MarcusCardiff MarcusCardiff

How can we all be athiests

How can we all be athiests

In a world where "sin" means all.

Where do other religions lie,

I hope that this world can understand all possible religions,

I am an athiest, I believe in no religion, but I respect every single belief.

This is hard to make simple, but Everyone has the right to think what they may

Thats what it means to me,

Why is this argument so compilcated, Why are all "other" religions so "hated"


I cant even explain it too myself,


Marcus,
344,959 views 471 replies
Reply #201 Top
Archonsod,

Did you just cause Stanley Tarrant to cease to exist? That wasn't very nice!
Reply #202 Top
Alice in Quantumland

Hmm, nice argument on the physical, but It does suggest the possibility that nature of physics is far too complicated to be explained by even quantun physics,
But i disagree, it's just a lack of understanding that keeps us distant.
Every mew idea every new dimension is always explained away as the ultimate inextricability of natural orders, the universe and its beginning will always point to a creator , until we learn why not, then the goal will shift to another creation,

How far back does god need to go, How many fundamentals of physics do the theologians need to deny.

Truth is evident, God is mystical, never shall they ever be confused.

God will never be described so God has to back pedal for ever..

Marcus.

PS
If only God understood string theory then even God could consider his own creation.
Reply #203 Top
My head is spinning! I don't feel like a single question of mine was answered. Ok, I guess it is possible that I only exist becasue I have an exact electrical field generated in my brain (which for some darn reason, "I" happen to equate to the electrical field generated in a now 26 year old white male body). You guys have to admit that some higher power makes more sense? is more probable? If I am nothing more than the exact electricity produced by a brain in a white male human born on Jan 10, 1981, then again, how was "I" (whatever "I" is) equated or "chosen" to this electrical field generated by a human brain in a now 26 year old white human body??????

Also, the electrical field in my brain is constantly changing every second, right? How is it that, when my brain at state X just so happens to change to be identical to state Y (state Y is the electrical state say generated at 3:45 p.m. in a 56 year old chinese male's brain, how am "I" (all I am in an electrical field right) not instantly transfeered into the Chinese male's brain.

I mean if you think about all the possible electrical states of my brain my whole life, surely I match one state in some other human at one time.

God, my head is spinning! Damn you quantum mechanics for choosing this brain to reside my electical field!! brain is not sufficient!!
Reply #204 Top
Archonsod,

Did you just cause Stanley Tarrant to cease to exist? That wasn't very nice!


Yeah, don't do that again! Not existing sucks!!!!!!
Reply #205 Top
Sorry guys, gals (?) but I will need to obtain a huge quantity of weed to smoke before I can contrbute anything meangingful to this thread....
Reply #206 Top
What the article may be talking about (and I don't have a Sci Am subscription anymore so sadly I can't check) is the multiple universes interpretation of quantum mechanics, which holds that while this universe is finite there may be an infinite number of other universes, at which point your meditations on the nature of infinity may continue without further interruption.


that was one of the things the article talked about. it was actually describing four different physical means by which parallel universe might exist. what i described was called, in the article, a level I parallel universe (or level I multiverse). and actually, infinite space and matter wasn't necessary. the argument actually went like this: within a given volume of space (they used Hubble volume as an example), only so many permutations of matter are possible. given X number of volumes, there's a statistical chance two of those volumes are exactly alike. and with regards to infinite matter, here's a quote:

Another possibility is that space is infinite but matter is confined to a finite region around us--the historically popular "island universe" model. In a variant on this model, matter thins out on large scales in a fractal pattern. In both cases, almost all universes in the Level I multiverse would be empty and dead. But recent observatioins of the three-dimentional galaxy distrubtion and the microwave background have shown that the arrangement of matter gives way to dull uniformity on large scales, with no coherent structures larger than about 10^24 meters. Assuming that this pattern continues, space beyond our obserable universe teems with galaxies, stars and planets.


so it doesn't say matter is infinite, only very abundant. and this is from a sidebar:

Example Universe
Imagine a two-dimensional universe whith space for four particles. Such a universe has 2^4, or 16, possible arrangements of matter. If more than 16 of these universes exist, they must begin to repeat. In this example, the distance to the nearest duplicate is roughly four times the diameter of each universe.
Our Universe
The same argument applies to out universe (our hubble volume), which has space for about 10^118 subatomic particles. The number of possible arrangments is therefore 2 to the 10^118, or approximately 10 to the 10^118. Muliplying by the diameter of the universe gives an average distance to the nearest duplicate of 10 to the 10^118 meters.


