This topic is for Atheists only!(Jesus isn't my saviour,etc. [Archive]

bradybaker

03-02-2005, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by dream-scape+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dream-scape)</div>Going with an atheist view, this life would be the only thing anyone ever experiences... so how could it be short or long in itself? It has to be compared to the life of something else.[/b]
Tomato, Tomoto.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Paperdoll EP)</div>it's not important to you at all, to find out what happens to you after you die? life is short. after that, it's an eternity...wouldn't you like to know for sure how that eternity will be spent?[/b]
When I'm sure that death is just about upon me, I'm not going to be scared like most other (religious) people. I'm gonna be pretty pumped to find out what actually happens. My gut feeling, most logical opinion and best guess are that nothing at all happens, you simply cease to be. But how the hell do I know that?

<!--QuoteBegin-OpheliaBlue
pps. So incredibly off topic: how do you feel about the whole Santa Claus thing and kids?
LOL. Like religion, it's just another way that kids are sheltered from reality.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, I'm pretty pleased at how this thread is turning out. I'm glad that no pure troublemakers have come to mess it up.

OpheliaBlue

03-03-2005, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div><!--QuoteBegin-OpheliaBlue
pps. So incredibly off topic: how do you feel about the whole Santa Claus thing and kids?
LOL. Like religion, it's just another way that kids are sheltered from reality.[/b]
You're probably the first person I've ever met who agrees with me on that.

I have a 16 month old, so he doesn't grasp the whole Christmas thing yet. But it's so damn hard. On the one hand, I don't want to lie to him about the whole Santa thing, just to say "Ha ha, just kidding" when he's old enough to start questioning Santa's existance. On the other hand, it could alienate him in school if he's the only, or one of the few, that doesn't believe in Santa. I can just hear the phone ringing from all those pissed parents: "Your son told my little Charlie that there is no Santa!!!"

Plus I can't figure out which way he'll resent me more: if I deny him the whole Santa experience, OR if I lead him to believe Santa exists while at the same time raising him to be open-minded and scientific. It's a big fat contradiction.

Rakkantekimusouka

03-03-2005, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by OpheliaBlue
I have a 16 month old, so he doesn't grasp the whole Christmas thing yet. But it's so damn hard. On the one hand, I don't want to lie to him about the whole Santa thing, just to say \"Ha ha, just kidding\" when he's old enough to start questioning Santa's existance. On the other hand, it could alienate him in school if he's the only, or one of the few, that doesn't believe in Santa. I can just hear the phone ringing from all those pissed parents: \"Your son told my little Charlie that there is no Santa!!!\"

Plus I can't figure out which way he'll resent me more: if I deny him the whole Santa experience, OR if I lead him to believe Santa exists while at the same time raising him to be open-minded and scientific. It's a big fat contradiction.

Well, I asked my Mom why she -- and other adults -- perpetuate the whole Santa Claus myth when it's really just a blatant lie, and she said something like \"Well, it's fun\".

O...K. Hey, if that's acceptable, if I ever have kids -- which I probably won't, but if for some reason I do, and for some reason we celebrate Christmas, which we probably won't, but if for some reason we do -- I'm gonna make up my own explanation for who left presents, and ate the cookies, etc.

Hey, why not? It's the same thing -- just not as commercialized and popularized. Why? Because it'll be fun.

Oh, and bradybaker?

Originally posted by Paperdoll EP
HAHAHAHAHAH!!! LOLSLOLSLOLS.

oh wait, it's not funny. you've already joked about it in his thread, now you're just being a jerk. or rather, more of a jerk. shut the fuck up.

Agreed. You know, I used to at least respect you and your point of view until you started pulling this blatant attack and spite crud, like posting that stuff in Abstraction's thread and then creating this one with almost identical title.

OpheliaBlue

03-03-2005, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
Agreed. You know, I used to at least respect you and your point of view until you started pulling this blatant attack and spite crud.
When was he spiteful or attacking?

Unless you mean another thread, I didn't get that from him in this thread. A little sarcastic at times, but sarcasm is more than generally used and accepted on these boards. Or so I've noticed.

bradybaker

03-03-2005, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by OpheliaBlue
I can just hear the phone ringing from all those pissed parents: \"Your son told my little Charlie that there is no Santa!!!\"

Plus I can't figure out which way he'll resent me more: if I deny him the whole Santa experience, OR if I lead him to believe Santa exists while at the same time raising him to be open-minded and scientific.
Yeah, that's kind of a toughy. I think that the best way to go is to let the kid make up their own mind. I'm not going to push my children towards religion or science or Santa or the Easter Bunny, I'm just going to let them figure it all out for themselves. My parents did pull the whole Santa deal, but other than that they never really forced any kind of a belief structure on me. They took me to church (I actually got kicked out of Sunday school for asking too many questions), but never told me to believe anything.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Ramu+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ramu)</div> :goodjob2: :sniper: <--- 3 people

InTheMoment

03-03-2005, 10:54 AM

bradybaker
My parents did pull the whole Santa deal, but other than that they never really forced any kind of a belief structure on me. They took me to church (I actually got kicked out of Sunday school for asking too many questions), but never told me to believe anything.[/b]

Same here, except I went to a private Christian school up till about 5th grade and each Wed. we would have bible studies (basically Sun. school on a different day of the week). I was removed from the class when I asked the preacher a loaded question about Noah's Ark. He had just finished describing how Noah collected 2 of every specie of animal and put them aboard the Ark, where they would spend the next 40 days & 40 nigths (give or take).

I was infamous for asking questions (not too be a little ass, but because I just wasn't buying it). When asked what did the elephants eat while on the Ark he said "hay and straw of course...and before you ask your next question, YES there was plenty of room on the Ark to accommodate enough hay and straw to sustain the animals." I then asked "well what did the lions eat?" :hrm:

I was promptly removed and disciplined (paddle to the butt in those days). Then they had the nerve to call my mom in and to question her parenting methods. She of course flipped and said some less than Holy words, disenrolled me and my brother and filed a lawsuit against the principle for the paddling that he had given my rear end. :|

Rakkantekimusouka

03-03-2005, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by OpheliaBlue
Same here, except I went to a private Christian school up till about 5th grade and each Wed. we would have bible studies (basically Sun. school on a different day of the week). I was removed from the class when I asked the preacher a loaded question about Noah's Ark. He had just finished describing how Noah collected 2 of every specie of animal and put them aboard the Ark, where they would spend the next 40 days & 40 nigths (give or take).

I was infamous for asking questions (not too be a little ass, but because I just wasn't buying it). When asked what did the elephants eat while on the Ark he said \"hay and straw of course...and before you ask your next question, YES there was plenty of room on the Ark to accommodate enough hay and straw to sustain the animals.\" I then asked \"well what did the lions eat?\" :hrm:

I was promptly removed and disciplined (paddle to the butt in those days). Then they had the nerve to call my mom in and to question her parenting methods. She of course flipped and said some less than Holy words, disenrolled me and my brother and filed a lawsuit against the principle for the paddling that he had given my rear end. :|

ROFLMAO! Sorry, but I just found that incredibly hilarious...sounds like something out of a classic comedy -- and probably is, somewhere. Luckily, I never attended any parochial schools. I did take Religious Education classes at one point, and at the very end, where we all got our few moments with Sister Rosemary to ask last-minute questions, I said, "Do you think there could be other gods?". The look on her face was quite priceless.

wasup

03-03-2005, 01:16 PM

Ramu - He honestly didn't do anything that offending. I don't see why people got so angry at him... if anything... it was the other people's fault because they escalated the VERY minor situation that bradybaker "brought up" (which I don't really think was anything, anyways).

Also... no offence... but it is kind of rude to apologize on another's behalf because you cannot really do that... it's not like it means anything anyways.

Sorry I had to jump in.

Rakkantekimusouka

03-03-2005, 01:17 PM

*Sigh* You're right, wasup...

*hangs head* I'm sorry, brady...

nightowl

03-04-2005, 12:50 PM

Im going to have to step in to just a little bit. I don't think Brady was being rude or anything. Sarcastic at the most(probably not wise to do it to a newbie since she/he wouldn't get it, but it was pretty harmless). I pretty much agree with what ophelia and wasup said so i won't repeat.

Besides this topic is now a serious one and is promoting good conversation and no spiteful attitudes.

Back on topic: Ophelia: I never knew how much we agreed on this matter. brady to :)

I used to care, seriously. But the moment that it \"clicked\" with me that there's no afterlife (in my opinion), I stopped caring about living my life with respect to something I don't even believe in. [/b]
I at first worried about it to when i was younger. It sorta bothered me that every action i did was to be judged upon my death. I dunno how, but i grew questionative and i came to the conclusion that people made up the idea of heaven just so that they can feel comfort that there is something after death and possibly feel more important. I just don't care anymore. Like what you said. \"I find so much more satisfaction and contentment now in just believing in myself. And believing that being kind to all living things in general attracts more kindness. I need nothing more.\" I feel much more complete when i help someone or be kind to a person than going to church on a sunday morning and listening to my priest about damnation and salvation. I just didn't like it how I HAD to worship, pray, go to church, and listen to a thousand year old book...and for what? For a guy whose existence can't be proven and sends everyone to hell who doesn't believe in him regardless that everyone is his child? Self-reliance and confidence is pretty much all i need to be satisfied with myself and how i live my life.

That's how it was for me too. I believed in God until I was about 14 or 15 and then asked myself, why? And I realized that it was only because it was what I had been told to believe and what made me feel good. It took me a while to actually admit that I didn't believe in God because it was a bit frightening at first (especially when you live in a 95% Catholic town). But now I think that I'm much more happy in life than I ever could've been before. [/b]
Same. Im 16, going onto 17 and at about that age i started really questioning everything. I, like you, haven been told what to believe without anyone asking me what I believe. My parents pushed their beliefs on me and still do. They don't know that i dont believe in god and if they found out, who knows what drastic measures they would inflict on me. Its obvious they don't like or accept any other religion to. I suppose I am happier now :)

As for what happens after I die, I'm completely satisfied with the thought that I'll just \"turn off\" like a light switch, and my molecules return to the earth. Kinda transcendental and peaceful like[/b]
Agreed. I'm pretty OK with that as well, just to die and become nothing. To me, it doesn't sound too bad. It's a LOT better than your soul being burned for eternity IMO. As long as i feel that I was a good person and helped others and believed in myself, then Im good to go :)

And ophelia as for the santa thing. I'll tell you my story. My parents never taught my brother and I about Santa claus so I'm probably the guy to talk to. Really, the whole thing didn't affect my life at school at all. People don't, or at least not to me, ask what santa get you. They all just said what you'd for christmas? If they did ask, the only thing that would probably happen is them say \"What? you dont know who santa is?!\" and then possibly just remain dumbfounded as to how he could not know. I dont think they'd go so far as to make fun of him though. Anyway I've never heard of Santa claus untill i was about 9 i think. I just accepted that it was a holiday to give gifts to the ones you love. Let me tell you though. I did believe in the tooth fairy and when someone else told me that she wasn't real I was pretty devastated, so imagine how your son would feel if he found out santa wasn't real. I dunno, take that as you will :)

I'm gonna make up my own explanation for who left presents, and ate the cookies, etc. [/b]
hmm..great idea!

InTheMoment: your story is hilarious

now i gotta go to driving school...i'll add more later though

Barbizzle

03-04-2005, 05:35 PM

Well, I am an atheist. My parents always sent me to Hebrew school, and I never liked it (well I loved learning about the culture and language) I can't say I ever believed I god. I remember when I was little that I told my mom I didn't believe in god and she got mad. So for years I just never said anything again. Then when I was 14 I really started not to care what people thought, so I was a declared atheists. I mean seriously, god seems so ancient, the idea I mean, and its useless now-a-days (to me at least) why people belvie in god, ill never know. But then again, I'm very unspiritual person, as in I don't belvie in astral projection or anything like that either...

OpheliaBlue

03-04-2005, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by InTheMoment
I then asked \"well what did the lions eat?\" :hrm:
I was promptly removed and disciplined (paddle to the butt in those days).
Bastards. :mad:

My barbizzle friend...you just said a cotton-pickin' mouthful.

03-04-2005, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by InTheMoment
bradybaker
My parents did pull the whole Santa deal, but other than that they never really forced any kind of a belief structure on me. They took me to church (I actually got kicked out of Sunday school for asking too many questions), but never told me to believe anything.

Same here, except I went to a private Christian school up till about 5th grade and each Wed. we would have bible studies (basically Sun. school on a different day of the week). I was removed from the class when I asked the preacher a loaded question about Noah's Ark. He had just finished describing how Noah collected 2 of every specie of animal and put them aboard the Ark, where they would spend the next 40 days & 40 nigths (give or take).

I was infamous for asking questions (not too be a little ass, but because I just wasn't buying it). When asked what did the elephants eat while on the Ark he said \"hay and straw of course...and before you ask your next question, YES there was plenty of room on the Ark to accommodate enough hay and straw to sustain the animals.\" I then asked \"well what did the lions eat?\" :hrm:

I was promptly removed and disciplined (paddle to the butt in those days). Then they had the nerve to call my mom in and to question her parenting methods. She of course flipped and said some less than Holy words, disenrolled me and my brother and filed a lawsuit against the principle for the paddling that he had given my rear end. :|[/b]

Whoa, thats so lame, and so typical...
reminds me of this part of the song "the Decline" by NOFX

The story book's been read
And every line believed
Curriculum's been set
Logic is a threat
Reason searched and seized

Kaniaz

03-06-2005, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by OpheliaBlue+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(OpheliaBlue)</div>Originally posted by bradybaker@
<!--QuoteBegin-OpheliaBlue
pps. So incredibly off topic: how do you feel about the whole Santa Claus thing and kids?
LOL. Like religion, it's just another way that kids are sheltered from reality.
You're probably the first person I've ever met who agrees with me on that.[/b]

Really? I was annoyed at my parents for lying to me about the whole fat man shiz.

I'm atheist. My mom dosen't like me doing that because she says "It's nice to believe in god." Infalliable reasoning... My views are pretty simple - no god. We have one big fat universe and it dosen't give a dick if you die or not. Still, it *does not* stop you from having a good time and enjoying your life.

OpheliaBlue

03-06-2005, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Kaniaz
My mom dosen't like me doing that because she says \"It's nice to believe in god.\" Infalliable reasoning...
Tell your mom "it's nice" to let you go to the DV convention.

Mickeys_Elbow

03-12-2005, 02:23 AM

I remember always knowing about Santa Clause but I also remember always knowing he wasn't real. He was presented to me as a fun fictional character, and I got presents from him, but I knew my parents put them there. Sort of like Smokey the Bear or Ronald McDonald, only he'd visit the mall and gave me candy.

I was raised a catholic. When I was younger my parents brought me to church with them but once I was around 15-16 I quit going. My worldview changes all the time, or at least everytime I think of some different way of looking at things, but I have always believed in a higher purpose (not necessarily a higher being). After all, something started it... I think it was the mice.

syzygy

03-21-2005, 03:45 PM

I'm not against atheists, I just have never understood why you would call yourself that. I am in no way a Christian trying to convert anyone, but I'm starting to realize why people call themselves atheist. First, this can only happen after Christianity, with a history of God. You never find atheists come out of Buddhism or anyother religion because there was never a God to say you don't believe exists. Calling yourself atheist is playing by Christian rules. Now I'm not against Christians either, I just think most of them have the religion wrong, which in turn creates people who go against it. In fact, I think some people who call themselves atheist can be more like Christ than most people who think they are Christian.

Are you actually against God and Christ, or are you against the church's idea of them? I do think that what the church says actually goes against what Jesus said. I do not consider myself Christian more than any other religion, I think they all have something great to offer, if you know what you are looking for. I think they are all saying the same thing, if you go to the root. Christianity is just more symbolic than say Buddhism or Taoism, but they say the same thing. Most Christians do not know this, nor want to think about it because they want a religion all to themselves. Because of this, they twist their religion around and confuse themselves, along with everyone else. I think atheists are just against the main stream Christianity, so calling yourself that is pointless in my opinion. You can still believe what you believe without labelling yourself an atheist, unless you want to establish yourself against your idea of Christianity.

I hear a lot of atheists say they believe death is the end, and thats it, your done. To me, this does not make much sense, but I do not believe in the standard Heaven and Hell, either. Do you think that you came from nothing and will return to nothing? How is that possible? Nothing is not possible since something exists. If you become nothing, that is in relation to something, which in turn makes it not nothing. I do not believe in an afterlife, I believe life is the only thing, you were alive before, now, and forever, death is an illusion, a dream. When you die, you wake up into another dream. When your body dies, it goes back to the earth, it does not turn into nothing, so why would your essence become nothing? You are beyond your body, physical death is the end of one life and the beginning of another. Your essence cannot be found in the physical realm. What exactly is consciousness? Where does it exist? Can you even think about it? Your being is beyond the physical world, beyond your intellect, beyond time. It was never born, so it can never be destroyed, it is just recycled into something else, just like matter. This is my view of God, I also call it Consciousness, Buddha, Tao, Christ, Allah, Ultimate Reality, whatever you want.

