I am agnostic, but leaning towards atheism. The reason for that lean is that I have been agnostic for 46 years, and have still seen nothing that could be called credible evidence for any deity. A positive proof of the existence of deity would be very, very easy, if said deity would bother to cooperate.

All he, she or it has to do is come and see me, show a few miracles, tell me what he/she/it wants, and leave me with a permanent miraculous power, such as flying like superman, and I will follow his/her/its teachings with enthusiasm for the rest of my life. Strangely, it has not happened, and I seriously doubt it ever will.

The reason I am not a total atheist is that it is impossible to prove a negative. Hence I cannot disprove the existence of deity. If a deity existed, all-powerful, and decide to hide from humanity, then he/she/it would remain hidden. So we cannot disprove deity.

What is rational? Rationality is being able to recognise what is real. Is the belief behind religion real? Without better evidence, or unless said deity decides to come down and prove him/her/its existence, I have to say that is seriously improbable.

What is rational? Rationality is being able to recognise what is real. Is the belief behind religion real? Without better evidence, or unless said deity decides to come down and prove him/her/its existence, I have to say that is seriously improbable.

people's belief in god is usually an issue of association. they are defining their existence tied to a god. to deny god is to deny their existence.

all their drives and emotions are predicated on a god. they are trying to understand what the source of it all is, since they can't definitely answer it, they tell themselves it's 'god' because being unsure makes them even more confused.

what makes us want for life and preserve it is so powerful that they wonder where it came from. this part is understandable.

the disconnect comes from their interpretation of the universe which doesn't necessarily coincide with their desire or needs but think it does. they start painting the universe as if it's some haven that god created for life. lol

Religion stems from misunderstanding; not being able to understand the world around us. Religion is unable to accept new information, information that contradicts a belief system. Religion stems from fear.
Rationality stems from understanding or wanting to understand; learning about the world around us in detail. Rationality allows us to accept new information, study it, and learn from it. Rationality is the ability to change our current understanding of the world when new evidence is presented. Rationality is the overcoming of fear.

So is it possible for a rational person to be religious?

So is it possible for a rational person to be religious?

Yes. It just needs a suspension of disbelief. It's the same as reading any fiction.

I am agnostic, but leaning towards atheism. The reason for that lean is that I have been agnostic for 46 years, and have still seen nothing that could be called credible evidence for any deity. A positive proof of the existence of deity would be very, very easy, if said deity would bother to cooperate.

All he, she or it has to do is come and see me, show a few miracles, tell me what he/she/it wants, and leave me with a permanent miraculous power, such as flying like superman, and I will follow his/her/its teachings with enthusiasm for the rest of my life. Strangely, it has not happened, and I seriously doubt it ever will.

The reason I am not a total atheist is that it is impossible to prove a negative. Hence I cannot disprove the existence of deity. If a deity existed, all-powerful, and decide to hide from humanity, then he/she/it would remain hidden. So we cannot disprove deity.

What is rational? Rationality is being able to recognise what is real. Is the belief behind religion real? Without better evidence, or unless said deity decides to come down and prove him/her/its existence, I have to say that is seriously improbable.

it happened to me. the deity "cooperated with me". :shrug:

What is your miraculous power, Lori?

What is your miraculous power, Lori?

i'm invincible.

The reason I am not a total atheist is that it is impossible to prove a negative.

1. This is in error, negatives can be 'proven' [of course 'proven' cannot be used in an absolute sense]. It depends upon the type of statement, (universal/singular).

2. I don't see that such issue would be of any genuine concern. You would likely say that you are "total atheist" with regards to Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy etc whilst being in the same position of "not being able to prove a negative". You cannot "prove" Santa does not exist, (for what it's worth, you cannot "prove" anything) - but evidence, logic and argument can show it as so seriously unlikely that for all intents and purposes, it's virtually nil.

3. An inability to "prove" does not mean we are forever to be labelled as 'agnostic' or that such label is even accurate to begin with. It is important to note that 'agnostic' addresses epistemological matters whereas 'atheist' address ontological ones. They are two different things, not mutually exclusive - indeed most atheists are agnostic as are some theists.

Regards,

I am agnostic, but leaning towards atheism. The reason for that lean is that I have been agnostic for 46 years, and have still seen nothing that could be called credible evidence for any deity. A positive proof of the existence of deity would be very, very easy, if said deity would bother to cooperate.

All he, she or it has to do is come and see me, show a few miracles, tell me what he/she/it wants, and leave me with a permanent miraculous power, such as flying like superman, and I will follow his/her/its teachings with enthusiasm for the rest of my life. Strangely, it has not happened, and I seriously doubt it ever will.



What if God was adamant that He did not want to be proven by miracles? What is God designed an astounding Message that He designed to attract people to Him, So that they would believe He existed and at the same time the Message would cause them to trust in Him.

That would be a great block to people like you wouldn't it. Especially if you disagreed with the Message.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

The word "atheist" apparently means different things to different people. Probably because the word god means different things to different people. But why get hung up on the word? If you don't believe, then you don't believe. :shrug:

1. This is in error, negatives can be 'proven' [of course 'proven' cannot be used in an absolute sense]. It depends upon the type of statement, (universal/singular).

2. I don't see that such issue would be of any genuine concern. You would likely say that you are "total atheist" with regards to Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy etc whilst being in the same position of "not being able to prove a negative". You cannot "prove" Santa does not exist, (for what it's worth, you cannot "prove" anything) - but evidence, logic and argument can show it as so seriously unlikely that for all intents and purposes, it's virtually nil.

3. An inability to "prove" does not mean we are forever to be labelled as 'agnostic' or that such label is even accurate to begin with. It is important to note that 'agnostic' addresses epistemological matters whereas 'atheist' address ontological ones. They are two different things, not mutually exclusive - indeed most atheists are agnostic as are some theists.

Regards,

there's no mention here of selectively ignoring or unjustifiably discounting a lot of evidence. imo, there's enough evidence out there to make atheism an unsound opinion or belief. as with many other beliefs, because it has already been established and vested, and in this case very emotionally vested, any contradictory evidence is certainly not sought after, and if presented as such, is automatically and arbitrarily ignored and/or dismissed.

make atheism an unsound opinion or belief. as with many other beliefs

for the billionth freaking time, it's not a belief. it's not recognizing something because there is no evidence.

it has been explained over and over and over and over and over again that atheism is not a belief.


there's enough evidence out there

this is all you can say because you are either lazy or you know what you will list is not evidence.

again, why do you care if people believe in god since everyone is subject to the laws of nature/universe that this supposed god created? does god need it's ego stroked or something? is that what you are on about?

there's no mention here of selectively ignoring or unjustifiably discounting a lot of evidence

I see no valid reason to accuse the thread starter of doing any such thing and nor would such accusation really be relevant here. Of course if you think there is just cause to make such accusation, evidence will be demanded.


imo, there's enough evidence out there to make atheism an unsound opinion or belief

I suppose you and I can go back and forth with this all week long, but as a worldview, atheism works whereas theisms make a mockery of reality.


because it has already been established and vested, and in this case very emotionally vested, any contradictory evidence is certainly not sought after, and if presented as such, is automatically and arbitrarily ignored and/or dismissed

Confirmation bias is quite common, yes (not just with atheists as you seem to imply but with humans in general). In this particular example though, all we have are some wishy washy, vague, ill-defined notions such as 'spirits', 'souls', 'supernatural', 'immaterial beings' and ludicrous fictions, Adam and Eve, men living inside whales, gods impregnating earthlings with themselves, zombies walking around Jerusalem.

There's very little to work with and it changes from one person to the next. There is no consistency, just statements to reality and the agreement that such things cannot be tested, falsified, make no predictions and so on.

Arguments that theism has are not about 'evidence', unless we use the term so loosely as to render it moot, but primarily arguments from ignorance/god of the gaps. In no instance has theism led to so much as one piece of established world knowledge and nor could it seemingly ever do so. Of what worth then is it?

You seem to think that there is actual evidence. I therefore encourage you to present it.

IMHO rationality includes basing belief systems on the kind of evidence that would be accepted as good science. In other words, the evidence has to be empirical, and derived by objective means. It should be such as to allow repeated testing. It should exclude anything subjective.

So what evidence is there, of that nature, to convince an agnostic like me?

I am agnostic, but leaning towards atheism.

I guess that I'd say that I'm agnostic with regards to transcendental realities and ultimate principles. But I'm effectively an atheist when it comes to whether or not I believe in the traditional deities worshipped by the world's religions. In other words, I don't have a clue what the ultimate explanation for being itself is. I can't tell you why there'ssomething rather than nothing. But equally, I'm reasonably certain that the Judeo-Christian Yahweh (or the Hindu Vishnu or whatever) isn't the solution. (Except for being a rather misleading symbolic personification of the mystery.)


The reason for that lean is that I have been agnostic for 46 years, and have still seen nothing that could be called credible evidence for any deity. A positive proof of the existence of deity would be very, very easy, if said deity would bother to cooperate.

All he, she or it has to do is come and see me, show a few miracles, tell me what he/she/it wants, and leave me with a permanent miraculous power, such as flying like superman, and I will follow his/her/its teachings with enthusiasm for the rest of my life. Strangely, it has not happened, and I seriously doubt it ever will.

Maybe the ultimate being, principle or source (if any) doesn't care what you and I think. Maybe it isn't a human-style personality and doesn't want anything at all. Perhaps the universe's ultimate basis is like the sun or something, the source out of which all the rest of phenomenal reality emanates. (Ancient Neoplatonism had beliefs like that.)


The reason I am not a total atheist is that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Technically, I don't think that's true. I can prove that there aren't any socks in my drawer by opening the drawer and determining that none of the drawer's contents are socks.

But I agree with the larger point you are making.


Hence I cannot disprove the existence of deity.

In my opinion the problem with deities is that they supposedly exist outside the natural universe and exceed human knowing. So it's hard to understand how human beings could ever know that they had truly encountered a god. Even an absolutely amazing inexplicable event would just be a manifestation of the unknown, and everything that's unknown isn't necessarily divine. (Imagine a helicopter hovering above a remote stone-age tribal village that had no knowledge of the outside world.)


If a deity existed, all-powerful, and decide to hide from humanity, then he/she/it would remain hidden. So we cannot disprove deity.

Yes.


What is rational? Rationality is being able to recognise what is real. Is the belief behind religion real? Without better evidence, or unless said deity decides to come down and prove him/her/its existence, I have to say that is seriously improbable.

I think that religion and I would agree that we are confronted with a real mystery, the ultimate mystery in fact. But at the same time, I don't think that any of the traditional 'revealed' solutions are remotely credible or justified by available evidence.

Theravada Buddhism might be closest in my opinion, mainly because it's more psychology than ontology and doesn't really speculate very much about ultimate being. It's more about how human beings react to any sort of experience. Advaita Vedanta is interesting as well, as are all the apophatic negative-theologies that celebrate the non-cognitivity of transcendental realities.

Theravada Buddhism might be closest in my opinion, mainly because it's more psychology than ontology and doesn't really speculate very much about ultimate being. It's more about how human beings react to any sort of experience

I would encourage neurology and related sciences.

So is it possible for a rational person to be religious?

There are many scientists who are religious and somewhere on the border between religion and science both break down. I have come to understand that the reason a person is religious has nothing to do with rationality and arguing with him on rational grounds isn't going to get you anywhere. Religion has enormous logical gaps, something with which even a religious person can't argue (he can try, by quoting the bible or saying "because God said so"). People are religious because of the very successful propaganda of religion. Even a man like Isaac Newton couldn't wall himself off from religious propaganda with rationality.
In my opinion, a person is religious because one of three things:
- 95% of religious people - because they were raised in a religious environment (brainwashing with religious propaganda).
- 4% - Something too good to be true happened to them and they feel strong gratitude, which must be directed at someone or something, so the emotions outweigh reason and they give in. This usually goes with some sort of brainwashing earlier in life, so as to hint them who this gratitude should be directed at once there is enough of it.
- 1% - Boredom, trying new things, again, these people couldn't possibly become religious unless they heard about religion somewhere before.
These are just crude estimates, based on the religious people I've met in life and their reasons.

My point is, with proper brainwashing you can convince a duck that it's a cat, regardless of whether the duck is the most rational duck in its village.

for the billionth freaking time, it's not a belief. it's not recognizing something because there is no evidence.

it has been explained over and over and over and over and over again that atheism is not a belief.

if it makes you feel better to say that then go right ahead. *pat pat on the head*

at least theists have an assload of evidence to base their beliefs on. you guys admittedly have none!




this is all you can say because you are either lazy or you know what you will list is not evidence.

again, why do you care if people believe in god since everyone is subject to the laws of nature/universe that this supposed god created? does god need it's ego stroked or something? is that what you are on about?

me lazy? you would have to purposely avoid, if not run from, the abundance of evidence of spiritual phenomenon. it's your problem if you want to discount any and everything you've never personally experienced yourself as horseshit; it's not.

you would have to purposely avoid, if not run from, the abundance of evidence of spiritual phenomenon.

first of all, no one can run from spiritual phenomenon. secondly, "spiritual" is a word for something that can't be understood, but experienced. thirdly, it's not evidence of a god. that's a leap of association you are making.

also, what is the most glaring is if you and others like you believe so much, why do you try to convince others by getting others to validate your beliefs?

religionists are so desperate to get others to view things the way they do
because they are unsure themselves.



at least theists have an assload of evidence to base their beliefs on. you guys admittedly have none!

repeat(the real deal): religionists are so desperate to get others to view things the way they do because they are unsure themselves.

I see no valid reason to accuse the thread starter of doing any such thing and nor would such accusation really be relevant here. Of course if you think there is just cause to make such accusation, evidence will be demanded.

evidence is everywhere, but you refuse to consider it, because you already believe something (see below).




I suppose you and I can go back and forth with this all week long, but as a worldview, atheism works whereas theisms make a mockery of reality.

no, theisms make a mockery of your perception...thinking that you in your infinite wisdom define reality.




Confirmation bias is quite common, yes (not just with atheists as you seem to imply but with humans in general). In this particular example though, all we have are some wishy washy, vague, ill-defined notions such as 'spirits', 'souls', 'supernatural', 'immaterial beings' and ludicrous fictions, Adam and Eve, men living inside whales, gods impregnating earthlings with themselves, zombies walking around Jerusalem.

there is nothing wishy washy about a spirit, and the supernatural is by definition, just some things you don't understand.

by discounting all religious text as ludicrous fictions, you intentionally close the door to any understanding.


There's very little to work with and it changes from one person to the next. There is no consistency, just statements to reality and the agreement that such things cannot be tested, falsified, make no predictions and so on.

it says in the bible that understanding does come on a personal level and through an interaction with the holy spirit, which i have in fact tested, and it's true. so it's particularly notable when so many have testified to experiencing the same things, and having the same result, when none of the experience has been collaborated.


Arguments that theism has are not about 'evidence', unless we use the term so loosely as to render it moot, but primarily arguments from ignorance/god of the gaps. In no instance has theism led to so much as one piece of established world knowledge and nor could it seemingly ever do so. Of what worth then is it?

the only gap that exists is between our perception and reality, which you refuse to recognize, and then base a belief on that refusal. a change in perception that is based on the knowledge of god is a very powerful thing that this world needs.


You seem to think that there is actual evidence. I therefore encourage you to present it.

testimony is considered evidence.

first of all, no one can run from spiritual phenomenon. secondly, "spiritual" is a word for something that can't be understood, but experienced. thirdly, it's not evidence of a god. that's a leap of association you are making.

when you experience it, it sure does open a lot of doors to understanding, and it allowed me to understand that there is a god. i have had experiences with human spirits, what i believe were angelic beings, and with the holy spirit. the attributes of, and the means of, the intelligence that is behind these experiences, allows me to identify what i'm interacting with, and indeed much of what i have experienced, imo, could only be accomplished by what the bible calls god, and the interactions with human spirits and angelic ones that i've had, have only served to support it.


also, what is the most glaring is if you and others like you believe so much, why do you try to convince others by getting others to validate your beliefs?

religionists are so desperate to get others to view things the way they do
because they are unsure themselves.




repeat(the real deal): religionists are so desperate to get others to view things the way they do because they are unsure themselves.

i don't give a flying rat's ass whether or not you believe in god, or believe what i testify to experiencing. but welcome to sciforums! this is a discussion forum! it is appropriate to discuss experiences, opinions, and ideas here! and my opinion, of your opinion, is that it is close-minded and short-sided. no skin off my nose.

evidence is everywhere, but you refuse to consider it, because you already believe something (see below).

no, not all people make the leap that it's a god. it's your perogative but you insist everyone recognizes it the way you do.


no, theisms make a mockery of your perception...thinking that you in your infinite wisdom define reality.

touche'


by discounting all religious text as ludicrous fictions, you intentionally close the door to any understanding.

no one is doing that. you, however, are closed to other possibilities because you are fixated on your own point of view.

there has been plenty of understanding that has been expressed in regard to religion and philosophy. it has been stated that religion has many moral lessons (some agreed with, some disagreed with). christianity is not the only one though.


it says in the bible that understanding does come on a personal level and through an interaction with the holy spirit, which i have in fact tested, and it's true. so it's particularly notable when so many have testified to experiencing the same things, and having the same result, when none of the experience has been collaborated.


well, then good for you and good for them. why does everyone else have to believe what you believe?


a change in perception that is based on the knowledge of god is a very powerful thing that this world needs.

and you are contradicting your beliefs again. you stated that god is the creator of the laws of the universe, then everyone is subject to it. it's irrevelant if people recognize a god.


testimony is considered evidence.


for those who believe there is an entity, god.

many people are open to other possibliities, they are just not currently making any leap of concrete assumptions as facts.

when you experience it, it sure does open a lot of doors to understanding, and it allowed me to understand that there is a god. i have had experiences with human spirits, what i believe were angelic beings, and with the holy spirit. the attributes of, and the means of, the intelligence that is behind these experiences, allows me to identify what i'm interacting with, and indeed much of what i have experienced, imo, could only be accomplished by what the bible calls god, and the interactions with human spirits and angelic ones that i've had, have only served to support it.

interesting. again, you only focus on "angels" and a view that god is perfect and good. what about negative spiritual experiences or being tested by the devil or evil? what about all the testimony of not only in the bible but of people who say they were bothered by evil poltergeists, spirits and entities?

oh, you ignore that.


i don't give a flying rat's ass whether or not you believe in god, or believe what i testify to experiencing. but welcome to sciforums! this is a discussion forum! it is appropriate to discuss experiences, opinions, and ideas here! and my opinion, of your opinion, is that it is close-minded and short-sided. no skin off my nose.

no, you are incorrect. you haven't been giving personal testimony. you have been plugging your beliefs as facts that everyone should recognize as facts.

if you want to be given respect, then you should always preface that it's your personal belief and stop hounding others to recognize your god as a fact that everyone else should recognize. you are also dismissive and disrespectful of other religions and philosophies that are not what you subscribe to or don't believe in. what if they did the same to you?

no, not all people make the leap that it's a god. it's your perogative but you insist everyone recognizes it the way you do.

it's no leap, and i don't insist.




no one is doing that. you, however, are closed to other possibilities because you are fixated on your own point of view.

this is funny. :D

snakelord actually did just do that. it's what the quote was in response to. haha.


there has been plenty of understanding that has been expressed in regard to religion and philosophy. it has been stated that religion has many moral lessons (some agreed with, some disagreed with). christianity is not the only one though.

from a morality standpoint, most major religions result in the same behavior, but the purpose of christ really has nothing to do with morality.




well, then good for you and good for them. why does everyone else have to believe what you believe?

they don't. i don't see how they could exactly, to the letter anyway, when all my beliefs are based on my experience. the reason that many believe what i do in a general sense, only lends to understanding we are experiencing the same thing.