Seriously, why isn't Dystopic Global Emperor? I am generally distrustful of anyone who says they are an atheist since they tend to have a "this is stupid" outlook on all religious and spiritual topics but you are constantly making informed, emotionally detached, relevant posts!! So riddle me this Emperor Dystopic: Are the natural laws of the universe indicative of a design and therefore a creator or is it just humanities tendency to see patterns where there are none that make us think there are laws at all?


i thought about going into politics for a while, but then i realized i don't like the taste of bile. to quote a great thinker:

“The strategic adversary is fascism... the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us.”


and thank you. i do try to be level-headed and fair to all sides in discussions like this. i think real learning only occurs when an individual tries to get inside another's point of view.
i don't hide my opinions, but simply spouting them off like a lunatic doesn't help anyone. social scientists tend to learn soft demeanors by necessity; how would we study other people if all we did was go around alienting them all the time?
and i agree, too. i find atheists tend to treat religious people as if they're backward, superstitious primitives, and i find it repulsive. all people deserve some measure of basic respect as far as i'm concerned. i don't understand why people get so worked up about their religious beliefs. you have faith in god? then some nonbelievers shouldn't trouble you. are you confident in your mundane explanations of phenomena? then why would others' superstitions get under your skin? to me it seems like there's more going on here, like we're squabbling siblings arguing in front of a parent for that much-prized intervention, "such-and-such, your brother is right." it's like people who don't believe in god still worry on some level about what he thinks of them.
just my two cents, anyway.
Reply #207 Top
You guys have to admit that some higher power makes more sense? is more probable?


entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

that's the Latin version of Occam's razor, "entites should not be multiplied beyond necessity." we understand it, "all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the preferable one."

is the explanation of a creator entity simpler than naturalistic or materialistic explanations?

the god theory is simple, yes. it seems even more so because we all (as far as i can tell) hail from Christian countries, and Christian ideas are therefore much easier for us to understand effortlessly. but that doesn't even speak to their simplicity, only their familiarity.

but Occam's razor isn't about simplicity per se, it's about parsimony. the idea here is: don't make up things that you haven't seen to explain things you have if you can possibly avoid it.

rather than being simpler, does the god theory make fewer assumptions and rely on fewer hypothetical inferences? this certainly isn't an exhaustive list, but it relies on the god's existence, the god's miraculous omnipotence, and the god's will to create a universe. and this is only a deistic theory; it doesn't cover a god who intended to create people or intervenes in life.

what's this theory's competator? the big bang theory + the theory of evolution by means of natural selection? i'll start with the latter. evolution assumes that biological entities change from generation to generation, and that those changes are passed from parent to offspring. it does not assume evolution is teleological (proceeding towards an inherent end) or that 'life' even has a survival instinct. when life forms occur that don't have survival behavior, they die off. the big bang theory assumes even less: that the universe has a chronological starting point. it doesn't assume a particular cause, anything about what existed before, or even a special starting point. in fact (AFAIK), nothing about the various big bang theories positively claims god didn't cause it.

