'mourning sickness'

[igor drukov 0]

@ denoir

Your contradictory arguments are very stimulating. However, I fear you might have a vision of religion which confines itself exclusively to extremist, fanatic views. Apart from the tedious chore of regularly going to the church, the temple, the mosque or the synagogue, and the somewhat modern awkwardness, when you are a basic educated Westerner, of claiming something such as "I believe in something I can't see", most of today's impopularity for religions in the West, and especially in Europe, stems from the extreme acts of violence carried out in their behalf.

These acts shed light on the excesses religion can beget, but they are the tip of the iceberg. Violent or integrist religious groups are  most conspicuous, and tend to hide the silent, imperfectly pious but so human majority from the public view.

Quote[/b] ] Unless you do exactly as [God] wants then you'll burn in hell! Religion is the ultimate totalitarian system. It's not just what you do it wants to regulate and control, but even what you think.

Lol. Generalizing this vision of "sinners burning in hell" sounds totally anachronistic to me. Still, I'd say it is totally true when it comes to extremists. For the meek and mild majority,there is something called forgiveness, which is granted when you repent. We all make mistakes, we are humans. Repent, sincerely, (and that is totally impossible to assess), and ride on !

Quote[/b] ]Are you saying that you are born religious?

Lol too. I wouldn't say so, but I sure was given a religious education   . What I meant by "historically" is that the first signs of humanity on earth are religious or artistic ones : tombs, small statues of goddesses, paintings... There seems to be a "natural" religiousness in humanity.  For instance, all great civilizations have their founding myths and mythologies, etc. Atheism is a pretty recent thing. Thank God, I might add ( ), because the two overtly atheistic and anti-religious political régimes that ever existed have led to humanity's most egregious crimes.

Quote[/b] ]If you don't prove it, you can't claim generality. If you can't claim generality, you can't build upon it. As long as it keeps in its domain, religion doesn't have to prove things. But when it starts to attack secular matters or scientific matters then the same burden of proof lies on it as for other methods.

I obviously fully endorse that. In my first post in this thread, I should indeed have added sciences to the matters religion had nothing to do with. My view of religion is a bit naive, I am an optimistic dude, and I tend to overlook evil.

Quote[/b] ]Tell that to those that claim that the theory of evolution is bullshit on religious grounds. The problem is that religion does not stick to its domain but has opinions about the real world. Often incorrect opinions that clash with the scientific facts.

Yeah, same as above, i fully endorse this. The issue of faith vs. reason was supposedly resolved with Saint Thomas of Aquinus or Pierre Abélard, and even before that with Averroes. But religions have their demons. Still today, after Galileo and Bellarmin, after Lamarck and Darwin, some peeps argue Eve is my Granny.  

@ Baron

I find your definition of a "respectful way to discuss things" somewhat loose. I understand that you bear a hefty grudge against all forms of religions, but your tone doesn't have to be aggressively smug or condescending.

Quote[/b] ]Please go back to school.

A theory is not a belief.

Kant said that intelligence was the ability to make relationships between things. When you don't know the truth, you make approximations and assumptions. In sciences, this is called "theory" ; in religion, "belief". As to going back to school... I am humble enough to believe I still have things to learn   !

Quote[/b] ]Haven't read the bible then?

Not all of it, and what I read in it (the Gospels, mainly) didn't give me the impression that the God in there tortured anyone   .

Quote[/b] ]Assume that faith doesn't give them hope in a dangerous world because that is not nessesarily true.

Assume means exactly that, that I take into account the fact that it is not necessarily true.  

Quote[/b] ]Why bother discovering fire?  Why bother coming out of the ocean in the first place?  Luddite.

ROFLMAO. Not only atheists can have good laughs in religious discussions. I just don't bury/burn my friends and relatives for hygienic reasons only.

Quote[/b] ]Ever heard of social sciences?  

Faith is not nessesary to mourn the dead.  Faith is not nessesary to behave nicely to other people (in fact it tends to discourage it)

I was speaking of what faith was, to me. I found little help in the theories of the Chicago school when my best friend died at 18.

Quote[/b] ]Atheism is not a religion.

Science is not a religion.

Rationality is not a religion.

Whoever said that ?   Atheism is a b-e-l-i-e-f.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

amen

[ozanzac 0]

Thank you ozanzac, you made a great case, that I believe is echoed by many others who should pipe up more often.

I do disagree somewhat with this attitude:

Quote[/b] ]But, it would take an awful lot of propaganda (because there is no better word to describe a lot of religious materials) in order to push me either way. But for the moment, I am quite happy being a functional, peaceful and free member of society, where my morals share most of those that most religions aim to achieve, but are flexible enough to meet the demands of modern life.

Do you allow yourself to be pushed? Do you let other people make up your mind for you? Is there a certain point that you can be 'bought'? If I were somehow able to convey a compelling enough arguement, what wouldn't you do?

At basic face value, the original article makes the allegation that many of the crowds of mourners are doing so in a flash-mob mentality for personal emotional masochism, as opposed to proactive sympathy for the bereaved, and commitment to better society's situation from the event. That is, to me, a very interesting arguement.

If it was the religious materials being propaganda that conveyed attitude, excuse me then, after I re-read it, I realised I might be misintentionally offending some people, so made sure it wasn't targerted to a specific side of the table.

No I don't allow myself to be pushed into anything. My stance is that of mine and not necessarily of those who surround me, especially my family. I do not think that way to rebel against anything either. I simply weighed up my options, and what they presented, and decided the one I took, not necessarily a beaten track, was the one best fit for me.

Admitantlly, yes. You could put a price on anything, and anything can be bought for a price. That rule includes Salesian Preists!

If you could convey a compelling arguement, it wouldn't stop me from doing anything. As with everything else, I would absorb it and then and only then could I decide to do anything with that info.

