The Clockwork Mansion

 Ok I know this is a controversial topic,but it is worth discussion.What are your views on it?
  Personally I used to be a Christian,but became an atheist/Satanist because I doubt in God's existence.
  Now before you judge me,go and read into Satanism to find out what it's about.It's actually an atheist philosophy.
Satan represents the unknown factor of nature that permeates the cosmos.They actually have a Satanic Bible in print if you didn't know. A websearch might reveal more.
  I think religion is man made.
  The reasons I doubt in God's existence is look at all the cataclysms the human species has endured since the beginning of time.Evolution was kind to allow us to get this far.Based on the signs of the times,Mankind is danger of wiping itself out as we all know.Sadly,religionists wait for heaven and don't think of solving our problems in the world today,some of which they contribute to unconciously.
   What about all the killing in the name of God?God forbids it,but wills it when it so pleases him in the Bible and Koran.Heaven is built on a pile of bodies too high for anyone to get through.
   I commend religionists for their often times charitable views,but don't believe I'm going anywhere when I die.
Death is the end of it for me.
  Instead of mimicking Jesus in a righteous race,why not be hospitable just for the sake of preserving our species, which is critically ill?
    The dinosaurs were wiped out,what makes people think that someone will save them from life on Earth becoming a literal Hell?

I was wondering when there was going to be a proper thread on religion.

Anyway, as I said on another thread, my own views are panistic--which doesn't mean I worship the Greek god Pan, although I might give that as a "jokey" answer if people didn't know (might throw in something about Peter Pan as well in that case).  Basically, and this comes from my own observations and from a heavily scientific background (though also some philosophy/religion/other humanities thrown in there as well), what I believe is that everything that is possible is real.

I believe that we're all made of the same stuff ultimately, and while we can be broken down into constituent parts (strings or branes or whatever subatomic particles), these are fundamentally the same, and primarily exist in terms of how they impact and are impacted by others.  Therefore, while they remain separate themselves, they're like grains of clay which can be taken apart, put together, molded and shaped into any number of forms.  Thus I believe that any differences between, say, you and me are illusory and ultimately meaningless.  We're all part of a single UBER-self, which I like to call the Pan (means "all").

I also believe that all these entities are eternal, as science tells us that nothing is created or destroyed, it only changes form--and also conscious, as I have no way of explaining our consciousness unless everything is.  Thus "the Pan" is a conscious entity that we all make up, which is the closest thing to "God" that I believe, although I don't like to use the word "God."

Also, since quantum mechanics tells us that multiple realities exist and can interact with each other, I believe that every choice we make is not really a choice at all from the point of view of the Pan--it's simply a "splitting" of consciousness into two or more paths being traced into the Pan's face.  And since these can interact with each other, my only explanation for such effects on a macroscopic scale would be paranormal phenomena, which I'm not convinced is mere hokum.

I'm not one of those wackos who's quick to believe in psychic abilities and clairvoyance and such (nor do I pay any "professional" mind-readers for their supposed craft), but neither do I dismiss it outright.  Things happen that can't be explained by science, and I accept that.  Perhaps it is indeed a conscious "Pan" interacting with itself and allowing us, the pieces that make It up, to become aware of more than what is our right, which is our surroundings in the present and our pasts.

As for a "why," I can't explain that, but why does any conscious being do what it does?  Maybe having a better idea of the nature of things makes us more likely to act in harmony with it?  I've never had a paranormal/spiritual encounter myself, so I can't speculate on that for now.  Anyway, I believe that the Pan can't change fundamentally because it's effectively the sum total of all possible information in every location, past, present, and future.

Anyway, that's more or less what I believe just at present, the sum total of decades of learning information and trying to make some sense out of it all, and I call it "panism."

Quote from: AzrailX on March 25, 2009, 01:46:11 AM
  Personally I used to be a Christian,but became an atheist/Satanist because I doubt in God's existence.
 

How can you be an atheist if you follow Satanism? An atheist should not believe in godly entities at all, including Satan. And don't hide it behind a philosophy, you can have a view even without associating yourself with a cult. The moment you say you follow a believe carrying the name of an entity- you are not an atheist. I'm not a religious fanatic, but I do follow christian holydays and go to church from time to time. My idea of god is, in my opinion, quite progressive. I believe that where humanity is considered- god is goodness, an idea of higher morale amongst people. For the universe, god is the laws that make reality tick- laws of physics and the universe. I never imagine a mild bearded man or some glowing entity in the sky. But I believe in the idea that god is a necessity as far as the need for man to believe in something higher than him and his petty life. All pseudo religions that search for a way to justify acts otherwise forbidden by official religion are just that- pitiful excuses. Sorry if that sounded harsh, but I'm a big hater of sects.

Agnosticism for me.  Keeps people out of my hair about religion.

I'm a baptized Presbyterian, but I'm basically atheist by this point. My reasons for this are somewhat hard to explain, and at the end of the day they're probably as convoluted as a religious person's reasons for believing in their chosen deity. However, I also feel that there's nothing wrong with believing in a god or following a religion, and respect the beliefs of others... provided they in turn respect my choices and what I believe in, as well as the beliefs of others, and let us believe in what we want to. And I'm actually kinda tired, and don't think I can go much deeper into this at this time. Maybe tomorrow.

Quote from: VSMIT on March 25, 2009, 03:02:54 AM
Agnosticism for me.  Keeps people out of my hair about religion.

I agree. I find agnosticism a fairly good middle ground which most people don't disagree with.

I also think the person who publicized the concept of a heaven for those who believe in their religion a genius. It has, probably single-handedly changed western history much more than any other concept.

On Satanism: Depends on who you ask - LaVey's Satanic Bible does state that Satanism is the worship of self (Best represented by the section on Satanist holidays, where LaVey stated your birthday, on the grounds that no other day could be more important to you as a person than the date of creation), and embraces Satan as an image against the selfless promotion the Christian church glorifies. However, there are sects which do worship Satan as they would revere any god.

Quote from: Darkdragon on March 25, 2009, 03:21:31 AM

Quote from: VSMIT on March 25, 2009, 03:02:54 AM
Agnosticism for me.  Keeps people out of my hair about religion.

I agree. I find agnosticism a fairly good middle ground which most people don't disagree with.

I also think the person who publicized the concept of a heaven for those who believe in their religion a genius. It has, probably single-handedly changed western history much more than any other concept.

Technically "heaven" is just the sky.  I think what you mean is the idea of an eternal paradise in the afterlife for virtuous deeds, which isn't always called "heaven" and isn't always in the sky.

Quote from: Baal Hadad on March 25, 2009, 03:23:53 AM
Technically "heaven" is just the sky.  I think what you mean is the idea of an eternal paradise in the afterlife for virtuous deeds, which isn't always called "heaven" and isn't always in the sky.

Yes, that's true. I also apologize for not also looking at the less mainstream religions as their versions of paradise in afterlife. I think this is time I need to go to sleep so I don't make any more embarrassing lexical blunders. >.>

Born and raised as a Roman Catholic, complete with going to church and 'sunday' school as a child. Confessions, holy communion, confirmation... then when I reached around high school I just kind of stopped believing (this may tie in with the fact we also stopped attending church). I tend not to get into religious debates because it gets chaotic far, far too easily (especially online). I suppose I'm a technical agnostic (the definitions seem to change every few weeks amongst arguing types, so I don't know.) in that unless I see it for myself I'm not going to believe it, but I'm not particularly against the idea of the supernatural.

But again, I tend to hinge on the science side of "show me some nice solid evidence and I'll be happy". At least when the hardcore fundies get involved. I actually tend not to think about it much at all unless it... well... comes up. I do have to say the only thing I really missed about church is the fact that during that transitional stage between child and adult, most of the clergy here would refer to the youths as "young masters". Master always had a nice ring to it, always considered it cooler than "Mister", heh.

Master Janus~

I'm in for Apathetic Agnosticism. I don't think there's enough evidence either for, or against, a god-like entity, and I have better things to do with my time than argue with meat-headed morons who are determined to force it down my throat. Not that I'm suggesting anyone here is doing so, mind; you lot are more polite than that. ;-]

/me puts on mod hat*

Quote from: Baal Hadad on March 25, 2009, 02:20:41 AM
I was wondering when there was going to be a proper thread on religion.

The mods tend to watch closely, as religion tends to be one of those "hot button" ideas where it can get out of hand quickly.

As long as everyone is polite and rational, we'll let it go on, but we are watching, and will step in and end it, should it take a turn for the worse./me doffs mod hat*

As you were...

