Religon, Agnosticism And Atheism

[Kapten Kanel]

[b][size="4"]Religon, Agnosticism and Atheism[/size][/b]

First of all, i am really trying to create a discussion here, not a bashing thread. It would be very interesting to hear peoples different views and actually create a real discussion instead of the mess that threads about this topic usually ends up as.


[size="3"]My view in very very short:[/size]

Religions cannot prove anything, it is beliefs and nothing more. 2000 year old books etc.., are not good sources.

Atheism fails and cannot prove anything, to say that there cannot be a/an "higher existance" or similar is not very intelligent considering our limited understanding of, well, everything. Einstein quote incoming -

[b]"All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have"[/b]

Agnosticism wins - we cannot say anything for sure, there may or may not exist "something higher", a superintelligent creator race and so on but it's rather unlikely according to todays science and the understanding we have of the world we (can) see/observe around us.


Opinions?

[noodle]

I tend to look at the subjects of religion and science through a lens of alchemy.

[mustafabey]

Religion vs science is looking at the same thing thru different lens. The truth is that we "don't know", that we don't have nice explanations for the way the whole thing works. Religions tend to be ancient, obsolete belief systems. loaded down with threats and dogma, ritual and riches. Religion is quite simply a way to control people. On the scientific end, daily new discoveries change the way we look at things.The bigger the telescope, the further we see, the more powerful the microscope the smaller the particles become. All this fuss over the "god particle", the basis of matter, yet, i imagine when they isolate it, it will be made up of smaller particles. Dr Stephen Hawking recently stated that god wasn't responsible for the creation [url="http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/02/hawking.god.universe/index.html?hpt=C2"]Hawking[/url].
The whole scope of existence is so very far from our understanding, so far from what our meager senses can percieve that to argue about it is useless. Everybody seems to be wrong. Jalaludin Rumi says, "The Word cannot be expressed in words"
In the course of human development we gave up our identification with the universal. Animals,plants etc, retain it. My dogs don't have these dialogue. They are content with everything unless something wants to eat them or me. Cats have been cast as perfect little Buddhas.
Yet,some us, having been able to see thru the veil we call reality, have experienced unity with all.The are our prophets,gurus,and sages. Yet, they cannot express what is going on in words. They only point the way, or the many ways. As I envision it, with my limited capacities,we all(all of creation, what we see and what we can't) are like a single life form, a single energy, a single unity . The Big Bang is nothing more than the expelling breath of this unity. Sometime in the future all matter will stop moving outward and begin moving back,Into a single particle of dense allmatter, then bang again and again, each time, each creation being simply the in and out breathing of this universal being.
Rumi said"The Word cannot be expressed in words" There is truth in that

[Barnaby]

I need to stay out of these threads.. It never ends well.. LOL..

The biggest problem with all of this, is that we are bound to the rules of this reality. And as such, can only comprehend so much, due to these physical limitations. Search up the immortal Carl Sagan, and his discussion on the 4th dimension to get a better idea on what I'm trying to convey. We will never see the forest from the trees. And we sit here, and tinker and try to explain what we can from what we perceive, but our scope is so horribly limited, we're not going to be able to explain it. Not until we transcend into a higher form of being, would we be able to really start understanding the makeup of how things really are.

When I was young and first saw Animal House, I couldn't help but ponder one part of it. When Pinto and Prof Jennings are hanging out after the NHT scene, Pinto is being told about how 1 atom in his fingernail could be an entire tiny solar system. IMO, this couldn't be further from the truth. When I visualize it in my head, its kinda like a spiral. When you think about it, we're just little pieces of energy, circling each other in orbit. And this spins around, others, and up and up the scale until you finally get multi-celled organisms. But keep going up, and it gets to planet sized, and the scale becomes so much, that our entire solar system is microscopic to other star systems. Who's to say that our entire universe as we know it, isn't just the makeup of the atoms of some other giant being? The parallels between atomic makeup and star systems is quite close.

Thinking at an atomic level as well, since we're all just made up of energy with magnetic bonds, the energy is all the same. Which is why we're all interconnected, and more than likely the same thing as everything else. What makes the energy do what it does, is what boggles us. You could call that God, and explain it with Religion, Science, whatever. It doesn't matter at the end of the day. Its all the same thing.


mustafabey, I see that you are someone of like mind. Going on your idea of the breath, it could be more a sound vibration than anything else. But a sound from what is the question? Was it something good that made the noise of the big bang that created this universe? Or something old and dark. There's so much more to things than we perceive. Edited September 3, 2010 by Barnaby

[mustafabey]

Barnaby said"mustafabey, I see that you are someone of like mind. Going on your idea of the breath, it could be more a sound vibration than anything else. But a sound from what is the question? Was it something good that made the noise of the big bang that created this universe? Or something old and dark. There's so much more to things than we perceive.

