According to the American Religious Identification Survey (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/panelist-atheists-among-us/2011/07/22/gIQA4JzoTI_blog.html) cited in today's Washington Post:Christians fell from 86% of the population in 1990 to 76% in 2008. 75,000,000 Americans, or 1 in 4, are not Christians. More than 5,000,000 Americans claim no religious affiliation. According to the definition, “someone who does not believe the ancient deities are real,” 12-15% of Americans are atheists, although only 1-2% refer to themselves that way. [Many atheists claim "religious affiliation" and belong to churches, synagogues, etc., for various reasons, including family pressure, sense of community, charity work, and hostility toward atheists in America's less cosmopolitan regions. Attitudes toward this form of hypocrisy under pressure vary from a warm welcome by the Unitarians to grudging acceptance into the more liberal Jewish congregations to ostracism or worse in the more conservative Christian churches. -- F.R.] The “Nones” (the survey's term for non-believers and the unaffiliated combined) are the third-largest group, outnumbering Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Southern Baptists combined.

Many atheists are silent. There is still a stigma attached to being an atheist in America. We’re not even supposed to talk about it.

Dear Miss Manners (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071403363.html)

Many atheists are silent. There is still a stigma attached to being an atheist in America. We’re not even supposed to talk about it.I very seldom meet people who go into the doctrinal details of their religions, much less ask me about mine, much much less start proselytizing. Maybe this is because I make quite an effort to live in cosmopolitan cities where diversity is commonplace and people have learned from experience that someone else's religion (or lack of it) is of little consequence to the quality of their work, their loyalty or their good citizenship.

Despite being perhaps the most articulately outspoken atheist on this website, I do in fact have several friends who are fairly devout Christians. We have discussed our beliefs frankly and it has not caused a rift in our friendship. The reason is that we don't try to change the other person. I learned long ago that religion has very little to do with reason so you can't use logic to argue a person into giving up his fairytale. And they can easily tell, from the heavy emphasis I place on reasoning and evidence in all facets of my life, that they're not going to convince me to believe in what I consider a fairytale. Since we each accept the other for what he is, and since we each respect the other's accomplishments, the wholesomeness of their relationships, and the rest of who they are and what they do, we can both make a rational decision to leave well enough alone.

If I lived in a place where people routinely looked down on me for not being a believer, made intrusive attempts to convert me, shunned me, sabotaged my work and friendships, because I'm an atheist, my way of dealing with that would be to find someplace else to live. I would not write to an advice columnist about it.

Yet, even though atheists don't walk around constantly focused on the nonexistence of imaginary deities, I understand that many religious people actually do bring their religion into many, most, or even all aspects of their lives. In their case, asking what church I go to, offering blessings to people with allergies, and seeing corporeal death as merely a transition, are part of who they are. They're not necessarily being confrontational. The impersonal comments may be simply ignored. It may take a little creativity to deflect the personal comments, but hey nobody promised that life was going to be easy.

Put it in perspective. If some coworker asks you every Friday to come listen to the wonderful sermon at his church on Sunday, and that's the stinkiest, nastiest thing that happens to you all week, your life truly is, um... "blessed." ;)

And hey, you can always just tell them you're a Unitarian. No matter what you believe, you actually could be a Unitarian, so they can't call you on it. There probably aren't Unitarian churches in most of the Bible Belt hamlets where these people live, so you won't even have to show up at a service every couple of months to maintain your cover. :)

Despite being perhaps the most articulately outspoken atheist on this website, I do in fact have several friends who are fairly devout Christians. We have discussed our beliefs frankly and it has not caused a rift in our friendship. The reason is that we don't try to change the other person. I learned long ago that religion has very little to do with reason so you can't use logic to argue a person into giving up his fairytale. And they can easily tell, from the heavy emphasis I place on reasoning and evidence in all facets of my life, that they're not going to convince me to believe in what I consider a fairytale. Since we each accept the other for what he is, and since we each respect the other's accomplishments, the wholesomeness of their relationships, and the rest of who they are and what they do, we can both make a rational decision to leave well enough alone.

I think that you and your Christian friends have very awkward and shallow ideas about friendship.

How can they be friends with you, and how can you consider them your friends, when you believe that that which they hold to be central to their lives, is a fairytale?

I think that you and your Christian friends have very awkward and shallow ideas about friendship. How can they be friends with you, and how can you consider them your friends, when you believe that that which they hold to be central to their lives, is a fairytale?I don't think any of them are the kind of religious zealots who regard their religion as the center of their lives. They were raised in a church and they like it, but they also like the other things in their lives.

My biggest objection to Christianity (depending on the day of the week) is its evangelism: the belief that God wants them to "save" the rest of us from eternal damnation by showing us the error of our ways and bringing us into the church. This is of course the same thing I hate about Islam: that sense of superiority, that conviction that we're all just a little bit less than them and it's their sworn duty to improve us--sometimes against our will or even by force. Yet not all Christians or Muslims actually practice evangelism, and many of them have found a way to rationalize that and not count it as a failing.

We all have our faults, and we find ways to love and respect each other in spite of them. I'm not going to tell you mine because everybody else had to get to know me for years before they identified them all, so why should you have it any easier. Suffice it to say that I have them and some people find them annoying, yet they put up with my faults and they find a way to be my friends.

Some of my friends are Christians and I find that annoying but I put up with it and find a way to be their friend.

I have known people who beat their spouses, who steal and rob, who coast through life doing absolutely nothing and spongeing off of friends and family... hell I even (yucch I hate it when this little memory pops into my head) once met a pedophile! I could not be those people's friend.

The average Christian is a much better human being than those people, and very often I find that I can be his friend.

Yet not all Christians or Muslims actually practice evangelism, and many of them have found a way to rationalize that and not count it as a failing.

Perhaps they are still evangelizing, and you at that, just in a way that is too subtle for you to notice.

Perhaps they are still evangelizing, and you at that, just in a way that is too subtle for you to notice.Well sure. But in everyday relationships stuff like that is down below noise level. The probability is zero that either of us will ever be swayed by the "subtle evangelism" of the other, so it becomes a private joke.

Besides, I have talked to these people and they tell me that every Christian does indeed have a duty to spread the word of God, but that does not mean that every Christian must literally do it by speaking.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then an event is worth a thousand pictures. One instance of Christians putting their lives on hold (or even risking their lives) to help people of a "competing" faith avoid dying of starvation or injury after a catastrophe--without even handing out Bibles!--is, indeed, worth a million words. I consider myself a "good person," but I have never done anything close to that! I just provide some of the money that they need in order to do those good deeds.

According to the American Religious Identification Survey (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/panelist-atheists-among-us/2011/07/22/gIQA4JzoTI_blog.html) cited in today's Washington Post:Christians fell from 86% of the population in 1990 to 76% in 2008. 75,000,000 Americans, or 1 in 4, are not Christians. More than 5,000,000 Americans claim no religious affiliation. According to the definition, “someone who does not believe the ancient deities are real,” 12-15% of Americans are atheists, although only 1-2% refer to themselves that way. [Many atheists claim "religious affiliation" and belong to churches, synagogues, etc., for various reasons, including family pressure, sense of community, charity work, and hostility toward atheists in America's less cosmopolitan regions. Attitudes toward this form of hypocrisy under pressure vary from a warm welcome by the Unitarians to grudging acceptance into the more liberal Jewish congregations to ostracism or worse in the more conservative Christian churches. -- F.R.] The “Nones” (the survey's term for non-believers and the unaffiliated combined) are the third-largest group, outnumbering Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Southern Baptists combined.

I pulled this from the link you provided:
But it took the advent of the Internet for nonbelievers to find each other and their voice.

As a result, America’s religious makeup is rapidly changing. The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) shows the country is trending away from Christianity, falling from 86 percent of the population in 1990 to 76 percent in 2008.

Personally I believe it's true that the Internet is driving this change. Before the Internet in about 50 years of life I didn't know any atheist and maybe met a couple that would cop to being an atheist. Now I get to interact with dozens of people who have no problem with being atheist and are very good at talking about the why and how of it.

I went a long time before I was willing to even admit to myself that I was an atheist, I held out as an agnostic. But being able to talk to others on the science forums made all the difference in the world to me. I absolutely have no doubts about what I believe now and I have good responses for those that want to challenge me. I owe that confidence to the Internet.

Before the Internet in about 50 years of life I didn't know any atheist and maybe met a couple that would cop to being an atheist. Now I get to interact with dozens of people who have no problem with being atheist and are very good at talking about the why and how of it. I went a long time before I was willing to even admit to myself that I was an atheist, I held out as an agnostic. But being able to talk to others on the science forums made all the difference in the world to me. I absolutely have no doubts about what I believe now and I have good responses for those that want to challenge me. I owe that confidence to the Internet.I never had that problem because I didn't know there was anything else to be. I didn't know there was a word "atheist" and I didn't know what religion was until I was about seven. My parents were second-generation atheists and religion is a topic that simply never came up in conversation at home. Why would it?

Except for the one second-grader who tried to explain that there's this guy named "God" who lives up in the sky and watches everything we do and can make lightning--whom I rewarded by rolling on the ground in laughter after hearing such a creative story and I couldn't understand why he seemed upset by my reaction--none of my friends in grade school ever talked about religion so I still had no idea what it was all about. Certainly they talked about church and all the fun stuff they did at the picnics and everything, but never about God and Jesus and those things.

My mother had briefly explained religion when I asked her why that little boy didn't like me laughing at him, but about all her explanation did was diminish my respect for humanity and turn me into a cynic. "You're saying that, unlike Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, parents never tell their children the truth about God, so they grow up still believing it? But I figured out the truth about the Tooth Fairy myself. Why aren't grownups smart enough to figure out the truth about God?" She just got this very sad look on her face and didn't know what to say.

In high school there finally were some kids who took their religion seriously and talked about it, but there were also several other atheists so I at last began to understand the issue in a little more detail. I even had a Catholic girlfriend--to my mother's chagrin, since her parents had left Bohemia (we call it the Czech Republic now because that's so much easier to spell and pronounce) in the 1890s precisely to get out from under the thumb of the Catholic church. I tell you, back in the 1950s these weighty national arguments about religion were simply not happening. We all managed to get along somehow, even if we were laughing behind each other's back.

Then of course I went to Caltech, where atheists were a majority. Soon the 1960s hit (what we call "the sixties" was really 1963-1975, from the first Beatles song to the withdrawal from Vietnam) and atheism became fashionable. Those same Beatles declared "We're more popular than Jesus now," and it didn't harm their career at all.

Religion didn't come back into vogue until the late 1970s. All the Baby Boomers were growing up and feeling ashamed of the sex and drugs and rock'n'roll. One thing about the Boomers: they assumed that they were the first and only people who did what they did. They were really weak on history and had no idea what was going on during the Roaring Twenties.

So they joined these little storefront Pentecostal and Charismatic churches to get in touch with "real" Christianity. The Latino, Redneck and Afro-American preachers and their working-class congregations were so delighted to have social workers, engineers and computer programmers kicking into the collection plate every Sunday that they welcomed them like they were Jesus themselves.

This was when I discovered just how much the hippies had gotten out of those college educations. Their ignorance was not limited to history! One Monday morning this gal who worked for me (a real hippie, she even legally changed her name so it now ends in hyphen-O) came skipping into my office and said, "I learned the most wonderful thing in church yesterday morning. The preacher told us that six thousand years ago there was peace all over the planet, even among the animals. You see, lions and tigers weren't predators then so there was no killing. They just ate leaves and flowers."

I said, "Wow, they must have looked a lot different than they do today. Herbivores require an enormous gut to host the bacterial culture they've got to have in order to digest the cellulose in leaves and flowers. Did he have any pictures? I'd like to see one!" She just looked at me like my dog does when I ask if anybody knows why there's a pile of poop on the kitchen floor.

