civilisation' not propped up by slavery and thievery? Modern civilisation as it exists today is inseperable from capitilism, in every aspect from education to medicine. These scientific advances and the reasoning you employ are all the products of a capitalist society.


So we should deny people outside of the "lucky" countries (and non-whites everywhere :rolleyes:) the benefits of civilisation such as modern medicine (including vaccines, AIDS medicine and anti-malarial treatments), modern sanitation, cities, industrial agriculture (capable of feeding large amounts of people on relatively small amounts of land), electricity, running water (cold and hot), education (especially for women!), and all sorts of other things?Yes, because that was what I was saying.


Or maybe not. Maybe I was saying that these very advancements are all made at the expense of those very people. It is like draining the blood of a person, and then every now and then giving them back some of their own blood and telling them they are benefiting.

The way these things are 'given' to the exploited parts of the world is through the lense through which you see. Aid organisations go into a refugee camp and say 'more education for women'. They think the way to do this is through making aid conditional on 50% of people at the local school being women.

The refugee camp has a sexual assault rate of 99%, none of the women turn up, they stop aid. The widescale education of anyone is conditional on their economic condition. The Islamic world when it was at its height had hundreds of female Sheikhs and leaders. This was not just because Islam mandates education to both men and women, but also because they could afford it at that time. Then following the desolation of the Islamic world under succesive invasions, followed then by colonialism, this education, of both women and men, stopped.



Of course I'm sure you know all this, and your point is to argue that these things need to be rectified, and such 'progress' become widespread, but how can it when such progress is the product of the very system that created the problems in the first place.

Progression of humanity only occurs when it occurs to ALL humanity and modern science, enabled as it was by oppression, is no example to hold up of progress.

[MMIKEYJ]

Yes I believe in God.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes I believe in God.
Do you believe in Hell?

[Revolutionary Youth]

Do you believe in Hell?
Of course lah!

[ibn Bruce]

Of course lah!

haha, if that 'lah' were Arabic, it means of course no...

[eisidisirock]

I am 70% sure there is no goc.

[diome]

No, I don't believe anymore. At one point I did, specifically believe in gods. I was a neo-pagan of sorts. But 1. there's no proof of the existence of gods 2. people control their own destiny, there's no divine plan 3. that the world and humans came into existance is a lucky incident. Or perhaps unlucky, if one hates what human have accomplished, but I personally like being here.

Humans are to me just another animal - like the rest of them. In human accomplishments there's nothing really special, apart from the ability to destroy Earth. We are living in packs, eating, drinking, sleeping, mating, etc. and just have different kinds of nests than some other species of animal.

Our lives have no other meaning than existing and producing more humans. There's just been so much social evolution that we are able to exchange thoughts this way, internationally on a message board.

[ThiagoCL]

I actually belive that there may be a God, the wrong thing people do is to impose their vison of god to others with religion.
Marx himself is belived to member of the Freemasonry witch belives in god neither in religion, nor in dogmas.
The existence of god mustn't be understood as an old fellow sitting in a chair in the middle of the skies, he may well be understood as energy, witch is everywhere and 'rules' the universe.
We must NOT seak God in the unexplainable, but in the greatness of the universe, of life;
-18g of water 1.800.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 Atoms
-human body= 100.000.000.000.000 cells
-galaxy = billions of stars
-universe= billions of galaxies
-etc...
God isn't something (someone?) to be proffed, but to be understood.
There is no divine plan or destine, there are choises.
There are no coincidences (luck), there is the ilusion of such:
. Things follow laws of phisics and the way you throw the dice determines its result. The univese follows action and reaction and what we do change it in our own way.
Hell, heaven, reencarnation, ressurection? Who cares wether if there are or aren't all those things wath really matters are the choises we make our will for fairness, justice, ''good'' or selfishness, interest, "evil". Those I said are more than words, are perpectives.
Spirits? don't belive until I have a 150% prof of them, but again it is irelevant.
Human being = animal + human 'blessings' (or curses):
-consciousness,
-knolledge,
-communication,
--Giving us the responsability to transcend animal limitations and meaning
Meaning of life: eliminate all and every barrier to the development of humanity:
-Unequalty,
-Capitalism
-Ignorance
-Virus and Bacteria
And istall a society that transcends the animal limitations we se at the capitalit jungle.

Well, if I am wrong and there is no god I'd be happy to die knowing I fought all my life for the ideals I wrote here.

Thanks for reading all this philosophy of mine...:)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That again proves nothing. To you the Earth orbits the Sun, yet their is nothing to say that either exist beyond your perception. Consensus within the realm of your perception does not give objectivity, it merely shows that your subjectivity is internally consistent.

My perception is the only way I have of gathering information about the world. If I can't trust my perception, what the hell else can I trust?


Yet female genital mutilation is prohibited Islamically, and I do not support the beliefs of the Catholic Church. This merely shows that some religious people or cultures do things that we perceive as abhorrent.And they "get away with it" because they can appeal to cultural tradition or religious authority, rather than any sort of reasoned argument. Which your kind of cowardly subjectivism will only encourage!


Ethnic cleansing must be economically beneficial for some individuals, else it wouldn't be done. Slavery is happily justified through economics. It does not mean that we are happy instituting them.Destroying large amounts of productive individuals is hardly economically beneficial. Slavery is a piss-poor method of producing goods and services compared to a modern industrialised economy.


'So before corruption in the church', I don't think we are disagreeing here. The formation of secularist attitudes to education came as partly a reaction to corruption in the church.Corruption is not the same as opposition to education - in fact the Catholic Church still runs an observatory in the Vatican. But it's interesting to note how greatly human knowledge advanced once science was no longer under the thumb of the Church.


Yeah, invasion by the Mongols and ethnic cleansing by the Spanish has to suck.Such events were seen by some in the Islamic world as punishment from Allah, and it seems that such attitudes have prevailed, with predictable results. Besides, it's not as if the Islamic world was completely ravaged by the Mongols - they still had most of the Arabian peninsula, the "holy lands" and North Africa.


If you look at the way many secular education systems manifest themselves, it is as anti-religious. When women are given a choice in Turkey between wearing the Scarf and going to University, what is it that is expected to happen?If people feel compelled by their religious upbrigning to value a piece of fucking cloth over a decent education, doesn't that say more about religion than it does about education?


So we can attribute the economic degradation in religious societies to the fact that they were religious. I read in a politics textbook once 'it is no coincidence that no Liberal-Democracy has ever had a famine'. It seems a very confused view, they are economically destitute because they are religious, not because they have been exploited?Well, my view is that the impoverishment (which may or may not be wrought by exploitation) makes societies more susceptible to religious belief due to lack of widespread and/or decent education. Case in point - I do not consider it a coincidence that the areas in the US with high religiosity also have the most rotten education systems, where homeschooling is rampant and creationists fight against evolution being taught in schools, as well as suffering from a surfeit of distinctly sub-par "bible colleges".


Why does one need respect? Or need to be valued by others?Life is pretty rotten when nobody respects or values you, don't you think?


Really? Which societies are based upon rationalism? What is a coherent moral code specifically based upon reason?I never claimed that there were societies entirely based on rationalism, although obviously some are more rational than others. A society that punishes "apostasy" with death is less rational than one that considers changing one's mind (which is what apostasy is, really) to be a strictly personal matter.

If you're looking for a specific moral "code" that is non-religious, then you're probably out of luck. Secular humanism upholds reason, ethics and justice as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making, but makes no specific commandments.


I must not be explaining myself adequately, I ask the question: What if 'science' or rather, scientists say that the best solution is one that you find morally abhorrent. What do you do?You are being terribly vague. What's the problem? What is it about the solution that makes it so terrible? Why isn't there another option? Morality is something that should be based on circumstances rather than some kind of blanket rule. Real life is too complicated to live by a rigid code.


So we can kill all the rural folk then?What part of "Living people ... have more potential than dead people" do you not understand?


What guarantee is there that 'science' will not find something further? Or find something else that justifies such bigotry?Such as? "Race" has been completely discredited as a scientific concept. If you have evidence otherwise, by all means, show the world. If your evidence is good enough, you might even win a Nobel Prize.

But somehow I doubt such evidence is forthcoming.


Of course it does, as economic 'development' is specifically designed to open up such markets for more effective exploitation. Similarly of course Iraq had nothing to do with 'installing' democracy.

The United States happily backs Uzbekistan (a secular dictatorship) and at the same time Saudi (a Wahhabist Monarchy) they do not care whom they back, they merely care about stability. I am not arguing that point.

Rather I am arguing against a universalist attitude towards culture, as in practice (usually through 'aid' agencies) it does more harm than good. One cannot go into another society with the assumption that you are possessed of all the answers. To do so is to assume that the people whom you are talking about are unable to rationally come to their own conclusions about existance.

I would say that making the assumption that the vast majority of the world is wrong, and that you have the answers to give them, is doing just that.On the contrary, I think all humans of average or greater intelligence are capable of thinking in a rational manner, but due to various circumstances they are not encouraged, actively discouraged or merely miss the opportunity to develop such faculties fully.

But old ways of thinking die hard - if they didn't, they wouldn't be around. It's tremendously easier if the habits of rational and critical thinking can be cemented into one's mind at an early age, but even in affluent countries this is not a common occurrence. While most religions seem to be on the decline in such countries, spiritism and superstitious thinking is still worryingly prevalent.

The problem is that rational thought is not something that comes naturally, like youthful curiosity - it is a behaviour that must be learned, and learning is hard work when one's natural inquisitiveness has been crushed by years of rote learning in an unsuitable environment.


How do you know? The logic and reason that you laud is not consistantly applied in this case. It is simply an argument based upon what you percieve, which according to logic, supports nothing more than your perception, which is naturally subjective.

The world you PERCIEVE behaves as though that is true, but this does not give it truth. For all you know, your entire self may have been created but an instant ago, with all your memories and the room around you intact, yet you would be none the wiser and in no position to 'prove' anything, as all your 'proof' would come from within the frame of your own memories and perception.Again, it comes down to trusting one's senses since they are the only way one really learns anything useful about the world. I have learnt through experience that every time I bite into an apple, it will taste like an apple and not, let us say, like a potato. I cannot know with absolute certainty that the next apple I eat will not taste like a potato, but due to my past experiences I can assign a pretty high probability to it.

So it is with the universe. It behaves in a consistent, predictable manner no matter who is observing it or how one is observing it.

Of course, I could believe that the universe and all it's contents and history was created last Thursday, but that is completely unfalsifiable and tells me nothing useful whatsoever. So what if it did? Either way, the universe behaves the same.


I do not know you, therefore I do not know your experiences. I am guessing you have not lived in the economic degradation caused by this economic system, enabled through scientific advancement. Nor have I for that matter, I feel that were we both living in a town in Bangladesh facing the rising water, or were we sitting in hospital beds as land mine victims, I doubt such optimism would be so felt.The existance of suffering is indeed a terrible thing. But the ultimate consequence of the belief that things will not get any better (or that things will only get worse) is paralysis. Why bother trying to improve matters if it makes no difference?


One does not need to be a primitivist to reject the idea that further scientific discoveries bring advancement in the human condition. Having seen what hollow points do to a human body, I am hesitant to claim that science brings advancement at all. What brings us to a better condition cannot be found in labs, it exists within communities and individuals. What point is a longer life when that life is wasted in oppression and pointlessness?Scientific advancement is indeed a double-edged sword. But without it, you and I would not be having this conversation. Technology is in fact one of the defining features of the human species - from it's earliest times we have sought to extend our capabilities using technology, and I imagine that flint axes and arrowheads were just as effective as weapons of war as they were hunting implements. Science merely serves to accelerate a process that was already ongoing.

On the contrary, improvements to the human conditions can indeed be "found in labs" - to name just a few, vaccines, the Green Revolution, sanitation systems, electric lighting, refrigeration, pasteurisation, and waste management among others. The fact that not all of these advances are enjoyed by everyone in the world is not the fault of science. It is the fault of an economic system that privileges the accumulation of capital over the improvement of human life everywhere.


Yet you refer to 'Modern civilisation' which is itself a product of Capitalism. Would it really have been possible for such scientific advancements to be made were the economies of 'civilisation' not propped up by slavery and thievery? Modern civilisation as it exists today is inseperable from capitilism, in every aspect from education to medicine. These scientific advances and the reasoning you employ are all the products of a capitalist society.Capitalist assumptions are not implicit within scientific discoveries nor the scientific method. Science has no political allegiance - the hydrogen atom consists of a proton and an electron no matter what economic system is in place, and the scientific method used to discover such things would work just as well in a communist society as in a capitalist one.