Light and dark are part of the old religious belief systems, probably coming from Paleolithic days. We can't see in the dark like other critters can so we are afraid. Zoroastrianism put that into a dogma and world religion. Light .dark,good evil, all part of the same thing. But we want to know what the thing is! We call it god, but infact it is us,all of us, all of creation. When we lost the ability to indentify with the unity, we did that because we began to observe creation, rather than be creation. To observe you need two things(not one Thing) the observed and the observer, hence the beginning of duality, religion etc. I think we need just to be, as in Ram Das' great classic "Be here now"
Perhaps Rani will chime in here, she can always clarify things like this so well.

[Barnaby]

[quote name='mustafabey' timestamp='1283533365' post='481149']
Barnaby said"mustafabey, I see that you are someone of like mind. Going on your idea of the breath, it could be more a sound vibration than anything else. But a sound from what is the question? Was it something good that made the noise of the big bang that created this universe? Or something old and dark. There's so much more to things than we perceive.

Light and dark are part of the old religious belief systems, probably coming from Paleolithic days. We can't see in the dark like other critters can so we are afraid. Zoroastrianism put that into a dogma and world religion. Light .dark,good evil, all part of the same thing. But we want to know what the thing is! We call it god, but infact it is us,all of us, all of creation. When we lost the ability to indentify with the unity, we did that because we began to observe creation, rather than be creation. To observe you need two things(not one Thing) the observed and the observer, hence the beginning of duality, religion etc. I think we need just to be, as in Ram Das' great classic "Be here now"
Perhaps Rani will chime in here, she can always clarify things like this so well.
[/quote]


While I believe the source is the same, there nothing that doesn't say that our particular piece of reality doesn't stem from something that split from the unity before we did. That's why I'm trying to say. The big bang that we know of, might not be the true source is all. It's just the source for this existence. But the next level above ours, that this level of creation stemmed from, is completely unknown to us. We know now that there are multiple dimensions of space and time that run parallel to ours. Who's to say there are not a multitude of beings from a higher dimension, that all spawned off their own form of creation? That this is merely a proving ground for a new, from our perspective, god like being. That this reality is just childhood, where its very essence has been split up into all different forms of life, so that it can fully comprehend every possible aspect of life. Once the entity has been able to learn every lesson there is, it would all just join back together gain, ready to transcend to the next plane.

[Rani]

I have this tendency to go off on philosophical studies, at the moment it's Joseph Campbell. He's helped me integrate certain ideas that have been floating around in my brain for a couple decades. First of all, science is never "truth". It is always theory open to replacement by further theories based on revelation of further discoveries. Because of that, science by it's nature, is not antagonistic to faith, because true science accepts that proof of God's existence may eventually be found or revealed. Campbell and I differ in that he believed our spirituality (mythology/religion) were based on a need to salve our conscience from it's contemplation of the brutal natural world we live in. That our conscience cannot assimilate that life lives on death. That everything lives upon the death of something else. My problem with his philosophy is that it's really a chicken-egg argument. Conscience comes about primarily because of the influence spirituality, (based on concepts of "right" and "wrong'), therefore how can spirituality be a consequence of our conscience? I don't see that particular argument ever being resolved. We have better luck with the scientific mutation of bird's egg from reptilian parent.

I have certain issues with organized religion, because I find there is a history of progressive evolution from one spiritual system into another. Therefore, I think it's logical to presume that they are not "revealed" but simply transformed by transformation of nations and powers throughout history. Does that mean the Divine does not exist? No. But it may essentially suggest that a personal form of God does not. It's not, I think that we were made in God's image, but that we form our limited comprehension of God into our image. In an attempt to understand it, we have to personify it and explain it. Such is the intellectual burden of being a thinking species.

I don't think there's much doubt that there is a manifest source. There is so much that cannot be explained by coincidence. And there is the fact that during deep meditation, I can actually bask in Source. But it does not feel as a mindful entity focusing on me as a personality. It feels like a Source of energy where there is intelligence just beyond my reach if that makes sense. Like when you were a kid and trying to understand the first rules of Algebra that you couldn't grasp. So from a philosophical point of view faced with that inability to completely comprehend it, even when I'm merged with it, I can understand how we would feel the need to personalize it.