Occam's razor makes it sound easy: whatever has the fewest assumptions is probably right. but of course, it's apples and oranges. a god theory has 3 assumptions i've identified. the naturalistic theories also have 3 that i've pointed out. some assumptions might seem easier to make, or easier to verify by observation (the heredity of traits, for example). but ultimately, i think it comes down to which set of assumptions you can stomach (if you're versed in European philosophy, think about Sartre's existentialism).
Reply #208 Top


that was one of the things the article talked about. it was actually describing four different physical means by which parallel universe might exist. what i described was called, in the article, a level I parallel universe (or level I multiverse). and actually, infinite space and matter wasn't necessary. the argument actually went like this: within a given volume of space (they used Hubble volume as an example), only so many permutations of matter are possible. given X number of volumes, there's a statistical chance two of those volumes are exactly alike. and with regards to infinite matter, here's a quote:


Gotcha, and thanks for the quote. I see nothing to argue with there (which isn't surprising, Sci Am's a damn good general science magazine).
Reply #209 Top
just fyi........an athiest is a person thats "beleif" is to not believe in christianity,
atheism is not a religion nor is something u call urself when dont believe in anything, the purpose of calling ur self an atheist is to denote that u are AGAINST christianity and some athiests try to prove it wrong (good luck with that by the way)
thats all
if ur a person that doesnt beleive in any religion than u cant call urself anything...
ur just you
(which is kinda sad)
(i am a christian by the way)
Reply #210 Top
just fyi........an athiest is a person thats "beleif" is to not believe in christianity,
atheism is not a religion nor is something u call urself when dont believe in anything, the purpose of calling ur self an atheist is to denote that u are AGAINST christianity and some athiests try to prove it wrong (good luck with that by the way)
thats all
if ur a person that doesnt beleive in any religion than u cant call urself anything...
ur just you


"Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called nontheism.[3] Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic.[4][5]"

"The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion. With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and was sometimes used as a self-description by atheists."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism]
Reply #211 Top
the purpose of calling ur self an atheist is to denote that u are AGAINST christianity


i'm afraid you have a misconception my friend, and i'm sorry you think what you do. some Muslims are openenly against Christianity, but they're not atheists.

also, what you said is closer to the purpose some people have when they call them selves Satanists. some self-defined Satanists, such as Crowley, are basically trying to say that the deadly sins are things consenting adults should be free to explore. the "Black Mass" ritual is essentially nothing more than a mockery of Catholic mass. some forms of "Satanism" (the word is over used) are basically a direct rebuttal to Christianity put into practice.
atheism, on the other hand, is simply believing that there is no god. i'm an atheist, and i'm not against Christianity at all (only hateful Christians, as well as hateful Jews, hateful Muslims and hateful people in general).
Reply #212 Top
Sci Am's a damn good general science magazine


agreed. i had a subscription until i started college.
Reply #213 Top
I would say Crowley was Luciferian more than Satanic. He seemed to think god, jesus, devil where all sides of the same weird coin and had a wierd fascination with things like a new eon of horus (think lightbringer) and kind of alluded to the idea that knowledge was the apple on the tree and the snake did us all a favor. Anton Levay sp? Church of Satan actually seems to think its all dogmatic BS and is a mash of occultism, ancient religious beliefs and a sort of dog eat dog philosophy. A lot of his dark rituals of satanic invocation really just make heavy use of various ancient gods of different religions and in the forward to the Satanic Bible he says something about how he called it the Church of Satan because he knew it would get a rise out of people. It is definantly anti-christian theology wise but by being so it falls into all other types of satanism and in my book is really just another form of Christianity, IIRC he even says something in his book about if it wasn't for him some evangilists would be out of a job and vis versa. The most popular form of Satanism in horror movies and the popular media is the mad at God and the church altar defecators who really seem to have taken rebelling against their parents to a whole new level, God is dad Church is mother and Satan is LSD and orgies, not really so much of a religion as it is an excuse to do things they want to do anyway. All three of those seem pretty unnecessary to me as far as beliefs go but I think in the interest of distinction its important to see that Luciferian vein Crowley has, because it crops up in other interesting places like some Jungian stuff. Something like Lucifer the lightbringer is the catalystic spark of knowing, Satan is the adversarial tempter of the lower ego and Jesus is the harmonized ego. I really think this is in line with the original meaning of the words lightbringer in the Judeo-Christian bible even if its been turned into something else in modern culture.
Reply #214 Top
some self-defined Satanists, such as Crowley,


