A Must Read!

[Thorne]

Interesting reading, for believers and non-believers alike.

His conclusion is, in my opinion, both moving and undeniable. (Emphasis mine.)

We stand naked before the universe, a product of its rules, and one of the facts of our existence is our eventual obliteration. Running away won't help. Believing in a magical savior won't save you. You face reality bravely, or you hide in fear — and that won't help you either.

The essential principle, though, the one that the religious cannot abide, is that you can face it honestly. And there's at least a little dignity in that.

[denuseri]

Afterlife? What afterlife?

How do we know there is or is not an afterlife, many many people "feel" that an afterlife exists and is just as real and tangible as anything else. Science certiantly doesn't know, though sometimes it claims to know even when it doesnt, so how does the atheist claim differ any,,,a belief, based upon an assumption with not enough data to support it. Sounds just like most religions to me.

Religion has always fluorished in ignorance.

So has science.

What is it but a collection of stories and claims to explain the mysteries of life — wherever there is something we don't understand, that we lack real knowledge about, there is a priest ready to rush in and fill the gap with a story.

Or explain a tried and true well tested tradition.

And it's always a story that gives the answer people want to hear.

Hardely, more often than not it gives an answer that is not what people want to hear...it is most certiantly not all cookies and cream.

It's all about retribution for the wicked and rewards for the godly, and everything has a purpose, even the most arbitrary phenomenon, because people love to believe in a guiding hand that, if they properly satisfy the god behind it, will give them an extra scrap of protection against a dangerous world.

Again lets try to stereotype all religions into the chatholic cookie cutter box? Structure equals function, so everything does have a purpose, even what appears to be random has a purpose, we even know that mathematically speaking.

Sophistry like the authors is an all too common and empty way of making his argument.


Look at the stories they make up: they know nothing of the deep history of the world, so they make up fables about a human deity building it like one would construct a house; they know nothing of disease, so they make up imaginary demons and spirits that torment us; they don't understand geology or the weather, so every natural catastrophe becomes a warning shot from an angry god. They want power, so they pretend that their incantations and rituals will get them the blessings of their god. Most pathetic of all, they fear death, so they've invented fabulous heavens and hells to terrify and tempt.

It's not what they made up, it was what was passed down to them through generation after generation. The historical accuracey for some of which is confirmed more and more everyday, and it isnt as if they didnt understand some of these things, so much as used language and traditons to represent it as a force in our lives. Again I see the author making yet another atheist rant based on much sophistry and little if any actual reason.

They're all lies. They don't know, they can only pretend to knowledge: no one has returned from an unambiguous death to tell us what goes on afterwards, and the people who claim to have visions of an afterlife or ghosts or souls are not consistent with one another. The only reason to invent a story that you have a 'spirit' that will 'live' on after death is because it's what people want to hear — death is frightening, so it's easy for people to believe in an afterlife.

There is a really good reason why so many people do believe in an afterlife and just becuase science has difficulty measuring something doesnt mean it doesnt exisit and stories of people who have died etc and returned are actually amazingly consistent and have been around for a very long time, which how some works like the Tibetian Book of the Dead came into being.

Which in all leads me to believe the author has never held someone's hand and spoke to them as they died nor really read or studied the religious texts and dogma he so vehmently wishes to decry as false.

But here's the truth. There is no evidence at all for an afterlife. There is no logical reason to believe in it; immortality of any sort doesn't even make sense, since a life without growth and change is no life at all, and an eternity of change can only render who we are now rather irrelevant. The available evidence suggests rather strongly that our minds are dynamic processes played out on the substrate of our brains (and a theologian wishing otherwise is no rebuttal), and when the activity stops, we cease to exist. I am a unique array of synapses tuned by my personal experience and neural connections laid down under the dictates of genes and development, and when my brain stops and rots, all those memories, every detail of my personality, everything about my mind will be gone forever.

To argue otherwise is pure fantasy.

So why is he argueing at all if its so obvious then wouldnt everyone just naturally follow such a defeatist path of thinking, roll over and die then since we have no purpose?

It's a hard sell for atheists, isn't it? We offer nothing but the prospect of personal oblivion, while our opponents promise paradise.

Coughs,, excuse me, most religions do not just offer paradise, if anything its more the other way around.

If all we had to go on was belief, (why, in fact thats the only thing any atheist is going on...belief. ) you'd have to be crazy to go with the atheists. But we do have something more than just a desire to believe: we have reason and evidence, and most importantly of all, an overriding interest in the truth.

Then why use every bit of sophistry imaginable to misconstrue and attack that which you do not obviously really understand?

Why, we'll accept the most horrible, terrifying ideas if they are true: that we'll fall if we jump off a ten story building, that we can electrocute ourselves if we stick a silverware in an electric socket, and that someday we will inevitably stop and no longer exist.

OMG guess what...religious people beilieve in the same horrible possibilities that are out there waiting for us all too.

Reality matters. The only way to argue for an afterlife is to argue otherwise, that what is is unimportant compared to what you wish were true.

I am deeply religious and I believe as do most of the deeply religious people I know that reality is paramount and matters a great deal but again I am going to point out sophistry when I see it and the author is attempting yet again to use it to convience us all that atheism is somehow superior becuase it has something or lacks something that religion cant possibley have a grasp of,,,when in fact it does.

I can't do that.

Nope apparently all you can do is twist things and lie where you lack the honesty or vison to see otherwise.

In fact, I can't even offer anyone soothing words and the promise of consolation, because there are none. We stand naked before the universe, a product of its rules, and one of the facts of our existence is our eventual obliteration. Running away won't help.

That feeling just proves that atheists exist at God's mercy too and can sence our smallness by comparrison just like the rest of us.

Believing in a magical savior won't save you. You face reality bravely, or you hide in fear — and that won't help you either.

Believeing in a religion is not hiding in fear,,if anything it sometimes takes more courage than not believeing.

The essential principle, though, the one that the religious cannot abide, is that you can face it honestly. And there's at least a little dignity in that.

Well then lets acctually be honest then for a change instead of manipulative and decietful.

[Thorne]

How do we know there is or is not an afterlife, many many people "feel" that an afterlife exists and is just as real and tangible as anything else. Science certiantly doesn't know, though sometimes it claims to know even when it doesnt, so how does the atheist claim differ any,,,a belief, based upon an assumption with not enough data to support it. Sounds just like most religions to me.

No, science claims only that there is no evidence for an afterlife. EVERY religion claims the existence of an afterlife without any evidence. Science's sole claim is that a lack of evidence for the existence of something is NOT equivalent to evidence FOR it's existence. How do we know there are no dragons? (Apart from the Kimodo variety.) How do we know there are no unicorns, or centaurs, or any of zillions of other made-up creatures and places? Can we prove that Burroughs' Barsoom does not exist on Mars? There is no way to prove that any of these things do NOT exist. But that doesn't make them real, regardless of how many people "feel" they do.

Basically, when a theist says, "There IS an afterlife" he's saying that he BELIEVES there is an afterlife, despite the fact that there is no actual evidence of it. When a scientist, or an atheist, says "there is NOT an afterlife", he's saying that there is no rational reason to accept the existence of something for which there is no verifiable evidence.

Religion has always fluorished in ignorance.

So has science.

Not even close. Religion flourishes in the perpetuation of ignorance, keeping the believers away from any knowledge that contradicts dogma. Science flourishes by fighting ignorance, relishing knowledge, even if (one might even say, especially if) it contradicts scientific dogma.

What is it but a collection of stories and claims to explain the mysteries of life — wherever there is something we don't understand, that we lack real knowledge about, there is a priest ready to rush in and fill the gap with a story.

Or explain a tried and true well tested tradition.

With a story! Regardless of how old or how well known the story is, it's still just a story! And when facts intervene and contradict the story, the historical reaction of most religions has been to slay the messenger, to perpetuate the story. Tradition may be nice for maintaining the status quo and molding conformity. But sooner or later you have to finally stand up and say, "The Emperor has no clothes!"

And it's always a story that gives the answer people want to hear.

Hardely, more often than not it gives an answer that is not what people want to hear...it is most certiantly not all cookies and cream.

I'll grant you that. But it still tells them that there will be an afterlife, even though there is no evidence for such a thing. To some people, even an eternity in hell might seem better than complete oblivion. To some people, an eternity in the Catholic heaven (the one I'm most familiar with) would BE a hell.

It's not what they made up, it was what was passed down to them through generation after generation.

Passed down from someone who made it up to begin with! Again, just because it's an old story doesn't mean it's accurate. The world is not flat, the sky is not a carpet with little lanterns hanging from it. The sun is not a glowing chariot being driven daily across the sky.

The historical accuracey for some of which is confirmed more and more everyday

Such as what? Have they learned that there really was a census in Palestine near the time of Jesus' birth? Have they found eyewitness accounts of his life, aside from those purported to be written by his followers? Have they even found any archeological evidence that hundreds of thousands of people spent 40 years wandering through Sinai? Not that I've heard!

and it isnt as if they didnt understand some of these things, so much as used language and traditons to represent it as a force in our lives.

Oh, I see. So demons inhabiting our bodies were just euphemisms for bacterial infections? They actually knew how vast the universe was, but only wanted to make it sound like the Earth was all there was? Please. Language and tradition only go so far. Perpetuating those traditions and stories in the light of real evidence is no different than believing in fairy tales.

There is a really good reason why so many people do believe in an afterlife

Yes, there is, and this article explains it. It's COMFORTABLE. It's far less frightening to believe in an afterlife than not. It's far more exciting to believe in flying saucers than not. Neither is a valid reason for holding such beliefs.

and just becuase science has difficulty measuring something doesnt mean it doesnt exisit

Quite true, but the longer we look for evidence of something without finding anything, the less likely it becomes that it DOES exist.

and stories of people who have died etc and returned are actually amazingly consistent and have been around for a very long time, which how some works like the Tibetian Book of the Dead came into being.

So you're saying that Muslims who have near death experiences see the same things as Christians? Do Buddhist's with those experiences catch glimpses of the Islamic Paradise? In fact, the things which people claim to see during near death experiences are remarkably similar to what they expect to see, in the vast majority of cases. If everyone saw the same, or even similar, things, then all of the religions would preach about the same, or similar, afterlife. They do not.

Which in all leads me to believe the author has never held someone's hand and spoke to them as they died

What difference does that make? You are confusing an emotional issue with a purely subjective one. Someone who is dying is not necessarily a reliable source of information, nor is someone who is saddened by a loved one's death. These are the very kinds of emotional responses which religions are notorious for exploiting.

nor really read or studied the religious texts and dogma he so vehmently wishes to decry as false.

I would venture to guess, based on things I've read elsewhere, that Myers is far more versed in the religious texts and dogma than the average fundamentalist believer. Certainly far more versed than I am. I freely admit my lack of in-depth knowledge. But then, I don't know all that much about ancient Oriental fairy tales, either.

So why is he argueing at all if its so obvious then wouldnt everyone just naturally follow such a defeatist path of thinking, roll over and die then since we have no purpose?

He's arguing because religious leaders are constantly trying to force their poisonous bile down our throats. He's arguing because millions of people around the world die needlessly due to religious intolerance and hatred. He's arguing because he knows, as I do, that people would rather believe what feels good than what is right.
And who says we do not have a purpose? Just because I don't spend my life on my knees telling some god how great he is, just so I can go to heaven and spend eternity doing the same damned thing, doesn't mean I don't have a purpose. I have a family. They provide a purpose. I have a life to live, and that provides a purpose. It's the only life I will ever have, and I want to live it as much and as well as I can. That's a purpose. If your purpose is to be good and die and go to heaven, why don't you just let yourself die so you can be with your god? After all, isn't that your sole purpose?

Coughs,, excuse me, most religions do not just offer paradise, if anything its more the other way around.

Ultimately, religions provide a path to follow which, supposedly, leads to some form of salvation or life after death or some way to continued existence. Whether you want to call it paradise or not, it's the easy way out. The belief that something of us will go on, despite there being no evidence for such a belief.

If all we had to go on was belief, (why, in fact thats the only thing any atheist is going on...belief. )

Why is it that theist can't seem to understand that atheism involves a LACK of belief. NOT believing in something is not the same as believing that something is NOT.

Then why use every bit of sophistry imaginable to misconstrue and attack that which you do not obviously really understand?

sophistry - 1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
- 2 : an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid
I fail to see where the sophistry is in claiming that religions have no verifiable evidence to support their claims of a divine being or an afterlife. I realize it's hardly fair to fight fantasy with truth, or to counter wishful thinking with facts. But that's reality. Live with it.

I am deeply religious and I believe as do most of the deeply religious people I know that reality is paramount and matters a great deal but again I am going to point out sophistry when I see it and the author is attempting yet again to use it to convience us all that atheism is somehow superior becuase it has something or lacks something that religion cant possibley have a grasp of,,,when in fact it does.

And here we have real sophistry, claiming the author has said something which he has not actually said. No one claims that atheism is superior to faith. In fact, he says quite plainly that faith has far more comfort to offer people than atheism. What he IS saying is that reality, cold, hard, brutal reality, trumps wishful thinking every time. No amount of faith or religious dogma will allow you to jump off a ten story building and float gently down to the ground without suffering a single injury. Why? Because gravity is real and it's predictable and it can kill you. A good, scientifically designed parachute might save you, or a soundly engineered parafoil. But hand-waving and magical incantations won't help you worth a damn.

