Religion: What it means to you

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Suppose I did read your posts. Consider that I know how you would react.

You dont believe my testimony or that of the bible. Your recommendations have been taken into account. Ok.

I still have a book to follow and not your statements. Sorry. My religion means following the texts in my book the bible & not the words of people.

Good. Read your Bible, study up. Live your life.

But don't expect us to sit here and listen peacefully when you preach.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

What you believe affects what you can do. Some folks are told that they won't amount to much, they are told that their stupid, they are told they have psychologcial problems and these statements become real because they are believed.

I still don't know what this has to do with Stephen Hawkings.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Many of you say my experiences are not real. What makes you so sure?

The same thing that makes me sure that the people in institutions aren't really Napoleon.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

No, people have always wanted direction in living, the Christian walk does just that.

This doesn't answer my question. There are a vast amount of people who know about Christianity but aren't Christians, why do you think that is?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

You know helpful words help and hurtful words hurt. This is why the bible is of great use to me.

Why don't you just get one of these.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

The resulting evidences of John 14:16 is enough to sustain my faith.

'And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;'

You obviously have a different definition of evidence than everybody else.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Answered prayer is enough to sustain my faith.

If you can prove that your prayers are answered then by all means prove it.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Sounds like my drunken, angry atheist father, you must have read the same book he did.

I still don't understand what your fathers atheism has to do with anything. I'm sure that he also drank water and quite frankly that has as much to do with his morality as his atheism does. You've probably got atheism and nihilism mixed up, that would explain the fact that you seem to believe that athiests believe in nothing.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

Funny I thought the thing about agnostics was we don't claim anything. Why would you consider being agnostic as people who only think atheists are right or god fearing people are right? You don't think we might be of the opinion neither is right? That there are more options to consider? It's funny how you try and paint belief systems in as stark black and white as you can. Stop ignoring the grayscale.

I think you misunderstood me. Agnostics are the fence sitters who in the fullness of time will [should] eventually become a theist or an atheist once the evidence or argument persuades them in one direction or the other. I would divide agnosticism into 2 categories: weak agnosticism and strong agnosticism; those who do not know versus those who believe we cannot know. But inside this, and this is where I disagree, the agnostics try to claim that despite there being no evidence in support of a all loving, sin forgiving, universe creating God, the possibility for the existence of this God should be weighed equally against its non-existence. From this however, I do not understand how an agnostic can think both theism and atheism are false views. The atheist is simply saying that whatever process it was that began the universe and life; it is not to be attributed to a prime mover, who aside from creating universes, also forgives sins and answers prayers. What do you mean by other options to be considered?

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

...after all, aren't we all atheists to someone.

Precisely. As an agnostic you certainly have a damaging argument against yourself. When you have the intellectual honesty to understand why you're an atheist in regards to the thousands of dead Gods which our ancestors believed in, you will understand why I am an atheist in regards to the Gods people believe in present day.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

As you know the word "religion" has many definitions. These describe my view of atheism:

Please tell me what Atheism means to you?

I have a slight lean towards nihilism in that I don’t believe life has an objective meaning or purpose. I think it is a nonsensical question anyway. I am as close to certain as I can be that the universe was not created specifically for me so I could be here right now neither to participate in this discussion nor to play Guitar Hero 2 when time permits. As for the process of evolution which brought me here, it too did not intend for me to be here. Evolution does not know I am here. It won’t notice when I am gone. The stars look down, that’s all they do; they don’t care. My body does not contain an immaterial soul. At the instant of the destruction of my brain my consciousness will end with nothing beyond: no eternal hellfire, no heavenly paradise. We’re the only species on the planet that knows it is going to die. If I manage to hold out long enough I will witness the death of everyone I will have come to love. Instead of falling into wish thinking, I decide to take on this astonishing fact with some intellectual and moral courage.