Yes, because that was what I was saying.

Or maybe not. Maybe I was saying that these very advancements are all made at the expense of those very people. It is like draining the blood of a person, and then every now and then giving them back some of their own blood and telling them they are benefiting.

The way these things are 'given' to the exploited parts of the world is through the lense through which you see. Aid organisations go into a refugee camp and say 'more education for women'. They think the way to do this is through making aid conditional on 50% of people at the local school being women.

The refugee camp has a sexual assault rate of 99%, none of the women turn up, they stop aid. The widescale education of anyone is conditional on their economic condition. The Islamic world when it was at its height had hundreds of female Sheikhs and leaders. This was not just because Islam mandates education to both men and women, but also because they could afford it at that time. Then following the desolation of the Islamic world under succesive invasions, followed then by colonialism, this education, of both women and men, stopped.



Of course I'm sure you know all this, and your point is to argue that these things need to be rectified, and such 'progress' become widespread, but how can it when such progress is the product of the very system that created the problems in the first place.

Progression of humanity only occurs when it occurs to ALL humanity and modern science, enabled as it was by oppression, is no example to hold up of progress.So what's your alternative? The track record of damn near everything else is a whole lot worse. At least science works. It may not currently be applied in a wholly egalitarian and humanitarian manner, but for that I lay the blame squarely at the feet of capitalism.

[ibn Bruce]

My perception is the only way I have of gathering information about the world. If I can't trust my perception, what the hell else can I trust?

Nothing, except for your own existence, for that is all you have proof of. If proof is your only form of truth.


And they "get away with it" because they can appeal to cultural tradition or religious authority, rather than any sort of reasoned argument. Which your kind of cowardly subjectivism will only encourage!


Cowardly subjectivism versus internationalist imperialism then I guess. The Imperial endeavour, the capitalist system, was BUILT upon universalism, the universalism of Christianity, of values, of assumptions about life. The 'White Man's Burden' was used as a justification to 'civilise' those cultures that had come to different conclusions, and this 'civilising' was subjugation.

If these peoples cultural habits are problematic, is that not for them to decide, not for anyone to come in and impose upon them? What if your morals are wrong and theirs are right? As I'm sure you could never argue that morality is objective.


Destroying large amounts of productive individuals is hardly economically beneficial. Slavery is a piss-poor method of producing goods and services compared to a modern industrialised economy.

So then why are most of our goods produced in economically exploitative conditions similar to slavery? Why has not modern industrialised economies, 'progress' lead to freedom for workers?


Corruption is not the same as opposition to education - in fact the Catholic Church still runs an observatory in the Vatican. But it's interesting to note how greatly human knowledge advanced once science was no longer under the thumb of the Church.

What was the other factor that occurred at exactly the same time? The rape and plunder of most of the rest of the world.



Well, my view is that the impoverishment (which may or may not be wrought by exploitation) makes societies more susceptible to religious belief due to lack of widespread and/or decent education. Case in point - I do not consider it a coincidence that the areas in the US with high religiosity also have the most rotten education systems, where homeschooling is rampant and creationists fight against evolution being taught in schools, as well as suffering from a surfeit of distinctly sub-par "bible colleges".

I am well educated according to 'Western Standards', my Sheikh has a doctorate, most of the great contemporary traditional Islamic scholars have exceedingly high levels of education, Abdul Hakim Murad, Seyyid Hossein Nasr, Nuh Ha Mim Keller, all are devout but also well educated. Islam encourages education, it is an obligation of the believer. Muslims in Australia have amongst the highest education rates of any community. Muslim women in America have rates about 30% higher than the average.

Rather is it not that education is usually a possession of the upper echelons of society, and now, those upper echelons see religion as being in opposition to their societal aims? Levels of politicisation of religion increase relational to the amount of access individuals have to the apparatus of the state, thus it serves leaders to claim and spread anti-religious dogma in order to undermine resistance.


Life is pretty rotten when nobody respects or values you, don't you think?

That is your own personal assumption, maybe I like being without respect or value. Besides, that seems a fairly shallow argument 'don't do bad things because society might not like you'.


A society that punishes "apostasy" with death is less rational than one that considers changing one's mind (which is what apostasy is, really) to be a strictly personal matter.

I'm guessing this is a reference to 'Takfir', the process of declaring someone outside the religion. In practiced it only existed when there was khalifa and was the same as treason, it did not occur to just anyone who left the din, it occured to those who openly betrayed and acted against the Ummah, conspiring with their enemies. Those that pollute and use takfir for their own means are not of the Islam that I follow.


If you're looking for a specific moral "code" that is non-religious, then you're probably out of luck. Secular humanism upholds reason, ethics and justice as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making, but makes no specific commandments.

Then its not a code. Where is the need for anyone to follow ethics or believe in justice when their is no empirical proof that they are needed? We NEED proof for EVERYTHING, and without it, how can one follow any form of ethics without evidence saying that they are needed? After all, Alexander the Great lived a life of murder and conquest, and suffered not greatly for it. Why should one not follow his example?


You are being terribly vague. What's the problem? What is it about the solution that makes it so terrible? Why isn't there another option? Morality is something that should be based on circumstances rather than some kind of blanket rule. Real life is too complicated to live by a rigid code.

But I though you said everything was rational, reasoned? This does not seem to be the case... ethics or morals made up on the fly, according to circumstance.. where is the empiricism in that?


What part of "Living people ... have more potential than dead people" do you not understand?

My point was, harking back, that if it was deemed neccesary to cull unproductive members of the populace in order to stem the widespread environmental degredation we live amongst, would it be ok? What about the old? The infirm, the sick, the disabled? They aren't producing anything meaningful in empirical terms, can we kill them?


Such as? "Race" has been completely discredited as a scientific concept. If you have evidence otherwise, by all means, show the world. If your evidence is good enough, you might even win a Nobel Prize.

But somehow I doubt such evidence is forthcoming.

Again I guess I am not explaining myself adequately. What garuantees does anyone have that one day science will justify something horrible, under wrong assumptions? Considering that it is so often wrong?

We don't even understand what gives matter its basic property, or exactly how gravity works, yet we can make broad assumptions on the nature of life on no evidence? According to sceptical, rational, thought, we can prove no more than the existance of our own perception.

A dog playing with a ball is chained to a light post. He can see only that which is illuminated by the light of the lamp. He loses the ball, and looks only in the light, for that is all he can see. To that dog, nothing exists beyond the light, yet he has still lost his ball.


On the contrary, I think all humans of average or greater intelligence are capable of thinking in a rational manner, but due to various circumstances they are not encouraged, actively discouraged or merely miss the opportunity to develop such faculties fully.

But old ways of thinking die hard - if they didn't, they wouldn't be around. It's tremendously easier if the habits of rational and critical thinking can be cemented into one's mind at an early age, but even in affluent countries this is not a common occurrence. While most religions seem to be on the decline in such countries, spiritism and superstitious thinking is still worryingly prevalent.

The problem is that rational thought is not something that comes naturally, like youthful curiosity - it is a behaviour that must be learned, and learning is hard work when one's natural inquisitiveness has been crushed by years of rote learning in an unsuitable environment.

There is a difference between internal reason, and scepticism. Your assertion is that what defines being rational, is how you and people like you, view the world. Yet the conclusions of scepticism as I have previously explained, lead to no more than extreme subjectivity, 'I think therefore I am' and are thus nothing to base a life view upon. Thus it becomes an issue of debate WITHIN world views as to what is internally valid, rather than broad assumptions about perception. Horus cannot be the son of Isis and Hathor both. Christ cannot be both an omniprescent diety and also be a confined human without losing divinity. These are rational arguments within a logical sphere. Demanding 'proof' for everything only leads to subjectivity and thus irrelevance, for I can refute easily what you say, for I am the only one who exists in my own subjectivity.


So it is with the universe. It behaves in a consistent, predictable manner no matter who is observing it or how one is observing it.

Where is your proof? You admitedly have only your own observations. How do you know that the colour you see as 'blue' is not seen to everybody else as the colour you see as 'purple'? You don't.


The existance of suffering is indeed a terrible thing. But the ultimate consequence of the belief that things will not get any better (or that things will only get worse) is paralysis. Why bother trying to improve matters if it makes no difference?

It frames everything in a struggle against entropy, rather than the arrogance of all fallen civilisations 'that everything is only going to get better'. I am not paralysed, I see blessing in struggle.


Scientific advancement is indeed a double-edged sword. But without it, you and I would not be having this conversation. Technology is in fact one of the defining features of the human species - from it's earliest times we have sought to extend our capabilities using technology, and I imagine that flint axes and arrowheads were just as effective as weapons of war as they were hunting implements. Science merely serves to accelerate a process that was already ongoing.

If it is but a tool, how can one enshrine it as the means to human advancement? Do we gain more as individuals from being able to speak across vast distances instead of face to face? On the other hand, what have we lost? Well, looking at the legacy of weapons development, I would say quite a lot. The argument 'we haven't managed to destroy ourselves yet' is not a very convincing one.



On the contrary, improvements to the human conditions can indeed be "found in labs" - to name just a few, vaccines, the Green Revolution, sanitation systems, electric lighting, refrigeration, pasteurisation, and waste management among others. The fact that not all of these advances are enjoyed by everyone in the world is not the fault of science. It is the fault of an economic system that privileges the accumulation of capital over the improvement of human life everywhere.

Those are in 'conditions' not in 'condition'. We are still the same humans, now we just live longer lives, more steeped in pointlessness and slavery. The technotopia is not coming, I sure as hell don't have a jet pack! Science does not occur in a vacuum, it is a product of society, of humanity. These scientific 'advancements' were achieved through that same economic system, enshrining them as the be all and end all of 'development' merely encourages rather than rectifies that difference.

What use is a cure for cancer when people still die from starvation? The technology we develop, is developed for the benefit of those who have wealth. From medicine to mass transit, all serve those in power, not those whom produce the labour that funds such things. Achieve global equality first, then we can talk about scientific advancement improving the human condition.


Capitalist assumptions are not implicit within scientific discoveries nor the scientific method. Science has no political allegiance - the hydrogen atom consists of a proton and an electron no matter what economic system is in place, and the scientific method used to discover such things would work just as well in a communist society as in a capitalist one.


Yet it is not simply science that you espouse as civilisation, it is everything from your values to your economic position. That is what you want to bring to the rest of the world. An imposition of your standards of belief, your values and your 'development'. Yet those things come, without the economic part. Look at Uzbekistan, shuddering under the weight of a secular dictatorship, where the families of women who don the scarf 'disappear' and those who go to Friday prayers are assasinated. That is the 'development' that reaches the rest of the world. One cannot speak of science as a double edged sword and then describe it as a good thing! It is what the systems it is studied under, and these systems are oppressive. So when you enshrine this science, this civilisation you are enshrining not just the broad concept of scientific advances improving human health and life expectancy, you are enshrining all that was needed to get to where we are today, colonialsim, exploitation and genocide.


So what's your alternative? The track record of damn near everything else is a whole lot worse. At least science works. It may not currently be applied in a wholly egalitarian and humanitarian manner, but for that I lay the blame squarely at the feet of capitalism.

Science does not 'work' it sometimes gets things right, but more often it gets things wrong. I have no problem with medicine, with agriculture, however scientific advancement cannot occur at the cost of people as a whole. If 'development' requires exploitation, it is not development.

Science must be seen as a means, not an ends. Science needs to be subservient in a fight against oppression, it is not something in and of itself. Our scientific advancements in the 'Western' world do not place us in any position above anyone. It merely allows us to waste more time in our lives. Science is only useful in that it allows us to fulfil our humanity, to achieve fulfillment as humans. It is not something to be aimed for on its own, nor is it the great hope that will save us. The peace the Romans brought was a wasteland, the Romans did what they did in the name of 'civilisation' and with the aid of their advanced science. They must not be our teachers.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nothing, except for your own existence, for that is all you have proof of. If proof is your only form of truth.

Why don't you go swallow a glass of mercury? After all, there's no proof that it will kill you, and you can't trust the word of those imperialist scientists who say that mercury is toxic.


Cowardly subjectivism versus internationalist imperialism then I guess. The Imperial endeavour, the capitalist system, was BUILT upon universalism, the universalism of Christianity, of values, of assumptions about life. The 'White Man's Burden' was used as a justification to 'civilise' those cultures that had come to different conclusions, and this 'civilising' was subjugation.The whole "civilising" claptrap was just an excuse - it's not the sort of thing you can impose at gunpoint and not expect some kind of blowback. The fact that some actually believed in such waffle is neither here nor there. History has shown that such things are a mistake.