In fact, I can't even offer anyone soothing words and the promise of consolation, because there are none. We stand naked before the universe, a product of its rules, and one of the facts of our existence is our eventual obliteration. Running away won't help.

That feeling just proves that atheists exist at God's mercy too and can sence our smallness by comparrison just like the rest of us.

Oh, I can definitely sense our smallness. Just looking at the universe around us, the vast emptiness of space, how hostile and dangerous even the world on which we have evolved can be, makes me fall small and afraid. And God has nothing to do with it.

Believeing in a religion is not hiding in fear,,if anything it sometimes takes more courage than not believeing.

Oh? Ask a Muslim whether or not he's afraid of recanting his faith. Even if he wanted to, his religion would demand his death! How many women honestly believe they are only property, as so many religions preach? And how many of those women are afraid to speak out against those preachings? How many non-believers are hiding in churches, afraid to proclaim their non-belief because of the fear of ridicule and ostracism which they will most likely incur? And sure, it works both ways, no argument about that. The point is that it takes far more courage to state the truth when it directly contradicts the perceived truth of the masses. And believing in an afterlife, despite a total lack of evidence for such a condition, is simply hiding, from fear of obliteration.

Well then lets acctually be honest then for a change instead of manipulative and decietful.

I thought I was being honest. I'm not trying to be manipulative. I'm trying to tell the truth. However, if you can provide any real evidence for an afterlife, or even for gods, of any stripe, I'm sure that I'm not the only one who would be delighted to see it. Calling someone a liar just because they don't happen to agree with you is not providing evidence. Claiming that your particular belief system is the one true belief, despite all the belief systems in existence today and throughout history, is not proof either. And claiming something must be true just because 99% of the people in the world believe it to be true is not proof. Provide facts and evidence. Or propose an hypothesis which can be tested with proper procedures and practices. I'll wait.

[denuseri]

No, science claims only that there is no evidence for an afterlife.

Now you speak for all Science? Didn't think so, some scientists are exploring such things.

EVERY religion claims the existence of an afterlife without any evidence.

The evidence is right there in front of your face everytime you open your eyes.

Science's sole claim is that a lack of evidence for the existence of something is NOT equivalent to evidence FOR it's existence.

Actually science can't by your definition claim anything about god one way or the other becuase it lacks the ability at present to make a proper experiement.

How do we know there are no dragons? (Apart from the Kimodo variety.)

We dont.

How do we know there are no unicorns, or centaurs, or any of zillions of other made-up creatures and places?

They actually know where the unicorn myths were drawn from, and we even have some today though they are not horses with horns.

Can we prove that Burroughs' Barsoom does not exist on Mars?

Not until we go there with more than a few robots.

There is no way to prove that any of these things do NOT exist. But that doesn't make them real, regardless of how many people "feel" they do.

It also doesnt make them just a fantasy or made up story or any other derogative associative adjetive you want to use.

Basically, when a theist says, "There IS an afterlife" he's saying that he BELIEVES there is an afterlife, despite the fact that there is no actual evidence of it.

Or he or she is saying that they know there is and you simply refuse to accept their conviction.

When a scientist, or an atheist, says "there is NOT an afterlife", he's saying that there is no rational reason to accept the existence of something for which there is no verifiable evidence.

And yet they allways seem to resort to being unreasonable and unrational themselves when debating it and again as for evidence, no amount will suffice to convience them otherwise.


Not even close. Religion flourishes in the perpetuation of ignorance, keeping the believers away from any knowledge that contradicts dogma.

Then why is it, that religions promote learning and wisdom?

Why is it all that lost knowledge about math and science and such from the classical era was preserved by the theologians (both muslim and christian) when it would have otherwise been lost to us?

Science flourishes by fighting ignorance, relishing knowledge, even if (one might even say, especially if) it contradicts scientific dogma.

Religion also flourishes in bringing people from the darkness of ignorance into the light of understanding. Even/ especially in some cases: if it contradicts current dogma's be they religious, scientific or philosophical in origins.


With a story! Regardless of how old or how well known the story is, it's still just a story! And when facts intervene and contradict the story, (and sometimes they confirm it) the historical reaction of most religions has been to slay the messenger, to perpetuate the story.

Nice excuse but hardely holds up to actual historical records, despite popular opinion the victor doesnt allways write the history.

Tradition may be nice for maintaining the status quo and molding conformity. But sooner or later you have to finally stand up and say, "The Emperor has no clothes!" Or the egg-head as no clue!

I'll grant you that. But it still tells them that there will be an afterlife, even though there is no evidence for such a thing. No evidence according to you perhaps.

To some people, even an eternity in hell might seem better than complete oblivion. To some people, an eternity in the Catholic heaven (the one I'm most familiar with) would BE a hell.

And to others hell and heavan both exisist within the duality of human kinds existence and the afterlife is an illussion of time displacment that occurs from our perspective for an eternity. And then there are those guys running around the history channel proving ghosts exist, go figure.

Passed down from someone who made it up to begin with! Again, just because it's an old story doesn't mean it's accurate. The world is not flat, the sky is not a carpet with little lanterns hanging from it. The sun is not a glowing chariot being driven daily across the sky.

No its quite obvious that ancient discriptions and explanations for some things were metaphorical.


Such as what? Have they learned that there really was a census in Palestine near the time of Jesus' birth? Have they found eyewitness accounts of his life, aside from those purported to be written by his followers? Have they even found any archeological evidence that hundreds of thousands of people spent 40 years wandering through Sinai? Not that I've heard!

Obviously we go to different sources for not only our news, but our science and theology as well.

And please respectfully but wtf is up with the fixation on jews and christianity, they are not the only religion or philosophy in the world that the author and other atheisits seem to think is their mission in life to destroy through any means possible insulting any religious adhereants at every turn as often as possible whenever they get a chance.


Oh, I see. So demons inhabiting our bodies were just euphemisms for bacterial infections?

Appears so yes.

They actually knew how vast the universe was, but only wanted to make it sound like the Earth was all there was?

All they had to do to see how small they were was look around and due to their planet bound perspective it did take them a long long time to figure out otherwise.

Please. Language and tradition only go so far. Perpetuating those traditions and stories in the light of real evidence is no different than believing in fairy tales.

Please. Language and tradition are just as important as anything else, if not more so, without them we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes as our ancestors. And perpetuating a dogma of belief (which is exactly what atheism is) without expounding upon its morality in fact divorcing the two, is perhaps the only fairy tale here.


Yes, there is, and this article explains it. It's COMFORTABLE. It's far less frightening to believe in an afterlife than not. It's far more exciting to believe in flying saucers than not. Neither is a valid reason for holding such beliefs.

I find nothing whatsoever comfortable about it in the slightest. And again, you, like the other atheists sem to allways insist on being derogatory...why is that I wonder?


Quite true, but the longer we look for evidence of something without finding anything, the less likely it becomes that it DOES exist.

In some peoples opinions maby but not all. After atheism kills religion it will go to work on Love itself perhaps?


So you're saying that Muslims who have near death experiences see the same things as Christians? Do Buddhist's with those experiences catch glimpses of the Islamic Paradise? In fact, the things which people claim to see during near death experiences are remarkably similar to what they expect to see, in the vast majority of cases.

Which ussually involves many many simularities, such as a feeling of timelessness, being outside of one's self, floating, being in a tunnel of some kind, experiencing euphoria, or anguish and despair etc etc.

If everyone saw the same, or even similar, things, then all of the religions would preach about the same, or similar, afterlife. They do not.

Becuase they interpet the experience differently is all.


What difference does that make? You are confusing an emotional issue with a purely subjective one. Someone who is dying is not necessarily a reliable source of information, nor is someone who is saddened by a loved one's death. These are the very kinds of emotional responses which religions are notorious for exploiting.

Or "explaining". And the human being is a creature of emotions, not a machine. Exclude part and the whole will suffer.

I would venture to guess, based on things I've read elsewhere, that Myers is far more versed in the religious texts and dogma than the average fundamentalist believer.

He may be, but his argument didn't sound as if it came from anyone so well versed in such topics, in fact it wasn't any better than your own, imho it sounded about the same in every regard except you strike me as being more honest.

Certainly far more versed than I am. I freely admit my lack of in-depth knowledge. But then, I don't know all that much about ancient Oriental fairy tales, either.

Fairy tales have nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Please do stop trying to be so derogative its certiantly not helpful in any way shape or form to your argument.


He's arguing because religious leaders are constantly trying to force their poisonous bile down our throats.

Funny, I don't see religious leaders running hilly nilly around the nieghbor hoods with funnels and jars of religious bile.

He's arguing because millions of people around the world die needlessly due to religious intolerance and hatred.

Far more die over money and resource aquistion by far. Even in our current war on terror.

He's arguing because he knows, as I do, that people would rather believe what feels good than what is right.

Which is why aethism is so appealing to some I guess, it feels so good to them to think they are the only ones out of so many to have gotten it so right in their opinion.


And who says we do not have a purpose? Atheists by their own definition beg the question.

Just because I don't spend my life on my knees telling some god how great he is, just so I can go to heaven and spend eternity doing the same damned thing, doesn't mean I don't have a purpose.

Who said that was mankinds purpose? I never heard any such thing put forth as mankind's sole purpose, not even as my time as a lutheran. Again I ask,,,why constantly resort to being derogative? Is it in the aethiest handbook somewhere to resort to sophistry or be derogative when logic alone fails?

I have a family. They provide a purpose. I have a life to live, and that provides a purpose. It's the only life I will ever have, and I want to live it as much and as well as I can. That's a purpose. If your purpose is to be good and die and go to heaven, why don't you just let yourself die so you can be with your god? After all, isn't that your sole purpose?

See above. Religious people have allmost all of the same self declared purposes you just expoused.


Ultimately, religions provide a path to follow which, supposedly, leads to some form of salvation or life after death or some way to continued existence. Whether you want to call it paradise or not, it's the easy way out. The belief that something of us will go on, despite there being no evidence for such a belief.


Ultimately, religion, like philosophy, or any other belief system (yes such as science or athiesm) is what it is, and one gets out of it, what one puts into it.


Why is it that theist can't seem to understand that atheism involves a LACK of belief. NOT believing in something is not the same as believing that something is NOT.

Shrugs Logic 101 is my guess.

If A is in opposition to B

And A represents belief in god.

then B (regardless of how it is worded in its expression of the opposite) still expressess the opposite which is a lack of or a dis-belief or refutation of A.


sophistry - 1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
- 2 : an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid
I fail to see where the sophistry is in claiming that religions have no verifiable evidence to support their claims of a divine being or an afterlife. I realize it's hardly fair to fight fantasy with truth, or to counter wishful thinking with facts. But that's reality. Live with it. There you go, there is your sophistry for you.

And here we have real sophistry, claiming the author has said something which he has not actually said. No one claims that atheism is superior to faith. In fact, he says quite plainly that faith has far more comfort to offer people than atheism. He didnt have to say it specifically , nor do any oth the other aethiests, not when they imply it every chance they get with derogatory remarks and sohpistry. What he IS saying is that reality, cold, hard, brutal reality, trumps wishful thinking every time.

No what he is really saying is that only Aethists have any clue as to what the world is really like and the rest of the planet is stupid or child like or not as superior as the aethists think they are. And fyi I never said I and you both wouldnt use sophistry from time to time.

No amount of faith or religious dogma will allow you to jump off a ten story building and float gently down to the ground without suffering a single injury. Why? Because gravity is real and it's (fairly for the most part) predictable and it can kill you.

Its not ussually the fall or the gravity itself that kills, so much as the sudden impact with the ground.

A good, scientifically designed parachute might save you, or a soundly engineered parafoil. But hand-waving and magical incantations won't help you worth a damn.

But many a person who has fallen and survived when such scientifcally sound contraptions have failed them can recount having said a prayer on the way down, and who knows, that may have helped them all the same. You certianly don't know for certian that it didn't.


Oh, I can definitely sense our smallness. Just looking at the universe around us, the vast emptiness of space, how hostile and dangerous even the world on which we have evolved can be, makes me fall small and afraid. And God has nothing to do with it.

Or he or she, or it had Everything to do with it!


Oh? Ask a Muslim whether or not he's afraid of recanting his faith. Even if he wanted to, his religion would demand his death! How many women honestly believe they are only property, as so many religions preach? And how many of those women are afraid to speak out against those preachings? How many non-believers are hiding in churches, afraid to proclaim their non-belief because of the fear of ridicule and ostracism which they will most likely incur? And sure, it works both ways, no argument about that. The point is that it takes far more courage to state the truth when it directly contradicts the perceived truth of the masses. And believing in an afterlife, despite a total lack of evidence for such a condition, is simply hiding, from fear of obliteration.

It isnt what your saying it is eaither though, which is my point. Where you see a resonable aethists making a well thought out logical dissicsion I see an individual who has been assualted with dogma and then makes a consious choice to dis-believe or not believe based on what they are told is a total lack of evidence, I see, some people making a speculative at best conclussion based on no actual science thats got less of a foundation to stand on than the religions it so desperately wishes to replace.


