I'm a recovering Catholic who has slowly been moving towards a very confused idea of faith, reality and spirituality that i don't pretend to understand fully (indeed i think if i ever do understand it fully, then i have made a mistake somewhere).

On a note of pure pedantry "bin Laden's book" is only about 1500 years old. It';s interesting that you mentioned the crusades as well, after all when Christianity was 1500 years old it did pretty much what extremeist muslims are doing now. For pretty much the same reasons...

Ahhh but is he? Certainly the church says he does as do the books written by men but because men say these things, does it make them real?

The question is what do you define as proof. I have proof as to the existance of my gods but it is proof you would not accept as such. You would likely suggest that i was simply deluding myself if i told you that in times of great distress, I feel Laima's arm around my shoulder comforting me or that i was crazy because i hear her tell me it will be ok. You would like as not say that this is not proof.

To you it is not. To me it is all the proof i need.

I wouldn't call them confused. They just do not believe in the Christian God, or any other God or higher being. That is thier belief. They seem pretty darn sure of it, that doesn't sound confusing to me.

I do not believe in the Christian God, either. But I do understand that there are people out there, who believe a different way that I do, and I totally respect and accept that. And if it happens to be, that they don't believe in any higher power, so be it. I do not look down on others for thier belief or disbelief. Thats the wonderful thing about people, they are all so different! Yay!

.


Ahhhh just to interject here you cannot prove that either way... and saying it is being entirely contradictory to what you started this thread for....

I don't know from gods, but I do know science and logic. You can look all you want for gold in China, you can say it's there as loudly as you want, but until such time as you actually find a nugget containing a significant percentage of the Au element (gold), you will not have empirical evidence of it, and therefore you will not have proof of it. You will have faith that it is there, but not proof. (This all assumes the geologic impossiblity of gold in China, of which I have no idea wether it is possible or not).

In other words, what you are attempting to do is what is called a Reduction Argument. It basically goes: Given A, B, C, then If A does not equal C, B must equal C. It is a logically correct argument, however (and this is the part that most overlook) the assumption is that both A and B are of equal standing. In other words, if C is Fruit, then Both A and B must be a type of fruit. If C is Book, both A and B must be a type of book. The only way that you can logically eliminate either A or B is if they both follow the exact same rules of structure and order.

So how does this relate to your example. Like this: Your examples assumes that your argument A (gold) is the equivalent of your argument B (God). If one can disprove the impossiblity of gold in China by the discovery of a single nugget of gold (which is true, and I am assuming you meant that you have metaphorically discovered such a thing), then one can disprove the impossibility of God by finding one single 'nugget' of God (also true). But this nugget of God MUST possess the same structure and order of the nugget of gold. It must be measurable, classifiable, and verifiable. They are not, however, and therefore you example is moot.

This is another common argument referred to as Irreducible Complexity. Another popular example (asides from cars and paintings) is the pocketwatch example, where if you find a pocketwatch on the beach, you would assume that it was man-made, because it is too complex to have come about by sheer chance.

But this is another false argument because it makes a significantly incorrect assumption. Complexity is NOT the sign of natural intelligence. Read that again. Complexity is NOT the sign of natural intelligence; SIMPLICITY is the sign of natural intelligence.

I'll explain. Let's say you go down to the river shore. Look at all the pebbles on the bank and pick one up. Your assignment is to replicate this stone. To do this, you will have to measure all the imperfections, all the many dimensions, the different densities, all the color variations, everything that makes this pebble what it is. Why are there so many different factors? They are there because the pebble is a product of numerous accidents; the sheer result of a hundred different possibilities coming to pass exactly as they did. But let us say that you found a different pebble. This one is perfectly spherical. It is an even glossy black. It is of equal density throughout. Replicating this one is simple. Volume=Pi*Radius cubed. A note for color, another for density, and you're done.

Which of the two pebbles would you suspect of being natural, and which man-made?

Now, to the second fallacy in your argument. You belief that the eye is so darned perfect. Its design is such that there is a blind spot in the back. We can only see an incredibly narrow range of light, less than insects and other mammals. The nerves actually have to switch over sides before they get to the brain. I won't even get into all the flaws that eventually cause us to loose our sight. Well designed? No, I could have designed a better eye, and I'm not claiming that I made the universe and all creation.

No. Some do, but some are very aware of the extreme limitations and biases that our senses have to work with. Ask any police officer who has had to write up witness accounts. People see the exact same event, but they hear different things, they feel different ways, and yes, they even see different events. This is why subjective evidence is not the same as imperical evidence. Humans are simply not trustworthy enough sources of data.

Holy Cow! If we had been in the same room when you made this statement, I would have slowly backed away to the door!

