What is your religion

[Hurrem sultana]

So lets see who dominates here :)

[Zack_Fair]

Islam/Sunni. Bosnian, are your people Hanafi?

[StonyArabia]

I was born into the Sufi Rifai order, my father is Sufi and my mother is Hanafi Sunni. So basically Muslim.

[Damião de Góis]

I don't know how to answer this. I grew up as catholic but nowadays religion isn't a part of my life except when i attend funerals or weddings in the catholic way.

[Hurrem sultana]

I don't know how to answer this. I grew up as catholic but nowadays religion isn't a part of my life except when i attend funerals or weddings in the catholic way.

Maybe a non-practicing catholic,as many people are

[SKYNET]

I born as atheist and i'll die as atheist

[Leadchucker]

Had to vote other as there was no Protestant choice to cover us Presbyterians. :mmmm:

[Vasconcelos]

Like most rational people, I'm agnostic.

[Leadchucker]

I born as atheist and i'll die as atheist

But yet your signature says Long live America, God bless you. Just seems contrary.

[Osprey]

Iam Ospreatic.
Its my religion and political idelogy both.
It is what i have churned out after debating with myself. Considering every thing's rational value and emotional value, what decisions i was able to make.

[dralos]

i'm catholic and muslim both

[Archduke]

Catholic.

[Zack_Fair]

Any Shafi'is on here, lol?

[Hurrem sultana]

i'm catholic and muslim both

How can you be both? are your parents mixed ?

[SKYNET]

But yet your signature says Long live America, God bless you. Just seems contrary.

God? Sure, i'll say, God = IT (Information Technology).

[dralos]

i can date muslim chicks and chrisitian ones thats the best thing ,bosnian be ready and this time leave your burqa home

[dralos]

How can you be both? are your parents mixed ?
no they arent but why cant i be both?

[Zack_Fair]

no they arent but why cant i be both?

Uh... So you're some sort of Polytheist(I can't find a better word)?

[Su]

Islam :wink

[dralos]

Uh... So you're some sort of Polytheist(I can't find a better word)?
no bcs Allah and God or the same i just like both:D

[Edelmann]

Where's the protestant option?

[Zack_Fair]

no bcs Allah and God or the same i just like both:D

The Abrahamic gods are the same... I didn't really mean Polytheist but...

[Zack_Fair]

Where's the protestant option?

He went out for a latte.

[Hurrem sultana]

I forgot the protestants sorry guys,if mods can add them please do!

[StonyArabia]

Islam :wink

What sect or order? My order has tons of Alevi influences Rifai Sufism.

[arcticwolf]

The Gnostic option is missing as well. :p

[Su]

What sect or order? My order has tons of Alevi influences Rifai Sufism.

I actually dont believe in sects but if someone asks I say simply:
Sunni Muslim.

[Flintlocke]

Fury

[safinator]

Agnostic with tendency to Atheism

[Queen B]

Atheist - Agnostic

[~Nik~]

Deist because I tend to be anti-clerical, but I am traditionnally Orthodox like all Serbs.

[Sultan Suleiman]

Maybe a non-practicing catholic,as many people are

The same way how you are?

[Hurrem sultana]

The same way how you are?

Exactly

[Han Cholo]

No religion for me. But voted Catholic anyway.

[Sultan Suleiman]

So many Sunni heretics...

[Leadchucker]

I forgot the protestants sorry guys,if mods can add them please do!

Wonderful, the Protestants are apparently down by two with no revote option.
I protest!!! :wink

[Svipdag]

At 18, I decided to accept nothing on authority . I accept only what is amenable to reason. I decided to start with only one assumption: the conclusion of DesCarte's pseudo-syllogism, I EXIST. All else proceeds from reason.

To me, faith means asserting the truth of propositions which have not been or cannot be proven. I can see no difference between faith and self-deception. In effect, one says "I cannot prove this statement, but I want it to be true. Therefore, I assert that it is true." or, I BELIEVE that it is true.
Therefore, I consider faith to be intellectually dishonest.

I believe nothing. I either know that an assertion is true because it has been tested and found so or, if it has not been disproven, then I admit my ignorance of its truth. I might provisionally accept the possibility of its truth for the purpose of verifying or refuting it.

I do not know if a Supreme Being ["God", if you wish] exists. If I assert, as does the atheist, that it does not exist, I will be making a statement of FAITH. I refuse to do so. I admit my ignorance, thereby being intellectually honest. Hence, I remain an agnostic because I lack the faith to be an atheist.


"INTELLEGO VT CREDAM"

[Albion]

I'm not sure. I was baptised Protestant (Anglican) as a kid, primary school was very religious but I never really believed any of it.
I still haven't convinced myself in a god so praying to one would be a bit weird. I dislike many of Christianity (and Abrahamic religions in general) traits.

I have been reading up on Buddhism (more of a philosophy than religion). There's a few things I dislike about that too, mainly just how Asian it is (not many Europeans in it yet) and how people have been kissing Buddha's arse for a few millennia - yes, he was a good teacher, but do you really have to have giant idol-like statues of him everywhere?
I also find it a nice theory but don't know how I'd ever practically apply it to my life apart from by suppressing my thoughts and constantly being nice to people.

Asatru would be good if it wasn't such a joke - I like reading about the Germanic deities but can't believe in them as anything more than folk memory of a Indo-European tribe.
Also Asatru and associated cults are a broken up mess of bastardised Germanic Paganism and don't really represent the old faith.

So at the moment I'm not religious, just research religions.

[Kalitas]

I'm my own religion. I don't kneel before deities

[Breedingvariety]

Agnosticism is a position of ignorance or floaters. Either way, it is not wiser than other positions. Cos if it was, saying "I know nothing" or "I don't think anything" would be wisest. Stoners would be our wise men.

Svipdag, even your proofs are accepted on faith.

[arcticwolf]

Sis what happened to the Gnostic option? I voted Buddhist ( which I am ) but it's a half of my spiritual setup the other half is Gnostic. What's up with that? :D

[Mraz]

It's not clear for me, I would call myself an atheist till my 20 years, I always denied God's existence and was bothered when my mother explained some things with God and most of time I made fun of it, as a child, God was a nonsense, but since 2 years now I'm being more and more interested with religion I can call myself a muslim, even if some doubts remain.

[Damião de Góis]

So what is the difference between atheists and agnostics? Atheists know there is no god?

[Hurrem sultana]

protestants have been added :) thanks mod!

[Hurrem sultana]

So what is the difference between atheists and agnostics? Atheists know there is no god?

I always thought about it like this

1.Atheist no God

2.Agnostic-believe in God/or some Super force..but no organized religion

[Hurrem sultana]

Sis what happened to the Gnostic option? I voted Buddhist ( which I am ) but it's a half of my spiritual setup the other half is Gnostic. What's up with that? :D

i am sorry :( i think buddhism fits you well :D

[~Nik~]

2.Agnostic-believe in God/or some Super force..but no organized religion

That's called deism.

[Mraz]

I think that agnostics don't care if God exists or not, they don't want to convert other people to the unbeliever side and don't want to join believers.

[Damião de Góis]

I always thought about it like this

1.Atheist no God

2.Agnostic-believe in God/or some Super force..but no organized religion

I think it's more like, agnostics believe in what they see. Since they can't prove God they don't accept him.

Atheists need no proof, they already know there is no God. Which is a bit random since nobody can know for sure.

I think this is the difference. And based on this i would call myself an agnostic, despite the catholic upbringing.

[poiuytrewq0987]

I am a semi-practicing Orthodox Christian mainly for the cultural elements of it. I recently got my copy of a Macedonian bible and I've been reading it. I like reading it in my own language rather than English actually. Everything sounds just a lot nicer... :P

[Hurrem sultana]

But i doubt anyone "just does not care".We all have our opinions about Gods exitence/non-exitence

[safinator]

So what is the difference between atheists and agnostics? Atheists know there is no god?
Atheists negate god existence.
Agnostics neither negate or acknowledge his existence.
Agnosticism is far more logic if you ask me.

[Hurrem sultana]

I think it's more like, agnostics believe in what they see. Since they can't prove God they don't accept him.

Atheists need no proof, they already know there is no God. Which is a bit random since nobody can know for sure.

I think this is the difference. And based on this i would call myself an agnostic, despite the catholic upbringing.

I see,so in short they say "God maybe exists" and atheist say "God does NOT exist"

I believe a big part(if not majority) of non practicing christians/buddhist/muslims/etc are in fact agnostic

[Mraz]

But i doubt anyone "just does not care".We all have our opinions about Gods exitence/non-exitence

Atheists are the opposite of believers, and agnostics are in the middle.

[dralos]

you guys should be like me:D

[Hurrem sultana]

you guys should be like me:D

islamocatholics? :D

[dralos]

islamocatholics? :D
thats right:D

[Breedingvariety]

Atheists need no proof, they already know there is no God. Which is a bit random since nobody can know for sure.
Atheist believe there is no God. Agnostics are skeptics on one question of Gods existence. On other questions they are believers. What means they lack courage to believe against tradition or side to one of opposing sects.

[~Nik~]

you guys should be like me:D

Gypsies also use religions in order to survive or by interest. That doesn't make them especially smart, just dishonest.

[Insuperable]

I always thought about it like this

1.Atheist no God

2.Agnostic-believe in God/or some Super force..but no organized religion

Hevneren nicely explains this


Here are the four main positions in relation to the Agnostic/Gnostic and Atheist/Theist positions:

Gnostic Atheist = "I know that a god or gods do not exist."

Agnostic Atheist = "I don't know whether a god or gods exist or not, but I choose not to believe due to the lack of evidence." <--- my position

Agnostic Theist = "I don't know if a god or gods exist but I choose to believe in something."

Gnostic Theist = "I know that a god or gods exist."

But in short
Atheist is someone who asserts that there is no God
Agnostic is someone who simply does not believe in God
Deist is someone who believes in God but does not believe in personal God that is does not believe that God communicated with people.

[sturmwalkure]

I meant to vote for Judaism. Can someone remove my vote

Just kidding but I wanted to vote OTHER

[~Nik~]

Deist is someone who believes in God but does not believe in personal God that is does not believe that God communicated with people.

Well, they don't believe that God intervened in the affairs of mortals, not that it's impossible to communicate with God (through reflection or meditation).

[Frigga]

I'm researching the worship of our ancient alien overlords.

:worship:

[Breedingvariety]

Agnosticism is heretic in all monotheistic religions. Agnostics don't believe in God.

[SilverKnight]

Other, is more of a belief then religion. Pandeism,, is in between Pantheism (belief that God is the universe and the universe is God, but he doesn't interact with us at all as we are him itself) and Deism (God created the universe, interacted with it, but doesn't interfere with our affairs anymore.

[Breedingvariety]

To get us in the mood.:)
Carrie Underwood - Jesus, Take The Wheel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU

[Breedingvariety]

And for the first time in a long time
She bowed her head to pray
She said I'm sorry for the way
I've been living my life

I know I've got to change

I'm letting go
So give me one more chance
To save me from this road I'm on
Themes of sinfulness, surrender to destiny (Gods will) and cleansing (reborn faith) are most important in "Jesus Take The Wheel" by Carrie Underwood.