If these peoples cultural habits are problematic, is that not for them to decide, not for anyone to come in and impose upon them? What if your morals are wrong and theirs are right? As I'm sure you could never argue that morality is objective.Morality may not be objective, but suffering is. Slicing up people's genitals causes suffering, unless they're into that sort of thing. Lack of accessible contraception and birth control causes suffering.


So then why are most of our goods produced in economically exploitative conditions similar to slavery? Why has not modern industrialised economies, 'progress' lead to freedom for workers?Because, as I pointed out in my last post, the current global economic system favours accumulation of capital over improvement of the human condition.


What was the other factor that occurred at exactly the same time? The rape and plunder of most of the rest of the world.
Yeah, like rape and plunder never happened beforehand. Do the Crusades ring a bell?


I am well educated according to 'Western Standards', my Sheikh has a doctorate, most of the great contemporary traditional Islamic scholars have exceedingly high levels of education, Abdul Hakim Murad, Seyyid Hossein Nasr, Nuh Ha Mim Keller, all are devout but also well educated. Islam encourages education, it is an obligation of the believer. Muslims in Australia have amongst the highest education rates of any community. Muslim women in America have rates about 30% higher than the average.And the hundreds of millions of other Muslims? What about them?


Rather is it not that education is usually a possession of the upper echelons of society, and now, those upper echelons see religion as being in opposition to their societal aims? Levels of politicisation of religion increase relational to the amount of access individuals have to the apparatus of the state, thus it serves leaders to claim and spread anti-religious dogma in order to undermine resistance.Considering the dearth of "atheist states" vs the relatively large amount of countrie that claim to have "god" on their side or otherwise make noises sympathetic to religion, I'd say you're wrong about leaders spreading "anti-religious dogma". I certainly haven't heard any state-endorsed anti-theism - perhaps you could point me towards some?


That is your own personal assumption, maybe I like being without respect or value. Besides, that seems a fairly shallow argument 'don't do bad things because society might not like you'.If you're a masochist, fair enough. Just don't expect anyone else to share your masochism. As for the argument, it masy be shallow but it certainly is powerful - being social animals, if we can't function in society (in this case, the cause being rejection by society due to our actions) then that's generally a bad thing.



I'm guessing this is a reference to 'Takfir', the process of declaring someone outside the religion. In practiced it only existed when there was khalifa and was the same as treason, it did not occur to just anyone who left the din, it occured to those who openly betrayed and acted against the Ummah, conspiring with their enemies. Those that pollute and use takfir for their own means are not of the Islam that I follow.And who are you to say that they are not Muslims, according to your own reasoning? Looking through the Koran, there is a strong emphasis on belief and it's importance - in fact it's so important that anyone who doesn't believe allegedly gets smacked about by Allah before being tossed into everlasting fire. Nice.


Then its not a code. Where is the need for anyone to follow ethics or believe in justice when their is no empirical proof that they are needed? We NEED proof for EVERYTHING, and without it, how can one follow any form of ethics without evidence saying that they are needed?So if everybody disregarded ethics, if society had no justice whatsoever, everything would be peachy? Somehow I doubt it. A society which allows random murder is not in one's interest, as the odds are good that someone smarter, stronger and/or better-armed than oneself will overpower one.


After all, Alexander the Great lived a life of murder and conquest, and suffered not greatly for it. Why should one not follow his example?Because the chances are likely one will fail. Think of all the great conquerors, the murderous tyrants and bloody despots that stain the pages of history. Now think about all their victims, and how much they outnumber the tyrants.


But I though you said everything was rational, reasoned? This does not seem to be the case... ethics or morals made up on the fly, according to circumstance.. where is the empiricism in that?One judges each scenario on it's merits in a rational manner, rather than pulling one's answers out of a hat or according to personal whimsy.


My point was, harking back, that if it was deemed neccesary to cull unproductive members of the populace in order to stem the widespread environmental degredation we live amongst, would it be ok? What about the old? The infirm, the sick, the disabled? They aren't producing anything meaningful in empirical terms, can we kill them?What's the obsession with killing? The way to deal with human overpopulation is not to break out the guns and knives, but to ensure an optimum quality of life for all concerned, which will level off the birthrate, and let old age do the rest.


Again I guess I am not explaining myself adequately. What garuantees does anyone have that one day science will justify something horrible, under wrong assumptions? Considering that it is so often wrong?Because science doesn't justify anything, it explains.


We don't even understand what gives matter its basic property, or exactly how gravity works, yet we can make broad assumptions on the nature of life on no evidence? According to sceptical, rational, thought, we can prove no more than the existance of our own perception.Actually, we know an awful lot about matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter). In General Relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity), curvature in spacetime is theorised to be the mechanism for gravitational force.

As for the nature of life, there's an entire branch of science devoted to studying it. It's called Biology.


A dog playing with a ball is chained to a light post. He can see only that which is illuminated by the light of the lamp. He loses the ball, and looks only in the light, for that is all he can see. To that dog, nothing exists beyond the light, yet he has still lost his ball.Poor analogy. Dogs are unfamiliar with the process of experiment and the scientific method. Were it able to, the dog could perform repeatable experiments that show that something does not cease to exist simply because it disappears from the light.


There is a difference between internal reason, and scepticism. Your assertion is that what defines being rational, is how you and people like you, view the world. Yet the conclusions of scepticism as I have previously explained, lead to no more than extreme subjectivity, 'I think therefore I am' and are thus nothing to base a life view upon. Thus it becomes an issue of debate WITHIN world views as to what is internally valid, rather than broad assumptions about perception. Horus cannot be the son of Isis and Hathor both. Christ cannot be both an omniprescent diety and also be a confined human without losing divinity. These are rational arguments within a logical sphere. Demanding 'proof' for everything only leads to subjectivity and thus irrelevance, for I can refute easily what you say, for I am the only one who exists in my own subjectivity.
Well, it's a good thing I don't demand "proof" for anything, rather I ask for evidence to be provided. The evidence that mercury is heavier than water can be provided by a repeatable experiment, regardless of the nature of reality. On the other hand, there is not one shred of evidence for the divinity of Jesus Christ.


Where is your proof? You admitedly have only your own observations. How do you know that the colour you see as 'blue' is not seen to everybody else as the colour you see as 'purple'? You don't.Neither does it matter. There's currently no way of telling whether people all see colours the same way or not. What's important is consistency - blue does not suddenly become red, green does not randomly shade into yellow and back again, etc.


It frames everything in a struggle against entropy, rather than the arrogance of all fallen civilisations 'that everything is only going to get better'. I am not paralysed, I see blessing in struggle. But ultimately, the struggle against entropy is a losing battle. Civilisations may fall, but we must be ready, willing and able to establish new ones if we are to survive as a species in this indifferent universe. Struggle is a necessary part of survival, not a good thing in itself. Nobody should have to struggle for anything, and we should work to create a world were such a thing is a reality for everyone.


If it is but a tool, how can one enshrine it as the means to human advancement? Do we gain more as individuals from being able to speak across vast distances instead of face to face? On the other hand, what have we lost? Well, looking at the legacy of weapons development, I would say quite a lot. The argument 'we haven't managed to destroy ourselves yet' is not a very convincing one.Because science is a very important tool. I think the internet has enormous potential, probably not yet fully realised, to facilitate the worldwide spread and interaction of ideas. One is necessarily limited in the amount of face-to-face encounters one can have, but with the internet there are millions of potential conversations. Despite the vast increase in the lethality of weaponry, the proportion of people dying in wars per capita has actually decreased. If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million.


Those are in 'conditions' not in 'condition'. We are still the same humans, now we just live longer lives, more steeped in pointlessness and slavery. The technotopia is not coming, I sure as hell don't have a jet pack! Science does not occur in a vacuum, it is a product of society, of humanity. These scientific 'advancements' were achieved through that same economic system, enshrining them as the be all and end all of 'development' merely encourages rather than rectifies that difference.

What use is a cure for cancer when people still die from starvation? The technology we develop, is developed for the benefit of those who have wealth. From medicine to mass transit, all serve those in power, not those whom produce the labour that funds such things. Achieve global equality first, then we can talk about scientific advancement improving the human condition.Look, is it or is it not better to have a flushing toilet than to live in one's own shit? The fact that not everyone gets the full benefits of science and the advanced technological society it engenders is a fact that I am aware of and want to rectify.


Yet it is not simply science that you espouse as civilisation, it is everything from your values to your economic position. That is what you want to bring to the rest of the world. An imposition of your standards of belief, your values and your 'development'. Yet those things come, without the economic part. Look at Uzbekistan, shuddering under the weight of a secular dictatorship, where the families of women who don the scarf 'disappear' and those who go to Friday prayers are assasinated. That is the 'development' that reaches the rest of the world. One cannot speak of science as a double edged sword and then describe it as a good thing! It is what the systems it is studied under, and these systems are oppressive. So when you enshrine this science, this civilisation you are enshrining not just the broad concept of scientific advances improving human health and life expectancy, you are enshrining all that was needed to get to where we are today, colonialsim, exploitation and genocide.Such things are actually counterproductive and progress occurs in spite of such events. Colonialism, exploitation and genocide represent the destruction of human potential rather than it's realisation. Killing and torturing religious folk does not advance secularism or rational thinking, instead it creates martyrs and rallying points for believers.


Science does not 'work' it sometimes gets things right, but more often it gets things wrong. I have no problem with medicine, with agriculture, however scientific advancement cannot occur at the cost of people as a whole. If 'development' requires exploitation, it is not development.Science may get things wrong, but it has within it the capability to correct it's mistakes. Not everyone benefits from scientific advancement and development under capitalism, but regression and primitivism benefits nobody.


Science must be seen as a means, not an ends. Science needs to be subservient in a fight against oppression, it is not something in and of itself. Our scientific advancements in the 'Western' world do not place us in any position above anyone. It merely allows us to waste more time in our lives. Science is only useful in that it allows us to fulfil our humanity, to achieve fulfillment as humans. It is not something to be aimed for on its own, nor is it the great hope that will save us. The peace the Romans brought was a wasteland, the Romans did what they did in the name of 'civilisation' and with the aid of their advanced science. They must not be our teachers.The problem with the Romans and other empires was not their technology, but their belief that "civilisation" was something that could be imposed at spearpoint/gunpoint.

[MAVA]

i am not dead yet

[political_animal]

Does god exist? No. There have been quotes that atheists 'believe' there is no god and as such this means there can be no proof and therefore the question must remain open.

Belief is a religious term and atheism is a religious term to describe non-believers. As an anti-theist I reject the whole basis of god/religion/belief and find such things quite preposterous. It is not up to me to prove that something that deosn't exist, exists! It is up to those that believe, to prove things at their end. But of course, religion and science are polar opposites and belief is not something that can be proved, so religious types have to change the argument to say that it is those of us on the side of science to scientifically prove god doesn't exist. What a ridiculous argument.
I think that pretty much sums up how preposterous religion is.

[ibn Bruce]

Why don't you go swallow a glass of mercury? After all, there's no proof that it will kill you, and you can't trust the word of those imperialist scientists who say that mercury is toxic.

I am not arguing on the internal coherence of the reality you percieve. Merely on your assertion that a rationalist position provides objectivity. As I have said, rationalist arguments do not stand up to their own criticisms and this was concluded long ago. Atheists who argue against God in rationalist, 'proof' terms I guess never got the memo.


The whole "civilising" claptrap was just an excuse - it's not the sort of thing you can impose at gunpoint and not expect some kind of blowback. The fact that some actually believed in such waffle is neither here nor there. History has shown that such things are a mistake.

Yet I was not the one referring to 'civilisation'... It was you. It is also you that believes that your civilisation should be brought to others who have different practices to you.


Morality may not be objective, but suffering is. Slicing up people's genitals causes suffering, unless they're into that sort of thing. Lack of accessible contraception and birth control causes suffering.

From an Islamic perspective none of these are permissable (just thought I would say that). Many people could say that male circumcision, tattooes, piercings etc causes suffering also, yet they are commonplace and embarked upon by many in this community. Similarly in the places where such things occur, they occur across all classes and religions and are done in the most part by women to women. It seems that the most effective way to get around the problems such things cause is, rather than ham handedly applying our own cultural values in another society, it is to make such practices healthy. Which is one of the newest and succesful trends in the region.