It's entirely incorrect to label atheism as just another religion. Everything I described above may be a necessary condition for atheism but it is not a sufficient condition. The word itself, atheism, is really a non sequitur. If I were to say I am an a-Communist, this would say nothing about what form of goverment I do believe works. A-Monetarist says nothing about which economical theory I do believe works, et cetera.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Science as you know it only denys God these guys believed why wouldnt you?
Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Well, scientists are humans too, so no one should be the least surprised when a few of them put their faith in the scriptures ahead of the evidence of their corresponding field of research. Are you familiar with Pierre Simon Laplace? He’s the French mathematician who published the Celestial Mechanics in which he describes the motion of the planets and is the first person to talk about black holes among other things. After the critics read his work they came back to Laplace and said something of the sort; “well we see you’ve written about the system of the universe but there is no mention of God.” In one of my favourite quotes Laplace politely replies, “Sir I had no need to make such an assumption.” Laplace’s equations for planetary motion worked just as well without the need to mention God. This is what makes scientific understanding so elegant. There is no need to make a footnote on every page with: And God did it. It adds nothing useful.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Why don't you just get one of these.

I have the bible on audio CD. My study of the scriptures has come along way with that.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

You obviously have a different definition of evidence than everybody else.

With all the different systems of belief in the world, do really you mean everybody, or just people who live up to your standards?

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

If you can prove that your prayers are answered then by all means prove it.

I would love to. My prayer is for another person with the same message as mine will approach you in person. This person will be more adept with the bible than I and more educated to boot. Most importantly despite your current stand, you will want to listen to what this person has to say.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

I still don't understand what your fathers atheism has to do with anything.

I have seen many here respond just like he did in this discussion.
It the way an atheist acts that I am keen to. His brother my uncle has the same mentality. I have mixed it up with atheists for a long time and see the same predictable pattern. Even if they are aware of it they still cant help themselves.

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

I have a slight lean towards nihilism in that I don’t believe life has an objective meaning or purpose. I think it is a nonsensical question anyway. I am as close to certain as I can be that the universe was not created specifically for me so I could be here right now neither to participate in this discussion nor to play Guitar Hero 2 when time permits. As for the process of evolution which brought me here, it too did not intend for me to be here. Evolution does not know I am here. It won’t notice when I am gone. The stars look down, that’s all they do; they don’t care. My body does not contain an immaterial soul. At the instant of the destruction of my brain my consciousness will end with nothing beyond: no eternal hellfire, no heavenly paradise. We’re the only species on the planet that knows it is going to die. If I manage to hold out long enough I will witness the death of everyone I will have come to love.

Thank you very much. I appreciate this frank & honest answer. Of all the people I chat with you are one of the very few who has been so open.

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

Instead of falling into wish thinking, I decide to take on this astonishing fact with some intellectual and moral courage.

What is courage in the face of a meaningless existence?

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

It's entirely incorrect to label atheism as just another religion. Everything I described above may be a necessary condition for atheism but it is not a sufficient condition.

It is still another belief system that affects a persons decision making. True there are different shades but often people shape their belief system to fit their comfort.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

With all the different systems of belief in the world, do really you mean everybody, or just people who live up to your standards?

I mean anyone who has a standard english dictionary.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I would love to. My prayer is for another person with the same message as mine will approach you in person. This person will be more adept with the bible than I and more educated to boot. Most importantly despite your current stand, you will want to listen to what this person has to say.

Is there any particular time-limit on this prayer, because if there isn't then short of replying to this post on my death-bed there's not a lot a can do to disprove it since you can just say that it will 'happen in the future'. How about something a little more concrete.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I have seen many here respond just like he did in this discussion.
It the way an atheist acts that I am keen to. His brother my uncle has the same mentality. I have mixed it up with atheists for a long time and see the same predictable pattern. Even if they are aware of it they still cant help themselves.

What response was that? The majority of the respondees only seem to be quite irritated that you fail to offer any evidence for your position despite repeatedly saying that you have some (although your lack of understanding of what evidence actually means might explain this). Your posts have painted you as a person who is amazingly stubborn and pig-headed, and refuses to listen to anything that challenges his pre-conceptions. All of your arguements have been dissected and dismantled yet you persist in trotting them out as though they were somehow new and impervious to criticism. Before casting blame on others I suggest you try to look at your posts with a neutral point of view in the hope you can see how irritating they are.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

Precisely. As an agnostic you certainly have a damaging argument against yourself. When you have the intellectual honesty to understand why you're an atheist in regards to the thousands of dead Gods which our ancestors believed in, you will understand why I am an atheist in regards to the Gods people believe in present day.

