Atheism Anyone?

[Padawanbater2]

Divinity - The creative force in the universe. Call it what you will - chaos and order, synchronicity, God, spirit, Mana, Prana, magic. It's what's responsible for the patterns that allow our universe to exist and harbor life.

Hopefully you can recognize and understand why this line of reasoning isn't scientific. I asked you to define it because we need exact terms otherwise, how will we know what each other are talking about?

I don't accept your definition of "divinity", it still doesn't make any sense to me. By the second sentence in your definition it would sound to me like you're describing the laws of physics, are the laws of physics your definition of "divinity"?

Spirituality - One's connection with divinity

One's connection to the laws of physics?

You have a problem with religious people even if they make no claims regarding evolution or the origin of the world.

It would benefit you to avoid making personal claims, you're simply wrong. You don't know me, it makes you look foolish to claim such things. 99% of the people I know in my personal life are religious, both of my parents are Christian.

I have a problem with the stupid things people defend in the name of their religion. I have a problem with the indoctrination of young children, perpetuating the cycle of ignorance. I have a problem with the bigotry and prejudice that stems from religion. I have a problem with the condemnation of completely normal aspects of the human condition. I have a problem with people justifying inhuman actions in the name of their faith. And I have a problem with people who sit idly by and let it all happen because it's someones religion.

A minority of people, from a single religion which is a minority in the world, deny essentially two theories that are put forth by science. Evolution and the big bang. The vast majority of people, religious or not, either accept these, are too stupid to understand what these theories entail. or too apathetic to give a shit. For the most part, it's far more important who got the most votes on this week's Idol. The beliefs of these people don't affect the advancement of knowledge.

You couldn't be more wrong. Like I said before, these beliefs reach much farther than your doorstep. And it's not so much the dismissal of beliefs, but the blind acceptance of certain beliefs that I think causes so much harm.

The dismissal of the theories of evolution, the big bang, a-biogenesis, etc. have important implications that should be addressed, but I think it's more important to address the impact the acceptance of such dangerous faiths has on the population.

Homophobia, racism, sexism, inequality, murder, mutilation, cruel and unusual punishment, the list goes on and on.. all of them not caused by, but definitely perpetuated by organized religions.

Look back at the civil rights movement, whites justified their actions using the Bible, look back at the Nazi's, justified by religion, current Israeli/Palestinian conflict, justified by religion, Darfur - religion, random Middle Eastern civil wars/conflicts - religion.. IRA in the UK - religion, burning people alive - religion, stoning people, beheading people, burning people alive - religion. That's just off the top of my head, if I grabbed my history book right now, I could easily pull up 15 more examples, all of them justified by religion.

As long as your paper towels get rung out successfully, why does it matter if the wal-mart cashier understands evolution?

The Wal-Mart cashier gets to cast a vote, and there are a lot more Wal-Mart cashier's than there are atheists on marijuana forums, I assure you...

Never mind the trillions of dollars worth of humanitarian aid given to third world countries and disaster victims, never mind that agoraphobic aunt Delores wouldn't ever leave her house and would continue to spiral ever deeper into mental illness if she did not get the social interaction that her once a week trip to church on sunday brings her, THAT GUY OVER THERE MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT HOMO ERECTUS!11!1!!!1! BURN THE CHURCH DOWN!!

There are ways to attain the same level of comfort for life via a more humane process, this is the beauty of logic and critical thinking, you can think your way to comfort and happiness if you're willing to try. The road there is treacherous, but when you reach the destination (I still haven't), you will discover the trip was worth taking.

No. You understand ONE reason of very, very many, and you think it's fear of the unknown. You don't understand why people are spiritual - even those who don't believe in any traditional form of deity.

Enlighten me.

Through experience. Through training. Through knowing what the fuck I'm talking about, knowing what I'm doing, and knowing what I'm seeing.

Anecdotal evidence ='s 0 in the game of science. Give me something to measure, test, observe...