I'm interested to see where this discussion goes.But as Mush would say, we all need to pledge to "play nice" while we're having it.

'Rani

[Chreees]

My view is man has created different beliefs/religions over the thousands of years... But there is no way to prove any certain religion is the right one. I don't believe in any certain one, but I do believe some entity created the universe... There is a higher power, we just don't have any understanding of it and could not comprehend it probably if we did know the truth. Everyone is entitled to believe what they wish, and I think we as human beings should respect everyone's different beliefs. There's no need to shut down someone else for what they believe. As my Indian ex-boss once said at my old hotel I worked out, "It doesn't matter what you believe in, as long as you believe in something." Those were some of the wisest words I've ever heard.

[mustafabey]

All this reminds me of the Sufi tale of the blind men and the elephant. Once there was a village where everyone was blind. The Sultan came with his elephant and the people clamored to know what an elephant was. The Sultan designated 5 of the village elders to visit the elephant in order to return and impart to the village of their wisdom. each one went and touched the elephant. It is like a giant serpent, said the elder who touched the trunk. NO! it is like a teak tree in the jungle said the one who touched the leg. It like the walls of the great city, said the one who felt the beasts side. Your wrong, it is like a fan said the one who felt the ear. Fools, it is nothing but a common rope,whined the man who had touched the tail.
So it is with us, trying to understand the un understandable, to fathom the unfathomable,to deliniate the boundaries of infinity. My dogs see a far different world than I do. They "see" smells and hear noises that are not part of my experience. Their world looks very different from mine. A deer(I like to see how close I can get) see me only if I move, otherwise i am tree, that is as long as they don't "see' my smell.
I can only see what of it I am able to see, to give thanks that i am a part of this wonderful unexplainable thing called creation.

[Tyler]

Science without religion is blind; religion without science is lame. Agnosticism is religion.

[noodle]

[quote name='Tyler' timestamp='1283565926' post='481206']
Science without religion is blind; religion without science is lame. Agnosticism is religion.
[/quote]

This sort of thing is what attracts me to alchemy.

[Barnaby]

Rani,

Just to chime in on the chicken and the egg thing. I dunno if you missed that, but that problem was just solved. Chicken can first, as the enzyme that creates an egg shell of a chicken only is created in the ovaries of a female chicken. A mutation occurred to the chicken to start creating this enzyme, thus it started to lay eggs instead. But I don't think moral conscience stems from spirituality. In my day to day life, my spiritual beliefs do not impact my moral decisions. I do not have the fear of doing wrong, and getting bad karma, or eternal hellfire to motivate me to do right. I do so, because I do not want to disrespect others. That is my motivation.

Spirituality is more likely stemmed from our consciousnesses, as it is an evolutionary response to our flight or fight mechanism. We naturally believe in things that do not exist, to protect us. For example, If we hear a rock fall, or a branch drop in the woods, or initial response is to think that there is something that caused us, to get us ready to fight/flight. Here is a great article that goes into more detail about it:

http://paws.wcu.edu/herzog/CogPsychOfBelief.pdf

If everyone would give it a read, I think it would forward our discussion a bit.

[mustafabey]

Are we,in our hubris, presupposing consciousness as being only a human attribute?

[Rani]

[quote name='mustafabey' timestamp='1283607115' post='481225']
Are we,in our hubris, presupposing consciousness as being only a human attribute?
[/quote]

I don't, but Barnaby, I completely disagree with you about conscience being unrelated to religion. Witness the feral child. Without conscience or human social structure. Yet all children are essentially born feral, consisting only of "I need" and "I want" without consideration of whether or not those wants and needs are right or wrong. As the feral child grows in the natural environment without human social structure, they fail to produce that thing we can conscience. The child in human society however, becomes aware through social interaction and parental influence that certain wants are "wrong" and not to be countenanced. Society itself has a mythological or spiritual foundation, therefore it can definitely be argued that irregardless of whether a particular individual subscribes to a religious belief, the society which reared it does and therefore that individual is still subjected to that foundation and it's inherent beliefs. Resulting in that thing we call conscience.