and you are contradicting your beliefs again. you stated that god is the creator of the laws of the universe, then everyone is subject to it. it's irrevelant if people recognize a god.

lol. the recognition of god is the LEAST irrelevant thing ever, are you kidding me?




for those who believe there is an entity, god.

no, i mean at the courthouse.


many people are open to other possibliities, they are just not currently making any leap of concrete assumptions as facts.

if you're leaping, you're doing something wrong.

but the purpose of christ really has nothing to do with morality.

the rest of your post is inconsequential but this part is what is a problem.

how is it that christ has nothing to do with morality? have you read the bible?

and your vision for a better loving world is going to be achieved with no sense of morality?

then what is the purpose of christ for people now?


lol. the recognition of god is the LEAST irrelevant thing ever, are you kidding me?

you stated before that you don't care about morality but the laws of nature which everything is subject to. then the belief or nonbelief in god is irrevelant according to what you said. you also said that you see nothing wrong with the animal kingdom (which would include us). then, in your communion thread, you said all those things in nature that are hurtful and cause suffering would be eliminated (though they are due to laws of nature).

what is really funny and strange is what you've stated and not stated. it would make more sense if you said the devil was responsible for all these negative elements and situations that life has to suffer with and it's mentioned in the bible constantly but you don't mention it at all and you're a christian! LMAO

but you don't want to because then that would be admitting that creation is much to be desired and not perfect. you are really hung up on wanting to believe that creation is perfect but you want people to recognize god to make better changes. let's see; it's perfect but we need to make changes. lol

do you ever actually think about what you say?

interesting. again, you only focus on "angels" and a view that god is perfect and good. what about negative spiritual experiences or being tested by the devil or evil? what about all the testimony of not only in the bible but of people who say they were bothered by evil poltergeists, spirits and entities?

oh, you ignore that.

oh, no i don't. i understand that god is perfect and good because of what god's accomplished in me. i have had negative spiritual experiences, and i have been tested, and i passed. :p the reason i referred to an angelic being is because i've experienced physical sensations that when questioned the answer i received was "when a spirit who is not used to being in a physical body inhabits one, it feels heavy". so for lack of a better term, we'll call it an angel. can you think of some better or more appropriate term?




no, you are incorrect. you haven't been giving personal testimony. you have been plugging your beliefs as facts that everyone should recognize as facts.

everything i believe about god and christ is based on my own personal experience, and if it makes you feel any better, nobody agrees with me.


if you want to be given respect, then you should always preface that it's your personal belief and stop hounding others to recognize your god as a fact that everyone else should recognize. you are also dismissive and disrespectful of other religions and philosophies that are not what you subscribe to or don't believe in. what if they did the same to you?

what the hell else would it be besides my personal opinion? how about if when it's someone else's opinion, i'll cite the source? i don't "hound others", and i'm actually quite open to other religions and philosophies, and very respectful to those who entertain them. if i'm hard on anyone out here at all, it's christians. and the only "philosophy" i entirely reject is atheism, because inherently flawed.

i entirely reject is atheism, because inherently flawed.

and they think your beliefs are inherently flawed. so what now?


i understand that god is perfect and good because of what god's accomplished in me. i have had negative spiritual experiences, and i have been tested, and i passed.

what do you believe? that god is separate from evil or the devil? do you think creation is perfect or do you recognize it as imperfect as the bible does?

from what i've read of your posts, you seem to be so self-absorbed in your idolation of god that you don't recognize or dismiss that there is inherent evil, brutality or predation in nature.

are people that are currently enslaved and abused right now, a product of this perfect creation and universe? because the result is from the laws of nature.

what i'm pointing out is you have been so enamored with the concept of god, that you defend the idea irrespective of what actually goes on or even a concern.

the rest of your post is inconsequential but this part is what is a problem.

how is it that christ has nothing to do with morality? have you read the bible?

and your vision for a better loving world is going to be achieved with no sense of morality?

then what is the purpose of christ for people now?



you stated before that you don't care about morality but the laws of nature which everything is subject to. then the belief or nonbelief in god is irrevelant according to what you said. you also said that you see nothing wrong with the animal kingdom (which would include us). then, in your communion thread, you said all those things in nature that are hurtful and cause suffering would be eliminated (though they are due to laws of nature).

what is really funny and strange is what you've stated and not stated. it would make more sense if you said the devil was responsible for all these negative elements and situations that life has to suffer with and it's mentioned in the bible constantly but you don't mention it at all and you're a christian! LMAO

but you don't want to because then that would be admitting that creation is much to be desired and not perfect. you are really hung up on wanting to believe that creation is perfect but you want people to recognize god to make better changes. let's see; it's perfect but we need to make changes. lol

do you ever actually think about what you say?

it's perfect but our behavior in regards to it is obviously not. you can't blame the devil when you're a christian! lol! if you do, then you sure do know how to miss the point! haha!

christ has nothing to do with morality. christ has to do with genetics. if you're going to argue christianity you might want to bone up on what it's actually about.

and they think your beliefs are inherently flawed. so what now?

sit back and watch what happens.




what do you believe? that god is separate from evil or the devil? do you think creation is perfect or do you recognize it as imperfect as the bible does?

from what i've read of your posts, you seem to be so self-absorbed in your idolation of god that you don't recognize or dismiss that there is inherent evil, brutality or predation in nature.

are people that are currently enslaved and abused right now, a product of this perfect creation and universe? because the result is from the laws of nature.

what i'm pointing out is you have been so enamored with the concept of god, that you defend the idea irrespective of what actually goes on or even a concern.

i think that everything is a part of what god is.

it's duality. you can't have something without the possibility of nothing. you can't have life without the possibility of death. you can't have love without the possibility of hate. you can't have generosity without the possibility of greed. that doesn't mean you have to choose death, or hate, or greed, but it does mean that you do have a choice, and that is a very powerful thing.

it's perfect but our behavior in regards to it is obviously not.


so when an animal or human kills another for territory or for food, it's wrong behavior? this is not due to laws of nature that you think is perfect?


you can't blame the devil when you're a christian! lol! if you do, then you sure do know how to miss the point! haha!

you sure do miss the point. it's not about taking responsibility for your actions, because christians rely on forgiveness. i don't think you have room to talk on this point. but the issue is that the devil represents the predation and cause of suffering that's "genetically" in nature.


christ has nothing to do with morality.

what? lol


christ has to do with genetics.

what? lol


do you have any idea how nature "genetically" works? lol

so when an animal or human kills another for territory or for food, it's wrong behavior? this is not due to laws of nature that you think is perfect?

in the garden, everything that was designated as food was vegan, and there was plenty to go around. since then we have changed...things have changed...as they all do...genetically.




you sure do miss the point. it's not about taking responsibility for your actions, because christians rely on forgiveness. i don't think you have room to talk on this point. but the issue is that the devil represents the predation and cause of suffering that's "genetically" in nature.

i have plenty of room to point out that in the bible, forgiveness is contingent upon atonement. do you know what atonement is?




what? lol



what? lol

what i said.



do you have any idea how nature "genetically" works? lol

yes i do.

it's duality. you can't have something without the possibility of nothing. you can't have life without the possibility of death. you can't have love without the possibility of hate. you can't have generosity without the possibility of greed. that doesn't mean you have to choose death, or hate, or greed, but it does mean that you do have a choice, and that is a very powerful thing.

though this is just an observation of what we experience in this temporal universe, you are not even a christian. lmao

if you were, you would realize that the bible has separate domains such as heaven and hell.

that is why christ came to give hope to people to go to a perfect place free from all this suffering. he preaches morality too! again, have you read the bible? LMAO!


sit back and watch what happens.

what what happens??

furthermore, your views are not even in alignment with what you purport on the one hand and spout on the other.

what is this idea of a loving world where all this unwanted elements are eliminated in your communion thread?? you just said it requires one for the other.

insane.:shrug:

though this is just an observation of what we experience in this temporal universe, you are not even a christian. lmao

if you were, you would realize that the bible has separate domains such as heaven and hell.

that is why christ came to give hope to people to go to a perfect place free from all this suffering. he preaches morality too! again, have you read the bible? LMAO!



what what happens??

furthermore, your views are not even in alignment with what you purport on the one hand and spout on the other.

what is this idea of a loving world where all this unwanted elements are eliminated in your communion thread?? you just said it requires one for the other.

insane.:shrug:

heaven and hell are merely extractions of the duality. in the communion thread, the basis of my question is an implied segregation.

morality is a necessary evil, like the police, but christ's purpose actually renders morality obsolete.

heaven and hell are merely extractions of the duality. in the communion thread, the basis of my question is an implied segregation.

morality is a necessary evil, like the police, but christ's purpose actually renders morality obsolete.

i'm helping you to hone your thinking but your take is erroneous. you stated that death must exist in order for life to exist, there can't be a segregation based on this logic. otherwise, eternal life in a perfect existence in "heaven" would not be possible, free from suffering. this is exactly what christ and the bible purports.

the bible is clear that heaven and hell are separate and do not necessarily require one for the other. this is what you believe or based on what observation of the laws of nature.

but the bible makes a clear distinction that it's not an extraction of duality (that is what you came up with). it is separate and heaven does not require hellish elements to exist just as clean water does not have to have dirt in it.

you clearly stated that one must exist in order for the other, which would imply an existence that incorporates those elements.

the bible is clear that heaven is considered perfection and sustainable and in no way states that creation of the world is perfect which is your view.

again, your views are not christian. you are basically a darwinian with utopian dreams with an entity 'god' attached for posterity.

So is it possible for a rational person to be religious?

I agree with Ich-bin that many religious people can be imminently rational in their secular lives.

It's common to see people kind of compartmentalizing their lives. They might be a 100% rational over here at work, but have passionate interests in art over there, be a lover somewhere else, and have strong spiritual and religious intuitions in another place. It's actually kind of hard to keep everything consistent and not do that.

Religion is more of an emotional than a cognitive thing, I suspect. It's fundamentally a matter of feelings (Lori's "spiritual" experience), but it has this cognitive facade of doctrines, revelations and carefully argued theology kind of painted over the underlying passion, obscuring it and lending it a rational appearance that might be misleading.

So sure, it's not only possible but very common to be both rational and religious... so long as the two are kept separate.

But I sense that your question is deeper than that. You seem to be asking whether it's possible to remain rational WHILE being religious. Is it possible to be religious in a rational manner?

I'm not sure. There's definitely an emotional side to religion that might turn out to be necessary. I'm not sure if it's even possible to be religious in a totally cerebral way. So even at its most intellectual, religion is probably going to have to remain a reason-emotion hybrid.

But is it even possible to be rational at all while being religious? I think that the Sciforums atheists would argue 'No'.

And when it comes to the traditional religious faiths, I'm inclined to agree with them. Believing in scriptural revelations without any credible evidence, while simultaneously rejecting competing inconsistent faiths whose evidence looks to be just as good (it's a very low hurdle), is going to be hard to justify rationally.

But I do think that it's possible to remain rational while adhering to forms of religion that are different than Protestantism's (and legalistic Islam's) familiar scriptural-faith.

There are religious paths that take the form of empirical spiritual psychologies. They don't require any dramatic faith commitments in order to start, just a determination to begin a meditation practice. Then the path proceeds according to whether or not the practices lead to positive effects. (The Theravada Buddhism of the Pali canon looks like that.) It won't be 100% cerebral, since most of the effects will indeed be emotional and affective, but the logic of the cognitive side of the path doesn't seem to generate lots of contradictions.

And even in the Christian tradition, there's what theologians call 'apophatic', or 'negative' theology. This is the idea that the divine lies beyond all human categories and conceptions. So this path to God involves entering into a "cloud of unknowing" in which the concept of 'God' is gradually stripped of all of its determinate cognitive qualities, without losing the felt emotional or affective connection. It's a fascinating instance of agnosticism pursued with an entirely religious motive.

^ you are making it more complicated than it is. everyone has many experiences that can't be concretely defined including emotional ones, the difference is rational people can differentiate what they experience as just as experience and leave it more open-ended or question it. theists just label it god.

the problem with theists is they tend to use this type of irrational mode of operation in everything they do. that is why they are opposed in the political sphere and in education.


Religion is more of an emotional than a cognitive thing, I suspect. It's fundamentally a matter of feelings (Lori's "spiritual" experience), but it has this cognitive facade of doctrines, revelations and carefully argued theology kind of painted over the underlying passion, obscuring it and lending it a rational appearance that might be misleading.

carefully reasoned? lol. furthermore, her views are not even christian. it's her views which she mistakes as being christian. lol

1. This is in error, negatives can be 'proven' [of course 'proven' cannot be used in an absolute sense]. It depends upon the type of statement, (universal/singular).


Indeed, you cannot prove the celestial teapot does not exist but you can come up with a scientific argument that it does not exist. The same can be said of God, ghosts, werewolves, etc. For me the belief in God is little different to a belief in other supernatural beings that seem to exist in people's imaginations to either make the world more interesting for them or because they are mentally ill.
No offence intended to theists. Well, maybe just a little. ;)

i'm helping you to hone your thinking but your take is erroneous. you stated that death must exist in order for life to exist, there can't be a segregation based on this logic. otherwise, eternal life in a perfect existence in "heaven" would not be possible, free from suffering. this is exactly what christ and the bible purports.

the bible is clear that heaven and hell are separate and do not necessarily require one for the other. this is what you believe or based on what observation of the laws of nature.

but the bible makes a clear distinction that it's not an extraction of duality (that is what you came up with). it is separate and heaven does not require hellish elements to exist just as clean water does not have to have dirt in it.

you clearly stated that one must exist in order for the other, which would imply an existence that incorporates those elements.

the bible is clear that heaven is considered perfection and sustainable and in no way states that creation of the world is perfect which is your view.

again, your views are not christian. you are basically a darwinian with utopian dreams with an entity 'god' attached for posterity.

i am a christian.

and what i said was that "the possibility of" must also exist.

what you're saying about the bible and heaven and hell are made up. you're not that familiar with what the bible says are you?

heaven and hell are extreme possibilities based on the duality. you could think of them in terms of parallel universes, that are subject to the same law, but are the result of different choices given that law.

i am a christian.

and what i said was that "the possibility of" must also exist.

what you're saying about the bible and heaven and hell are made up. you're not that familiar with what the bible says are you?

heaven and hell are extreme possibilities based on the duality. you could think of them in terms of parallel universes, that are subject to the same law, but are the result of different choices given that law.

everything you said is bs, read your bible.

this is what happens, when theist's lack of reason doesn't work to convince others, they start veering away from the bible.

do you want to have your cake and eat it too? didn't you say that's a no-no? lol

you don't even understand that the bible does not state that heaven and hell are possibilities but that they exist. also, these so-called parallel universes couldn't exist with the laws you are purporting are necessary. how can one have eternal life if death is required or a possibility? how can good always result if there is a possibility that the opposite can occur? calling it a "possibility" on your account is just pointless.

and yes, i believe you are a christian in the sense most christians are not to be taken seriously either rationally or with their peculiar ignorance of their religion. lol

Religion stems from misunderstanding; not being able to understand the world around us. Religion is unable to accept new information, information that contradicts a belief system. Religion stems from fear.
Rationality stems from understanding or wanting to understand; learning about the world around us in detail. Rationality allows us to accept new information, study it, and learn from it. Rationality is the ability to change our current understanding of the world when new evidence is presented. Rationality is the overcoming of fear.

And the allowance for there being things we do not know and may never know.

Religion on the other hand claims to know all and have explanations for all things (too bad it so often contradicts itself).

everything you said is bs, read your bible.

this is what happens, when theist's lack of reason doesn't work to convince others, they start veering away from the bible.

do you want to have your cake and eat it too? didn't you say that's a no-no? lol

you don't even understand that the bible does not state that heaven and hell are possibilities but that they exist. also, these so-called parallel universes couldn't exist with the laws you are purporting are necessary. how can one have eternal life if death is required or a possibility? how can good always result if there is a possibility that the opposite can occur? calling it a "possibility" on your account is just pointless.

and yes, i believe you are a christian in the sense most christians are not to be taken seriously either rationally or with their peculiar ignorance of their religion. lol

i haven't said a thing that's not biblical.

i didn't say that heaven and hell did not exist. certainly you would agree that the possibility of something has to exist before it does exist, wouldn't you?

according to law that is given, if you do this, then you have that. if you do that, then you have this. what do you want? that is what the bible says (paraphrased).

it happened to me. the deity "cooperated with me". :shrug:

Ah but see, you can't prove that to anyone, it could be nothing more than your over-active imagination. :bugeye: In fact it IS nothing more than your over-active imagination and willingness to believe anything without proof. :eek:

Ah but see, you can't prove that to anyone, it could be nothing more than your over-active imagination. :bugeye: In fact it IS nothing more than your over-active imagination and willingness to believe anything without proof. :eek:

and you can't prove that to anyone.

my experience has been proof for me, just like many other people's experiences have been proof for them. that's the beauty of it; if you want proof, you have to get your own.

and you can't prove that to anyone.

Nor do I need to, but it does not prove that gods exist. It just proves that you believe they do. Just as mental patients know there is a monster under they bed that will eat their toes.


my experience has been proof for me, just like many other people's experiences have been proof for them. that's the beauty of it; if you want proof, you have to get your own.

And this is where you are completely and utterly wrong. Proof is something that exists independently and objectively of individual consciousnesses. It is a shared agreement, a consensus of the truth that exists whether humans do or not. If you can't provide that then what you believe is nothing much different than lunatic ravings. :shrug:

Sorry Lori, that's just the way reality works.

Now to get back to the actual topic at hand....Skeptical I'd suggest you read some of Dawkins work, some of Hitchens work as well as check out some of the videos on line.

Here's a few you tube links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxlPVSAnWOo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnFMrNdj1yY&feature=related

Much interesting stuff at these sites:

http://www.project-reason.org/about/

http://richarddawkins.net/

Carl Sagans The Demon Haunted World is great.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0345331354&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1WJW58FZ0417XN3JPQ8K

That's probably more than enough to overwhelm you....or maybe you've already visited, read, listened to those. If so I can provide more info or direction.

One of the things I have considered for a long time, is that when you think about the 'rationality of religion', there is a big difference between organised religion and the more diffuse feeling of 'something out there'.

Organised religion tries to nail things down, and ends up in contradictions. Like the bible saying that Judas hung himself, in the gospel of Matthew, and saying in Acts that he fell over and dashed out his guts.

The more vague 'something out there' approach is much harder to refute.

The more vague 'something out there' approach is much harder to refute.

i think a lot of people have that speculation or wonder but they don't just limit it to a concept of a god/creator or entity. they wonder what 'all' is out there or possible.

One of the things I have considered for a long time, is that when you think about the 'rationality of religion', there is a big difference between organised religion and the more diffuse feeling of 'something out there'.

Organised religion tries to nail things down, and ends up in contradictions. Like the bible saying that Judas hung himself, in the gospel of Matthew, and saying in Acts that he fell over and dashed out his guts.

The more vague 'something out there' approach is much harder to refute.

That can mean a lot of things. I certainly believe that are other intelligences in the universe -- some much more advanced than us and others much less. I believe the universe if virtually teaming with life -- Darwinian evolutionary type life but not as we know it here. I'm filled with a profound sense of wonder every time I look up at that stars. But none of that requires a god or a creator. It's all natural processes as best we can tell. Many things we don't yet understand and many things we may never understand, but that doesn't me we should like primitive peoples make up an explanation, nor should we continue the sham of a reason made up by those peoples thousands and millions of years ago. We must look reality firmly in the eye and know that it is truly amazing and that we may some day be able to explain the things we don't know. We must cast out the supernatural and the irrational and seek the truth.

The universe is truly an amazing place and we are and amazing race of animals occupying one tiny micro-milli-part of it. We should accept that and honor that and do all we can to learn everything we can about this amazing universe we live in.

