# Reading > Religious Texts >  Why I Don't Believe In God

## Mutatis-Mutandis

At least, a benevolent one. . . . 

Aids
Starving children
Children who develop cancer
War
Hate
Katy Perry

----------


## G L Wilson

I believe in God, I just don't like him. Hee, hee.

----------


## Darcy88

I don't believe in God because I was raised in a Godless household and a Godless culture. And I've seen people utterly destroyed, driven to depths of depravity and despair through absolutely no fault of their own, in light of which I find it hard to believe in the existence an active, beneficent deity. 

That said, I've come to respect other people's faith in God. I see the existential solace it provides many and I can't help but approve of it. Sometimes I even envy them their faith. And Pascal's Wager actually makes a lot of sense to me. In the stark absence of certifiable proof which the thoughtful theist must endure, the possibility they might be right, along with all the boundless benefits that being right would entail, must be a great and welcome aid in maintaining their faith.

I say whatever gets one through the dark and lonely nights.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I don't believe in God because I was raised in a Godless household and a Godless culture. And I've seen people utterly destroyed, driven to depths of depravity and despair through absolutely no fault of their own, in light of which I find it hard to believe in the existence an active, beneficent deity. 
> 
> That said, I've come to respect other people's faith in God. I see the existential solace it provides many and I can't help but approve of it. Sometimes I even envy them their faith. And Pascal's Wager actually makes a lot of sense to me. In the stark absence of certifiable proof which the thoughtful theist must endure, the possibility they might be right, along with all the boundless benefits that being right would entail, must be a great and welcome aid in maintaining their faith.
> 
> I say whatever gets one through the dark and lonely nights.


The only solace a lie can give is outer good form, even the criminal is more honest than the spiritual.

----------


## Darcy88

> The only solace a lie can give is outer good form, even the criminal is more honest than the spiritual.


There are plenty of people who truly believe. I know one person who has no fear of death. Even when people she cares about die, she is sad they're gone but is not sad for them. She thinks God and Jesus love her and are always there to listen to her. She believes she will go to heaven and spend eternity in paradise with her family. She's a mormon and so she does not drink, smoke, nor engage in premarital sex. I honestly don't see anything wrong with that. I pressed her and pressed her, relentlessly, until I got her to admit that her faith has no foundation, but then she put the question to me "but what if it is true?" Fair enough I say.

----------


## G L Wilson

> There are plenty of people who truly believe. I know one person who has no fear of death. Even when people she cares about die, she is sad they're gone but is not sad for them. She thinks God and Jesus love her and are always there to listen to her. She believes she will go to heaven and spend eternity in paradise with her family. She's a mormon and so she does not drink, smoke, nor engage in premarital sex. I honestly don't see anything wrong with that. I pressed her and pressed her, relentlessly, until I got her to admit that her faith has no foundation, but then she put the question to me "but what if it is true?" Fair enough I say.


The true person of faith doesn't exist, what if that is true?

----------


## WyattGwyon

> At least, a benevolent one. . . . 
> 
> Aids
> Starving children
> Children who develop cancer
> War
> Hate
> Katy Perry


I understand what you are getting at, though I have never heard of your sixth scourge (Katy Perry). Just wondering why one needs a reason to not believe. _Belief_ requires a reason, not its absence.

----------


## OrphanPip

Because I haven't been convinced otherwise. Also, I have personal moral objections to the conduct and values of many of the dominant organized religions. 

But it's all right, as an openly gay philandering atheist, I'm sure God wouldn't like me much if he did exist anyway.

----------


## Alexander III

> But it's all right, as an openly gay philandering atheist, I'm sure God wouldn't like me much if he did exist anyway.


Could be worst, at least your not a openly gay philandering atheist woman.

----------


## cl154576

> There are plenty of people who truly believe. I know one person who has no fear of death. Even when people she cares about die, she is sad they're gone but is not sad for them. She thinks God and Jesus love her and are always there to listen to her. She believes she will go to heaven and spend eternity in paradise with her family. She's a mormon and so she does not drink, smoke, nor engage in premarital sex. I honestly don't see anything wrong with that. I pressed her and pressed her, relentlessly, until I got her to admit that her faith has no foundation, but then she put the question to me "but what if it is true?" Fair enough I say.


I have no fear of death. Death is peace. I like Seneca's view of it  I was dead before and I will be dead again, and for me, the life in between is simply an inconvenient, excruciatingly painful phase brought on either by accident or for the amusement of this God.

I don't ask that God should take my sufferings away, only that He should make them bearable. Is that really so unreasonable? Is it necessary that I should suffer in life, and be damned in death? Must I live in endless pain, and in death find not even a shadow of kindness or sympathy, but only  a merciless tyrant's hand, reproaching me for my helplessness? How much does He expect from me; is anyone, anywhere, able to "turn the other cheek" and live well when there is no hope for happiness, in this life or the next?

I was taught to believe in God. I don't, but I still hate Him, or the idea of Him, and the hate is killing me.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Could be worst, at least your not a openly gay philandering atheist woman.


You are lucky that you are not a midget, apparently God hates the midget with a special passion, according to the Bible.




> I have no fear of death. Death is peace. I like Seneca's view of it  I was dead before and I will be dead again, and for me, the life in between is simply an inconvenient, excruciatingly painful phase brought on either by accident or for the amusement of this God.
> 
> I don't ask that God should take my sufferings away, only that He should make them bearable. Is that really so unreasonable? Is it necessary that I should suffer in life, and be damned in death? Must I live in endless pain, and in death find not even a shadow of kindness or sympathy, but only  a merciless tyrant's hand, reproaching me for my helplessness? How much does He expect from me; is anyone, anywhere, able to "turn the other cheek" and live well when there is no hope for happiness, in this life or the next?
> 
> I was taught to believe in God. I don't, but I still hate Him, or the idea of Him, and the hate is killing me.


You cannot hate him as much as me. Hate is best forgotten, for dwelling on hate seeds bitterness in one's soul. Who wishes to be bitter towards life?

----------


## cl154576

> You cannot hate him as much as me.


Should this be "as much as I do"?
I usually don't nitpick with grammar, but here it changes the meaning significantly ...

Hate is best forgotten, but to be clichéd  "easier said than done."

----------


## G L Wilson

> Should this be "as much as I do"?
> I usually don't nitpick with grammar, but here it changes the meaning significantly ...
> 
> Hate is best forgotten, but to be clichéd  "easier said than done."


I have always found love easy to forget.

----------


## The Atheist

Good subject. I was musing on it the other day as I recalled Bertie Russell's _Why I am not a christian_.

There is no reason to believe, people believe because they want to. They are selfish and self-indulgent people who prefer myth to reality.

Both Einstein and Hawking have alluded to the concept of god to be childish fantasy, which concept I agree with 100%.

40 years after I realised it was a sham, it amazes me that people still believe.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Good subject. I was musing on it the other day as I recalled Bertie Russell's _Why I am not a christian_.
> 
> There is no reason to believe, people believe because they want to. They are selfish and self-indulgent people who prefer myth to reality.
> 
> Both Einstein and Hawking have alluded to the concept of god to be childish fantasy, which concept I agree with 100%.
> 
> 40 years after I realised it was a sham, it amazes me that people still believe.


A child of fantasy is not a creature of the dark - it is a bad analogy to call religion a childish whim. It is obviously the dark come to play in the light.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> I have personal moral objections to the conduct and values of many of the dominant organized religions.


This is all that I'll commit to when it comes to religion (I'd list this sentence as my "religious beliefs" if there were room for it on a questionnaire). Everything else means pretty much nothing to me, or at least nothing that I'd bother to discuss.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I have personal moral objections to the conduct and values of many of the dominant organized religions.


Kant and I agree that organised religion is morally repugnant.

----------


## Panglossian

I dont mind the idea of God at all, as long as it remains just that - an idea. I can never understand why humankind has taken the notion of God so seriously. It would be brilliant if God had remained just a curious imagining  something to wonder about and thats it. No doctrine, no dogma, just a sublime idea that can never become Truth because we know we can never know.

----------


## Silvia

The reason why I don't believe in God is that I can't love God. I don't have that love in me, I think. I was brought up as a Catholic, my family is Catholic, I attend a Catholic University in which we are required to take theology exams, some of my best friends are deeply religious. I would believe, if I could. Probably, according to Protestantism, this means that I'm not among the chosen ones. When I was 12, right after confirmation, I realised that I had no idea why I was doing all that. It was a mere automatism, so I stopped going to Church and praying. I feel there's so much to be said about the religious upbringing of children, but that's another topic.
I'm glad this topic came up, because I think it's something I need to elaborate on, and I am interested in other people points of view and experiences on the subject.

----------


## Arrowni

I always found explanations of non-belief kind of an explanation after the fact. Finding reasons is always like that, reasoning is not the object, but the speech about the object.

So I wouldn't consider the reasoning behind it particularly important, as surely most people don't find the reason behind belief particularly engaging either.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I always found explanations of non-belief kind of an explanation after the fact. Finding reasons is always like that, reasoning is not the object, but the speech about the object.
> 
> So I wouldn't consider the reasoning behind it particularly important, as surely most people don't find the reason behind belief particularly engaging either.


Faith is the insurance of truth, science insures nothing.

----------


## Pavane

Dear Mutatis,

re: Why I Don't Believe In God
At least, a benevolent one. . . .

Aids
Starving children
Children who develop cancer
War
Hate
Katy Perry 

Do you believe in Hitler?

Pavane.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Do I believe in Hitler? Of course. What a silly question. Now, if you meant "Do you agree with what Hitler did," then no. Are you suggesting that just because I didn't list him I endorse him? There's thousands of things I could have listed. 

To anyone who isn't clear: this thread was jokingly made. Bien suggested it was time to make a "Why I Don't Believe In God" thread in the "Why I Believe In God" thread, hence why I made it.

----------


## Pavane

Not such a silly statement. You said you didn't believe in God, presumably because of the bad things he is responsible for in your list. So, Hitler did equally bad things so I just wondered if you were prepared to believe in him too. Your criterion for belief was whether someone does bad things, you see.

On that basis, only good people exist, or at least you are prepared only to believe in them...

----------


## OrphanPip

> Not such a silly statement. You said you didn't believe in God, presumably because of the bad things he is responsible for in your list. So, Hitler did equally bad things so I just wondered if you were prepared to believe in him too. Your criterion for belief was whether someone does bad things, you see.
> 
> On that basis, only good people exist, or at least you are prepared only to believe in them...


Oh please, you're being deliberately obtuse. Implicit in MM's post is the conception that God is a benevolent creator, so his point is that he doesn't believe in the concept of the Christian God because he doubts the benevolence of such a being who would allow the things he listed.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Not such a silly statement. You said you didn't believe in God, presumably because of the bad things he is responsible for in your list. So, Hitler did equally bad things so I just wondered if you were prepared to believe in him too. Your criterion for belief was whether someone does bad things, you see.
> 
> On that basis, only good people exist, or at least you are prepared only to believe in them...


 :FRlol:  Reaching there, aren't you? 

The things on my list do not require belief, as they, without a doubt, exist, which makes your whole question and post irrelevant. A better question (though still stupid) would have been, "So, you don't include Hitler in your list of things that make you not believe in a benevolent God, so is Hitler okay with you?" But you asked "Do you believe in Hitler," which is stupid, because he undoubtedly existed. If you asked the second of the questions, I would have once again pointed out how there are thousands of things that were not listed that could have been.

Also, that you went to Hitler, the biggest analogical cliche in the book, is telling. 

Frankly, I don't believe in God at all, so I don't believe he is responsible for anything. 

The post was a joke. Get over it, and quit reading so much into it.

----------


## The Atheist

> I dont mind the idea of God at all, as long as it remains just that - an idea. I can never understand why humankind has taken the notion of God so seriously.


I can answer that.

It started to go sour when the alleged god enabled people to live after death.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I can answer that.
> 
> It started to go sour when the alleged god enabled people to live after death.


I blame whingeing farmers myself.

----------


## usman.khawar

For the topic starter! The reasons, are not enough to reject the existance of God. the topic name should be why i dont like God if we take or want to go with these reasons. moreover i have posted and explained why sufferings and pleasures are set side by side by Lord.

but if you insisted for the same topic name then for this thread i have many arguments which are given by well known personalities to reject God's existance. like someone said " i dont beleive in God whose data is not available." nice argument. someone said" i dont beleive in God coz no one saw Him" also very nice argument! Socialogist said " We need a God to establish a good society" its also nice argement it means that people just draw a portrait of God to take shelter. 

Anyone see air? anti protons? bacteria ?
God declared Quran his data. and own its every single word. prove any one fact wrong then u r free from God's existance.

short time to write more. but i have written a lot already in different posts. also my teacher words are clearing the thoughts with arguments/logics/reasons in2 two threads which i started.

there was a person who was given a title of the father of ignorance and arrogance who was also the head of his tribe. He said to other ignorants/egoistic/arrogant people i know He is right he is absolutly right. We all know he never spoke a single lie. whose chracter is above all to doubt. but if we admit him he will be the head. and we will lost the leading position. it will be shameful to accept the truth and change our self. people are sticky what they have owned. anyway 
Regards

----------


## G L Wilson

It would be shameful to become what I ain't.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Anyone see air? anti protons? bacteria ?
> God declared Quran his data. and own its every single word. prove any one fact wrong then u r free from God's existance.


Besides the fact that you can see bacteria with a standard light microscope, there is convincing evidence air exists, while there isn't that God exists. I don't see why I should assume the existence of God, I don't assume the existence of bacteria, I've seen them myself. Not that seeing is the only form of valid reliable evidence.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I guess some people just can't take a joke.

----------


## Arrowni

> I can answer that.
> 
> It started to go sour when the alleged god enabled people to live after death.



It all went bad when people started stocking grain. Life after death is a metaphor for the seasons, the story of religion is the story of economy. So wealth is where everything started to go sour.

I think we can all agree  :Biggrin5:

----------


## The Atheist

> God declared Quran his data.


Sorry, I think your reasoning is way off line, so I'm not going to debate the point with you, but I will make this one note:

Your god declared your quran his data.

Christians believe their god declared the christian bible his data.

Buddhists believe Buddha declared his writings to be his data.

Hindus believe Vishnu declared Śruti and Smriti his data.

Jews believe g-d declared the Old Testament his data.

If you ever get consensus among believers as to which completely contradictory piece of writing is the right one, I might be interested.

(The idea that I don't like the idea of god is silly - I'd love there to be a benevolent, omnipotent god who saved children from starvation or death by diarrhoea from dirty drinking water when he wasn't too busy helping sportspeople win games.)




> So wealth is where everything started to go sour.:


God needs cash!

----------


## G L Wilson

God is greedy for souls and riches, apparently.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> God declared Quran his data.


Authoritative statements like this from religious people really freak me out. Who's putting this stuff in their heads? Are they repeating someone? How can they find this inarguable, and put it forward as though it would convince other people? It implies a skewed view of reality.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Authoritative statements like this from religious people really freak me out. Who's putting this stuff in their heads? Are they repeating someone? How can they find this inarguable, and put it forward as though it would convince other people? It implies a skewed view of reality.


Man is proof of God, apparently.

----------


## Cunninglinguist

> Oh please, you're being deliberately obtuse. Implicit in MM's post is the conception that God is a benevolent creator, so his point is that he doesn't believe in the concept of the Christian God because he doubts the benevolence of such a being who would allow the things he listed.


Though it is not as if MM's definition is the only one out there, nor is it a rule that we have to stick to it.




> Authoritative statements like this from religious people really freak me out. Who's putting this stuff in their heads? Are they repeating someone? How can they find this inarguable, and put it forward as though it would convince other people? It implies a skewed view of reality.


Fear, I would reckon -- people in general, and children especially, can be quickly indoctrinated by fear, and in some cases where they can't, the courageous and outspoken get killed. I think these sectarians tend to make such dogmatic statements more to convince themselves than anyone else. --

In any case, there isn't exactly a "normal" view of reality, nor is there a "normal" method for viewing reality. I don't want to commit myself to complete relativism, though, because there seem to be human constants when it comes to moral and otherwise transcendental ideas about the world, and there are delusions that can put life and happiness in jeopardy. The only way to judge a world view or an assumption is in terms of its practical (or impractical) effects, a means which can also bid room for some form of religion. A number of people have used this sort of argument to defend religion in some form (e.g. Kant) and reading of the Bible in schools (e.g. Huxley). Moreover, this argument betokens the idea that religion and God can only be refuted on _practical_ grounds instead of theoretical ones -- For, after everything, the believer can always resort to fideism.


For the record I'll say that I believe in "God" in a way that doesn't require faith. For me, God is what I term that idea which answers the fundamental absurdity of existence; the answer to that question so shrouded in mysteriousness we cannot barely ask it.

----------


## usman.khawar

Orphan, athiest and all ! I would like to read the evidence that how u can see air. But my dear! If u people consider that after developing delicate n sophisticated machines we are able to see bacteria. And may b with more advancement and developing machines we will be able to see anti protons as well. But I like to say one fact for your consideration. Besides that we just can feel air only and we can see bacteria through fine machines so I have to say that to see God, who is creator of all universes and all living and non living beings, we need refined senses. We cannot see him through these body’s senses which are not reliable as you guys must hear the word illusion. Eye is not always reliable. If you put ur right hand in cold water and left in hot for a while and then put both hands together in normal water what you feel ? this is very simple that to see God we need more refine senses. He is not available in the reach of these body senses. You have to develop your senses. You have to refine your senses. He exist little ahead what you have at this time. There is no other exam as well. If He had showed himself then there was no logic for creating brain. If we can’t see a thing this is not the proof that thing doesn’t exist. 
About God declared Quran his data I wrote a lot if u guys are serious to understand what I wanted to say kindly read than discuss. Lord blames Jews, Christians etc that they change the words of lord (Budha never said that his writing were from Lord). You can find some moral laws in those but besides those there are lot of contradictions/versions. No book is telling you about any scientific facts with logics. Everybody knows that. If someone due to prejudice is sticky to say that crow is always white then I m not ready to talk with him. I said if anyone find single mistake/error/contradiction from Quran than Quran proved wrong. And God with full confidence said in Quran that He will protect its each word, no one can find a single contradiction from it. There are so many scientific, anthropologist, biologist, cosmologist, etc facts which are proved in this era. How can u justify that fourteen hundred years ago a man with no laboroties/ equipments giving statements with absolute accuracy. Just for example “We made this universe from a big accident (big bang) and we are expanding this universe, everything is moving in its orbit” in single verse God is giving 100% accurate statements/facts with full confidence. Quran is absolutely different book from other jew’s and Christians one’s which were also from the Lord.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> For the record I'll say that I believe in "God" in a way that doesn't require faith. For me, God is what I term that idea which answers the fundamental absurdity of existence; the answer to that question so shrouded in mysteriousness we cannot barely ask it.


Such a "God" is of no use whatsoever then.

----------


## Arrowni

On the contrary, it would serve every use.

----------


## billl

> Eye is not always reliable. *If you put ur right hand in cold water and left in hot for a while and then put both hands together in normal water what you feel ?*
> 
> ...
> 
> About God declared Quran his data I wrote a lot if u guys are serious to understand what I wanted to say kindly read than discuss. Lord blames Jews, Christians etc that they change the words of lord (Budha never said that his writing were from Lord). You can find some moral laws in those but besides those there are lot of contradictions/versions. No book is telling you about any scientific facts with logics. Everybody knows that. If someone due to prejudice is sticky to say that crow is always white then I m not ready to talk with him. I said if anyone find single mistake/error/contradiction from Quran than Quran proved wrong. And God with full confidence said in Quran that He will protect its each word, no one can find a single contradiction from it.
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> ...



How about, instead of putting one hand in hot water, and one hand in cold water, why don't we take one person from one area and immerse his thoughts in the Koran, and another guy from another region, and immerse his thoughts in some different Holy Book, and then have both of them experience the real world. What do we typically see happen then?

----------


## cl154576

> I said if anyone find single mistake/error/contradiction from Quran than Quran proved wrong. And God with full confidence said in Quran that He will protect its each word, no one can find a single contradiction from it.


There are contradictions in everything. A simple search of 'contradictions in the Quran' suffices.

Of course, you can probably write ten pages defending one sentence, saying how that sentence does not mean what it says but something else, and so much in this one sentence is beyond the capabilities of my unholy senses. People will believe what they want to regardless. But I think scriptures were written for people, not gods.

----------


## The Atheist

> Orphan, athiest and all ! I would like to read the evidence that how u can see air.


What does seeing have to do with it?

If I hold my breath, I find myself struggling to force myself to breathe. When I start to breathe again, I feel fine.

When I went outside before, it was really windy. I could feel the force of the air moving, but I couldn't see it.

I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that air exists.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> There are contradictions in everything. A simple search of 'contradictions in the Quran' suffices.


Hmm, but to be fair, if you read any of those pages you'll find that it seems to be harder to find crazy nonsense in the Quran than it is in the contradictory new testament or the unbelievably nonsensical old testament. Maybe Islam IS the better written mythology (religion _does_ seem to depreciate with age and Islam is the newest of the three). I guess maybe I'll give the Quran a perusal. 

The Bible was revised many more times than the Quran (not that the Quran wasn't messed with, it was just messed with less often). It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that the stories would be more consistant if leaders didn't repeatedly hack the Christian bible to pieces. It's not age that makes the Bible repetative and strange (stories that lead nowhere, stories with jumbled events happening several times in different chronological order within the same tale, actions with seemingly no cause whatsoever, ect.). Ovid is just as old and Homer is older and their stories are _still_ structurally sound. It _is_ possible that the Muslim mythology _doesn't_ suck. 

I love mythology, and I don't automatically _dislike_ religious texts. I've never met a hardcore religious person who didn't come off as a small minded creep and who I couldn't easily imagine as a serial killer, but that doesn't automatically make their mythology as ugly as they are. The idea of books which are so effective that they've collected followers is intriguing, and maybe I'd find such a book beautiful or particularly insightful/useful. I gave the Bible a shot (I hated it, but I still gave it a shot).

Still, it's hard to get over associating "religious" works with that bad taste that the followers leave in my mouth.

----------


## Cunninglinguist

> But I like to say one fact for your consideration. Besides that we just can feel air only and we can see bacteria through fine machines so I have to say that to see God, who is creator of all universes and all living and non living beings, we need refined senses. We cannot see him through these body’s senses which are not reliable as you guys must hear the word illusion. Eye is not always reliable. If you put ur right hand in cold water and left in hot for a while and then put both hands together in normal water what you feel ? this is very simple that to see God we need more refine senses.


Assuming "God" is sensible in some way, by what criteria are we able to tell illusion from non-illusion?




> If we can’t see a thing this is not the proof that thing doesn’t exist.


You've also implicated that sensation is not a proof of existence. It appears you've committed yourself to a fairly hard skepticism ... which, to avoid, brings us back to the question of criteria.




> Lord blames Jews, Christians etc that they change the words of lord (Budha never said that his writing were from Lord). You can find some moral laws in those but besides those there are lot of contradictions/versions. No book is telling you about any scientific facts with logics. Everybody knows that. If someone due to prejudice is sticky to say that crow is always white then I m not ready to talk with him. I said if anyone find single mistake/error/contradiction from Quran than Quran proved wrong.


Contradiction is, to a large degree, a matter of interpretation. Moreover, there are two forms of contradiction; formal/ostensible/logical (Hilbertian, I call it) and material (Fregian). The first is simply an assessment of the immediate logical form, while the second requires an analysis of the objects in question, in order to make sure that they don't imply a tacit contradiction. This is where interpretation comes into play. Though, in any case, if something is formally immaculate it won't be by necessity true. An argument in which every inference is valid would not necessarily be sound, nor give true conclusions, if the premises themselves are untrue. In a similar vein, unsound arguments with false premises can render true conclusions through invalid inference.




> There are so many scientific, anthropologist, biologist, cosmologist, etc facts which are proved in this era. How can u justify that fourteen hundred years ago a man with no laboroties/ equipments giving statements with absolute accuracy. Just for example “We made this universe from a big accident (big bang) and we are expanding this universe, everything is moving in its orbit” in single verse God is giving 100% accurate statements/facts with full confidence.


I think it depends on standards of proof. But the best (and probably first) test of validity and truth we have -- the principle of sufficient reason -- is one of utility. In short, the reason we think the big bang happened is because the assumptions that lead us to believe it happened are very useful to us. That said, in these fields we don't and cannot have 100% confidence in a strictly theoretical setting -- there never can be when it comes to induction --; for a science will and must change its assumptions in the light of new and good evidence, where religion may not. That science shouldn't/doesn't pretend absolute certainty is perhaps one of the more important defining characteristics that sets it apart from a vast majority of religion today.




> Such a "God" is of no use whatsoever then.


On the contrary, if we had no way of accepting the absurdity, everything itself would appear absurd and purposeless. To this extent, my God is of every form of "use" possible.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> The Bible was revised many more times than the Quran (not that the Quran wasn't messed with, it was just messed with less often). It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that the stories would be more consistant if leaders didn't repeatedly hack the Christian bible to pieces. It's not age that makes the Bible repetative and strange (stories that lead nowhere, stories with jumbled events happening several times in different chronological order within the same tale, actions with seemingly no cause whatsoever, ect.). Ovid is just as old and Homer is older and their stories are _still_ structurally sound. It _is_ possible that the Muslim mythology _doesn't_ suck.


I think the stories in the Bible are fairly consistent. The contradictions tend to be greatly exaggerated, although granted there are some. But it's not really all that hard to follow the Bible as a straight-forward narrative for the most part.

----------


## Darcy88

> Hmm, but to be fair, if you read any of those pages you'll find that it seems to be harder to find crazy nonsense in the Quran than it is in the contradictory new testament or the unbelievably nonsensical old testament. Maybe Islam IS the better written mythology (religion _does_ seem to depreciate with age and Islam is the newest of the three). I guess maybe I'll give the Quran a perusal. 
> 
> The Bible was revised many more times than the Quran (not that the Quran wasn't messed with, it was just messed with less often). It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that the stories would be more consistant if leaders didn't repeatedly hack the Christian bible to pieces. It's not age that makes the Bible repetative and strange (stories that lead nowhere, stories with jumbled events happening several times in different chronological order within the same tale, actions with seemingly no cause whatsoever, ect.). Ovid is just as old and Homer is older and their stories are _still_ structurally sound. It _is_ possible that the Muslim mythology _doesn't_ suck. 
> 
> I love mythology, and I don't automatically _dislike_ religious texts. I've never met a hardcore religious person who didn't come off as a small minded creep and who I couldn't easily imagine as a serial killer, but that doesn't automatically make their mythology as ugly as they are. The idea of books which are so effective that they've collected followers is intriguing, and maybe I'd find such a book beautiful or particularly insightful/useful. I gave the Bible a shot (I hated it, but I still gave it a shot).
> 
> Still, it's hard to get over associating "religious" works with that bad taste that the followers leave in my mouth.


What I like about Islam is that they did not turn their prophet into a God, vis a vis Christianity. There is however a passage in the Quran which explicitly orders the devout to "beat" their wives should they show disobedience. For this reason I have difficulty taking the book all that seriously.

----------


## usman.khawar

> Assuming "God" is sensible in some way, by what criteria are we able to tell illusion from non-illusion?
> 
> *Knowledge! Mind! . inner eyes! can write a lot coz indeed its a very good question. so will write another free time .*
> 
> 
> You've also implicated that sensation is not a proof of existence. It appears you've committed yourself to a fairly hard skepticism ... which, to avoid, brings us back to the question of criteria.
> *
> You are not getting in which context I wrote this argument. Look again. I said “If we can’t see a thing this is not the proof that thing doesn’t exist” I gave the example of air. We can just feel it. I gave the example of anti protons etc. I said bacteria and got the reply that he has seen it through a sophisticated machine. Which enhance his sense of watching. As a whole I said if we cant see God with our body’s eyes then its not the proof that there is no God. There is not a little skepticism rather a hard one my dear in my statement. if You enhance your senses than you can also b witness for sure that there is a God *
> 
> ...


*
your God is not different then mine  We all are the creations of one Lord my dear!*




> What I like about Islam is that they did not turn their prophet into a God, vis a vis Christianity. There is however a passage in the Quran which explicitly orders the devout to "beat" their wives should they show disobedience. For this reason I have difficulty taking the book all that seriously.


you are right coz there is a very strong concept in islamic'philosphy about the oneness of God. 
let me solve your difficulty about the verse you have read in about wives. :Smile: 
if you read in full context and full verse about it its like " teach her ist , then seperate her from your sleeping place, then beat her"
before considering on it, you should consider another fact. from the time when human started to live in societies we see as physically women was weak and man was strong. so it was decided by nature, that woman will care inside of home and man will care of outside. islam gave equal rights to both but Lord said that one man is a one or 2 degree up from woman coz he earns and spent on her etc. Lord said in quran man has same rights upon woman as woman has upon man. but For the better living you see there should b a leader. so Lord think that man should be the leader of house. 
Well come to the above mentioned verse. about beating someone ask to Muhammad how should we beat the woman if she dont understand? He replied with cloth! its not beating my dear! in islam there is a concept of full love care and affection. Good bye kises were common as well at that time. .. many extremist think that by this verse they got the license to beat. which is absolutly wrong. 
i think if i see west that they are developoing and progressing in material life but deterioating their moral ethics. divorce ratio is too high so now they live together without marriage mostly. woman are doing great efforts they are doing jobs and taking care of household as well! there is a lot of about man and woman a lot of/. you can read it in chapter nisa your self. one more thing to clear about quran. that one cannot understand fully quran without reading hadiths. like i explain above about beating. hadiths is what Muhammad said, did and explained.




> How about, instead of putting one hand in hot water, and one hand in cold water, why don't we take one person from one area and immerse his thoughts in the Koran, and another guy from another region, and immerse his thoughts in some different Holy Book, and then have both of them experience the real world. What do we typically see happen then?


besides that i have given this example of hands to prove non reliable senses. you took it another way but i like to give you reply that that person who has been immerse himself in the koran when experience the real world will live in ease and peace of mind n heart. as in koran each n every thing is for real world , there are practical and logical suggestions ,guidlines to live in real world . and other will ends up in fear and frustration.

----------


## MarkBastable

> [B]
> but i like to give you reply that that person who has been immerse himself in the koran when experience the real world will live in ease and peace of mind n heart. as in koran each n every thing is for real world , there are practical and logical suggestions ,guidlines to live in real world . and other will ends up in fear and frustration.


You are very scary.

----------


## osho

Your belief and disbelief in God has little to do with the existence or non existence, my friend. You are a dust swirling in the vortex of this infinity and your voice will be silenced by the thunder of the universe and before this cosmic existence you are almost nonexistent. Your hubris or sense of illustriousness will be submerged into infinite void.
There must be greater truths and your scientific discoveries and inventions cannot outreach them nor your experimental science and knowledge can outsmart or obscure some deeper realities.

Do not make a conclusion my friend; for we can never conclude. We have to go a long way and yet will be doing round and round in this great labyrinth and the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth. The shadow is not the real.

----------


## MarkBastable

> the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth.



How do you know that?

----------


## osho

> How do you know that?


'Cause we have yet to know the truth. The moment you feel you have arrived at the truth, the search ceases.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> 'Cause we have yet to know the truth. The moment you feel you have arrived at the truth, the search ceases.


How do you know I, or someone else, hasn't arrived at the truth?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> How do you know I, or someone else, hasn't arrived at the truth?


Very simply because you do not believe in God.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Right. Because you, being a believer in God (particularly the Christian one, if I'm not mistaken), discard all other possibilities of truth. If it isn't a Christian, it doesn't count. The very idea that belief in God somehow leads to some sort of truth is irrational in the first place, as there is no real truth in the idea, or belief, of God, only faith, and faith is belief in the unprovable. 

Anyways, I said, "I, *or someone else*." That someone else might believe in God, though how that increases his chances of having arrived at truth (whatever that even means in the first place) I have no idea. Maybe you could explain to me why it does.

----------


## cafolini

I know of no god. But assuming I ever did, what difference would it make?

----------


## Sancho

> At least, a benevolent one. . . . 
> 
> Aids
> Starving children
> Children who develop cancer
> War
> Hate
> Katy Perry


Shocking!

Blasphemy!

Katy Perry is a cutie-pie.

----------


## MarkBastable

> ......the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth.


How do you know that?




> 'Cause we have yet to know the truth. The moment you feel you have arrived at the truth, the search ceases.


That argument comes down to 'because I don't feel I know the truth, there must be a truth I don't know'.


Which isn't a rational corollary at all.

But, as Mutatis says, if any of us were to feel that we _had_ arrived at the truth, you'd be in a position either of agreeing with them that they'd found it, or telling them that what they'd found wasn't really the truth.

And if you were to say it wasn't the truth that you were talking about, I'd have to ask again: "How do you know that? How do you know that my truth isn't The Truth?" You'd have to give a reason for the truth you're talking about being the right one.

Im not saying, you'll notice, that this ...

_......the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth...._

..is wrong. I'm just asking for evidence that it's right.

----------


## Leobloom

Paul Dirac: I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honestand scientists have to bewe must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewardsin heaven if not on earthall those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.

This is exactly how I feel about it. It was created to explain the inexplicable thousands of years ago. It seems as though people only debate the existence of God because it has been defended so vigorously for such a long time. The constant debate has given it undue credence because it suggests that there is something deeper to it than, say, Santa Claus. To me, it's simply an elaborate and established belief that holds no more truth than a belief in alien conspiracy theories - it fills holes in knowledge and existence.

----------


## osho

> How do you know I, or someone else, hasn't arrived at the truth?


This is a logical fallacy and if you keep on arguing you will have to do it endlessly. Maybe somebody has arrived or has not. I cannot conclude this and all I say or can say is out of my own understanding. You may have a different understanding or experience. As far as my understanding goes based on what I have read, meditated, or learned through discussions or books or from other learned men, I can say truth is yet to be arrived at. I am just inquiring and this is my personal inquiry and even if I say you it is not necessarily you or any other persons.

As such if you have arrived or not at truth you can say and prove or if others have, they will. That is not my business; my business is to say what I know. Here no more argument is necessary.




> How do you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> That argument comes down to 'because I don't feel I know the truth, there must be a truth I don't know'.
> 
> 
> Which isn't a rational corollary at all.
> 
> ...


This is logical trash and your logic will lead you nowhere and will come to a labyrinth of tunnels and ultimately you will find yourself in a messy situation. 
Truth is something different than your rational claptrap. We are thru our words try to define truth, whereas truth cannot be cramped in your dry verbosities. I do not want to prescribe any method or ways to arrive at truth. I do not claim I have arrived. My exclusive objective is to inquire into it. I do not know I will arrive at this by this way. all the same I am elated to discuss it and my method is not like yours to chase after rationality and logical fallacy

----------


## blazeofglory

Osho you are confusing me. You through your writing skills and use of different logic are simply misleading the general reader like me. I cannot understand your intricate philosophical proposition. You sound interesting and will be more if you make your message clearer

----------


## MarkBastable

> This is logical trash and your logic will lead you nowhere and will come to a labyrinth of tunnels and ultimately you will find yourself in a messy situation. 
> Truth is something different than your rational claptrap. We are thru our words try to define truth, whereas truth cannot be cramped in your dry verbosities. I do not want to prescribe any method or ways to arrive at truth. I do not claim I have arrived. My exclusive objective is to inquire into it. I do not know I will arrive at this by this way. all the same I am elated to discuss it and my method is not like yours to chase after rationality and logical fallacy


But when you say this...

_......the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth..._

...you say it for a reason. You didn't just start thinking it one day, out of the blue. You arrived at it. So all I'm asking is, how did you arrive at it?

----------


## osho

> But when you say this...
> 
> _......the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth..._
> 
> ...you say it for a reason. You didn't just start thinking it one day, out of the blue. You arrived at it. So all I'm asking is, how did you arrive at it?


I arrived at fragments of truth. The truth I claim may not necessarily convince you and I never expected you to be convinced of what I have said. The mirage I referred to is seen through my lens. Never confuse yourself with what I said. Never agree and once you agree or negate you will cripple yourself intellectually. carve out your own without supporting or opposing my ideas. That will not get you anywhere.

----------


## Vonny

> carve out your own without supporting or opposing my ideas. That will not get you anywhere.


This is terrific osho!

----------


## MarkBastable

> I arrived at fragments of truth. The truth I claim may not necessarily convince you and I never expected you to be convinced of what I have said. The mirage I referred to is seen through my lens. Never confuse yourself with what I said. Never agree and once you agree or negate you will cripple yourself intellectually. carve out your own without supporting or opposing my ideas. That will not get you anywhere.


Okay. So all this applies to you personally and, perhaps, _only_ you personally.

----------


## cafolini

> Paul Dirac: I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honestand scientists have to bewe must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewardsin heaven if not on earthall those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.
> 
> This is exactly how I feel about it. It was created to explain the inexplicable thousands of years ago. It seems as though people only debate the existence of God because it has been defended so vigorously for such a long time. The constant debate has given it undue credence because it suggests that there is something deeper to it than, say, Santa Claus. To me, it's simply an elaborate and established belief that holds no more truth than a belief in alien conspiracy theories - it fills holes in knowledge and existence.


A relatrively succint view which might lead to atheism if we get entangled with the prikcsters (abundant in the museum) that will challenge this cleverly. For nothing but cleverness they have left to sustain the irrelevancies they postulate in the face of knowledge and progress. This having been said, the whole subject becomes irrelevant where today's action is.
Yet, there are lots of credulous vestiges in the dynamic museum of history waiting for piggybacking out on a weekend pass on the back of some agnostic or atheistic stooge. The three stooges of history being the theist, the atheist and the agnostic. 
Have fun. Science has left them behind and they are not coming back to a position of power, so to speak, regardless of the noise. We can't close the windows of the museum. They must await recycling with good ventilation. So the screams come out, and we have to listen.