I'll agree that at least some percentage could have been there for not as sympathetic reasons as they should have been. But I beleive there was no better way to react than how the Spanish people reacted given the circumstances. These terrorists attacked a very vulnerable element of societys infrastructure, public transport. Who do you know that has never caught public transport at least once in their life. If you do know someone who hasn't, who would they know who has? Absolutely everyone in Spain felt the shockwave. Everyone on the train that I routinely catch to the city with felt the shockwave. I beleive there was no better response. I believe it was a powerful show of defiance with those mass gatherings, and the minute or 30 seconds of silence that the majority of the country appeared to take was a sign of how deep this rocked Spanish society. I can't think of what could rattle a society any more, could you?

[Apollo 0]

I'm an atheist ,people have the right on their own religion.

Those that want a debate on creation or evolution ,all i can say is that Darwin haves more proof for his case than the bible ,and in discussion it outweights any religious argument.

I find the Hel dogma in religion rediculous theologicly and damaging socially.I could never understand that an erfect being that create's an unperfect being could be vengefull on the fact that his creation is not perfect.But through century's the Hel dogma has been misused to keep people within the religioun and to make them afraid of not choosing the religion.

I would not say that i don't believe in anything.I believe in nature and it's powerfull creation ability.If ghosts or spirit's do exist wich i don't exclude i would merely see them as a manifestation of nature rather than god ,for there are many spectrum's of science still to explore within nature.

There is no ultimate God-proof ,so it's useless to try to prove his existance ,it's purely a private matter if you want to take the leap into religion.

I never did much ceremonial mourning only when a family member died and that hasn't happend much yet in my family wich is best.Those ceremonials were catholic of nature and ive participated in other catholic ceremonials like wedding's etc out of pure respect to family members.

In respect to the Spain bombing's ,i regard Spannish as Europeans and I'm more a European than i feel Belgian (check sig) so i obviously have sympathy's for fellow European's if they are attacked by terrorists ill mourn out of respect for their grief.

[ozanzac 0]

I would like to add: That my princple during my time at my Secondary School, Fr Dennis Handley died of a Brain Tumor at the age of 53 the other week.

Though nothing is the core reason for my agnosticism: I was always open to reject or accept religion from my first attendance. This event has had quite an impact on re-enforcing my agnostic views. Even though Dennis would try to convince us otherwise.

I'm not a sealed case closed aethiest, but it's only rational thought keeping it that way.

[denoir 0]

Denoir:  

Quote[/b] ]

When was the last time you saw him? When was the last time you interacted with him in such a way that could be observed by others?

I've never seen you, therefore you don't exist. Be careful that the mods don't deactivate the DenoirBOT's auto-reply system.

I don't see you obeying my will or praying to me. Well, if that is all that takes for you, then sure. Obey my will, give me all your money and go forth and collect hot chicks for me.

First of all I would hope that you have a bit bigger requirements on knowing what/who you are blindly following. Second, your argument is a logical fallacy commonly used by religious people in debates. Not believing in something you see does not equal to believing in something you don't see. If you think that this is DenoirBOT, then it's probably overly paranoid, but far better than that you are having a discussion with your wall, believing that some invisible being listens to you.

The second logical fallacy, also very common i jumping across levels. You can always claim that our senses are wrong and that what we sense and mesure is not correct. That however nullifies the god theory as such a theory only says that you don't know anything.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

What's wrong with you? Why won't you believe in the big pink fluffy bunny?

I have a big pink fluffy bunny. It has a tag that says "Made in china". Mao is dead, why should I worship him?

God is dead, why should you worship him? The fluffy bunny works just as fine. Do you feel that you have the monopoly on what is the 'right' religion? How would you convince me that the Christian god and not the Aztec god is the right one? Or the fluffy bunny? I'm listening, state your case.

Igor Drukov:

Quote[/b] ]Lol. Generalizing this vision of "sinners burning in hell" sounds totally anachronistic to me. Still, I'd say it is totally true when it comes to extremists. For the meek and mild majority,there is something called forgiveness, which is granted when you repent. We all make mistakes, we are humans. Repent, sincerely, (and that is totally impossible to assess), and ride on !

Again, you are just reinforcing my point that it is arbitrary. You interpret religion the way you want and the way it fits your lifestyle. Religion has however in its implementation always used a carrot/whip model: do things that god or the clergy thinks is nice and you'll get rewared. Do it in a way that displeases god or the clergy then you get punished. Bye bye individuality, hello totalitarianism - god knows even what you are thinking, so no chance of 'cheating'. Of course you can choose to break the rules, but then you'll be punished. In a normal political system an indivudual has a large margin of individual choices and freedoms. In religion you have none.

Quote[/b] ]However, I fear you might have a vision of religion which confines itself exclusively to extremist, fanatic views. Apart from the tedious chore of regularly going to the church, the temple, the mosque or the synagogue, and the somewhat modern awkwardness, when you are a basic educated Westerner, of claiming something such as "I believe in something I can't see", most of today's impopularity for religions in the West, and especially in Europe, stems from the extreme acts of violence carried out in their behalf.

I don't think so. We havn't had any real extreme acts of religious violence in Europe for a very long time. We simply grew out of that phase. And this is just a continuing trend that started during the renaissance. America is the odd man out in the western world, but that's for historical reasons. The religious nuts, sorry, unorthodox practicers of christianity, such as calvinists, puritanists etc moved away from Europe to avoid persecutions.

I think that religion has been on a declining track for the last few centuries. It's usefulness is getting limited. Before it gave the answers to everything from how the world works to basic ethics. Today you have a pre-dominant humanist ethic view in the western world. You have science that can thell you how the world works. Psychology can help you with your 'internal' problems. God is simply not needed any more to fill in the gaps in knowledge that we had then.