One of the things I have considered for a long time, is that when you think about the 'rationality of religion', there is a big difference between organised religion and the more diffuse feeling of 'something out there'.

I strongly agree.


Organised religion tries to nail things down, and ends up in contradictions.

Yes.


The more vague 'something out there' approach is much harder to refute.

A religion that doesn't make any particular supernatural assertions can still have very real emotional and 'spiritual' content. Plenty of yogins claim that their path to enlightenment proceeds through states like consciousness-without-an-object. 'Enlightenment' needn't be defined in terms of learning particular facts about this universe or about ultimate realities. It can instead be interpreted in terms of calming and centering in on one's fundamental being and in terms of the emotional and behavioral effects that process brings. In that latter sense it can still be profoundly transformative without necessarily doing great violence to reason.

The universe is truly an amazing place and we are and amazing race of animals occupying one tiny micro-milli-part of it. We should accept that and honor that and do all we can to learn everything we can about this amazing universe we live in.

your view is no different than lori's except she believes a god is behind it all.

your view is no different than lori's except she believes a god is behind it all.

And that is EXACTLY the difference and a significant one that completely changes everything.

Ask her if she believe in an afterlife, ask her if she has a soul, ask her if she believes in hell, ask here if she has a "personal relationship" with jesus and god?

Not exactly the same.... :p

Ask here if she believe in an afterlife, ask her if she believes in hell, ask here if she has a "personal relationship" with jesus and god?

apparently not. she thinks "creation" is perfect. why need heaven? she thinks heaven or hell are just possibilities.

she does state she has a personal relationship with jesus/god but her beliefs also contradict the word of god and jesus. god/jesus are from heaven, according to the bible but she thinks this place is a "possibility". now she's stating that god's home may not exist, i wonder what it would have to say about it or find it insulting? doesn't make much sense but to her it does (lol). she hasn't explained how god is wrong in the bible or made a mistake in translation yet. oh but god is perfect, because she says it is or because it says it is. oh, and there has to be a possibility for wrong to be right so that means god is perfect and infallible. well..because it's god.

it's clear she picks and chooses what she wants to believe and spins her own views as being christian (uh, just like a christian). :shrug:

... spins her own views as being christian (uh, just like a christian). :shrug:

Exactly. Never a need to find truth.

:D

Exactly. Never a need to find truth.

:D

what i mean is, she thinks this universe is amazing and perfect just the way it is like a lot of people. she's not much different than a hardcore darwinian. she cares what people do since that's what affects us more.

she doesn't have any moral qualms about nature where a lot of philosophers and some religionists or secularists do. they even question the moral implications of the basis or system of life or lack of compassion in the universe or the amorality of it.

One of the things I have considered for a long time, is that when you think about the 'rationality of religion', there is a big difference between organised religion and the more diffuse feeling of 'something out there'.

Organised religion tries to nail things down, and ends up in contradictions. Like the bible saying that Judas hung himself, in the gospel of Matthew, and saying in Acts that he fell over and dashed out his guts.

The more vague 'something out there' approach is much harder to refute.


Yes, this approach works, besides even the organized religions are or at least should be based on this approach, it's theism as separated from religion. BTW the "something out there" or the "one above all" approach isn' just hard to refute but impossible to refute.

obviously, theists are more concerned with what god represents than whether people accept that god exists or not.

if they weren't so narcissistic, they would understand why people don't care to guess why they think god is so important to be acknowledged.

it would be better to explain what they think god represents that is important or valuable to adore. for instance, some people think god is love etc.

a lot of people would not have a problem with that or at least there would be some working reason to value what it represents as they do.

obviously, theists are more concerned with what god represents than whether people accept that god exists or not.

if they weren't so narcissistic, they would understand why people don't care to guess why they think god is so important to be acknowledged.

it would be better to explain what they think god represents that is important or valuable to adore. for instance, some people think god is love etc.

a lot of people would not have a problem with that or at least there would be some working reason to value what it represents as they do.


Maybe there are people who are concerned with the religion itself instead of what the religion is for (it's for worshipping God), besides we end up divided apparently because we are made to operate as separate entities.

Nor do I need to, but it does not prove that gods exist. It just proves that you believe they do. Just as mental patients know there is a monster under they bed that will eat their toes.

i'm not a mental patient kenny. i have never been diagnosed with any mental disorder for good reason. so you have no proof to back up what you're saying.




And this is where you are completely and utterly wrong. Proof is something that exists independently and objectively of individual consciousnesses. It is a shared agreement, a consensus of the truth that exists whether humans do or not. If you can't provide that then what you believe is nothing much different than lunatic ravings. :shrug:

Sorry Lori, that's just the way reality works.

so you're saying that if i was the only person on earth, that i would not, and could never, have any proof that anything existed? that's interesting (euphemism).

apparently not. she thinks "creation" is perfect. why need heaven? she thinks heaven or hell are just possibilities.

she does state she has a personal relationship with jesus/god but her beliefs also contradict the word of god and jesus. god/jesus are from heaven, according to the bible but she thinks this place is a "possibility". now she's stating that god's home may not exist, i wonder what it would have to say about it or find it insulting? doesn't make much sense but to her it does (lol). she hasn't explained how god is wrong in the bible or made a mistake in translation yet. oh but god is perfect, because she says it is or because it says it is. oh, and there has to be a possibility for wrong to be right so that means god is perfect and infallible. well..because it's god.

it's clear she picks and chooses what she wants to believe and spins her own views as being christian (uh, just like a christian). :shrug:

you need to stop misquoting me. i never said that heaven and hell don't exist. i said that something has to be possible in order for it to exist. get it straight ok?

better yet, stop speaking for me altogether. it's creepy.

you need to stop misquoting me. i never said that heaven and hell don't exist. i said that something has to be possible in order for it to exist. get it straight ok?


intellectual dishonesty and evasion.



better yet, stop speaking for me altogether. it's creepy.


code for i presented your statements in a coherent statement which showed your statements were not coherent.

intellectual dishonesty and evasion.

ok then, reference the quote where i said that heaven and hell don't exist.





code for i presented your statements in a coherent statement which showed your statements were not coherent.

you're babbling about how my beliefs don't fit in your christian box, and displaying your ignorance of christianity while attempting to speak for me. and it's irritating.

ok then, reference the quote where i said that heaven and hell don't exist.


you said it was a possibility, the bible states it is a fact.


you're babbling about how my beliefs don't fit in your christian box, and displaying your ignorance of christianity while attempting to speak for me. and it's irritating.

it's not my christian box and i'm not the one who is ignorant of christianity.

that's even more intellectual dishonesty. would jesus be proud of you? is that good morals to lie and make up more lies on top of it? is that condoned by your god as long as it's about religion?

birch,

do me a favor and get over yourself enough to listen to what i'm saying. these are my thoughts on heaven and hell. i've never been to heaven (that i recall), and i've never been to hell (that i recall). if heaven and hell are places that exist in a spiritual realm, then i do not remember ever being there. that said, i am inclined to believe what it says in the bible about heaven and hell, because of other things that i have experienced, and i remember very well.

i'm also inclined to believe in heaven and hell because of the duality i see in nature, and the condition of the human race, and what i see as contributing to that. i like to think in terms of parallel universes with a given set of natural laws, and in which the addition or alteration of one action, one choice, or even one thought, could create an entirely unique existence over time.

now consider the premise i believe, and have expressed in other threads, that there is a right answer. a right choice, a right thought, according to given laws, and according to the greater good. apply that premise and you'll end up with a spectrum of possibilities, and the extreme opposites would be heaven and hell. that's actually the basis for the implied segregation i'm talking about in the communion thread.

from what i know, if i had to guess, i would guess that the spiritual realm probably isn't all that different from how it is here, in that what you and everyone around you, want, and what you choose, and what you do, in large part determines your quality of life.

you said it was a possibility, the bible states it is a fact.

again, something HAS to be a possibility, in order for it ever to be a fact.




it's not my christian box and i'm not the one who is ignorant of christianity.

that's even more intellectual dishonesty. would jesus be proud of you? is that good morals to lie and make up more lies on top of it? is that condoned by your god as long as it's about religion?

i know jesus, and he loves me very much, and i him, and i would not lie about him, and he knows that.

To Lori

Let me return this to the topic of rationality.
I have said that rationality is about recognising what is real. As a science buff, I would suggest that, to be rational, you have to base your belief system on evidence that would pass muster as good science.

Do you think that the evidence you base your religious beliefs on meets this standard? Why? Do you think your beliefs are rational, and why?

birch,

do me a favor and get over yourself enough to listen to what i'm saying. these are my thoughts on heaven and hell. i've never been to heaven (that i recall), and i've never been to hell (that i recall). if heaven and hell are places that exist in a spiritual realm, then i do not remember ever being there. that said, i am inclined to believe what it says in the bible about heaven and hell, because of other things that i have experienced, and i remember very well.

i'm also inclined to believe in heaven and hell because of the duality i see in nature, and the condition of the human race, and what i see as contributing to that. i like to think in terms of parallel universes with a given set of natural laws, and in which the addition or alteration of one action, one choice, or even one thought, could create an entirely unique existence over time.

now consider the premise i believe, and have expressed in other threads, that there is a right answer. a right choice, a right thought, according to given laws, and according to the greater good. apply that premise and you'll end up with a spectrum of possibilities, and the extreme opposites would be heaven and hell. that's actually the basis for the implied segregation i'm talking about in the communion thread.

from what i know, if i had to guess, i would guess that the spiritual realm probably isn't all that different from how it is here, in that what you and everyone around you, want, and what you choose, and what you do, in large part determines your quality of life.

that is not christianity. that's your own belief/views.

first of all,

relevant music break time. these guys share my thoughts on hell pretty well, i think. we laugh and cry in it's face. did you know that jesus is said to have the key to hell? had to go through it to get it don't you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8liy0pDq5Y

To Lori

Let me return this to the topic of rationality.
I have said that rationality is about recognising what is real. As a science buff, I would suggest that, to be rational, you have to base your belief system on evidence that would pass muster as good science.

Do you think that the evidence you base your religious beliefs on meets this standard? Why? Do you think your beliefs are rational, and why?

of course i think they're rational. they're based on my experience and understanding and i am a very intellectually capable person, and i have demonstrated that to society's standards.

the evidence i have gotten came from god itself and not from another person. it's based in extremely personal experience that's not meant for anyone else, but it certainly got my attention like nothing else, and no one else could.

here's an analogy of how i feel about this...

say god is a microscopic particle that can only be seen through a microscope, and atheists are not willing to look through a microscope to see it. they say they only believe in things that they can see with their naked eye. i was willing to look into the microscope and they are not, and they tell me what i saw was a hallucination.

that is not christianity. that's your own belief/views.

that is what my experience and the holy spirit has inclined. for all of your apparent in-depth knowledge of scripture, why don't you reference some in support of your argument here?

for all of your apparent in-depth knowledge of scripture, why don't you reference some in support of your argument

heh, telling me to do the work. why don't you as you are the christian and don't be so lazy. what scripture have you used in all your myriad posts to back up anything you've written? nada. you are the one who wants your religion/god taken seriously. is the bible not your source anymore?

again, something HAS to be a possibility, in order for it ever to be a fact.





i know jesus, and he loves me very much, and i him, and i would not lie about him, and he knows that.

Oh how sweet. to be in love with an invisible spirit.....NOT! :eek:

Is love Rational? Is Love a Religion?

To Lori

Let me return this to the topic of rationality.
I have said that rationality is about recognising what is real. As a science buff, I would suggest that, to be rational, you have to base your belief system on evidence that would pass muster as good science.

Do you think that the evidence you base your religious beliefs on meets this standard? Why? Do you think your beliefs are rational, and why?

This!

Lori

Are you suggesting that I am an unbeliever because I choose to ignore religion?

I would say that I have given religion, or God if you prefer, every chance to demonstrate its reality. It is not that I refuse to 'look down the microscope'. I see no such microscope. I see no such evidence. If your analogy was correct, which I seriously doubt, you would, in fact, be calling me blind, since I simply cannot see the things you say are there.

In my situation, I would be irrational to have religious belief, since I have seen no credible evidence. I do not refuse to accept evidence. As far as I am concerned, it is simply not there.

I am also aware that many of the religious experiences that people like you have had, can also be induced by drugs, meditation, starvation, hypoxia, or blunt trauma to the head. So why should I accept that your stated experience is anything other than abnormal brain activity?

heh, telling me to do the work. why don't you as you are the christian and don't be so lazy. what scripture have you used in all your myriad posts to back up anything you've written? nada. you are the one who wants your religion/god taken seriously. is the bible not your source anymore?

the holy spirit and my own experience is my source, as i've stated, and the source has confirmed to me much of what it says in the bible, and has contradicted nothing that is in the bible. the bible is common knowledge and easily accessible, so if you contend that what i'm saying isn't scriptural, then prove it.

Oh how sweet. to be in love with an invisible spirit.....NOT! :eek:

Is love Rational? Is Love a Religion?

love is rational sometimes. when it's a valuation, a perception, and a behavior that is based in truth, as opposed to some fickle emotion or biological urge that's known to come and go with the wind.

Lori

Are you suggesting that I am an unbeliever because I choose to ignore religion?

I would say that I have given religion, or God if you prefer, every chance to demonstrate its reality. It is not that I refuse to 'look down the microscope'. I see no such microscope. I see no such evidence. If your analogy was correct, which I seriously doubt, you would, in fact, be calling me blind, since I simply cannot see the things you say are there.

In my situation, I would be irrational to have religious belief, since I have seen no credible evidence. I do not refuse to accept evidence. As far as I am concerned, it is simply not there.

I am also aware that many of the religious experiences that people like you have had, can also be induced by drugs, meditation, starvation, hypoxia, or blunt trauma to the head. So why should I accept that your stated experience is anything other than abnormal brain activity?

in my case there was no evidence of such things being influential. i admire your stance regarding an open mind and regarding evidence. imo, those are required to form any true belief about such things.

i refuse to believe that i'm special in regards to this evidence. i believe it's always available to anyone. i demanded it. i was sincere. i knocked, and my knock was answered. nothing occurred within any timeframe or boundaries that i attempted to place on it.

in the meantime, as the AA people say, sweep your side of the street. make sure you're ready and willing for whatever might come your way.

i refuse to believe that i'm special in regards to this evidence. i believe it's always available to anyone. i demanded it. i was sincere. i knocked, and my knock was answered.
I've knocked sincerely... nobody was home.

I do not reject your experience, whatever it was. But I have not had it.

I've knocked sincerely... nobody was home.

I do not reject your experience, whatever it was. But I have not had it.

the thing is...and this is nothing personal gmilam, but some could have experienced what i have and checked themselves into a mental hospital and demanded drugs. it really is my opinion, based on my own experience, that what you are willing to deal with intellectually, emotionally, and consequentially is a critical factor, and god does not act in futility.

all of my experience with god involves introspection. the only way i can understand what is going on around me, and understand god, is to understand myself. so i can assuredly advise that it wouldn't hurt to start there...with a good look in the mirror.

the thing is...and this is nothing personal gmilam, but some could have experienced what i have and checked themselves into a mental hospital and demanded drugs. it really is my opinion, based on my own experience, that what you are willing to deal with intellectually, emotionally, and consequentially is a critical factor, and god does not act in futility.

all of my experience with god involves introspection. the only way i can understand what is going on around me, and understand god, is to understand myself. so i can assuredly advise that it wouldn't hurt to start there...with a good look in the mirror.
No personal offense taken. I have often wondered, if there are people who have "extrasensory" senses - i.e - psychic or whatever... might they think they were crazy? And they would almost certainly be considered "ecentric", at the least, by others. Same with religious experience.

OTOH, most people I have known who have had a deep religious experience were at a very low point in their life... Drugs, alcohol, gambling, whatever... Their life was out of control.

I have never been there either.

this is ridiculous. there are people who are 'spiritual' and still are not theists or define it by religion. actually, they are usually wiser than christians/muslims. almost everyone is spiritual in some way, (everyone has a lifeforce) as well it has many textures and nuances. people are introspective at certain times in their life or in some cases often, constantly absorbing and reevaluating. there are many things in life that can move you and not everybody has to label it under 'god' to somehow make it seem that their experience is somehow more profound or worthy of attention or legitimacy than another.

people think that one must be a theist in order to consider life sacred or recognize the sanctity of life, learn morals, have emotional and spiritual experiences as well as wonder and question the universe they are in.

people's lives are not all centered around god, there are all kind of things to consider. not all people need to pray to ask god which way to back out of the driveway either.

this is the blindspot, the assumption that it's only a "theists" domain and restricted to only people of religion.

that is complete bs. it's absolutely ignorant. hell, i think zen buddhists are more deep, extraordinary and spiritual than any fundamentalist religionists ever.

I agree. Spiritual is a different issue all together.

The sense of awe I have looking at the world around us can be quite deep. The connection I've felt with history when I've visited places such as Mesa Verde and Coventry Cathedral has been very moving for me. The sense of our tiny place in the overall scheme of things is incedibly humbling.

But yet, here we are, able to ask questions and contemplate the wonder of it all.

the holy spirit and my own experience is my source, as i've stated, and the source has confirmed to me much of what it says in the bible, and has contradicted nothing that is in the bible. the bible is common knowledge and easily accessible, so if you contend that what i'm saying isn't scriptural, then prove it.

un-believable. how lazy! you are the professed christian, post your sources! just like a typical christian, you spout anything you want to and expect others to do all the real mental work and critical thinking! you are so self-absorbed in your own beliefs that you don't even consider that your beliefs are not even christian and it's obvious you don't care. many of the things you've said are not even an interpretation but a direct contradiction to scriptures.

i don't consider that a point of view but a dishonest character. i could care less that religionists like you are given a free pass to do it continually. it's not right! it's like reinforcing or ignoring or spoiling someone just like telling a liar that it's okay.

you don't even have the honesty to have admitted, even once, that you were incorrect. lie after lie is said and pretend innocence.

what is so hard about admitting that it's your interpretaton and not necessarily what the bible says?

you are too intellectually dishonest to do even that!

The connection I've felt with history when I've visited places such as Mesa Verde and Coventry Cathedral has been very moving for me. The sense of our tiny place in the overall scheme of things is incedibly humbling.


yeah, it's also even more moving and profound when you see stars in the sky on a beautiful night!

also, science fiction movies are incredibly moving and get one's sense of wonder and awe going full tilt as well!

profound and incredibly humbling things and experiences are not just religious, churchy or god-related!

un-believable. how lazy! you are the professed christian, post your sources! just like a typical christian, you spout anything you want to and expect others to do all the real mental work and critical thinking! you are so self-absorbed in your own beliefs that you don't even consider that your beliefs are not even christian and it's obvious you don't care. many of the things you've said are not even an interpretation but a direct contradiction to scriptures.

i don't consider that a point of view but a dishonest character. i could care less that religionists like you are given a free pass to do it. it's not right!

you don't even have the honesty to have admitted, even once, that you were incorrect. lie after lie is said and pretend innocence.

what is so hard about admitting that it's your interpretaton and not necessarily what the bible says?

you are too intellectually dishonest to do even that!

it is what the bible says, and anyone with even a remedial knowledge of scripture would know that.

where does your understanding of scripture come from? and can you give me so much as a vague scriptural basis for your contention?

it is what the bible says, and anyone with even a remedial knowledge of scripture would know that.

where does your understanding of scripture come from? and can you give me so much as a vague scriptural basis for your contention?

excuse me? where is your scripture that states that heaven and hell is just a 'possiblility'? where is your scripture that jesus had nothing to do with morality? where is your scripture that creation is perfect and the "devil" did not taint or corrupt it?

where are all your scriptures for anything that you felt like posting willy nilly and up to your whim as a representation of christianity?