Reality is a subjective experience, so I see how an objective God that most Christians want everyone to believe can be offputting. But I don't see why it is necessary to put yourself in relation to that idea. Calling yourself atheist is playing by Christian rules. Now all of this is my opinion. I am in no way trying to say that atheism is not a possible label, I just don't think its the proper label for what you truely believe. I am just looking for a reason why to call yourself atheist. If you are atheist, you have thought about it a lot more than I have, so please explain why you choose that label.

OpheliaBlue

03-21-2005, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Mickeys_Elbow
Sort of like Smokey the Bear or Ronald McDonald, only he'd visit the mall and gave me candy.
LMAO

Actually, that's a cute idea. Presenting Santa as a fun thing, but always keeping it fictional. Like Halloween.

03-21-2005, 06:19 PM

Hrm? Where did my repy go. I must've closed my browser before I hit submit... shame.

Anyway.

Calling yourself atheist is playing by Christian rules.[/b]

Excuse me? Buddhism (for example) is just as much bullshit as Christianity is in my opinion.
Yes, Christianity also teaches many good and nice things, as does Buddhism. But both are riddled with bullshit, made up by people who couldnt believe there's nothing more to life.
The thing is, Christianity is just riddled with more bullshit. Buddhism is a very enlightened religion from what I've heard of it. The way most people seem to interpret Christianity is close-minded, judgemental, intolerant, contradictory and hypocritical. So thats why my main beef is with Christianity, also because its the religion I have to deal with the most.
Buddhism might seem fairly nice, but its still bullshit. Its just not for me. Just because I might like it doesnt mean thats the way the world works.
I dont just reject Christianity. I've rejected all.

You can still believe what you believe without labelling yourself an atheist, unless you want to establish yourself against your idea of Christianity.[/b]

How can I be an athiest if what I believe is something else then "we're all just vessels of blood and flesh and thats all there is to it"? If I "believed in what I believe" which would not be "that there's nothing more to life" then I would be labeled agnostic to say the least.

OpheliaBlue

03-21-2005, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>If you are atheist, you have thought about it a lot more than I have, so please explain why you choose that label.[/b]
Well let's see what Webster has to say first.

<!--QuoteBegin-Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
One entry found for atheist.

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

I label myself as atheist because I believe that there is no deity.

dream-scape

03-21-2005, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by CT
Buddhism (for example) is just as much bullshit as Christianity is in my opinion.... Buddhism is a very enlightened religion from what I've heard of it.

You can't go around making claims about something based on what you've heard.

For example, I've heard your mother is a whore. According to your logic, it would be ok for me to just go on thinking that is true.

The better way to approach it would be for me to say, I've heard that, but I don't know. I can't make any kind of real decision if she is or isn't until I experience and find out for myself.

If from what you've heard about Buddhism makes it sound like it is something definitely not for you, that is all well and good; but nothing about that gives any grounds for you to say if it is bullshit or not.

03-21-2005, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by dream-scape+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dream-scape)</div><!--QuoteBegin-CT
Buddhism (for example) is just as much bullshit as Christianity is in my opinion.... Buddhism is a very enlightened religion from what I've heard of it.

You can't go around making claims about something based on what you've heard.

For example, I've heard your mother is a whore. According to your logic, it would be ok for me to just go on thinking that is true.

The better way to approach it would be for me to say, I've heard that, but I don't know. I can't make any kind of real decision if she is or isn't until I experience and find out for myself.

If from what you've heard about Buddhism makes it sound like it is something definitely not for you, that is all well and good; but nothing about that gives any grounds for you to say if it is bullshit or not.[/b]

Thats bullshit. And totally besides the point.
I'm not sorry for not plastering \"in my opinion\" after every single sentance, I figured it was obvious that we were discussing opinions here, I never stated that I was stating the absolute truth there. I admit there is alot I dont know about Christianity, and Buddhism, but (magic keyword here :roll:) in my opinion I know enough about them to judge them. Dont be so offended, everyone has opinions and everyone judges everything.
so once again for you dream-scaper: All religions are complete and utter bullshit, however friendly and enlightening they are. In my opinion.
You could argue to define religion, but then we'd be arguing semantics and I'd rather not go into that, since english is not my first language so I'd lose by default, and we'd be arguing about something that is totally besides the point and I hate that.

[edit- something I missed before:]

For example, I've heard your mother is a whore. According to your logic, it would be ok for me to just go on thinking that is true.[/b]

Well, you heard my mother was a whore. If it seems like the source has plausible arguments to back it up, then yeah why not? Then it is logical for you to assume that my mother is a whore.

eccentric

03-21-2005, 08:48 PM

What about the practical side of religion? Prayer is about the same thing as religion (when scientists study the psychological effects of prayer, they sometimes use meditation) from an atheistic standpoint. There have been studies that show that meditation makes you quantifiably happier and healthier (National Geographic, March 2005, page 31, research by Richard Davidson and collaegues at the University of Wisconson). There are other benefits that you can logically figure out, such as improving focus - meditation is, after all, an exercise in focus. And it just physically feels good (that may take a 10 or 30 minutes.) In Zen Mind, Beginners Mind, Shunryu Suzuki said that Buddhists don't need to do drugs because they meditate, and that feels good, like drugs :) Prayer and meditation being equal, they both do the same good. There's a big difference between a religions philosophy and what its followers actually do. When I talk about religion, I usually take the realistic approach of what the followers do, and not what a book says. That's why you can't exactly talk about "Christianity" - are you talking about baptists, catholics, mormons, or fundementalists? Which one are you refering to when you talk about "The Church?" People usually use that phrase for catholocism, but not always. This kind of discussion is only constructive debate when people are somewhat specific. Otherwise you're just ranting.

When you say bullshit, CT, do you just mean that you don't like it, or that (in you opinion, of course) it's flat out not true? You haven't been very specific there :) (And this is questioning semantics, not arguing)

dream-scape

03-21-2005, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by CT
All religions are complete and utter bullshit

Then you are nothing but bullshit.

Whatever you believe in, that is your religion. If you believe in nothing, you are either a liar or are blind; belief in nothing is in itself a belief, and your religion if that is what you believe.

I don't care what you believe. Whatever it is, it is your religion. You are complete and utter bullshit.

03-21-2005, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by eccentric

When you say bullshit, CT, do you just mean that you don't like it, or that (in you opinion, of course) it's flat out not true? You haven't been very specific there :) (And this is questioning semantics, not arguing)

When I said bullshit, it was just a rude way of saying that they're (in my opinion) flat out not true because I felt like making a powerful statement.

In doing that, I must've pissed dream-scaper off since he seems very keen on dodging the original point an meaning of my posts and picking on the way I said things:

Then you are nothing but bullshit.

Whatever you believe in, that is your religion. If you believe in nothing, you are either a liar or are blind; belief in nothing is in itself a belief, and your religion if that is what you believe.

I don't care what you believe. Whatever it is, it is your religion. You are complete and utter bullshit.[/b]

Belief in nothing is still a belief in something, which is in turn always a religion? SEMANTICS!

Whatever fancy paradox with words that you come up with, still doesnt change the fact that believing in nothing is not a religion.

Do me a favor and dig up what this thread was about and post something on topic, and not imply a different meaning behind the way I phrased my previous posts. My point was clear, any further discussion is childish. I know you wont agree with me but either way I wont continue this petty and useless off-topic discussion about you deliberatly interpreting my posts in a different way that they were meant, so for me it ends here.

syzygy

03-22-2005, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by CT

Calling yourself atheist is playing by Christian rules.

Excuse me? Buddhism (for example) is just as much bullshit as Christianity is in my opinion.
Yes, Christianity also teaches many good and nice things, as does Buddhism. But both are riddled with bullshit, made up by people who couldnt believe there's nothing more to life.
The thing is, Christianity is just riddled with more bullshit. Buddhism is a very enlightened religion from what I've heard of it. The way most people seem to interpret Christianity is close-minded, judgemental, intolerant, contradictory and hypocritical. So thats why my main beef is with Christianity, also because its the religion I have to deal with the most.
Buddhism might seem fairly nice, but its still bullshit. Its just not for me. Just because I might like it doesnt mean thats the way the world works.
I dont just reject Christianity. I've rejected all. [/b]

What does your thinking Buddhism is bullshit have to do with Christianity being the birth of atheism? I am asking why you would define your beliefs by someone elses.

You could also say that just because you think there is nothing more to life, does not mean thats the way the world works. Why do you need something more than life, just that life exists and that you are conscious of it is a reason to look beyond the physical world.

And I do believe this thread was started as a parody of a Christian... my point again.

Lucius

03-22-2005, 04:49 AM

Wow, thats alot of bullshits in all those posts! =P :lol: bos merde! :P

Honestly, I dont think religion is crap from the male cow. Nor do I think Atheism is poo poo from the bull. I think there are alot of arguments that seem very legible to me to believe in one or the other. Ive stated in many topic and many discussion that I believe you will not be judged for your beliefs in a spiritual something or not (if there is something 'more' and if there isnt it wont matter either, would it?) I still think we should just follow our hearts to decide what you feel will help you most in life, to be at peace with yourself, others and your surroundings. Be it christianity, buddhism or atheism or anything else. My primary goal, and I what I feel should always be the primary goal is to be at 'peace' (very broad understanding to me, just like love).

Generally, I think religious people take their religion waaay too serious. And they also fail to recognise their own metaphors as such. For example, I am not by far a christian yet I believe in "Jezus". I dont think jezus is the saviour, the messiah or whatever. I dont think hes the son of god heck I dont even know if the guy existed or not. But thats not even the point to me. To me, Jezus means love, compassion, wisdom, kindness..etc. Just like buddha. I do find alot of things in buddhism that I feel comfortable with but its not my 'religion'.If there is something 'more' (I personally believe there is) we humans are abit silly to think we can know the absolute truth about it. We are not in the position to know how the universe works completely I think, its just impossible to know at this stage(aka nothing can explain everything at this point). That is why I get back to everything I continiously mention in all my 'deeper' posts. So simple, love, compassion, peace. They are real and universal, you cant deny that, at least I cant. This is all I know for sure, everything else is unsure, we just cant know. And we dont have to. And maybe there is nothing at all, thats possible. Even then, the goal of 'absolute peace' will bring nothing but positive things to all.

As long as somebody doesnt have a negative effect on anybody (including him/her self) and doesnt take things tooo serious its not bullshit to me. And hey, I might be right or I might be wrong when it comes down to my view on how this universe works (my higher spiritual thoughts in which there is no use in sharing them because they are only secondary to the views above) but thats ok.

I guess some people might find my thoughts on this stuff horsecrap (a different word for a change) aswell. :P But oh wells, I will just smile like I always do. That is something I know aswell, smiling is very important in life and in whatever other life that might follow :D

Oh wait..I reconsider, the true god is:
:cookiemonster:
Now worship him or burn in the eternal fields of the most disgusting veggies where no cookies exist!

Howie

03-22-2005, 05:33 AM

Wow. That was some interesting reading. After reading all that how do you feel about Lucid Dreaming BradyBaker?

I think relgious people attach spirits, demons and the like to lucid dreaming because they attach it to everything in theie life. Even more so if it is a misunderstood topic like lucid dreaming.
It is a cult you know! :shakehead2:

My two cents is that lucid dreaming, if you look at it in it's basic form is no more than a natural function of the phyce. Just as dreaming is. It sometimes takes a mechanical process to do it. But otherwise it should be considered know physically differant than your subconscious mind mingling with your conscious mind, just the other way around.

OpheliaBlue

03-22-2005, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by Lucius
Wow, thats alot of bullshits in all those posts! =P :lol: bos merde! :P

Honestly, I dont think religion is crap from the male cow. Nor do I think Atheism is poo poo from the bull.
HAHAHAHA Lucius!

Ok my turn. Religion is Kuh Scheiß.

No wait, that's "cow shit." I meant Stier Scheiß.

Actually I agree with Lucius. It's Stier Scheiß to call ANYone's beliefs Stier Scheiß, even if they ARE Stier Scheiß.

brb gotta take a scheiß

bradybaker

03-22-2005, 01:26 PM

Alright, here's the obsveration I've made throughout this thread and countless others.

Atheists - have logical thought, reasoning and observation behind their beliefs that is based in reality (our reality).

Theists - cannot come up with one logical argument to support their beliefs. All they can do is attempt to poke holes in the atheist's theory by saying things like:
Originally posted by dream-scaper+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dream-scaper)</div>I don't care what you believe. Whatever it is, it is your religion.[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-dream-scaper
I can't make any kind of real decision if she is or isn't until I experience and find out for myself.

Their other infallible arguments include the now classic, \"you can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore God does.\", and other greats, like \"Science can't explain everything\", \"I choose to believe because it gives me hope and makes me a better person\", and \"I've spoken with God, so I know he exists\".

Please, someone prove me wrong. Someone, please show me some logical thinking and not just a categorical denial of our obviously valid points.

Originally posted by Howetzer
After reading all that how do you feel about Lucid Dreaming BradyBaker?
I'm not really sure how you're tying lucid dreaming and religion together...I've never viewed them as remotely connected....elaborate?

Lucius

03-22-2005, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker

Please, someone prove me wrong. Someone, please show me some logical thinking and not just a categorical denial of our obviously valid points.

This is not the way I normally put things but..lets me try if the more..err, atheist way?

Is has been researched and concluded that the largest part of the population has for a main goal in life (or among other goals) for them and for their loved ones (and more idealistically, all people aswell) to be happy and find fulfilment. Regardless of what they might believe on a higher level everybody wants to be happy. Neh? Nobody wants to be sad, depressed, an emotional wreck and die knowing your life sucked balls.

Now, psychologically speaking it has been proven that also very large large majority (if not all people) require love and kindness from others to be happy. There might be a person here or there that claims that he does not need the love and the smile of others around him (with love I mean it in a very broad sense, romance, friendship, compassion, acceptance, trust and so on and so forth, love for your fellow soul, or men if you so prefer) but I dont believe them. And I think deep down inside they are not that happy at all and they will not spend their entire lifes claiming this, they will give in at some point and their life will, have sucked balls.

As you can see if we humans require love (again in a very broad) to make the most of out life. And any normal minded person would want everybody to make the most of their lives, yes? BEcause everybody has the right to be happy. Now, certain individuals, like me, search for ways to increase this love so we, and everybody else can be a tiny bit happier in life. And for some people, like me, a spiritual view on things helps enhance this inner love even more. Love itself (and Im not talking about the chemical in your brain when you fall in 'romantic love' which is a coutner argument I could expect, compassion is not a chemical) is godly to me. God is love, jezus is love, buddha is love, whatever.

I do not claim to know how the universe works. But I do know that my ratio and my own logic and brain tell me that love and compassion and such are the primary values we humans NEED to survive. When all our fancy technology would disapear, when all our belongings would be gone, when all our fake appearences would be stripped, this is all there really is, what we can rely on, eachother. Would you not agree that this is something we need, so would you not agree that is only logical for me to search for ways to increase the love? (silly statement but you get my point). And if it happens to be that certain spiritual views can help me with that, is it then not a rational thing to do to make those part of your belief system. It would be very irrational to use a little axe to chop down a tree while there is a chainsaw nearby, even if you dont know for 100% if that chainsaw will be real in the end, it does the trick. Because almost every single religion preaches those things at its core, and I like to put a 'face' to things, a representation, but that doesnt mean I literally beleive in them. As I dont 'love' because I am a buddhist, I am a buddhist because I 'love' (Im not a real buddhist, but yeah)

I hope you are starting to see where I am coming from, looking at it in a way where no 'higher spiritual something would exist with 100% certainty'. Im sure you still think Im being fairly illogical, but I did my best haha :D :P ^_^"

I still wonder though, why are some atheists (or similar minded) bothered alot sometimes by 'relgious' people? I mean..if you believe everything ends after death, that what would it matter anyway? Why not shrug and live your life the way you want it and be happy? I can see though that some people might enjoy debate on this, or they might be annoyed with other people's 'ignorance'? Or they might feel annoyed because of people telling them how very wrong they are and they will 'burn in hell' or such. Just wondering :)

Howie

03-23-2005, 05:40 AM

Howetzer wrote:
After reading all that how do you feel about Lucid Dreaming BradyBaker?
Originally posted by bradybaker
I'm not really sure how you're tying lucid dreaming and religion together...I've never viewed them as remotely connected....elaborate?

I myself am not trying to connect the two, rather the opposite. My point is that religious people will connect religion to lucid dreaming as they will connect relgion to anything in their life. Thus if they come across lucid dreaming they will inventually, at some point turn it into something religous.
I think it has nothing to do with relgion.

Your question;
I'm wondering what you all think about this. I noticed there is a lot of \"new age\" influence with this spirit seeker stuff and all that... Seems like something that's really stupid to me.... and while I'm highly intrigued by lucid dreaming, I just want to be very careful that I'm not doing something that sensible people might think has something to do with that sort of thing. [/b]

Quite franlky it is sad to say but from what I personally have experianced, most sensible people will consider it whacky. Because they don't understant it.
The point I was trying to make earlier is that somehow, even though lucid dreaming is a natural, SENSIBLE, physical reaction to ones mental pysce it has somehow been cast into the catagories or realm of withcraft, mysteries, occults and so on. This bringing people of reason to regard it as not being sensible.

