The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by XavierP Which is fine if you don't spend 6000 years telling the people of a particular world that they are extra special and you will always look after them. If you tell your chosen people that they are on their own, no problem though.

I might get flamed for that, but... who said that it was told by the God? Maybe people invented things about being "extra special"and wrote holy scriptures themselves, worship non-existent deity, while real deity simply doesn't care about all this.
Seriously, though, I can imagine huge supernatural being that created universe and ignore people like ants. But concept of being that created everything and watches every human looks wrong or too old to me. To me it looks like to have every person watched there should be multi-layered structure of deities. For example: one god per planet that controls population. One god per star system that controls planet deities. One god per galaxy that controls star system deities, etc until we reach first deity that created the whole structure. This structure at least make some sense, but it doesn't look like things work this way in real life, because if there was such structure, than we should have divine interventions on daily basis (if not some kind of heavenly embassy). The concept of one god that created everything and cares about every conscious being could make sense in time when people thought earth was center of universe, and stars were shiny spots on the sky sphere.

Originally Posted by entz my recommendation : bury this!

Thread will be fine as long as there are no atheists or fervent followers of some religion.

P.S. This might be interesting to read (warning: not an easy reading):
http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/IsGodTaoist.html

Well, as for the Italian woman mentioned earlier...: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7880070.stm

If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

Just thinking of that Ashcroft idiot who dressed statues at the US dept. of justice. It's almost as bad as putting skirts on tables because they have legs!

Originally Posted by ErV Thread will be fine as long as there are no atheists or fervent followers of some religion. P.S. This might be interesting to read (warning: not an easy reading): http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/IsGodTaoist.html

So were is the difference , between your statement and mine?
doesn't that imply burying the thread?

think if it :

everybody is either an atheist or a theist aka believer LOL

self contradiction isn't it ?!

Just like the GOD character in your suggested article

Very Good Entertaining Read btw HAHA

Regards

Do you ever wonder if god gets ants in his pants?

Seriously, this thread is quite enlightening. There is a lot of good stuff in here. I realize there is nothing the Theists or Atheists can say to change each others mind on the subject, but the arguments and articles posted are sometimes really good! From thought provoking to a good chuckle! Who cares if it's not scientific and maybe only 15 or so participate regularly.

I vote to keep this thread open!

Originally Posted by entz everybody is either an atheist or a theist aka believer LOL self contradiction isn't it ?!

No, there are people that simply don't care about being atheist or believer. Why declare yourself as the part of some group?

I was talking about fanatics. Last threads about religion were ruined by people that tried to prove something, instead of enjoying discussion. Atheist is the same as believer, btw - one believes in existence, other in non-existence. There is not much difference.

No, there are people that simply don't care about being atheist or believer.

Yes, thinking about life and the universe is really tiring. Its much easier to accept what we have been told from childhood. But ask anyone on the street if they are a believer or not, and most will say they are. Ask why, and many will simply not know the reason.

Why declare yourself as the part of some group?

Well, sitting on the fence gets boring very quickly.

Last threads about religion were ruined by people that tried to prove something, instead of enjoying discussion.

The thing about religious discussions is that they tend to involve talk about things that are impossible to prove.
If the theist in the discussion were to say something like "this is what I believe, on faith, but its my choice in life", then that would be ok. That person believes something without evidence, but its the way they chose to live.

However, what usually happens is that a theist will say that he/she knows for a fact that god or gods exist and that everyone else must also submit to this belief without questioning.
This is the point where everyone else pulls their flamethrowers out, and with good reason.

Atheist is the same as believer, btw - one believes in existence, other in non-existence. There is not much difference.

Yes there is a big difference, and it lies in why we believe what we do. What, you think we just flip a coin and then root for the team we landed with? I became an atheist because I took a step back and questioned what I was taught and thought was true.

This symbol is the most important of them all, no matter what your nationality, upbringing, or social strata:

?

Some people use it more than others, thats all.

I voted Atheist.

Can anyone please explain to me what this god thing is? I've heard lots of attempts, but the explanations are always littered with tautology and self reference. So what actually is this god thing? Anyone?

<There's an element of sarcasm in this post, but it's actually quite serious>

Originally Posted by ErV Atheist is the same as believer, btw - one believes in existence, other in non-existence. There is not much difference.