I thought I was being honest. I'm not trying to be manipulative.

I didnt say you were, at the time I was refering to the author or the article you linked.

I'm trying to tell the truth.

As you see it. I obviously see it otherwise.

However, if you can provide any real evidence for an afterlife, or even for gods, of any stripe, I'm sure that I'm not the only one who would be delighted to see it.


I have all the evidence I need allready. But if you can come up with any actual evidence that I am wrong, I will be more than happy to conceed the point. And saying you cant prove a negative is no argument btw. its just an admission of inability to deliver the goods.

Calling someone a liar just because they don't happen to agree with you is not providing evidence.

Then why call all these non-atheists liars?

Claiming that your particular belief system is the one true belief, despite all the belief systems in existence today and throughout history, is not proof either.

Then why do the aethists do it too?

And claiming something must be true just because 99% of the people in the world believe it to be true is not proof.

It may not be proof, but it sure seems strange that the vast majoritry of the world population seems to think its real to them.

Provide facts and evidence. Or propose an hypothesis which can be tested with proper procedures and practices. I'll wait.

Yes, please do provide some actual facts or evidence to support your own claims it would be so very nice for a change.

The burden of proof isnt on my shoulders anyway, Im not the one promoting some relatively new conceptual hypothisis (which is what aethism is a theologial hypothisis just like every other religion) . I believe what I believe becuase it feels right to do so, just like everyone else who believes in somthing, or a lack thereof believes.

and btw here is a nice link about the topic if anyone is interested in knowing what it is and is not by definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[denuseri]

The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.

The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.

The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God. St. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulated this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists. Which basically means god exists when he/she/it wishes too.

The argument from degree, a version of the ontological argument posited by Aquinas, states that there must exist a being which possesses all properties to the maximum possible degree.

Quatum physics tends to agree.

Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as Morality (Argument from morality), Beauty (Argument from beauty), Love (Argument from love), or religious experience (Argument from religious experience), are arguments for theism as against materialism.

The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.

The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.

The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' way to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).

The argument from reason holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all of our thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then we have no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground.

Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it—or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause—and we could not even suppose it, except by a fluke.

[denuseri]

Judaism asserts that God intervened in key specific moments in history, especially at the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments in front of all the tribes of Israel, positing an argument from empirical evidence stemming from sheer number of witnesses, thus demonstrating his existence.

The argument from the Resurrection of Jesus. This asserts that there is sufficient historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection to support his claim to be the son of God and indicates, a fortiori, God's existence. This is one of several arguments known as the Christological argument.

Islam asserts that the revelation of its holy book, the Quran, vindicates its divine authorship, and thus the existence of a God.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormonism, similarly asserts that the miraculous appearance of God, Jesus Christ and angels to Joseph Smith and others and subsequent finding and translation of the Book of Mormon establishes the existence of God.

Hindus argue that one of the proofs of the existence of God is the law of karma.

In a commentary to Brahma Sutras (III, 2, 38, and 41), a Vedantic text, Adi Sankara, an Indian philosopher who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta, a sub-school of Vedanta, argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can super sensuous, non-intelligent qualities like adrsta — an unseen force being the metaphysical link between work and its result — by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain.

The fruits, according to him, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being.

A human's karmic acts result in merits and demerits.

Since unconscious things generally do not move except when caused by an agent (for example, the ax moves only when swung by an agent), and since the law of karma is an unintelligent and unconscious law, Sankara argues there must be a conscious supreme Being who knows the merits and demerits which persons have earned by their actions, and who functions as an instrumental cause in helping individuals reap their appropriate fruits.

Thus, God affects the person's environment, even to its atoms, and for those souls who eincarnate, produces the appropriate rebirth body, all in order that the person might have the karmically appropriate experiences.

Thus, there must be a theistic administrator or supervisor for karma, i.e., God.

The Nyaya school, one of six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, states that one of the proofs of the existence of God is karma; It is seen that some people in this world are happy, some are in misery. Some are rich and some poor.

The Naiyanikas explain this by the concept of karma and reincarnation.

The fruit of an individual's actions does not always lie within the reach of the individual who is the agent; there ought to be, therefore, a dispenser of the fruits of actions, and this supreme dispenser is God. This belief of Nyaya, accordingly, is the same as that of Vedanta.

[denuseri]

Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly large probability though not absolute certainty.

A number of obscure points, they say, always remain; an act of faith is required to dismiss these difficulties.

This view is maintained, among others, by the Scottish statesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetière, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes.

Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot?

[denuseri]

Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of certain witnesses, possibly embodying the propositions of a specific revealed religion.

Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.

The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages.

A variation of this is the argument from miracles which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.

The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God's existence.

(And is just as valid an argument btw as any of the others, at least according to those who make it their business to study such things as theology and philosophy, science etc)

An argument for God is often made from an unlikely complete reversal in lifestyle by an individual towards God.

Paul of Tarsus, a persecutor of the early Christian church, became a pillar of the church after his conversion on the road to Damascus.

Modern day examples abound but are often given the somewhat derogatory term of Born again Christians.

The Scottish School of Common Sense led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by us without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse.

That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that we accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges us to accept them.

The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"; that it is similar to statements like "I see a chair" or "I feel pain". Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither provable nor disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.

In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that our reason is able to perceive the suprasensible.

Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding.

Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to our consciousness and unites them to one another.

God's existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be felt by the mind.

In Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when our understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of our hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly to us the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.

The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher, who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which we feel religious truths.

According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.

Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher's footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished us by inner experience, feeling, and perception.

Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God.

According to them we can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the divine dormant in our subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself to us.

In condemnation of this view the oath against modernism formulated by Pius X says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of creation, as the cause is known through its effects.")

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

[denuseri]

Several authors have offered psychological or sociological explanations for belief in the existence of God. Many of these views have been sought to give a naturalistic explanation of religion, though this does not necessarily mean such views are exclusive to naturalism.

Psychologists observe that the majority of humans often ask existential questions such as "why we are here" and whether life has purpose.

Some psychologists have posited that religious beliefs may recruit cognitive mechanisms in order to satisfy these questions. (if some Noetic scienticts are right we may make god every time we think about god)

William James emphasized the inner religious struggle between melancholy and happiness, and pointed to trance as a cognitive mechanism.

Sigmund Freud stressed fear and pain, the need for a powerful parenteral figure, the obsessional nature of ritual, and the hypnotic state a community can induce as contributing factors to the psychology of religion.

Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained" (2002), based in part on his anthropological field work, treats belief in God as the result of the brain's tendency towards agency detection.

Boyer suggest that because of evolutionary pressures, we err on the side of attributing agency where there isn't any.

In Boyer's view, belief in supernatural entities spreads and becomes culturally fixed because of their memorability.

The concept of 'minimally counterintuitive' beings that differ from the ordinary in a small number of ways (such as being invisible, able to fly, or having access to strategic and otherwise secret information) leave a lasting impression that spreads through word-of-mouth.

Scott Atran's "In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion" (2002) makes a similar argument and adds examination of the socially coordinating aspects of shared belief.

In "Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion," Todd Tremlin follows Boyer in arguing that universal human cognitive process naturally produces the concept of the supernatural.

Tremlin contends that an agency detection device (ADD) and a theory of mind module (ToMM) lead humans to suspect an agent behind every event.

Natural events for which there is no obvious agent thus may be attributed to God.

Again, the purpose of the above few posts, is not to provide evidence, but to bring information that we should all be able to agree upon to the table. The burden of proof or disproof doesnt rest on the shoulders of the believers of any pre-established faith...it rests soley on the shoulders of those who wish to tear down that faith and replace it with their own.

[Thorne]

Again, the purpose of the above few posts, is not to provide evidence, but to bring information that we should all be able to agree upon to the table. The burden of proof or disproof doesnt rest on the shoulders of the believers of any pre-established faith...it rests soley on the shoulders of those who wish to tear down that faith and replace it with their own.

A lot to explore there but, from what I gather of it, it's basically many different ways in which people have said, "I can't explain how anything can exist without God, therefore God must exist." I reject this statement. I prefer to state that, "Just because I can't explain how anything can exist without God does NOT mean that gods MUST exist, only that gods MAY exist."

One can have faith in anything, logical or not, realistic or not, and no one can prove that faith to be wrong. That does not, however, mean that your faith MUST be right. If you want to assert that your Faith is the truth then you must either provide evidence that it is true, or provide evidence that all other faiths, or lack of faith itself, is not true. If you want to assert that your Faith is a personal choice, I have no problem with that. Just keep it personal. Don't force it on those who don't believe as you do. That's all I, and most atheists I know, ask.

Religious institutions, on the other hand, are less about faith and more about conformity. They cannot survive unless all of their followers believe the same things. And in the worst such institutions, denying such dogma can result in death.

So please, keep your Faith, especially if it's the only thing keeping you from committing heinous act upon your fellow humans. But look very closely at the religious institutions and leaders which claim to be the true arbiters of faith. I'm quite certain that what you will find there will not in any way resemble the gods of your faiths.

[Thorne]

Now you speak for all Science? Didn't think so, some scientists are exploring such things.

Exploring, perhaps. But they have not yet found any such evidence. And much depends upon what kind of scientists. I don't know, myself. I have seen many "scientists" claim many things which seem to support a religious viewpoint, only to discover that: a) they are not really scientists, their degrees coming from diploma mills or theological colleges; b) they are scientists, but their fields of expertise are in areas different from that which they are claiming; or c) they are simply lying. An interesting example is the reported "discovery" of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat. The same "scientists" who discount use of carbon dating to show that the world is older than their 6000 year Creationist dogma, now claim that carbon dating puts the remains found at the proper age for the Biblical Ark. You can't have it both ways, though. Either carbon dating works or it doesn't. It cannot work only when you agree with the results.

The evidence is right there in front of your face everytime you open your eyes.

Sorry, I don't see it. I see the natural world, nothing supernatural about it. I certainly don't see any evidence for an afterlife.

Actually science can't by your definition claim anything about god one way or the other becuase it lacks the ability at present to make a proper experiement.

Not true, actually. There have been many experiments done to try and show that there is, in fact, some form of a god. ALL of them have failed. That is why I say that there is no evidence for a god, and therefore no rational reason to believe in one.

They actually know where the unicorn myths were drawn from, and we even have some today though they are not horses with horns.

They also know where the god myths were drawn from, but believers don't like to be told that their religion is a myth.

It also doesnt make them just a fantasy or made up story or any other derogative associative adjetive you want to use.

Calling a story a story is not derogatory. It's telling the truth. The Judeo/Christian?islamic belief systems are based upon stories, originally told through word or mouth around the campfires of desert nomads. They were made up in an effort to explain things these nomads did not understand. It's no different than someone making up stories about Harry Potter. They're descriptive, they're fun and they might even have a moral. That still doesn't make them real.

Or he or she is saying that they know there is and you simply refuse to accept their conviction.

Oh, I can accept their conviction. But that's not evidence! It's not proof. It's a personal feeling.

And yet they allways seem to resort to being unreasonable and unrational themselves when debating it and again as for evidence, no amount will suffice to convience them otherwise.

Is it irrational for us to demand tangible evidence? Is it unreasonable to want verifiable proof? And who are we hurting by not accepting your "feelings" as proof? I'm not saying you must not believe something without proof. I'm only saying it is wrong of theists to force their beliefs upon others.

Then why is it, that religions promote learning and wisdom?

Again, sticking to the J/C/I religions, since those are the ones I am most familiar with: What is the original sin, the one which condemned all of mankind to misery and death for eternity? When I was growing up they tried to tell me it was the sin of disobedience, but what kind of god punishes all of mankind because one or two creatures disobeyed? No, it was the sin of gaining KNOWLEDGE which condemned Adam and Eve, and all of their descendants, to torment and death. And the Christian religions, in particular, have a long reputation for suppressing and destroying any knowledge which contradicts their own preconceived dogma.

Why is it all that lost knowledge about math and science and such from the classical era was preserved by the theologians (both muslim and christian) when it would have otherwise been lost to us?

Most of that knowledge was only lost to Western Europe because the Catholic Church ordered it destroyed. Yes, Muslims saved some, but other areas of the world had also developed their own sciences and maths, such as the Chinese, the Indians, the Mayans and the Incas. It was the suppression of science and learning in general which plunged the Christian world into the Dark Ages.

Religion also flourishes in bringing people from the darkness of ignorance into the light of understanding. Even/ especially in some cases: if it contradicts current dogma's be they religious, scientific or philosophical in origins.

I would love to see where religious leaders have embraced evidence which contradicts dogma without having to be forced into it by circumstances beyond their control.

And to others hell and heavan both exisist within the duality of human kinds existence and the afterlife is an illussion of time displacment that occurs from our perspective for an eternity. And then there are those guys running around the history channel proving ghosts exist, go figure.

So which heaven, and which hell exist? Yours? Islam's? Mayan, perhaps? Which one is right? Or is it a matter of numbers? The religion with the most believers gets its version of paradise and hell for eternity?
And I have yet to see any proof of ghosts, either. I see a lot of people running around TRYING to prove ghosts. I don't see any proof, yet.