[Svipdag]

The faithful are as ignorant as the agnostics. They do not KNOW that the things which they believe are true, they merely ASSUME that they are. They assert a knowledge which they do not have. It takes more integrity to admit one's ignorance than to conceal it behind groundless assertions.

Proofs may be, but need not be taken on faith. They are reproducible and, if one takes the time to repeat the process which arrived at the conclusions, he will arrive at the same conclusions. As no one has the time to repeat every proof, one must, perforce have some confidence in the honesty and competency of those who have already performed the proof.

The Michelson-Morley experiment is difficult and expensive to repeat, but it has been done sevreral times, and their conclusions have been verified. I am convinced by verified experimental results. I don't need to do it again, nor can I afford the money or the time to. Is this faith on my part or just common sense ?

Agnostics are not wishy-washy, just honest. We haven't seen any convincing evidence on either side of the question of the existence of a Supreme Being. PROVE that it either does or does not exist, and we'll no longer be ignorant and can stop being agnostic about this question. But I, for one, refuse to
make assertions based on ignorance and unfounded confidence.


"SCIENTIA*NON HABET INIMICVM NISI IGNORANTEM" - Anonymous
*In this context SCIENTIA = knowledge .

[Dacul]

@Serbs,bulgarians,macedonians,greeks,russians here:
Come on lazy people vote only 3 people voted here as being christian orthodox.

[RagnarLodbrok666]

The faithful are as ignorant as the agnostics. They do not KNOW that the things which they believe are true, they merely ASSUME that they are. They assert a knowledge which they do not have. It takes more integrity to admit one's ignorance than to conceal it behind groundless assertions.

Proofs may be, but need not be taken on faith. They are reproducible and, if one takes the time to repeat the process which arrived at the conclusions, he will arrive at the same conclusions. As no one has the time to repeat every proof, one must, perforce have some confidence in the honesty and competency of those who have already performed the proof.

The Michelson-Morley experiment is difficult and expensive to repeat, but it has been done sevreral times, and their conclusions have been verified. I am convinced by verified experimental results. I don't need to do it again, nor can I afford the money or the time to. Is this faith on my part or just common sense ?

Agnostics are not wishy-washy, just honest. We haven't seen any convincing evidence on either side of the question of the existence of a Supreme Being. PROVE that it either does or does not exist, and we'll no longer be ignorant and can stop being agnostic about this question. But I, for one, refuse to
make assertions based on ignorance and unfounded confidence.


"SCIENTIA*NON HABET INIMICVM NISI IGNORANTEM" - Anonymous
*In this context SCIENTIA = knowledge .

That is true. You never know that what you believe is true. That's why I love you deep thinker types.

[Breedingvariety]

The faithful are as ignorant as the agnostics. They do not KNOW that the things which they believe are true, they merely ASSUME that they are. They assert a knowledge which they do not have. It takes more integrity to admit one's ignorance than to conceal it behind groundless assertions.
You are looking at believers in God from a stand point of your philosophy. Subjectively, God is real for them. For me, there is no God. Agnostics hold both positions are equally possible. What philosophy is behind agnostic view? How can logic be so indeterminate and undefined? When agnostics side with existence or non existence of virtually everything, they succumb to take a side on this culturally significant issue.

Nothing can exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect. Existence of God is philosophical issue, not factual. And I can't understand why your philosophy fails at that.

Proofs may be, but need not be taken on faith. They are reproducible and, if one takes the time to repeat the process which arrived at the conclusions, he will arrive at the same conclusions. As no one has the time to repeat every proof, one must, perforce have some confidence in the honesty and competency of those who have already performed the proof.
So, not only you have faith in your own conclusions arrived at your own term, but also on conclusions arrived by authority figures.

Repeating something many times does not make it any more likely to be true, than asserting one time.

Mistakes can be pointed from a point of view of a philosophical system, but the very philosophical system is an assertion.

The Michelson-Morley experiment is difficult and expensive to repeat, but it has been done sevreral times, and their conclusions have been verified. I am convinced by verified experimental results. I don't need to do it again, nor can I afford the money or the time to. Is this faith on my part or just common sense ?
Common sense is the most mistaken sense of all, from my non common philosophical point of view.

Agnostics are not wishy-washy, just honest. We haven't seen any convincing evidence on either side of the question of the existence of a Supreme Being. PROVE that it either does or does not exist, and we'll no longer be ignorant and can stop being agnostic about this question. But I, for one, refuse to make assertions based on ignorance and unfounded confidence.
What does you reasoning say? Why can't your reasoning come to a conclusion on this issue? Why does it fail?

One mans proof is other mans ignorance.

Agnostics are just as confident in the righteousness of their skepticism as stoners are in their epiphanies.

[Mortimer]

orthodox but free thinking christian within reasonable range

[PetiteParisienne]

Jewish by birth, pagan by spirituality.

[Methmatician]

None.

[Sturmgewehr]

I voted Agnostic, I see a bunch of nonsense assertions on the name of Agnostics.

There are several definitions of Agnosticism when it comes to the belief or disbelief in God or Gods.

Most of Agnostics are Atheists ( Agnostic Atheists) some of them are Agnostic Theists even though I think that position is a bit lame.

When I say I am Agnostic I mean this:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.

Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief, an Agnostic basically says I don't know.

In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).


I also don't see why are Agnosticism and Atheism rated as Religions???

[Paluga]

I'm an occultist/magician/esoteric who sympathize with traditional slavic/germanic believes.

I believe that Yahweh is a very powerful and evil god who wants world-domination only by himself and disperse all other gods. He wants that all people worship him and not the other gods.

But the muslims are the most stupid people imo. The islam is some kind of weird mix of pan-arabian believes mixed with the judiasm-religions. Allah is not Yahweh,allah is a moon god they worship.

[PetiteParisienne]

I voted Agnostic, I see a bunch of nonsense assertions on the name of Agnostics.

I also don't see why are Agnosticism and Atheism rated as Religions???

Atheism is a type of faith. Being absolutely sure that there is no higher power i just the other side of the coin.

[Sturmgewehr]

Atheism is a type of faith. Being absolutely sure that there is no higher power i just the other side of the coin.

http://separi.wippiespace.com/img/conan-rofl.gif

[Lithium]

I was born Orthodox Christian but I converted to Paganism a few years ago.

[Sturmgewehr]

Atheist believe there is no God. Agnostics are skeptics on one question of Gods existence. On other questions they are believers. What means they lack courage to believe against tradition or side to one of opposing sects.

Nonsense, everything u have written is dead wrong, so are ur other posts on this thread, check my post above (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=975843&postcount=76) and the definition of Agnosticism.

How can Atheists believe when Atheism in itself is the REJECTION OF FAITH BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT A DEITY OR GOD EXISTS.

How can rejection of faith be faith.

Doesn't make sense.

Plus there are different levels of Atheism and Agnosticism.

CHeck this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Pn6XYACO7SM/TcdCJ9GsjII/AAAAAAAAANg/NQ4eALCvaiQ/s1600/graph.gif

[PetiteParisienne]

http://separi.wippiespace.com/img/conan-rofl.gif

Does it not take faith to be 100% sure that there is no higher power, just as it takes faith to be 100% sure that there is one? There is no proof of a higher power's existence. Likewise, there is no proof of the absence of a higher power. Science has been able to open man's eyes to everything but this. Therefore, it takes a leap of faith to believe or to not believe.

[Sturmgewehr]

Does it not take faith to be 100% sure that there is no higher power, just as it takes faith to be 100% sure that there is one? Faith is not the same as dogma.

I have yet to meet an Atheist that is 100% sure that there is no god, I have never ever met such an Atheist.

Those who claim to know no God exists are Gnostic Atheists.

Check the graph above, there are 2 Levels of Atheists.

The ones u talking about which are GNOSTIC ATHEISTS and the AGNOSTIC ATHEISTS.

All sane reasonable and High IQ Atheists are Agnostics.

Atheism is by definition REJECTION of FAITH.

Agnosticism and Gnosticism have very little to do with Belief, they have more to do with Knowledge.

and I know faith is not the same as Dogma but u don't know how Atheism works.

Atheism concerns with the DISBELIEF in GOD or GODs regardless if u claim to know (Gnostic) that there is no GOD or u claim to NOT KNOW and CAN"T BE KNOWN if there is a god (Agnostic)

[Sturmgewehr]

Therefore, it takes a leap of faith to believe or to not believe.

Please tell me, did u think before u wrote this ???

Atheism is as much of a religion as Abstinence is a Sex position or atheism is as much of a religion as Not Playing football is a sport.

Think before u type,

[PetiteParisienne]

I have yet to meet an Atheist that is 100% sure that there is no god, I have never ever met such an Atheist.

Those who claim to know no God exists are Gnostic Atheists.

Check the graph above, there are 2 Levels of Atheists.

The ones u talking about which are GNOSTIC ATHEISTS and the AGNOSTIC ATHEISTS.

All sane reasonable and High IQ Atheists are Agnostics.

Atheism is by definition REJECTION of FAITH.

Agnosticism and Gnosticism have very little to do with Belief, they have more to do with Knowledge.

and I know faith is not the same as Dogma but u don't know how Atheism works.

Atheism concerns with the DISBELIEF in GOD or GODs regardless if u claim to know (Gnostic) that there is no GOD or u claim to NOT KNOW and CAN"T BE KNOWN if there is a god (Agnostic)

Well, I'm married to a staunch Atheist. My father is also an Atheist. I understand the textbook definition of the word.

The question as to whether or not Atheism requires its own type of 'faith' is actually a highly-debated topic in the academic world. It's not just something I'm pulling out of my arse.

[PetiteParisienne]

Please tell me, did u think before u wrote this ???

Yes. Being sure of something unprovable takes faith.

And you tell me, is condescension part and parcel of being an Atheist?

[Sturmgewehr]

The question as to whether or not Atheism requires its own type of 'faith' is actually a highly-debated topic in the academic world. It's not just something I'm pulling out of my arse.

False.

it is only debatable amongst lame numbnuts.

Atheism is as much of a religion as Abstinence is a Sex position or atheism is as much of a religion as Not Playing football is a sport.

Think before u type.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Pn6XYACO7SM/TcdCJ9GsjII/AAAAAAAAANg/NQ4eALCvaiQ/s1600/graph.gif

[PetiteParisienne]

False.

it is only debatable amongst lame numbnuts.

Atheism is as much of a religion as Abstinence is a Sex position or atheism is as much of a religion as Not Playing football is a sport.

Think before u type,

I didn't say it was a religion. I said that it takes faith. Do you consider Richard Dawkins to be one of these lame numb nuts? I ask because this is a subject he's written about.

faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. A set of principles or beliefs.

[Leadchucker]

..........Atheism is by definition REJECTION of FAITH...........


Not really, there can be many variations on "faith". You may not think of of the laws of physics as a faith items,but yet there's unseen forces in the universe will act everyday on you in a certain manner. Go to the edge of a roof on a 20 story building and jump off. Do you need to not believe in gravity to know you're going to fall? Drive over a bridge built by engineers to the laws of physics and you keep going having the "faith" the rules won't change mid bridge. Atheism may be the rejection of a religious faith,but not the concept of faith itself. So reject all faith or belief in the rules of the universe and they don't apply to you? Round about thinking perhaps or not.

