# Question My Beliefs, But Be Prepared To Answer For Yours :)



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 19, 2011)

Influenced by other threads, this one is to show the stark contrast between believers and non-believers. The differences in our approaches towards answering this question. How are those differences important?

What does it mean to question the beliefs you hold most true? 

How do you do it? Are there guidelines to follow? Is there a right or wrong way?

Why do you believe the things you do? 

How do you know they're true? 

If they weren't true, how would it change your life? 

Would you be willing to change what you believe to be true for what actually is true, even if it meant it would shatter that which you held to be most true your whole life? 

What's more important to you, the truth, or your comfort and peace of mind?


There is no hidden agenda, no alterior motive.. None of that. This is just a thread from a guy who, dispite having a difficult time understanding, is interested in these things. Can't we have one of these conversations, just one time, where nobody argues or insults someone else? Can this thread prove it? I'd like to say it can be done, but my experience says otherwise, and I'm not saying I'm innocent of this either, but come on people, keep your composure, stay calm, relax, think. This stuff is not personal, don't make it personal. None of us know each other, what do you have to get upset about?

So this is how we do this, I'm going to be score keeper, everytime someone bitches, moans, whines, cries or complains about something unjustly, the topic of the thread at the time will be paused, it'll be pointed out, and we will take a vote, if 5 people agree the bitching/moaning/whining/crying/complaining is unwarranted, the other side will get a point. There are two sides, believers, nonbelievers. This doesn't make us advasaries, it makes us partners, working together, to answer the same questions. 

I think this will be an interesting little addition to the normal stuff, so lets make it happen, do it the right way, follow the instructions, and if you have any more questions you are genuinely curious about, ASK THEM!


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 19, 2011)

i gave my insight on another thread, but it got deleted... that sucks...

I think i will sit this one out... I find there will never be a conversation that you like cause someone will not play fair and thats a fact. 

I believe God placed everything here for us mankind to discover by ourselves. Everything just falls into place for me. Im happy the way i live my life and i cant complain. I do not force anything on no one and i hear out someone that has something to say about what they believe in(in person, its quite difficult sometimes on here), i respect what you believe in and it does not bother me if my beliefs are stupid or dumb to some...

thanks


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 19, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i gave my insight on another thread, but it got deleted... that sucks...


I agree, I don't think threads should be deleted. 



olylifter420 said:


> I think i will sit this one out... I find there will never be a conversation that you like cause someone will not play fair and thats a fact.


That's why I turned it into kind of a game. If you act stupid or say something stupid, you will be held accountable for it and the points will reflect which side represents rational thinking. (not you specifically)



olylifter420 said:


> I believe God placed everything here for us mankind to discover by ourselves. Everything just falls into place for me. Im happy the way i live my life and i cant complain. I do not force anything on no one and i hear out someone that has something to say about what they believe in(in person, its quite difficult sometimes on here), i respect what you believe in and it does not bother me if my beliefs are stupid or dumb to some...


But, would it bother you if your beliefs harmed other people?


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 20, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Influenced by other threads, this one is to show the stark contrast between believers and non-believers. The differences in our approaches towards answering this question. How are those differences important?
> 
> What does it mean to question the beliefs you hold most true?


Okay. For me, the things I hold to be most true are still held with skepticism. I like the way science measures things on level of certainty which approaches 100% but never can reach it. Nothing can be proved in reality, even our own senses have to be questioned. But most things are in the realm of philosophy so I take a pragmatic approach and start with certain assumptions. 
1. I exist. I am a real living being, not a brain in a vat and reality is reality. We are part of the natural world. 
2. I believe that nature is orderly. It has regular patterns and structure that can observed and described as laws of nature. 
3. The laws of nature are the same everywhere. There is no special place that is exempt from these laws
4. We can use evidence from observing nature to learn about causes. 
5. Nothing is self-evident. Truth claims must be evaluated objectively



> How do you do it? Are there guidelines to follow? Is there a right or wrong way?


Yes there is a right way and ever since ancient Greece we have been learning and using skeptical critical thinking skills to weed out incorrect ideas and faulty beliefs. 


> Why do you believe the things you do?


Probably because my tendency toward the math and science in school.


> How do you know they're true?


I don't for sure. Everything is suspect but most things in life I have an extremely high level of certainty that they are true. 


> If they weren't true, how would it change your life?


Probably depends on the belief but in most cases I reject the invalidated belief and not much in my life changes. 


> Would you be willing to change what you believe to be true for what actually is true, even if it meant it would shatter that which you held to be most true your whole life?


I can't think of many things that would shatter my beliefs but of course I would change. Humans adapt if they do nothing else. 


> What's more important to you, the truth, or your comfort and peace of mind?


Peace of mind would be extremely nice and very tempting but truth wins out because I cannot deny something once I learn it to be true. I can't ignore something just because I would like to feel good. 



> There is no hidden agenda, no alterior motive.. None of that. This is just a thread from a guy who, dispite having a difficult time understanding, is interested in these things. Can't we have one of these conversations, just one time, where nobody argues or insults someone else? Can this thread prove it? I'd like to say it can be done, but my experience says otherwise, and I'm not saying I'm innocent of this either, but come on people, keep your composure, stay calm, relax, think. This stuff is not personal, don't make it personal. None of us know each other, what do you have to get upset about?
> 
> So this is how we do this, I'm going to be score keeper, everytime someone bitches, moans, whines, cries or complains about something unjustly, the topic of the thread at the time will be paused, it'll be pointed out, and we will take a vote, if 5 people agree the bitching/moaning/whining/crying/complaining is unwarranted, the other side will get a point. There are two sides, believers, nonbelievers. This doesn't make us advasaries, it makes us partners, working together, to answer the same questions.
> 
> I think this will be an interesting little addition to the normal stuff, so lets make it happen, do it the right way, follow the instructions, and if you have any more questions you are genuinely curious about, ASK THEM!


Play on!

Okay, here I go. I don't want to shatter Pad's beliefs but it is "ulterior" not "alterior"


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 20, 2011)

how would you feel if your beliefs harmed others? I dont think my beliefs harm no one because my beliefs are held within myself.. I do not preach them to others, i do not commit crimes or violent acts against others and i am not gullible.

How do you know that you questioning others beliefs and telling them they are wrong makes someone think twice about life? What if they let it get to them and make them believe that all this time their lives were lies?

Im not bothered by your questioning, it makes my beliefs more concrete. I know they will always be tested, but it matters what you do when they are. 


People take things out of context and there will always be abusers of the system. Within any system, it is bound to happen that someone will abuse the system. the people you are referring to are extremists' who abuse the weak minds of sheep that have nothing to follow or no one to lead them. Enlightened by the lies of these individuals, these so called sheep will be willing to do anything in the name of whoever they supposedly follow.

What i am referring to is the many great people who contribute and have contributed to science or any other area of study in which their beliefs aided them in conquering difficult tasks and helping others. Just as there are bad people who abuse the "system", there are just as many or more people who are willing to help anyone out or contribute to something greater then themselves. 





Padawanbater2 said:


> I agree, I don't think threads should be deleted.
> 
> 
> That's why I turned it into kind of a game. If you act stupid or say something stupid, you will be held accountable for it and the points will reflect which side represents rational thinking. (not you specifically)
> ...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 20, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> how would you feel if your beliefs harmed others? I dont think my beliefs harm no one because my beliefs are held within myself.. I do not preach them to others, i do not commit crimes or violent acts against others and i am not gullible.


Alright, but for the sake of this hypothertical question, what if you were sure they harmed other people, if somehow you were positive that your belief in God hurt another person, how would that make you feel? Would you still believe?



olylifter420 said:


> How do you know that you questioning others beliefs and telling them they are wrong makes someone think twice about life? What if they let it get to them and make them believe that all this time their lives were lies?


I don't tell people they're wrong, I tell people they're using inconsistent logic to analyze results, are biased towards the information that's been presented, or are simply unaware of the pitfalls of the human brain. And I don't know for sure it will make anyone think twice about life. Also, I don't just say it, I point out where and how I think they're being inconsistent so they can explain it or correct it.

The feeling of liberation when you understand you're an atheist is justification for all the lies you've been told your whole life.



olylifter420 said:


> Im not bothered by your questioning, it makes my beliefs more concrete. I know they will always be tested, but it matters what you do when they are.


Answer the questions in the OP oly, I'd like to see them.



olylifter420 said:


> People take things out of context and there will always be abusers of the system. Within any system, it is bound to happen that someone will abuse the system. the people you are referring to are extremists' who abuse the weak minds of sheep that have nothing to follow or no one to lead them. Enlightened by the lies of these individuals, these so called sheep will be willing to do anything in the name of whoever they supposedly follow.


I don't think this argument has a solid foundation to stand on. Couldn't you say the same thing with just about anything? 

-"_____ is naturally good, it's just been perverted over the centuries.."
-flaws are pointed out in Biblical moral code, ex. slavery, women submissive to men, child abuse, homosexual hate, etc., in an attempt to show the one making the claim that the morals presented in the Bible are not always so moral and in fact, present some very immoral behavior 
-evidence most often than not goes unanswered or, the OT is envoked as justification.. "that was before Jesus, now it doesn't apply", yet hating homosexuals still exists in droves within mainstream Christianity, and religious people seem to cherry pick the morals they agree with within the Bible and discard anything that might question it.
-now, it's written in the OT, inside the Bible, that every Christian follows, there it is, right in black and white for anyone to read. So the question of "is it the religions fault, or is it the crazy individuals fault?" doesn't seem to make any difference because clearly it would seem that no matter the answer, the persons religion played a major part and influenced the outcome of that persons decision regardless. Without it, would he still have made the same decision? Of course not. So how can anyone make the claim that you just did? 

This is where you would present evidence to support your idea that people are crazy, not religion. Show me what I'm missing, show me what you see that I don't. Why do you believe this?



olylifter420 said:


> What i am referring to is the many great people who contribute and have contributed to science or any other area of study in which their beliefs aided them in conquering difficult tasks and helping others. Just as there are bad people who abuse the "system", there are just as many or more people who are willing to help anyone out or contribute to something greater then themselves.


If a serial killer helps you cut your grass and wash your car every weekend, do you think he should still go to prison for killing people?


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 20, 2011)

I thought we were not supposed to Question God.   <3


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 20, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Play on!
> 
> Okay, here I go. I don't want to shatter Pad's beliefs but it is "ulterior" not "alterior"


attah boy, thanks for the correction! And thanks for your reply, you and I seem to be on pretty equal ground, I answer the questions just about the same way you did. You, me and Heis (among others) would be the ultimate philosophical smoke session!


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 20, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> I thought we were not supposed to Question God.  <3


Join the party Budzski! Are you prepared to answer for your beliefs?!


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 20, 2011)

Always.!. My Mind Is Ready To Expand. so where do we begin.. . Oly chime in here so I have some material.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 20, 2011)

you see, it is that that will always "allow you " to win this discussion. power in numbers..

I did already answer them in my own way, i dont know how to multi quote, sorry...

Like minded people will always back each other up.

I have nothing against no one and a serial killer deserves to be dead if you ask me.

and lets just say also, that your questioning did in fact cause someone to commit suicide?

how would that make you feel?








Padawanbater2 said:


> attah boy, thanks for the correction! And thanks for your reply, you and I seem to be on pretty equal ground, I answer the questions just about the same way you did. You, me and Heis (among others) would be the ultimate philosophical smoke session!


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 20, 2011)

peoples beliefs will always play a major role in any decision people make.

I do not have any evidence for what you are seeking... The things you seek can never be explained or shown... it is a never ending discussion with differing opinions and differing beliefs that is usually one sided.

I find it clearly to be the "crazy individuals" fault for doing crazy things like you say... You can give me a gun, but that doesnt mean i will shoot you or any other human with it even though i believe in God. The individual makes conscious decisions which they know the outcome of. there will always be bad apples in the bunch 


i think this video clearly states my position

[video=youtube;mOXXYEmv-90]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOXXYEmv-90&feature=related[/video]




Padawanbater2 said:


> Alright, but for the sake of this hypothertical question, what if you were sure they harmed other people, if somehow you were positive that your belief in God hurt another person, how would that make you feel? Would you still believe?
> 
> 
> I don't tell people they're wrong, I tell people they're using inconsistent logic to analyze results, are biased towards the informa
> ...


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 20, 2011)

do you not know for yourself?