Can you tell me what "stupid beliefs" you are referencing? How exactly are they holding us back? Please note, as stated earlier, what some fundamentalist Christian in Alabama thinks has no bearing on the work of a student of astrophysics or biology. Even if it did, whatever was presented would be quickly debunked in peer review.

-original sin
-Noah and his arc
-the entire account of Genesis
-life starts at the moment of conception
-chosen people
-chosen land
-inequality
-homophobia

Not to mention the process by which these beliefs are believed, that is completely by faith. A person who believes this stuff also thinks it's OK to believe other things without sufficient evidence in other aspects of their life... UFO's are aliens from another planet, Big Foot lurks in the woods, ghosts haunt their house, people can see into the future or talk to people's spirits who've died... that list goes on and on too. This process of acceptance of a belief without putting it through the test of what makes a fact a fact leads ignorant people to believe it's OK, it leads them to say things like "evolution isn't a fact, it's only a THEORY!", missing the irony of the statement completely, and looking foolish to everyone else whose thought about the process of establishing facts of reality for more than five seconds... It leads them to get conned into spending thousands of their hard earned dollars on tv preachers claiming they'll perform miracles...

These beliefs make people ignorant and keep people ignorant under the guise of being what's moral. People who believe in them are already too ignorant to see or understand why.

 

[medicalmaryjane]

i am agnostic but sort of athiest. it's easier to say agnostic, people don't have bad feelings towards agnostics, i think athiest gets a negative connotation even though it's really not negative, just realistic.

 

[Icculus]

I realize you are talking to someone who is denying evolution, but do you think all people who are religious or spiritual do NOT accept it? Even the pope supports it...

I think that was exactly what he was saying...

And about your fact on the Pope, the Catholic Church has just relatively recently changed their stance on evolution and even now they believe their own "version" of it. The church sure does sound credible when for hundreds of years they believe one thing until they can no longer deny proof of contradicting facts. Only then they change what they have been teaching for centuries.

 

[Derple]

I am technically an athiest, to be honest I just don't give a sh*t about religion. All it makes is problems.

 

[karri0n]

Hopefully you can recognize and understand why this line of reasoning isn't scientific. I asked you to define it because we need exact terms otherwise, how will we know what each other are talking about?

I don't accept your definition of "divinity", it still doesn't make any sense to me. By the second sentence in your definition it would sound to me like you're describing the laws of physics, are the laws of physics your definition of "divinity"?

Yes and no. The currently accepted laws of physics show no clear reason for the universe's apparent affinity for patterns and order, particularly spirals which harbor life. In fact, the existence of life and the order we find within our galaxy and solar system are clearly contraindicated under the currently accepted system based on their extreme improbability, nearly to the point of impossible. Science doesn't yet have an explanation for this force, but it is well within the realm of the laws of physics.

One's connection to the laws of physics?

In a grand scheme, yes. If one was successful in using math and logic to determine the underlying waveforms dictating their reality, and able to apply this to live in harmony with them, that would be the definition of someone very spiritually advanced. Most people's minds and bodies are just better tailored to interpret these waveforms intuitively than by math and science.

It would benefit you to avoid making personal claims, you're simply wrong. You don't know me, it makes you look foolish to claim such things. 99% of the people I know in my personal life are religious, both of my parents are Christian.

Fair enough. I'll adjust my claim to "You have a problem with religious people on this forum regardless of whether they make claims about evolution or the origin of the world." I don't know you personally, but I am capable of reading your previous posts.

You couldn't be more wrong. Like I said before, these beliefs reach much farther than your doorstep. And it's not so much the dismissal of beliefs, but the blind acceptance of certain beliefs that I think causes so much harm.


Homophobia, racism, sexism, inequality, murder, mutilation, cruel and unusual punishment, the list goes on and on.. all of them not caused by, but definitely perpetuated by organized religions.

Look back at the civil rights movement, whites justified their actions using the Bible, look back at the Nazi's, justified by religion, current Israeli/Palestinian conflict, justified by religion, Darfur - religion, random Middle Eastern civil wars/conflicts - religion.. IRA in the UK - religion, burning people alive - religion, stoning people, beheading people, burning people alive - religion. That's just off the top of my head, if I grabbed my history book right now, I could easily pull up 15 more examples, all of them justified by religion.