I'll try not to anger the GodsMods too much while I spew my bile about religion.

I was raised as a fundamentalist christian (young earth creationist, waiting for jesus to return, etc). At some point I started taking a closer look at my faith, and found it faulty.
That was when I decided not to believe something just because someone said so, or because any holy book said so, but based on evidence and reason.
Since then I found ever more cracks in religion. It tends to make claims to know things it can't know, claims to grant abilities that defy the laws of physics to the 'true believer', and never, ever promotes questioning of anything.
The leaders of the various faiths also don't exactly inspire me to join any religion.

I'm currently an atheist, as most of you probably know by now.
Largely due to my upbringing in a very strickt religious environment, I now have a bitter hatred for religion. I find it authoritarian, opressive, and full of lies. It promotes ignorance, and condemns asking questions. In most religions even having doubts is punishable by eternal suffering in whatever hell it proposes. It almost invariably proclaims to have to complete, total and absolute truth, and continues to do so even after it can be shown to be wrong about damn near everything. I could go on, but then this post would turn into a rant.

Quote from: Kipiru on March 25, 2009, 02:43:36 AM
How can you be an atheist if you follow Satanism?

Satanism isn't following the "devil" of Christianity.  That's Devil Worship.  Satanism is essentially a, pardon the slightly disparaging sounding description, a self-centered belief set.  Essentially they believe that there is no greater entity than themselves.  This is a very similar view that is ascribed to the biblical character Satan.  As such, it's impossible for them to believe in any divine or higher power.

There's more to it than that, by far, but that's the gist of it.

Quote from: Vidar on March 25, 2009, 05:36:45 AM
I'll try not to anger the GodsMods too much while I spew my bile about religion.

You'll not anger us unless you start aiming the bile ;-]

Having said that, I note that you're generalising wildly; "all religion is like" rather than "every religion I've met". I find it's important to separate the difference between "my experience" and "this is what things are like". My experience leads me to agree with you, generally speaking, but I've run across some variations that suggest to me that it's more likely the people you're talking to, rather than the religion as a whole.

In other words, it's not religion, but how it's applied, that you're objecting to. Try talking to some Jesuits, just as an example; they seriously push for learning, and questioning things, and some of the more interesting scientific achievements have been done either by Jesuits, or by Jesuit-trained scholars. That factoid there doesn't gel with the "all religions stifle curiosity" stance you appear to be espousing above. I may be misunderstanding your explanation, of course, in which case I await, with interest, your response and clarification.

The better teachers of faiths don't tell you "this is what is; don't question it", in my experience; they tend to go for "this is how we see it, and this is what leads us to that conclusion; if you disagree, what information leads you to that? How can we correct our understanding? And can we help clarify your own?"

... This might just be I end up talking to some aberrant people, of course. *grin*

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 25, 2009, 06:36:55 AM

Quote from: Vidar on March 25, 2009, 05:36:45 AM
I'll try not to anger the GodsMods too much while I spew my bile about religion.

You'll not anger us unless you start aiming the bile ;-]

Having said that, I note that you're generalising wildly; "all religion is like" rather than "every religion I've met". I find it's important to separate the difference between "my experience" and "this is what things are like". My experience leads me to agree with you, generally speaking, but I've run across some variations that suggest to me that it's more likely the people you're talking to, rather than the religion as a whole.

It was a generalisation for the sake of brevity. Not all instances of religion are equally abominable, but I do believe they all have at their heart a set of lies that enslave peoples minds to their dogma.
It's not just the people I talk to, like a certain church lady that is trying to convert me to her own security-blanket version of religion, but also with religion itself.
All religions (whithout exception) postulate something supernatural (if it doesn't, then it isn't religion). The supernatural, by definition, can't be observed, or measured in any way, directly, or indirectly, and is therefore unknowable. The religions then state things about the supernatural (be it god, heaven, a 'spirit plane', etc) as if these are fact, and not the mere baseless speculation it really is. Even the most benign (IMHO) religion that I know of ,buddhism, does this by invoking things like reincarnation and whatever realm the Buddha went to after he died.
None of these claims are based on evidence, because there can be no evidence for the supernatural since it is unknowable. That means that these claims are imagined, made up. They are lies.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 25, 2009, 06:36:55 AM
In other words, it's not religion, but how it's applied, that you're objecting to. Try talking to some Jesuits, just as an example; they seriously push for learning, and questioning things, and some of the more interesting scientific achievements have been done either by Jesuits, or by Jesuit-trained scholars. That factoid there doesn't gel with the "all religions stifle curiosity" stance you appear to be espousing above. I may be misunderstanding your explanation, of course, in which case I await, with interest, your response and clarification.

I don't know all that much about the jesuits, but even if they do promote learning and questioning things, do they include their own religion in that stance?
Even if they do, that means that they are a small minority, and that doesn't make religion all that more benign.
Critical thought is highly corrosive to religion, since for every supernatural claim religion makes the listner only has to ask 'how do they know that'. The answer points almost invariable to blind faith or a holy book or a combination thereof, and not to demonstrable facts.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 25, 2009, 06:36:55 AM
The better teachers of faiths don't tell you "this is what is; don't question it", in my experience; they tend to go for "this is how we see it, and this is what leads us to that conclusion; if you disagree, what information leads you to that? How can we correct our understanding? And can we help clarify your own?"

... This might just be I end up talking to some aberrant people, of course. *grin*

Most religious people I meet are more interested in converting me to their particular version of whatever faith they have, or they only ask questions that 'strengthen their faith' while cheerfully ignoring everything that goes against it. The church-lady I mentioned earlier is one example: whenever I make a point that she can't reason around she'll be quiet for a moment, and then ignores it completely with some appeal to emotion or an appeal to the imagined authority of the bible.
The only teachers of religion I've met have been preachers, and they all state their position as fact from the pulpit at people who are convinced that the preacher is always right. If you ask pointed questions to them then they'll instruct you to pray to god to help you understand the bible better or something along those lines.

I've never seen anyone either give a good answer to questions like "How do you know that all these claims of the supernatural are true?", nor have I ever seen any religious person revise his faith.
Most religious people can't question their faith because they have made it part of their own identity. Making changes to their faith is as difficult as re-arranging the bones in your own hand. Letting go of religion is even harder: it would be the spiritual equivalent of tearing off one of your limbs. This rigid position makes if often extremely frustrating to talk to devoutly religious people.

Poeple who are willing to closely examine their religious beliefs and correct them where they are wrong would, IMHO, quickly become agnostics or atheists since the supernatural claims of religion are untenable.

Vidar, just out of curiosity, how many religions have you researched?  I ask this because I've studied quite a few trying to find one that I identified with and I noted that quite a few of them (though certainly not the majority by any stretch) have little or nothing to do with anything supernatural, but rather place an emphasis on self fulfillment and realization.  I'm not trying to pick at you, I am honestly curious.

Quote from: Mao Laoren on March 25, 2009, 09:01:28 AM
Vidar, just out of curiosity, how many religions have you researched?  I ask this because I've studied quite a few trying to find one that I identified with and I noted that quite a few of them (though certainly not the majority by any stretch) have little or nothing to do with anything supernatural, but rather place an emphasis on self fulfillment and realization.  I'm not trying to pick at you, I am honestly curious.

Mainly christianity, because that's the dominant one in the western world. I have some superficial knowledge about islam, judaism and buddhism, and very little about hinduism. All of these have the supernatural at their base through their god(s)/heaven(s)/hell/unicorns/etc.
What religion, according to you, has nothing to do with the supernatural?

I'm Unitarian Universalist. Granted, I tend to adopt a bit from a lot of religions as is common among Univeralists. The key is diversity. A little of column A, a little from column B. I find that my beliefs are rooted in the idea of an all-loving, all-forgiving God.

So basically, I'm a hippie. :B

However, I was baptized as a child. My mom is a Universalist as well, and I ended up following her in that respect because I believe this is a religion I really feel is right for me.

Here (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Unitarian-Universalists-Believe.aspx) and here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/u-u.htm) are some links to useful information about Unitarian Universalism.

When learning about my own path, I found that while the older Druids held a lot with the supernatural, that aspect has been dropped for more pragmatic views.  Another one that I feel doesn't have to be supernatural is Buddhism as to follow it one does not have to embrace anything supernatural (though there are many sects who do).

To counter that though, there are those who question whether or not both Buddhism and Modern Druidism are even religions.  Many would describe them as either life philosophies or dismiss them as spiritualism (which to me says Religion, but it seems that this might not be the case).