Mr. Crowley is the founder of Thelema, he is his own savior! Thelema draws on lots of diffrent religions. You should use Anton Lavey, or Lord Byron, or even Ben Franklin (he prolly wasnt a beleiver but he liked the parties!)
Reply #215 Top
Anton Levay sp? Church of Satan actually seems to think its all dogmatic BS and is a mash of occultism, ancient religious beliefs and a sort of dog eat dog philosophy


that's right! i was thinking of LeVay - he established the Church of Satan in England, right?

and yea, the "satan-as-concept" is interesting. a similar-enough notion also comes up in William Blake's philosophies.
Reply #216 Top

I only exist becasue I have an exact electrical field generated in my brain (which for some darn reason, "I" happen to equate to the electrical field generated in a now 26 year old white male body).

No, there is no you independent of that electrical field to equate to anything. You are the electrical field, and the electrical field is you.

how was "I" (whatever "I" is) equated or "chosen" to this electrical field generated by a human brain in a now 26 year old white human body??????

It wasn't chosen, anymore than you chose to be born. The electrical field you refer to is the consciousness itself. Until it exists, there is no you to make choices. In simple terms, the electrical activity itself is generating a 'noise' which just happens to think it is self aware.

I mean if you think about all the possible electrical states of my brain my whole life, surely I match one state in some other human at one time.

Yes, but if you think of all the possible exhaust emission then surely the emissions from one car would match another at a given point in time. It doesn't change which car would be giving off either emission though.
Your consciousness is the same. It is generated by the output of a specific brain within a specific body. There's no free-floating you which can suddenly leap across minds even if there were identical conditions in another mind. The 'You' is the electrical field uniquely generated by your brain.


Did you just cause Stanley Tarrant to cease to exist? That wasn't very nice!

Not exactly - he'd be ceasing to exist at the same time he was beginning to exist in a constant cycle, which might explain his confusion


i find atheists tend to treat religious people as if they're backward, superstitious primitives, and i find it repulsive.

To be fair, religious people are just as guilty of this kind of thing. Look at the Catholic vs. Protestant sectarianism in Ireland & Scotland, the friction between Jews, Muslims and Christians throughout the world and similar issues. It's more accurate to say people tend to treat those who don't subscribe to their particular belief as primitive savages.

i don't understand why people get so worked up about their religious beliefs.

You summed it up pretty well. It's the confidence, or lack thereof, within those beliefs. Those who have doubts about their convictions, or those who have never really questioned their faith (religious or not) generally see any questioning or opposition of said faith as a personal attack, and tend to try to shore up their own beliefs by belittling the belief of others.


if ur a person that doesnt beleive in any religion than u cant call urself anything...

You can. Athiest would refer to anyone who doesn't believe in God, not necessarily non-religious (Buddhism is a religion, but it has no God or God type of figure behind it). Those who reject all beliefs (at least in the supernatural) would be Nihilists.


that's right! i was thinking of LeVay - he established the Church of Satan in England, right?

USA. HQ is in LA IIRC, technically Satanism is still illegal in England (as is heresy, Witchcraft is still technically illegal too, though the lawful penalties were lessened if not removed. The last time they were used was in the 1920's, when a woman was incarcerated for witchcraft).
Reply #217 Top


I only exist becasue I have an exact electrical field generated in my brain (which for some darn reason, "I" happen to equate to the electrical field generated in a now 26 year old white male body).

No, there is no you independent of that electrical field to equate to anything. You are the electrical field, and the electrical field is you.

how was "I" (whatever "I" is) equated or "chosen" to this electrical field generated by a human brain in a now 26 year old white human body??????

It wasn't chosen, anymore than you chose to be born. The electrical field you refer to is the consciousness itself. Until it exists, there is no you to make choices. In simple terms, the electrical activity itself is generating a 'noise' which just happens to think it is self aware.


LOL So you believe your "Self awareness" is just a noise. Also I like how you said " which just happens...". You really haven't explain anything but made a little noise. Also why would anyone trust a "noise" who just happens to think it understands anything?