RawBudzski said:


> Always.!. My Mind Is Ready To Expand. so where do we begin.. . Oly chime in here so I have some material.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 20, 2011)

bumper bump


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 20, 2011)

Let's try this, I'll ask a question, you give an answer, I then decide if the answer is enough to quell my interest. Then you ask a question, I give an answer and you decide. Agree? I really don't care what you ask me, nothing is off limits.



olylifter420 said:


> you see, it is that that will always "allow you " to win this discussion. power in numbers..


It's not a win/lose situation, like I mentioned in the OP. The point system is designed to keep people on topic and weed out the pointless insults that always seem to come about in these kinds of discussions. The thread is short, but so far I haven't seen one. 



olylifter420 said:


> I did already answer them in my own way, i dont know how to multi quote, sorry...


I realize you replied, but you didn't answer the questions. Take a stab at it, no judgments here.

To multi-quote, copy the username (or simply put [ quote ] without the username) and paste it before their text, then at the end of their text put [ /quote ] and it'll box it up all neat-like for you. (no spaces between brackets [])



olylifter420 said:


> Like minded people will always back each other up.


See, you are learning how the human mind can trick itself.. (confirmation bias)



olylifter420 said:


> I have nothing against no one and a serial killer deserves to be dead if you ask me.


So then, it really doesn't matter how much good a terrible person does, right? 

Why should it matter how much good a terrible institution does?



olylifter420 said:


> and lets just say also, that your questioning did in fact cause someone to commit suicide?


If my questions caused someone to commit suicide, I would feel like that person was going to commit suicide whether they read anything I had to say or not. 

I've touched on this point before. Nothing someone says should ever envoke those kinds of thoughts/feelings. Words are just words. 

I know it's scary for some people to ask these questions. But oly, you've seen me post here for a while now, does it look like I'm scared of asking these questions to you? Have you ever thought about why it might be so terrifying to some but to others, it's just words? I've taken the time to really think about this stuff, I just don't think that if there was a god, and it gave me the ability to think these questions through logically and rationally that led to the only answers my mind is cabable of believing, it would fault me for it. 



olylifter420 said:


> how would that make you feel?


On a personal level, sad someone could be so weak simple questions could make them end it all, sad a society could manipulate a person into submission to the point of ending it all, sad someone could be taken advantage of and used as a pawn in their racket. Just sad.



olylifter420 said:


> peoples beliefs will always play a major role in any decision people make.


100% correct. Which is why what someone believes is so important for the rest of us. If something someone believes makes them act a certain way that impacts the rest of society in a negative way, I think it's the responsibility of those living in that society to correct it. I think the problem arises when those that believe feel their beliefs do not impact society in a negative way. Our own back and fourth has also given me that impression. You think Christianity is harmless and does more good than the harm the 'bad apples' cause within it, I think Christianity is dangerous and is used to subconsciously manipulate populations into acting/being a certain way, as to maintain control and the illusion of order. 

That is the problem that we should be talking about. The reasons you feel it does more good than bad and the reasons I feel it does more bad than good. There's gotta be some middle ground, wouldn't you agree?



olylifter420 said:


> I do not have any evidence for what you are seeking... The things you seek can never be explained or shown... it is a never ending discussion with differing opinions and differing beliefs that is usually one sided.


I disagree. Remember how we mentioned in the other thread that nothing can ever reach 100% certainty and only degrees of probability exist? The answers to these questions can be found if they deal with the natural world. 

Again, _opinions_ don't matter in this discussion. What we are talking about are beliefs, right? Doesn't it seem kind of silly to base a belief off of an unsubstantiated opinion? I'm not really even sure how one would do that. You can't trick yourself into belief, you simply believe after the evidence is provided or you don't. We are talking about facts, evidence, science, proof. Objective truth, that which we can all observe to be true regardless of anyones opinion, is the same to me as it is to you as it is to the next guy. Rocks are hard, the sky is blue, the Earth rotates on a 24 hour cycle, these are all things that are objectively true, so what you or I or what anyone else has to say about it is irrelevant to what is actually true. Similarly, we can observe the claims made in the believer/nonbeliever debate and test them accordingly against objective truth. If it's true, as believers say it is, it should pass the test. Time and time again, the claims made fail the test. 

What is the honest individual to do?


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 20, 2011)

i really believe that a point will never be reached. What you find wrong, i find right or vice versa and we can agree on some things. But a true understanding or point i believe will not be reached.

I respect what you believe about Christianity and understand why you feel the way you do. 

I believe in what i believe in because when i was in high school i was a part of the FCA(fellowship of Christian Athletes) on a retreat that i went on, i was able to find God and truly come to one with Him. it is a highly spiritual thing that i cannot explain, you would have to experience it and believe with all your heart. I spoke in tongue and was enlightened by this immense energy just coursing through my body. Again, it is something that you would have to experience yourself and BELIEVE 100% with your heart to be one with God.

My take on religions is quite different. I am in no way for the fucking chomo priest fucks that molest those innocent children or those fucking televangelists who ask you for 10% of your monthly check cause God told him to ask for it... What a fucking crock pot of shit! They have become thieves and molesters and murderers and dictators. I despise those people and hope they all die. THose people have given my beliefs a bad name and i understand why. Im not ignorant to what goes on, but the truth is, i live in a small town and in no way communicate with the rest of world where i can preach my beliefs to them. I respect people who show respect and thats it. you can be gay, atheist muslim or whatever, you show respect, respect is what you will get in return... 





Padawanbater2 said:


> Let's try this, I'll ask a question, you give an answer, I then decide if the answer is enough to quell my interest. Then you ask a question, I give an answer and you decide. Agree? I really don't care what you ask me, nothing is off limits.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Farfenugen (Aug 20, 2011)

Believing in god (any god, diety, fruitloop wandering desert hippie) has caused lots of deaths and destruction in the past as it does today, personally I could care shitless what people think of what I believe in or not, nor do I care what other people believe in, providing it isn't a fundeMENTAL law or any rule or regulation that dictates someone or any group of people must be killed just for the sake of a belief or non-belief in a religion. And so far we still live in such a time that has all this nonsense going on, political correctness run amok, laws being passed in favour of special interest groups (including religious laws, Sharia for example), as well having to feel guilty for being a non-believer. 

When (organized) religion is no longer in control of society, that society will move on to a better era of understanding, such as scientific, environmental and common sense prevailing over living in a world where it is the norm.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 20, 2011)

Oly, you have at least a half dozen posts in this thread and you haven't even attempted to answer the questions in the OP. Why don't you at least try? The OP made no mention of god or religion as the same standards should be applied to all beliefs, unless for some reason you think belief in god should be excepted from your normal cognitive filtering process. If THAT is a belief of yours, I would really like to know why.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 20, 2011)

What does it mean to question the beliefs you hold most true? 
All beliefs should be questioned. The beliefs you hold most true should be the most questioned, since apparently they have been around the longest. Questioning your beliefs simply means attempting to validate them. It means justifying your confidence via testing. The beliefs you hold are a reflection of your thinking and understanding of your place in the world. It is an indication of how you interpret and handle life. I do not want my beliefs to show cowardice, prejudice, sloppiness, inconsistency or irresponsibility, if for no other reason than that those traits often lead to false conclusions.


How do you do it? Are there guidelines to follow? Is there a right or wrong way?
You apply systematic and consistent doubt without allowing yourself personal prejudice. This requires making yourself aware of common reasoning mistakes and being intimately familiar with the subject. If you are to examine computer code and search for mistakes, you have to be aware the programming structure that makes the code valid (that which makes the logic of the code function). You can not do this without first understanding the code. Most people do not understand their own programming, or the inherit mistakes that programming is prone to. Even if you completely understand the code, many programmers can still overlook mistakes. That is why it's important to have your peers review your conclusions, no matter how confident you are. In computers we have an easy time because we can simply have a different piece of software check our code for mistakes. In real life we do not have this luxury, and must depend on others.

Why do you believe the things you do? 
Because I have thought about them carefully and thoroughly, while always looking for errors, and then I have submitted them for peer review so that others can search for errors. When I believe something it is the same as saying "I have been unable to find fault with this conclusion".

How do you know they're true? 
I can be reasonably confident they are true because I have agreed on a system of standards that are designed to carefully, thoroughly, and consistently apply doubt to evidence, reasoning, and results, and these beliefs have survived that doubt. This process is labeled skepticism. Skeptical answers are always predicated on the idea that new evidence or information requires the entire doubt process to begin again. However it is important to distinguish between reasonable doubt and general distrust.

If they weren't true, how would it change your life? 
It would help me identify a mistake in my thinking which would improve on other areas of belief. Often times that mistake is simply being uninformed or misinformed. One of the earliest things I learned was, check your facts. 

Would you be willing to change what you believe to be true for what actually is true, even if it meant it would shatter that which you held to be most true your whole life? 
As a matter of course.

What's more important to you, the truth, or your comfort and peace of mind? In my world, truth trumps all. I wish to understand reality as clearly as possible, and I rarely find personal comfort in reality. My satisfaction comes from understanding.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 20, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> What does it mean to question the beliefs you hold most true?
> All beliefs should be questioned. The beliefs you hold most true should be the most questioned, since apparently they have been around the longest. Questioning your beliefs simply means attempting to validate them. It means justifying your confidence via testing. The beliefs you hold are a reflection of your thinking and understanding of your place in the world. It is an indication of how you interpret and handle life. I do not want my beliefs to show cowardice, prejudice, sloppiness, inconsistency or irresponsibility, if for no other reason than that those traits often lead to false conclusions.
> 
> 
> ...


Great reply Heis! Using consistent logic to deal with all issues without prejudice is a key to finding the truth. I am glad I have the opportunity to learn from you. 

This is exactly what I want you to do oly, just what Heis did. I have a feeling that when you ask yourself these questions, more questions will come, when they do, post them, we're here to help you answer them.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 20, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Using consistent logic to deal with all issues without prejudice is a key to finding the truth.


I have learned from you as well.

But, to play devils advocate, are there any inconsistencies in your thinking? For example, do you have any superstitious beliefs? Do you exhibit certain behavior hoping to influence luck? Do you engage in any pretentious behavior to improve your appearance, like getting your hair styled as opposed to simply cut. What about keepsakes? Do you keep any objects around you simply for the sentimental value? 

None of these things make any logical sense. I keep a necklace that I don't like in a drawer because my deceased grandmother gave it to me. I wear flying spaghetti monster t-shirts not simply to cover my skin and keep me warm, but as a form of expression. I am without any superstitions, but my point is, logic can not carry the same weight in all aspects of life, but should be given the most weight in judging claims of reality.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 20, 2011)

you have said it yourself, my beliefs are a problem to you. you say this thread is unbiased but i beg to differ. The problem you have with my beliefs is what will never allow us to reach a common ground. i have tried to do this, but you do not take what i say serious and as a joke. Although when other LIKE MINDED people post, you most certainly agree with them. Why is that i can agree with them as well? Because i am unbiased.


And mp, i have answered the OP questions, just not to you are lichens or you choose to be bias as well...


I have seen that this thread is pointless for me to continue as only atheists' have chimed in... This is a sausage fest i want no part of anymore,


[video=youtube;nZh_dfuqQUo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZh_dfuqQUo[/video]






Padawanbater2 said:


> Let's try this, I'll ask a question, you give an answer, I then decide if the answer is enough to quell my interest. Then you ask a question, I give an answer and you decide. Agree? I really don't care what you ask me, nothing is off limits.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 20, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I have learned from you as well.
> 
> But, to play devils advocate, are there any inconsistencies in your thinking? For example, do you have any superstitious beliefs? Do you exhibit certain behavior hoping to influence luck? Do you engage in any pretentious behavior to improve your appearance, like getting your hair styled as opposed to simply cut. What about keepsakes? Do you keep any objects around you simply for the sentimental value?
> 
> None of these things make any logical sense. I keep a necklace that I don't like in a drawer because my deceased grandmother gave it to me. I wear flying spaghetti monster t-shirts not simply to cover my skin and keep me warm, but as a form of expression. I am without any superstitions, but my point is, logic can not carry the same weight in all aspects of life, but should be given the most weight in judging claims of reality.


Superstitious beliefs, none. On the road to atheism, I found myself using the same kind of consistent logic -skepticism- to analyze everything I believed. Superstitions are beliefs that consistently failed the test.

Luck, same concept. I don't believe in luck. I don't see how luck would work, anytime I ask someone it's sort of the same kind of "it just does" deal.. I find that to be pretty frustrating in my personal life too, when someone believes something, but they can't explain why.. It seems to me that if you can't explain why you believe something, you shouldn't be believing it... 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by engaging in pretentious behavior, buuuut, I cut my own hair..lol Why pay $15+$10 tip when I can buzz it myself eh?

