[Ben Barker]

I'm what you call a Secular Humanist. There's no God, but you should help your fellow man for the sake of making life more pleasant. Helping "the human condition" sort of. You won't get punished if you don't. It's like optimistic Existentialism.

I like Buddhists, I think they are the most interesting religion. Most people don't realize there is a lot more than "be nice to everything". There's the three jewels and the eight paths and the sacred way and all kinds of crap like that. It's really complicated.

[Lemur-X]

I'm just going to say that this board just went up about 400 points on my respectometer.

You wouldn't have seen this thread a year ago, without it degenerating in the first 3 posts or so.

It's actually an interesting read.

[Awetopsy]

Lemur: I agree totally.

[-- Transcendent --]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Stahlberg:
Just a few months ago I heard of such a test where women at a US fertility clinic became pregnant to a much higher degree within a set time period, if they were prayed for by some people in Australia.

---

I beg to differ.

The field testing of "prayer"'s just a pompous waste of time, IMHO, of course.

To put all my arguments in a nutshell, how can prayer alter probability if probability didn't exist in a determinalistic universe ?

After all, if such a test did prove conclusive, what can be concluded from it ? That he who answers prayers only answers 70% of them ? What happened, then, to the remaining 30% ? Did he just forget them ?

This experiment is about as silly as asking a large number of people to try to bend the odds of a fair coin flip, or a roll of the dice.

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: -- Transcendent -- ]

[Steven Stahlberg]

We could leave a supposed creator and answerer of prayers out for now, and just concentrate on the results of the study, and try to fit theories to explain it. I guess smarter people than me are doing that, and I'm not up to date on this...
but one explanation could be a kind of positive energy/life force that is always here, but gets focused when we concentrate, and the more people that focus on the same thing, the longer, the more energy - sort of like focusing sunlight.
Maybe it's not a matter of an 'answering' happening per se, but more a matter of a natural resource harnessed, a natural law (set up by God, if you're a theist; just accidentally there, if you're an atheist). Interesting. To me that would explain a few things.

[LinaBo]

Consider, possibly, a concept of a god outside the popular notion appearing in many religions.

Just because we think we have a knowledge of god does not necessarily mean that it is entirely right, or that our comprehension is complete. From the stand-point of god, god's decisions might make sense. From our view, it may not.

From my perspective, god is not an individual as is a singular human, and no singular human is a god, as well. Then why should we expect god to act as we do? Do we consider ourselves so mighty, so knowledgeable? We are here to learn, God is there to teach.

[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: LinaBo ]

[Awetopsy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LinaBo:
Just because we think we have a knowledge of god does not necessarily mean that it is entirely right, or that our comprehension is complete.

---

again, flip the coin, it doesnt mean that it is entirely wrong either or that its incomplete comprehension.

[LinaBo]

...and maybe if you read what I wrote you'd notice that I was refering to an undeterminable halfway point. I never said we didn't know anything.

How could we have a complete comprehension, in all certainty? That is a rather proud notion, if such is the case.

[roundeye]

science requires faith! what are you, retarded?

[Tinusch]

I was a Jehovah's Witness until February, when I finally liberated myself from its vicelike grip. Of course, now my entire family and all my friends have cut off contact with me, as I'm "bad association," but hey, if that's what they feel is right, then I think that says a lot about them.

[Jacks True Self]

Religious discussions are always so heavy it�s great.

I think that �Religion� contrary to its definition in dictionary to most people is a system of following unproven, untested beliefs often resulting in completely undesirable consequences which of course are always rationalized with irrational thinking based on fear of the unknown.

A person who is religious is generally one who would have pretty much the same opinion as the surrounding majority. I think that if any devout Christian would be instead born in an Islamic country they would definitely become a devout Muslim and declare that there is no salvation but through Islam.
Some people are so afraid of the fact that they cannot answer certain questions about life for themselves they either invent their own theories or follow someone else�s and never challenge them again. A doubt is often rationalized by �Temptation from Devil� and other nonsense.

Other people are not afraid and they admit that they don�t know and it�s ok to not know, so they go through life trying to find out answers to the questions they have. Those people generally have a very different opinion which is in almost every case very unpopular with the rest of the crowd. You can notice this about almost any great religious figure such as Jesus or Buddha.

Some are happy being a sheep in the Good Shepard�s flock others know or suspect what the Shepard keeps his flock for so they don�t follow him.

So I guess I�m not a religious person, nor am I an atheist because that would also denote a belief in an unproven fact. I don�t know what the popular label for this is.