In many cases, it's the view of the practitioner that will decide whether or not the the supernatural sections are to be taken literally, or as nothing more than mythology.

Edit:  Felt I should add that this is where the real problem with the argument is going to show.  Religion is ill defined.  Religion seems to mean a lot of things to a lot of people, and most of them don't agree.  I think this is the very same thing that came up last time this discussion reared it's ugly head.

Quote from: Mao Laoren on March 25, 2009, 09:33:44 AM
When learning about my own path, I found that while the older Druids held a lot with the supernatural, that aspect has been dropped for more pragmatic views.  Another one that I feel doesn't have to be supernatural is Buddhism as to follow it one does not have to embrace anything supernatural (though there are many sects who do).

To counter that though, there are those who question whether or not both Buddhism and Modern Druidism are even religions.  Many would describe them as either life philosophies or dismiss them as spiritualism (which to me says Religion, but it seems that this might not be the case).

In many cases, it's the view of the practitioner that will decide whether or not the the supernatural sections are to be taken literally, or as nothing more than mythology.

Edit:  Felt I should add that this is where the real problem with the argument is going to show.  Religion is ill defined.  Religion seems to mean a lot of things to a lot of people, and most of them don't agree.  I think this is the very same thing that came up last time this discussion reared it's ugly head.

But, if you take the supernatural as mere mythology, are you then not actually an atheist?

Not necessarily.  Atheism, as I understand it, actively rejects them.  Calls bullshit on them if you will.  I guess to my view you just call it mythology and form no further opinion on the matter.  Maybe mythology isn't the right word for me to use, but I've never been all that eloquent.

The best I can do, I guess, is describe it from my own view:  I don't know if there's gods or not, or if there is anything supernatural about.  I won't assume there is, I won't assume there isn't.  I don't have the knowledge to back up either claim.  Instead, I will refuse to form any opinion until I have enough information to, in my opinion, substantiate one or the other.  Until then it's just a question I'll keep with me.

I apologize now if this approach doesn't mesh well with the logical method in which you approach things or if it doesn't answer your question, but as I said:  I've never been all that eloquent.

Quote from: Mao Laoren on March 25, 2009, 09:59:19 AM
Not necessarily.  Atheism, as I understand it, actively rejects them.  Calls bullshit on them if you will. 

I don't think it's 100% accurate to say this either. I certainly don't try to actively discredit religion, because I think that's just an assholish thing to do, but I don't buy into the "I won't assume there are, or aren't" view. I think there's a burden of proof for the supernatural to exist, and if it hasn't been proven, there's no reason to say that it might.

Which is part of the problem, I think, bill.  A lot of this stuff doesn't have a proper definition to it.  No one seems to be even on the same page about the terminology, and even if we agreed to a set here and now every one would likely be still colored by their own previous views on the terms.

To me, it's great to discuss this stuff, but it always seems so pointless as the exact same things happen every time.  This thread is even taking the exact same path as the last one that was like it.

Quote from: Mao Laoren on March 25, 2009, 10:11:40 AM
Which is part of the problem, I think, bill.  A lot of this stuff doesn't have a proper definition to it.  No one seems to be even on the same page about the terminology, and even if we agreed to a set here and now every one would likely be still colored by their own previous views on the terms.

To me, it's great to discuss this stuff, but it always seems so pointless as the exact same things happen every time.  This thread is even taking the exact same path as the last one that was like it.

That is a problem when discussing religion: every sect seems to have it's own definition of the various entities involved, if they have definitions at all.
For instance, my former sect of christianity held the belief that we are all trinities, like god, since we were made in god's image. A human supposedly has a body, soul and spirit, but no definition of either a soul or a spirit exists anywhere in the bible or in any other document that I've seen. I've asked what the difference is between a soul and a spirit, but all I got were non-answers like "we are not supposed to know", or "that's not really important", or "ask god in your prayers and maybe he'll give you the answer".

It goes even further than that, Vidar, in that there isn't a really stable definition of even what religion is.  Religion, as in the concept of religion not any particular one, means a lot of different things and everyone clings to their own view of it.  So it's no surprise that things that are called religions mean a lot of different things to people.

In the end, we've all got our own lives to live and experiences to color them.  We can say we're of one faith or another, try to put a label on it and what not, but no matter what you do it's all going to be completely different from person to person.  So rather than bother to point out the inadequacies or strengths of what one does or doesn't believe, why don't we all just walk our own paths?

I would like to point out that the majority of 'Christian' religions focus very little on what Christ actually taught.  Jesus said, "Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you".  In other words, if you want to learn, go ahead and keep looking for the answers.  Plus, the eternal hell concept was mainly a Greek-originating concept which Jesus used allegorically in parables, but when speaking factually about the punishment, the Greek/Hebrew terms translated as 'forever and ever' in Old English would be better translated as 'to the utmost end', indicating an absolute finality.  

Much Christian religion today is all about fear-mongering.  Same with Islam.  It's fundamentalist movements contrast vastly from its origins.

I follow the Commandments for the simple fact that they make more sense than the core laws of any other religion I've analyzed.  Let's take just the last 6 commandments, those that deal how we are to live with our fellow human beings.  If all people followed those laws, how much strife would be left in the world?  No murder, no theft, no adultery, no lies, no jealousy, and children behaving in an honorable way and obeying their parents; other than natural disasters, there would be no problems.

Now as far as people wondering why the world is so bad if God is so loving, you must really study to understand that.  It all came down to choice and why Lucifer became Satan.  The war in heaven was a battle of universal ideology: law and order vs anarchy and chaos.  This was not an easy battle.  Don't forget that Satan drew 1/3 of the host of heaven with him, a large percentage of beings which were (as far as we are told) eternal and vastly intelligent, which means his arguments must have been incredibly compelling and cleverly crafted!  This world, and perhaps others.   I highly doubt the 1/3 of all the host of heaven referred only to angelic entities.  Perhaps a full third of the universe followed Satan.  But that's only conjecture.  In any case, the result was that Satan was cast down and imprisoned here, according to the Bible.  The Garden of Eden, whether a real fact or only symbolism, demonstrated the beginning of a proof of concept case:  what would become of a world which chose Satan's way.  With 1/3 of the universe already following Satan and perhaps a good portion of the rest wondering, there had to be a test to put doubt to rest forever.  The test would be horrible, obviously, but with a universe at stake, it seems to have become the old adage "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".  And even then, God gave us a way out, by making a portion of his own being mortal to satisfy the letter of His law that death is the punishment for sin.  Basically, God, being omniscient, fit that little loophole into the framework for the disaster that was coming.

And that brings up another point I've heard made, that if God knew all of this was going to happen, why did He allow free will in the first place?  Well, simply "God is love".  He wished his creations to have minds of their own, for a robot cannot be happy, nor can it have any other emotions.  Without a will, a living thing is little more than a machine that only can move according to its programming.  A true Creator filled with love for the things He made could never simply create a universe filled with automatons.  It's a complex and difficult thing to understand.  Being a parent is the closest thing to it, which is why Jesus referred to us so often as God's children:  parents make rules for their children, they wish those rules to be obeyed, those who love their children make rules to keep their children safe and know that if followed, the rules will likely lead to the child becoming a responsible and good person.  Yet (most) know that their child must also make their own choices for some things, more and more as they mature.  They don't want their children to be nothing but obedient robots (and I would strongly argue that those who do don't even know what it means to love at all, and in a further extension of this concept, I would venture to say that most of the world today has never experienced actual love; being filled instead with lust, domination, and desire, which are purely selfish and lead to nothing but trouble) bound solely to the parents' will.

A parent knows that giving the child some freedom may lead the child to make painful mistakes, yet it is done out of love for the child.  It is the great contradiction of true love and freedom, that the one who receives these things is then able to harm themselves.  Our own basic constitutional laws hold a form of this, in that we grant freedoms of speech and religion and protect those freedoms even for those who spew nothing but hatred, for we feel that the freedom is an intrinsic right of intelligent life.  It is certain that the at least some of the founding fathers of the United States understood this, or else why would they write that God had endowed humanity with the basic rights to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  These things are true freedoms, given by true love, empathy and compassion.

I would also argue that mankind has proven that it strips away freedom when left to itself, for how many purely secular and anti-religious governments have ever led to freedom for the people under their rule?  Rather, such nations tend to quickly gravitate as much to brutality and oppression as the worst religious fundamentalism of the Dark Ages.