Keepsakes, umm, the only thing that really matters to me sentimentally are things like pictures, notes, yearbooks, stuff like that. I actually have some fossils and books that I treasure, I guess you could say they hold sentimental value to me.

logic can not carry the same weight in all aspects of life, but should be given the most weight in judging claims of reality.

Absolutely, I agree.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 20, 2011)

I would love to graduate to Atheism, im stuck at Agnostic atm. More of an Agnostic Atheist


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 20, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> you have said it yourself, my beliefs are a problem to you. you say this thread is unbiased but i beg to differ. The problem you have with my beliefs is what will never allow us to reach a common ground. i have tried to do this, but you do not take what i say serious and as a joke. Although when other LIKE MINDED people post, you most certainly agree with them. Why is that i can agree with them as well? Because i am unbiased.


-your beliefs aren't a problem to me. I don't know you personally, how would anything you believe personally affect me? The mindset does, but that's because it does affect me. 

-What bothers me the most is your unwillingness to delve deeper into yourself to search for the answers to the questions that have been asked. I feel like you don't want to do it because there's an element of fear, we've both admitted it's there, but I promise you, the questions that you might be afraid to ask right now will lead you to answers that quell the fear and substitute it for a feeling of pure awe, amazement and wonder that existence is explainable... you just have to use the right set of tools.

Give it a chance man. Don't give up.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 20, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> I would love to graduate to Atheism, im stuck at Agnostic atm. More of an Agnostic Atheist


Agnostic atheist right here too Budzski


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 20, 2011)

I was trying to progress from areas where logic is important to where it is almost negligible. Superstition obviously isn't grounded in logic, but many people who are inclined to think logically still allow themselves superstitious behavior. My suspicion was that you do not. Pretense is also illogical, and I confess I cut my own hair too. I actually find it hard to find examples of pretense in my behavior, but none of us can be completely without it. When you meet someone at work and ask how their day is going, is your interest always genuine, or do you pretend for the sake of being polite? I think sentiment effects even the most logical thinking person. When you loose a person whom you cared deeply about, it takes a cold heart to not keep at least one thing that belonged to or reminds you of them.

I am of course not trying to attack you or find fault, I just find these topics interesting and worthy of discussion. I think it's intriguing how failing to apply logic in some areas can lead to very wrong and harmful beliefs, but failing to apply logic in other areas can help keep you sane. I guess the trick lies in where to draw the line, which I believe is between subjectivity and objectivity. Some aspects of belief are subject to emotions, past experiences, and appeals to comfort. I believe my grandmas necklace is nothing more than a bit of metal, but I suppress that belief in favor of the belief that it has value; a value that comes only from the comfort it brings me. Of course, I wouldn't expect it to have value to anyone else, because the belief is subjective. Claims of reality are objective in that emotion does not change them. Ultimately, the truth is not a democracy and can't be voted on. But if we are asking the question, is it ever okay to ignore truth for the sake of comfort, I think the answer has to be yes, that is if we are interested in good mental health. But it is irresponsible to hold a belief for the sake of comfort, if those beliefs amount to a dogma which entails oppression. So when someone says religion is valid simply for the fact that it makes people feel better, those people are not being responsible in their thinking.


----------



## kether noir (Aug 20, 2011)

93

*What does it mean to question the beliefs you hold most true? 
*to analyze and test them constantly and honestly. as well as studying and taking in other beliefs and remaining open.
* 
How do you do it? Are there guidelines to follow? Is there a right or wrong way?
*i just do. no. and no.
* Why do you believe the things you do? 
*curiosity, i suppose. ive found my own answers. 
* How do you know they're true? 
*testing. reading.....many other faucets....
* If they weren't true, how would it change your life? 
*i cant be sure. i would have to change my belief structure to the correct one/s...
* Would you be willing to change what you believe to be true for what actually is true, even if it meant it would shatter that which you held to be most true your whole life? 
*yes.
* What's more important to you, the truth, or your comfort and peace of mind?*
they all intertwine in cretin areas and levels. but, comfort.


93 93/93


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 20, 2011)

I prefer truth no matter how devastating it may be. Knowledge is the Root of All Suffering, & the only way to pacify that suffering is to gain more Knowledge. :O <3 Truth & Facts.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 20, 2011)

I admire your attitude kether, but I am concerned with one thing.



kether noir said:


> How do you do it? Are there guidelines to follow? Is there a right or wrong way?
> [/B][/B]i just do. no. and no.


If you are not careful when you question yourself, how can you be sure that you have asked the right questions? How do you know you've asked all the questions and answered them correctly? If you do not set standards for scrutiny then you can not be assured of it's quality, and are still very much in danger of holding erroneous beliefs.


----------



## kether noir (Aug 20, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I admire your attitude kether, but I am concerned with one thing.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are not careful when you question yourself, how can you be sure that you have asked the right questions? How do you know you've asked all the questions and answered them correctly? If you do not set standards for scrutiny then you can not be assured of it's quality, and are still very much in danger of holding erroneous beliefs.


93
true.
i agree. as i grow, i am constantly changing my structure, learning, and questioning everything. nothing sits long enough to gather dust. its a continuing daily cycle, as i understand more i know less. rater baked, if little sense this makes. 


93 93/93


----------



## tyler.durden (Aug 20, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Influenced by other threads, this one is to show the stark contrast between believers and non-believers. The differences in our approaches towards answering this question. How are those differences important?
> 
> What does it mean to question the beliefs you hold most true?
> 
> ...



This is a great idea, Padawanbater2. I love your approach here, and here's hoping that your rules (very cool, btw) keep us all on track in regards to the thread's true purpose. Starting to read...NOW!


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 20, 2011)

So this thread is to make believers and non-believers go head to head? Hmm what a great way to cause a bunch of useless arguments.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 21, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So this thread is to make believers and non-believers go head to head? Hmm what a great way to cause a bunch of useless arguments.





> This doesn't make us advasaries, it makes us partners, working together, to answer the same questions.


Pay attention, son.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> you have said it yourself, my beliefs are a problem to you. you say this thread is unbiased but i beg to differ. The problem you have with my beliefs is what will never allow us to reach a common ground. i have tried to do this, but you do not take what i say serious and as a joke. Although when other LIKE MINDED people post, you most certainly agree with them. Why is that i can agree with them as well? Because i am unbiased.
> 
> 
> And mp, i have answered the OP questions, just not to you are lichens or you choose to be bias as well...


You did not answer them as you said, "I gave my insight on another thread, but it got deleted" Not exactly part of this discussion now is it?

This thread isn't just about your beliefs in god, it's about ALL beliefs and how we evaluate them. I bet that if you examine other beliefs you hold that are independent of god or religion, you are more like-minded than you think. If you do not use some logical consistency to evaluate claims made by people, then you probably wouldn't make it in this world. You would constantly be believing all kinds of crazy things. The OP did not create the 'us vs. them' mentality, you did. The number of people that believe in a god is much higher than the number of atheists here on RIU and just about everywhere else. It's not the OP's fault that other religionists aren't posting. Maybe, like you, they are unwilling to admit that they give a special exemption on logical thought when it comes to their beliefs about a deity that they don't do for anything else. 

How about if we just examine your belief that you are unbiased? That shouldn't be so scary. How can you be sure you are unbiased considering the huge number of biases that most other mortals have?


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 21, 2011)

Im sorry you and many others disagree with what i say.





Heisenberg said:


> I was trying to progress from areas where logic is important to where it is almost negligible. Superstition obviously isn't grounded in logic, but many people who are inclined to think logically still allow themselves superstitious behavior. My suspicion was that you do not. Pretense is also illogical, and I confess I cut my own hair too. I actually find it hard to find examples of pretense in my behavior, but none of us can be completely without it. When you meet someone at work and ask how their day is going, is your interest always genuine, or do you pretend for the sake of being polite? I think sentiment effects even the most logical thinking person. When you loose a person whom you cared deeply about, it takes a cold heart to not keep at least one thing that belonged to or reminds you of them.
> 
> I am of course not trying to attack you or find fault, I just find these topics interesting and worthy of discussion. I think it's intriguing how failing to apply logic in some areas can lead to very wrong and harmful beliefs, but failing to apply logic in other areas can help keep you sane. I guess the trick lies in where to draw the line, which I believe is between subjectivity and objectivity. Some aspects of belief are subject to emotions, past experiences, and appeals to comfort. I believe my grandmas necklace is nothing more than a bit of metal, but I suppress that belief in favor of the belief that it has value; a value that comes only from the comfort it brings me. Of course, I wouldn't expect it to have value to anyone else, because the belief is subjective. Claims of reality are objective in that emotion does not change them. Ultimately, the truth is not a democracy and can't be voted on. But if we are asking the question, is it ever okay to ignore truth for the sake of comfort, I think the answer has to be yes, that is if we are interested in good mental health. But it is irresponsible to hold a belief for the sake of comfort, if those beliefs amount to a dogma which entails oppression. So when someone says religion is valid simply for the fact that it makes people feel better, those people are not being responsible in their thinking.


----------



## tyler.durden (Aug 21, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I have learned from you as well.
> 
> But, to play devils advocate, are there any inconsistencies in your thinking? For example, do you have any superstitious beliefs? Do you exhibit certain behavior hoping to influence luck? Do you engage in any pretentious behavior to improve your appearance, like getting your hair styled as opposed to simply cut. What about keepsakes? Do you keep any objects around you simply for the sentimental value?
> 
> None of these things make any logical sense. I keep a necklace that I don't like in a drawer because my deceased grandmother gave it to me. I wear flying spaghetti monster t-shirts not simply to cover my skin and keep me warm, but as a form of expression. I am without any superstitions, but my point is, logic can not carry the same weight in all aspects of life, but should be given the most weight in judging claims of reality.


 Hey, Heisenberg! I enjoy reading your posts, and really dig your epistemology. I am lucky enough to have a circle of friends that are skeptics, atheists, and critical thinkers (not to mention hilarious and great musicians). We bounce our thoughts, ideas and epistemologies off each other each week, and they are merciless in pointing out each others&#8217; errors and erroneous ideas and beliefs. This has allowed me to grow much more rapidly than if I had to rely solely on my own insight and methodology to find the errors in my thinking. I find inconsistencies in my thinking from time to time, and it&#8217;s no big deal to give them up immediately. But the cherished (comforting) beliefs that I have held for a long time, THOSE are painful, sometimes earth-shaking, things to give up in light of the new, indisputable facts that come to light. I don&#8217;t hold any superstitions, either, and wholeheartedly agree that logic should carry the most weight when judging claims of reality. 
You mention that your position is that it is illogical to pretentiously attempt to approve your appearance, to keep objects for sentimental value, and to do things merely for expression (the flying spaghetti t-shirt example). When I thought about this for a while, it seems to me that these things are logical in the following contexts: 
a. It is often asked, &#8216;what is my meaning/purpose in this life?&#8217; Of course, the answer is whatever meaning we choose to give it, but in a harsher, Darwinian sense we are vehicles for passing on our genes (Dawkins, the Selfish Gene and others). In order to do this most effectively, we need to be sexually attractive, as it is the most sexually attractive people who have the most sex, thus the greatest chances of procreating. So in this context, it seems logical to give in to the sex drive and make ourselves as attractive as possible. I personally don&#8217;t put much effort into my appearance, not to say I&#8217;m a slob but the only reason that I&#8217;ve ever put any stock into fashion (not wearing a brown belt with black shoes, getting this haircut over that one, etc. ) is because women that I was fucking , or wanted to fuck, wanted it that way. Some go as far to say that the main (usually unconscious) reason males achieve almost anything is to gain a mate and have sex, and you can see this when you look at the trend that most major accomplishments of a lot prolific artists/scientists/industrialists happen before they get married, and sometimes precious little afterward (they&#8217;ve already won a mate, the drive diminishes). But I digress&#8230;
b. We are apes, social primates. It seems that in nature higher mammals are hardwired to some degree of sentimentality. We see elephants carry the corpses of their fallen brethren long distances In order to bury them in an agreed upon cemetery of sorts, then seem to grieve for some time afterward. Similarly, we see bonobo and chimp mothers carry around the corpse of their dead children for weeks. It seems again we also share this sentimentality, and it seems that this is not learned behavior, but instinctual. Most of us don&#8217;t keep the corpses, instead we hold onto keepsakes of the corpses of our near and dear. Also, I find pleasure in keeping the crappy artwork and stories from my son and pulling them out for pleasurable nostalgic sessions every few years. It seems logical to satisfy this innate drive for sentiment.
c. Higher mammals also seem hardwired (I&#8217;m not liking this word, just using it for lack of a more accurate one) for expression. This may be more of a learned behavior, but it seems we have a real aptitude for expression. It seems to be an inner drive for most people (even young children), so again it seems logical to satisfy this drive, as well. 