Mystical_Journey

03-23-2005, 07:37 AM

I agree with Lucius on this and respect the amount of thought and time he has put into this post. My ultimate desire is for people to find happiness without disrupting or challenging other peoples ‘perceptive’ of happiness, be it Atheist, Agnostic or follower of a particular Faith. I wish for happiness in peoples life and my own, what more could we ask for? Man is relentlessly accustomed to Fear, its what drives man to spiritual and psychical death, why not give a hand to love, like the Beatles Song says, “All you need is Love” and not to discredit John Lennon’s amazingly powerful ‘Imagine’ (lol) The foundation of all religious thought after taking away obstacles of differentiation there exists a common theme, an underlining unison of parallel thinking: Peace, Happiness, Truth and Justice (I guess there’s more but I’m no expert).

I’m not associated to one mainstream religious train of thought, but understand the source of most religious reflection and see compassionate attitudes that desire happiness in almost all mainstream manifestations of ‘religion’.

It doesn’t matter if your a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Catholic, Jew, Pagan (the list could fill the page-LOL) as long as we feel connected to each other and don’t allow the negative aspects of religion take control of the positive aspects of our core spirituality. I dislike when individuals judge each other, the mistake comes from labelling yourself and defining ourselves by religion with identity tags on our foreheads (before you take into consideration where your born, your interests, what your name is, who your family are, what makes you laugh etc) because it shows the importance you put onto your faith above everything else like friendship, compassion, trust, acceptance.

I’m not an expect like Lucius but I understand this message of respect we have to show each other in order to make ourselves happy therefore making the people around us feel comfortable (I know I sound gay but who gives a shit?).

We are all in the same boat why not make it less stressful and more humorous (lol).

Monty Pythons “Meaning of Life” is a good step in the right direction :D

Lady Presenter: M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations. And, finally, here are some completely gratuitous pictures of penises to annoy the censors and to hopefully spark some sort of controversy, which, it seems, is the only way, these days, to get the jaded, video-sated public off their fucking arses and back in the sodding cinema. Family entertainment? Bollocks. What they want is filth: people doing things to each other with chainsaws during tupperware parties, babysitters being stabbed with knitting needles by gay presidential candidates, vigilante groups strangling chickens, armed bands of theatre critics exterminating mutant goats. Where's the fun in pictures? Oh, well, there we are. Here's the theme music. Goodnight. [/b]

OpheliaBlue

03-23-2005, 08:09 AM

Holy heck, ok.

The reason people can believe in something that has no proof of existence, is because they have faith.

So the real question, is why do people have faith? Because they need it to fill some empty space? So they won't fear death? So they won't feel so much despair at the thought of never again seeing loved ones that have died? Because they want to be sure that the guy who murdered their mom and was never caught will go to hell so that they'll have "justice"?

I have always been fascinated by the whole psychology behind the purpose of having faith in that which cannot be proven. And it always seem to be in place to fill some kind of gap. Perhaps believeing in oneself and having a stronger character will alleviate this need for myths, legends & fairytales. Just a thought.

Peace
xoxo

Yume

03-23-2005, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by OpheliaBlue
Holy heck, ok.

The reason people can believe in something that has no proof of existence, is because they have faith.

So the real question, is why do people have faith? Because they need it to fill some empty space? So they won't fear death? So they won't feel so much despair at the thought of never again seeing loved ones that have died? Because they want to be sure that the guy who murdered their mom and was never caught will go to hell so that they'll have \"justice\"?

I have always been fascinated by the whole psychology behind the purpose of having faith in that which cannot be proven. And it always seem to be in place to fill some kind of gap. Perhaps believeing in oneself and having a stronger character will alleviate this need for myths, legends & fairytales. Just a thought.

Peace
xoxoThe reason why I believe in religion is because I see that it is more logical that the world was made by a supreme being. My religion just makes sense and it can connect with my life. I use a mix of Science and Religion to further prove the existance and logic in both. To bash a religion just shows that you fail at your own beliefs because you feel a need to try to make your beliefs higher by trying to make other people feel bad. That is why I don't like many religious discussions because people are too stupid to know the point of proving someone wrong and telling them that everything they have known is bad and untrue. I have seen it go over the top here. I won't name anyone, but it really annoys me to see things like that happen. I believe it because it is real to me and that is all that matters because in reality your opinion means nothing to me. If you give me facts I care, but raw opinion I laugh at because in an hour I will probably forget it. You all are great people, but just make sure to watch what you are doing because you could make yourself look like an idiot.

bradybaker

03-24-2005, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Lucius+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lucius)</div>Love itself (and Im not talking about the chemical in your brain when you fall in 'romantic love' which is a coutner argument I could expect, compassion is not a chemical) is godly to me. God is love, jezus is love, buddha is love, whatever.[/b]
I agreed with pretty much everything you said up until this statement, where all logic evaporated. It's not that I don't respect your opinion, I do, but that's all it is, an opinion. The definition of 'love' from an evolutionary and chemical standpoint makes much more logical sense and is much more consistent with our observation of reality. And just because you predicted the counter-argument does not make that argument invalid.

Originally posted by Lucius@
I do not claim to know how the universe works. But I do know that my ratio and my own logic and brain tell me that love and compassion and such are the primary values we humans NEED to survive.
Agreed. But that does not make it supernatural in anyway. Love is a word, not a physical thing, what matters is simply the connection that it implies. That connection is fully explainable through the process of natural selection of genetic material.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>The reason why I believe in religion is because I see that it is more logical that the world was made by a supreme
being[/b]
Please, the suspense is killing me! Reveal the logic behind that statement.
Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>I use a mix of Science and Religion to further prove the existance and logic in both.[/b]
I'd really like to hear that too.
<!--QuoteBegin-Yume@
I believe it because it is real to me and that is all that matters because in reality your opinion means nothing to me.
Such closemindedness is very unfortunate.
<!--QuoteBegin-Yume
watch what you are doing because you could make yourself look like an idiot.
Yeah...I sure wouldn't want anyone to think I was an idiot. :hrm:

Yume

03-24-2005, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>Mostly I just like debating though. I have way too much time on my hands...

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)The reason why I believe in religion is because I see that it is more logical that the world was made by a supreme
being[/b]
Please, the suspense is killing me! Reveal the logic behind that statement.
Originally posted by Yume
I use a mix of Science and Religion to further prove the existance and logic in both.
I'd really like to hear that too.
Originally posted by Yume
I believe it because it is real to me and that is all that matters because in reality your opinion means nothing to me.
Such closemindedness is very unfortunate.
<!--QuoteBegin-Yume@
watch what you are doing because you could make yourself look like an idiot.
Yeah...I sure wouldn't want anyone to think I was an idiot. :hrm:[/b]Point A: I think that it is more likely that the world was made by a supreme being than any other reason out there. It just seems by my common sense that there is someone that created the earth and us to live out our lives. Other ways of looking at it are less likely to me.

Point B: Instead of hindering each other I like to see them work together. An example of this is why I shouldn't eat pork. Pigs are so much like humans it basically means you eat pork you are almost a cannibal. It is the most unhealthy meat out there that humans intake. Both science and religion back up my reasons not to eat pork.

Point C: You should really read the whole thing. I do not care about opinions towards things like religions. If you give me true facts about a religion then I will listen, but things like I don't think it is right or you are inferior because you think this way are just ridiculous.

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
I firmly believe that 89% (or whatever the number is now) of the world's population suffer from a form of self-reinforcing delusion that they call \"faith\".[/quote]

I do not think you shouldn't have an opinion and infact be my guest, but I think opinions have no real validity unless backed up with real reasons to support them. It is not being close-minded. It is filtering out the information that is close-minded without any proof of it.

Point D: At least you aren't trying to purposely go against someone and laugh and make fun of them. At least I hope you aren't.

bradybaker

03-24-2005, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>Point A: I think that it is more likely that the world was made by a supreme being than any other reason out there. It just seems by my common sense that there is someone that created the earth and us to live out our lives.[/b]
Can you provide any justification for that statement? (ie. specific observations that support your theory)

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>Pigs are so much like humans it basically means you eat pork you are almost a cannibal.[/b]
'Almost' only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume@
Point C: You should really read the whole thing. I do not care about opinions towards things like religions. If you give me true facts about a religion then I will listen, but things like I don't think it is right or you are inferior because you think this way are just ridiculous.
So let me get this straight, you don't care about opinions. Only facts. But you choose to 'believe' in something that is not supported by a single fact? You've chosen something to believe in that is unfalsifiable and now you demand facts to change that view. Ever heard of green homunculi?

It basically goes like this: Every single human (you, me, everyone) actually has a little alien creature inside your skull instead of a 'brain'. There is no such thing as a brain, only these creatures called homunculi that control everything you do. You've never seen a brain inside someone's head, so obviously you only assume its there because people tell you that it is, and you've seen pictures of 'brains'. But really, it's just a little green homunculi that controls everything you do. And if you were to cut open someone's skull and look inside, what would you see? A brain of course, the homunculi inside your head can alter what you percieve to protect the identity of all green humonculi.

That's a rather famous example (that I explained pretty poorly) of an unfalsifiable argument. Try and prove it wrong, I dare you.

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume
I think opinions have no real validity unless backed up with real reasons to support them.
Am I missing something here? YOU HAVE OPINIONS WITH NO "REAL" REASONS TO SUPPORT THEM AND HOLD THEM AS VALID.

Yume

03-24-2005, 07:31 PM

Point A: Whne I read the beginning of Genesis they way God created the world seemed like it fit all together. How God created the earth made it believable. No scientific explanation had believable ways the earth was created. The way that it is described in the Torah makes it seem like a divine being created the earth.

Point B: "It is the most unhealthy meat out there that humans intake". You could eat healthier meats instead of eating pork. It creates the worst problems. You are screwing yourself over when you eat it.

Point C: Religion has many facts. You just haven't seem to encounter any. There are facts every day that religion can be proved. I think that you should go and seek those out on your own. It isn't set on a silver platter for you. If you have never found a fact proving religion correct it shows you are not very open-minded and don't look far from the tree.

As for your answer just check out your local morgue.

D: Give me an example please.

nightowl

03-24-2005, 08:49 PM

hah...this should be interesting.

syzygy

03-25-2005, 12:20 AM

bradybaker, there are many people who have directly experienced God, Allah, Ultimate Reality, Tao, Buddha-nature, whatever you want to call it in different cultures and different times and have explained the same experience. The Indian philosophers, the Christian mystics, the enlightened Zen masters, Islamic Sufis, Buddhas, shamans, many more. If you are interested, check out any of the following people: Mesiter Eckhart, D.T. Suzuki, Suhrawardi, Emmanuel Swedenborg, Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, William Law, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Zoroaster, Jalal-uddin Rumi, Philo, Huang-Po, Plotinus, the list could go on.

Lucius

03-25-2005, 03:13 AM

These really are not the arguments Brady is looking for :P :wink: I guess its difficult for us theists to bring up truly 'logical' arguments from an atheists point of view. (I do my best though)

As for that entire list of people syzygy gave, I dont think that will convince Brady because they are no more opinions then lets say yours or mine, extremely wise and enlightened or not. And because they are so many that doesnt they are right, now he could put down a list of famous scientists and the like. And it will be back to the old tug-o war between religion and science.

Not saying anybody is right or wrong here, Im just looking at it from Brady's point of view =)

And also, Brady. Just wondering, but you think love and compassion are a chemical then? Im not talking about love for your family friends and lovers. But for complete strangers, the people who hate you/bash you and so on and so forth. And why does this extreme 'compassion' lack with some people? Chemical imbalance perhaps? (with them or the people that do feel it?)

And I must say I enjoy debate aswell, I mean I dont think you are going to change my mind but its interesting for me to hear about what you think. Aswell as what the others in this debate think. As long as we all genuinely keep smiling at eachother eh :D

syzygy

03-25-2005, 01:36 PM

I'm not trying to convince anybody or argue anything. I only listed those people because there are many examples of people from different cultures and different points in time that have come to the same conclusions based on personal experience. Those who are determined enough to experience God for themselves will go down their own personal path and reach the same common ground that all the people I listed reached, nonduality, the source of all existance. Once you experience this for yourself, you look at the world from a totally new, unimaginable perspective. Now what all these people experience is beyond words, beyond the intellect, beyond logic, so if you are looking for God in an explanation, in an answer to an arguement, you are never going to find the answer, in fact you are only going further away. It is not something you can think of or reason to yourself because in order to understand it, you have to get rid of your idea of self that is trying to constantly figure it out. Once you get rid of the idea that you are separate from everything, you realize that everything is one and God is all around you, inside you, and you. Then there is no more subject looking for an object, the two are one. This experience does not happen in your mind, it is with your whole being, pure consciousness. This is why the Buddha wouldn't argue metaphysics because he knew you can't find the answer there, it has to be a personal search to find your true self.

So you can argue back and forth all you want, just as long as you know that you can never explain it, think of it, or convince anyone of it. It has to be a personal search, you can only convince yourself by actually experiencing it, nothing less. If you are interested then take a look at the people I mentioned, if not, then continue what you were doing, simple as that.

bradybaker

03-25-2005, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Yume
Point A: Whne I read the beginning of Genesis they way God created the world seemed like it fit all together. How God created the earth made it believable. No scientific explanation had believable ways the earth was created. The way that it is described in the Torah makes it seem like a divine being created the earth.
NOTE: When you say 'created the world', I'll assume you meant 'created the unverse\", because the world was formed by a little force we scientific people like to call gravity.

So, you're views on how the universe was created come from a 2000 year old fairy tale? Have you checked out the scientific explanations? No one has claimed to have proof of how the universe began, but there are some pretty intriguing explanations out there. From the Big Bang, to the Ekpyrotic model. Surely these theories, supported by various empirical observations, should have some merit. Also, why do you assume that the universe had a beginning?

Originally posted by Yume
Point B: \"It is the most unhealthy meat out there that humans intake\". You could eat healthier meats instead of eating pork. It creates the worst problems. You are screwing yourself over when you eat it
I'm not really here to argue about which meat to eat. When you tell me that pork is the most unhealthy meat that humans intake, I would tend to agree. But that's not going to stop me from eating it, you wouldn't believe the crap that our bodies are designed to digest. Most animals would die quickly if their diets contained the same percentage of cholesterol and saturated fats as the average human. Bacon tastes good, sausage tastes good, pork chops taste good.

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>Point C: Religion has many facts. You just haven't seem to encounter any. There are facts every day that religion can be proved. I think that you should go and seek those out on your own. It isn't set on a silver platter for you. If you have never found a fact proving religion correct it shows you are not very open-minded and don't look far from the tree.[/b]
Please, I'm begging you. Help me get started down the right path. Enlighten me with one fact supporting the existence of some Supreme Being.

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>As for your answer just check out your local morgue.[/b]
You missed this part:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>D: Give me an example please.[/b]
You said earlier that you believe what you read in Genesis because it 'seems to fit together'. Call me a liar, but it 'seems' to me that that's simply an opinion (which you have stated after codemning all opinions), not a fact of any sort.

Originally posted by syzygy@
bradybaker, there are many people who have directly experienced God, Allah, Ultimate Reality, Tao, Buddha-nature, whatever you want to call it in different cultures and different times and have explained the same experience. The Indian philosophers, the Christian mystics, the enlightened Zen masters, Islamic Sufis, Buddhas, shamans, many more. If you are interested, check out any of the following people: Mesiter Eckhart, D.T. Suzuki, Suhrawardi, Emmanuel Swedenborg, Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, William Law, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Zoroaster, Jalal-uddin Rumi, Philo, Huang-Po, Plotinus, the list could go on.
Hearsay and ancient anecdotes are no substitution for logic and empirical evidence.

<!--QuoteBegin-Lucius
I guess its difficult for us theists to bring up truly 'logical' arguments
Agreed. I would change the word \"difficult\" to \"impossible\" though. And therein lies the problem.

Originally posted by Lucius
And also, Brady. Just wondering, but you think love and compassion are a chemical then? Im not talking about love for your family friends and lovers. But for complete strangers, the people who hate you/bash you and so on and so forth. And why does this extreme 'compassion' lack with some people? Chemical imbalance perhaps? (with them or the people that do feel it?)
Well I would'nt exactly describe it as a 'chemical', but more of an evolved behaviour. I'll try and explain..

Eons ago, in the transition between single celled and multi-celled organisms, a species of single-celled organism (choanoflagellates) emerged that were able to work together to maximize their chances of survival. They basically floated around in clumps in the water and this gave them several advantages over other organisms. They were now immune to the other larger single-celled organisms that fed on them because of their larger, collective size and they could catch and devour larger prey much more easily. This meant more food for everyone on a more consistent basis. Therefore, the genes that controlled such behaviour were more likely to be passed on to the next generation. These cooperative single-celled celled organisms eventually evolved into the first multi-celled animal. The sea-sponge. (Yes, your great, great, great, great, great......., great, great grandfather was a sea sponge) The genetic code for 'cooperation' was passed on for countless generations (some species would show more cooperative tendencies than others of course).

So, when the first homo sapien was born, it already had millions of years of natural selection contained in its genetic code and was predisposed to cooperation. It's not hard to see how such a behavioral instinct could evolve (this evolution would be driven largely by cultural pressures) into the complex behaviours seen today as love, compassion, friendliness and the like.