[Tinusch]

Sounds like Agnostic

[edraket]

Jackstrueself: What you are saying goes for many things in life. Not just religion. So I don't really see it as a religion specific point.

----

I believe in a creative force that created (and still is creating) our universe and that does a have a certain intelligence. Or better..genius.

I believe in polarity. Male and female forces that make our world fertile and thus susceptible to life.

I believe in entities that we don't know of and that can influence our life to help us take the right course but that probably prefer not to.

Which of these would be God? I don't really know.

----

And then I have a question to spice up the discussion a bit...


Do any of you believe in reincarnation?

[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: edraket ]

[Awetopsy]

LinaBo: I read and understood what you were getting at. My point is while so many people seem so bent on making all the religious people admit that there is a possibility that what they believe is wrong, they never want to admit that there is a possibility that what the religious people believe is right.

quote

Quote:

How could we have a complete comprehension, in all certainty?

how is it so impossible? Is it necessarily a proud notion?

roundeye: excellent point.

Tinusch: I feel for you. I dont really understand Jehovah's Witnesses. It isnt right that somebody should be completely alienated from ones own family just because they dont want to believe the exact same thing.

The Jehovah's Witnesses dont try to convert me anymore because I asked them a bunch of questions fromt he bible they could not answer.

some more general thoughts:

1)What makes people so sure that God isnt proven? Just because a few scientists said he cant be proven? Alot of scientists refuse to admit the possibility of a God, making them less than authorities on the subject.

2)Somebody way back in this thread said that they based their own beliefs on mostly the physical laws we have now. Imagine for a moment that A God created the entire universe and all the "physical" Laws that hold it together. The main Law of Physics, if Im not mistaken, is "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction". If the bible is correct, then it completely supports that basic law. Every choice you make has a consequence, an equal and opposite reaction, if you will. We dont want to believe in Hell because we dont want to be accountable for our own wrongdoings. But just because we dont want to believe in something doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

[FatPenguin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Awetopsy:

roundeye: excellent point.

---

Awetopsy, do you mean that you agree that 'science requires faith!' ?

If so, could you please tell me what that means exactly? I've heard a number of people say that, or similar such things, and i have absolutely no idea what they mean.

[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: FatPenguin ]

[Jacks True Self]

I think they mean that before something new is discovered and proven it requres a great deal of belief on behalf of the scientist that it can be discovered.

[LinaBo]

Awetopsy, I am not an atheist or anything. In fact, my faith is very deep-rooted. Let me clarify what I meant:

A common attitude I see in many religious people, and among atheists, as well, is "We know how god works and thinks"
For many religious people I have met, it has a tunnel-vision effect on them. They start justifying acts as being what God wants them to do, even if it seems more like a submission to a primitive emotional urge or an ulterior motive (less than divine), and refuse to learn of other things, people, faiths.

For many atheists I have met, at least, the active ones who are usually coming from a religious background that they have abandoned, there is sometimes a hatred toward the concept of god because the thought is "Why did god do this? Why did god do that? If god was so loving and powerful, God wouldn't have done that or allowed that to happen".

In both cases, it's a stereotypical personification of god. In my opinion, if god is so powerful, if god rules over us, then why do we give god such human emotions? If god were human in an emotional sense, god would probably be better suited as just another average Joe on the street.

Anyway, before I get flamed by anyone, note that I'm refering to a common attitude that I, myself, have observed in people I have known. This doesn't mean that I believe all people of other faiths are like this. I never pass a judgement on anyone, specifically, before getting to know them.

[Jacks True Self]

edraket: I don't think anything in nature is ever separated. All separations such as religion, science are just our ways of explaining the world around us be it visible or not. Its not a religion specific point because i am not religious...

I think that reincarnation might be the way things really are. There is even some inconclusive proof of that when you take all the examples of kids remembering their past lives in incredible verifiable detail.

Awetopsy:
1) How is it proven then? And to who?

2) Absence of any proof of non-existence of something is not proof of its existence. Do you disagree?
The hell that you speak of often manifests in current lifetime, so it might be that there is no separate pit of lava waiting for the sinners deep down the earths core it all might just be happening here.

[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: Jacks True Self ]

[edraket]

OK..here is a little something on science.
Science is based on the following law.

If there are different explanations for a phenomena the simplest explanation is always the true one.

Thus in terms of religion it is explained by science as a psychological phenomena.

I personally think this whole law is flawed because it is all based on what the human rational mind can grasp and what science has found out in the past.

Science requires faith because a scientist strives to prove something that is in theory not true.
That is the only way science can progress.