Let us all give thanks on this cold, cold Thanksgiving day. :)

people think that one must be a theist in order to consider life sacred or recognize the sanctity of life, learn morals, have emotional and spiritual experiences as well as wonder and question the universe they are in.

This is because that is what religions teach. It's there "hook" into peoples psyche. Without these hooks into people's lives, they would be able to "stray" away from religions. They are taught that it's religions that define our morals and not social-evolution, They are taught that only religions and god recognize life as special, and anything that is really a special experience _must_ be a religious one, except of course, when it leads to negative affects and is then blamed on a psychos' of some sort!... Without these religions really have nothing.

Religions are all very good at taking credit for the good deeds people do in its name (not allowing people to realize that people that do good deeds would do so without religions in most cases) and quick to disassociate itself with the atrocities also done in its name.

KRR

excuse me? where is your scripture that states that heaven and hell is just a 'possiblility'?

that's it. you've misquoted me what, like 3 times now, about heaven and hell? you having to resort to that should tell you something. you're on ignore.

that's it. you've misquoted me what, like 3 times now, about heaven and hell? you having to resort to that should tell you something. you're on ignore.

i didn't misquote. you just use excuses. it's a form of lying.

that's it. you've misquoted me what, like 3 times now, about heaven and hell? you having to resort to that should tell you something. you're on ignore.

....and another one dead...and another one gone....another one bites the dust...another one bites the dust. :D

I find this a bit sad. People disagree, and then get hot under the collar.

Hey guys. It's just a debate. If you disagree, that is fine. No need to call each other names.

Lori,

As you might surmise, I have a strong interest in proper evidence. I appreciate that you find your own subjective experiences convincing, but most on this forum, including me, require evidence that could be published in a science journal.

Do you have evidence of this kind to quote?

I find this a bit sad. People disagree, and then get hot under the collar.

Hey guys. It's just a debate. If you disagree, that is fine. No need to call each other names.

Lori,

As you might surmise, I have a strong interest in proper evidence. I appreciate that you find your own subjective experiences convincing, but most on this forum, including me, require evidence that could be published in a science journal.

Do you have evidence of this kind to quote?

i doubt it. i mean, there would have to be a scientific interest first of all, which i don't really see. and secondly, it would have to be a force that could be manipulated. this is an intelligent force, with it's own agenda, that to my knowledge doesn't really care about our own agendas or constraints all that much. imo god isn't interested in being proven or studied; god is interested in communion with individuals. i can attest to the fact that there isn't a need for a scientific journal or a lab to achieve that.

i have been led to believe though, that what happened to me in 2005 will make some headlines at some point, and will turn some heads. i have seen evidence that my experience can be corroborated, without there ever being any physical collaboration, and that's a big deal. those who can corroborate are artists with a very big voice. i'm interested to see how it all turns out.

what if jesus didn't actually exist but that his story is a representation of deeper meaning and higher or worthy values? jesus also represents that innocence and precious truth that can so easily be ignored for other base emotions such as jealousy, dishonesty, selfishness, immorality, lust, envy, greed, hate etc.

if he had not existed or the story is a culmination of other stories or symbolism of human experience or wise gurus, would you reject it?

isn't the essence and it's message more important if that is what you agree with? a christian tends to agree with all of it.

i don't but some of it i do. i see in general the symbol of jesus as a marytr in one aspect as well as a victim of the world but also someone who was true to what they thought was right. he refused to be compromised or live untruthfully so to speak. in that sense, he was not as lost which also elicited their jealousy and hatred (because he was honorable) as they were more corrupt, even though he was humble and had no earthly possessions to hate him for. he represents the struggle and suffering, especially when they are trying to do the right thing and also to offer hope. these dynamics are really not new and they can be witnessed in life metaphorically and literally. it has happened countless times in history with myriad of different scenarios/situations. the sweetest souls often have the most precious truth to offer the world but is rejected by the corrupt or they are abused/used or laughed at. he's like a champion for the underdog, the bullied as well as the unloved. in that sense, it is a very enlightening and beautiful story.

jesus is one icon or story but there are others as well.

what if jesus didn't actually exist but that his story is a representation of deeper meaning and higher or worthy values? jesus also represents that innocence and precious truth that can so easily be ignored for other base emotions such as jealousy, dishonesty, selfishness, immorality, lust, envy, greed, hate etc.

if he had not existed or the story is a culmination of other stories or symbolism of human experience or wise gurus, would you reject it?

isn't the essence and it's message more important if that is what you agree with? a christian tends to agree with all of it.

i don't but some of it i do. i see in general the symbol of jesus as a marytr in one aspect as well as a victim of the world but also someone who was true to what they thought was right. he refused to be compromised or live untruthfully so to speak. in that sense, he was not as lost which also elicited their jealousy and hatred (because he was honorable) as they were more corrupt, even though he was humble and had no earthly possessions to hate him for. he represents the struggle and suffering, especially when they are trying to do the right thing and also to offer hope. these dynamics are really not new and they can be witnessed in life metaphorically and literally. it has happened countless times in history with myriad of different scenarios/situations. the sweetest souls often have the most precious truth to offer the world but is rejected by the corrupt or they are abused/used or laughed at. he's like a champion for the underdog, the bullied as well as the unloved. in that sense, it is a very enlightening and beautiful story.

jesus is one icon or story but there are others as well.

i think jesus, and the bible's message, are all of those things. real, meaningful, or even metaphorical. i just watched a documentary tonight called "the case for christ" which looked at the historical integrity of what the bible says about jesus. even my brother who is an atheist well educated in history doesn't argue that he existed. if you think that he was a great teacher, a prophet, or even a good man, you would also have to consider what he testified to, that he was the messiah, the son of god, the perfect man, and what he is able to accomplish because of that.

skeptical,

this is the way i think about science and god. i think they answer different questions. science answers "how?", and god answers "why?". those two questions don't contradict each other, but they really don't have anything in common either. you can dissect things scientifically forever, and never answer the question "why?", and we do that. and for all of our dissecting and discovering, what's changed? the circumstances by which we meet our physical, mental, and emotional needs? are we better off? does it really add meaning to our lives? when i listen to an atheist i hear the answer "no". atheists aren't looking to answer the question "why?", and neither is science.

what do we do with our scientific knowledge? we own it, we covet it, we pride ourselves on it, we fight over it, we capitalize on it, we buy it, we sell it, and in a big way some would say we destroy ourselves with it.

i'm going to get some hate for saying this but, really, it's my opinion, that if you can answer the question "why?", the "how?" becomes pretty unimportant.

and finally, if you consider the two approaches we're suggesting here, as to how might be the best way, or acceptable way, for god to introduce himself, i think the personal approach wins hands down. i mean we're talking about the difference between you picking up a journal and reading an article about god, and then laying it down when you're finished and going back to whatever else it is you do, and god smacking the journal out of your hand and saying "hello. i'll be staying." i think a lot of people are more comfortable with the idea of keeping god in a book, or a journal, or a lab, or a church, and under consideration for a good reason, because once you know, once god shows up, it's the most comprehensively impactive thing that could ever happen to you. i think some people have a lot of negative associations and fear about it.

but from what i know, i don't think god wants to be considered, or analyzed, or manipulated any more than you or i do. i think what god wants is for us all to know and love each other.

god wants communion.

Lori

Sound great. Problem is, for myself and a heap of other people, it does not happen. If God exists, and is as you say he/she/it is, then this deity is clearly not interested in a lot of people, including me. I do not demand much. Just a clear cut, empirical demonstration. Something that can be written up, and show the existence of the deity you claim exists.

However, I accept that you have already admitted that such evidence does not exist. That being the case, I will remain skeptical.

if you think that he was a great teacher, a prophet, or even a good man, you would also have to consider what he testified to, that he was the messiah, the son of god, the perfect man, and what he is able to accomplish because of that.

that's what makes you a christian. christians believe he was literally god or the son of god and perfect, therefore the miracles as well.

first of all, even if a person named jesus who went around prostelyzing existed, i supect the bible has embellished or even added many things as well as additional stories to this persona that may not even be true but for effect and a message.

secondly, i don't think jesus was perfect but that his intention was perfect or truly sincere in regard to living an honest life or embodying it, so to speak and that is very important in order to remain true.

thirdly, i also don't think he was literally the son of god. i think that is a metaphor. if you consider god to represent the truth or all good and higher values such as love, compassion, justice etc; because jesus represented it innately or truly valued and respected virtue in his heart/soul and lived it, he was therefore the son of god in essence or extenuation.

fourth, i don't think most of those miracles are literally true at all. i think, again, they are a symbolism. for instance, how he helped the blind to see etc and turn from sin. he also used many 'parables' or stories to illustrate the meaning. it was all about a moral lesson using symbolism or stories and to offer hope.

like i said before, there are other people who are representative of similar gurus but the difference is the bible takes extra steps to use the symbol of god to mean a higher authority/knowledge/values or virtue whereas in other philosophies it is left more open-ended. i think it was good pr as it tends to attract those who need a concrete symbolism or authority.

Birch, it would help to follow the discussion if you would leave in the original poster attribution of the post you are responding to.

rationality is built on knowledge, to rationalize with religion you have to "study" religion, sitting in your chair for 46 years won't change things much.
you can research and validate it, or wait for it to jump in your face and prove itself.

Lori

Sound great. Problem is, for myself and a heap of other people, it does not happen. If God exists, and is as you say he/she/it is, then this deity is clearly not interested in a lot of people, including me. I do not demand much. Just a clear cut, empirical demonstration. Something that can be written up, and show the existence of the deity you claim exists.

However, I accept that you have already admitted that such evidence does not exist. That being the case, I will remain skeptical.

Why do want to place limits or constraints on how the evidence is presented to you? Intellectually it doesn't make sense to me to place limits on something like god.

Why do want to place limits or constraints on how the evidence is presented to you?

you keep saying there is evidence but you never state what it is.

do you think that because life and the universe exists, that means there is a god?

why didn't you say so? either way, that is your point of view.

not everyone regards that as proof, especially as it's considered an entity by relgionists.

furthermore, it's an issue of what religion thinks they are right and what version of god is right.

this is what keeps happening that people speak for the concept of god in relation to their particular take and religious views.

Why do want to place limits or constraints on how the evidence is presented to you? Intellectually it doesn't make sense to me to place limits on something like god.

Because what you are claiming is evidence is NOT. It is just your belief. It can't be confirmed or demonstrated any more than the pink elephants that mental patients see in the corner of their room.

But you are right in that it make no sense to even discuss limits when you are talking about something that can't be validated.

I think that Lori has been honest about her 'evidence'. The problem is that her evidence is subjective and personal. ie. She had a religious internal experience.

Sadly, such evidence means little or nothing. It does not mean much to her, either, if she was honest about it. Such experiences can be induced with drugs, or a wide range of other factors that impact on brain function.

It certainly does not mean anything to me, or to any other of the more rational people in this forum. Rationality requires evidence that is credible. Subjective internal experiences are not credible evidence.

As I have said before, if a deity exists who is concerned about people's belief, then it would be the easiest thing in the world for that deity to supply utterly convincing evidence. So we are left with the alternatives that either
- no deity exists
- a deity might exist but actually does not give a damn about people.

Skeptical, no argument about that. I'm just point out the same thing as you. :)

I think that Lori has been honest about her 'evidence'. The problem is that her evidence is subjective and personal. ie. She had a religious internal experience.

so do so many others, now ask her and other theists here why they think "their" god is the true one and others are not? it's opening a whole can of worms. let's see how tolerant they really are, instead of throwing the issue with a pretense of intolerance against atheists.

ask them if they are polytheists or monotheists or if they are christian, krishna, islamists, buddhists, judaists, bahai, hinduists, sikhism, confucianists, juche, jainism, shinto, cao dai, zoroastrianism, tenrikyo, neo-paganism, unitarian/universalist, spiritism, african-traditional, rastafarianists, taoists, protestants, catholics, evangelicals or scientologists etc.

lol. the truth is they are just as prejudiced or have their own beliefs and views as anyone else just like an atheist or agnostic.

so do so many others, now ask her and other theists here why they think "their" god is the true one and others are not? it's opening a whole can of worms. let's see how tolerant they really are, instead of throwing the issue with a pretense of intolerance against atheists.

ask them if they are polytheists or monotheists or if they are christian, krishna, islamists, buddhists, judaists, bahai, hinduists, sikhism, confucianists, juche, jainism, shinto, cao dai, zoroastrianism, tenrikyo, neo-paganism, unitarian/universalist, spiritism, african-traditional, rastafarianists, taoists, protestants, catholics, evangelicals or scientologists etc.

lol. the truth is they are just as prejudiced or have their own beliefs and views as anyone else just like an atheist or agnostic.

god is not a religion.

god is not a religion.

Then quit beating around the bush and tell us what god IS instead of what god ISN'T.

you keep saying there is evidence but you never state what it is.

do you think that because life and the universe exists, that means there is a god?

why didn't you say so? either way, that is your point of view.

not everyone regards that as proof, especially as it's considered an entity by relgionists.

furthermore, it's an issue of what religion thinks they are right and what version of god is right.

this is what keeps happening that people speak for the concept of god in relation to their particular take and religious views.

the evidence is the meaning you find in it, and what that does to you. the bible calls it "fruit". i lived in this universe for a long time before i knew if there was a god. we all have a unique perspective, and all of those perspectives are subject to change according to our unique experience. that doesn't mean that god is not the same.

god is not a religion.

then why are you christian? are other religions or versions of interpreting the universe wrong to you? isn't you belief that there is one monotheistic god? there are those who are polytheists or of different philosphical bents.


the evidence is the meaning you find in it, and what that does to you.

and some people don't believe in a god/gods.

Because what you are claiming is evidence is NOT. It is just your belief. It can't be confirmed or demonstrated any more than the pink elephants that mental patients see in the corner of their room.

But you are right in that it make no sense to even discuss limits when you are talking about something that can't be validated.

when the only reason it can't be validated is because you place limits?

god's existence has been validated by the lives of many people and i'm one of them.

god's existence has been validated by the lives of many people and i'm one of them.

there are those of other religions or philosophies that would disagree with your views about god or what you think god is. what makes you think they are right or wrong more than you are right or wrong?

doesn't mean this is just your take on what you think god or even if it exists?


when the only reason it can't be validated is because you place limits?

isn't christianity putting limits on god? they describe god and what rules to follow and what rituals to perform.

when the only reason it can't be validated is because you place limits?

god's existence has been validated by the lives of many people and i'm one of them.

Nope. Not my limits. The boundries of reality.

Existence is only validated by objective verifiable proof. You don't have that, you only have what you believe, no different than the mental patient that certainly believes in the blue elephant.

All you're doing is wagging your tongue with nothing to back it up.

Lori, unless you are will to honestly address this topic and quite beating around the bush and moving the goal posts, I'm done.

See: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2654074&postcount=108

I think that Lori has been honest about her 'evidence'. The problem is that her evidence is subjective and personal. ie. She had a religious internal experience.

Sadly, such evidence means little or nothing. It does not mean much to her, either, if she was honest about it. Such experiences can be induced with drugs, or a wide range of other factors that impact on brain function.

It certainly does not mean anything to me, or to any other of the more rational people in this forum. Rationality requires evidence that is credible. Subjective internal experiences are not credible evidence.

As I have said before, if a deity exists who is concerned about people's belief, then it would be the easiest thing in the world for that deity to supply utterly convincing evidence. So we are left with the alternatives that either
- no deity exists
- a deity might exist but actually does not give a damn about people.

i am being honest. i'm not saying i've never told a lie, and i'm not even saying i would never even though i know it's wrong, but from what i've seen god do, i'd have to be fucking retarded to ever lie about god. i'm serious. i'd be martyred.

but since we're talking about honesty, be honest with me skeptical, do you really want something like GOD up your ass 24/7? following you around with a fucking mirror saying "why'd you do that? why do you think that? that's not true. don't lie. be kind. forgive that person. be humble. and on and on...". trying and testing you and in doing so teaching you that what it's saying is correct. and changing you! and what would it change you into?

a theist? you want to be a theist? :eek:

a religious person? now i know that's gotta be on your top ten list of things you want to be. and with good reason.

good news is, that from what i know of god, i don't think god likes religion any more than you do.

bad news is, that having a real relationship with god is much harder than being religious. ;)

Then quit beating around the bush and tell us what god IS instead of what god ISN'T.

i can't define god any more than i can define my father, but i can tell what i've been able to observe characteristically.

i think god is a multi-dimensional entity that permeates everything because a part of what god is, is law. i think it is intelligent and has a will. it is able to communicate with me personally and seems to not be constrained by things like time, or limited knowledge, or me, or you.

i am being honest. i'm not saying i've never told a lie, and i'm not even saying i would never even though i know it's wrong, but from what i've seen god do, i'd have to be fucking retarded to ever lie about god. i'm serious. i'd be martyred.

but since we're talking about honesty, be honest ..

Then let's have it, give us your evidence or quit talking about it if you are unwilling to say what it is.

Then let's have it, give us your evidence or quit talking about it if you are unwilling to say what it is.

have you noticed the theists don't answer questions regarding the validity of other religions or philosophies?

they push just their "own" as being worthy to be taken seriously.

if they did answer, it would either betray what they really believe or it would show them to be bigots which would make their contention that atheists are intolerant pointless.

it seems that freedom of religion is not enough for fundamentalists and they think they deserve center stage.

i can't define god any more than i can define my father, but i can tell what i've been able to observe characteristically.

i think god is a multi-dimensional entity that permeates everything because a part of what god is, is law. i think it is intelligent and has a will. it is able to communicate with me personally and seems to not be constrained by things like time, or limited knowledge, or me, or you.

So, god is everything.

god communicates with you personally. Is this by projecting thoughts into your mind or do you hear the words. Do you write down what it says? What has it said to you?

Why do you believe it is not constrained by time or knowledge (what's knowledge got to do with it anyway?).

If god is everything then god is me, why would I be asking you these questions if I already know?

all their experiences are subjective but they think that everyone is supposed to know and feel what they feel.

it's not enough that there are others of similar faiths that they can get confirmation from. it really is pretty fascist.

it's like one expecting everyone to understand drug or alcohol addiction if they've never experienced it. they wouldn't expect everyone to and that is why there are those who have had similar experiences and support groups.

or if one is enamored with a certain hobby, there are those who have similar tastes and appeal. that is why there exists different organizations for this purpose for people to get together and it be validated.

The silence is deafening.

I think Lori has been honest, and has presented her evidence. The problem is that a subjective and personal religious experience/sensation is not sufficient evidence for those of us who are more scientific about it. As I keep saying, drugs can give you the same experience - which explains why drugs are so much a part of many religions.

And no, Lori, I have no interest in becoming theist. My interest is in what is true. If the existence of a deity was true, I would want to know about it, and I would want to see the evidence. In the absence of good rational, non-subjective evidence, I have to assume that no deity exists.

I think Lori has been honest, and has presented her evidence.

are you even awake? it's pathetic what they can get away with. no evidence, even of a subjective nature has even been described or shared.

all that has been stated is that they have had an experience. that is all.

So, god is everything.

god communicates with you personally. Is this by projecting thoughts into your mind or do you hear the words. Do you write down what it says? What has it said to you?

i don't hear god with my ears unless god is communicating to me through someone or something that is physically audible, like music, or like another person, which god has. but sometimes it is like an implanted thought or notion; that is exactly how i've described it. god has told and taught me lots of things, in lots of ways; i would hardly know where to start. i would start with "i love you". god also said once "there is no time here".


Why do you believe it is not constrained by time or knowledge (what's knowledge got to do with it anyway?).

because there's meaning and intellect and accomplishment behind what god has done to me, and all of that logically points directly to what could only be defined as god. the capabilities and the resources that are required to accomplish these things is far beyond anything else.