I hope that makes a little sense...

As for why some people lack compassion and hate others could be explained through chemical imbalance, but it is more likely that you fail to understand the complexity of the social and physical dynamics that the average human experiences. Human behaviour is not only influenced by the genetics that guide one to be "loving", but also by the genetics that guide one to be afraid, to succeed (in any sense of the word), to pass on their genetic material, etc. Also, relevant past experiences and social upbringing have an obviously large impact on behaviour.

I think that the problem lies in the fact that people love simple solutions. If the answer can't be explained to them in a few sentences, they just tune it out and stop listening (this is also probably an evolved behavior). It's obviously much easier to understand love if it is a "spiritual force" or "divine gift" rather than looking at it as the complex intersection of genetics, experience and survival instinct.

syzygy

03-25-2005, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker
Hearsay and ancient anecdotes are no substitution for logic and empirical evidence.
Well, it is hard to hit a target when you have no idea what it looks like.

Yume

03-25-2005, 10:20 PM

I specifically stated that because of what was said in Genesis about the creation of the earth that I see it more likely. The reasons are in the bible. God created water and etc. Give me a good non-religious example of how the earth was created and give reasons to back it up. That is what Genesis does. It gives reasons that make sense how the earth was made unlike scientific explanations. I have reason behind my opinion.

Kaniaz

03-26-2005, 03:37 AM

I've said this before, but Extended Discussion, Philosphy and Beyond Dreaming remind me of a sort of hungry wolves' den. You go in to state your opinon and you're about to leave, but then they jump on you and devour you and you see holes in your logic so you run away and never come back because you don't want to look stupid again.

nightowl

03-26-2005, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Kaniaz+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kaniaz)</div>I've said this before, but Extended Discussion, Philosphy and Beyond Dreaming remind me of a sort of hungry wolves' den. You go in to state your opinon and you're about to leave, but then they jump on you and devour you and you see holes in your logic so you run away and never come back because you don't want to look stupid again.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
Please, I'm begging you. Help me get started down the right path. Enlighten me with one fact supporting the existence of some Supreme Being.

lol :lol: ah....some good laughs....

Lucky27

03-26-2005, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by nightowl

I used to care, seriously. But the moment that it \"clicked\" with me that there's no afterlife (in my opinion), I stopped caring about living my life with respect to something I don't even believe in.
I at first worried about it to when i was younger. It sorta bothered me that every action i did was to be judged upon my death. I dunno how, but i grew questionative and i came to the conclusion that people made up the idea of heaven just so that they can feel comfort that there is something after death and possibly feel more important. I just don't care anymore. Like what you said. \"I find so much more satisfaction and contentment now in just believing in myself. And believing that being kind to all living things in general attracts more kindness. I need nothing more.\" I feel much more complete when i help someone or be kind to a person than going to church on a sunday morning and listening to my priest about damnation and salvation. I just didn't like it how I HAD to worship, pray, go to church, and listen to a thousand year old book...and for what? For a guy whose existence can't be proven and sends everyone to hell who doesn't believe in him regardless that everyone is his child? Self-reliance and confidence is pretty much all i need to be satisfied with myself and how i live my life.

That's how it was for me too. I believed in God until I was about 14 or 15 and then asked myself, why? And I realized that it was only because it was what I had been told to believe and what made me feel good. It took me a while to actually admit that I didn't believe in God because it was a bit frightening at first (especially when you live in a 95% Catholic town). But now I think that I'm much more happy in life than I ever could've been before. [/b]
Same. Im 16, going onto 17 and at about that age i started really questioning everything. I, like you, haven been told what to believe without anyone asking me what I believe. My parents pushed their beliefs on me and still do. They don't know that i dont believe in god and if they found out, who knows what drastic measures they would inflict on me. Its obvious they don't like or accept any other religion to. I suppose I am happier now :)
[/b]

I think I stopped believing when I was 14, thx to biology. My parents don't know that I don't believe, and i'm still forced to go to church every week, not without complaining of course :P

EDIT: Sorry, I think i'm like two pages too late :lol:

Oath

03-27-2005, 03:28 AM

im a former atheist and there is no way in hell that the god of israel does not exist. all of the atheist out there are either searching or subconciencly dont want to be in heaven. but i tell you this now that non-existence is not available. and dont you think that living even if its the worst life on earth is better than no life at all? this is how loving god is. he provides a place even for the ones that dont want to be with him.

nightowl

03-27-2005, 08:43 AM

all of the atheist out there are either searching or subconciencly dont want to be in heaven[/b]
i don't want to sound like an ass, but don't generalize unless you've met every atheist :|

and dont you think that living even if its the worst life on earth is better than no life at all?[/b]
who said here that death is better than life? Im pretty sure no one did unless you're just throwing that in the air...or are you making another point?

bradybaker

03-27-2005, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>Well, it is hard to hit a target when you have no idea what it looks like.[/b]
Agreed. But that doesn't mean you should stop trying.

Originally posted by Yume@
I specifically stated that because of what was said in Genesis about the creation of the earth that I see it more likely. The reasons are in the bible. God created water and etc. Give me a good non-religious example of how the earth was created and give reasons to back it up. That is what Genesis does. It gives reasons that make sense how the earth was made unlike scientific explanations. I have reason behind my opinion.
If that's the best response you can come up with, I think this agrument is over.

<!--QuoteBegin-wizard
all of the atheist out there are either searching or subconciencly dont want to be in heaven.
All of the theists out there are subconsciously scared shitless of their own death and need ancient fairy tales to comfort them.

Kaniaz

03-27-2005, 11:31 AM

brady, you rule.

OpheliaBlue

03-27-2005, 01:38 PM

Amen.

nightowl

03-27-2005, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Kaniaz+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kaniaz)</div>brady, you rule.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-OpheliaBlue
Amen.

Syntex

03-27-2005, 04:41 PM

Geez? Reading all those pages has made me barf. Damn I wish we all just knew the truth of things. I personally want to debate this: How can anyone say that atheism is logically the correct choice? It is a belief as well, is it not (help me out if I'm wrong.) But wasn't it defined earlier as: one who believes that there is no deity. If atheists are believing in something, then how is that logical? Can you prove to me that the world was created by physical means?> (no you have theories, based on empirical evidence <thats evidence based on experience and observation>)

As far as I'm concerned, Logically, we should all be agnostics: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

Simply because all we're debating here is opinions, theories, and unknowns.

Can't we just simply say, " I DON'T KNOW! " we can be sure of that. Fact: None of us can prove or logically state any of these beliefs as true in any one religion or perspective and until that somehow happens or doesn't happen, we should logically see that we don't know anything (in how we exist)... it's all just a belief, which is illogical to assume is correct no matter what.

And thats not 'in my opinion' its logical... is it not? Please correct me if i'm wrong, thats what debatings for, to see flaws in our thought process.

I'm personally Agnostic, believing in things and saying their absolutely true, to me is... illogical.

-Daniel

P.S. Brady, I like the way you think, Amen. :lol:

Joseph_Stalin

03-27-2005, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by OpheliaBlue
Amen.

How very ironic :D

wasup

03-27-2005, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joseph_Stalin)</div><!--QuoteBegin-OpheliaBlue
Amen.

How very ironic :D[/b]
Hah!

dream-scape

03-27-2005, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by bradybakererererererer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybakererererererer)</div>Theists - cannot come up with one logical argument to support their beliefs. All they can do is attempt to poke holes in the atheist's theory by saying things like:
Originally posted by dream-scaper@
I don't care what you believe. Whatever it is, it is your religion.
<!--QuoteBegin-dream-scaper
I can't make any kind of real decision if she is or isn't until I experience and find out for myself.[/b]

bradybakererererererer, I don't recall every claiming to be a theist. Actually I don't recall ever claiming to be anything. Nor do I recall ever attempting to poke holes in anything. But perhaps those memories have escaped me. If you have taken them, I shall like them back, your supreme erererererererer :) (I heard you may have sold them to CTerererererer, in which case, I'm still going to need them back)

Yume

03-28-2005, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)Well, it is hard to hit a target when you have no idea what it looks like.[/b]
Agreed. But that doesn't mean you should stop trying.

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume@
I specifically stated that because of what was said in Genesis about the creation of the earth that I see it more likely. The reasons are in the bible. God created water and etc. Give me a good non-religious example of how the earth was created and give reasons to back it up. That is what Genesis does. It gives reasons that make sense how the earth was made unlike scientific explanations. I have reason behind my opinion.
If that's the best response you can come up with, I think this agrument is over.

<!--QuoteBegin-wizard
all of the atheist out there are either searching or subconciencly dont want to be in heaven.
All of the theists out there are subconsciously scared shitless of their own death and need ancient fairy tales to comfort them.[/b][/quote]Since you have provided no proven examples of your own it is over. You have only said I think I am right and you aren't. That is sad.

syzygy

03-28-2005, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div><!--QuoteBegin-wizard
all of the atheist out there are either searching or subconciencly dont want to be in heaven.
All of the theists out there are subconsciously scared shitless of their own death and need ancient fairy tales to comfort them.[/b]
If there is no death, how can you be scared of it? But the point is that the "ancient fairy tales" are not so ancient, but happening right now.

bradybaker

03-28-2005, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by dream-scapey+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dream-scapey)</div>bradybakererererererer, I don't recall every claiming to be a theist. Actually I don't recall ever claiming to be anything. Nor do I recall ever attempting to poke holes in anything. But perhaps those memories have escaped me. If you have taken them, I shall like them back, your supreme erererererererer Smile (I heard you may have sold them to CTerererererer, in which case, I'm still going to need them back)[/b]
Regardless of whether or not you're a theist, the statements you made are consistent with ones that theists come up with in debates with atheists.

Oh, and I did steal your memories, but I didn't sell them yet. I think I'll put em up on ebay soon.

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume
Since you have provided no proven examples of your own it is over. You have only said I think I am right and you aren't. That is sad.
YOU'VE CHOSEN TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING THAT IS UNFALSIFIABLE AND NOW DEMAND FACTS TO CHANGE THAT BELIEF. YOU ARE NUTS.

You have to understand that no matter what point that an atheist can bring to the table, the determined theist can just say \"God did it.\" without any evidence, logic, or experience to back up that claim. And that's why the whole notion of a Supreme Being is so utterly stupid.
At least most other theists acknowledge that point and just call it 'faith'.

Other examples of unfalsifiable arguments: green homunculi, unicorns and sasquatches, giant pink invisible bunnies, flying polkadot zebras that only exist when no one is looking, etc.

Originally posted by syzygy
If there is no death, how can you be scared of it? But the point is that the \"ancient fairy tales\" are not so ancient, but happening right now.
It's called denial, the easiest way to deal with something stressful is to deny its existence all together. We have evolved to hold spiritual beliefs to deal with the thought of our own death (check out a book called \"The God Part of the Brain\"). The fairy tales, ancient or current (inluding the list of people you mentioned), are a result of this denial and evolution.

Originally posted by Syntex
Geez? Reading all those pages has made me barf. Damn I wish we all just knew the truth of things. I personally want to debate this: How can anyone say that atheism is logically the correct choice? It is a belief as well, is it not (help me out if I'm wrong.) But wasn't it defined earlier as: one who believes that there is no deity. If atheists are believing in something, then how is that logical? Can you prove to me that the world was created by physical means?> (no you have theories, based on empirical evidence <thats evidence based on experience and observation>)

As far as I'm concerned, Logically, we should all be agnostics: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

Simply because all we're debating here is opinions, theories, and unknowns.

Can't we just simply say, \" I DON'T KNOW! \" we can be sure of that. Fact: None of us can prove or logically state any of these beliefs as true in any one religion or perspective and until that somehow happens or doesn't happen, we should logically see that we don't know anything (in how we exist)... it's all just a belief, which is illogical to assume is correct no matter what.

And thats not 'in my opinion' its logical... is it not? Please correct me if i'm wrong, thats what debatings for, to see flaws in our thought process.

I'm personally Agnostic, believing in things and saying their absolutely true, to me is... illogical.

-Daniel

P.S. Brady, I like the way you think, Amen.

I thoroughly acknowledge the possibility that God could exist and that I could end up burning in hell for all eternity. I also acknowledge the possibility that unicorns, sasquatches, invisible pink bunnies and green homunculi exist. The tooth fairy and easter bunny? Sure, why not?

But come on, there are countless unfalsifiable arguments that could possibly explain how the universe was created and humanity has settled on the ones that:
a) provide us the greatest possible reward (eternal happiness)
B) can be used as tools to control the masses (extreme negative consequences for misbehaving)
c) can justify destructive behaviour (the Crusades, the Inquisitions, suicide bombings, human sacrifice)
d) let us skip out on our own death (afterlife/eternal soul)

It seems to me that its a game of probability. Sure it's possible for a giant magic guy in the sky to exist, but its infinitely more probable that he does not.

Questions (that I'm sure all theists will be able to come up with answers to):
Why did God create a ginormous universe just for us, and make it physically impossible to explore it?
Why does God favor humans over fish? or goats? or hydrogen? or Coke?
How can God be all-knowing and all-powerful at the same time? (think before you answer)
How can God be all-powerful and all-loving at the same time?

If God does exist, large parts of these fields of study would have to be partly or wholly incorrect: evolutionary biology, cosmology, physics, palaeontology, archaeology, historical geology, zoology, botany, and biogeography, plus much of early human history.

InTheMoment

03-28-2005, 01:23 PM

BradyBaker wrote:
But come on, there are countless unfalsifiable arguments that could possibly explain how the universe was created and humanity has settled on the ones that:
a) provide us the greatest possible reward (eternal happiness)
B) can be used as tools to control the masses (extreme negative consequences for misbehaving)
c) can justify destructive behaviour (the Crusades, the Inquisitions, suicide bombings, human sacrifice)
d) let us skip out on our own death (afterlife/eternal soul)

It seems to me that its a game of probability. Sure it's possible for a giant magic guy in the sky to exist, but its infinitely more probable that he does not. [/b]

Sorry to cut-in mid debate but the above statement is probably the best point made so far on this thread. I don't like to interject in debates unless I have something productive to add, but so far BradyBaker has been arguing my opinion on the matter quite well...kudos. :goodjob2:

Also, for all those reading along here is a link to a very thought provoking and informative religious debate site. http://www.debatingchristianity.com/forum/index.php

dream-scape

03-28-2005, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by bradybakery
Regardless of whether or not you're a theist, the statements you made are consistent with ones that theists come up with in debates with atheists.

That was the part of what you were saying that made no sense. How exactly are statements like \"whether god does or does not exist is irrelevant,\" \"you cannot know if god does or does not exist,\" and \"to say undeniably whether god does or does not exist is a fetter\" consistent with statements a theist would make? A theist would either say \"god does exist\" or \"god does not exist.\" (don't try to fool yourself that atheism is not a theism; it is still a form of theism). I have not said any theist statements anywhere. The statements I have made do not concern themselves with theism of any kind. If they were to be categorized as anything, it would be in the realm of agnostic.

Originally posted by bradybakery
Oh, and I did steal your memories, but I didn't sell them yet. I think I'll put em up on ebay soon.

Let me know how much you get mr. bakery. I've got a few I'm not currently using and could use some extra cash :mrgreen:

Oath

03-28-2005, 03:10 PM

when i read biographies of great people (albert einstein, every single one of the presidents, hell just about every great-rightious-person) they all claim some religion involving god. now correct me if im wrong but are all of you calling these great men idiots?

bradybaker

03-28-2005, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by dream-scapegoat
That was the part of what you were saying that made no sense. How exactly are statements like \"whether god does or does not exist is irrelevant,\" \"you cannot know if god does or does not exist,\" and \"to say undeniably whether god does or does not exist is a fetter\" consistent with statements a theist would make? A theist would either say \"god does exist\" or \"god does not exist.\" (don't try to fool yourself that atheism is not a theism; it is still a form of theism). I have not said any theist statements anywhere. The statements I have made do not concern themselves with theism of any kind. If they were to be categorized as anything, it would be in the realm of agnostic.

It's been my experience that theists often use the 'agnostic' argument to poke holes in the theory of the atheist, that's all I was saying. As for calling atheism a form of theism, I'm not going to play word games with you.

Originally posted by wizard
are all of you calling these great men idiots?
No.

Yume

03-28-2005, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker
YOU'VE CHOSEN TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING THAT IS UNFALSIFIABLE AND NOW DEMAND FACTS TO CHANGE THAT BELIEF. YOU ARE NUTS.

You have to understand that no matter what point that an atheist can bring to the table, the determined theist can just say \"God did it.\" without any evidence, logic, or experience to back up that claim. And that's why the whole notion of a Supreme Being is so utterly stupid.
At least most other theists acknowledge that point and just call it 'faith'.

Other examples of unfalsifiable arguments: green homunculi, unicorns and sasquatches, giant pink invisible bunnies, flying polkadot zebras that only exist when no one is looking, etc. I am saying that I have provided evidence behind my belief and you provide nothing. To say that theists have no evidence is just ridiculous. You have given no evidence to disprove that God did not create the earth whereas I have given the evidence of the book of Genesis. Thus I win which makes me 1 you 0.