The weird thing is that at the same time science manages to put a big "not true" sticker on many thing and narrow down our minds tremendously. You would expact scientists to be open minded people. But many are not.

What it all comes down to is that people should try to accept that some things "might" be true.

And more importantly. I think people should try to find out for themselves how they see the world and what is true. And be open to other peoples idea's.

[jr]

man cuts off penis
proof once again that the bible can be dangerious in the hands of an idiot. not all things can be taken literally.

[Awetopsy]

Jacks True Self:
1) the answer to your first question is dependant on the perticular belief system one belongs to. In the case of the brand of Christianity that I subscribe to, God and his power are proven to whomever believes on Jesus as their personal Lord and their Savior, and as a source of healing and answered prayer. He also proves himself to those who truly wish to know him, using circumstances and extraordinary events, whatever they may be to that individual.

2a)What Im saying is, so many people take what they see as a lack of evidence and make a statement that something cant exist without that evidence they lack. I agree that a lack of evidence doesnt mean it does exist. Im just saying that it doesnt mean it doesnt exist either.

2b)Where does it say that Hell is a pit of Lava? According to the bible, Hell wasnt even created for people, it was created for the Devil and his fallen angels. When man rebelled against God he had to make a place to hold the people who died rejecting him.
"The pit of lava" hell is a misconception.

FatPenguin: Jacks True Self's point is pretty close to what I was agreeing with. Thanks Jack.

LinaBo: a) Sorry, I didnt mean to lead you to think I was calling you an athiest. I agree, alot of times people who call themselves "christians" take some thought that pops into their haed and act on it justifying it as "God speaking to them". But just because they do thais doesnt mean it is God speaking to them. I think they are the people that Athiests and Agnostics see and love to point out. But that is not the way all Christians behave.

b)The bible says that God made us in His image, whch stand to reason that he gave us emotions and feelings because he has emotions and feelings. The difference is this, Humans allow thier feelings to govern them, when, really, God intended us to be capable of feeling and emotion without us letting those emotions and feelings govern us.

edrkat: Thats "achims razor"[sp?] isnt it? I believe it says that the simplest answer tends to be the right one. so I agree. Whats simpler? Is it simpler that a religion is just a psychological phenomina or that the religion is based on fact?

jr: sound to me like proof that lack of knowledge and understanding of what one is reading is dangerous.

[LinaBo]

Oh, I didn't think that you thought I was an atheist, though you did seem to indicate that I wasn't very religious (not meaning or taking any offense, here )

As for the Christian religion, I think there are some good Christians out there, and some bad. Same goes with any religion. Personally, I don't agree with many of the teachings of Christianity, but everyone is free to believe what they want.

quote

Quote:

b)The bible says that God made us in His image, whch stand to reason that he gave us emotions and feelings because he has emotions and feelings. The difference is this, Humans allow thier feelings to govern them, when, really, God intended us to be capable of feeling and emotion without us letting those emotions and feelings govern us.

Are you presenting this as fact? This is only one book from one religion. What I'm trying to say is, think outside of the box. It is possible that we were not fashioned after god in appearance and demeanor.

If god intended us to act a certain way within certain perameters, and we don't, what does that say about the power of god, who is supposed to be the supreme being? Less than godly, I would think, If god can't even govern god's own children. I think god intended for us to be imperfect, as part of the learning process in the grand scheme of existence.

[jr]

the bible isn't about knowledge or understanding, it's about interpretation. there was that whole reformation on it.....anywho..... i mock that guy for being an idiot.

[fshock]

Wow, I never thought this thread would be so huge.

to lead a moral life,
to be mindful and aware of thoughts and actions, and to develop wisdom and understanding.

Buddhism could be described as a non-theistic religion in that it considers belief in an omniscient, omnipotent creator God to be both untenable and unnecessary. The Buddha himself and many later Buddhist thinkers used a variety of arguments, many of them similar to those used in Western philosophy, to highlight the problems with the God idea. God's supposed omniscience implies man's predetermination which makes the idea of trying to do good and to avoid evil meaningless. The existence of an omnipotent loving God is negated by the terrible suffering that is found in the world. The supposed miracles, divine interventions and visions that are used to prove God's existence could just as easily be given some other explanation. Each religion affirms the existence of its God while denying the existence of all alternative Gods. If we accept one religion's argument for the existence of its God then we should accept the other religious arguments also, as they are all basically the same. And if we do this we would have to believe in many Gods.