[Paluga]

http://homebrewedtheology.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/atheism11.jpg

[Sturmgewehr]

I didn't say it was a religion.

Religion doesn't make sense without faith.

If Atheism is based on Faith tell me what do Atheists believe in/???

I will change the format above so u get the point:

Atheism is as much of faith position as Abstinence is a Sex position or atheism is as much of a faith as Not Playing football is a sport.

Atheism is by definition NOT HAVING FAITH.

When u say I am an Atheist u say I HAVE NO FAITH IN NOTHING SUPERNATURAL then MOST of Atheists are Agnostic, at least the reasonable ones.


I said that it takes faith.

How???

Are u saying it takes faith to not have faith, if so then how does it work, demonstrate.


Do you consider Richard Dawkins to be one of these lame numb nuts? I ask because this is a subject he's written about.

I don't think Richard Dawkins has ever said I KNOW THERE IS NO GOD.

Please show me where he said that, and if he said then so what ?


faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. A set of principles or beliefs.

I don't care.

Atheism = LACK OF FAITH.


Not really, there can be many variations on "faith".

And Atheism is the Rejection of faith.


You may not think of of the laws of physics as a faith items,but yet there's unseen forces in the universe will act everyday on you in a certain manner.

Things like Gravity and and other Scientific Theories are actually based on mountains of evidence, facts, proofs and experiments.

If there are unseen forces in the universe then there is no need to speculate about them, the most Honest position would be AGNOSTICISM, if there are unseen forces in the universe which I can't detect I certainly have NO REASON to believe they exist and I Certainly have no reason to say I KNOW THEY DON"T EXIST, all I need to say is: Based on my knowledge and based on what has been set forth there is no such a thing as a Magical Flying Unicorn and I don't know if there is such a thing since there is no way I can prove or disprove it.

This is Agnostic Atheist.


Go to the edge of a roof on a 20 story building and jump off. Do you need to not believe in gravity to know you're going to fall?

There is NO NEED to believe in Gravity since Gravity is testable and provable, u need only to ACKNOWLEDGE gravity, there is no need for faith or belief in the face of Proof and evidence.


Drive over a bridge built by engineers to the laws of physics and you keep going having the "faith" the rules won't change mid bridge.

I don't have faith if the rules of physics will change and I don't know if the laws of physics will change with which the bridge was built and if they changed I was driving through it and the bridge falls apart that means that I didn't know it will happen and neither i believed it will or won't happened I was just driving through the bridge based on previous millions of bridges being built and have been shown to work properly.


Atheism may be the rejection of a religious faith,but not the concept of faith itself.

it is, especially the concept of religious faith.


So reject all faith or belief in the rules of the universe and they don't apply to you? Round about thinking perhaps or not.

As I said you have a pretty skewed definition of faith, faith is thinking something is real without evidence.

There is NO NEED for me to believe there is any Gravity or that if u put the hand on fire it will burn, I can test it millions of times and get the same result and acknowledge the EPISTEMOLOGICAL TRUTH.

[Breedingvariety]

How can Atheists believe when Atheism in itself is the REJECTION OF FAITH BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT A DEITY OR GOD EXISTS.
They reject one belief in favor of another.

You are right, atheism in it's strictest sense isn't a belief, but a rejection of a belief in God. But atheist rejection of God means they hold beliefs that contradict Gods existence.

How can rejection of faith be faith.

Doesn't make sense.
Unlike belief that is just an abstract position, faith in addition manifests itself in actions of a faithful. It has practical expression. So your actions are manifestation of your faith. Your faith in your friend or your government or good guide your actions.

So rejection of faith in God means you are saying such faith has no guiding force on your personal path in life.

[SKYNET]

http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/2e/3e/religion,vomiting-2e3e614af997666907ecb1901152d8af_h.jpg

[Sturmgewehr]

They reject one belief in favor of another.

No they don't, if they do so then what is that other belief they believe in.

I will repeat it for you, Atheism is the rejection of religious belief and faith.

I also want u to define what do you mean by belief since this term is abstract and very convoluted term.


You are right, atheism in it's strictest sense isn't a belief, but a rejection of a belief in God. But atheist rejection of God means they hold beliefs that contradict Gods existence.

No it doesn't.

Atheism is simply THE REJECTION OF GOD OR GODS BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE OR PROVES HAVE EVER BEEN PRESENTED IN ORDER TO PROVE GOD OR GODS.

If u reject belief in God that doesn't mean u believe or claim to know that there is no god.

I don't know how much u bothered to see the chart I posted, 90% of Atheists are Agnostic Atheists.

Agnosticism and Atheism are different things but used together can describe a position or stance.

Agnosticism is basically or simply said I DON'T KNOW, it deals with knowledge whereas Atheism is the rejection of faith or belief in God or Gods.

If one says I am an Atheist he hasn't said much about himself, he leaves a lot of room for lame people who will use mental Acrobatics to straw man him because what he says is I AM AN ATHEIST = I DON'T BELIEVE IN GODS OR ANY SUPERNATURAL STUFF

In the other hand if one says I AM AN AGNOSTIC that still leaves u with a lot of room to ask him questions, Agnostic =/= Atheist even though MOST atheists are Agnostics.

When u say I AM AN AGNOSTIC ATHEIST = I don't believe in God and I don't know if there is a God or Gods and I don't think that ilk of knowledge is possible.


Unlike belief that is just an abstract position, faith in addition manifests itself in actions of a faithful.

I agree, I am faithful to my fiance to my family but that is not in the context of Religious Faith which means getting down on ur knees deluding urself that there is a god, talking to rocks or walls or whatever it requires, going to sermons and thinking u eating the flash and the blood of a 2000 years old fallen God or whatever.

As far as I can see u are ONLY playing word games, u are not really interested in the context or the meaning of the situation or philosophy, you are playing semantics and that has little bearing on anything.


It has practical expression. So your actions are manifestation of your faith. Your faith in your friend or your government or good guide your actions.

Exactly, and as I said the word FAITH has multiple meaning and the word FAITH in this case is not the same as RELIGIOUS FAITH, there is a big difference between this type of faith and religious faith.

This type of faith requires evidence, proof and verification, for once I can see my friend, wife or the political party which is leading the country, I can test them, touch them, observe them and precisely define them, I can even talk to them and get multiple feedback whereas in the other hand, you can't see, taste, touch, prove, experiment or whatever GOD, u can only delude urself that he is real and use logical deviations and fallacies to relate anything to god.

for instance:

if u are sick and u get better, it must have been god, instead of being rational and finding the most rational solution such as ur body immunity did it or pills or other medications u will impute this to God.

If something happens which u can't explain like in the past people didn't know why there is lightning so they used God of the Gaps fallacy and said God was mad.

If there is an earthquake and u don't know how to explain it then God must have done it.

Faith in these type of things is self deceptive and delusional because first of all u have no evidence or proves to prove what u claim and secondly it makes no sense, u can basically use the same logic to say that the cause of an Earthquake is an invisible pixie or a pink flying unicorn outside the boundaries of time, those claims are infallible and dishonest.


So rejection of faith in God means you are saying such faith has no guiding force on your personal path in life.

I already clearly adduced what I meant by saying I am an Agnostic or an Atheist or an Agnostic Atheist.

[Comte Arnau]

Catalanism is my religion, the only one I'm practicant of, with external symbols and all. We've got a Messi, but the real Messiah has still to come out one of these days. I have lots of faith in it.

[~Nik~]

Catalanism is my religion, the only one I'm practicant of, with external symbols and all. We've got a Messi, but the real Messiah has still to come out one of these days. I have lots of faith in it.

Probably the return of Aragorn the king of Katalona. ;)

[Sultan Suleiman]

islamocatholics? :D

Stop reading Dune. :coffee:

[Hurrem sultana]

Jewish by birth, pagan by spirituality.

what made you choose to vote for Judaism and not Paganism?

[Breedingvariety]

No they don't, if they do so then what is that other belief they believe in.
It could be any belief or any system of beliefs or ideas. For example Buddhism, Daoism, Materialism, Empiricism, Utilitarianism, Existentialism. Or transcendental idealism. These are isms that come to my mind. But it doesn't have to be a school of philosophy. It could be as simple as a proof: "I haven't seen him. I don't believe what I haven't seen. Although I've seen a dragon in my dream. They exist."

I also want u to define what do you mean by belief since this term is abstract and very convoluted term.
Belief is an idea and a final conclusion arrived after all thinking and experience.

Atheism is simply THE REJECTION OF GOD OR GODS BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE OR PROVES HAVE EVER BEEN PRESENTED IN ORDER TO PROVE GOD OR GODS.
95% of Western Philosophy up until 19th century was related with proving God or God was integral part of philosophical systems. There is a huge selection of god proofs. You just don't accept them.

If u reject belief in God that doesn't mean u believe or claim to know that there is no god.
Yes, you may be skeptic. I'm not into skepticism as a final conclusion.

As far as I can see u are ONLY playing word games, u are not really interested in the context or the meaning of the situation or philosophy, you are playing semantics and that has little bearing on anything.
I disagree with you and I'm not joking. I'm not playing semantic games.

Exactly, and as I said the word FAITH has multiple meaning and the word FAITH in this case is not the same as RELIGIOUS FAITH, there is a big difference between this type of faith and religious faith.
What is the difference? I don't see difference.

This type of faith requires evidence, proof and verification, for once I can see my friend, wife or the political party which is leading the country, I can test them, touch them, observe them and precisely define them, I can even talk to them and get multiple feedback whereas in the other hand, you can't see, taste, touch, prove, experiment or whatever GOD, u can only delude urself that he is real and use logical deviations and fallacies to relate anything to god.
You can prove and define God.

You are atheist in denial. You think God is delusion.

if u are sick and u get better, it must have been god, instead of being rational and finding the most rational solution such as ur body immunity did it or pills or other medications u will impute this to God.
Believing in immunity is no different to believing in God. You can't choose to have an immunity or not. It's like God's Will.

Believing in pills is just delusion, IMO.

If something happens which u can't explain like in the past people didn't know why there is lightning so they used God of the Gaps fallacy and said God was mad.

If there is an earthquake and u don't know how to explain it then God must have done it.

Faith in these type of things is self deceptive and delusional because first of all u have no evidence or proves to prove what u claim and secondly it makes no sense, u can basically use the same logic to say that the cause of an Earthquake is an invisible pixie or a pink flying unicorn outside the boundaries of time, those claims are infallible and dishonest.
All your knowledge about lightning and earthquake would go down to some assertion even more ridiculous than God, if you kept asking why there is something that caused something else.

[Sturmgewehr]

It could be any belief or any system of beliefs or ideas. For example Buddhism, Daoism, Materialism, Empiricism, Utilitarianism, Existentialism. Or transcendental idealism.

Buddhism and Daoism are basically Godless dogmas.

Not all isms require belief, some isms shouldn't exist at all.


These are isms that come to my mind. But it doesn't have to be a school of philosophy. It could be as simple as a proof: "I haven't seen him. I don't believe what I haven't seen. Although I've seen a dragon in my dream. They exist."

some things can't be seen but can be verified.