Atheism, as I see it, is no answer but instead the lack of an answer.  And the belief that the only thing important to a person is their own person is the very thing that leads to the demise of society.  A society functions best when all people care about each other.  Self-centeredness leads to apathy which leads to collapse.  It is also an extension of humanity's self-arrogance, the very arrogance that led man to believe he was the center of the entire universe for so many millennia.

If one decides to follow the Satanism philosophy of self-importance, yet also feels nations should show compassion, then they do not even believe in that Satanism!  The fullest extension of that belief removes the possibility for compassion and empathy, for those states require that one put one's own self-importance aside to help someone else.  The concepts are mutually exclusive by their very nature.  Any attempt to merge them is hypocritical.

And that's all from me for now because I'm out of time.   :3

I consider religion to be anything that a person believes that is true, and also bases their life and actions, as a larger whole, upon.

This is not to say that a person who believes that a sandwich with mayo has turned bad in the sun and does not eat it is acting our of religious impulse - although he may not -know- the sandwich with mayo is bad, and thus believes this to be so, he does not base his life's actions on the whole around the bad sandwich.
Were he to, however, cease eating sandwiches altogether, or indeed, to cease eating mayonnaise altogether, attempt to get other people to cease eating mayonnaise, attempt to get mayonnaise outlawed, espouse the evils of such condiment to whomever he could, and dedicate his life to the elimination of this sandwich greaser, to me, it would sound a little, perhaps, religious.

my own beliefs are simplistic enough, Born and raised roman catholic (complete with Eucharist medallion and whatnot) became rather disenchanted with the whole thing mid-way through high school, lost faith in the religious edifice entirely, as my grandfather put it, i still believe in "the bloke upstairs" but i also firmly believe that God, or any other higher power, isn't gonna do what man can do for himself. I am not a faithless man, i prefer to have more faith in myself, and relying on what i can do, instead of praying for 'divine intervention'.

I believe in the sanctity of all life, as well as that other religions shouldn't infringe or stamp out the beliefs of others. That one should not believe in a deity or others blindly, and without question, since that is idiocy.

Catholic Fear-mongering has been going for centuries, so old habits die hard.

Simple truth is, Fundamentalists twist the religion to their own ends, where it really does become the opiate of those people, and they follow that blindly, to the point where self preservation goes out the window.

i can hear people saying now "how can you not believe in the religious edifice if you believe in a higher power?" simply put? I believe that people are flawed beings, it's those flaws that make them interesting, but that also makes me not wish to have faith in flawed things. I'm not perfect either, but that's what makes things interesting.  :3

Wow, just while reading through this topic 3 new posts were made.

Some people believe any religion is great, some believe none are, some believe only one religion is is the way, and I've even met some who believe that everyone will go to heaven as long as they don't belong to the religion that I do. It really doesn't matter how much physical evidence someone has, there really is no way to give physical evidence for any miracle in any bible. I find things like ancient structures that have been written about in the Bible quite interesting, but they don't prove that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day Saints aka Mormons and I do believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, but I know nothing I type will convince anyone of that. But still, even if you don't believe him to be godlike he can still probably be considered the greatest example for living a decent life for yourself and those around you, at least as far as the New Testament is concerned.

I'm fine with most anyone's beliefs. Fine as long as those beliefs aren't pressed upon anyone who really doesn't want it. I've traveled with various associates of the same religion as myself who do press things too strongly, and I know that doing such really isn't good for anyone. The only beliefs in particular I don't like come from people who claim to be of a religion but are extremists and fundamentalists who proclaim things very different and out of context to the religion they claim to be. People who say they are saved therefore they don't feel they should ever do anything decent again in their life are usually extremists. I was traveling with an associate when we came upon two people of that belief (they didn't know each other, they just lived in  the same city). My associate asked each of them that, according to what they believe with regards to being "saved" if it was then ok to go murder someone and they both said murder is just fine once you've been "saved."

Oh yeah, I also completely agree with the opinions stated in the three posts previous to this one.   :januscat

Practicing Catholic, a Carmelite to be specific. We tend to be one of the quieter orders. I don't believe that the Catholic Church is completely right on everything, but on many things I do agree. I'm generally rather open minded, I'm not big on converting other people to my religion. In my opinion, the world will never be united under a common flag, the entire world will never be one religion, as so many sects seem to want. Really, belief is a deeply personal thing, and interfering in that is just wrong. I have no problems with any religion, so long as they don't attempt to convert me.

Quote from: Lysander on March 25, 2009, 11:50:27 AM
I am a member of the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day Saints aka Mormons and I do believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, but I know nothing I type will convince anyone of that. But still, even if you don't believe him to be godlike he can still probably be considered the greatest example for living a decent life for yourself and those around you, at least as far as the New Testament is concerned.

i have a friend in the US who's in the LDS, truth be told, they're all an upstanding, unobtrusive bunch by any measure, they're fairly accepting of the beliefs of others.

Born Jewish, not tremendously observant, but reasonably studied. Follow Rambam's school of theology, if that means anything to anyone. I now a little bit about other relgions, but I tend not to step into things if it doesn't directly brush on Judaism. To be honest, I'm not particularly curious about too many others. (Even then, it tends to be along intersections of Judaism).


Vidar, I don't mean to offend with this question, but if you're so anti-religious, why did you take a Norse God as a moniker?

Quote from: Alondro on March 25, 2009, 10:51:52 AM
Now as far as people wondering why the world is so bad if God is so loving, you must really study to understand that.  It all came down to choice and why Lucifer became Satan.  The war in heaven was a battle of universal ideology: law and order vs anarchy and chaos.  This was not an easy battle.  Don't forget that Satan drew 1/3 of the host of heaven with him, a large percentage of beings which were (as far as we are told) eternal and vastly intelligent, which means his arguments must have been incredibly compelling and cleverly crafted!  This world, and perhaps others.   I highly doubt the 1/3 of all the host of heaven referred only to angelic entities.  Perhaps a full third of the universe followed Satan.  But that's only conjecture.  In any case, the result was that Satan was cast down and imprisoned here, according to the Bible.  The Garden of Eden, whether a real fact or only symbolism, demonstrated the beginning of a proof of concept case:  what would become of a world which chose Satan's way.  With 1/3 of the universe already following Satan and perhaps a good portion of the rest wondering, there had to be a test to put doubt to rest forever.  The test would be horrible, obviously, but with a universe at stake, it seems to have become the old adage "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".  And even then, God gave us a way out, by making a portion of his own being mortal to satisfy the letter of His law that death is the punishment for sin.  Basically, God, being omniscient, fit that little loophole into the framework for the disaster that was coming.

Anyone read about my comment about religions postulating stuff about the supernatural earlier in this thread? This is one example of what I was talking about.
I don't think you are lying (in the sense of willingly distorting the truth), but rather that you are sincere in your beliefs.
I also think that your beliefs are completely unfounded, and that any of these very specific claims about the supernatural (God, Satan, angels, heaven, a war in heaven between the armies of god and the forces of Satan)  need a hell of a lot of evidence before I would even consider them possible. Just for clarity, the interpretations of the bible that you follow do not count as evidence.
I also like how you first label the notion that 1/3 of the universe follows Satan as mere conjecture, and later on you talk about it as though it is almost fact, and even base further notions on this conjecture.

I have to ask, how do you know this? Not just believe, but actually know.

Quote from: Alondro on March 25, 2009, 10:51:52 AM
Atheism, as I see it, is no answer but instead the lack of an answer.  

Atheism is the lack of a belief in god, and as such does not provide ready-made answers to anything. We are left to find the answers by ourselves. Right now, science in by far the best method for finding answers about anything, and I find the answers that science provide far more interesting than anything any religion ever came up with.

Quote from: Alondro on March 25, 2009, 10:51:52 AM
And the belief that the only thing important to a person is their own person is the very thing that leads to the demise of society.  A society functions best when all people care about each other.  Self-centeredness leads to apathy which leads to collapse.  It is also an extension of humanity's self-arrogance, the very arrogance that led man to believe he was the center of the entire universe for so many millennia.

That's not atheism, it's a strawman version atheism. I don't know where you got the notion that atheists only care about themselves. Atheists are all different, and there are probably some that only care about themselves and no-one else, but this does not reflect in the vast majority of atheists.
The notion that atheism would lead to the collapse of society is also falsified by Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and Japan, just to name a few largely atheistic nations.
Also, I do believe it was the christian church that stated that earth was at the center of the universe, and that Man was the highest creature upon that earth. It wasn't atheism that led man into thinking that they were the greatest of all creations, it was christianity.

Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on March 25, 2009, 01:38:23 PM
Vidar, I don't mean to offend with this question, but if you're so anti-religious, why did you take a Norse God as a moniker?

No offense taken. It's largely because Norse mythology is awesome, in a completely stupid and primitive way.

Catholic. Irish Catholic, no less. Grr, transubstantiation.

Vidar's comment about Norse mythology makes me want to re-read American Gods.

That is all.

*woosh*

Quote from: Vidar on March 25, 2009, 02:33:23 PM
No offense taken. It's largely because Norse mythology is awesome, in a completely stupid and primitive way.

Quite.  It's possible to be interested in a religion without actually believing in it at all.

vidar, just for the record i have reevaluated and even changed my view of my religion(christianity) MANY times throughout the years and i have no reason to belive i am done now.  thats all i have for you for now, ill come back when ive had more time to think about the wording of my stace on everything. also a preemptive "no offence" when i do.



alondro i have to say nicely put, way to make me think there buddah

Quote from: Lysander on March 25, 2009, 11:50:27 AM

I am a member of the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day Saints aka Mormons...

OH NOES!!! UR TEH ALIENS FROM TEH SIMPSONS!   D:

*One of the Treehouse of Terror episodes... aliens came to Simpsons house to retrieve Maggie, Homer opens door, "Heeelo.. eh.. oh great.  Mormons."

:giggle

I doubt I can produce such glorious walls of text as the previous posters have, but nevertheless...
I was raised a Methodist, though over time came to not so much lose the faith, as come to my own interpretation of it. To avoid writing a novel, the thought process was something like this:
1. Doing good things to people is good.
2. If a god or gods exist, and they are good, they want you to do good things to people.
3. Showing praise, or following odd rituals towards a god is nice, but is not doing good to people.
4. Therefore, it is best to live a good life, regardless of your thoughts of the divine.
For reasons unknown, a large amount of religious folk I have met seem to get so caught up in their searching for meaning in the divine, that they forget that even if there is a divine, he/she/they would want you doing good things, and obsessive worship/navel gazing isn't really doing good things. And so, I don't really concern myself with trying to understand divinity or settle for a belief in any one religion, because that doesn't really seem to be productive in the slightest.

this particular thread keeps coming up in the forums I visit...

Anyway, nonpracticing catholic agnostic atheist.

I don't care for organized religion, I don't think anyone who says they know anything about any god has any good basis for such a statement.

What I do believe in is humanity as a whole, and that I, and that of those who have come before me, observe what is real.  Everything else is based on those two assumptions.

What I think about god... god probably doesn't exist, there's no evidence that there is a god, and lots of evidence of an archaeological nature turning up that suggests that most major religions are an invention of man.  So I don't think there is a god, but I leave the possibility open because there is no god shaped hole that I could point to and with certainty say 'If there were a god, god would be here'

Quote from: Reese Tora on March 26, 2009, 04:17:33 AM
Anyway, nonpracticing catholic agnostic atheist.

Out of curiosity, Reese Tora, why do you keep Catholic on that list? It seems to contradict the others.

Quote from: Vidar on March 25, 2009, 05:36:45 AM
Since then I found ever more cracks in religion. It tends to make claims to know things it can't know, claims to grant abilities that defy the laws of physics to the 'true believer', and never, ever promotes questioning of anything.

You said that you had little knowledge about anything but Christianity, but are you sure that you've properly considered your stance even on that? I think that the New Testament by its very structure demands that you think about it and that you treat what it says not as fact but as human interpretation of events.

Consider the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They do not agree with one another! For example, Mark has Jesus on the cross calling in despair, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" while Luke has him praying for forgiveness for those who crucified him and promising the thief hanging beside him that they will both enter paradise. The other two Gospels don't agree either, although they both take a more moderate route.

So, at what might be the most vital moment in Christianity, we have four different accounts of the Christ's behaviour. If the primary purpose of the religion were to convince and convert people, that would be rather detrimental to the cause! But built deliberately into the structure of the Bible is the requirement that people question the validity of each perspective and make their own decisions. That's why Christianity has so many sects today: no one can look at the Bible and say authoritatively that only they interpret it correctly.

Quote from: Eibbor_N on March 26, 2009, 11:40:50 AM

Quote from: Vidar on March 25, 2009, 05:36:45 AM
Since then I found ever more cracks in religion. It tends to make claims to know things it can't know, claims to grant abilities that defy the laws of physics to the 'true believer', and never, ever promotes questioning of anything.

You said that you had little knowledge about anything but Christianity, but are you sure that you've properly considered your stance even on that? I think that the New Testament by its very structure demands that you think about it and that you treat what it says not as fact but as human interpretation of events.

Consider the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They do not agree with one another! For example, Mark has Jesus on the cross calling in despair, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" while Luke has him praying for forgiveness for those who crucified him and promising the thief hanging beside him that they will both enter paradise. The other two Gospels don't agree either, although they both take a more moderate route.

So, at what might be the most vital moment in Christianity, we have four different accounts of the Christ's behaviour. If the primary purpose of the religion were to convince and convert people, that would be rather detrimental to the cause! But built deliberately into the structure of the Bible is the requirement that people question the validity of each perspective and make their own decisions. That's why Christianity has so many sects today: no one can look at the Bible and say authoritatively that only they interpret it correctly.

Are you saying that these internal contradictions, and the fact that the various cults of christianity shard further and further apart because none of them agree on what the bible actually tries to teach, are points in it's favour?

If the bible was actually inspired by god then it wouldn't contain these contradictions, and would instead have a unifying influence, rather than a dividing one. If god had a hand in it, would should expect nothing less. But what I see is the exact opposite.

Quote from: Vidar on March 26, 2009, 02:08:44 PM
Are you saying that these internal contradictions, and the fact that the various cults of christianity shard further and further apart because none of them agree on what the bible actually tries to teach, are points in it's favour?

That's right.

Quote
If the bible was actually inspired by god then it wouldn't contain these contradictions, and would instead have a unifying influence, rather than a dividing one. If god had a hand in it, would should expect nothing less. But what I see is the exact opposite.

I'm not sure why you think that. The Bible may have been inspired by God, but it was written and translated by humans. There isn't even a Gospel of Jesus, which I think would be ideal if God (or the institution of the church) wanted something that could be viewed as beyond question, a text that could be called absolute truth.

Quote from: Eibbor_N on March 26, 2009, 05:15:07 PM

Quote from: Vidar on March 26, 2009, 02:08:44 PM
Are you saying that these internal contradictions, and the fact that the various cults of christianity shard further and further apart because none of them agree on what the bible actually tries to teach, are points in it's favour?

That's right.

Quote
If the bible was actually inspired by god then it wouldn't contain these contradictions, and would instead have a unifying influence, rather than a dividing one. If god had a hand in it, would should expect nothing less. But what I see is the exact opposite.

I'm not sure why you think that. The Bible may have been inspired by God, but it was written and translated by humans. There isn't even a Gospel of Jesus, which I think would be ideal if God (or the institution of the church) wanted something that could be viewed as beyond question, a text that could be called absolute truth.

If the bible isn't absolute truth, then why follow it religiously as if it were gospel in the first place?
If it's just another set of ideas, then it should be put into the marketplace of ideas, and picked apart until only the truth remains, as is done with every other idea (except religions).
In the marketplace of ideas no holy book can stand against all of science, it's methods, and the knowledge gained through these methods.

Quote from: Vidar on March 26, 2009, 05:31:03 PM

Quote from: Eibbor_N on March 26, 2009, 05:15:07 PM

Quote from: Vidar on March 26, 2009, 02:08:44 PM
Are you saying that these internal contradictions, and the fact that the various cults of christianity shard further and further apart because none of them agree on what the bible actually tries to teach, are points in it's favour?

That's right.

Quote
If the bible was actually inspired by god then it wouldn't contain these contradictions, and would instead have a unifying influence, rather than a dividing one. If god had a hand in it, would should expect nothing less. But what I see is the exact opposite.

I'm not sure why you think that. The Bible may have been inspired by God, but it was written and translated by humans. There isn't even a Gospel of Jesus, which I think would be ideal if God (or the institution of the church) wanted something that could be viewed as beyond question, a text that could be called absolute truth.

If the bible isn't absolute truth, then why follow it religiously as if it were gospel in the first place?