No its quite obvious that ancient discriptions and explanations for some things were metaphorical.

But the ancient descriptions and explanations which confirm your beliefs were factual and valid? How can we tell the difference?

And please respectfully but wtf is up with the fixation on jews and christianity, they are not the only religion or philosophy in the world

As I've explained, I tend to focus on the J/C/I versions because that is my background. I am more familiar with Christian, particularly Catholic, faiths than others.

And perpetuating a dogma of belief (which is exactly what atheism is) without expounding upon its morality in fact divorcing the two, is perhaps the only fairy tale here.

So you want to claim that, as an atheist, I cannot be a moral person? That if I refuse to believe in a god I am a threat to society? And just whose morals and god am I supposed to adhere to? Yours? Someone else's? Is it immoral to eat bacon? Some religions say so. Is it wrong to kill my enemies? Some religions say it's not. How about enslaving my enemies? Some religions go along with that, too. Which set of morals must I abide by? Please, I want to know!

I find nothing whatsoever comfortable about it in the slightest. And again, you, like the other atheists sem to allways insist on being derogatory...why is that I wonder?

Probably because you theists always claim we have no morals.

In some peoples opinions maby but not all. After atheism kills religion it will go to work on Love itself perhaps?

Sorry, but religion is already doing that. After all, it's only love between a man and a woman (and only one of each) that is valid in the sight of the Lord!

Which ussually involves many many simularities, such as a feeling of timelessness, being outside of one's self, floating, being in a tunnel of some kind, experiencing euphoria, or anguish and despair etc etc.

These same feelings have been documented in drug users, people suffering from hypoxia and many other disorders. There have even been studies done showing which parts of the brain are responsible for these visions and sensations. In fact, it's quite possible (though I know of no way to prove it) that the earliest forays into religion were by shamans experimenting with mind-altering drugs.

Or "explaining". And the human being is a creature of emotions, not a machine. Exclude part and the whole will suffer.

There can be many "explanations". Not all of them, or even any of them, are necessarily right. And it is precisely because we are creatures of emotion that we must guard against letting our emotions determine what is true and what is not.

He may be, but his argument didn't sound as if it came from anyone so well versed in such topics, in fact it wasn't any better than your own, imho it sounded about the same in every regard except you strike me as being more honest.

I don't know about honest, but his knowledge of religion is far superior to mine. His presentation tends to be more strident than mine, though. But part of that comes from years of dealing with strident theists who condemn him for his statements without providing any valid evidence that he's wrong.

Fairy tales have nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Please do stop trying to be so derogative its certiantly not helpful in any way shape or form to your argument.

Would you consider the story of Santa Claus, as recounted in the US, (again, a personal bias based upon my own limited knowledge) to be a fairy tale or a belief system? I think most theists would agree that it is a fairy tale, at least the adults will. And how does that story differ from the J/C God? Santa is a bearded old gnome who lives at the North Pole, though we can't see his home, with elves to help him, though we can't see them, either, and who knows everything about us: who's been good, who's been bad. God (again, as depicted in the Western Christian faiths) is a bearded old man who lives in heaven, which we cannot see, with angels to help him, though we can't see them, either, and who knows everything we are doing, bad or good. So which is the fairy tale?

Funny, I don't see religious leaders running hilly nilly around the nieghbor hoods with funnels and jars of religious bile.

Look at the Texas School Board, attempting to force the teaching of Creationism, an unproven belief system, while denying evolution, a proven scientific theory. Look at the Christian (primarily) leaders who want us to believe that women cannot have control of their own bodies, or that two men cannot love one another. Look at the bilious crap that the Vatican promotes regarding condom use in Africa, denying the effectiveness of condoms in combating the spread of Aids despite the savage death toll of that disease. Look at the women in Islamic countries who suffer inhumane punishments simply for being women! You don't call that bile?

See above. Religious people have allmost all of the same self declared purposes you just expoused.

So you admit that religion is not necessary for someone to have a purpose?

Why is it that theist can't seem to understand that atheism involves a LACK of belief. NOT believing in something is not the same as believing that something is NOT.

Shrugs Logic 101 is my guess.

If A is in opposition to B

And A represents belief in god.

then B (regardless of how it is worded in its expression of the opposite) still expressess the opposite which is a lack of or a dis-belief or refutation of A.

Exactly! A LACK of belief (or disbelief) in God, NOT a belief in NO God.

Its not ussually the fall or the gravity itself that kills, so much as the sudden impact with the ground.

True. It's not the drop, it's the sudden stop. The laws of momentum. Science rules.

But many a person who has fallen and survived when such scientifcally sound contraptions have failed them can recount having said a prayer on the way down, and who knows, that may have helped them all the same. You certianly don't know for certian that it didn't.

You're right, I don't know. But are you saying that ONLY those who somehow survive are the ones who prayed? I would be willing to bet that the majority of those who jumped from the WTC prayed before the jumped. Why didn't their prayers do any good? Why is the prayer of a mother for her malformed child not answered, while the child of a drug-addicted prostitute is born normally? Which prayers are necessary to ensure an outcome that is good for me? On the other hand, aren't such prayers an attempt to deflect God's will? How does that jibe with faith that God's will is for the best?

Or he or she, or it had Everything to do with it!

Evidence, my friend! Evidence! Looking at the universe and "feeling" it must have a creator is not evidence!

I have all the evidence I need allready. But if you can come up with any actual evidence that I am wrong, I will be more than happy to conceed the point. And saying you cant prove a negative is no argument btw. its just an admission of inability to deliver the goods.

I have already admitted that I cannot provide evidence to prove that something does not exist. I can only provide evidence that shows that something PROBABLY does not exist. It would only take one piece of evidence, one verifiable data point, to prove me wrong.

If you have all the evidence you need, then your faith is strong. That's great, for you. It's not enough for me, however. Yet throughout history, people like me have been forced to toe the religious line or suffer the consequences. Now that we have decided to fight back and renounce those beliefs, we are accused of trying to destroy faith, to destroy religion. Yes, it's my opinion that the world would be a better place without religion. That doesn't mean I could, or would want to, destroy Faith. I just don't want to have to live by the arbitrary codes of ethics of those faiths when I can see the damage that they do to people. And in this modern world it's been agreed among most free-thinking people that I don't have to.

Then why call all these non-atheists liars?

I only claim that those who deny the truth are the liars. Like Catholic leaders who blame children for the pedophilia their priest commit. Or misogynistic religions leaders all over the globe who preach that women are morally inferior to men. Or smarmy televangelists who claim to know the mind of their god, and that god wants YOUR money, right now!

Then why do the aethists do it too?

And once more I must insist. Atheists do NOT promote a belief system! They promote the idea of critically examining belief systems and testing those systems against reality.

It may not be proof, but it sure seems strange that the vast majoritry of the world population seems to think its real to them.

The vast majority of the world's population once believed that the gods lived in caves on mountains, or that magical incantations could protect them from wild animals, or that sailing out of sight of land would cause one to sail off the edge of the world. It was real to them. It's laughable to us now.

The burden of proof isnt on my shoulders anyway, Im not the one promoting some relatively new conceptual hypothisis (which is what aethism is a theologial hypothisis just like every other religion) . I believe what I believe becuase it feels right to do so, just like everyone else who believes in somthing, or a lack thereof believes.

Sorry, but atheism is far from a "new" hypothesis. Once again, it is not a belief system, but a LACK of belief. And it is not atheists who are making extraordinary claims of supernatural beings arranging for a supernatural paradise in an unprovable afterlife. If you want to make the claims as if they were truth you have to provide evidence. Otherwise it is only a belief, a matter of faith, and your faith, which may feel right to you, is no better or worse than any other person's faith, which feels right to them.

and btw here is a nice link about the topic if anyone is interested in knowing what it is and is not by definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

And from that link:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Which is what I've been saying all along!

[denuseri]

Exploring, perhaps. But they have not yet found any such evidence. And much depends upon what kind of scientists.

Quantum Mechanics 101

I don't know, myself. I have seen many "scientists" claim many things which seem to support a religious viewpoint, only to discover that: a) they are not really scientists, their degrees coming from diploma mills or theological colleges; b) they are scientists, but their fields of expertise are in areas different from that which they are claiming; or c) they are simply lying. An interesting example is the reported "discovery" of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat. The same "scientists" who discount use of carbon dating to show that the world is older than their 6000 year Creationist dogma, now claim that carbon dating puts the remains found at the proper age for the Biblical Ark. You can't have it both ways, though. Either carbon dating works or it doesn't. It cannot work only when you agree with the results.

Looks like your faith in having no faith is intact then, you quite capable of twisting your reality anyway you wish and ignoring anything contrary to your belief system.


Sorry, I don't see it. I see the natural world, nothing supernatural about it. I certainly don't see any evidence for an afterlife.

If you actually had studdied any of what I presented you with above you would realize that when discussing God supernaturalism doesnt even have to be one of the factors for his/she/its existance.


Not true, actually. There have been many experiments done to try and show that there is, in fact, some form of a god. ALL of them have failed. That is why I say that there is no evidence for a god, and therefore no rational reason to believe in one.

I would love to see one just one such experiment?


They also know where the god myths were drawn from, but believers don't like to be told that their religion is a myth.

Just as atheists dont like to be told that their own religion (the religion of disbelief) is a religion.


Calling a story a story is not derogatory.

It sure as hell was the way you were doing earlier. And your attacks dont just target the Muslims, Chatholics , and Jews eaither...they target every single religion thats ever existed and all of their adhereants.

It's telling the truth.

No, its telling your belief.

The Judeo/Christian?islamic belief systems are based upon stories, originally told through word or mouth around the campfires of desert nomads. They were made up in an effort to explain things these nomads did not understand. It's no different than someone making up stories about Harry Potter. They're descriptive, they're fun and they might even have a moral. That still doesn't make them real.

You simpley do not know if that is how their theologies came into being. For all you know they happened exactly the way those people say they happened so long ago.


Oh, I can accept their conviction. But that's not evidence! It's not proof. It's a personal feeling.

Apparently reason and logic cant be accepted eaither.


Is it irrational for us to demand tangible evidence? Is it unreasonable to want verifiable proof? And who are we hurting by not accepting your "feelings" as proof? I'm not saying you must not believe something without proof. I'm only saying it is wrong of theists to force their beliefs upon others.

Again, I don't see anyone forcing anyone. At least not any where that I have lived (and I am fairly well travelled btw). As for whats happeneing in other parts of the world, you just might to reserve your judgements until you have actually walked among those people you wish to tar and feather and live amongst them yourself for a while, instead of clinging to media talking points.


Again, sticking to the J/C/I religions, since those are the ones I am most familiar with: What is the original sin, the one which condemned all of mankind to misery and death for eternity?

Go ask them. I have little care for examining any single religion in any detail, its pointless anyway for the purposes of this discussion, you attack all religions with your statement, so I am defending all religions with mine. And Ive even brought in the knowledge you say your lacking in so we can discuss it on a somewhat equal level of knowledge, though I guess that wasnt what you wanted at all, a rational discussion; was it?

When I was growing up they tried to tell me it was the sin of disobedience, but what kind of god punishes all of mankind because one or two creatures disobeyed? No, it was the sin of gaining KNOWLEDGE which condemned Adam and Eve, and all of their descendants, to torment and death. And the Christian religions, in particular, have a long reputation for suppressing and destroying any knowledge which contradicts their own preconceived dogma.

Just like they also have long reputation for preserving and protecting knowledge, even if it did seem to contradict their own belief systems dogma.


Most of that knowledge was only lost to Western Europe because the Catholic Church ordered it destroyed.

Absolutely wrong in every way. Any history book will tell you otherwise.

Yes, Muslims saved some, (more than you think, but so too did the chatholics) but other areas of the world had also developed their own sciences and maths, (and religions, and omg who would have thunk, even though these religions ans sciences are independently developed they shared the same basic qualities and foundations, I wonder who directed that into being ) such as the Chinese, the Indians, the Mayans and the Incas. It was the suppression of science and learning in general which plunged the Christian world into the Dark Ages.

Again, please do read a history book sometimes, the fall of the roman empire had allmost nothing to do with christianity and everything to do with resource aquisition dificulties and economic stangnation. And...has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


I would love to see where religious leaders have embraced evidence which contradicts dogma without having to be forced into it by circumstances beyond their control.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2009/11...ns-alien-life/ here ya go.


So which heaven, and which hell exist? Yours? Islam's? Mayan, perhaps? Which one is right? Or is it a matter of numbers? The religion with the most believers gets its version of paradise and hell for eternity?
And I have yet to see any proof of ghosts, either. I see a lot of people running around TRYING to prove ghosts. I don't see any proof, yet.

I believe its one place one spirit for all, and that the different religions simpley interpet what they see differently. And the fellows on the history channell sure seem to disagree with you about the proof of ghosts part.


But the ancient descriptions and explanations which confirm your beliefs were factual and valid? How can we tell the difference? You must know it in your heart.