The Dragon in ur dreams is not even an analogy, it is like saying I saw Superman on TV thus he exists, it is nonsense plus there is a BIG difference between the actual existence of something and imaginary existence of something, something such as Santa, Zeus, Vishnu and ur Abrahamic God.


Belief is an idea and a final conclusion arrived after all thinking and experience.

Belief is not an idea, belief is deluding urself into a fictional idea without having any facts or evidence to prove that ur idea is real plus as we know not all ideas are realistic, I have an Idea, let's make a chicken talk French, that is a stupid idea or unrealistic.


95% of Western Philosophy up until 19th century was related with proving God or God was integral part of philosophical systems.

Big deal, 95% of people in the 8th Century thought the earth is flat and the sun rotated around the earth, that is an appeal to popularity ( Argumentum ad Populum ) and it bears no meaning.


There is a huge selection of god proofs. You just don't accept them.

No there is not even a SINGLE shred of proof for God's existence, there are a bunch of Theological and Ontological Arguments who have been refuted thoroughly.

There are only empty assertions and arguments based on NO EVIDENCE or PROOF at all.

Arguments such as the Argument from Irreducible complexity, First Cause and many other ones but in the end those are only arguments based on no Evidence whatsoever and all of them have been refuted since the 11th century.


Yes, you may be skeptic. I'm not into skepticism as a final conclusion.

We were talking about Agnosticism and Atheism.


I disagree with you and I'm not joking. I'm not playing semantic games.

I know u disagree but u obviously are playing word games, it is obvious when u use analogies such as faith in ur GF or wife and Religious faith which we both know are totally different things.



What is the difference? I don't see difference.

I showed u the difference, the context is the difference.


You can prove and define God.

No u can't, no one has ever done that.


You are atheist in denial. You think God is delusion.

I am an Agnostic Atheist, I don't know what u talking about and yes God is a delusion and people who believe in God are deluded.


Believing in immunity is no different to believing in God.

That is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard.


You can't choose to have an immunity or not. It's like God's Will.

This is stupid too, this is a non-sequitar, I don't see how does that relate to anything, it doesn't even make sense.


Believing in pills is just delusion, IMO.

No it is not and we all know why, it is a matter of proof and evidence which doesn't work with God where u have to rely on pseudo philosophical masturbations and talk ur god into existence.


All your knowledge about lightning and earthquake would go down to some assertion even more ridiculous than God

No it won't, it goes to physics and chemistry and other fields of science, these are observable phenomena and already proved by empirical analysis unlike your God who relies on God of the Gaps argument and other logical fallacies.


if you kept asking why there is something that caused something else.

That is how shit works, religious people are lazy, intellectually lazy, they prefer to say GOD DID IT instead of investigating the phenomena.

[Leadchucker]

That is how shit works, religious people are lazy, intellectually lazy, they prefer to say GOD DID IT instead of investigating the phenomena.

Sorry Bubba, but you're using a very broad brush to paint your very apparent hate for those who do chose to hold to a faith. I have no compunction at all with mixing my faith with science, physics,engineering andsee them going hand in hand. Really I don't care what you say as it don't or won't affect my life one bit. You could go on until you're blue in the face and it will only be a waste of time, much the same as anything I might say would be to you.

In a odd twist it's my faith and what I've been taught that leads me to not argueing with anyone over my beliefs. God gives everyone the freedom of choice to believe what they want and it's not my place to judge any one. However coming off as a young whippersnapper and insulting or disrepecting people is not going to help you nor your case in any way.

[Sturmgewehr]

Sorry Bubba, but you're using a very broad brush to paint your very apparent hate for those who do chose to hold to a faith.

No I am sorry, I don't hate religious people, my mother is very religious I obviously don't hate her.

What I meant to say is Religious Fanatics and Primitives and I know not all religious people are like that, I made a mistake and I extrapolated a bit.

I am sorry, I apologize, I also apologize to Breedingvariety if he got offended by the stuff u quoted me, I should have formulated it better.

I always respond fast and sometimes I make mistakes like this.


I have no compunction at all with mixing my faith with science, physics,engineering andsee them going hand in hand.

That is preposterous, yeah science works with ur bible, ur 10 000 years old earth works against the proven scientific 4.5 Billion years old earth or your Creation myth of Adam with Evolution.

Not even close.


Really I don't care what you say as it don't or won't affect my life one bit.

I hope it won't, I am not here to affect ur life, I would feel pretty shitty if I knew that I have affected ur life, I don't wanna do that.


You could go on until you're blue in the face and it will only be a waste of time, much the same as anything I might say would be to you.

I know.


In a odd twist it's my faith and what I've been taught that leads me to not argueing with anyone over my beliefs.

Because u don't wanna go out of ur comfort zone.


God gives everyone the freedom of choice to believe what they want and it's not my place to judge any one.

This sounds like every day church ramble.


However coming off as a young whippersnapper and insulting or disrepecting people is not going to help you nor your case in any way.

I am very sorry, I should have really been more careful, I meant something else, I know there are Millions of Religious scientists, Nobel Prize winners, inventors and so on.

I mean heck one of my favorite Mathematicians was a Hardcore Christian and I wouldn't say he was a deluded numbnut in the sense of Kent Hovind.

[Edelmann]

http://separi.wippiespace.com/img/conan-rofl.gif

Honestly, it's beginning to look that way. Atheism increasingly just means anti-theism, thanks to the efforts of douche-bags like TheAmazingAtheist.

Atheism really only has to be a lack of belief, but these assholes have twisted it into a self-righteous, in-your-face, prosthelytizing pseudo-religion.

[Breedingvariety]

I am sorry, I apologize, I also apologize to Breedingvariety if he got offended by the stuff u quoted me, I should have formulated it better.

I always respond fast and sometimes I make mistakes like this.
Sturmgewehr, I was not offended. Don't worry about that.:)

[Sturmgewehr]

Honestly, it's beginning to look that way. Atheism increasingly just means anti-theism, thanks to the efforts of douche-bags like TheAmazingAtheist.

Atheism really only has to be a lack of belief, but these assholes have twisted it into a self-righteous, in-your-face, prosthelytizing pseudo-religion.

Exactly and it pisses me off when people use Richard Dawkins or other outspoken Atheists to make like being an Atheist means being in a Religion.

I kind of see why religious people do this, they have a very different mind set, it is hard for them to think outside the box, they think everything must be based on faith and belief just because that is how they see things and they think Dawkins is out Prophet because that is how they see things.

I have enormous respect for Dawkins as an Evolutionary Biologist but I don't like his style LET'S BASH THE RELIGIOUS even though I think debating religious people is not a bad thing or disagreeing with them.

[Sturmgewehr]

Sturmgewehr, I was not offended. Don't worry about that.:)

I don't know man, I tend to be very quick and I have an explosive style of retorting, I just wanted to make sure I didn't offend someone who was mature and civilized with me through this discussion.

Thnx for keeping it civilized.

[Insuperable]

That is preposterous, yeah science works with ur bible, ur 10 000 years old earth works against the proven scientific 4.5 Billion years old earth or your Creation myth of Adam with Evolution.

Well I just do not know how many times people will keep repeating this
10 000 year old bullshit since as I have said many times it was priest himself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre who came came up with the idea of a Big Bang and the expansion of the Universe which show that the Universe is nearly 15 billion years old which would be in the direct conflict with the Genesis also to an average reader.


That is how shit works, religious people are lazy, intellectually lazy, they prefer to say GOD DID IT instead of investigating the phenomena.

Its all relative since I have met intellectually lazy religious people and intelllectually lazy atheists.

Well religious people simply appoint the prime mover which is something called God. Exploring the mechanism of the Universe is something to which atheists and theists strive and it has nothing with lazyness.
Physics for now forbids us to see what happened in time from 0 seconds to ≈10^-43s. But even if we do find out what happened during this time (called Plancks epoch ) we may never know what actually caused it.
It does not mean that we will never be able to find that cause but I do not see why theists would not strive to find out that cause and if in the worst case people do not care what happened in that short time does not make them mentally lazy.
And calling people like Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Bohr, Zeillinger, Smalley, Townes... as mentally lazy is lunatic at best. There are many atheist scientists and there are many theistic scientists. ITS ALL RELATIVE and only small minded people tend to generalize where that is not neccessary.

[Panopticon]

Neither Atheism or Agnosticism is religion. It's a common misconception and a horrible one.

I'm atheist with similar views as Dawkins.

[sturmwalkure]

I am serious when I said I wanted to vote for Other. :D I do not want to vote for Judaism since I was joking.

[Sturmgewehr]

Well I just do not know how many times people will keep repeating this
10 000 year old bullshit since as I have said many times it was priest himself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre who came came up with the idea of a Big Bang and the expansion of the Universe which show that the Universe is nearly 15 billion years old which would be in the direct conflict with the Genesis also to an average reader.

it is in DIRECT conflict with Genesis, not just that but many other things, the bible and the Quran talk about the creation of man in another world, how God created man in his current form and shape which is of course nonsense and we have a very valid theory that explains the origin of man, it is called Evolution.

THey talk about a Global flood which is absurd, they talk about the world having edges and we all know Christians believed the World was flat for thousands of years until people proved it by using empirical evidence and the scientific method.

I know that the guy who proposed the Big Bang Theory was a priest but he OBVIOUSLY didn't use the bible to come up with it, he used the scientific method and empirical method not the bible or his faith, he did it by observing, investigating and so on, the bible says nothing about the Big Bang theory whatever it says about the creation of the earth or universe is ambiguous and can be twisted to mean many things.


Its all relative since I have met intellectually lazy religious people and intelllectually lazy atheists.

That is true, I shouldn't have generalized people like that, I already apologized about that, as I said there are a handful of scientists who were hardcore christians and I don't wanna be a numbnut to call them lazy.


Well religious people simply appoint the prime mover which is something called God.

Except that this semi logical hypothesis has never been proved and that hypothesis is not based on science but on a bunch of semi-sound Philosophical arguments.

William Lane Craig uses it even though his Kalam has been thoroughly refuted several times he closes his ears and pretends not to hear.

I am of course not willing to discuss the Kalam Cosmological Argument or other Theological and Ontological Arguments since that is a tedious long discussion which will take us at least 20 pages to discuss and I am not in the mood doing that, I have seen it before I have read for myself and I know enough and I don't need to defend it.


Exploring the mechanism of the Universe is something to which atheists and theists strive and it has nothing with lazyness.

Of course, I was being sloppy when I said Religious People are lazy, I was just referring to particular religious people, the fanatics and apologists, I was referring to people of the Kent Hovind ilk.


Physics for now forbids us to see what happened in time from 0 seconds to ≈10^-43s. But even if we do find out what happened during this time (called Plancks epoch ) we may never know what actually caused it.

I agree and I am not willing to discuss Quantum Mechanics with anyone here because that would be dishonest by me, I am not a Physicist thus there is no need for me to get into these type of calculations.

Of course I have read a little bit of Physics and Big Bang but I am not an Expert and I agree with what u said in the end, we can't verify what caused it and whatever caused it most probably had a cause and obviously u can't state that this cause is God without having any solid evidence or proves to back it up.