Because, as I pointed out in my last post, the current global economic system favours accumulation of capital over improvement of the human condition.

Yet you define progress in terms of the technological advances afforded by that same system. I mean those advances do improve the human condition, just to a select few, rather than everyone. Surely then a better position would be to erase those exploitative systems, even if it means a back stepping in science and progress as you define it?


Yeah, like rape and plunder never happened beforehand. Do the Crusades ring a bell?

Of course they happened beforehand, yet I was not the one who made the claim that the human condition was progressing.


And the hundreds of millions of other Muslims? What about them?

Your point was that religious belief corrolated with a lack of education. I showed that where they have access to education, Muslims are MORE educated and remain devoutly Muslim. The hundreds of millions of other Muslims, it would seem would follow the same trend were they allowed to. Which they are not.


Considering the dearth of "atheist states" vs the relatively large amount of countrie that claim to have "god" on their side or otherwise make noises sympathetic to religion, I'd say you're wrong about leaders spreading "anti-religious dogma". I certainly haven't heard any state-endorsed anti-theism - perhaps you could point me towards some?

Turkey, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Iran (under the Shah), France etc. all had/have secular rulers who oppress minorities in the name of religious 'freedom'. It is no coincidence that those most effected by France's laws on religion also happen to be working class immigrants. Similarly Turkey has long used secularism as a means to clamp down on resistance amongst the working class (who are usually devout Muslims). The same went for Iran, where the womyn's revolution alone was driven by bans on the Niqab (face veil).


If you're a masochist, fair enough. Just don't expect anyone else to share your masochism. As for the argument, it masy be shallow but it certainly is powerful - being social animals, if we can't function in society (in this case, the cause being rejection by society due to our actions) then that's generally a bad thing.
Yet there are many at the top of the societal ladder who commit oppressive acts, earning enmity from all, and do so regardless. Many rulers are hated by their people, and yet use terror as a weapon. This WORKS, without a moral argument, how can one use utilitarianism to argue agains them?


And who are you to say that they are not Muslims, according to your own reasoning? Looking through the Koran, there is a strong emphasis on belief and it's importance - in fact it's so important that anyone who doesn't believe allegedly gets smacked about by Allah before being tossed into everlasting fire. Nice.

Thats the thing, I don't. Even though they commit abuses in the name of Islam, I don't know their hearts, thus I don't declare them not Muslim. Of course the Qu'ran places emphasis on belief. It also said 'those whom God guides, none can divert, and those who are diverted, none can return'. Thus no one is in a position to do as such, therefore such a criticism is not valid for mainstream Islam.


So if everybody disregarded ethics, if society had no justice whatsoever, everything would be peachy? Somehow I doubt it. A society which allows random murder is not in one's interest, as the odds are good that someone smarter, stronger and/or better-armed than oneself will overpower one.

So we should create an ethical code? Based upon what? Just created? Or are we talking about a conservative idea of societal norms, wisdom of the ancestors and all that. Considering the science makes no ethical codes, what does one base it on, from a rationalist perspective?


One judges each scenario on it's merits in a rational manner, rather than pulling one's answers out of a hat or according to personal whimsy.

I was not aware that anyone made decisions by 'pulling them out of a hat', though I am interested in seeing a scientific basis for believing that 'personal whimsy' plays no part in ethical decisions where there is an absence of a specific ethical code of conduct. How does one define a 'rational' manner of decision making? Having done counselling work, there are many 'rationales' to why people make decisions, however most of the time they could not be defined as rational in the way you would define it.


Because the chances are likely one will fail. Think of all the great conquerors, the murderous tyrants and bloody despots that stain the pages of history. Now think about all their victims, and how much they outnumber the tyrants.

Thought of all of them, and how few were in the end overthrown. Many of the most terrible rulers, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great and so on, died of natural means. They lived their whole lives to the fullest, at everyone elses expense. Who is to say that we should not emulate that?


What's the obsession with killing? The way to deal with human overpopulation is not to break out the guns and knives, but to ensure an optimum quality of life for all concerned, which will level off the birthrate, and let old age do the rest.

How exactly is that to be done? Considering that there are a finite number of resources in the world? Also, should we kill the old people, it would be very problematic were the entire world have to support a top heavy level of demographics! It is going to be bad enough here, imagine that on the scale of China!


Because science doesn't justify anything, it explains.

So science at no point justifies any belief or action? Seems a strange proposition to me!


Actually, we know an awful lot about matter (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter). In General Relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity), curvature in spacetime is theorised to be the mechanism for gravitational force.

I was not saying we didn't know a lot about matter, merely that we have no understanding of what gives matter 'mass'. General relativity has no clear definition of Mass at all, as it performs differently in different circusmstances.


As for the nature of life, there's an entire branch of science devoted to studying it. It's called Biology.

It is descriptive, biology describes the nature of observable life as apposed to the nature of existance itself. It explains the question How? As apposed to Why? (in the context of purpose).


Poor analogy. Dogs are unfamiliar with the process of experiment and the scientific method. Were it able to, the dog could perform repeatable experiments that show that something does not cease to exist simply because it disappears from the light.

How exactly? Were the dog to 'throw' the ball repeatedly from the light, it would not show anything. No matter how many times it would be repeated. Though of course that is not my point. My point is that we are chained to our own perception, and thus to conclude that we can somehow conclude anything beyond our perception (outside of the light) is impossible. There are numerous paradigms in science that exist in this way. We make assumptions, without proof, as it explains things adequately. Quarks and string theory both rely heavily on such things.


Well, it's a good thing I don't demand "proof" for anything, rather I ask for evidence to be provided. The evidence that mercury is heavier than water can be provided by a repeatable experiment, regardless of the nature of reality. On the other hand, there is not one shred of evidence for the divinity of Jesus Christ.
I am not claiming that mercury is lighter than water, nor do I claim divinity for Jesus Christ. I do however demand evidence that reality for you extends beyond your perception of it, and I see no evidence. Also, I wonder what the difference between proof and evidence is?



Neither does it matter. There's currently no way of telling whether people all see colours the same way or not. What's important is consistency - blue does not suddenly become red, green does not randomly shade into yellow and back again, etc.

That agrees with my position, consistency is important, for the nature of reality is not fixed. One cannot prove to another that Blue is BLUE, no matter how many experiments they perform on their brain.


But ultimately, the struggle against entropy is a losing battle. Civilisations may fall, but we must be ready, willing and able to establish new ones if we are to survive as a species in this indifferent universe. Struggle is a necessary part of survival, not a good thing in itself. Nobody should have to struggle for anything, and we should work to create a world were such a thing is a reality for everyone.

Yes, it is a losing battle, one we are destined to lose entirely. I believe this, yet I can, as I do not believe in progress. However you claim to believe in progression of the human condition, something that (at least to my logic) goes against the idea of a losing fight against entropy. How could one value a life where nothing is fought for? How can one claim happiness without knowing grief? Blake said 'without contaries there is no progression', how can we then define progress as a march towards no struggle at all?


Because science is a very important tool. I think the internet has enormous potential, probably not yet fully realised, to facilitate the worldwide spread and interaction of ideas. One is necessarily limited in the amount of face-to-face encounters one can have, but with the internet there are millions of potential conversations. Despite the vast increase in the lethality of weaponry, the proportion of people dying in wars per capita has actually decreased. If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million.
One could well say you speak too soon. The potential of our weaponry is yet to be unleashed, and when it has it has been devastating. However that does not answer my question. If it is but a tool, how can one enshrine it as the main indicator of human advancement? What has changed in humanity so convincingly because of science? Does the dessemination of a million ideas, each equally ill-informed and inane advance humanity?


Look, is it or is it not better to have a flushing toilet than to live in one's own shit? The fact that not everyone gets the full benefits of science and the advanced technological society it engenders is a fact that I am aware of and want to rectify

However we are not in an analogous flushing toilet, we are sitting in a metaphorical long drop with the rest of the world at the bottom. It becomes hard to define human advancement by technology, while simultaneously rejecting the means at which such 'advancement' occured. Surely were a drop in a large percentage of people's standards of living in exchange for an increase in the mean be a good thing? Or would it be a step back?


Such things are actually counterproductive and progress occurs in spite of such events. Colonialism, exploitation and genocide represent the destruction of human potential rather than it's realisation. Killing and torturing religious folk does not advance secularism or rational thinking, instead it creates martyrs and rallying points for believers.

And yet without colonialism, exploitation and genocide, the 'progress' and 'civilisation' you so admire and wish to spread, would not exist. Such advancements do not occur 'in spite' of anything, they occur BECAUSE of such things.


Science may get things wrong, but it has within it the capability to correct it's mistakes. Not everyone benefits from scientific advancement and development under capitalism, but regression and primitivism benefits nobody.

If it were simply that 'not everyone benefits' but no one suffers, then I would be happy. However the 'advances' of science that came with capitalism have more effectively spread more economic oppression than ever before. If a step back in technology creates a more equal, less oppressive world, how could one argue against it? Where would one rather live? A technotopia built with the skeletons of the murdered or a town where people live shorter lives but oppress no one?

I'm down with science, medicine and knowledge are wonderful things.. however they are subservient to humanity as a whole. They are not things to be sought simply for their own sake, it must be for the benefit of people, and if such advancement occurs AGAINST the benefit of the mass of people, then I condemn it!


The problem with the Romans and other empires was not their technology, but their belief that "civilisation" was something that could be imposed at spearpoint/gunpoint.

They didn't really 'impose civilisation', rather they installed minorities of their own 'civilised' peoples at the head of 'barbarian' cultures, USING their technology. Again, science is a means, not an ends.

You have shown two things:

a: you believe some cultures to be superior to others

b: you believe that scientific advancement is beneficial, even at the expense of the broad population

How then are you any different in your moral stance to any others who believed the same things? Is saying that you are commited to eventually 'benefiting everyone' an effective means of guarding against the harm of such beliefs? Especially in the context of you at no point defining any clear ethical code as such.

[ibn Bruce]

Does god exist? No. There have been quotes that atheists 'believe' there is no god and as such this means there can be no proof and therefore the question must remain open.

Belief is a religious term and atheism is a religious term to describe non-believers. As an anti-theist I reject the whole basis of god/religion/belief and find such things quite preposterous. It is not up to me to prove that something that deosn't exist, exists! It is up to those that believe, to prove things at their end. But of course, religion and science are polar opposites and belief is not something that can be proved, so religious types have to change the argument to say that it is those of us on the side of science to scientifically prove god doesn't exist. What a ridiculous argument.
I think that pretty much sums up how preposterous religion is.

It has never been claimed to be provable, if it were there would not be one non-Muslim in the world. However Atheists attempt to argue against the belief in a God through arguing that there is no evidence. Believe or not believe, it is a choice, we never claimed it to be otherwise. It is Atheists who say that they possess objective reality enough to say that it is false.

Now I personally do not have the arrogant capacity to say that my version of reality should apply to everyone else, I wonder what it is that makes anyone else otherwise.

[political_animal]

It has never been claimed to be provable, if it were there would not be one non-Muslim in the world. However Atheists attempt to argue against the belief in a God through arguing that there is no evidence. Believe or not believe, it is a choice, we never claimed it to be otherwise. It is Atheists who say that they possess objective reality enough to say that it is false.

Now I personally do not have the arrogant capacity to say that my version of reality should apply to everyone else, I wonder what it is that makes anyone else otherwise.

As god is a human (religious) construct it is ridiculous to argue that there can be a debate about belief/non-belief. Atheism is about rejecting the whole idea of the existence of a god, not the lack of evidence. Arguing against belief on the basis of a lack of evidence is agnosticism.

Saying that god doesn't exist isn't arrogance, however, rejecting the idea that there is a need on behalf of believers to prove existence, is.

[Jazzratt]

It has never been claimed to be provable, if it were there would not be one non-Muslim in the world.

What a meaningless statement. Of course if there was proof of your god everyone would follow your religion but there isn't so what's the point?


However Atheists attempt to argue against the belief in a God through arguing that there is no evidence. Believe or not believe, it is a choice, we never claimed it to be otherwise. It is Atheists who say that they possess objective reality enough to say that it is false.

I also "possess objective reality enough" (what a fucking pretentious thing to say, by the way) to that there are no faeries at the bottom of my garden, no trolls under any bridges and no enormous dung beetle pushing the sun across the sky. How very arrogant of me :rolleyes:


Now I personally do not have the arrogant capacity to say that my version of reality should apply to everyone else, I wonder what it is that makes anyone else otherwise.