As I've explained, I tend to focus on the J/C/I versions because that is my background. I am more familiar with Christian, particularly Catholic, faiths than others. And yet you attack all relgions and faiths and beliefs outside of your own.

So you want to claim that, as an atheist, I cannot be a moral person? I dont know are you?

That if I refuse to believe in a god I am a threat to society?

I dont know are you?

And just whose morals and god am I supposed to adhere to?

The ones that we as a society as a whole agree to adhere and abide by I supose.

Yours? Someone else's?

If you wish.

Is it immoral to eat bacon?

That depends on the traditions of one's culture more so than the faith of someones heart.

Some religions say so. Is it wrong to kill my enemies? Some religions say it's not. How about enslaving my enemies? Some religions go along with that, too. Which set of morals must I abide by? Please, I want to know! Again, your missing the forest for a single tree.


Probably because you theists always claim we have no morals.

I don't know if you do or not, thats between you and your own belief system.


Sorry, but religion is already doing that. After all, it's only love between a man and a woman (and only one of each) that is valid in the sight of the Lord!

According to? One small faction of a religion, wait a sec, thats right, this issue crossess religions faiths and cultures as well, and hence, isnt jermaine to any argument about the existance of or lack therof or dis-belief in a surpreme entity.


These same feelings have been documented in drug users, people suffering from hypoxia and many other disorders. There have even been studies done showing which parts of the brain are responsible for these visions and sensations. In fact, it's quite possible (though I know of no way to prove it) that the earliest forays into religion were by shamans experimenting with mind-altering drugs.

That is correct, they have also been measured and reported by astronuants and a number of other noetic scientists during several experiments. Its what people tend to see when they are dieing and its quite possible that its tied to our biology, which I do not find surprising in the least since so many other things conserning human spirituality are also directly tied to the natural world.


There can be many "explanations". Not all of them, or even any of them, are necessarily right. And it is precisely because we are creatures of emotion that we must guard against letting our emotions determine what is true and what is not.

Why, what are you affriad of?


I don't know about honest, but his knowledge of religion is far superior to mine.

Like I said, it doesnt appear to be from his little rant.

His presentation tends to be more strident than mine, though. But part of that comes from years of dealing with strident theists who condemn him for his statements without providing any valid evidence that he's wrong.

Maby thats becuase he isnt providing any evidence that he is right.



Would you consider the story of Santa Claus, as recounted in the US, (again, a personal bias based upon my own limited knowledge) to be a fairy tale or a belief system? I think most theists would agree that it is a fairy tale, at least the adults will. And how does that story differ from the J/C God? Santa is a bearded old gnome who lives at the North Pole, though we can't see his home, with elves to help him, though we can't see them, either, and who knows everything about us: who's been good, who's been bad. God (again, as depicted in the Western Christian faiths) is a bearded old man who lives in heaven, which we cannot see, with angels to help him, though we can't see them, either, and who knows everything we are doing, bad or good. So which is the fairy tale?

Again, I do not understand why you insist on being derogatory too all faiths.


Look at the Texas School Board, attempting to force the teaching of Creationism, an unproven belief system, while denying evolution, a proven scientific theory.

Yes odd how they lined up and put gun's to the heads of the teachers and students? Oh wait, they simpley wished to correct an oversite made with earlier laws by introducing a new one. And I am sorry honey child...nothing has been proven about the "theory" of evolution as of yet. Its a theory not a law.

Look at the Christian (primarily) leaders who want us to believe that women cannot have control of their own bodies, or that two men cannot love one another. Look at the bilious crap that the Vatican promotes regarding condom use in Africa, denying the effectiveness of condoms in combating the spread of Aids despite the savage death toll of that disease. Look at the women in Islamic countries who suffer inhumane punishments simply for being women! You don't call that bile?

Look at the aethists saying we are all stupid and imoral for our faith! Do not complaign of the splinter in your neighbors eye when there is a log in your own to begin with.


So you admit that religion is not necessary for someone to have a purpose?

See, I believe you have your own little religion,,, atheism despite your claims to the otherwise that you have filled the void in your heart with.


Exactly! A LACK of belief (or disbelief) in God, NOT a belief in NO God.

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

True. It's not the drop, it's the sudden stop. The laws of momentum. Science rules.


You're right, I don't know. But are you saying that ONLY those who somehow survive are the ones who prayed? I would be willing to bet that the majority of those who jumped from the WTC prayed before the jumped. Why didn't their prayers do any good? Why is the prayer of a mother for her malformed child not answered, while the child of a drug-addicted prostitute is born normally? Which prayers are necessary to ensure an outcome that is good for me? On the other hand, aren't such prayers an attempt to deflect God's will? How does that jibe with faith that God's will is for the best?

You will like the rest of us, have to ask the surpreme diety that for yourself someday.


Evidence, my friend! Evidence! Looking at the universe and "feeling" it must have a creator is not evidence!

Looking at it and seeing that nothing else but God could have made it is more than enough evidence for me.


I have already admitted that I cannot provide evidence to prove that something does not exist. I can only provide evidence that shows that something PROBABLY does not exist. It would only take one piece of evidence, one verifiable data point, to prove me wrong.

So in effect you admit to having no evidence.

If you have all the evidence you need, then your faith is strong. That's great, for you. It's not enough for me, however. Yet throughout history, people like me have been forced to toe the religious line or suffer the consequences.

Not my fault.

Now that we have decided to fight back and renounce those beliefs, we are accused of trying to destroy faith, to destroy religion.

Fortunately there are not enough of you to actually pull it off yet, it will be a very sad day if that happens.

Yes, it's my opinion that the world would be a better place without religion. That doesn't mean I could, or would want to, destroy Faith.

Then why do you try so hard to do just that I wonder?

I just don't want to have to live by the arbitrary codes of ethics of those faiths when I can see the damage that they do to people. And in this modern world it's been agreed among most free-thinking people that I don't have to.

No one is forcing you too.


I only claim that those who deny the truth are the liars. Like Catholic leaders who blame children for the pedophilia their priest commit. Or misogynistic religions leaders all over the globe who preach that women are morally inferior to men. Or smarmy televangelists who claim to know the mind of their god, and that god wants YOUR money, right now!

Or like aethists that say their is no god?


And once more I must insist. Atheists do NOT promote a belief system! They promote the idea of critically examining belief systems and testing those systems against reality.

If it walks like a duck...


The vast majority of the world's population once believed that the gods lived in caves on mountains, or that magical incantations could protect them from wild animals, or that sailing out of sight of land would cause one to sail off the edge of the world. It was real to them. It's laughable to us now.

To you perhaps it is.


Sorry, but atheism is far from a "new" hypothesis. Once again, it is not a belief system, but a LACK of belief. And it is not atheists who are making extraordinary claims of supernatural beings arranging for a supernatural paradise in an unprovable afterlife. If you want to make the claims as if they were truth you have to provide evidence. Otherwise it is only a belief, a matter of faith, and your faith, which may feel right to you, is no better or worse than any other person's faith, which feels right to them.

"The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century.[7] "

Yep still waiting for your evidence, I presented mine and you casually glanced over it and rejected it piecmeal without even really looking at it.


And from that link:

Which is what I've been saying all along!

And from the very same link:

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

[DuncanONeil]

Religion has always fluorished in ignorance.

In the Renaissance most of the scientists WERE members of various religious orders.

[Thorne]

In the Renaissance most of the scientists WERE members of various religious orders.

That's mostly because only the members of the religious orders, and perhaps some of the nobility, were encouraged to be educated. And it was the religious orders who did all the teaching, for the most part.

[denuseri]

To actually debate this topic with some sence of professionalism we will have to agree on some terms and deductions made by others who came before us.

Since some of us are laymen by their own admission, I will let wiki speak for me where as the whole debate is conserned initially, since according to some people, I am an emotional slave girl who cant keep herself in check when it comes to some things.

The monotheistic concept of a supreme, ultimate, and (in some sense) personal being, as found in the Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic traditions; holds that God possesses every possible perfection, including such qualities as omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect benevolence.

Some classically theistic philosophical approaches arrive at such perfections by beginning with a root concept of God such as "the prime mover" or "the uncaused cause","the ultimate creator" or "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived" from which the classical properties may be deduced or teased out.

By contrast, much of Eastern religious thought (chiefly Pantheist) posits God as a force contained in every imaginable phenomenon. For example, Spinoza and his philosophical followers use the term 'God' in a particular philosophical sense, to mean (roughly) the essential substance/principles of nature.

In monotheisms outside the Abrahamic traditions, the existence of God is discussed in similar terms. In the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism, reality is ultimately seen as a single, qualityless, changeless being called nirguna Brahman.

Advaitin philosophy introduces the concept of saguna Brahman or Ishvara as a way of talking about Brahman to people. Ishvara, in turn, is ascribed such qualities as omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence.

Then we get to Epistemology.

Which is the branch of philosophy which studies the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge. (science having been born here)

Knowledge is, from an epistemological standpoint, distinguished from mere belief by justification, warrant, or other such property the having of which is conducive to getting at the truth.

Knowledge in the sense of "understanding of a fact or truth" can be divided into a posteriori knowledge, based on experience or deduction and a priori knowledge from introspection, axioms or self-evidence.

Knowledge can also be described as a psychological state, since in a strict sense there can never be a posteriori knowledge proper (see relativism).

Much of the disagreement about "proofs" of God's existence are due to different conceptions not only of the term "God" but also the terms "proof", "truth", and "knowledge".

Religious belief from revelation or enlightenment (satori or epiphany) can fall into either the first category, a posteriori knowledge, if rooted in deduction or personal revelation, or the second, a priori class of knowledge, if based on introspection.

Different conclusions as to the existence of God often rest on different criteria for deciding what methods are appropriate for deciding if something is true or not; some examples include:

whether logic counts as evidence concerning the quality of existence

whether subjective experience counts as evidence for objective reality

whether either logic or evidence can rule in or out the supernatural

whether an object of the mind is accepted for existence

whether a truthbearer can justify.

One problem posed by the question of the existence of God is that traditional beliefs usually ascribe to God various supernatural powers.

Supernatural beings may be able to conceal and reveal themselves for their own purposes, as for example in the tale of Baucis and Philemon.

In addition, according to concepts of God, God is not part of the natural order, but the ultimate creator of nature and of the scientific laws.

Thus, in Aristotelian philosophy, God is viewed as part of the explanatory structure needed to support scientific conclusions, and any powers God possesses are, strictly speaking, of the natural order — that is, derived from God's place as originator of nature.

Some offer the supernatural nature of God as the explanation for the inability of empirical methods to decide the question of God's existence.

In Karl Popper's philosophy of science, belief in a supernatural God is outside the natural domain of scientific investigation because all scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable in the natural world.

The Non-overlapping Magisteria view proposed by Stephen Jay Gould also holds that the existence (or otherwise) of God is irrelevant to and beyond the domain of science.

So:

Since God (of the kind to which the proofs/arguments relate) is neither an entity in the universe nor a mathematical object, it is not obvious what kinds of arguments/proofs are relevant to God's existence.

Even if the concept of scientific proof were not problematic, the fact that there is no conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God mainly demonstrates that the existence of God is not a normal scientific question.

John Polkinghorne suggests that the nearest analogy to the existence of God in physics are the ideas of quantum mechanics which are seemingly paradoxical but make sense of a great deal of disparate data.

Alvin Plantinga compares the question of the existence of God to the question of the existence of other minds, claiming both are notoriously impossible to "prove" against a determined skeptic.

One approach, suggested by writers such as Stephen D. Unwin, is to treat (particular versions of) theism and naturalism as though they were two hypotheses in the Bayesian sense, to list certain data (or alleged data), about the world, and to suggest that the likelihoods of these data are significantly higher under one hypothesis than the other.

Most of the arguments for, or against, the existence of God can be seen as pointing to particular aspects of the universe in this way.

In almost all cases it is not seriously suggested by proponents of the arguments that they are irrefutable, merely that they make one worldview seem significantly more likely than the other. However, since an assessment of the weight of evidence depends on the prior probability that is assigned to each worldview, arguments that a theist finds convincing may seem thin to an atheist and vice-versa.

(cont)

[TantricSoul]

The following is an excerpt from "The Book of Secrets" by Deepak Chopra ... This is not an attempt to derail this thread but to blend two viewpoints that so far seem in opposition. I could do this in my own words stating my own belief but honestly he does a better job than I would, my metaphors can be a stretch at times

Secret #7 Every life is spiritual

One of the peculiarities of modern life is that people violently disagree over religious beliefs and then go on to lead similar lives. Nietzsche's famous remark the God is dead should be changed to God is optional. If the government kept round the clock surveillance on those that felt they were abiding by divine law and those who never gave a thought about God's rule book, I imagine the sum total of virtue and vice, love and hate, peace and violence, would look exactly the same. If anything, the balance of intolerance and lovelessness would probably tilt toward the most loudly religious people in any society.

I'm not mentioning this to be contentious. Rather, it's as if the universe has a sense of humor, since at a deep level it's impossible not t lead a spiritual life. You and I are as deeply engaged in making a world as a saint. You can't be fired from the job of creating a world, which is the essence of spirituality. And you can't resign from the job even when you refuse to show up. The universe is living through you at this moment. With or without the belief in God, the chain of events leading from silent awareness to physical reality remains intact. The operating system of the universe applies to everyone alike, and it works along principles that do not require your cooperation.