Technically yes we can say God did it. It is because there is a chance that an all supreme being could have done what the topic was on. The fact that I acknowledge that this is possible and the fact that it could be wrong makes me more open-minded than you. It is because you have not proven with evidence that could make you right in the fact that green homunculi, unicorns, sasquatches, giant pink invisible bunnies, flying polkadot zebras that only exist when no one is looking makes me not believe this. If you could provide evidence that you supposidly claim to have then maybe we could start debating something.

dream-scape

03-28-2005, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by bradybakingacake
I'm not going to play word games with you.

haha... :mrgreen: ... that is rather funny considering all you do is play word games around here.

bradybaker

03-28-2005, 07:08 PM

Yume, I hate to break it to you. But the Bible isn't proof of anything. It's just a story that was written a really long time ago.

Sometime over the next few days, I'll write up a blurb outlining some scientific explanations of how the universe came to be. I sure hope that they are at least as reasonable as "some magic dude snapped his fingers".

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>The fact that I acknowledge that this is possible and the fact that it could be wrong makes me more open-minded than you.[/b]
I have stated that I do acknowledge it to be possible, just infinitely improbable. And just for the record, you not only 'acknowledge that it's possible', you 'believe it to be true'.

Originally posted by Yume@
It is because you have not proven with evidence that could make you right in the fact that green homunculi, unicorns, sasquatches, giant pink invisible bunnies, flying polkadot zebras that only exist when no one is looking makes me not believe this.
If I wrote a book on them would you believe it then?

<!--QuoteBegin-dreee-e-EEm-scape
that is rather funny considering all you do is play word games around here.
Ok?

syzygy

03-28-2005, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div><!--QuoteBegin-syzygy
If there is no death, how can you be scared of it? But the point is that the \"ancient fairy tales\" are not so ancient, but happening right now.
It's called denial, the easiest way to deal with something stressful is to deny its existence all together. We have evolved to hold spiritual beliefs to deal with the thought of our own death (check out a book called \"The God Part of the Brain\"). The fairy tales, ancient or current (inluding the list of people you mentioned), are a result of this denial and evolution.[/b]
If you believe death is the end, then you are in denial of your essence. Do not mistake what I am saying, I do not believe in an afterlife or an eternal soul that is reincarnated. When I say there is no death, I am not talking about your personal self, for that is an illusion as well. When you look carefully at yourself, you cannot find your essence. There is no personal self, there is only fleeting sensations that are tied together loosely by memory. Where is the constant I? It is no where to be found, science hasn't got a clue as to where consciousness exists or how it got there. Death is the one area science can have no objective evidence of.

I have not read \"The God Part of the Brain\", but from reading the idea behind it, it does not sound like scientific evidence, but uses science to promote an opinion. Finding out that there is a God part of the brain is not evidence for or against God.

It is foolish to think that science is truth. Science is a never-ending discovery, constantly redefining itself. It creates an illusion of a single established worldview.

Originally posted by bradybaker
If God does exist, large parts of these fields of study would have to be partly or wholly incorrect: evolutionary biology, cosmology, physics, palaeontology, archaeology, historical geology, zoology, botany, and biogeography, plus much of early human history.
First, it is hilarious to even talk about God's existance or non-existance, two things God is neither. Second, why do people think it has to be religion OR science? Both offer something the other cannot, they are equal in their own respect.

No one has answered my original question yet. Atheism depends on monotheism to exist, so why define yourself by others beliefs? It is pointless to call yourself an atheist because you are not saying anything other than "I don't believe what that guy believes." This does not get you anywhere. Atheism could have never existed in a polytheistic society, if you don't believe in god A, you believe in god B. Christianty started the quest for ultimate truth, and atheism is just another form of it. Positive and negative poles are just extremes of the same thing.

To explain your position by the dictionary definition "a disbelief in the existence of deity" does not explain anything. Maybe the better question is: what is the God that you negate?

Yume

03-28-2005, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker
Yume, I hate to break it to you. But the Bible isn't proof of anything. It's just a story that was written a really long time ago.

That is mistake one. The Torah in my religion was written by God and given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. It was so that people could gain morals from the stories. They could relate the stories to their everyday lives. It also setup laws like in Leviticus when it says that a man should not lay with a man like he lays with a woman. That was a law written by God that God wanted us to follow. To think it is just a storybook is ridiculous. Until you have read and studied it do not think that you know what it is. It is not just a story. You need to rethink that comment.

Sometime over the next few days, I'll write up a blurb outlining some scientific explanations of how the universe came to be. I sure hope that they are at least as reasonable as \"some magic dude snapped his fingers\".[/b]

If it can seem more logical than God creating the earth I will accept it, but you have to have reasons proving your theory. It cannot just be something happened and the world was created. If you prove how it could be done scientifically and is more logical than my thinking that God created the Earth I will consider it true.

I have stated that I do acknowledge it to be possible, just infinitely improbable. And just for the record, you not only 'acknowledge that it's possible', you 'believe it to be true'.[/b]

I believe my religion to be most likely out of all possibilities. I am not saying it couldn't be wrong, but it is the most likely. If you can find a way to also disprove me on my thinking and a way that is more likely that my existance came to be and how the earth was made I will accept your idea, but once again it cannot be a half-assed comment that you come up with on the top of your head. You need to research and give proof to your theory. My religion has given me proof whereas you have just come in and said I think you are wrong. I am going to stick to my religion because it has given me logical answers that make sense unlike yourself. You should define to yourself infinitely improbable. You need to calculate what could be possible and improbable in your mind instead of just pointing to something and saying \"wrong\".

If I wrote a book on them would you believe it then?[/b]

If it was a book with logical information yes I would.

I have never said you were wrong. I have only said that I think by logic you are the most incorrect.

Syntex

03-29-2005, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Syntex
Geez? Reading all those pages has made me barf. Damn I wish we all just knew the truth of things. I personally want to debate this: How can anyone say that atheism is logically the correct choice? It is a belief as well, is it not (help me out if I'm wrong.) But wasn't it defined earlier as: one who believes that there is no deity. If atheists are believing in something, then how is that logical? Can you prove to me that the world was created by physical means?> (no you have theories, based on empirical evidence <thats evidence based on experience and observation>)

As far as I'm concerned, Logically, we should all be agnostics: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

Simply because all we're debating here is opinions, theories, and unknowns.

Can't we just simply say, \" I DON'T KNOW! \" we can be sure of that. Fact: None of us can prove or logically state any of these beliefs as true in any one religion or perspective and until that somehow happens or doesn't happen, we should logically see that we don't know anything (in how we exist)... it's all just a belief, which is illogical to assume is correct no matter what.

And thats not 'in my opinion' its logical... is it not? Please correct me if i'm wrong, thats what debatings for, to see flaws in our thought process.

I'm personally Agnostic, believing in things and saying their absolutely true, to me is... illogical.

-Daniel

P.S. Brady, I like the way you think, Amen.

I thoroughly acknowledge the possibility that God could exist and that I could end up burning in hell for all eternity. I also acknowledge the possibility that unicorns, sasquatches, invisible pink bunnies and green homunculi exist. The tooth fairy and easter bunny? Sure, why not?

But come on, there are countless unfalsifiable arguments that could possibly explain how the universe was created and humanity has settled on the ones that:
a) provide us the greatest possible reward (eternal happiness)
B) can be used as tools to control the masses (extreme negative consequences for misbehaving)
c) can justify destructive behaviour (the Crusades, the Inquisitions, suicide bombings, human sacrifice)
d) let us skip out on our own death (afterlife/eternal soul)

It seems to me that its a game of probability. Sure it's possible for a giant magic guy in the sky to exist, but its infinitely more probable that he does not.

Questions (that I'm sure all theists will be able to come up with answers to):
Why did God create a ginormous universe just for us, and make it physically impossible to explore it?
Why does God favor humans over fish? or goats? or hydrogen? or Coke?
How can God be all-knowing and all-powerful at the same time? (think before you answer)
How can God be all-powerful and all-loving at the same time?

If God does exist, large parts of these fields of study would have to be partly or wholly incorrect: evolutionary biology, cosmology, physics, palaeontology, archaeology, historical geology, zoology, botany, and biogeography, plus much of early human history.[/b]

Agreed, I also think that God is highly improbable... But answer me this: A atheist is defined as someone who BELIEVES there is no God. Are you really an athiest if you acknoledge it is possible for there to be a God? It seems to me your an agnostic, who has simply weighed the theories of existance, and chosen one to be more likely. Isn't that different then believing whole hardily that there is no God, Period.?

People are really pusing hard on this because by saying your an Atheist, it's agitating them to say that, HEY GOD could exist, IT's Possible... but you've acknowledged this.... I think you need a new title that all, or define what you believe more accurately than the word atheist.

Otherwise, I'm in full agreement :)

-Daniel

P.S. as for you theists, the only problem I have with some of you is that some of you say: God exists and it's impossible for him not too (acting on Faith, saying something is true, without absolute proof of it) Otherwise, it's perfectly fine to believe in God i think, Basicaly because society has a big problem with Ignorance, based on what you know (the information you have in your mind, God probably is the most logical answer) SO basically the only people who can really argue something is those who have knowledge in all the religions and all the scientific research. Otherwise ignorance is going to screw your "weighing of God Over science" up.

Start talking with logical statements, emperical evidence, and research/studies... otherwise its just hersay and disorganized opinions that say little.

spoon

03-29-2005, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Syntex

Agreed, I also think that God is highly improbable... But answer me this: A atheist is defined as someone who BELIEVES there is no God. Are you really an athiest if you acknoledge it is possible for there to be a God? It seems to me your an agnostic, who has simply weighed the theories of existance, and chosen one to be more likely. Isn't that different then believing whole hardily that there is no God, Period.?

People are really pusing hard on this because by saying your an Atheist, it's agitating them to say that, HEY GOD could exist, IT's Possible... but you've acknowledged this.... I think you need a new title that all, or define what you believe more accurately than the word atheist.

That's not the best definition of atheist. Atheism is seperated into two camps: Strong atheism and Weak Atheism.

Weak atheism is the atheism you're describing (agnosticism by another name). Agnosticism is neutral to the existance of god, it is merely ("I do not/can not know for sure"). It's a pretty safe position, you've just examined the evidence (or not, in some people's case) and come to the conclusion that there is no definate conclusion. But you decide that god probably doesn't exist (hence the atheism :D). Think about this, are all theists actually agnostics? If you're applying a rigid criteria of proof to atheism's side, you'd better be doing it to the other too.

Strong atheism is When you make the statement "I know that god does not exist". How can you prove something like that? Well it's not like you can ever have 100% certainty of anything (aside from "I exist") so "knowing" is not as objective as you'd believe. But niether is "knowing" the monitor you're reading from exists. So discarding all annoying thoughts about solipsism.. how can you be certain there is no god like you're certain the monitor in front of you exists?

On the level of physical existance testing something is pretty easy. You can do things with the monitor: touch it, look at it, bounce things off it. You cant really chuck a bouncy ball at god though. God's arent physical anymore (why can't anyone believe in zeus? That'd make this easy) and metaphysically testing something is a lot harder.

Thankfully the gods people usually care about in discussions of atheism are well defined gods. Not as well defined as a monitor unfortunately, but they do have several characterstics that help you perform some tests. A few examples of these characteristics (and how it is testable):

- An all-loving, all-powerful god. (Suffering in general or suffering to believers depending on unconditional/conditional love)
- An intelligent cause of time (* I like this one, see below)
- An all-knowing creator and freewill (Knowing in advance what you do is not freewill)
...Or if you're a determinist - An all-knowing creator and being responsible for our actions (thats pretty self explanitory)

Sure, you might claim that you can never know for certain that zeus doesn't exist, but you can take a wander up mt olympus and see if he's there. Taking a metaphysical wander works well too!

(did that help?)

-spoon

*If:
-God made the descision to create time (first cause)
-Deciding something needs 2 states:
a) A state before the descision
B) A state after the descision
-The change from a) to B) requires time
-Thus, before time was created: god didn't have enough time to create time

dream-scape

03-29-2005, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by spoon
Atheism is seperated into two camps: Strong atheism and Weak Atheism.

Weak atheism is the atheism you're describing (agnosticism by another name). Agnosticism is neutral to the existance of god, it is merely (\"I do not/can not know for sure\"). It's a pretty safe position, you've just examined the evidence (or not, in some people's case) and come to the conclusion that there is no definate conclusion. But you decide that god probably doesn't exist (hence the atheism :D). Think about this, are all theists actually agnostics? If you're applying a rigid criteria of proof to atheism's side, you'd better be doing it to the other too.

Traditionally, theists hold the view that we can know there is a God. Atheists hold the view that we can know this is not a God. Agnostics hold the view that it is impossible for us to know whether or not there is a God, and therefore suspend judgment on such issues.

In more modern times, the lines between these have become somewhat blurred, as agnostics who hold that the existence of God is not impossible, but highly improbable, are not far off from an atheist. Somewhere I suppose between these border agnostics wanting to be associated with atheists and actual atheists not wanting to be associated with these agnostics, "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" were created. Strong atheism being actual atheism in the traditional sense of the term. Weak atheism being agnostics who walk very close to atheists. So while weak atheism is agnosticism, all agnostics are definitely not weak atheists (I'm not sure if you were saying that or not, but you kind of gave that impression).

So in the traditional use of the terms, theists and atheists fall on the two most extreme views one can take on the existence of God. Agnostics fall somewhere in the middle (can be straight down the middle, close to the atheists, close to the theists, or anywhere in between). But the lines have become blurred, and yes just as some people calling themselves atheists are actually agnostics, some calling themselves theists are actually agnostics as well if we consider the traditional use of the terms.

But to answer your question more directly, no all theists are not agnostic, just as all atheists are not.

In any case they are just labels we place on ourselves and others in order to categorize them. Meanings change slightly from person to person and change over time as well.

Oath

03-29-2005, 07:53 AM

i never understood why preachers and others always denounced evolution and tried to disprove it?!?? i mean its quite obvious isnt it? we know for a fact that we have dna and that it can mutate. there you have it evolution. in conclusion god created evolution. why is that so hard to except. its not even a big deal.

Alex D

03-29-2005, 08:05 AM

You see, that is a horribly weak argument, I mean look, through your logic, court proceedings could become like:

Judge: Why did you kill this man?

Dude: God made killing people, therefore, god made me do it.

Judge: Thats okay the, your free.

bradybaker

03-29-2005, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>When you look carefully at yourself, you cannot find your essence. There is no personal self, there is only fleeting sensations that are tied together loosely by memory. Where is the constant I? It is no where to be found, science hasn't got a clue as to where consciousness exists or how it got there.[/b]
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove here.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>First, it is hilarious to even talk about God's existance or non-existance, two things God is neither.[/b]
Talking in such vagueries isn't really helping your argument.

Originally posted by syzygy@
Second, why do people think it has to be religion OR science? Both offer something the other cannot, they are equal in their own respect.
Well its quite simple really, when you get rid of the foolish ideas of theism, all you have left is science.

<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy
No one has answered my original question yet. Atheism depends on monotheism to exist, so why define yourself by others beliefs? It is pointless to call yourself an atheist because you are not saying anything other than \"I don't believe what that guy believes.\" This does not get you anywhere. Atheism could have never existed in a polytheistic society, if you don't believe in god A, you believe in god B. Christianty started the quest for ultimate truth, and atheism is just another form of it. Positive and negative poles are just extremes of the same thing.

To explain your position by the dictionary definition \"a disbelief in the existence of deity\" does not explain anything. Maybe the better question is: what is the God that you negate?
Actually, if you consider how human history and evolution would've played out, you would realize that all forms of theism are actually offshoots of atheism. Assuming that the first homo sapien did not have a concept of a supreme being, it would've been a later human that was the first to hold such a belief.

In essence, theists are those that 'don't not believe in God'. My guess is that the definition of 'atheist' in the dictionary was written by a theist (I'm not implying that the theist did that on purpose, that would simply be the definition that would naturally occur to them).

Originally posted by Yume
That is mistake one. The Torah in my religion was written by God and given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. It was so that people could gain morals from the stories. They could relate the stories to their everyday lives. It also setup laws like in Leviticus when it says that a man should not lay with a man like he lays with a woman. That was a law written by God that God wanted us to follow. To think it is just a storybook is ridiculous. Until you have read and studied it do not think that you know what it is. It is not just a story. You need to rethink that comment.
Someone who has as much experience as yourself in debates should surely know about the concept of \"circular reasoning\". You're assuming what you're trying to prove when you say that a document written by God proves the existence of God, thus negating your entire argument. That's mistake one......wait, I mean 7 or 8.

Originally posted by Yume
If it can seem more logical than God creating the earth I will accept it, but you have to have reasons proving your theory. It cannot just be something happened and the world was created. If you prove how it could be done scientifically and is more logical than my thinking that God created the Earth I will consider it true.
I'll see what I can do. ;)

Yume

03-29-2005, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker
Someone who has as much experience as yourself in debates should surely know about the concept of \"circular reasoning\". You're assuming what you're trying to prove when you say that a document written by God proves the existence of God, thus negating your entire argument. That's mistake one......wait, I mean 7 or 8.Just because it was written by God does not mean it cannot be true. The only problem with your argument is the fact that it was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Technically there was a witness to prove that God really did write the Torah. If there is someone to say that this being called God did write the Torah and has their own testimony of it the reasoning that God did write the Torah the chance of it happening is most likely true. Since there was a witness to prove it your argument is negated. You should know that.