If it's just another set of ideas, then it should be put into the marketplace of ideas, and picked apart until only the truth remains, as is done with every other idea (except religions).
In the marketplace of ideas no holy book can stand against all of science, it's methods, and the knowledge gained through these methods.

some people choose not to question the bible and even claim it is all 100% true, these people are free to do so, however i find it far more prudent to look at it and try to disearn the fact from the fables. before you jump on my back with the fable bit i should tell you that i belive certin fables were added to promote good morals. no one man can say they have it all figured out, the best you can do is try your best to understand and then wait it out(till you die) and see where you end up.


i have no idea what you mean about an idea market place, however every idea is picked apart INCLUDING religion, you're proof of that my friend. if you find religion to be ficticious according to science that's your view, and i respect that, i just dont agree.

Quote from: Eibbor_N on March 26, 2009, 11:40:50 AM

Quote from: Reese Tora on March 26, 2009, 04:17:33 AM
Anyway, nonpracticing catholic agnostic atheist.

Out of curiosity, Reese Tora, why do you keep Catholic on that list? It seems to contradict the others.

I think it's an important element to how I feel about faith and religion.  Also, Catholicism considers you a member until you are excommunicated.  Granted, I'd have been excommunicated for what I said above, but I havn't so I'm still a member.

I equate it to how there are atheist Jews; they don't believe, but they're still jewish.

Reese Tora:

Ah, thanks. I didn't know that some Catholics felt the same way as some Jews do, that it goes beyond just being religion and becomes a more pervasive part of your culture. I probably should have guessed.

Quote from: Vidar on March 26, 2009, 05:31:03 PM
If the bible isn't absolute truth, then why follow it religiously as if it were gospel in the first place?
If it's just another set of ideas, then it should be put into the marketplace of ideas, and picked apart until only the truth remains, as is done with every other idea (except religions).
In the marketplace of ideas no holy book can stand against all of science, it's methods, and the knowledge gained through these methods.

It is Gospel. "Good news." The news that Christ has come, died, and risen from the dead. To be quite honest, I think that your experience with fundamentalism has closed your mind to different ways of looking at the Bible. It doesn't have to be pure truth to have meaning. As I said, by the contradictions between each book lampshade its fallibility! Regardless, there is plenty that the Gospels do agree on, or that enough of them agree on that we can guess fairly reasonably.

The Bible is more than just a set of ideas, though. It's the story of a man who was the son of God, caused a bit of a ruckus, and then died horribly only to rise from the dead a few days later. The important part of the whole thing is the message of Jesus, and what the events of his life mean for us.

I'm uncertain where that statement about science and religion came from. It isn't a competition, Vidar.

Incidentally, lucas marcone is right. Every religion has been picked apart and analyzed for as long as it has existed. The problem is that there's no way to know that you have found the 'one truth' that you want, so religion has to be continually reanalyzed and studied by every practitioner until they find what makes the most sense to them.

 

Quote from: Eibbor_N on March 27, 2009, 03:03:14 AM
Reese Tora:

Ah, thanks. I didn't know that some Catholics felt the same way as some Jews do, that it goes beyond just being religion and becomes a more pervasive part of your culture. I probably should have guessed.

Quote from: Vidar on March 26, 2009, 05:31:03 PM
If the bible isn't absolute truth, then why follow it religiously as if it were gospel in the first place?
If it's just another set of ideas, then it should be put into the marketplace of ideas, and picked apart until only the truth remains, as is done with every other idea (except religions).
In the marketplace of ideas no holy book can stand against all of science, it's methods, and the knowledge gained through these methods.

It is Gospel. "Good news." The news that Christ has come, died, and risen from the dead. To be quite honest, I think that your experience with fundamentalism has closed your mind to different ways of looking at the Bible. It doesn't have to be pure truth to have meaning. As I said, by the contradictions between each book lampshade its fallibility! Regardless, there is plenty that the Gospels do agree on, or that enough of them agree on that we can guess fairly reasonably.

The Bible is more than just a set of ideas, though. It's the story of a man who was the son of God, caused a bit of a ruckus, and then died horribly only to rise from the dead a few days later. The important part of the whole thing is the message of Jesus, and what the events of his life mean for us.

I'm uncertain where that statement about science and religion came from. It isn't a competition, Vidar.

Incidentally, lucas marcone is right. Every religion has been picked apart and analyzed for as long as it has existed. The problem is that there's no way to know that you have found the 'one truth' that you want, so religion has to be continually reanalyzed and studied by every practitioner until they find what makes the most sense to them.

I don't know where you see religion getting picked apart. When you go to church there will always be a preacher who asserts the stories in the bible as truth, and critical thought and skepticism on the subject are unfortunately not exactly high in the agenda, and this is where most people get their religious ideas from (incombination with growing up in a religious family).

Also, I find the story of Jesus somewhat non-sensical. Why does god need to have his own son tortured and killed before he can forgive everyone for not being good enough (even though he supposedly created humans in the first palce, flaws and all)? Can't he just forgive without a blood sacrifice? Wouldn't the life of Jesus have a much greater positive impact if he'd been teaching for more than just 3 years? These are just a few questions that pop up in my head right now. I'm sure other people have more pointed questions to ask.
On top of that, the bible is the only source we have of Jesus. He's never mentioned in any of the other writings we have of that time. This leads me to believe the gospels are fiction, and not truth.
As for the message of Jesus, he had some good things to say (like in the sermon on the mount), but they where hardly super-human in their wisdom. He also did some things I find rather less inspiring, such as cursing a fig tree to death for not bearing figs out of season (a story which I interpret as Jesus demonstrating: "Do as I say, or else...").

As for your statement that religion and science are not in competition: Tell it to the Texas Board of Education (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/26/texas-from-saved-to-doomed-in-just-6-hours/).
After trying to undermine the childrens education of biology (evolution), they are now going after the age of the universe.
Science anfd religion are most definitly in competition.

I see that science requires pretty much the same amount of faith as religion these days if one is to look at the 'beginning'.  Thie Big Bang theory has several enormous gaping holes in it, the primary one being that in order for the initial expansion of space to have exceeded the speed of light by so many times, the little teensy cosmic seed had to expand into... nothing.  nto absolutely nothing.  I'm not talking about empty space, I'm talking about no space.  There had to be nothing outside the boundary of that little infinitely dense dot.  So, what are the properties of nothing?  Can such nothingness even exist?  How do we create an equation to explain a complete void, with no quantum characteristics, no energy whatsoever.  Even in the tiny voids we can create, virtual particles pop up constantly.  Our artificial voids are not even true voids.  We can't simulate an absolute voids, and we can't even theoretically describe one.  Yet for the Big bang to work, it had to be.  to believe in the Big bang, we must believe in something for which there is no direct evidence, and th only indirect evidence is that the Big Bang required it in order to happen as it seems to have done.  The universe-dot itself has problems, since there is no physics that can adequately describe it or its properties, or even how such a dot would even begin to expand in the first place, for what could possibly be a trigger?  It's own internal gravity would also be infinite, since by the 'laws' of physics we're aware of, it would have had to be a super-singularity.  And big singularities tend not to just go poof all of a sudden.  In fact, physics as we know it forbids it.  And what force would be powerful enough to overcome that?

Physics is at war with itself, with proponents of various theories calling those who believe in others fools and Philistines, yet none can manage to find the fundamental properties of the universe that allow fo the creation of the universe by their own theories. 

And then you have dark matter and dark energy, as mentioned previously.  These two substances (if dark energy can even be thought of as a substance, since it may not be real energy, but an effect of certain properties of accelerating space-time stretching the fabric of the universe and other gobbletygook like that) make up more than 90% of the universe.  Yet other than the relatively minor observations we can make about their effects on the matter and energy we can analyze, we know nothing about them.  Big Bang physics doesn't even predict dark energy, yet we measure and know it must be.  Yet another hole in the theory, in that it does not predict a major property of the universe.  Nutrinos were thought to be dark matter for a time, but then it was found that even their abundance and the discovery that they did carry just the tiniest whisper of mass fell far short of filling the gaping hole in universal mass calculations. 

Whatever dark matter and dark energy turn out to be, they are certain to require yet another rethinking of the origins of the universe, because they simply don't fit the theories that exist.

Quantum entanglement is another strange case.  It can be said that it doesn't violate relativity because it doesn't allow for information transfer faster than light, but as yet no mechanism has been able to interpret how particle pairs separated by vast distances can communicate an effect on one to the other instantaneously.  String theory may allow it through the tiny wormholes it postulates strings can create, but then string theory itself is under attack constantly for its short-comings.