As far a chicken-egg, you know I was using it as a metaphor. But thank you for the information. Personally, I don't see how any science can as of this moment categorically decide a modern "chicken-egg" questions when it's essentially an evolutionary action based on mutational progression. Birds are descended from reptiles, we have learned that much, and reptiles do lay eggs. Each batch of eggs during mutational shifts would progress more and more towards that of modern birds. So I'm thinking that ultimately the egg came first because a full reptile would have laid an egg subject to the first mutational shift. And then again, it's one of those issues that really don't matter except for it's value as a metaphor and our citizens wondering how much of there tax money was spent on the studies to come to what is really a completely worthless conclusion. [img]http://www.hookahforum.com/public/style_emoticons/default/girl_wink.gif[/img]

A thought occurred to me this morning. Does the atheist reject God the immanent and transcendent Source, or does the atheist reject the "personification" as put forward by organized religion?

'Rani

[Rani]

[quote name='Barnaby' timestamp='1283599245' post='481220']
Rani,

Just to chime in on the chicken and the egg thing. I dunno if you missed that, but that problem was just solved. Chicken can first, as the enzyme that creates an egg shell of a chicken only is created in the ovaries of a female chicken. A mutation occurred to the chicken to start creating this enzyme, thus it started to lay eggs instead. But I don't think moral conscience stems from spirituality. In my day to day life, my spiritual beliefs do not impact my moral decisions. I do not have the fear of doing wrong, and getting bad karma, or eternal hellfire to motivate me to do right. I do so, because I do not want to disrespect others. That is my motivation.

Spirituality is more likely stemmed from our consciousnesses, as it is an evolutionary response to our flight or fight mechanism. We naturally believe in things that do not exist, to protect us. For example, If we hear a rock fall, or a branch drop in the woods, or initial response is to think that there is something that caused us, to get us ready to fight/flight. Here is a great article that goes into more detail about it:

[url="http://paws.wcu.edu/herzog/CogPsychOfBelief.pdf"]http://paws.wcu.edu/...ychOfBelief.pdf[/url]

If everyone would give it a read, I think it would forward our discussion a bit.
[/quote]

While I enjoy reading the thoughts and philosophies of others, I refuse to conform to their conclusions. I trust my own intellect more that I trust the intellect and it's conclusions of someone who for all I know could be completely insane, or choosing to take the guise of the mythological Loki playing a joke on us all. So speaking personally, I prefer the conclusions we come to ourselves here rather than go in any direction pointed out by another established philosophy. I'm not certain I explained that very well, and no offense is meant. But I'm interested in what we think, not "them". Make sense?

'Rani

[porksandwich9113]

[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1283629087' post='481233']
[quote name='mustafabey' timestamp='1283607115' post='481225']
Are we,in our hubris, presupposing consciousness as being only a human attribute?
[/quote]

I don't, but Barnaby, I completely disagree with you about conscience being unrelated to religion. Witness the feral child. Without conscience or human social structure. Yet all children are essentially born feral, consisting only of "I need" and "I want" without consideration of whether or not those wants and needs are right or wrong. As the feral child grows in the natural environment without human social structure, they fail to produce that thing we can conscience. The child in human society however, becomes aware through social interaction and parental influence that certain wants are "wrong" and not to be countenanced. Society itself has a mythological or spiritual foundation, therefore it can definitely be argued that irregardless of whether a particular individual subscribes to a religious belief, the society which reared it does and therefore that individual is still subjected to that foundation and it's inherent beliefs. Resulting in that thing we call conscience.

As far a chicken-egg, you know I was using it as a metaphor. But thank you for the information. Personally, I don't see how any science can as of this moment categorically decide a modern "chicken-egg" questions when it's essentially an evolutionary action based on mutational progression. Birds are descended from reptiles, we have learned that much, and reptiles do lay eggs. Each batch of eggs during mutational shifts would progress more and more towards that of modern birds. So I'm thinking that ultimately the egg came first because a full reptile would have laid an egg subject to the first mutational shift. And then again, it's one of those issues that really don't matter except for it's value as a metaphor and our citizens wondering how much of there tax money was spent on the studies to come to what is really a completely worthless conclusion. [img]http://www.hookahforum.com/public/style_emoticons/default/girl_wink.gif[/img]

A thought occurred to me this morning. Does the atheist reject God the immanent and transcendent Source, or does the atheist reject the "personification" as put forward by organized religion?

'Rani
[/quote]


As an atheist I reject organized religion's view, personification, and story (bible).
If there is some supernatural super power controlling the universe in it's every move, it can't be the god in any bible.
There is too much jealousy, too much fighting, too many illogical things for god to actually be god in the bible.