----------


## Sancho

I suppose I rejected the idea of God with a capital G around about the age of 8. You know which god Im talking about  the one true God, a providential god, an omniscient god, an anthropomorphic god, Elohim, Yahweh, Allah, whoever  the guy with the flowing white beard, floating around in the ether, keeping watch over little-ole me, making sure Im honoring my father and my mother and all that jazz. At a relatively early age, that idea struck me as sort of kooky.

The idea of a god with a lower-case g is something entirely different. This idea has been with humans since humans have been human. Indeed, it may be one of the things that makes us human. Its a broader and more abstract definition of god. I think it can be best described as ones overarching world-view. It would include ideas like Mother Nature, Gaia, pure reason, philosophy, evolution, the scientific method, and Adam Smiths laissez-faire god of the markets -The Invisible Hand. Whatever it is that guides you through your life becomes your god (or gods)  with a little g. It has very little to do with organized religion. 

But concerning religion, we may be misinterpreting what Karl Marx meant when he said, Religion is the opiate of the masses. In Marxs time, opium was thought of as a pain killer not a hallucinogenic drug. And there was a lot of pain for a lot of people in his time. Religion offered some comfort for many people and, I think, made their lives less painful. I dont disagree that religion has been used by despots as a crowd-control measure, but thats a miniscule part of it. Also I predict that some of the facts that we enlightened folk know now will be looked at as crazy-superstitious in the future. At any rate, I try not to get too uppity when looking at other peoples belief systems.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> carve out your own without supporting or opposing my ideas. That will not get you anywhere.


Odd, since you state your ideas as if they are concrete facts that one must agree with. I guess our illogical thinking gets tripped up by that.

----------


## cl154576

Why does there have to be some sort of higher truth?

----------


## cafolini

> Why does there have to be some sort of higher truth?


That's a funny question. I'm sure they'll give you thousands of whys. They are specialists in the museum.

----------


## osho

> Okay. So all this applies to you personally and, perhaps, _only_ you personally.


Everyone has to find his own way and if you follow another's path that will not get you there. Maybe we can discuss here since discussing truth is a luxury and playing with words is stirring. But truth is something we have to individually.

With that said I claim we can get closer to truth through discussions and without preoccupation.

----------


## osho

> Odd, since you state your ideas as if they are concrete facts that one must agree with. I guess our illogical thinking gets tripped up by that.


I never claim what I said is concrete and I just expected your comments, and sometimes constructive ones.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Everyone has to find his own way....
> 
> ...we can get closer to truth through discussions and without preoccupation...
> 
> I never claim what I said is concrete and I just expected your comments, and sometimes constructive ones.


If this is your own way, and if you present it for discussion, I think it is constructive - in every sense of that word - to comment on the internal rationale for it, and to test the way it's constructed.

When I did that, you said that my comments were 'trash' and 'claptrap'. How would you have reacted had I said that about your way of thinking?

----------


## osho

> If this is your own way, and if you present it for discussion, I think it is constructive - in every sense of that word - to comment on the internal rationale for it, and to test the way it's constructed.
> 
> When I did that, you said that my comments were 'trash' and 'claptrap'. How would you have reacted had I said that about your way of thinking?


I might have said so in a particular context not in every context. Maybe your comment could be constructive in a specific context thought I might have liked it at that particular moment. If I said your comments were trash and claptrap in that particular context I do not mean you have always been so. 

We have differences and that is the nature of being two individuals and independent thinkers. Your programming might have been different from mine.

However there are certain truths or points at which we may agree. Disagreement fueled the discussion and I never want anyone to agree on what I say and if they do the argument ends and that will be the death of discussion.

What I said is not conclusive and this is a topic that demands arguments and discussion and inquiry and such independent arguments I believe lead us closer to truth

----------


## osho

> This is terrific osho!


Vonny, is there anything to terrify you?




> Osho you are confusing me. You through your writing skills and use of different logic are simply misleading the general reader like me. I cannot understand your intricate philosophical proposition. You sound interesting and will be more if you make your message clearer


There is nothing to make clear and this is an intricate subject and you cannot find clarity on such difficult topics. God, truth, afterlife, the secret of being alive or dead are some of the zones that have always mysterious. Of course some scriptures, and discourses of some saints or prophets seem to have demystified this but we always find such topics mysterious.

I cannot make this topic clear since I myself am not clear about it. I just communicate through my posts and create something for discussion.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Vonny, is there anything to terrify you?


Osho, language thing here - "terrific" is a good thing, somewhat similar to "great," or "wonderful" or "fantastic" although not exactly the same as those words. Its resemblance to "terrify" is superficial and the words have entirely different meanings. English is definitely strange like that and there are innumerable examples; words that have the same root but have evolved to mean quite different things.

----------


## Vonny

> Vonny, is there anything to terrify you?


As Nikolai said, I wasn't saying terrify. 

That statement caught my attention because maybe the important thing is that we figure out what we personally think, rather than focusing on continually challenging one another so much. It was just an idea that occurred to me. Of course, through challenging we clarify.

----------


## osho

> Osho, language thing here - "terrific" is a good thing, somewhat similar to "great," or "wonderful" or "fantastic" although not exactly the same as those words. Its resemblance to "terrify" is superficial and the words have entirely different meanings. English is definitely strange like that and there are innumerable examples; words that have the same root but have evolved to mean quite different things.


That is the beauty of English and I like that stuff. That is why we are far from being good at it if we do not come from an English speaking community. You enjoy that privilege as a native writer over me and I will have to work tremendously to be closer to you. Thank you for your illumination.




> As Nikolai said, I wasn't saying terrify. 
> 
> That statement caught my attention because maybe the important thing is that we figure out what we personally think, rather than focusing on continually challenging one another so much. It was just an idea that occurred to me. Of course, through challenging we clarify.


Vonny I apologize for my poor comment. I am from a non English community and I have to go a long way to understand the spirit of English. I believe you will forgive me for my nonsensical comment. Anyway Nikolai enlightened me on this.

----------


## NikolaiI

> That is the beauty of English and I like that stuff. That is why we are far from being good at it if we do not come from an English speaking community. You enjoy that privilege as a native writer over me and I will have to work tremendously to be closer to you. Thank you for your illumination.


Yes, English will endlessly confuse you, because there are endless exceptions. In fact, I had to look it of endless curiosity and found "terrific" actually can mean what you took it to mean. But in 9 times out of 10 in conversational English, or probably at least 19 times out of 20, its closest synonyms will be words like "fantastic," "great," and "wonderful," although again, the exact texture and meaning of the word is not identical to any of those. 

Glad you have a desire to learn English to precision. It's a goal that will take some time, just because of how different the language is. But if you read a good number of good books, you can eventually know it as perfectly as any average natural speaker. Your spelling is exceptionally good for a non-native speaker, so grammar is where you should work on; but you're getting it well!  :Smile: 

One fun thing about English is all the funny words, like Gobbledygook.

----------


## osho

> Yes, English will endlessly confuse you, because there are endless exceptions. In fact, I had to look it of endless curiosity and found "terrific" actually can mean what you took it to mean. But in 9 times out of 10 in conversational English, or probably at least 19 times out of 20, its closest synonyms will be words like "fantastic," "great," and "wonderful," although again, the exact texture and meaning of the word is not identical to any of those. 
> 
> Glad you have a desire to learn English to precision. It's a goal that will take some time, just because of how different the language is. But if you read a good number of good books, you can eventually know it as perfectly as any average natural speaker. Your spelling is exceptionally good for a non-native speaker, so grammar is where you should work on; but you're getting it well! 
> 
> One fun thing about English is all the funny words, like Gobbledygook.



Thank you Nikolai for your help. I will work hard to this end. I do not speak English and my knowledge of it is limited to or learned from what I come across in print. That is why my English is not natural and lacks the luster and sheen you have in yours.

----------


## stephofthenight

> At least, a benevolent one. . . . 
> 
> Aids
> Starving children
> Children who develop cancer
> War
> Hate
> Katy Perry


I'm sorry but your wrong Mutatis...
You forgot the number one reason, Don't get me wrong I'm a Christian- But I swear Justin Bieber makes me question things :P

----------


## JuniperWoolf

:FRlol:  And I was just thinking, "the one thing this thread needs is a Justin Bieber joke..."

----------


## stephofthenight

> And I was just thinking, "the one thing this thread needs is a Justin Bieber joke..."


HAHA sorry I would rather eat a plate of meat with a side of animal cruelty than hear him sing...

----------


## Serena03

Faith itself is probably more embraced than any actual truth of God's existence. It's only natural that people like to cling to a sort of motherly or fatherly substance that makes them feel motivated, inspired, directed and protected regardless if it's really necessary. Even in a functioning world of 21st century factuality of science, the deep seated need to believe will still be widely rampant no matter how science explains it for the sake of anthropological tradition and subjective purpose.

I on the other hand am happy with my own explorations, in search for sufficiency of survival, however purposeful that may be or induce.

----------


## mazHur

One doesn't believe in God because his heart is shut, mind awake!

Science has unveiled many truths of Nature but is still in infancy regards the mystery of soul and it's here that God comes in!! Believing or Unbelieving God makes no difference to God but it will always keep most men on their heels so much so that, out of curiosity and suspense, they would not stop talking about him most of the time!

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> Even in a functioning world of 21st century factuality of science, the deep seated need to believe will still be widely rampant no matter how science explains it for the sake of anthropological tradition and subjective purpose.


One of the two main bio profs at the U of A believes that there must be some god-like force. I was pretty taken aback when I heard that.

----------


## Serena03

> One of the two main bio profs at the U of A believes that there must be some god-like force. I was pretty taken aback when I heard that.


 I heard of geologists who believe the world is only 7,000 years old, leaving many other scientists pretty dumbstruck there. I guess even scientists come in many packages. But a 'god-like force' doesn't necessarily mean a personal god or creator, it could refer to the laws of physics and nature behaving as 'god-like,' much like what Einstein interpreted.

----------


## mazHur

Interview with God..... absolutely beautiful.
No matter what you believe, or even if you don't believe, this is worth the sixty seconds it takes to watch.

Click on: http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup-frame.html

----------


## osho

In fact the Buddha never advocated for the existence of God and he was quiet neutral and was against idol worship. His ideas of Nirvana was closer to atheism than to theism though his followers preposterously idolized him.

I in fact do not want to believe in God the way Christians, Hindus and even Muslims believe in God in heaven or something like that that have instigated so many furors, antagonisms.

This is, philosophically close to Nihilism though it is not exactly it

----------


## Theunderground

There is no god but man. And bravery is the saviour of man.

----------


## osho

> There is no god but man. And bravery is the saviour of man.


Well said! I second your idea unreservedly

----------


## Theunderground

Cheers! Coming from a lifelong 'believer' it took a lot of courage for me to become 'free'.

----------


## osho

Your courage deserves a lot of applause. In fact this world is getting full of violence because of beliefs and ideologies. Men in fact do not fight the ideologies they hold do.

----------


## cafolini

> Your courage deserves a lot of applause. In fact this world is getting full of violence because of beliefs and ideologies. Men in fact do not fight the ideologies they hold do.


An interesting topic worth of examination. It is true, but it is also true that once upon a time there were just a few ideologies banking all men. And they were social catastrophes, e.g., wwii. Today is a product of the desintegration of those ideologies, substituted by thousands. It's the only possible step forward in a postnihilistic world.
The two main currents of nihilism are fighting each other. The first one occurred in the early 20th century against false values. Life lacked any sense as soon as values were discovered to be false. The other current started in the late 20th century when men did not have a basis for genuine values because they were mentally immersed in false values, they knew, but had no new alternatives.
In parallell to this, science advances and provides genuine values, but they are difficult to grasp in the midst of all the apparent chaos. 
Nihilism is a very interesting subject, far more complicated than meets an untrained eye.
And chaos? Nietzsche said that all ages where there was progress were chaotic. He was correct.
I now view chaos as a prejudice against what we deem inconvenient. This is a natural situation of progress and open survival. It will slowly be overcome as science provides the vehicles and more importantly, people learn how to drive the multiplicity with healthy results. It's already happenning.

----------


## mazHur

Chaos

retract 
pounce
retract after pouncing
this is all you need
to keep your blood warm.

Buddha didn't say he believed in God. But the question is what did he believe in?? He was much aggrieved at the sufferings of people and devised the Eight Paths. Asoka converted to Buddhism but because his mind became devoid of chaos he lost his empire soon!! Those nations which have usually been struggling for one reason or the other are here today alive. Whereas Buddhism which took its birth in India is no more practiced in India nor it is in other places in its ORIGINAL condition which is sad. I take Buddha as a Mahatama, a great Man, perhaps not less than a Prophet. But his teachings normally teach non-chaos...surrender to 'struggle' and self-affliction which is beyond me.

----------


## Des Essientes

Ashoka ruled his empire for 40 years until his death and his dynasty lasted for another 50 years. Buddhism convinced him to stop expanding his empire but it in no way caused him to lose it.

----------


## mazHur

> Ashoka ruled his empire for 40 years until his death and his dynasty lasted for another 50 years. Buddhism convinced him to stop expanding his empire but it in no way caused him to lose it.


Ashoka was a great king of his time. After he converted to Buddhism he gave up bloodshed hence expansionism. If he hadn't changed he would have ruled for much more years and his dynasty prevailed for centuries!

Another great King I like was Chandra Gupt Maurya...his reign is know as the Golden Age of India. Perhaps he was a good Buddhist....my salaam to his departed soul!! :Smile:

----------


## Des Essientes

Chandra Gupta Maurya was a Vaisnava not a Buddhist.

----------


## mazHur

> Chandra Gupta Maurya was a Vaisnava not a Buddhist.


I had said ''perhaps', Well ChandraGupt Mauriya was Hindu and one of their sects believes in Vishnu god. He was the grandfather of Ashoka, right??

----------


## cafolini

Don't confuse me with the facts. :Yawn:

----------


## mazHur

:huh:!!

----------


## Theunderground

Nihilism is for wimps and failed idealists. I think most humans instinctively value genuine relationships with other people. Even if its only with ONE person. If you only genuinely love one person then life has infinite value. If you dont love anyone,make it your mission to find someone. Man is absolutley NOT a solitary animal. Nihilism exists because folks want to be totally independent. Sorry man is a dvinity,but he is also incurably social and gregarious. Man can try his utmost to be an island but he still needs his man friday.

----------


## cafolini

> Nihilism is for wimps and failed idealists. I think most humans instinctively value genuine relationships with other people. Even if its only with ONE person. If you only genuinely love one person then life has infinite value. If you dont love anyone,make it your mission to find someone. Man is absolutley NOT a solitary animal. Nihilism exists because folks want to be totally independent. Sorry man is a dvinity,but he is also incurably social and gregarious. Man can try his utmost to be an island but he still needs his man friday.


You are totally missing the point. Nihilism is a reaction to false values. In fact a lot of the time it is a reaction to individualistic forces that forbid the natural gregariousness of people.

----------


## osho

> You are totally missing the point. Nihilism is a reaction to false values. In fact a lot of the time it is a reaction to individualistic forces that forbid the natural gregariousness of people.


You sound convincing to me

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Nihilism is for wimps and failed idealists. I think most humans instinctively value genuine relationships with other people. Even if its only with ONE person. If you only genuinely love one person then life has infinite value. If you dont love anyone,make it your mission to find someone. Man is absolutley NOT a solitary animal. Nihilism exists because folks want to be totally independent. Sorry man is a dvinity,but he is also incurably social and gregarious. Man can try his utmost to be an island but he still needs his man friday.


God said, "It is not good for man to be alone."

----------


## cafolini

> You sound convincing to me


More than that, please. I wouldn't want to make you static in any respect.

----------


## mazHur

> God said, "It is not good for man to be alone."


hehe!! Excuse me Bien but which God, whose God is the question!! :Smile: 




> You are totally missing the point. Nihilism is a reaction to false values. In fact a lot of the time it is a reaction to individualistic forces that forbid the natural gregariousness of people.


Could you please define Values??? Values seem to differ from place to place, culture to culture, society to society???




> Nihilism is for wimps and failed idealists. I think most humans instinctively value genuine relationships with other people. Even if its only with ONE person. If you only genuinely love one person then life has infinite value. If you dont love anyone,make it your mission to find someone. Man is absolutley NOT a solitary animal. Nihilism exists because folks want to be totally independent. Sorry man is a dvinity,but he is also incurably social and gregarious. Man can try his utmost to be an island but he still needs his man friday.


You do seem quite reasonable to me!! :Smile:

----------


## cafolini

> Could you please define Values??? Values seem to differ from place to place, culture to culture, society to society???


Agree with that. So obviously you don't need me to define them if you know what you are saying.

----------


## mazHur

> Agree with that. So obviously you don't need me to define them if you know what you are saying.


Well, I thought you were perhaps referring to some values not known to me yet??

----------


## MarkBastable

> God said, "It is not good for man to be alone."


Well, yeah - but at the time he was talking not about the species - Man - but about the gender - guys. And his solution was to make woman 'as a helper'. Which, from a post-feminist point of view, was a bit suspect. And from a chauvinist point of view was totally counterproductive.

So either way, like many of God's homilistic one-liners, that one's not quite as definitive as it might at first appear.

----------


## cafolini

> Well, yeah - but at the time he was talking not about the species - Man - but about the gender - guys. And his solution was to make woman 'as a helper'. Which, from a post-feminist point of view, was a bit suspect. And from a chauvinist point of view was totally counterproductive.
> 
> So either way, like many of God's homilistic one-liners, that one's not quite as definitive as it might at first appear.


I like God's reaction to Einstein. When the latter forbade God to play die, gambling increased 100% in Atlantic City.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> hehe!! Excuse me Bien but which God, whose God is the question!!


Since I was quoting the Bible, that would apply to Jehovah. However, I'm uncertain how the Muslim's view the Old Testament passages in reference to the Creator and/or the creation account. Can you enlighten me concerning your perspective?

----------


## mazHur

> Since I was quoting the Bible, that would apply to Jehovah. However, I'm uncertain how the Muslim's view the Old Testament passages in reference to the Creator and/or the creation account. Can you enlighten me concerning your perspective?


Thanks, Bien. Most of the things listed in the Old Testament coincide with Islamic teachings.....especially Muslim belief is much closer to the Jews than Christians. Moral values etc contained in the OT form a considerable part of 
Muslim teachings.....and are infact incorporated in the Quran. FYI to be a Muslim it is only necessary to believe in the Unity of God and Muhammad His last Messenger, other imperatives are belief in the angels, the day of judgement, all the holy Scriptures and all the Prophets earlier to the advent of Islam. 
As for moral values those are precisely mentioned in the Quran. I would not like to refer to Traditions (said to be sayings of Prophet Muhammad) as the same are disputed among the Muslims themselves and tend to confuse. 
Not restricted to religion, the nature of values differs from place to place, people to people due to socio-cultural factors. Even in the USA you will note this variation from state to state...and infact some ''values' have been incorporated in the Law.
Islam, as far as I know, came to change the then ''values' prevailing among the Arabian land (and their culture) . Of such 'values' you can 
find good mention in many authentic history books by the western writers themselves. History of the Saracens by Amir Ali or works of Pickhall and Prof Arberry etc (perhaps Gibbon too) should be enough to elucidate further on the state of affairs (ie practices and values) prevailing among the ''pagan'' Arabs and elsewhere (the Huns and the Mongols etc).

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> But a 'god-like force' doesn't necessarily mean a personal god or creator, it could refer to the laws of physics and nature behaving as 'god-like,' much like what Einstein interpreted.


Yeah, that was how it seemed when she was talking about it in class one time but she wasn't allowed to go into detail.

----------


## usman.khawar

> *Your belief and disbelief in God has little to do with the existence or non existence, my friend*. You are a dust swirling in the vortex of this infinity and your voice will be silenced by the thunder of the universe and before this cosmic existence you are almost nonexistent. Your hubris or sense of illustriousness will be submerged into infinite void.
> *There must be greater truths and your scientific discoveries and inventions cannot outreach them nor your experimental science and knowledge can outsmart or obscure some deeper realities.*
> *Do not make a conclusion my friend*; for we can never conclude. We have to go a long way and yet will be doing round and round in this great labyrinth and the mirage we call truth is not the truth in actuality, that is just a mirage or a shadow of the truth. The shadow is not the real.


so my dear friend u r rejecting everything like religion n sceinces as well.. you are concluding infact conlcluded about above and asking me not to conclude anything? strange suggestion lolzz  :Smile:  anyway its all upto you me dear whether u like to live with cloze eyes or live after solving the very ist basic question of ur existance or earth..




> Thanks, Bien. Most of the things listed in the Old Testament coincide with Islamic teachings.....especially Muslim belief is much closer to the Jews than Christians. Moral values etc contained in the OT form a considerable part of 
> Muslim teachings.....and are infact incorporated in the Quran. FYI to be a Muslim it is only necessary to believe in the Unity of God and Muhammad His last Messenger, other imperatives are belief in the angels, the day of judgement, all the holy Scriptures and all the Prophets earlier to the advent of Islam. 
> As for moral values those are precisely mentioned in the Quran. I would not like to refer to Traditions (said to be sayings of Prophet Muhammad) as the same are disputed among the Muslims themselves and tend to confuse. 
> Not restricted to religion, the nature of values differs from place to place, people to people due to socio-cultural factors. Even in the USA you will note this variation from state to state...and infact some ''values' have been incorporated in the Law.
> Islam, as far as I know, came to change the then ''values' prevailing among the Arabian land (and their culture) . Of such 'values' you can 
> find good mention in many authentic history books by the western writers themselves. History of the Saracens by Amir Ali or works of Pickhall and Prof Arberry etc (perhaps Gibbon too) should be enough to elucidate further on the state of affairs (ie practices and values) prevailing among the ''pagan'' Arabs and elsewhere (the Huns and the Mongols etc).


AOA mahzr! i couldnt understand how jews's teachings close with islam ? and not christianity ?

----------


## osho

In fact I never conclude. God's idea we have is derived from books religions or mythologies or as we have heard from elders. suppose you were never told about God or if you were growing in an isolated area wherein you never hear about God or do not read books on God I do not think you would have any idea about God. The idea of God is invented and with that said however I am not denying the existence of God nor supporting and in fact I want to be indifferent.

I read books on God and I have read plenty of books on it. Buddhism is somewhat close to Nihilism and it is somewhat scientific too and therefore even Bertrand Russel and Einstein too were somewhat supportive of Buddhism.

----------


## Big Dante

> Katy Perry


I'm sold.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Was my post deleted in which I called the OP an idiot, or some such insult? If so, it's pretty funny . . . since I'm the OP.

----------


## mazHur

[QUOTE]


> AOA mahzr! i couldnt understand how jews's teachings close with islam ? and not christianity ? ]


WA
Reference to Jews was in context of Old Testament. Yes, Islam also contains 
several good points of Christianity as well as other holy Scriptures, such as Talmud and Torah, etc. But since the holy Quran only lives on with its ORIGINAL context for more than 1400 years therefore reliance on the authenticity of other edited or rewritten Scriptures by human hands becomes suspicious and unauthentic.




> Was my post deleted in which I called the OP an idiot, or some such insult? If so, it's pretty funny . . . since I'm the OP.


good joke! like a clown getting bashed in circus!! :Smile:

----------


## cafolini

A Muslim once told me a joke that I never forgot. He said that it is easy to prove that the Quram is a book of revelation simply because the prophet was an analphabet, very brutal, and he would not have been able to write it without help from Allah.

----------


## skib

This doesn't really fall directly in step with this thread, but it is some interesting thought food:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8KTF...eature=related

----------


## Scheherazade

> Was my post deleted in which I called the OP an idiot, or some such insult? If so, it's pretty funny . . . since I'm the OP.


According to our records, none of your posts has been deleted in this thread.


*R e m i n d e r

Off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.

~*

----------


## MarkBastable

Do you mean this one?




> I can't believe so much has stemmed from the idiotic OP.



It's in the 'Why I believe in God' thread. Of which, by the way, you weren't the OP.

You're probably lucky the actual OP is so laidback.

----------


## mazHur

> A Muslim once told me a joke that I never forgot. He said that it is easy to prove that the Quram is a book of revelation simply because the prophet was an analphabet, very brutal, and he would not have been able to write it without help from Allah.



and.....having such views about Muhammad he still holds on to Islam? What a hypocrite that so-called Muslim he must be!!

----------


## cafolini

> and.....having such views about Muhammad he still holds on to Islam? What a hypocrite that so-called Muslim he must be!!


How religions are an epidemy of hipocresy. How could it be otherwise for a religion? John the Baptist was much more direct with the saxophons. But the Arabs do have branches of Islam which adhere to this idea to postulate revelation. And they have the puton going this way.

----------


## mazHur

> How religions are an epidemy of hipocresy. How could it be otherwise for a religion? John the Baptist was much more direct with the saxophons. But the Arabs do have branches of Islam which adhere to this idea to postulate revelation. And they have the puton going this way.


It depends how you take religion, if at all, and how you play chords on !

----------


## cafolini

> It depends how you take religion, if at all, and how you play chords on !


Religion is strictly two-dimensonal; a thing of the imagination. Can't avoid hipocresy. And so-called wisdom? Pure cleverness within confusion. How could God not be or exist? Impossible. It's a marvellous world, extremely hipocritical and condescending, based on acute resentment for three-dimensional occurrences. Thank goodness we were able to put it in a museum where it no longer makes history where the action is (the actual meaning of separation of church and state), and they all await for recycling in as much comfort they can take to alleviate suffering.
Who could be an atheist to the nonsense of the theist without feeling utterly useless? Who could be an agnostic to such funny setup?

----------


## mazHur

> Religion is strictly two-dimensonal; a thing of the imagination. Can't avoid hipocresy. And so-called wisdom? Pure cleverness within confusion. How could God not be or exist? Impossible. It's a marvellous world, extremely hipocritical and condescending, based on acute resentment for three-dimensional occurrences. Thank goodness we were able to put it in a museum where it no longer makes history where the action is (the actual meaning of separation of church and state), and they all await for recycling in as much comfort they can take to alleviate suffering.
> Who could be an atheist to the nonsense of the theist without feeling utterly useless? Who could be an agnostic to such funny setup?


funny?? Does it sound you funny that we are having a 'discourse' over here without even knowing or having seen each other?? You and I are HERE just because of a CAUSE and I can visulaize the TRUTH of YOU AND I talking to each other just because of the LITNET SIGN OR a manifestation of our mutual PRESENCE!! 
IF this is POSSIBLE why God be lesser??

----------


## cafolini

> funny?? Does it sound you funny that we are having a 'discourse' over here without even knowing or having seen each other?? You and I are HERE just because of a CAUSE and I can visulaize the TRUTH of YOU AND I talking to each other just because of the LITNET SIGN OR a manifestation of our mutual PRESENCE!! 
> IF this is POSSIBLE why God be lesser??


Ha! God lesser? Pleaaaaase. He's morer. Actually he's too much.

----------


## mazHur

> Ha! God lesser? Pleaaaaase. He's morer. Actually he's too much.


hehe! trim his tail if you can!! :Smile:

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Do you mean this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the 'Why I believe in God' thread. Of which, by the way, you weren't the OP.
> 
> You're probably lucky the actual OP is so laidback.


 :FRlol:  I got the threads mixed up. Don't even know who the OP is in the other one. My apologies to him, though.

----------


## ForrestJG

> At least, a benevolent one. . . . 
> 
> Aids
> Starving children
> Children who develop cancer
> War
> Hate
> Katy Perry


You could also say that there is no evidence to suggest that any of the imagined gods exist, or have ever existed. A man of one particular faith believes in his own god, whilst dismissing the gods of men of other faiths. But all these derive from ancient times, when mankind knew nothing about the world, or how it functioned, and it has been passed down the ages to establish organised religion. A certain god is backed up by a book, but so are others; the existence of unicorns has the same amount of evidence as a gods existence. It is just taken on faith, no matter what your religious convictions are, it is all taken on faith, which is irrational, and illogical. 
The god of the bible is evil, and if he existed, it would be a dark world indeed.
Rant over. I think Katy Perry does disprove the existence of god however  :Biggrin:

----------


## mazHur

> You could also say that there is no evidence to suggest that any of the imagined gods exist, or have ever existed. A man of one particular faith believes in his own god, whilst dismissing the gods of men of other faiths. But all these derive from ancient times, when mankind knew nothing about the world, or how it functioned, and it has been passed down the ages to establish organised religion. A certain god is backed up by a book, but so are others; the existence of unicorns has the same amount of evidence as a gods existence. It is just taken on faith, no matter what your religious convictions are, it is all taken on faith, which is irrational, and illogical. 
> The god of the bible is evil, and if he existed, it would be a dark world indeed.
> Rant over. I think Katy Perry does disprove the existence of god however


If there isn't any Supreme Being then how come you can't have your way all the time??? What makes you strong or weak, good or evil???
Before Galileo,Darwin embarked upon newer theories people thought Earth was Flat and animistic beliefs were common. Some people still believe in UFO's. How do you explain God if you cannot even explain UFO's , Big Foot, 
(and perhaps Don Quixote)??? Why do accidents happen and all die except one?? Religion has many hidden mysteries which even science cannot unravel. If you don't understand religion and call it ''evil'' how can you understand the existence of God???

----------


## cafolini

> If there isn't any Supreme Being then how come you can't have your way all the time??? What makes you strong or weak, good or evil???
> Before Galileo,Darwin embarked upon newer theories people thought Earth was Flat and animistic beliefs were common. Some people still believe in UFO's. How do you explain God if you cannot even explain UFO's , Big Foot, 
> (and perhaps Don Quixote)??? Why do accidents happen and all die except one?? Religion has many hidden mysteries which even science cannot unravel. If you don't understand religion and call it ''evil'' how can you understand the existence of God???


This is so entangling that one can't but suspect that the whole forum is composed of press releases from The Vatican or some other disinformation organization. But one has humor and has to honor the fellowship.
It is not important to me what you believe or disbelieve. Because I care about all of you, I think that so long as you don't think that what you believe or disbelieve is knowledge, you will be safe.

----------


## mazHur

> This is so entangling that one can't but suspect that the whole forum is composed of press releases from The Vatican or some other disinformation organization. But one has humor and has to honor the fellowship.
> It is not important to me what you believe or disbelieve. Because I care about all of you,
> 
> 
> 
> I think that so long as you don't think that what you believe or disbelieve is knowledge, you will be safe.


I am amused :Smile: 

It may also be said this way..........
I think that so long as you don't think that what you believe or disbelieve is knowledge, you will never learn to identify relations, even of those of next of kin. 

In the Hands of God

By Teresa of Avila
(1515 - 1582)

English version by Kieran Kavanaugh OCD and Otilio Rodriguez OCD



I am Yours and born of You,
What do You want of me?

Majestic Sovereign,
Unending wisdom,
Kindness pleasing to my soul;
God sublime, one Being Good,
Behold this one so vile.
Singing of her love to you:
What do You want of me?

Yours, you made me,
Yours, you saved me,
Yours, you endured me,
Yours, you called me,
Yours, you awaited me,
Yours, I did not stray.
What do You want of me?

Good Lord, what do you want of me,
What is this wretch to do?
What work is this,
This sinful slave, to do?
Look at me, Sweet Love,
Sweet Love, look at me,
What do You want of me?

In Your hand
I place my heart,
Body, life and soul,
Deep feelings and affections mine,
Spouse -- Redeemer sweet,
Myself offered now to you,
What do You want of me?

Give me death, give me life,
Health or sickness,
Honor or shame,
War or swelling peace,
Weakness or full strength,
Yes, to these I say,
What do You want of me?

Give me wealth or want,
Delight or distress,
Happiness or gloominess,
Heaven or hell,
Sweet life, sun unveiled,
To you I give all.
What do You want of me?

Give me, if You will, prayer;
Or let me know dryness,
And abundance of devotion,
Or if not, then barrenness.
In you alone, Sovereign Majesty,
I find my peace,
What do You want of me?

Give me then wisdom.
Or for love, ignorance,
Years of abundance,
Or hunger and famine.
Darkness or sunlight,
Move me here or there:
What do You want of me?

If You want me to rest,
I desire it for love;
If to labor,
I will die working:
Sweet Love say
Where, how and when.
What do You want of me?

Calvary or Tabor give me,
Desert or fruitful land;
As Job in suffering
Or John at Your breast;
Barren or fruited vine,
Whatever be Your will:
What do You want of me?

Be I Joseph chained
Or as Egypt's governor,
David pained
Or exalted high,
Jonas drowned,
Or Jonas freed:
What do You want of me?

Silent or speaking,
Fruitbearing or barren,
My wounds shown by the Law,
Rejoicing in the tender Gospel;
Sorrowing or exulting,
You alone live in me:
What do You want of me?

Yours I am, for You I was born:
What do You want of me?

----------


## cafolini

And what did the chap said he wanted? She tried hard to give him everything she had. Did he asked her to buy him a cruise to the caribbean at least?

----------


## mazHur

Thinking Makes It So

"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."1

William James, the father of American psychology, stated that, "the greatest discovery of my generation is that human beings can alter their lives by altering their attitude of mind [your thinking]." He also said, "If you change your mind, you can change your life."

While what William James said is true, this truth wasn't discovered by his generation. Two thousand years ago God's word pointed out the importance of right thinking.

It is true; we can change our lives by changing our thinking—either for good or bad. If we harbor and dwell on negative thoughts, we will act in negative ways. On the other hand, if we harbor and dwell on positive thoughts, we will act in positive ways. What we think about comes about.

As another has said, "What the mind dwells on the body acts on." Think of temptation for instance. First comes a thought and, if we entertain it, it hooks our feelings, and the stronger we feel about it, the more we keep thinking about it, and the more we rationalize about doing it … and unless we nip that thinking in the bud, we give in to the temptation and act it out.

So as an unknown author also wisely said:

Watch your thoughts; they lead to attitudes.
Watch your attitudes; they lead to words.
Watch your words; they lead to actions.
Watch your actions; they lead to habits.
Watch your habits; they form your character.
Watch your character; it determines your destiny.


1. The quote is from 1. Philippians 4:8 (NIV). 
source:ACTS

----------


## Darcy88

"We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts."

-The Dhamapada.

By the way mazHur, that quote from Phillipians is one of my all time favourite quotes. I never took it in the sense that you take it here. I always just took it as adivce on how to achieve comfort and assurance.

----------


## mazHur

> "We are what we think.
> All that we are arises with our thoughts."
> 
> -The Dhamapada.
> 
> By the way mazHur, that quote from Phillipians is one of my all time favourite quotes. I never took it in the sense that you take it here. I always just took it as adivce on how to achieve comfort and assurance.


Good, but haven't you heard people often say, ''Hey he is not good spirit'', ''She is feeling low'', 'Oh, you hurt my soul!"". Thus all this 'spirit' business is psychological. It has to do with mind as well as heart!! 'Have heart!!'' we usually say to a depressed person, don't we?

----------


## leemadison11

God to me is faith of goodness, as long as God exist, faith in goodness exists. The day its over, people in Wall Street and the corrupt politicians are going rule this country. The country would be go to the dogs.

----------


## cafolini

> "We are what we think.
> All that we are arises with our thoughts."
> 
> -The Dhamapada.
> 
> By the way mazHur, that quote from Phillipians is one of my all time favourite quotes. I never took it in the sense that you take it here. I always just took it as adivce on how to achieve comfort and assurance.


I just realized that. I tried it and I became king of M31. The good thing about it was that when I got tired, I tried it again and I am back home to talk to you who are an honorable figment of what I think. :Wave:

----------


## Darcy88

This may not have anything to do with my disbelief in God, but one of the reasons I am not a Christian is that I cannot make sense of the trinity. If its the father AND the son, then how is it not two gods and therefore a kind of polytheism?

----------


## mazHur

> This may not have anything to do with my disbelief in God, but one of the reasons I am not a Christian is that I cannot make sense of the trinity. If its the father AND the son, then how is it not two gods and therefore a kind of polytheism?


Wow! You picked up the basic difference between two greatest religions of the world, ie Christianity and Islam!

----------


## mazHur

A nice sermon for those who cannot love!

Living, Loving and Learning Part I

"The Lord is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth."the Bible

A popular song from back in the '60s or '70s by Burt Bacharach was: "What the world needs now is love, sweet love / It's the only thing that there's just too little of / What the world needs now is love, sweet love / No not just for some but for everyone."

Only those embittered and disillusioned by failure in love would disagree with those words. We were created for loving relationship, without which we limp along in the shadows of life eking out a lonely existence. And even while living with others such people may live together alone apartand die a little every day.

It may not be most desirable, but we can live without romantic relationships, but we cannot live healthily nor can we get our love needs met without being in at least oneand hopefullyseveral healthy relationships.

Furthermore, we can only love and be loved to the degree that we are known. As long as I hide behind a false mask, no matter how attractive and likable that mask may be, I will never feel loved, because my mask is not me. That's the person I'm pretending to be. Only real people find real love. What is more, only real people can experience a real relationship with God. I simply cannot feel close to God or anybody else as long as I hide behind a false mask.

Moreover, as Sydney Jourard wrote some years ago in his book, The Transparent Self, "Every maladjusted person is someone who has not made himself known to another human being and in consequence he does not know himself. Nor can he be himself. More than that, he struggles actively to avoid becoming known by another human being. He works ceaselessly at it day and night. And it is work!"

So to be healthy physically, emotionally and spirituallyand to find loving relationshipswe need to come out of hiding and be real.''

source: ACT

----------


## osho

I am tired of this idea of Godliness. I do not know what to say and not to say and what to believe or not to believe. I am torn between belief and disbelief and in fact everybody is a believer to some extent particularly when he has a thousand questions and not a single convincing answer and maybe God could be the last answer every skeptic arrives at.