[shinRaiden 0]

Perhaps I haven't adequately clarified my viewpoint. Basicly, where I'm commoning from is about as classicly unorthodox as you can possibly get, in coming from a standpoint where there is no significant seperation between the allegedly seperate realms of temporal science and extra-temporal faith.

If you choose to write to me, even if it is a pm that others would not neccessarily see, I still have the liberty to choose whether to believe that it originated from a living human being. If I choose to communicate with you privately via phone or email so as to not waste others time with what could be considered to them as irrelevant spam, that doesn't diminish the reality of the conversation.

There is also the widespread assumption that deity-being just arbitraily dictates according to whims of fancy. What about a different possiblity, namely that god is God because of what and how he became, rather than because of any self-existant *poof*? The whole core of Bhuddism also reflects this, as Bhudda is regarded as the Tirthanka(?), the 'ford-finder', who discovered the path out of the rat-spinning-wheel-thingy.

I can argue all day back and forth with myself whether my phone works or not, and conclude that it doesn't because nothing happens, or that its real purpose is to be a desk ornament only, or prove that it doesn't work by cutting the cable and smashing it with a hammer, but I won't really know until I bother to try calling someone. And if you don't get an answer, wardial down the phonebook list and keep hitting redial. No different, uses the same scientific process. The ultimate result however, is of primarily personal interest, and not specificly of concern to society at large.

If god were 'dead' he wouldn't be around to ask questions of, and he certainly wouldn't be giving answers. I don't have your phone number, or email address, or street address. But past experience says if I poke at you enough via the forums, you'll respond one way or another. Likewise, I don't have the Lord's cellphone number or fax number, so I got to go with what's worked for me. I have discussed matters at length with the Man up-stairs, and I knew things long before they were medically possible. Of course my experiences are not any more relevant to you, as your's are to me.

I also take a signifcantly different view on hell. I feel that it is more the absence of potential reward, the internal torment of knowing what might have been, but realizing that I sat on my butt and did nothing about it, and refused to ask for help until that help was no longer available. When you go to school, goof off instead of studying, flunk a test, and get told by the dean that you no longer have the option to retake the class, and that grade will be permanently fixed to your transcript for the rest of your educational future, and will have to be declared whereever you attempt to go to school, that's what I'm referring to. I didn't apply my self, so I didn't learn deutsch. As a result, I can't understand or communicate in deutsch, and that transcript will follow me whereever.

I think that the original article was hinting at the source of the debate, that in the last couple centuries, with the increased development of scientific processes and reasoning, there has been an increase in the humanistic self-centered belief of reason. Two main divisions of thought seperate into the blob-society and the uber-self, but both come back to a relativistic analysis of the here-and-now, viewed seperate from the past and future. In that sense, you have to continually reinvent the wheel each day and moment, to reason out the most logical and balanced response to events and surroundings. Kharma is given to you, you must deal with it as best as possible. To meddle in someone else's kharma is thus most evil, resulting in 911(119) being evil, but Afganistan justified, Iraq evil, Madrid unfortunate - but rational and potentially justified. The response in Madrid could be considered a reaction of personal introspection, and internal grief at the personal damage allegedly caused by meddling in someone else's kharma.

With most religion's perspective of management of the status quo, there has been much difficulty with dealing with 'new' issues, such as new technologies, ideas in diplomatic relationships, changes in social demographics, and cultural shifts in personal lifestyles and society relations at large. This however presumes that these issues are 'new' and have not been dealt with before. That further leads to the assumption that as these are allegedly 'new' issues, they need to be independently evaluated indepentent of any outside factors for proper understanding and removal of bias. If bias is presumably discovered, it is also assumed that there must be a yin-yang opposing bias artificially created to counteract the other bias, to create a 'neutral' state. This IMHO actually accentuates the issue of argumentative bias, and detracts from proper evaluation.

But in a progressive stewardship of faith, there is a totally different perspective, one of an obligation to manage and 'interfere' in kharma. Rather than accept it and just deal with it, many believe that they are commanded to go grab the bull by the horns and do something. Thus, many feel that they would be condemned for standing idley by and allowing further 'oppression'. Also, there is a concern to avoid 'condemnation' for 'deriliction of duty' for failing to ensure that others have the same opportunities that we presume to have.

However, these positions obviously are diametrecally opposed. Religious people are accused of rocking the boat, and we respond with you refuse to steer. And the result of this is that fanatics on both sides, instead of leaving the vengence part up to their respective deities, take matters into their own hands to terminate people's liberty to decide to determine their fate or not.

[denoir 0]

If you choose to write to me, even if it is a pm that others would not neccessarily see, I still have the liberty to choose whether to believe that it originated from a living human being. If I choose to communicate with you privately via phone or email so as to not waste others time with what could be considered to them as irrelevant spam, that doesn't diminish the reality of the conversation.

I think we are going around in circles on this one. The issue is not of what you believe but objective quantifiable reality. When I send you a private PM there is a chain of physical and very measurable reactions. When I talk to you on my cell phone, it emitts very measurable radio waves. When we talk directly, very measurable sound waves travel from my mouth to your ears. In short there is physical evidence. When you 'talk' to god, there is no chain of physical evidence. Me talking to my imaginary friend the big pink fluffy bunny and you talking to god is from a standpoint of physical evidence the same.

There is no measurable interaction between god and the physical world - at least no dynamic interaction. You can always claim that gravity is part of god, but that would be quite a pointless god - certainly not one who acts on the behalf of individuals. You drop a ball and gravity will affect it. Always. There is not one single documented example of the violations of the natural laws. Most things you can deterministically trace back to the laws of nature and you always have a causality chain that origninates in a physical process. The big unexplored blob we have left are our thoughts. But, if god only inteacts in our head, and we have no way of comparing it with what goes on in other people's heads, would it not be more simple to elimintate god altogether and say it's just a mental process?