If on the other hand, we accept one religious argument against the existence of alternative Gods then we should accept the other religious arguments as they too are basically the same. And if we did this we would have to believe that there were no Gods etc. etc. But far more important than these logical arguments is the fact that the origins of the universe, the moral order and man's destiny and salvation can be satisfactorily explained without the need to introduce the idea of a supreme being that is responsible for them all.

[Jacks True Self]

Awetopsy:
1) Seeing it as I see it is, I have to say that what you are saying is a typical condition most people prefer to be in. From birth till death we are like sprint runners who run until they expire without any direction and no finishing line. Everyone�s life is a long journey of pain and struggle. Even if they don�t admit it and declare that they are truly happy, they are not. They are fooling themselves. Maybe because the truth is too hard to deal with. No one is ever permanently happy, and impermanent happiness is meaningless, it�s not really happiness.

Now, if you create an imaginary finish line, give meaning to the suffering, and show an illusory direction the crowd will be much happier in their sprint run. See what I mean? That�s what religion does, it gives you an illusion of direction, meaning and happy end that awaits you, so you keep on running like it wants you.

People have a choice of either keep on running after Jesus or Buddha or Heaven or whatever else, or stop and see the situation as it really is.

If God made man to discover God, he would have made him with the tools necessary to do so. The tool that he has given him is the mind, that�s enough. The devil invented church and other tricks to divert the mind from its true path.

2)There is an infinite possibility of infinite amount of things to exist. Of all these possibilities why did you choose to believe in heaven and hell as a final destination? Is it a fact to you, or something that keeps your thought from wandering where you for one reason or another are afraid to wander?

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: Jacks True Self ]

[Steven Stahlberg]

Last night on Discovery channel they explained how galaxies form giant black holes in their centers as they start to form, the black holes become quasars that kick start star formation throughout the galaxy, then the black hole stops feeding because the blast has pushed all matter too far away from it (it sits like in a huge bubble of emptiness). Our own galaxy has one too. If all these details weren't this exact way (plus many other details) life could never develop in a galaxy.

The whole universe is like a giant interlocking chinese puzzle created for the sole purpose of producing life.
What's the likelihood that water would have it's boiling and freezing points exactly placed 'bracketing' the temperature range where carbon - the material best suited for creation of self-reproducing life - can best form complex compunds? Among all the elements, the combination liquid water and carbon is by far the best for this purpose.

There are dozens of such 'coincidences'.
Star formation and planet formation have some, the balance of gravity against the Big Bang is another...
This is why I mentioned earlier, astrophysicists become religious more often than philosophers. To me this is significant.

The atheists here keep insisting on seeing the theists as scaredy-cats who need their security blanket, and who won't wake up and 'SEE' reality, 'think outside the box'... what does that imply? That whoever says that thinks he's smarter or more clear-headed than most 'believers'. Generally not a good attitude to have to other people. I'll admit that you *may* be right, if you could ever admit that I *may* be right.

Religion at its most basic is simply a set of rules for humans on how to get along - the Instruction Manual if you will. The best such rules ever written, simple, direct, functional, easy to remember and understand - if these rules are followed as they are written - don't kill, don't steal, don't sleep with someone else's partner, turn the other cheek and do unto others, etc, then life becomes so much better for everybody.

The same things are written in secular law, but religious commandments are much more efficient at changing people's behaviour.

Without any sort of religion mankind would have killed and eaten each other a long time ago. It's a huge misconception that religion is cause of more bad than good. It's the other way round.

edit: Oh, and this whole thing about "God doesn't exist because he would have shown himself by now", is not valid.
He/She/It probably wants us to decide for ourselves without actually KNOWING for sure if there's an afterlife or not, if we want to be good or bad. Freedom of choice and all that. KNOWING would take away the freedom of choice, of course you're going to be good if you KNOW beyond a doubt that there will be a reckoning after death.

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: Steven Stahlberg ]

[Jacks True Self]

Steve, when you see a televangelist using hypnosis 101 to make people fall when he touches them on the forehead do you think that he may be a god-sent? No you see deluded people with a bigot in charge that employs these skills to win the followers.
Does that imply a superior attitude? Only when it makes one feel good by thinking that he is superior to those people. There is another way of seeing them which is without self-reference, where you simply see delusion as a fact and don�t stroke yourself in the process. Not everyone who calls religion a delusion does it to feel good about themselves.