Likewise everyone is a disbeliever too because the source of our belief in God is religious books and the teachings of our elders.

I have read plenty of religious books and some are trashy. No religious books are without fallacies or myths and it is a matter of degrees and Christianity and Hinduisms have so many religious texts that have no logic and are baseless. The rest of religions too have trashy things.

People become foolishly argue for their particular faith and they are in their babyhood indoctrinated into a particular credo and they cannot uproot their doctrinal faiths no matter how much they are well read and they have no questioning mind since they are hooked to their faiths.

Where is there God? It is in their thought. Where is their thought? It is in their memory and all your memories are things of the past, dried up and dead. Therefore your memory is your God.

If you are born to a religious community and you get hooked up with them and you cannot break this chain of faith and you will die as a blind follower.

You live with an illusion and die with this. This does not accord with truth.

----------


## cafolini

> I am tired of this idea of Godliness. I do not know what to say and not to say and what to believe or not to believe. I am torn between belief and disbelief and in fact everybody is a believer to some extent particularly when he has a thousand questions and not a single convincing answer and maybe God could be the last answer every skeptic arrives at.
> 
> Likewise everyone is a disbeliever too because the source of our belief in God is religious books and the teachings of our elders.
> 
> I have read plenty of religious books and some are trashy. No religious books are without fallacies or myths and it is a matter of degrees and Christianity and Hinduisms have so many religious texts that have no logic and are baseless. The rest of religions too have trashy things.
> 
> People become foolishly argue for their particular faith and they are in their babyhood indoctrinated into a particular credo and they cannot uproot their doctrinal faiths no matter how much they are well read and they have no questioning mind since they are hooked to their faiths.
> 
> Where is there God? It is in their thought. Where is their thought? It is in their memory and all your memories are things of the past, dried up and dead. Therefore your memory is your God.
> ...


You could spend your life talking about truth. There occurs no truth. There occur and infinity of truths and an infinity of lies.

----------


## BlackCat

My friend you appears to be asking the fundamental question: "How can there be God if there is suffering?".First let us realize something: a) there are no rules saying God must always protect mankind from suffering b) what does not kill me make me stronger. We realize then the assumption that a God must be there to always protect us and keep us from harm is a very human assumption. We realize it's a justification for the lack of belief in God or in a benevolent being. We must also realize that many time struggles and sufferings shape and mold man and his characters, as Cardinal François-Xavier Nguyễn Văn Thuận once said "You can't become a saint unless you suffer". 

Secondly we must also realize that many of the multiple sufferings you've listed (including many natural catastrophes and Katy Perry) are man made. You realize that AIDS, diseases, poverty, hunger... are either caused directly by us or indirectly by our negligence. Our apathy for humanity, for the sufferings, our selfishness and self-centerness causes these sufferings. Like an Islamic scholar once said: "Why should God intervene something that human can do themselves?" This question about God's benevolence, or about God seeming negligence for humanity, eventually must lead us to question ourselves, our behaviors, our apathy.

----------


## BlackCat

> You could spend your life talking about truth. There occurs no truth. There occur and infinity of truths and an infinity of lies.


If it is definite and objective that there is no truth, then lack of truth is the truth, thus occurs a paradox

----------


## BlackCat

> I am tired of this idea of Godliness. I do not know what to say and not to say and what to believe or not to believe. I am torn between belief and disbelief and in fact everybody is a believer to some extent particularly when he has a thousand questions and not a single convincing answer and maybe God could be the last answer every skeptic arrives at.
> 
> Likewise everyone is a disbeliever too because the source of our belief in God is religious books and the teachings of our elders.
> 
> I have read plenty of religious books and some are trashy. No religious books are without fallacies or myths and it is a matter of degrees and Christianity and Hinduisms have so many religious texts that have no logic and are baseless. The rest of religions too have trashy things.
> 
> People become foolishly argue for their particular faith and they are in their babyhood indoctrinated into a particular credo and they cannot uproot their doctrinal faiths no matter how much they are well read and they have no questioning mind since they are hooked to their faiths.
> 
> Where is there God? It is in their thought. Where is their thought? It is in their memory and all your memories are things of the past, dried up and dead. Therefore your memory is your God.
> ...


Another presumption that a believer who have not fallen out of his faith or have left the faith is a blind believer. I must disagree. Especially in this society, I believe those who still believe are the most well read and the most enlightened people. Religious people are also people, they are capable of thinking and reasoning. Unfortunately they are painted nowaday as little morons who have absolutely not a single bit of common sense. They are painted as blind followers led to the slaughterhouse by wolves dressed in shepherd skin. As a believer I have longed for the day to break such stereotypes, I have longed to be recognized as a human being with reason and logic, someone who have studied philosophy. I want others to understand that I have too studied many faiths before come to the conclusion that my faith, Christianity, is the greatest faith of all.

Now the question back at you is what is truth? You said we as believers will be perpeptual worshippers of our memories. You said we will die in illusion and not accord with the truth. What then is truth? Is there even a truth? Is Plato right, or is it Nietzsche? Or is it like Buddhism, that truth is just an illusion? What is truth?

----------


## cafolini

> If it is definite and objective that there is no truth, then lack of truth is the truth, thus occurs a paradox


There is plenty of truth in the two dimensions of the imagination. But there occurs no truth in three dimensions, only infinite truths and lies. No paradox. The truth only occurs in existence and being. We see it all the time. No paradox. A vicious circle. Imagination without knowledge is like a toilet without water. Knowledge without imagination, however, is an impossibility. Paradox is coax.

----------


## BlackCat

> There is plenty of truth in the two dimensions of the imagination. But there occurs no truth in three dimensions, only infinite truths and lies. No paradox. The truth only occurs in existence and being. We see it all the time. No paradox. A vicious circle. Imagination without knowledge is like a toilet without water. Knowledge without imagination, however, is an impossibility. Paradox is coax.


Pardon me, but I don't know if this is physics or is it literature? Our world is 4 d, 4 dimension, not 3. I don't know how many dimensions imagination posesses, but my guess would be beyond 2 dimensions, since imagination is infinite. Truths can't be infinite, if so then truth won't be truth. It is either a truth or a lie, lies are infinite, truth is one. Lies are circular, truth is linear. If truth only occurs in existence and being, it is then more of a reason why truth can't be infinite, since existence and being, that of man, is finite.

If there is no truth in the 3 dimensions, there therefore no truth in the 4 dimensions, thus no truth in our realm. If there is no truth in this finite realm, then one should speculate that there are no truths belong to the 3 dimensions that can be infinite (since no effects can be greater than its cause). The paradox lies not in reality, but in fact in your statement. Assume if there is no truth, then the lack of truth is the truth  :Banana:

----------


## cafolini

> Pardon me, but I don't know if this is physics or is it literature? Our world is 4 d, 4 dimension, not 3. I don't know how many dimensions imagination posesses, but my guess would be beyond 2 dimensions, since imagination is infinite. Truths can't be infinite, if so then truth won't be truth. It is either a truth or a lie, lies are infinite, truth is one. Lies are circular, truth is linear. If truth only occurs in existence and being, it is then more of a reason why truth can't be infinite, since existence and being, that of man, is finite.
> 
> If there is no truth in the 3 dimensions, there therefore no truth in the 4 dimensions, thus no truth in our realm. If there is no truth in this finite realm, then one should speculate that there are no truths belong to the 3 dimensions that can be infinite (since no effects can be greater than its cause). The paradox lies not in reality, but in fact in your statement. Assume if there is no truth, then the lack of truth is the truth


You are not grasping what I mean. "The truth" only is and exists. It does not occur except in that. You or many other people are accustomed to deal with existence and being, now museum pieces. 
I could deal with this philologically going all the way back to classical Latin. I might do it here perhaps, although I have no interest now. But the age of existentialism has been overcome by postmodernism and science.

----------


## BlackCat

> You are not grasping what I mean. "The truth" only is and exists. It does not occur except in that. You or many other people are accustomed to deal with existence and being, now museum pieces. 
> I could deal with this philologically going all the way back to classical Latin. I might do it here perhaps, although I have no interest now. But the age of existentialism has been overcome by postmodernism and science.


Classical Latin would have been heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, which was mostly Platonism (unless they adhere to Stoicism, which of course are apathetic). Platonism would have advocated that truth is a distinct form, that could be compared to something like God in Christianity except it's more laid back and passive. Truth only is and exists, that is Platonism. Except in Platonism truth only is and exists and is definite and objective, there was no infinity, no circular truth. Truth to Plato and to the Western world as a whole is linear and straight forward, like the sun to earth.  :Banana:

----------


## BlackCat

you also said truth only occurs in existence and being, and said many others and I are accustomed to existence and being. Shouldn't we be able to understand truth instantaneously? I don't get the museum pieces statement.

This is also why I believe in God, lack of faith in God causes me intellectual head aches and more paradoxes than answers

----------


## mazHur

> You could spend your life talking about truth. There occurs no truth. There occur and infinity of truths and an infinity of lies.


Good response but what the heck is 'free will' for??

----------


## mazHur

> I am tired of this idea of Godliness. I do not know what to say and not to say and what to believe or not to believe. I am torn between belief and disbelief and in fact everybody is a believer to some extent particularly when he has a thousand questions and not a single convincing answer and maybe God could be the last answer every skeptic arrives at.
> 
> Likewise everyone is a disbeliever too because the source of our belief in God is religious books and the teachings of our elders.
> Tne animists do not believe in any god, for example. they worship almost everything and even nothing. I don't think they too are wrong by their choice though i may differ with them in their outlook or belief-even then the point reached the same thing-God!!
> 
> I have read plenty of religious books and some are trashy. No religious books are without fallacies or myths and it is a matter of degrees and Christianity and Hinduisms have so many religious texts that have no logic and are baseless. The rest of religions too have trashy things.
> 
> People become foolishly argue for their particular faith and they are in their babyhood indoctrinated into a particular credo and they cannot uproot their doctrinal faiths no matter how much they are well read and they have no questioning mind since they are hooked to their faiths.
> 
> ...


Condemnation of other religions such as Hinduism etc you remarked at is uncalled for. If you don't understand 'logarithms' you cannot condemn it as false just for the reason it is beyond your 'cognitive' capabilities or you just don't like the idea. Similarly all religions have a point in case, take it or leave it rather then puke disgust for it for personal reasons.

I suppose many here are quite grown up and sensible folk and they do not need their parents dinning about what to do or what not to do ...in many matters including religion.

Religion is not an illusion...though it may be a reflection of the Almighty!

----------


## usman.khawar

To " ina hadina sabeela wa imma shakirwn wa imma kaffora"

And we have given you (hadayt, mind) Whether to accept Him or reject Him.

To Recogonize Him or deny Him

----------


## usman.khawar

> Good response but what the heck is 'free will' for??


i think To " ina hadina sabeela wa imma shakirwn wa imma kaffora" Surah Dahir.

And we have given you (hadayt, mind) Whether to accept Him or reject Him.

To Recogonize Him or deny Him

----------


## BlackCat

> Good response but what the heck is 'free will' for??


my speculation is that free will allows man to either accept or deny truth, or in certain cases make one up

----------


## mazHur

> I am tired of this idea of Godliness. I do not know what to say and not to say and what to believe or not to believe. I am torn between belief and disbelief and in fact everybody is a believer to some extent particularly when he has a thousand questions and not a single convincing answer and maybe God could be the last answer every skeptic arrives at.
> 
> Likewise everyone is a disbeliever too because the source of our belief in God is religious books and the teachings of our elders.
> 
> I have read plenty of religious books and some are trashy. No religious books are without fallacies or myths and it is a matter of degrees and Christianity and Hinduisms have so many religious texts that have no logic and are baseless. The rest of religions too have trashy things.
> 
> People become foolishly argue for their particular faith and they are in their babyhood indoctrinated into a particular credo and they cannot uproot their doctrinal faiths no matter how much they are well read and they have no questioning mind since they are hooked to their faiths.
> 
> Where is there God? It is in their thought. Where is their thought? It is in their memory and all your memories are things of the past, dried up and dead. Therefore your memory is your God.
> ...


Condemnation of other religions such as Hinduism etc you remarked at is uncalled for. If you don't understand 'logarithms' you cannot condemn it as false just for the reason it is beyond your 'cognitive' capabilities or you just don't like the idea. Similarly all religions have a point in case, take it or leave it rather then puke disgust for it for personal reasons.

I suppose many here are quite grown up and sensible folk and they do not need their parents dinning about what to do or what not to do ...in many matters including religion.

Religion is not an illusion...though it may be a reflection of the Almighty!
What do you think about animists?? they believe in everything and nothing .
All the roads lead to Rome! God.

----------


## BlackCat

> Condemnation of other religions such as Hinduism etc you remarked at is uncalled for. If you don't understand 'logarithms' you cannot condemn it as false just for the reason it is beyond your 'cognitive' capabilities or you just don't like the idea. Similarly all religions have a point in case, take it or leave it rather then puke disgust for it for personal reasons.
> 
> I suppose many here are quite grown up and sensible folk and they do not need their parents dinning about what to do or what not to do ...in many matters including religion.
> 
> Religion is not an illusion...though it may be a reflection of the Almighty!
> What do you think about animists?? they believe in everything and nothing .
> All the roads lead to Rome! God.


Deja Vú?

----------


## mazHur

> Deja Vú?


No, one can feel it!

----------


## BlackCat

you do realize you posted something twice?

----------


## mazHur

> you do realize you posted something twice?


computer slip,I note . Usually the site detects and stops duplicates posts.......

----------


## Theunderground

God is just a historical misunderstanding of the personality/'soul' of strong men. Strong men are gods. The belief in one supreme governer or creator god is the biggest mistake and intellectual illusion man has ever fallen for. Strong men become gods by their actions and untiring desire,the rest will be content (or not as the case may be.) with religious or 'scientific' dogmas.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I just can't believe, as an atheist, I'm still called upon daily to defend my "decision" to NOT believe in god. It's completely obvious to me that there is zero evidence supporting this stuff. I wish we could move on from it. I think things would be more peaceful.

----------


## cafolini

Precisely. Because the only truly atheistic act of civilization was the postulation of God.

----------


## mazHur

Man proposes God disposes...only Man cannot do both.

----------


## cafolini

> Man proposes God disposes...only Man cannot do both.


That's Goddess. Sounds much more like my ex-wife.

----------


## mazHur

> That's Goddess. Sounds much more like my ex-wife.


Wow! Then she must be a strong lady!!

----------


## cafolini

> Wow! Then she must be a strong lady!!


Indeed. Being of this earth, she disposed better.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I just can't believe, as an atheist, I'm still called upon daily to defend my "decision" to NOT believe in god. It's completely obvious to me that there is zero evidence supporting this stuff. I wish we could move on from it. I think things would be more peaceful.


You know...I feel the same way about my decision to believe in God. Seems like many people on both sides of the coin just lack the respect for people to believe what they want to. It's completely obvious to me that He is real, but I respect your belief as well. I've got several friends on FB that we just don't discuss these things.

So, just curious...since Christmas is mostly pagan anyway (I'm not one of those who observes it religiously), do you observe the traditions of the season?

----------


## JuniperWoolf

I don't get atheists that are anti-Christmas. Even Nietzsche loved Christmas.

----------


## Theunderground

On a side issue,lets not make the colossal mistake that even as a philosophical titbit eliminating religion would make the earth more peaceful.Many people are by nature agressive,not believing in god doesnt necessarly make you more peaceful.

----------


## PoeticPassions

> I don't get atheists that are anti-Christmas. Even Nietzsche loved Christmas.


I love Christmas too. I just dislike the commercialization of Christmas and the materialism it has spurred in people, much like most other holidays (the mere idea of 'Black Friday' makes me shudder).




> I just can't believe, as an atheist, I'm still called upon daily to defend my "decision" to NOT believe in god. It's completely obvious to me that there is zero evidence supporting this stuff. I wish we could move on from it. I think things would be more peaceful.


I agree with this... though I think, at the end of the day, people will always find differences and things to argue about or disagree on.




> You know...I feel the same way about my decision to believe in God. Seems like many people on both sides of the coin just lack the respect for people to believe what they want to. It's completely obvious to me that He is real, but I respect your belief as well. I've got several friends on FB that we just don't discuss these things.



Bien, I definitely think that people need to respect one another more and that we should be more humble and respect each other's beliefs and faiths. However, though you feel similarly to Varenne, you should be aware that you are in the majority. Your position is the one that is more accepted in society (particularly in America, as opposed to maybe Western Europe), and that as the minority it is much more difficult to have a dissenting view.

----------


## mazHur

A look at history shows that the Huns, the Mongols etc had no religion yet they destroyed the world peace. This goes to prove that religion cannot be blamed for disturbing peace and BTW what is Peace?? Nothing, no one in the world was ever at 'peace'. Life is a struggle.....but religious as well as non-religious people are equally responsible for disturbing the world peace or peace of others due to their inherent instinct for power and supremacy.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I love Christmas too. I just dislike the commercialization of Christmas and the materialism it has spurred in people, much like most other holidays (the mere idea of 'Black Friday' makes me shudder).


I hate commercialization. Isn't it ironic that on Thursday we dedicate the day to being thankful for what we have, then on Friday we spend more money than any other day to buy MORE stuff.

----------


## OrphanPip

> A look at history shows that the Huns, the Mongols etc had no religion yet they destroyed the world peace. This goes to prove that religion cannot be blamed for disturbing peace and BTW what is Peace?? Nothing, no one in the world was ever at 'peace'. Life is a struggle.....but religious as well as non-religious people are equally responsible for disturbing the world peace or peace of others due to their inherent instinct for power and supremacy.


The Mongols were Buddhists and the Huns are not an ethnic group, but a political association of multiple Steppes people, who would have practised a diverse collection of pagan religions from the region.

----------


## mazHur

> The Mongols were Buddhists and the Huns are not an ethnic group, but a political association of multiple Steppes people, who would have practised a diverse collection of pagan religions from the region.


''Genghis Khan set up an institution that ensured complete religious freedom, though he himself was a shamanist. ''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio..._Mongol_Empire

----------


## mazHur

Huns and Mongols had no religion just like the Thugs of India.

''I would have guessed some sort of Asian animism, but Wikipedia says "unknown" so it must be true. Another site says "Tengriism" but that is a comic book hero site, so not sure how reliable it is.''




"Traditional religion of Turkic peoples and Mongols before their incorporation of major world religions. Incorporates elements of shamanism, animism, totemism and ancestor worship. Sometimes called called Goktanri religion"
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila
http://www.comicbookreligion.com/?Religi…

----------


## irishpixieb

Below I have a link for Thomas Aquinas' 5 Proofs for the existence of God. They are the foundation of my argument. Scroll down to "I answer that". You don't need to read the rest unless you're really interested. 

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.asp

Anyway, what Aquinas is saying is that there is a prime mover in the universe. He set off the Big Bang and he created everything. This mover controls all that goes on on this Earth. The issues that are addressed can all be lumped into the so-called "Problem of Evil". The "Problem of Evil" is simply the question of why a God that is good would let evil happen? And, it's a legitimate question. I ask it myself...a lot. But, what one has to rely on here is faith, in the end. Aquinas' arguments are pretty convincing. He uses logic to get his point across. But, logic seems to falter when it comes to the "Problem of Evil". 

The only thing I can say to this is that there is a reason. How much good has AIDS created? Think about all of the people who are currently helping those in need. Starving children is the same way. Think about the good that has sprung out of the evil. War has also had its benefits, despite the hellishness of it. Some of our greatest technology has sprung out of research that happened during war. Also, in World War II, women were given a chance to enter the working world and make a difference. (Sorry, I had to throw the feminist thing in there!) And hate is not the opposite of love. Hate implies that the other person cares. In a way, it is a kind of love because one cares enough about a person to hate them. 

There is no easy answer to the "Problem of Evil". No one has provided all the answers. I beg you not to give up on God yet. In due time, we may know the answers. Read the Book of Job in the Bible. It talks about all the things you reference (except Katy Perry haha). God requires faith, its as simple as that. 

Oh, and my final point. Pascal's Wager stated that he believed in God because it was a win win either way. If God existed, then he was good because he believed in God and would get into heaven. If God didn't exist, then he still would win because he was at least playing it safe. Just something to think about if nothing else. Other things I beg you to check out are Anselm's Proof of God and Descartes, although Descartes is a flawed argument...

That's all I wanted to say  :Smile:

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> You know...I feel the same way about my decision to believe in God. Seems like many people on both sides of the coin just lack the respect for people to believe what they want to. It's completely obvious to me that He is real, but I respect your belief as well. I've got several friends on FB that we just don't discuss these things.
> 
> So, just curious...since Christmas is mostly pagan anyway (I'm not one of those who observes it religiously), do you observe the traditions of the season?


I do celebrate Christmas, Thanksgiving too. I don't put up pretenses about beliefs, I just enjoy decorating, making tasty treats, and giving. Sociocultural norms, and all of that.  :Biggrin:

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I do celebrate Christmas, Thanksgiving too. I don't put up pretenses about beliefs, I just enjoy decorating, making tasty treats, and giving. Sociocultural norms, and all of that.


oh...we are going to have a problem if you DON'T like pumpkin pie...

Have you ever had Shoo Fly Pie (aka Wet Bottom Pie)?

----------


## JuniperWoolf

Christmas without gifts is just Thanksgiving. I _love_ gifts, I love having this little package sitting in my house with my name on it, and I don't know what it is, and the anticipation. I like making lists of the people that I'm buying for, dwelling on who they are and what would make them happy and then putting together little parcels of goodies for them.

It doesn't have to be expensive, I have a cousin who once gave me a jar of feta in oil with spices that he made himself and it was one of the best things I've ever recieved. Feta is one of my favorite things on earth and I loved learning that he remembered and put time and effort into creating something just for me. My brother made me a "cold kit" when he was little, and it was genius. I was often sick as a kid, so he gave me a nice little box that he decorated himself. It looked beautiful and sat under the tree for weeks, and when I finally opened it I found packages of neo-citrin, a hot water bottle, some trashy books which I love to read when I'm sick, some vapor rub and a eucalyptus-scented teddy bear. It was brilliant, so personal. I could tell that he put a lot of thought into who I was and what I would need that he could give me.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Aw. I love that, Juniper. Very sweet.

Bien, I do like pumpkin pie, if it's spiced properly. Is shoo-fly pie anything like pecan pie? I have no idea.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Huns and Mongols had no religion just like the Thugs of India.


Since when do shamanism, animism and ancestor worship not count as religion?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Aw. I love that, Juniper. Very sweet.
> 
> Bien, I do like pumpkin pie, if it's spiced properly. Is shoo-fly pie anything like pecan pie? I have no idea.


Shoo Fly is similar to pecan, but with a strong molasses flavor and a crumb top. It's a Pennsylvania Dutch recipe. I love it, but it's one of those desserts that you really like, or you really don't.

----------


## mazHur

Since God has given us Free Will, it is for us to choose between good and evil.
However, since this Free Will is subject to the Will of God we note a variety of 'evil' that boggles our minds. Perhaps, humans are easy to 'judge' things as Evil if these don't come up to their mark. God's 'mark' may be different......maybe He thinks 'poison' is the antidote of poison yet 'poison' is necessary for Him to keep the Universe in balance.

----------


## mazHur

> Since when do shamanism, animism and ancestor worship not count as religion?


All these feature in almost every religion but without a proper name, hence calling them as religion is not quite understandable.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Since when do shamanism, animism and ancestor worship not count as religion?


I guess I could also count "atheism" as a religion as well. It's just another belief system.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

No. It isn't. The same way not collecting butterflies isn't a hobby.

----------


## OrphanPip

> I guess I could also count "atheism" as a religion as well. It's just another belief system.


Nonsense, shamanism is a clearly articulated form of religious belief, it simply involves the direct mediation of an individual in the tribe and the spirits/deities of the specific religion. Animistic religions are just as complex, may Native American societies involved very intricate collections of mythological nartives and traditions, believes and rituals. The statement that the huns had no religion, because they were not institutionalized at an imperial level, or monotheistic is just silly.

The reason there are no names for the religions of the Huns is because, one they were a short lived political amalgamation, and the cultures that composed the Huns were not literate. We have no direct information about the culture of those people, but it's silly to assume that they would be unique in not having an organized set of mythology or not having names for their belief system.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Nonsense, shamanism is a clearly articulated form of religious belief, it simply involves the direct mediation of an individual in the tribe and the spirits/deities of the specific religion. Animistic religions are just as complex, may Native American societies involved very intricate collections of mythological nartives and traditions, believes and rituals. The statement that the huns had no religion, because they were not institutionalized at an imperial level, or monotheistic is just silly.
> 
> The reason there are no names for the religions of the Huns is because, one they were a short lived political amalgamation, and the cultures that composed the Huns were not literate. We have no direct information about the culture of those people, but it's silly to assume that they would be unique in not having an organized set of mythology or not having names for their belief system.


There are many people who simply choose not to believe in God, and that is perfectly fine. However, there are those who are adamant that not only should they themselves not believe in God, but that EVERYONE should not believe in God. There are many atheists who will ridicule those who have a belief system. However, they choose to follow the scientific belief. The evidence is fashionably cooked by those who have espoused the evolutionary model. However, they want to convert anyone and everyone to their belief system. They criticize every religion out there making their belief system a religion of their own.

----------


## Sancho

Oh man. I've gotta try one of those Shoo-Fly Pies.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Religions are belief systems based on stories concocted by people. Water erosion isn't concocted by people. Stars aren't. Rocks aren't. Oceans aren't. Science isn't a belief system, it's physical. Obviously.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Religions are belief systems based on stories concocted by people. Water erosion isn't concocted by people. Stars aren't. Rocks aren't. Oceans aren't. Science isn't a belief system, it's physical. Obviously.


True science observes all the evidence. There is evidence that contradicts the theories of many scientists. So should they modify their theory or throw out the evidence? Because they tell a story that they have concocted based on sketchy evidence. How do the stars, water erosion, rocks, and oceans support the story that they tell? You have stories that you choose to believe, as I have stories that I choose to believe. A story can be true or false. Maybe both stories have truths and falsities, but we choose to believe them. Why should we assume that my stories are false and that your stories are true? An open mind is a wonderful thing.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Science isn't based on stories.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Science isn't based on stories.


Scientific theory is though. There's this story that I once heard that one celled creatures came about by happenstance and they evolved into more complex creatures. This wild story goes on and on....THIS is NOT Science.

----------


## Darcy88

Bien have you read Augustine's _Confessions_? I'm no believer but I'm reading it right now. A very articulate and emphatic declaration and discussion of faith, I think it would be pure gold to any Christian.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Bien, when genuine evidence disproves a theory, it is thrown out. Thousands of scientists are attempting to disprove theories at any given time. That's part of scientific method. Asking over and over and over, "Can this be disproven?" Word of mouth bible stories don't disprove anything physical. I think this stubbornness on your part is an attempt for you to feel validated in your choice of beliefs. No scientist or atheist is going to validate an old fairy tale.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Scientific theory is though. There's this story that I once heard that one celled creatures came about by happenstance and they evolved into more complex creatures. This wild story goes on and on....THIS is NOT Science.


Meh. I don't argue with people who don't believe in evolution anymore. It's an exhaustive, pointless exercise.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Meh. I don't argue with people who don't believe in evolution anymore. It's an exhaustive, pointless exercise.


I agree concerning those who believe that it's a fact.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Even the Vatican acknowledges the reality of evolution. Is that why you don't like Catholics?

----------


## OrphanPip

> Meh. I don't argue with people who don't believe in evolution anymore. It's an exhaustive, pointless exercise.


I've tried, it's pointless, I can't even convince him that the Earth is more than 8000 years old.

----------


## cafolini

> Even the Vatican acknowledges the reality of evolution. Is that why you don't like Catholics?


The Vatican is not prepared to acknowledge the reality of evolution. They know didley about it. They are prepared for involution.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I've tried, it's pointless, I can't even convince him that the Earth is more than 8000 years old.


I'm still waiting for explanations for the evidence that contradicts their theories. Too many holes in the theory. Funny, I still can't convince you that there is an intelligent design, and that requires an intelligent Designer. Oh...you still think that it all happened TOTALLY by accident.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> The Vatican is not prepared to acknowledge the reality of evolution. They know didley about it. They are prepared for involution.


I'm sure you're right, caf. I was just referring to statements Vatican priests gave on the matter. One priest went so far as to say the bible stories are just stories that are helpful for raising moral, happy people. He said yes, evolution has been proven. I am in no way condoning or advocating Catholicism by saying this. I'm merely pointing out that even very religious people can see that evolution is a part of life and change. It doesn't make sense to deny it. It's like a person saying that because they are religious, they can just choose to believe that the sky is made of marshmallows, and then saying their marshmallow sky theory is just as valid as the blue sky "theory".

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I'm sure you're right, caf. I was just referring to statements Vatican priests gave on the matter. One priest went so far as to say the bible stories are just stories that are helpful for raising moral, happy people. He said yes, evolution has been proven. I am in no way condoning or advocating Catholicism by saying this. I'm merely pointing out that even very religious people can see that evolution is a part of life and change. It doesn't make sense to deny it. It's like a person saying that because they are religious, they can just choose to believe that the sky is made of marshmallows, and then saying their marshmallow sky theory is just as valid as the blue sky "theory".


I don't have any respect for the religion of the Vatican, or their opinions. However, considering the evidences. I was taught in school that it takes millions of years for coal to form, but the truth of the matter is that it takes mere decades for wood to coalify. So why are the schools still teaching that it takes millions of years? There's also evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with mankind. Pictographs and pottery has been found showing that man had seen dinosaurs long ago, but it seems that conflicts with the current teachings of many evolutionists. Why do we not see these things in the schools? It's because this evidence has been rejected. Since when do honest scientists reject evidence? I'd like to know.

----------


## mazHur

> I guess I could also count "atheism" as a religion as well. It's just another belief system.


At the best these can be termed as ''variations' of a belief system...not beliefs.
I think belief and faith are two different domains?

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> I don't have any respect for the religion of the Vatican, or their opinions. However, considering the evidences. I was taught in school that it takes millions of years for coal to form, but the truth of the matter is that it takes mere decades for wood to coalify. So why are the schools still teaching that it takes millions of years? There's also evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with mankind. Pictographs and pottery has been found showing that man had seen dinosaurs long ago, but it seems that conflicts with the current teachings of many evolutionists. Why do we not see these things in the schools? It's because this evidence has been rejected. Since when do honest scientists reject evidence? I'd like to know.


 :FRlol:  Wow. I can't believe what I just read there. Man and dinosaurs living together! Sorry, Bien, but your credibility is completely gone.

----------


## MystyrMystyry

> I'm still waiting for explanations for the evidence that contradicts their theories. Too many holes in the theory. Funny, I still can't convince you that there is an intelligent design, and that requires an intelligent Designer. Oh...you still think that it all happened TOTALLY by accident.


The trouble with Intelligent Design Theory is it doesn't consider the big picture. Where did God come from? Was God intelligently designed by another God? And that God by another God before? Where did that God come from? Perhaps just spring into existence TOTALLY by accident?

Perhaps God created himself intelligently from the void?

If you don't have the answer then what makes you feel you can dump on an alternative theory to how life began? Life is physical and can be studied, and it's easier to see that it happened by chance - which doesn't make it any less amazing - in fact if anything it would surely make it more so?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Mystyry, you are so smart!

I agree with, Mutatis. I'm sorry, Bien. That approach just doesn't hold water. I don't think I can participate much more for this one.

----------


## mazHur

you cannot grow tree even if you water it with a million gallons of water a day!!
Teaching is always done slowly---metered--to be assimilated by the brain. Changes take time to complete....Rome was not built in a day!




> The trouble with Intelligent Design Theory is it doesn't consider the big picture. Where did God come from? Was God intelligently designed by another God? And that God by another God before? Where did that God come from? Perhaps just spring into existence TOTALLY by accident?
> 
> Perhaps God created himself intelligently from the void?
> 
> If you don't have the answer then what makes you feel you can dump on an alternative theory to how life began? Life is physical and can be studied, and it's easier to see that it happened by chance - which doesn't make it any less amazing - in fact if anything it would surely make it more so?


Where does love come from?? This Universe and all in it is not totally physical-there is a spiritual side to it as well which is still beyond 'science's' reach!

----------


## MystyrMystyry

Ah well, where Love comes from is a separate issue, and a far greater and more important thing than all the 'ologies and 'osophies combined (though shelter, sleep, food and drink and good music are also up there).

God as a metaphor for Love I have no problem with, but God as a metaphor for Absolutely Everything Else... that's pretty unsteady ground to me, especially as we're given free will but The Almighty knows what's going to happen anyway - that's more of a Gordian Knot than an answer. But we have Love so why worry about it at all?

----------


## KCurtis

> I don't have any respect for the religion of the Vatican, or their opinions. However, considering the evidences. I was taught in school that it takes millions of years for coal to form, but the truth of the matter is that it takes mere decades for wood to coalify. So why are the schools still teaching that it takes millions of years? There's also evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with mankind. Pictographs and pottery has been found showing that man had seen dinosaurs long ago, but it seems that conflicts with the current teachings of many evolutionists. Why do we not see these things in the schools? It's because this evidence has been rejected. Since when do honest scientists reject evidence? I'd like to know.


Please cite your references for coal. Pictures and pottery is not evidence that people saw dinosaurs. If you would like to know, find out by consulting scientists.

----------


## KCurtis

> I've tried, it's pointless, I can't even convince him that the Earth is more than 8000 years old.


At least we all can agree that the earth is round.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> At least we all can agree that the earth is round.


I guess the late member Musicology was before your time.  :FRlol:

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Wow. I can't believe what I just read there. Man and dinosaurs living together! Sorry, Bien, but your credibility is completely gone.


What about the credibility of sound evidence? I'm not saying that these things bring forth 100% proof by themselves, but this is indeed evidence that many in the scientific world totally rejects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtDbXN0RILE

----------


## krymsonkyng

> At least we all can agree that the earth is round.


Wrong. Time cube. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> Wow. I can't believe what I just read there. Man and dinosaurs living together!


_I know, right?!?_ I've had conversations with these people in real life, they insist that wood that's been charred to the point that the composite material no longer resembles wood is a fossil, even though real fossils are made of hard solid stone and _not_ flaky coal-like blackened wood. They also don't take into account the _stratafied layers_ of earth. Apparently, fossils were buried under mountains of stratified layers of widely differing types of hard, solid rock during a world-wide flood (even though there's not enough water on earth to cover the every landmass and mountain). Faster animals are in the top layers of course because they ran away from the rising water, except that raptors are embedded thousands of feet deeper than sloths and slugs. Apparently, dinosaurs were just _really slow_ runners.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> What about the credibility of sound evidence? I'm not saying that these things bring forth 100% proof by themselves, but this is indeed evidence that many in the scientific world totally rejects.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtDbXN0RILE


Sorry, but drawings, engravings, and sculptures of what vaguely looks like dinosaurs hardly seems credible, sound evidence. I honestly thought there would be more than that . . . but there wasn't, aside from the even more vague fossil "evidence." So, according to what this presenter posits, I guess we should also consider the possibility that there was a creature that was part man and part lion in Egypt. After all, they made a sculpture of it, so maybe it actually existed? People who lived thousands of years ago surely didn't possess any creativity.

----------


## OrphanPip

Even if you wanted to say these things were based in reality, humans co-existed along megafauna, like the Megalania, which was a very large lizard.

Also, the fact that most European and African dragon myths revolve around water suggests that they were probably inspired by crocodiles. You can trace the development of later models of dragons, like the flying fire breathing more dinosaur like kind as a later development and clearly invention.

Asian dragon myths are clearly based on snakes anatomically.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

Yeah, the earliest giant animal myth that I can remember reading is Mars' giant snake that was killed by Europa's brother whatsisname in order to sow it's teeth and make a new civilization. Besides, it isn't difficult to see how stories about giant animals would have been imagined by our ancestors, we're all fascinated by giant animals (imagine how the ancient sailor who stumbled across a blue whale would have had his imagination sparked). I've read about giant snakes, giant dogs, giant bulls, why are stories about giant reptiles with wings indicative of dinosaurs romping around with humans? The _others_ didn't exist.

----------


## deryk

> Where does love come from?? This Universe and all in it is not totally physical-there is a spiritual side to it as well which is still beyond 'science's' reach!


Disagree. All things are materials. Even our thoughts. That doesn't make them any less valid. It just makes them less fictional.

----------


## Paulclem

> Disagree. All things are materials. Even our thoughts. That doesn't make them any less valid. It just makes them less fictional.


In what way are thoughts material?

----------


## MystyrMystyry

I think a lot of the evolutionary mis-information is due to the perspective of human/homo sapien (us) as being perfect.

These big brains, and long legs and flat feet, and vocal cords/language, and hairless differently coloured hides - they're not intentional adaptations like tool/weapons, but a series of mutations that allowed us to rule over the landscape - but not as agile in trees as certain primates.

We're amazing really, and it's sort of reassuring to know that some of our simian ancestors were around at the time of the dinosaurs, but when did we 'develop' into actual recognisable human form?

There's Lucy's bones - but they're merely the oldest we've found (I haven't been keeping up with it - are there any older?), we may well have become human on a dinosaur-less, sabre-tooth lion-less, island off of Gondwana (for all it matters - though unlikely), but if Lucy was 1.8 million years ago then what shape were we in 1.8 million years before - swinging from the branches, or had the evolution already occurred 18 million (or180 million) years previous?