First off, Hitler was an atheist who wanted to bring back many of the germanic pagan traditions. The much perpetuated myth of him basing the actions of the Nazi political party on Christianity is exactly that - a myth.

Secondly, you know my stance on the major organized religions. They are corrupt, power hungry organizations, and nothing more. Everything you referenced here are symptoms of Man's lust for power and control. Your equating this with religion is not much different than blaming guns for murder or blaming medical marijuana laws for people who take advantage of the system. When there is a certain desire, justification can always be made. Simply "tradition" was used as this justification many times as well, with no real religious context.

There are ways to attain the same level of comfort for life via a more humane process, this is the beauty of logic and critical thinking, you can think your way to comfort and happiness if you're willing to try. The road there is treacherous, but when you reach the destination (I still haven't), you will discover the trip was worth taking.

If you "aren't there yet", what is your evidence of this? You're believing someone else's claim based on faith.

This isn't really related to the comment you quoted me on, but I agree with this nonetheless. There are many roads to the top of the mountain, and the type of deep pondering of the nature of life you are referencing is a form of meditation and would be considered a spiritual practice. The majority of people, however, cannot find happiness solely by studying academia.

Enlighten me.

They have a relationship with divinity, a connection with their god, the universe, or nature that you do not. Most people have more access to their spiritual faculties than you do because they don't spend the majority of their time denying them. If there was a means of "explaining" spiritual experience to someone who has never felt it, we wouldn't have a need of organized religion.

Anecdotal evidence ='s 0 in the game of science. Give me something to measure, test, observe...

I and billions of others have already "observed" these forces. Unless you are literally handicapped, you are able to as well if you stopped intentionally blocking it. If a number on some sort of equipment is something you require, then invent it.

-original sin
-Noah and his arc
-the entire account of Genesis
-life starts at the moment of conception
-chosen people
-chosen land
-inequality
-homophobia

Not to mention the process by which these beliefs are believed, that is completely by faith. A person who believes this stuff also thinks it's OK to believe other things without sufficient evidence in other aspects of their life... UFO's are aliens from another planet, Big Foot lurks in the woods, ghosts haunt their house, people can see into the future or talk to people's spirits who've died... that list goes on and on too. This process of acceptance of a belief without putting it through the test of what makes a fact a fact leads ignorant people to believe it's OK, it leads them to say things like "evolution isn't a fact, it's only a THEORY!", missing the irony of the statement completely, and looking foolish to everyone else whose thought about the process of establishing facts of reality for more than five seconds... It leads them to get conned into spending thousands of their hard earned dollars on tv preachers claiming they'll perform miracles...

These beliefs make people ignorant and keep people ignorant under the guise of being what's moral. People who believe in them are already too ignorant to see or understand why.

-original sin - Gender inequality? Do you truly believe there would be no gender inequality without the concept of original sin? Protip: Women are smaller and weaker than men. Men are not as detail oriented or socially inclined as women. The genders AREN'T equal. One excels at some things, the other excels at others.

-Noah and his arc - A fable. "Holds us back" no more than the story of Paul Bunyan and Babe the blue Ox.

-the entire account of Genesis - See above.

-life starts at the moment of conception - 1. define life. 2. prove it doesn't. 3. Abortion has pros and cons and would still be a topic with differing opinions, religious or not.

-chosen people - The result of corruption due to man's lust for power. Yet another instance where people's inclination towards spirituality was taken advantage of to benefit those in power.

-chosen land - see above

-inequality - Inequality is a natural evolutionary tactic seen in many primates. People and many other primates are more comfortable with their group or tribe, because in times past, the other tribe was likely to kill and eat you(this cannibalistic behavior is seen in ancient humans as well as modern primates that have otherwise 100% vegetarian diets). The ability to identify and discriminate between groups was a necessary survival trait. While our culture has certainly advanced past this, our natural instinct has not. Racial prejudice can be and has been observed in infants.