Unfortunately for you reality isn't a subjective thing which you can just believe whatever the fuck you want about. Allah is either there or not, as you already said and, surely, would exist regardless of belief.

I've a few questions to ask of you:
1) What is your logical reason for believing in a god?

2) Why this god and not, say, the Norse pantheon? Or Yaweh?

3) Why did this god see fit to not only provide any proof whatsoever of its existance and even go so far as to create a universe that appears to be completely godless?

[ibn Bruce]

What a meaningless statement. Of course if there was proof of your god everyone would follow your religion but there isn't so what's the point?

Within Islamic thought, we exist as a a manifestation of the attributes of Allah. We exist as conditional realities. One of the attributes of Allah is 'rahmeh', 'mercy'. Were the existence of God as undeniable as our own individual existence, one would never choose themselves over God, and thus would never be in a position to be subject to God's Rahmeh.


I also "possess objective reality enough" (what a fucking pretentious thing to say, by the way) to that there are no faeries at the bottom of my garden, no trolls under any bridges and no enormous dung beetle pushing the sun across the sky. How very arrogant of me
Indeed. You possess no objectivity, no one does. The product of absolute rationalism is absolute subjectivity and nothing more than 'cogito ergo sum'. Therefore one is in no position to argue either way, it is a choice.

However it is presented by Atheists as being no choice. They say 'there is no proof, therefore there is no probability that God exists', however they are relying upon evidence from within their own subjective reality, rather than logic. According to logic, the way to 'disprove' a religion would be through rebutting its own claims through logic and through its assertions about reality in turn.


Unfortunately for you reality isn't a subjective thing which you can just believe whatever the fuck you want about. Allah is either there or not, as you already said and, surely, would exist regardless of belief.


I find no conflict with what I find in the dunya (this reality) and belief in God.


1) What is your logical reason for believing in a god?


I belief that Allah is the most effective and holistic paradigm for the explanation of the 'purpose' and form of my existance. I have found Islam constitutes absolute perfection in purpose as a human.


2) Why this god and not, say, the Norse pantheon? Or Yaweh?
The Norse pantheon says that Thor uses Mijolinir to hurl thunderbolts and such a claim is literal, this is obviously disproved by what I see in my subjective reality. The Bible claims that the world was created in 6 days and then God rested. I believe that it is illogical for a God to claim omnipotence and then have a need for 'rest'. My conception of Allah in a monotheistic sense is similar to Judaic conceptions, but the social manifestation of Judaism is not.


3) Why did this god see fit to not only provide any proof whatsoever of its existance and even go so far as to create a universe that appears to be completely godless?
A clear vessel becomes the colour of the water within. Someone's universe may appear that way if they wrongly feel that way.

[Jazzratt]

Within Islamic thought, we exist as a a manifestation of the attributes of Allah. We exist as conditional realities. One of the attributes of Allah is 'rahmeh', 'mercy'. Were the existence of God as undeniable as our own individual existence, one would never choose themselves over God, and thus would never be in a position to be subject to God's Rahmeh.

It's interesting how all religions have this "get out clause" for why their god doesn't reveal itself. If I read you correctly we can't have proof of your god because that would mean we couldn't receive this 'rahmeh'. I don't really see what's in it for allah to remain hidden, you may have to run this all by me again.


Indeed. You possess no objectivity, no one does. The product of absolute rationalism is absolute subjectivity and nothing more than 'cogito ergo sum'. Therefore one is in no position to argue either way, it is a choice.I would say I possess enough objectivity to avoid belief in the fantastic creatures listed (trolls, faeries and so on). For another example I have enough objective knowledge of the nature of, say, giraffes and outer space to be pretty bloody certain there isn't a purple giraffe on Titan.

As for "absolute rationalism" I think you've got your arguments confused, atheists tend toward more empiricist or materialist views. It's your a priori concept of god that is rationalist.


However it is presented by Atheists as being no choice. They say 'there is no proof, therefore there is no probability that God exists', however they are relying upon evidence from within their own subjective reality, rather than logic.They don't have a subjective reality. You're once again striding down the road of vulgar rationalism. It's a steady and happy to march to solipsism that you're taking. As for the idea that logic exists divorced from any sort of empirical reality and therefore irrefutable by anyone interested in observing what is around them, that's just ridiculous. Such "logic" can never say anything useful because it never references anything useful outside of it, for fuck's sake.


According to logic, the way to 'disprove' a religion would be through rebutting its own claims through logic and through its assertions about reality in turn.Again this entire line of argument rests on the idea of a logic that is seperate from reality; you're dicking about in vulgar rationalism again. Quite a large number of religions can build up internally consisted fictions about reality which can only be truly refuted by referencing the wider universe.


I find no conflict with what I find in the dunya (this reality) and belief in God.That's irrelevant. Do you find anything in the universe that suggests its existance?


I belief that Allah is the most effective and holistic paradigm for the explanation of the 'purpose' and form of my existance. I have found Islam constitutes absolute perfection in purpose as a human. 1) You've assumed your existance has a purpose. Why?

2) What part of the 'form' of your existance is not usefully explained by science? Are you sure you aren't just using Allah as a "god of the gaps"?


The Norse pantheon says that Thor uses Mijolinir to hurl thunderbolts and such a claim is literal, this is obviously disproved by what I see in my subjective reality. The Bible claims that the world was created in 6 days and then God rested. I believe that it is illogical for a God to claim omnipotence and then have a need for 'rest'. My conception of Allah in a monotheistic sense is similar to Judaic conceptions, but the social manifestation of Judaism is not.Those are but two examples of the god's you could be described as taking an "atheist" attitude toward. There are many others. Hell, there are many other flavours of the christian god beyond the one presented by fundamentalists (6 day creation etc...)


A clear vessel becomes the colour of the water within. Someone's universe may appear that way if they wrongly feel that way.Regardless, nothing that exists in this universe necessitates a god. I have seen nothing that cannot be explained as a natural process.

[ibn Bruce]

It's interesting how all religions have this "get out clause" for why their god doesn't reveal itself. If I read you correctly we can't have proof of your god because that would mean we couldn't receive this 'rahmeh'. I don't really see what's in it for allah to remain hidden, you may have to run this all by me again.Were absolute certainty to exist, there would be no question of God's existence. All 'sin' exists as a manifestation of disbelief. We make idols of things, of people, of objects, of ideologies, emotions and even ourselves. Were we to have absolute certainty of Her existence, we would never do such things. Why would anyone harm another if they truly believed God perceived them?



I would say I possess enough objectivity to avoid belief in the fantastic creatures listed (trolls, faeries and so on). For another example I have enough objective knowledge of the nature of, say, giraffes and outer space to be pretty bloody certain there isn't a purple giraffe on Titan.And yet you base your assumption on empiricism, which in turn bases its assumption in observation. Observation can tell you many things about the nature of our subjective reality, but it can tell us little beyond that. If one accepts that there must be scepticism as a foundation of scientific enquiry, it follows that there should be scepticism applied to perception of reality. This scepticism, when take to its final conclusion will lead to ones assumption that that which is observable can only be confirmed as something which is observed and nothing more. Perception is malleable, consciousness uncertain, and thus one can make no assumptions about the nature of anything based upon it.


They don't have a subjective reality. You're once again striding down the road of vulgar rationalism. It's a steady and happy to march to solipsism that you're taking. As for the idea that logic exists divorced from any sort of empirical reality and therefore irrefutable by anyone interested in observing what is around them, that's just ridiculous. Such "logic" can never say anything useful because it never references anything useful outside of it, for fuck's sake.I am not denying the use of scientific, logical, empirical enquiry, merely stating that rational logic must be applied consistently. Empirically one cannot make an assertion without proof. I cannot simply say 'gravity does not exist' as something broadly termed gravity obviously does. Similarly one cannot say 'objectivity exists' as there is nothing that confirms it. There is no evidence beyond that which is observed by an individual.


That's irrelevant. Do you find anything in the universe that suggests its existence?I have a lesser experiential knowledge of God. In the Holy Qu'ran I read a miracle that surpasses the capabilities of anything in creation. In the sayings of those touched by the Messenger of God, Peace and Blessings upon him, I see such logic, crushing and inevitable that led me in 2 weeks to go from being an Atheist to taking divine affirmation. These are of course my subjective experiences and I do not hold them up as proof to you. In the end it became a choice, to believe or not to believe, I chose belief, and after that I have been given certainty in that. Alhamdulillah.


1) You've assumed your existance has a purpose. Why?Everything in my perception has a purpose, every atom does something. I assume that when in function we all have a purpose (as I believe Dawkins described it, paraphrased: life is the resistance of entropy) that is extended beyond to our existance itself.


2) What part of the 'form' of your existance is not usefully explained by science? Are you sure you aren't just using Allah as a "god of the gaps"?Allah is the cause and the effect, no true knowledge, be it scientific or otherwise, 'pushes back God'. We are not the Christians, who, faced with scientific advances found less and less things to attribute to God til He was pushed to the edges of their minds. The veils between the believer and God are cause and effect.

There is no conflict between a scientific explanation of how reality is through the lens of the eye, and how it is through the lens of the Islamic mind.


Those are but two examples of the god's you could be described as taking an "atheist" attitude toward. There are many others. Hell, there are many other flavours of the christian god beyond the one presented by fundamentalists (6 day creation etc...)I am One God short of being an Atheist.. but oh what a difference there is. My point is that I find flaws in the other faiths conceptions of God.. glaring logical flaws that my mind could never get past. I even find such things in some Muslims conceptions of God.

My Sheikh translated this from Al-Ghazzali's Al-Arba'in fi Usul al-Din (Forty Foundations of the Religion):


We affirm: All praise be to God who makes known to His servants by His revealed book, in the language of His sent messenger that He is one in His essence without partner, unique without similitude, everlasting without opposite, one without equivalence, ancient without beginning, everlasting without end, perpetually existing without cessation, eternal without end, self-subsisting without exitinction, perpetual without waning, always with characterizations of exaltedness; neither extinction not division affecting Him, [He is] unaffected by time or temporal limitation. He is the First and the Last, the Manifest and the Hidden, having knowledge of everything.Further:


He is without fashioned corporealness, nor with delineated and restricted atomization. He neither resembles physical bodies in determinations nor in being divisible. He is neither composed of particles nor does He indwell within them. He is neither accidental nor indwells within accidents. He is unlike existent things, nor does any existent object resemble Him. He is unlike anything and nothing is like Him. Determinations do not limit Him, physical areas do not contain Him and direction does not surround Him... *note: the word 'He' in no way refers to gender, 'It' or 'She' are just as appropriate, He is chosen in translation as it reflects certain tenets of Arabic grammar.


You don't have to read that, (TLDR) but it seemed neccesary to explain. The logical inconsistencies that I see in other deens (religions/ways of life) comes from assumptions that are anthropomorphic. A God that is alike creation or bound by the laws of creation is neither omnipotent, nor logically capable of being the Creator.


Regardless, nothing that exists in this universe necessitates a god. I have seen nothing that cannot be explained as a natural process.I believe that logically, one must come to the conclusion that something came from nothing. This is debatable of course. Then if you have the assumption that something came from nothing, you must conclude that cause and effect still apply, therefore something must have 'caused' something to come from nothing, while similarly not being behelden to the same laws that apply to all that we perceive.

Cause and effect define creation, therefore there must be a cause for creation. Without a creator, what is the cause? It is this that is the reason many scientists become deists.

(just to acknowledge the translator and author: Naeem Abdul Wali (trans), Imam Al-Ghazzali, Al-Arba'in fi Usul al-Din)

[Vicarious]

It seems a little to late for me to join the thread but whatever. I think Religion should me done away with, it seems to spell out our end as a civilisation, people need to wake up! They need to think for themselves, they need to know that no "God" no where is going to save them, us as a people need to save ourselves from the pollutants that the corps. have irresponsibly pumped into our air, we must save our selves from the actions of governments that use the environent as a nuclear playground, we must save our selves from the social piosons in our society and the constant need for capital. If we as a global community sit on our ass starring at the main page of myspace waiting for "God" to whisk down to earth and fix every thing, our childrens children (if our children are lucky enough), will either be burned by an environent that rejects them or be more of a victim of capitalism than we are. Become active spread the godless gospel.

[ibn Bruce]

I am yet to read the part of the Qu'ran that tells people to be come helpless mindless automatons, victims of any oppressor and situation that comes along.

'AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors. And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away - for oppression is even worse than killing. And fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship unless they fight against you there first; but if they fight against you, slay them: such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth.' From Surah Baqurah (Trans. Mohammed Assad)

[gorillafuck]

No. I used to be Christian, but then I woke up and became an Anti-Theist.