It does not mean that we will never be able to find that cause but I do not see why theists would not strive to find out that cause and if in the worst case people do not care what happened in that short time does not make them mentally lazy.

True, I agree.

I don't divide people who work on this issue as Theists or Atheists, I call them scientists and Theism or Atheism has nothing to do with what they do, they implement the scientific method and it has nothing to do with neither Theism nor Atheism.


And calling people like Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Bohr, Zeillinger, Smalley, Townes... as mentally lazy is lunatic at best.

Of course, I already apologized about this.


There are many atheist scientists and there are many theistic scientists. ITS ALL RELATIVE and only small minded people tend to generalize where that is not neccessary.

Agree, I generalized but I wanted to only referring to a specific group of Theists not to all theist and obviously not to Bohr or Heisenberg.

[PetiteParisienne]

what made you choose to vote for Judaism and not Paganism?

Because Judaism is an ethno-religious group, it impacts my identity regardless of my beliefs. I would have selected both if it was a multiple choice poll.

[Zorg]

I'm researching the worship of our ancient alien overlords.

:worship:

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/18673548.jpg Oh.My.God.

[sturmwalkure]

My answer would be Esoteric Hitleristic Deism though I am still influenced by my Roman Catholic heritage and upbringing. I do believe in a God but not the one believed in by Christianity. I believe in Nationalsocialism as the only organic religion of nature and I believe in it to be applied to the human sector of society as it is true to cosmic reality.

[Insuperable]

it is in DIRECT conflict with Genesis, not just that but many other things, the bible and the Quran talk about the creation of man in another world, how God created man in his current form and shape which is of course nonsense and we have a very valid theory that explains the origin of man, it is called Evolution.

THey talk about a Global flood which is absurd, they talk about the world having edges and we all know Christians believed the World was flat for thousands of years until people proved it by using empirical evidence and the scientific method.

I know that the guy who proposed the Big Bang Theory was a priest but he OBVIOUSLY didn't use the bible to come up with it, he used the scientific method and empirical method not the bible or his faith, he did it by observing, investigating and so on, the bible says nothing about the Big Bang theory whatever it says about the creation of the earth or universe is ambiguous and can be twisted to mean many things.

That is not my point. My point is that even though he discovered that he did not say that there is any conflict with Christianity and that is for a reason. That is like saying he was not aware of all that Biblical writings which you listed. This is only a short writing in which I show that I am not in a mood to explain that because either read the explanation or do not write without studying what people have to say in defence of that.
For example it were scientists of the time before Galileo who claimed that the Earth is flat and Church was following what they were saying and it says nowhere that the Earth has edges and there is nice explanation of Flood like on this page http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html


Except that this semi logical hypothesis has never been proved and that hypothesis is not based on science but on a bunch of semi-sound Philosophical arguments.

William Lane Craig uses it even though his Kalam has been thoroughly refuted several times he closes his ears and pretends not to hear.

I am of course not willing to discuss the Kalam Cosmological Argument or other Theological and Ontological Arguments since that is a tedious long discussion which will take us at least 20 pages to discuss and I am not in the mood doing that, I have seen it before I have read for myself and I know enough and I don't need to defend it.


Kalam argument was never refuted but only critized.

There is no proof that God does not exist. Of course, people will say that you can not proof what does not exist or "prove to me the existence of fairies bla bla bla" but under God we are thinking about something which is giver a awareness, creator or what we see and do not see, a prime mover, creator of fairies and leprechauns ( they do not exist of course, only to understand what I want to say )
The concept of infinite regression itself is above science and there is no reason not to postulate that there is some eternal mind above matter and energy ( an awareness giver ). It is perfectly fair to postulate that and it is perfectly fair to ask for evidence against its existence because so far argumnets for some higher force go in favour of it.

I think that agnostics and atheists deep down are not against the existence of God. Its just that they are in feud with the religion and transfer that to the very option of Gods existence.

[Sturmgewehr]

My point is that even though he discovered that he did not say that there is any conflict with Christianity and that is for a reason.

I will tell u why, I did a bit of a research, the guy was sponsored by Christian Schools and Churches and shit like that, he was a Secular Monk, that shows enough.

He spent many years studying in Christian Universities until he went to some other Colleges and Universities but he was still heavily sponsored by Christian schools.

He never said that his THeory didn't contradict Christianity because that could have immediately been pernicious to his career and studies and whatever he had invested in it, his priesthood has nothing to do with his theory, he spent huge amounts of times studying Physics, Cosmology and Mathematics, he never dealt with Theology actually, he was an avowed Physicist and Astronomer, the fact that he graduated from a Christian school has no bearing to what he discovered even if he preached Christianity in the church, that would still mean nothing because he never said the Big Bang Theory had anything to do with it and he had huge motives to say so but since he was an honest scientist he never did that, I think he didn't wanna look like a Kent Hovind type of fool.

If the Big Bang Theory was compatible with Christianity he would have IMMEDIATELY without any doubt claimed that, the fact that he came out of a Christian school and came out with this theory and didn't say it is compatible with the Bible shows that the Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with the Bible or Prime mover or whatever.

The prime mover argument is more of a philosophical than Scientific Argument and it is imputed unfairly by Sophist to the big bang even though the Big Bang Theory says nothing about any Prime movers.

If it was compatible with Christianity he would have rubbed it against everyones' noses there to prove his faith but he didn't.


That is like saying he was not aware of all that Biblical writings which you listed.

I am sure he was and if there was any Relation between the Big Bang and the Bible he would have IMMEDIATELY made that connection, but he didn't, and we all know why.


This is only a short writing in which I show that I am not in a mood to explain that because either read the explanation or do not write without studying what people have to say in defence of that.
For example it were scientists of the time before Galileo who claimed that the Earth is flat and Church was following what they were saying and it says nowhere that the Earth has edges and there is nice explanation of Flood like on this page http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html


Now you are resorting to Christian Apologetics, I am not gonna read that since I consider Apologetics what they are a post Hoc Make to fit the bible arguments.

Also my initial argument with the previous guys I discussed was about Agnosticism and Atheism and their definitions.


Kalam argument was never refuted but only critized.

Again I used the wrong word.

you are right, The Kalam Argument was never refuted because there is nothing to refute there, it is unsubstantial, it is based on Empty assertions, logical fallacies and different leaps of logic so there is nothing to refute, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is REJECTED and made obsolete because there is no proof neither evidence to prove anything it says and I am pretty sure many people have refuted it but since u won't accept those forms as refutations we will just leave it at Rejected.


There is no proof that God does not exist.

Neither there is any proof that a Pink Flying Unicorn doesn't exist, or pixies don't exist.


Of course, people will say that you can not proof what does not exist or "prove to me the existence of fairies bla bla bla"

That is not blla blla blla, that is valid argumentation because u are using holes in human knowledge to fill them with ur flavor of God and that is lame and dishonest.


under God we are thinking about something which is giver a awareness, creator or what we see and do not see, a prime mover, creator of fairies and leprechauns ( they do not exist of course, only to understand what I want to say )


And there is not even a SHRED of evidence for that, we all know how awareness came to be, there is no evidence that someone has created all this not even one.

I know all the possible arguments u could make in favor of it but they have all been rejected and basically refuted ( The Prime mover Argument, The Argument from Irreducible Complexity and The fine tuning argument ) I have heard and read it all, none of them contains even the smallest evidence or proof for any god they all rely mostly in the God of Gaps fallacy and different more sophisticated fallacies but in the end they are just philosophical masturbations.


The concept of infinite regression itself is above science and there is no reason not to postulate that there is some eternal mind above matter and energy ( an awareness giver ).

So is the concept of your god above science and there is no reason not to postulate I DON"T KNOW or even infinite regress, let me play ur game, can u disprove infinite regress and tell me how much do we know about time so u can say infinite regress doesn't exist but anyways as I said I am not here to discuss this since we will need more than 20 pages for discussion and in the end we will still not be going anywhere.

I just wanted to say that postulating an Omniscient and omnipotent disembodied Deity just because u can't explain what was before the Big bang ( we don't even know if that question makes sense ) is pretty puerile and Childish, the most honest stance would be I DON'T KNOW and we should leave it at that.


It is perfectly fair to postulate that and it is perfectly fair to ask for evidence against its existence because so far argumnets for some higher force go in favour of it.

No it is not, it is dishonest and stupid.

There is NO LOGIC behind asking evidence against something that doesn't exist, something that u can't even define, almost every known theist would have hard time defining god let alone postulating any nonexistent evidence.

I will present u evidence against the existence of God when u present me evidence against the Existence of Magic Pixies who spoke the universe into existence.

No argument so far goes in Favor of a Creator or higher power especially your Jebus, every argument goes Against it.


I think that agnostics and atheists deep down are not against the existence of God.

LOL.

Yes they are.


Its just that they are in feud with the religion and transfer that to the very option of Gods existence.

They are in feud with both, Agnostics and Atheists consider religion like the Santa delusion, it is just for Grown ups, it is a sophisticated form of delusion which has been worked on a lot and thought a lot more than the Santa story.

As I said I think u turned this discussion in an argument for or Against god or IS THERE A GOD OR NOT and this is not what we were discussing, we were discussing the terms and notions such as Agnosticism and Atheism but u derailed it.

I am done with this and I am not willing to debunk ur Theological and Ontological Arguments.

[Insuperable]

I will tell u why, I did a bit of a research, the guy was sponsored by Christian Schools and Churches and shit like that, he was a Secular Monk, that shows enough.

He spent many years studying in Christian Universities until he went to some other Colleges and Universities but he was still heavily sponsored by Christian schools.

He never said that his THeory didn't contradict Christianity because that could have immediately been pernicious to his career and studies and whatever he had invested in it, his priesthood has nothing to do with his theory, he spent huge amounts of times studying Physics, Cosmology and Mathematics, he never dealt with Theology actually, he was an avowed Physicist and Astronomer, the fact that he graduated from a Christian school has no bearing to what he discovered even if he preached Christianity in the church, that would still mean nothing because he never said the Big Bang Theory had anything to do with it and he had huge motives to say so but since he was an honest scientist he never did that, I think he didn't wanna look like a Kent Hovind type of fool.

If the Big Bang Theory was compatible with Christianity he would have IMMEDIATELY without any doubt claimed that, the fact that he came out of a Christian school and came out with this theory and didn't say it is compatible with the Bible shows that the Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with the Bible or Prime mover or whatever.

The prime mover argument is more of a philosophical than Scientific Argument and it is imputed unfairly by Sophist to the big bang even though the Big Bang Theory says nothing about any Prime movers.

If it was compatible with Christianity he would have rubbed it against everyones' noses there to prove his faith but he didn't.



I am sure he was and if there was any Relation between the Big Bang and the Bible he would have IMMEDIATELY made that connection, but he didn't, and we all know why.

This is pathetic because you have nothing else to say. Why I should now say to prove what you said?
(He never dealt with theology:D - for becoming a priest a theology school or background is needed plus philosophy )


And there is not even a SHRED of evidence for that, we all know how awareness came to be, there is no evidence that someone has created all this not even one.

We live in an age where we can probe the fundamental limits of nature like subatomic levels yet this is what we know about awareness.

Nick Herbert quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Herbert_%28physicist%29
"Science’s biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot."