I have to testify in court on the 8th. I'm worried that they will ask me to swear on a Bible and I'll have to refuse. Won't the jury then see me as a liar? Being an atheist is harder than being a believer

I have to testify in court on the 8th. I'm worried that they will ask me to swear on a Bible and I'll have to refuse. Won't the jury then see me as a liar? Being an atheist is harder than being a believerI don't remember where you live, but outside the Bible Belt, especially in the cities, these days that's pretty routine. They will allow you to simply "affirm" without making a big deal out of it.

Make sure you give a heads-up to the prosecutor or defense attorney, whichever one is going to call you. They'll set it up in advance so it won't become an issue. After all, he's the guy who very much wants the jury to believe you.

Personally I wouldn't press the point if it was going to create a scene. There's nothing wrong with swearing an oath to an imaginary deity. You're simply not bound by it. You end up telling the truth just because you're an honest person. Nothin' wrong with that.

Haven't you ever told someone, "God damn you!" Have any trouble with that oath?

The OP's polarized framework neglects a major field of data: The vast spectrum in between "Atheist" and "Christian" composed, in great part, of (among other categories):

1) agnostics

2) lax Christians of varying degrees and flavors of laxity, many being de facto agnostics themselves if we measure their religiosity by their behaviors (e.g., only go to church on Christmas, Easter and maybe for weddings) rather than their beliefs -- which at best may amount to some vague sort of watered-down decaffeinated Deism that wrinkles its nose at the offense of "dogma", and additionally spiced perhaps by New Agey assimilation of zen Buddhism, or Hindu yoga and belief in "chakras", or Native American polytheism, or any number of other multi-culturalist samplings from the vast cafeteria of Comparative Religions (not to mention all those "recovering Catholics" who have hostile feelings against their own Church)

3) and finally, there is the considerable number of Christians who are flaming liberals about various sociopolitical issues and causes: surely, you wouldn't want to throw the Baptists/Congregationalists/Methodists/Lutherans/Episcopalians/Etc. who support the ordination of female (even lesbian) bishops/ministers; Gay Pride Parades; freedom of choice for abortion; marching with those Poor Palestinian "Victims" of Israeli "oppression"; and who agree with your opposition to forcing Creationism in public schools; etc. under the bus, would you -- just because they also happen to self-identify as "Christian"?

yeah, I will have to give them a heads up.
And there is an issue for me to swear an oath on an imaginary deity. I can't do it. Its lying.

yeah, I will have to give them a heads up.
And there is an issue for me to swear an oath on an imaginary deity. I can't do it. Its lying.

Yes it is, so what's the problem? All humans lie to some extent. You on the other hand seem to want to make an issue of it. I don't really have a problem with you making an issue of it. Just don't make out like you never lie. It's not believable.

I'd be lying as I swear that I wouldn't lie??? That's a HUGE issue for me. I can't do it. Of course I lie and if they ask me, I will tell them I've lied. I have kids for crying out loud. Santa and he tooth fairy were both lies

The OP's polarized framework neglects a major field of data: The vast spectrum in between "Atheist" and "Christian" composed, in great part, of (among other categories):

1) agnostics

I could make a case that most people that claim to be agnostic are really atheist that haven't come out of the closet yet. I could also make a case that if there was any real evidence that God exist there wouldn't be any atheist.

Truthfully I don't see much difference between atheist and agnostics other than one is still leaving the door open that there could be a God and that's mostly for the benefit of others. Wishy-washy and unwilling to take a real stand on what they really believe.

I'd be lying as I swear that I wouldn't lie??? That's a HUGE issue for me. I can't do it. Of course I lie and if they ask me, I will tell them I've lied. I have kids for crying out loud. Santa and he tooth fairy were both lies

I'll never understand why people feel it's necessary to lie to their kids.

I could make a case that most people that claim to be agnostic are really atheist that haven't come out of the closet yet.

I disagree. In fact, I think everyone is really, deep down, agnostic -- both atheists and all religious people. They are just fooling themselves with their certitude, the one side saying No, the other saying Yes. All we know is Maybe.

I disagree. In fact, I think everyone is really, deep down, agnostic -- both atheists and all religious people. They are just fooling themselves with their certitude, the one side saying No, the other saying Yes. All we know is Maybe.

Maybe my ass! There is or there isn't a God. There is no maybe or some in between. I think all religion is a human construct to control people and the way people think and to produce the sense of us and them, were right and they're wrong, we are saved and they are going to hell and bye the way don't forget your tithe and please give when the hats passed.

If I was a God, do you really think I would care what a bunch of primitive life forms on a back water planet were doing or feeling? As if I didn't have better things to do. If you could prove that ants in an ant colony were worshiping you. Would you feel any different about them. The very concept of God is ridiculous.

If there is a God, it needs to be a lot more convincing than it has been. By the definition of God being all knowing and all powerful, convincing me to believe in him should be a no-brainer. I'm still waiting and I'm not holding my breath.

And there is an issue for me to swear an oath on an imaginary deity. I can't do it. Its lying.Oh Orly, dear Orly, you need to go back and re-read your notes from your college English class from the day when they covered metaphors. There is truth, there are lies, and there are metaphors. Joseph Campbell said that he was flabbergasted to meet people who genuinely could not grasp the concept of metaphor. He ran into this Redneck in the backwoods of Flammassippi and got into a huge argument over it. Finally he asked him, "So what if I say, 'This house of mine is a prison, because the payments are so high that I'm shackled to my job.' Don't you see how that's a metaphor?" The Redneck said, "No! It's a damn lie!"

Don't be that Redneck! "God" is a metaphor for all that's good and righteous in the world. It's okay to swear your faith metaphorically. You're simply saying that you swear to be good and righteous, and that means you have to tell the truth.
I'd be lying as I swear that I wouldn't lie???Why do you say you're lying? If you swear that you're not going to lie, but you secretly intend to lie, THEN you're lying. If you swear that you're not going to lie and you have every intention of telling the truth, that is not a lie. It doesn't matter if you're swearing on your honor, on your mother's grave, or on your sacred Star Trek communicator. It's the bloody truth.
That's a HUGE issue for me. I can't do it. Of course I lie and if they ask me, I will tell them I've lied. I have kids for crying out loud. Santa and he tooth fairy were both liesGood grief, Orly, you really are that Redneck! Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are both metaphors!

Get with the program, girl! You're in the big city now!

Santa Claus is a metaphor for the American economy tipping over from scarcity-driven to surplus-driven at the end of the 19th century. Changing Christmas from an intimate low-key family celebration to a public extravaganza of spending money, drinking hooch and giving gifts was a clever way to drive the economy a little harder and increase our standard of living. Santa Claus is prosperity! Santa Claus is America! We buy shit nobody needs and give it to people who don't want it because by some magical process we don't understand, it makes us even more prosperous than we already are!

I'll let you do your own research on the Tooth Fairy. Which is my way of saying I haven't done it. See, when I started typing I swore to Mithra that I wouldn't tell a lie, and I didn't.

I disagree. In fact, I think everyone is really, deep down, agnostic -- both atheists and all religious people. They are just fooling themselves with their certitude, the one side saying No, the other saying Yes. All we know is Maybe.

If you ask someone what god(s) they believe in, and the answer is none, that person is an atheist. If they then add, "But I can't prove they don't exist", they are an agnostic atheist. What you believe, and what you believe you can know aren't the same things.

KilljoyKlown,

If "God" is supposed to be a Being in the sky, then you're most likely correct. But that would be the literalist conception of "God" which only fundamentalists indulge in.

KilljoyKlown,

If "God" is supposed to be a Being in the sky, then you're most likely correct. But that would be the literalist conception of "God" which only fundamentalists indulge in.

So what are you really saying then? That there might be a God, just not the God as portrayed in any of the major religions? If that's so then how would you define a God? If you can't nail down a definition, how about a minimum definition, those things that a God must have to be a God. The very least definition I would expect would be God has to be the creator of the universe.

I just can't believe that. I believe the universe is natural and exists within the laws of nature. (No God needed)

Don't be that Redneck! "God" is a metaphor for all that's good and righteous in the world. It's okay to swear your faith metaphorically. You're simply saying that you swear to be good and righteous, and that means you have to tell the truth.

Why do you say you're lying? If you swear that you're not going to lie, but you secretly intend to lie, THEN you're lying. If you swear that you're not going to lie and you have every intention of telling the truth, that is not a lie. It doesn't matter if you're swearing on your honor, on your mother's grave, or on your sacred Star Trek communicator. It's the bloody truth.Good grief, Orly, you really are that Redneck! Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are both metaphors!

You are underestimating how things tend to get interpreted by others, both Christians and non-Christians, educated or not.

If one swears by the Bible, and it later somehow turns out that one is not a Christian, generally, people will consider one a liar.

Generally, people have no scope for metaphors and such.

If the jury consists of mostly what you call "Rednecks", and Orly has sworn by the Bible and the persecution/defense somehow brings up the issue of whether she is a Christian or believes in the Bible, it will be easy to discredit her testimony, at least in the eyes of the jury (but also depending on the nature of the case).

I have a PDF of the 2008 ARIS survey and can quote some figures from it.

Here are 2008 religious identification figures. I underlined 'identification', since as Fraggle notes, that isn't the same thing as belief. There are religious believers who aren't associated with any church, while many people who don't have belief still claim some religious affiliation, typically for ethnic reasons. Religious identification isn't the same thing as religious participation either. Many people who identify with a church never actually show up there except for funerals and weddings.

When American adults were asked in 2008 what religious group they identified with, here's how ARIS classified the responses:

Catholic 57,199,000 25.1%
Baptist 36,148,000 15.8%
Nones/No Religion 34,169,000 15.0%
'Christian' Generic 32,441,000 14.2%
'Mainline' Christian 29,375,000 12.9%
Dont Know/Refused 11,815,000 5.2%
Pentecostal/Charismatic 7,948,000 3.5%
Protestant 'Denominations' 7,131,000 3.1%
Mormon/LDS 3,158,000 1.4%
New Religious Movements and Other 2,804,000 1.2%
Jewish 2,680,000 1.2%
Eastern Religions 1,961,000 0.9%
Muslim 1,349,000 0.6%

My comments:

The Catholic percentage of the American population is rising, largely because of immigration (legal or otherwise) from Latin America. Many of the European-descended Catholics (Irish and Italian, etc.) are only nominally Catholic.

The Baptists, just by their nature (emphasizing adult baptism), are the prototypical 'born agains'.

The 'Christian' Generic category are those people who told the pollsters that they were 'Christians', but didn't state a particular organized church. Some of these people may be fundies who belong to independent store-front congregations. But my feeling is that the bulk of them are nominal Christians who never attend church, can't even think of a group that they identify with, but still vaguely identify with the Christian tradition in general.

'Mainline Christian' refers to the Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Lutherans, along with the Methodists. This group generally are the northern European state churches and in the US they represent the old-stock English, Scottish, German and Scandinavian settlers. This group is typically more upscale and better educated than the average American. These 'mainline' groups produce a great deal of the more liberal theological scholarship (Biblical criticism etc.) and much of their membership are unconventional or nominal believers who attend for social reasons. As a result, these groups are slowly shrinking as they experience attrition at both ends, with many nominal members drifting over to the 'none's' while the more theologically conservative believers defect to the more Biblical Baptists.

The Protestant 'Denominations' are the Churches of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, along with many smaller denominations of the same sort.

The Mormon/LDS category is holding steady at about 1.4% of the US population. Mormons have larger families than average, but this is a church that originated here in America and isn't being strengthened by immigration.

The number of people volunteering 'Jewish' is twice as large (more than 5 million) if poll-takers ask about ethnicity rather than religious identification. Which implies that perhaps half of America's self-identified ethnic Jews don't think of Judaism as their religion.

The 5.2% who refused to answer or said 'don't know' represent a large group. It's interesting to speculate what these people are really thinking. Many of those who refused to paticipate may have conventional affiliations but just didn't want to be bothered by the poll. But 'don't know'? That suggests a pretty low level of religious identification to me. So many of these people probably belong among the 'nones'.