[Comrade_XRD]

As a former theist, I know exactly why people choose to have a god. Having a god is really just security blanket for the unknown. There's nothing wrong with that, but when god(s) get into the wrong hands, there definitely is a problem. The establishment of organized religion gives many people an upper hand over a domain that is not so easily exploited by other aspects of civilization. Whatever pastor/pope/rabbi/sheik/etc. says you must do. Whatever they say is law. You must not question the leader. This can get very tedious and taxing on the human mind. Suddenly your god(s) aren't the innocuous security blankets that exist only to keep you safe. Now, they are these wrathful omni-potent deities that know your thoughts, your secrets, your soul. You can escape Hitler by dying but not a deity. A mini-totalitarian government is born into mind. But this isn't all. What about the others who believe that other god(s) were the true one(s)? Here you've got a battleground complete with warring ideologies competing for total control. Religion can be a dangerous thing. God(s) are the true cause. Man always seeks ways to feed its insatiable appetite for power and god(s) are an easy domain. This is why there are hundreds of thousands of religions and denominations of those religions. The only way to combat totalitarian religion is to remove all god(s), so man can truly love all mankind. Not hate the ones the preacher said to avoid.

[ibn Bruce]

Having a god is really just security blanket for the unknown.

This is simultaneously patronising and simplistic. I became an atheist at 9 years old, in the period of my life between 13 and 18 I did not believe I would live to see 21 yet I remained a staunch atheist. When I was in security and stability I found Islam through sheer force of logic.

Religion, as a moral code, will be misused like any other moral code to justify an individuals bad action. This does not however make it bad. Long have 'evil' people come bearing the cloak of religion.

Similarly, remove religion from the equation and you will find just as many people hating for other reasons. The irrational distrust and antagonism I have experienced from atheists is an exemplar of that. Simply put: d84k heads are d47k heads no matter what they believe.

[political_animal]

I found Islam through sheer force of logic.

How does logic fit in to a belief system? Surely, logic is the preserve of science. Religion is the preserve of belief because it is unknowable and unprovable. How can you 'logically' come to a conclusion that god exists as opposed to simply 'believing'?

[Rebel_Serigan]

I do believe in that which is beyond human. To go as far to call them gods is slightly off. I would go into great detail about what i believe but in complete honesty in my faith people are supposed to find enlightenment by personal achivement, not by someone telling you what it is. I am a Lucifarian, if you want to know about it then research it. In general though, yes I do believe there are beings beyond human, I also feel that humans are in themselves gods. We can effect the reality around us with just thoughts, and can inspire revelution with oration. We are just as much gods as any magic sky ghost.

[commyrebel]

Ah, well I think we have the answer then.

A swiss lab.you guy are really ignorant 1 you wont find it in a lab 2 there's no way to prove ore disprove it. 3 definition of god could be any thing true wiccans believe that there gods are pure energies of the universe. some believe that goods are entities on a higher plane of existence. so what is god is more the question. 4 enlightenment is a evolutionary point were we are one with knowledge(and a bigger definition that i don't want to explain at this moment). So you say their is no such thing as a god i say their is so we kill each other and make the human race extinct or we could except that we believe in different things and go go on with religious equality and freedom with out discrimination and hate. THINK ABOUT IT

[ibn Bruce]

How does logic fit in to a belief system? Surely, logic is the preserve of science. Religion is the preserve of belief because it is unknowable and unprovable. How can you 'logically' come to a conclusion that god exists as opposed to simply 'believing'?
It became a choice, 'to believe or not to believe'. I made that choice contingent upon the internal validity of the religion in question, along with the systems that it advocates. I sat down with my Sheikh and could not ask a question that he could not answer, there were no logical stumbling blocks.

[political_animal]

It became a choice, 'to believe or not to believe'. I made that choice contingent upon the internal validity of the religion in question, along with the systems that it advocates. I sat down with my Sheikh and could not ask a question that he could not answer, there were no logical stumbling blocks.

Not trying to have a go at you, just seem to be the only one debating this at the moment, but he may have answered every question, but how do you know his answer was correct? Thus it all comes back to 'belief' again?

[ibn Bruce]

Not trying to have a go at you, just seem to be the only one debating this at the moment, but he may have answered every question, but how do you know his answer was correct? Thus it all comes back to 'belief' again?

I would be a fool indeed if I came on a political forum and took offence to people who questioned me :D so I don't think you are having a go at me, though I thank you for the consideration of pointing it out.

Basically, if one chooses to believe a basic tenet (in this case, the assumption that a causal force is the driving meaning and reason for all percieved existance) one must still clarify what flows from that basic tenet. If someone comes up to me and says 'I am God, the one whom has called all of this', I may disprove that through logic. Similarly, if a Christian comes up to me and say that they believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost as that force, I will reply that any absolute power by its very nature must be indivisible, similarly I will ask how it is that Christ can be God, that God can 'suffer' for us, when 'He' is all-powerful.

That is not to start on the problems within the bible, the contradictions and innaccuracies etc.

This means that such an idea is internally flawed, so, even if the basic tenet is true, their explanation of it must not be. The Sheikh did not have any contradictory explanations, no flaws in logic or quirks of understanding. The Qu'ran is without flaw or contradiction, similarly the message of Islam is holistic and perfect. Faced with a window into that, a crushing logical force, based on that first choice 'to believe', I submitted. Sagacity leads to Allah.

[JFMLenin]

Yes.

My reasoning for believing in God is not based on doctrine or some guy preaching at me from a podium, but is rather based on logic. In this context, my argument is based on more the beginning and structure of the universe, which, to me, presents a more well established reference point for individual thought on the matter.

When comparing the Creation/Intelligent Design Model and the Evolutionary Model, it is important to note that Creationism (and, more specifically, Intelligent Design) does NOT say that evolution doesn't happen. Evolutionary processes such as natural selection and mutation do in fact happen, and it is nigh impossible to support a claim that says they don't. The point of Creationism/Intelligent Design (which I will now refer to simply as Intelligent Design, being that it is a term more descriptive of my beliefs) is to say that there is some sort of starting or causal agent which essentially started all these processes which have shaped our world as we know it. I personally believe in a starting or causal agent, being, to me at least, God, because everything bound under the laws of nature and physics must have a definitive beginning and end. Regardless of how sudden or gradual you believe that the Big Bang or evolution is, there had to have been that one moment, that infinitesimally small point where it started, and if those natural processes started at that point, then what started those natural processes? The second big part to my belief in a Creator is that I don't see how inanimate compounds could come together, even in the presence of all the requirements for life, and just all of a sudden start to move and act of their own accord...I mean, something had to start it. How can electrons, protons, and neutrons (even smaller being quarks, leptons, bozons, etc.) develop life and even a consciousness? They're things, they can't move, they can't think, they can't interact on these levels, so something outside the laws of nature and physics had to have intervened. And my third and final personal "Reason to Believe" is that (barring Parallel Universe/Multiverse Theory, which really doesn't have any evidential backing) the universe is simply to fine tuned for life to have happened randomly. With the infinite number of variables and infinite number of values for those variables existing within the universe, the odds of it happening just perfectly for life are literally infinity:1. For example, if protons were a mere 2% bigger than they are now, atoms would be unstable when formed, would fall apart the moment they formed, and matter, energy, and life wouldn't be possible. And, when thinking about that, protons are so small that that 2% is unfathomably small. Such fine tuning is yet just another reason for me to believe.

Of course there are many other reasons, some inexplicable, but, yes, I do ardently believe in God, however, I also believe in the separation of church and state. I describe myself as an Islamic Marxist-Leninist, yes, but that is simply to distinguish myself from atheist Marxist-Leninism. God does not have a place in politics, in fact, I'm pretty sure politics is spawned from the devil. :p

[political_animal]

So what created god?

[JFMLenin]

So what created god?
Is that question directed at me? Assuming it is, I would say nothing, because God is outside the laws of nature and physics, and thus needs nothing to create Him. Such a being would have to be outside such laws if He was to create the universe and the laws that govern it, being those very laws of nature and physics. One cannot create something that they are subject to, it's equivalent to the Chicken vs. Egg argument in a way.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If God is "outside the laws of nature and physics" as you say, then "he" has no relevance to us as creatures under the purview of physics and natural law.

You can't have it both ways. Either "God" interacts with our world or he doesn't. There's no evidence he does, so why multiply entities unnnecessarily, especially when the only physics and laws of nature we know of tell us intelligence isn't spontaneously created?

[JFMLenin]

If God is "outside the laws of nature and physics" as you say, then "he" has no relevance to us as creatures under the purview of physics and natural law.

You can't have it both ways. Either "God" interacts with our world or he doesn't. There's no evidence he does, so why multiply entities unnecessarily, especially when the only physics and laws of nature we know of tell us intelligence isn't spontaneously created?
When I say "outside the laws of nature and physics" I mean He is not subject to them, not that He does not or cannot interact with them. Does He interact with them? I dunno, maybe yes maybe no. Some people say that we live in God's "snow-globe", that He just watches us and doesn't actually do anything.

And something had to have started the process of life, no matter how slow the process was, it had to have had some sort of beginning, be it at the Big Bang or whenever. Inanimate atoms and molecules cannot simply start moving and interacting of their own accord, something had to have started that process, unless you're suggesting that two rocks have the capability to join together and start moving around and having a consciousness. It is impossible for there to not have been some sort of intervention, something had to start it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

When I say "outside the laws of nature and physics" I mean He is not subject to them, not that He does not or cannot interact with them. Does He interact with them? I dunno, maybe yes maybe no. Some people say that we live in God's "snow-globe", that He just watches us and doesn't actually do anything.

If "He" is not subject to laws of nature we know of, then "He" is not only irrelevant but unfalsifiable.

If "He" interacts with our Universe, then you have a God Of The Gaps, steadily shrinking as we find out more about our universe.


And something had to have started the process of life, no matter how slow the process was, it had to have had some sort of beginning, be it at the Big Bang or whenever.There's no evidence that life was started by a divine being.


Inanimate atoms and molecules cannot simply start moving and interacting of their own accord, something had to have started that process,Never heard of a chemical reaction?


unless you're suggesting that two rocks have the capability to join together and start moving around and having a consciousness.That is a pathetic strawman.


It is impossible for there to not have been some sort of intervention, something had to start it.Why do you automatically assume that "something" had to be intelligent?

[JFMLenin]

If "He" is not subject to laws of nature we know of, then "He" is not only irrelevant but unfalsifiable.

How does that make Him irrelevant?


If "He" interacts with our Universe, then you have a God Of The Gaps, steadily shrinking as we find out more about our universe.

Not if He created the universe, then He would be forever a part of it.


There's no evidence that life was started by a divine being.

Never heard of a chemical reaction?

Yes I have heard of a chemical reaction, but that is not the point here. What I am saying is that it is impossible for inanimate atoms and molecules to begin forming together and performing the complex functions necessary for life and having a consciousness of their own accord.


That is a pathetic strawman.

It is the same thing, inanimate objects cannot simply come together and be alive, it just isn't possible without some sort of intervention by someone or something.


Why do you automatically assume that "something" had to be intelligent?

Whatever it was that started life, it was obviously some sort of higher power, force, whatever you want to call it. Perhaps what is the idea of "God" exists in an alternate dimension on a higher plane of existence, or maybe He's just a universal life force, but, whatever He is, I don't see how the fact that He in some way exists can be disputed. Referring to Him as "He" however is perhaps inaccurate and unnecessary. God, whatever "He" is, cannot be quantified into a single conscious being, as He is obviously something well beyond that. The only reason He is called "He" in my opinion, is, first, because the limits of the English language and human cognitive abilities force us to refer to Him in some way, and that's really the best we can do, and, it recognizes the fact that He, whatever "He" is, is clearly so far above us, hence the capitalized pronouns and such. It helps to distinguish from the standard "he" as well, as it shows the person you are addressing clearly what you are talking about.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How does that make Him irrelevant?

Because we would be subject to to known physical laws and "He" wouldn't. If there was a being that was somehow above physical law, then it would show. But our observations have shown physical laws have never been arbitrarily suspended or interfered with. So it's far more parsimonious to simply cut out the extra term "God" and be done with it.


Not if He created the universe, then He would be forever a part of it.There's no evidence that the universe was created by an intelligent being.