The only alternative seems to be to repress these drives, but I think that would be to our mental/emotional/spiritual detriment, thus not logical. Let me know your take&#8230;


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 21, 2011)

i have no fear of anything, why would i fear a question? I feel that you will never agree with me because of my beliefs and your hatred towards it. I believe you and anyone else who says they "dont hate" my beliefs are liars. what else would motivate you or anyone else so much to belittle others beliefs? My beliefs are concrete no matter what, im not a coward to back out of them. I feel comfortable in my life and have no need to change anything... how does the old saying go, if aint broke dont fix it! 


and tell me, how does MY mindset affect you personally? Please let me know




and the red text says it all... you say that your beliefs do not affect no one, yet you promote them like it is the next big thing! why would that not make some weak minded person go out and shoot themselves or go out and kill a lot of people cause you told them their life was an entire lie and that they need to re think everything


this thread is extremely bias, i cannot stress that enough... 






Padawanbater2 said:


> -your beliefs aren't a problem to me. I don't know you personally, how would anything you believe personally affect me? The mindset does, but that's because it does affect me.
> 
> -What bothers me the most is your unwillingness to delve deeper into yourself to search for the answers to the questions that have been asked. I feel like you don't want to do it because there's an element of fear, we've both admitted it's there, but I promise you, the questions that you might be afraid to ask right now will lead you to answers that quell the fear and substitute it for a feeling of pure awe, amazement and wonder that existence is explainable... you just have to use the right set of tools.
> 
> Give it a chance man. Don't give up.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 21, 2011)

i believe any type of communication with a person you have a problem or issue with and especially if it is religion, there will always be arguments cause it is you agains me, no matter what or how you or anyone else says it on here, it is like that... You guys think you are better then us cause we believe in something you dont, so makes us inferior cause our "mental" capabilities are obsolete.


i hate how you guys make it seem that I made this into a "you against me thing." that is the tactic i have seen all along, deflection 





Padawanbater2 said:


> Pay attention, son.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 21, 2011)

i agree with things you say, but i dont suck up to up cause that aint me... just cause i dont acknowledge what you say does not mean i do not agree with it.





tyler.durden said:


> This is a great idea, Padawanbater2. I love your approach here, and here's hoping that your rules (very cool, btw) keep us all on track in regards to the thread's true purpose. Starting to read...NOW!


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 21, 2011)

i have nothing to ask you because i already know your stance and what you will say to counter what i say... i have noticed that everything i say is none existence and non important to you cause all you all do is "dissect" what i say in a way where it makes me seem like im dumb...






Padawanbater2 said:


> -your beliefs aren't a problem to me. I don't know you personally, how would anything you believe personally affect me? The mindset does, but that's because it does affect me.
> 
> -What bothers me the most is your unwillingness to delve deeper into yourself to search for the answers to the questions that have been asked. I feel like you don't want to do it because there's an element of fear, we've both admitted it's there, but I promise you, the questions that you might be afraid to ask right now will lead you to answers that quell the fear and substitute it for a feeling of pure awe, amazement and wonder that existence is explainable... you just have to use the right set of tools.
> 
> Give it a chance man. Don't give up.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 21, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i have no fear of anything, why would i fear a question?


I find it hard to believe you aren't afraid of anything. Everybody is afraid of something.

I didn't say you feared a question. I said the questions that we ask or perhaps you've asked yourself lead to answers that can be very scary to a religious person... at first. But later, you realize the fear you held was, just like the belief, irrational. 



olylifter420 said:


> I feel that you will never agree with me because of my beliefs and your hatred towards it.


I don't hate you or any other Christians for their beliefs. This is a misinterpretation on your part. My entire famly is Christian, do you think I hate my entire family? It's simply a disagreement, a disagreement I feel is due to the lack of critical thought and logical reasoning. 



olylifter420 said:


> I believe you and anyone else who says they "dont hate" my beliefs are liars.


I understand why you would feel this way, but again, this is a misinterpretation on your part. All I can tell you is I don't hate people for the things they believe, I enjoy talking about why people believe what they do and how they got there. It frustrates me when someone can't defend their beliefs, especially if it's being used in such a selfish manner at the cost the rest of us pay. 



olylifter420 said:


> what else would motivate you or anyone else so much to belittle others beliefs?


How have I, or anyone else, "belittled" anyones beliefs? Give me some examples please.



olylifter420 said:


> My beliefs are concrete no matter what, im not a coward to back out of them.


You have already decided to take the cowardly route. Questioning ones beliefs, discovering where they're flawed and changing them accordingly to fit with reality and not what we want reality to be is the only true way to, as Socrates put it, genuine self-mastery. 

You can't enter into a debate with the stipulation "my beliefs will never be changed". It kind of defeats the whole purpose. 



olylifter420 said:


> I feel comfortable in my life and have no need to change anything... how does the old saying go, if aint broke dont fix it!


That's a very selfish statement to make. 

Take a look around the world, it would seem it's a consequence of nationalism which usually corresponds with high levels of belief, but that's just a personal theory of mine, but the majority of people living in the world are not afforded the luxury of comfort like you are. Does this not matter to you? Do you at least get a little glimpse into the reasoning behind why belief can be so selfish?



olylifter420 said:


> and tell me, how does MY mindset affect you personally? Please let me know


Well, I don't know YOU personally, so I can't answer that. But you are a believer, and I can tell you how the believers mindset affects me personally.

-it enables governments to implement policy based on religious ideologies simply because a majority of the population believes it's the right thing to do, this leads to increased poverty, increased taxes, increased debt, increased military spending, decreased education and medical spending, decreases in NASA, decreases in innovation and R&D

-it allows a platform for prejudice to exist

-it produces people ignorant of basic fundamentals of science, reality, existence

I could go on and on and on... but will you try to counter any of these points? Of course you wont, because I don't think you can, if you could, you would. Instead you'll just make another post saying we hate you, saying we belittle believers.. I mean come on man, that's getting old.. If you have something to say, that's how you say it, point by point reply, just like the rest of us are doing. If you are so concrete in your beliefs, and aren't afraid of anything, what's to stop you? 



olylifter420 said:


> and the red text says it all... you say that your beliefs do not affect no one, yet you promote them like it is the next big thing! why would that not make some weak minded person go out and shoot themselves or go out and kill a lot of people cause you told them their life was an entire lie and that they need to re think everything


I promote proper education, science, logic and reason. 

I am a little confused by that second statement. I'm not sure why someone would decide to go out and shoot people or kill themselves because of anything I had to say, like I mentioned before, if that were to happen, it was going to happen anyway. 



olylifter420 said:


> this thread is extremely bias, i cannot stress that enough...


Yet you fail to point out any examples of bias. You read the rules, anyone can make a claim and if it gets 5 votes, you just earned a point for your side. 

So if you're making the claim someone has been biased, point out the post # and the rest of us will see for ourselves.



olylifter420 said:


> i believe any type of communication with a person you have a problem or issue with and especially if it is religion, there will always be arguments cause it is you agains me, no matter what or how you or anyone else says it on here, it is like that...


That's why it's even more important to stay calm and collected when you talk about it. Think of it as a challenge for yourself. See if you can keep calm and make your points clearly without getting upset. Personally, I take it as a sign of weakness when someone starts throwing out insults or attacks. It just means that's all they've got, I've intellectually defeated them into submission and all they can do is walk away tail tucked between their legs. It's a much more satisfying feeling than calling someone a bunch of names.



olylifter420 said:


> You guys think you are better then us cause we believe in something you dont, so makes us inferior cause our "mental" capabilities are obsolete.


No, we think believers use inconsistent logic to get to a conclusion that isn't substantiated by any evidence that hurts other people around the world. 

Can't really make it much more simple than that..

...and the sick twist that tops it all off - even if the shit WERE true and it hurt people around the world like I feel it does, I'd be just as against it as I am with no evidence. 



olylifter420 said:


> i hate how you guys make it seem that I made this into a "you against me thing." that is the tactic i have seen all along, deflection


Actually, it seems to be "you vs. you" at this point, the rest of us are having a pretty good discussion. I'd like you to join in and start answering some of these questions the right way, as directed in the OP, to kind of get things moving along in the right direction and give you some practice at keeping cool when we talk. 

Don't pass up this opportunity man, how often do you come across a board full of atheists open and willing to talk to you about beliefs?


----------



## tyler.durden (Aug 21, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i agree with things you say, but i dont suck up to up cause that aint me... just cause i dont acknowledge what you say does not mean i do not agree with it.


Hey, Olylifter420. I'm not sure if I understand your post here. If I understand you correctly, you are stating that you do agree with what I/we are saying despite the fact that you are not acknowledging what was said. It seems you also called me a suck up for congratulating Pada for coming up with a productive set of rules, in an attempt to keep negativity and the wasting of time to a minimum, on a thread idea that's been done to death. Giving kudos where we feel they are due is a large part of what these forums are about, after all, you wouldn't consider yourself a suck up when you +rep or send a 'like' someone's way, right?


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 21, 2011)

you see, you all only understand things that make me seem wrong or like a bad guy. 





tyler.durden said:


> Hey, Olylifter420. I'm not sure if I understand your post here. If I understand you correctly, you are stating that you do agree with what I/we are saying despite the fact that you are not acknowledging what was said. It seems you also called me a suck up for congratulating Pada for coming up with a productive set of rules, in an attempt to keep negativity and the wasting of time to a minimum, on a thread idea that's been done to death. Giving kudos where we feel they are due is a large part of what these forums are about, after all, you wouldn't consider yourself a suck up when you +rep or send a 'like' someone's way, right?


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 21, 2011)

If it means anything, I think your a Wrong Good Guy Oly. <3


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 21, 2011)

cool, i understand what you are saying. That im basically some douche for believing in the things i believe in. thats cool bro, i dont mind it. Im extremely medicated right now with some kk... how is this thread not bias? Everything asked is in favor for atheists' to pray on believers', thats all. It is funny how you dont see it that way, just as it is funny to you that i dont see things your way..






Padawanbater2 said:


> I find it hard to believe you aren't afraid of anything. Everybody is afraid of something.
> 
> I didn't say you feared a question. I said the questions that we ask or perhaps you've asked yourself lead to answers that can be very scary to a religious person... at first. But later, you realize the fear you held was, just like the belief, irrational.
> 
> ...


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 21, 2011)

just go to this thread and go through it, https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/449547-lets-debate.html

or any other recent thread about the subject





Padawanbater2 said:


> I find it hard to believe you aren't afraid of anything. Everybody is afraid of something.
> 
> I didn't say you feared a question. I said the questions that we ask or perhaps you've asked yourself lead to answers that can be very scary to a religious person... at first. But later, you realize the fear you held was, just like the belief, irrational.
> 
> ...


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

Saying that this thread is biased against religionists is like saying schools are biased against stupid people.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 21, 2011)

schools are biased against stupid people, GPA. most schools wont accept you if you got under a 2.0 GPA, logic tells me that anyone under a 2.0 GPA is quite stupid





mindphuk said:


> Saying that this thread is biased against religionists is like saying schools are biased against stupid people.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 21, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Hey, Heisenberg! I enjoy reading your posts, and really dig your epistemology. I am lucky enough to have a circle of friends that are skeptics, atheists, and critical thinkers (not to mention hilarious and great musicians). We bounce our thoughts, ideas and epistemologies off each other each week, and they are merciless in pointing out each others errors and erroneous ideas and beliefs. This has allowed me to grow much more rapidly than if I had to rely solely on my own insight and methodology to find the errors in my thinking. I find inconsistencies in my thinking from time to time, and its no big deal to give them up immediately. But the cherished (comforting) beliefs that I have held for a long time, THOSE are painful, sometimes earth-shaking, things to give up in light of the new, indisputable facts that come to light. I dont hold any superstitions, either, and wholeheartedly agree that logic should carry the most weight when judging claims of reality.
> You mention that your position is that it is illogical to pretentiously attempt to approve your appearance, to keep objects for sentimental value, and to do things merely for expression (the flying spaghetti t-shirt example). When I thought about this for a while, it seems to me that these things are logical in the following contexts:
> a. It is often asked, what is my meaning/purpose in this life? Of course, the answer is whatever meaning we choose to give it, but in a harsher, Darwinian sense we are vehicles for passing on our genes (Dawkins, the Selfish Gene and others). In order to do this most effectively, we need to be sexually attractive, as it is the most sexually attractive people who have the most sex, thus the greatest chances of procreating. So in this context, it seems logical to give in to the sex drive and make ourselves as attractive as possible. I personally dont put much effort into my appearance, not to say Im a slob but the only reason that Ive ever put any stock into fashion (not wearing a brown belt with black shoes, getting this haircut over that one, etc. ) is because women that I was fucking , or wanted to fuck, wanted it that way. Some go as far to say that the main (usually unconscious) reason males achieve almost anything is to gain a mate and have sex, and you can see this when you look at the trend that most major accomplishments of a lot prolific artists/scientists/industrialists happen before they get married, and sometimes precious little afterward (theyve already won a mate, the drive diminishes). But I digress
> b. We are apes, social primates. It seems that in nature higher mammals are hardwired to some degree of sentimentality. We see elephants carry the corpses of their fallen brethren long distances In order to bury them in an agreed upon cemetery of sorts, then seem to grieve for some time afterward. Similarly, we see bonobo and chimp mothers carry around the corpse of their dead children for weeks. It seems again we also share this sentimentality, and it seems that this is not learned behavior, but instinctual. Most of us dont keep the corpses, instead we hold onto keepsakes of the corpses of our near and dear. Also, I find pleasure in keeping the crappy artwork and stories from my son and pulling them out for pleasurable nostalgic sessions every few years. It seems logical to satisfy this innate drive for sentiment.
> ...