Reply #218 Top
Stanley Tarrant, I think what you are asking for is purpose to everything. Frankly, the answer to that is beyond our concious capacity to understand at this point. I don't even bother to ask such questions. For all we know, the entire purpose of this reality is to make a new kind of cheese for some extra-dimensional being. My point is, we don't know, and are probably incapable of knowing. Though I must admit, 42 isn't bad...

By the way...


Well, as I said before, my knowledge on the subject is very hazy. It's second hand knowledge (I heard it from somebody who read it, so I guess that would make it third hand... creepy). I was not implying that this is what I believe. I was just thinking out... well, loud. Playing around with a concept.

It's more a philosophical issue than a scientific one.

If you can no longer affect the world around you in any way, then depending on how you define existence you could well cease to exist. It doesn't mean you disappear in a puff of logic, merely that your existence or not no longer has any validity. The counter-argument would be the standard "I think therefore I am".


"Puff of logic" is pretty good.
Reply #219 Top

So you believe your "Self awareness" is just a noise.

As I said earlier, you can prove with a simple magnetic experiment that this is the case. Isolate the frontal lobe activity from the rest of the brain and it results in a detachment between your self and the rest of the body. Would be an amazing co-incidence for your sense of self to just happen to go on a wonder when the magnets were placed...

Also I like how you said " which just happens...".

Where do you think self awareness comes from then? Furthermore, can you prove that you are indeed self aware, and not simply thinking that you are?

Also why would anyone trust a "noise" who just happens to think it understands anything?

If you have issues with self trust you'd need a doctor

You could ask the same of God though. Why would anyone trust a being they can't see, can't hear and apparently hasn't bothered visiting us for two millenia? Alternatively, why trust the word of a book written several thousand years ago whose authors can't be verified, events can't be proven and (more to the point) offers no more to recommend it as a truthful record than, for example, The Iliad?


Frankly, the answer to that is beyond our concious capacity to understand at this point.

Or there is no purpose to everything. Just thought I'd point that out
Reply #220 Top
aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahhaha

i laugh lol

who new a forum for a strategic civilization game could turn into a religious debate

haha
Reply #221 Top
To be fair, religious people are just as guilty of this kind of thing.


i didn't say otherwise, and it's equally repulsive among religious people. see my comment: "i'm an atheist, and i'm not against Christianity at all (only hateful Christians, as well as hateful Jews, hateful Muslims and hateful people in general)." not the same thing, but the same basic idea.

You summed it up pretty well. It's the confidence, or lack thereof, within those beliefs. Those who have doubts about their convictions, or those who have never really questioned their faith (religious or not) generally see any questioning or opposition of said faith as a personal attack, and tend to try to shore up their own beliefs by belittling the belief of others.


you can lead a horse to water...
i avoid making statements that direct. it can cause people to become defensive, and that's unproductive to learning. of course, that might not matter to you, but i'm interested in becomming a teacher. i try to use weaker suggestions so that my audience arrives are similar conclusions as do i, but since they're independently re-tracing the steps of thought, the logical conclusion doesn't feel like an outside attack.
but moving on, i think it runs more deeply than confidence in one's own beliefs; i think it boils down to confidence in one's own self. you know, this discussion reminds me more and more of a class i took.

my minor was as much a minor in a particular professor. he was fun, unassuming, had a good sense of humor, treated all his students with respect, and he took a genuine interest in me; we're still friends. at any rate, he taught a class that he said he thought of "only so I'd have a reason to assign (Allen Ginsberg's) Howl." the class was called Wisdom: Literatures of Authority.

it was technically a world lit class. he intended the class of about 15 students to explore the question, What is wisdom? During the first half of the class, we read all sorts of random texts. from Howl to the Meno, from bumper stickers that said "Visualize World Peace" and "Visualize Whirrled Peas" to A Cyborg's Manifesto. and we were provided with absolutely no context for any of these texts, something unheard of in modern academic settings. halfway through the course, he said his intention up to that point was to confuse and frustrate us (a very Zen style of teaching).