Also, say that we assume that god is talking to you, how do you know you trust him? You don't know anything apart of a bunch of contradictory religious text to which you have no evidence of a link to 'god'. Your god, should he exist the way you describe, could very well be the devil, or some nasty other influence?

Quote[/b] ]I can argue all day back and forth with myself whether my phone works or not, and conclude that it doesn't because nothing happens, or that its real purpose is to be a desk ornament only, or prove that it doesn't work by cutting the cable and smashing it with a hammer, but I won't really know until I bother to try calling someone. And if you don't get an answer, wardial down the phonebook list and keep hitting redial. No different, uses the same scientific process. The ultimate result however, is of primarily personal interest, and not specificly of concern to society at large.

When somebody talks on the phone, it can be measured. When somebody talks to 'god' it cannot. You can prove to others beyond doubt that the phone works and that you area using it. You cannot do that with religion.

Basically it comes down to you assigning some artificial model to what goes on in your head. Coupeled with that is the mass indoctrination that comes with a religious upbringing. You take the existance of god as axiomatic, you don't reflect upon the validity of the claim. And so all your aruguments are based on the same assumption. Your view of atheists seems to be more like they are people "who don't like god", rather than people that unlike you do not believe in such fundamental things without getting some forms of evidence. If you want your god theory to be applicable in the real world, then you have to use scientific norms for validating your claim. And that I'm afraid requires a bit more than quoting passages from an old book. You have to provide direct physical evidence and show a full causality chain. The theory has to fit with existing observations and measurements.

Quote[/b] ]If god were 'dead' he wouldn't be around to ask questions of, and he certainly wouldn't be giving answers. I don't have your phone number, or email address, or street address. But past experience says if I poke at you enough via the forums, you'll respond one way or another. Likewise, I don't have the Lord's cellphone number or fax number, so I got to go with what's worked for me. I have discussed matters at length with the Man up-stairs, and I knew things long before they were medically possible. Of course my experiences are not any more relevant to you, as your's are to me.

Personal experiences are not really worth anything. You have to correlate them to a statistically valid set as well as demonstrate their repetability. So again, what you think you think and what you think goes on in your head.

Let me ask you this: do you think that god violates the laws of physics?

Quote[/b] ]There is also the widespread assumption that deity-being just arbitraily dictates according to whims of fancy. What about a different possiblity, namely that god is God because of what and how he became, rather than because of any self-existant *poof*? The whole core of Bhuddism also reflects this, as Bhudda is regarded as the Tirthanka(?), the 'ford-finder', who discovered the path out of the rat-spinning-wheel-thingy.

What if ants are actually the overlords of Earth? What if gravity is actually an effect of deforrestation? What if the earth is actually flat, but our 3d senses are wrong? All diffrerent possibilities, all unsubstantiated. You not only without any evidence assume that there is a god, but you go on setting properties and attributes on it. You don't have evidence that it exists in the first place. Save the assumptions of its nature until you get some evidence of its existance in the first place.

[miles teg 1]

I'm an atheist ,people have the right on their own religion.

Those that want a debate on creation or evolution ,all i can say is that Darwin haves more proof for his case than the bible ,and in discussion it outweights any religious argument.

I find the Hel dogma in religion rediculous theologicly and damaging socially.I could never understand that an erfect being that create's an unperfect being could be vengefull on the fact that his creation is not perfect.But through century's the Hel dogma has been misused to keep people within the religioun and to make them afraid of not choosing the religion.

I would not say that i don't believe in anything.I believe in nature and it's powerfull creation ability.If ghosts or spirit's do exist wich i don't exclude i would merely see them as a manifestation of nature rather than god ,for there are many spectrum's of science still to explore within nature.

There is no ultimate God-proof ,so it's useless to try to prove his existance ,it's purely a private matter if you want to take the leap into religion.

I never did much ceremonial mourning only when a family member died and that hasn't happend much yet in my family wich is best.Those ceremonials were catholic of nature and ive participated in other catholic ceremonials like wedding's etc out of pure respect to family members.

In respect to the Spain bombing's ,i regard Spannish as Europeans and I'm more a European than i feel Belgian (check sig) so i obviously have sympathy's for fellow European's if they are attacked by terrorists ill mourn out of respect for their grief.

Woe... careful about bringing Charles Darwin's theories into this.  Darwin only speaks about the evolution of biological entities over time and not about the creation of the universe as some Christians and Muslims like to say.  

I'm an anthropologist myself and I do believe in the theory of evolution, however as an agnostic who believes in a higher divine power, I also believe that something other then random chance created this marvelous system of evolution and all the incredible logical systems that our sciences have measured and examined and developed theories and models upon.

To me it is a miracle that we as the human species are even able to sit here and have this debate about whether or not we have a creator.  

One thing I do NOT like about this thread is the lumping of atheists and agnostics together.  They are two VERY VERY VERY different things.  Their only similarity is that they both reject organized religion to some extent (although myself I like many aspects of organized religions and do not reject them entirely).

Also comparing God to a square circle shows a very poor conception of how most religions see God.   The main monotheistic religions tend to believe that God can not be defined by any material qualities.  Sure you can take religious texts literally but only poorly educated people of monotheistic religions or people who believe more in blind faith rather then in scholarly research and deeper philosophical debate on their own religions tend to do that.  

Personally I feel very hurt when people make fun of my beliefs in God when they know nothing about me, and nothing about how I came to those beliefs and the very deep spiritual experiences I have had.  

For example they do not know of my mother's many near death experiences, they do know of my own paranormal experiences, and they do not know of my own very very deep connection with animals and the natural world or my experiences with death or with deeply personal moments of incredible spirtual experiences that I will share with noone else as they are so sacred to me.