Scientists� obvious argument to �coincidences� is that in an infinite universe there is an infinite number of possibilities including the most bizarre ones such as earth and resulting life. They are basically saying that earth and life is an accident in a universe where everything seems to have a distinct purpose, even when we at first don�t suspect what that purpose is. Just yesterday they had no idea what exact role black holes have had.
I think that life is part of that whole �chinese puzzle� which is really not a puzzle at all but one and only way that things could ever have been, even when we at first cant explain its intricacies.

Problem with the church and religion is that it tries to explain these things in a disconnected way, most of the time inventing various fantasies by misinterpretation of parables thought up by someone who actually might have known something. If religion was the truth it would be tightly connected to the world around us and be able to actually solve problems we need help with by helping us correct our actions, instead you get various nonsense like long ceremonials with shiny clothes and golden crosses and cups� when you ask a question they cant answer they tell you that you got a devil inside and have you pray until you forget why you came to them in the first place.

Ten Commandments are not a religion it�s like you said a manual, and that manual works well when employed. You don�t need church or religion to follow them; those are just man made systems which are often used to break those commandments. A descent human being follows these rules naturally even when he hasn�t heard about them.

�By their fruits shall you know them�.
And so far the fruits of organized religion have been wars, pillage and senseless murder and still are as one can see from the latest events. I don�t know what would happen if there was no religion, it seems to keep people in a relatively peaceful order. By relatively I mean long periods of peaceful existence interrupted by short periods of sharp piercing pain. Maybe there is another way to live where you can eliminate that pain all together.

I don�t think that religion solves the problem of people wanting to kill and eat each other it just delays it. Sort of like avoidance of going to a dentist by taking pain-killers.

[LinaBo]

Jacks True Self:

But religion doesn't have to be that way. I respect that you're trying to argue things from a scientific point of view, but I think you're relying to heavily on a jaded view of Christianity as an example of most religion.
My religion is against church for the same reason you are against church. It is a crutch. Same with relics, and deifying anyone who has lived on a mortal plane.

...and what of the people who are religious? As long as they don't fall into cult-like behaviour, is that really so bad? It is completely possible for science and religion to get along, we just have to try. Allow people their happiness, it is only human nature to try and find hope in something, and everyone does it in their own way.

I, myself, went through years of Clinical Depression, in which I renounced my Christianity, a religion I had 'belonged' to, yet knew nothing about. I became an Atheist for about 4 years. For the past 2, I started thinking about what god was and wasn't, but mostly I concluded that god is about balance. There are reasons why there are good and bad things in the world, and people with differing opinions. If we were meant to be perfect right off the bat, we wouldn't even be here to begin with. And I'll have you know that I never talked to a single religious figure during that time. No one 'saved' me, brainwashed me, converted me. I don't think anyone has a religion exactly like I do. After I thought about it, I felt so much better and I could move on with my life, with a sound mind.

Oh, and on the whole science thing, my faith never overrules scientific proof, rather, it embraces it.

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: LinaBo ]

[Steven Stahlberg]

Televangelists and their followers are not at all the mainstream of theists on this earth, nor is any of the other million and one sects based on either a complete and knowing lie (someone wants to be rich and powerful), or some delusion (someone thinks he's actually been talking to God). I'm talking about the 5 big ones, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. They're easy to tell apart from the bullshit out there. Each had a single prophet, a messenger, who was 'reflecting' a message from God, like a mirror will reflect the sunlight. Each prophet performed feats impossible to a normal human, and instantly gathered a huge following. Adam, Abraham, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus and Muhammed, and the latest one, Baha'ullah. Note that none appeared in the same epoch as the other. And confused teachings and ceremonies and golden cups and fanatical minorities - how are these in any way proof that there's no God? How can we presume to know the tiniest little thing about God? That's like a cell in my body trying to understand me. Utterly impossible. That's why God needs to talk to us through Messengers, and why the messages get garbled.

I think most scientists agree the universe is not infinite, either in time nor space. We can now see all the way back in time to shortly after the Big Bang, we know how old the universe is roughly, we know how large it is roughly, we can track fairly exactly the speed with which it's expanding. The theory that the universe was infinite in size died sometime during the fifties I think. (Unless you believe in an infinite series of Big Bangs, but that idea isn't really very helpful here.)

[ceenda]

Someone mentioned that they associate religion with war, segregation and fanatacism.

Odd...

I associate religion with our finest works of art, incredible ornate and awe-inspiring buildings that show us how men (and women) can find inspiration to create the most stunning architecture, as those created in the likeness of God. I associate it with providing and inspiring some of the finest literature in history, far superior to many modern writings who's lack of inspiration has contributed to the depressing stuff we have to read today.

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: ceenda ]