I also agree with your statements about morality. Society does teach it. Not the bible.
"The voice in the back of your head telling you not to steal or kill," or the fact that you will go to hell if you do it - stops you from breaking a commandment or other biblical law is complete BS.
First, if you have voices in your head - go see a psychologist.
Second, I don't kill and steal because it's socially unacceptable. Society teaches us things that are socially acceptable and socially unacceptable.
Some people think it's programmed into "human nature." I disagree.

There was a time it was socially acceptable to kill. Think of the crusades?
Killing a Muslim used to buy you a ticket into heaven if you were a Christian and vice versa.

Any degree of intelligence will tell you that taking another life is wrong.

Back to the Atheist thing. Many atheists I know really just dislike organized religion. We believe it is a corrupt group that makes billions of dollars (tax-free I might add) every year. They have nearly 0 accountability. You have catholic priests running around raping young children and the vatican doesn't even blink an eye.

You have all this hate originating from religion.
History full of religious war...and currently..

Anti Same-Sex Marriage.
Anti Birth-Control
Anti Abortion
Anti Stem Cell
And So forth.
[size=2]
[/size]
[font="Arial"][size=2]I mainly believe religion is anti-progress.[/size][/font]
[font="Arial"][size=2]It promotes the idea that all knowledge in the universe is finite and contained in the bible. When in reality [/size][/font][font="Arial"][size=2]All systems; " being knowledge, society, technology, philosophy, or any other we have created, will, when uninhibited will undergo fluent perpetual change. What we consider commonplace today, such as cars, cell phones, and computers would have been[/size][/font][font="Arial"][size=2] unimaginable in ancient times. Likewise the future will contain technology, realizations, and social structures that we cannot even fathom. We have gone from alchemy to chemistry. From a geocentric universe to a heliocentric one. From believing demons caused illness to modern medicine. This development shows no sign of ending and it is this awareness that leads us on a continuous path to growth and knowledge. Empirical knowledge does not exist, but rather it is the emergence of all systems that we must recognize. We must be open to new information at all times, even if it threatens our current belief system, and hence identities. Sadly, our society today has failed to recognize this, and the established institutions continue to paralyze growth by preserving outdated social structures. The population suffers from a fear of change, for our conditioning assumes a static identity. Challenging ones belief system usually results in insult and apprehension, for being wrong is erroneously associated with failure, when in fact to be proven wrong should be celebrated for it is elevating someone to a new level of understanding, furthering awareness."[/size][/font]
[font="Arial"][size=2]-Copied from an article I wrote for college comp class in 2008.[/size][/font]

[mustafabey]

Porksandwich9313 said "
There was a time it was socially acceptable to kill. Think of the crusades?
Killing a Muslim used to buy you a ticket into heaven if you were a Christian and vice versa."

Apparently still does in some places

[Barnaby]

[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1283629087' post='481233']
[quote name='mustafabey' timestamp='1283607115' post='481225']
Are we,in our hubris, presupposing consciousness as being only a human attribute?
[/quote]

I don't, but Barnaby, I completely disagree with you about conscience being unrelated to religion. Witness the feral child. Without conscience or human social structure. Yet all children are essentially born feral, consisting only of "I need" and "I want" without consideration of whether or not those wants and needs are right or wrong. As the feral child grows in the natural environment without human social structure, they fail to produce that thing we can conscience. The child in human society however, becomes aware through social interaction and parental influence that certain wants are "wrong" and not to be countenanced. Society itself has a mythological or spiritual foundation, therefore it can definitely be argued that irregardless of whether a particular individual subscribes to a religious belief, the society which reared it does and therefore that individual is still subjected to that foundation and it's inherent beliefs. Resulting in that thing we call conscience.

As far a chicken-egg, you know I was using it as a metaphor. But thank you for the information. Personally, I don't see how any science can as of this moment categorically decide a modern "chicken-egg" questions when it's essentially an evolutionary action based on mutational progression. Birds are descended from reptiles, we have learned that much, and reptiles do lay eggs. Each batch of eggs during mutational shifts would progress more and more towards that of modern birds. So I'm thinking that ultimately the egg came first because a full reptile would have laid an egg subject to the first mutational shift. And then again, it's one of those issues that really don't matter except for it's value as a metaphor and our citizens wondering how much of there tax money was spent on the studies to come to what is really a completely worthless conclusion. [img]http://www.hookahforum.com/public/style_emoticons/default/girl_wink.gif[/img]

A thought occurred to me this morning. Does the atheist reject God the immanent and transcendent Source, or does the atheist reject the "personification" as put forward by organized religion?