-homophobia - Homophobia exists without religion. Long before Christianity, ancient cultures were openly practicing homosexuality and pedarasty without social taboo or religious dogma denying it, and even then, when it was the accepted social norm, there were those who actively spoke against it.

Denial of Evolution is a result of a combination of poor schooling, misunderstanding the purpose of the bible, a lack of critical thinking and intelligence, and people's characteristic of being easily led. One asshole on the radio or the pulpit thinks the bible should be interpreted literally and gets a million innocent people to follow them.

Once again your posts reflect that you are more AGAINST Christianity than FOR critical thinking. You cannot escape your prejudices. You referenced a whole bunch of Christian things, then talked about people's innate penchant for fanciful things. The only correlation is in their adjacency in your text. Belief in the bible has NOTHING to do with UFO's, Bigfoot, or psychic mediums. In fact, UFOs being aliens and the work of Psychic mediums are completely denied and considered blasphemy by Christianity. The natural inclincation for the fanciful is a result of the creative and imaginative mind of Man, and has nothing to do with organized religion. Also there is a ridiculous amount of evidence for bigfoot.

I for one don't believe the creative, fanciful imagination "holds us back" at all. If not for this we wouldn't have innovation. While its pitfalls may lead us to come to ridiculous conclusions, its merits have led us to all of the most remarkable scientific and cultural breakthroughs in the history of mankind.


Once again I will end the post with my point - Having SOME type of spiritual practice is better and healthier than having none. The exception is when fundamentalism creeps in, but at this point it can be argued that it's no longer spiritual practice. Do you disagree with this or agree?

 

[guy incognito]

Dude wtf are you talking about? Noah's arc is taught to be very literally true. So is genesis. It is only taught as non-literal when the scientific evidence to dispute it is absolutely overwhelming and they MUST concede that it is not literal, and many of them still stick with the bible when it doesn't make sense (for example the earth being 6,000 years old. Of course it's older and everyone knows it. Some still claim it's only 6,000 years old, but most reasonable christians accept that the bible is wrong about that, but the rest IS true).

And once you start using critical thinking to evaluate the stories in the bible to decide which ones are literal and which are metaphorical, why not just take it one step further and subject the entire religion to the same standards? If it doesn't make sense, has no evidence, and in fact has contradictory evidence then it is probably not true.

 

[karri0n]

Dude wtf are you talking about? Noah's arc is taught to be very literally true. So is genesis. It is only taught as non-literal when the scientific evidence to dispute it is absolutely overwhelming and they MUST concede that it is not literal, and many of them still stick with the bible when it doesn't make sense (for example the earth being 6,000 years old. Of course it's older and everyone knows it. Some still claim it's only 6,000 years old, but most reasonable christians accept that the bible is wrong about that, but the rest IS true).

And once you start using critical thinking to evaluate the stories in the bible to decide which ones are literal and which are metaphorical, why not just take it one step further and subject the entire religion to the same standards? If it doesn't make sense, has no evidence, and in fact has contradictory evidence then it is probably not true.

Mythology in general is metaphorical. Interpreting it as anything but is incorrect. Those that teach that the stories in the bible are to be taken as literal accounts of history have missed the point. People in Jesus' time - those who followed him, spoke with him, and were considered his apostles missed the point and he died because of it. What makes you think 2000 years later people will get it?

Your definition of "reasonable Christians" differs from mine. Reasonable Christians in my book understand that their mythology is there to teach a lesson about how to worship and how to treat others. If they can't differentiate mythology from history, then they aren't reasonable.

 

[Pipe Dream]

If they can't differentiate mythology from history, then they aren't reasonable.

Exactly, it's all stories. They are supposed to prove the existence of god because they are impossibe, if they didn't happen then its all make believe and proof the religion a hoax.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Yes and no. The currently accepted laws of physics show no clear reason for the universe's apparent affinity for patterns and order, particularly spirals which harbor life. In fact, the existence of life and the order we find within our galaxy and solar system are clearly contraindicated under the currently accepted system based on their extreme improbability, nearly to the point of impossible. Science doesn't yet have an explanation for this force, but it is well within the realm of the laws of physics.