If god is everything then god is me, why would I be asking you these questions if I already know?

you're a product of law, but that doesn't mean you should know what that law is, or where it comes from, or why. right?

And no, Lori, I have no interest in becoming theist.

My interest is in what is true.

if the truth is that there is a god, do you see how these statements would oppose one another?



If the existence of a deity was true, I would want to know about it, and I would want to see the evidence.

why?

skeptical,

is it ok to assume, based on what you've said, that you don't trust your own perception, or god?

are you even awake? it's pathetic what they can get away with. no evidence, even of a subjective nature has even been described or shared.

all that has been stated is that they have had an experience. that is all.

experience = life. yeah, that's all.

Lori

As my nom de plume shows, I am sceptical. The opposite of sceptical is gullible. I am not prepared to accept any belief unless there is adequate credible evidence. This is my way of avoiding being gullible.

So what is credible evidence? As I said before it is the type of evidence that is acceptable in a scientific paper. It must be objective, and empirical, and strong.

You are happy to accept tenuous and subjective evidence. That does not work for anyone who follows the path of good science.

Lori

As my nom de plume shows, I am sceptical. The opposite of sceptical is gullible. I am not prepared to accept any belief unless there is adequate credible evidence. This is my way of avoiding being gullible.

So what is credible evidence? As I said before it is the type of evidence that is acceptable in a scientific paper. It must be objective, and empirical, and strong.

You are happy to accept tenuous and subjective evidence. That does not work for anyone who follows the path of good science.

surely you don't require this of anything and anyone you experience, right?

You are happy to accept tenuous and subjective evidence. That does not work for anyone who follows the path of good science.

Indeed.
Or rationality.

Thus, thread concluded.

:-)

I find this a bit sad. People disagree, and then get hot under the collar.

Hey guys. It's just a debate. If you disagree, that is fine. No need to call each other names.

Lori,

As you might surmise, I have a strong interest in proper evidence. I appreciate that you find your own subjective experiences convincing, but most on this forum, including me, require evidence that could be published in a science journal.

Do you have evidence of this kind to quote?

You seek measurable scientific evidence for Someone who exists independent of the Universe?

All science can do is attempt to measure the universe. Scientific method was only and is only a tool for measuring the universe. To Seek to use it to prove of disprove God is a waste of time because it was never intended as a tool to measure God.

So demanding scientific evidence of God is unreasonable and illogical at the same time.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

You seek measurable scientific evidence for Someone who exists independent of the Universe?

All science can do is attempt to measure the universe. Scientific method was only and is only a tool for measuring the universe. To Seek to use it to prove of disprove God is a waste of time because it was never intended as a tool to measure God.

So demanding scientific evidence of God is unreasonable and illogical at the same time.

In that case, God has no measurable impact of any sort on the universe, thus we have no means of telling whether God's actually there- for all you know, she's just a figment of your imagination, along with any untestable effects you attribute to her.

You seek measurable scientific evidence for Someone who exists independent of the Universe?

All science can do is attempt to measure the universe. Scientific method was only and is only a tool for measuring the universe. To Seek to use it to prove of disprove God is a waste of time because it was never intended as a tool to measure God.

So demanding scientific evidence of God is unreasonable and illogical at the same time.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

No, it's a reasonable and rational thing to do (see title of this thread).

i don't hear god with my ears unless god is communicating to me through someone or something that is physically audible, like music, or like another person, which god has. but sometimes it is like an implanted thought or notion; that is exactly how i've described it. god has told and taught me lots of things, in lots of ways; i would hardly know where to start. i would start with "i love you". god also said once "there is no time here".



because there's meaning and intellect and accomplishment behind what god has done to me, and all of that logically points directly to what could only be defined as god. the capabilities and the resources that are required to accomplish these things is far beyond anything else.



you're a product of law, but that doesn't mean you should know what that law is, or where it comes from, or why. right?

You've still pretty much sidestepped the issue. I see no answer here to what happened that converted you other than you think you have thoughts being placed in you head saying I Love You. and There is no Time. You once more say "what god has done to me" but you don't say what it is.

Not very objectively convincing, but it does fit right in with the mental illness theory of religion and or the "god lobe" of the brain theory. I believe that YOU believe, but I also feel you should seek professional help because you are hallucinating.

Maybe the rational minds are the ones being irrational here. To debate rationally the rationality of what is completely irrational is itself not rational.

-JuNie

Maybe the rational minds are the ones being irrational here. To debate rationally the rationality of what is completely irrational is itself not rational.

-JuNie

Ah but to point it out to those who think otherwise is a good and rational thing. :D

Ah but to point it out to those who think otherwise is a good and rational thing. :D

Yes. Because I am an asshole. :shrug:

Yes. Because I am an asshole. :shrug:

Sorry, that was not directed at you specifically, but just at the concept of refuting beliefs in the supernatural.

But your response gives me a great idea for a poem. Thanks!

Maybe the rational minds are the ones being irrational here. To debate rationally the rationality of what is completely irrational is itself not rational.

-JuNie

you miss the point. then "THEY" as in theists, shouldn't demand or expect it be to be taken rationally or seriously now, would they? they pretend it is rational. that is not rational

"my god is real, it's real, how can you not believe? it's real, it's real!!!" the 'how can you not believe in what i believe' is what the problem is. that's really what these theists are actually on about, no matter the pretense.

for cripes sake.

you miss the point. then "THEY" as in theists, shouldn't demand or expect it be to be taken rationally or seriously now, would they? they pretend it is rational. that is not rational

"my god is real, it's real, how can you not believe? it's real, it's real!!!"

for cripes sake.

Yes, but I've just been reading all these posts on multiple forums and it just goes on...and on, and on, and on. I don't understand how you all can withstand so much woo woo and not go clinically insane. :shrug:

You've still pretty much sidestepped the issue. I see no answer here to what happened that converted you other than you think you have thoughts being placed in you head saying I Love You. and There is no Time. You once more say "what god has done to me" but you don't say what it is.

Not very objectively convincing, but it does fit right in with the mental illness theory of religion and or the "god lobe" of the brain theory. I believe that YOU believe, but I also feel you should seek professional help because you are hallucinating.

no, i'm not hallucinating. perhaps i'm in a coma right now, and have been since my early 20's, and this is all a dream? i don't know...are you reading this right now? i am really typing right? i don't know, i don't know...i'm so unsure of my experience.
:rolleyes:

this has been ongoing for a couple of decades now, and includes a very traumatic event that was ongoing, and began around 2005. what do you want to know that i can type here in a few minutes?

see...this is NOT how it works. i know that's how you guys want to INSIST that it works (or rather INSIST that it doesn't), but it doesn't work this way. this is how it actually works...

god interacts with me. it changes me. i interact with other people. and that's it. the bible calls that witnessing. now, some people think that means going door to door, but i see that as weird. if anyone asks me about my experiences with god, i tell them to the best of my ability. i'm honest about what god's done with me but i didn't do it, and i can't do that for anyone else. am i understanding you right? i understand that you want me to present my life experience to you in some form?

some form that you want to measure, so you can recreate it?

how do you suggest i do that?

Yes, but I've just been reading all these posts on multiple forums and it just goes on...and on, and on, and on. I don't understand how you all can withstand so much woo woo and not go clinically insane. :shrug:

It all has to do with hope.

.....
this has been ongoing for a couple of decades now, and includes a very traumatic event that was ongoing, and began around 2005. what do you want to know that i can type here in a few minutes?
.....

Once more you imply without providing anything concrete. Unless you are willing to discuss it, please don't even bring it up.

P.S. Serial Killers and Sociopaths and even those who see Blue Elephants often believe they aren't hallucinating either and that they are perfectly sane.

I'm wondering if you have discussed your issue with a licensed therapist?

if anyone asks me about my experiences with god, i tell them to the best of my ability.

you are doing a D grade job of it. when people ask you about your experiences, do you just repeat that you had one?

Once more you imply without providing anything concrete. Unless you are willing to discuss it, please don't even bring it up.

P.S. Serial Killers and Sociopaths and even those who see Blue Elephants often believe they aren't hallucinating either and that they are perfectly sane.

I'm wondering if you have discussed your issue with a licensed therapist?

what do you want to know?

you are doing a D grade job of it. when people ask you about your experiences, do you just repeat that you had one?

when people ask you about yours, do you just randomly pick one? lol...

what do you want to know specifically?

when people ask you about yours, do you just randomly pick one? lol...

what do you want to know specifically?

what an utterly disingenuous cop-out. clueless (sound familiar), i'm not making assertions so there would be no reason for them to ask. if i did, at least i would comply better than you. it's called being sane and in touch with reality. it's also something called common sense. ya know, when someone makes an assertion, it's on them to provide most of the info.

do you realize what is going on? who is asking who to take their religion seriously on this forum?!

it sure isn't atheists! then theists need to stfu about god and their religion unless it's to other theists. isn't that easy?

anyways, subjective experiences are not going to work to prove an objective being or entity called the christian god or the muslim god or whatever god.

I agree, a total cop-out once more. Tell us your story Lori, the whole story, what happened, the specifics I want to understand your experience to know exactly and precisely what converted you. You keep bringing it up but you never give the details. This is the last time I'm asking. Either spill your guts or quit talking about it.

I agree, a total cop-out once more. Tell us your story Lori, the whole story, what happened, the specifics I want to understand your experience to know exactly and precisely what converted you. You keep bringing it up but you never give the details. This is the last time I'm asking. Either spill your guts or quit talking about it.

i think it's a total cop-out to ask me to compile 20 years of experience into a post.

i'll start with one of the first. god encouraged me to forgive my dad for something, and when i did, i experienced what it was like, and understood that it was a correct thing to do. considering forgiveness is what jesus and the bible are all about, that made quite an impression on me that has lasted, and has changed me and my life.

there...have at it.

i think it's a total cop-out to ask me to compile 20 years of experience into a post.

i'll start with one of the first. god encouraged me to forgive my dad for something, and when i did, i experienced what it was like, and understood that it was a correct thing to do. considering forgiveness is what jesus and the bible are all about, that made quite an impression on me that has lasted, and has changed me and my life.

there...have at it.

you put your experience first and then what the bible says after. what does that have to do with christianity? nothing.

you are asking others to believe in a christian doctrine based on your own experiences.

you put your experience first and then what the bible says after. what does that have to do with christianity? nothing.

you are asking others to believe in a christian doctrine based on your own experiences.

no, i am saying that i believe the christian doctrine because of my own experiences.

hahahaaha...

what does god encouraging me to forgive my dad have to do with christianity?!?!


hahahahahaha...

that's some funny shit right thar!

no, i am saying that i believe the christian doctrine because of my own experiences.

fine. if only theists would just stop trying to convince atheists or trying to convert those of other faiths.


hahahaaha...

what does god encouraging me to forgive my dad have to do with christianity?!?!


hahahahahaha...

that's some funny shit right thar!

you are absolutely right! because christians are not the only ones who forgive.

now if you actually weren't crazy, you would get down to the nitty-gritty of what makes you a christian or why you choose to be a christian instead of a scientologist or a hindu.

dum

i think it's a total cop-out to ask me to compile 20 years of experience into a post.

....

Ah well. Not atypical. See ya.

fine. if only theists would just stop trying to convince atheists or trying to convert those of other faiths.



you are absolutely right! because christians are not the only ones who forgive.

now if you actually weren't crazy, you would get down to the nitty-gritty of what makes you a christian or why you choose to be a christian instead of a scientologist or a hindu.

dum

Birch, listen to what I'm saying. God encouraged me to forgive my dad. We had a conversation about it.

Birch, listen to what I'm saying. God encouraged me to forgive my dad. We had a conversation about it.

and you are sure it wasn't just your own spirit or your own mind.

and you are sure it wasn't just your own spirit or your own mind.

Yes.

Yes.


you are lucky, because if you told a psychiatrist that something spoke to you (other than god), you would be classified as nuts.

you are lucky, because if you told a psychiatrist that something spoke to you (other than god), you would be classified as nuts.

psychiatrists usually use diagnoses that are a bit more specific than that, and would not diagnose me with any illness, based upon that one bit of information about me.

Ah well. Not atypical. See ya.

i see how you completely ignored that i obliged your demand.

Lol did she just admit she was clinically insane?

In that case, God has no measurable impact of any sort on the universe, thus we have no means of telling whether God's actually there- for all you know, she's just a figment of your imagination, along with any untestable effects you attribute to her.


LOL He has had a Measurable impact on me. And many, many others. Our unbreakable faith is testimony to that real impact.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Lol did she just admit she was clinically insane?

lol...

no. i've never been diagnosed for good reason.

kenny just begged for, demanded evidence, i gave him some, and he ignored it. so who's insane?

LOL He has had a Measurable impact on me. And many, many others. Our unbreakable faith is testimony to that real impact.

who are you speaking for? christians or people of all faiths?

and atheists don't try to break anyone's faith. atheists argue over poor and illogical thinking in relation to it. there is nothing to break if one believes. it's a choice. atheists don't go to christian forums to try and persuade them otherwise or at least most don't, just like they don't go to church to try and persuade either. people have freedom of religion but that doesn't mean religionists have some right to demand it's a fact. even your post is hinting that it is. why theists constantly want to butt it up against atheists seems to betray how strong your beliefs really are as well as their beliefs are intolerant since you have freedom of religion and your organizations.

it's christians who have a problem with atheists not believing or confirming that it's a truth instead of a personal belief.

and atheists don't try to break anyone's faith. atheists argue over poor and illogical thinking in relation to it. there is nothing to break if one believes. it's a choice.
been here long?


atheists don't go to christian forums to try and persuade them otherwise
it is why that doesn't happen, that is the reason i am here and not there..IE they proofread posts before allowing them to be posted..i do not believe in that..

just like they don't go to church to try and persuade either.
there are some users here that i can see them going to church to do just that..they are very rude about others beliefs..

people have freedom of religion but that doesn't mean religionists have some right to demand it's a fact.
um..yes they do.IE. i have a right to believe what i believe, i have a right to believe in god as fact..i have a right to expect others to RESPECT that i believe and not call me delusional just cause i believe..(there can be other reasons to call me delusional, but not 'only' on whether i believe)

but if you were to phrase it as 'they don't have the right to force their beliefs on others', i would agree..



why theists constantly want to butt it up against atheists seems to betray how strong your beliefs really are as well as their beliefs are intolerant since you have freedom of religion and your organizations.

it's christians who have a problem with atheists not believing or confirming that it's a truth instead of a personal belief.

are you saying that the only reason a christian recruits others to their beliefs is to justify those beliefs?
the same can be said for any organization whether christian or not..

i have a right to expect others to RESPECT that i believe and not call me delusional just cause i believe..(there can be other reasons to call me delusional, but not 'only' on whether i believe)

a bunch of semantics because one religion will consider the other one delusional.

no, people do have a right to consider your beliefs as delusional! they don't have a right to stop you from getting together with others who agree with you or practice your religion on your own time and have your organizations!

just as people have a right to think and state the belief in aliens or ghosts as delusional! or people think the color orange is gross! or they don't like peppermint ice cream!

if you don't like people to state your beliefs are delusional, then don't keep sharing them with people that don't share the same beliefs!

otherwise, the constant narcissisim and intolerance of religionists will be called out as they think eachothers religions are wrong or delusional just as they think atheists are delusional!

it's all very simple and clear!

a bunch of semantics because one religion will consider the other one delusional.
this is getting into the differances between the religion and the individual..IE don't judge the individual for what you believe the religion is..


no, people do have a right to consider your beliefs as delusional!
so you have a right to call me delusional but i do not have the right to defend what i believe?


they don't have a right to stop you from getting together with others who agree with you or practice your religion on your own time and have your organizations!
applies to both sides of the argument..


just as people have a right to think and state people who believe in aliens or ghosts as delusional! or people think the color orange is gross! or they don't like peppermint ice cream!
so ppl who think the color orange is gross, are delusional?



if you don't like people to state your beliefs are delusional, then don't keep sharing them with people that don't share the same beliefs!
in real life i have never met anyone who called me delusional because of my beliefs..most of the christians that i have met (when i didn't believe so much..) always asked me if i wanted to know about jesus or god..if i said no, that was the end of it..

most of the times in this forum the formula tends to be;
athiest finds theist..
atheist questions theist..
theist provides an answer
atheist proceeds to invalidate answer..
theist tries to clarify answer
atheist doesn't understand, starts to berate individual attempting to communicate such..
theist gives up..
atheist continue to berate all believers..

in the forums here i see more atheist trying to show us christians the error of our ways, than i do christians trying to convert all you pagan atheists..
who is showing disrespect?

i have a right to share what i know to be true..
just as you do..
you have the right to either believe what i say or not..
just like i do, with you..
you don't have the right to demean me just cause you don't believe(or have a different opinion)..



otherwise, the constant narcissisim and intolerance of religionists will be called out as they think eachothers religions are wrong or delusional!
i see more atheist doing that here than i do theists..


it's all very simple and clear!
projecting..

This discussion of 'rights' is a bit misleading. 'Rights' are special privileges given to people by the government or by the group will of society as a whole. A 'right' is not necessarily right. Once, the right to burn witches was considered reasonable. At the time I suspect that if a person declared himself/herself to be atheist, that person would also be burned. I suspect many religicos today would like to restore that custom! I have no doubt that things we call 'rights' today will be considered barbaric and unreasonable in the future.

Thus, to say we have a 'right' to do this or that, is not a scientific approach to this kind of debate. More accurate to say the current customs permit certain behaviours. There is nothing morally or ethically correct or incorrect, except what people decide, usually in a subjective and emotional way, is proper.

However, this is a science forum, and I am more interested in the scientific way of looking at things. In relation to rational thinking and credible evidence, where does religion fit in?

My own conclusions are that there is no rational logic, or credible, scientifically acceptable, evidence to warrant a belief in any deity. That quality that people call 'faith' seems to me to be just a form of gullibility - a willingness to believe what you are told without evidence.

this is getting into the differances between the religion and the individual..IE don't judge the individual for what you believe the religion is..


so you have a right to call me delusional but i do not have the right to defend what i believe?


applies to both sides of the argument..


so ppl who think the color orange is gross, are delusional?



in real life i have never met anyone who called me delusional because of my beliefs..most of the christians that i have met (when i didn't believe so much..) always asked me if i wanted to know about jesus or god..if i said no, that was the end of it..

most of the times in this forum the formula tends to be;
athiest finds theist..
atheist questions theist..
theist provides an answer
atheist proceeds to invalidate answer..
theist tries to clarify answer
atheist doesn't understand, starts to berate individual attempting to communicate such..
theist gives up..
atheist continue to berate all believers..

in the forums here i see more atheist trying to show us christians the error of our ways, than i do christians trying to convert all you pagan atheists..
who is showing disrespect?

i have a right to share what i know to be true..
just as you do..
you have the right to either believe what i say or not..
just like i do, with you..
you don't have the right to demean me just cause you don't believe(or have a different opinion)..



i see more atheist doing that here than i do theists..


projecting..

just more bs. if you have a problem with disagreement or that your "beliefs" are considered delusional, then don't share them. end of story.

that's how it works for any subject.

by the way, the problem is 'beliefs' are not the same as truths. when you are trying to take a subjective belief and trying to get others to validate it or respect them as objective truths, that is insane.

of course they are going to berate them because they keep insisting that it's a truth when it's a faith.



so ppl who think the color orange is gross, are delusional?

is the belief in an thousand legged, pink alien delusional? prove that it doesn't exist in this universe or outside of it?

this is the constant argument that is used. this forum is a scientific one, and the religion section is used to debate it scientifically or rationally. this forum doesn't exist as a haven for religious ideas as most theists here seem to think. there are other forums for that.

it can be discussed as a belief and that there is no evidence but the constant and recurring arguments are about stressing that there is proof. it is better to just present it as what one thinks it all means and leave it at that. why would anyone have a problem with that?

it's like if i said that i think a certain color is nice, then so be it. that is not what theists come here to do, they come here to purposely argue with atheists that their beliefs deserve more credence than a faith.

you are getting what you ask for.