I am not better then any atheist and if they are happy believing that their lives will simply end for all eternity and they do not believe in prayer, then I wish them well and no ill will.

However when some tells me I'm basically a backwards idiot for believing in such outdated notions as "God", then I feel very offended because they insult all that gives meaning to my life and they also sometimes lump me into the category of religious zealots.

Personally I have a few friends who are atheists and while I can not say they are representative of all atheists, they are not very happy people.  They generally are fairly miserable, ultra-cynical people who's lives revolve around themselves and material things.... of coarse that could describe some people who claim to be religious that I know, but I would argue that those types of "religious" people don't understand their own religions and simply don't apply its teachings to their lives.

In general few people apply religion to their lives in a consistent manner.   But few people also bother to eat healthy food and exercise on a regular basis, at least here in America.   This is mainly because to actually apply religioun to one's life is very very difficult.  It is a struggle or as the Muslims call it, "Jihad" (not religious war, but the inner struggle of the soul to do the right thing).  

As far as proving or disproving God, actually their have been studies done on this issue, but they are inconclusive simply because they are quasi-experimental correlational type studies that are open to a vast number of unknown variables that can't be controlled for.  An example is the studies on prayers.

There other studies on petri dishes of bacteria that have also been rather interesting, but again nothing conclusive and they're always open to criticism and allegations of cheating, improper methodology/analysis, and experimenter bias.  

But really it is a moot issue.   When it comes to explaining spirtuality, sciences are very very limited.  Yes you can try and come up with all kinds of psychological theories, but they are incredibly easy to refute.  I have a degree in psychology and have read lots of incredibly stupid journal articles regarding religion and religious beliefs that were purely based on theory and not on any empirical data.  Those that did try to use empirical data, were based upon very narrow neurological/biological models that did not take into account a host of other enviornmental factors amongst other errors in their analysis.

So despite Science's best efforts, science has not been able to refute the idea that there is a higher power that governs the universe we live in.

For most Muslims for instance, the sciences are seen as a way to deepen their understanding of God because they believe that the universe is a mirror of God and that to understand the universe is to see at least a glimpse of the divine and to understand the nature of God better (although total understanding is seen as impossible).  

So science is generally embraced in Islam (with the exception of evolutionary theory but that's because many Muslims don't understand what Darwin's theory of evolution actually is).

At any rate, I just used that example to point out that science and religion are not necessarily confrontational.  

Any true religious scholar should always be questioning religious doctrine and should always be interested in the truth.  

For myself, science, while certainly a very wonderful and useful thing, does not answer all my questions about the universe.   For me science only gives me a glimpse at some of the truth, but not the whole picture.  

In the social sciences that is what led me to move away from the field of cognitive/experimental psychology (which actually has some of the most rigorous scientific methodology in the social sciences with highly controlled experiments) and instead to move towards a more holistic field of human studies which was the more post-modernist anti-theoretical fields of cultural anthropology that tend to move away from rigid analytical models of human behavior and culture and instead tries to incorporate a highly holistic manner of viewing human beings from a psychological, socioeconomic, political, religious, historical, and cultural perspective from not only the view of Western academia, but also from the point of view of the people which we study (the emic perspective).  

That is why I believe it is a mistake for atheists to attack people with beliefs in god/s when instead they should be seeking to understand what drives these beliefs so as to share some common ground with these people because many of these religious beliefs are based on shared human experience regardless of whether you believe in God/s or not.

The same is true in reverse.  People of religious beliefs should try and understand atheists and why they have no belief in a higher power without trying to convert them.   It is very difficult to do this over the internet however.  

It's much better to do this type of dialog face to face where you can see a person's body language, hear the tone of their voice, and see the look in their eyes.  When you get to know people on a very personal level and as friends, psychological barriers tend to drop and you get real dialog and understanding between people even if they still disagree.  

But its extremely difficult to do and sadly today humanity is still governed by our most basic animalist tendencies of inter-species competition and animalist desires (which aren't all bad).   This is why, while I consider myself to be a very religious person, I am also a big believer in doing good social science to try and understand the complexity of humanity.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I'm an anthropologist myself and I do believe in the theory of evolution, however as an agnostic who believes in a higher divine power, I also believe that something other then random chance created this marvelous system of evolution and all the incredible logical systems that our sciences have measured and examined and developed theories and models upon.

Who on earth gave you a job as an anthropologist if you don't even understand the basic idea of evolution?

1) it is not something to be believed in.

Evolution happened. The theory of how it happened is called the theory of evolution. It may or may not be correct, if not another theory of evolution will arise which will be more correct, and so on until it is correct.

2) RANDOM CHANCE IS NOT HOW IT WORKED

I'm really fed up of people who do not understand (have not bothered to research) evolution coming up with this 'random chance' bullshit. Mutations are (semi*) random, selection is NOT.

Quote[/b] ]

To me it is a miracle that we as the human species are even able to sit here and have this debate about whether or not we have a creator.

One thing I do NOT like about this thread is the lumping of atheists and agnostics together. They are two VERY VERY VERY different things.

No, they aren't.

Someone who does not believe in something, through lack of knowledge of it (babies, remote hilltop tribes) is atheistic towards it.

Someone who does not believe in something because they are not sure whether it exists or not, is atheistic towards it.

Agnosticism in most cases is simply 'soft' atheism - I don't know whether or not this exists, therefore there is no reason to believe in it.

Quote[/b] ]

Also comparing God to a square circle shows a very poor conception of how most religions see God. The main monotheistic religions tend to believe that God can not be defined by any material qualities. Sure you can take religious texts literally but only poorly educated people of monotheistic religions or people who believe more in blind faith rather then in scholarly research and deeper philosophical debate on their own religions tend to do that.