I actually did regret using the t-shirt example because after I thought about it, I didn't want to suggest all expression is pretense. It can be pretentious of course, but most of the time it is just a message indicating what we find important or attractive. Even hair style can have a lot to do with expression. I question though whether we can fully attribute this to sexual appeal. I have noticed that women will often take extra special care to make themselves attractive if they are going to a female only event. I know guys who wear cologne even if they are just drinking with their buds. And even I run a comb through my hair before I go to dinner with my parents. Seeking the approval of your peers and elders is logical, but doing it by pretense seems far less so.

Sentiment serves a purpose as you point out, so it is understandable, but it often drives irrational behavior. One study showed that including a face or even just a pair of eyes on a tip jar will increase the number of people who tip, and increase the amount of individual tips. Logically we know the jar isn't alive, but our sentiment causes us to feel more of a connection, so we are more generous. The fact that sentiment is illogical while still serving a purpose was my very point. The examples you cite in the animal kingdom are examples of dealing with grief. Grief is a process by which we learn to accept a hard truth. Once we come to terms with that truth, the grief process is over, which is why animals eventually discard the corpse. Why then, do humans keep objects long after they have accepted the truth of a loved ones death? At this point there is no value in grief mitigation, but simply comfort. Sentiment helps strengthen the bonds in family and community, and that is a logical thing for evolution to have preserved. But my point was that even the most logical minded people are still very susceptible to irrational behavior in the name of sentiment. 

Just because something makes sense in the context that it's understandable, doesn't mean it is a logical reflection of the truth. I do not want to undermine the value of truth, but there are some margins of our lives in which suppressing the truth is beneficial, which is why I wasn't suggesting we avoid this behavior. I think the problems come when our behavior or mindsets completely blind us from truth, or give us a sense of false truth, and of course, these are minor points in the context of understanding the fabric of our universe.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 21, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> cool, i understand what you are saying. That im basically some douche for believing in the things i believe in. thats cool bro, i dont mind it. Im extremely medicated right now with some kk... how is this thread not bias? Everything asked is in favor for atheists' to pray on believers', thats all. It is funny how you dont see it that way, just as it is funny to you that i dont see things your way..


It's not funny to me. It's confusing. I must not be explaining things correctly, if that's the case, I'll try again, what will it cost? 15 minutes to type it up, less?

It's difficult to have any kind of conversation with a person with the attitude you have. All I'm doing is asking you questions, you automatically view that as an attack against you personally or against your faith. I've tried to explain to you this isn't the case. 

What is more likely to be true, something claiming absolute certainty without question, or something claiming we can never be absolutely certain about anything and invites you to see for yourself?



olylifter420 said:


> just go to this thread and go through it, https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/449547-lets-debate.html
> 
> or any other recent thread about the subject


No, I don't have time for that. You made the claim, it's your responsibilty to provide specific examples. Start paying more attention to how this stuff works. Rules and guidelines, remember that..


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> schools are biased against stupid people, GPA. most schools wont accept you if you got under a 2.0 GPA, logic tells me that anyone under a 2.0 GPA is quite stupid


LOL. That's the exact point I'm making however you are misusing the term bias in both situations. Schools and this thread offer equal opportunity. The fact is that the rules are set up ahead of time, there is no bias involved. 

I think you better look up the word

"Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives."

By definition bias is unfair and inhibits impartiality.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 21, 2011)

what more proof do you want then that thread? Are you choosing to ignore facts which are within that thread that back the claim of belittling one's beliefs.








Padawanbater2 said:


> It's not funny to me. It's confusing. I must not be explaining things correctly, if that's the case, I'll try again, what will it cost? 15 minutes to type it up, less?
> 
> It's difficult to have any kind of conversation with a person with the attitude you have. All I'm doing is asking you questions, you automatically view that as an attack against you personally or against your faith. I've tried to explain to you this isn't the case.
> 
> ...


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 21, 2011)

i know what bias is and this thread is bias... It might not seem to you because you are part of the favored group and on the other hand i am on the unfair side getting unfairly judged for my beliefs.

schools still are "unfair" to stupid people by making them get or maintain a 2.0 or better in order to get accepted.

i rest my case. how many points did i get?

i believe i have gotten zero points only because of my beliefs which makes this bias. i bet other atheists have gotten plenty of points....





mindphuk said:


> LOL. That's the exact point I'm making however you are misusing the term bias in both situations. Schools and this thread offer equal opportunity. The fact is that the rules are set up ahead of time, there is no bias involved.
> 
> I think you better look up the word
> 
> ...


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 21, 2011)

Damn Oly you're taking on all of them @ once.. where is your backup


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 21, 2011)

dont need any. everyone's beliefs are different





RawBudzski said:


> Damn Oly you're taking on all of them @ once.. where is your backup


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 21, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> dont need any. everyone's beliefs are different


Would you agree that some beliefs are valid and some are not? The belief that the earth is flat is not valid, but without asking questions we would have never known that. What if I believe the moon is made of cheese? Would you say it is important to distinguish between true and false beliefs?


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i know what bias is and this thread is bias... It might not seem to you because you are part of the favored group and on the other hand i am on the unfair side getting unfairly judged for my beliefs.
> 
> schools still are "unfair" to stupid people by making them get or maintain a 2.0 or better in order to get accepted.
> 
> ...


 You have a very distorted view of fairness. If I give different tests to different students that's unfair. If every student has an equal chance to learn the material, no favoritism, they all get the same tests and they still don't pass, how is that unfair? Don't forget the other adjectives, not impartial, holds perspectives at the expense of alternatives. 

Is it unfair I don't have the physique to play football and make $millions? How about my lack of ability to play chess, or golf, or the fact that my doctoral dissertation was initially rejected and I had to try again? The way you seem to view the world is that life is wholly unfair. I guess I can see why you look forward to an afterlife.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Saying that this thread is biased against religionists is like saying schools are biased against stupid people.


More than 5 likes. Do I get points now?


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 21, 2011)

no i do not agree that some are valid and others are not... again, misinterpretation of my statement. I do not expect others to chime in on my posts if they do not relate it to or are not partaking in this bias game..

if you believed the cheese was made out of the moon, i would laugh and cheerfully agree with in a sarcastic manner.


what about the dude that killed those people in the sweat box? you and i know what they were told was false but it made no difference to you if they lived or died does it? It does not affect me in any way, much less influence others to follow in their foot steps. No matter what those people were told about their beliefs it did not matter, their parents told them, their wives, husbands, sons and daughters, but they were "hell bent" on reaching their goal, whatever it was. 

I could distinguish that what that dude was doing was entirely false and a scheme and steer away from it, while others are less fortunate and give into those lies and end up doing stupid things like that.


now tell me, were you affected by that outcome?

Are you affected by beliefs personally?





Heisenberg said:


> Would you agree that some beliefs are valid and some are not? The belief that the earth is flat is not valid, but without asking questions we would have never known that. What if I believe the moon is made of cheese? Would you say it is important to distinguish between true and false beliefs?


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 21, 2011)

thats not being unfair, that is limiting the chances of someone copying from someone else and preventing students' from inter-passing answers. 

when did i say i looked forward to an afterlife? yet another misinterpretation and attempt at ridicule... 

i get it... 





mindphuk said:


> You have a very distorted view of fairness. If I give different tests to different students that's unfair. If every student has an equal chance to learn the material, no favoritism, they all get the same tests and they still don't pass, how is that unfair? Don't forget the other adjectives, not impartial, holds perspectives at the expense of alternatives.
> 
> Is it unfair I don't have the physique to play football and make $millions? How about my lack of ability to play chess, or golf, or the fact that my doctoral dissertation was initially rejected and I had to try again? The way you seem to view the world is that life is wholly unfair. I guess I can see why you look forward to an afterlife.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 21, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> what more proof do you want then that thread? Are you choosing to ignore facts which are within that thread that back the claim of belittling one's beliefs.


I don't have the time to go look through a thread for things that offend _you_. How do I know what offends you? I've been asking you to point out examples because only you can do that.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> More than 5 likes. Do I get points now?


That's an interesting addition! I like that. I'm on board, 3 more and we'll add it to the rules.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 21, 2011)

oly, I have some homework for you...



> 1. What does it mean to question the beliefs you hold most true?
> 
> 2. How do you do it? Are there guidelines to follow? Is there a right or wrong way?
> 
> ...




You should be able to answer these questions. Don't direct me to another thread. Don't dodge. Don't deflect. Just answer them as asked. It's very simple.


----------



## tyler.durden (Aug 21, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I actually did regret using the t-shirt example because after I thought about it, I didn't want to suggest all expression is pretense. It can be pretentious of course, but most of the time it is just a message indicating what we find important or attractive. Even hair style can have a lot to do with expression. I question though whether we can fully attribute this to sexual appeal. I have noticed that women will often take extra special care to make themselves attractive if they are going to a female only event. I know guys who wear cologne even if they are just drinking with their buds. And even I run a comb through my hair before I go to dinner with my parents. Seeking the approval of your peers and elders is logical, but doing it by pretense seems far less so.
> 
> Sentiment serves a purpose as you point out, so it is understandable, but it often drives irrational behavior. One study showed that including a face or even just a pair of eyes on a tip jar will increase the number of people who tip, and increase the amount of individual tips. Logically we know the jar isn't alive, but our sentiment causes us to feel more of a connection, so we are more generous. The fact that sentiment is illogical while still serving a purpose was my very point. The examples you cite in the animal kingdom are examples of dealing with grief. Grief is a process by which we learn to accept a hard truth. Once we come to terms with that truth, the grief process is over, which is why animals eventually discard the corpse. Why then, do humans keep objects long after they have accepted the truth of a loved ones death? At this point there is no value in grief mitigation, but simply comfort. Sentiment helps strengthen the bonds in family and community, and that is a logical thing for evolution to have preserved. But my point was that even the most logical minded people are still very susceptible to irrational behavior in the name of sentiment.
> 
> Just because something makes sense in the context that it's understandable, doesn't mean it is a logical reflection of the truth. I do not want to undermine the value of truth, but there are some margins of our lives in which suppressing the truth is beneficial, which is why I wasn't suggesting we avoid this behavior. I think the problems come when our behavior or mindsets completely blind us from truth, or give us a sense of false truth, and of course, these are minor points in the context of understanding the fabric of our universe.


 Thanks for elaborating on your take on expression, I get exactly what you&#8217;re saying. And you&#8217;re right, I was confusing grief for sentiment in my animal behavior examples. That is a really interesting study with the faces on tips jars! I know a few people who use tip jars and I&#8217;m going to pass this along 
The catalyst for my interest in cognitive science was a book written in the early 70s by a Princeton Professor named Julian Jaynes. He wrote a fascinating (although highly controversial) book entitled, &#8216;The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind&#8217;. In it, he writes about how, before humans invented consciousness (before the advent of language that was evolved enough to generate metaphor and analogue models), humans would make idols of their dead rulers and loved ones in order to invoke audio and visual hallucinations of them. This doesn&#8217;t often happen with modern consciousness, and when it does we label it as schizophrenic. Perhaps keepsakes are a left over yearning for this process. In any case, one can see how this can be manipulated&#8230;


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> no i do not agree that some are valid and others are not... again, misinterpretation of my statement. I do not expect others to chime in on my posts if they do not relate it to or are not partaking in this bias game..
> 
> if you believed the cheese was made out of the moon, i would laugh and cheerfully agree with in a sarcastic manner.
> 
> ...