From my experience, scientists can be just as arrogant, just as self-righteous, just as cruel as the worst of the religious fundamentalists, and hold onto their theories as religious dogma even when the evidence proves otherwise.  The problem with all belief, religious or scientific, is that inevitably, the humans involved turn from seeking the absolute truth to pronouncing their own beliefs and theories as the One Truth, and then persecuting all who will not bend to them.

So, I choose to believe in God because I see that the Commandments and values of true Christianity make sense and if followed lead to peace, order, happiness, and equality for all:  for Jesus showed how we ought to treat one another, reaching across castes, touching the untouchable, breaking all the excessive religious taboos the Jewish religious leaders had inflicted upon themselves to try be become more holy, though instead they made themselves hypocrites.  If a system of beliefs can lead to greater good, then it seems to me to be a sensible system.

Once again I agree with Alondro.

Quote from: Vidar on March 27, 2009, 07:15:58 AM
Also, I find the story of Jesus somewhat non-sensical. Why does god need to have his own son tortured and killed before he can forgive everyone for not being good enough (even though he supposedly created humans in the first palce, flaws and all)? Can't he just forgive without a blood sacrifice? Wouldn't the life of Jesus have a much greater positive impact if he'd been teaching for more than just 3 years? These are just a few questions that pop up in my head right now. I'm sure other people have more pointed questions to ask.
On top of that, the bible is the only source we have of Jesus. He's never mentioned in any of the other writings we have of that time. This leads me to believe the gospels are fiction, and not truth.

As far as the torturing goes much of that has to do with the symbolism of everything involved even though those that put him through the torture did all those things intending to mock Jesus. Most of his suffering came through the Garden of Gethsemane when he bled from every pore where it is said that he suffered everything for the world. Every pain anyone has ever or will ever feel both physical or mental, felt everyone's emotions both good and bad including things like guilt which would have otherwise been impossible as he never did anything to feel guilty for living a sinless life. He did all this that he might be able to be the perfect judge and relieve the pains of sin or come to someone in spirit in times of need to help that someone bear the burden of whatever the problem might be. He knows what it's like when someone stubs a toe or broke of with the love of their life or lost a loved one. He also went through everything to fulfill prophesy. As for requring a blood sacrifice you'd probably need to believe that the animal sacrifices in the Bible are worth something. Having committed no sin whatsoever Jesus Christ was the only human worthy to be a sacrifice, and being God's son is part of the reason that his blood can be an infinite sacrifice for everyone before, during, and after his life. This works because even being human he was also part god making his sacrifice a godly sacrifice which is therefore an eternal sacrifice. When there is sin justice is required, but through the atonement made by Jesus mercy can take the place of that judgment as the sin has already been paid for; the person who committed whatever sin needs to accept that before forgiveness and mercy can be given. All this info can be found in various parts of the Bible, but that doesn't make it true. This all probably sounds like something crazy to you and I do have reasons for believe it all myself, none of them would be of any worth to you.

There may only be a few years of Jesus' life actually written about but supposing he was able to do all he did I'd think it safe to believe that he did much, much more than was written about him.

And as for other scripture that was written around the time of Christ I'm sure there are many books that haven't been found or translated like other gospels written by other apostles. Also the Book of Mormon is reputed by some to be and ancient record of scripture written during bible times, and people therein see Jesus.

I don't believe the Bible to be completely true as it was translated a great many times and humans make mistakes even when directed by God. Plus various parts where it is written that "God repented of his sin" don't really shout truth as God can't sin. But that doesn't mean there isn't truth in the bible.   :januscat

Quote from: Vidar on March 27, 2009, 07:15:58 AM

Quote from: Eibbor_N on March 27, 2009, 03:03:14 AM
Reese Tora:

Ah, thanks. I didn't know that some Catholics felt the same way as some Jews do, that it goes beyond just being religion and becomes a more pervasive part of your culture. I probably should have guessed.

Quote from: Vidar on March 26, 2009, 05:31:03 PM
If the bible isn't absolute truth, then why follow it religiously as if it were gospel in the first place?
If it's just another set of ideas, then it should be put into the marketplace of ideas, and picked apart until only the truth remains, as is done with every other idea (except religions).
In the marketplace of ideas no holy book can stand against all of science, it's methods, and the knowledge gained through these methods.

It is Gospel. "Good news." The news that Christ has come, died, and risen from the dead. To be quite honest, I think that your experience with fundamentalism has closed your mind to different ways of looking at the Bible. It doesn't have to be pure truth to have meaning. As I said, by the contradictions between each book lampshade its fallibility! Regardless, there is plenty that the Gospels do agree on, or that enough of them agree on that we can guess fairly reasonably.

The Bible is more than just a set of ideas, though. It's the story of a man who was the son of God, caused a bit of a ruckus, and then died horribly only to rise from the dead a few days later. The important part of the whole thing is the message of Jesus, and what the events of his life mean for us.

I'm uncertain where that statement about science and religion came from. It isn't a competition, Vidar.

Incidentally, lucas marcone is right. Every religion has been picked apart and analyzed for as long as it has existed. The problem is that there's no way to know that you have found the 'one truth' that you want, so religion has to be continually reanalyzed and studied by every practitioner until they find what makes the most sense to them.

I don't know where you see religion getting picked apart. When you go to church there will always be a preacher who asserts the stories in the bible as truth, and critical thought and skepticism on the subject are unfortunately not exactly high in the agenda, and this is where most people get their religious ideas from (incombination with growing up in a religious family).

you seem to be ignoring the fact that religious people dont spend their entire lives inside their respective churches, and even if that were the case the point is people like you and other "men of science" disect religion and every other idea apart like a toad.

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
I see that science requires pretty much the same amount of faith as religion these days if one is to look at the 'beginning'. 

No it doesn't. Science doesn't allow faith.

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
Thie Big Bang theory has several enormous gaping holes in it,

Argument from ignorance. And a complete misrepresentation of science. No theory is ever 'finished' or 'proven', theories are continuously being refined with new observational facts and testing. Only an arrogant fool could ever claim to have 'perfect knowledge of everything', someone who never questions anything.

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
the primary one being that in order for the initial expansion of space to have exceeded the speed of light by so many times,

Fallacy. The expansion rate of space is not expressed as a velocity, but a velocity per distance.

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
the little teensy cosmic seed had to expand into... nothing.  nto absolutely nothing.  I'm not talking about empty space, I'm talking about no space. 

Non sequitur. It cannot be measured what lies 'outside' the universe , or even if such a question makes sense. Maybe we're part of a multiverse. What difference does it make?

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
There had to be nothing outside the boundary of that little infinitely dense dot.  So, what are the properties of nothing?  Can such nothingness even exist?  How do we create an equation to explain a complete void, with no quantum characteristics, no energy whatsoever.  Even in the tiny voids we can create, virtual particles pop up constantly.  Our artificial voids are not even true voids.  We can't simulate an absolute voids, and we can't even theoretically describe one. 

Straw man argument. This is a description of vacuum in existing space, not in the absence of space.

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
Yet for the Big bang to work, it had to be. 

Nonsense.

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
to believe in the Big bang, we must believe in something for which there is no direct evidence, and th only indirect evidence is that the Big Bang required it in order to happen as it seems to have done. 

A misreprentation of the big bang theory. The big bang theory states that space expanded from a highly dense state to the present state. Nothing more, nothing less. And there's very convincing observational evidence for it. For instance, the theory correctly predicted the cosmic background radiation. Not to mention redshift.
And if you think the universe doesn't expand, then answer this: why haven't all galaxies collided due to their mutual gravitation?

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
The universe-dot itself has problems, since there is no physics that can adequately describe it or its properties,

The universe didn't start as a singularity. A singularity is predicted by general relativity, but quantum effects need to be taken into account. Before the Planck Epoch, a theory of quantum gravity is needed. All the comments about infinities have no meaning.

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
or even how such a dot would even begin to expand in the first place, for what could possibly be a trigger? 

That follows from the Einstein Equation. A stationary unverse is unstable. Remember "Einstein biggest blunder"? See also my remark on the collision of galaxies.

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
It's own internal gravity would also be infinite, since by the 'laws' of physics we're aware of, it would have had to be a super-singularity.  And big singularities tend not to just go poof all of a sudden.  In fact, physics as we know it forbids it.  And what force would be powerful enough to overcome that?