And the square circle argument applies to the fundamentalists who DO that. Who say that their book is absolutely literally true.

And also to some extent to the fuzzy thinkers who claim that some parts of the book are true, but that not all of it is (despite claiming that it was inspired/ written by a perfect omniscient being)

Quote[/b] ]

Personally I feel very hurt when people make fun of my beliefs in God when they know nothing about me, and nothing about how I came to those beliefs and the very deep spiritual experiences I have had.

Many of the people in insane asylums also feel that they had deep spiritual experiences with god (before he told them to kill their families) - ITS ALL IN YOUR HEAD.

Quote[/b] ]

For example they do not know of my mother's many near death experiences, they do know of my own paranormal experiences, and they do not know of my own very very deep connection with animals and the natural world or my experiences with death or with deeply personal moments of incredible spirtual experiences that I will share with noone else as they are so sacred to me.

NONE of which can be explained by the following :

it is all in your head [/sarcasm]

Quote[/b] ]

However when some tells me I'm basically a backwards idiot for believing in such outdated notions as "God", then I feel very offended because they insult all that gives meaning to my life and they also sometimes lump me into the category of religious zealots.

If the shoe fits....

Regardless of how comforting and nice it might feel, that has no bearing on the validity or the truthfulness of your claims.

Quote[/b] ]

So despite Science's best efforts, science has not been able to refute the idea that there is a higher power that governs the universe we live in.

In your own incredibly biased and blinkered opinion..... and not that it actually is the responsibilty of those who believe in the faeries to explain them, not those who do not

Quote[/b] ]

Any true religious scholar should always be questioning religious doctrine and should always be interested in the truth.

Unfortunately as soon as it contradicts a certain level of things they feel comforted believing they ignore it and claim it isn't true, and isolate themselves from reality (re: you and your god belief)

Quote[/b] ]

That is why I believe it is a mistake for atheists to attack people with beliefs in god/s when instead they should be seeking to understand what drives these beliefs so as to share some common ground with these people because many of these religious beliefs are based on shared human experience regardless of whether you believe in God/s or not.

I'm sure everyone in the loony bins have great shared experience with pixies, gnomes and other woodland creatures. Aye, right.

BTW, agnosticism: The question of 'god' existing or not is said to be unanswerable in agnosticism. Which begs the question of how exactly you claim to be an agnostic yet believe in god.

I think you are not an agnostic at all.

*semi because they are more likely to occur in certain parts of the genome than others.

[denoir 0]

Baron, you know I agree with you, but there is no need for personal attacks. It only weakens your credibility.

Miles Teg:

The term "agnosticism" is often misused as many seem to think that it equals into a belief of some undefined form of higher power. It does not. Agnosticism is belief that there is no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

IMO, agnosticism is the only scientifically justifiable position. Most atheists are actually agnostics. Very few atheist try to prove in some way that god does not exist, but they rather point out that there is no proof the other way.

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]Who on earth gave you a job as an anthropologist if you don't even understand the basic idea of evolution?

1) it is not something to be believed in.

Evolution happened.  The theory of how it happened is called the theory of evolution.  It may or may not be correct, if not another theory of evolution will arise which will be more correct, and so on until it is correct.

Anthropologists are not required to believe in any theory.  We get educated in theory and we choose to accept it or reject it and if we publish papers on the topic, we must defend our beliefs in an academic manner.   However cultural anthropologists generally do not concentrate on evolution.  We study modern human societies and cultures.

Your view that theory must be accepted as ABSOLUTE TRUTH until disproven is a very narrow minded attitude.   For me evolutionary theory is a good theory, but it only provides one small glimpse of the incredible complexities of biological entities that science is only just beginning to understand.

So I don't reject it.

Quote[/b] ]

2) RANDOM CHANCE IS NOT HOW IT WORKED

I'm really fed up of people who do not understand (have not bothered to research) evolution coming up with this 'random chance' bullshit.  Mutations are (semi*) random, selection is NOT.

Yes I know, you don't need to lecture me on all the processes of evolutionary theory.  But point mutations are generally regarded as being fairly random although indeed there are various reasons for such alterations in genetic code that can cause such mutations.  But the incredible number of variables and probablities of, for example, a species of flowering plant to mutate its flowers to mimic a particular species of wasp are truly mindboggling especially when such processes happen over a relatively short period of time (relative to many evolutionary processes) and when similar species evolve seperately around the world.  

What originally caused life to occur and to have that self-sustaining drive to survive and adapt to the enviornment by transforming itself into new species.  What created that magnificent genetic code?

I'm sure biomolecular scientists have a fairly good idea, but nevertheless most scientific principles are based on fairly logical models.  Where does that structure come from?

Quote[/b] ]

No, they aren't.  

Someone who does not believe in something, through lack of knowledge of it (babies, remote hilltop tribes) is atheistic towards it.

Someone who does not believe in something because they are not sure whether it exists or not, is atheistic towards it.

Agnosticism in most cases is simply 'soft' atheism - I don't know whether or not this exists, therefore there is no reason to believe in it.

Ok...  then I'll just call myself a believer if I don't fit the definition of agnostic.

Quote[/b] ]

And the square circle argument applies to the fundamentalists who DO that.  Who say that their book is absolutely literally true.

And also to some extent to the fuzzy thinkers who claim that some parts of the book are true, but that not all of it is (despite claiming that it was inspired/ written by a perfect omniscient being)

I like fuzzy thinkers.      Strict adherence to any theory religious or scientific limits ones perceptions.  While it may create a fullfilling well-ordered world for some, it also puts blinders on the mind to reality as experienced by others and to alternate hypothesis that fall outside the boundaries of a particular belief system.