This discussion of 'rights' is a bit misleading. 'Rights' are special privileges given to people by the government or by the group will of society as a whole. A 'right' is not necessarily right. Once, the right to burn witches was considered reasonable. At the time I suspect that if a person declared himself/herself to be atheist, that person would also be burned. I suspect many religicos today would like to restore that custom! I have no doubt that things we call 'rights' today will be considered barbaric and unreasonable in the future.
true one should specify how they are using the word, helps for context..


However, this is a science forum, and I am more interested in the scientific way of looking at things. In relation to rational thinking and credible evidence, where does religion fit in?
you basically just said there is no absolute truth..in science the search is for absolute truth..but even there, there is such a thing as no absolute truth..


My own conclusions are that there is no rational logic, or credible, scientifically acceptable, evidence to warrant a belief in any deity. That quality that people call 'faith' seems to me to be just a form of gullibility - a willingness to believe what you are told without evidence.

do as your told? or think for yourself?
its hard to compare religion to anything other than itself..religion creates the terms for its description, one must learn how religion uses those terms before one can increase understanding.IOW evidence is there to be had if one only values them as such..

IOW evidence is there to be had if one only values them as such..

this is a scientific forum. also, that is repeated yet no one is listing what those evidences are. it's left nebulous and vague because there is none.

also, science is dealing with what can be known, not what is possible. even they have conjectures but it's understood as that.

The problem with the evidences offered by people such as NMSquirrel and Lori, is that such evidences are utterly subjective, internal, and personal.

Let me quote from the item below.
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=5A344217-237D-9F22-E8B2F7A727F4242A

"The capsules contained a high dose of psilocybin, the principal constituent of “magic” mushrooms, which, like LSD and mescaline, produces changes in mood and perception yet only very rarely actual hallucinations. At the end of the session, when the psilocybin effects had dissipated, Lundahl, who had never before taken a hallucinogen, completed more questionnaires. Her responses indicated that during the time spent in the session room she had gone through a profound mystical-like experience similar to those reported by spiritual seekers in many cultures and across the ages—one characterized by a sense of interconnectedness with all people and things, accompanied by the feeling of transcending time and space, and of sacredness and joy."

A woman swallows the drug psilocybin, and has a deeply religious experience. This is the 'evidence' offered by Lori and squirrel. I do not know what induced their equivalent experiences, and I am not suggesting they took drugs. After all, many factors that interfere with brain function can induce the same kind of experience.

But, really guys, we cannot accept something so extraordinarily suspect as evidence.

what doesn't make sense is why they need atheists to believe them (and their intent is their specific religion). what is the point?

why would i need to ask someone who likes hockey why they don't like tennis? otherwise, they should expect the same question.

it's like friendship, you have things in common as well as see the world the same way. you don't go up to just anyone and ask them why they are not your friend and see the world exactly like you?

it would make some sense if their wasn't freedom of religion but they are free to believe and cohort.

would they like it if a buddhist or universalist or scientologist was insistent that their beliefs are wrong about xyz?

The problem with the evidences offered by people such as NMSquirrel and Lori, is that such evidences are utterly subjective, internal, and personal.[
i agree, with the exception of the word 'evidence' which you are using as an objective term,and many Christians testimony's are highly subjective.


A woman swallows the drug psilocybin, and has a deeply religious experience.

Her responses indicated that during the time spent in the session room she had gone through a profound mystical-like experience similar to those reported by spiritual seekers in many cultures and across the ages
i will focus on the word similar..does not mean equal..

This is the 'evidence' offered by Lori and squirrel. I do not know what induced their equivalent experiences, and I am not suggesting they took drugs. After all, many factors that interfere with brain function can induce the same kind of experience.
i have heard lori offer this..but not me..i have never shared ANY spiritual experiences with this forum.i have only shared what i believe to be true.
again a case of stereotyping, you are comparing your preconceived notions as to what religion is to the individuals..bad form..


But, really guys, we cannot accept something so extraordinarily suspect as evidence.
it is the atheist who is screaming evidence..whats the matter..don't want to take responsibility? IE you want it spelled out, so you do not have to be wrong about god..IOW you want to believe in the 'do as your told' cause it takes the responsibility away from you.


Birch
what doesn't make sense is why they need atheists to believe them (and their intent is their specific religion). what is the point?
i don't need you to believe me(your loss)..i want you to respect me.

why would i need to ask someone who likes hockey why they don't like tennis? otherwise, they should expect the same question.
why would you ask someone who knows hockey why things are like that in hockey if your just gonna go off saying you don't believe that,and discredit the person you asked just cause you do not believe.IOW if you don't have any intention of seeking understanding.. STFU..


it would make some sense if their wasn't freedom of religion but they are free to believe and cohort.

would they like it if a buddhist or universalist or scientologist was insistent that their beliefs are wrong about xyz?
im not understanding what you are asking here..

LOL He has had a Measurable impact on me. And many, many others. Our unbreakable faith is testimony to that real impact.

Your unbreakable faith is testimony to your mode of thinking and the way you were raised, it can arise just as easily in a universe without a god as it could in a universe that included one. So, by your definition, divinity is still not measurable or testable.

im not understanding what you are asking here..

typical.


i don't need you to believe me(your loss)..i want you to respect me.

lol



why would you ask someone who knows hockey why things are like that in hockey if your just gonna go off saying you don't believe that,and discredit the person you asked just cause you do not believe.IOW if you don't have any intention of seeking understanding.. STFU..

CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS ARE THE BIGGEST RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITES. since when do christians or muslims seek or even care to understand or be open to any religion or philosophy but their own???

NEVER! they only care that others respect and understand theirs!!!

on the same token, why is it incumbent on atheists to entertain or respect christians or christian beliefs so much??

wtf is ya'll's problemo?

CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS ARE THE BIGGEST RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITES. since when do christians or muslims seek or even care to understand or be open to any religion or philosophy but their own???
when they are more interested in understanding than dogma.

NEVER! they only care that others respect and understand theirs!!!

on the same token, why is it incumbent on atheists to entertain or respect christians or christian beliefs so much??

wtf is ya'll's problemo?

because atheist are the ones doing all the bad mouthing..
they are the ones who need to learn respect.
keep in mind i have never said you have to agree..respect has nothing to do with whether you agree or believe the same as i do..you are the one trashing any christian who does not believe the way you do.

when they are more interested in understanding than dogma.

please, that's outright laughable. it's just simply not true and if it is, it's very, very rare. christians believe christian doctrines. that is why they are christian and not another faith. as a matter of fact, they would not be arguing for their religion on this forum. they would be more respectful or they would frequent their own forums.

and here you are making excuses for them. as if we are supposed to be waiting for one to do that and until then, it should never be pointed out that they are just as hypocritical or bigoted while christians play the victim card because atheists don't respect their beliefs.


because atheist are the ones doing all the bad mouthing..
they are the ones who need to learn respect.
keep in mind i have never said you have to agree..respect has nothing to do with whether you agree or believe the same as i do..you are the one trashing any christian who does not believe the way you do.

pot/kettle. also, again, you ignore that it's christians always trying to get others to respect their beliefs (which is akin to agreeing with them) as if they are on some high horse.

if you look at the wording over and over, it's clear. i don't see that with other philosophies and that's why they don't get the negative response like christians do.


they are the ones who need to learn respect.

please, that's laughable. it's christians who need to learn respect. they are long and way overdue.

The problem with the evidences offered by people such as NMSquirrel and Lori, is that such evidences are utterly subjective, internal, and personal.

Let me quote from the item below.
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=5A344217-237D-9F22-E8B2F7A727F4242A

"The capsules contained a high dose of psilocybin, the principal constituent of “magic” mushrooms, which, like LSD and mescaline, produces changes in mood and perception yet only very rarely actual hallucinations. At the end of the session, when the psilocybin effects had dissipated, Lundahl, who had never before taken a hallucinogen, completed more questionnaires. Her responses indicated that during the time spent in the session room she had gone through a profound mystical-like experience similar to those reported by spiritual seekers in many cultures and across the ages—one characterized by a sense of interconnectedness with all people and things, accompanied by the feeling of transcending time and space, and of sacredness and joy."

A woman swallows the drug psilocybin, and has a deeply religious experience. This is the 'evidence' offered by Lori and squirrel. I do not know what induced their equivalent experiences, and I am not suggesting they took drugs. After all, many factors that interfere with brain function can induce the same kind of experience.

But, really guys, we cannot accept something so extraordinarily suspect as evidence.

why would you post this if i've never had a "religious" experience while eating mushrooms? there was no indication, no cause, and absolutely no evidence that anything abnormal was going on with my brain when i've had this experience, or ever. would it help you to know that i had an mri of my brain conducted during the height of the experience in 2005? results: normal. so since there's absolutely no evidence to support your idea, here's mine...being the person who actually experienced it, i think mine is more credible, and makes more sense...

spirits cause spiritual experiences.

please, that's outright laughable. it's just simply not true and if it is, it's very, very rare. christians believe christian doctrines. that is why they are christian and not another faith. as a matter of fact, they would not be arguing for their religion on this forum. they would be more respectful or they would frequent their own forums.

and here you are making excuses for them. as if we are supposed to be waiting for one to do that and until then, it should never be pointed out that they are just as hypocritical or bigoted while christians play the victim card because atheists don't respect their beliefs.



pot/kettle. also, again, you ignore that it's christians always trying to get others to respect their beliefs (which is akin to agreeing with them) as if they are on some high horse.

if you look at the wording over and over, it's clear. i don't see that with other philosophies and that's why they don't get the negative response like christians do.



please, that's laughable. it's christians who need to learn respect. they are long and way overdue.

how do you think you know so much about christians if you're not one yourself?

how do you think you know so much about christians if you're not one yourself?

because i've dealt with them and live in their world. most people are religious or theists.

please, that's outright laughable. it's just simply not true and if it is, it's very, very rare. christians believe christian doctrines. that is why they are christian and not another faith. as a matter of fact, they would not be arguing for their religion on this forum.
again..most of the argueing that i have seen on this forum have been the believers defending themselves from the non-believers..

they would be more respectful or they would frequent their own forums.
did you read my post as to why i am here and not some christian board?


and here you are making excuses for them.
i tend to do that..

as if we are supposed to be waiting for one to do that and until then, it should never be pointed out that they are just as hypocritical or bigoted while christians play the victim card because atheists don't respect their beliefs.

i will quickly add that i won't argue, if you were to say the majority of christians are like that..what i am argueing with, is you say ALL christians are like that..that reeks of predjudice and bigotry..


pot/kettle. also, again, you ignore that it's christians always trying to get others to respect their beliefs (which is akin to agreeing with them) as if they are on some high horse.
no it is not akin to agreeing with..you do not have to agree with me..just don't demean me cause my beliefs are different than yours.


if you look at the wording over and over, it's clear. i don't see that with other philosophies and that's why they don't get the negative response like christians do.
they get the negative response cause of all the christians who ARE extreme about their beliefs, that is not the majority though..just like muslims the majority are not terrorist, dont judge the whole cause a few of them screw it up..(i am talking about the individual not the religion)
this falls into the argument of self worth and using religion as an excuse to make oneself feel worthy by pointing out the flaws of others..(wait..doesn't everyone do that? not just theist?)



please, that's laughable. it's christians who need to learn respect. they are long and way overdue.
where have i not shown you respect?
when have i insulted you?
when have i told you you were delusional?
when have i told you that your beliefs are BS?

again, it's about the beliefs.

it's like saying that if someone believes that murder is okay, their belief should be respected. no, it doesn't.

i only respect philosophies that are tolerant of other religions or paths, do not place them above or below and consider that they can be right for others if the motive is to seek truth, compassion, understanding and enlightenment.

the analogy is that fundamental religions is akin to saying only one country or culture exists or one color in the rainbow.

i just do not respect that and i do think the religious doctrines or religion is bs.

again, it's about the beliefs.

it's like saying that if someone believes that murder is okay, their belief should be respected. no, it doesn't.
murder is ok..just ask anyone in the military..


i only respect philosophies that are tolerant of other religions or paths, do not place them above or below and consider that they can be right as well if the motive is to seek truth, compassion, understanding and enlightenment.
true enough..

the analogy is that fundamental religions is akin to saying only one country or culture exists or one color in the rainbow.
see now you are getting more specific in your description of christians you are refering to..:thumbsup:
and i do not subscribe to that belief..i believe every religion has a piece of the puzzle..that no ONE religion has ALL the answers..

i just do not respect that and i do think the religious doctrines or religion is bs.
this is a more acurate statement than condeming all christians..
and don't stop at just thinking it is ALL BS, scrutinize it to see what about it is BS and how HUMANS have contributed to that BS..
you should find that there is no differance between theist and atheist..
IOW whatever the atheist accuse the theist of doing the atheist is guilty of also (and vice versa)

because i've dealt with them and live in their world. most people are religious or theists.

dealt with them how?

i live in a world with a bunch of physicists and chemists and biologists, but i went to school for accounting so i don't know much about those things. i live in a world with a bunch of muslims and buddhists but don't know much about those religions. i live in a country that has a black population, and i don't know what it's like to be black in this country.

would you say that your view of christians is much like a racists view of black people? you know...they're all the same. sounds like it to me.

would you say that your view of christians is much like a racists view of black people? you know...they're all the same. sounds like it to me.

your tactic is starting to really piss me off. i could say the same for theists views about atheists. with theists the insult goes even deeper as they not only think that atheists are wrong but they think people of other religions are usually wrong and they will go to hell. how the hell do you know? you aren't them and you don't know them or their religion. you only know your religion and what it tells you. how do you know that god does not speak to others with or without christ? how do you know if others who are not christian are not working for the greater good? you aren't them and walked in their shoes, right? how do you know anything about what is going to happen to anyone? you belong in the group that is the most guilty and you have the nerve to spout this hypocrisy.

what's even more absurd and hilarious is you are using the same argument as msquirrel but your religious views are even more intolerant and exactly what i think is bigoted.

on the same token, who are these mass of christians you think you are defending and how do you know what they think? you are saying that they are all different and if they are, then their label of christian is rather irrevelant in reality when it comes down to it? it could veer wildly from what you believe, so why would you even care to defend them? what would even be the reason? what if someone who claims to be a christian believes that gay marriage is fine? or that abortion is fine? or that people of other religions will not go to hell or even atheists as long as they are trying to do the right thing? or that other religious paths are just as valid?

so this cheap ruse and excuse you are using is rather disingenous and smoke/mirrors isn't it? if you don't believe what other supposed christians might, it's moot as to why you are concerned with whether they are all considered the same? then it's just a "label" that means nothing. how about the fact, some may consider YOU'RE an example of what christians should not be judged by and they don't all have your bigoted views?

the reason why you don't understand other religions is because you've never tried to learn about them. your reasoning is rather unrealistic (no big surprise). just because you aren't a christian doesn't mean you can't understand the religion just as one can learn what buddhism is even if they aren't a buddhist.



this is a more acurate statement than condeming all christians..
and don't stop at just thinking it is ALL BS, scrutinize it to see what about it is BS and how HUMANS have contributed to that BS..
you should find that there is no differance between theist and atheist..
IOW whatever the atheist accuse the theist of doing the atheist is guilty of also (and vice versa)

this is the same misconception that's used over and over.

a person shouldn't have to scrutinize your damn religion to figure out who did what bs and how it screwed up religion when it's the doctrines themselves. that is quite a laugh. those are just further excuses. the point is that christians identify as christian which represents the entire whole.

otherwise, one could just cite jesus' message and follow that as a way of life without even calling themselves a christian.

your tactic is starting to really piss me off. i could say the same for theists views about atheists. with theists the insult goes even deeper as they not only think that atheists are wrong but they think people of other religions are usually wrong and they will go to hell. how the hell do you know? you aren't them and you don't know them or their religion. you only know your religion and what it tells you. how do you know that god does not speak to others with or without christ? how do you know if others who are not christian are not working for the greater good? you aren't them and walked in their shoes, right? how do you know anything about what is going to happen to anyone? you belong in the group that is the most guilty and you have the nerve to spout this hypocrisy.

what's even more absurd and hilarious is you are using the same argument as msquirrel but your religious views are even more intolerant and exactly what i think is bigoted.

on the same token, who are these mass of christians you think you are defending and how do you know what they think? you are saying that they are all different and if they are, then their label of christian is rather irrevelant in reality when it comes down to it? it could veer wildly from what you believe, so why would you even care to defend them? what would even be the reason? what if someone who claims to be a christian believes that gay marriage is fine? or that abortion is fine? or that people of other religions will not go to hell or even atheists as long as they are trying to do the right thing? or that other religious paths are just as valid?

so this cheap ruse and excuse you are using is rather disingenous and smoke/mirrors isn't it? if you don't believe what other supposed christians might, it's moot as to why you are concerned with whether they are all considered the same? then it's just a "label" that means nothing. how about the fact, some may consider YOU'RE an example of what christians should not be judged by and they don't all have your bigoted views?

the reason why you don't understand other religions is because you've never tried to learn about them. your reasoning is rather unrealistic (no big surprise). just because you aren't a christian doesn't mean you can't understand the religion just as one can learn what buddhism is even if they aren't a buddhist.




this is the same misconception that's used over and over.

a person shouldn't have to scrutinize your damn religion to figure out who did what bs and how it screwed up religion when it's the doctrines themselves. that is quite a laugh. those are just further excuses. the point is that christians identify as christian which represents the entire whole.

otherwise, one could just cite jesus' message and follow that as a way of life without even calling themselves a christian.


wow, you're a raging hypocrite. do you know what it takes to be a hypocrite? a lack of insight. so far you've demonstrated a lack of insight into the foundational tenets of christianity in general, the difference between god and religion, and the beliefs and motives of people like me and mr. squirrel. but it goes beyond that if you ignore abundant available resources regarding the subject, and emphatically ignore statements that people like me and mr. squirrel make, which you do. that speaks to your motive. it's not impressive, and 'smoke and mirrors' won't hide it.

for example, you've apparently chosen to ignore the fact that squirrel and i both have explained to you that in our opinion, religion doesn't matter. so being of a logical mind, i have to ask, how is your tirade over religion here relevant to that?

for example, you've apparently chosen to ignore the fact that squirrel and i both have explained to you that in our opinion, religion doesn't matter. so being of a logical mind, i have to ask, how is your tirade over religion here relevant to that?

please, don't tell us about hypocrisy. your arguments are just switched up when it suits you. you said that religion doesn't matter, then you state that without christ, one is doomed.

make up your mind.


you ignore abundant available resources regarding the subject

this is even more irrevelant considering they all contradict eachother. i even posted "for you", some resources from other christians whom totally disagree with your take on the bible.

what sources are you talking about that is the "true" one? lol

what you don't get is that god is not a religion. neither is christ. neither is buddah. neither is allah. religion is it's own animal, and it's an animal that i don't want much to do with. when i say i don't go to church, i am the church, that's what i mean. "the church", as described in the bible, is not a place, and it is not a particular group of religious people. "the church", imo, will most likely be comprised of the most wide variety of religious, non-religious, ethnicities, sexes, ages, and lifestyles, but with a common desire and knowledge that has nothing to do with that.

religion is nothing more than an organization that's based on some book, or concept, or god, or person...but the religion is not the book, concept, god, or person itself. if someone were to want to take the experience i had in 2005 and build a religion around it, they could. once a week they could all get together and don fuzzy robes, drink beer, and dance around. once a year they could practice the ritual of kicking their dining room wall repeatedly until they've broken their toe. hang pictures of rock stars around their homes, maybe have little statues.

perhaps i could write a book about what happened to me and they can number the sentences in it, and memorize them so they can recite them.

or perhaps they could just read it, find it interesting or not, and move on with their lives, and maybe one day experience something themselves that they can relate it to...maybe not. don't you see that religion is not going to allow someone else to experience what i did? and it's no indication that they're going to understand the meaning of it. it's not going to allow them to know me. you know, you can get on your knees 3 times a day and bow to a wall, and due to that over time, you will come to know how to get on your knees and bow to a wall very well. but it won't get you to god, and neither will singing a song, or practicing a ritual, or donning a costume, or reading a book, or being a member of any man-made organization or religion.

please, don't tell us about hypocrisy. your arguments are just switched up when it suits you. you said that religion doesn't matter, then you state that without christ, one is doomed.

make up your mind.

i also told you that christ is not a religion, and what do you know? you ignored that too.




this is even more irrevelant considering they all contradict eachother. i even posted "for you", some resources from other christians whom totally disagree with your take on the bible.

what sources are you talking about that is the "true" one? lol

the holy spirit and personal experience. you know, those things you're avoiding by talking about religion?

oh, and btw, if anyone is really interested in practicing my religion, i thought i'd mention that you do get to drink beer before you kick the wall until your toe breaks. just so you know. i do think that pain, and beer come to think of it, do help to clear your mind of other things which helps you to focus, or not focus, however you choose to see it. but more than that, i just think it would be HILARIOUS.

what you don't get is that god is not a religion. neither is christ. neither is buddah. neither is allah. religion is it's own animal, and it's an animal that i don't want much to do with. when i say i don't go to church, i am the church, that's what i mean. "the church", as described in the bible, is not a place, and it is not a particular group of religious people. "the church", imo, will most likely be comprised of the most wide variety of religious, non-religious, ethnicities, sexes, ages, and lifestyles, but with a common desire and knowledge that has nothing to do with that.

religion is nothing more than an organization that's based on some book, or concept, or god, or person...but the religion is not the book, concept, god, or person itself. if someone were to want to take the experience i had in 2005 and build a religion around it, they could. once a week they could all get together and don fuzzy robes, drink beer, and dance around. once a year they could practice the ritual of kicking their dining room wall repeatedly until they've broken their toe. hang pictures of rock stars around their homes, maybe have little statues.

perhaps i could write a book about what happened to me and they can number the sentences in it, and memorize them so they can recite them.

or perhaps they could just read it, find it interesting or not, and move on with their lives, and maybe one day experience something themselves that they can relate it to...maybe not. don't you see that religion is not going to allow someone else to experience what i did? and it's no indication that they're going to understand the meaning of it. it's not going to allow them to know me. you know, you can get on your knees 3 times a day and bow to a wall, and due to that over time, you will come to know how to get on your knees and bow to a wall very well. but it won't get you to god, and neither will singing a song, or practicing a ritual, or donning a costume, or reading a book, or being a member of any man-made organization or religion.