'Rani
[/quote]


Point taken. But were did religion get its conscience from? Was it merely because we needed more workers out in the fields? So better not have them kill off each other? While I do agree with you that we are a product of our environment, I think its only a stepping stone. There are many social norms that people do not adhere to. And vice versa. But it really is a matter of seeing the forest from the trees. Me being completely influenced by my upbringing its just about impossible to know if I actually do have any true or original thoughts. I like to think I do, since I do not adhere to many of my parents' beliefs/morals, and/or societies. But, I really can't know for sure.


I think your Atheist question depends on the atheist. While, technically, I could be construed as an atheist, I only reject the personification, and teaching of organized religion. I do believe in an energy source, that connects everything, from which all life flows. So, that's why I tell people I'm spiritual, not religious.

[Barnaby]

[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1283629458' post='481234']
[quote name='Barnaby' timestamp='1283599245' post='481220']
Rani,

Just to chime in on the chicken and the egg thing. I dunno if you missed that, but that problem was just solved. Chicken can first, as the enzyme that creates an egg shell of a chicken only is created in the ovaries of a female chicken. A mutation occurred to the chicken to start creating this enzyme, thus it started to lay eggs instead. But I don't think moral conscience stems from spirituality. In my day to day life, my spiritual beliefs do not impact my moral decisions. I do not have the fear of doing wrong, and getting bad karma, or eternal hellfire to motivate me to do right. I do so, because I do not want to disrespect others. That is my motivation.

Spirituality is more likely stemmed from our consciousnesses, as it is an evolutionary response to our flight or fight mechanism. We naturally believe in things that do not exist, to protect us. For example, If we hear a rock fall, or a branch drop in the woods, or initial response is to think that there is something that caused us, to get us ready to fight/flight. Here is a great article that goes into more detail about it:

[url="http://paws.wcu.edu/herzog/CogPsychOfBelief.pdf"]http://paws.wcu.edu/...ychOfBelief.pdf[/url]

If everyone would give it a read, I think it would forward our discussion a bit.
[/quote]

While I enjoy reading the thoughts and philosophies of others, I refuse to conform to their conclusions. I trust my own intellect more that I trust the intellect and it's conclusions of someone who for all I know could be completely insane, or choosing to take the guise of the mythological Loki playing a joke on us all. So speaking personally, I prefer the conclusions we come to ourselves here rather than go in any direction pointed out by another established philosophy. I'm not certain I explained that very well, and no offense is meant. But I'm interested in what we think, not "them". Make sense?

'Rani
[/quote]

Wasn't asking you to conform. Just merely to give it a read, to see a different viewpoint, and a possible explanation of our biological need for the belief in religion. At the end of the day though, do any of us truly have an original thought? We all pretty much get bombarded with different viewpoints/opinions, and we either decide that it makes sense to me, and I'm going to make it my own, or reject it. We pick and chose our beliefs (well, some of us.. ) according to what sounds right to us. Eventually though, there are only so many ways to skin a cat. Personally, I think the human race is out of ideas. We've run out of anything original, and now just recycle and re-use old ideas, putting a new spin on them. This is why movies suck so much now..

[spectrum055]

Well religion is a means of just surviving...something to believe in. If you believe in nothing that you die and become earth, and if that makes you happy good on you. Hell my beliefs are simple I believe we are here to learn something, we learn what we need to learn and for lack of a better term the soul or as I like to consider the 'Human Program' if it deems we learned it and have nothing else to learn we die... If we don't learn it maybe our program decides to stay or leave and try out a new life.

It's not the most happy belief but I have a plan that if I'm completely wrong and I do end up in hell I'll be buried with the fixings for S'mores.

All I'm saying is we believe in what we believe in to get by on a daily basis...I believe in evolution but the proof that we ourselves are bio-computers is there, and pretty much computers can be seen as a non Bio self I suppose...Hell all life is like a bio-computer built for their sole purpose like we build computers for our use and stoof..