The 'New Religious Movements and Other category' is surprisingly big too, at 2.8 million people. This one includes the many varieties of 'New Age' spirituality, 'Wicca' and similar things. It's very visible here in California.

The largest component of Eastern Religions are the Buddhists, at 1,189,000 0.5%. Interestingly, the Eastern Religions group is the best-educated in the United States, at 59% college graduates.

So what are you really saying then? That there might be a God, just not the God as portrayed in any of the major religions? If that's so then how would you define a God? If you can't nail down a definition, how about a minimum definition, those things that a God must have to be a God. The very least definition I would expect would be God has to be the creator of the universe.

I just can't believe that. I believe the universe is natural and exists within the laws of nature. (No God needed)

The definition of God(s) varies from religion to religion.The Christian God is described as omniscient,omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.In other words a perfect being with no flaws what-so-ever. :rolleyes:

I find it interesting when it is said that things must have a creator, if this is so then it must also apply to God(s).By this logic it would be a never ending chain of creators. :bugeye:

The very least definition I would expect would be God has to be the creator of the universe.

Gee, none of the ones I pay homage to claim they made it.

:shrug:

The definition of God(s) varies from religion to religion.The Christian God is described as omniscient,omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.In other words a perfect being with no flaws what-so-ever. :rolleyes:

I find it interesting when it is said that things must have a creator, if this is so then it must also apply to God(s).By this logic it would be a never ending chain of creators. :bugeye:

Interesting avatar you have, welcome to the forum. I find religions to be really annoying for a lot of reasons. One is having an unbelievable god and trying to force that concept down your throat, in some cases to the point of taking your life if you continue not to believe in some parts of the world.

Gee, none of the ones I pay homage to claim they made it.

:shrug:

You pay homage to a God? Okay out with it, I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants to know. What God are you talking about?:D

Thank you for the welcome Killjoy. The intolerance that is found at the base of most religious beliefs is what I am against.

Thank you for the welcome Killjoy. The intolerance that is found at the base of most religious beliefs is what I am against.

In some places in the world that intolerance can translate into real fear which gives you a lot of reason to want to be seen as religious and when you fake it long enough, you quit worrying about not believing and you actually raise you kids to believe.

So what are you really saying then? That there might be a God, just not the God as portrayed in any of the major religions? If that's so then how would you define a God? If you can't nail down a definition, how about a minimum definition, those things that a God must have to be a God. The very least definition I would expect would be God has to be the creator of the universe.

I just can't believe that. I believe the universe is natural and exists within the laws of nature. (No God needed)

God, I'd say, is not a "being" or a thing. What "God" would then be could not be captured by language as an insect may be captured by a slide under a microscope; though one can allude, poetically.

Coincidentally, I just got finished articulating at some length my thoughts on this in response to a famous atheist-cum-agnostic, the film critic John Simon on his blog -- if you'd care to click to get from here to there (http://uncensoredsimon.blogspot.com/2011/07/on-religion.html?showComment=1311557896514#c443764587 6610713936).

The definition of God(s) varies from religion to religion.The Christian God is described as omniscient,omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.In other words a perfect being with no flaws what-so-ever. :rolleyes:

I find it interesting when it is said that things must have a creator, if this is so then it must also apply to God(s).By this logic it would be a never ending chain of creators. :bugeye:

Nice use of "omnibenevolent" -- I thought I had coined that all by myself :cool:

That Christian theology you describe, however, was a theology, originally Judaeo-Christian, that had been considerably refined through a massive and rich assimilation of Graeco-Roman philosophy. That philosophy did not necessarily contradict the pneumatic theology of Israel and early Christians; though it did unfold certain inherent assumptions, some of which seem to be trans-cultural constants -- and none of which solve the problem of theodicy.

God, I'd say, is not a "being" or a thing. What "God" would then be could not be captured by language as an insect may be captured by a slide under a microscope; though one can allude, poetically.

Coincidentally, I just got finished articulating at some length my thoughts on this in response to a famous atheist-cum-agnostic, the film critic John Simon on his blog -- if you'd care to click to get from here to there (http://uncensoredsimon.blogspot.com/2011/07/on-religion.html?showComment=1311557896514#c443764587 6610713936).

Interestingly, while we may not be inclined to agree on very many things, my own views are very much in accordance with what you've expressed in the post linked--in fact, right down to your appreciation for the vastly more sophisticated and substantive musings of the pre-Socratics and (some) neo-Platonists, especially as compared with many a contemporary Christian theologian.

While there are certainly exceptions within the Christian tradition, especially during the so-called "Dark Ages," by and large Christianity suffers with respect to it's rather dogmatic approach to hermeneutics. Of course, many of the exceptions to this were excommunicated and effectively branded as "atheists." Judaism, on the other hand, does not. I would suggest that the Midrashic tradition, including contemporary Midrash, is anything but dogmatic and has consistently exuded a strong appreciation for paradox.

Of course, I entertain a very broad notion of what ought to be considered "contemporary Midrash": I include everything from the writings of Franz Kafka, Edmond Jabes, and Ludwig Wittgenstein (post-Tractatus and not "formally" a Jew, but a Jew nonetheless) to the paintings of Mark Rothko and the compositions of Morton Feldman.

...especially as compared with many a contemporary Christian theologian.

While there are certainly exceptions within the Christian tradition, especially during the so-called "Dark Ages," by and large Christianity suffers with respect to it's rather dogmatic approach to hermeneutics.

Christianity was a long process, and there are many varieties in its history. The mystic tradition is interesting in this regard -- beginning with Gregory of Nyssa (3rd century I believe), then the "Desert Fathers", then Pseudo-Dyonisius (circa 500 AD), then Eriugena, St. John of the Cross, Gregory Palamas, Jan Van Ruysbroek, Teresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich, the anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing, Nicolas of Cusa, and many more. I'm even fascinated by the Christian Councils culminating in Chalcedon, the way they grappled with the weird legacy they inherited -- of trying to understand how God became a Man. (Whether they adequately symbolized that or not, it's still interesting.)


I would suggest that the Midrashic tradition, including contemporary Midrash, is anything but dogmatic and has consistently exuded a strong appreciation for paradox.


I don't doubt that; though I'm unfamiliar with that tradition. I only explored one medieval Jewish mystic, an obscure fellow named "Isaac of Luria" -- he had an intriguing notion of explaining the problem of evil by saying that when God first started Creation, he created a "pocket" inside Himself (since God is All, he had to create this "air pocket" inside Himself!).

Christianity was a long process, and there are many varieties in its history. The mystic tradition is interesting in this regard -- beginning with Gregory of Nyssa (3rd century I believe), then the "Desert Fathers", then Pseudo-Dyonisius (circa 500 AD), then Eriugena, St. John of the Cross, Gregory Palamas, Jan Van Ruysbroek, Teresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich, the anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing, Nicolas of Cusa, and many more. I'm even fascinated by the Christian Councils culminating in Chalcedon, the way they grappled with the weird legacy they inherited -- of trying to understand how God became a Man. (Whether they adequately symbolized that or not, it's still interesting.)

Certainly you've read Meister Eckhart? For me, Eckhart represents the pinnacle of the apophatic tradition.

Of the ones you mentioned, I find Pseudo-Dyonysius the least satisfying--I feel that the Platonic influence in his writing is perhaps too strong, and consequently there is less a speculative quality, and more assertiveness suggesting a sense of certitude. While certainly to a far lesser degree than many a "mainstream" figure, there is something in that I believe is partly accountable for the tendencies of many towards reification, and consequent literalist readings.

A much later figure, Angelus Silesius (Johannes Scheffler?), follows very much in the footsteps of Eckhart--though I believe he claims to have been most influenced by Jakob Boehme. His most interesting work is the poem, "The Rose is Without Why," of which Heidegger presented an extended treatment in Der Satz vom Grund (the English translation is titled The Principle of Reason, oddly enough). It has qualities of The Book of Job, albeit somewhat more, uh, upbeat.



I don't doubt that; though I'm unfamiliar with that tradition. I only explored one medieval Jewish mystic, an obscure fellow named "Isaac of Luria" -- he had an intriguing notion of explaining the problem of evil by saying that when God first started Creation, he created a "pocket" inside Himself (since God is All, he had to create this "air pocket" inside Himself!).

Maimonides is fantastic, though many of the best Jewish writers were partly anonymous: in Midrashic and Talmudic texts they often identify themselves simply as Reb So-and-so, and more often than not these names are pseudonyms.

That notion--the "pocket" inside Himself--strikes me as rather Eckhartian, which is not all that surprising as Eckhart was far more informed by Jewish traditions than many in his day.

Oh Orly, dear Orly, you need to go back and re-read your notes from your college English class from the day when they covered metaphors. There is truth, there are lies, and there are metaphors. Joseph Campbell said that he was flabbergasted to meet people who genuinely could not grasp the concept of metaphor. He ran into this Redneck in the backwoods of Flammassippi and got into a huge argument over it. Finally he asked him, "So what if I say, 'This house of mine is a prison, because the payments are so high that I'm shackled to my job.' Don't you see how that's a metaphor?" The Redneck said, "No! It's a damn lie!"

Don't be that Redneck! "God" is a metaphor for all that's good and righteous in the world. It's okay to swear your faith metaphorically. You're simply saying that you swear to be good and righteous, and that means you have to tell the truth.Why do you say you're lying? If you swear that you're not going to lie, but you secretly intend to lie, THEN you're lying. If you swear that you're not going to lie and you have every intention of telling the truth, that is not a lie. It doesn't matter if you're swearing on your honor, on your mother's grave, or on your sacred Star Trek communicator. It's the bloody truth.Good grief, Orly, you really are that Redneck! Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are both metaphors!

Get with the program, girl! You're in the big city now!

Quote by Mekigal :
I think Spidey is higher on the Atheist totem pole and yet he still says I swear to god . More of an expression than any thing religious, Yet He still says it . The most Atheistic in my opinion has the be Ahlfalphanumeric
Carry on Frag


Santa Claus is a metaphor for the American economy tipping over from scarcity-driven to surplus-driven at the end of the 19th century. Changing Christmas from an intimate low-key family celebration to a public extravaganza of spending money, drinking hooch and giving gifts was a clever way to drive the economy a little harder and increase our standard of living. Santa Claus is prosperity! Santa Claus is America! We buy shit nobody needs and give it to people who don't want it because by some magical process we don't understand, it makes us even more prosperous than we already are!

I'll let you do your own research on the Tooth Fairy. Which is my way of saying I haven't done it. See, when I started typing I swore to Mithra that I wouldn't tell a lie, and I didn't.

I am proud of you Frag. Swearing to Mithra is not exactly going with the flow you know . Oh to kill the bull.

I am proud of you Frag. Swearing to Mithra is not exactly going with the flow you know . Oh to kill the bull.

I'm ok with swearing to Mithra, for the Zend Avesta (chapter 11, IIRC, which is devoted entirely to dogs) states: "The world exists [note: "comes into being" is actually a better rendering] through the understanding of dogs." Although I'm more inclined to Martu: the "god" (for want of a better term) of the Amorites, though more particularly,the "god" of incessant wandering.

I just learned a new Jewish ritual today so strange . Me wife got it from our Daughter . She got it from an old Jewish woman in the Seattle area . She told her to alway keep 18 cents on you for good luck . I thought that odd . Then Me wife says " I don't no why I do it but I do and she whipped out this electrical tape that had 18 cents taped up in it that she keeps in her purse . Then she said it has to be 1 dime a nickle and 3 pennies . Dw you getting this ? Do you see a parallel notion going on in this superstition . The 5/3 .

Me wife's favorite expression has become O.M.G. While she runs around with her 18 cents . She also has a St. Micheal medallion around her neck she got at a church in Hawaii. The Church were Father Damian cured leprosy. He was given Sainthood a couple years back by the Catholic church . You got to do a miracle to gain Sainthood . I guess curing Leprosy counts as a miracle .