Several fallacies. As I said, the universe didn't start as a singularity. Also, nobody says it "poofed into existence". It just was once in a highly dense state. Maybe from the contraction of a previous universe. Maybe as result of a collision of branes, as some M-theorists think. Without evidence, there's only speculation.
And third: 'physics as we know it forbids it'? Do you refer to conservation of energy? Because earlier you talked about vacuum fluctuations, which do violate the conservation of energy. Also, some speculate that the total energy of the universe is zero.

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
Physics is at war with itself, with proponents of various theories calling those who believe in others fools and Philistines,

Complete bullshit. Scientists debate, that's how progress is made. Don't like debates? Then you're dogmatic.

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
yet none can manage to find the fundamental properties of the universe that allow fo the creation of the universe by their own theories. 

Argument from ignorance again. Gee, we don't know everything, let's stop reasoning altogether...

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
And then you have dark matter and dark energy, as mentioned previously.  These two substances (if dark energy can even be thought of as a substance, since it may not be real energy, but an effect of certain properties of accelerating space-time stretching the fabric of the universe and other gobbletygook like that) make up more than 90% of the universe.  Yet other than the relatively minor observations we can make about their effects on the matter and energy we can analyze, we know nothing about them. 

Minor observations? And the characteristics of dark matter and dark energy are better and better understood. About dark energy: you already referred to vacuum fluctuations!

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
Big Bang physics doesn't even predict dark energy,

So? It's not supposed to. Big Bang physics deals with the properties of space-time.

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
yet we measure and know it must be.  Yet another hole in the theory, in that it does not predict a major property of the universe.  Nutrinos were thought to be dark matter for a time, but then it was found that even their abundance and the discovery that they did carry just the tiniest whisper of mass fell far short of filling the gaping hole in universal mass calculations. 

Whatever dark matter and dark energy turn out to be, they are certain to require yet another rethinking of the origins of the universe, because they simply don't fit the theories that exist.

Same answer as above. And hey, when we'll finally understand dark matter and dark energy, our knowledge has increased again! You oppose this? Be thankful to scientists who discover all these fascinating things. Without them, you wouldn't even know all of this existed in the first place!

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
Quantum entanglement is another strange case.  It can be said that it doesn't violate relativity because it doesn't allow for information transfer faster than light, but as yet no mechanism has been able to interpret how particle pairs separated by vast distances can communicate an effect on one to the other instantaneously.  String theory may allow it through the tiny wormholes it postulates strings can create, but then string theory itself is under attack constantly for its short-comings.

More argument from ignorance. See answer above.

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
From my experience, scientists can be just as arrogant, just as self-righteous, just as cruel as the worst of the religious fundamentalists,

Your personal opinions are meaningless. Attacking scientists is meaningless. Adress the scientific theories or the observational evidence, if you can.

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
and hold onto their theories as religious dogma even when the evidence proves otherwise. 

Nonsensical. Theories are revised and improved as new observations are made. No scientist holds dogmatically to Newtonian physics instead of relativity, does he? Is the final word written on the big bang theory? Of course not. Does that make it invalid? Of course not. It is based on observational evidence, which won't magically disappear in the future.

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
The problem with all belief, religious or scientific, is that inevitably, the humans involved turn from seeking the absolute truth to pronouncing their own beliefs and theories as the One Truth, and then persecuting all who will not bend to them.

Unlike religion, science is based on observational evidence.

Quote from: Alondro on March 27, 2009, 09:44:18 AM
So, I choose to believe in God because I see that the Commandments and values of true Christianity make sense and if followed lead to peace, order, happiness, and equality for all:  for Jesus showed how we ought to treat one another, reaching across castes, touching the untouchable, breaking all the excessive religious taboos the Jewish religious leaders had inflicted upon themselves to try be become more holy, though instead they made themselves hypocrites.  If a system of beliefs can lead to greater good, then it seems to me to be a sensible system.

And what the hell does that have to do with physics???
Many scientists are christian. Heck, the father of the big bang theory, George Lemaitre, was a priest.
So, you mention several discoveries made by scientists, attack them for not explaning everything, and then jump to religion because of the morals it teaches?

Quote from: lucas marcone on March 28, 2009, 12:20:59 AM

<quote pyramid>

you seem to be ignoring the fact that religious people dont spend their entire lives inside their respective churches, and even if that were the case the point is people like you and other "men of science" disect religion and every other idea apart like a toad.

If you want to get to the truth, whatever it may be, you do need to dissect every idea, and test it against the observable reality. Are you saying that religion should not be picked apart and have it's flaws exposed?

Quote from: Vidar on March 27, 2009, 07:15:58 AM
I don't know where you see religion getting picked apart. When you go to church there will always be a preacher who asserts the stories in the bible as truth, and critical thought and skepticism on the subject are unfortunately not exactly high in the agenda, and this is where most people get their religious ideas from (incombination with growing up in a religious family).

Also, I find the story of Jesus somewhat non-sensical. Why does god need to have his own son tortured and killed before he can forgive everyone for not being good enough (even though he supposedly created humans in the first palce, flaws and all)? Can't he just forgive without a blood sacrifice? Wouldn't the life of Jesus have a much greater positive impact if he'd been teaching for more than just 3 years? These are just a few questions that pop up in my head right now. I'm sure other people have more pointed questions to ask.
On top of that, the bible is the only source we have of Jesus. He's never mentioned in any of the other writings we have of that time. This leads me to believe the gospels are fiction, and not truth.
As for the message of Jesus, he had some good things to say (like in the sermon on the mount), but they where hardly super-human in their wisdom. He also did some things I find rather less inspiring, such as cursing a fig tree to death for not bearing figs out of season (a story which I interpret as Jesus demonstrating: "Do as I say, or else...").

As for your statement that religion and science are not in competition: Tell it to the Texas Board of Education (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/26/texas-from-saved-to-doomed-in-just-6-hours/).
After trying to undermine the childrens education of biology (evolution), they are now going after the age of the universe.
Science anfd religion are most definitly in competition.

...I wonder if we have different ideas of what 'picked apart' means. When I use that term, I mean 'examined closely.' You?

People, Christians more than anyone, have been asking those questions since Saint Peter.* I recommend looking up the names Origen and Anselm of Canterbury for a few early theories that have lasted and been used as a basis for later ideas. I'll tell you straight out that I can't answer all of those questions for you. I'm neither a historian nor a theologian; I don't know why Jesus died on the date that he did. If you want, I don't mind offering my thoughts on most of those points.

As for the Bible being the only evidence of Christ's existence, both of my Religious Studies textbooks reject the idea rather firmly. It seems irrational to assume that Jesus didn't exist simply because people who had no reason to write about him didn't do so, while the people who did have reason to did!

Well, that's one interpretation of that parable. Not one that I agree with, admittedly, but I couldn't possibly prove that you're wrong.

Oh for Pete's sake, you're switching competitions on me! In the context of your original statement (which, you must admit, was rather broad), religion and science aren't in competition. As for this, please keep in mind that a few fundamentalists =! all of Christianity, much less all of religion. You'll find more Christians who disagree with those beliefs than who agree, I think. You would do better to say, "Some aspects of science and some aspects of religion disagree," which I agree with absolutely.

*EDIT: That should have been Saint Paul, not Saint Peter. Kind of late now, but oh well...

Quote from: Vidar on March 28, 2009, 01:22:14 AM

Quote from: lucas marcone on March 28, 2009, 12:20:59 AM

<quote pyramid>

you seem to be ignoring the fact that religious people dont spend their entire lives inside their respective churches, and even if that were the case the point is people like you and other "men of science" disect religion and every other idea apart like a toad.

If you want to get to the truth, whatever it may be, you do need to dissect every idea, and test it against the observable reality. Are you saying that religion should not be picked apart and have it's flaws exposed?

you misunderstand, im not argueing the fact flaws shouldnt be exposed, and they should, i am agueing the fact that you keep saying religion is immune to scrutiny. its not, MANY people scrutinize it and yet you seem turn a bind eye to everyone picking it to death, including yourself.

edit: on the subject of the bigh bang, law of conservaion of matter states rather clearly matter cannot be destroied nor CREATED, so how did all the matter the came from the big bang come about?

Quote from: lucas marcone on March 28, 2009, 01:54:53 AM
edit: on the subject of the bigh bang, law of conservaion of matter states rather clearly matter cannot be destroied nor CREATED, so how did all the matter the came from the big bang come about?

Nobody knows yet. We sort of know what happened after one Planck time after the big bang, and all the building blocks of matter where already present at that time. To know what happened before that, you need a unified theory of quantum gravity. We don't have it yet, but physicists are hard at work trying to find it. That's one reason why the LHC was built.