Oh is that true ???

so from your point of view i can deduct the following :
1)theist : who believes in "god" .
2)atheist : who does not believe in "god" .

and

3) Neutral-theist : somebody like you i assume ,
who believes that he/she should neither believe or disbelieve in "God" .

is that what you meant???

yeah you can classify yourself that way if you want , but that would ruin all the fun if not even the whole point of running this thread.

remember this thread is a discussion of some sort..

it says " Rank your religiousness!"

if you just say i'm neither atheist or theist but neutral for the subject then it means your not "ranking" yourself ...


or in other words , a discussion it held to represent opinions...

if there are no opinions then there is no discussion !
It is a simple as that....LOL


btw I'm NOT saying that somebody should close this, but what i'm saying is that
having no opinions on the matter is a de facto closing of the topic.


Cheers

An atheist is different to a believer. You need to keep the belief going, but the lack of belief is there whether you think about it or not. Atheists have spotted the big flaw in religious thinking - the only proof of any God is in their holy books!

Originally Posted by entz Oh is that true ???

It is my opinion. Which is based on observation of discussion between believers and atheists. Some of them worth each other.
Also, to many question marks make you look too emotional.

Originally Posted by entz so from your point of view i can deduct the following : 1)theist : who believes in "god" . 2)atheist : who does not believe in "god" .

No, my opinion:
1) theist: belives there is a god.
2) atheist: belives there is no god.

Originally Posted by entz and 3) Neutral-theist : somebody like you i assume , who believes that he/she should neither believe or disbelieve in "God" .

This is close to what is called to agnosticism. However, it isn't my position. No one should believe/disbelieve - what other people do is none of my business as long as it doesn't involve me.

Originally Posted by entz is that what you meant???

Not exactly.

Originally Posted by entz yeah you can classify yourself that way if you want , but that would ruin all the fun if not even the whole point of running this thread.

I don't see how it could ruin the fun.

Originally Posted by entz remember this thread is a discussion of some sort..

I added some things to the discussion, and I think that what I added is valuable.

Originally Posted by entz it says " Rank your religiousness!" if you just say i'm neither atheist or theist but neutral for the subject then it means your not "ranking" yourself ...

I think that by saying that I AM ranking myself.

Originally Posted by entz or in other words , a discussion it held to represent opinions... if there are no opinions then there is no discussion ! It is a simple as that....LOL

Poll have options to choose. No given option fits my position.

Originally Posted by entz btw I'm NOT saying that somebody should close this, but what i'm saying is that having no opinions on the matter is a de facto closing of the topic.

If I'm not taking side of atheist nor beliver this doesn't mean I don't have opinion. I do have opinion.

Since it looks like you are interested my position, here it is:
I'm not sure if there is god or not. There might be a god, but there is no warranty it is here. If there is a god, it obviously doesn't want to deal with people, and I am not going to worship that god either. But I could deal with deity based on contract if such option was present.
This is close to agnosticism, however I don't feel that I'm an agnostic.
Also I'm not familiar with teachings of agnosticism to claim myself as agnostic.

Another problem that atheist/believers have their position about "good" and "evil" which I'm not comfortable with. "good" and "evil" are relative. Every action can be looked from different viewpoint, and can look "good" for some people and look like "bad" for other. More important is that every action has good and bad inside it. So I think that there is an action and consequences, nothing else. However, the most important thing is choice people do, not "good", "evil", "sin" or "virtue". When you about to do something, the best idea would be to consider not if this is "right" or "wrong", "good" or "evil", but "what will happen?". "black and white" concept really oversimplifies everything.

Originally Posted by easuter Yes, thinking about life and the universe is really tiring.

C'mon, stop trying to be sarcastic, you are wasting time.
Keep emtions and sarcasm aside, stick to the discussion instead.

Originally Posted by easuter Its much easier to accept what we have been told from childhood.

Where the hell have you read that I believe in what I was told?
I was born in USSR, however I'm not communist, not an atheist.
However, I was told that "Lenin is good", "communism is good", "there is no god", etc. On other hand, my school temporarily had classes of "christian ethics" at the 2nd - 3rd grades, where we were taught bible (this is a hello from perestroyka madness).
So later after some thinking I decided think both sides are wrong, and "right" thing to do is to choose your beliefs yourself.
My position is a result of thinking. Good amount of thinking. It is my personal choice, and it was told to me by nobody.

Originally Posted by easuter But ask anyone on the street if they are a believer or not, and most will say they are. Ask why, and many will simply not know the reason.

To a person which asks me "if I am believer or not"
I'd answer "this is none of your business" or "why do you ask that?".

Originally Posted by easuter The thing about religious discussions is that they tend to involve talk about things that are impossible to prove. If the theist in the discussion were to say something like "this is what I believe, on faith, but its my choice in life", then that would be ok. That person believes something without evidence, but its the way they chose to live.

This is what I meant when I talked about choice. Everyone make their choices, and this is their business only.