I'm not really sure which gods you're talking about. I mean, if you're talking about the Great Turtle upon whose back the Earth rests, well, I can understand not believing in it. But why should I deny the possibility of the existence of a god which exists outside of our universe even if its believers are gone? Why do the people with the correct set of beliefs have to roam the Earth today? Why can't the right answer be none of the ones proposed so far?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by LordsSword

What is courage in the face of a meaningless existence?

Do you even understand what "courage" means? Courage is about steeling yourself to press forward in spite of great fear and foreboding. Believing firmly that existence is utterly meaningless and still resolving to grind through it is deeply courageous. If you firmly believe that in the end everything will be all right and we'll all get mai-tais in Heaven, you don't need any courage because, for you, there is nothing to fear.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Why can't the right answer be none of the ones proposed so far?

It could be, but what reasons are there for thinking it might be?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Well, if so many people have been wrong in the past (though I suppose we can't even verify that) what are the odds people are right today when it's really just a shot in the dark?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

When we were wrong on the past it was often because of superstition, whereas now the scientific method means that we are getting things wrong less and less.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Well, if so many people have been wrong in the past (though I suppose we can't even verify that) what are the odds people are right today when it's really just a shot in the dark?

From this perspective, why would it even matter??

I guess that's the atheist in me speaking. =/

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

the scientific method means that we are getting things wrong less and less.

So you have faith in the scientific method, then

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Pangalin

So you have faith in the scientific method, then

No, becase the scientific method has proven itself to work time and time again, while faith means having a belief in something despite lack of evidence.

When you get sick do you pray or go to a doctor?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

No, becase the scientific method has proven itself to work time and time again, while faith means having a belief in something despite lack of evidence.

When you get sick do you pray or go to a doctor?

That's an interesting notion, since doctors can't always cure you. You have faith that they will. You trust them.

It's an abstract faith, and I don't think it can be applied to religion as Pang implies. But faith no less.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

There are multiple definitions of "faith", and each slightly different.

Quote:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

Atheists should be quick to stop damning the word "faith", or, at the very least, specify which "faith" they mean.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Thank you. I am glad someone else can do some of the gruntwork of actually reading the dictionary around here. The broad concept of faith is in no way necessarily tied to the absence of proof. It is, more or less, just a concrete assumption.

I have faith that alcohol will make me drunk.

I have faith that my cat won't learn to play basketball.

I have faith that the burgers I am frying up will be delicious.

But can I PROVE that these things will be true? Not in the slightest. They are simply things I assume to be true based on my previous experience.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

No, becase the scientific method has proven itself to work time and time again, while faith means having a belief in something despite lack of evidence.

Other than using the scientific method to measure things outside of its ability to be measured (it's fairly difficult to conduct controlled experiments when dealing with gods, I imagine), using induction to prove itself is also a little bit of a fun thing.

PS: Still waiting on science to come up with a test for free will.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Something that I heard from a friend that I never confirmed- supposedly thier is a site called God-tube, a spoof of youtube, and porntube, which proves that god exists by use of a bannana...

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Token

Something that I heard from a friend that I never confirmed- supposedly thier is a site called God-tube, a spoof of youtube, and porntube, which proves that god exists by use of a bannana...

Oh God. (You had to bring that up.) However, since it pretty much makes argument in favour of God "all the more convincing", I don't see why I shouldn't post it.

Bananas: Proof that God exists....

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Other than using the scientific method to measure things outside of its ability to be measured (it's fairly difficult to conduct controlled experiments when dealing with gods, I imagine), using induction to prove itself is also a little bit of a fun thing.

Why is god outside of our ability to be measured? He's always proving he exists in the old testament so why can't he do any of that stuff now? On the other hand if god has only ever existed outside of our universe and has never had anything to do with our universe than whether he exists or not is as irrelevent as last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat, and so we can safely use Occum's razor to remove him.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

PS: Still waiting on science to come up with a test for free will.

I'm sure neuroscientists are working on it as we type.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Honestly, I have neither faith in religion nor in science.

I'm Buddhist, but it doesn't really seep into my life.
Things ARE.
That's the point, I don't try to find depth in them unless they're typed on a page and the author is absent.