[Balthazar]

[quote name='Kapten Kanel' timestamp='1283487956' post='481099']
Atheism fails and cannot prove anything, to say that there cannot be a/an "higher existance" or similar is not very intelligent considering our limited understanding of, well, everything. Einstein quote incoming -
[/quote]

No offence, but that's not what atheism is about at all. From "[url="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/misconceptions.html"]Seven common misperceptions about atheism[/url]":

[quote]
[b]
3) [url="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/misconceptions.html#claim"]Atheism is the claim that no gods exist[/url]. Atheism therefore must prove a negative, but it is impossible to prove a negative. Therefore, atheism is an impossible doctrine.[/b]
(3) Sophomoric critics of atheism often charge that atheism is committed to proving the negative proposition "no gods exist" and, since allegedly no one can prove a negative, this shows that atheism is an absurd doctrine. The first thing to note is that it is often possible to prove negatives. Euclid proved that there is no highest prime number. I can prove that my bicycle is not in the basement by going downstairs, turning on the light, and looking around.

Well, what about the claim "gods do not exist?" Can that be proven? No, I don't think I can prove that Zeus, Odin, Yahweh, Quetzalcoatl, etc. do not exist any more than I can prove that unicorns do not exist. But not every rational belief has to rest on proof. We deny the reality of many things, not because we can disprove them, but because there is simply no point in postulating their existence. Why don't we believe in Aristotelian Prime Movers any more? Because there is no need for them in our current understanding of the physical cosmos. Likewise for gods. The atheist simply doesn't see that gods need to be invoked to explain any aspect of the world; we now have better explanations. Even where no accepted physical explanation currently exists, atheists see no reason to invent a "god of the gaps."
[/quote] Edited September 10, 2010 by Balthazar

[Rani]

[quote name='spectrum055' timestamp='1284120003' post='481807']
Well religion is a means of just surviving...something to believe in. If you believe in nothing that you die and become earth, and if that makes you happy good on you. Hell my beliefs are simple I believe we are here to learn something, we learn what we need to learn and for lack of a better term the soul or as I like to consider the 'Human Program' if it deems we learned it and have nothing else to learn we die... If we don't learn it maybe our program decides to stay or leave and try out a new life.

It's not the most happy belief but I have a plan that if I'm completely wrong and I do end up in hell I'll be buried with the fixings for S'mores.

All I'm saying is we believe in what we believe in to get by on a daily basis...I believe in evolution but the proof that we ourselves are bio-computers is there, and pretty much computers can be seen as a non Bio self I suppose...Hell all life is like a bio-computer built for their sole purpose like we build computers for our use and stoof..
[/quote]

I'm very anti-organized religion because I view it as being almost entirely about power and wealth. Plus being a student of history, I find so many similarities progression in a linear fashion through timelines, that it would seem what we're dealing with now is a revamping of ancient mythology. For example:

There's an old story in stone found by archeologists at the site of what was Sumer. In the story, God walked the earth, and decided to make a garden. But being God, he was kind of busy, so he created a gardener to tend his garden for him. Over time the gardener became bored and unhappy. So God created animals to keep him company. The gardener liked the animals but the weren't really much company, so God created a mate for the gardener. Sound familiar????? Yeah....... So how can someone take the Adam and Eve story as historical gospel knowing there is a prior versions floating around long before Christianity?

When I meditate, I almost align my own vibrations with a greater vibration, if that makes sense. I literally feel like I've become a conduit in the Source of an energy I can't understand. There's intelligence there but it's beyond my comprehension. It's like standing under a spotlight with the light shining through me, not just on me. When I'm there, it's so perfect I never want to leave it. To take that perfection, and turn it to your own benefit in the form of organized religion seems almost an obscenity to me. But............

If you view organized religion as a social organization bound together in the form of worship of the greater Source, while trying to make their small part of the world a better place, then organized religion has it's purpose in the history and future of mankind. You have to judge each "church" on it's own merits. Some are sincerely interested only in just attracting more money, more members, more power over their private lives. Other individuals and occasionally whole congregations are more interested in spreading kindness, acceptance, etc. Interestingly enough, one of the few Christian churches I will attend is the Disciples of Christ, because they are very specific about having no set dogma, but are in service to the local community in the form of utilizing the life of Jesus as a guide for living your own life. Unlike the "big" movements, they are interested in simply being a foundation in the lives of their local communities. They don't go door to door recruiting new members, and they don't make blanket judgments. They simply try to live their lives as Christ would wish them to. I don't think anyone can completely classify them as a truly organized religion in the way for example Catholicism is, but are a positive force in the local neighborhoods. So I can't regard them in anything but a positive way.

A fiction/fantasy writer (Mercedes Lackey) once said in one of her books: "There is light, and there is darkness. All the rest is window dressing." So long as you're choosing to be part of the light, whatever your personal religious belief, I support you.