NOW you've finally decided to make clear what you believe. or it seems that you've done that after all the feedback of other people's posts and you've compiled it passing it off as your own! otherwise, why didn't you post this before when you were asked over and over again? it was like pulling teeth.

don't preach to me about what god is or isn't. what's even more arrogant is your pretense that i or those who have been posting don't already know what you NOW decided to spout and have been telling you all along! you've been going back and forth contradicting yourself until the coast was clear to what you think would be acceptable to those here, again pretending that they are the ignorant ones.

you stated that those without christ was doomed and it took you a long time to even get to concede that religion is not important or even that christ is not the only way.

you pretend this was what you believed all along, if you did you would have posted this way before!

NOW you've finally decided to make clear what you believe. or it seems that you've done that after all the feedback of other people's posts and you've compiled it passing it off as your own! otherwise, why didn't you post this before when you were asked over and over again? it was like pulling teeth.

don't preach to me about what god is or isn't. what's even more arrogant is your pretense that i or those who have been posting don't already know what you NOW decided to spout and have been telling you all along! you've been going back and forth contradicting yourself until the coast was clear to what you think would be acceptable to those here, again pretending that they are the ignorant ones.

you stated that those without christ was doomed and it took you a long time to even get to concede that religion is not important or even that christ is not the only way.

you pretend this was what you believed all along, if you did you would have posted this way before!

i've been a member of this forum for about a decade, and i've never believed anything else. i have reiterated my thoughts on religion here countless times.

you come across as being slightly crazed and off your rocker. you should chill.

can i get a witness?

then their label of christian is rather irrevelant in reality when it comes down to it?
the actual word christian only means to be christ like..
ppl tend to assign more meaning to it when talking about religion..
so of course there are gonna be some misunderstanding when someone says 'christian'


what if someone who claims to be a christian believes that gay marriage is fine?
i do not think it is fine..but i will NOT condemn a person for being gay or for being married..


or that abortion is fine?
yea..ppl want to make it a law that forces more ppl into this world who don't wanna be here..givin the choice between an abortion and have the kids raised by parents who do not want them(abusive,neglective,druggies), i would think the better option is abortion..


or that people of other religions will not go to hell or even atheists as long as they are trying to do the right thing? or that other religious paths are just as valid?
that is not for us to decide, any accusations to such is purely opinion.


then it's just a "label" that means nothing.
actually the label christian is the closest i have to describe myself..any other label is just insufficient..


how about the fact, some may consider YOU'RE an example of what christians should not be judged by
now there is an honest statement..this is what i argue with..don't take all the bad things that christians do and lump it together for a reason to be a hater..
christians are just as screwed up as non-christians..i hate that some christians try to act all perfect..



this is the same misconception that's used over and over.
why is the fact that christians are just as human as you are, a misconception?
i am arguing with you to try to reconcile the common misconceptions about christians..(i use that term loosley,just to mean anyone who believes in christ)

a person shouldn't have to scrutinize your damn religion to figure out who did what bs and how it screwed up religion when it's the doctrines themselves. that is quite a laugh. those are just further excuses. the point is that christians identify as christian which represents the entire whole.
the doctrines themselves were made by humans..and as such are susceptible to error..doctrines are not ordained by god..they are ordained by man.
AND i do not consider myself religious in ANY way..just cause i believe in god does not make me religious,,religiousness is ritual and adherence to a particular doctrine..so your statement about MY religion is inaccurate..
if it were my religion it would be called 'Church of the living Squirrel'..lol..


otherwise, one could just cite jesus' message and follow that as a way of life without even calling themselves a christian.
see that would work..but ppl tend to put labels on things and the term 'christian' (to be christ like) is the closest some are comfortable labeling themselves..

you come across as being slightly crazed and off your rocker.

i have got to say this lori...

you are guilty of the same thing...:p

Query to squirrel.

I am looking to see why religious peoples believe. In other words, what evidence do they see for their particular deity?

So why are you a christian? What evidence convinces you that the christian type deity exists?

I have seen Lori's evidence. That is : subjective personal religious experience, of a type that has been demonstrated to be inducable by drugs and other means. Clearly not a form of evidence that is scientifically admissable.

So, squirrel, is your evidence better, and what is it?

Query to squirrel.

I am looking to see why religious peoples believe. In other words, what evidence do they see for their particular deity?
first the word evidence is misleading..it denote an objective frame of reference..
what you said..

subjective personal <Deleted> experience
sums up what christians deem as evidence..
this includes me..i cannot share with you why i believe and expect you to believe for the same reasons..everyone has their own reasons..
to answer at risk of offending other believers i would answer..(applies to me also)
I get sick of the world putting me down, telling me i cannot do this or cannot do that..telling me how worthless i am..at church (the right one) you do not get that because the ppl are there for the same reasons, they want to feel a sense of worth..and the better ones understand what it is that makes them feel worthless and do not put that on others..


So why are you a christian? What evidence convinces you that the christian type deity exists?
i am a christian because i choose to be..
what evidence? (ignoring the objective nature of that word..)
um.. i object to the term christian type..i believe god is god..it is man who makes it an ownership issue..

but to answer your question..(have posted this in other thread,so this is the short version)..
the closest i can describe it is when pondering a particular subject, i would hear someone telling me about the same subject without me prompting them, then i would overhear someone else (i dont know them) talking about the same thing, then i would hear about it on the radio..too many times to consider coincidence..


I have seen Lori's evidence. That is : subjective personal religious experience, of a type that has been demonstrated to be inducable by drugs and other means. Clearly not a form of evidence that is scientifically admissable.
there ya go again trying to make it about a definitive answer..
it IS highly subjective..there will never be any objective answers as to god.
if there were, there would be NO need for faith..and faith is the foundation of god.
without faith any relationship will be doomed..not just the one with god..

and im not gonna comment on whether i think lori needs more drugs or not..:rolleyes:

So, squirrel, is your evidence better, and what is it?
objective evidence?
better is also subjective..
to answer your question....
(see above for short version..search forum for long version)

Squirrel

We are all different. You and Lori appear to be happy to accept a form of evidence that I and other more critical thinking people are not. I cannot persuade you to reject unscientific evidence, and go for that which is more rigorous. I trust you will forgive me for saying that I see your approach as being a major flaw, shared by a large part of the human species, in ability to seek out that which is true.

And incidentally, I have never suggested Lori takes drugs. Just that the experience she describes can be induced by drugs. This suggests to me that the experience is internal and false, just as drug induced experiences are false.

Skeptical,


I am agnostic, but leaning towards atheism. The reason for that lean is that I have been agnostic for 46 years, and have still seen nothing that could be called credible evidence for any deity. A positive proof of the existence of deity would be very, very easy, if said deity would bother to cooperate.

Why not look at it another way as well.
Everything is proof of an intelligent agent (God/Diety), and look for positive proof of everything coming from nothing.
"Nothing" should be quite a challenge in and of itself. :)



All he, she or it has to do is come and see me, show a few miracles, tell me what he/she/it wants, and leave me with a permanent miraculous power, such as flying like superman, and I will follow his/her/its teachings with enthusiasm for the rest of my life. Strangely, it has not happened, and I seriously doubt it ever will.


So you are prepared to accept existence of diety according to your own standard of acceptance?
Isn't that what you think most folks do?



The reason I am not a total atheist is that it is impossible to prove a negative. Hence I cannot disprove the existence of deity. If a deity existed, all-powerful, and decide to hide from humanity, then he/she/it would remain hidden. So we cannot disprove deity.


Sure you can disprove such an existence.
The same way you would deem one to exist.



What is rational? Rationality is being able to recognise what is real. Is the belief behind religion real? Without better evidence, or unless said deity decides to come down and prove him/her/its existence, I have to say that is seriously improbable.


Especially as you've already made up your mind as to what constitutes evidence of proof.
You can decide what you like. Brilliant? :)

jan.

Squirrel

We are all different. You and Lori appear to be happy to accept a form of evidence that I and other more critical thinking people are not.
on the contrary, if you apply critical thinking to your favoured methodology, you would see that its absurd to expect it to be capable to deliver the results.

I mean how much research with the mind and senses would you be required to determine something that lies beyond it?


I cannot persuade you to reject unscientific evidence, and go for that which is more rigorous.
probably no more than you can be persuaded to reject the claim that empiricism has a monopoly on all knowable claims
:shrug:


I trust you will forgive me for saying that I see your approach as being a major flaw, shared by a large part of the human species, in ability to seek out that which is true.
your flaw seems to be extrapolating the tacit "truths" of empiricism to categories that stand outside of the purview of the methodology

Jan

My standard of evidence is exactly the same as that which would be acceptable to a peer reviewed and reputable scientific journal. For this reason, your feeling that I am simply creating standards of evidence to suit myself, is simply wrong.

lightgigantic

Your ideas of 'evidence' for something unknowable breach those standards of scientific truth. If a deity existed, that met the criteria laid down by Christianity, then he/she/it would be eminently capable of providing all the evidence I, or any other non theist, would demand.

Why should I, and others like me, trained in scientific thought and the standards of scientific evidence, accept second rate non empirical, subjective and non repeatable evidence? Your simple assertions are definitely not sufficient reason.

I come from a 'christian' background myself, and am questioning the reasoning behind the 'fact' that is taught us from infancy. I have no problem with people believing what they will-it is their life.

However, how can they 'prove' a deity to me? They can't. If I choose to believe in one, that is all it is--belief. I think many religions are threatened by the idea that they cannot scientifically prove the existence and rationality of their beliefs and so turn to anything that will prop it up and legitimize it...regardless of the logicality of it.

I say that any deity who requires it's followers to endlessly defend it is no god worth having.


I told you that there are none but temporary Truth-Seekers; that a permanent one is a human impossibility; that as soon as the Seeker finds what he is thoroughly convinced is the Truth, he seeks no further, but gives the rest of his days to hunting junk to patch it and caulk it and prop it with, and make it weather-proof and keep it from caving in on him.

Hence the Presbyterian remains a Presbyterian, the Mohammedan a Mohammedan, the Spiritualist a Spiritualist, the Democrat a Democrat, the Republican a Republican, the Monarchist a Monarchist; and if a humble, earnest, and sincere Seeker after Truth should find it in the proposition that the moon is made of green cheese nothing could ever budge him from that position; for he is nothing but an automatic machine, and must obey the laws of his construction.

Having found the Truth; perceiving that beyond question man has but one moving impulse--the contenting of his own spirit-- and is merely a machine and entitled to no personal merit for anything he does, it is not humanly possible for me to seek further.The rest of my days will be spent in patching and painting and puttying and caulking my priceless possession and in looking the other way when an imploring argument or a damaging fact approaches.

~ The conversation between the Old Man & The Young Man--Mark Twain

(For those of you who may not be used to Mark Twain, I find the above to be an amusing perception of human nature, though I don't believe the case to be so utterly hopeless...as what he says is almost always tongue-in-cheek...)

My standard of evidence is exactly the same as that which would be acceptable to a peer reviewed and reputable scientific journal. For this reason, your feeling that I am simply creating standards of evidence to suit myself, is simply wrong.

For some reason, you are subscribing to those standards of evidence, and not to some others.
As such, you are making a choice, one to suit yourself.



If a deity existed, that met the criteria laid down by Christianity, then he/she/it would be eminently capable of providing all the evidence I, or any other non theist, would demand.

That does not apply, as one of the basic criteria in mainstream versions of Christianity is that one should not tempt God or demand evidence of His existence.



Why should I, and others like me, trained in scientific thought and the standards of scientific evidence, accept second rate non empirical, subjective and non repeatable evidence?

Your simple assertions are definitely not sufficient reason.

I agree with that last part.

To signal

"One should not tempt God."

Is this principle independent of, or a result of the need to avoid anything that might require proper evidence?

I do not believe I am making a specific choice in asking for scientifically acceptable evidence, except that I choose to do that which is rational.

"One should not tempt God."

Is this principle independent of, or a result of the need to avoid anything that might require proper evidence?

I don't know, but you were talking about a "deity that met the criteria laid down by Christianity".
So I am pointing out that one cannot actually put forward any kind of verification requests to God as understood by mainstream Christianity.
Such requests simply do not apply.



I do not believe I am making a specific choice in asking for scientifically acceptable evidence,

You are.



except that I choose to do that which is rational.

Note that this is just one very particular kind of "rationality", among many.

I recall there was an incident in the Old Testament in which a 'holy' person tested God. A mundane test, to be sure, relating to whether a fleece got wet or stayed dry, but still a test. So the precedent is there.

Squirrel

We are all different. You and Lori appear to be happy to accept a form of evidence that I and other more critical thinking people are not. I cannot persuade you to reject unscientific evidence, and go for that which is more rigorous.
do you disagree with my statement about faith needs no evidence?
what is your take on faith?
how does science define faith?
(i am not asking for a religious context)
do you understand what i mean by faith is needed for relationships?


in ability to seek out that which is true.

i have always looked for truth..some truths cannot be had by experimenting..IE how do you KNOW your spouse loves you? (trying to tie this question with above comment about faith and relationships)



And incidentally, I have never suggested Lori takes drugs. Just that the experience she describes can be induced by drugs. This suggests to me that the experience is internal and false, just as drug induced experiences are false.
yea i know you haven't suggested lori takes drugs..

just because it can be induced by drugs does not mean it is a false experience..(internal is another story)
i believe her when she says that stuff..it doesn't mean i have shared such experiences..doesn't mean i think everyone should have those experiences..it doesn't even mean i agree with her..it just means i believe she believes it.

if i knew her in real life and she shared that with me, i would think she was a little nuts..(i would pry give her a little lip about it,but i would find a unique way to tease her) i would not spend the rest of my time trying to convince her that she is nuts..she has a RIGHT to believe what she believes,it does not matter whether i agree with her or not..it is NOT my life that is subjective to her experiences..

makes me wonder how her husband teases her about it..

Jan

My standard of evidence is exactly the same as that which would be acceptable to a peer reviewed and reputable scientific journal. For this reason, your feeling that I am simply creating standards of evidence to suit myself, is simply wrong.
ok that is a good point..peers are those who are like minded..a peer reviewed study on astrophysics would not mean anything coming from a physician..
so using that analogy..most athiest are asking to be included in the peer review process concerning god..(they make judgments outside of their experiences..) so of course it is a hard thing to understand..



lightgigantic

Your ideas of 'evidence' for something unknowable breach those standards of scientific truth. If a deity existed, that met the criteria laid down by Christianity, then he/she/it would be eminently capable of providing all the evidence I, or any other non theist, would demand.

Why should I, and others like me, trained in scientific thought and the standards of scientific evidence, accept second rate non empirical, subjective and non repeatable evidence? Your simple assertions are definitely not sufficient reason.

what is faith?
(see my other post)

Squirrel

I do not have a good feeling for faith.

Scepticism and faith are opposites. The opposite of sceptical is gullible. That should give you a pretty good idea of how I feel about it.

Faith is the quality that allows people to become suckers, and get ripped off by con artists. Having that much faith in other people, who happen to be charismatic, is a recipe for exploitation. I do not think that religious faith differs in any practical way from the faith people have in smooth talking used car salesmen or swindlers.

For that matter, the personal qualities that allow someone to become a smooth talking, charismatic swindler are pretty much exactly the same qualities that permit someone to become a successful evangelist. Joseph Smith, who founded the Mormons, is a great example. He was actually jailed for swindling people out of their money. Then he founded a religion. After that, and until he was lynched, he lived a sweet life, with heaps of money coming in, and lots of sex from his female followers. Pity about that lynching....

Squirrel

I do not have a good feeling for faith.


are you in a relationship?
do you plan on being in one?
you cannot have a relationship without faith..

you cannot reasonably expect your other half to PROVE their love to you..you take it on faith that they do love you..there is NO evidence (using the term as an atheist would) that they could give to prove that they love you..all you have is their word..
to dismiss faith just because it is usually associated with a religious connotation is very irresponsible..
(more later..stargate is on..)

Squirrel

I am married, and I love my wife very much.
I am not sure that her love for me is purely a matter of faith. I see the evidence every day. It is not just her words, but her actions. After being married for more than 20 years, I know her well, and she would find it very difficult to fool me.

So no. I do not need faith for this. The evidence is clear cut and strong, and very credible.

Nor do I ask for proof, in this or in religious matters. Just strong, credible evidence. In science we know that nothing is ever 100% proven.

Squirrel

I am married, and I love my wife very much.
I am not sure that her love for me is purely a matter of faith. I see the evidence every day. It is not just her words, but her actions. After being married for more than 20 years, I know her well, and she would find it very difficult to fool me.

So no. I do not need faith for this. The evidence is clear cut and strong, and very credible.