Originally Posted by easuter However, what usually happens is that a theist will say that he/she knows for a fact that god or gods exist and that everyone else must also submit to this belief without questioning.

And same happens to atheists too. They say to theists, "noooo!!!!! there is no god, you are all wrong". And both sides "pull their flamethrowers out", and with a good reason. Both sides attempt to turn people into their beliefs sometimes.

Originally Posted by easuter Yes there is a big difference, and it lies in why we believe what we do.

I think both are identical. You both believe. And you both believe for a reason, no matter what it is.

Originally Posted by easuter What, you think we just flip a coin and then root for the team we landed with? I became an atheist because I took a step back and questioned what I was taught and thought was true.

Same with me. I took a step back, thought and choose to disagree with both of you. Obviously, you "extrapolated" my words, made some far-going assumptions about my motives, and decided to wrote this long reply of yours.

Originally Posted by easuter This symbol is the most important of them all, no matter what your nationality, upbringing, or social strata: ? Some people use it more than others, thats all.

Everyone makes their choices about everything, including huge question mark. If you have made a choice (selected a path), this doesn't mean that other people picked different choice from yours. On other hands this doesn't mean that everyone should pick the same path as you did.

Originally Posted by ErV Also, to many question marks make you look too emotional.

Not really !
too many questions marks like this ??? is my way of being funny LOL
but what is even funnier is how you blasted my post into bizillion tiny fragments of quotes.

ROFL !

Originally Posted by ErV Since it looks like you are interested my position, here it is: I'm not sure if there is god or not. There might be a god, but there is no warranty it is here. If there is a god, it obviously doesn't want to deal with people, and I am not going to worship that god either.

well that would make you an atheist to make it very short.
c'mon admit it , being an atheist is not a bad thing...not anymore!
no one is gonna run after you , you don't need this run around of saying i not sure about god , and either case i wouldn't worship it etc.

just say i don't believe in god , at least that's how i do it.
I say things directly and straight , and as for me i don't like sub-classifications or the coining of genres within a genre.
like if somebody would say "I'm a strong atheist" other says "mild atheist" and then another says "I'm an atheist but not really sure whether i should be..etc" ....what's of importance is that all are atheists !

(if you know what i mean)

Originally Posted by ErV Another problem that atheist/believers have their position about "good" and "evil" which I'm not comfortable with. "good" and "evil" are relative.

Well this is the first statement of yours which I must fully agree with!
yes good and evil is relative ....relative to you !
but on the other hand , I've to strongly voice my opposition against your first claim which is partially unfounded , in which you said that
atheist/theist are having positions about good and evil .

which is not the case at all, it is the theist alone who is making the "prudish arguments" and who is covering himself behind a doctrine that instructs what's good or evil.

the atheist on the other hand has always been objective , morally relative and placing logic ahead of emotional impulses.

and regarding this point i must state that your mixing between theisism
and atheisism and representing the half-thought idea that they are both the same thing is a total logical fallacy.

How can 2 persons were the first is full of doctrine and faith equal to a person who is devoid of faith and doctrine free ?
how can 1 be mashed with 0 ?
how can the inverse of something be considered to be "no different"?

Atheism is the lack of theism (or vice versa)
how can you propose they are the same?
i just don't get it.

Originally Posted by ErV; Where the hell have you read that I believe in what I was told? I was born in USSR, however I'm not communist, not an atheist. However, I was told that "Lenin is good", "communism is good", "there is no god", etc. On other hand, my school temporarily had classes of "christian ethics" at the 2nd - 3rd grades, where we were taught bible (this is a hello from perestroyka madness). So later after some thinking I decided think both sides are wrong, and "right" thing to do is to choose your beliefs yourself. My position is a result of thinking. Good amount of thinking. It is my personal choice, and it was told to me by nobody.

i think this explains a lot !
The possible reason why you are so insisting that atheists/theists are the same is because you had a soviet education which raised you upon the doctrine of communism ...etc
...and which also included that "God is not there" .
and probably because you later disliked communism you tried to get rid of everything that communism is associated with including atheism.

but since you probably didn't like the bible either as i gathered you decided to bash atheism and theism alike and create an alternative path for yourself that is neither on of the two , basically a sort of a "grey belief" were you say for example "god does exist , but yet there is a 50% chance that he might not."

I think i hit the nail , didn't I?

btw , this is a logical discussion , so don't get offended by anything i propose.

Originally Posted by entz Not really ! too many questions marks like this ??? is my way of being funny LOL

My apologies then.

Originally Posted by entz but what is even funnier is how you blasted my post into bizillion tiny fragments of quotes.

This is just my way of answering specific part of a text.