Thing is about the specific date we don't know, and we probably did cohabit the Earth with Gigantosaurus and her ilk. But back then survival instinct would have been pretty high along with infant mortality rates and a probable life expectency of 15-20 years due to unbelievable stress levels.

Who would have had the time to stop and paint on a cavewall a wanted dead or alive poster of T-Rex public enemy no 1?

Come to that who would have had time to construct burial ceremonies either? Even if a shovel had been invented. Bones left in the sand break down fairly quickly compared to those protected by a layer of dirt, and so are lost.

----------


## YesNo

> We're amazing really, and it's sort of reassuring to know that some of our simian ancestors were around at the time of the dinosaurs, but *when did we 'develop' into actual recognisable human form*?
> ...
> 
> Who would have had the time to stop and paint on a cavewall a wanted dead or alive poster of *T-Rex public enemy no 1*?


I remember reading a book by Brian Sykes called _The Seven Daughters of Eve_ which used mitochondrial DNA to trace back the age of the human species to about 150,000 years. I don't know if that is still considered a good estimate. He also mentioned that our species and the Neanderthal's did not cross although I recall reading something recently hinting that they might have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Daughters_of_Eve

If humans existed during the time of dinosaurs like T-Rex, I suspect we would have seen a lot more cave paintings of those guys than we do today, but we probably wouldn't have survived--at least based on how they behaved in _Jurassic Park_.

----------


## krymsonkyng

> In what way are thoughts material?


In that a CAT scan can observe them perhaps.

----------


## Paulclem

> In that a CAT scan can observe them perhaps.


How can a cat scan see thoughts?

----------


## krymsonkyng

> How can a cat scan see thoughts?


You're right, a CT scan can't. What is the scan that shows electrical impulses within the brain? Can anyone help me in naming the scan that shows brain activity?

I know also that scientists have developed devices approaching the ability to read thoughts, for example the robotic arm that moves at a thought. So thoughts are at least physical in that they affect the physical world.

----------


## deryk

> In what way are thoughts material?


If there isn't an influx of sodium or potassium or a chain of electrons to complete a synapse, then that thought you were about to have does not occur. Did you think perception was magic? This is decades old information. Neurologists have more recently observed things like love and have been able to replicate the conditions. There is no magical land of abstractions, only the tiny hard copies of reality inside our brains and our ability to manipulate those copies. EVERYTHING is material. That doesn't mean those things aren't special. It just means we don't live in a world of make-believe.




> In that a CAT scan can observe them perhaps.


CAT scans are old hat, but you're on the right track.




> I know also that scientists have developed devices approaching the ability to read thoughts, for example the robotic arm that moves at a thought. So thoughts are at least physical in that they affect the physical world.


http://emotiv.com/
What you're describing is already a household item. They are difficult to use, but they do in fact work.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> If there isn't an influx of sodium or potassium or a chain of electrons to complete a synapse, then that thought you were about to have does not occur. Did you think perception was magic? This is decades old information. Neurologists have more recently observed things like love and have been able to replicate the conditions. There is no magical land of abstractions, only the tiny hard copies of reality inside our brains and our ability to manipulate those copies. EVERYTHING is material. That doesn't mean those things aren't special. It just means we don't live in a world of make-believe.


The action of thinking is a material process, but it's a bit harder to claim that what we think, for example pondering the possibility that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, is material. Unless I'm mistaken, no machine can read our thoughts. They can see them take place and make basic observations, but they can't read our thoughts.

----------


## OrphanPip

> I think a lot of the evolutionary mis-information is due to the perspective of human/homo sapien (us) as being perfect.
> 
> These big brains, and long legs and flat feet, and vocal cords/language, and hairless differently coloured hides - they're not intentional adaptations like tool/weapons, but a series of mutations that allowed us to rule over the landscape - but not as agile in trees as certain primates.


A lot could say that most animals are amazing in this sense, they are all, in the words of Darwin, perfect in their interconnectedness and adaptation to their surroundings. There's nothing special about humans biologically.




> We're amazing really, and it's sort of reassuring to know that some of our simian ancestors were around at the time of the dinosaurs, but when did we 'develop' into actual recognisable human form?
> 
> There's Lucy's bones - but they're merely the oldest we've found (I haven't been keeping up with it - are there any older?), we may well have become human on a dinosaur-less, sabre-tooth lion-less, island off of Gondwana (for all it matters - though unlikely), but if Lucy was 1.8 million years ago then what shape were we in 1.8 million years before - swinging from the branches, or had the evolution already occurred 18 million (or180 million) years previous?


Absolutely not, we diverged from monkeys less than 20 million years ago, and the earliest placental mammal that we can trace the ape lineage to emerged around 60 million years ago, after the extinction of the dinosaur, and it likely resembled a sort of quadrupedal raccoon like animal with grasping hands.

Lucy is not human either, she is a hominid (H. erectus to be specific), that is she is in the same lineage of upright apes we are in. Modern humans are only around 300,000 years old. It's a mistake to understand evolution as this progressive process where Lucy evolved into humans. Hominid ancestors are not unique either, the fossil record shows that multiple lineages of hominids have lived simultaneously around the same time. Humans and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and likely shared an ancestor, being from divergent clades. 



This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works, lineages radiate like the branches of trees from common sources, forming a web like pattern if you wanted to trace population histories along lines. 

The picture above groups fossils anatomically and temporally. What you can see from reviewing that picture is that some of the lineages that gave way to humans also gave way to a number of other hominids that likely went extinct. Hominids were not a rare kind of animal over the evolutionary scale, humans are only special because we managed not to go extinct.




> Thing is about the specific date we don't know, and we probably did cohabit the Earth with Gigantosaurus and her ilk. But back then survival instinct would have been pretty high along with infant mortality rates and a probable life expectency of 15-20 years due to unbelievable stress levels.


No, humans are roughly 300,000 years old as a species, and anything that can be reasonably described as human like could not have existed prior than 2.5 million years ago. Something ape like didn't even exist 20 million years ago.





> I remember reading a book by Brian Sykes called _The Seven Daughters of Eve_ which used mitochondrial DNA to trace back the age of the human species to about 150,000 years. I don't know if that is still considered a good estimate. He also mentioned that our species and the Neanderthal's did not cross although I recall reading something recently hinting that they might have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Daughters_of_Eve


That would be the date of the last common matrilineal ancestor of all extent human beings. It's a different indicator than the age of the species. As the last matrilineal ancestor of most people from specific ethnic groups in isolated breeding populations might only be a few hundred years back.

----------


## deryk

> Unless I'm mistaken, no machine can read our thoughts.


You are mistaken, but not completely. Marketing firms already use observations of brain functions to effectively determine product placements. Can scientific techniques "read your mind" verbatim? No, but we're probably much closer than you realize. Our thoughts aren't beyond ratio and measurement. It's a matter of time, not an impossibility.

But it's all beside the point anyhow. The point isn't that it can be done, the point is that those materials are verifiably the makeup of what we think and feel. That isn't even new science, it's old science. Form IS function. The separation between the two only exists in our understanding (or lack thereof).

----------


## mazHur

BTW where will 'thoughts' go after death????

----------


## deryk

Into the air and ground and other organisms. I guess you could use it to support a belief in reincarnation, but not a supernatural world of spirits.

----------


## mazHur

> Into the air and ground and other organisms.


That's a shot in the dark!

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Into the air and ground and other organisms. I guess you could use it to support a belief in reincarnation, but not a supernatural world of spirits.


Well, that's scientific.  :FRlol:

----------


## mazHur

> Well, that's scientific.


I wish it were and there was no question of matter and non-matter. :Biggrin5:

----------


## deryk

> Well, that's scientific.


And you had what in mind? Don't rebut without offering something.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Sorry, but drawings, engravings, and sculptures of what vaguely looks like dinosaurs hardly seems credible, sound evidence. I honestly thought there would be more than that . . . but there wasn't, aside from the even more vague fossil "evidence." So, according to what this presenter posits, I guess we should also consider the possibility that there was a creature that was part man and part lion in Egypt. After all, they made a sculpture of it, so maybe it actually existed? People who lived thousands of years ago surely didn't possess any creativity.


I'm sorry, but that is not just creativity. I figured that you would just dismiss the evidence. It seems that any evidence that I could ever give would be dismissed as well. There are pictures (good pictures) of a triceratops and a small T-Rex, which could only have been drawn that accurately if one would have actually SEEN it. This is not just one case of chance. But it seems that evolutionists like the extremely high odds...or rather impossible odds. Don't lecture me on credibility. Evolutionists try to construct a complete skeletal modal based on sketchy parts. Let me see some of YOUR evidence.

----------


## MystyrMystyry

First one has to question the evidence - in this case what 'evidence' is there that they were drawn in the time of the dinosaurs, and not by a couple of pranksters last month or year (in recent history). Absolutely not one jot of evidence! I can count the evidence on the fingers of one foot - none, zero, zip and zilch! If they are badly drawn creatures (say mammals) that happened to look a little like dinosaurs, well I suggest everyone read Salvador Dali's Hidden Faces to avoid further confusion.

Jesus would be frowning from his burnt toast...

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> And you had what in mind? Don't rebut without offering something.


Rebut? Rebut what? This is what you said:



> Into the air and ground and other organisms. I guess you could use it to support a belief in reincarnation, but not a supernatural world of spirits.


How am I supposed to rebut that? What is there to rebut? Here's my rebuttal. When a person dies, their spirit drifts through the air into the nearest animal, preferably a cat, and then that animal, in secret, portals itself into an ethereal alternate universe where the spirit is dropped off in a waiting room where it awaits an embryo to inhabit. That's my alternative. It seems just as likely.



> I'm sorry, but that is not just creativity. I figured that you would just dismiss the evidence. It seems that any evidence that I could ever give would be dismissed as well. There are pictures (good pictures) of a triceratops and a small T-Rex, which could only have been drawn that accurately if one would have actually SEEN it. This is not just one case of chance. But it seems that evolutionists like the extremely high odds...or rather impossible odds. Don't lecture me on credibility. Evolutionists try to construct a complete skeletal modal based on sketchy parts. Let me see some of YOUR evidence.


What "good pictures"? I saw drawings and sculptures that looked on par with what kindergarteners do, just like all caveman drawings. That is absolutely NO proof that they saw a dinosaur. More likely they saw a lizard, maybe even a big one like a Komodo Dragon and either A. got *creative* or, (and just as likely) B. they were poor artists. You explain to me how that is credible proof. 

You accuse me of dismissing your evidence off-hand without even considering it--a baseless assumption, especially since I watched and considered that whole video of yours. I can easily link troves and troves of evidence to suggest that dinosaurs indeed existed millions of years ago, and _not_ with humans, but you'd dismiss it just as you accuse me of doing. Hell, you already dismissed it above before it was even posted! 

Here's something I don't get. What does it matter? Are you a Bible literalist? Does the possibility of evolution and dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago somehow invalidate your faith? Isn't that what creationism was invented for, to give comfort to the religious as they are confronted with reality?

----------


## deryk

> It seems just as likely.


Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Maybe you should read the rest of my posts in their entirety before responding. These loaded "religious" threads become encumbered with more banality than they can support simply because they attract people's emotions more than anything else.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> What "good pictures"? I saw drawings and sculptures that looked on par with what kindergarteners do, just like all caveman drawings. That is absolutely NO proof that they saw a dinosaur. More likely they saw a lizard, maybe even a big one like a Komodo Dragon and either A. got *creative* or, (and just as likely) B. they were poor artists. You explain to me how that is credible proof. 
> 
> You accuse me of dismissing your evidence off-hand without even considering it--a baseless assumption, especially since I watched and considered that whole video of yours. I can easily link troves and troves of evidence to suggest that dinosaurs indeed existed millions of years ago, and _not_ with humans, but you'd dismiss it just as you accuse me of doing. Hell, you already dismissed it above before it was even posted! 
> 
> Here's something I don't get. What does it matter? Are you a Bible literalist? Does the possibility of evolution and dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago somehow invalidate your faith? Isn't that what creationism was invented for, to give comfort to the religious as they are confronted with reality?




This looks like a good picture to me... better than Picasso's best.
You're the one that ridiculed me for thinking that man coexisted with dinosaurs. How did the Inca's know what a triceratops looked like? What does it matter? It matters that scientists and the education system has been lying to us, and that evidence like this has not been shown to people so that they can decide if the Inca's lived along with the triceratops, or not. This is NOT a Komodo dragon. You cannot offer any evidence that can disprove something that is obviously been proven. But be my guest....show us what you've got...

----------


## deryk

> Well, that's scientific.


It wasn't intended to be. Read the posts at which it was directed. I'm not going to baby-sit your lack of sarcasm detection on a literary forum. Read the context. I'm sorry, this response originally confused me because I assumed you understood that I was making an argument for materialism. I didn't know where you were coming from.




> This looks like a good picture to me... better than Picasso's best.
> You're the one that ridiculed me for thinking that man coexisted with dinosaurs. How did the Inca's know what a triceratops looked like? What does it matter? It matters that scientists and the education system has been lying to us, and that evidence like this has not been shown to people so that they can decide if the Inca's lived along with the triceratops, or not. This is NOT a Komodo dragon. You cannot offer any evidence that can disprove something that is obviously been proven. But be my guest....show us what you've got...


Those particular burial stones are a hoax. Deinonychus skeletons are not, however. Dinosaurs are birds now.

Not that it matters in the slightest. If there was a god, I doubt it would disregard its own methods of creation.

I thought the purpose of this thread was whether or not a supreme being exists, I don't think creation by magic supports any argument.

----------


## Darcy88

> This looks like a good picture to me... better than Picasso's best.
> You're the one that ridiculed me for thinking that man coexisted with dinosaurs. How did the Inca's know what a triceratops looked like? What does it matter? It matters that scientists and the education system has been lying to us, and that evidence like this has not been shown to people so that they can decide if the Inca's lived along with the triceratops, or not. This is NOT a Komodo dragon. You cannot offer any evidence that can disprove something that is obviously been proven. But be my guest....show us what you've got...


That sure does closely resemble a triceratops. I understand why you would use it to confirm your beliefs. But really, do you think this resemblence, which could be attibuted to some combination of imagination and chance, should be sufficient cause to outright do away with all the science which indicates, if not entirely proves, that dinosaurs existed tens of millions of years before humans ever appeared on this earth? Scientists are after the truth. They come from many different backgrounds, atheist and religious. Here or there a scientist may have a hidden agenda, but, as a whole, science is an "objective" pursuit of the truth. Science itself is not inherently anti-Biblical, anti-religous. Its the facts which are.

Edit: After doing a little digging it seems that those stones are a hoax. They cannot be carbon-dated. The guy who found them has confessed to decorating them himself. Others show pictures of ancient astronauts. Not legitimate.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Those particular burial stones are a hoax. Deinonychus skeletons are not, however. Dinosaurs are birds now.


Even if the stones were not a hoax, it requires quite a leap of the imagination to conclude they represent real animals. First of all, they would be a rather bad depiction of a triceratops since the horns are in the wrong place, and they didn't have back spines. Secondly, if we say this represented something Incans actually lived alongside, you'd have to agree that Greeks really did live alongside gorgons, hydras, and sphinxes. Moreover, given the tremendous amount of evidence about the age of dinosaurs, if we assumed these depicted things the Incans had seen, it would be more reasonable (but still ridiculous) to say they came across fossils and imagined them as alive. To say they actually lived alongside triceratops requires massive delusions about the amount of evidence out there.

But, of course, they have been admitted by the artist who created them that they are a hoax. Their veracity has been promoted by a man who has made quite a lot of money off of operating a tourist site based around them.

----------


## MystyrMystyry

> This looks like a good picture to me... better than Picasso's best.
> You're the one that ridiculed me for thinking that man coexisted with dinosaurs. How did the Inca's know what a triceratops looked like? What does it matter? It matters that scientists and the education system has been lying to us, and that evidence like this has not been shown to people so that they can decide if the Inca's lived along with the triceratops, or not. This is NOT a Komodo dragon. You cannot offer any evidence that can disprove something that is obviously been proven. But be my guest....show us what you've got...


That's interesting - I'd want to check that date first though (and it may still be a forgery).

But given the benefit of the doubt, most of Inca culture was wiped out when Cortez arrived around 1500, and why they couldn't have had a dragon belief when China and Europe both had one - all stable and ancient civilisations each - well, they may well have...

1500 to 500 hundred years ago (supposedly) is well within the timeframe that humans have been mining and finding fossil skeletons though. If that's a triceratops and not an extinct relative of an armadillo (Dodoes became suddenly extinct too - though because they and their eggs were tasty, perhaps these met a similar fate) I'd be surprised.

Third possibility is still that the artist simply imagined a beast that happened to resemble very much a particular dinosaur. And also the oral tradition for established tribes with limited written language is very powerful. I hope their ancestors were around at the time of the big lizards; that would truly be something incredible.

Still a bit Chariots of the Gods to me however

----------


## Darcy88

Apparently biblical literalists are also forced to believe that Noah brought dinosaurs onto his ark.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> It wasn't intended to be. Read the posts at which it was directed. I'm not going to baby-sit your lack of sarcasm detection on a literary forum. Read the context. I'm sorry, this response originally confused me because I assumed you understood that I was making an argument for materialism. I didn't know where you were coming from.


When I said, "Well, that's scientific.  :FRlol: " I was just kidding around. Chill out. As to the purpose of this thread, deryk, read the idiotic OP. The purpose of this thread was a dumb joke. I can't believe it made it to a second page, much less spawned the discussion it did. 

As for the triceratops picture from Bien, others have done the work for me by pointing out that the picture is a forgery. Try again.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> As for the triceratops picture from Bien, others have done the work for me by pointing out that the picture is a forgery.


The "artist" who admitted to creating the pottery was a paid leftist puppet, and carbon dating is invaild.

(this Biblical literalism stuff is easy)




> Apparently biblical literalists are also forced to believe that Noah brought dinosaurs onto his ark.


Also, _he managed to round up two of every individual non-flying insect on every continent of earth_. I can't decide which sounds most unlikely.

----------


## MystyrMystyry

Triceratops skeleton 1898 ^ Still a fantastic looking head.

That 'Inca artist' really was quite creative.

----------


## KCurtis

> I guess the late member Musicology was before your time.


Oh, was there someone on here who thought the earth is flat? :Banghead:

----------


## YesNo

> Oh, was there someone on here who thought the earth is flat?


I think the universe is flat. 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Apparently biblical literalists are also forced to believe that Noah brought dinosaurs onto his ark.


Please tell me why that would be far fetched? Do you think that the dinosaurs were hatched out in a colossal size?

----------


## Darcy88

> Please tell me why that would be far fetched? Do you think that the dinosaurs were hatched out in a colossal size?


Try nabbing a bear cub from every bear species, polar, black, grizzley, ect, and if you have any limbs left then go get a young lion, tiger, cheetah, panther, ect. Good luck. I think getting two baby dinosaurs of every dinosaur species would be a task immeasurably more daunting than even that. Actually it would be impossible, since we know that dinosaurs went extinct long before man first drew breath.

And I don't see how he would even know whether he'd gotten every species. The science of taxonomy was crude if not non-existent back then.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> Oh, was there someone on here who thought the earth is flat?


Yeah dude, I'm pretty sure he thought Mozart didn't exist too. Also, those vapor lines left after a plane flies overhead? Deliberately excreted poisonous chemicals orchistrated by the British government.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Try nabbing a bear cub from every bear species, polar, black, grizzley, ect, and if you have any limbs left then go get a young lion, tiger, cheetah, panther, ect. Good luck. I think getting two baby dinosaurs of every dinosaur species would be a task immeasurably more daunting than even that. Actually it would be impossible, since we know that dinosaurs went extinct long before man first drew breath.
> 
> And I don't see how he would even know whether he'd gotten every species. The science of taxonomy was crude if not non-existent back then.


We KNOW? I'm sorry, but that goes against the evidence. Oh...but it's easier to just throw out the evidence instead of changing our beliefs.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Oh, was there someone on here who thought the earth is flat?


He thought many things. 


And I can't help but notice Bien has decided to just ignore how everyone pointed out that his wonderful piece of "evidence" was a fake. I think this would apply nicely to Bien himself:



> You cannot offer any evidence that can disprove something that is obviously been proven. But be my guest....show us what you've got...





> We KNOW? I'm sorry, but that goes against the evidence. Oh...but it's easier to just throw out the evidence instead of changing our beliefs.


That was added while I was writing. It's just hilarious. Speak for yourself, Bien.

----------


## Darcy88

> We KNOW? I'm sorry, but that goes against the evidence. Oh...but it's easier to just throw out the evidence instead of changing our beliefs.


What evidence? Those fabricated stones?

----------


## Darcy88

Noah would have had to have ventured to the North and South poles, deep into the Amazonian rainforest, down to Patagonia, way over to the Galapagos Islands. And, assuming he somehow knew he'd gotten them all, he'd have had to have gone back and released them back into their native habitats. You'd think there might be some mention of these vast distant lands somewhere in the bible.

Edit: It appears that the bible says the animals "came unto Noah." Which means, I suppose, that God somehow commanded them to converge upon ancient Israel. Polar bears, mountain gorillas, kangaroos.... all migrated across continents, compelled by God, and embarked upon Noah's boat upon which they rode out the storm. In a world-view wherein nothing is impossible, I guess not even that is impossible. And since all things are possible with God, it would seem that once you're made the choice to believe in Him you can believe just about anything. Fair enough.

----------


## mazHur

> What evidence? Those fabricated stones?


Why, man was also created from clay?? :Drool5:

----------


## mazHur

Enjoy!

The Power of Cosmic Thinking
Daniel Honan
Managing Editor
There is a Native American belief that one has the responsibility to think seven generations ahead. While this is a nice sentiment, it's not good enough, argue Nancy Ellen Abrams and Joel R. Primack in their book The New Universe and the Human Future: How a Shared Cosmology Could Transform the World. Abrams and Primack argue we are living in a cosmically pivotal moment today, and we have a higher level of responsibility than any generation that came before us. READ/Watch video »http://bigthink.com/ideas/41338

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> What evidence? Those fabricated stones?


Yes, that is exactly how evidence is rejected. Have you investigated the evidence? What makes you think that they are fabricated? OH...because it is in contradiction to what you believe? That is AMAZING!!

----------


## Darcy88

> Yes, that is exactly how evidence is rejected. Have you investigated the evidence? What makes you think that they are fabricated? OH...because it is in contradiction to what you believe? That is AMAZING!!


I think they are fabricated because the guy who supposedly "found" them has since confessed to having fabricated them. They also show pictures of ancient astronauts. Do you believe in them now too?

----------


## cafolini

> I think they are fabricated because the guy who supposedly "found" them has since confessed to having fabricated them. They also show pictures of ancient astronauts. Do you believe in them now too?


I do. The secret of Himmler in Atlantis and Nepal. What's not to know is to believe or disbelieve and let it be. If it is to know, there will be an answer. If it is not to know, yet posed as knowledge, an arsenic pill.

----------


## Paulclem

> If there isn't an influx of sodium or potassium or a chain of electrons to complete a synapse, then that thought you were about to have does not occur. Did you think perception was magic? This is decades old information. Neurologists have more recently observed things like love and have been able to replicate the conditions. There is no magical land of abstractions, only the tiny hard copies of reality inside our brains and our ability to manipulate those copies. EVERYTHING is material. That doesn't mean those things aren't special. It just means we don't live in a world of make-believe.


Bah - and I believed in fairies. 

Yet I don't think that accounts for thoughts or the mind. The potassium and sodium etc etc - are the vehicles for thoughts to arise not the thoughts themseves. You said it yourself - if those conditions aren't there, then there is no thought manifesting. 

There may be no magical abstractions - though I never mentioned magic - but you have this magical analogy of hard drives. I don't think science can account for the mind or thoughts, though they can see the process of the meat machine better these days. Or am I wrong?

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Yes, that is exactly how evidence is rejected. Have you investigated the evidence? What makes you think that they are fabricated? OH...because it is in contradiction to what you believe? That is AMAZING!!


Have YOU investigated the evidence? The guy who found those stones ADMITTED that they were FABRICATED! Seriously, are you being intentionally obtuse now just to rile people up, or what?

----------


## mazHur

Evidence is like Big Foot. The question is: If there are imprints of Bib Foot then where is the so-called Big Foot??? 
Much is said about the UFO's but why these chiefly appear in the US and not in other countries, such as the Far East or the Middle East??

----------


## JuniperWoolf

My question is, what should we do when we bump into people with opinions like those of Bien? It's clear that the debates go nowhere. When you have a normal debate, sometimes you make good points or your opponent does and that changes someone's mind on an issue which is always cool because it means that there's been growth. Bien will NEVER change his mind, so do we just not bother to argue? If we _don't_ argue against people like that, is doing nothing while they loudly insist on such outdated ideas going to have negative consequences (for example, are they going to start to force biology teachers to teach creationism in schools and push for them to cease teaching evolution altogether, or send kids to "learn how not to be gay with the power of Jesus" camps)? Arguing against them is tedious, and the subject is very _very_ stupid which makes _me_ feel stupid for giving it time in the first place, but should we argue anyway to prevent vocal fundamentalist Christians from getting too much attention which might lead to terrible decisions being made in politics and education?

----------


## Darcy88

Well Juniper, I think we should respect people's beliefs so long as they do not force them upon us or, as you say, introduce them into a school's curriculum. The scientific method should be the standard by which the material taught to children should measured. Beyond that I say let people believe what they want to believe. While I disagree profoundly with what Bien has said in this thread, I do respect his right to believe as he chooses and to freely express those beliefs.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Bien will NEVER change his mind,


Would Juniper ever change hers?

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Hey, Bien, what do you think about those pictures you posted of the fabricated drawings?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I think we should respect people's beliefs so long as they do not force them upon us or, as you say, introduce them into a school's curriculum. The scientific method should be the standard by which the material taught to children should measured. Beyond that I say let people believe what they want to believe. While I disagree profoundly with what Bien has said in this thread, I do respect his right to believe as he chooses and to freely express those beliefs.


I totally disagree that the so-called scientific method should be taught to children. Let's just leave the THEORIES out of the curriculum. I as well respect your beliefs, but don't you see that your belief is just as subjective as mine?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Have YOU investigated the evidence? The guy who found those stones ADMITTED that they were FABRICATED! Seriously, are you being intentionally obtuse now just to rile people up, or what?


I'll admit that is possible. Can you document that, or do I just take your word for it?

----------


## Darcy88

> I totally disagree that the so-called scientific method should be taught to children. Let's just leave the THEORIES out of the curriculum. I as well respect your beliefs, but don't you see that your belief is just as subjective as mine?


The difference is that my beliefs can be empirically verified. Science is self-correcting, it refines itself through the ever ongoing interplay of hypothesis, evidence and theory. The bible, on the other hand, is set in stone. A scientific fact is reliable in a way that a biblical statement is not. What reason do you have for having faith in the bible? Its almost arbitrary. Why not the Book of Mormon, why not the Koran? What reason do I have for believing in evolution? The evidence indicates that the theory is true, that's my reason. Science relies on evidence, the bible relies on itself. Evolution is "true" because of what our observations of the natural world lead us to conclude. The bible is true why? Its true because its true?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> The difference is that my beliefs can be empirically verified. Science is self-correcting, it refines itself through the ever ongoing interplay of hypothesis, evidence and theory. The bible, on the other hand, is set in stone. A scientific fact is reliable in a way that a biblical statement is not. What reason do you have for having faith in the bible? Its almost arbitrary. Why not the Book of Mormon, why not the Koran? What reason do I have for believing in evolution? The evidence indicates that the theory is true, that's my reason. Science relies on evidence, the bible relies on itself. Evolution is "true" because of what our observations of the natural world lead us to to conclude. The bible is true why? Its true because its true?


I'm sorry....evolution cannot be empirically verified. What you call scientific fact, is NOT a fact. It's called the THEORY of Evolution for a reason. The Bible CAN be verified by archeological evidence. But I'm wasting my breath...

----------


## Darcy88

> I'm sorry....evolution cannot be empirically verified. What you call scientific fact, is NOT a fact. It's called the THEORY of Evolution for a reason. The Bible CAN be verified by archeological evidence. But I'm wasting my breath...


I said the evidence "indicates" that its true. Of course its just a theory. I see that the main thrust of my response has been dodged. None of the supernatural claims in the bible can be verified, nor supported in any meaningful way. The theory of evolution has volumes of naturalistic observations backing it up, not proving it, but indicating the incredible likelihood of its being true. 

A scientific claim refers beyond itself to the world at large. The bible refers to back onto itself. In the end all the believer can say is "its true because its true."

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> Would Juniper ever change hers?


Every day. You'll have a hard time convincing me that Jesus rode a dinosaur, though.

Also, no one seems to understand the definition of the word "theory" as it's defined in science. I can tell, because they write the phrase "it's just a" beforehand. In science, a conclusion has to get battered and tested over and over, other scientists have to try their hardest to disprove the conclusion (and believe me, at the prize of having their names in textbooks all over the planet for decades, maybe for as long as textbooks exist, they tried their damned hardest to replace Darwin's theories with their own), and then, and ONLY THEN, after tireless research, does a conclusion earn the right to be called a "theory" in the scientific community. It's not just something that some random guy chucked out willy-nilly, it's a THEORY. Bien, YOU seem to be looking for a "law." You're not going to find one in this case, so you've invented one.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I said the evidence "indicates" that its true. Of course its just a theory. I see that the main thrust of my response has been dodged. None of the supernatural claims in the bible can be verified, nor supported in any meaningful way. The theory of evolution has volumes of naturalistic observations backing it up, not proving it, but indicating the incredible likelihood of its being true. 
> 
> A scientific claim refers beyond itself to the world at large. The bible refers to back onto itself. In the end all the believer can say is "its true because its true."


I'm sorry, but the whole idea of something from nothing, intelligence from non-intelligence, order from chaos seems pretty supernatural to me. It doesn't even make good sense.


I'm done arguing here. The funny thing is that you guys think that I'm the narrow minded one here.

----------


## OrphanPip

Theory in the scientific context means a set of tested hypotheses and applications that explain a specific phenomena. Such that the theory of gravity is the scientific explanation of the phenomena of gravity. The theory of evolution is the scientific explanation of the phenomena of evolution. Evolution itself is fact based on the fossil and genetic evidence.

The meaning here being derived from the original greek meaning, which is a way of looking at something.

----------


## mazHur

If science could be 'self-corrective' beliefs too. The number of planets keeps on increasing, new diseases are evidencing themselves, which fact itself tells upon the 
inadequacy and impermanence of science with time. Beliefs are also self-corrective but depend on how to take them to be, when and where?

What is good at one place cannot definitely be the same at other. compare for instance, the Western beliefs against those of the Chinese or Japanese. There is always room for improvement both in science as well as belief but all depends on how one fairly and open-mindedly delves on his thoughts.

----------


## Darcy88

> If science could be 'self-corrective' beliefs too. The number of planets keeps on increasing, new diseases are evidencing themselves, which fact itself tells upon the 
> inadequacy and impermanence of science with time. Beliefs are also self-corrective but depend on how to take them to be, when and where?
> 
> What is good at one place cannot definitely be the same at other. compare for instance, the Western beliefs against those of the Chinese or Japanese. There is always room for improvement both in science as well as belief but all depends on how one fairly and open-mindedly delves on his thoughts.


There is definitely some truth in what you say here. Being a believer by no means makes one close-minded or unreasoning, not at all. Religion, including Christianity, can be a dynamic, enlightened thing. The difference I think though is that with science EVERYTHING is on the table, nothing is above being potentially discredited. With faith that is not the case. In fact its this constant flux which has been science's greatest strength and claim to legitimacy. Nothing is sacred before the fact. It all depends on what the research shows. Every theory out there could be overturned, every law and every fact disproven, and still, science itself, the process and method, would remain unaltered. Again, with faith this is not the case.

----------


## stuntpickle

One needn't search out a debate in an internet forum between atheists and theists to witness a group of persons ganging up another one. It is perhaps a fundamental aspect of human nature exhibited on every school blacktop. Of course, secular philosophy tells us that the term "human nature" is unhelpful and prefers "the human condition"--all while presenting a fairly convincing demonstration of the former.

I have a question for all the atheists.

First, I want you to think about the most important person in the world to you. This could be a spouse, a parent, a child, a lover, a friend; it doesn't matter who, so long as none other is more important to you. I want you to imagine that this person is, in the next five minutes, struck by a moving automobile. You are then summoned to the hospital, where this persons is in the process of dying. You are at this person's bedside to receive his last words. He asks you whether there is a heaven, and if so, whether you two will meet again. My question involves neither proofs nor arguments, and we will presume that the person answering the question is an atheist.

Do you answer honestly and tell him there is no heaven and that these are his last moments of consciousness, or do you lie and tell him that you will see him again?

I ask you this not to persuade you to theism, but to demonstrate the stakes of the question. You see, this is precisely the question I asked myself a few years ago when I was, myself, an atheist. My answer was that I would lie; moreover, I would want the lie to be true. My theism is now no lie, but defeating my innate hostility to the idea was a necessary precursor.

The reason I mention this is because I also began to realize, in more than an academic sense, how we are all members in a community of the dying and how to disabuse any theist of his theism is to place him in that bed and tell him the truth, and so you will have to excuse me for finding your zest vulgar and thoughtless.

I don't think it is an accident that New Atheism is largely restricted to a younger demographic. We're all five metaphorical minutes away from that bed, but it's incredibly hard to understand this when you're young. The reason belief in God has been so historically persistent has nothing to do with the intellectual failings of people.

My point is not to suggest that theism is a lie or even self-deception, but rather to point out how the treatment of Bievenu is representative of the worst aspects of human nature.

----------


## PoeticPassions

It is an interesting questions, surely, and I am sure that the answer would really depend on the individual... As for my answer:
Beyond the love I have for humanity, and the love I have for the most important person in my life, I believe in being true to myself and to others. In this way, I would not lie. But I wouldn't say that there is no Heaven either... I would answer that I don't know (for almost nothing is certain), and that we may yet see one another in some next life. 

If there is Heaven then that person's last thoughts won't matter, for they will go to a beautiful place. And if there is not, then there is nothingness, and in nothingness my answer won't matter. But at least I would not have betrayed my truth.

----------


## stuntpickle

> It is an interesting questions, surely, and I am sure that the answer would really depend on the individual... As for my answer:
> Beyond the love I have for humanity, and the love I have for the most important person in my life, I believe in being true to myself and to others. In this way, I would not lie. But I wouldn't say that there is no Heaven either... I would answer that I don't know (for almost nothing is certain), and that we may yet see one another in some next life. 
> 
> If there is Heaven then that person's last thoughts won't matter, for they will go to a beautiful place. And if there is not, then there is nothingness, and in nothingness my answer won't matter. But at least I would not have betrayed my truth.



Let us suppose that there is only nothingness, wouldn't telling them the "truth" intensify the agony of the somethingness they had left?

How important is your "truth"?

The classic thought experiment involves having the Nazis come to your door and ask if you are hiding Jews. If you are, do you tell the truth? How important is your truth then?

----------


## YesNo

Regarding stuntpickle's deathbed scenario, which is quite real, I have no problem in saying to a dying loved one that bodily death is not the end, but a beginning, a new phase, and I would use the evidence of near and shared death experiences to justify it if need be. 

This doesn't imply anything about the existence of a particular kind of God, but it doesn't hurt any such argument either. 

I disagree with stuntpickle's claim that BienvenuJDC is being unfairly treated. However, in BienvenuJDC's defense, those opposed to him did not provide the evidence that he requested. He showed more of his own evidence than his opponents did. OrphanPip, for example, dogmatically states, "Evolution itself is fact based on the fossil and genetic evidence." We need to get out of a habit of expecting other people to swallow dogmatism. What is that fossil and genetic evidence? If it is too complicated to summarize, provide a link.

The main issue with evolution, as I see it, is whether it occurred by chance or whether an assortment of conscious choices were involved. It is not the issue of creationism denying it happened at all and a pseudo-scientific dogmatism expecting belief without putting the data on the table.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Let us suppose that there is only nothingness, wouldn't telling them the "truth" intensify the agony of the somethingness they had left?


This is what I told my young son when he asked me what I think happens after we die: "I don't know, and we can't know for sure, but energy doesn't die, it moves. When we're born there is pain, and we're taken out of the world we know, but we have no memory of that pain and we will have no memory of the pain of death. Our selves might be gone, but if for some unknown reason we go on, I promise I'll find you." He seems very content with that. He imagines worlds and dimensions much more interesting and complex than the bible's heaven. He's open to all possibilities. He thinks it would be neat to be reincarnated as a chipmunk, or for the energy powering his movements to go toward powering a tree or ocean waves. Our physical particles after we die go back into the earth. They become other things. There isn't anything scary about that, other than knowing we should be aware of it and try not to screw things up for future generations.

If you're not raised with dogmas, you won't be so effected by dogmas. You can just enjoy life and understand that making the best of it is important.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Regarding stuntpickle's deathbed scenario, which is quite real, I have no problem in saying to a dying loved that bodily death is not the end, but a beginning, a new phase, and I would use the evidence of near and shared death experiences to justify it if need be. 
> 
> This doesn't imply anything about the existence of a particular kind of God, but it doesn't hurt any such argument either. 
> 
> I disagree with stuntpickle's claim that BienvenuJDC is being unfairly treated. However, in BienvenuJDC's defense, those opposed to him did not provide the evidence that he requested. He showed more of his own evidence than his opponents did. OrphanPip, for example, dogmatically states, "Evolution itself is fact based on the fossil and genetic evidence." We need to get out of a habit of expecting other people to swallow dogmatism. What is that fossil and genetic evidence? If it is too complicated to summarize, provide a link.
> 
> The main issue with evolution, as I see it, is whether it occurred by chance or whether an assortment of conscious choices were involved. It is not the issue of creationism denying it happened at all and a pseudo-scientific dogmatism expecting belief without putting the data on the table.