Originally posted by bradybaker

I'll see what I can do. ;)Thank you. It will be an interesting read. :-P

spoon

03-29-2005, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Yume
Just because it was written by God does not mean it cannot be true. The only problem with your argument is the fact that it was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Technically there was a witness to prove that God really did write the Torah. If there is someone to say that this being called God did write the Torah and has their own testimony of it the reasoning that God did write the Torah the chance of it happening is most likely true. Since there was a witness to prove it your argument is negated. You should know that.

And how do you know that it was given to moses on Mt. Sinai? It's.... in the torah! That's still circular reasoning.

-spoon

Yume

03-29-2005, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by spoon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spoon)</div><!--QuoteBegin-Yume
Just because it was written by God does not mean it cannot be true. The only problem with your argument is the fact that it was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Technically there was a witness to prove that God really did write the Torah. If there is someone to say that this being called God did write the Torah and has their own testimony of it the reasoning that God did write the Torah the chance of it happening is most likely true. Since there was a witness to prove it your argument is negated. You should know that.

And how do you know that it was given to moses on Mt. Sinai? It's.... in the torah! That's still circular reasoning.

-spoon[/b]Not only is it in the Torah, but in the Mishnach which was written by rabbis from the beginning who new Moses.

03-30-2005, 12:30 AM

And they're for real, yo. They dont make shit up.

syzygy

03-30-2005, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)When you look carefully at yourself, you cannot find your essence. There is no personal self, there is only fleeting sensations that are tied together loosely by memory. Where is the constant I? It is no where to be found, science hasn't got a clue as to where consciousness exists or how it got there.[/b]
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove here.[/b]
How can I die if my essence is not in the physical world? It is neither born nor dies, it is constantly renewing itself. Therefore death is an illusion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>Well its quite simple really, when you get rid of the foolish ideas of theism, all you have left is science.[/b]
Explain how science can objectively measure something that cannot be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled.

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker

Actually, if you consider how human history and evolution would've played out, you would realize that all forms of theism are actually offshoots of atheism. Assuming that the first homo sapien did not have a concept of a supreme being, it would've been a later human that was the first to hold such a belief.

In essence, theists are those that 'don't not believe in God'.
You are kidding here, right? How can you be an atheist if you don't know what a God is? In order to deny something, there has to be something that once was accepted. You can't say that someone who has never thought of the concept of God is a theist or an atheist. If you don't not believe in God, then you are an aatheist. Haa. I understand what you are trying to say, it just doesn't work.

As I said before, the problem is that God can only be experienced subjectively. So no matter how much I try to explain how I understand God to you, you will never get it. You would have to experience it yourself. Its like me trying to explain to you how an apple tastes if you've never eaten one, impossible.

Kaniaz

03-30-2005, 11:22 AM

Some of this debate reeks of word games and dancing around the dictionary, but that's probably just me.

Syntex

03-30-2005, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by syzygy

As I said before, the problem is that God can only be experienced subjectively. So no matter how much I try to explain how I understand God to you, you will never get it. You would have to experience it yourself. Its like me trying to explain to you how an apple tastes if you've never eaten one, impossible.

If God can only be experienced subjectively, then you can never know if it's just you creating him in your mind. The only way you could know God exists is if God tells you one night, hey the moon is going to explode (and you have no way of knowing this) then it explodes the next day. Something outside of you must happen. I'm sure your experiencing something, but how do you know it's labeled God, that its not some other anomoly? Dramatized Ex. If you hallucinate an apple falling on your head, could you really say that that subj. experience proves that an apple fell on your head? or could it be in fact something else.? The point is if your experiencing Gods love or whatever, how do you know it's not just something inside of you, if you believe in God, without reason, just do (Faith) then couldn't you be having a self-fullfilling belief going on?

On the other hand experiences can tell us something exists, for instance Lucid Dreaming... You know that exists because you've experienced it. But in Gods case, its different, there is no way of knowing its truely coming from him or you.

-Daniel

P.S. I've experienced God before by the way, I used to truely believe in him (had a personal relationship and felt his love, yada yada)... until I actually questioned his existance and if what I was experiencing could be evidence of a God... which logically.. you can't say experiencing God in that way is proving him.

syzygy

03-30-2005, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Syntex
If God can only be experienced subjectively, then you can never know if it's just you creating him in your mind. The only way you could know God exists is if God tells you one night, hey the moon is going to explode (and you have no way of knowing this) then it explodes the next day. Something outside of you must happen. I'm sure your experiencing something, but how do you know it's labeled God, that its not some other anomoly? Dramatized Ex. If you hallucinate an apple falling on your head, could you really say that that subj. experience proves that an apple fell on your head? or could it be in fact something else.? The point is if your experiencing Gods love or whatever, how do you know it's not just something inside of you, if you believe in God, without reason, just do (Faith) then couldn't you be having a self-fullfilling belief going on?

You can only experience things subjectively, its all that exists. When you get rid of the idea of a difference between subject and object, you understand there is only being. Space and time don't actually exist objectively, they are only a perception. When you stop searching for something outside of yourself, you realize what you were looking for you already have, within.

On the other hand experiences can tell us something exists, for instance Lucid Dreaming... You know that exists because you've experienced it. But in Gods case, its different, there is no way of knowing its truely coming from him or you.[/b]

But that's the point, there is no difference between "him" and "you". When you get rid of this false distinction, then you can experience it for yourself. Its as if you are looking at a reflection of yourself and taking the reflection as the truth. When you realize that everything is connected and that your ego (reflection) is not the "doer" then it gets out of the way for something beyond it, your true self.

Of course, as I said, this does not happen just by merely thinking about it, you have grown up your whole life in this illusion. It takes practice just like anything else. It is just a change in perspective. The past is just a memory, the future a conjecture, and the present is gone before you realize it as such. There is only infinite being, presence.

Syntex

03-31-2005, 12:37 AM

Ok Fine, whatever... I forget what we were even arguing about? I can see where everything is a subj. experience but some things we know, like "I exist" or "I can do this or that". God just isn't one of them, and to look into a mirror and assume its a true reflection, isn't helpful.

I think were thinking too deep here... looking way to much into it.

Yep nevermind forget it, this is silly to argue about... Circles are not fun once you've been around a few times.

-Daniel

Amethyst Star

03-31-2005, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joseph_Stalin)</div><!--QuoteBegin-OpheliaBlue
Amen.

How very ironic :D[/b]

On a side note, "Amen" means "let it be so" in case anyone was curious.

That's all I have to say.

syzygy

03-31-2005, 05:25 PM

So it goes.

bradybaker

04-01-2005, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by CT+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CT)</div>And they're for real, yo. They dont make shit up.[/b]
Hahahah.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>But if that is where you stop, then that is your reality.[/b]
And if that's not where you stop, what can you hope to gain? If you're happy to continue deluding yourself into thinking that there is something 'more' to be experienced, by all means have a blast.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>You are kidding here, right? How can you be an atheist if you don't know what a God is? In order to deny something, there has to be something that once was accepted. You can't say that someone who has never thought of the concept of God is a theist or an atheist. If you don't not believe in God, then you are an aatheist. Haa. I understand what you are trying to say, it just doesn't work.[/b]
The point I was making is that we could play this chicken and egg word game for days and get nowhere. And really, it doesn't matter. Some people believe in God(s), some people don't. We're having a discussion. Just keep in mind that the whole concept of a Supreme Being is man-made.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>Space and time don't actually exist objectively, they are only a perception.[/b]
By that logic, if humans ceased to exist, so would space and time. Do you really believe that? Also by that logic, the universe itself would not have existed until the first living organism evolved the capablility to percieve it.

<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy
The past is just a memory, the future a conjecture, and the present is gone before you realize it as such. There is only infinite being, presence.
A delightfully worded idea indeed, but it has no more substance than a weekly tabloid. Unfortunately, humans are not the centre of the universe and its continued existence does not depend on ours.

syzygy

04-02-2005, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by bradybaker

Good logic, except for the wild assumption that *some \"essence\" exists, and that it's not in the physical world. And let me guess, the 'non-physical' world can't ever be detected or objectively measured right? That's a pretty damn convenient argument, just like green humunculi!
Yes, I agree a paradox exists where we cannot measure our consciousness because it is beyond the physical world. We can't think about it, it can only be experienced.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>And if that's not where you stop, what can you hope to gain? If you're happy to continue deluding yourself into thinking that there is something 'more' to be experienced, by all means have a blast.[/b]
I can gain a deeper understanding of who 'I' am.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>Just keep in mind that the whole concept of a Supreme Being is man-made.[/b]
I don't disagree. I also don't believe in a Supreme Being. This is why I was asking atheists to explain what they thought the God was that they don't believe in, because I knew we weren't thinking the same thing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>
By that logic, if humans ceased to exist, so would space and time. Do you really believe that? Also by that logic, the universe itself would not have existed until the first living organism evolved the capablility to percieve it.[/b]
I think everything is consciousness, we are just conscious that we are consciousness. Everything is inter-connected and inter-dependant, all is one, all is God.

Originally posted by bradybaker@
<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy
The past is just a memory, the future a conjecture, and the present is gone before you realize it as such. There is only infinite being, presence.
A delightfully worded idea indeed, but it has no more substance than a weekly tabloid. Unfortunately, humans are not the centre of the universe and its continued existence does not depend on ours.
I totally agree, becuase that is not what I am saying. I don't put humans in the center of the universe, it is obvious the universe is much older than we are. But as far as we know, we are the only beings that are aware of our own existance, which means we can think beyond ourselves, which means we can have the understanding that non-duality is Reality, Pure-Being.

bradybaker

04-02-2005, 01:39 PM

Yes, I agree a paradox exists where we cannot measure our consciousness because it is beyond the physical world. We can't think about it, it can only be experienced.
Another assumption is that our conciousness cannot be measured. I'm not quite sure where you're getting that from. As for the \"it can only be experienced\" argument...how can you knowingly choose to believe something that is unfalsifiable?

I can gain a deeper understanding of who 'I' am.
Here you go:
http://www.webelements.com/
That should give you a much deeper understanding of \"who\" and \"what\" you are.

This is why I was asking atheists to explain what they thought the God was that they don't believe in, because I knew we weren't thinking the same thing.
Well you probably could've saved us a lot of typing if you would've just said that from the beginning. Jeez.

[quote]Ah, here we are again. The one argument (aside from \"God did it\") that theists have to fall back on when they realize that their belief is wholly without justification.Again, I think we have a different idea of what God is.
Regardless, you're still falling back onto the age old argument, \"I can't explain it, you could never understand. You have to just believe/experience!\".

I think everything is consciousness, we are just conscious that we are consciousness. Everything is inter-connected and inter-dependant, all is one, all is God.
I totally agree, becuase that is not what I am saying. I don't put humans in the center of the universe, it is obvious the universe is much older than we are. But as far as we know, we are the only beings that are aware of our own existance, which means we can think beyond ourselves, which means we can have the understanding that non-duality is Reality, Pure-Being.
So....you're saying that once humans were able to percieve the universe...it all became "pure-being"....but before that...it wasn't?

syzygy

04-02-2005, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker
Another assumption is that our conciousness cannot be measured. I'm not quite sure where you're getting that from. As for the \"it can only be experienced\" argument...how can you knowingly choose to believe something that is unfalsifiable?
Well, science hasn't found anything in the brain that would point consciousness, but we are still earlier in our knowledge of the brain. It will be interesting when we do start finding these things out.

Originally posted by bradybaker
http://www.webelements.com/
That should give you a much deeper understanding of \"who\" and \"what\" you are.
You are a funny guy.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>Here's what I actually think. If some something doesn't look like it exists, doesn't sound like it exists, doesn't smell like it exists, doesn't taste like it exists and doesn't feel like it exists....maybe, just maybe...IT DOESN'T EXIST.[/b]
My consciousness smells delicious.

Originally posted by bradybaker@

Well you probably could've saved us a lot of typing if you would've just said that from the beginning. Jeez.
Did you read my first post?

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
Regardless, you're still falling back onto the age old argument, \"I can't explain it, you could never understand. You have to just believe/experience!\".
Please explain what you are experiencing right now.

Originally posted by bradybaker
So....you're saying that once humans were able to percieve the universe...it all became \"pure-being\"....but before that...it wasn't?
Nope. Always has been, always will be.

OpheliaBlue

04-02-2005, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker
http://www.webelements.com/
That should give you a much deeper understanding of \"who\" and \"what\" you are.
LOL brady :P

bradybaker

04-03-2005, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by syzygy
Well, science hasn't found anything in the brain that would point consciousness
You should read a book called \"How The Mind Works\". It's real good. Basically, it presents the compelling argument that there is no such thing as 'consciousness'. The effect that we label 'consciousness', is simply a product of the numerous underlying processes happening at once in the brain.

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>Did you read my first post?[/b]
Touche.

<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy
Please explain what you are experiencing right now.
Ever hear of selective attention? You can only actually \"perceive\" or \"experience\" a very small number of things at once, otherwise your brain would be overloaded trying to interpret the huge amounts of data that it is constantly receiving. For example, until you read this sentence, you were unaware that your nose was in your line of vision, and the pressure that you shirt is exerting downward on your shoulders. But now, both of those facts are clear as day. So, to answer you're question, as I type this response I am experiencing very little. As I silently conjure up the words in my head before typing them, it is difficult to percieve any of my surroundings or interpret any of the data from my 5 senses (of course if you are directly attempting to experience many things at once it becomes substantially easier).

You have to remember one thing. It's very, very important.

The brain is not a tool that you are using. The brain is using you as a tool.

Ponder that statement for a few minutes before dismissing it, please.

Originally posted by syzygy
Nope. Always has been, always will be.
But you admitted earlier that the universe is much older than we are. So its time for you to take a firm stance here buddy and stop playing word games. Did the universe come into existence only when something was able to percieve it? Or did it once exist without consciousness?

nightowl

04-03-2005, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by OpheliaBlue+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(OpheliaBlue)</div><!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
http://www.webelements.com/
That should give you a much deeper understanding of \"who\" and \"what\" you are.
LOL brady :P[/b]
LMAO

syzygy

04-05-2005, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by bradybaker
You should read a book called \"How The Mind Works\". It's real good. Basically, it presents the compelling argument that there is no such thing as 'consciousness'. The effect that we label 'consciousness', is simply a product of the numerous underlying processes happening at once in the brain.
Existance and our awareness of it are two things we are immediately aquainted with, everything else is secondary, including materialistic theories. And any theory is just an idea, which is mental, which is internal. Even if you deny consciousness in theory, you inevitably presuppose it in practice. Consciousness is the starting point for any theory of reality. The assumption that it comes from neural processes is arbitrary and false. Any statement, fact, or theory comes from an internal reality, so to speak of an external reality independent of the internal is meaningless. You can't think about what reality would be like without you to perceive it. The phenomena which appear to our consciousness are the only reality we can know. There is no objective proof for an external reality. How do you know its not an illusion of Consciousness? Hopefully this might also clear up what I mean by saying that you can only experience God (pure-Consciousness) for youself, no one can explain It to you.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>The brain is not a tool that you are using. The brain is using you as a tool.[/b]
Even though you have been placing me in a false category in your distorted view of religion (although I understand where you get it from, I am not in agreement with mainstream religion, but that should not be a reason to lump everything in one category and totally reject any possible gain from it), be sure that this is the exact point where we disagree.

You see yourself as your ego, where I see myself as pure-consciousness. I agree with your statement if you are talking about your ego-self, but that's not who You are. The you that has a name, a body, thoughts, feelings, and emotions was born in the physical world and will die here. But I think you would agree that on the subatomic level there is no difference between your physical body and the rest of the universe, so who are You really? Think about that.

Perhaps the better statement would be: Consciousness is not a tool that your brain is using. Consciousness is using your brain as a tool.

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
But you admitted earlier that the universe is much older than we are. So its time for you to take a firm stance here buddy and stop playing word games. Did the universe come into existence only when something was able to percieve it? Or did it once exist without consciousness?
Consciousness is all that exists. I am not refering to human consciousness; that is just one possibility.

bradybaker

04-05-2005, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>There is no objective proof for an external reality. How do you know its not an illusion of Consciousness?[/b]
Fundamentally, I agree. How could I diasgree? That's the beauty of an unfalsifiable argument. Funny how no one actually lives there life according to that principle though.

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>Perhaps the better statement would be: Consciousness is not a tool that your brain is using. Consciousness is using your brain as a tool.[/b]
Perhaps. Or perhaps the concept of consciousness is a product of conceited human nature.

<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy
Consciousness is all that exists. I am not refering to human consciousness; that is just one possibility.
Elaborate.

syzygy

04-05-2005, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>Funny how no one actually lives there life according to that principle though.[/b]
Except all those people I mentioned earlier.

Originally posted by bradybaker@
Ego shmeego. There is no such thing as an 'ego-self' either. I am a bunch of fancy organic molecules arranged into an extremely complex structure.
Exactly! There is no ego-self, it is just an illusion, but alas, so are the organic molecules...