Quote[/b] ]

Personally I feel very hurt when people make fun of my beliefs in God when they know nothing about me, and nothing about how I came to those beliefs and the very deep spiritual experiences I have had.

Many of the people in insane asylums also feel that they had deep spiritual experiences with god (before he told them to kill their families)  - ITS ALL IN YOUR HEAD.

And so is your vision of reality.  We are all limited by the filters of our own mind and abilities of perception.  Some more then others.

I am always skeptical of anyone who claims they know the perfect truth, secular or religious.   For them it may be perfect but rarely is any one "truth" perfect for all.

However I do believe in certain universal principles that humans tend to agree upon all around the world.  Those universals are what interest me as an anthropologist although my area of speciality is in conflict anthropology and Islamic cultures.... areas which I am always learning new things about every day.  

Quote[/b] ]

For example they do not know of my mother's many near death experiences, they do know of my own paranormal experiences, and they do not know of my own very very deep connection with animals and the natural world or my experiences with death or with deeply personal moments of incredible spirtual experiences that I will share with noone else as they are so sacred to me.

NONE of which can be explained by the following :

it is all in your head [/sarcasm]

Sarcastic comments like that are exactly what I find insulting.

It belittles my human experience.  Trivializes it.  Certainly to you it may mean nothing.  But to me it is everything.  My spiritual experiences and beliefs are what give richness and joy in my life.  They are the coping mechanisms with which I handle adversity in life and through which I struggle to become a better person.  

I pity you if you have not found something in life that gives you that kind of intense joy and fullfillment.

What is it for you?  Drugs?  Respect? Entertainment? Thrill-seeking? Sports? Money? Power?

Maybe you have found something in life that brings you peace of mind and satisfaction in life.  If so then I am happy for you.

Quote[/b] ]

However when some tells me I'm basically a backwards idiot for believing in such outdated notions as "God", then I feel very offended because they insult all that gives meaning to my life and they also sometimes lump me into the category of religious zealots.

If the shoe fits....

Regardless of how comforting and nice it might feel, that has no bearing on the validity or the truthfulness of your claims.  

Because of my life experiences, that you know nothing about, my standard of validity and truthfulness has been more then surpassed when it comes to whether there is or isn't some kind of higher power in the universe that created it and that guides it.  

You may attack me and say that I have low standards then, but ultimately you have not walked in my shoes and travelled my path in life as I have not walked in your shoes.    So I do not know you and can only judge you by how you treat other people online in this forum and by what your words say.  Your words, of coarse, may not reflect your actions in your day to day life just as for all you know my words may not reflect my actions.

What you mistakenly assume is that I am trying to prove God exists.  What I am saying is that I believe God does exist but that I am perfectly content if you want to believe God does not exist as long as you and people like yourselves do not try to force those beliefs upon me.  

The state level enforcement of ideologies and religions are one of the chief causes for wars throughout history whether its Christianity, capitalism, democratic systems, or Marxism... it boils down to people trying to force beliefs upon other people who they view as inferior when they believe that they know what's best for those ignorant people.  

Granted thats a broad generalization as I am not a total post-modernist.  I do believe in certain universal concepts of right and wrong and I do believe that every society has dysfunctional aspects to them.  But those are things that those societies need to work out for themselves unless they ask for assistance or their dysfunctionality is a clear threat to the lives of other people.  An example of this being militant religious organizations that will use violence against civilians to push their religious beliefs.  

But the key to ultimately suppressing those belief systems dangerous to humanity is developing a clear understanding of where those beliefs come from, identifying key causes for those beliefs, and then working on attacking those root causes.  

In other words I do not fall into the "kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out" camp.

Quote[/b] ]

despite Science's best efforts, science has not been able to refute the idea that there is a higher power that governs the universe we live in.

In your own incredibly biased and blinkered opinion..... and not that it actually is the responsibilty of those who believe in the faeries to explain them, not those who do not

We all have our biases sir.  I do my best to make my biases very clear.  There is no such thing as a human being without biases.  Since you seem to believe you know alot about science then you above all people should know that experimenter bias is a big factor in many types of scientific research.  

...and yes I do believe in fairies.  '

Fairies or similar entities are actually quite common in religions and folk beliefs around the world.

Quote[/b] ]

Unfortunately as soon as it contradicts a certain level of things they feel comforted believing they ignore it and claim it isn't true, and isolate themselves from reality (re: you and your god belief)

Is it too hard for you to understand that I have not been convinced by science that God does not exist?  Science in my view is still in a very infantile state.  But I think science is a wonderful way of learning about God's creation.

If science contradicted my belief system (which it doesn't) then I'd simply take a hard look at my beliefs.   But my core spiritual beliefs have so not been overruled by science.

Science is not pure truth.

It is only a small glimpse of pure truth (the divine in my belief).

Take any scientific field and theories are constantly shifting and expanding in directions as we learn more and more "truth".

Religion and science in my mind are two paths towards the same goal which is to become closer to the "truth".

That is why I find a belief in God and a belief in the pursuit of science as being perfectly compatible.

Quote[/b] ]

That is why I believe it is a mistake for atheists to attack people with beliefs in god/s when instead they should be seeking to understand what drives these beliefs so as to share some common ground with these people because many of these religious beliefs are based on shared human experience regardless of whether you believe in God/s or not.

I'm sure everyone in the loony bins have great shared experience with pixies, gnomes and other woodland creatures.  Aye, right.

Again you belittle and insult people's religious beliefs by equating religion with mental illness.  It's a very poor and transparent attempt at delegitmizing one's arguement, but I think most psychologists would conclude that the majority of people who believe in God are generally not characterized as having hallucinations and other forms of mental illness.

.... and don't dis' the pixies.  Pixies rock dude.    