She don't believe in God thou . She knows it is man made because of the sexist slant on the whole matter . Man Made it or Woman would not be a 2nd. class citizen . Pretty good reasoning . So how hard is it to build a Great House . Don't know ? still being built . I thank you all . There's a birdy in your heart . Let it grow . My closed eyes .


Is it just Me ?

Certainly you've read Meister Eckhart? For me, Eckhart represents the pinnacle of the apophatic tradition.

Yes, I forgot about Eckhart. He's great, though if you're looking for apophatic, Pseudo-Dyonysius is the Godfather.

Pseudo-Dyonysius may seem to be too certitudinous, but he's just analytically laying out the structure of our situation of lack of certitude. I love it when he writes things like "God is Beyond God, God is Beyond Being, God is Beyond Beyond..." (just paraphrasing; but trust me -- I'm watering it down).

As for Jacob Boehme, that's where mysticism starts to veer into Gnosticism (speaking of "certitude"...). Then there's Joachim de Fiore and his three phases of history, which Eric Voegelin diagnosed as being the medieval precursor to the modern Gnostic movements like Communism and Nazism.

I'm ok with swearing to Mithra, for the Zend Avesta (chapter 11, IIRC, which is devoted entirely to dogs) states: "The world exists [note: "comes into being" is actually a better rendering] through the understanding of dogs." Although I'm more inclined to Martu: the "god" (for want of a better term) of the Amorites, though more particularly,the "god" of incessant wandering.

There must be a connection there . There is a story of an Amorite King being ripped apart by beasts of burden . Then I think they hacked up the body even into even more pieces . I don't remember if the story directly side that or if it left the impression of it in the story . It goes well with this philosophy where god was fractured into lots of little pieces . I seen symbolism of this nature that reinforces the notion . It makes my mind think of one ant hill yet lots of ants in the hill , or bacteria , or Mold . A blob of mold yet you can take a piece of the mold and grow more mold

Im a google Martu , I bet it is a form of Mitra , Mithra and what have you .
I think the Mittani peoples were Mithra people too . They ruled an area in the old world around Akhenaten's time. I think he was influenced religiously by his Mittani wife who was a Mithra worshiper.

That is so strange ! The Martu People are also an aboriginal people of western Australia on the other side of Gibson Mountain . So strange . I wonder how they got that name ? I wonder if these peoples also buy into the Mekigar thing of other native peoples from Australia ? magical Mekigar . Kind of like a witch doctor of native people in the Americas .

You Aussies know anything about this . James what do you know about the native peoples culture ? Trippy ? There seems to be some kind of parallel to the old world around Mesopotamia. Syria maybe

Question: Why be a atheist? Why not just have faith in a higher power, and be a good person and get into Heaven? Answer: Because a corrupt church can shake even the firmest of believers.

I disagree. In fact, I think everyone is really, deep down, agnostic -- both atheists and all religious people. They are just fooling themselves with their certitude, the one side saying No, the other saying Yes. All we know is Maybe.

Who is certain? Not atheists for sure. Atheists simply don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not faith. It's not a midground between atheism and theism.

Question: Why be a atheist? Why not just have faith in a higher power, and be a good person and get into Heaven? Answer: Because a corrupt church can shake even the firmest of believers.

If I believed in God I wouldn't care what any church did or said, however they wouldn't get my business anymore if they were before. I consider all churches a scam and I don't believe in God. So if I get scammed it won't be by God or his cohorts.

Who is certain? Not atheists for sure. Atheists simply don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not faith. It's not a midground between atheism and theism.

I'm as sure as I can be about anything, that there is no God and while agnosticism may not be a midground it is a refuge of sorts. A way of not committing to one side or the other, regardless of what he/she really believes.

question;

what if a group of believers who shun those kinds of churches, came together with the belief that God is not about those things?

question;

what if a group of believers who shun those kinds of churches, came together with the belief that God is not about those things?

:D You've run into those types too? Anyway the same arguments about proof still apply. When they spout BS and call it proof, I usually make an excuse to leave and then ignore them if I ever see them again.

:D You've run into those types too?
i actually go to one..no politics..you want something done..do it..no committee's, no deacons, no authority structure,(pastor is always making it clear he isn't perfect), there is a science flavor to it, if it isn't backed up by the bible,it really isn't worthy of consideration..(not all of my opinions i have here,have i shared there,but most of them..)

If I believed in God I wouldn't care what any church did or said, however they wouldn't get my business anymore if they were before. I consider all churches a scam and I don't believe in God. So if I get scammed it won't be by God or his cohorts.

Never associate God with a corrupt man made church. Christian's don't walk with God, nor do I, not in life at least. If you don't want to believe in a higher power then thats fine, but millions over time have heard the calling. Its not something one can prove, only believe.

I consider all churches a scam . . . .I hate [the most popular American] religions as much as the next outspoken atheist, but I don't think that statement is fair. In the modern world a church has to be a business to survive, especially in the USA where at the very minimum it has to file IRS forms in order to retain its tax-exempt status.

If you're calling it a scam because it convinces people to believe in imaginary supernatural phenomena and creatures, you need to look a little deeper into it. Churches spring up because people believe in those phenomena and those creatures--Jung calls them archetypes and suggests that we are born with them, perhaps (the following are not Jung's words) as an accident of evolution. Yes eventually many of them become self-serving and hold classes to convince undecided children that religion is truth, but not all. Most children get their religion from their parents, not from a church.
Its not something one can prove, only believe.If it were about anything else, we'd call it a "hunch" and tell you that we're not going to take it seriously until you provide some evidence.

Religion makes people irrational. Entire populations will believe in some utterly ludicrous bullshit, without a single one of them having any evidence.

Wait, excuse me, we have at least one member right here on SciForums who claims that God has talked to her. But that kind of "evidence" would not hold up in a court of law, so why should it be accepted anywhere else?

I hate [the most popular American] religions as much as the next outspoken atheist, but I don't think that statement is fair. In the modern world a church has to be a business to survive, especially in the USA where at the very minimum it has to file IRS forms in order to retain its tax-exempt status.

If you're calling it a scam because it convinces people to believe in imaginary supernatural phenomena and creatures, you need to look a little deeper into it. Churches spring up because people believe in those phenomena and those creatures--Jung calls them archetypes and suggests that we are born with them, perhaps (the following are not Jung's words) as an accident of evolution. Yes eventually many of them become self-serving and hold classes to convince undecided children that religion is truth, but not all. Most children get their religion from their parents, not from a church.If it were about anything else, we'd call it a "hunch" and tell you that we're not going to take it seriously until you provide some evidence.

Religion makes people irrational. Entire populations will believe in some utterly ludicrous bullshit, without a single one of them having any evidence.

Wait, excuse me, we have at least one member right here on SciForums who claims that God has talked to her. But that kind of "evidence" would not hold up in a court of law, so why should it be accepted anywhere else?

Yet you have no evidence that God doesn't exist. How can you criticize my faith, when your has just as little barring as mine. Yes, its a hunch, a belief, its faith. The only real evidence I could give you is life its self. It is SOOOO complex, so impossible, yet its perfect. Think about the millions, upon millions tinny events that had to occur for life to happen.

I use to sleep in church as a kid, I threw an apple at my teacher in kindergarden, I have never been a saint, yet here I am and theres a tinny voice in my head to guide. Weather that be my mind, or something greater I will never no, so I won't even try and figure it out.

Religion is such a out dated concept. Two options here. A. Believe. or B. Don't believe.

agnosticism may not be a midground it is a refuge of sorts.

No it's not. Asking someone if they believe in God and getting the answer 'I'm an agnostic' is not answering the question. There are apparently agnostic theists, who acknowledge it's all about faith, and who don't try and bullshit us that they 'know' God is real or feel his presence.

If Atheism is about belief and agnosticism is about knowledge then I'm an Atheist-Agnostic. I don't believe in God, however I don't know for certain that it does not exist.

If Atheism is about belief and agnosticism is about knowledge then I'm an Atheist-Agnostic. I don't believe in God, however I don't know for certain that it does not exist.

I think all real atheists are agnostics, because someone claiming to know god does not exist should be termed an 'anti-theist'.

Never associate God with a corrupt man made church. Christian's don't walk with God, nor do I, not in life at least. If you don't want to believe in a higher power then thats fine, but millions over time have heard the calling. Its not something one can prove, only believe.

Unfortunately people believe in lots of BS and I'm sure not an exception, but I don't believe in any religious BS. If it can't be proved what's the point of believing in it? Religion is big business, it's also the power of control over large groups of people and a lot of very bad shit has been done in the name of God and the right way to believe in God.

No it's not. Asking someone if they believe in God and getting the answer 'I'm an agnostic' is not answering the question. There are apparently agnostic theists, who acknowledge it's all about faith, and who don't try and bullshit us that they 'know' God is real or feel his presence.

Ahhh! But it could be by a large percentage of people that claim to be agnostic, and I will concede some exceptions. Will that satisfy you?

Yet you have no evidence that God doesn't exist. How can you criticize my faith, when your has just as little barring as mine.You don't understand science and scholarship if you can make a statement like that and expect to be taken seriously.

It is never necessary to provide evidence to prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on the one who asserts the positive.

If this were not the case, then all science and scholarship would grind to a halt as we dissipated our finite resources in proving that every crackpot hypothesis is false. It is always up to the person who presents an assertion to explain what makes him think it is true. It is never everybody else's responsibility to prove it false.
Yes, its a hunch, a belief, its faith.But it's an irrational faith, and that's the key. There is a unbridgeable chasm of difference between rational faith and irrational faith. My wife has stood by me for 34 years, trusting me, relying on me, helping me, guiding me, forgiving me, and loving me without exception. This is plenty of evidence for my totally rational faith that she will continue to do so.

We've had four Mercedes Benz automobiles that were as dependable as the seasons (two of which are still in the family, one for 33 years). This evidence inspired our rational faith that buying a fifth one was a wise decision.

But what evidence does the religionist have to explain his own faith in the existence of an invisible, illogical supernatural universe, filled with creatures and forces that perturb the operation of the natural universe? Science in its current robust form has existed for half a millennium, and no evidence of these creatures and forces, no evidence of their perturbation of the natural universe, no exceptions to the laws of nature, have ever been observed. Despite the fact that literally millions of people would very much like to find one, and get their photo on the cover of Time magazine over the caption, "The Man (or Woman) Who Proved Religion and Disproved Science." The best they can show us is a tortilla, one out of tens of millions manufactured every year, with a random burn pattern said to look (if you squint through one eye) exactly like a figure from the Bible. A figure of whom no portraits exist so we don't actually know what he or she looked like!
The only real evidence I could give you is life its self. It is SOOOO complex, so impossible, yet its perfect. Think about the millions, upon millions tinny events that had to occur for life to happen.Oh geezy weezy, not this balderdash AGAIN!!! I hope you're about fourteen and can be excused for being so silly. For sure you must be an American because my people are incapable of conceptualizing very large numbers. This planet has existed for more than four billion years. Do you have any idea how many random events occur over the course of four billion years? Especially considering that at the beginning the earth was much warmer and was bombarded by significantly more radiation, so molecules were boppin' and poppin' all the time? Do you actually know enough mathematics, physics and chemistry to say with confidence that this biosphere could not have evolved by random mutation from simple molecules that were formed by abiogenesis?

And then please remember that there are close to one septillion (10^24) stars in the universe, and we already know that planets are not exactly a rarity so there are rather a lot of those out there too. And you're still going to tell us that the odds of life occurring at random on just one of them are too small to occur in the thirteen billion years that the universe has been here?

Yet what you insist is not only possible but certain, is that supernatural forces which you cannot describe, which work in ways that do not conform to natural laws, which have never made themselves known, do exist! You dismiss the possible but have faith in something so bizarre that it can't even be described!

That is, indeed, faith of the most stupendously irrational kind. Only a fellow American could have a hunch of such outrageous proportions, and present it as a reasonable hypothesis on a website devoted to science, without being embarrassed.