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker

You are just that, the universe. But in a purely physical sense, not some \"pure-consciousness\" sense. You are a miniscule, insignificant bit of the universe.
But the physical can only exist and be known because of consciousness. You are trying to separate the external from the internal, when they are the same thing.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Here's a question. If 'everything' is consciousness...does that not mean that nothing is consciousness? Just as if everything were labelled \"special\", nothing would be special. Think about that.
You should think about it, you might actually get closer to what I'm saying.

Have you heard of the holographic paradigm? If so, what are your thoughts?

I grow tired of this discussion. I can't wait until science realizes that it is trying to prove the same thing that religion has been saying for thousands of years. Not that science has nothing to offer, I just want it to get off its high horse (we have Christianity to thank for that).

bradybaker

04-05-2005, 07:50 PM

Funny how selective attention seems to apply to debates as well. Ignoring the fact that your position is impossible to disprove does not make it any more credible.

Your ass must hurt from riding that fence all day.

Let's test your theory about "pure-consciousness", if organic molecules are an illusion, try not eating for the next 6 months and see what happens.

Wait...I sense something coming....but what is it? Could it be?.....No! It couldn't!....It's another perfect explanation to get around the testing of your theory. How convenient.

Rats, I thought I had you this time.

Holographic paradigm...sounds familiar...care to give me a brief summary?

syzygy

04-05-2005, 10:26 PM

Holographic paradigm:

First you should know what a hologram is and how it is made. A hologram is made from interference patterns of a laser bouncing off an object and captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines, but when it is illuminated by another laser, you see a three dimensional image. The cool thing is when a holographic image is cut in half, both halves contain a smaller picture of the whole, and can be done endlessly.

In 1982 in Paris, Alain Aspect discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles are able to commicate instantaneously with each other regardless of distance, be it 10 feet or 10 billion miles. Of course this contradicts Einstein's theory that communication cannot travel faster than light.

Physicist David Bohm has suggested that the communication is not some mysterious signal, but that the separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level such particles are not independant entities, but extensions of the same fundamental thing. Things appear separate because we are only seeing a portion of their reality, meaning the whole universe is an illusion, a hologram. This means everything is infinitely connected, the particles that make up your body are connected to particles light years away. This also means that space and time are not fundamental, but only projections of this deeper order. The deepest level of reality is like a superhologram, where past, present, and future exist simultaneously and all configurations of matter and energy are stored. Bohm also suggests that this superhologram could possibly only be a mere stage, beyond which lies an infinity of further development.

Around the same time, neurophysiologist Karl Pribram was also interested in holography to understand the brain. Memory storage in the brain is not located in one place, but seems to contain the whole in every part. Pribram believes that memory is not contained in neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain much like laser light interference crisscross on holographic film. Seeing the brain as a hologram also explains how the brain can store so much information in such a small space. Holograms can store a lot of information by just changing the angle at which the lasers strike the film. This also helps explain how the brain can decode and encode all the information it is receiving from the senses. This is exactly what a hologram does, takes meaningless blurs of frequencies and turns them into a coherent reality.

The interesting part is when you put Pribram's holographic model of the brain and Bohm's theory together to get the holographic paradigm. If the concreteness of the world is secondary to the actually reality of holographic blurs of frequencies, and the brain is just a hologram that selectes a limited amout of these frequencies and converts them into sensory perceptions, what happens to objective reality? The physical world just an illusion, just like the eastern religions have been saying all along. We are actually 'receivers' floating around a sea of frequencies and what we extract from the sea and transform into physical reality is just one of many many possibilities extracted from the superhologram. If the concreteness of reality is just a holographic illusion, then you can no longer say that the brain produces consciousness. Consciousness creates the appearance of the brain, along with all of physical reality.

The holographic paradigm may also help explain some areas previously unaccessable by science such as telepathy (access to superholographic reality), drug-induced hallucinations (there have been studies where people can describe in detail information they would have no way of knowing), synchronicity, out of body experiences, etc. It can also help in areas such as medicine, where if we know that the physical body is a holographic image created by consciousness we find out that we are much more responsible for our health than western science now tells us. Miraculous recoveries of diseases may just be an alteration of the holographic body.

(credit: "The Universe as a Hologram", Talbot)

syzygy

04-06-2005, 05:46 AM

I just found this today: http://members.aol.com/Mszlazak/NewParadigm.html

I know it is a bit long, but since you seem to have an interest in understanding these things I think you will find it interesting. It also wonderfully clears up some of the ideas I have not-so-eloquently been trying to communicate. I have just recently heard about Ken Wilber (this is the first thing I've read of his), but he definitely knows what he's talking about and his output is quite impressive.

Howie

04-06-2005, 06:39 AM

There has been a recent movie called What the bleep do we know? (http://www.whatthebleep.com/)
I think eveyone associated with this topic would get something from this and enjoy it.
It discusses illusions, the conscious etc., etc. :)

bradybaker

04-08-2005, 01:45 PM

Ah yes, I do remember reading an article on the holographic paradigm a few years ago. Extremely interesting concept.

And here I thought you were just talking out of your ass the whole time. :P

There are still some looming questions however, for example, where do such "frequencies" come from? Are they seperate from consciousness?

More obviously, if the physical world is nothing more than "an illusion" as they claim, how could any observations of it hope to support this theory?

Very intriguing though, good article.

syzygy

04-08-2005, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>
And here I thought you were just talking out of your ass the whole time. :P [/b]
I know. That's because you come to conclusions too quickly, that and I can't properly explain myself.

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
There are still some looming questions however, for example, where do such \"frequencies\" come from? Are they seperate from consciousness?
I would say nothing is separate from consciousness. The other article (chapter actually) that I made a link to might help clear some of this up.

Originally posted by bradybaker
More obviously, if the physical world is nothing more than \"an illusion\" as they claim, how could any observations of it hope to support this theory?
Duality is illusion. Non-duality is Reality. We usually think of consciousness as subjective. We think we are a subjective self that is conscious of an objective world that exists separate from us, outside of us. This is dualistic thinking. We can also become aware of ourselves being conscious of the world, such as you are now aware of yourself reading this. Your subjective self has just become an object to something else. What is the something else? It cannot be another self because you could go into infinitely trying to find it. It is known as Absolute Subjectivity (or pure-consciousness, Tao, Godhead, etc.) It is above the duality of object/subject, but embraces both. It is only refered to as Subjectivity because it give the impression of the direction we call inwards, but it is not ego subjectivity in the dualistic sense, it is Absolute Subjectivity. It points inwards to the center of our being, but once the center is reached you realize there is no such thing as subject/object. The "illusion" of separateness only arises when we think about Reality instead of BEING Reality. For as soon as you speak about Reality you have created a dualism, and thus any idea about Reality (any symbol of It) is just an illusion.

Independent objects do not exist because they are dependent on everything else around them. So you can say that this computer is an object, but you are only separating it in your mind from the rest of your visual-field. Can you find where you end and the objective world starts? There is no separation, there is no SPACE. You create space by separating subject from object, organism from environmnet. As soon as you make this duality that you are an independent organism, you realize that you are going to die. You have just created another duality, TIME. Instead of living in the eternal NOW you have separated the moment into past and future. Now you are living in the past (which is in the moment in the form of a memory). Of course you will not find happiness in the past because it doesn't exist! So you project yourself into the future (which is in the moment in the form of a thought). If you are not happy in the moment, you will surely be happy some time in the future, right? Well that is just an illusion too because it is always the moment. So by living in the past and not finding happiness, you strive for the future that never comes. So you see, space-time is an illusion. The infinite-eternal is all that exists.

You are going backwards. Instead of asking "how can you prove it to be an illusion?", you should ask "how can you prove it to be Reality?" And of course to that question, you cannot prove it. For as soon as you think about Reality you have created an illusory image of Reality. You cannot prove Consciousness, you can only experience it. It is Absolute Subjectivity, Pure-Consciousness, God. It is You.

So there is no reason to give up science, but there is also no reason to think it will ever explain Reality. Same goes with religion. They should both only be used as ways to get to Reality (of course you are getting somewhere you already are, but don't realize), but never replace the experience, that is impossible. Science is more logical, religion is more metaphorical. Both are explaining the same experience from different angles, that is all. As the Buddhist saying goes: You can point to the moon with your finger, but don't confuse your figure with the moon.

willthepathfinder

04-12-2005, 02:31 PM

I debated if I should reply to this thread, it's allready been talked to death I think. I just wanted to say, syzygy I think you got it.

As far as scientific proof that God exists, I don't think there is any kind of science that can prove God exists. I don't think that there is any kind of science that can explain why we (human beings) exist either. The natural order of the universe is chaos. Everything in the universe left to it's natural order will break down into it's simplest components. The universe will eventually revert back into a singularity. So, how did everything start in the first place? Everything can be theorised and proven scientifically up to that point, but then? A complicated system such as the human organizm is an unnatural occurance. Nature will allways follow the path of least resistance, so how did we come to be? Theorists propose (and mind you it's still just a theory), that a chance combination of molecules created the first simple amino acid that eventually led to RNA. Now, yes this has been proven in labs (spontainiously creating simple ameno acids), but no one has ever spontainiously created new life forms in a dish. Even if we did one could argue that there was a conscious creative force behind it (the scientist). So the question remains, how did evolution and eventually us arise out of the natural order of chaos? I'm sorry but, the scientific explaination that it happen through a possible probability (If you call that proof), just dosn't do it for me.

There is a saying I came across once, syzygy I thought you might like this.

A tibeten monk see's a flag flapping in the wind. He tells the monk next to him, "Look at the flag flapping." The other monk replies, "It's not the flag flapping, it's the wind flapping." They debated this for a while and decided to ask the master. The master told them, "You are both wrong. It's your mind flapping."

bradybaker

04-12-2005, 10:38 PM

syzygy:

I've been putting a lot of thought into the ideas that you've presented here, and I've come to realize that we hold almost the exact opposite view. You beleive in absolute subjectivity, while I believing in absolute objectivity. You say everything is connected, I say nothing is connected.

Have you seen the movie I Heart Huckabees?

Originally posted by willthepathfinder
no one has ever spontainiously created new life forms in a dish.
1) That depends on your definition of life.
2) Not yet. You'd be surprised at how close we're coming.

syzygy

04-13-2005, 05:39 AM

willthepathfinder: I like that saying very much, I once came to a very similar realization when meditating (only it was a tree instead of a flag).

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>I've been putting a lot of thought into the ideas that you've presented here, [/b]
I'm glad to hear it, at least we are both on the side of questioning and thinking, something I feel few people are willing to do.

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
and I've come to realize that we hold almost the exact opposite view. You beleive in absolute subjectivity, while I believing in absolute objectivity. You say everything is connected, I say nothing is connected.
I don't necessarily agree here (haha). I don't know exactly what you mean by \"absolute objectivity\". Using the term \"absolute subjectivity\" might be misleading because it actually refers to non-duality, which has no opposite. Even \"non-duality\" is misleading because it includes duality, it doesn't oppose it. It allows for all possibilities without attaching itself to any.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Have you seen the movie I Heart Huckabees?
Great movie. Are you saying that I would be something like the detectives and you would be the French woman? Because I would be something more like what Albert comes up with at the end when he puts the two together, a "syzygy" if you will.

ElijahJones

04-16-2005, 01:16 PM

I hate to jump so far back in the thread, but someone said they were going to let their kids figure it out for themselves. I would be willing to bet a healthy sum that if(when) you have kids you will be trying to teach them something almost from the start and eventually they will ask you why and you will have to say "I don't know why."

I can accept a world in which we dont know why, but then I think I am obligated to raise an army and topple the evil governments of the world, because after all if no road is better than any other then asserting that I am to be ruler of the world is not wrong either. I will at least care for all the people. Well, except the really screwed up ones who will be summarily euthanized (child molesters and such). Someone will win and someone will lose and it wont matter at all.

Correct me if I am wrong but isnt true atheism an assertion that there is no God. It is not simply saying, "I dont know what happens when we die", it is saying literally nothing happens, we die and turn to dust and thats it. In that light I have heard that many atheists live happier lives because they value their time more. But then again some do very heinous things because after all if there is no God or afterlife there is nothing to be good for, kindness is just something that people made up and is no more to be sought out than hatred.

I am agnostic leaning towards atheism if only because I see no evidence for God. But I will always insist that love is better than hate, to build better than to tear down, and that any belief which teaches a person to love is far better than one which does not.

EJ

bradybaker

04-16-2005, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by ElijahJones
But then again some do very heinous things because after all if there is no God or afterlife there is nothing to be good for
Morality is 100% independent of religion/spirituality, etc.

ElijahJones

04-16-2005, 03:58 PM

"Morality and Religion are 100% separate"

A convenient distinction. And of course it has to be, if we are doing away with divine proclamation about sin and the like. So then why do we do good at all? Is it completely empirical, that we enjoy being liked better than hated, so we give to every person the opportunity to be liked? But what if humans are born who find hatred to be more true than love?

I agree morality can be separate, we do not need a God to make a decision for us about right and wrong. But if there is no ultimate judge then good and evil are only subjective definitions. So that our societies are then only held together by the fact that most humans agree on something like an objective standard of what is good or they are scared as hell of the people in power.

Would you say that this arises from the will to survive? That is we feel a better chance of survival if we generally leave each other alone.

Do you see the question I am getting at? Why should I do right by you if right is only something I decide for myself? Perhaps my right is your wrong.

But what about laws then? Well, if I get more people on my side than you have on yours I can change the laws.

The fact is vast numbers of human beings do good because they believe there is an objective standard of right and wrong and that there is someone (I dont care who) who will punish them for violating that standard.

This makes sense to them because if they were to look deep inside there are times that they really want to sleep with their neighbors wife and that they really want to tell that little lie so they can get a raise at work.

The question is very subtle and I think that it is attached to the notion of whether God exists.

For me, I have chosen a way of peace and I dont care if there is a God or not. But this is not how most people are, oddly I think the ethic that would allow most people to become atheist is the golden rule. Which if you think about it does not require a God to make it pretty damn wise as a foundation for human societies. Treat others just as you would wish to be treated.

At any rate I am not attempting to start an argument but I would enjoy it if you feel compelled to write further on this. Having a healthy debate is something that I relish. Seeing some of your other posts, I suspect you also enjoy it as well.

Eventually in any discussion about philosophy or religion we seem to hit a wall beyond which the question "why?" can no longer be answered. This can be very hard to accept, but it should not be surprising because we are most likely finite beings of finite ability.

EJ

OpheliaBlue

04-16-2005, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div><!--QuoteBegin-ElijahJones
But then again some do very heinous things because after all if there is no God or afterlife there is nothing to be good for
Morality is 100% independent of religion/spirituality, etc.[/b]
A-fucking-men Brady Backer

FINALLY someone else gets it.

If ANYTHING should be preached over and over and OVER again, it should be that human morality and quality and in general "being good" is "independent of religion/spirituality, etc".

A pilsner of mutually exclusiveness anyone?!?!?!

ElijahJones

04-16-2005, 07:17 PM

Neither of you is facing the question though. You can be good but itis a good that you define or at most that alot of people agree upon. But ultimately why do claim it is any better than what others do. And what if what they do is considered wrong by you? One of the reasons that I left the church circle is that I met more well adjusted people outside the church than inside. I got tired of having to worry about how such and so was living their life, or if it would compromise my walk with Christ if I hung around with them. Anyways, Blue I agree with you and Brady that a person can be "good" with know knowledge of any religion whatsoever, but again you come back to the question of "good". Because if "good" is only what every person defines it then what happens when enough people start disagreeing on what that means. What if that disagreement leads to war, If my good is your evil and your good my evil?

Its not that easy of a question when you think about it.

bradybaker

04-16-2005, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by ElijahJones
Neither of you is facing the question though.
Whoa, give me a chance to respond will you? :P

It's pretty simple really.

Natural Selection.

Since the beginning of life on Earth, it makes sense that genes promoting cooperation and general helpfulness would be passed on and exaggerated, while genes promoting 'destructive' behaviour would be de-emphasized.

In essence, our sense of 'right and wrong' has been etched into our genetic makeup. "Right" is defined as anything that promotes the survival of the organims and speciesm "wrong" is defined as anything harmful to the organism or species.

You might now be asking, "Well then why do people do 'wrong' at all?". Well I would say that you aren't grasping the full complexity of the situation (see the 'Why Do People Desire Simple Explanations?" thread). Human behaviour is controlled by more than just genetics, cultural pressures and the psychology of the individual obviously come into play. And of course those concepts also have complex explanations, difficult to summarize in a few paragraphs. So I hope you can fill in the gaps with some critical thinking.

Questions?

ElijahJones

04-16-2005, 08:54 PM

Well,

I should have known that your theorem operandi would be evolution. But I will go with it as an axiomatic foundation and just see what happens. I tend to believe in evolution to a point (that being the point where the science starts turning into religion and extrapolations influenced by who your graduate committee was). There are some things that are still a littel sketchy and mayn healthy debates about the how among evolutionary scientists. But even if we accept evolution, it is not an argument for or against God unless we make it so, and so doesnt really validate atheism. Evolution could well be true in all its glory and God or a god, or aliens have set it in motion. This is an undecidable question given current knowledge (ala Godel). As you mentioned Greene suggests the possiblity of universes far more diverse then we currently imagine.

