Thread: Extended Discussion 2009 Religious Affiliation Census

Originally Posted by slayer

But I don't really know if I don't believe in him or not.

Atheism = Irreligious. You are an indecisive atheist.

You could call me a potential Scientific Pantheist, except I definitely believe there is something after death....and I think it's either you live within your memories of what you expect/believe, or the plane/density concept is true( 8 densities of reality, with our reality being in the 3rd density, and the 8th being completely at one with the Universal Mind/Cosmic Consciousness with no ego )


I think the Law of One is very interesting, that everything in existence is God, the Divine...everything is part of a Universal Mind or Cosmic Consciousness. God is you and me..with no ego. I believe consciousness IS a soul. and the universal mind is like a giant self-transcendent machine, a cube that encompasses all of creation: every world, every reality, every dimension. It holds within it every concept, every idea, every being ever created or that will be created, every dream, every thought.....it IS the singularity and nothing exists outside of it.




I think the Ancient Egyptian Religion was pretty cool, it made sense if you take into consideration spirituality( the God's they worshiped, such as Ra- the sun God, or Thoth, or Pharaohs) were actually spiritually enlightened beings and were immortal through Kundalini awakening. Hence the snakes coming out of the Pharaoh's head.





By immortal I mean living for an extended life span rather than regular human life span.

Can't stand pantheism. It's the ultimate in superficial delusion.

If the whole universe and God are identical then the entire religion is completely meaningless. It doesn't say anything about reality. It just gives the universe another name... it's no more profound than calling the universe 'apple pancake'. What do you learn from doing that? Nothing.

Originally Posted by Xei

Can't stand pantheism. It's the ultimate in superficial delusion.

If the whole universe and God are identical then the entire religion is completely meaningless. It doesn't say anything about reality. It just gives the universe another name... it's no more profound than calling the universe 'apple pancake'. What do you learn from doing that? Nothing.

It depends on how you interpret it I suppose. The way that I interpret it, it is a word game that collapses in on itself if you poke it too hard and I've never once explicitly used the word god to describe the universe but I very much like the fact that it essentially posits that "spirituality" can emerge from cold hard facts with no need to fudge them with new age garbage. It's completely interchangeable with atheism and my answer to the question largely depends on my mood.

My favorite example is Dennett's assertion that even though our consciousness is nothing but an emergent phenomenon of neural networks, we can still, in a meaningful sense, regard ourselves as having a soul. He gets called a Darwinian Fundamentalist all the time, so you know he's a stand-up fellow.

It also encapsulates a certain sense of wonder that some people are inclined to have towards the universe. It surely doesn't include any sort of worship or prayer though.

Granted, there may be some crazy people that can't tell the difference between relativity and quantum mechanics that claim to be 'Scientific' pantheists and then spout off a bunch of non-scientific, new age garbage in the next paragraph without even catching the irony but I think that they just do it because they like the name.

EDIT: Put another way, "spirituality" (whatever that means) seems to be a fundamental aspect of the human animal and I see no reason why the theists should have a monopoly on it.

I have the same stance really. Using pantheism to mean 'the universe is mysterious enough to not require unfounded mystical elements' is all good; the problem is of course that the majority of self-proclaimed pantheists have no such stance but rather, as you say, are just full of New Age delusions and sentimentalities.

I don't think the former really warrants a distinct religious category though... most atheists would say that such a philosophy is encapsulated in theirs.

Christian, agnostic. I don't reject the idea that God (or any other deity) may not exist.

But the fact that so many reject the mere possibility of such an existence, solely based on the fact that there is "no proof" of it, is just fucking stupid, and makes for a great display of how many people claim they're supporters of science, but in reality contradict all the main principles of science. Real scientists don't even touch upon the subject of religion; they're brave enough to say "I don't know" regarding subjects they don't understand, because they realize it's impossible to truly disprove anything. Instead of wasting all their time arguing against religion and attacking the religious - as atheists do nonstop - they spend their time looking for alternate explanations. They have no bias because real science doesn't allow for bias. Real scientists...are unfathomably wiser and more intelligent than the ignorant, self-proclaimed supporters of (pseudo)logic that can be found by the dozen within the ranks of atheists. No offense, but you know you see us in exactly the same way, so I'm not inclined to feel sorry for any offense I may cause.

To me, there are only two possible explanations for the existence of the universe: A) There is no explanation, the universe always been there, or B) something had to create it.

I refuse to support A on the grounds that I believe everything has a beginning; everything will come to an end; everything will begin anew. The things that happen within the universe are all about cycles. Why shouldn't the universe itself be cyclical?