However, if you decide to lead a consciously spiritual life, a change occurs. The principles of the operating system, which means the rules of creation, become personal. We've already touched many of the rules of creation (sorry I am not typing the whole book you'll have to look those up for yourself) Lets take a look at how we can line up the universal with the personal.

Universal
1. The universe is a mirror of consciousness
Personal
1. The events in your life reflect who you are.

Nothing in these statements smacks of religion; there isn't any spiritual vocabulary involved. Yet this first principle is the whole basis for saying that religion (whose root words in Latin mean "to tie back") unites the Creator with his creation. The physical world mirrors a mind; it carries intention and intelligence in every atom.

Universal
2. Awareness is collective. We all draw it from a common source.
Personal
2. The people in your life reflect aspects of yourself.

In this principle, we see the beginnings of all myth and archetypes, all heroes and quests. the collective psyche shares a level of awareness that goes beyond individuals. When you see other people as aspects of yourself, you are actually seeing the faces of mythical types. We are one human being wearing countless masks. When all the masks are stripped off, what remains is essence, the soul, the divine spark.

Universal
3. Awareness expands within itself.
Personal
3. Whatever you pay attention to will grow.

In one reality, consciousness creates itself, which is the same as saying that God is inside his creation. There is no place outside creation for divinity to stand - omnipresence means that if any place exists, God is there. But whereas God can be attentive to an infinitude of worlds, human beings use attention selectively. We put it in one place and take it away from another. By paying attention we add the creative spark, and that part of our experience, either positive or negative, will grow. Violence begets violence but so too does love beget love.

Universal
4. Consciousness creates by design.
Personal
4. Nothing is random - your life is full of signs and symbols.

The war between science and religion is old and nearly exhausted, but on one point, neither side is willing to budge. Religion sees design in nature as proof of a creator. Science sees randomness in nature as proof of no design at all. Yet, there has never been a culture based upon chaos, including the subculture of science. Consciousness looks at the universe and sees design everywhere, even if the spaces in between look disorganized and random. For the individual, it's impossible not to see order - every aspect of life from the family outward is based upon it. Your brain is set up to perceive patterns (even an inkblot look like some kind of image, no matter how hard you try not to see one) because it took patterns of cells to make a brain. The mind is ultimately a machine for making meaning, even when it flirts with meaningless, as the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have done so well.

Universal
5. Physical laws operate efficiently, with least effort.
Personal
5. At any given moment, the universe is giving you the best results possible.

Nature loves efficiency, which is very odd for something supposedly working at random. When you drop a ball, it falls straight down without taking unexpected detours. When two molecules with a potential for bonding meet, they always bond - there is no room for indecision. this expenditure of least energy, also called the law of least effort, covers human beings too. Certainly our bodies cannot escape the efficiency of the chemical process going on in each cell, so it is probable that our whole being is wrapped up in the same principle. Cause and effect aren't just linked; they are linked in the most efficient way possible. this argument also applies to personal growth - the idea is that everyone is doing the best he or she can from his or her own level of consciousness.

Universal
6. Simple forms grow into more complex forms.
Personal
6. Your inner awareness is always evolving.

This principle is baffling to the religious and scientific alike. Many religious people believe that God created the world in his image, which implies that creation has nowhere to go after that (except perhaps to devolve from its initial perfection). Scientists accept that entrophy in inexorable, entrophy being the tendency of energy to dissipate. Thus, in both systems it's a problem that DNA is a billion times more complex than the first primordial atoms, that the human cortex has vastly increased in size over the past 50,000 years, that life appeared out of inert chemicals, and that new thoughts appear every day out of the blue. Entropy still makes us grow old; it still causes cars to rust and stars to grow cold and die. But the drive of evolution is equally inexorable. Nature has decided to evolve, whatever our opinions about that may be.

Universal
7. Knowledge takes in more and more of the world
Personal
7. The direction of life is from duality to unity.

According to a commonly held idea, ancient cultures saw a unified creation, while we moderns look on a fragmented and divided world. The decline of faith has been blamed for this, as has the absence of myth, traditions and social bonding. But I believe the opposite is true: The ancient way of understanding could barely describe a sliver of all the phenomena in Nature, while physics today is on the verge of a "theory of everything." The eminent physicist John Wheeler makes a crucial point when he says that before Einstein, human beings thought they were looking at Nature "out there," as if through a plate glass window,trying to figure out what external reality was doing. Thanks to Einstein, we realize that we are embedded in Nature; the observer changes reality by the very act of observation. Therefore, despite a widespread feeling of psychological alienation (the result of technology's outstripping our ability to keep meaning alive), the duality of man and Nature is shrinking with each successive generation.

Universal
8. Evolution develops survival traits that perfectly match the environment.
Personal
8. If you open yourself to the force of evolution, it will carry you where you want to go.

Adaptation is a miraculous thing because it proceeds by quantum leaps. When some ancestral dinosaurs developed feathers,the hit upon an adaptation that would be perfect for winged flight. The cells on the outside of their bodies, which were hard and scaly, were useful as armor, but could not contribute to soaring aloft. It is as if evolution set itself a new problem and then took a creative leap to get there. The old use of scales was abandoned for a new world of winged flight (and those same scales would take a leap in a different direction when they turned into hair, allowing the development of furry mammals). Science and religion both worry about this. Science doesn't like the notion that evolution knows where it's going; Darwinian mutations are supposed to be random. Religion doesn't like the notion that God's perfect creation changes when something new is needed. Yet this is a case where explanations have taken a backseat. Without a doubt, the physical world adapts itself by creative leaps that take place at a deeper level - call this level genetic or conscious, as you will.

Universal
9. Chaos serves evolution
Personal
9. The fragmented mind cannot get you to unity, but you have to use it along the way.

Swirling chaos is a reality, but so is order and growth. Which is dominant? Science has yet to arrive at a conclusion because more than 90 percent of the universe is composed of mysterious dark matter. Since it has yet to be observed, it's an open question as to what the fate of the universe might be. Religion is firmly on the side of order, for the simple reason that God made the world out of chaos. According to science, there is a delicate balance between creation and destruction, with billions of years having elapsed in the maintenance of that balance. However, since cosmic forces on a huge scale haven't been able to rip apart the delicate fabric that wove the beginnings of life, a reasonable person might conclude that evolution is using chaos the way a painter uses the jumbled colors in his box. On the personal level, you can't reach unity while you're ruled by the whirling thoughts and impulses in your head, but still you can use you mind to find its own source. Unity is the hidden purpose that evolution is working toward, using the fragmented mind as a tool along the way. Like the cosmos, the surface of the mind looks chaotic, but there is a tidal pool of progress at work beneath.

Universal
10. Many invisible levels are enveloped in the physical world.
Personal
10. You are living in many dimensions at once; the appearance of being trapped in space and time is an illusion.

With all their hearts, the early quantum pioneers, including Einstein, did not want to create new dimensions beyond time and space. They wanted to explain the universe as it appeared. Yet the current super-string theories that descended from Einstein use at least eleven dimensions to explain a visible world. religion has always held that God inhabits a world beyond the five senses; science needs the same transcendent realm to explain how particles separated by billions of light years could act as mirror twins, how light can behave as both particle and wave, and how black holes can transfer matter beyond the clutches of gravity and time. Ultimately, the existence of multi dimensions is irrefutable. At the simplest level, there had to be somewhere that space and time came from during the Big Bang, and by definition that somewhere can't be in time and space. Accepting that you, as a citizen of a multidimensional universe, are a multidimensional being is far from mystical, then. It's the best hypothesis one can make given the facts as we know them.

These ten principles arguably represent ways to conceive of the operating system that keeps one reality going. In truth, the whole thing is inconceivable, and our brains aren't set up to operate on inconceivable lines. They can adapt, however, to living unconsciously. Every creature on earth is subject to the laws of nature; only humans think,"what does this matter to me?" If you opt out and decide to live as if duality is real, you won't see that these ten principles have any bearing on you. The cosmic joke is that the same laws will continue to uphold your life even though you don't recognize them.

So long story short ... mostly because I am extremely tired form a 12 hour school day and now far too much typing ...

Yes we are all connected, in many ways, and these connections are mystical, and they are scientifically proven.
Yes we create, not just our own reality, but are co creators with each other, in this unified reality. If you still doubt that, than try this...
Prove to me that the material world actually exists without an observer! (any neurologist will tell you that it is not possible to do so...)
You want proof of a creator? (aka God) then touch yourself and you have felt God.
Religion and science are moving toward each other and yet still battling for supremacy or legitimacy over the other...

Don't like how Deepak or I or other spiritual orators word things? than check out quantum physics ...heres a great place to start: watch the movie "What the bleep do we know."

And above all ... I am not trying to convince you of anything, believe what you want, I just like provide another way to look at things

Besides with my love of Tai Chi I have to admit a bias toward Taoism, which is one of those silly fairy tales I suppose, that lines up perfectly, in my truth, with all thats written above.

I hope I have provided you, or more honestly your divine spark, something to help find balance in this apparent opposition.

Respectfully,
Tantric

[Thorne]

TantricSoul, I could have happily gone a whole lifetime without someone bringing up Chopra. I wish I could have gone a whole lifetime without that. But for some reason it doesn't surprise me that you would be the one to bring him up. He does seem to fit right into the kind of spirituality and mysticism that appeals to you.

But I'm not nearly qualified, nor intelligent, enough to debunk the mystical fantasyland he creates around himself, so I'll direct you to a couple of those whose opinions I respect.

The first is Robert T. Carroll, author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, from his article on Chopra.
Of particular interest to the topic here, the existence of an afterlife, the following stands out:

most people also want some sort of assurance that this is not all there is, that This is NOT It. They want to believe in immortality and "alternatives" like Ayurveda fulfill this need. The hypocrisy of a materialist advising them that materialism is the root of all evil easily slips by.

The second is Dr. Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer, who takes Chopra to task for his comments about skeptics.

Both of these articles link to other informative sources about Chopra, spirituality and mysticism in general.

I would also like to suggest that, along with your studies of mysticism and religion, you learn about critical thinking. See how easy it is to make people believe what they deeply want to believe in the first place, how easy it is to blind people to the real world by filling their heads with nonsense just by making them feel good.

Granted, there are a lot of things we can do to help ourselves, and prayer and meditation can help us to calm our minds and prioritize our thoughts, which can reduce stress and tension. But there is no reason to link that to spiritual nonsense about invisible gods taking care of us. That only clouds the issues and detracts from rational thought.

Want to feel awe and wonder? Study the universe and realize that our Sun is just one of billions of stars in our average-sized galaxy. And there are billions of galaxies in the universe that we can see! How many more billions or trillions are out there that we cannot see? How many of those billions of stars have planets containing life? Even intelligent life (as we measure it)? Can you possibly believe that all of that was created simply to impress Humans? That any possible creators have any real interest in some organic infestations on one of their planets? Sure, it might feel nice to think that, it may make you feel important to think that some powerful being is going to gather you into his arms and comfort you after having condemned you to pain and suffering on this ball of dirt. It just saddens me. It saddens me to think that so many are willing to turn aside and ignore reality just to feel a little better about themselves.

Reality is far more beautiful, far more awesome, and far more dangerous, than any made-up nonsense we can come up with to make ourselves feel safe. Learn to live with it. Learn to enjoy it. Spend your time productively, enjoying your family and friends, seeing the world around you. Leave the gods, and the likes of Chopra, to themselves.

[leo9]

Interesting reading, for believers and non-believers alike.

This was deeply disappointing. After your buildup I expected some seriously reasoned philosophical and rational presentation of the materialist case, but what I found was a boilerplate anti-sermon that took too many paragraphs to say:
a) You can't prove a thing
b) I don't believe it
c) Liar liar pants on fire.

Which could have been replicated, mutatis mutandis, in any Muslim attack on Christianity, Christian attack on Islam, either against atheism, et cetera. One expects that level of discourse from fundies, but rationalists are expected to be more, well, rational.

His conclusion is, in my opinion, both moving and undeniable. (Emphasis mine.)

We stand naked before the universe, a product of its rules, and one of the facts of our existence is our eventual obliteration. Running away won't help. Believing in a magical savior won't save you. You face reality bravely, or you hide in fear — and that won't help you either.

The essential principle, though, the one that the religious cannot abide, is that you can face it honestly. And there's at least a little dignity in that.

I've noticed before that true believers seem unable to apply normal standards of criticism to their own school's literature, believing that a sufficiently vehement statement of their beliefs is in itself such a compelling and persuasive argument that it must convert any reasonable person. Jehovah's Witnesses routinely ask me if I've read the Bible, and when I say yes, they look baffled, as if the question on the tip of their tongues is "Then why aren't you converted?" I've read Dawkins, as well, who says the same things more eloquently and at much greater length than your referent, and I'm not converted by him either.

Moving? Well, yes, if you mean "using dramatic phrasing". "Undeniable"? Well, no, you may have noticed that several people have already denied it. But then, "undeniable" is usually a weasel word meaning "if you deny it you must be stupid".