You know, YesNO, I'll never claim to be a nice guy simply because I'm not. I do, however, find trying to disprove someone's faith in God to be subtly horrible. I understand that my question doesn't settle the disagreement, but I also think this unjustifiably optimistic atheism is fairly myopic. Nietzsche, who was himself an atheist, considered atheism something of a catastrophe.

Let me put it to you this way: if I were in the situation I describe, I would sacrifice evolution, literature, music, reason, itself, to provide five minutes of comfort to that person; moreover, I might be persuaded to sacrifice myself if that would just make it true. Trying to disabuse bienvenu of his theism is to fail in understanding that for someone, he is the person in the bed, and that he, himself, would be by some bedside. For anyone who answers that they would lie, I think they make the mistake of caring insufficiently for Bienvenu, whoever he is, because he is, after all, that person in the bed in a very real sense.

Again, it may seem hypocritical for me, who has proven himself something of a jerk, to chastise others, and yet it seems to me to be the truth.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Also, if 23 people in a classroom answer a test question 1 way, and 1 student answers it another way (perhaps incorrectly), it doesn't mean the 23 are ganging up on the 1. Not even in a sort of open discussion forum. I try not to coddle people to the point of supporting and encouraging delusions, which I think are ultimately harmful to a society that is judged based on said delusions.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Also, if 23 people in a classroom answer a test question 1 way, and 1 student answers it another way (perhaps incorrectly), it doesn't mean the 23 are ganging up on the 1. Not even in a sort of open discussion forum. I try not to coddle people to the point of supporting and encouraging delusions, which I think are ultimately harmful to a society that is judged based on said delusions.


Of course, that presumes that belief in God is, in fact, delusional, and demonstrating that is a tall order--something the foremost atheists have failed to do convincingly. Contrary to what many current atheists have said, believing in God is a fairly uncomfortable thing; Christians call it "being convicted in the spirit," and it involves the admission that you have been largely wrong throughout your life. So let us call it a humbling belief, which cannot be said of the belief that one knows what precisely is harmful to society.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> You know, YesNO, I'll never claim to be a nice guy simply because I'm not. I do, however, find trying to disprove someone's faith in God to be subtly horrible. I understand that my question doesn't settle the disagreement, but I also think this unjustifiably optimistic atheism is fairly myopic. Nietzsche, who was himself an atheist, considered atheism something of a catastrophe.
> 
> Let me put it to you this way: if I were in the situation I describe, I would sacrifice evolution, literature, music, reason, itself, to provide five minutes of comfort to that person; moreover, I might be persuaded to sacrifice myself if that would just make it true. Trying to disabuse bienvenu of his theism is to fail in understanding that for someone, he is the person in the bed, and that he, himself, would be by some bedside. For anyone who answers that they would lie, I think they make the mistake of caring insufficiently for Bienvenu, whoever he is, because he is, after all, that person in the bed in a very real sense.
> 
> Again, it may seem hypocritical for me, who has proven himself something of a jerk, to chastise others, and yet it seems to me to be the truth.


By giving respect to the one theory over all of the others are you not then, by your logic, disrespecting the other opinions? You're making it way too personal. No one has personally attacked Bien. His arguments are likely not credible. It's not a hate crime for me to say that. This is a discussion. It's not a dog fight on a playground.

----------


## stuntpickle

> By giving respect to the one theory over all of the others are you not then, by your logic, disrespecting the other opinions? You're making it way too personal. No one has personally attacked Bien. His arguments are likely not credible. It's not a hate crime for me to say that. This is a discussion. It's not a dog fight on a playground.


Belief in God is a different variety of belief than, say, being a capitalist or a Marxist. I mean, to discuss someone's spiritual beliefs for the purpose of disproving them seems a little like trying to deprive someone of the mechanisms of comfort in the situation I earlier described.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Of course, that presumes that belief in God is, in fact, delusional, and demonstrating that is a tall order--something the foremost atheists have failed to do convincingly. Contrary to what many current atheists have said, believing in God is a fairly uncomfortable thing; Christians call it "being convicted in the spirit," and it involves the admission that you have been largely wrong throughout your life. So let us call it a humbling belief, which cannot be said of the belief that one knows what precisely is harmful to society.


Belief in God can ONLY be delusional in a reality where God is never seen or heard. Add to that a person claiming to know how God wants us to live and treat others, and society has a problem. We should be accountable for our actions as individuals effecting other individuals. The burden of proof is with the religious. Atheists aren't asserting a knowledge of an afterlife or a prelife. Oftentimes, physical events can and have been proven to the best of our physical abilities. All of the evidence "supporting" atheism can't be found in a single link. It can be acquired over time and with much education which is, hopefully, offered in all schools.

I'm not talking about some belief set. I'm talking about identifying things in our physical world which we can all commonly witness and possibly interact with. If you want to say creationism is one of many possibilities for the answer to the big question, that's fine, but I don't have to support that narrow view, and I don't have to prove anything to deny that support; other than to say, perhaps, that I have never seen anything physical that does support it.

Again, who or what created God? Who created the thing that created the thing that created God? The universe seems pretty big, why must it have a beginning and an end? Maybe it just "is" and there's nothing scary or wrong with that. Maybe it's more like a wheel than an open and shut door.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Belief in God is a different variety of belief than, say, being a capitalist or a Marxist. I mean, to discuss someone's spiritual beliefs for the purpose of disproving them seems a little like trying to deprive someone of the mechanisms of comfort in the situation I earlier described.


I'm not saying they can't believe it, but I am saying that they can't assert that it's my reality and everyone else's without something to support that. I'm not depriving them by saying "Hey, we both see the sun. We don't both see an angry, blue, giant goblin dancing on the sun". Religious belief has to happen without support from the physical world and, therefore, has no need for support from atheists.

It also can't be benefited by support from atheists. It still wouldn't make sense to the atheist earth we live on.

----------


## PoeticPassions

> Let us suppose that there is only nothingness, wouldn't telling them the "truth" intensify the agony of the somethingness they had left?
> 
> How important is your "truth"?
> 
> The classic thought experiment involves having the Nazis come to your door and ask if you are hiding Jews. If you are, do you tell the truth? How important is your truth then?


The truth I speak of is not just based on sole facts (the sky is blue, there are people hiding in my attic, etc)... so of course I would lie to protect a life (in your hypothetical scenario). But that would be true to myself and my character. True to the way I feel about humanity and true to my integrity. That type of truth is very important to me. 

I would tell the dying person the truth-- which is that I do not know-- because that would remain true to my existence and to theirs.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Belief in God can ONLY be delusional in a reality where God is never seen or heard. Add to that a person claiming to know how God wants us to live and treat others, and society has a problem. We should be accountable for our actions as individuals effecting other individuals. The burden of proof is with the religious. Atheists aren't asserting a knowledge of an afterlife or a prelife. Oftentimes, physical events can and have been proven to the best of our physical abilities. All of the evidence "supporting" atheism can't be found in a single link. It can be acquired over time and with much education which is, hopefully, offered in all schools.
> 
> I'm not talking about some belief set. I'm talking about identifying things in our physical world which we can all commonly witness and possibly interact with. If you want to say creationism is one of many possibilities for the answer to the big question, that's fine, but I don't have to support that narrow view, and I don't have to prove anything to deny that support; other than to say, perhaps, that I have never seen anything physical that does support it.
> 
> Again, who or what created God? Who created the thing that created the thing that created God? The universe seems pretty big, why must it have a beginning and an end? Maybe it just "is" and there's nothing scary or wrong with that. Maybe it's more like a wheel than an open and shut door.


Okay, you asked for it. Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as nice as Bienvenu.

You make the assertion that "Belief in God can ONLY be delusional in a reality where God is never seen or heard." Please try and, consequently, fail to demonstrate that assertion logically. I would assert that there are any number of things I have never seen or heard that, nonetheless, exist such as the set of real numbers, love, logical absolutes, morality. Perhaps if you didn't subscribe to some 19th Century materialism you wouldn't say such things. Of course, it's fairly common for New Atheists to make sweeping indefensible assertions about the nature of existence. So please, I await your logical justification eagerly. Please also demonstrate how you navigate the treacherously inductive impasse of determining that no one has ever, anywhere, heard or seen God--unless, of course, you admit that it is possible that someone has in fact seen or heard Him, but then one would wonder why you're calling it delusional. Your justifications, if you succeed should be worthy of publication in the academic presses.

By the way, no one believes in a physical or contingent God; therefore, a discussion of identifying physical objects is irrelevant, as is asking who moved the prime mover, which is by definition impossible. That the universe had a beginning isn't simply Christian apologetics but current cosmology. Do you disbelieve the Big Bang theory?

----------


## WyattGwyon

> I have a question for all the atheists.
> 
> Do you answer honestly and tell him there is no heaven and that these are his last moments of consciousness, or do you lie and tell him that you will see him again?


The scenario is nonsensical. Your premise is that you are at the bedside of the person closest to you in the world. Obviously, if you communicate at all, this person already knows your deepest beliefs on this matter and would know if you were lying anyway. 

As for disproving whether or not god is a delusion: Unbelievers have no burden of proof. One needs no reasons or explanations or proofs to _not_ believe something. Only those making a positive assertion (e.g., god exists) need proof.

----------


## PoeticPassions

> The scenario is nonsensical. Your premise is that you are at the bedside of the person closest to you in the world. Obviously, if you communicate at all, this person already knows your deepest beliefs on this matter and would know if you were lying anyway. 
> 
> As for disproving whether or not god is a delusion: Unbelievers have no burden of proof. One needs no reasons or explanations or proofs to _not_ believe something. Only those making a positive assertion (e.g., god exists) need proof.


Thanks. Said way better than I would have thought to say it.

----------


## stuntpickle

> The scenario is nonsensical. Your premise is that you are at the bedside of the person closest to you in the world. Obviously, if you communicate at all, this person already knows your deepest beliefs on this matter and would know if you were lying anyway. 
> 
> As for disproving whether or not god is a delusion: Unbelievers have no burden of proof. One needs no reasons or explanations or proofs to _not_ believe something. Only those making a positive assertion (e.g., god exists) need proof.


Wrong! Anyone making an assertion has the explanatory onus insofar as the assertion is concerned. The statement "God is a delusion" is an assertion and, thus, requires logical justification.

Traditionally, "nonsensical" refers to language having no sense or meaning. Since you have understood the content of my post, you cannot mean that it was this variety of nonsense, so I suspect you mean that the situation is inconsequential, which would seem wrong. Also, I think you ignore the fact that a person on his deathbed will necessarily act in accordance with his past behaviors. I think it's also presumptuous that this person will just take your previous beliefs for granted. I think death has the affect of making people reconsider things.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Okay, you asked for it. Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as nice as Bienvenu.
> 
> You make the assertion that "Belief in God can ONLY be delusional in a reality where God is never seen or heard." Please try and, consequently, fail to demonstrate that assertion logically. I would assert that there are any number of things I have never seen or heard that, nonetheless, exist such as the set of real numbers, love, logical absolutes, morality. Perhaps if you didn't subscribe to some 19th Century materialism you wouldn't say such things. Of course, it's fairly common for New Atheists to make sweeping indefensible assertions about the nature of existence. So please, I await your logical justification eagerly. Please also demonstrate how you navigate the treacherously inductive impasse of determining that no one has ever, anywhere, heard or seen God--unless, of course, you admit that it is possible that someone has in fact seen or heard Him, but then one would wonder why you're calling it delusional. Your justifications, if you succeed should be worthy of publication in the academic presses.
> 
> By the way, no one believes in a physical or contingent God; therefore, a discussion of identifying physical objects is irrelevant, as is asking who moved the prime mover, which is by definition impossible. That the universe had a beginning isn't simply Christian apologetics but current cosmology. Do you disbelieve the Big Bang theory?


I don't know who you're talking about at this point, and I don't think you do either. It seems like you are fighting just to fight. Most Christians do believe in a physical God. If a thing created a physical world with physical beings, that thing should continue to be able to interact with the physical world. 

Numbers are a system created by humans. Love and morality come from people, they are ideas. They are ideas that are still based on more physical cause and effect than religion is, but they're concepts. No one is claiming love and morality have their own consciousness and created a universe and thinking beings, no one I know of anyway.

The big bang theory is based on something you clearly don't understand. The universe we are familiar with is expanding. It doesn't shrink. It isn't constant. That, and other factors, mean that it used to be smaller. At some point it was probably very condensed, very very minuscule, before things began to grow into our universe. The big bang theory doesn't say what caused the big bang, it doesn't say what happened before, or what existed outside of compressed matter. Scientists and atheists don't use this as theism. It's not an answer to why we are here in a metaphysical sense, it's just another step in a physical timeline.

Man came along late in the game. He tried to insert a lot of different God and myth stories into our void of information (long before Christianity - see ancient China, Egypt, Greece), but we don't know what happened. It's ludicrous to say we do.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I keep forgetting how futile these conversations are.

----------


## stuntpickle

> I don't know who you're talking about at this point, and I don't think you do either. It seems like you are fighting just to fight. Most Christians do believe in a physical God. If a thing created a physical world with physical beings, that thing should continue to be able to interact with the physical world. 
> 
> Numbers are a system created by humans. Love and morality come from people, they are ideas. They are ideas that are still based on more physical cause and effect than religion is, but they're concepts. No one is claiming love and morality have their own consciousness and created a universe and thinking beings, no one I know of anyway.
> 
> The big bang theory is based on something you clearly don't understand. The universe we are familiar with is expanding. It doesn't shrink. It isn't constant. That, and other factors, mean that it used to be smaller. At some point it was probably very condensed, very very minuscule, before things began to grow into our universe. The big bang theory doesn't say what caused the big bang, it doesn't say what happened before, or what existed outside of compressed matter. Scientists and atheists don't use this as theism. It's not an answer to why we are here in a metaphysical sense, it's just another step in a physical timeline.
> 
> Man came along late in the game. He tried to insert a lot of different God and myth stories into our void of information (long before Christianity - see ancient China, Egypt, Greece), but we don't know what happened. It's ludicrous to say we do.



You're just wrong--and arrogantly so. You don't simply get to avoid the logical justification of a flat assertion by making other flat assertions. Since you are unwilling to offer an argument ending with the conclusion "therefore belief in God can only be a delusion when he cannot be seen or heard," then I am justified in discounting the assertion.





> It seems like you are fighting just to fight.


Following several pages of persons picking on one guy, I am all of a sudden fighting just to fight. Is it not possible that you are wrong? Being persuadable is the first criterion for engaging in reasonable dialogue.




> Most Christians do believe in a physical God.


This is factually wrong. At most, Christians believe in a physical manifestation of an aspect of God in the person of Jesus. No Christian believes that Jesus, God or what is called the Holy Spirit ("Spirit" is a clue) is now physical. In fact, from Maimonides to Aquinas, Judeo-Christian theologians are united in the belief of God's immateriality. Just because you have already made the blunder, repeatedly insisting upon it doesn't change its wrongness.




> If a thing created a physical world with physical beings, that thing should continue to be able to interact with the physical world.


I never stated that God couldn't interact with the physical world. So why the straw man? Is this getting to your argument with the conclusion that God is a delusion? You see, this is how rational conversations go. When you say something and fail to substantiate it, you generally lose the argument.




> Numbers are a system created by humans.


Care to demonstrate the truth of this one while you're working on the other one? Ever hear of Roger Penrose? He's the guy who was working with Hawking on the blackholes and is considered one of the foremost mathematicians in the world. He thinks human minds are incapable of generating mathematical systems and that numbers are a part of manifest reality. Of course, he's probably deluded too. I'm sure he'd be interested in your logical justification of this bald assertion, as would every mathematician alive.




> Love and morality come from people, they are ideas.


Morality as simply an idea derived from people is a philosophically rare notion. Most philosophers, regardless of their religion, consider it within the realm of metaphysics. So just out of curiosity, do you believe that morality exists as an idea? If so, does God exist as an idea?




> No one is claiming love and morality have their own consciousness and created a universe and thinking beings, no one I know of anyway.


You see, this isn't how logic works. When someone makes an assertion, they imply that the assertion is true. The logical absolute concerning an excluded middle means that any assertion is either true or false with no third option. If one makes the assertion that belief in God can ONLY be a delusion exclusively on the basis that He is not heard or seen, one is also making the implicit assertion that believing in something unheard and unseen qualifies as being delusional. To disprove your assertion, I need only provide one example in which your assertion fails, so if I find one thing unseen and unheard that we both agree isn't a delusion, then it is reasonable to conclude that your assertion is false. Morality is NOT a delusion. Is this statement true or false without qualification? YOU don't get to wander aimlessly through unrelated ideas. The law of excluded middle means it MUST be true or false. Is the set of real numbers a delusion? You see, the vast majority of reasonable persons agree that morality and the set of real numbers are NOT delusions, and it is reasonable to assume that your criteria of judgment based on seeing and hearing are false. It does not matter what you have to say about God's personal attributes because they were not a part of your assertion. So do we agree that your assertion is false? You should be careful because your assertion is necessarily false and to say otherwise is to prove your own irrationality. You see, I have neither seen nor heard you. If I believe in you is it a delusion? I have neither seen nor heard every single automobile on the planet; are the ones I haven't seen delusions?




> The big bang theory is based on something you clearly don't understand. The universe we are familiar with is expanding. It doesn't shrink. It isn't constant. That, and other factors, mean that it used to be smaller. At some point it was probably very condensed, very very minuscule, before things began to grow into our universe. The big bang theory doesn't say what caused the big bang, it doesn't say what happened before, or what existed outside of compressed matter. Scientists and atheists don't use this as theism. It's not an answer to why we are here in a metaphysical sense, it's just another step in a physical timeline.


Scientists gave up on eternal matter with the static models of the universe, and they gave up on static mechanisms with the steady-sate model. The orthodox Big Bang theory is, in fact, a theory of the universe's beginning. I never stated that the Big Bang named the cause. You, however, suggested a an eternal and wheellike universe in direct contradiction with the Big Bang. When you do that, you don't get to pretend I don't know anything about the theory. And reproducing here some wiki-style summary is completely irrelevant to justifying your assertion about God being a delusion. I simply want you to logically justify your assertion.

A reasonable response by you to this post can only be a justification of the assertion that belief in God who is unseen and unheard can only be a delusion. Any other response (besides admitting you were wrong) will be obviously irrelevant. If you cannot do this, you must admit to being wrong, which would demonstrate some measure of reason since the assertion is, by the way, evidently wrong.

----------


## Darcy88

Stuntpickle many if not most Christians do believe in a physical God. You are taking your own more sophisticated kind of Christianity and projecting it as the norm. And likening God to numbers and morality in that they are all things to believe in despite their being things we cannot see or hear is false. We cannot sense numbers or morality but we can perceive them. Not only can you not see or hear God, but you can find no trace of Him, no indication of His presence, whatsoever. Numbers and morality are apparent. God is not. 

And I know very little of physics and cosmology, but I do know that in his most recent book Stephen Hawking came out with the claim that the universe did not need God in order to begin. Considering the esteem in which he is held by the scientific community, I think this ought to mean something. 

I think the reason we all argued with Bienvenue is not that he believes in God, but that he believes dinosaurs existed alongside humans and that those fabricated Peruvian stones were evidence of this. I doubt you hold the same belief.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Stuntpickle many if not most Christians do believe in a physical God. You are taking your own more sophisticated kind of Christianity and projecting it as the norm. And likening God to numbers and morality in that they are all things to believe in despite their being things we cannot see or hear is false. We cannot sense numbers or morality but we can perceive them. Not only can you not see or hear God, but you can find no trace of Him, no indication of His presence, whatsoever. Numbers and morality are apparent. God is not. 
> 
> And I know very little of physics and cosmology, but I do know that in his most recent book Stephen Hawking came out with the claim that the universe did not need God in order to begin. Considering the esteem in which he is held by the scientific community, I think this ought to mean something. 
> 
> I think the reason we all argued with Bienvenue is not that he believes in God, but that he believes dinosaurs existed alongside humans and that those fabricated Peruvian stones were evidence of this. I doubt you hold the same belief.


See, this is the problem. I never "likened" God to numbers or morality. Someone else made a sweeping statement about the nature of existence and I tested the truth of those statements by using numbers and morality. This is how logical arguments are supposed to go: someone makes an assertion and then someone else tests the truth of the assertion in all cases. What happens in these discussions is that the atheists continue to confuse the issues. I'm not making statements of equivalency between God and numbers; I'm simply demonstrating the falsity of someone else's assertion.

I was making no logical arguments about Beinvenu. I was appealing to perhaps a common humanity. Someone then made the wild assertion that belief in God can only be a delusion since He is unseen and unheard. I do not defend Bienvenu's ideas about dinosaurs. And your assumption that my Christianity is somehow a rare breed of sophisticated theism is a little funny since my theological views are fairly mainstream. You do realize that even the Catholic Church accepts evolution, right? The only group of Christians that believe dinosaurs existed alongside humans is a fairly small portion of American Evangelicals.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> You're just wrong--and arrogantly so. You don't simply get to avoid the logical justification of a flat assertion by making other flat assertions. Since you are unwilling to offer an argument ending with the conclusion "therefore belief in God can only be a delusion when he cannot be seen or heard," then I am justified in discounting the assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following several pages of persons picking on one guy, I am all of a sudden fighting just to fight. Is it not possible that you are wrong? Being persuadable is the first criterion for engaging in reasonable dialogue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You think you have corrected me on several counts, but you have not. I compared the existence of matter to a wheel rather than an open and shut finite situation like Christianity. What I said in no way contradicts the big bang theory. Until God is proven, God is an idea of man. When a person has an imaginary friend, it's easy for other people to discern that the invisible person isn't there. Do you know what delusion is?

You can call me and cars delusions if you want to, but you're witnessing a physical manifestation of my self in text. The text is being witnessed by other people as well. The text can be replicated (I've posted hundreds). Many undoctored photographs of me exist. Videos and recordings of me too. Pictures I have drawn. Sculptures I have made. I am easily proven. Lots of people have seen and touched cars. They have ridden inside them, built them, repaired them. They appear in undoctored photos and videos. Do I really need to explain this to you? I don't think you are obtuse, I think you are obstinate. I hope you can be more comfortable with your choices (whatever they are) and less threatened by people who disagree with them.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> See, this is the problem. I never "likened" God to numbers or morality. Someone else made a sweeping statement about the nature of existence and I tested the truth of those statements by using numbers and morality. This is how logical arguments are supposed to go: someone makes an assertion and then someone else tests the truth of the assertion in all cases. What happens in these discussions is that the atheists continue to confuse the issues. I'm not making statements of equivalency between God and numbers; I'm simply demonstrating the falsity of someone else's assertion.
> 
> I was making no logical arguments about Beinvenu. I was appealing to perhaps a common humanity. Someone then made the wild assertion that belief in God can only be a delusion since He is unseen and unheard. I do not defend Bienvenu's ideas about dinosaurs. And your assumption that my Christianity is somehow a rare breed of sophisticated theism is a little funny since my theological views are fairly mainstream. You do realize that even the Catholic Church accepts evolution, right? The only group of Christians that believe dinosaurs existed alongside humans is a fairly small portion of American Evangelicals.


The person you are defending is of the mind that Catholicism is a robbery and a mockery of Christianity. He said most Christians are nothing like Catholics. So which sect is mainstream? He would probably also tell you that he doesn't need defending. You're acting like a frequent contributor here is some kind of weakling who can't handle himself in debate. Here's an idea for everyone involved, be nice.  :Smile:

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Stuntpickle many if not most Christians do believe in a physical God. You are taking your own more sophisticated kind of Christianity and projecting it as the norm. And likening God to numbers and morality in that they are all things to believe in despite their being things we cannot see or hear is false. We cannot sense numbers or morality but we can perceive them. Not only can you not see or hear God, but you can find no trace of Him, no indication of His presence, whatsoever. Numbers and morality are apparent. God is not. 
> 
> And I know very little of physics and cosmology, but I do know that in his most recent book Stephen Hawking came out with the claim that the universe did not need God in order to begin. Considering the esteem in which he is held by the scientific community, I think this ought to mean something. 
> 
> I think the reason we all argued with Bienvenue is not that he believes in God, but that he believes dinosaurs existed alongside humans and that those fabricated Peruvian stones were evidence of this. I doubt you hold the same belief.


I'm sorry, Darcy, but you are wrong. You seem to know nothing about God. He is not physical, but He is spirit. There is far more evidence that man existed with dinosaurs than just a stone. There's even Biblical accounts of the dinosaur. There's descriptions of dinosaurs in the book of Job. Not ONLY in the bible, but in many writings in many cultures. I can't help it that you are too narrow minded to accept anything beyond your own belief, but there's truth out there. Truth that you are just unwilling to accept.

----------


## cafolini

> I keep forgetting how futile these conversations are.


But you keep going with it. :Wave:

----------


## Darcy88

> I'm sorry, Darcy, but you are wrong. You seem to know nothing about God. He is not physical, but He is spirit. There is far more evidence that man existed with dinosaurs than just a stone. There's even Biblical accounts of the dinosaur. There's descriptions of dinosaurs in the book of Job. Not ONLY in the bible, but in many writings in many cultures. I can't help it that you are too narrow minded to accept anything beyond your own belief, but there's truth out there. Truth that you are just unwilling to accept.


The so called references to dinosaurs in the bible are vague and prove nothing. Only through confirmation bias of the most abject kind can they be taken as definitive descriptions of dinosaurs. I've looked them up before after hearing a similar claim. You essentially have to believe that pretty much all scientists are corrupt in order to uphold this belief that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind. If your beliefs were supported in any meaningful way by the evidence gathered then they would become part of the science. God's intervening in the world would become part of the science if it were empirically demonstrated to have occurred. It has yet to be and I would not hold my breath.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> But you keep going with it.


True.  :Smile: 

I always start in with the intention of sharing why I enjoy being an atheist, and how a person doesn't need a God or a savior to be happy. It's supposed to be comforting, but it gets taken as an attack and I get sucked into someone else's battle. It's really not important though. Mostly I hope people are happy and not using excuses to hurt others.

----------


## Darcy88

And about lying on one's death bed and hoping for life after death..... I think I'd prefer that there be the nothingness that I expect. Supposing there is a God, how could I be sure that its not only the Jews or the Muslims or the Mormons who will be saved? Better nothing than the chance of hell.

----------


## mazHur

> There is definitely some truth in what you say here. Being a believer by no means makes one close-minded or unreasoning, not at all. Religion, including Christianity, can be a dynamic, enlightened thing. The difference I think though is that with science EVERYTHING is on the table, nothing is above being potentially discredited. With faith that is not the case. In fact its this constant flux which has been science's greatest strength and claim to legitimacy. Nothing is sacred before the fact. It all depends on what the research shows. Every theory out there could be overturned, every law and every fact disproven, and still, science itself, the process and method, would remain unaltered. Again, with faith this is not the case.


Change is forever. even science keeps on changing. Check out for history of science. 

Yes, with science everything is on the table but also a shaker can turn the table anytime !

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> The so called references to dinosaurs in the bible are vague and prove nothing. Only through confirmation bias of the most abject kind can they be taken as definitive descriptions of dinosaurs. I've looked them up before after hearing a similar claim. You essentially have to believe that pretty much all scientists are corrupt in order to uphold this belief that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind. If your beliefs were supported in any meaningful way by the evidence gathered then they would become part of the science. God's intervening in the world would become part of the science if it were empirically demonstrated to have occurred. It has yet to be and I would not hold my breath.


If you want to go that route, the evidence you put your faith in for evolution is vague as well, and proves nothing. I don't believe that all scientist are corrupt, there are MANY scientist that believe in a young earth. As we have seen through the ages, there has been corrupt science forever. Take the global warming scandal for example. Al Gore has made millions on a hoax. People are getting filthy rich off this stuff, and you're buying it (at a high price). You haven't really researched much about dinosaurs' existence, except that which supports your claims, have you? Have you checked out any sites that support the idea that dinosaurs have coexisted with humans? Or have you only checked out sites that try to disprove the idea? Be honest. Did you ever hear of the dead dinosaur-like sea creature that was recovered by a Japanese fishing vessel? I'm sure that it was just a hoax. Seems that those scientists that claimed that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago will do everything in their power to discredit all information that proves them wrong. That's the way people are.

----------


## mazHur

> And about lying on one's death bed and hoping for life after death..... I think I'd prefer that there be the nothingness that I expect. Supposing there is a God, how could I be sure that its not only the Jews or the Muslims or the Mormons who will be saved? Better nothing than the chance of hell.


This world is infact hell or heaven depending upon how you spent your life here! The hereafter is merely a 'bonus' or 'penalty' for your deeds in this very world!

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Better nothing than the chance of hell.


Your belief in nothingness won't make it a reality, it will merely ease your conscience for the time...

----------


## MystyrMystyry

Caterpillars to butterflies, tadpoles to frogs - yeah, that's pretty vague, probably not even provable in the former case because it happens behind closed cocoons - all smoke and mirrors probably.

----------


## stuntpickle

> You think you have corrected me on several counts, but you have not. I compared the existence of matter to a wheel rather than an open and shut finite situation like Christianity. What I said in no way contradicts the big bang theory. Until God is proven, God is an idea of man. When a person has an imaginary friend, it's easy for other people to discern that the invisible person isn't there. Do you know what delusion is?
> 
> You can call me and cars delusions if you want to, but you're witnessing a physical manifestation of my self in text. The text is being witnessed by other people as well. The text can be replicated (I've posted hundreds). Many undoctored photographs of me exist. Videos and recordings of me too. Pictures I have drawn. Sculptures I have made. I am easily proven. Lots of people have seen and touched cars. They have ridden inside them, built them, repaired them. They appear in undoctored photos and videos. Do I really need to explain this to you? I don't think you are obtuse, I think you are obstinate. I hope you can be more comfortable with your choices (whatever they are) and less threatened by people who disagree with them.


See, this is the problem: you are so wedded to your atheism that you can't even admit when you make flagrantly indefensible assertions. Delusional status accorded to belief in things unseen and unheard was not my argument, but yours. You don't get to side step your original assertion by multiplying your selective criteria. You don't get to pretend that I was somehow conflating belief in you to belief in God. I was just following your own premise to its logical conclusion. See, you don't seem capable of justifying that assertion. All you are doing now is making more indefensible assertions. I could ask you to justify those logically, but I would prefer to come to some mutual agreement about the first one. I will assume that you agree that the assertion is false since you are now changing your criteria. I will be happy to demonstrate the falsity of these new claims, the minute you admit the falsity of the previous one. If you do not believe the first assertion is false, then you should be able to easily to provide a logical justification for it, which should end with "therefore, belief in an unseen and unheard God can only be delusional."

You don't get to wriggle out of it. You're making wild claims that no philosopher, theistic, atheistic or otherwise, would agree with. You don't just get to wander aimlessly through new assertions because you don't know how to defend the first one. Moreover, when you are clearly demonstrating an unwillingness to justify the things you say, you don't then get to pretend that I am somehow "threatened."

This is my experience with New Atheists. They like to talk about reason and rationality, but when held to rational standards they try to escape them. If you can't form any logical justification for your assertion, then everyone is justified in ignoring it and anything you say after it, without you first admitting the wrongness of it. This is how rational discussions work.

Perhaps you think you're being clever, but I could make similar demands of most everything you are saying here. All you are doing is making bald assertion after bald assertion. When having a rational discussion, one should try to arrange one's statements in some sort of rational order of increasing consequence--not wildly flit from assertion to assertion.

By continuing to ignore your own original assertion, you impeach your credibility. This is what we call poor form when losing an argument. It's what people do when winning is more important than truth.

----------


## Darcy88

> If you want to go that route, the evidence you put your faith in for evolution is vague as well, and proves nothing. I don't believe that all scientist are corrupt, there are MANY scientist that believe in a young earth. As we have seen through the ages, there has been corrupt science forever. Take the global warming scandal for example. Al Gore has made millions on a hoax. People are getting filthy rich off this stuff, and you're buying it (at a high price). You haven't really researched much about dinosaurs' existence, except that which supports your claims, have you? Have you checked out any sites that support the idea that dinosaurs have coexisted with humans? Or have you only checked out sites that try to disprove the idea? Be honest. Did you ever hear of the dead dinosaur-like sea creature that was recovered by a Japanese fishing vessel? I'm sure that it was just a hoax. Seems that those scientists that claimed that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago will do everything in their power to discredit all information that proves them wrong. That's the way people are.


The evidence corroborating the theory of evolution is staggering. I won't touch the global warming thing, except to say that the money is in denying it. You have a decomposed carcass that most think was a shark and that's the extent of your evidence? Where did the dinosaurs go? Why are there not any in the Amazonian jungle? There are few scientists percentage-wise who believe in a young earth, none of which I suspect could be deemed credible. Geology, biology, physics, climatology, its all one vast international multi-generational conspiracy of thousands of anti-Christian minds manipulating the evidence, out to discredit your beliefs.

----------


## cafolini

> True. 
> 
> I always start in with the intention of sharing why I enjoy being an atheist, and how a person doesn't need a God or a savior to be happy. It's supposed to be comforting, but it gets taken as an attack and I get sucked into someone else's battle. It's really not important though. Mostly I hope people are happy and not using excuses to hurt others.


I think I understand your position very well, although you know why, as I have said, I cannot declare my person atheist. I am basically a scientist and I cannot possibly discuss such religious nonsense by denying the value of belief or disbelief. I must, however, support you position reluctantly and also that of Sam Harris. 
I am an older man, a child of John Lennon. Therefore, I must say IMAGINE, and also "Let it be...there will be an answer."

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I'm not ignoring or changing anything I have said. Invisible friends are delusions. I'm sorry if you don't understand what delusions are. Pick on someone else for a while. Your objections to me don't make any sense, unless you just hate atheists. I'm not interested. Have a good day.  :Smile:

----------


## Darcy88

> Your belief in nothingness won't make it a reality, it will merely ease your conscience for the time...


But how do you know that its not the Muslims or the Mormons who have the inside-track on salvation?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I think I understand your position very well, although you know why, as I have said, I cannot declare my person atheist. I am basically a scientist and I cannot possibly discuss such religious nonsense by denying the value of belief or disbelief. I must, however, support you position reluctantly and also that of Sam Harris. 
> I am an older man, a child of John Lennon. Therefore, I must say IMAGINE, and also "Let it be...there will be an answer."


Gotta love John Lennon, Cafolini.  :Smile:

----------


## MattG

> ...They like to talk about reason and rationality, but when held to rational standards they try to escape them.


My apologies for being a buttinski, but you piqued my curiosity. 

Several posts back you say that you were an atheist but then imagined a scenario where you'd have to tell someone on his/her deathbed that heaven is real and that you would see them again after this life. You then said that it would be a lie, but that you would want it to be true, so you tossed atheism aside and became a believer. 

For all the talk of reason and rationality does this not seem an (life altering) emotional response?

----------


## Darcy88

And Bien, even if that was a dinosaur, and it was apparently most likely a shark, but even if it was, all if proves is that a species of dinosaur managed to survive this whole time deep in the ocean's depths. You don't find t-rex and raptor skeletons lying alongside those of humans. The oldest cave drawings show deer and horses and other animals we are familiar with. They don't show dinosaurs.

----------


## stuntpickle

> I'm not ignoring or changing anything I have said. Invisible friends are delusions. I'm sorry if you don't understand what delusions are. Pick on someone else for a while. Your objections to me don't make any sense, unless you just hate atheists. I'm not interested. Have a good day.


You can say whatever you want. But at this point, saying belief in God is delusional is just irrational. I'm not "picking on you." You're the one who erupted in a flurry of unjustifiable assertions. I'm just asking you to logically explain yourself, and you would rather write several paragraphs avoiding the question than writing three or four sentences answering it. At this point of our conversation, I think it might be easier to prove that belief in your assertion is delusional.

Oh, by the way, camels taste like strawberries and mountains are made of ice cream. I don't have to explain this all to you simply because you're threatened and don't understand the theory of gravity. You just hate camel worshipers.

This has been the form of your argument.

----------


## stuntpickle

> My apologies for being a buttinski, but you piqued my curiosity. 
> 
> Several posts back you say that you were an atheist but then imagined a scenario where you'd have to tell someone on his/her deathbed that heaven is real and that you would see them again after this life. You then said that it would be a lie, but that you would want it to be true, so you tossed atheism aside and became a believer. 
> 
> For all the talk of reason and rationality does this not seem an (life altering) emotional response?


Yeah surprise surprise, that's not what I said. I said that it was a necessary precursor to my belief rather than the rational grounds for it.

----------


## MattG

> Yeah surprise surprise, that's not what I said. I said that it was a necessary precursor to my belief rather than the rational grounds for it.


Then the rational grounds for your belief would be what?

----------


## stuntpickle

> Then the rational grounds for your belief would be what?


I'd prefer not to excuse any of the atheists in this thread from their explanatory obligations by offering them a convenient target to ineptly criticize. My opinions on the subject are well publicized, and you can easily find them in this forum.

----------


## Emil Miller

In relation to this thread I would class myself as agnostic, which is why I have not come down on either side of the fence. I like to think that I am a rational person and on the 'available evidence' I should be on the side of the atheists, but rationality counts for little when the rationale for life itself has yet to be explained by science. So, with apologies to the Bard, it's really a question of: 
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Dawkins, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> You can say whatever you want. But at this point, saying belief in God is delusional is just irrational. I'm not "picking on you." You're the one who erupted in a flurry of unjustifiable assertions. I'm just asking you to logically explain yourself, and you would rather write several paragraphs avoiding the question than writing three or four sentences answering it. At this point of our conversation, I think it might be easier to prove that belief in your assertion is delusional.
> 
> Oh, by the way, camels taste like strawberries and mountains are made of ice cream. I don't have to explain this all to you simply because you're threatened and don't understand the theory of gravity. You just hate camel worshipers.
> 
> This has been the form of your argument.