Quote[/b] ]

BTW, agnosticism: The question of 'god' existing or not is said to be unanswerable in agnosticism.  Which begs the question of how exactly you claim to be an agnostic yet believe in god.

I think you are not an agnostic at all.

Yeah I answered that above.  You are right.  I shouldn't call myself agnostic.  Thank you for pointing me towards the established definition.  I will no longer call myself agnostic.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Anthropologists are not required to believe in any theory.

NOBODY is required to believe in ANY theories.

Isn't this sinking in yet?

Quote[/b] ]

We get educated in theory and we choose to accept it or reject it and if we publish papers on the topic, we must defend our beliefs in an academic manner. However cultural anthropologists generally do not concentrate on evolution. We study modern human societies and cultures.

Your view that theory must be accepted as ABSOLUTE TRUTH until disproven is a very narrow minded attitude.

Your lack of basic reading skills is getting annoying.

Evolution is a FACT. The FACT of evolution is different from the theory of how it happens. The FACT of gravity is different from the THEORY of gravitation.

Quote[/b] ]

For me evolutionary theory is a good theory, but it only provides one small glimpse of the incredible complexities of biological entities that science is only just beginning to understand.

So I don't reject it.

Or even understand it.

Quote[/b] ]

Yes I know, you don't need to lecture me on all the processes of evolutionary theory.

Apparently I do, because you just ignored (or didn't understand) what I said.

Quote[/b] ]

But the incredible number of variables and probablities of, for example, a species of flowering plant to mutate its flowers to mimic a particular species of wasp are truly mindboggling especially when such processes happen over a relatively short period of time (relative to many evolutionary processes) and when similar species evolve seperately around the world.

Not if you actually understand how evolution works (hint: its NOT RANDOM)

Quote[/b] ]

What originally caused life to occur and to have that self-sustaining drive to survive and adapt to the enviornment by transforming itself into new species. What created that magnificent genetic code?

Something that will only be discovered by science, not by books written by old men thousands of years ago, and certainly not by invisible sky fairies.

Quote[/b] ]

Ok... then I'll just call myself a believer if I don't fit the definition of agnostic.

What gave you the idea to call yourself an agnostic if you don't actually know what one is? Spend a lot of time bandying words around that you don't understand, don't you.

Quote[/b] ]

I like fuzzy thinkers. Strict adherence to any theory religious or scientific limits ones perceptions.

How did I guess .

There is no such thing as a religious theory (theories *about* religions, yes)

Quote[/b] ]

While it may create a fullfilling well-ordered world for some, it also puts blinders on the mind to reality as experienced by others and to alternate hypothesis that fall outside the boundaries of a particular belief system.

Did you, a religious peon, just accuse *anyone else* of being blinded to reality? Ironic :P

Supernatural nonsense blinds people to reality. Science is all about reality, not nonsense supernatural crap.

Quote[/b] ]

And so is your vision of reality.

...because I'm the one who believes in things that don't exist.... right.

Quote[/b] ]We are all limited by the filters of our own mind and abilities of perception. Some more then others.

At least you admit it. As soon as you start acting on your problem, you'll be better.

Quote[/b] ]

I am always skeptical of anyone who claims they know the perfect truth, secular or religious. For them it may be perfect but rarely is any one "truth" perfect for all.

There is NO such thing as two different truths. Something either happened or it did not (apart from quantum).

There are no faeries at the bottom of the garden, period.

Quote[/b] ]

Sarcastic comments like that are exactly what I find insulting.

It belittles my human experience. Trivializes it. Certainly to you it may mean nothing. But to me it is everything.

Diddums. The word 'tough' spring to mind. It is still all in your head. YOU MADE IT UP. Deal with it.

Quote[/b] ]

My spiritual experiences and beliefs are what give richness and joy in my life. They are the coping mechanisms with which I handle adversity in life and through which I struggle to become a better person.

I pity you if you have not found something in life that gives you that kind of intense joy and fullfillment.

I pity those who need to make invisible friends for themselves and invent distorted views of reality to deal with real life. And I also pity those who think that you need all of those things to experience joy or fulfilment.

Quote[/b] ]

Because of my life experiences, that you know nothing about, my standard of validity and truthfulness has been more then surpassed when it comes to whether there is or isn't some kind of higher power in the universe that created it and that guides it.

Great, you have low standards. Wow. I'm sure none of the chaps who believe they are napoleon in the old funny farms had any of their standards surpassed :P.

All

In

Your

Head.

Quote[/b] ]

You may attack me and say that I have low standards then, but blah blah

It simple. Your brain can make things up. So you need E V I D E N C E. Things that your brain could have made up are not evidence.

Quote[/b] ]

What you mistakenly assume is that I am trying to prove God exists. What I am saying is that I believe God does exist but that I am perfectly content if you want to believe God does not exist as long as you and people like yourselves do not try to force those beliefs upon me.

Thats great. Please refrain from interjecting in any and all science discussions, work, research, etc.

Quote[/b] ]

We all have our biases sir. I do my best to make my biases very clear. There is no such thing as a human being without sciences. Since you seem to believe you know alot about science then you above all people should know that experimenter bias is a big factor in many types of scientific research.

...and yes I do believe in fairies. '

Fairies or similar entities are actually quite common in religions and folk beliefs around the world.

...and you seem to think that that makes it more likely... what is WRONG with you?

Quote[/b] ]

Again you belittle and insult people's religious beliefs by equating religion with mental illness. It's a very poor and transparent attempt at delegitmizing one's arguement, but I think most psychologists would conclude that the majority of people who believe in God are generally not characterized as having hallucinations and other forms of mental illness.

.....you are insane.

What is the difference between believing in one kind of invisible fairy and another?

[Placebo 29]

Enough.

I asked for it to be discussed respectfully, obviously certain of you here are incapable of doing that.