some of the students in the class were trying to tie together these desperate ideas, looking for some unified wisdom beneath the supposed the centuries of cultural accretion. however, the class wasn't focused on answering the question, What is wise? most of the students seemed to think that wisdom and wise action/thought/belief were the same thing. i knew Prof. Cohen had other ideas in mind because i was familiar with one of the two theorists we'd be learning midway through the syllabus - Michel Foucault if you're up on social theory, but i don't need to talk about him really. Foucault thoerized power, and his ideas inspired a guy named Bruce Lincoln to look at the concept of authority in a new light.

Lincoln argued that authority (like power, in Foulcaults ideas) occurs between people, specifically between people he dubbed speakers and people he dubbed audience. a stage and podium isn't required... all the time, but there is a theatrical or presentational element to authority (the Emperor's New Clothes, "the clothes make the man, police gavels, judge's robes, the position the lecturer takes at the front of the hall). anyway, for him, authority represents an occurance in which the audience silences itself to hear itself speak through the speaker. this might seem convoluted at first, but think about a few things first. in such an environment, the audience has gossip (not silencing itself) as a way to undermine the speaker's authority. think also about the common idiom, "i couldn't have said it better myself." imagine a scenario where a family misses its usual sermon in the morning and attend the afternoon one with a different preacher; upon getting home, the wife could easily be imagined saying something like, "i've never found anyone who could put my beliefs into words so well." ultimately, authority comes from the audience, both their perception of the marks of authority (look at all the regalia of the Catholic mafia, er, church) and their perception of the message (i can definately say that i majored in sociology because i finally found people who could say the things i felt intelligently).

the final paper prompt for Wisdom was something to the effect: select a text you consider to be wise, develop a theory of wisdom, and then apply it to your chosen text.

i picked the Communist Manifesto, and i went essentially with the theory he presented, that wisdom works essentially like authority. i looked at two things that'd happened to me: the first, a drunken argument with a marine i didn't know about the meaning of patriotism in a democracy that nearly ended with me being beaten into drengin kibble; and some protracted musings about beauty as a renewable resource in a consumer captialism and about how that related to the marxian concept of alienation i engaged in with a good friend while sitting on my roof high on psilocybin mushrooms (c'mon, you had to know that was there somewhere).

so my analysis of wisdom and the Communist Manifesto led me to extend the ideas about authority. i observed that the audience (me) can retain a memory of the speaker and speech and use that to more or less rationalize otherwise egregious action (in my case, arguing with a stranger who i only knew as a friend of a roommate, and talking derisively about new neighbors).

don't get me wrong, it also justifies actions that'd otherwise be unthinkably heroic like dying for your country (or on the cross). you might be surprised about what interested me in this conclusion. i don't really care that speeches and texts, religious or otherwise, can provide justification to people for distasteful and even inhuman acts. what concerned me most was that it seems so many people are incapable of justifying their own actions without relying on some kind of external authority, that so much of the time it seems like we childishly need some kind of permission to act.

incidentally, that day i shroomed was also the day i became as atheist as i think i can get (out of my sense of intellectual integrity, i think no god is the most likely scenario, however out of that same sense i have to admit that the truth is ultimately unknowable, which ultimately makes me agnostic).

we decided to eat the mushrooms while there would still be daylight, and after they'd hit i laid looking into the clear blue sky and a fiberous pattern emerged. i wasn't so high as to believe it was really there, nor have i ever been; i knew at the time it was an hallucination. but i also figure there's a good chance hallucinations can be projections of some sort arising from one's own mind.

hey, we're talking religion here, which presumable has something to do with spirituality, and psychedelics are a common aspect of spiritual and religious praxis outside the Abrahamic religions, and even in some cases within them Islamic Sufism and classical Jewish Hassidism as but two examples.

so anyway, back to the drug trip. the fiberous pattern in the sky coalesced into a giant eye looking directly down on me, and i thought to myself, "i really want someone to be up there, or somewhere, watching me and remembering me. i don't want to feel that alone."