'Rani

[mustafabey]

Well,

[spectrum055]

[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1284144078' post='481828']


I'm very anti-organized religion because I view it as being almost entirely about power and wealth. Plus being a student of history, I find so many similarities progression in a linear fashion through timelines, that it would seem what we're dealing with now is a revamping of ancient mythology. For example:

There's an old story in stone found by archeologists at the site of what was Sumer. In the story, God walked the earth, and decided to make a garden. But being God, he was kind of busy, so he created a gardener to tend his garden for him. Over time the gardener became bored and unhappy. So God created animals to keep him company. The gardener liked the animals but the weren't really much company, so God created a mate for the gardener. Sound familiar????? Yeah....... So how can someone take the Adam and Eve story as historical gospel knowing there is a prior versions floating around long before Christianity?

When I meditate, I almost align my own vibrations with a greater vibration, if that makes sense. I literally feel like I've become a conduit in the Source of an energy I can't understand. There's intelligence there but it's beyond my comprehension. It's like standing under a spotlight with the light shining through me, not just on me. When I'm there, it's so perfect I never want to leave it. To take that perfection, and turn it to your own benefit in the form of organized religion seems almost an obscenity to me. But............

If you view organized religion as a social organization bound together in the form of worship of the greater Source, while trying to make their small part of the world a better place, then organized religion has it's purpose in the history and future of mankind. You have to judge each "church" on it's own merits. Some are sincerely interested only in just attracting more money, more members, more power over their private lives. Other individuals and occasionally whole congregations are more interested in spreading kindness, acceptance, etc. Interestingly enough, one of the few Christian churches I will attend is the Disciples of Christ, because they are very specific about having no set dogma, but are in service to the local community in the form of utilizing the life of Jesus as a guide for living your own life. Unlike the "big" movements, they are interested in simply being a foundation in the lives of their local communities. They don't go door to door recruiting new members, and they don't make blanket judgments. They simply try to live their lives as Christ would wish them to. I don't think anyone can completely classify them as a truly organized religion in the way for example Catholicism is, but are a positive force in the local neighborhoods. So I can't regard them in anything but a positive way.

A fiction/fantasy writer (Mercedes Lackey) once said in one of her books: "There is light, and there is darkness. All the rest is window dressing." So long as you're choosing to be part of the light, whatever your personal religious belief, I support you.

'Rani
[/quote]
Well when I think of religion and beliefs I don't think of people going to church and thinking that a pastor preaching does anything. I think that if you believe in a god, and if you believe that if you go to church that you can be closer to god...then that's fine for you.

I don't like church's that use the word of god for money reasons. I mean a small local church using donations to stay afloat yah that's fine and all but the one's that take advantage... it just destroys religion for me.

Though as with I'm as a science man, who thinks people along with other animals are bio-AI or bio-computers for lack of a better term and the soul or what ever you want to call it the Operating system because we use electrical pulses to run our bodies and so fourth....and that man made this religion thing because of something to live and look forward to or if perhaps it's true because lets face it we all fear death...it's unknown we don't know what happens we all experience it differently and bla bla bla.

But you know Rani I will complement you. Your knowledge is amazing I'm learning stuff I hadn't ever known reading your posts and other posts.

[jorlyfish]

[b][font="Arial"]Mustafabey: (thanks for the article btw, good stuff)
"3) [/font][url="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/misconceptions.html#claim"][font="Arial"][color="#000000"]Atheism is the claim that no gods exist[/color][/font][/url][font="Arial"]. Atheism therefore must prove a negative, but it is impossible to prove a negative. Therefore, atheism is an impossible doctrine."[/font][/b]
[b][font="Arial"]
[/font][/b]
[font="Arial"]Even if that [/font][i][font="Arial"]was[/font][/i][font="Arial"] the point, shouldn't the religions take up the other side (i.e. proving a positive, that there is/are a god/s)? I'm not talking about the "well the Bible(/other holy book) said so" type argument... Men wrote the Bible a longass time ago before we understood pretty much anything. I want solid proof that is not circularly founded on religion itself that your god/s exist; I shouldn't have to prove to you that they don't.

I'm sure some of you are familiar with the Invisible Pink Unicorn. http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/ipu/home.html
"[/font][font="Arial"]The "believers" famous sayings about faith in the invisible pink unicorn is that, like other religions, it is founded in science and faith. Science - that states that she must be invisible, since we cannot see her. Faith - because we know in our heart that the invisible pink unicorn exists. This is of course a parody of the theological reasoning of other religions.[/font][font="Arial"]"[/font]