Science doesn't disprove God, and God doesn't disprove science. Science is how, God is why, and thats that. The day someone proves the universe was created by anything but the supernatural I will come to the table.

The day someone proves the universe was created by anything but the supernatural I will come to the table.

Seems you are behind on your reading, because that proof is already established.

It is never necessary to provide evidence to prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on the one who asserts the positive.


how come i don't ever here you guys cite the 'in the absence of empirical proof any theory is possible' (i know i am seriously paraphrasing it..)

how come i don't ever here you guys cite the 'in the absence of empirical proof any theory is possible' (i know i am seriously paraphrasing it..)
Empirical proof? I'd be happy for evidence...

Anyway, I don't agree that in the absence of any empirical evidence, any theory is possible. I'd probably go so far as to say that in the absence of empirical evidence NO hypothesis is very useful.

Seems you are behind on your reading, because that proof is already established.

Enlighten me.

Enlighten me.

Well, there are these places called 'Libraries',... and books are numbered using the 'Dewey' system, Science books are labelled in the 500's, so you'll need to locate that section, and then go read some.

I suggest you start with basic physics, and work your way up, start at 5th grade texts dealing with Astronomy.

Question: Why be a atheist? Why not just have faith in a higher power, and be a good person and get into Heaven? Answer: Because a corrupt church can shake even the firmest of believers.

I'm an atheist in the ontological sense that my working assumption is that nothing corresponding to the traditional religious deities exists in reality. I'm reasonably confident that's the case.

Part of the reason for that ontological atheism is my epistemological agnosticism. I don't think that the traditional religions' claims about their own special revelations are credible and I don't know of any way that human beings can come to know about what are ostensibly transcendental things.

So that's the answer to your question. I don't have faith in any "higher powers" because I don't know of any higher powers to have faith in. Nor do I know of any place called "heaven" or know what somebody might have to do to get into such a place, if it existed.

Obviously I have some familiarity with what the Christian and other religious traditions say about this stuff, but I'm not convinced that the ancient religious traditions possess any real answers to the big questions.

question;

what if a group of believers who shun those kinds of churches, came together with the belief that God is not about those things?

There are lots of more or less free-lance religious people out there. Millions of them.

In terms of ARIS, the American Religious Identification Survey (the original topic of the thread), I think that free-lance Christian believers would probably fall into the 'Christian, Generic' category. ARIS reports that this is the fourth largest religious grouping in the US, with 32.441 million people, 14.2% of the adult population. My impression is that the contents of this grouping are heterogeneous, ranging from store-front fundamentalist churches to virtual non-believers who nevertheless still want to label themselves 'Christians'.

Many free-lance religious people explore more broadly than that and don't just restrict themselves to Christianity. That's the signature of the 'New Age' tendency, a kind of religious eclecticism where people adopt selected aspects of whatever traditions appeal to them, typically ending up with kind of a personal mix that's unique to them. ARIS classifies these people in the 'New Religious Movements and Other' category. This numbers 2.804 million people and 1.2% of the American adult population.

It's interesting and significant that while the 'Christian Generic' category has held steady at about 14% since 1990, the non-Christian 'NRM and Other' category has grown rapidly, from 0.8% in 1990 to 1.2% in 2008, a rise of 50% in percentage terms while more than doubling in numerical terms.

how come i don't ever here you guys cite the 'in the absence of empirical proof any theory is possible' (i know i am seriously paraphrasing it..)For starters, you mean "hypothesis." In science a theory is a hypothesis that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. (Scientists don't phrase it that way but there are so many legal dramas on TV that more Americans know legal language than scientific.)

It is certainly correct to say that anything which has not been proven impossible is (duh?) possible. Nonetheless, the Rule of Laplace is used to allocate science's scarce resources in the most productive way. Laplace's original statement was: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." Carl Sagan restated this as: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I have fleshed this out to: "Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect."

Without this rule, scientists would be run ragged debunking every half-wit hypothesis, and they'd never get any real work done. Civilization would grind to a halt while we patiently tend to a five-mile queue of crackpots. Instead, anything which, indeed, may be possible, but clearly has a probability expressed as a decimal point with quite a long string of intervening zeroes before the first significant digit, will not be accepted as a project by the community of scientists unless its supporter is willing to provide the funding. Otherwise the responsibility falls upon the supporter.

Note that this is not a rejection of the hypothesis, but a prioritization.

Typical hypotheses that can be immediately categorized as "extraordinary:"I know that XYZ was discovered so long ago that it's been a fundamental component of the canon of science for centuries, is in all the textbooks, and has been tested aggressively for all those centuries without ever coming close to being falsified. Nonetheless, it is indeed false. I may only be in my sophomore year of physics, but I've found the flaw in the Theory of Relativity. I know what science says, but my religion's holy book disagrees. This came to me in a dream last night and I need the money to test it. My father was a very wise man and he always insisted that this is true. I just found this tortilla with a perfect image of Eve's face on it. Yes I understand that no portraits of Eve exist, but I'd know her anywhere.
Enlighten me.I'm sure I already posted this on this thread. The Big Bang can be seen as nothing more or less than a local reversal of entropy: organization exists where there was none a moment ago. The Second Law of Thermodynamics clearly allows for spatially and temporally local reversals of entropy. Yes, it appears to be a rather large reversal (and what, pray tell, do we have for a reference standard anyway? It's the only one we know of!) but the Second Law does not impose any maximum size on them. For all we know, Big Bangs may occur at rare intervals, (one googolplex years?) at enormous distances from each other (one googolplex light-years?). We'd certainly have no way of ever knowing!

For starters, you mean "hypothesis."
i couldn't remember it the way i heard it..do you know which one i am referring?


"Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect."
yes,but with proper respect shown to the 'crackpots',they can be educated.(some anyway..)


half-wit hypothesis,five-mile queue of crackpots.
cute..and understood..


willing to provide the funding. Otherwise the responsibility falls upon the supporter.
eck..money screws the ideal up..

Note that this is not a rejection of the hypothesis, but a prioritization.
noted..



and has been tested aggressively for all those centuries without ever coming close to being falsified. Nonetheless, it is indeed false.
that says it hasn't been tested to be true ..(just because X=1 and Y=2 does not make C=3)..?


I may only be in my sophomore year of physics, but I've found the flaw in the Theory of Relativity.
and a chance that in the discussion to educate the flaw,both would learn..

I know what science says, but my religion's holy book disagrees.
an excuse to not think.

This came to me in a dream last night and I need the money to test it.
and usually everyone hears just the 'I need money' part..(specially when you have to prioritize..what better measure?:rolleyes:)


My father was a very wise man and he always insisted that this is true.
actually it would be my Mom..(she was never wrong..:rolleyes:)

I just found this tortilla with a perfect image of Eve's face on it. Yes I understand that no portraits of Eve exist, but I'd know her anywhere.
hmm..could work with the Elvis potato,the cheese shaped like Mary,and of course the Jesus shaped bacon..

You sciency fucks (thats from the bottom, or top.. idk the good part of my heart) are over complicating it. If you don't belong to a religion you have no reason to follow its guidlines. A religion is nothing more than a social club. The Vatican has hosted a satanic Pope, and Cardinals, this Im sure of.

Faith is the name of the game. We will never disprove God, never ever ever never never never ever.

You sciency fucks (thats from the bottom, or top.. idk the good part of my heart) are over complicating it. If you don't belong to a religion you have no reason to follow its guidlines. A religion is nothing more than a social club. The Vatican has hosted a satanic Pope, and Cardinals, this Im sure of.

Faith is the name of the game. We will never disprove God, never ever ever never never never ever.

That's an attitude that will get you far on this forum and I can't say I approve of your choice of social club and faith is nothing more than pathetic hope that you are right in your belief.

You might get roughed up a bit on a science forum but did you really expect anything else, when you flaunt your belief in God the way you do? But think about this, as atheist we had to grow up in a religious world, that wasn't much fun either and still isn't if I want go about about flaunting my atheism. The only atheist I know are right here on this science forum. This is my social club and as far as God goes there's nothing to disprove, and if you want to believe in the tooth fairy I don't really care very much as long as you keep it to yourself.

That's an attitude that will get you far on this forum and I can't say I approve of your choice of social club and faith is nothing more than pathetic hope that you are right in your belief.

You might get roughed up a bit on a science forum but did you really expect anything else, when you flaunt your belief in God the way you do? But think about this, as atheist we had to grow up in a religious world, that wasn't much fun either and still isn't if I want go about about flaunting my atheism. The only atheist I know are right here on this science forum. This is my social club and as far as God goes there's nothing to disprove, and if you want to believe in the tooth fairy I don't really care very much as long as you keep it to yourself.

Alright, perfect. /thread.

Faith is the name of the game. We will never disprove God, never ever ever never never never ever.

The responsibility for proof falls on the one making the claim of the existence of something. As for disproving God, we should never try to disprove a negative.

The responsibility for proof falls on the one making the claim of the existence of something. As for disproving God, we should never try to disprove a negative.

No, I have a world to straighten out, literally. I have far more important things to do than prove something I know is there. If you can't see it, I can't show you.

We will never disprove God, never ever ever never never never ever.

That's only because it's not a real idea.

That's only because it's not a real idea.

This argument is pointless. I'm right, your wrong. I win!

It's not pointless, I made a point.

No, I have a world to straighten out, literally. I have far more important things to do than prove something I know is there. If you can't see it, I can't show you.Then you're not much of a scientist, are you? I wonder why you're even here.

All science is peer-reviewed. You have to be able to show what you've found to others. If not the thing itself, then the empirical and/or logical evidence that plainly proves its reality. If we can't see it, then no one is obliged to treat your assertion with respect. That's how science works. It's no different from the precocious sophomore who insists that he's found the flaw in the Theory of Relativity, and when his professor reviews his calculations he finds it riddled with math errors.

Well actually it is different, because that kid at least tried to show us evidence. You guys just insist that we should take your word for it! Yeah right. And I've got a really sweet piece of real estate in Florida that I'll let you have for just $100K. It's lovely, you can take my word for it.

This is why we have no respect for religion (and all other types of supernaturalism) on SciForums. No one has ever presented any evidence that withstood a peer review.

And worse yet, they don't understand why that's a problem!

Then you're not much of a scientist, are you? I wonder why you're even here.

All science is peer-reviewed. You have to be able to show what you've found to others. If not the thing itself, then the empirical and/or logical evidence that plainly proves its reality. If we can't see it, then no one is obliged to treat your assertion with respect. That's how science works. It's no different from the precocious sophomore who insists that he's found the flaw in the Theory of Relativity, and when his professor reviews his calculations he finds it riddled with math errors.

Well actually it is different, because that kid at least tried to show us evidence. You guys just insist that we should take your word for it! Yeah right. And I've got a really sweet piece of real estate in Florida that I'll let you have for just $100K. It's lovely, you can take my word for it.

This is why we have no respect for religion (and all other types of supernaturalism) on SciForums. No one has ever presented any evidence that withstood a peer review.

And worse yet, they don't understand why that's a problem!

God IS NOT SCIENCE. You know God doesn't exist.. But you have no understanding what so ever of what God is, only human speculation on his workings. Why do you even question it, I mean you don't have to prove the negative, right? The only difference between you and I is I have faith in the existence, you have faith in none.

God is not to be questioned, only accepted, or not accepted. Make your choice.

Furthermore, if there were no God I would be God, so therefore there is a God.*/thread

Science can just as much answer questions about god as it can about bees. If god has an effect on the physical world, it can be studied.

Science can just as much answer questions about god as it can about bees. If god has an effect on the physical world, it can be studied.

Such as for God the Supernatural Theity who is even supposed to be everywhere doing everything; yet, only the natural is found.

Science can just as much answer questions about god as it can about bees. If god has an effect on the physical world, it can be studied.

God is why, not how.