Nor do I ask for proof, in this or in religious matters. Just strong, credible evidence. In science we know that nothing is ever 100% proven.

but this evidence is very subjective, correct?
if you were to explain this evidence to someone else, could it not be argued with?
a believers relationship with god is akin to your love for your wife..yes you have been with her a long time and have come to believe that she loves you..
but was it as sure in the begining?

you say there is no need for faith in your relationship..(ask her about this)
i say you have had it for so long that you no longer recognize it as faith and have concluded it as fact..just as a believer concludes that there is a god as fact.

Squirrel

Of course it was not as sure in the beginning. When my wife and I met, and came to love each other, there was no way I could know with any high probability of her feelings. I accepted the uncertainty, and we moved forward.

Today things are different, since I now know her mind and emotions in detail. I can predict how she will respond in most situations. This is definitely not the same as the relationship between a christian and his/her imaginary friend. My wife is clearly and obviously far from imaginary. My success in prediction is also far from imaginary. My acceptance that she most probably does love me is not based on faith.

I have to also say that faith is not the same as uncertainty. Nothing in life is certain. However, when something is very probable, we act as if it were correct. How else can you act? Religious faith takes something that is extremely improbable and accepts it as true.

Squirrel

Of course it was not as sure in the beginning. When my wife and I met, and came to love each other, there was no way I could know with any high probability of her feelings. I accepted the uncertainty, and we moved forward.
most new believers have that same uncertainty,

Today things are different, since I now know her mind and emotions in detail. I can predict how she will respond in most situations. This is definitely not the same as the relationship between a christian and his/her imaginary friend. My wife is clearly and obviously far from imaginary. My success in prediction is also far from imaginary. My acceptance that she most probably does love me is not based on faith.
actuall i can predict gods reaction to certain choices i make..i know god has a sense of humor..the easiest to communicate is 'What else can go wrong?'. or when you just wash you car..it rains..etc...true enough its not as reliable as predicting your wife, but it is still there non the less..

I have to also say that faith is not the same as uncertainty. Nothing in life is certain. However, when something is very probable, we act as if it were correct. How else can you act? Religious faith takes something that is extremely improbable and accepts it as true.
you use the term improbable outside a peer point of view..
IOW ask any believer and they would argue with you..

now i did notice you had seperated faith and religious faith..
they are actually one and the same, it is just that the word faith is used more extensively in religious contexts..
the word/concept of 'faith' is not a bad thing to be avoided just because religion tends to try and own it..

you have faith every time you believe someone when they tell you they will be there at X o'clock..
or when your boss says he will give you a raise..or many other instances..

how about this..
whenever you hear someone talk about god substitute the word 'love' for the word 'god' see if that makes it easier to understand..

who are you speaking for? christians or people of all faiths?

Myself primarily.





and atheists don't try to break anyone's faith.

Yes they do. Some work very hard to break people's faith.





atheists argue over poor and illogical thinking in relation to it.

Most atheists protest over the expressed will of God. They are against God not because of His existence or otherwise but because they disagree with His teachings.




there is nothing to break if one believes. it's a choice. atheists don't go to christian forums to try and persuade them otherwise or at least most don't, just like they don't go to church to try and persuade either.

Of course atheists go to Christian forums to persuade them otherwise. There are many hard core atheist, anti-christians who make it their life’s work to destroy the faith of Christians.




people have freedom of religion but that doesn't mean religionists have some right to demand it's a fact.

What’s this demand business? I tell people what i believe. I do not demand anyone believes.




even your post is hinting that it is.

Quote where i demanded anything.




why theists constantly want to butt it up against atheists seems to betray how strong your beliefs really are as well as their beliefs are intolerant since you have freedom of religion and your organizations.


If Theists had no tolerance for atheists then a lot of atheists would be killed. Christians are given an order by Jesus to go out and share the gospel. it is not a "butt it up" kind of situation at all.




it's christians who have a problem with atheists not believing or confirming that it's a truth instead of a personal belief.

Well yeah it is a problem for us. People who reject the atonement of the Messiah Jesus will have eternity in the Lake of Fire. So that is a real problem for many Christians and why we are so motivated to give the Message and persist with atheists.

As for atheists not confirming my belief in God, the bible tells me what someone who does not believe in God is.

Psalm 14
1 The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.”

And i believe it.

So how can may faith be undermined by a person who says “There is no God.”


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Your unbreakable faith is testimony to your mode of thinking and the way you were raised, it can arise just as easily in a universe without a god as it could in a universe that included one. So, by your definition, divinity is still not measurable or testable.

It is measurable and testable. But it is not provable using the scientific method.

God Does Not Want to be Proven by the Scientific Method. He wants the Message He gives to Draw those who are willing to be Moved by It.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Well yeah it is a problem for us. People who reject the atonement of the Messiah Jesus will have eternity in the Lake of Fire. So that is a real problem for many Christians and why we are so motivated to give the Message and persist with atheists.

As for atheists not confirming my belief in God, the bible tells me what someone who does not believe in God is.

Psalm 14
1 The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.”

And i believe it.

So how can may faith be undermined by a person who says “There is no God.”


you don't understand. you are speaking for the whole concept of god but your religion is christianity. this is what commonly happens as they usually think that they have some monopoly on god. you are really asking them to see the universe or the meaning of existence or question in the same way you do. just because someone identifies as atheist, doesn't mean they are not spiritually aware or spiritual in some way whether they realize it or not.

there are people who do not think of the concept of god or the 'meaning of it all' in the same way.

the scripture you are describing is denoting even betrayal of one's own heart or debasing, suffocating or denying one's spirit/soul (identity), emotions and senses whether concrete or subtle/nuanced. again, just because one identifies as an atheist or agnostic, doesn't mean they do this.

furthermore, that's a general scripture but there are people of many religions that differ from yours that believe in the concept of a deity or some higher power or various forces. so it's not just that the issue is whether atheists believe or don't believe, but whether they believe in a specific religious "version" of this issue.

on the same token, why is it incumbent on atheists to entertain or respect christians or christian beliefs so much??

wtf is ya'll's problemo?


LOL.... :eek: I have been on this forum for years and i must say no respect has ever been shown to Christians or Christianity by athiests on this forum. Nothing but insults, mockery, denegration and persecution. And you follow the same mode. So Where is this supposed entertaining or respect for Christians or Christianity you talk about?

Seems you have the problem in not seeing what happens in here everyday.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I am constantly baffled by religico's views. Adstar is a prime example. Absolutely no conception of the need for credible evidence.

Faith is a quality that, in everyday life, leads to people being screwed by other people. If you have faith in the used car salesman, guess what you buy. The early Mormons had faith, and Joseph Smith stole their wives. Having faith is another phrase meaning 'gullible'.

In religion, having faith means giving up your valuable time to carry out pointless vocal gymnastics in some church, and giving money to the parasites who work in that church. To me, before I sacrificed both time and money, I would need to be convinced by solid, credible evidence, that what I was giving time and money to was worthwhile.

I fail to understand why religicos seem to think that evidence which would not stand up in a court of law, or be accepted by a scientific journal, is OK. It is not OK. It is not rational to believe in something for which there is no solid evidence. If religious beliefs are correct, then the evidence must be there.

you don't understand. you are speaking for the whole concept of god but your religion is christianity. this is what commonly happens as they usually think that they have some monopoly on god. you are really asking them to see the universe or the meaning of existence or question in the same way you do. just because someone identifies as atheist, doesn't mean they are not spiritually aware or spiritual in some way whether they realize it or not.

there are people who do not think of the concept of god or the 'meaning of it all' in the same way you do.

the scripture you are describing is denoting even betrayal of one's own heart or debasing, suffocating or denying one's spirit/soul. again, just because one identifies as an atheist or agnostic, doesn't mean they do this.

furthermore, that's a general scripture but there are people of many religions that differ from yours that believe in the concept of a deity or some higher power or various forces. so it's not just that the issue is whether atheists believe or don't believe, but whether they believe in a specific religious "version" of this issue.

So??? If someone has another idea and they are motivated to share it with then sweet. I will listen to their Spiritual views. And i in turn will share my views with them. THATS WHAT PEOPLE DO ON FORUMS.

So whats with all the attitude you vent out about Christians sharing their views in a "Religion" Section of a forum?

Like :eek: Christians are talking about Christianity inside the Religion section of the forum :eek: when's someone going to put a stop to this :eek: ......


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

So whats with all the attitude you vent out about Christians sharing their views in a "Religion" Section of a forum?

No, it's because you said atheists don't believe in "god". that has many different meanings to different people. even when most agnostics admit there is no proof either way, they don't mean they think in the christian or muslim etc sense either.

a person could have their own spiritual explanation for existence which does not line up to the traditional definition of what the word 'god' usually denotes by traditional religion which is usually a deity etc.

I am constantly baffled by religico's views. Adstar is a prime example. Absolutely no conception of the need for credible evidence.

No mate people like you want a CERTAIN TYPE OF EVIDANCE other than the Evidence God wills to give mankind.




Faith is a quality that, in everyday life, leads to people being screwed by other people.

Yes i agree. But the mistake they make is to place their faith in other people. Faith should only be placed in God.




If you have faith in the used car salesman, guess what you buy. The early Mormons had faith, and Joseph Smith stole their wives. Having faith is another phrase meaning 'gullible'.

Yep they had faith in other men. But God is perfect and Good and Just. So faith/trust in Him is a safe bet :)




In religion, having faith means giving up your valuable time to carry out pointless vocal gymnastics in some church,

I have not been inside a church for years. So no vocal gymnastics needed for me.



and giving money to the parasites who work in that church.

I have not given any money to a church in years.




I fail to understand why religicos seem to think that evidence which would not stand up in a court of law, or be accepted by a scientific journal, is OK. It is not OK.

Yes it is Ok, because God wants it that way. If it was scientifically proven that God exists and He is the God of Abraham then some people would submit to Him out of fear not through trust and agreement. Do you think God wants to spend eternity with people who hate the love of His Truth? Therefore His message is the attractor, drawing those who God wants with Him in Eternity.





It is not rational to believe in something for which there is no solid evidence. If religious beliefs are correct, then the evidence must be there.

Of course it is there. But it is spiritual in nature, not a measurable physical thing. Science cannot measure God. Science is only good for measuring the created, not the Creator.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

No, it's because you said atheists don't believe in "god".

Helloooo, If someone says they do not believe in the God of Abraham then when i say they do not believe in God then THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. Simple statement of fact.



that has many different meanings to different people.

So?? If they want to express their views all good and well. If they believe i am wrong in my views i will nor be chucking a temper tantrum like you. I am confident in my faith, No one saying that i am wrong can undermine my confidence. If others have a problem with me stating that i believe they are wrong then they are showing a Lack of confidence in their view.



even when most agnostics admit there is no proof either way, they don't mean they think in the christian or muslim etc sense either.

An agnostic is not an atheists. Agnostics say God might exists. Atheists say God does not exists. Two very different beasts.


a person could have their own spiritual explanation for existence which does not line up to the traditional definition of what the word 'god' usually denotes by traditional religion which is usually a deity etc.

Ok.. So?? Once again they are free to put forward their views. And anyone who is drawn to their views and believes will be drawn and they will believe. So be it. That does not shake my confidence in The God of Abraham. I am not going to be enraged and spit my dummy like people who have little or no confidence in their position do.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Most atheists protest over the expressed will of God. They are against God not because of His existence or otherwise but because they disagree with His teachings.


they are arguing over the concept of the religion, that's all. since it's believed by whomever of religious persuasion to be absolute truth, they are arguing with it on that basis. if one does not agree with the biblical god, then they would of course argue against it not only on it's supposed existence.



An agnostic is not an atheists. Agnostics say God might exists. Atheists say God does not exists. Two very different beasts.

yes i know but i was including the example of agnostic too because agnostics don't necessarily take everything that is described or believed by various religions to be true anyways. they are just admitting in general that they really do not know if there was some creator or some larger entity out there that might be influencing or responsible. all the different religious details are something altogether not the issue.


Helloooo, If someone says they do not believe in the God of Abraham then when i say they do not believe in God then THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. Simple statement of fact.

no, the point is they could think they believe in god just as you do but either you or they might think eachother is incorrect or think eachother's concept is not "god" or what the hoot.

No mate people like you want a CERTAIN TYPE OF EVIDANCE other than the Evidence God wills to give mankind.


...

Sorry (mate) but there is only one kind - the scientific, rational, logical kind.

You beliefs, opinions, and mythology do not meet the test of reality which is the universe in which we live..

....


Yes it is Ok, because God wants it that way. If it was scientifically proven that God exists and He is the God of Abraham then some people would submit to Him out of fear not through trust and agreement. Do you think God wants to spend eternity with people who hate the love of His Truth? Therefore His message is the attractor, drawing those who God wants with Him in Eternity.



....


Ah, the old unproveable cop-out.

It's beyond understanding so you MUST believe.

Sorry, but this simply does not cut it. Appeal to authority, besides being wrong, requires an authority.

.

Atheists say God does not exists.

.

This is wrong. Atheists say there is no proof of god. A very different thing.

Helloooo, If someone says they do not believe in the God of Abraham then when i say they do not believe in God then THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. Simple statement of fact.
As I've said many times, it's the theist that defines the atheist.

TRUST is a quality that, in everyday life, leads to people being screwed by other people. If you have TRUST in the used car salesman, guess what you buy.
this is what it sounds like you are saying.

The early Mormons had faith, and Joseph Smith stole their wives. Having faith is another phrase meaning 'gullible'.
thats what they get for following a guy who stuck his head in a hat...


In religion, having faith means giving up your valuable time to carry out pointless vocal gymnastics in some church, and giving money to the parasites who work in that church. To me, before I sacrificed both time and money, I would need to be convinced by solid, credible evidence, that what I was giving time and money to was worthwhile.
again this sound like a trust thing to me..i mean..you trusted those who were telling you what to do..now you are learning how to think for yourself..that doesn't make everything that has been done to you bad (within reason) it just makes you who you are..who would you be without those experience..

I fail to understand why religicos seem to think that evidence which would not stand up in a court of law, or be accepted by a scientific journal, is OK. It is not OK. It is not rational to believe in something for which there is no solid evidence. If religious beliefs are correct, then the evidence must be there.
its the difference between choosing to believe and being told to believe..

An agnostic is not an atheists. Agnostics say God might exists. Atheists say God does not exists. Two very different beasts.


This is wrong. Atheists say there is no proof of god. A very different thing.

ok we now have;
atheist who don't believe in god..
AND
athiest that say there is no proof of god..
AND
athiests who hate god..

any more?

hmm there seems to be a pattern here..

ok we now have;
atheist who don't believe in god..
AND
athiest that say there is no proof of god..
AND
athiests who hate god..

any more?

hmm there seems to be a pattern here..

The pattern is not in the box.

The pattern is not in the box.

atheist cant make up their mind what they believe...

The problem is that the words 'agnostic' and 'atheist' are not clearly defined. I have seen various meanings for the two words. Not unusual. Lots of words are a bit ambiguous in meaning. That does not mean much.

On trust versus faith. Yes, they are very similar. In some situations, they are synonyms. Trust, like faith, needs to be modified by healthy scepticism. Being over trusting is another invitation to being screwed.

atheist cant make up their mind what they believe...

no, atheists just reject the idea of a god-like entity.

atheists do not believe in the above or definition of god or what that term usually denotes, they reject it altogether as irrevelant as they see no point in even entertaining the idea.

agnostics do entertain the idea to a certain point or at least the part of a possible creator (religious details are not the issue).

so the difference is that atheists don't entertain the idea and agnostics do to a certain extent.

I stand by my definition. You can't prove something doesn't exist. which is what is what I was objecting to. You can't prove god doesn't exist, but you can say there is no proof of god.

no, atheists just reject the idea of a god-like entity.
including the ones who hate god?

atheists do not believe in the above or definition of god or what that term usually denotes, they reject it altogether as irrevelant as they see no point in even entertaining the idea.
yet still they are the most verbal about god..(at least here on sciforums..)


agnostics do entertain the idea to a certain point or at least the part of a possible creator (religious details are not the issue).
so are you agnostic or atheist? (trick question..)

so the difference is that atheists don't entertain the idea and agnostics do to a certain extent.
um..see above comment about who talks the most about god here on sciforums..

including the ones who hate god?

yet still they are the most verbal about god..(at least here on sciforums..)


so are you agnostic or atheist? (trick question..)

um..see above comment about who talks the most about god here on sciforums..

An atheist can't hate god because they would then be confirming that god exists.

Theism - the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods.

An atheist can't hate god because they would then be confirming that god exists.

but i have met people that say they are athiest and they hate god..

what would you label someone who hates god?

but i have met people that say they are athiest and they hate god..

what would you label someone who hates god?

Hmmm, a GodSmacker?

Seriously. By if they are truly saying that hate god(s) then they are inherently claiming that god(s) exist. They can't be atheist imo. Now if they hate the "idea of god(s)" that's a different thing. Or if that hate religion...

Hmmm, a GodSmacker?

:roflmao:

Seriously. By if they are truly saying that hate god(s) then they are inherently claiming that god(s) exist. They can't be atheist imo.

yes..but still they claim to be atheist..

including the ones who hate god?

yet still they are the most verbal about god..(at least here on sciforums..)


so are you agnostic or atheist? (trick question..)

um..see above comment about who talks the most about god here on sciforums..

they are rejecting the religious idea of god more than likely. it is rather ludicrous and the religious details just add more to dislike or be abhorred by.

so, what do you expect? if one hates the concept of god, doesn't mean they actually do, it doesn't exist. now if it exists, then i guess they do hate god but as for now, there is no proof. so what is the point, again? :p

the issue with religion is that the concept can have power in itself and take on a life of it's own. it doesn't need to be proven as an entity. people will act on this concept and that is why there will be those who oppose if or find it even reprehensible for a variety of reasons.

they are rejecting the religious idea of god more than likely. it is rather ludicrous and the religious details just add more to dislike or be abhorred by.
ahh...there is a difference between those who believe in god and those that believe in religion..

so, what do you expect? if one hates the concept of god, doesn't mean they actually do, it doesn't exist. now if it exists, then i guess they do hate god but as for now, there is no proof. so what is the point, again? :p

that made my head go;
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m242/axiemeluv/Smiley/daze-male-cross-eye-dizzy-smiley-em.gif

Squirrel

The rejection of belief in deity is often emotional. A child is raised to believe in a deity, and is conditioned from a young age to believe that rejection of that belief leads to punishment. However, that child develops that "terrible affliction" (from the view point of theists) - he or she learns to think rationally. The result is a rejection of deity. However, the emotional conflict is with all that sh!t rammed down the poor kid's throat about divine punishment.

No wonder that atheists often resent and are angry about theism.

Squirrel

The rejection of belief in deity is often emotional. A child is raised to believe in a deity, and is conditioned from a young age to believe that rejection of that belief leads to punishment. However, that child develops that "terrible affliction" (from the view point of theists) - he or she learns to think rationally. The result is a rejection of deity. However, the emotional conflict is with all that sh!t rammed down the poor kid's throat about divine punishment.
true enough..
with the exception, i would say the conflict is with those who had told him what to do and how to believe..not with god himself..
even if they learn to hate religion, it must be understood that religion doesn't always portray god accurately..so again it comes down to it is not gods fault that ppl screw it up..

yet still they are the most verbal about god..(at least here on sciforums..)
That's because there are parts of the world where religion is trying to control what is taught in a science class. Science is literally under attack from some religions. In the US that attack is mainly from those who label themselves as Christians.

That's because there are parts of the world where religion is trying to control what is taught in a science class. Science is literally under attack from some religions. In the US that attack is mainly from those who label themselves as Christians.

i never said there wasn't such a thing as stupid christians..
i just claim not all christians are the same..
speaking of stupid christians..my daughter was here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5Rvk9mIFRY)..

i never said there wasn't such a thing as stupid christians..
i just claim not all christians are the same..
speaking of stupid christians..my daughter was here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5Rvk9mIFRY)..
And not all atheists are the same.