and no, i'm not high now. it's just that i've mostly been responding to others in this discussion, but i haven't talked in too much depth about my own spiritual life. atheists have dark nights of the soul, too. it's kind of like the lyrics to Portishead's Wandering Star:

Please could you stay awhile to share my grief
For its such a lovely day
To have to always feel this way
And the time that I will suffer less
Is when I never have to wake

Wandering stars, for whom it is reserved
The blackness of darkness forever
Wandering stars, for whom it is reserved
The blackness of darkness forever


rather than sinking into hopeless depression, my revelation led me to cherish what's here. humans are stubborn and childish, but there are times when we're so teeming with life, creativity, passion and vision that i'm overwhelmed. i think that's about as close as satori or being filled with the holy spirit as i'll ever come, and it's the foundation of my belief system. i think the point of sharing all this was to kind of show that people who don't believe in god can still have deep spritual lives and cultivate the same virtues they can through belief. perahps you might think of understanding it like this: i can only see god in his creation. personally, i kind of view people who believe in god but who i also admire as so overwhelmed by the wonder of life that they can't take credit for it (as a species, that is).

i mean, the point of this discussion was trying to figure out why people of different beliefs are so prone to fighting; maybe it's partly because we assume we're so different from one another.

..anyway, i guess to conclude i've got one more quote ("Marvel at my encyclopedic knowlegdge of Star Trek!" - that was for you, Vinraith).

and sorry again for another long post. i figured for some of you, it'd be interesting food for thought, and for the rest (of the Americans at least), another reason to complain about the uses to which your taxes are being put.

A passage from Bertrand Russell’s autobiography:

Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a great ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair.

I have sought love, first, because it brings ecstasy - ecstasy so great that I would often have sacrificed all the rest of life for a few hours of this joy. I have sought it, next, because it relieves loneliness–that terrible loneliness in which one shivering consciousness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss. I have sought it finally, because in the union of love I have seen, in a mystic miniature, the prefiguring vision of the heaven that saints and poets have imagined. This is what I sought, and though it might seem too good for human life, this is what –at last– I have found.

With equal passion I have sought knowledge. I have wished to understand the hearts of men. I have wished to know why the stars shine. And I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean power by which number holds sway above the flux. A little of this, but not much, I have achieved.

Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a hated burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate this evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer.

This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me.
Reply #222 Top
"thoughts about science, evolution, ect."

they (as in the news, government, and genreal ppl) are starting to call scientology a religion........
how can u BELIEVE in something that u urself TECHINICALY created (u as in humans in general)over time humans developed ways to explain, classify, and understand the mysteries of our world, which we generaly call science

scientology can only give a THEORY as to how the universe began (the big bang theory by the way......wut a load of crap, because first of all, how and where did the gases and mass that supposely exploded, come from?) no matter how hard or deep u delve into a scientific reasoning for how life or the universe began, u are never going to be able to a DEFINITE explanation

science can only work backwards in trying to figure out how life and the universe began (in a sense working from the present to the first records of anything) and all the theories converge at a point where it cant go further back because science its self was created by humans, in a sense not to long ago in terms of the life of the earth

some theorize that all of us began in the center of stars...........now just think about that for like 2 seconds.........
the chances of a LIVING thing being created from total chaos is astronomical
first of all there is an amazingly high combination of things that need to happen in a human body for it to work (im no doctor but know that much)
now how could a combination of gases and metals in a STAR..........possibly create something so complex when a star is simply a combination of atoms (and if it began like that than why isnt our sun turning out living things right now haha)

another theory almost tighed to that is evolution (eccentially not a theory for the begining of life but the beginnig of humans)
evolution is a theory that is so easily proved wrong that its almost just plain sad that some ppl dedicate their lives to proving it right
its basic explanation is that we began as "bacteria" and slowly but surely started to grow funcional body parts such as arms and legs, ect..........
now this is almost instantly provin wrong in that the transition from a microscopic being to a complex life form without no previous "designs" (such as dna) to go off of would take so long that the being would simply die before it could make use of anything
therefore if everything is dead than ther is no more life


well there u hav it, my thoughts about that =D im just reaaaaaaaaaaaaly bored so i thought id type'm up haha





Reply #223 Top
Back again everyone. Enjoyed reading all the posts scince my last post. I just thought I'd add a comment to the faith discussion.