This is why we have no respect for religion (and all other types of supernaturalism) on SciForums. No one has ever presented any evidence that withstood a peer review.


science is usually validated with peer review by other scientist..

religion is usually validated with peer review by other believers..


peer    
–noun
1.
a person of the same legal status: a jury of one's peers.
2.
a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.
3.
something of equal worth or quality: a sky-scraper without peer.

so to invalidate religion because no scientist can validate it is in error.
its like you are asking a medical doctor to review a Quantum singularity paper..you (as scientist) are not qualified to 'peer' review any theist statement.

definition #2 applies to your argument, and there is no equal ability/qualification/age/background/ and social status between theist and scientists for to be considered 'peer' reviewed here at this site.

religion is usually validated with peer review by other believers..

There are no peers in the business of trying to make wishes into something.

There are no peers in the business of trying to make wishes into something.

You are a fool. You stay on the same argument, and thats critization. If you don't have faith, then cool, don't try to kill others faith.

You are a fool. You stay on the same argument, and thats critization. If you don't have faith, then cool, don't try to kill others faith.

They can have it, but it is only wishes, as there is nothing more to show, and that is wisdom, not foolishness.

"God cannot be known," as you said in another thread, it all being speculative nonsense.

science is usually validated with peer review by other scientist..

religion is usually validated with peer review by other believers..

I can see the point you're trying to make. But religion's "validation" can vary from simple discussion to killing the other believers. Religion is also not too hung up on reproducibility for that validation, indeed believers may not often question a miracle, but just accept that it happened, particularly if it helps their own personal faith.

They can have it, but it is only wishes, as there is nothing more to show, and that is wisdom, not foolishness.

"God cannot be known," as you said in another thread, it all being speculative nonsense.

So we agree. There is no way of knowing of God, so any discussion about him is speculative nonsense. /thread

God is why, not how.

That's a statement of faith, not a rational argument.

That's a statement of faith, not a rational argument.

/thread

science is usually validated with peer review by other scientist. religion is usually validated with peer review by other believers.The basic premise that underlies all science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. Anyone who claims that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, from which creatures and other forces whimsically and often angrily interfere with the functioning of the natural universe, is clearly asserting that science is false. By making this claim he steps out of his own academy and into ours! This gives us not merely the right, but the obligation to peer-review his preposterous assertion and toss him out on his butt.
so to invalidate religion because no scientist can validate it is in error. its like you are asking a medical doctor to review a Quantum singularity paper.You disingenuously speak of the doctrines of religion as though they are as deep and complicated as the Theory of Relativity. They are not. It doesn't take a PhD in religion--or even in science!--to understand that there is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural universe.

I'll leave them their "angels dancing on a pin" controversies to argue among themselves. But when they call science wrong, which is what they do the first time the meaningless word "God" comes out of their mouths, they have crossed the line.
there is no equal ability/qualification/age/background/ and social status between theist and scientists for to be considered 'peer' reviewed here at this site.This is a science website. Anything posted here can legitimately be analyzed with the methods of science. Duh?

Why are we having this argument? I already agree with you guys. We CAN NOT KNOW OF GOD. WE CAN NOT!! The same thing would happen that happens in King Kong. We would try and put him on display and sell tickets, and pop corn.. the only difference is he would smite us all. There is no "logical argument" for God except billions of people around the world, and through time have always had a understanding of a creator. Every civilization has shared this sort of belief. Why? When is not a coincidence any more?

Hey, even though, I, "The Voice of Reason," fully understand your argument, and accept it yet I still maintain my faith, and trust me, I am not a stubborn man, have faith in that.

The basic premise that underlies all science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. Anyone who claims that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, from which creatures and other forces whimsically and often angrily interfere with the functioning of the natural universe, is clearly asserting that science is false. By making this claim he steps out of his own academy and into ours! This gives us not merely the right, but the obligation to peer-review his preposterous assertion and toss him out on his butt.You disingenuously speak of the doctrines of religion as though they are as deep and complicated as the Theory of Relativity. They are not. It doesn't take a PhD in religion--or even in science!--to understand that there is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural universe.

I'll leave them their "angels dancing on a pin" controversies to argue among themselves. But when they call science wrong, which is what they do the first time the meaningless word "God" comes out of their mouths, they have crossed the line.This is a science website. Anything posted here can legitimately be analyzed with the methods of science. Duh?

You are a fool. So, so smart, but a fool. Can't you see? Use this logic. God can either A. Exist, or B. Not exist. Correct? Can we agree on that? If he does exist, and you keep faith, and live as a "good man" you get into Heaven. Thats ALL you have to do. So simple. No test's, no fee's, nothing. Why not just keep the faith?

For if you don't.. If he isn't real, then so be it.. then you just die and go back to the earth to be forgotten over time. You don't lose anything. If God isn't real, weather you had faith in him or not, when you die your going to the same place as anyone else, and thats in the ground, but if he is real and you had faith then you go to heaven, if you didn't have faith then you don't.

You are a fool. So, so smart, but a fool. Can't you see? Use this logic. God can either A. Exist, or B. Not exist. Correct? Can we agree on that? If he does exist, and you keep faith, and live as a "good man" you get into Heaven. Thats ALL you have to do. So simple. No test's, no fee's, nothing. Why not just keep the faith?

For if you don't.. If he isn't real, then so be it.. then you just die and go back to the earth to be forgotten over time. You don't lose anything. If God isn't real, weather you had faith in him or not, when you die your going to the same place as anyone else, and thats in the ground, but if he is real and you had faith then you go to heaven, if you didn't have faith then you don't.

What you are suggesting is something very close to the following:


Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that even if the existence of God could not be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Pascal formulated his suggestion uniquely on the God of Jesus Christ as implied by the greater context of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics. The Wager was set out in note 233 of this work.

Following his argument establishing the Wager, Pascal addressed the possibility that some people may not be willing to sincerely believe in God even after acknowledging the enormous benefit of betting in favor of God's existence. In this case, he advises them to live as though they had faith, which may subvert their irrational passions and lead them to genuine belief.

Following the publication of Pascal's Wager, some have argued that the Wager may also apply to conceptions of God within different religious traditions or belief systems, and as such has been used in traditions other than Christianity, such as Islam. Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated future philosophies such as existentialism, pragmatism, and voluntarism.
There's more on Wikipedia, but I have to say the idea you are suggesting turns my stomach. To beleve in a fairytail on the chance that it might be true is just so wrong on so many levels.

For if you don't.. If he isn't real, then so be it.. then you just die and go back to the earth to be forgotten over time. You don't lose anything. If God isn't real, weather you had faith in him or not, when you die your going to the same place as anyone else, and thats in the ground, but if he is real and you had faith then you go to heaven, if you didn't have faith then you don't.

The problem with Pascal's wager is that it assumes you lose nothing by having faith. If God turns out not to exist, then having faith may actually take up time and effort that you could better spend doing other things. It may even be harmful because if your beliefs about the world are actually false you may act in ways that are not conducive to your health and wellbeing.

One example might be somebody who decides that suicide bombing is the "faithful" thing to do, just in case God exists. If God turns out not to exist, then that person has blown himself up for a false belief.

Another example might be those who withhold proper healthcare from themselves or those they love due to the "faith" that god will heal them.

The basic premise that underlies all science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior.
the only thing i will make comment on this,where is the evidence for a closed system? other than that i agree


Anyone who claims that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, from which creatures and other forces whimsically and often angrily interfere with the functioning of the natural universe, is clearly asserting that science is false. By making this claim he steps out of his own academy and into ours!
true enough..then isn't it the scientists (or amateur scientists) responsibility to NOT pigeonhole that persons claims into that of ALL believers?
in science if there is exception to a rule,then the rule does not apply..


This gives us not merely the right, but the obligation to peer-review his preposterous assertion and toss him out on his butt.You disingenuously speak of the doctrines of religion as though they are as deep and complicated as the Theory of Relativity.
i do not claim God invalidates science, and i think it irresponsible for a believer to do so, in fact i have argued that God and science can exist together.(why can't God be natural?)


They are not. It doesn't take a PhD in religion--or even in science!--to understand that there is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural universe.
again..i argue science is looking for evidence in the wrong places.


I'll leave them their "angels dancing on a pin" controversies to argue among themselves. But when they call science wrong, which is what they do the first time the meaningless word "God" comes out of their mouths, they have crossed the line.This is a science website. Anything posted here can legitimately be analyzed with the methods of science. Duh?

you cannot get an accurate measurement if you are trying to use the wrong test equipment.

but..like i said earlier..it is very irresponsible of religion to dismiss science.
but it is also irresponsible of science to argue the same way..

religionist: there is no science..
science: there is no God..

see how immature it sounds?

R: yes there is..
S: no there isn't..

just because religion invalidates science is not a reason for science to invalidate God.

Im done. I'll keep my faith.

(why can't God be natural?)

From Wikipedia:

Within the various uses of the word today, "nature" often refers to geology and wildlife. Nature may refer to the general realm of various types of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects – the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth, and the matter and energy of which all these things are composed. It is often taken to mean the "natural environment" or wilderness–wild animals, rocks, forest, beaches, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. For, example, manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, "human nature" or "the whole of nature". This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind. Depending on the particular context, the term "natural" might also be distinguished from the unnatural, the supernatural, or synthetic.

While humans are considered natural, what they create is not. Therefore, we can assume that the creation of any mind is not natural. That being the case if there was a God and he did create the universe, then that universe would not be nateral.

Im done.

I'll believe that when I see it.

You are a fool. So, so smart, but a fool. Can't you see? Use this logic. God can either A. Exist, or B. Not exist. Correct? Can we agree on that? If he does exist, and you keep faith, and live as a "good man" you get into Heaven. Thats ALL you have to do. So simple. No test's, no fee's, nothing. Why not just keep the faith?

For if you don't.. If he isn't real, then so be it.. then you just die and go back to the earth to be forgotten over time. You don't lose anything. If God isn't real, weather you had faith in him or not, when you die your going to the same place as anyone else, and thats in the ground, but if he is real and you had faith then you go to heaven, if you didn't have faith then you don't.

False choices. There could be your god, or there could any one of an infinite number of gods and various scenarios... or no gods at all. If there is a god, we are all good because of his infinite wisdom and forgiveness. If there isn't a god, then theists are wasting their time and harming people with their fear and guilt about sin.

While humans are considered natural, what they create is not. Therefore, we can assume that the creation of any mind is not natural.<your phrasing suggest humans create minds> That being the case if there was a God and he did create the universe, then that universe would not be nateral.

why wouldn't it? one does not exempt the other. it is not logical to assume that if the universe was created, then it is not natural.(your wiki definition of natural)
i argue that God created evolution, and thereby is able to influence its processes.

If you were capable of creating a universe, would you create it in such a way that you could not interact with it?

If you were capable of creating a universe, would you create it in such a way that you could not interact with it?
Depends, why am I creating a universe? Is it a work of art? Is it a science experiment? Is it a musical instrument? Am I bored and I just like to fuck with stuff? Am I playing a game with my little brother, Satan? Am I a kid with an ant farm?

Am I a kid with an ant farm?

to the ant any interaction could be considered supernatural,when it is perfectly natural.

You are a fool.Perhaps so. But at least I don't believe in silly fairytales like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and gods, like a four year-old.
God can either A. Exist, or B. Not exist. Correct? Can we agree on that? If he does exist, and you keep faith, and live as a "good man" you get into Heaven. Thats ALL you have to do. So simple. No test's, no fee's, nothing. Why not just keep the faith?Talk about being "a fool." You ignore the history of your own people because to do otherwise would be inconvenient. The religious definition of "living as a good man" varies from era to era, from community to community, from religion to religion, and even from one little sect within that religion to another. At various times, in various places, in various faiths, and in various cults within those faiths, it has required the slaughter of entire populations, the destruction of entire civilizations, the persecution of scholars, the rejection of our most loyal companions (dogs), the burning of libraries, the destruction of art, the suppression of music, the treatment of women and various minorities as second-class citizens, the rejection of medical treatment, and so many other things that can only be called "sins" that it threatens my self-imposed limit on sentence length.