I've answered every question you asked me, as simply as I could manage. I didn't avoid anything. There is nothing to avoid. Either you didn't understand or I did not make myself clear. Since you obviously haven't gotten the picture, I'll assume the error was mine. Ciao.

----------


## stuntpickle

> I've answered every question you asked me, as simply as I could manage. I didn't avoid anything. There is nothing to avoid. Either you didn't understand or I did not make myself clear. Since you obviously haven't gotten the picture, I'll assume the error was mine. Ciao.


Could you please provide a rationally concluding series of statements ending with the conclusion "Therefore, because God is unseen and unheard, belief in him is delusional" so as to demonstrate the truth of your, as yet unsupported, assertion. I've been asking the same question this whole time, and that you would pretend to have answered it is hilarious.

----------


## Hallword

> In relation to this thread I would class myself as agnostic, which is why I have not come down on either side of the fence. I like to think that I am a rational person and on the 'available evidence' I should be on the side of the atheists, but rationality counts for little when the rationale for life itself has yet to be explained by science. So, with apologies to the Bard, it's really a question of: 
> "There are more things in heaven and earth, Dawkins, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."


What do you mean by "rationale for life"? Do you mean identifying the 'purpose' of life? 

And hi. I have just joined this forum.  :Cornut:

----------


## Hallword

> Could you please provide a rationally concluding series of statements ending with the conclusion "Therefore, because God is unseen and unheard, belief in him is delusional" so as to demonstrate the truth of your, as yet unsupported, assertion. I've been asking the same question this whole time, and that you would pretend to have answered it is hilarious.


Would you agree that the affirmation in the existence of anything at all would have to meet the conditions of falsification and empirical evidence? I hope so. If so, for instance, if I was to make astrological discoveries and if they're to be 'true', then it would have to be falsifiable and empirically proven. Scientists should be able to replicate my results, or see what I saw .. etc ..

Since science cannot prove the existence of God (that being the necessary condition for the existence of anything to be true), then such a belief cannot be logical. 

It's not that theists lack 'evidence' (and, hence, irrational) - but that the evidence is such that it is subject to personal beliefs (sincere as they may be), gut feelings, and man's natural psychological conditions. A lot of people believe they have had ghost experiences, for instance ... And these don't meet the standards of science in the pursuit of truth.

----------


## OrphanPip

> My point is not to suggest that theism is a lie or even self-deception, but rather to point out how the treatment of Bievenu is representative of the worst aspects of human nature.


I actually think people were saying that believing dinosaurs cohabited the Earth with humans, and that the Earth is geologically only a few thousand years old, and that Biblical myths, like the global flood, are literally true, all runs counter to reality as we know it.

There is nothing bullying about that, it's simply calling a ridiculous opinion out for what it is. Making a statement about a prime mover, or some unknown force in the universe is one thing. Making a statement that is objectively false is simply not open to being tolerated in order to spare the feelings of others.

----------


## stuntpickle

> I actually think people were saying that believing dinosaurs cohabited the Earth with humans, and that the Earth is geologically only a few thousand years old, and that Biblical myths, like the global, flood are literally true, runs counter to reality as we know it.
> 
> There is nothing bullying about that, it's simply calling a ridiculous opinion out for what it is. Making a statement about a prime mover, or some unknown force in the universe is one thing. Making a statement that is objectively false is simply not open to being tolerated in order to spare the feelings of others.


I wonder if you could demonstrate having read the post in its entirety, Pip. I wasn't suggesting that Bienvenu was right. And I think I provided an explanation for why I said what I said. If my point was that, perhaps, one shouldn't try to disabuse him of his theism, DESPITE HIS BELIEFS ON DINOSAURS, I can't understand why you would reply in reference to his belief on Dinosaurs.

By the way, do you want to answer the question?

----------


## OrphanPip

> I wonder if you could demonstrate having read the post in its entirety, Pip. I wasn't suggesting that Bienvenu was right. And I think I provided an explanation for why I said what I said. If my point was that, perhaps, one shouldn't try to disabuse him of his theism, DESPITE HIS BELIEFS ON DINOSAURS, I can't understand why you would reply in reference to his belief on Dinosaurs.
> 
> By the way, do you want to answer the question?


Because that was the only point of discussion immediately prior to your intercession, we were not discussing Bien's belief in God, but his use of this belief to justify an irrational belief in demonstrably false assertions. Thus, saying we were ganging up on him to dissuade him of his theism isn't quite an accurate description of what was happening.

I don't think it's possible to demonstrate God does not exist, I simply think there is not reason enough to believe he exists, so I don't believe. My only concern with religion is in its effects on society and individuals. Or, in other words, I don't particularly care about their theological claims, but merely their social impact. Such that I, as someone coming from the sciences, have an invested interest in the misguided attempts by some theistic circles to discredit the methodology of science so as to satisfy their a priori assumptions about the order of the universe. I object to the actions of certain organized churches in the power dynamics of their missionary actions. I object to certain Judeo-Christian systems of morality, because they depend on recourse to an authority, which because I discount their claim to a perfect deity determining that authority I argue merely reflects a subjective socio-culturally determined morality rather than some true guiding moral force. Such that I disagree with certain churches in their interpretation of this Moral Law through their resistance to gay rights, abortion rights, and more recently matters of redistribution of wealth.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Because that was the only point of discussion immediately prior to your intercession, we were not discussing Bien's belief in God, but his use of this belief to justify an irrational belief in demonstrably false assertions. Thus, saying we were ganging up on him to dissuade him of his theism isn't quite an accurate description of what was happening.
> 
> I don't think it's possible to demonstrate God does not exist, I simply think there is not reason enough to believe he exists, so I don't believe. My only concern with religion is in its effects on society and individuals. Or, in other words, I don't particularly care about their theological claims, but merely their social impact. Such that I, as someone coming from the sciences, have an invested interest in the misguided attempts by some theistic circles to discredit the methodology of science so as to satisfy their a priori assumptions about the order of the universe. I object to the actions of certain organized churches in the power dynamics of their missionary actions. I object to certain Judeo-Christian systems of morality, because they depend on recourse to an authority, which because I discount their claim to a perfect deity determining that authority I argue merely reflects a subjective socio-culturally determined morality rather than some true guiding moral force. Such that I disagree with certain churches in their interpretation of this Moral Law through their resistance to gay rights, abortion rights, and more recently matters of redistribution of wealth.


Pip, you seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, and so it is frustrating that you inexplicably offer a justification for your atheism, when I was prompting you for something else entirely. I think it's fairly obvious in my post that I am suggesting that disabusing a person of his theism is to deprive him of the mechanisms of comfort in the situation I described. I'm just unsure of how that connects with what you're saying.

Oh, and I'll ask again: do you want to answer the original question?

----------


## stuntpickle

> Because that was the only point of discussion immediately prior to your intercession, we were not discussing Bien's belief in God, but his use of this belief to justify an irrational belief in demonstrably false assertions. Thus, saying we were ganging up on him to dissuade him of his theism isn't quite an accurate description of what was happening.
> 
> I don't think it's possible to demonstrate God does not exist, I simply think there is not reason enough to believe he exists, so I don't believe. My only concern with religion is in its effects on society and individuals. Or, in other words, I don't particularly care about their theological claims, but merely their social impact. Such that I, as someone coming from the sciences, have an invested interest in the misguided attempts by some theistic circles to discredit the methodology of science so as to satisfy their a priori assumptions about the order of the universe. I object to the actions of certain organized churches in the power dynamics of their missionary actions. I object to certain Judeo-Christian systems of morality, because they depend on recourse to an authority, which because I discount their claim to a perfect deity determining that authority I argue merely reflects a subjective socio-culturally determined morality rather than some true guiding moral force. Such that I disagree with certain churches in their interpretation of this Moral Law through their resistance to gay rights, abortion rights, and more recently matters of redistribution of wealth.


Never mind. For some reason, I didn't see your first paragraph.

----------


## Emil Miller

> What do you mean by "rationale for life"? Do you mean identifying the 'purpose' of life? 
> 
> And hi. I have just joined this forum.


But of course, what else does it mean?

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

First, let me first extend an olive branch to Bien, by apologizing for belittling his beliefs and opinions. In all fairness, though, the snideness wasn't all one-way. Maybe I started it, I'm not sure--it wouldn't surprise me, and I don't feel like scanning the full thread to find out.



> First, I want you to think about the most important person in the world to you. This could be a spouse, a parent, a child, a lover, a friend; it doesn't matter who, so long as none other is more important to you. I want you to imagine that this person is, in the next five minutes, struck by a moving automobile. You are then summoned to the hospital, where this persons is in the process of dying. You are at this person's bedside to receive his last words. He asks you whether there is a heaven, and if so, whether you two will meet again. My question involves neither proofs nor arguments, and we will presume that the person answering the question is an atheist.
> 
> Do you answer honestly and tell him there is no heaven and that these are his last moments of consciousness, or do you lie and tell him that you will see him again?


I would answer honestly as an atheist and say this (assuming that this incredibly close person in my life doesn't already know my ideas on the subject): "I don't know if there is an afterlife or not. I tend not to think so. I hope I'm wrong."




> I'm sorry, Darcy, but you are wrong. You seem to know nothing about God. He is not physical, but He is spirit. There is far more evidence that man existed with dinosaurs than just a stone. There's even Biblical accounts of the dinosaur. There's descriptions of dinosaurs in the book of Job. Not ONLY in the bible, but in many writings in many cultures. I can't help it that you are too narrow minded to accept anything beyond your own belief, but there's truth out there. Truth that you are just unwilling to accept.


I accept that there is evidence out there that would suggest that dinosaurs existed with man. I also accept that there is evidence that suggest dinosaurs did not exist with men, and I would argue that there is more of this evidence and that it is more compelling. As someone who is not religious, someone who doesn't believe in what religious tomes say, what conclusion am I supposed to come to? It's an objective matter for me, not a subjective or personal one. Looking at both sides, I don't think dinosaurs existed with man. 
I believe there is more truth in that statement than its counterpart.

----------


## Hallword

> But of course, what else does it mean?


I ask merely because this is, from my view, a rather strange question to ask. The world is based on disordered randomness, and the very idea of a 'purpose' is directly opposed to any meaningful free-will. I also feel that probability and conincidences are a big problem here. Not forgetting that without the belief in a 'purpose', it seems to me, that some people would then equate that with meaningless. Naturally, we can all find 'meaning' in life without the supranatural ... I sometimes feel Aristotle was probably the closest by pointing to eudaimonia ... There is no such thing as destiny.

Arh. I have been talking about God a lot today!

----------


## Hallword

> First, let me first extend an olive branch to Bien, by apologizing for belittling his beliefs and opinions. In all fairness, though, the snideness wasn't all one-way. Maybe I started it, I'm not sure--it wouldn't surprise me, and I don't feel like scanning the full thread to find out.
> 
> I would answer honestly as an atheist and say this (assuming that this incredibly close person in my life doesn't already know my ideas on the subject): "I don't know if there is an afterlife or not. I tend not to think so. I hope I'm wrong."
> 
> 
> I accept that there is evidence out there that would suggest that dinosaurs existed with man. I also accept that there is evidence that suggest dinosaurs did not exist with men, and I would argue that there is more of this evidence and that it is more compelling. As someone who is not religious, someone who doesn't believe in what religious tomes say, what conclusion am I supposed to come to? It's an objective matter for me, not a subjective or personal one. Looking at both sides, I don't think dinosaurs existed with man. 
> I believe there is more truth in that statement than its counterpart.


There are dinosaurs amongst us today. They're birds  :Wink: .

----------


## KCurtis

> I actually think people were saying that believing dinosaurs cohabited the Earth with humans, and that the Earth is geologically only a few thousand years old, and that Biblical myths, like the global flood, are literally true, all runs counter to reality as we know it.
> 
> There is nothing bullying about that, it's simply calling a ridiculous opinion out for what it is. Making a statement about a prime mover, or some unknown force in the universe is one thing. Making a statement that is objectively false is simply not open to being tolerated in order to spare the feelings of others.


Well stated. I can't understand why religion and science cannot co-exist. There are certainly scientists, and people who accept evolution, who are religious. 
Also, the reason we have not provided scientific data to support facts concerning geology, dinosaurs, evolution,etc., on this forum is because it has already been provided, it's everywhere, but people just choose to believe what they do. This thread will change nobody's mind. My brother in-law is a creationist. I really like him, and I don't seek him out to insult him-I don't think he is unintelligent. I don't bring up the subject- but if I am asked, I will have more ammunition for my argument than he will.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> The evidence corroborating the theory of evolution is staggering. I won't touch the global warming thing, except to say that the money is in denying it. You have a decomposed carcass that most think was a shark and that's the extent of your evidence? Where did the dinosaurs go? Why are there not any in the Amazonian jungle? There are few scientists percentage-wise who believe in a young earth, none of which I suspect could be deemed credible. Geology, biology, physics, climatology, its all one vast international multi-generational conspiracy of thousands of anti-Christian minds manipulating the evidence, out to discredit your beliefs.


The money is in DENYING it? I don't even care to discuss anything with you any more. If you can't understand the total fallacy in global warming and the money that has been gained by pushing that agenda, then there's no discussing anything with you. You have your mind set on things.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Again, Bien, where did the icecaps go? Why are polar bears going homeless?

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> The difference I think though is that with science EVERYTHING is on the table, nothing is above being potentially discredited. With faith that is not the case. In fact its this constant flux which has been science's greatest strength and claim to legitimacy. Nothing is sacred before the fact.


I think that this is dead on, and likely the reason why there is so much debate between fundamentalist theists and science people (notice I'm not saying "athists" - there are many people who's opinions adhere to the scientific process who are also religious). For a person who forces themselves to accept things which are easy to disprove, the proof doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is their version of the truth. To a scientist, proof is ALL that matters. The truth changes depending on the facts. That's why I don't put any stock into the opinion that science is just another religion because it is another "belief" - the two are worlds apart, they're exact opposites on a fundamental level. 




> Do you answer honestly and tell him there is no heaven and that these are his last moments of consciousness, or do you lie and tell him that you will see him again?


I'd tell him the truth and say "I don't know." That's the _only_ truth - NO ONE KNOWS. The most important person in the world to me wouldn't ask that question, though. He can think for himself. 




> and so you will have to excuse me for finding your zest vulgar and thoughtless.


A comfortable lie is still a lie, and there's nothing in the world that _I_ find more vulgar and thoughtless than lies. 




> I don't think it is an accident that New Atheism is largely restricted to a younger demographic. We're all five metaphorical minutes away from that bed, but it's incredibly hard to understand this when you're young.


Actually, the person that I love most was born with a severe heart condition. He's been in a situation where his life expectancy was only 15% exactly five times (five heart surgeries). You want to know who he hates more than anyone in the world? All of the nosy dipsh*t Christians that he doesn't even know who come into his hospital room, and have done so ever since he was born, telling him that his suffering and likely death is all a part of "God's plan." Really? Then God is an a-hole. Get out. 

Young people are atheists because they aren't aquainted with death, disease and suffering? Really? Mutatis is an atheist, and he's had skin cancer six times. 




> My point is not to suggest that theism is a lie or even self-deception, but rather to point out how the treatment of Bievenu is representative of the worst aspects of human nature.


It's because of people like Bien that young homosexuals have such a high rate of depression and suicide (more young deaths? I'm starting to see a pattern). I've had debates with him before, apparently they're abominations. Sorry, I'll never feel bad for a pushy fundie when people gang up on him. People SHOULD stand together against ideas like that. Because, you know, religion has never ganged up on anyone ever, especially for the last thousand years. At least no one is suggesting that we KILL vocal fundamentalists, which puts us in the plus column (and don't even try to twist my words - consider yourself officially informed that it is VOCAL FUNDAMENTALISTS that we are discussing here, not religious people in general).

----------


## cafolini

> I'm not ignoring or changing anything I have said. Invisible friends are delusions. I'm sorry if you don't understand what delusions are. Pick on someone else for a while. Your objections to me don't make any sense, unless you just hate atheists. I'm not interested. Have a good day.


Well, keep going. Now I know you are preaching entanglement with nonsense. Have fun.

----------


## YesNo

> Also, the reason we have not provided scientific data to support facts concerning geology, dinosaurs, evolution,etc., on this forum is because it has already been provided, it's everywhere, but people just choose to believe what they do. This thread will change nobody's mind.


I agree that the thread will change no one's mind. Personally, I like the divergence of opinions. It does give anyone who chooses to post opportunities to clarify their positions. 

I disagree with the reason people do not provide supporting evidence for their claims. I don't think it is because the evidence is somewhere else. Rather, it is because we don't know what that evidence is and we don't want to clarify the basis of our ideas. Without supporting evidence, all one has is unquestioned dogmatism which we might as well stop pretending is science and call it what it is: a belief system.

Two of BienvenuJDC's arguments seem to go something like this, unless I misunderstood him:

1) The human species is less than 10,000 years old.

2) Evolution did not occur.

Now I think the human species is about 150,000 years old, but that is based on a claim I remember reading in Brian Sykes' _The Seven Daughters of Eve_. However, taking Sykes word for it doesn't seem like very strong evidence. There must be better evidence.

What is that evidence?

I also think evolution occurred, but if I were asked to provide evidence for this, what combination of fossils is necessary to do that? Again, what is the evidence?

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> I agree that the thread will change no one's mind.


Threads change my mind all the time. It was in a thread that The Atheist convinced me that being tolerant of people who push ideas that promote inequality, suffering and ignorance is NOT the good kind of tolerance. Also, Darcy just convinced me a few pages ago to tolerate these ideas as long as the people who have them are willing to shut up about them and not try to change the government or school systems to suit their religion. That's why I like internet debates.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

This thread hasn't changed my mind, but it has taught my a lesson I refuse to learn, and will undoubtedly break in the future, and that is to not bother arguing with fundamentalists.

----------


## YesNo

> Threads change my mind all the time. It was in a thread that The Atheist convinced me that being tolerant of people who push ideas that promote inequality, suffering and ignorance is NOT the good kind of tolerance.


Actually, they change my mind as well, come to think of it. It was a post by OrphanPip almost a year ago that contained a link to a lecture on cosmology that made me realize the Big Bang was not what I thought it was, but a radical beginning out of nothing. 

That basically eliminated atheism as a viable position.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> Actually, they change my mind as well, come to think of it. It was a post by OrphanPip almost a year ago that contained a link to a lecture on cosmology that made me realize the Big Bang was not what I thought it was, but a radical beginning out of nothing. 
> 
> That basically eliminated atheism as a viable position.


The thing that blew my mind was when my highschool physics teacher told us that the laws of physics would have had to exist (eg. expansion outwards from an internal heat source) _before_ there was matter and energy for the rules to act upon.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Well, keep going. Now I know you are preaching entanglement with nonsense. Have fun.


That wasn't directed at you, caf. I'm not preaching nonsense. "A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence." This was to answer a question that was posed to me. Sometimes you make quick judgements about my intentions. If you want to assess me correctly watch "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and soak up that carefree vibe to apply to my text.  :Smile:

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> This thread hasn't changed my mind, but it has taught my a lesson I refuse to learn, and will undoubtedly break in the future, and that is to not bother arguing with fundamentalists.


Ever consider that you yourself are the type that you are refusing to argue with?

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> Ever consider that you yourself are the type that you are refusing to argue with?


I'm just curious, if we were to look up "pot calling the kettle black" on wiki, would we find your picture?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I think that this is dead on, and likely the reason why there is so much debate between fundamentalist theists and science people (notice I'm not saying "athists" - there are many people who's opinions adhere to the scientific process who are also religious). For a person who forces themselves to accept things which are easy to disprove, the proof doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is their version of the truth. To a scientist, proof is ALL that matters. The truth changes depending on the facts. That's why I don't put any stock into the opinion that science is just another religion because it is another "belief" - the two are worlds apart, they're exact opposites on a fundamental level. 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd tell him the truth and say "I don't know." That's the _only_ truth - NO ONE KNOWS. The most important person in the world to me wouldn't ask that question, though. He can think for himself. 
> 
> 
> 
> A comfortable lie is still a lie, and there's nothing in the world that _I_ find more vulgar and thoughtless than lies. 
> ...


You're making great arguments, Jupiter. Well said.

----------


## Darcy88

> I agree that the thread will change no one's mind. Personally, I like the divergence of opinions. It does give anyone who chooses to post opportunities to clarify their positions. 
> 
> I disagree with the reason people do not provide supporting evidence for their claims. I don't think it is because the evidence is somewhere else. Rather, it is because we don't know what that evidence is and we don't want to clarify the basis of our ideas. Without supporting evidence, all one has is unquestioned dogmatism which we might as well stop pretending is science and call it what it is: a belief system.
> 
> Two of BienvenuJDC's arguments seem to go something like this, unless I misunderstood him:
> 
> 1) The human species is less than 10,000 years old.
> 
> 2) Evolution did not occur.
> ...


I think if the overwhelming majority of persons who complete higher level study of the subject have reached a consensus, we can take that consensus to mean something. I shouldn't have to study evolution in order to believe in it. And my failure to study it should not lead to the equating of my belief to dogmatism. I believe the earth is round but I've never performed the calculations myself. Its an extreme example but it nicely illustrates my point.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Would you agree that the affirmation in the existence of anything at all would have to meet the conditions of falsification and empirical evidence?


I adamantly disagree, as would most philosophers since the 1930s. What you are espousing here is a variety of logical positivism, which is self-refuting. Consider the statement "Empirical evidence is required to affirm the existence of anything." Okay, just empirically affirm the existence of empiricism. More importantly, empirically justify empiricism as a philosophical standard. The problem with logical positivism is that it requires an evidentiary standard that it cannot, itself, fulfill. And that's why its adherents were run out of the academy in the first half of the 20th Century. Its really only New Atheists who make such demands of people, much to the chagrin of more learned atheists. When Richard Dawkins says stuff like this, the loudest criticisms come from atheistic philosophers simply because they're embarrassed.





> Since science cannot prove the existence of God (that being the necessary condition for the existence of anything to be true), then such a belief cannot be logical.


This statement is obviously wrong. Science is a fairly narrow enterprise concerned with observable aspects of the material universe. A few things science cannot even evaluate, much less "prove": mathematics, logic, science, itself. In fact, science must take all these things for granted, before one can do science. Godel's theorems of incompleteness suggest that the more exact a mechanism is, the less complete it is, and this is why there are no logical justifications of logic, no mathematical justifications of math. Science, itself, rests on a fairly thin inductive assumption that natural laws are uniform across space and time, which cannot be proved scientifically--ever. Science will never be in a position to observe enough to make a deductive argument about the conditions of the universe; it must always make some problematic inductive argument. You see, the biggest casualty for your empirical philosophical requirements is, in fact, science. This was Hume's greatest problem, and he never found a solution, nor did anyone else. If we had to sit around and wait for empirical evidence of the conditions surrounding every physical phenomenon in the universe, science couldn't operate: no reasonable statement could be made about anything. The variety of empiricism you espouse is known to be one of the most crippling world views in all of history, most specifically as it relates to science.

Additionally, lack of scientific “proof” doesn’t render something illogical. I wonder whether you understand what a “proof” is, as it’s a strictly formal arrangement of necessarily concluding statements most often relegated to the realm of mathematics. For instance, there’s no formal proof of evolution or gravity. Moreover, science isn’t the arbiter of what’s logical; logic, itself, is. Scientists don’t sit around trying to render judgments about the rationality of statements, but rather test hypotheses according to criteria of observation. Just because science, for structural reasons, can never attempt to prove the irrationality of the square root of two doesn’t mean that the statement, itself, is illogical. 

Also, you make the mistake of conflating irrationality with being delusional. When someone makes a mistake of logic, we do not then commit them to an insane asylum.




> It's not that theists lack 'evidence' (and, hence, irrational) - but that the evidence is such that it is subject to personal beliefs (sincere as they may be), gut feelings, and man's natural psychological conditions. A lot of people believe they have had ghost experiences, for instance ... And these don't meet the standards of science in the pursuit of truth.


Your notion that theistic belief can only be grounded in gut feelings and "psychological conditions" is plainly false. In fact, the vast majority of rational discourse in human history has hinged in some manner on the belief. Cosmological and ontological arguments for God are hardly "gut feelings." You do understand that, for instance, Descartes's work culminated with an ontological argument for God. The truth is the theistic worldview is more defensible--by a long shot--than what you're espousing as a worldview, which currently looks a lot like logical positivism. Though that's not saying much since, your worldview refutes itself. The interesting thing is that you're not even aware of this.

----------


## stuntpickle

Sorry, double post.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> What is that evidence?
> 
> I also think evolution occurred, but if I were asked to provide evidence for this, what combination of fossils is necessary to do that? Again, what is the evidence?


Point one: the animal species who's remains we have found in fossils no longer exist on earth today, and we can not find any (or ALMOST any) remains from animals which are currently alive (sharks and crocodiles have existed long enough to be fossilized and we've found a few). You don't find polar bear fossils, or housecat fossils. You find fossils which _kind of resemble_ polar bears and housecats. Conclusion: housecats and polar bears are the descendants of these early relatives, and have replaced them.

Point two: natural selection is undisputed. You can watch it happen. Animals who aren't fit for their environment die, and those that are fit survive to breed. Mutation also happens. Sometimes mutations are beneficial, for example when a bird is born with a mutation that gives it a longer beak. This long-beaked bird will breed, and create more birds with longer beaks which are better suited to grabbing their food source (let's say, bugs that live in logs). They'll take most of the food and mates (because they will be healtheir, and animals always choose to breed with the healthiest mate) and the short-beaked birds will die off before they get a chance to procreate, so the long-beaked birds will become the new standard of hypothetical birds. 

This scenario has occured many times, but the question is, are these birds a new species or just a variation of the old one? Well, we can sometimes find groups of animals in which the new trait _hasn't_ mutated. This group is isolated from the other group of animals, so they retain all of the same traits that the species had before the new trait was introduced. After the new species breeds a few generations, they find that different traits are created _because_ of the new development. To use the hypothetical bird example, maybe the new species doesn't need to use it's wings to catch food as much anymore so the wings get shorter and weaker. After a bit of time, the two species no longer resemble each other, but are they ACTUALLY different species?

We can tell that two species are different from one another if they can't create viable offspring. If we introduce the non-changed birds to the changed birds, we often find that the two are either physically incapable of breeding or that their reproductive cells are simply incompatible. The female bird either doesn't become pregnant, or the offspring dies right away. That means that they are different species which were members of the same species previously, which means that evolution has occured. 

This has been simplified by the way, there's more to it. Sometimes it's not a mutation which causes the species to change, but various forms of isolation (and there are different kinds of isolation, each with it's own terminology) which cuts the population into two or more groups upon which natural selection acts differently and _that_ causes them to become different species, or one of the populations stays in the old environment and maintains all of the traits of the old species but the other group of isolated organisms change. There's a lot to study and learn when it comes to evolution and natural selection, but the point is that we can and do watch it happen, so I'm pretty sure it exists.

----------


## Darcy88

I see tremendous irony in the fact that people attempting to undermine science do so using advanced technology provided by science. To refer to science as "narrow" is a wee bit of an exaggeration no?

----------


## osho

In fact this feud is timeless and a few believers throughout history always waged a series of wars against science and our great scientists' lives were mostly at stake and the same goes on even today with a few thinkers undermining the importance of science. 

Without the thought of God things will go as they are but without science we will be again fall into savagery

----------


## stuntpickle

> I see tremendous irony in the fact that people attempting to undermine science do so using advanced technology provided by science. To refer to science as "narrow" is a wee bit of an exaggeration no?


First, I'm not trying to undermine science. Calling science "narrow" is true. When you want to know the chances of getting your case through a court of equity, you don't ask a scientist. When you want to understand the meaning of a poem, you don't ask a scientist. The fact that you misunderstand the word "narrow" as a moral judgment of science demonstrates your lack of understanding. We require that science is narrow so that it works.

----------


## stuntpickle

> a few believers throughout history always waged a series of wars against science


This is a fairly vacuous statement. It can also be said that a few non-believers slaughtered millions of people in the Soviet Union, which obviously doesn't impeach one's lack of belief, just as whatever "a few believers throughout history" did doesn't impeach belief in God.

----------


## Darcy88

> First, I'm not trying to undermine science. Calling science "narrow" is true. When you want to know the chances of getting your case through a court of equity, you don't ask a scientist. When you want to understand the meaning of a poem, you don't ask a scientist. The fact that you misunderstand the word "narrow" as a moral judgment of science demonstrates your lack of understanding. We require that science is narrow so that it works.


I have difficulty thinking of a single thing as deep and diverse as science. It encompasses so incredibly much I balk at the task of delineating it here. Forgetting the theoretical, just in the way it has so radically transformed our environment and our lives through technology its results are patently astonishing.

I suppose art may compare in terms of richness and breadth. Its all I can think of.

----------


## stuntpickle

> I have difficulty thinking of a single thing as deep and diverse as science. It encompasses so incredibly much I balk at the task of delineating it here. Forgetting the theoretical, just in the way it has so radically transformed our environment and our lives through technology its results are patently astonishing.
> 
> I suppose art may compare in terms of richness and breadth. Its all I can think of.


You can write a paean to science if you want, but it doesn't in any way relate to the statement of science being necessarily narrow. Being narrow in scope doesn't preclude being, as you say, "astonishing".

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> You can write a paean to science if you want, but it doesn't in any way relate to the statement of science being necessarily narrow. Being narrow in scope doesn't preclude being, as you say, "astonishing".


I guess you missed his other adjectives which pertain to you claim that science is narrow, like "deep," "diverse," "rich," and also "It encompasses so incredibly much I balk at the task of delineating it here." You latched onto his admiration for science and said that it doesn't contradict your claim, but the rest of his post _did_. You tend to do that, you ignore every part of someone's post except for the little snippet that you feel that have the ability to use.

Also, you completely ignored my original post which responded to your scenario.

----------


## stuntpickle

> I guess you missed his other adjectives which pertain to you claim that science is narrow, like "deep," "diverse," "rich," and also "It encompasses so incredibly much I balk at the task of delineating it here." You latched onto his admiration for science and said that it doesn't contradict your claim, but the rest of his post _did_. You tend to do that, you ignore every part of someone's post except for the little snippet that you feel that have the ability to use.


He can, of course, make claims about the breadth of whatever discipline he chooses, but if he really wants to make a point he would have to demonstrate how science is broader than math, logic, metaphysics, epistemology, law, government, dance, music, literature and I here I could on forever. I think your problem is that you (in the plural) revere science so much that you think you are required to defend it to the detriment of everything else. Every field of human inquiry is narrow in some sense, unless you have a literal theory of everything, which probably wouldn't do anyone much good. Let me just clearly state something here: to consider that science is necessarily in opposition to metaphysical truths or theological truths is a false dichotomy. Perhaps you could reread the original post and try to understand how the word "narrow" is applicable to an explanation of how science is limited to material phenomena and not wide enough to evaluate metaphysical statements. I find it interesting that you misinterpret a fairly banal statement as some attack on science. I am not opposed to science, but I AM opposed to scientism, which is when unsophisticated thinkers presume science to be broader than it really is. If I called capitalism a fairly narrow theory of capital in order to demonstrate how it cannot make determinations about the nature of gravity, would you get upset?

----------


## JuniperWoolf

Yeeeaaaahhh, I don't really _care_ about semantics and refuse to get into a debate about something as boring as the definition of the word "narrow," so...




> Also, you completely ignored my original post which responded to your scenario.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Yeeeaaaahhh, I don't really _care_ about semantics, so...


Well, then why the big fuss? That the people in this thread consider the statement "science is a narrow field of inquiry" to be some ideological attack is fairly telling.

You seem to be quoting yourself, so I'm not entirely sure if you're talking to me. If you made a response to me, you're going to have to point it out or restate it.

----------


## osho

> This is a fairly vacuous statement. It can also be said that a few non-believers slaughtered millions of people in the Soviet Union, which obviously doesn't impeach one's lack of belief, just as whatever "a few believers throughout history" did doesn't impeach belief in God.


If you really seek historical evidence more numbers of people died in the name of religion or ideology than in others, geopolitical or commercial wars put together. The 9 /11 raid was ideological. Hitler emerged colossally and invincibly for an ideology and even today the world is being a worse place to live in because we are more threats from ideological wars.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> You seem to be quoting yourself, so I'm not entirely sure if you're talking to me.


Ugh! Yes, I'm talking to _you_. The post was directed at _you_. Is this going to be another teeth-pulling exercise?

http://www.online-literature.com/for...=64189&page=24

Fourth one down, the one that says "JuniperWoolf."

----------


## stuntpickle

> If you really seek historical evidence more numbers of people died in the name of religion or ideology than in others, geopolitical or commercial wars put together. The 9 /11 raid was ideological. Hitler emerged colossally and invincibly for an ideology and even today the world is being a worse place to live in because we are more threats from ideological wars.


Apparently, you missed the point of what I said, which was essentially that vague generalizations about who did what in no way impeach belief in God or lack of belief in God. But then you make more vague generalizations that are, frankly, irrelevant. You keep using the word "ideological," which is not, by the way, synonymous with theism. Are you advocating a society without ideology? What would this society look like?

----------


## stuntpickle

> Ugh! Yes, I'm talking to _you_. The post was directed at _you_. Is this going to be another teeth-pulling exercise?
> 
> http://www.online-literature.com/for...=64189&page=24
> 
> Fourth one down, the one that says "JuniperWoolf."


Looks like you edited it just now. It used to be largely devoted to someone else. So don't get upset about me missing your revisions. Teeth-pulling exercise? All I recall is a teeth-kicking one, and if you're ready for another, I'll oblige you.

----------


## osho

> Apparently, you missed the point of what I said, which was essentially that vague generalizations about who did what in no way impeach belief in God or lack of belief in God. But then you make more vague generalizations that are, frankly, irrelevant. You keep using the word "ideological," which is not, by the way, synonymous with theism. Are you advocating a society without ideology? What would this society look like?


The kind of society I crave is not the one that fights for an ideology, or for their gods, for their religions, for their races, for their ethnic identity or customs. Maybe this type of society is only in our heads, thoughts now, but this is a scientific society.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> Looks like you edited it just now. It used to be largely devoted to someone else. So don't get upset about me missing your revisions. Teeth-pulling exercise? All I recall is a teeth-kicking one, and if you're ready for another, I'll oblige you.


...Teeth kicking? 

Four hours ago one of my quote boxes had someone else's name on it because of an editing mistake (I copied and pasted the top quote box to make the fourth), but the other three had your name in the block header, not to mention all four were quoting _you_, and I fixed the wrong one. Sorry for the mix up.

Do I have to ask for your response again? If so, do I have to say something lame like "oblige me?"

Try not to get too rude and evasive this time though, just for the sake of fairness. My infraction points limit can't take it if I get stupid and respond with anger (I'm not trying to be cheeky, I'm totally serious).

----------


## PoeticPassions

A friend of mine once told me, never argue about religion and politics with people you like (granted you know they have very different opinions than you). Of course, I really like some of you on here (others I don't know), and it seems silly that we are all arguing about something, when we know that no one is going to change their mind. The point of discussion, however, is not to change other people's minds, but to expand their horizons, so to speak, and arrive at a greater (collective) understanding (or this is what I think). The problem here is that this has turned into some huge debate, which has become personal to some degree, and has involved attacks on personal character... that makes me quite sad. Particularly from those that started this discussion in defense of having an opinion, and then turned around and attacked other people's opinion. Voltaire would be turning in his grave right about now... 

As for defending someone from being ganged up on-- I don't see why you would do that on this forum, and in this specific thread. Obviously, whoever posts in the 'Why I don't believe in god' thread, and then talks about why there is a God and why any other possibility is not acceptable or possible, is asking to become part of a debate. This is an anonymous forum-- one can step out of heated discussion at any point. 

It is unfortunate, however, that no one really wants to have a dialogue about these things... instead most just want to disprove each other's points and find logical fallacies in each other's arguments or beliefs. 

I'll end with a mention of Voltaire again, and quote him: ''What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly — that is the first law of nature.''

----------


## stuntpickle

> A comfortable lie is still a lie, and there's nothing in the world that _I_ find more vulgar and thoughtless than lies.


What a horrible statement. So you don't believe in the noble lie? So if the Nazis knocked on your door and asked if you were hiding Jews and you were, you would tell the truth? And telling the lie would be thoughtless and vulgar, right?




> Actually, the person that I love most was born with a severe heart condition. He's been in a situation where his life expectancy was only 15% exactly five times (five heart surgeries). You want to know who he hates more than anyone in the world? All of the nosy dipsh*t Christians that he doesn't even know who come into his hospital room, and have done so ever since he was born, telling him that his suffering and likely death is all a part of "God's plan." Really? Then God is an a-hole. Get out.


I actually stated that I was NOT trying to present an argument, but rather demonstrating the stakes of the dilemma. So now that you've called Christians "dip****s" in a forum about religious texts that explicitly requires respecting the belief of others, what reaction do you expect from me?




> Young people are atheists because they aren't aquainted with death, disease and suffering? Really? Mutatis is an atheist, and he's had skin cancer six times.


Young people on average are less acquainted with mortality, which is a statement I think reasonable persons would agree with. That this or that person had health problems when young doesn't really contradict it.






> It's because of people like Bien that young homosexuals have such a high rate of depression and suicide (more young deaths? I'm starting to see a pattern). I've had debates with him before, apparently they're abominations.