Again, yes OR no, it can't be both. You need to clearly define the term "divinity" before we go any further. Don't be ambiguious or vague.

You described it as what sounded like the laws of physics. Then you jumped to the conclusion that this force is what you call "God" because science hasn't explained it's reason for existence yet. That's fine if that's what you believe, though you must realize, this approach isn't very rational. It's what people have been doing for thousands of years until science does explain it.

Essentially, this is what you're doing...

1. a force exists
2. science can't explain it
3. the reason for the force can only be God

Your second premise is flawed and remains unjustified. Just because science hasn't explained it yet doesn't mean you can automatically conclude it's God. What evidence do you have that supports that theory?

In a grand scheme, yes. If one was successful in using math and logic to determine the underlying waveforms dictating their reality, and able to apply this to live in harmony with them, that would be the definition of someone very spiritually advanced.

Then how can you say an atheist can't be a "spiritual" person? Spiritual in this sense, and in the sense you've described it, is completely absent of religion.

Most people's minds and bodies are just better tailored to interpret these waveforms intuitively than by math and science

That's unfortunate because like I keep telling you, anecdotal evidence, what this amounts to, is useless in the game of science. What you think you might feel isn't evidence. What you think might be subject to error. Our senses are fooled all the time.

Fair enough. I'll adjust my claim to "You have a problem with religious people on this forum regardless of whether they make claims about evolution or the origin of the world." I don't know you personally, but I am capable of reading your previous posts.

The only people I have a problem with are stupid people, religious or not.

I challenge you to find a post by me confirming your claim, that I "have a problem with religious people on this forum regardless of wheather they make claims about evolution or the origin of the world". Good luck.

First off, Hitler was an atheist

Karri0n, you've gotta be kidding me. Go search this in google, the only people making the claim Hitler was an atheist are fundamentalists. Hitler was a Catholic, observe;

...then there's this...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/list_of_hitler_quotes_in_honor.php


Get to the rest later...

 

[dababydroman]

if you have to hear other peoples opinions you obviously dont even kno what you believe.
like who exactly do you want to hear opinions from.. other athiest? dont yall all believe the same fucking thing? nothing!?
theres one of these threads up like everyother week

 

[Heisenberg]

if you have to hear other peoples opinions you obviously dont even kno what you believe.
like who exactly do you want to hear opinions from.. other athiest? dont yall all believe the same fucking thing? nothing!?
theres one of these threads up like everyother week

So once we have an opinion we should ignore everyone else? It is not okay to seek out others of similar interest? You don't wish to have your opinion validated or criticized by others? Aren't you on a message board that is at largely designed to bring together like minds?

 

[karri0n]

[/FONT][/SIZE]

Again, yes OR no, it can't be both. You need to clearly define the term "divinity" before we go any further. Don't be ambiguious or vague.

You described it as what sounded like the laws of physics. Then you jumped to the conclusion that this force is what you call "God" because science hasn't explained it's reason for existence yet. That's fine if that's what you believe, though you must realize, this approach isn't very rational. It's what people have been doing for thousands of years until science does explain it.

Essentially, this is what you're doing...

1. a force exists
2. science can't explain it
3. the reason for the force can only be God

Your second premise is flawed and remains unjustified. Just because science hasn't explained it yet doesn't mean you can automatically conclude it's God. What evidence do you have that supports that theory?

Gods as you are picturing them are personifications of this force. It's easier for most people to work with and understand "people" than it is for them to work with something formless and mostly nondescript.

Then how can you say an atheist can't be a "spiritual" person? Spiritual in this sense, and in the sense you've described it, is completely absent of religion.

I didn't say that. There's no reason an atheist, by the strict meaning of the word, cannot be a spiritual person. Belief in the existence of a specific deity is not required for spirituality. Denial of the existence of a soul, and of the existence of spirit, which is common to many atheists, do put a hamper on things however.