Yes I have heard of a chemical reaction, but that is not the point here. What I am saying is that it is impossible for inanimate atoms and molecules to begin forming together and performing the complex functions necessary for life and having a consciousness of their own accord.Yes, consciousness does not come from nowhere. But this is an argument against simply willing into existance a being complex and intelligent enough to design an entire universe and it's contents. In humans and other animals, this trait has evolved.


It is the same thing, inanimate objects cannot simply come together and be alive, it just isn't possible without some sort of intervention by someone or something.Scientists are currently working on various models of abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models), but unlike you they aren't leaping to conclusions.


Whatever it was that started life, it was obviously some sort of higher power, force, whatever you want to call it.How is it obvious, when there is no evidence whatsoever for this vaguely defined thing of which you speak?


Perhaps what is the idea of "God" exists in an alternate dimension on a higher plane of existence, or maybe He's just a universal life force, but, whatever He is, I don't see how the fact that He in some way exists can be disputed.And maybe there is a giant psychic spider in the centre of Mars that controls every thought and action. But nobody would take me seriously without evidence. But since the idea of God has been around for a long time and has been accorded undeserved respect, the same standards are not applied.


Referring to Him as "He" however is perhaps inaccurate and unnecessary. God, whatever "He" is, cannot be quantified into a single conscious being, as He is obviously something well beyond that.How could you possibly know that, when you don't even have a shred of evidence for "His" existance in the first place?


The only reason He is called "He" in my opinion, is, first, because the limits of the English language and human cognitive abilities force us to refer to Him in some way, and that's really the best we can do, and, it recognizes the fact that He, whatever "He" is, is clearly so far above us, hence the capitalized pronouns and such. It helps to distinguish from the standard "he" as well, as it shows the person you are addressing clearly what you are talking about.God is a "he" because of the patriarchal roots of Abrahamic religions. The primitives who originally dreamt up this character were the same people who thought the world was flat and that insects have four legs.

I think you're getting your information from a very unreliable source.

[zwartekat]

no, absolutely not
i do have some spiritual tendencies, but i don't need the idea of a god or a religion to incorporate this in my thinking. Therefore i also think it is a shame that religion has a monopoly ont the spiritual side of life, which absoluty isn't necessary to my opionin

just my 2 cts :)

[Jazzratt]

Whatever it was that started life, it was obviously some sort of higher power, force, whatever you want to call it.

1) If it's a force then it's not god, and would probably have disseminated across the universe by now (in a sort of big bang way)

2) If it is a god, why is it not logical to assume that had to have a creator - if we take the premise that complex things require a creator then there is no way of avoiding this; the watchmaker is always necessarily more complex than the watch [to steal an analogy from "the other side"].

[Patchd]

I don't think anyone can rationally rule out the possibility of there being a God, just as we cannot rule out the possibility of unicorns and spaghetti monsters existing. The matter in question here is rationality and belief. Is it rational to believe in a God, or a superhuman entity?

I would argue against it, mainly because I see no evidence for it whatsoever, religious people might come back at me saying that the evidence we need for God is all around us, but no, what we see here is simply a representation of what we see, the world in it's material forms. There isn't any evidence for any being that exists in a non-material entity. I don't like this hardline "There is no God, full stop", because that is ignorant itself too, it's more rational a belief than to believe in God though.

Personally, I don't believe in God, meaning I simply don't think one exists, I don't see myself changing that position in the near future, but I won't necessarily rule it out either. I still see belief in a deity as irrational though.

[SocialDemocrat]

I'm an Agnostic, so I voted "Uncertain". I see no definitive proof to disprove or prove the existence of a higher power, so I'm not going to pick sides on the debate. I recognize that there is more proof that there isn't a higher power than there is that there is one, but I'm not going to pick sides until someone presents me with irrefutable evidence.

[Patchd]

I'm an Agnostic, so I voted "Uncertain". I see no definitive proof to disprove or prove the existence of a higher power, so I'm not going to pick sides on the debate. I recognize that there is more proof that there isn't a higher power than there is that there is one, but I'm not going to pick sides until someone presents me with irrefutable evidence.

That's a different matter, you might believe you're uncertain, but when it comes to a "Yes" or "No" answer, everyone usually can make a decision.

Remember, the question isn't do you believe God can be proven or disproven, but whether he exists. That's a clear cut question and it's very easy to answer, what's your gut instinct. Sorry, not trying to push you to make an answer lol, just making a point :p :D

[SocialDemocrat]

That's my point, I don't have an opinion of whether "he" exists or not; that's why I'm an Agnostic.

[Patchd]

That's my point, I don't have an opinion of whether "he" exists or not; that's why I'm an Agnostic.
Fair dos, I'm still curious as to what your gut reaction would be though, sorry, I'm not trying to seem like I'm interrogating you :blushing: ... just curious, would like more people to give a substantial answer, so if someone pulled a gun on you and asked, God, does he exist? Only yes or no? What would you say?

[CheFighter777]

Fair dos, I'm still curious as to what your gut reaction would be though, sorry, I'm not trying to seem like I'm interrogating you :blushing: ... just curious, would like more people to give a substantial answer, so if someone pulled a gun on you and asked, God, does he exist? Only yes or no? What would you say?

Or the opposite and say, if you believe in God I will kill you!!!

I bet you today that 90% of USA Capitalist Evangelicals would deny their faith if that were to happen!!!

Their faith is a big, "Sham WOW!!!!"

[Patchd]

Or the opposite and say, if you believe in God I will kill you!!!

I bet you today that 90% of USA Capitalist Evangelicals would deny their faith if that were to happen!!!

Their faith is a big, "Sham WOW!!!!"
Read my post again. :rolleyes:

If you choose to do so, you will notice that I didn't mention anything about forcing anyone to choose a belief, I just said, if a person put a gun to you and asked you to choose between "yes" or "no", but would kill you if you said "uncertain", what would he choose. Don't be so hasty, Jesus won't like you for it. ;)

... but I am interested in what you have to say on my criticisms of Christianity in this post. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1417564&postcount=71)

[Hoxhaist]

if they fight against you, slay them: such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth.' From Surah Baqurah (Trans. Mohammed Assad)
The Sheikh did not have any contradictory explanations, no flaws in logic or quirks of understanding. The Qu'ran is without flaw or contradiction, similarly the message of Islam is holistic and perfect. Faced with a window into that, a crushing logical force, based on that first choice 'to believe', I submitted. Sagacity leads to Allah.

It is quotes from religious texts that exalt death and violence against nonbelievers and terrifyingly arrogant declarations of one system as "without flaw or contradiction" and as "holistic and perfect" that make the religion seem ridiculous!!! How can a text written ~1500 years ago have anything to offer to an electronic and space age civilization?! The religous chauvinism of this passage and declarations of the Koran are offensive! Nothing in this world is perfect! Look at nature, for every seemingly perfect flower is a caterpillar eager to destroy that beauty in devouring, or a child with birth defects that kill the child in the cradle or in the womb. If the world created by God is not perfect, how can any philosophy interpreted or written about by people ever be perfect??? What is the message of Islam??? Islam means submission to God's will. The antithesis to humans uniting to build a classless society. As long as we see ourselves as under the thumb of an invisible tyrant who creates a world of agony, privation, and hate how can we step out on our own and build the world as we want it to be instead of how Mohammed says God says it should be. How interesting that Mohammed should have the singular authority to transcribe to us the thoughts of God? How interesting that in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Taliban Afghanistan, Islamic leaders stomp on the face of human freedom by deciding for the masses how their lives are to be led. I decide how my life not Muftis, Sheikhs, Popes, Ayatollahs, Mullahs, Lamas, or Gurus. Once people take resonsibility for their life and make their decisions and have the courage to advance beyond Sheikh-told reasoning then the freer and happier we will all be.

[Il Medico]

I think there could be a god. Who he or she is , what he/she wants? I have no idea. However, having thrown in my lot with Catholics, I chose to believe that is if God or Gods exist they would be benevolent loving Gods/God. Otherwise what makes he/she/them any better than us. I don't believe it is irrational to believe in something you can't prove. Nor that religion itself is bad. The reason religion is the "opium of the masses" is because of the manipulation of it by the leaders and the power capitalist forces among us. Most religions preach philosophies similar to Marxism/Socialism. I do however, admit that religion is and has been used for evil. We can also use it, though and that is something we should consider.

[Nulono]

No.

[Chambered Word]

Well I don't believe in it.
My view about religion is,that it is an opium to people.It's a theory that science didn't prove yet though they can't prove evolution,too.
I don't care about it anyway.

There's alot of evidence for evolution and I don't think it really has any loopholes, if there are they're pretty damn small.

Religion is crap fed to the people as an opiate, like you (and Marx) said. It's just another way the capitalists gain a hold on society so they can make more money for themselves and step on everyone else, and something we should progress away from. It's caused humanity enough problems.

If you can't prove something but can't disprove it, does that mean you should believe in it and give the church your money because they tell you to? If someone tells you there's an invisible, completely undetectable 40 foot monster made of dodo faeces sitting on your shoulder, should you believe it or even take it seriously because it cannot theoretically be proven or disproven? The fallacy that you should believe in such a thing is how people use religion as a cash cow (which is all they've ever been good for, really) in such cases as scientology especially, and all this New Age crap.

[Nulono]

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains why it happens.

[NewWorld]

What is really interesting is that Jesus actually taught a very communistic view: he said that the rich should give all their money to the poor and that the least among men will be the greatest. Also, Acts chapter 2 verses 32, 34, and 35 clearly describe the disciples living in a socialist community. So if there is a God, he wants the world to embrace communism. People just fucked up his message. God wants peace, love, and equality, not hate and selfishness. So whether you believe or not, God is a good thing. The church on the other hand, sucks balls.

[Comrade Anarchist]

There is no gods or god or any spiritual beings of any kind.

[Il Medico]

Clearly no.No clear evidence of god exist!

Fuserg9:star:

No offence comrade, but there is also no clear evidence that god doesn't. :hammersickle:
And though Marx was an atheist and did not believe in religion, he still said that it's was not impossible for a communist society with religion.:marx:

[MilitantAnarchist]

I didnt vote because i the question is too vague. I dont believe in 'god' as such, but i believe that there is somthing, though it is somthing that none of us will ever understand. All of the religions in my opinion are just 'interpretations' of what different cultures believe.
I'm not saying evolution isnt right, but maybe thats what the 'real religion' is, just nature... If you know what i meen?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No offence comrade, but there is also no clear evidence that god doesn't. :hammersickle:

That's totally irrelevant, since the burden of proof has always been on the believers despite their desperate attempts to shift it.

Allow me to illustrate for you: There is a gigantic psychic spider living in the centre of Mars that controls every thought and action. There is no evidence that it does not exist. So would you accept me absolving any responsibility on my part for my actions? Of course not, because there's no evidence that it does exist.


And though Marx was an atheist and did not believe in religion, he still said that it's was not impossible for a communist society with religion.:marx:So what? Marx was only human, he was just as capable of saying stupid shit along with the rest of us.


I didnt vote because i the question is too vague. I dont believe in 'god' as such, but i believe that there is somthing, though it is somthing that none of us will ever understand.

Like what? If you can't even define something, why should anyone pay it any attention whatsoever?


All of the religions in my opinion are just 'interpretations' of what different cultures believe.How? Different religions believe in totally contradicting things. Some are polytheistic while other say there is only one god.


I'm not saying evolution isnt right, but maybe thats what the 'real religion' is, just nature... If you know what i meen?No, I have no idea what you are talking about, since you have failed to elaborate.

In fact, I see this to be a common tactic among the more wishy-washy believers - make their "god" or sense of spirituality so vague (if they even bother to define it at all) that it is impossible to pin it down and rationally analyse it.

[Il Medico]

I disagree Noxion. Believers should not have to prove their faith. In away it is unprovable. When I look at God, or faith in him/her/it, I think of an old philosophical argument:
"Imagine faith is a bet. If you bet there is a God and you are wrong you lose nothing. If you bet there is a god and you are right you gain everything. At the same time if you bet there is no God and you are wrong you lose everything. While if you are right you gain nothing."
The bet that some short of God exist is the safe one if you are unsure. And because I had moved away from Atheism toward a more uncertain view, I made my bet. You may disagree with me, but do not insist that I prove my bet is correct, because it is only a bet.