I know all the possible arguments u could make in favor of it but they have all been rejected and basically refuted ( The Prime mover Argument, The Argument from Irreducible Complexity and The fine tuning argument ) I have heard and read it all, none of them contains even the smallest evidence or proof for any god they all rely mostly in the God of Gaps fallacy and different more sophisticated fallacies but in the end they are just philosophical masturbations.

None of it has been refuted nor in a philosophical or scientifical sense. It can only be critized and in the same way that critics can be critized again.


So is the concept of your god above science and there is no reason not to postulate I DON"T KNOW or even infinite regress, let me play ur game, can u disprove infinite regress and tell me how much do we know about time so u can say infinite regress doesn't exist but anyways as I said I am not here to discuss this since we will need more than 20 pages for discussion and in the end we will still not be going anywhere.


Scientifically time and matter and energy begun with the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang there was no time and for a chance for something to start to exist you need to have time.

You can of course claim that before the Big Bang there was a quantum vaccum which is there simply forever ( not so much mainstream science ) and out of which using quantum fluctuations the Universe started to exist. Of course in mainstream phyiscs quantum fluctuations are seen as a effect of a natural laws of physics and not vice versa. My point is that if someone can argue that quantum vaccum was/is "there" forever, that is, it is eternal why would it be strange to argue that God is eternal not to mention that there is yet the concept of awareness to grasp

The third option would be that before the Big Bang there was a reality which started our Universe and before that mechanism and/or reality there was another reality which started that reality and so on forever.
Infinite regress or a prime mover without cause like this can be rejected with common wisdom because it is self explainatory

[Bobcat Fraser]

I almost picked "other" because I agree with certain churches on certain teachings. Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical, and Mainliner denominations all have their good points, and they're all in agreement on some core views. I try to concentrate on those core views as my personal faith, in the religious and spiritual sense. I have to admit that I struggle with certain teachings, and I don't feel like a Christian at times because of these struggles.

[Sturmgewehr]

I won't address most of ur points since I made that very clear and the fact that u don't wanna accept that the Kalam has already been refuted by many Philosophers is a different story, even by Immanuel Kant himself rejected it and named it an Ontological Argument in disguise there are also many physicists who reject the Kalam and who claim it is a self imploding argument, one of this Physicists is Victor J. Stenger a co Nobel Prize winner or had to do something with Nobel prize at some time, many other Physicists like Laurence Krauss reject it and made it obsolete.

I will just refer to u where u quote minned me:


This is pathetic because you have nothing else to say. Why I should now say to prove what you said?
(He never dealt with theology - for becoming a priest a theology school or background is needed plus philosophy )

What is more pathetic is the fact that u can't read or u doing this on purpose because I also said this (I quote ):


he never dealt with Theology actually, he was an avowed Physicist and Astronomer, the fact that he graduated from a Christian school has no bearing to what he discovered even if he preached Christianity in the church, that would still mean nothing because he never said the Big Bang Theory had anything to do with it and he had huge motives to say so but since he was an honest scientist he never did that, I think he didn't wanna look like a Kent Hovind type of fool.

So here u go, you are quote mining me.

Ur Big bang theory being discovered by a SECULAR priest who worked full time job as a Astro Physicist and scientist says nothing about the validity of ur faith or ur ancient fairy tale holy book.

It is the same as saying if some Astro Physicist or Cosmologist had studied at a cooking school at the same time he studied Nuclear physics and came up with the Theory of Relativity and then I go on claiming that his cook book helped him with the theory of relativity, really pathetic claims u make my friend.

It is really really weird how a PRIEST who graduated from a Christian School didn't have the courage to relate the BBT to his religion or faith and how he was neutral and never said anything about it, hmmmmmmmmmmm it must be because the BBT doesn't contradict ur ancient books written by a bunch of goat herders, LOL, of course not, Georges Lemaître never said anything about the Bible being compatible with the BBT and HE could have said it, he was the one to discovered and he was a priest from a Christian school and he could have claimed its compatibility with his faith whenever he wanted if that was true and I don't see why wouldn't he say the BBT was compatible with his faith if this was the case, obviously the guy was too honest and didn't wanna make a fool out of himself and he refrained from such claims, such claims are made only by dishonest sophists such as Kent Hovind, William Lane Craig and co.

Your only argument is HE WAS A PRIEST AND HE DISCOVERED IT THUS IT MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY, of course we all know this is a bullshit logical fallacy and has no meaning at all.


We live in an age where we can probe the fundamental limits of nature like subatomic levels yet this is what we know about awareness.

Nick Herbert quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_He...28physicist%29
"Science’s biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot."


It was about time for you to throw around logical fallacies, I mean u did this before but now u committed another one.

First of all the guy is a physicist, he is by no way qualifies to talk about Awareness, that should be done by either Neusoscientists or evolutionary biologist who deal with the evolution of the brain.

THere are many hypothesis about this and it is more than obvious that consciousness is the manifestation of the physical brain and an evolved trait of the brain, the fact that science has very little to say about it doesn't validate ur sky daddy.

Also if u read that Physicist never claimed any divine intervention or anything, quite the contrary he said WE KNOW IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE HEAD NOT WITH THE FOOT, here u go, ur quote mines and out of contexts don't really work that well.

You are using a classical GOD OF THE GAPS argument.

I don't know it thus God.........

Of course that is fallacious.


None of it has been refuted nor in a philosophical or scientifical sense. It can only be critized and in the same way that critics can be critized again.

They have all been refuted, philosophically and especially SCIENTIFICALLY, it is just that u won't accept any reasonable logical argumentation and will remain clinging on semi-sound theological arguments.



For example it were scientists of the time before Galileo who claimed that the Earth is flat and Church was following what they were saying and it says nowhere that the Earth has edges and there is nice explanation of Flood like on this page http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...ocalflood.html


Not really, science had nothing to do with it, the 10 000 years old earth was pulled out from the bible.

Know ur history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Origins

Early Christians used the BIBLE to calculate the age of the earth, and of course if u use book written by ignorants u will be wrong.

Not just that, there are still fervent young earth Christian creationist supporting this theory, they have written books and "refuted" scientific theories in order to prove that the Earth is 10 000 years old and compatible with the bible fairy tales


Scientifically time and matter and energy begun with the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang there was no time and for a chance for something to start to exist you need to have time.

You can of course claim that before the Big Bang there was a quantum vaccum which is there simply forever ( not so much mainstream science ) and out of which using quantum fluctuations the Universe started to exist. Of course in mainstream phyiscs quantum fluctuations are seen as a effect of a natural laws of physics and not vice versa. My point is that if someone can argue that quantum vaccum was/is "there" forever, that is, it is eternal why would it be strange to argue that God is eternal not to mention that there is yet the concept of awareness to grasp

The third option would be that before the Big Bang there was a reality which started our Universe and before that mechanism and/or reality there was another reality which started that reality and so on forever.
Infinite regress or a prime mover without cause like this can be rejected with common wisdom because it is self explainatory

I also said I won't engage in this kind of discussion, I just saw how u mention time/space, energy and matter and I told u I am not going there.

Everything u say has already been made antiquated or refuted thoroughly, no need for me to address them.

As far as I can see you are using dishonest techniques used by other Apologetic Sophists to argue the existence of God.

If physics proved god, Einstein, Feynman and the worlds leading scientists would believe in God but of course that is not the case and it is totally the opposite.

You are using TYPICAL God of the gaps fallacies to try to invoke ur sky daddy into anything u can come across, just like primitive middle eastern Jewish goat herders did when they couldnt' explain a phenomena.

The most honest and decent position of all is I DON'T KNOW instead of dishonestly using holes in the knowledge of humans to invoke ur sky pixie.

[Stefan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

[Leadchucker]

Because u don't wanna go out of ur comfort zone.


Sorry, you assume too much again. My comfort zone is rather large after having been held at gun point, shot at, surviving gangrene,being hit and ran over by cars whilst on motorcycles thrice,falling off a 4 story building,blah,blah. There is no dialouge or words that could begin to encroach on my largeish comfort zone,unless you actually threaten me or my family. I'm not saying anyone is making threats, however even it were, it would not be my comfort that would be comprimised.
I don't argue anything as it's the arguing itself I find a waste of time and energy much the same as hate or racism.

Do have a wonderful love filled day.:D

[RagnarLodbrok666]

My answer would be Esoteric Hitleristic Deism though I am still influenced by my Roman Catholic heritage and upbringing. I do believe in a God but not the one believed in by Christianity. I believe in Nationalsocialism as the only organic religion of nature and I believe in it to be applied to the human sector of society as it is true to cosmic reality.

I strayed away from the Roman Catholicism of my parents at a very early age. About 13 or 14 years old in favor of strong-atheism/antitheism outlook and was in no way influenced by the religious heritage. I just didn't learn anything or get anything out of the religious teachings.

Upon doing a lot of research into esotericism at about 18 years old I found Odin the all-father. While absorbing and getting into germanic neopagan revival I still had an interest in Celtic and Finnish pagan traditions as well. The all-father's advice combined with the ancient traditions and the ways that our germanic and celtic tribes lived seemed to really match both market socialist and nationalist principles.

[Albion]

Other, is more of a belief then religion. Pandeism,, is in between Pantheism (belief that God is the universe and the universe is God, but he doesn't interact with us at all as we are him itself) and Deism (God created the universe, interacted with it, but doesn't interfere with our affairs anymore.

Pantheism seems to make a lot of sense if god is seen as the universe rather than a living, thinking being.

[Albion]

Honestly, it's beginning to look that way. Atheism increasingly just means anti-theism, thanks to the efforts of douche-bags like TheAmazingAtheist.

Atheism really only has to be a lack of belief, but these assholes have twisted it into a self-righteous, in-your-face, prosthelytizing pseudo-religion.

I've noticed that in America but not so much in Britain. I suppose it's with almost everyone being atheist or just non-practising Christians.

Here those sorts of people just find other things to act all mightier than thou about such as environmentalism. :rolleyes2:

[Zorg]

I've noticed that in America but not so much in Britain. I suppose it's with almost everyone being atheist or just non-practising Christians.

Here those sorts of people just find other things to act all mightier than thou about such as environmentalism. :rolleyes2:

Problem is with a population of 350 million,
we've got both the environmentalist and the suffocating religious in bunches. :grumpy:

[Insuperable]

I won't address most of ur points since I made that very clear and the fact that u don't wanna accept that the Kalam has already been refuted by many Philosophers is a different story, even by Immanuel Kant himself rejected it and named it an Ontological Argument in disguise there are also many physicists who reject the Kalam and who claim it is a self imploding argument, one of this Physicists is Victor J. Stenger a co Nobel Prize winner or had to do something with Nobel prize at some time, many other Physicists like Laurence Krauss reject it and made it obsolete.
They have all been refuted, philosophically and especially SCIENTIFICALLY, it is just that u won't accept any reasonable logical argumentation and will remain clinging on semi-sound theological arguments.