...And I didn't even list the Big Bang theory since, frankly, it's really not even worth discussing, it's so groundless. It doesn't have so much as a particle of the supporting evidence that evolution has.

If anyone wants to rip me a new asshole for my beliefs, that's fine...I'd like twelve of 'em, personally. Yay, I've got a Charlie Brown ghost ass!

The idea of a god creating the universe is as viable as the idea that the sun is held together by the will of the great pumkin, and not gravity. your points are ridiculous and show you ahve no understanding of science at all.

If there is no proof for something, it cannot be discussed really. The big bang theory is an observation. It's called red shift. You, sir, are the ignorant one here

Anyone who accepts religion but questions god is just as deluded as the next guy. I suppose you also dislike people who don't believe in the tooth fairy or santa clause just because there isn't any proof?

Again, you are the only person here who's logic is flawed. Noone disproved god. They said that the idea is unprovable, baseless and therefore wrong and not even worth discussing.

Was your first impression when you saw a mountain "Wow that must have been created"?

Thanks Roxxor. I didn't want to have to respond to that.

Originally Posted by Lëzen

But the fact that so many reject the mere possibility of such an existence, solely based on the fact that there is "no proof" of it, is just fucking stupid,

Is that the sole reason most people reject the idea of god? I'd say it runs a little deeper than that in many cases. Would you agree that there is not a monster made of spaghetti who controls the universe? There's no evidence for that, either, and I'd venture to guess that you hold the existence of that monster about as likely as most atheists hold the typical notion of god. That being so, where do you see the difference between your regard of the spaghetti monster and an atheist's regard for god?

Originally Posted by Lëzen

Real scientists don't even touch upon the subject of religion; they're brave enough to say "I don't know" regarding subjects they don't understand, because they realize it's impossible to truly disprove anything.

Saying you don't know when you don't is fine. That's just honesty. But being unable to commit to a belief because it's "wrong" is not bravery. In the case where someone thinks they do know, what do you call this? Your comments here seem to imply that it is necessarily arrogance in this case. Do you accept that denying the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or any other conceivable thing, circumstance or situation) is also arrogance on the grounds that it cannot truly be disproven? If not, what is the difference?

Originally Posted by Lëzen

Instead of wasting all their time arguing against religion and attacking the religious - as atheists do nonstop - they spend their time looking for alternate explanations.

I submit that what you call "arguing against religion and attacking the religious" in many cases is an offering of an alternate explanation (and in the context of an argument, an invitation for one as well). Explanations aren't any good if people don't believe them or can't understand them. Attempting to facilitate the exchange of these ideas is not a bad thing. That the exchange is often hard-headed and vitriolic is not at all to the point.

Originally Posted by Lëzen

To me, there are only two possible explanations for the existence of the universe: A) There is no explanation, the universe always been there, or B) something had to create it.

I refuse to support A on the grounds that I believe everything has a beginning; everything will come to an end; everything will begin anew. The things that happen within the universe are all about cycles. Why shouldn't the universe itself be cyclical?

Is a part necessarily representative of the whole it's contained within? Clocks indicate the time, but gears and batteries by themselves don't do much of anything. If the parts of a clock cannot individually tell time, then a whole clock should not be able to tell time by that reasoning. But what is the universe other than the collection of things within it? Shouldn't that be like saying that if a ball is round, then a pile of balls must also be round? It seems to me that a group of things does not inherently have the form or function of the things it is comprised of on a level other than the level of the individual thing. The universe seems much the same way. Things work vastly differently on a scale of millions of lightyears than they do on the scale of fractions of a millimetre. If it was even at every magnification, it would appear and function more or less the same at every level of zoom.

For that matter, is the idea that "things that happen within the universe are all about cycles" even true? Do you really mean all things or just some things?

...And I didn't even list the Big Bang theory since, frankly, it's really not even worth discussing, it's so groundless. It doesn't have so much as a particle of the supporting evidence that evolution has.

Duhhhhhhhhhh...

Sorry but this is the standard response you'll be getting now for trying to speak authoritatively on a subject you clearly have no clue about.

Originally Posted by Lëzen

...And I didn't even list the Big Bang theory since, frankly, it's really not even worth discussing, it's so groundless. It doesn't have so much as a particle of the supporting evidence that evolution has.

What about the Cosmic Microwave Background?

And red shift.

Like I said, he's just making shit up as he goes along.

Originally Posted by Lëzen

If anyone wants to rip me a new asshole for my beliefs, that's fine...I'd like twelve of 'em, personally. Yay, I've got a Charlie Brown ghost ass!