That's unfortunate because like I keep telling you, anecdotal evidence, what this amounts to, is useless in the game of science. What you think you might feel isn't evidence. What you think might be subject to error. Our senses are fooled all the time.

Unfortunate indeed, I agree. I anxiously await a time scientific discovery can shed some light on this, though I'm quite certain it will continue to be misunderstood by the vast majority even if this does happen. Most people don't get the point of their own religion, never mind understanding the broader concepts that encompass nearly all(with the exception of those that worship the self, such as Satanism) religions. I have no reason to think once science can measure some of these things that people will begin to understand it either.

...then there's this...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/list_of_hitler_quotes_in_honor.php

From that website:

Objection! Hitler was merely cynically manipulating the German people by using their beliefs in God.
Reply : I'd say something similar of his misuse of scientific theory.
Objection! You're doing the same thing we are, only instead of blaming Darwinism, you're blaming Christianity.
Reply : No, I think humans have done evil throughout their history, and are always willing to grab any convenient rationalization for their behavior, whether it's science or religion or twinkies. Science doesn't dictate morality, and it's also rather clear that religion does a piss-poor job of it, too.

In public and in his book, he spoke of Catholicism. This is a great way to rally people. Behind the scenes, he extensively worked with the occult and spent huge amounts of money and resources sending his armies to the ends of the earth to try to find and collect occult artifacts. He also spent large amounts of money researching the ancient Germanic Pagan traditions and brought many of them back to German culture. Both of these are extreme forms of blasphemy if he was indeed a Catholic. He also DID believe in evolution, as evidenced by his Eugenics program. You're right about one thing - he was probably not an Atheist in the modern sense, but regardless of what he claimed publicly, he certainly did not consider himself Catholic. If he felt he was not bound by the rules, and could practice and support pagan traditions, as well as dabble in the occult, then he was not catholic, even if he thought he was.
Let's avoid making this into a Hitler thread, and agree that he was mostly a crazy bastard, more than any religion or belief system that one could attribute to him, ok?

 

[guy incognito]

Gods as you are picturing them are personifications of this force. It's easier for most people to work with and understand "people" than it is for them to work with something formless and mostly nondescript.

It's not nondescript inherently though, you are just not describing it. How can you be so much of an expert on the topic when you can't even define what the force is? It's just formless and nondescript and can't have a definition tied to it, but you are an expert on it.

 

[Brazko]

I'm confused because, I thought Karrion said this....

Divinity - The creative force in the universe. Call it what you will - chaos and order, synchronicity, God, spirit, Mana, Prana, magic. It's what's responsible for the patterns that allow our universe to exist and harbor life.

Spirituality - One's connection with divinity

And then you said this.....

[/FONT][/SIZE]

Again, yes OR no, it can't be both. You need to clearly define the term "divinity" before we go any further. Don't be ambiguious or vague.

You described it as what sounded like the laws of physics. Then you jumped to the conclusion that this force is what you call "God" because science hasn't explained it's reason for existence yet. That's fine if that's what you believe, though you must realize, this approach isn't very rational. It's what people have been doing for thousands of years until science does explain it.

Essentially, this is what you're doing...

1. a force exists
2. science can't explain it
3. the reason for the force can only be God

Your second premise is flawed and remains unjustified. Just because science hasn't explained it yet doesn't mean you can automatically conclude it's God. What evidence do you have that supports that theory?

The only thing that mimics what Karrion said in his post that you essentially gathered was points 1 & 2. It seems that the preconceived God of your reasoning is the only force of reasoning you can grasp. Hmmmm, Maybe Not...Let's See

Do you think there is an undiscovered force that unifies and drives the interaction of Energy? Yes or No

I will also define what I mean for you so there is no ambiguity.

force (fôrs, f

rs)
n. 1. The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity, operation"[1]) is an indirectly observed quantity. It is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems.[2][3] Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length.

I also pose that question to anyone else...