I say again "none of it has been reputed, nor debunked only critized".
The reason why you think so is evident from your post because it is evident that you read that from wikipeda. On wikipeda is written only one side.
For example it says ON WIKIPEDIA that Kant rejects Kalam argument. Even though he is Kant what he has to say in this case is irrelevant because he believed that space is infinite and that time is eternal since he lived mostly in the 18th century and now we know that the Universe is finite in space and time because it has a beginning.
In the same manner Five ways of Thomas Aquinas have never been refuted.
Puting Stenger here as a figure who is physicist to elevate your thinking is meaningless as I have said because its all relative and I can give you some names to counter what you said.


What is more pathetic is the fact that u can't read or u doing this on purpose because I also said this (I quote ):

There is a reason why I put that in brackets. What I mean by pathetic is that having nothing else to say you came up from your "research" that because he Lemaitre said nothing about the validity of faith came to the conclusion that he is secular.


So here u go, you are quote mining me.

Ur Big bang theory being discovered by a SECULAR priest who worked full time job as a Astro Physicist and scientist says nothing about the validity of ur faith or ur ancient fairy tale holy book.

Some of his quotes

"Despite his unquestionable scientific credibility, Lemaître's priesthood often led skeptics to question his theories, believing the Big Bang was "presented in a spirit of concordism with the religious concept of creation, and even received its inspiration from that religious concept."14 Concordism is the belief that the Bible contains scientific information not known by people at the time of the writing of the sacred texts. Even Professor Einstein confronted Lemaître on this issue. Not surprisingly, Father Lemaître had an excellent response to such critics:

Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses . . . As a matter of fact neither Saint Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity.15

Godart and Heller succinctly characterize the relationship of philosophy and science, "There is an intricate feed-back between cosmology and philosophical views. On the one hand, cosmology emerged from philosophical imaginations of the universe as a whole. On the other hand, philosophical speculations often took the inspiration and stimulus from the world-picture presented in the science of a given epoch."16

Monsignor Lemaître was very successful in achieving the goals of Vatican I and the charter of the Pontifical Academy. His methodological purity allowed him to share scientific discoveries with the Church, protecting her from misinterpreting physical results while at the same time sharing the splendor of her truth with the scientific community in a non-threatening way. Throughout all of this, Lemaître knew that the very nature of his research led man to consider the theological implications.17 Speaking to Catholic scientists, Lemaître said:

The Christian researcher has to master and apply with sagacity the technique appropriate to his problem. His investigative means are the same as those of his non-believer colleague . . . In a sense, the researcher makes an abstraction of his faith in his researches. He does this not because his faith could involve him in difficulties, but because it has directly nothing in common with his scientific activity. After all, a Christian does not act differently from any non-believer as far as walking, or running, or swimming is concerned.18

But Lemaître also felt that Catholic theology guarantees the autonomy of science:

He (the Christian researcher) knows that not one thing in all creation has been done without God, but he knows also that God nowhere takes the place of his creatures. Omnipresent divine activity is everywhere essentially hidden. It never had to be a question of reducing the supreme Being to the rank of a scientific hypothesis

This may very well be the case with Lemaître's own famous hypothesis. The Holy Scriptures clearly attest to a "beginning" that one would expect to be reflected in the natural world. Scientific proof only comes from consistency with empirical evidence. Therefore, the distinction of orders is only relevant in the context of verification.24

A hallmark of Georges Lemaître's approach to dealing with those uncomfortable with the science-religion relationship was reminding them of the fact that science is impartial to religion:

The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors in historic and scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if the errors related to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them . . . The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects, is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all."


It was about time for you to throw around logical fallacies, I mean u did this before but now u committed another one.

First of all the guy is a physicist, he is by no way qualifies to talk about Awareness, that should be done by either Neusoscientists or evolutionary biologist who deal with the evolution of the brain.

THere are many hypothesis about this and it is more than obvious that consciousness is the manifestation of the physical brain and an evolved trait of the brain, the fact that science has very little to say about it doesn't validate ur sky daddy.

Hehehe I made a logical fallacy based on your uninformativeness.:rolleyes:
First of all but not the most important physics and biophysics are one the most important branches of neurology but yes in its pure form it has little to do with it in objective form ( like studying neurons... ) but as you will see later physics iwent the furthest to explain subjective part of the brain although not really.

The following quote nicely explains what is meant by awareness and what is the range of scientific pervasiveness. Everything which is objective is a part of science and that which is subjective is not - to sum it up for you

"From an objective viewpoint, the brain is relatively comprehensible. When you look at this page, there is a whir of processing: photons strike your retina, electrical signals are passed up your optic nerve and between different areas of your brain, and eventually you might respond with a smile, a perplexed frown or a remark. But there is also a subjective aspect. When you look at the page, you are conscious of it, directly experiencing the images and words as part of your private, mental life. You have vivid impressions of colored flowers and vibrant sky. At the same time, you may be feeling some emotions and forming some thoughts. Together such experiences make up consciousness: the subjective, inner life of the mind."

Here is also a quote from a Raymond Tellis ( medical doctor - philosopher ) article

"The pervasive yet mistaken idea that neuroscience does fully account for awareness and behavior is neuroscientism, an exercise in science-based faith."

"We can see more clearly now the wide gap between brain function and consciousness — really, between people and their brains. This gap is seemingly crossed by linguistic legerdemain: people can be “brainified” if the brain is personified. But we have seen reasons why this gap should be unbridgeable. This, however, only throws into greater relief the magnitude of what remains to be answered, and so we must ask where we go from here. The failure to explain consciousness in terms of the brain — which follows from the failure of matter as understood in the most rigorous scientific manner to be able to house consciousness — raises two immediate questions.

The first and most obvious question is: Why, if the brain is not the basis of consciousness, is it so intimately bound up with it? Even those of us who object to the reduction of persons to brains have to explain why, of all the objects in the world, the brain is so relevant to our lives as persons. Nor can we overlook the extraordinary advances that have come from neuroscience in our ability to understand and treat diseases that damage voluntary action, consciousness, and mood — something that has been central to my entire professional career as a clinical neuroscientist. If consciousness, mind, volition, and so forth are not deeply connected with brain activity, then what are we to make of the genuine advances that neuroscience has contributed to our management of conditions that affect these central underpinnings of ordinary life?

The second question is whether, having shown the difficulty — no, the impossibility — of trying to get from brains alone to persons, we should abandon the very notion of the brain as a starting point for our thoughts about human consciousness. This question, however, brings us back to the first. If we say “I wouldn’t start from here,” then what do we do with the facts of neuroscience? Where does the brain fit into a metaphysics, an epistemology, and an ontology of mind that deny the brain a place at their center? If we are thinking of a new ontology, an account of the kinds of things there are in the universe that goes beyond the traditional division into mental and physical things; or if we are to go beyond an interactive epistemology that begins with sensations arising out of the impingement of energy on our brains and ascends to our knowledge of the laws of nature; then how shall we make sense of the things neuroscience tells us? How shall we deal with the fact that we are evolved organisms as well as persons?"

As I have said physics went the furthest but in fact it still explains nothing about awareness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
As you can see physicist who agree that quantum physics will explain the awareness think that it has mostly to do with quantum entanglement, measurenment....
In the last 80 years has been a revolution in physics because scientists are starting to think that the Universe is not made of only of matter of energy but of matter, energy and information while the information being above them and this research which shows this is connected with quantum entanglement and paradoxes on the quantum level. There has been a tremendeous progress in the last 80 years and that is the reason why I put that Nick Herbets quote who is one of the pioneers of these concepts.
And when he says that yet there is not a single theory about awareness despite that...

This is where I stop discussing with you because it is pointless. You either do not want to read ( and it is written so that it can be understood without any preknowledge ) or you are not informed. I am simply wasting my time.
Bye.

[Onur]

None of my parents was religious but they were hanafi muslim on paper. They never imposed any religious dogmas to me because they had nothing to do with any religion at all. I was always an agnostic even when i was a kid and before i heard the word "agnostic". As a result of that, i have never visited a mosque except touristic purposes, just as i visited churches or synagogues.

I am still an agnostic and my religion is my own mind, ideas.

[Sturmgewehr]

@ Solin:

God of the Gaps Fallacies one after another.

I am not even gonna bother, u should thank me for reading ur post.

I am out.

[SKYNET]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcMBjiILTRk :D


attention, attention!
Religion is a brainwashing

[lI]

Atheist believe there is no God. Agnostics are skeptics on one question of Gods existence. On other questions they are believers. What means they lack courage to believe against tradition or side to one of opposing sects.

That does not necessarily mean the lack of courage. Better try the lack of motivation. If I don't believe the definite knowledge on this matter is even possible why should I side with the opposing sects.

The definition of agnosticism does not require to be a believer regarding some other questions - that's just what you yourself infer.

[Corvus]

On paper I am Roman Catholic,
but I am not a strong believer

[Breedingvariety]

That does not necessarily mean the lack of courage. Better try the lack of motivation. If I don't believe the definite knowledge on this matter is even possible why should I side with the opposing sects.

The definition of agnosticism does not require to be a believer regarding some other questions - that's just what you yourself infer.
It is extremely rare agnostics, who are skeptics on the question of God, are skeptics on other questions.

Why do you not believe knowledge about Gods existence or non existence is possible? Why do you need definite knowledge on the question? And most importantly, why do you think you have knowledge of anything at all?

[Riki]

Roman Catholic on paper,as I was Baptised as a baby.
But I have no faith at all.I'm an Atheist.

[lI]

Why do you not believe knowledge about Gods existence or non existence is possible? Why do you need definite knowledge on the question? And most importantly, why do you think you have knowledge of anything at all?

1. Because none of the proofs I have been presented with to this date sounded convincing enough. I didn't come up with anything definite enough myself either.
I guess you could say that in a way I am relying on the authority somewhat - if as of yet nobody has managed to come up with something convincing, it makes me doubt that such knowledge is possible.

2. I do not need a definite knowledge on this question in order to get on with my life but being an uptight rational person that I am I would need such knowledge in order to form a belief whether god(s) exist or not.

3. I believe I have knowledge about things that can be explained and those explanations can then be tested through experiments, like gravity or photosynthesis, or whatever.
Saying that there's a god doesn't explain how the universe came into being, it just draws another unexplainable entity into the equation. But there is no way to disprove it too.
Biblical god could be disproved based on the numerous inconsistencies in the bible but there are many other concepts of god.

[Sturmgewehr]

1. Because none of the proofs I have been presented with to this date sounded convincing enough. I didn't come up with anything definite enough myself either.


I think u should define it better, the word ARGUMENT is the more appropriate one, till now there has never been set forth any evidence or proof for the existence of a deity, the only thing theists got are Semi-Sound philosophical arguments.

Saying proofs don't convince u means there is proof but u r deliberately rejecting it which is not the case of course, all they have are empty assertions, Theological and Ontological ARGUMENTS

There is a big difference between what they present which are typical flowed arguments and PROOF, these 2 words have 2 different definitions.

[lI]

A proof doesn't necessarily have to be valid. I used the word proof in reference to this for example:
The five proofs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae)

[Incel King]

Non-practicing Christian, so I voted agnostic.

[Sturmgewehr]

A proof doesn't necessarily have to be valid. I used the word proof in reference to this for example:
The five proofs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae)

So u used the word Proof in the context of the word Argument.

I am familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas ARGUMENTS.