He's entitled to his opinion, as I am to mine, which differs from his. But he isn't entitled to assert that his opinion is fact and mine is lies without offering evidence, which - by the nature of the question - neither of us have.

Alan Watts observed that there has been a trend in 20th Century philosophy towards facing grim realities, to the point where it has become a one-up game to face grimmer realities than your rivals; in the same way that some Protestant sects seem to vie with each other to make the certainty of damnation even more inescapable. But they're still only presenting their opinions as facts. I don't believe I'm inevitably damned, and I don't believe I stand naked before the universe - well, actually, I do, but not in the bleak sense he intends by that image. When I stand naked before someone who loves me, there's nothing bleak about it at all!

When people demand evidence for spirituality I'm frequently reminded of the radical Behaviourists who assert, as a matter of fact, that consciousness does not exist: you may imagine that you're a self-aware mind, but it's just your conditioned reflexes talking. And the great strength of their position, like yours, is that nobody can prove them wrong: their materialist theory accounts for all the evidence - except the evidence of our own senses. We all know they are wrong, but our evidence is purely subjective!

As with the mind, so with the spirit. You can quite satisfactorily demonstrate that material science can account for everything I see as spiritual and divine: I cannot measure the beauty of the world with a photometer, or show you a photograph of the Goddess when She came to me, or produce a recording of Her unspoken words that changed my life. I know your explanation is as incomplete as the Behaviourists', but I can't show you a scrap of objective evidence. Which is why I don't call anyone a liar; I just wish they would be as accomodating of my opinions, and not tell me that I'm weak-minded or cowardly or dishonest for not feeling the way they feel.

[Thorne]

"Undeniable"? Well, no, you may have noticed that several people have already denied it. But then, "undeniable" is usually a weasel word meaning "if you deny it you must be stupid".

You'll notice that I said it was undeniable in my opinion. I did not say, nor did I intend to imply, that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. Far from it. Most of the arguments I've heard (from three different posters) have been fairly reasoned and intelligent except (and again, this is my opinion) those arguments which try to appeal to emotion as proof of belief.

He's entitled to his opinion, as I am to mine, which differs from his. But he isn't entitled to assert that his opinion is fact and mine is lies without offering evidence, which - by the nature of the question - neither of us have.

As I said earlier, Myers' rhetoric can be abrasive and harsh. I believe this comes from having to deal with truly stupid commenters who call him names and threaten him for denying the existence of their pet god, and from pseudo-intelligent commenters who spout "evidence" which has been debunked multiple times over many years. I've seen him threatened and cursed at, and know of at least one "critic" who threatened his whole family. I tend to grant him a little leeway for that.

I don't believe I'm inevitably damned,

This is one of the biggest problems I have with some of the more rabid religious defenders. They seem to think that the ONLY way to please their god is to kowtow to him and believe in him with all your heart and soul. Anything else results in damnation. In other words, "Follow me down this same dark road or you'll go to hell." This is the kind of attitude which started me down the path of atheism.

and I don't believe I stand naked before the universe - well, actually, I do, but not in the bleak sense he intends by that image. When I stand naked before someone who loves me, there's nothing bleak about it at all!

Did you really find that bleak? I found that image to be more heroic: the brave humans, weary and battered, standing bravely against all that the universe can throw at them. Inspiring, not bleak. And the universe doesn't love you, or anyone. The universe is dark, dangerous, and ultimately unconcerned with the existence of humanity. But it's all we have, so we'd better learn to deal with it.

their materialist theory accounts for all the evidence - except the evidence of our own senses. We all know they are wrong, but our evidence is purely subjective!

But we can't always trust our senses. That's why we need to make sure that everyone else sees or hears or tastes the same things we do. We need to understand how our senses can trick us. We need to learn how our minds make judgments. By being rational and skeptical we can minimize bias and wishful thinking and learn the truth.

As with the mind, so with the spirit.

Here is where we must part ways, I'm afraid. Spirit is a meaningless concept to me. There is nothing there for me to hold on to. No meat. No sensations. No proof.

[TantricSoul]

TantricSoul, I could have happily gone a whole lifetime without someone bringing up Chopra. I wish I could have gone a whole lifetime without that. But for some reason it doesn't surprise me that you would be the one to bring him up. He does seem to fit right into the kind of spirituality and mysticism that appeals to you.

I haven't studied him in great detail. However, what I have read , contemplated and felt through his works does seem blend harmoniously with my beliefs.

But I'm not nearly qualified, nor intelligent, enough to debunk the mystical fantasyland he creates around himself, so I'll direct you to a couple of those whose opinions I respect.

I can appreciate that you respect the authors opinions of the links you provided. They seem to fit right into your own superbly stated beliefs. I don't relate (anymore, the me of five years ago would be right behind them)to the logical based fantasyland they have build around themselves. And I find the disdain and sarcasm they use to attempt to discredit what they, and those who comment on their writings, do not understand, with absolute no evidence, to be ... well childish, in my opinion of course.

The first is Robert T. Carroll, author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, from his article on Chopra.
Of particular interest to the topic here, the existence of an afterlife, the following stands out:


The second is Dr. Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer, who takes Chopra to task for his comments about skeptics.

In truth ... I was not impressed with Chopra's comments about skeptics either. Skeptics have every right to be skeptical, they are no better or worse than anybody else.

Both of these articles link to other informative sources about Chopra, spirituality and mysticism in general.

I would also like to suggest that, along with your studies of mysticism and religion, you learn about critical thinking. See how easy it is to make people believe what they deeply want to believe in the first place, how easy it is to blind people to the real world by filling their heads with nonsense just by making them feel good.

Two terms ago I received an A+ in my Listening and Critical Thinking class. I do honestly appreciate your suggestion. And there are many ways to fill a mind with nonsense, including logical ones.

Granted, there are a lot of things we can do to help ourselves, and prayer and meditation can help us to calm our minds and prioritize our thoughts, which can reduce stress and tension. But there is no reason to link that to spiritual nonsense about invisible gods taking care of us. That only clouds the issues and detracts from rational thought.

Rational thought has a place in life, as a tool, like a calculator or computer it should be shut off when other aspects of your being is needed.

Want to feel awe and wonder? Study the universe and realize that our Sun is just one of billions of stars in our average-sized galaxy. And there are billions of galaxies in the universe that we can see! How many more billions or trillions are out there that we cannot see? How many of those billions of stars have planets containing life? Even intelligent life (as we measure it)?

I agree with you wholeheartedly my friend on this point. And to think all of that wonder, is made from the same stuff we are. There is no separation between that awe inspiring universe and us, unless we create it in our minds.

Can you possibly believe that all of that was created simply to impress Humans?

No I don't believe that at all, nor anything like it.

That any possible creators have any real interest in some organic infestations on one of their planets? Sure, it might feel nice to think that, it may make you feel important to think that some powerful being is going to gather you into his arms and comfort you after having condemned you to pain and suffering on this ball of dirt. It just saddens me. It saddens me to think that so many are willing to turn aside and ignore reality just to feel a little better about themselves.

Is it your contention, as I suspect, that there is just single reality? It is my contention and te contention of many, many , others, that there are indeed trillions of realities, which one is the "one reality"?

Reality is far more beautiful, far more awesome, and far more dangerous, than any made-up nonsense we can come up with to make ourselves feel safe. Learn to live with it. Learn to enjoy it. Spend your time productively, enjoying your family and friends, seeing the world around you. Leave the gods, and the likes of Chopra, to themselves.

Replace the word reality with the word life as the first word of your paragraph, and do what ever you will with the last sentence, the rest is beautiful advice, with no daylight at all between your words and my intent.

Thorne my friend, we are far more alike many would think.

And by the way, honestly, after reading those links you posted in your response to me, I respect your own opinion moreso than what I read on those sites.

Respectfully,
Tantric

[Thorne]

Thorne my friend, we are far more alike many would think.

I wonder about that, sometimes. I can't understand how someone could pass a critical thinking course, yet still fall under the spell of someone like Chopra. While some of what he says is little more than prettied-up common knowledge, such as reducing stress and eating properly, so much of it is tied in with spiritual nonsense that defies rationality. He gives no explanations for these mystical energy flows he talks about, just expects you to believe they are there based upon his word. I can't accept that. I want evidence, testable and verifiable.

And by the way, honestly, after reading those links you posted in your response to me, I respect your own opinion moreso than what I read on those sites.

I thank you for that. I don't take everything they say on those sites as gospel. Sometimes I disagree with their approaches, or their attitudes. But the basic message, showing evidence to support your position, is one that I stand behind wholeheartedly.

Is it your contention, as I suspect, that there is just single reality? It is my contention and te contention of many, many , others, that there are indeed trillions of realities, which one is the "one reality"?

If, by reality, you mean universe, then I would have to say I don't know. I know there are some hypotheses out there about multiple universes, existing in different dimensions. Perhaps even an infinite number of them. I even saw one which proposed that it was two of these universes, ours and another, actually touching and transferring energy, which we now interpret as the big bang, the origin of the universe. While interesting, there seems to be little or no evidence of such things, except that the thought-experiments built around them seem to answer certain cosmological questions about the origins of our universe. But I've also read that they create at least as many problems as they solve, and there is no hard evidence to support them over any other claim, including the supernatural ones.

While I agree that research into such things should continue, as should research into the supernatural, I expect that there will be little real evidence to be found in either case, and they will have to remain objects of speculation and faith. But that doesn't mean we should latch onto any fanciful story which makes us feel good and declare it to be the absolute truth of the universe, as so many religions seem to do.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember the 60's (they say that if you DO remember the 60's you weren't really there) but I can remember all the silliness of the hippie culture, latching onto anything which felt good and flew in the face of authority. Drug fueled visions of goodness and light had millions of kids declaring Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land as the ultimate religious philosophy, even though it was intended as a parody of religions. I read the book and laughed at the stupidity of the characters who fell into the trap of religion, then looked around and saw how many people in real life were falling into the same trap. Including my own parents. In retrospect, I would say that the 60's, and Heinlein, and Asimov, were the beginning of my road to atheism.

As for belief systems, I don't think I have one. Atheism, as noted, is not a belief system, but a denial of belief systems. Science is not a belief system, but it does involve a certain amount of trust. I trust those scientists who know more about their subjects than I do, who have been tested and examined by other scientists. It's either that or learn everything there is to know about everything, and I don't have the time for all of that. I learn what I can and generally learn enough to understand what the scientists are saying, and trust the judgment of other, reputable scientists. If you want to call that a belief system, so be it. But I take nothing on faith, only with evidence.

And with that in mind, and getting back to the topic, I can find no credible evidence of any form of afterlife; I can find no credible evidence of any form of gods; I can find no credible reason to follow the tenets laid down in ancient books, tenets which may have made some sense at the time they were created but which have little real bearing on the modern world.

If you have the need for some form of personal god, some kind of belief system which defies rational thought, whether you want to call it a religion, or a fantasy, or a fairy tale, that's your decision to make, and I have no quarrel with that. But if you want to try to force your beliefs onto others, to infiltrate the laws of the land with your beliefs, to hide behind those beliefs while committing foul crimes against others, then I will fight you. And I won't be alone. Atheists are organizing, growing more confident, and fighting back against the institutions which have terrorized and persecuted them throughout history.

And THAT is what terrifies the believers. The fact that atheists can live good, moral lives without bending knee to their archaic belief systems fills the religious leaders with fear, because they can see that they are losing their only hold on their followers. Their gods are being shown to be impotent and unnecessary. Their power is shrinking. The need for their churches is dwindling. And there's not a damned thing they can do about it.

[denuseri]

Definition of the word belief:

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction:

Such as a belief that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of cheese, or that god does not exisit.

or

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.

or

3. confidence; faith; trust: such as a child's belief in his parents.

or

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith.

So this is why I say that when one says they are an athiest they are saying that they believe that god/ or gods etc do not exist.

Believing in a lack of something is still a belief all the same.

The Atheist imho is no different than any child clinging to santa claus as real, or any other holder of a belief.

Science, philosophy, religion and personal opinion all have in common that people believe or do not believe (ie have faith in or not) the source of the statements of the individuals involved in the practice of the respected activities etc.

Historically one grows from the other, in that they are all fruit of the same tree.

[Thorne]

Definition of the word belief:

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction:

Such as a belief that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of cheese, or that god does not exisit.

So, does saying that the world is round constitute the same kind of belief as saying that it's flat? I don't think so. We have evidence, proof, that the world is round. Believing that it is flat flies in the face of that evidence.

or

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.

Exactly right. This is the epitome (in my opinion) of belief.

or

3. confidence; faith; trust: such as a child's belief in his parents.

I'm not as confident of this definition, at least not in a rigorous, scientific sense. Trust is something earned, through repeated exposure. You don't display confidence, faith or trust in someone you don't know, not without some evidence that they are trustworthy.

or

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith.

To my mind, this should be lumped in with #2. I agree with this one.

So this is why I say that when one says they are an athiest they are saying that they believe that god/ or gods etc do not exist.

And I deny that this is what atheists are saying. They are saying that the existence of gods is "not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."