Originally Posted by entz well that would make you an atheist to make it very short.

To be an atheist I must believe that "there is no god" and must be comfortable to say it. To be believer I need to believe that "there is god" and must be comfortable to say it. Both doesn't apply it. I don't know for sure if there is a god or not, and I think that "there might be a god, but I don't know for sure". This is not a position of atheist or believer. However I think if there is a god it is not the one described in Bible.

Originally Posted by entz c'mon admit it , being an atheist is not a bad thing...not anymore!

I didn't say that being atheist is bad.

Originally Posted by entz but on the other hand , I've to strongly voice my opposition against your first claim which is partially unfounded , in which you said that atheist/theist are having positions about good and evil .

followers of many religions have rules that declare what is good or evil. I'm not sure that most of atheists use instead of them, but those might be laws, unwritten moral rules, human rights, etc.

Originally Posted by entz the atheist on the other hand has always been objective , morally relative and placing logic ahead of emotional impulses. and regarding this point i must state that your mixing between theisism and atheisism and representing the half-thought idea that they are both the same thing is a total logical fallacy.

There are different religions, you know. Not all religions are emotional. What about buddhism, taosism, etc? This would nullify your argument. In the end all religion look like set of rules with model of universe.

Originally Posted by entz Atheism is the lack of theism (or vice versa)

To me it more looks like atheism is refusal of theism - i.e. opposite, not lack of it.

Originally Posted by entz i think this explains a lot ! The possible reason why you are so insisting that atheists/theists are the same is because you had a soviet education which raised you upon the doctrine of communism ...etc

No, it doesn't. You are thinking in stereotypes right now. Death of USSR started shortly after my birth and perestroyka happened before I went to school. Parent's weren't much of communists/atheists either. If you don't take in account "christian ethics" lessons, childhood (thankfully) was pretty clear from any serious ideological/religious influences. I didn't think much about this stuff until certain age.

Originally Posted by entz and probably because you later disliked communism you tried to get rid of everything that communism is associated with including atheism.

Not quite.
Let's say it this way:
1) Atheists didn't explore entire universe, didn't uncover all laws of nature, and haven't checked every single square centimeter of galaxy to rightfully claim that "there is no god". "There is no evidence of god" and "there is no god" are different statements. Statement about "no evidence" means logic. "no god" means faith. The famous "There probably is no god" is closer to logic than to atheism.
2) On other hands theists rely too much on their belief. I don't remember any divine interventions, miracles or some booming voice talking to me from the sky. So I have nothing to support the claim that the god exists.

So there might be a god or there might be no god. Lack of evidence of existence of something, doesn't mean that this "something" doesn't exist. This is just a logic error - "binary logic", which is derived from famous "Occam's razor" (which is very useful for scientists). On other hands, unless you have evidence, you can claim that something exists. So without evidence about existence/non-existence of object state of that object is unknown.

Originally Posted by entz How can 2 persons were the first is full of doctrine and faith equal to a person who is devoid of faith and doctrine free ? how can 1 be mashed with 0 ? how can the inverse of something be considered to be "no different"?

The problem with theists is that they claim that god exists without evidence of that, and the problem of atheists is that they claim that god doesn't exist without evidence of that. Either side of "conflict" use binary logic to support their beliefs. Theists might say that "there is a god, because you can't prove it doesn't exist", atheists say "there is no god, because you can't prove god exist".
The error of both sides is that they think that god have only "two states" - "exists"/"not exists", and they think that if they prove that another possible state is false (if "not exists" is impossible, then the only state left is "exists"), which is perfect if there only two possible states. People aren't robots, why are we using binary so often (good/evil, right/wrong, exist/not exists). To me it looks like there are three possible states: "unknown", "exists" and "not exists". This is the thing both sides miss completely.
If I apply that to your argument about 0 and 1, then you assume there are only two possible numbers - 0 and 1. In this case inverse of 1 would be 0 and vice versa. However, if there are three possible numbers: -1, +1, 0, then inverse of -1 would be +1, inverse of +1 would be -1 and inverse of zero would be undefined. Belief(theism) in god is +1, Disbelief(atheism) in god is -1, and "I don't know" is 0. This is called "ternary logic", I think.

Originally Posted by entz but since you probably didn't like the bible either as i gathered you decided to bash atheism and theism alike and create an alternative path for yourself that is neither on of the two , basically a sort of a "grey belief" were you say for example "god does exist , but yet there is a 50% chance that he might not."

Bashing? People are free to believe whatever they want as long as this doesn't involve/threaten me in any way. I just said that I don't belong to both.

Erv old bean, you are an Agnostic.