That's 5 new assholes. Can we get 7 more?

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

I am a Deist; I dont really know what I need to specify. If you want to know about Deism read Thomas Paine's Age of Reason.

Yay, another Deist!


For anyone interested in the basic of the basics, this website is useful:


Deism in a Nutshell

I'm interested that the foundation is listed as 'reason' rather than faith. What is the reason?

They mean reason as a form of logic or thinking, not in the sense of a cause.

Reason

Uhhhuh. So what is the logic which supports deism?

If you're curious about reading more on Deism, try here:

Deism Defined

As I understand, this thread is just to state an affiliation, not for defending a particular belief or affiliation. If you would like to debate Deism, please make a new thread inviting Deists to defend their position instead of derailing this thread. Thanks.

I was just curious. Apparently you don't have an answer so I won't trouble you any further by asking a third time.

If you want to learn more about something, start with reading the links I gave or do your own research. Again, this thread isn't about every person having to defend their beliefs to you or debating with you. Please stay on topic. Thanks.

Far too busy, sorry. Atheism it is.

@ Naiya.

Are you a Deist too? If so, sweet i have only met one other Deist in my life, and he was sort of borderline at that.

Yea, I was a Southern Baptist until I was 17, when i read The Age of Reason. I was kind of opposed to it for a while, but i kept going back to it and it made sense, so here i am. I dont have any beef with Christianity though, I just think its fundamentally incorrect. I want to say something, though. On that website you linked it says that Deists believe that there is no personal relationship with the Creator. I'd have to disagree with that, I believe I have a relationship with God through the sole, simple medium of the Creation itself. The natural laws, life, true goodness, etc all come from God, and the fact that he made them all readily available to me proves to me that he is a loving God, contrary to what a lot of Deists believe, which is that he is indifferent.

Thanks.

Well, from what I've read, Deism really doesn't have any official tenents, so I think it's perfectly possible to go the route you have. I'm all for having the freedom to fit a philosophy or belief system to your own personal experiences and feelings. I like your take on it though, it's definitely got me thinking now.

I agree with you Lezen, people are always thinking something has a beginning or an end..that's linear thinking. But we need to start thinking cyclical like you said. People are always looking to science to prove God or something..IT CANNOT. It's not supposed to and it never will.

Science only proves what we can observe/perceive. What about speeding up a tape recording so high and fast that you can't hear it anymore. Does that mean it's not there? No, we just can't perceive it in this frequency range.

The answer is consciousness(self-awareness). And consciousness cannot be proven because it is subjective. You could possibly argue that consciousness is caused by synapses in the brain..but what about the people who have had experiences while being brain dead for longer than an 15 or 30 minutes. Regardless if it was a dream or not, they still had an experience with no brain activity. Consciousness is the missing piece to the puzzle.

The Ekpyrotic Model of the Universe proposes that our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension.



Michio Kaku has a lot of truth, his theory about the multiverse seems almost "precise" to me. We're like flies trapped on fly paper. We can't leave that fly paper unless we can reach the speed of light. That fly paper being the 3d universe we're in bound by time and space.


The beginning of the universe starting from big bang, but there are big bangs happening everytime there is a quantum movement. Like say if your on a basketball court and you decide to drive left, well a big bang would happen and there would be an exact copy of the universe except this time you went right. But not that macro, it's quantum. So big bangs happen constantly..instantly, and infinitely.

It's almost like a machine.

The singularity explodes caused by two 3-dimensions crashing into each other...well that's the theory anyway. But their pretty close..it's not about focusing OUTside in the cosmos, it's about focusing IN...subjective to find the truth. These "membrane crashes" occur in a 4th dimensional hyperspace. People will never be able to experience this 4th dimensional hyperspace objectively IMHO, unless you can somehow travel AT the the speed of light, ( which would then be existing outside of time and space, allowing you to leave the fly trap.

That can't happen because the speed of light is the barrier and can't be reached. Whoever created everything knew what he/she was doing. Mass( your body) cannot reach the speed of light, it probably would be ripped apart into oblivion. But CONSCIOUSNESS can travel at the speed of light, it IS light. Within the 4d hyperspace you can see the multiverse, an infinite number of 3d universes. A lot of people have claimed to see the multiverse on Psychedelics such as Salvia and DMT. It seems the multiverse can look like anything you expect or want it to be. Such as a huge infinite book with each page being a different universe.

or







Here is Michio Kaku's theory of the multiverse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyXVCggV6EU