The only people that consider them proof are Theists, no rational person would consider them proof in the sense of evidence that can be observed, tested and verified.

Also if u checked the link carefully right in the beginning of the site it says, I quote:


The Quinque viæ, Five Ways, or Five Proofs are Five arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th century Roman Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book, Summa Theologica. They are not necessarily meant to be self-sufficient “proofs” of God’s existence; as worded, they propose only to explain what it is “all men mean” when they speak of “God”. Many scholars point out that St. Thomas’s actual arguments regarding the existence and nature of God are to be found liberally scattered throughout his major treatises, and that the five ways are little more than an introductory sketch of how the word “God” can be defined without reference to special revelation (i.e., religious experience).

As I said, theists use a lose definition of the word proof in order to apply all their mental acrobatics.

None of those things are proofs, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is an Argument even though it has almost nothing to do with Cosmology and it was classified by Kant as an Ontological argument in disguise, but, whatever, it is not like it matters because everyone knows those are not proofs they are just semi-sound arguments based purely on empty assertions and logical fallacies and all of them have either been rejected or refuted even though professional sophists such as William Lane Craig refuse to accept it.

The word proof can be used in both context, it can be used to mean EVIDENCE which in the context of the link u provided is not the case and it is used to mean Argument which fits the context of the link u provided.

There are several definitions of the word PROOF and I will only underline what I mean by proof as in the sense of Evidence:

proof:

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.

5. Law The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.
6. The alcoholic strength of a liquor, expressed by a number that is twice the percentage by volume of alcohol present.

7. Printing
a. A trial sheet of printed material that is made to be checked and corrected. Also called proof sheet.
b. A trial impression of a plate, stone, or block taken at any of various stages in engraving.
8.
a. A trial photographic print.
b. Any of a limited number of newly minted coins or medals struck as specimens and for collectors from a new die on a polished planchet.
9. Archaic Proven impenetrability: "I was clothed in Armor of proof" (John Bunyan).

[Aiur]

Atheist, ofc.

[Breedingvariety]

1. Because none of the proofs I have been presented with to this date sounded convincing enough. I didn't come up with anything definite enough myself either.
If you have not heard a convincing argument for Gods existence, then why are you agnostic. You are atheist until arguments convince you otherwise.

I guess you could say that in a way I am relying on the authority somewhat - if as of yet nobody has managed to come up with something convincing, it makes me doubt that such knowledge is possible.
Why would you think knowledge is possible? I guess it depends on your definition of knowledge. But the definition would be an assertion.

3. I believe I have knowledge about things that can be explained and those explanations can then be tested through experiments, like gravity or photosynthesis, or whatever.
You see, you believe in science. You believe in experiments.

You are naive butterfly.

Saying that there's a god doesn't explain how the universe came into being, it just draws another unexplainable entity into the equation. But there is no way to disprove it too.
Can you disprove a proof? Then why do you believe in a proof?

I agree God doesn't explain anything. I'm an atheist.

But of course, universe has never come into being. It has always existed.

[Sturmgewehr]

@ Breedingvariety:

I think u can find the answer of the questions u asked in ur last post on this vids.

if we had to discuss it, it will surely be a LOOOONG discussion since there will be a lot of misunderstandings, games of words and so on.

I found this vids a while ago and I think the guy in the first vid makes some very valid arguments, WORTH WATCHING, believe me.

I also have a book on epistemology at home but anyways, check the vids.

g9x_oa--KAc

-h9XntsSEro

[Zorg]

Hey guys let's not argue, let's give this a listen:icon_cheesygrin:

R.E.M.-Losing My Religion
FQ2yXWi0ppw

[Pallantides]

Agnostic leaning towards Atheism, but I'm a member of the Norwegian State Church(Lutheran Protestant)

[Legion]

To me, atheism is simply: Lack of religion, a-theism. I have no reason to put blind faith into a religious doctrine. I will continue to be atheistic, regardless of what spiritual outlook I may develop. Even if I begin to think of the universe being guided by an omnipresent force, similar to the "god" concept, it would be independent from following organized religion.

[Illirico]

Atheist.
Religion is a disease, makes man extremist and ignorant. Life must be lived freely because it is one, the man should not live with constraints for the fault of the religious abstraction.


" Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. " Karl Max

http://cbcpforlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/palatino-no-3-religions2.jpg

[RagnarLodbrok666]

To me, atheism is simply: Lack of religion, a-theism. I have no reason to put blind faith into a religious doctrine. I will continue to be atheistic, regardless of what spiritual outlook I may develop. Even if I begin to think of the universe being guided by an omnipresent force, similar to the "god" concept, it would be independent from following organized religion.

I rather like and admire nontheism and atheism myself. While also viewing idealogies like communism and liberalism as secularist versions of christianity.

[Legion]

I rather like and admire nontheism and atheism myself. While also viewing idealogies like communism and liberalism as secularist versions of christianity.

In a way, yes. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on dogma. Political ideologies can also behave religiously, especially hyperliberals.

[Gooding]

My wife and I are both conservative Presbyterians after a lot of soul searching and conversations as of April of this year.:thumb001:

[Beethoven]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

percent of ppl believing in god

Estonia 16%
CZ 19%
Sweden 23%
Danish 31%
Norway 32%
France 34%
Nederlands 34%
Latvia 37%
Slovenia 37%
Iceland 38%
UK 38%

Only 2% ppl in Sweden visit church

Also only 2% of population in Japan is christians

[Incel King]

Christian/Orthodox Catholic in addition with some Pagan and occult beliefs. Besides I'm believe in destiny.

[Wonder]

Don't know if I should answer the poll because whilst I am a Christian in belief I am not yet Chrismated.

[Albion]

I was baptised Anglican but don't really follow a religion, deny or accept the existence of god or care to think about it much (it would be wasting my time).
Typically I trust myself to act in a moral way, I'm very self controlled and rational.
A decent religion on a societal level is very useful though as moral guidance to those of weak values and self control. Religion is very good at regulating societies in this sense.


As for Anglicanism - it is dying, it may as well make amends with the pope (Oxford Movement) or attempt a merger with another protestant branch.
Anglicanism isn't much more than an altered form of Catholicism. Replacing one figure head (the pope) with another (the queen) means that it has no moral high ground over Catholicism whatsoever.

[Transmontano]

I was a Christian but not anymore. I don't know what to believe right now. I still love the Bible for a lot of its wisdom. It was never pounded into me (my family is very nominally Catholic while secular, liberal and/or superstitious if anything) but my natural beliefs were validated by a lot of what it says and I just felt pulled toward it. I almost got in trouble when asking for a Bible once when I was about 13 and living in Portugal. The psycho others call my father once said "I'll fuck you (up) in front of your Jesus!" pointing to a crucifix on my wall and when I started crying he beat the ever living shit out of me like he did many times like a UFC fight or something while grunting, salivating and breathing hard like some bull. He'd send me flying all over the room. The more I cried the more he'd let me have it. I think something happened to my brain from all the blows or maybe the brain trauma happened psychologically. What my so called mother did to me psychologically is equal, if not a slight edge, over what he did. So, sometimes I wonder if all the bullshit made me gravitate to it more and if I did it purposely just to be contrary to them, but I don't really think so. Then somehow I just kept attracting narcissistic, degenerate liberal piece of shit, garbage, oppressive cunts and to a lesser degree stupid, asinine, backwards, oppressive religious people in my life. Law of attraction? I dunno. But if I were to go back to anything it would be Christianity but not mainstream, American, televangelist stuff. I probably wouldn't even call myself a Christian in order to not be lumped in with them. Most Christians are fake and a joke. Most don't know what they're talking about, make shit up that isn't even in the Bible and believe weird shit, are into ceremony and somehow aren't ashamed of the lack of even basic principles or understanding of things. I don't want the alternative either. I'd rather kill myself and that's all I'll say about the alternative. Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[mysticism]

Serb Orthodox, or more specifically Svetosavlje

[o__o]

Paganism

[Grenzland]

Roman Catholic! :)

[SKYNET]

the whole world is infected. there is no any ways, and no one is be able to eliminate this abrahamic cancer growth around the world although my grandparents are protestants and are quite a good persons

[Aredhel]

Atheist

[Óttar]

I don't like how I cannot choose two options: "Classical Pagan" (Religio Romana and Hellenismos) and Hindu (Shakta). I am ambivalent toward Folk Catholicism and have Atheist sympathies.

http://www.anticariat-esoteric.ro/images/shi/gods_of_love_and_ecstasy_the_traditions_of_shiva_a .jpg

[riverman]

Protestant or other. not close to most protestant denominations

[1stLightHorse]

Nothing specifically, but a religion for me is not something for disciplinary benefit. I am disciplined enough. It is not to make me a 'better person' or more conscious of my actions or to give me a sense of security. I need religion to ignite the fire of the spirit. To envision the change i want to see and to set the wheels in motion. Something passionate, unforgiving and uncompromising.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjTLcd6BkIY

[alb0zfinest]

I believe in the spaghetti monster

[1stLightHorse]

I was a Christian but not anymore. I don't know what to believe right now. I still love the Bible for a lot of its wisdom. It was never pounded into me (my family is very nominally Catholic while secular, liberal and/or superstitious if anything) but my natural beliefs were validated by a lot of what it says and I just felt pulled toward it. I almost got in trouble when asking for a Bible once when I was about 13 and living in Portugal. The psycho others call my father once said "I'll fuck you (up) in front of your Jesus!" pointing to a crucifix on my wall and when I started crying he beat the ever living shit out of me like he did many times like a UFC fight or something while grunting, salivating and breathing hard like some bull. He'd send me flying all over the room. The more I cried the more he'd let me have it. I think something happened to my brain from all the blows or maybe the brain trauma happened psychologically. What my so called mother did to me psychologically is equal, if not a slight edge, over what he did. So, sometimes I wonder if all the bullshit made me gravitate to it more and if I did it purposely just to be contrary to them, but I don't really think so. Then somehow I just kept attracting narcissistic, degenerate liberal piece of shit, garbage, oppressive cunts and to a lesser degree stupid, asinine, backwards, oppressive religious people in my life. Law of attraction? I dunno. But if I were to go back to anything it would be Christianity but not mainstream, American, televangelist stuff. I probably wouldn't even call myself a Christian in order to not be lumped in with them. Most Christians are fake and a joke. Most don't know what they're talking about, make shit up that isn't even in the Bible and believe weird shit, are into ceremony and somehow aren't ashamed of the lack of even basic principles or understanding of things. I don't want the alternative either. I'd rather kill myself and that's all I'll say about the alternative. Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Don't go to Christianity. I can understand the temptation after what you've said. It must seem like you gravitate toward the position that is contrary to your parents after what you've experienced. You have courage, friend. Jesus Christ isn't worthy of a follower like you. If you have feelings of resentment, as it sounds you do, use these feelings to rise up, break your old self down and rebuild a new man. A man that is pure in his heart, expresses how he feels (you're already doing this), and follows what he knows is right. A man that is in control, not one that is enslaved by his environment. My point is, you have all the tools in your own mind already, to be not whatever , but whoever you want to be.

[alfieb]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02523/pope-via-crucis_2523341b.jpg

[ChocolateFace]

Islam