That aside, you make the same mistake you did before. The theory of gravity has been tested, retested, independentaly verified, used for predictions, and meets every single pre-requisite for scientific methodology. You equate this to "If you die, you'll see God."? No, Proof is imperical data that is both repeatable and falsifiable. We have absolutely no way to confirm that a dead person has met God. This doesn't even meet the description of evidence, much less proof.

You nailed it right on the head. Science indeed limits reality. It strips it clean of subjectivity, or emotional bias, of psychological dependence. It purifies data down to most imperical form possible. With this data, it then proceeds to understand the rules of reality. The data makes the rules, not us.

You make the claim that you respect all religions. I have my doubts. You do sound like you tolerate them, but it isn't the same thing. If all you do is hum happily to yourself "they're wrong, I'm right." you have not shown them any respect whatsover. In much the same way, you disrespect my belief in scientific methodology. You do so by using it without even a decent understanding of the arguments. To my mind, your idea of research is to read articles that you already know you will agree with, and repeat what you have read. I have my doubts as to wether you even understand your own arguments to any depth.

You could probably justly accuse me of not having respect for your beliefs. You might be correct, but you would be missing the point. I have full respect for those who arrive at their beliefs, whatever they may be, through a full understanding of all the data involve, both positive and negative. People who willingly research both sides and come to a conclusion based on what they know and what they beleive (and understand that the two are not the same), these people have my respect.

You...the arguments that you presented are facil and have been responded to decades ago. That you were unaware of the easily discovered arguments against these indicates that you are willingly to follow, but not study. I cannot respect a faith followed only due to academic laziness.

The simple fact of the matter, your opinion notwithstanding, is that any claim that you have to 'know' anything has to, by definition, be backed up by proof. If you do not have proof, then you do not 'know' it; you 'believe' it. What you choose to believe in is entirely up to you and nobody can say that you are wrong or right about it, but when you claim that you 'know', you have given others the right to demand how. This is little more than an exercise in semantics, but definitions are of extreme importance when in a debate. Belief and knowledge are not interchageable. They each have their own requirements, regardless of what your personal views on them might be.


If ever I could have been considered a follower of a religion, it would have been Buddhism. I'll tell you the story that convinced me it was worthy of my study, but (in true Buddhist fashion) I will let you figure out the lesson.

I would like to hear your thoughts.

Buddhism is the only religion that has ever made sense to me. It's much more credible than, say, Christianity.

I like this story. I would hazard a guess to the lesson being you cannot ask for your answers in life, but rather must expirence life and discover your own answers.

Am i close?

You are absolutely right Norman...just one, and only one true religion. The rest of them are all wrong and will spend eternity in hellfire for picking the false religions...

I am so glad you came along to set everyone straight, really. The fact that you are willing to be so resolute in the face of no supporting evidence shows how true your religion is…what bravery you have!

Don't worry about having respect or consideration for anyone else’s beliefs; since they are all false you have every right to tell them how wrong they are. Don't forget to throw in the hellfire and damnation, that will put them in their place. You have the upper hand in this argument, you have the one true god on your side, and don’t forget to tell all of the heathens that either!

Just remember Norman, no matter how much logic or critical thinking the atheists throw at you, just ignore it altogether. Logic doesn’t mean anything when you know you are a follower of the one true religion. Logic and critical thinking will just land these heathens in a lake of fire! You know what is best for these people; tell them what they should be doing in their own lives! It is going to be up to you to save these heathens, they obviously can’t think for themselves otherwise they would realize that you are right; that you know who the true god is…Since they can’t seem to think for themselves, the burden of their very souls lands on your shoulders Norman… It is a very heavy burden I am certain, but since you know the one true god, you can save all of these sinners!

Go Brother! Preach the WORD!

This is refered to as a postulate. This is a statement of faith made without corroborating evidence and therefore inherently personal and externally unverifiable. In other words, truth and faith are perfectly valid as a belief system. Nobody can tell you that you are wrong, and likewise, nobody can tell you that you are right. Proof is not a requirement of a belief system.

I have trouble understanding this. Not because it is complex or simple, but because it doesn't make sense. Knowledge implies more than simply being aware of the end result. A person who knows and a person who guesses correctly can both be right about the end result, but only the person who knows is able to explain to you exactly why it will happen the way it happens. The reason they can do this is because they have evidence which indicates that this is the way it has happened before, and experience has shown that this is the way it will likely happen again. Imperical data, again, by definition, does not rely on anybody knowing or believing in it. It stands alone, and it measures the exact same way for anybody who chooses to test it. Interpretation of the measure may vary, but the measures remain the same.

You seem to be under the impression that you can freely interpret any scientific terminology and use it however you wish. I would advise against this. It will rapidly destroy your credibility. If you believe in something without any proof to back it up, that's faith. If you understand the working principles behind a phenomena, can replicate and predict this phenomena, that's knowledge. Don't confuse the two.