If we can not agree that some beliefs are valid while others are false, and that it is important to distinguish between them, then I think the only thing we can agree on is that further discussion is pointless.

But this does bring up some questions for the panel. If a person believes something and keeps it to themselves while tolerating other mindsets, is it possible for this belief to harm society? Do we automatically find fault in a persons conduct if we find fault in their beliefs? Is a belief really passive if you refuse to work with others unless the keep quiet about it?


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 22, 2011)

You are correct, further discussion is pointless. This thread is extremely bias even though you all say other wise. The fact that you continue to misinterpret what i say and misjudge me as a person based on me not agreeing or going against things you say is preposterous. I will continue to seem as an illogical incoherent person to most of you all and that i do not mind. 

thank you all for you time. 





Heisenberg said:


> If we can not agree that some beliefs are valid while others are false, and that it is important to distinguish between them, then I think the only thing we can agree on is that further discussion is pointless.
> 
> But this does bring up some questions for the panel. If a person believes something and keeps it to themselves while tolerating other mindsets, is it possible for this belief to harm society? Do we automatically find fault in a persons conduct if we find fault in their beliefs? Is a belief really passive if you refuse to work with others unless the keep quiet about it?


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 22, 2011)

who said anything about offending me? you wanted proof, i gave it to you, what you do with it is totally in your hands. All i see is that you are deflecting facts and proof of what you asked for. 





Padawanbater2 said:


> I don't have the time to go look through a thread for things that offend _you_. How do I know what offends you? I've been asking you to point out examples because only you can do that.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 22, 2011)

I do not have the time to answers things that you find pleasure in. i am not dodging nor deflecting, simply using the same tactics as you... This should be quite simple to understand.






Padawanbater2 said:


> oly, I have some homework for you...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> thats not being unfair, that is limiting the chances of someone copying from someone else and preventing students' from inter-passing answers.


Wait, so school is unfair to stupid people in general but giving different tests to different students is NOT unfair? So if I give easier tests to some of my favorite students and extremely hard tests to other students in the same class, that's not unfair? You have a very distorted view of fairness and bias.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> You are correct, further discussion is pointless. This thread is extremely bias even though you all say other wise. The fact that you continue to misinterpret what i say and misjudge me as a person based on me not agreeing or going against things you say is preposterous. I will continue to seem as an illogical incoherent person to most of you all and that i do not mind.
> 
> thank you all for you time.


I personally feel that if we do not understand the way reality works then we can not identify what is important about life. I think most religions are an attempt to understand what is real and what is important. Religions at heart are an effort to provide a path to personal wholeness and social coherence, but most use mythical outdated maps. It only serves to make things worse when people fail to recognize mythical teachings and take them literally or pervert them into profit and control. The best understanding we have of our world today comes from an evidential approach to truth. I believe an evidential understanding of the universe can provide a clear connection to the things we value in religion. It can offer hope for the future rather than fear. It can provide gratitude for the past rather than guilt, and it can furnish inspiration in the face of challenge. All of this comes with the added benefit of it being the truth, which makes it much harder to manipulate into profit and control. I feel that an evidential interpretation of reality is the most responsible and prudent approach in today's world, where knowledge has progressed past myths.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 22, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Thanks for elaborating on your take on expression, I get exactly what you&#8217;re saying. And you&#8217;re right, I was confusing grief for sentiment in my animal behavior examples. That is a really interesting study with the faces on tips jars! I know a few people who use tip jars and I&#8217;m going to pass this along
> The catalyst for my interest in cognitive science was a book written in the early 70s by a Princeton Professor named Julian Jaynes. He wrote a fascinating (although highly controversial) book entitled, &#8216;The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind&#8217;. In it, he writes about how, before humans invented consciousness (before the advent of language that was evolved enough to generate metaphor and analogue models), humans would make idols of their dead rulers and loved ones in order to invoke audio and visual hallucinations of them. This doesn&#8217;t often happen with modern consciousness, and when it does we label it as schizophrenic. Perhaps keepsakes are a left over yearning for this process. In any case, one can see how this can be manipulated&#8230;


I enjoyed the exchange. I apologize for not being able to link to the study I mentioned. It is documented by Richard Wiseman in his book quirkology. His website lists this study involving charity boxes which you also might find interesting. 



> The boxes contained vastly different amounts of money; "Every penny helps" came top, containing an impressive 62 per cent of all contributions, while "Every pound helps" trailed in fourth place with just seven per cent of the total take.
> 
> Why should such a small change have such a big impact? According to psychologist Robert Cialdini from Arizona State University, many people are concerned that putting a small amount of money into a box will make them look mean, so they avoid making any donation. "Every penny helps" legitimises even the smallest of contributions. In contrast, "Every pound helps" confirms people's fears that their donation will appear paltry so they give nothing at all.
> 
> We also varied the colour of the boxes, and discovered that red was by far the most effective, perhaps because it elicits a sense of urgency.


I often talk about human perception being prone to mistakes, and how it's important to consider this when judging evidence and beliefs. Richard's work provided us with a great video to demonstrate one of these mistakes.

[video=youtube;UfA3ivLK_tE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfA3ivLK_tE[/video]


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 22, 2011)

Just from the screen cap I remember seeing that video.

I find it an interesting point that the ones who seem to understand each of these points has done their own independent research on them..


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 22, 2011)

dude, what are you talking about mp? you never said anything about one test being harder then the other. why do you choose to change what you said? now you are being unfair. You are the one who is distorted and i feel for your students' if you have any. 

why is it that every atheist on here always manipulates my words around to better suit your side of the argument?

why is that?





mindphuk said:


> Wait, so school is unfair to stupid people in general but giving different tests to different students is NOT unfair? So if I give easier tests to some of my favorite students and extremely hard tests to other students in the same class, that's not unfair? You have a very distorted view of fairness and bias.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 22, 2011)

i believe you are lost within your own reality. You perceive that i am some big religious nut job which is false. 




Heisenberg said:


> I personally feel that if we do not understand the way reality works then we can not identify what is important about life. I think most religions are an attempt to understand what is real and what is important. Religions at heart are an effort to provide a path to personal wholeness and social coherence, but most use mythical outdated maps. It only serves to make things worse when people fail to recognize mythical teachings and take them literally or pervert them into profit and control. The best understanding we have of our world today comes from an evidential approach to truth. I believe an evidential understanding of the universe can provide a clear connection to the things we value in religion. It can offer hope for the future rather than fear. It can provide gratitude for the past rather than guilt, and it can furnish inspiration in the face of challenge. All of this comes with the added benefit of it being the truth, which makes it much harder to manipulate into profit and control. I feel that an evidential interpretation of reality is the most responsible and prudent approach in today's world, where knowledge has progressed past myths.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 22, 2011)

you do not need to do research to understand someone's point






Padawanbater2 said:


> Just from the screen cap I remember seeing that video.
> 
> I find it an interesting point that the ones who seem to understand each of these points has done their own independent research on them..


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> dude, what are you talking about mp? you never said anything about one test being harder then the other. why do you choose to change what you said? now you are being unfair. You are the one who is distorted and i feel for your students' if you have any.
> 
> why is it that every atheist on here always manipulates my words around to better suit your side of the argument?
> 
> why is that?


Why did you manipulate my words? I said different tests. You made the assumption that I meant the same test rearranged differently to avoid cheating when I never said that. I actually meant different questions. As soon as you introduce variability, you can increase bias. It's funny that you just defended the actions that you thought were merely to prevent cheating as fair yet you still maintain that schools are inherently biased against stupid people. Either they are fair or they are biased, which is it? 

Learn the definitions of words. This thread cannot be biased because it did not single anyone out nor did it change the rules for anyone or any group. The fact is you complain about bias but have not been able to explain exactly how it is biased. It only feels biased to you if you admit that you do not use critical thinking to evaluate claims in your life.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 22, 2011)

yea, this can go on forever, you said this i said that. How is this thread not biased?? You tell me? Since you are so smart, you should know this thread is biased. 

How did i change your words? Tell me that?



> Wait, so school is unfair to stupid people in general but giving different tests to different students is NOT unfair





> If I give different tests to different students that's unfair


How is that unfair? 

different tests means different questions in different order with different answer choices. That is not unfair in any way. If that is unfair to you, then you should heed to your own advice and re learn the definition of bias. 

with that type of logic, i truly feel for your students' if you have any.





mindphuk said:


> Why did you manipulate my words? I said different tests. You made the assumption that I meant the same test rearranged differently to avoid cheating when I never said that. I actually meant different questions. As soon as you introduce variability, you can increase bias. It's funny that you just defended the actions that you thought were merely to prevent cheating as fair yet you still maintain that schools are inherently biased against stupid people. Either they are fair or they are biased, which is it?
> 
> Learn the definitions of words. This thread cannot be biased because it did not single anyone out nor did it change the rules for anyone or any group. The fact is you complain about bias but have not been able to explain exactly how it is biased. It only feels biased to you if you admit that you do not use critical thinking to evaluate claims in your life.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> yea, this can go on forever, you said this i said that. How is this thread not biased?? You tell me?


I did tell you but you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept. Why are you unwilling to answer in your own words? 


> Since you are so smart, you should know this thread is biased.


I know this thread is not biased. 



> How did i change your words? Tell me that?


I said manipulate. 





> How is that unfair?
> 
> different tests means different questions in different order with different answer choices. That is not unfair in any way. If that is unfair to you, then you should heed to your own advice and re learn the definition of bias.
> 
> with that type of logic, i truly feel for your students' if you have any.


One more time. You made an ASSUMPTION about what I meant by different. You can make different tests fair, or different tests very biased. I can give each student the same questions in different order to prevent cheating, or I can choose inherently different questions, which was what I meant from the first post. Different questions for some students can certainly introduce bias. If you don't understand that basic concept, then you don't understand the word and you should just stop replying because you are making yourself the fool.
The fact that you are arguing with me about what _I meant and intended_ is not helping matters either.


----------



## tyler.durden (Aug 22, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Hey, Olylifter420. I'm not sure if I understand your post here. If I understand you correctly, you are stating that you do agree with what I/we are saying despite the fact that you are not acknowledging what was said. It seems you also called me a suck up for congratulating Pada for coming up with a productive set of rules, in an attempt to keep negativity and the wasting of time to a minimum, on a thread idea that's been done to death. Giving kudos where we feel they are due is a large part of what these forums are about, after all, you wouldn't consider yourself a suck up when you +rep or send a 'like' someone's way, right?





olylifter420 said:


> you see, you all only understand things that make me seem wrong or like a bad guy.


My intention was merely to make sure I understood the meaning of your post. If I was correct about your calling me a suck up for sending kudos to Pada, then that seems like the kind of thing Pada's rules were attempting to avoid. I (and others who are atheist as I am) have posted certain beliefs or assertions on these debate forums, and I have been lucky enough to be corrected by Heis, MP, and others. This is fantastic, as it helps to keep my thinking process on the right track. I do not choose to feel that, 'they are all against me', or, 'they're making me look stupid', I read, verify what they say, and take their assistance in the manner in which it was intended, to help. The fact that you have posted many times since declaring this debate is pointless tells me that, deep down, you are looking for answers outside of your current beliefs, which is great. If you weren't, logically you wouldn't keep posting. After all, how many other believers are here having the balls to capitalize on the opportunity presented? I was once (as a lot of us probably were) deathly afraid when first going through the process of giving up religious belief for a better understanding of reality, but trust me, you'll never regret it once you do...


----------



## tyler.durden (Aug 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I enjoyed the exchange. I apologize for not being able to link to the study I mentioned. It is documented by Richard Wiseman in his book quirkology. His website lists this study involving charity boxes which you also might find interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That Wiseman study is interesting! I'm going to pass this along to my tip jar friends, as well. The video you posted is one I've seen before at an Atheist Convention at Cal Tech, although it was children passing a ball and a gorilla walking into the middle and waving. It's our favorite example of the pitfalls of human perception. They showed several examples of the foibles and quirks of human perception, and I was blown away by my missing almost everything. Since then, I've realized my feeling of certainty does not necessarily mean what I'm certain of is true, and that I must always be applying doubt to my thinking process. It sometimes feels like a lot of work 

Here's another cool example of the fallibility of the mind, a phenomenon called 'Change Blindness' (Sorry, I don't know how to imbed the YouTube screen here):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkrrVozZR2c


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 22, 2011)

everyone fails these tests at least once. It is impossible to be aware of everything, although some are quite easy to identify. 