Believing in a lack of something is still a belief all the same.

But NOT believing in something is not the same as believing in a lack of something.

The Atheist imho is no different than any child clinging to santa claus as real, or any other holder of a belief.

An idea we are doomed to differ on, I'm afraid.

Science, philosophy, religion and personal opinion all have in common that people believe or do not believe (ie have faith in or not) the source of the statements of the individuals involved in the practice of the respected activities etc.

Except that science has evidence and that rigorous proof which separates it from religion and personal opinion. Philosophy I'm ambivalent on. I can't quite categorize it. I get the feeling that philosophy somehow straddles the line between science and religion. I try to avoid discussions of philosophy.

Historically one grows from the other, in that they are all fruit of the same tree.

Again, something we must agree to disagree on. Religion grows from the tree of faith and personal opinion. Science is the fruit of that tree of Knowledge which some religions blame for the downfall of man. They are ultimately poisonous to one another. Science requires evidence and proof, something which religions are unable to provide. If science can tell us where we came from, and where we are going, what need have we for religion? Religions require faith and obedience, which eliminates the need for science. If we can answer any question of science with the phrase, "God did it," what need is there for exploration and experimentation?

[denuseri]

And yet the majority if not all of the people in the world still use a belief system, even the Aeithists.

In fact....scientists and philosophers, especially in the field of epistemology and ethics (the study of knowledge and belief and the study of right and wrong belief and behavior including morality) alike will tell you its part of being human.

Its part of what gives us as human beings the ability to look ahead and structure our behaviors accordingly. Its an excellent survival tool.

Whether that be a religious one, a philisophical one, a scientific one, or a personal one, or a combination there of (personally I think allmost all people have some sort of combination).

Which btw is composed of a mixture of reason and feeling in all cases. The person who says they can 100% divorce themselves from feeling is quite simpley a liar or suffering from some kind of nerological disorder.

And yes, believing that you have no belief system can in fact be in part or whole a belief system.

What is a belief system....Thorne you stated yours (or at least parts of it) ...you want evidence, but you certiantly do take much on faith becuase I am quite certian you dont run around repeating every experiement made by everyone, so in that, you are trusting that who ever it is is backed up by enough of their peers (which is all peer review really is) so that you have allmost blind faith in their postulations.

I am sure when you hear of some new theory...such as multiple universes, global warming or the big bang (which was new once upon a time) not having the means to test it yourself you have had to put your faith in what others have told you about it and come to some kind of a decision as to whether or not to "believe" what they have said.

Whats curious to me is that people are just as hypocritical sounding as the people they wish to denounce for their beliefs when they start touting whats best about theirs and bad about someone elses.

If someone doesnt like a certian belief system and yet says they respect someone elses right to have those beliefs that in and of itself is fine, why then go the extra distance to be derogatory and try to demean it?

[Thorne]

And yet the majority if not all of the people in the world still use a belief system, even the Aeithists.

Quite true (though I still disagree about atheists ). But they don't all believe the same things. Yet almost every religion claims that it is the One True Faith, with no evidence but their own beliefs.

In fact....scientists and philosophers, especially in the field of epistemology and ethics (the study of knowledge and belief and the study of right and wrong belief and behavior including morality) alike will tell you its part of being human.

Its part of what gives us as human beings the ability to look ahead and structure our behaviors accordingly. Its an excellent survival tool.

Yes it is. It's something we've evolved with and it has helped us to get where we are. But trusting (or believing if you prefer) in something you can see, touch, feel, is not the same as believing in something which is outside of our reality.

The person who says they can 100% divorce themselves from feeling is quite simpley a liar or suffering from some kind of nerological disorder.

I agree, completely. I don't claim to divorce myself from all feeling. I have to struggle every day to live up to my own standards, not taking anything for granted, not believing something just because it feels good. Feelings are important, a part of us. But relying on them at all times can lead to problems, one of which (imo) is religion.

And yes, believing that you have no belief system can in fact be in part or whole a belief system.

LOL! This sounds bizarre to me, I'm sorry. I don't BELIEVE I have no belief system. I KNOW I have no belief system. Can you prove I do?

What is a belief system....Thorne you stated yours (or at least parts of it) ...you want evidence, but you certiantly do take much on faith becuase I am quite certian you dont run around repeating every experiement made by everyone, so in that, you are trusting that who ever it is is backed up by enough of their peers (which is all peer review really is) so that you have allmost blind faith in their postulations.

I explained this in an earlier post today. No, I cannot go around repeating every experiment. I have to rely on others. That's a sign of trust, not belief. I read and learn what I can, and I try my best to make certain that the people doing the peer review are reputable scientists in their fields. But yes, ultimately I have to rely on the word of other people. Trust. Not the same as faith, or at least not in my book.

I am sure when you hear of some new theory...such as multiple universes, global warming or the big bang (which was new once upon a time) not having the means to test it yourself you have had to put your faith in what others have told you about it and come to some kind of a decision as to whether or not to "believe" what they have said.

Multiple universes I spoke about above. I don't know. Global warming I was skeptical about for a while. I came to the conclusion, after reading a lot of relevant literature (which does not include the main stream media or Al Gore) that global warming is real, it is happening. I was still undecided about anthropogenic causes for global warming, but the more I learn the more convinced I'm becoming. The evidence is there, even if I don't necessarily understand it all. You claim I'm putting my faith in other scientists, I say I'm trusting those scientists. Six of one, a half dozen of the other.

Whats curious to me is that people are just as hypocritical sounding as the people they wish to denounce for their beliefs when they start touting whats best about theirs and bad about someone elses.

If someone doesnt like a certian belief system and yet says they respect someone elses right to have those beliefs that in and of itself is fine, why then go the extra distance to be derogatory and try to demean it?

Part of the problem is in seeing how many religious people don't really know the foundations of their religion. They go to church, they go to Bible study, they listen to their preachers. How many of them really study their faith, their religion, and learn what it's all about?

Forgive me for using Christianity as an example, but again, it's the one I'm most familiar with. If Christians actually read the Bible, the whole thing, not just the "good" parts, they couldn't help coming to the conclusion that Jehovah was an evil bastard who blamed his creations for his own shortcomings. How does one reconcile an "all-loving God" with a being who will condemn the descendants of a sinner, "even unto the seventh generation." How does one countenance a being who will punish a man by killing his children? How can you worship a being who instructs you to abandon your family? (Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.)

And no, I don't claim to have read the whole Bible. (Only the "bad" parts ) But I've read enough to know that one has to pick and choose which parts to place your faith in. Taken as a whole, it's a real mess at best.

It's my contention that, as you learn more and more about the foundations and history of religion, the less likely you are to maintain any belief in that religion. Not faith, which is personal, but religion. I don't attack people's personal faith. That's their own dominion. I will attack religions which attack rationality and belief, which spew hatred and lies. There's a difference.

[denuseri]

Then why is it that it allways seems like your attacking both one and the same?

And I am sorry hon, trust, faith, belief, it all means the same thing, they are synonyms for a reason.

The Atheists have no more evidence to support their beliefs than anyone else and becuase they act like any other group who follows any given belief system I see no difference between their faith and that of others.

You did so well trying not to be derogatory too Thorne,,,right up until the end, when you labeled whole cross sections of people as spewing hatred and lies.

Religions (organized belief systems) have been with us most likely from the very very early beginings of human kind, and becuase they are quite natural for us as a species to maintain since they are a part of us in ways we are only begining to fully understand, its my guess they will remain with us through out in one way or another.

[Thorne]

Then why is it that it allways seems like your attacking both one and the same?

I suppose because it's hard to separate faith and religion, especially among believers. There is a difference, though.

And I am sorry hon, trust, faith, belief, it all means the same thing, they are synonyms for a reason.

Something else we must agree to disagree on, darlin'.

The Atheists have no more evidence to support their beliefs than anyone else and becuase they act like any other group who follows any given belief system I see no difference between their faith and that of others.

You don't need support for something you don't have. And I, for one, have seen no atheist churches, no atheist temples, no atheist synagogues, not even an atheist coven.

You did so well trying not to be derogatory too Thorne,,,right up until the end, when you labeled whole cross sections of people as spewing hatred and lies.

I labeled no one! I said I would attack those who do those things, I did not say anyone specifically did. We all know there are those who do, however.

Religions (organized belief systems) have been with us most likely from the very very early beginings of human kind, and becuase they are quite natural for us as a species to maintain since they are a part of us in ways we are only begining to fully understand, its my guess they will remain with us through out in one way or another.

I will agree that faith has been with mankind from the beginning. It's a part of our makeup. The foundations of religion, perhaps began early on, with the rise of shamans and healers. People who studied the world around them and learned to use what they found. Organized religions, however, I would venture to say didn't arise until the very beginnings of civilization, when leaders began to require some way of controlling people who were not directly under their control. That's the purpose of religion, after all. To unify people under a common belief system. Which has the advantage of helping to control them. After all, how better to control people than to control what they fear? People, especially those with little or no education, would sacrifice almost anything if you tell them it will keep them in the gods' favor. Because that's what you've told them to believe. That's why parents would allow their leaders to sacrifice their children to their gods. They believed.

Some still believe.

[denuseri]

I suppose because it's hard to separate faith and religion, especially among believers. There is a difference, though.

Aparently its hard for Atheists to seperate as well.


Something else we must agree to disagree on, darlin'.

Just one of many "honey buns".


You don't need support for something you don't have. And I, for one, have seen no atheist churches, no atheist temples, no atheist synagogues, not even an atheist coven.

Really?
http://www.acfnewsource.org/religion...st_church.html

Look they even have links at the bottom for all their other church and temple sites.

Look like any other religion to you yet?


I labeled no one! I said I would attack those who do those things, I did not say anyone specifically did. We all know there are those who do, however.

Youve been blaming the acts of different individuals throughtout history on the Religions and Faiths to which they belonged havent you? Painting any tenent of the respected faiths in question with the same brush.


I will agree that faith has been with mankind from the beginning. It's a part of our makeup. The foundations of religion, perhaps began early on, with the rise of shamans and healers. People who studied the world around them and learned to use what they found. Organized religions, however, I would venture to say didn't arise until the very beginnings of civilization, when leaders began to require some way of controlling people who were not directly under their control. That's the purpose of religion, after all. To unify people under a common belief system. Which has the advantage of helping to control them. After all, how better to control people than to control what they fear? People, especially those with little or no education, would sacrifice almost anything if you tell them it will keep them in the gods' favor. Because that's what you've told them to believe. That's why parents would allow their leaders to sacrifice their children to their gods. They believed.

There you go again...are you so sure thats why religion came into being? See when you take the idea of a benevolent god out of the picture everything is reduced to Machiavellian levels. I guess thats the Atheists way huh? Control and cruelty?

It was hardely required with the group dynamic of dominance hierarchial midsets allready well embedded in humanities social structures from the "familey".

Spiritualism didnt develope out of a need to control someone elses actions.

It developed out of humanities basic need to seek answers to the unknown!

[Thorne]

You don't need support for something you don't have. And I, for one, have seen no atheist churches, no atheist temples, no atheist synagogues, not even an atheist coven.

Really?
http://www.acfnewsource.org/religion...st_church.html

I stand corrected! (Not the first time, and certainly won't be the last.)

Sounds more like a social club than a church, but they do call it a church.

[Thorne]

There you go again...are you so sure thats why religion came into being?

No, I'm not sure. That's why I said "I would venture to say", stating it as an opinion, or speculation.

See when you take the idea of a benevolent god out of the picture everything is reduced to Machiavellian levels.

And just which "benevolent god" are we talking about here? I'm not familiar with too many.

I guess thats the Atheists way huh? Control and cruelty?

Oh certainly. It's atheists who kill those who convert to another religion, isn't it? No, wait. That's Islam:

Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ارتداد, irtidād or ridda‎) is commonly defined as the rejection in word or deed of their former religion (apostasy) by a person who was previously a follower of Islam. The traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence are unanimous in holding that apostasy by a male Muslim is punishable by death. They differ on whether to execute the apostate immediately or grant the apostate a temporary reprieve in order to allow him to repent and avoid the penalty. The schools also differ on whether a female apostate is to be killed, or only imprisoned until she re-embraces the faith.

Or maybe Christians:

Within 5 years of the official 'criminalisation' of heresy by the emperor, the first Christian heretic to be prosecuted, Priscillian was executed in 385 by Roman officials. For some years after the reformation, Protestant churches were also known to execute those whom they considered as heretics, including Catholics, and later, in North America, the Salem witch trials. The last known heretic executed by sentence of the Catholic Church was Cayetano Ripoll in 1826. The number of people executed as heretics under the authority of the various 'church authorities' is not known, however it most certainly numbers into the several thousands.

though the Christian churches seem to have grown out of the practice.

Or perhaps Judaism:

The Torah states:

Deuteronomy 13:6-10:

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.[16]

They seem to have gotten over it, too.

I never heard of an atheist apostate, though there have been people who have gone back to religion after becoming atheists. I don't think any of them were condemned for it, though.

Spiritualism didnt develope out of a need to control someone elses actions.

I never claimed it did. I said religions did. Spiritualism, and faith, developed out of individual searches for truth.