Wow, two almost polar opposite answers.

People go to Hell because they choose to, not because God wants to condemn them.

Burn. Sex is bad when you just order your relationship with another person only in that. In the end, if you live it that way you become a slave of yourself, a slave of sex. Love is based in accepting the other person the way he is, even is he (or she) doesn't satisfy you sexually. And as to why people say it's bad to have sex before marriage... well, your sexuality is one BIG gift you have, and if you're going to spend the rest of your life living with another one, you wouldn't want to spoil that gift, right? Well, same with sexuality. Think of it as a birthday cake for someone you love, ONLY for that person. You wouldn't give other people slices of that cake, right?
Of course that if it happens, that you had sex before marriage, it doesn't mean that there is no way you're gonna be happy with your wife.

Well, just that.

PS: I registered here because I read your topic on Silent Hill games. I love them, and the scare the s**t outta me.

Hmmm I'm going to say that I think your outlook is very blinkered. Love is one emotion that covers a lot of bases. And you can love more than one person at once.. we have the capacity to do this. It may be sexual, emotional, spiritual, or any or all of those and it dependant on the people that are involved.

So I have a question to the people who have the view that God exists and made us... If that's the case, then explain to me why this diety would allow us the capacity to do this?

I'm going to be silly here, But I wouldn't buy a car with out checking under the bonnet first. Taking it for a test drive so to speak.

Sorry for the silly comment, but I couldn't resist.

BTW My faith/religion/beliefs are just that. Mine.

Of course you can love more than one person at a time!!!!! Your mother, you family, etc... but there are different kinds of love. I was talking about the one you share with your wife, girlfriend, etc. Not the other ones.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough that's what I was talking about

Student&Alive posted this a little earlier in this discussion, and I've only had a chance to respond just now, so please forgive the late reply.

The argument about violence in the name of religion has come up a lot. Many use this to argue against religious belief. Interestingly, though, the same people never acknowledge the violence and oppression done in the name of atheism (especially in the 20th century).

I'm not a Bush supporter, and I find some things (not all) that he and the Republican party have done reprehensible. But can you please show me anywhere where Bush is quoted as saying that some god--any god--told him to wage war on Osama Bin Laden or Iraq? As far as whether or not Bush is a Christian, I have no idea either way. But there has been quite a lot of ridiculous journalism out there that employs this kind of logic: Many Christians are Republican > Bush is a Republican who claims some sort personal affinity for Christianity > Bush is waging war because he thinks the Christian God told him to. Regardless of whether or not one likes Bush, Jesus, or the church, this is a ridiculous proposition. Our military campaign in Iraq is fraught with deceit and misinformation, but I think the only reason Bush needed for going to get Osama Bin Laden may have a little to do with Sept. 11. One doesn't have to read the bible or get a message from God to want to go after him.

And as far as the Crusades go, if anyone would do even a small amount of research on the Crusades or the Inquisitions, it is easy to see that none of the aggressors were murdering because they we concerned with the will of God or anything like that. Both travesties were about an idiotic and anti-Christian church garnering power for itself. That's it. Whatever things folks said about acting in accordance with anything in the bible--Old or New Testament--were merely appeals made to justify evil. ANY truth--not just the truth found in the bible--can be perverted by evil people. In fact, please show me a truth or a body of truths that has not been perverted by human beings at some point and time! Also, can you present any truth that cannot be perverted and used for twisted ends? I don't think you can.

Truthfulness isn't to be measured by the impossibility of falsehood or perversion. All truth can be perverted by people. If the search for truth consists of looking for that which cannot be falsified, then we all need to give up immediately (some have opted for this route). However, what if truth is precious regardless of the attempts to falsify and pervert it? I think that when falsehood rears its ugly head, we should cling to truth more tenaciously, not scrap it altogether. The argument that one should scrap Judeo-Christianity because of the violence done in the name of Jesus by liars doesn't work. It is rooted in reducing Christianity down to all of the ugly things that liars have done in Jesus' name with little or no consideration for all the beautiful things people have done (and continue to do) in the name of Jesus. This is a convenient reconstruction of history for Christianity's opponents, but it simply doesn't hold water. If one is going to say that they reject Christianity because of all the evil done in the name of Jesus, then doesn't it suggest that one should be willing to consider it because of all the great things people have done in Jesus' name?

They were saying that when Jesus was still alive...Nearly 2000 years later and folks are still falling for it...

Here, here!!
That will be nice.... Nice peaceful Sundays without bible thumpers knocking at the door. ahhhh pass me a cold one and turn on the race. Darn, the only driver left is Tony Stewart.

Oh well so much for fastasy.
When Jesus said the meek will inharit the Earth, who is he talking about? Who are the Meek?