[Comrade Che]

I do not believe in god, I am an atheist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I disagree Noxion. Believers should not have to prove their faith. In away it is unprovable. When I look at God, or faith in him/her/it, I think of an old philosophical argument:
"Imagine faith is a bet. If you bet there is a God and you are wrong you lose nothing. If you bet there is a god and you are right you gain everything. At the same time if you bet there is no God and you are wrong you lose everything. While if you are right you gain nothing."
The bet that some short of God exist is the safe one if you are unsure. And because I had moved away from Atheism toward a more uncertain view, I made my bet. You may disagree with me, but do not insist that I prove my bet is correct, because it is only a bet.

Pascal's Wager is a crock, for a number of reasons:

1) Which Gods? Mankind has worshipped thousands of different gods and other cosmic beings. To gain Thor's approval one had to die in battle or some such. Which is at odds with the more pacifistic religions/gods. Plus any other incongruences.

2) If said god is supposedly omniscient (or even simply knows much about your moral character in some supernatural fashion), won't he know that you're taking the weasel way out? Thus sending you straight to hell/having one's heart devoured (http://www.egyptian-scarabs.co.uk/weighing_of_the_heart.htm) or whatever anyway? Whereas I can simply apologise for exercising the ability to reason that he gave me.

3) Many religions proscribe certain activities or products for no good secular reason. If one is to honestly be a good Muslim, for example, one would avoid alcohol and eating pork. Are you seriously suggesting I should give up a lifetime of bacon on the off-chance that it might please Allah out of a thousand possible gods? What if you're wrong? Then I've missed out on all that fun for diddly-squat.

Why waste the time I know I have?

[Il Medico]

Nothing happens if I am wrong. And you can still have fun, just be sorry later. I also like Bacon!:laugh:
I hope nothing bad happens if your wrong.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nothing happens if I am wrong. And you can still have fun, just be sorry later. I also like Bacon!:laugh:

The thing is though, what are the chances of it simply being oblivion? All the evidence I can see points that way, but if you disagree, then how are you measuring the chances? It's not like entering the lottery, it's more like entering a raffle. Are you going to get bath salts or a Ferrari, so to speak?


I hope nothing bad happens if your wrong.I have no idea. Fair cop if I am.

[Il Medico]

The thing is though, what are the chances of it simply being oblivion? All the evidence I can see points that way, but if you disagree, then how are you measuring the chances? It's not like entering the lottery, it's more like entering a raffle. Are you going to get bath salts or a Ferrari, so to speak?

I have no idea. Fair cop if I am.
Listen on as a former Atheist, I understand your views. I don't want to argue with you. As to what I believe. I think there could be a God and if a God or Gods exist they would be loving Gods, because that would be the only thing that could make them better than us. I am not saying that retarded things like talking snakes are true. I am just saying that personally I think there is a God. Why must I explain my reasons to you? And it is more like a lottery in my opinion because any God would be a loving god. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a god. I also think it really doesn't matter, if your a good person you will get to heaven or Niverna, or whatever.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Listen on as a former Atheist, I understand your views.

Judging by the fact you brought up Pascal's Wager, I don't think you understand at all.


I don't want to argue with you.Then why did you post on this thread? We don't post because we like the sound of our voices (so to speak), we post to engage in productive discussion. Or at least that's the idea. But we can hardly have any productive discussion if we don't criticise others' statements, can we?


As to what I believe. I think there could be a God and if a God or Gods exist they would be loving Gods, because that would be the only thing that could make them better than us.The problem is, most human depictions of gods give them some very human failings despite their power. So what else is it that leads you to believe that if any god exists it must be good?


I am not saying that retarded things like talking snakes are true. I am just saying that personally I think there is a God.You were saying there "could be" a god earlier on in this very post, now you're saying you think there is. Which is it? If you believe in god, which god?


Why must I explain my reasons to you?Because I challenged your previous statements.


And it is more like a lottery in my opinion because any God would be a loving god. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a god.The problem is, humans have invented some pretty nasty gods. God doesn't necessarily mean nice.


I also think it really doesn't matter, if your a good person you will get to heaven or Niverna, or whatever.Based on what? Why not be good for goodness' sake?

[Ultra_Cheese]

I disagree Noxion. Believers should not have to prove their faith. In away it is unprovable. When I look at God, or faith in him/her/it, I think of an old philosophical argument:
"Imagine faith is a bet. If you bet there is a God and you are wrong you lose nothing. If you bet there is a god and you are right you gain everything. At the same time if you bet there is no God and you are wrong you lose everything. While if you are right you gain nothing."
The bet that some short of God exist is the safe one if you are unsure. And because I had moved away from Atheism toward a more uncertain view, I made my bet. You may disagree with me, but do not insist that I prove my bet is correct, because it is only a bet.
You cannot even prove the criteria of this bet are legitimate. What if this god damns you for wasting your time believing in/worshiping him?

[Il Medico]

Oh, whatever. I knew I should not have posted on this forum. It is making me look like some religious nut. Screw you guys.

[Il Medico]

Alright, that was just my emotions getting the better of me. Sorry:(. I know this is a debate forum. I just don't want to seem like a religious nut! As for human depictions of gods, they are like humans because they are made by humans. A real god, of which I was speaking would be better than humans if one exist. I think one does, maybe, I am not sure. I find those who take the road of absolute certainty to be a bit full of themselves. As for good behavior I think people should behave well regardless of whether or not there is a god. However, if there is one, I don't see a higher being such as a god being petty about you were this religion or that religion if some one is a good person. The final conclusion that I draw is that neither of us know what happens when you die. It could be oblivion as you so poetically said, or eternal paradise. Humans can't claim to know.

[Comrade Che]

How could a god possibly exist? Do you believe we are a video game and a "god" is ruling us.

There is no possible explanation for a god, nor will there ever be one, and if there is a god, who created god? Is there an endless line of gods?

There are too many flaws in the argument of Religion and or the existence of gods.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Alright, that was just my emotions getting the better of me. Sorry:(. I know this is a debate forum. I just don't want to seem like a religious nut!

Trotting out Pascal's Wager, while hardly an original argument, does not qualify you as a "religious nut".


As for human depictions of gods, they are like humans because they are made by humans. A real god, of which I was speaking would be better than humans if one exist.If you haven't met a god, how could you possibly know this?


I think one does, maybe, I am not sure. I find those who take the road of absolute certainty to be a bit full of themselves.What about those who are 99% certain there is no god?


As for good behavior I think people should behave well regardless of whether or not there is a god.So why even bother with the question? If it's possible to be good without god, then religion becomes entirely irrelevant and worse, counterproductive.


However, if there is one, I don't see a higher being such as a god being petty about you were this religion or that religion if some one is a good person.Again, without having met a god how could you possibly know this?


The final conclusion that I draw is that neither of us know what happens when you die. It could be oblivion as you so poetically said, or eternal paradise. Humans can't claim to know.Actually, we can draw conclusions based on evidence. The evidence says that all consciousness is the product of electro-chemical activity within the brain. Damage, alter, or destroy the brain and the consciousness emerging from it will likewise be damaged, altered or destroyed. No activity can be detected in the brain of a dead body.

There is also absolutely no evidence whatsoever for a soul or any kind of immaterial aspect to the human being. So the conclusion is obvious - death means complete and utter oblivion. When you die, that's it. No more second chances. So make the best of what precious little time you have.

[RedAnarchist]

Religions first came about thousands of years ago, when the average life expectancy was barely above 20 or 30 years of age (which it is still is in some areas). Nowadays, in the West at least, with medical science improving quickly, the averaeg Westerner can expect 70 to 80 years of existence on our little blue-green ball (which is actually a very long time - I'm 23 and cannot comprehend a length of time more than 23 and a bit years, because I haven't lived longer than that). The oldest known person in the world, Jeanne Calment of France, died in 1997 aged 122 years and 164 days and the oldest currently living person in the world today is Gertrude Baines of the USA, who is 115 years and 34 days old, so we know that a human can last at least 122 years. Rather than worry about what happens after death, enjoy the years of conciousness we all get before our existence comes to an end.

[Il Medico]

Trotting out Pascal's Wager, while hardly an original argument, does not qualify you as a "religious nut".
I am glad to hear that, I don't want to misrepresent myself.


If you haven't met a god, how could you possibly know this? That is only my humble opinion of what a god should be like. If one exist that is a complete dick, I don't think I would want to follow him anyways.


What about those who are 99% certain there is no god?
As long as someone admits there is a possibility that they are wrong, however slim.


So why even bother with the question? If it's possible to be good without god, then religion becomes entirely irrelevant and worse, counterproductive.
One religion is about more than just 'be good'. Rather it provides some sort of hope for a better future, in the same way communism does. Plus moral and philosophical teaching of religious leader like the Buddha and Jesus, are valuable to society. So to discard the entire thing offhand seems foolhardy to me.

[Kronos]

You guys might like to take a gander at Comte's "Law of Three Stages":

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

[Demogorgon]

I think it might be prudent to remind people of the difference between Weal and Strong atheism (don't let their names confuse you, most people probably think Weak Atheism is the better position).

Wiki provides a fairly simple overview so I'll post that. There are better sites out there, but this is a good starting point.

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

The weak atheist has nothing to prove. All she has to do is say that with the absence of proof of God, it is reasonable to assume there is no God. The Strong Atheist on the other hand has to offer explicit reasons for there being no God. So against a strong atheist a believer may wish to argue that there is no evidence of o God and that will be a legitimate argument. Against a weak atheist it is utterly irrelevant.

For the record, unlike most atheists, I am a strong atheist, for reasons I don;t have time to get into now, but I'll happily discuss later. So there is an argument to be had with me as to positive proofs of a lack of God. But if I am proven wrong there, it only takes you as far as disproving strong atheism in favour of weak atheism. You need to offer positive proof for God in order to have a good argument against atheism in general.*

*I suppose an agnostic could argue for a more in between position, without offering proof of God, but seeing as I don't think anyone here is arguing that position, let's leave it aside for now.

[Revy]

If a supreme being exists, it is most likely either apathetic to our wellbeing or malevolent.
I am inclined however to believe that if any force or spirit exists it is not a conscious being.

A clear and definite NO from me. There is no God.

[Ultra_Cheese]

As long as someone admits there is a possibility that they are wrong, however slim.
Why is this even relevant then? No rational person would say that something is nonexistent beyond a shadow of a doubt. This goes for things like unicorns, gnomes, and of course, deities. None are more special than the others.

[Il Medico]

Why is this even relevant then? No rational person would say that something is nonexistent beyond a shadow of a doubt. This goes for things like unicorns, gnomes, and of course, deities. None are more special than the others.
There are a lot of irrational people in the world Ultra Cheese. By the way would love to know the story behind your name!

[Ultra_Cheese]

There are a lot of irrational people in the world Ultra Cheese. By the way would love to know the story behind your name!
There's not much of a story behind it. I started using when I was five or six and I wanted to use a name that didn't need numbers. All of the Pokemon-related names were taken, so eventually I came up with Ultra Cheese. I've used it for almost everything since then, and I never really thought about. It's kind of embarrassing now that I do though. :blushing:

[AntinoiteBolshevik]

I believe in many gods and goddesses. My primary deity is Lord Antinous, the God of Homosexuality and Male Beauty.

[und]

If an omnipotent god existed, wouldn't it mould it clearly into our minds that it exists? How does a believer explain the differences between polytheistic and monotheistic religions?

[Kronos]

und, one explanation for your question would be that because God is all powerful, he can give human beings "free will" to choose to believe, and, because he created "evil", he does give human beings "free will" so that they can choose to both believe God exists....and commit good acts.

That would be the general explanation given by Christians, if you are asking about "god" as Christianity defines him.

Still there is a critical flaw in this design- if god is omnipotent and omniscient, he knows in advance anything that could possibly happen. Therefore, existence as he observes it is already determined to be a certain way. Following this reasoning, people who don't believe he exists, or commit evil deeds, etc., are destined to do so from god's perspective. That is, God must know that person X was going to commit a sin, therefore, because he is also omnipotent, he also wanted that person to commit a sin and designed it that way.

For to say that that person could have chosen would mean that God wouldn't be sure what he would choose and how the future would evolve. If this is the case, God is not omnipotent or omniscient. If that is the case, then God is not God....or....God is not all powerful.

"Free will", as Christians understand it, is irrelevant.

Also, the inception of monotheism was basically a way of simplifying and economizing religious belief. But because religious belief is nonsense in general, one couldn't be sure if there were one hundred gods or one god. There is no "more reasonable" contention here, regarding this matter.

[Kronos]

There is an old adage which goes like this (I forget who said it):

Either God can prevent evil and he will not, or he wishes to prevent evil but he cannot.

If the former, he is not benevolent. If the latter, he is impotent.

In either case, he is a butt wafer.