You happen to be (presumably) a mainstream Protestant Christian at a time and in a place where mainstream Protestant Christian leaders guide their followers into ethical behavior. But it has not always been so. Read up on the Reformation, a period of almost non-stop warfare among competing sects. Or the support of the pious German Lutherans for Hitler. The American churches who advocated cleansing the land of Indians and/or enslaving Africans. In any case you Protestants are newcomers. When you've had as long a history as the Catholics, perhaps you too will have destroyed a couple of "heathen" civilizations. Muslims think their religion is just as unerring as you do, and look at what it has inspired a whole lot of them to do? The Jews finally stopped being persecuted and to celebrate they've decided to persecute somebody else.

As I pointed out earlier, the followers of the Abrahamic religions have, averaged over time, perpetrated far more evil than good on this planet. As I already noted, there is no way to atone for the complete annihilation of two Bronze Age civilizations. This is something that can never be forgiven, and this is as good a reason as any to be wary, skeptical and intolerant of Christianity forever.

Is this what you want me to do in order to make God happy? Fuck the bastard! I would much rather be absorbed back into the earth when I die, than to live for all eternity with crap like that on my conscience and some powerful crazy evil leering creature from another dimension praising me for it.
. . . .but if he is real and you had faith then you go to heaven, if you didn't have faith then you don't.There are worse things than not going to heaven. Being a complete asshole because the leaders of your religion tell you God wants it is on top of the list.
the only thing i will make comment on this, where is the evidence for a closed system?It is never necessary to prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on the person who asserts the positive. If someone claims that there is indeed an invisible, illogical supernatural universe from which creatures and other forces act to thwart the natural forces of this universe, it is up to them to provide the supporting evidence. There is none.
. . . . science is looking for evidence in the wrong places.The natural universe is the only place there is. This principle has undergone such rigorous testing for so long without coming close to being falsified, that any contradiction of it now falls into the category of "extraordinary assertions" so the Rule of Laplace applies. The person making the assertion must provide extraordinary supporting evidence (e.g., not something their father told them) before we are obliged to treat them with respect. SciForums is not an academy so the rules are relaxed, but we still demand ordinary evidence and no one has even been able to show us that. The best we've got is "God is in my mind." Yeah there are lots of wackos out there with weird shit in their minds.
you cannot get an accurate measurement if you are trying to use the wrong test equipment.I see that metaphors can be carefully chosen to deflect an argument. Our "test equipment" is the entire natural universe. Pray tell what else is there? Something imaginary?
it is very irresponsible of religion to dismiss science.Most don't. Many church-supported universities have fine science departments whose graduates go on to achieve greatness.
. . . . but it is also irresponsible of science to argue the same way.Aside from a few loudmouths like Dawkins who give us all a bad name, most of us don't go around making that argument. However, this is a science website and this subforum is called "Comparative Religion," so if you come here you should have a reasonable expectation that this is one of the few places where that argument will be taking place. Duh?
just because religion invalidates science is not a reason for science to invalidate God.Indeed. The reason to invalidate gods is the Rule of Laplace. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, to use Sagan's more concise 20th-century version.
While humans are considered natural, what they create is not. Therefore, we can assume that the creation of any mind is not natural. That being the case if there was a God and he did create the universe, then that universe would not be nateral.This argument is taken from philosophy. This is not one of the philosophy boards and to use it here is disingenuous. In the context of science, the natural universe is governed by the laws of nature. Humans are components of the natural universe and everything we do obeys those laws. To arbitrarily say that what humans do is unnatural, while the nests that birds build and the sticks that chimpanzees fashion into tools are not, is to adopt the anthropocentric model of the universe that seduces the religionists. "We're here so we must be special. Even God thinks so."

The supernatural universe postulated by the religionists and other supernaturalists is said not to be subject to the laws of nature. This is why gods and other fantastic creatures (allegedly) can appear and disappear at will, why they can change the weather, why they can set bushes on fire, why they can turn people into salt, and (my personal favorite) why they can raise sea level worldwide to an elevation that far exceeds the total mass of water molecules on, in, and around the planet.

This is what is not natural, because if it actually happened it would violate several natural laws. Cutting down a tree, chopping it up into pieces, and reassembling it into a house does not violate any of the laws of nature. It appears to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics by increasing order, but it does so by decreasing order in the surrounding areas by a greater amount, so no actual violation has occurred.

It is never necessary to prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on the person who asserts the positive.
i can see that in the court system..if someone accuses you of being a child molester,the burden of proof is on you to prove you are not..(how does one do that?)
but then again the same argument applies to murderers also..(cept the opposite)


If someone claims that there is indeed an invisible, illogical supernatural universe from which creatures and other forces act to thwart the natural forces of this universe
i still argue that God does not have to be supernatural as defined by man these days..God made nature,he is perfectly capable of working within his own creation without the need for any 'super'.


SciForums is not an academy so the rules are relaxed, but we still demand ordinary evidence and no one has even been able to show us that.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,
i don't claim extraordinary..i claim ordinary,natural..

i don't claim extraordinary..i claim ordinary,natural..

You claim an entity which operates without regard to the known laws of physics.

This is extraordinary and supernatural, not withstanding your claims that it is not.

You claim an entity which operates without regard to the known laws of physics.
you are either stereotyping or just not paying attention..
see this thread.. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=108524)

No Squirrel, you're simply using semantics to support an unsupportable position.

No Squirrel, you're simply using semantics to support an unsupportable position.

since when is ANY supposition/claim/theory/idea/whatever about God, accepted by the non-believer?
it all comes down to Respect those that don't believe the same as you.

i do not believe that God has to be supernatural to exist.
i do not believe in God as an excuse to dismiss science.(hence why i am here on a science board.)
i actually have a limited science degree..(if one counts electronics as science)

i can see that in the court system..if someone accuses you of being a child molester,the burden of proof is on you to prove you are not..(how does one do that?)That is not true in the United States. The accuser must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you have committed a crime, before you can be convicted. This means that the jury must vote unanimously against you or you walk out free. This is one of the reasons why a defendant is not required to testify. The burden of proof is not his.

Of course in the "court of public opinion" the rules do not apply. I'm free to believe that O.J. did it. I can refuse to rent him an apartment, to sell him groceries, to let him join my club or to give him a job. But the government must honor the verdict, which means they can't put him in jail.

In the case of child molestation (a quaint term from my day) most Americans today assume guilt, even though we all remember being children and lying our asses off to adults every time we opened our mouths. This has caused many tragedies. When the children grow up and decide to clear their consciences by telling the truth, lives have already been ruined.
i still argue that God does not have to be supernatural as defined by man these days. God made nature,he is perfectly capable of working within his own creation without the need for any 'super'. i don't claim extraordinary..i claim ordinary,natural.You seem to be in the realm of the Cosmic Watchmaker hypothesis. Since we haven't yet unlocked all the mysteries of the Big Bang (I say it was merely a very large temporally and spatially local reversal of entropy, which the Second Law clearly permits, but I agree that just a tiny amount of supporting evidence would be nice) we haven't completely ruled out the possibility that somebody put it together, wound it up, and is sitting there passively watching his own creation run down its spring to a state of maximum entropy, perhaps not even being able to predict everything it will do along the way.

The problem with this is that it does not answer the question of where the universe came from, but merely expands it. The definition of the universe is "everything that exists." Clearly this dude exists or he wouldn't be able to go around manipulating enormous quantities of matter and energy. Therefore he is part of the universe, which is now waaaay larger (and surely more complicated) than we thought it was.

So okay dude, where did he come from? You haven't answered the question. All you did was make it harder.

it all comes down to Respect those that don't believe the same as you.



I can respect a person and still think their belief is a crock of shit.


i do not believe that God has to be supernatural to exist.


If your god operates outside of and without regard of the laws of physics, it is supernatural.

If your god operates according to the laws of physics, it's redundent and an unnecessary complication.

So okay dude, where did he come from? You haven't answered the question. All you did was make it harder.

yea,right,like i really know where God comes from..

I can respect a person and still think their belief is a crock of shit.
you can also show respect by saying you don't believe the same without insulting their beliefs..

BTW saying someone else's beliefs are a crock, is not respect.

it all comes down to Respect those that don't believe the same as you.

Then how about you setting an example?

How about you respecting us?

Then how about you setting an example?

How about you respecting us?
where the hell did that question come from???

i have been..i have never told anyone that their beliefs are wrong,bullshit, or anything like that..all i have been doing is sharing what i believe and answering questions..

does anyone else here think i have showed any lack of respect?

yea,right,like i really know where God comes from..Well then you'd better get started, hadn't you? Science is all about solving mysteries, not throwing our hands up in the air and saying, "Oh shit, I'll never figure this out so I might as well give up.."
you can also show respect by saying you don't believe the same without insulting their beliefs. BTW saying someone else's beliefs are a crock, is not respect.Some beliefs are patently ridiculous and do not merit respect. We are not obliged to respect the toddler's belief that Santa Claus delivered all his Christmas presents, nor the Redneck's belief that people with dark skin have low IQs and hyperactive libidos, nor the religionist's belief that the operation of the natural universe is perturbed by forces emanating from an invisible, illogical supernatural universe who talk to him--but only inside his head.

didn't someone say something about being good to get into heaven? that is not the point of being 'good' or ethical. it's for it's own cause to produce more good. this type of reasoning is why people have been able to be talked into doing atrocious things in the name of religion or gods because they are not actually considering how that what they are doing is atrocious in itself.

heaven, metaphorically explained, is supposed to be a place where that good is honored or is totally abundant.

"Some beliefs are patently ridiculous and do not merit respect. We are not obliged to respect the toddler's belief that Santa Claus delivered all his Christmas presents, nor the Redneck's belief that people with dark skin have low IQs and hyperactive libidos, nor the religionist's belief that the operation of the natural universe is perturbed by forces emanating from an invisible, illogical supernatural universe who talk to him--but only inside his head.

U1, God is a purple unicorn.
U2, if you want to believe that God is a little purple unicorn,that is fine,i do not believe that,nor will you convince me of such. you are allowed to believe what you want to believe, just as I am allowed to believe what i believe.

no disrespect shown to user or idea,and communicated own disbelief.

btw most of the more wild beliefs will eventually be rethought,there is an element of validity that changes ones beliefs over time..
(if no one else believed that God is a purple unicorn, the belief would eventually die)

yea,right,like i really know where God comes from..

That pretty much settles the "where" question, doesn't it?

Would you happen to know more about the "when" part? When was it that this God of yours created the Universe? Was it 14-15 billion years ago, as the current understanding of Science indicates? Or some other time?

Fragile rocker, you are just missing it. There is nothing to know. Just look inside and see what it means to be a man, and be a good one. Every man child and woman can naturally act in a godly manner with out influence of devilish media, or society. There is nothing to understand, just give it up.

Would you happen to know more about the "when" part? When was it that this God of yours created the Universe? Was it 14-15 billion years ago, as the current understanding of Science indicates? Or some other time?

in my opinion, the age of the earth question is moot. IOW it is just a point to create division and hatred.
speaking of which..has it ever occured to anyone that there is a difference between the science of the universe and the science of the mind?
scientist seem to focus on the science and discount God because of it..(yes i realize religion does the same(focus on the science that is))

IOW all arguments about God that brings science into the mix to try and validate God is in error,(i admit i get caught up in some of those arguments also)
But God is not about the science,its about how we behave and treat each other, its about relationships, whether it be man to man, or man to God.
(according to religious texts)

in my opinion, the age of the earth question is moot.
No, it's a valid question to a person who is interested in science.

Fragile rocker, you are just missing it. There is nothing to know. Just look inside and see what it means to be a man, and be a good one. Every man child and woman can naturally act in a godly manner with out influence of devilish media, or society. There is nothing to understand, just give it up.

If we can act good without god, then there is no need for god, and god is no explanation for goodness.