 

[Brazko]

It's not nondescript inherently though, you are just not describing it. How can you be so much of an expert on the topic when you can't even define what the force is? It's just formless and nondescript and can't have a definition tied to it, but you are an expert on it.

There could be a definition tied to it but thats just an opinion and observed guess.

And yes it starts with a "G"..

It's the only thing I know that binds everything in our Universe.

 

[guy incognito]

There could be a definition tied to it but thats just an opinion and observed guess.

And yes it starts with a "G"..

It's the only thing I know that binds everything in our Universe.

Gravity? I agree.

 

[Brazko]

Gravity? I agree.

Yes, of course... We only have Newton's law and Einstein's relativity available to describe gravity's effect on our dimensional world and heavenly bodies. Yet we do not know clearly its origins (i have my idea's) or how it governs the quantum world. Science is still trying to provide a mathematical theory that ties it all together.

However man has always set forth on a course that was always sparked by intuition and imagination, so the ability to sense and feel will always be proponents of our next discoveries and there is no sciencetific technology that will do this until we create and design it.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Gods as you are picturing them are personifications of this force. It's easier for most people to work with and understand "people" than it is for them to work with something formless and mostly nondescript.

OK, but you didn't address how you jump from "(reason for)unknown force science hasn't explained yet....to....God".

I didn't say that. There's no reason an atheist, by the strict meaning of the word, cannot be a spiritual person. Belief in the existence of a specific deity is not required for spirituality. Denial of the existence of a soul, and of the existence of spirit, which is common to many atheists, do put a hamper on things however.

Define "soul"

Define "spirit"

Unfortunate indeed, I agree. I anxiously await a time scientific discovery can shed some light on this, though I'm quite certain it will continue to be misunderstood by the vast majority even if this does happen.

Why do you feel "quite certain" it will continue to be misunderstood by the vast majority of people?

Why do you think certain things are generally accepted by the majority of the population and some things aren't?

Most people don't get the point of their own religion

I'm pretty sure most people would argue otherwise. Are you saying you know most peoples religion better than they do?

I have no reason to think once science can measure some of these things that people will begin to understand it either.

Why? That is the purpose of science, that's what generally happens when we discover new things. New observations are made, experiments are done, conclusions drawn, peer reviewed, accepted by scientists, accepted by public, added to knowledge..

It's also really unfortunate that all these claims most religions make that are so dangerous are in the supernatural, which means they can never be tested (which is why they're there) because of the claims religions make that can be tested, the tests always side with science.

If he felt he was not bound by the rules, and could practice and support pagan traditions, as well as dabble in the occult, then he was not catholic, even if he thought he was.

ROFL! Better recheck those numbers if this is the standard we're going by. How many people today feel they're not bound by the rules their religion lays out?

Let's avoid making this into a Hitler thread, and agree that he was mostly a crazy bastard, more than any religion or belief system that one could attribute to him, ok?

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

Because it comes up so often..


Even if he was an atheist, it would have no bearing on atheism.


Even if he was a Christian, it'd have no bearing on Christianity.


Hindu, yep, guess what, same thing.


The dude had black hair, does that mean having black hair is wrong?? See what I'm getting at?

Do you think there is an undiscovered force that unifies and drives the interaction of Energy? Yes or No?

I don't know. Are you asking me if I think there is a consciousness controlling each and every individual part of the universe for a specific purpose? I don't know. If there is I don't know what the purpose of it would be or how we would know it once we found it. I do know I won't pretend to know, and pretending to know will only lead to incorrect conclusions, and cause unknown amounts of damage in the process.

 

[karri0n]

OK, but you didn't address how you jump from "(reason for)unknown force science hasn't explained yet....to....God".

It's just words. I didn't say GODDDDDD... I put forth several terms and concluded with "Whatever you want to call it". No jumps have been made, but many people have different names for the same thing.

Why do you feel "quite certain" it will continue to be misunderstood by the vast majority of people?

For the same reasons that not everyone is a monk, or a doctor, or an astrophysicist. Some concepts are more difficult than others and take a certain type of mind to understand.