I feel (Calculating his words carefully)that the words belief (or believe) and faith are being used interchangably in these discussions.

For example: A person can believe in God but it does not necessarily mean the same person has faith in that God. This is a suttle difference. Faith tends to make people do things. It has been said that: "Faith is the moving cause of all action"

The reason we plant seeds is beacuse we have faith that if we do so the result will be a gown plant (which if it is a corn seed we can eat). We go to university because we have faith that if we study hard we will receive a degree.

The person that beleives in God may not decide to change his life in anyway. But if the same person has faith that God will assist him in some way that person will change his/her life because of the faith they have to what they feel god wants them to do. hence all the fanatics in the world.

therefore as said before, "Faith is the moving cause of all action. For some strange reason (no offence intended)athiests have faith that if they believe in nothing it will help them in some way. Viva le diference!!!
Reply #224 Top
.............on a further note.........
think of the universe as panel of infinite number of knobs

now pretend that each knob has an billion billion ammount of settings u can change to

now the universe (metaphoricaly of course) has each and every knob set to a specific settting, and if one SINGLE knob goes a tad out of sync, the whole thing is messed up
so there has to be SOME intelligence behind life and all............
Reply #225 Top

i didn't say otherwise, and it's equally repulsive among religious people.

No, but the highlighting of Athiesm and Christianity tends to point towards an 'Us vs Them' type of mentality, which tends to contribute to the problem
I see it as a quirk of human nature which we all tend towards (knowingly or not), even if not all of us take it to the extreme. It's more common a result of our environment, sometimes because questioning of a particular belief may be taboo in one's situation, other times simply through complacency (an example would be reciting a bible passage or re-iterating a particular belief as being 'correct', yet not remembering precisely why you believe it to be correct in the first place). With a lack of outside answers, we tend to seek reassurance by other means, for example 'proving' that one's own belief is superior to anothers. It's a false economy though, if your belief is dependent on others then where would it leave you when you're alone?
It's something I've seen happen in many religious discussions, no matter how rational or friendly they begin as. Those of similar beliefs end up forming groups, and the discussion degenerates into either flaming or simply rephrasing points with nobody willing to listen.

i avoid making statements that direct. it can cause people to become defensive, and that's unproductive to learning.

As soon as you mention religion people become defensive, whether it's Christians awaiting the inevitable athiest attack, or athiests readying themselves to repel whatever dogma is about to be spouted. It's quite strange how we've moved on from the days of burning each other at the stake yet we still seem to hold some kind of taboo over religious discussion. Almost like the days of the Crusades, except rather than waging war with swords we've moved on to words.
The irony is that these debates are necessary in order to develop your faith. Only through questioning and finding the answers can you truly strengthen your belief. In order to find those answers, it is often necessary to hear the various viewpoints held by those of differing beliefs, until you find one that you believe is true.

but since they're independently re-tracing the steps of thought, the logical conclusion doesn't feel like an outside attack.

The problem is logic often differs from person to person

Sometimes putting people on the defensive can teach you far more than otherwise. When talking about issues such as faith(or anything which tends to come close to the core of our being), we tend to put up walls and fronts if given the chance (even to ourselves). By evoking an emotional rather than a rational response you can sometimes recieve a more honest answer. Analysing this kind of response can tell you a lot more about who you (or someone else) are.

but moving on, i think it runs more deeply than confidence in one's own beliefs; i think it boils down to confidence in one's own self.


Certainly. Those who do hold to a conviction tend to define who they are in part by that conviction. It therefore follows that any crisis in that faith leads to a crisis in self confidence too. Probably the reason for those dark nights of the soul!