Please demonstrate some causal relationship with Bienvenu or some obvious counterpart and suicides among homosexuals. "Abomination" as used in the Pentateuch is a term firmly in the context of Hebraic ethics. Eating shrimp is an abomination. Am I now responsible for suicides among the eaters of shrimp? The word "because" is an explicit statement of causality. If I called you a poopy-face and you were so upset that you killed yourself, can I be said to have caused your suicide? I don't think so. 




> Sorry, I'll never feel bad for a pushy fundie when people gang up on him.


Perhaps you lack empathy. You know, regardless of whether you believe in Jesus as a divine figure and son of God, he does represent the Western ideal of goodness. And never is he more powerful in his goodness than when he suggests we should love our enemies, when he asks for God to forgive his murderers. Many observant thinkers have commented on the recent debate that the New Atheists and the fundamentalist Christians are similar groups in both attitude and method. To say you will "never feel sorry" for this or that variety of person is to demonstrate, I think, a fairly horrible psychology. Kurt Vonnegut, who was a humanist, attempted to find the humanity of even Hitler in Timequake by having Hitler say, just before he killed himself, "I never asked to be born." I think both Christians and humanists should endeavor to empathize with everyone, including awful persons like Saddam Hussein, whose head was nearly ripped off in a botched execution, and Osama bin Laden, who was shot in his underwear--despite both of those persons being murderous psychopaths. To proudly proclaim you relish the hardships of anyone is, I think, to be a self-righteous monster.




> People SHOULD stand together against ideas like that. Because, you know, religion has never ganged up on anyone ever, especially for the last thousand years. At least no one is suggesting that we KILL vocal fundamentalists


This is what is called a moral equivalency claim. That some other group might have done something bad doesn't provide warrant for you to do the same. Moreover, any Christian ganging up on someone and suggesting that they be "killed" does so in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ--you know, the guy who said to turn the other cheek and let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Of course, the institutions of Christianity have not always behaved well. The medieval Catholic Church looked a lot like a royal demesne with an abundance of riches and a sizable army, but the interesting thing is how that contradicted the teachings of Christianity. It is no accident that one the biggest stories of European history is when the peasantry finally got their hands on the Bible and split from the church. Regardless of what you feel Christians have done in the past, you are not justified in repeating their mistakes. Moreover, Christianity has worked historically as a readymade package of criticisms for hypocrisy and worldly power so that the Civil Rights movement in America was derived from a Christian ethos, even though there is slavery in the Bible. I repeat Martin Luther King's words to you now: an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. And that, sir, is the essence of Christianity AND humanism.

----------


## stuntpickle

> The kind of society I crave is not the one that fights for an ideology, or for their gods, for their religions, for their races, for their ethnic identity or customs. Maybe this type of society is only in our heads, thoughts now, but this is a scientific society.


Science cannot evolve its own moral judgments. So there are any number of possible societies that could be described as "scientific" and be horrific. Nazi doctors could be described as behaving in accordance with a scientific society because "science" is a morally neutral term. Do you like the idea of a scientific society that evolves practical applications of human embryos? How about a scientific society that manufactures persons in various genetic strata? A "scientific society" could be good or bad, but to ensure its goodness we need much more than science.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> The problem here is that this has turned into some huge debate, which has become personal to some degree, and has involved attacks on personal character... that makes me quite sad.


Don't worry, I have the feeling that we're both of the thick-skinned variety, and I literally _can't_ get personal. Besides, even snarky back-and-forths between people with widely differing opinions still have merit. 




> What a horrible statement. So you don't believe in the noble lie? So if the Nazis knocked on your door and asked if you were hiding Jews and you were, you would tell the truth? And telling the lie would be thoughtless and vulgar, right?


Well, would you look at that - it's good old Goodwin's Law! I was wondering when it would rear it's ugly head!




> So now that you've called Christians "dip****s" in a forum about religious texts that explicitly requires respecting the belief of others, what reaction do you expect from me?


I didn't. I said that the strangers who butted their fat faces into my dying boyfriend's hospital room were dipsh*ts, and they were. They were selfish, self-righteous, nosy, insensitive dipsh*ts who just-so-happened to be Christian (well, he got _one_ confused old Hindu woman, but that's beside the point). I didn't say "all Christians are dipsh*ts," I said "some dipsh*ts are Christian." I was also making the point that religion didn't cause Dave to feel _relief_ in his time of near-death, it caused him to feel anger and bitterness, so your argument that we should preserve everyone's little faith bubble, no matter the cost, is flawed. Religion doesn't necessarily mean comfort in death, and the cost of keeping your mouth shut to ease the minds of those who facing hardship is too high (the cost being to allow fundamentalists say whatever they want unchallenged - EVERY idea must be challenged, and if it can't hold up, then there's something wrong with it and it needs to be looked at). 




> Young people on average are less acquainted with mortality, which is a statement I think reasonable persons would agree with.


But not the non-believers on this thread, they're aquainted with death, suffering and disease, myself included. Most people are. Death and suffering is a part of _everyone's_ life. Our opinions don't become less valid because of our age. Maybe most young people are, on average, less familiar with death and suffering - but the atheists that I've met don't seem to be among them. In fact, the more injustice and suffering people witness in this world, the more likely they are to lose faith in God. Suffering/death is one of the main examples given for why people don't believe in a benevolent universal force. Read the stupid OP (calling it "stupid," by the way, isn't supposed to be awkwardly and randomly angry like it appears - it's a reference to someone else's hilarious post mix-up). 




> Please demonstrate some causal relationship with Bienvenu or some obvious counterpart and suicides among homosexuals.


Okie dokie.

1. Bien is a fundamentalist Christian. He believes that the world is eight thousand years old, he doesn't believe in evolution, he believes that the bible is literally true and he's called homosexuals "abominations."
2. Fundamentalist Christians cause homosexuals to become depressed because they feel sub-human. That's an unfortunate side effect of being called an "abomination," having people tell you that God (the supposed all-loving creator of the universe) hates YOU and being forced to live your life by different laws than "normal" people, and all of these things are amplified if you're just a kid.
3. Depressed people have been known to commit suicide, and homosexuals (especially teens) have a high suicide rate which indicates that they're depressed. Now why would they be depressed, again?




> "Abomination" as used in the Pentateuch is a term firmly in the context of Hebraic ethics. Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Yes, I'm sure that's what they mean. Fundamentalists call homosexuals "abominations," but they intend for it to be taken in _Pentatuech_ terms, so it's totally fine. I don't know what people get so upset about. I'm sure they mean the phrase "God hates fags" in Pentatuech terms as well. 




> "Perhaps you lack empathy.


Only for people who push ideas that cause suffering, ignorance and death. For example, fundamentalists sometimes blow up abortion clinics. Because _they_ believe in souls, the law should be changed to suit _them_, and if it isn't they'll spew their hateful rhetoric all over the TV and some of them will take violent action. Nevermind that if abortion were criminalized many women would kill themselves in an effort to get the foetus out. Never mind that the people who work in abortion clinics _also_ have souls. I also lack empathy for people who are against equal rights for women, homosexuals or minorities. Trying to force the government to deny legal HUMAN rights to a HUMAN just because you don't like how they were born or who they have sex with? I'll admit, I'm not very tolerant of that. Pushing for schools to change their textbooks in an effort to eliminate any knowledge of evolution and to push the story of YOUR religion (not any of the _other_ origin myths, nope - it's YOUR religion that's the important one), all because you know that your version of reality doesn't hold up unless you employ censorship? Sorry, no empathy for you. 




> You know, regardless of whether you believe in Jesus as a divine figure and son of God, he does represent the Western ideal of goodness.


Sure, as a symbol and a story I'll admit to that, but that's a bit off topic. I don't think there's anything "good" about fundamentalist beliefs. One needs to simply leaf through any history textbook to see what happens when people take their beliefs and their holy books too seriously, too _literally_. 




> To say you will "never feel sorry" for this or that variety of person is to demonstrate, I think, a fairly horrible psychology.


I never feel sorry for them _for being ganged up on_ (and in an internet debate, in a thread called "why I don't believe in God" for Christ's sake - he knew what he was getting himself into). Of course I would feel bad for Bien if he was on fire or something, but that's not the context in which I was speaking. Fundamentalist beliefs about homosexuality, women, education, people who don't share their particular brand of whatever religion they belong to (and you should hear what Bien has to say about Catholics - apparently, they're not Christian at all) or different races SHOULD have their beliefs challenged. I can't _not_ challenge those beliefs, and I'm glad that other people feel the same way. 





> This is what is called a moral equivalency claim.


I know, it was a weak argument and I regretted it a few hours later. However, I _did_ meet this Muslim once in real life who said that if he had one wish in life it would be that he be allowed to "hang the gays" though, so there are still murderous fundamentalists in existance and I can verify that because I met one. 




> Of course, the institutions of Christianity have not always behaved well. The medieval Catholic Church looked a lot like a royal demesne with an abundance of riches and a sizable army, but the interesting thing is how that contradicted the teachings of Christianity.


_I know_. I didn't _say_ that the teachings of Christianity were bad, I said that some _Christians_ were bad and that no one should feel guilty about disagreeing with them publicly. Fundamentalists seem to do things which are the exact opposite of what they're advised to do in their own holy book, like kill and discriminate. They pick the most hateful little blurbs of the bible and use them as an excuse to hate. I _don't_ feel bad that many people are intolerant of vocal fundamentalism. In fact, I see hope in it. 




> Moreover, Christianity has worked historically as a readymade package of criticisms for hypocrisy and worldly power so that the Civil Rights movement in America was derived from a Christian ethos, even though there is slavery in the Bible.


I don't think we need the bible to teach us what's good and what's bad. To take your example, I think that America's founding fathers would have been able to figure out that murder is wrong and freedom of speech is good even without it being in the bible. Rationally, these things are obvious. We know these things because we have common sense. When people _ignore_ their common sense and instead favour an old book to tell them what to think and feel, they end up with beliefs such as "people who don't think like me are tortured for eternity" and "the world is eight thousand years old, dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans, and NO ONE can tell me differently."




> And that, sir, is the essence of Christianity AND humanism.


For future reference, I'm a "ma'am."

----------


## stuntpickle

> Well, would you look at that - it's good old Goodwin's Law! I was wondering when it would rear it's ugly head!


The Nazi soldiers question is a classic thought experiment that anyone every studying deontological ethics encounters. There's a humorous notion called reductio ad hitlerum, which is a variety of fallacy in which because Hitler did it, it is bad. So because Hitler brushed his teeth, brushing one's teeth is bad. Godwin's law is a joke and refers to this as it relates to a particular arrangement of statements that I have not made. Thought experiments concerning Nazis are a staple of any philosophy education simply because everyone is familiar with them. There is no mistake of logic made when referring to Nazis; I am not making a claim of equivalence with Nazi's, nor am I constructing a fallacious argument. I am testing the truth of your assertion that lies are thoughtless and vulgar. You see, when someone seems to make a claim of absolute truth, you test it by seeing if it is true in all cases; thus the Nazi thought experiment. Funny enough, you proclaim, thus far, a strictly deontological view, which is something you have in common with the severest varieties religious persons.

So if you are using Godwin's Law, which is, by the way, simply a joke as a justification for not answering the question, then you're the one actually making a ridiculous argument.

So if you don't like it purely on the basis of its use of Nazi's and you think citing some wikipedia page about a joke is sufficient reason to not answer, I'll rephrase it for you.

Someone is hiding at your house because a a gangster wants to kill him. The gangster's hit men show up and ask you if you're hiding him, which you are. Would lying be, as you claim, thoughtless and vulgar.

Please try to answer the question this time. Any response lacking that answer will reflect poorly on you.






> I didn't. I said that the people who butted their fat faces into my dying boyfriend's hospital room were dipsh*ts, and they were. They were selfish, self-righteous, nosy, insensitive dipsh*ts who just-so-happened to be Christian (well, he got _one_ Muslim woman, but that's beside the point). I didn't say "all Christians are dipsh*ts," I said "some dipsh*ts are Christians."



You said no such thing. You said "dip**** Christians."




> you I was also making the point that religion didn't cause Dave to feel _relief_ in his time of near-death, it caused him to feel anger and bitterness, so your argument that we should preserve everyone's little faith bubble, no matter the cost, is flawed. Religion doesn't necessarily mean comfort in death, and the cost of keeping your mouth shut to ease the minds of those who facing hardship is too high (the cost being to allow fundamentalists say whatever they want unchallenged - EVERY idea must be challenged, and if it can't hold up, then there's something wrong with it and it needs to be looked at).


Oh okay, if we must disabuse persons of their little "faith bubbles" and every idea must be challenged then perhaps you should start logically justifying a naturalistic morality, an evidentiary basis for truth, a materialistic worldview that begins by assuming a reality of physical structures or any of the other absurd ideas of most New Atheists. You don't get it. Materialism lost, buddy. You may not believe in God, but a theistic worldview is a workable philosophical position and scientism isn't. The problem is that a person linking to wikipedia pages about jokes in the hopes that it will allow him to avoid problematic issues, probably can't navigate the treacherous turns of his own worldview.









> But not the non-believers on this thread, they're aquainted with death, suffering and disease, myself included. Most people are. What are you basing your conclusion on?


What am I basing it on? Obvious truth. For person A of age B, it is true that A of age B+10 is likelier be more acquainted with mortality. Give me a break.





> Okie dokie.
> 
> 1. Bien is a fundamentalist Christian. He believes that the world is eight thousand years old, he doesn't believe in evolution, he believes that the bible is literally true and he's called homosexuals "abominations."
> 2. Fundamentalist Christians cause homosexuals to become depressed because they feel sub-human. That's an unfortunate side effect of being called an "abomination," having people tell you that God (the supposed all-loving creator of the universe) hates YOU and being forced to live your life by different laws than "normal" people. 
> 3. Depressed people have been known to commit suicide, and homosexuals have a high suicide rate which indicates that they're depressed. Now why would they be depressed, again?


You know that your argument stinks when there's no conclusion. Sorry, man, but that's a bad one. I give you props for trying though. At least, you have some manner of intellectual courage, which speaks in your favor. But the argument is still pretty bad. The argument would have to end with something along the lines of "therefore, people like Bienvenu cause homosexuals to commit suicide" to even have an argument. You have to bridge some fairly impossible territory by establishing multiple causal relationships between Bienvenu, depression and suicide. Moreover, you have to prove a causal mechanism rather than simply a correlation; otherwise, you commit a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You were sunk even before you got started. We can easily determine that the assertion is false by simply understanding what suicide is. To commit suicide is to unambiguously and purposefully cause one's own death. To cause someone else's suicide is to relieve them of their own causal agency and, thus, prevent them from engaging in suicide. You have problems of definition before you even get started. But again, nice try.






> Only for people who push ideas that cause suffering, ignorance and death. For example, fundamentalists sometimes blow up abortion clinics. Because _they_ believe in souls, the law should be changed to suit _them_, and if it isn't they'll spew their hateful rhetoric all over the TV and some of them will take violent action. Nevermind that if abortion were criminalized women would kill themselves in an effort to get the foetus out. Never mind that the people who work in abortion clinics _also_ have souls. I also lack empathy for people who are against gay rights. Trying to force the government to deny legal HUMAN rights to a HUMAN just because you don't like who they have sex with? Nope, I'm not very tolerant of that. Pushing for schools to change their textbooks in an effort to eliminate any knowledge of evolution and to push the story of YOUR religion (not any of the _other_ origin myths, nope - it's YOUR religion that's the important one), all because you know that your version of reality doesn't hold up unless you employ censorship? Sorry, no empathy for you.


Okay, then we have firmly established that you lack empathy, a quality you share with psychopaths. Okay okay, you only lack empathy for people who disagree with you. Seriously, man, don't say this any more in public. It's bad publicity for your cause.

The conversation, at this point, is over. To engage in a rational discussion there must be a basis for agreement from which to start talking. On this issue, we have none. Empathy is not simply something someone experiences when another person's head is chopped off. Empathy is not reserved for persons of a particular political party. The rest of your post is simply more instances of moral equivalency and self-congratulation, but it wouldn't matter if it were a rational statement worthy of publication; the conversation is broken at this point.

Oh, and I'm sorry for thinking you were a man for the majority of this post.

----------


## YesNo

> I think if the overwhelming majority of persons who complete higher level study of the subject have reached a consensus, we can take that consensus to mean something. I shouldn't have to study evolution in order to believe in it. And my failure to study it should not lead to the equating of my belief to dogmatism. I believe the earth is round but I've never performed the calculations myself. Its an extreme example but it nicely illustrates my point.


I guess we all do that. 

At least you correctly equate this to a "belief" which is what it is. The "dogmatism" is the teaching. What makes it "dogmatic" in a negative sense is a refusal to question that teaching. Of course, no one has time to question everything.

However, if you want to get into an argument with someone about evolution or the age of humanity you need to find a justification for your belief. This is not so much to convince the other person as to re-examine the intellectual ground you stand on. To repeatedly tell the other person to accept the dogmatism you have learned is not a scientific attitude which makes me think there aren't too many scientists in this debate. A person with a scientific attitude and love of the subject would welcome BienvenuJDC's questions and respond with evidence, not with dogmatism.

I haven't performed any calculation to validate that the earth is round, but evidence of its roundness are communication satellites circling the earth that keep my mobile phone's date accurate. I understand an old form of evidence is to watch a ship seem to sink as it disappears into the horizon. If the earth were flat it would not sink, just get smaller.

The universe however is flat, but that can be validated by checking the NASA site.

Evidence is not difficult to communicate and should lead to further questions about the subject and the evidence provided, but not the personalities involved in the argument.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> You said no such thing. You said "dip**** Christians.


That's because they were dip****s, and they were Christians. They were dip**** Christians.

I'll respond to the rest tomorrow, it's 6am mountain time.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Ever consider that you yourself are the type that you are refusing to argue with?


I apologized to you for my behavior in this thread, Bien. I thought maybe I'd receive some reciprocation. I guess it was too much to expect.

And, Juniper, a word of advise: Don't even bother to indulge stuntpickle. He's one of the most intellectual trolls I've encountered, but he's still just a troll.

----------


## cafolini

> That wasn't directed at you, caf. I'm not preaching nonsense. "A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence." This was to answer a question that was posed to me. Sometimes you make quick judgements about my intentions. If you want to assess me correctly watch "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and soak up that carefree vibe to apply to my text.


Ha! KEE-DOC.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I apologized to you for my behavior in this thread, Bien. I thought maybe I'd receive some reciprocation. I guess it was too much to expect.


An apology with a jab...you're good at this aren't you?

What would you be apologizing for? What reciprocation are you expecting to see? I'm really confused about what you're getting at. 

For those who have made it personal, I didn't really expect much less. But if we are just discussing our beliefs, and the reasons why we believe such, then there is no reason for apologies. I respect everyone's right to believe what they wish. I never thought of myself as a Christian Fundamentalist. I'm just a Christian. Yes, it is true that I think that homosexuality is wrong, maybe even an abomination, but I would NEVER call a homosexual, an abomination. It's easy to judge a person's motives, but it's not wise. For the record, I also think that some of my own actions are wrong as well, but I press on to be a better person. 

I'm done responding to the petty arguing in this thread, but I have found some entertainment in watching you all go at it. I just thought that I would present some of the evidences that have been ignored to see what would happen. Well, it was rejected, just like I thought. Each of us (including me) is unwilling to budge from their position. That could either be considered stubborn, or steadfast. It could be a good thing or a bad thing. I guess we all think of ourselves as being steadfast in our beliefs, while others are just stubborn. I guess it's all perspective.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

You're not confused about what I'm getting at. Don't play the fool, please. It's beneath you.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> You're not confused about what I'm getting at. Don't play the fool, please. It's beneath you.


Ok...if that's the way you want to be.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Yes, it is true that I think that homosexuality is wrong, maybe even an abomination, but I would NEVER call a homosexual, an abomination. It's easy to judge a person's motives, but it's not wise. For the record, I also think that some of my own actions are wrong as well, but I press on to be a better person.


Wow. Does that mean homosexuals should press on to be "better" people? For the record, they are human beings, not abominations. It doesn't hurt Christians, or their god, or anyone else for two people to love each other. Yet another reason I am not Christian. I could never lump people into groups to hate. I don't even hate Christians.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Wow. Does that mean homosexuals should press on to be "better" people? For the record, they are human beings, not abominations. It doesn't hurt Christians, or their god, or anyone else for two people to love each other. Yet another reason I am not Christian. I could never lump people into groups to hate. I don't even hate Christians.


That is exactly what I was saying. No one should be hating anyone. NOBODY is an abomination, not even those who don't like books.

But it seems that there are some posts in this thread that labeled me as a fundamentalist that hates homosexuals. I do not hate anyone. ...and...yes, I think that those who practice homosexuality should try to strive to be "better" people, just like the rest of us. They have to make choices of who they are going to be, just like I myself do. Why should someone else get defensive about something that I believe? Does it hurt an atheist that I believe that dinosaurs have coexisted with mankind?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

It hurts people when others reject science and then scorn people for what they perceive as poor life choices, without being open to education changing that cruelly judgmental mindset.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> It hurts people when others reject science and then scorn people for what they perceive as poor life choices, without being open to education changing that cruelly judgmental mindset.


Science has been very subjective. Am I a bad person because I choose to believe those scientists that interpret the evidence differently? Am I scorned for my life choice in being a Christian?

----------


## stuntpickle

> And, Juniper, a word of advise: Don't even bother to indulge stuntpickle. He's one of the most intellectual trolls I've encountered, but he's still just a troll.


You do realize that we're in a religious texts forum in a thread entitled "Why I don't believe in God" and that there are, in this forum, threads with names similar to "Why is God such a jerk" and "Catholic priests involved in slave trade." Can you not see the irony Mutatis?

----------


## stuntpickle

> It hurts people when others reject science and then scorn people for what they perceive as poor life choices, without being open to education changing that cruelly judgmental mindset.


Should it hurt when others reject rationality and then scorn persons for their belief in God without even considering the issue and persist in the cruel and unjustified judgment that such a belief is a delusion?

Hypocrisy is a *****!

----------


## Calidore

> ...and...yes, I think that those who practice homosexuality should try to strive to be "better" people, just like the rest of us. They have to make choices of who they are going to be, just like I myself do.


Don't quite get this one. Who chooses what they're attracted to? It's a gut thing, like taste in music, food, whatever. We're all wired a certain way.

You also said earlier that you would never call a homosexual an abomination, but that you believed homosexuality may be an abomination. How does that work?

Some years ago I worked at a nonprofit that offered services to homeless teens. I was staggered when I learned that a large proportion of them were homosexuals who had been thrown out by their parents upon coming out to them and were now living on the streets. _That's_ an abomination.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> You do realize that we're in a religious texts forum in a thread entitled "Why I don't believe in God" and that there are, in this forum, threads with names similar to "Why is God such a jerk" and "Catholic priests involved in slave trade." Can you not see the irony Mutatis?


I see the irony. I've always wondered why the atheists posts in the thread "Why I believe in God" so much. It seems that when someone believes in God that it threatens their disbelief.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Don't quite get this one. Who chooses what they're attracted to? It's a gut thing, like taste in music, food, whatever. We're all wired a certain way.
> 
> You also said earlier that you would never call a homosexual an abomination, but that you believed homosexuality may be an abomination. How does that work?
> 
> Some years ago I worked at a nonprofit that offered services to homeless teens. I was staggered when I learned that a large proportion of them were homosexuals who had been thrown out by their parents upon coming out to them and were now living on the streets. _That's_ an abomination.


Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here...I'm just saying that we ALL need to be better people. I'm not arguing the homosexual issue here. I'm not going to use this thread to defend my beliefs about homosexuality. Just let it go.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> You do realize that we're in a religious texts forum in a thread entitled "Why I don't believe in God" and that there are, in this forum, threads with names similar to "Why is God such a jerk" and "Catholic priests involved in slave trade." Can you not see the irony Mutatis?


I can see the irony. One could argue that the OP is a troll post. I was just giving Juniper a tip. Maybe calling you a troll is unfair, but I can't figure you out, and it's frustrating. I can't tell if you are out to just push people's buttons or not. You've gotten me quite riled up before, and I don't plan on letting that happen again, and since Juniper is one of the most fun posters on this forum, and a friend, I don't want to see her get banned because of arguing with you. Sorry for the run-on.



> I've always wondered why the atheists posts in the thread "Why I believe in God" so much.


Well, this is the "Why I Don't Believe in God" thread. So, I guess I, as an atheist, should be wondering why a person who does believe in God is posting here so much . . . but I don't, because this is a forum where we exchange ideas, ya know?

----------


## stuntpickle

> I see the irony. I've always wondered why the atheists posts in the thread "Why I believe in God" so much. It seems that when someone believes in God that it threatens their disbelief.


When I was an atheist, I was worse than anyone in these fora. I was a militant atheist before militant atheism was cool. I could outlast anyone on the subject of God. Now, I feel horrible about the things I said to various Christians, who ranged from relatives to ministers. In retrospect, the interesting thing was that I, who ostensibly did not believe in God, was so interested in discussing Him. For me, that sort of behavior was a sort of searching. The truth was, I think, that more than NOT believing in God, I was angry that I couldn't believe in Him. None think about God more than atheists--at least, none more than I.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Should it hurt when others reject rationality and then scorn persons for their belief in God without even considering the issue and persist in the cruel and unjustified judgment that such a belief is a delusion?
> 
> Hypocrisy is a *****!


I didn't scorn anyone for believing in god. I am saddened by groups of people inflicting cruelty on others because their group tells them that's what's right. It's just very sad to adhere to something that tells you what to do, when that something is telling you to hate.

This is not only in regard to homosexuality. Yesterday my mother told me she justified my brother's slow, agonizing death (a horrible tragedy for her and our whole family) by saying he did bad things in his life so it was right for god to make him atone for them. The bad things he did were smoking pot and hanging around with people she didn't like. For that she hates her dead son, but she thinks she loves him, and that it was right for him to be tortured to death.

It's dangerous for people to allow a religion to tell them who to judge and how to judge them. It creates a mental sickness that does endanger us all.

----------


## stuntpickle

> I didn't scorn anyone for believing in god. I am saddened by groups of people inflicting cruelty on others because their group tells them that's what's right. It's just very sad to adhere to something that tells you what to do, when that something is telling you to hate.
> 
> This is not only in regard to homosexuality. Yesterday my mother told me she justified my brother's slow, agonizing death (a horrible tragedy for her and our whole family) by saying he did bad things in his life so it was right for god to make him atone for them. The bad things he did were smoking pot and hanging around with people she didn't like. For that she hates her dead son, but she thinks she loves him, and that it was right for him to be tortured to death.
> 
> It's dangerous for people to allow a religion to tell them who to judge and how to judge them. It creates a mental sickness that does endanger us all.


It's dangerous for people to allow a discredited worldview to be the arbiter of truth. It creates a mental sickness that endangers us all.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> When I was an atheist, I was worse than anyone in these fora. I was a militant atheist before militant atheism was cool. I could outlast anyone on the subject of God. Now, I feel horrible about the things I said to various Christians, who ranged from relatives to ministers. In retrospect, the interesting thing was that I, who ostensibly did not believe in God, was so interested in discussing Him. For me, that sort of behavior was a sort of searching. The truth was, I think, that more than NOT believing in God, I was angry that I couldn't believe in Him. None think about God more than atheists--at least, none more than I.


It doesn't sound like you were ever really an atheist. That anger you're talking about seems like a wanting to believe in something, whether it be God or not God. I, for one, don't feel that way. I feel happy and free, so long as no one tries to hurt me for not joining a group. Maybe you were a Christian in your heart and mind all along and had an inner struggle with that. I won't presume to know. Generally though, I can tell you that a lot of atheists are happy to be without religion.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> When I was an atheist, I was worse than anyone in these fora. I was a militant atheist before militant atheism was cool. I could outlast anyone on the subject of God. Now, I feel horrible about the things I said to various Christians, who ranged from relatives to ministers. In retrospect, the interesting thing was that I, who ostensibly did not believe in God, was so interested in discussing Him. For me, that sort of behavior was a sort of searching. The truth was, I think, that more than NOT believing in God, I was angry that I couldn't believe in Him. None think about God more than atheists--at least, none more than I.


I think this is the case for many atheists, including me, though anger may be too strong a word--frustrated works better; it's a little less harsh. I became an atheist after trying to believe in God, or some sort of religion (several of which I tried), but just couldn't do it. It was almost a sort of jealousy that formed. I've said this before, but I think maybe one day I will leave the label of being an atheist behind.

----------


## Calidore

> It's dangerous for people to allow a religion to tell them who to judge and how to judge them. It creates a mental sickness that does endanger us all.


I'll submit that religion is simply a tool. Some people use it to make themselves better, and some use it to justify and excuse their own evil. Religion isn't the problem; people are.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> It's dangerous for people to allow a discredited worldview to be the arbiter of truth. It creates a mental sickness that endangers us all.


Arbiter of truth? You don't know what my world view is. I love everyone. I'm sad when people hurt each other, and animals, and the earth. I don't judge people harshly for arbitrary reasons, I look at whether they're hurting someone and if they are I'll say it's not cool. How could that be dangerous to anyone?

----------


## stuntpickle

> It doesn't sound like you were ever really an atheist. That anger you're talking about seems like a wanting to believe in something, whether it be God or not God. I, for one, don't feel that way. I feel happy and free, so long as no one tries to hurt me for not joining a group. Maybe you were a Christian in your heart and mind all along and had an inner struggle with that. I won't presume to know. Generally though, I can tell you that a lot of atheists are happy to be without religion.


I assure you that I was an atheist. In fact, I would have considered myself a truer atheist than you. Most modern varieties of atheism are fairly vacuous--especially the sort of absurdly peppy scientism I see here. You see, Sartre said it best, materialism can never distinguish between humans and rocks. I was what is called an eliminative materialist, and I followed the type of worldview that you dabble in to its ultimate nihilistic core. The happy atheism you're talking about is a fairly ridiculous modern phenomenon. The great intellectual atheism of Sartre was primarily concerned with terror. Nietzsche thought atheism was a catastrophe. Only people like Dawkins think atheism is a choice on par with picking out a pair of shoes. Only a lifelong love of art and literature defeated my bleak worldview. God is, after all, the greatest artist.

----------


## Theunderground

Nietzsche though atheism the starting point of a clean rigorous intellect,though maybe a massive hurdle for humanity at large.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I'll submit that religion is simply a tool. Some people use it to make themselves better, and some use it to justify and excuse their own evil. Religion isn't the problem; people are.


I agree with that, but I never saw my mom as an evil person. She's not as bright as she used to be. Her church friends and bible study group cited biblical references for why my brother Kenny died, and she believed them. She cries as she talks about it. "At first I wanted to be mad at God, but he knows best. He has a plan." Pretty sick plan, if you ask me. Obviously, I don't believe it was the plan of a god. People contributed to his death, and people justified it. People who never met him gave her the reasons for how he had been "bad". It doesn't give her comfort, and she has become cruel to me when I say it's not a nice way to think about the son she loved for 34 years. 

I can't place the blame on texts. People either drink the kool-aid or they don't. Scary times for those of us who don't.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I'll submit that religion is simply a tool. Some people use it to make themselves better, and some use it to justify and excuse their own evil. Religion isn't the problem; people are.


This is a GEM of a statement. I've seen very pious individuals who were evil people use religion in the most heinous judgmental ways. Religion does not make one righteous. Having a good heart and a benevolent mindset is the first step to being righteous (but one can never truly be righteous). There are more evil religious people, than there are good.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I assure you that I was an atheist. In fact, I would have considered myself a truer atheist than you. Most modern varieties of atheism are fairly vacuous--especially the sort of absurdly peppy scientism I see here. You see, Sartre said it best, materialism can never distinguish between humans and rocks. I was what is called an eliminative materialist, and I followed the type of worldview that you dabble in to its ultimate nihilistic core. The happy atheism you're talking about is a fairly ridiculous modern phenomenon. The great intellectual atheism of Sartre was primarily concerned with terror. Nietzsche thought atheism was a catastrophe. Only people like Dawkins think atheism is a choice on par with picking out a pair of shoes. Only a lifelong love of art and literature defeated my bleak worldview. God is, after all, the greatest artist.


Don't tell me I'm not a true atheist because I'm a "peppy" scientist. It has nothing to do with me if you dislike nice people. I'm not injuring you or offending atheism by being sweet. The only thing that could ever give me a "bleak world view" are people like you who hate me for no good reason. I like you anyway. You use a lot of big words and that is marvelous. You seem as much at war with yourself as you are with anyone else, and that's interesting, but I hope you will learn what it means to be kind to other human beings in your lifetime. It feels good to know you're not inflicting damage on anyone. Best wishes.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Nietzsche though atheism the starting point of a clean rigorous intellect,though maybe a massive hurdle for humanity at large.


Nietzsche defined atheism as "..the awe-inspiring catastrophe of two-thousand years of training in truthfulness that finally forbids itself the lie involved in belief in God."

I don't think you fully grasp what Nietzsche thought, which was that atheism was an excruciating revelation.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Nietzsche defined atheism as "..the awe-inspiring catastrophe of two-thousand years of training in truthfulness that finally forbids itself the lie involved in belief in God."
> 
> I don't think you fully grasp what Nietzsche thought, which was that atheism was an excruciating revelation.


Excruciating if a person is too weak to handle it. Many people are. They fall back on the crutch and feel angry with people who have successfully made it out. Go ahead and call me vacuous again, Christian.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Don't tell me I'm not a true atheist because I'm a "peppy" scientist. It has nothing to do with me if you dislike nice people. I'm not injuring you or offending atheism by being sweet. The only thing that could ever give me a "bleak world view" are people like you who hate me for no good reason. I like you anyway. You use a lot of big words and that is marvelous. You seem as much at war with yourself as you are with anyone else, and that's interesting, but I hope you will learn what it means to be kind to other human beings in your lifetime. It feels good to know you're not inflicting damage on anyone. Best wishes.


What I'm saying is that I think you're about as atheist as the average person is existentialist. I think it's just a badge of identification like most anything in society, just like being Republican or pro-choice. I base this on my observation of what seems to be an inadequate capacity to justify the most basic assertions you make. You seem to believe things without knowing why, which is the foremost symptom of believing nothing. You can repeat parts of a script, but when pressed to depart from that script, you crumble. You don't even try, you simply run. Moreover, you seem unaware that you're doing that.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> What I'm saying is that I think you're about as atheist as the average person is existentialist. I think it's just a badge of identification like most anything in society, just like being Republican or pro-choice. I base this on my observation of what seems to be an inadequate capacity to justify the most basic assertions you make. You seem to believe things without knowing why, which is the foremost symptom of believing nothing. You can repeat parts of a script, but when pressed to depart from that script, you crumble. You don't even try, you simply run. Moreover, you seem unaware that you're doing that.


I don't believe things without knowing why. If it's inadequate for me to sit back watching you rant and refraining from giving you years long science lessons, then I concede to being inadequate to the task of removing your head from the dark place in which it is firmly lodged. Do you expect me to make you sensitive to my point of view by magic? Maybe if I had a special point of view gun, I could zap you full of life experiences. I don't pretend to know everything. It's close to the opposite. People have made guesses and formed groups around them. I'm not part of any group. Lots of atheists don't organize with one specific idea to push. I'm just living an enjoyable life of sculpting, and reading, and playing Xbox on Sundays instead of going to church to worship less-than-vapor. Don't worry, I'm not trying to make you have as much fun as I do.

If you think me so beneath conversation, you're pretty persistently vapid to continue to exchange words with me. I actually like this conversation. When you persist in engaging in an activity you hate, you've developed quite a fixation. Peace.

----------


## papayahed

*~

R e m i n d e r

Please refrain from posting in this section of the Forum 

if you feel you are unable to show respect towards those who do not share your thoughts and beliefs.

Posts containing personal and/or inflammatory comments will be removed without further warning.*

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Am I the one ranting?
> 
> If you, as you say, don't believe things without knowing why, please demonstrate with a rational, consequential series of statements the truth of your assertion that belief in God, who is unseen and unheard, can ONLY be a delusion.


Done and done. People who want to know the definition of "delusion" can Google it or go back a few pages to where it was posted in this thread. That should conclude our conversation. Thanks.  :Smile:

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> My first thought on reading this was that I certainly didn't mean to imply your mom was evil, which upon thinking it through made me realize where Bien was coming from with her "homosexuality is bad but homosexuals aren't." And of course, I already know perfectly well that you can't define an entire person by a single quality, so obviously I'm just thinking slow and typing fast this morning. My apologies for any mistaken impressions I've given.
> 
> 
> 
> Times have always been scary for non-lemmings, but they're not as bad as they used to be. The big question is whether our collective maturing will ever outpace our destructive capability.


Oh, no no. It's ok. I knew you weren't saying my mom was evil. You spoke well and I don't think I've ever seen an unkind post from you.

----------


## Darcy88

"To cause someone else's suicide is to relieve them of their own causal agency and, thus, prevent them from engaging in suicide. You have problems of definition before you even get started. But again, nice try."

Whoa back up a minute. Suicidal people are hyper-sensitive to how they are perceived by others. A depressed gay teen in middle America, pressed on all sides by a homophobic culture, is definitely at extreme risk of suicide. The homophobia may not entirely cause them to commit the deed, but it can be a necessary factor. You may be able to argue that the homophobia is not solely brought about by Christianity. It contributes though, that is not to be doubted. 

I do agree that many atheists have yet to and likely never will realize the full ramifications of their atheism in the way that Nietzsche had.