But cooperation as a genetic trait (accepting the social psychology influences) is an interesting idea, and we could draw analogy from bees and other social insects and animals. It is interesting because we are getting to a point on the planet where allowing everyone to have children as we see fit is going to being hurting everyone, in fact it already has, the environment is in shambles. This is a question that I have had before. What traits will evolution select for in this generation, in this century?

As odd as this may seem ( I suspect you have heard of this) there are many concepts coming out of the theory of dynamical systems and the biological sciences that suggest that there are certain emergent properties about human thought that allow humans to sort of circumvent the forces of evolution and kind of make a choice about our own broad destiny. Just the fact that most people can be conditioned to be generally good or generally malevolent suggests that there is quite a bit of give and take. I have heard it said that socialization is a way of transferring surival information that cannot be fixed in the genome.

I was hoping that you were going to invoke something more purely logical than evolution as a justification for atheism. But I would have to concede that unless some creator person starts doing some rather spectacular miracles, evolution as an explanation of how life as we know it got here is probably the best we have. And yet I hope you can also conceed that it does not disprove the existence of a Creator. On that note we are left simply to flip a coin. And if a person does good to me because they believe in a god (or God) I will not then repay the favor by telling them there is'nt one.

Regards,

EJ

bradybaker

04-18-2005, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by ElijahJones+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ElijahJones)</div>But even if we accept evolution, it is not an argument for or against God unless we make it so, and so doesnt really validate atheism.[/b]
I wasn't attempting to validate atheism, only showing that there is no connection between a supreme being and morality. I agree that proof of evolution is not disproof of God.

Originally posted by ElijahJones+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ElijahJones)</div>It is interesting because we are getting to a point on the planet where allowing everyone to have children as we see fit is going to being hurting everyone, in fact it already has, the environment is in shambles[/b]
I've had that thought a few times as well, it seems to be the conflict of preservation of self vs. preservation of species. Which will win? I predict a tie.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ElijahJones)</div>I was hoping that you were going to invoke something more purely logical than evolution as a justification for atheism.[/b]
Again, I wasn't justifying athiesm. Only pointing out how weak the link is between spirituality and morality.

<!--QuoteBegin-ElijahJones
On that note we are left simply to flip a coin.
An extremely lopsided coin if you ask me.

OpheliaBlue

04-26-2005, 10:43 AM

http://www.pushby.com/ian/archives/ratnose.jpg

Belisarius

05-08-2005, 08:06 PM

I think I'll answer Baker's origional question about that new age stuff.

As a weak atheist, I got where I am from the position of a devout catholic by reason alone, peer-pressure and emotion played absolutely no part in it(I go to a catholic school for Christ's sake). As such I reject this new age crap on the same grounds I rejected my religion, but I do find it much more intriguing. I can see where alot of people, upon leaving home, realize how rediculous their religion is, or succumb to peer pressure and abandon their religion, but they do so because of emotion and peer pressure, and thus are much more susceptible to this new age stuff because of their previous attitudes that hadn't been completely abandoned. That's why you see this stuff flourishing on University Campuses.

As for Lucid Dreaming, I think it is definitely characterized as 'New Age'. Probably because Lucid Dreaming, OBE's, 'astral projection, and the like are all dream-like states and alot of new age philosophies either incorperate or were generated around the latter experiences. Because many people share interest in, both Lucid dreaming and New Age stuff, the connections are drawn.

Don't worry about it though, if you have to you can keep it a secret, but I wouldn't worry too much about being characterized as "New Age", especially with some of the stuff you spout of on these forums.

bradybaker

05-09-2005, 10:24 PM

LOL Ophelia! That's awesome.

Just to clarify, this whole thread actually began as a mockery of another thread and I didn't actually expect it to develop into any kind of meaningful discussion. Thanks for the comments on the original question...but it was really just the same question as the other thread, with a few extra words sprinkled around.

Gargen

06-11-2005, 09:45 PM

ive always been an atheist and LDing is just trying to understand yourself more, just because your more self aware doesnt mean you are apart of a faith

Barbizzle

06-12-2005, 07:38 AM

Im a total atheis, I have no belif in a God what so ever. And i am a veyr moral person, i have great values and I cherish life. NOt beacse of the promise of soem silly afterlife or to please god, tbu beacse we are all human, and humans deserve to betreated with kindness and respect. We only live for a limited time, and after that we are gone for good. we all need to help each other out and make this life as wonderful as it can be, while preservign it for future generations. Lucid dremaing is part of that human experince. It helps us reach into ourslefs on a nother level that most people dont even tyr to achive. Whne we know more abotu ourselves, we cna learn more abotu other. And in this way we can help oursleves and other live a better life.

Nirvana Starseed

10-30-2005, 06:59 AM

....

Neruo

12-15-2005, 09:08 AM

I am 100% atheist ^____^

All religion did nothing but screw over mankind. It's so Freaking incredible that so many people believe the load of crap churches tells them.

The fact that about 100 times more bibles were sold in america after 9/11 does show that people just turn to religion out of desperation, becouse they Don't know anymore.

Religion is an excuse to stop thinking about things no one can Prove.

And nirvana spermseed go away kthx =D I didn't even read the stuff you wrote and I wonder or Anyone Ever does. Same with that other god-spaming dude.

Nirvana Starseed

12-18-2005, 10:26 AM

I posted that awhile ago, and now realize the thread is for athiest only. I'm not a christian of the church or any other religion, and I'm not an athiest. I also disliked the material I posted so I removed it.

This thread should be in the Spirituality/Religion section.
by the way

Originally posted by Belisarius

As for Lucid Dreaming, I think it is definitely characterized as 'New Age' [then wrote]
Don't worry about it though, if you have to you can keep it a secret, but I wouldn't worry too much about being characterized as \"New Age\"

I don't see why we would be worried or keeping it secret. Call it being a satanist for all I care. It doesn't mean I am one. It's just lucid dreaming. I don't see any point hiding it because the subject fits into the newage section of the bookstore. If anything it should tell you something about how the newage section can actually be something that is part of something normal. woo Imagine that.....

Barbizzle

12-18-2005, 11:57 AM

Book on LDing are in the "self help" section of the book sotres around here :P

kichu

12-18-2005, 07:23 PM

I haven't read all of the posts here so I'm sorry if I'm repeating something that has been discussed already. And I haven't really studied much to do with anything discussed here, so I'm just asking a question that I've always been curious about but have never researched or discussed with people.

I was just wondering what you guys think about how "everything" started. I mean before the planets, before the big bang, before ANYTHING. What was there before that? Is there a scientific theory that explains this?

bradybaker

12-19-2005, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by kichu
I haven't read all of the posts here so I'm sorry if I'm repeating something that has been discussed already. *And I haven't really studied much to do with anything discussed here, so I'm just asking a question that I've always been curious about but have never researched or discussed with people. *

I was just wondering what you guys think about how \"everything\" started. *I mean before the planets, before the big bang, before ANYTHING. *What was there before that? *Is there a scientific theory that explains this?
Here's a question, why did there necessarily have to have been a beginning? A number of scientific theories (the ekpyrotic scenario is my favorite) suggest that there was no beginning and there will be no end.

kichu

12-19-2005, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker

Here's a question, why did there necessarily have to have been a beginning? A number of scientific theories (the ekpyrotic scenario is my favorite) suggest that there was no beginning and there will be no end.

I'm not sure how there could not be a beginning. Atoms and molecules and all that stuff had to come from somewhere. There had to be a paritcular point in time they were made or appeared. I'll look up this ekpyrotic theory and see what I think. But something not having a beginning makes no sense to me. Please explain in detail the logic behind this because I just don't see it. I don't get it!

bradybaker

12-19-2005, 03:18 PM

The ekpyrotic scenario basically says this:

Our universe is just one of many 3 dimensional objects floating in higher dimensional space. (Picture a bunch of bed sheets (2d object) on a clothesline floating in 3D space).

These objects are called "branes" (short for membrane). And are practically empty (the matter and energy is so spread out that its bascally nothingness).

However, these branes are gravatationally attracted to one another when they are in this state, and when they finally touch a massive explosion (that would appear to observers within the brane as a "Big Bang") results and the universe would play out as ours has.

Then, trillions of years later the matter and energy would be sufficiently spread out so that the branes are attracted to each other again, and they would be attracted again.

This cycle stretches endlessly into the past and future.

Sorry if that doesn't make any sense, I tried to explain it plainly, ask me if you have any questions though.

kichu

12-19-2005, 08:14 PM

^ ^ ^ A little hard to grasp at first, but I'm doing my research. I also spoke about this at work with someone that has a degree in science something or other and he said something along those same lines. I was wondering what you think of Steven Hawkings "A Brief History of Time."

Also, what is the difference between Atheist and Agnostic? I've been looking stuff up and paragraphs like this one for example don't really make it clear to me:

"Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

I was told that Atheists absolutely do not believe in God but Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve. Do agnostics believe in god, but as the paragraph suggests, are not sure if that god actually exists? What about believing in the possibility of a god but not knowing it that god exists or not? What category would that fall under?

Mark75

12-19-2005, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by kichu
^ ^ ^ A little hard to grasp at first, but I'm doing my research. *I also spoke about this at work with someone that has a degree in science something or other and he said something along those same lines. *I was wondering what you think of Steven Hawkings \"A Brief History of Time.\"
I know what you mean. It seems impossible that all this matter has always existed. At the same time, it doesn't seem possible that it was somehow created. That only turns the question to where did [whatever created matter] come from? If you ask me, it's impossible for anything to exist. Yet here it is.

Originally posted by kichu+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kichu)</div>Also, what is the difference between Atheist and Agnostic?[/b]
Here's what my dictionary has to say:

Agnostic >noun: a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God

Atheism >noun: the belief that God does not exist.

It seems, though, that the term agnostic is usually used a little more loosely to describe someone who believes there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God/Gods.
Originally posted by kichu+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kichu)</div>I was told that Atheists absolutely do not believe in God but Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve.[/b]
Correct.
<!--QuoteBegin-kichu@
Do agnostics believe in god, but as the paragraph suggests, are not sure if that god actually exists?
Not necessarily. Agnostics may believe that god does or does not exist, but also believes it cannot be known for sure either way.
<!--QuoteBegin-kichu
What about believing in the possibility of a god but not knowing it that god exists or not? *What category would that fall under?
Agnostic.

kichu

12-19-2005, 09:43 PM

^ ^ ^ Then I don't understand how someone can call themselves an atheist. How can you ABSOLUTELY not believe in the POSSIBILITY of a god/greater being, etc? Logically, wouldn't one have to concede in the possibility? Or is there a book/theory/teaching of some sort that absolutely in some way (through the authors/theorists eyes anyways) holds an amazingly developed arguement that is hard to oppose in terms of atheism?

I'm confused how people could label an idea like this as an ABSOLUTE. Unless I'm misunderstanding and that's not what atheism means.

kimpossible

12-19-2005, 10:25 PM

God is logically impossible, as described. As UM has here-in demonstrated any number of times. And done a great job of it. Kudos, Universal Mind!

InTheMoment

12-20-2005, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by kichu
^ ^ ^ Then I don't understand how someone can call themselves an atheist. *How can you ABSOLUTELY not believe in the POSSIBILITY of a god/greater being, etc? *Logically, wouldn't one have to concede in the possibility?
The same argument can be applied to the theist. How can someone ABSOLUTLEY believe in a god(s) without the POSSIBILITY of their faith being wrong?

I'm confused how people could label an idea like this as an ABSOLUTE.[/b]
It's all relative to how each individual interprets the evidence he/she is presented.

kichu

12-20-2005, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by kimpossible
God is logically impossible, as described. *As UM has here-in demonstrated any number of times. *And done a great job of it. *Kudos, Universal Mind!

Sorry, who is UM? My computer at home is messed up so I've been going on here on my lunch breaks at work and have a very limited amount of time. Can you please point me in the right direction to these posts? I tried to look UM up in the members list but saw a different name that was similiar, but didn't see any topics related to this. I would really appreciate it.

Thanks

InTheMoment

12-20-2005, 01:08 PM

Universal Mind

Mark75

12-20-2005, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by kichu

Sorry, who is UM? *My computer at home is messed up so I've been going on here on my lunch breaks at work and have a very limited amount of time. *Can you please point me in the right direction to these posts? *I tried to look UM up in the members list but saw a different name that was similiar, but didn't see any topics related to this. *I would really appreciate it.

Thanks

UM is Universal Mind.

Here are some of his threads:

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22115

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21357

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23029

And who could forget this one:
http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22875

kichu

12-20-2005, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by InTheMoment+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(InTheMoment)</div>
kichu wrote: *
^ ^ ^ Then I don't understand how someone can call themselves an atheist. How can you ABSOLUTELY not believe in the POSSIBILITY of a god/greater being, etc? Logically, wouldn't one have to concede in the possibility? *

The same argument can be applied to the theist. How can someone ABSOLUTLEY believe in a god(s) without the POSSIBILITY of their faith being wrong?[/b]

I know, I agree. I'm not making an arguement for believing in god, I'm just trying to understand all this from a logical point of view. It seems to me that being atheist means that you have decided on something for sure without actually having anything to prove that. But I also think this belief must be based in something real and valid and I just haven't heard it yet so I'm searching for those answers.

<!--QuoteBegin-InTheMoment

It's all relative to how each individual interprets the evidence he/she is presented.

I want to know what those interpretations are based on though.

kichu

12-20-2005, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by InTheMoment
Universal Mind

Duh, maybe I should pay more attention.

Thanks!

kichu

12-20-2005, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Mark75

UM is Universal Mind.

Here are some of his threads:

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22115

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21357

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23029

And who could forget this one:
http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22875

YOU'RE AWESOME! Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Thanks for the help and patience guys.

InTheMoment

12-20-2005, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Kichu+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kichu)</div>It seems to me that being atheist means that you have decided on something for sure without actually having anything to prove that.[/b]
There is no reason to believe in an omnipotent/omnibenevolent/omniwhatever being, considering the amount of falsifiable evidence. The burden of proof for such an extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary evidence.

<!--QuoteBegin-kichu

I want to know what those interpretations are based on though.
A large number of different factors, not too exclude personal experience, knowledge, external influences, etc.

kichu

12-20-2005, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by InTheMoment+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(InTheMoment)</div>
Kichu wrote:
<!--QuoteBegin-kichu
It seems to me that being atheist means that you have decided on something for sure without actually having anything to prove that.

There is no reason to believe in an omnipotent/omnibenevolent/omniwhatever being, considering the amount of falsifiable evidence. The burden of proof for such an extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary evidence. [/b]

But why not believe in the POSSIBILITY? Does all the proof/evidence ABSOLUTELY PROVE there is no god? Or is it just unlikely?

I think if you can 100% PROVE there is no god, then atheism is justifiable. But if there isn't absolute proof (rather it's just unlikely there is a god), then logic would lead me to agnosticism.

kichu

12-20-2005, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by InTheMoment

There is no reason to believe in an omnipotent/omnibenevolent/omniwhatever being, considering the amount of falsifiable evidence. The burden of proof for such an extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary evidence.

Could you possibly provide just a few really rough examples? Like, point form if you'd like. It doesn't need to be amazingly clear, I can do the research myself, but just so I can start to put it into some sort of context because I feel like my questions haven't even begun to be answered. I understand what atheism means but I'm still not 100% sure what the roots of those beliefs are. And I'm aware that there is research and math and science and philosophy involved but I'd just like something that I can START to wrap my mind around. Like, what would you say to someone who has no concept of atheism and you wanted to give them a really general idea of a few specific things that lead you to this belief?

And I'd just like to reiterate that I myself have not decided on a particluar belief, so I'm not knocking atheism ( I could very well find that I am truly an atheist at the end of all this), but I need things to make sense in my head before I can truly say, "yes, I agree, there is no POSSIBLE way that a god could exist. All the evidence ABSOLUTELY PROVES this."

So thank you to everyone that is helping me along with this.

Mark75

12-20-2005, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by kichu

But why not believe in the POSSIBILITY? *Does all the proof/evidence ABSOLUTELY PROVE there is no god? *Or is it just unlikely?

I think if you can 100% PROVE there is no god, then atheism is justifiable. *But if there isn't absolute proof (rather it's just unlikely there is a god), then logic would lead me to agnosticism.

You're right. You can't prove 100% that god does not exist at all. The reason for that is due to how god is defined. I.E. that it is not defined clearly enough to disprove. It would be impossible to disprove the claim that there is an invisible, omnipotent being who apparently doesn't want to be proven. Therefore, if ever you did a test to find out its existence and it turned up negative, those who believe in such a god would simply say that he changed the results. So burden of proof falls on the ones making the claim and thus far have not shown anything substantial.

Atheism can be justified in the fact that there is simply very little reason to believe in a god. Although one cannot say with absolute certainty that god does not exist, one can say that adding a god is not necessary to explain our universe. With each discovery of how our universe works is another reason not to need god to explain how it works. That means that it is becoming more and more statistically improbable that god exists. The statistics are such that, for all practical purposes, one could pretty much ignore god's potential existence.