No, it's a valid question to a person who is interested in science.

yes, but not a valid premise to discount God..(IMO)

i watched a Stephen Hawking special last night, comparing religion and science, he did a fair job of positing that God was not needed to create the universe, (with the exception of his reasoning of how the big bang could be natural)
where he lost me was at the end when he concluded that God doesn't exist because he could not have created the universe, that only invalidates genesis, not God.

If we can act good without god, then there is no need for god, and god is no explanation for goodness.

maybe not an explanation, but if someone uses God as an excuse to be/do good,then he is validated.

this argument also brings up the question of, if everyone on the planet were to be/do good things, would religion still exist?

American Atheists (http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:393956) and metal crosses at ground zero

American Atheists (http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:393956) and metal crosses at ground zero

Ha!

When was it that this God of yours created the Universe?


in my opinion, the age of the earth question is moot.


No, it's a valid question to a person who is interested in science.

I was actually inquiring about the Universe, not Earth, creation. As far as I understand it, there's a gap of about 10 billion years between these two events.

Which kind of leads to another interesting (for some) question: does the Christian (or any of the other major religion) dogma recognizes that the Universe existed long before the Earth?

If it does, I wonder if there's any speculation as to what was God doing for the first 10 billion years (or whatever long is assumed to have been the interval until Earth got created) of the Universe?

Could he have played around creating life in other places? You know, kind of experimenting before finally proceeding to the Adam and Eve project? (Unlikely, I guess, since the Christians insist we are special in God's eyes. So The Man must necessarily be the one and only such creation. But then again, so was the Earth in the first iterations of the Christian dogma -- a place around which the Sun, and pretty much all the rest of the Universe, was rotating. That bit got updated once Science proved it wrong. So the safe bet will be to expect a similar update if/when Science gets proof of extra-terrestrial life.)

Or maybe he kept busy creating all the billions of billions of stars, planets, and other such cosmic objects? (Not really, I guess. He's all-powerful, so he could have created them all (except Earth, which within the working hypothesis assumes a later date creation) at the same time. No need to spend billions of years doing it.)

If we can act good without god, then there is no need for god, and god is no explanation for goodness.

forget it. do what thou wilt and see were that gets you.

forget it. do what thou wilt and see were that gets you.

This is a discussion forum, not an advice/support forum.

forget it. do what thou wilt and see were that gets you.

I seem to be doing just fine. I guess God loves atheists! He must be trying to teach you a lesson.

IF life were never to be found on other planets,

God must have realized how screwed up it was to let his creations choose for themselves and decided never to do it again..

There are too many planets to be sure of that.

This is a discussion forum, not an advice/support forum.

God is not to be discussed, to discuss something is to act as you know of it. I know nothing of God, and you know less.

God is not to be discussed, to discuss something is to act as you know of it. I know nothing of God, and you know less.

Yet you speak of God as if it exists. Major myth-take, and dishonest, too.

I know nothing of God, and you know less.

How exactly can someone know less than nothing about anything? That can only work with people that have negative height and weight, me thinks...

IF life were never to be found on other planets,

God must have realized how screwed up it was to let his creations choose for themselves and decided never to do it again..

God must have realized? You mean like in he didn't already knew everything there is to be known in the entire Universe and beyond? Therefore, at some later time after whatever action he must have realized such and such? Boy, you must be talking about the wrong God.

God must have realized? You mean like in he didn't already knew everything there is to be known in the entire Universe and beyond? Therefore, at some later time after whatever action he must have realized such and such? Boy, you must be talking about the wrong God.

dunno how much you have studied about God.
but there is a current belief that God made the angels first,angels have to do as they are told by God, God seen this and decided to create humanity and give them the ability to choose..

does this mean God made a mistake when he created angels?
why didn't he just bypass the angels and go straight to Man?

And what's with this Satan dude? What the hell did he create him for? And isn't he an angel? Why doesn't he just do what he's told?

dunno how much you have studied about God.
but there is a current belief that God made the angels first,angels have to do as they are told by God, God seen this and decided to create humanity and give them the ability to choose..


From the little I know about the Christian God I was left with the impression that he never learns anything, simply because there's nothing he doesn't already know. Newness is a purely abstract concept to God. So, you see, God knew how angels, humans and any number of other things will turn out to be long before he supposedly created them. Yet he persisted in creating all these creatures as if he himself is under the spell of Fate.




does this mean God made a mistake when he created angels?


You tell me.



why didn't he just bypass the angels and go straight to Man?

Better yet, why didn't he just bypassed the creation of the entire Universe and kept doing whatever he was doing in the eternity before that?




And what's with this Satan dude? What the hell did he create him for? And isn't he an angel? Why doesn't he just do what he's told?

How do you know he (Satan) doesn't do precisely that? What he's told, that is.

And what's with this Satan dude? What the hell did he create him for? And isn't he an angel? Why doesn't he just do what he's told?


How do you know he (Satan) doesn't do precisely that? What he's told, that is.

because God needed someone to clue us in that we make our own choices..?

because God needed someone to clue us in that we make our own choices..?
I asked you first!

If you don't know, just say so. No harm in not knowing.

But, seriously, was he afraid that we wouldn't figure it out? Did he really need to threaten us and then throw a talking snake in to the mix to tempt us and make sure we fucked up?

Does this story really make sense to you?

I asked you first!
i struggled with whether i should put a question mark after that statement.
i believe that.


But, seriously, was he afraid that we wouldn't figure it out? Did he really need to threaten us and then throw a talking snake in to the mix to tempt us and make sure we fucked up?
why do ppl often demand proof for God?
to me it is like they do not want to be given a choice as to Gods existence.
IOW If God would just show me some supernatural sign, then i would have no choice but to believe. this argument also lines up with my argument about forcing someone to believe.

AND i still maintain that he is not threatening us, he is warning us,(cause and effect) if we do this,then this will happen..not if you do this, he will do this.
the best argument for that is the mom one..if your mom tells you if you touch the burner you will get burnt,that does not mean if you touch the burner your mom will burn you. this is the same logical fallacy that applies to the punishment/threat argument.



Does this story really make sense to you?
without Satan to put forth another option we would mindlessly obey God when he told us to do something without ever realizing that we could make our own choices. (at what age does one realize their parents do not have all the answers? i would say when they start school and they learn of other options)

From the little I know about the Christian God I was left with the impression that he never learns anything, simply because there's nothing he doesn't already know. Newness is a purely abstract concept to God. So, you see, God knew how angels, humans and any number of other things will turn out to be long before he supposedly created them. Yet he persisted in creating all these creatures as if he himself is under the spell of Fate.


i believe that God knows all..but that doesn't mean i can't question it.

i believe that God knows all...

How can you wrap your mind around this assertion? What possible reason could such a God have to do anything at all? If you can't come up with any reason then wouldn't that make God look like an unreasonable entity? (And who would want to be created by someone like that? :-) )

why do ppl often demand proof for God?


Blame Science. It got people into that nasty habit of asking for evidence before taking something for granted.



to me it is like they do not want to be given a choice as to Gods existence.
IOW If God would just show me some supernatural sign, then i would have no choice but to believe.


And what exactly is wrong with not having this choice?




without Satan to put forth another option we would mindlessly obey God when he told us to do something without ever realizing that we could make our own choices. (at what age does one realize their parents do not have all the answers? i would say when they start school and they learn of other options)

So... you're saying there's some sort of connection between Satan and School then? Well, since I'm all for unschooling you got my vote there... :-)

why do ppl often demand proof for God?
to me it is like they do not want to be given a choice as to Gods existence.

We don't have a choice as to "god's" existence. It exists or not regardless of what we believe. I don't even think we have a choice as to what we believe. Personally, I can't make myself believe something.

What possible reason could such a God have to do anything at all?
not sure what you are asking..

---

We don't have a choice as to "god's" existence. It exists or not regardless of what we believe. I don't even think we have a choice as to what we believe. Personally, I can't make myself believe something.
the choice is whether to believe that he exists or not..

not sure what you are asking..

---

the choice is whether to believe that he exists or not..
Can you choose what to believe? I highly doubt it... You either believe or you don't.

(For example) Can you choose to believe that a teacup orbits Saturn?

Can you choose what to believe? I highly doubt it... You either believe or you don't.

(For example) Can you choose to believe that a teacup orbits Saturn?
i choose to believe you are a good person..

i have questioned the overlap of God relating to humanity, and God relating to the physical world. (apples and oranges), the more i question it, the more i believe God is for humanity not for the physical world.

i choose to believe you are a good person..

i have questioned the overlap of God relating to humanity, and God relating to the physical world. (apples and oranges), the more i question it, the more i believe God is for humanity not for the physical world.
Honestly, I like you. You seem like a good guy. I might even say I "believe" you are a good guy... But I don't know that I chose that opinion.

I know that I can't consciously choose to believe you're a scumbag. You would have to do something to alter my current opinion.

But I've never had ANY interaction with god... (God knows I've tried. :rolleyes:) Therefore I have nothing to form a belief on.

... But I don't know that I chose that opinion.

I know that I can't consciously choose to believe you're a scumbag. You would have to do something to alter my current opinion.
i think the difference may be an emotional one vs an intelligent one..we can intellectualise almost anything but it all comes down to how we feel about it (most ppl chose to focus on how they feel about something rather than accept the logical conclusions) (the argument against theists support this position)


But I've never had ANY interaction with god... (God knows I've tried. :rolleyes:) Therefore I have nothing to form a belief on.
to me i tend to find God in hindsight..he doesn't tend to be obvious in my life,and usually it involves someone else and it usually involves how i feel..
(there have been exceptions, but the exceptions are not the rule.)

has there been other areas in your life that you have tried hard to get something, only to finally get it when you gave up trying?
also maybe (which i argue alot) you are exactly where you need to be in Gods eyes.

i think the difference may be an emotional one vs an intelligent one..we can intellectualise almost anything but it all comes down to how we feel about it (most ppl chose to focus on how they feel about something rather than accept the logical conclusions) (the argument against theists support this position)
This could very well be. I ("believe" that I) base decisions on knowledge rather than how I feel. My feelings can lead me astray. But my brain usually works fairly well... (Especially after I've had time to separate the feelings and then digest the information.)


to me i tend to find God in hindsight..he doesn't tend to be obvious in my life,and usually it involves someone else and it usually involves how i feel..
(there have been exceptions, but the exceptions are not the rule.)
There are times when it seems like I've benefited from "divine intervention"... But then something else happens that slaps that down and evens it all out. On second thought, it can usually be credited to dumb luck and/or random happenstance. (Both the good and the bad.)


has there been other areas in your life that you have tried hard to get something, only to finally get it when you gave up trying?

also maybe (which i argue alot) you are exactly where you need to be in Gods eyes.
All the time. I even tell people the best way to find something is to quit looking for it.

... i have questioned the overlap of God relating to humanity, and God relating to the physical world. (apples and oranges), the more i question it, the more i believe God is for humanity not for the physical world.

Each of us lives in two worlds, material and spiritual. You are correct that God is a spiritual world entity.
..............................................

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). A am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

Each of us lives in two worlds, material and spiritual. You are correct that God is a spiritual world entity.

Oh, but He's got the whole world in His hand, He's got the whole world in His hand!

Oh, but He's got the whole world in His hand, He's got the whole world in His hand!That song is "He's Got The Whole World In His Hands." It's a big planet, not a one-handed job like puny little Mercury. ;)

It's a traditional American spiritual, first published in a hymnal in 1927. The 1958 recording by English singer Laurie London (apparently in England that's a man's name) was the first gospel tune to reach #1 on any U.S. pop chart.

I've always enjoyed Christian music. Going back to my many years singing in school choirs, and including my penchant for volunteering for any Christmas chorus I can find, I've probably sung more hymns and spirituals than rock and roll.

It's okay. Song lyrics are literature, and literature is full of metaphors that do not require being taken literally.

Doncha just love YouTube: they've got a 53 year-old video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bbYFgf_pQc&feature=fvst) of the original hit song! I wouldn't be surprised if it was a clip from the Ed Sullivan Show.