Heisenberg said:


> I enjoyed the exchange. I apologize for not being able to link to the study I mentioned. It is documented by Richard Wiseman in his book quirkology. His website lists this study involving charity boxes which you also might find interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 22, 2011)

So god is real.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 22, 2011)

> Why are you unwilling to answer in your own words?


I am waiting to see what you say and what you said i was expecting. I am saying this is bias because of the way it is setup. The rules are in favor of atheists' as atheists will agree with atheists while atheists will not maybe sometimes will, but mostly will not agree with what i say. Me being in an atheist thread is putting me in this position, but i came in here trying and WILLING to participate, but as i slowly found out as the thread evolved that i am in an unfavorable position. No one has agreed with anything i have mentioned, yet i do play by the rules. No other believer in God has cared to participate because i bet they know it is a bias thread. How can you not see it? From the title of this thread "Question My Beliefs, But Be Prepared To Answer For Yours " to the constant scrutiny of my posts. IF you pretend to think that this thread was not intended for believers, you are naive bias.


> Influenced by other threads, this one is to show the stark contrast between believers and non-believers.


In these "other'' threads, believers have been confronted and constantly questioned and ridiculed for their beliefs, so clearly this is another attempt at doing so.

on a light note, i finally learned how to multi quote.


> I said manipulate.


You obviously do not know the definition of manipulate, which can be synonymous with change

manipulate |m&#601;&#712;nipy&#601;&#716;l&#257;t|
verb [ trans. ]
1 handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner : he manipulated the dials of the set.
&#8226; alter, edit, or move (text or data) on a computer.
&#8226; examine or treat (a part of the body) by feeling or moving it with the hand : a system of healing based on manipulating the ligaments of the spine.
2 control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously : the masses were deceived and manipulated by a tiny group.
&#8226; alter (data) or present (statistics) so as to mislead.





> One more time. You made an ASSUMPTION about what I meant by different. You can make different tests fair, or different tests very biased. I can give each student the same questions in different order to prevent cheating, or I can choose inherently different questions, which was what I meant from the first post. Different questions for some students can certainly introduce bias. If you don't understand that basic concept, then you don't understand the word and you should just stop replying because you are making yourself the fool.
> The fact that you are arguing with me about what I meant and intended is not helping matters either.



I cannot thank you enough for stressing ASSUMPTION. finally all can see what has been happening here and on other threads mainly towards my beliefs and myself. This is also what i have been trying to convey here on this S&S&P forum threads towards believers... non believers want to assume that since we believers believe in God, we have to pay for stupid shit we did not partake in and hate just as much as they do and our beliefs make us some stupid fucktard simply cause they disagree with our beliefs... what bias crap is that?


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 22, 2011)

if you are not going to participate properly, please do not change the direction of this thread... if you do so, well the rules are the rules. I think everyone will bad rep you and report you.





Hepheastus420 said:


> So god is real.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> if you are not going to participate properly, please do not change the direction of this thread... if you do so, well the rules are the rules. I think everyone will bad rep you and report you.


So why is it wrong for me to say that?


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 22, 2011)

because that was not the OP.





Hepheastus420 said:


> So why is it wrong for me to say that?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> because that was not the OP.


I was just stating my belief, but I guess I can't do that, peace.


----------



## DrFever (Aug 22, 2011)

iMO beliefs are past down from parents for instance race color and name calling of ppl like jews spics, rag heads who are we to judge that unless we were taught and from who what we see on TV, from our leaders 
another instance is usa is a good one ok for years usa supplied afganistan with weapons to fight the russians and today there bad who is america to judge other countries doings another good one is libya why is america really there and for what purpose


----------



## sso (Aug 22, 2011)

dunno, seems to me, all the criticism, has been directed at the bible.

not at god per se (pretty unprovable)

we´d probably be dissing the koran for all the stupid shit in there (some really nice stuff in there too btw, actually more so than the bible, but still a stupid bunch of crap to live totally by(my opinion)) if we lived in that area and were raised under that religion.

well, we´d be dissing it, but in hushed tones, cause lot of the muslims live in the dark ages.

still, i have to say..

believers have been killing and torturing people for being right, millennia and longer.

we teasing you for being idiots and believing in that old hogwash is, well its kinda funny, you complaining about it.

cause, despite, you never having killed or tortured anyone, you still tout the book that inspired that crap..

thats so funny, why? cause, you cant really tout it, without Serious Editing 

and that goes for All the religions, all the gods.

all the religious writings are full of serious crap.

talk about a loving god all you want, quote wisemen.

talk about life after death and heaven all you want.

but that stuff has little to nothing to do with the bible.

wanting anyone to believe in the bible...

well you better get them young and preferably stupid 

now believing in god?

that can be a good thing, but i betcha ya cant call yourself christian without ignoring alot of the writings in the bible (and hide behind that you cant understand it cause gods so mysterious?)


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I am waiting to see what you say and what you said i was expecting. I am saying this is bias because of the way it is setup. The rules are in favor of atheists' as atheists will agree with atheists while atheists will not maybe sometimes will, but mostly will not agree with what i say. Me being in an atheist thread is putting me in this position, but i came in here trying and WILLING to participate, but as i slowly found out as the thread evolved that i am in an unfavorable position. No one has agreed with anything i have mentioned, yet i do play by the rules. No other believer in God has cared to participate because i bet they know it is a bias thread. How can you not see it? From the title of this thread "Question My Beliefs, But Be Prepared To Answer For Yours " to the constant scrutiny of my posts. IF you pretend to think that this thread was not intended for believers, you are naive bias.
> In these "other'' threads, believers have been confronted and constantly questioned and ridiculed for their beliefs, so clearly this is another attempt at doing so.


What you seem to be saying is that these questions are designed to get to the truth, and so are biased against those who want to believe fantasy. If you think providing reasoning for your conclusions amounts to bias, then you do not understand self accountability or the way logic works in the field of knowledge. In fact this thread has not even asked you to provide any proof, it has only looked at why we believe things and our approach to solidifying those beliefs. That could mean anything from god to bigfoot to gravity. The only reason to fear these questions is because you fear the answers. You fear the answers will reveal the non-existent thought process behind your religious beliefs and expose the true motivation- comfort and conformity. If someone is confident and passionate about a belief, then they should not fear, but be eager to identify how these beliefs came to be. If there is a bias here, it is a self driven bias on your part, and not our problem.

You don't even agree that some beliefs are valid and others false. Some beliefs have evidence to back them up, while others do not. If all beliefs have equal truth value, then I guess you must give the same respect to someone who believes in smurfs or leprechauns as someone who believes in electricity. There is a good reason we do not take this approach to reality. Walk into any drug store and tell me you don't appreciate accountability and evidence when it comes to the claims of these medications. Would you want to take medical advice from a doctor who gives the same weight to the idea of witch burning as he does to cancer treatments? The truth is you depend on and benefit from these standards as much as anyone else, yet you wanna cry bias when we apply these standards to religion, something this thread did not do until you brought it up. You complain about us misunderstanding and distorting your posts, yet when you obviously misunderstand MP's test example, you argue about what he meant, instead of saying "I misunderstood". You want to pretend we do not give you the benefit of doubt, when in fact we do and that courtesy is not returned. You do not read our posts objectively and consider what they say, you read them in an effort to pick out what you interpret as unfair and then respond with the hurt card.

I thought we agreed that further discussion involving you in this thread is pointless, so why are you still posting? This thread is about bringing to the table your idea of the correct way of reaching beliefs. If you are unwilling to do that, then you don't deserve a place at this table.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 22, 2011)

No, you are wrong. I decided to keep at and not give up like pad said, so i continued and addressed what was asked of me, yet you continue to scrutinize me for participating. 

If i dont sound as smart as you does that mean you are smarter then me or vice versa? No, it means nothing.

I fear no answer cause i have put the two together. God created everything and we are discovering the mysteries that He left for us. 

mp set it up in a way where i would misinterpret what you said, why do you think his screen name is mp?


I do not depend on anyone like you say and i keep to myself. You continue to guilt me by association and whatever i may say to defend my case, it will never get accepted because of my beliefs and the fact that you continue to assume that im stupid and some fucktard that is lower then you. whatever bro, and the hurt card, you got to be kidding me, 

you are ignorant to the fact that these discussions between believers and non believers will always be bias and will never meet in the middle. that is the funny part about all this.


what is unfair everyone dissecting what i say in attempt to corrupt it with your philosophical rhetoric. 





Heisenberg said:


> What you seem to be saying is that these questions are designed to get to the truth, and so are biased against those who want to believe fantasy. If you think providing reasoning for your conclusions amounts to bias, then you do not understand self accountability or the way logic works in the field of knowledge. In fact this thread has not even asked you to provide any proof, it has only looked at why we believe things and our approach to solidifying those beliefs. That could mean anything from god to bigfoot to gravity. The only reason to fear these questions is because you fear the answers. You fear the answers will reveal the non-existent thought process behind your religious beliefs and expose the true motivation- comfort and conformity. If someone is confident and passionate about a belief, then they should not fear, but be eager to identify how these beliefs came to be. If there is a bias here, it is a self driven bias on your part, and not our problem.
> 
> You don't even agree that some beliefs are valid and others false. Some beliefs have evidence to back them up, while others do not. If all beliefs are valid, then I guess you must give the same respect to someone who believes in smurfs or leprechauns as someone who believes in electricity. There is a good reason we do not take this approach to reality. Walk into any drug store and tell me you don't appreciate accountability and evidence when it comes to the claims of these medications. Would you want to take medical advice from a doctor who gives the same weight to the idea of witch burning as he does to cancer treatments? The truth is you depend and benefit from these standards as much as anyone else, yet you wanna cry bias when we apply these standards to religion, something this thread did not do until you brought it up. You complain about us misunderstanding and distorting your posts, yet when you obviously misunderstand MP's test example, you argue about what he meant, instead of saying "I misunderstood". You want to pretend we do not give you the benefit of doubt, when in fact we do and that courtesy is not returned. You do not read our posts objectively and consider what they say, you read them in an effort to pick out what you interpret as unfair and then respond with the hurt card.
> 
> I thought we agreed that further discussion involving you in this thread is pointless, so why are you still posting? This thread is about bringing to the table your idea of the correct way to reaching beliefs. If you are unwilling to do that, then you don't deserve a place at this table.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> No, you are wrong. I decided to keep at and not give up like pad said, so i continued and addressed what was asked of me, yet you continue to scrutinize me for participating.
> 
> If i dont sound as smart as you does that mean you are smarter then me or vice versa? No, it means nothing.
> 
> ...


Your are surprised that in a thread who's title states "be prepared to answer for yours" that people are examining what you say? If you fear no answers, then why have you not attempted to answer the questions in the OP? You seem to have time to elaborate on everything else. I have never called you any names or said that I am above you. I have said that you don't understand, are inconsistent, or fail to consider what people say objectively. Insinuating that I have called you a fucktard and lorded superiority over you when I haven't is a great example of playing the hurt card. This was not a discussion between believers and non-believers until you framed it that way, and now you want to cry foul. This would be an example of wanting to have the benefit of doubt while not extending it to others. You have added nothing to this discussion but distraction and unfairness. If you don't want what you say to be dissected, stop posting. If you want what you say to survive dissection, apply some thought before you say it.

You live in a world where when someone says you are confused or inconsistent you can simply say 'nu-uh' without considering their words. Your brain immediately starts listing all the things people have against you and all the reasons they are attacking what you say, except it fails to consider that they might be right. In your world ALL criticism is due to prejudice, because that is what your world has taught you, and so your sole response is to identify and cry prejudice even if there is none. You are reluctant to judge the beliefs of others because you feel you might be participating in prejudice yourself. Your thinking is sloppy and your are not thorough, and this is not an indication of low intelligence, but of a lazy and fearful approach to truth.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 22, 2011)

> If you fear no answers, then why have you not attempted to answer the questions in the OP?


I believe in what i believe in because when i was in high school i was a part of the FCA(fellowship of Christian Athletes) on a retreat that i went on, i was able to find God and truly come to one with Him. it is a highly spiritual thing that i cannot explain, you would have to experience it and believe with all your heart. I spoke in tongue and was enlightened by this immense energy just coursing through my body. Again, it is something that you would have to experience yourself and BELIEVE 100% with your heart to be one with God.

i believe that addresses what the OP is seeking, but you consider it nothing because you find nothing in it that you can agree with. That is not my problem, that is yours and if you cannot understand it, then you are the one not taking to your own advice.