I suppose I'm buddhist for the same reason that some people are Christians: because if I'm right, I'm right, but if I'm wrong, this makes sense.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Why is god outside of our ability to be measured? He's always proving he exists in the old testament so why can't he do any of that stuff now? On the other hand if god has only ever existed outside of our universe and has never had anything to do with our universe than whether he exists or not is as irrelevent as last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat, and so we can safely use Occum's razor to remove him.

Who said anything about the God you see in the Bible? I don't think I did recently.

Gods aren't measurable because we can't set up experiments to verify or disprove their existence.

And last I checked Occam's Razor only serves to point what is most probably correct, not that something can't exist as a definite proof. There's no reason I see why some god couldn't have created the universe and is just chilling out watching what's going on, maybe to intervene someday (or has in the past but decided to take a beer break or something).

Quote:

I'm sure neuroscientists are working on it as we type.

Well, as soon as they figure out why humans have free will yet computers, robots, dogs, insects, rocks, trees, and atoms don't, get back to me.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by agreatguy6

I don't try to find depth in them unless they're typed on a page and the author is absent.

I thought this was funny, because it sounded like you were trying to say that interpretation is a foolish exercise...except in a specific set of circumstances into which the bible falls.

RR, in order to search for free will, don't we need to define it first? I don't know that that's been done. Also not sure how you'd test it. I mean, if you come up with a mapping saying that people with this combination of chemistry and this class of background will do A. Then you test that against a sufficiently large sample and find out that a statistically significant sample actually does B, all that shows is that your mapping may be incorrect.

It seems at its essence that absolute free will would mean choices outside of any criteria, or beyond reason.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Who said anything about the God you see in the Bible? I don't think I did recently.

I was just using it as an example of a god that exists within our universe.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Gods aren't measurable because we can't set up experiments to verify or disprove their existence.

Then how are they different to last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

And last I checked Occam's Razor only serves to point what is most probably correct, not that something can't exist as a definite proof.

Occum's Razor states that 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity', or to put in another way, 'we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof'. That sounds like it covers the possibility that there is a god who exists outside our universe, has nothing to do with our universe (to say he created our universe is just 'god-of-the-gaps') and cannot be measured.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

There's no reason I see why some god couldn't have created the universe and is just chilling out watching what's going on, maybe to intervene someday (or has in the past but decided to take a beer break or something).

Then I assume you also don't see any reason to discount last-thursdayism, or brain-in-a-vat or the infinite amount of other things which might exist but for which we have no evidence.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Well, as soon as they figure out why humans have free will yet computers, robots, dogs, insects, rocks, trees, and atoms don't, get back to me.

Why do you think that humans have 'free will' and dogs don't?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

I was just using it as an example of a god that exists within our universe.

But the important thing to remember is just because one might not be true it doesn't necessarily make all religions untrue. Induction is well and good and everything, but there's no way it can disprove something's existence in the future.

Quote:

Then how are they different to last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat.

I imagine those are completely non-observable, while a god which can choose to interact with us at any given time it would so desire. I meant the setting up experiments part as in, we can't make a god do something at our whim, nor do we necessarily know how to go about testing if it was work done by a god, so it's existence would be difficult to test for.

Quote:

Occum's Razor states that 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity', or to put in another way, 'we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof'. That sounds like it covers the possibility that there is a god who exists outside our universe, has nothing to do with our universe (to say he created our universe is just 'god-of-the-gaps') and cannot be measured.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one," or alternately, "we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof."

Going by the former translation given on wikipedia it seems more like it's up to the individual what's actually a simpler explanation. Clever cutting and pasting, though.

Quote:

Then I assume you also don't see any reason to discount last-thursdayism, or brain-in-a-vat or the infinite amount of other things which might exist but for which we have no evidence.

As I've said before, I don't even know if I exist.

Quote:

Why do you think that humans have 'free will' and dogs don't?

Well, other than me not believing anything has free will, I just wonder where people try to make the distinction between things having and not having free will. Why is it bacteria only behave based upon the chemical impulses going on in their cells while we have some magic ability to not be held captive to our own chemical impulses?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.