Why do you think certain things are generally accepted by the majority of the population and some things aren't?

Depends on what "things" you are talking about - I think there are various reasons depending on the topic. This question is really broad and I'm not quite sure how to approach it or what angle you are coming from.

I'm pretty sure most people would argue otherwise. Are you saying you know most peoples religion better than they do?

Those same most people would claim that it's 100% obviously true that god is real. Does it make them right?

No, I don't know the minutiae of every single religion better than its adherents. I do, however, understand to take a step back and look at the bigger picture behind the vast majority of them. Most people get caught up in the details and tend to think they are the important part. This is their misunderstanding.

ROFL! Better recheck those numbers if this is the standard we're going by. How many people today feel they're not bound by the rules their religion lays out?

It's the standard the book goes by. Not my standard, and I didn't set it.

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

Because it comes up so often..


Even if he was an atheist, it would have no bearing on atheism.


Even if he was a Christian, it'd have no bearing on Christianity.


Hindu, yep, guess what, same thing.


The dude had black hair, does that mean having black hair is wrong?? See what I'm getting at?

My point exactly, and I didn't point out the flaws in your data to try to say anything disparaging against atheism - just to promote factual information. In fact, you are the one that pointed out that he was religious as a point against religion. It's completely irrelevant.

 

[Brazko]

I don't know. Are you asking me if I think there is a consciousness controlling each and every individual part of the universe for a specific purpose? I don't know. If there is I don't know what the purpose of it would be or how we would know it once we found it. I do know I won't pretend to know, and pretending to know will only lead to incorrect conclusions, and cause unknown amounts of damage in the process.

No, I was simply asking for a yes or no answer as to whatever findings, discoveries, or knowledge that you may have taken profound thought on as to their relevance to the observable universe. Just to see if you held any creative intelligence or thinking.

I did say undiscovered so I'll take some fault in your leap of perpetuated thinking but I figured by giving you the said definition of what I was asking that you would probably elaborate on Gravity, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Gravitation, or *(Strong/Weak Nuclear Forces) being a scholar of the sciences as you claim you are. Although there is sufficient evidence and knowledge on Strong/Weak Nuclear forces, I only included them as to show a range of logical and reasonable topics to consider to the question posed, but the aforementioned still entails a great deal of unknowns and lack of understanding including Gravity. But your answer didn't have to detail anything or even consider the topics I suggested. Yes, or No with a check or X by either would've been a great start!!

But lets just say even if my thinking was geared towards what you were saying, I don't believe that consciousness as defined by us will hold to an Universal standard of what consciousness is. Just as there is debate as to if animals are consciouss beings, so may a higher intelligent life form deem us as unconsciouss beings. So if the Universe did operate on some type of consciousness I think we would fail to describe in defined terms relative to our consciousness. It's almost like saying the cells that operated daily on the hour by the minute every second before you were born didn't function with purpose to their operation. However, I'm sure you'll say that cells within the human body are unconsciouss, which I would agree with as set by our defined understanding of consciousness and yet you cannot say you have control over the function and operation of every cell of your body. But you do have the ability to influence the efficiency of their operations. In other words consciousness and purpose does not equivocate to the point of function or operation. An example would be a vegetative human, as we define the state as being unconsciouss, but at the same time the body still operates and function regardless. So being consciouss has nothing to do with rather there is a force that unifies and drives the interactions of Energy/Mass will be my point.


This is just some creative thinking on my part and holds no other purpose except for the purpose of stimulating the mind. This is not something that is forged into my belief system or thinking, see how that works... And I didn't have to believe in Unicorns and Leprechauns to do it!! Having an idea rather creative or imaginative is O.K. and finding out the truth of the matter makes it fun and enjoyable as to see how correct you were and just how wrong. I always tell people I love being wrong because it gives me the opportunity to learn and gather knowledge regardless. Thinking outside the box is O.K., its sticking to ideas that are proven to be wrong which is not O.K... You should know this very well.