----------


## Darcy88

"Whoever sought for signs of an ironical divinity's hand in the great drama of existence would find no small indication thereof in the stupendous question-mark that is called Christianity. That mankind should be on its knees before the very antithesis of what was the origin, the meaning and the law of the Gospels -- that in the concept of the "church" the very things should be pronounced holy that the "bearer of glad tidings" regards as beneath him and behind him -- it would be impossible to surpass this as a grand example of world-historical irony --"

-Nietzsche

This statement can be as accurately applied to the Christianity of today as that of the middle ages or any age. A meek hippy turned into the mascot of capitalism and discrimination. Such irony.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> "To cause someone else's suicide is to relieve them of their own causal agency and, thus, prevent them from engaging in suicide. You have problems of definition before you even get started. But again, nice try."
> 
> Whoa back up a minute. Suicidal people are hyper-sensitive to how they are perceived by others. A depressed gay teen in middle America, pressed on all sides by a homophobic culture, is definitely at extreme risk of suicide. The homophobia may not entirely cause them to commit the deed, but it can be a necessary factor. You may be able to argue that the homophobia is not solely brought about by Christianity. It contributes though, that is not to be doubted. 
> 
> I do agree that many atheists have yet to and likely never will realize the full ramifications of their atheism in the way that Nietzsche had.


I also think that lying is wrong, but my belief has never caused any politicians or lawyers to commit suicide. I'm not sure why you think it is necessary to bash Christianity on this topic in the context of this thread. There's no doubt many insensitive Christians out there who use the wrong methods to preach Christ, but have you seen the insensitivity used in this thread and others by those who hate believers?

----------


## Darcy88

> I also think that lying is wrong, but my belief has never caused any politicians or lawyers to commit suicide. I'm not sure why you think it is necessary to bash Christianity on this topic in the context of this thread. There's no doubt many insensitive Christians out there who use the wrong methods to preach Christ, but have you seen the insensitivity used in this thread and others by those who hate believers?


Well Stuntpickle made a comment on suicide which I felt I had to challenge. I did say that Christianity is not the sole cause of homophobia. 

Everyone lies. Only about ten percent of individuals are attracted to members of the same sex. There's a difference.

I won't speak for others. The discussion thus far actually seems rather tame to me. I know I never went ad hominem.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

It's not bashing to say a person shouldn't hate a person who isn't hurting anyone. Christians have named this "abomination" as something to scorn as part of their faith. It's not bashing to say that Christianity got this one wrong. There are secular homophobes too. Let's not turn discrimination against gays into discrimination against Christians. That doesn't work.

----------


## Darcy88

Its called an abomination because Jewish culture was at that time in bitter competition with a Hellenistic culture which featured bisexuality.

----------


## stuntpickle

> "To cause someone else's suicide is to relieve them of their own causal agency and, thus, prevent them from engaging in suicide. You have problems of definition before you even get started. But again, nice try."
> 
> Whoa back up a minute. Suicidal people are hyper-sensitive to how they are perceived by others. A depressed gay teen in middle America, pressed on all sides by a homophobic culture, is definitely at extreme risk of suicide. The homophobia may not entirely cause them to commit the deed, but it can be a necessary factor. You may be able to argue that the homophobia is not solely brought about by Christianity. It contributes though, that is not to be doubted. 
> 
> I do agree that many atheists have yet to and likely never will realize the full ramifications of their atheism in the way that Nietzsche had.


Consider it this way. I say I am thirsty. You get in your car and drive toward the nearest convenience store to buy some soft drinks. On the way you are sideswiped by another car and die. Did I cause your death? See, the initial problem is establishing that I, in fact, caused you to get in your car and drive to the store. But the monstrous difficulty is involved with replacing the obvious cause, the other car, with another that isn't even directly involved with the accident.

Seriously, depression generally isn't the discrete effect of another person's opinion. There are huge problems in establishing the truth of a statement suggesting that one person's opinion can cause another's depression--not to mention the fact that believing homosexuality is wrong is not synonymous with treating homosexuals in any particular manner. So if the argument is that there exists an environment of hostility toward homosexuals, then you have a fairly impossible task of demonstrating how a person's religious beliefs are responsible for this environment. Moreover, this sort of deterministic model of human behavior is bizarre. Is there anything I can say to you to cause you to enter a depression?

Let us imagine that you find the existence of green hats oppressive and, thus, kill yourself. Did green hats cause your suicide?

Let us imagine that I tell you to go to a mountain, and you do. Once there you push someone off a cliff. Did I cause the other person's death?

Let us imagine you are, as you say, hyper-sensitive, and I say I don't like your shirt, so you kill yourself. Did I cause your suicide?

If you have two discrete events, it is difficult to ascribe the cause of one event to the effect of another--especially if this relationship between the two events is as complicated as that involving occurrences in someone's life. 


Here's the biggest problem. If I can cause your death by suicide, where are you in the equation? Is it true that once I have committed you to some theoretically inescapable chain of events that you are compelled to kill yourself? Do you no longer have a choice? If I am compelling your death, then it would be not suicide, but homicide. There are insurmountable problems with the proposition.

I have trouble seeing how anyone can really think this is reasonable.

----------


## Darcy88

"Let us imagine you are, as you say, hyper-sensitive, and I say I don't like your shirt, so you kill yourself. Did I cause your suicide?"

If you said you didn't like my life-style, my sexuality, ME, calling me an abomination, somehow lesser, then you would have contributed to my suicide. Not entirely caused it but definitely contributed. So you think all these cases I keep hearing about of bullied teens ending their lives are mere sensationalized, unreasonable accounts?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Asking someone to go for drinks is different than telling someone you think they're disgusting and hate them.

----------


## stuntpickle

> "Let us imagine you are, as you say, hyper-sensitive, and I say I don't like your shirt, so you kill yourself. Did I cause your suicide?"
> 
> If you said you didn't like my life-style, my sexuality, ME, calling me an abomination, somehow lesser, then you would have contributed to my suicide. Not entirely caused it but definitely contributed. So you think all these cases I keep hearing about of bullied teens ending their lives are mere sensationalized, unreasonable accounts?


No, you can't get off that easy. The law of excluded middle says that any proposition is either true or false. So are you admitting that the statement that one can cause another's suicide is false? There's no third option.

Yes, I am saying any account in news media suggesting that any person or persons can cause another's suicide is unreasonable. As persons we have causal agency that cannot be retracted because someone doesn't like us. Why don't all bullied children kill themselves? There can be no causal relationship.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Asking someone to go for drinks is different than telling someone you think they're disgusting and hate them.


Comparing two things never suggests that the two things are identical. In fact, comparing two things suggests they are different in some manner. For instance, you would never say a dog is like a dog. We are concerned with causal agency, and the example demonstrates this satisfactorily. Your statement is completely irrelevant.

----------


## Darcy88

> No, you can't get off that easy. The law of excluded middle says that any proposition is either true or false. So are you admitting that the statement that one can cause another's suicide is false? There's no third option.
> 
> Yes, I am saying any account in news media suggesting that any person or persons can cause another's suicide is unreasonable. As persons we have causal agency that cannot be retracted because someone doesn't like us. Why don't all bullied children kill themselves? There can be no causal relationship.


You say science is narrow and then go on to reduce the baffling complexity of human experience to logical axioms? Of course others can contribute to another's suicide. We are social creatures. There is almost nothing worse than rejection. 

How about this: one can _contribute_ to another's suicide. Law of excluded middle aside, there is a difference in meaning between the word cause and the word contribute. This is what I've been arguing the whole time.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

The presupposition is that bullying is a potential factor leading to the victim's suicide. There is nothing bullying in asking someone for a drink, so it's not a proper comparison. If you want to say calling your friend's wife fat shouldn't lead to her suicide, that would make more sense. Still, it's much different when a person's only peers and loved ones are calling them disgusting for being different. Especially if they're young and in a situation they can't easily escape from.

----------


## stuntpickle

> You say science is narrow and then go on to reduce the baffling complexity of human experience to logical axioms? Of course others can contribute to another's suicide. We are social creatures. There is almost nothing worse than rejection. 
> 
> How about this: one can _contribute_ to another's suicide. Law of excluded middle aside, there is a difference in meaning between the word cause and the word contribute. This is what I've been arguing the whole time.


I, alone, decide whether I kill myself. I find your deterministic ideas about behavior wrong and dangerous.

----------


## Darcy88

I understand where you're coming from Stuntpickle, I really do. But would you be especially cautious regarding what you say to someone just released from being on suicide watch in a psych ward? If so, why?

A young teen just killed herself less than a kilometre from my house. She was bullied intensely at school because her mother was gay and lived with another woman.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Seriously, depression generally isn't the discrete effect of another person's opinion. There are huge problems in establishing the truth of a statement suggesting that one person's opinion can cause another's depression--not to mention the fact that believing homosexuality is wrong is not synonymous with treating homosexuals in any particular manner. So if the argument is that there exists an environment of hostility toward homosexuals, then you have a fairly impossible task of demonstrating how a person's religious beliefs are responsible for this environment. Moreover, this sort of deterministic model of human behavior is bizarre. Is there anything I can say to you to cause you to enter a depression?


The evidence says otherwise, gay teens in general have higher suicide rates and rates of suicidal ideation. However, when anti-homophobic teaching material is introduced, and social support groups, like gay teen peer groups, are present the suicide rate is significantly reduced. This suggests that there is a strong role in anti-gay rhetoric and anti-gay motivated social exclusion in contributing to the teen suicide rates.

Religious discourses in the US have contributed unambiguously to giving authority to an anti-gay, and sometimes violently so, rhetoric that invades all levels of society, from the family to the state. For example, we can look at anti-gay legislation in Africa and we can see Christianity and Islam being the main driving force behind the justification of these laws.




> Let us imagine that you find the existence of green hats oppressive and, thus, kill yourself. Did green hats cause your suicide?
> 
> Let us imagine that I tell you to go to a mountain, and you do. Once there you push someone off a cliff. Did I cause the other person's death?
> 
> Let us imagine you are, as you say, hyper-sensitive, and I say I don't like your shirt, so you kill yourself. Did I cause your suicide?
> 
> If you have two discrete events, it is difficult to ascribe the cause of one event to the effect of another--especially if this relationship between the two events is as complicated as that involving occurrences in someone's life.


You are making light of a real documented problem of social exclusion. Would you really suggest that people have no effect on the behaviors of others? That it is impossible for one person to make the existence of another more difficult, to the point that they increase the seeming viability of suicide as an option. 

What about the link between higher suicide and being sent to religious sexual conversion camps? Even if we remove the problem of suicide, there is definitely something wrong with camps that have been shown to have no success at changing sexual orientation, but engage in everything from shock therapy to libido reducing drugs to forcefully change sexual orientation. This despite the fact that the evidence suggests that sexual orientation is as much a product of development, and as generally immutable, as hair or eye colour. It's certainly more complicated and nuanced than eye or hair colour, but that doesn't change that it is something that people do not choose or change willingly. 

I find it mildly hypocritical that you would criticize the efforts of atheist to disabuse someone of theistic beliefs as being intensely insensitive, but the efforts of religious institutions to criticize and attempt to change something that is not even a choice is perfectly OK. This is especially problematic when the ideas are internalized. The Christian is not mutually exclusive from the homosexual, there are many gay Christians, and what does it do for the mental health of a child to be raised in a tradition where they are to continually see themselves as defective and sinful without any way out. 




> Here's the biggest problem. If I can cause your death by suicide, where are you in the equation? Is it true that once I have committed you to some theoretically inescapable chain of events that you are compelled to kill yourself? Do you no longer have a choice? If I am compelling your death, then it would be not suicide, but homicide. There are insurmountable problems with the proposition.
> 
> I have trouble seeing how anyone can really think this is reasonable.


This is a strawman, Darcy never suggested anything of the like. All he claimed is that an environment of pervasive anti-gay attitudes, which Christianity contributes to, contributes to a suicidal state of mind. And the empirical evidence is on his side, since this is the consensus of the APA. To dispute Darcy's claim, as he formulated it, is to claim that we have no responsibility in the way we treat others. 

Let's offer another thought experiment involving responsibility and causation. If in the dead of winter I go out and spray the road in front of me with water so that it becomes icy. Then a car, driving faster than it should, comes down the road and crashes. Certainly, the driver is partially responsible, he should have been driving more carefully, but I would still have a burden of responsibility for increasing his risk through a deliberate action I could easily avoid. 

In the same sense, someone who goes out of their way to use Christian doctrine to justify their abuse and dehumanization of another human being is partially responsible for the death of kids who are affected by that rhetoric.

----------


## stuntpickle

> I understand where you're coming from Stuntpickle, I really do. But would you be especially cautious regarding what you say to someone just released from being on suicide watch in a psych ward? If so, why?
> 
> A young teen just killed herself less than a kilometre from my house. She was bullied intensely at school because her mother was gay and lived with another woman.


Yes, I would be really nice to someone just being released from a psych ward, but not because I could cause this person's death otherwise. I would be really nice to someone just released from gall bladder surgery, but not because I could cause them to hemorrhage otherwise.

You should never bully persons--not because it will result in their suicide, but because bullying is mean.

----------


## Darcy88

> Yes, I would be really nice to someone just being released from a psych ward, but not because I could cause this person's death otherwise. I would be really nice to someone just released from gall bladder surgery, but not because I could cause them to hemorrhage otherwise.
> 
> You should never bully persons--not because it will result in their suicide, but because bullying is mean.


If you persist on taking this tack then you must also uphold the opposite to be true. You must believe that showing love and acceptance to one who is suicidal will have no effect on whether they end their life or not.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I, alone, decide whether I kill myself. I find your deterministic ideas about behavior wrong and dangerous.


I think this is stemming from a lack of empathy.

----------


## Darcy88

OrphanPip's example is spot on. We don't live in bubbles. Causal agency or not, things impact us. The ultimate responsibility may lie with the reckless driver, but the individual who made the road slippery contributed to the outcome and therefore bears some responsibility for it.

----------


## cafolini

> I agree with that, but I never saw my mom as an evil person. She's not as bright as she used to be. Her church friends and bible study group cited biblical references for why my brother Kenny died, and she believed them. She cries as she talks about it. "At first I wanted to be mad at God, but he knows best. He has a plan." Pretty sick plan, if you ask me. Obviously, I don't believe it was the plan of a god. People contributed to his death, and people justified it. People who never met him gave her the reasons for how he had been "bad". It doesn't give her comfort, and she has become cruel to me when I say it's not a nice way to think about the son she loved for 34 years. 
> 
> I can't place the blame on texts. People either drink the kool-aid or they don't. Scary times for those of us who don't.


I think you got it upside down. I think these are the least scary times of history in that regard. The delusional will never achieve hegemony again. They are a laughing stock.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I think you got it upside down. I think these are the least scary times of history in that regard. The delusional will never achieve hegemony again. They are a laughing stock.


I wasn't saying these are the scariest times in history. Scary nonetheless. Religion is the norm in america, not the minority, but I hope you're right and that we won't slide back into worse times. 

Sometimes around my city, it's like a body snatchers movie. They single out the ones who haven't been changed.

----------


## stuntpickle

> The evidence says otherwise, gay teens in general have higher suicide rates and rates of suicidal ideation. However, when anti-homophobic teaching material is introduced, and social support groups, like gay teen peer groups, are present the suicide rate is significantly reduced. This suggests that there is a strong role in anti-gay rhetoric and anti-gay motivated social exclusion in contributing to the teen suicide rates. 
> 
> Religious discourses in the US have contributed unambiguously to giving authority to an anti-gay, and sometimes violently so, rhetoric that invades all levels of society, from the family to the state. For example, we can look at anti-gay legislation in Africa and we can see Christianity and Islam being the main driving force behind the justification of these laws.


If I say that one’s depression isn’t the discrete effect of another’s opinion, and you say the evidence says otherwise, you are stating that there is evidence that demonstrates one’s depression results from someone else’s opinion. I demand you produce this evidence. You are essentially saying that there exists a mechanism by which my personal opinion can, simply by virtue of its existence, inflict depression upon another person. We both know no such evidence exists, so I wonder why you state the evidence says otherwise. 

If a person develops cancer and kills himself to avoid the pain and suffering, it does not follow that cancer causes people to kill themselves. Persons have agency of which they cannot be liberated simply because someone else holds a belief. 

Holding a belief that some behavior A is wrong is not synonymous with another behavior B. Believing that homosexuality is wrong is not synonymous with mistreatment of homosexuals.

Your statements about anti-gay rhetoric and social exclusion are misguided. If I am waiting on a cab and I wait for one with tinted windows, it does not follow that tinted windows compel me to enter cabs. Can a person make a decision about social exclusion? Yes. Can social exclusion compel a person to make a decision? No.




> You are making light of a real documented problem of social exclusion.


No, I am not making light of anything; I am making a reductio ad absurdum, which demonstrates the falsity of a proposition by logically pursuing it to absurdity. This is the business of reason. Just because you don’t like the results doesn’t mean I’m making fun of something. Propositions are either true or false, not true when they look serious and false when they look silly.




> Would you really suggest that people have no effect on the behaviors of others?


I would say that person A cannot compel a behavior in person B simply by holding a belief. 




> That it is impossible for one person to make the existence of another more difficult, to the point that they increase the seeming viability of suicide as an option.


It is, of course, true that person A can make life for person B more difficult, so much so that person B prefers to kill himself. It does not follow that person A can compel person B’s suicide. Person A can, however, murder person B. Does incarceration cause one to kill oneself? Or does one kill oneself because one prefers death to incarceration?

However, it is NOT possible for person A to make person B’s life more difficult simply by holding a particular metaphysical belief.






> What about the link between higher suicide and being sent to religious sexual conversion camps? Even if we remove the problem of suicide, there is definitely something wrong with camps that have been shown to have no success at changing sexual orientation, but engage in everything from shock therapy to libido reducing drugs to forcefully change sexual orientation. This despite the fact that the evidence suggests that sexual orientation is as much a product of development, and as generally immutable, as hair or eye colour. It's certainly more complicated and nuanced than eye or hair colour, but that doesn't change that it is something that people do not choose or change willingly.


This passage seems entirely irrelevant.






> I find it mildly hypocritical that you would criticize the efforts of atheist to disabuse someone of theistic beliefs as being intensely insensitive, but the efforts of religious institutions to criticize and attempt to change something that is not even a choice is perfectly OK.


You could only find it hypocritical if you misunderstood hypocrisy. I never stated that having an atheistic worldview could cause theists to kill themselves. You’re the one purposing thought assassination. And last I checked, no person can, in this country, be compelled by any organ of the state to attend a religious conversion camp. Moreover, no person can be compelled to attend such a camp simply by virtue of the existence of another person’s metaphysical belief.




> This is especially problematic when the ideas are internalized. The Christian is not mutually exclusive from the homosexual, there are many gay Christians, and what does it do for the mental health of a child to be raised in a tradition where they are to continually see themselves as defective and sinful without any way out.


This is irrelevant. Moreover, it seems to suggest that you are bothered simply by the existence of Christianity because it results in some number of psychologically conflicted homosexual persons. 






> This is a strawman, Darcy never suggested anything of the like.


No, it isn’t. Darcy wasn’t a part of the original discussion. The argument wasn’t a straw man but the original issue.




> All he claimed is that an environment of pervasive anti-gay attitudes, which Christianity contributes to, contributes to a suicidal state of mind. And the empirical evidence is on his side, since this is the consensus of the APA. To dispute Darcy's claim, as he formulated it, is to claim that we have no responsibility in the way we treat others.


This, however, IS a straw man. I am suggesting we have no CAPACITY to compel action in other persons by simply holding beliefs.




> Let's offer another thought experiment involving responsibility and causation. If in the dead of winter I go out and spray the road in front of me with water so that it becomes icy. Then a car, driving faster than it should, comes down the road and crashes. Certainly, the driver is partially responsible, he should have been driving more carefully, but I would still have a burden of responsibility for increasing his risk through a deliberate action I could easily avoid.


This is a bad analogy. You are comparing holding a particular belief to physically sabotaging a roadway, and guess what? Your example leads to murder or, at the very least, manslaughter. You can’t make someone choose to kill himself by icing the roadway.




> In the same sense, someone who goes out of their way to use Christian doctrine to justify their abuse and dehumanization of another human being is partially responsible for the death of kids who are affected by that rhetoric.


Believing that homosexuality is wrong is not synonymous with going out of one’s way to justify abuse and dehumanization. This is another straw man. No one has proposed dehumanization. In fact, dehumanization occurs when you render human beings little more than automatons in a deterministic system of behavior, which is what YOU’RE doing.

----------


## togre

> It's not bashing to say a person shouldn't hate a person who isn't hurting anyone.


The two major fallacies are contained so beautifully in this single sentence. 

1). Saying X is wrong, yes even sinful, does not equate to hating. The very manner in which this statement is formulated is an attempt to bully the terms and force one's set of value on all others.

2). Who says the behavior (or inclinations) under discussion do no damage. If a behavior damages a person, damages their relationship to God and thereby damages their relationship to all other people, can it truly be said to "not hurt anyone?" And if this situation truly does exist, would not the most hurtful, loveless thing be to tell someone, "It's okay, nothing is wrong?"

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> The two major fallacies are contained so beautifully in this single sentence. 
> 
> 1). Saying X is wrong, yes even sinful, does not equate to hating. The very manner in which this statement is formulated is an attempt to bully the terms and force one's set of value on all others.
> 
> 2). Who says the behavior (or inclinations) under discussion do no damage. If a behavior damages a person, damages their relationship to God and thereby damages their relationship to all other people, can it truly be said to "not hurt anyone?" And if this situation truly does exist, would not the most hurtful, loveless thing be to tell someone, "It's okay, nothing is wrong?"


This is well said, and I agree totally, but I know that this group will try to tear these words apart. You see....the liberal mind doesn't play fairly. They will demand for tolerance, while on the other hand, they are intolerant of other's opinions and thoughts. They say that one can believe in creationism, as long as evolution is the only thing taught in schools. There will be no "winning" in a debate in this group, unless it is their opinion that is given in to.

----------


## Darcy88

"This, however, IS a straw man. I am suggesting we have no CAPACITY to compel action in other persons by simply holding beliefs."

You are suggesting much more than that. You are suggesting that our actions and attitudes towards others have no impact on their mental state or their decision whether to kill themselves or not. Its a silly standpoint since we know that bullying contributes to the rate of suicide particularly among young people. Go into a psychiatric ward and start demeaning and insulting people. Call them ugly, stupid, failures, abominations. See what happens.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> "This, however, IS a straw man. I am suggesting we have no CAPACITY to compel action in other persons by simply holding beliefs."
> 
> You are suggesting much more than that. You are suggesting that our actions and attitudes towards others have no impact on their mental state or their decision whether to kill themselves or not. Its a silly standpoint since we know that bullying contributes to the rate of suicide particularly among young people. Go into a psychiatric ward and start demeaning and insulting people. Call them ugly, stupid, failures, abominations. See what happens.


So...you are saying that if you are bullying me, then the likelihood of me committing suicide will increase?

----------


## stuntpickle

> "This, however, IS a straw man. I am suggesting we have no CAPACITY to compel action in other persons by simply holding beliefs."
> 
> You are suggesting much more than that. You are suggesting that our actions and attitudes towards others have no impact on their mental state or their decision whether to kill themselves or not. Its a silly standpoint since we know that bullying contributes to the rate of suicide particularly among young people. Go into a psychiatric ward and start demeaning and insulting people. Call them ugly, stupid, failures, abominations. See what happens.


Affirming the proposition "homosexuality is wrong" in no way constitutes an action toward others.

People are not automatons executing programs written by their environment. I freely admit that we can contribute to an environment that someone would prefer to avoid by committing suicide. I do not advocate creating these types of environments. But holding a metaphysical belief does not imply any variety of behavior. To state that lying is wrong doesn't mean that one persecutes liars, nor does it mean that one is responsible for the suicide of a liar.

I just don't understand how you can't see this.

----------


## WyattGwyon

> Wrong! Anyone making an assertion has the explanatory onus insofar as the assertion is concerned.


This is incorrect. Consider the assertion: "There is no evidence that God exists." This requires no justification or explanation whatever. The only way to counter such a statement is to falsify it by providing evidence to the contrary. If anyone wishes to dispute it, they will have to make a positive assertion that such evidence in fact exists and then present said evidence. 




> Traditionally, "nonsensical" refers to language having no sense or meaning. Since you have understood the content of my post, you cannot mean that it was this variety of nonsense,


No, you don't get to pick one narrow definition of a term and then pretend it must be (or must not be) what I meant. By "a nonsensical scenario" I meant one that is logically incoherent—one that makes "no sense." Your scenario was nonsensical in that it postulates two people who have intimate knowledge of one another (the closest in the world to each other—call this proposition 1), and yet are apparently oblivious to each others' central beliefs on issues some consider the most important facing humans—the existence of a supreme being and the afterlife (call this proposition 2). The two propositions are incompatible and mutually contradictory. Thus the scenario makes no sense. It is nonsensical. Understand now?




> so I suspect you mean that the situation is inconsequential, which would seem wrong.


You are not capable of anticipating my thought. I would not have dreamed up such a tortured reading of a perfectly straightforward concept like "nonsense."




> Also, I think you ignore the fact that a person on his deathbed will necessarily act in accordance with his past behaviors.


So you are saying that someone on their deathbed cannot or will not conceive a new way of behaving or a new belief? On the contrary, I suspect many on their deathbeds arrive at new knowledge or perspectives. I'm not sure why you would make this dubious and unsupported assertion. 




> I think it's also presumptuous that this person will just take your previous beliefs for granted. I think death has the affect of making people reconsider things.


First, I will assume that you meant "effect" since "affect" is nonsensical in this context (just trying to reinforce a concept—nonsense—you seem to find challenging. Please note that I have understood exactly what you meant, and yet what you wrote was, strictly speaking, nonsensical. Also note that this is precisely the situation you said was impossible in the second quotation of your text above!). So, in your scenario, the person on their deathbed is thinking something like: "I've known you for a long time and throughout those years you have been a confirmed atheist. Despite knowing you to be (1) a person with long-standing beliefs that are a matter of deep conviction and (2) a person not inclined to sudden, cataclysmic shifts in your belief system, I will nevertheless ask if today you have become a theist and now believe in an afterlife." Sounds vanishingly unlikely to me—and truly sad if anyone would actually spend their last moments in such a fruitless discussion. No, your scenario is simply nonsensical (see definition above if you are still confused.)

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Nietzsche defined atheism as "..the awe-inspiring catastrophe of two-thousand years of training in truthfulness that finally forbids itself the lie involved in belief in God."
> 
> I don't think you fully grasp what Nietzsche thought, which was that atheism was an excruciating revelation.


So, is Nietzsche the only authority on what atheism is?



> If I say that ones depression isnt the discrete effect of anothers opinion, and you say the evidence says otherwise, you are stating that there is evidence that demonstrates ones depression results from someone elses opinion. I demand you produce this evidence. You are essentially saying that there exists a mechanism by which my personal opinion can, simply by virtue of its existence, inflict depression upon another person. We both know no such evidence exists, so I wonder why you state the evidence says otherwise. 
> 
> If a person develops cancer and kills himself to avoid the pain and suffering, it does not follow that cancer causes people to kill themselves. Persons have agency of which they cannot be liberated simply because someone else holds a belief. 
> 
> Holding a belief that some behavior A is wrong is not synonymous with another behavior B. Believing that homosexuality is wrong is not synonymous with mistreatment of homosexuals.
> 
> Your statements about anti-gay rhetoric and social exclusion are misguided. If I am waiting on a cab and I wait for one with tinted windows, it does not follow that tinted windows compel me to enter cabs. Can a person make a decision about social exclusion? Yes. Can social exclusion compel a person to make a decision? No.
> 
> 
> ...


It's not the belief alone that causes the problem. If a belief is kept private and to one's self, of course it's not harmful. If a belief compels someone to take actions against someone else, in this case someone who believes homosexuality is wrong and therefore ridicules someone who is homosexual, I don't think it can be denied that those actions can have a profound effect on a person. Do you deny that the abuse, whether physical or verbal, of someone due to a difference in that person can effect that person and cause that person to take actions he would not otherwise take? When it comes to suicide, I'm not sure one can ever point to one single cause and say definitively, "That's why he committed suicide, and that's the only reason why." I think it's also hard to say the opposite, that something like bullying (which can be caused be acting on certain beliefs) has no impact on someone's mental state. 

Also, you demand evidence from Pip to show beliefs cause suicide. I'm sure it goes against logical debate rules or whatever and that you'll just hide behind that excuse, but can you show any evidence that suggests that beliefs don't cause suicide?

----------


## Darcy88

> So...you are saying that if you are bullying me, then the likelihood of me committing suicide will increase?


Yes. Is that really so hard to believe?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Affirming the proposition "homosexuality is wrong" in no way constitutes an action toward others.


Getting a bit hypocritical. In that case "Christianity is wrong" in no way constitutes an action against others. Christianity is an abomination and can lead to people being shunned and hurt by others, so Christians should try to stop being Christians. By your logic, there is nothing wrong with those statements, they don't and can't hurt anyone, and they certainly couldn't be insulting enough to lead to any sort of depression.

Homosexuals aren't second class citizens. A person can't say it's justifiable to treat them less well than the religious peers they defend.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> So...you are saying that if you are bullying me, then the likelihood of me committing suicide will increase?


Does Christianity condone bullying? Is it all on the up-and-up?

----------


## cafolini

> I wasn't saying these are the scariest times in history. Scary nonetheless. Religion is the norm in america, not the minority, but I hope you're right and that we won't slide back into worse times. 
> 
> Sometimes around my city, it's like a body snatchers movie. They single out the ones who haven't been changed.


We don't have unified religion in America. You can rest assured that there will be no unified religion in America. Apart from that, the separation of church and state is firmer than ever, apart from gossip sources that are unaccountable and come up in the media because they are scandalous. 
Apart from that, for every ten people that tell you they are religious, nine tell you so because they think it's convenient to them, and they didn't even read the books. You are too preoccupied about this. They'll never come back as a power source to control our society. The point is that our religious poeple of thousands of denominations and non-denominations don't even care about that, except for PTL preachers making money.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> We don't have unified religion in America. You can rest assured that there will be no unified religion in America. Apart from that, the separation of church and state is firmer than ever, apart from gossip sources that are unaccountable and come up in the media because they are scandalous. 
> Apart from that, for every ten people that tell you they are religious, nine tell you so because they think it's convenient to them, and they didn't even read the books. You are too preoccupied about this. They'll never come back as a power source to control our society. The point is that our religious poeple of thousands of denominations and non-denominations don't even care about that, except for PTL preachers making money.


My son's public school dropped science and social studies and suddenly started sending home "grammar" lessons made up of bible verses. Separation of church and state? I would like to know where so I can go there.

----------


## stuntpickle

reconsidered

----------


## Ecurb

> This is absolutely wrong. The assertion "there is no evidence God exists" has an impossible explanatory burden that involves either demonstrating a perfect knowledge of all possible locations of evidence, which would be complete and perfect knowledge of the universe, or some monstrous inductive argument that a PhD logician wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. This is precisely the sort of statement that no philosopher would make since it's completely indefensible. Besides there's obviously evidence for God. Evidence doesn't mean proof. There's also such a thing as bad evidence, which is still evidence. There's no question that the Bible constitutes some form of evidence. Maybe you don't think it's sufficient evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless. So what you're saying here is you can make assertions without backing them up just as long as they're really bad ones.
> 
> .


I have no idea why so many new atheists say, "There is no evidence that God exists" when it is clearly untrue. Perhaps Wyatt can explain it to me. Obviously, there are written eye witness accounts of miracles, of the Resurrection, of God appearing out of burning bushes, and of personal revelation. I think the new atheists might mean to say, "There is no 'scientific evidence' that God exists." This might be true, depending on how we define science. However, the notion that science constitutes the only form of "evidence" flies in the face of common sense (we all believe our own eyes, for example) and all evidentiary rules. Most history (for example) is non-scientific. It relies on written, eye-witness accounts -- very similar to the Bible. There might be as much "evidence" for the Resurrection as for the Battle of Issus (although, of course, it's reasonable to demand more evidence before accepting supernatural occurences, because they are so incredible). 

It is also possible, of course, that atheists mean, "There is no persuasive (or convincing) evidence that God exists." However, the reams of evidence are so substantial that saying there is "no evidence" is ridiculous.

----------


## Darcy88

Christians will try to pick apart science and materialism but then when someone like Sathya Sai Baba, a reputed miracle worker, comes along they will resort to the same arguments used by atheists who resist the notion of Christ's divinity.

Furthermore, Christians follow the exact same line of reasoning when they reject the revelations of Muhammed that atheists follow when they reject those of Moses.

As much as most atheists fail to realize the consequences of their atheism, the same is true for their believing counterparts who fail to acknowledge the full ramifications of their faith. If the scientific method is relaxed or altogether discarded, well then anything goes. If the Bible then also the Koran and the Book of Mormon. If Christ's miracles then those of Sathya Sai Baba too.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> reconsidered


. . . Why?

----------


## Ecurb

> Christians will try to pick apart science and materialism but then when someone like Sathya Sai Baba, a reputed miracle worker, comes along they will resort to the same arguments used by atheists who resist the notion of Christ's divinity.
> 
> Furthermore, Christians follow the exact same line of reasoning when they reject the revelations of Muhammed that atheists follow when they reject those of Moses.


Huh? I never said it was unreasonable to "reject the revelations" of anyone. In fact, I'm an atheist myself. I just think it's unreasonable to say there's no evidence for something, when there is book after book after book, filled with evidence (although none of it may be persuasive). 

If a jury hears all the evidence in a case, they can decide "guilty" or "not guilty". But if the case has gone on for days, and dozens of witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, it would be silly for jurors to claim there had been "no evidence presented".

----------


## Darcy88

I can just picture St Peter reading all that I've written here back to me on the day of judgement, Bien and Stuntpickle standing arms-crossed shaking their heads from behind the gate. Hahaha.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I can just picture St Peter reading all that I've written here back to me on the day of judgement, Bien and Stuntpickle standing arms-crossed shaking their heads from behind the gate. Hahaha.


Haha. I would have to pass on heaven if I saw them standing there. That would be the great thing about hell. All of my friends would be there. The best musicians too.

----------


## Calidore

> Huh? I never said it was unreasonable to "reject the revelations" of anyone. In fact, I'm an atheist myself. I just think it's unreasonable to say there's no evidence for something, when there is book after book after book, filled with evidence (although none of it may be persuasive).


That's not evidence, but claims. None of it's reproducible. The jury you mention below wouldn't even hear that evidence, because it's only hearsay.

There's no evidence that God exists because he's supposed to be invisible, incorporeal, all-powerful, etc. etc. There's also no evidence that he doesn't exist for the same reason, plus the additional problem of proving a negative. That's where modern religion has it all over the ancients. They had gods and so on that essentially ceased to exist when we learned the reality behind the phenomena the gods were created to explain. This new God, however, can have any claim made about him that the claimant finds convenient.

----------


## WyattGwyon

> I have no idea why so many new atheists say, "There is no evidence that God exists" when it is clearly untrue. Perhaps Wyatt can explain it to me.


I did not say this as a statement of fact. I only offered it as an example in the abstract of an assertion that does not require justification or evidence. By the way, I am not an atheist by at least one common definition. I do not deny the existence of God, for example, mostly because I don't have enough interest in this particular notion of a supreme being to bother about it one way or another. I believe in no supernatural phenomena. 




> Obviously, there are written eye witness accounts of miracles, of the Resurrection, of God appearing out of burning bushes, and of personal revelation. I think the new atheists might mean to say, "There is no 'scientific evidence' that God exists." This might be true, depending on how we define science.


Perhaps I should have said "no credible evidence." That takes care of your objection. 




> However, the notion that science constitutes the only form of "evidence" flies in the face of common sense (we all believe our own eyes, for example) and all evidentiary rules. Most history (for example) is non-scientific. It relies on written, eye-witness accounts -- very similar to the Bible.


There is little credible evidence that the Bible is based on eye-witness accounts. Wasn't all of the New Testament, for example, written by people living well after the events described took place? The case of the Old Testament is clearer still, right? 




> It is also possible, of course, that atheists mean, "There is no persuasive (or convincing) evidence that God exists." However, the reams of evidence are so substantial that saying there is "no evidence" is ridiculous.


Fanciful accounts of miracles and mysterious events are not evidence, they are fancy. Even if taken at face value, there is no reason to associate any of these accounts of mysterious "events" with the particular types of divine intercession inferred from them. Hence no evidence is correct—but I will make it "no credible evidence" if you prefer.

By the way: Is that Canyon Lands in your avatar?

----------


## WyattGwyon

> . . . Why?


Now now! Everyone has the right to reconsider what they wish to post. And even if someone beats them to the punch and quotes them before they withdraw their statement, like Ecurb did in this case, I still consider it out of bounds to respond once an author demonstrates the intention to reconsider a post.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I don't disagree, Wyatt . . . well, I don't on the "out of bounds" part. I'm just curious as to why he reconsidered it. It seemed on par with all his other posts. Hell, it was less abrasive than a lot of his other posts, so I assume he didn't remove it because he felt it was too "offensive."

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Does Christianity condone bullying? Is it all on the up-and-up?


No...TRUE Christianity does not. I get quite frustrated with people even in my own congregation that seem to be over judgmental. I've been over judgmental myself, but I'm working on it. There are many...even most...Christians that think that they are better than others. I'm no better in my actions than any, but I'll condemn my own actions as well. There are man actions that are wrong, but none of them makes the person an abomination. There is a preacher who just left our congregation that I feel is a bully, and I was very outspoken that I think that the elders were wrong in not marking him as such. People have the right to make choices in their lives (short of those choices that hurt others). But there is a line that must be drawn as to when and where (and to what extent) that someone can voice their opinions about sin. But stating a belief is not bullying.

----------


## Darcy88

The humility you express in this latest post is admirable and Christian in the truest sense of the word Bien.

----------