> fail to consider what people say objectively.


it might seem that way to you because you are not me and you have differing beliefs then my own




> This was not a discussion between believers and non-believers


that is silly of you to say that when the OP clearly states what it is and what it wants



> while not extending it to others


how have i not and no one has extended nothing my way.




> apply some thought before you say it.


i do, but since you do not agree with me in any way or my beliefs, you already willingly know that you will not agree with me no matter how smart it may be worded. You spend so much time putting thought into what you say that you ignore what i have shared.



> Your brain immediately starts listing all the things people have against you and all the reasons they are attacking what you say, except it fails to consider that they might be right.


this is funny and stupid of you to say. Again, assuming things about a person you do not know is silly. WOuld it bother you that before i took my anthropology classes my mind set was set in stone that God was the only thing able? Or would it bother you that since then, i have expanded my knowledge of how things work and reasons behind them, yet i keep God as my Lord and savior? Yes it will, cause you assume these things about me without considering who we are as a person. 




> In your world ALL criticism is due to prejudice, because that is what your world has taught you, and so your sole response is to identify and cry prejudice even if there is none


Its funny that you use prejiduce, i dont even know what that means, but i assume you have assumed that of me due to my posts.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I am waiting to see what you say and what you said i was expecting. I am saying this is bias because of the way it is setup. The rules are in favor of atheists' as atheists will agree with atheists while atheists will not maybe sometimes will, but mostly will not agree with what i say. Me being in an atheist thread is putting me in this position, but i came in here trying and WILLING to participate, but as i slowly found out as the thread evolved that i am in an unfavorable position. No one has agreed with anything i have mentioned, yet i do play by the rules. No other believer in God has cared to participate because i bet they know it is a bias thread. How can you not see it? From the title of this thread "Question My Beliefs, But Be Prepared To Answer For Yours " to the constant scrutiny of my posts. IF you pretend to think that this thread was not intended for believers, you are naive bias.
> In these "other'' threads, believers have been confronted and constantly questioned and ridiculed for their beliefs, so clearly this is another attempt at doing so.
> 
> on a light note, i finally learned how to multi quote.
> ...


 Ignoring the other incorrect bullshit you just posted, how about if you detail why you think this thread is designed for atheists when the OP never once mentioned religion or god? Unless you are conceding that your beliefs are not defensible, then I actually don't understand why you think this way. You can use any beliefs you may or may not have. I personally have some superstitions when I play poker that I really try to shed. These beliefs of mine cannot be defended in a logical way and I recognize that. 
You are the one that brought god into the discussion. You were free to choose any beliefs and explain why you believe or have stopped believing. You have not answered the basic questions like if there is a right way to evaluate truth claims or if you believe that comfort is more important than truth. These questions can be answered by anyone, regardless of the position they hold on god. You haven't answered a single one yet continue to participate in this thread and whine and cry about unfairness when you have not demonstrated an such thing. Repetition of a claim is not support for that claim. 

You mischaracterize the OP, you misuse and misunderstand the word bias, you are a complainer and a whiner and have added nothing of substance to this discussion. I think the only reason you are posting is to create these red herrings in order to derail this thread that you dislike. Forget about what Pad said, I think you are unteachable and I would prefer if you GTFO. Obviously you can stay if you want, it's just my preference as I rather have this conversation with people that actually reads and comprehends what others are posting.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 22, 2011)

> Ignoring the other incorrect bullshit you just posted,


there you go, ignoring things i contribute. you discredit them because they answer what want, but not in the way you want.. 



> You were free to choose any beliefs and explain why you believe or have stopped believing.


mp, you cant be serious right? A thread posted in a spirituality forum is not for God believers and non God believers? Wow, this must be the new toke and talk.




> I would prefer if you GTFO. Obviously you can stay if you want, it's just my preference as I rather have this conversation with people that actually reads and comprehends what others are posting.


why the bad temper? I do comprehend what you post, i believe you are the one who does not understand what i post... why might it be? cause you are an atheist and im a believer of God who has given you what the OP wanted but you continue to dislike what i share... that is your problem and if you dont like you can stay out of here. Id rather have this discussion with someone who is not a bias person.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I believe in what i believe in because when i was in high school i was a part of the FCA(fellowship of Christian Athletes) on a retreat that i went on, i was able to find God and truly come to one with Him. it is a highly spiritual thing that i cannot explain, you would have to experience it and believe with all your heart. I spoke in tongue and was enlightened by this immense energy just coursing through my body. Again, it is something that you would have to experience yourself and BELIEVE 100% with your heart to be one with God.


 Thank you for finally answering one part of the OP. That's all people were asking for, was that so painful? 

May I ask why you can't explain it? Can you explain the feeling in any way? What you describe is personal revelation, something that I have never had, otherwise I might too be a believer. The only problem I have is that we are all susceptible to being tricked by our own brains. You were in a religious environment that was designed to help you reach god. Many people I know have had spiritual experiences on LSD and I ask them the same question I am about to ask you. Why do you think it wasn't just your brain responding to whatever stimuli there was, whether it was the drugs or in your case, possibly prayer and meditation? I had an experience in a K-hole once where I believed I understood some cosmic reality that had been hidden from mankind. I didn't create a new religion based on this because I recognize that this was a drug-induced thought. 
It has been shown that people can have very profound religious experiences from very small amounts of magnetism acting on their brain as well as hypnagogic hallucinations. There are probably a myriad of things that can affect our brains that we don't even know about. 
Why are you so sure that your experience was from god, and specifically the Xian god?


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 22, 2011)

I've been trying to pick up on some of the disscusion myself as I have been thinking and re-thinking some of my own answers to these questions, Got to thinking what this thread would look like if we all ignored Oly? We now know that he is satisfied with his answer being that he found god on a trip and can't describe it besides the immense energy and speaking in tounges.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> there you go, ignoring things i contribute. you discredit them because they answer what want, but not in the way you want..


No, I just don't feel like rehashing the things that Heis and I already said. You made assumptions, twisted the meaning of my post and then argued with me about what I intended.  


> mp, you cant be serious right? A thread posted in a spirituality forum is not for God believers and non God believers? Wow, this must be the new toke and talk


Look again smartass. This subforum is for philosophy and sexuality too. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy. 
.


> why the bad temper? I do comprehend what you post, i believe you are the one who does not understand what i post... why might it be? cause you are an atheist and im a believer of God who has given you what the OP wanted but you continue to dislike what i share... that is your problem and if you dont like you can stay out of here. Id rather have this discussion with someone who is not a bias person.


 You don't comprehend and don't listen to what others are telling you. You feel like you are being attacked for being a believer but in fact are being attacked for evading and dodging while claiming to have answered the OP. 
The above post of your is the very first time I have seen you attempt to answer part of the OP even though you claimed to have already done so. If you noticed, I applauded you for actually answering, because only then can any meaningful discussion take place.


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 22, 2011)

In oly's defence I think he mentioned the trip earlier.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 22, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> In oly's defence I think he mentioned the trip earlier.


Not in this thread.


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 22, 2011)

Must have been a diff one then idk? My bad.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 22, 2011)

Hey guys you know what we should do? Smoke a bowl in honor of everything we have learned from believers and non-believers and forgive each other of every insult and let this thread die fall to the bottom of the endless pit of threads.


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 22, 2011)

I'll unsubscribe if you do? j/k I don't want to but you still can, I forgive ya.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 22, 2011)

Heis, great posts on #91 & #93, that has been floating around in my head since page 5, great job at verbalizing it! 

(this isn't an atheist backing up another atheist oly, it's one human being showing admiration for the thought another human being put into a response. See, I appreciate it, and it's not because he doesn't believe in God...)

Kudos to you too MP, excellent posts man! 


You would get equal praise all around, and IMPRESS THE HELL out of me personally, if you answered those 11 questions I asked you. The more you skirt around them and accuse someone else of being biased against believers the more you just make yourself look like you are _unable_ to answer them, leaving the rest of us to wonder "why couldn't/wouldn't he answer them..?"... and the thing about that is, we already know the answer to that question, we know why you won't answer them. Deep down, I think you know why too, you just can't accept it because your not prepared to, yet...

MP asked you something I was also very curious about, and if you can't get to those previous 11, then just answer the one he brought up; How do you know what you felt in high school was God, and more specifically, how do you know it was the Christian god? Keep in mind and consider the points MP brought up when you reply, don't just say "I know because I know OK!" that doesn't TELL ME anything. I want to know *HOW* you know.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I believe in what i believe in because when i was in high school i was a part of the FCA(fellowship of Christian Athletes) on a retreat that i went on, i was able to find God and truly come to one with Him. it is a highly spiritual thing that i cannot explain, you would have to experience it and believe with all your heart. I spoke in tongue and was enlightened by this immense energy just coursing through my body. Again, it is something that you would have to experience yourself and BELIEVE 100% with your heart to be one with God.


I think this is a perfectly acceptable reason for a person to believe in god. I of course do not think it reflects reality, but it at least adds some context and support for the way you feel. Even though it doesn't excuse certainty, it is an answer to the question of 'can you explain your beliefs', and any answer to that question sends a different message than outright refusal. We could of course break it down into the errors we see in that belief and follow through on the thinking, but this thread was intended to get away from the typical god vs evolution vs spirituality debates. I think you should stop feeling that we are against you and consider that maybe we are simply treating you as our intellectual equal and therefore expect you to live up to some basic standards of debate. There is certainly many chances for us to misunderstand each other but I can only go by what you present to us in your posts, and your posts sometimes come across like a dog who has been beaten and is now suspicious of every hand that comes towards his face. You assumed this was just another god thread, a transparent trap to get you to bring up your religion and rehash the arguments that got deleted. We are trying to tell you that this was intended to talk about the method by which we handle all beliefs, and yes god can fit into that category, but lets have a conversation about beliefs that does not deteriorate into that same old rhetoric. 

So lets try starting from a different angle. How about you bring up a belief that you think is silly. Is there a belief or myth that many people hold which you think is completely see through? Is there an aspect of human belief which you find curious and want to examine? I do not seek to take what you say and then use it against you in the context of religion. I just find the philosophy of skepticism to be a useful tool and am tired of that message being obscured by religious politics.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 22, 2011)

I hate how people believe in karma, yet can't even explain the basic idea behind it. Shit really gets on my nerves..


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 22, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I hate how people believe in karma, yet can't even explain the basic idea behind it. Shit really gets on my nerves..


Or when someone claiming to be Christian says they hope to come back as a bird when they die, wtf?!


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 22, 2011)

I want to come back as a pok'e'mon


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 22, 2011)

> IMPRESS THE HELL out of me personally, if you answered those 11 questions I asked you


why is it so important to you that i address those questions even if i have already addressed the OP?




> How do you know what you felt in high school was God, and more specifically, how do you know it was the Christian god?


I know this because i was praying to the Christian God which is my God. I was not praying to another god from another religion.




> I know because I know OK!" that doesn't TELL ME anything.


when have i said that?



> I want to know HOW you know.


How do you know what book you are reading? Its the same thing. You consciously know what you are doing at that moment and to whom you are praying to.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 22, 2011)

when you take a shit, do you look at the paper after wiping?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 22, 2011)

Have any of you smoked dmt?


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 23, 2011)

I find most conspiracy theories silly. Most of them need such a high level of cooperative silence on so many levels that just isn't possible. I think the ancient alien stuff is so easily refuted. The people that believe it, want to believe, they stretch the evidence to make it fit their beliefs while all of the time dismissing the more rational explanations. 

I fell for some of the psychic phenomena when I was in high school. I remember writing a paper on the subject that lacked any skepticism. I was into magic for quite some time but it wasn't until years later that I became interested in mentalism and found out how much of it comes from the gypsies and fraudulent psychics like Uri Geller -- if anyone is interested in a fascinating look at Geller, don't read James Randi, pick up a copy of Gellerism Revealed by Ben Harris. It is sold mostly to magicians, not the lay public. http://www.hanklee.org/xcart/product.php?productid=6074

Being a magician helped me learn how we can intentionally fool the mind. Misdirection takes many forms, including verbal, visual, auditory, time-based. Some of the oldest magic books have ideas in them that neuroscientists are now just confirming. People have known for a long time before science that the mind can be fooled and taken advantage of this. When done outside the stage and passed off as real, even those of high intelligence have been fooled. People still believe in witchcraft and shaminism and other sorts of magic. I find that credulous as well.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 23, 2011)

> Is there an aspect of human belief which you find curious and want to examine?


what i am very curious about is why cant atheists just let believers be, well at least myself? Why do they hold my beliefs against me? 
How is possible to be guilty by association? 

I can bet that if we are very similar just that i am a believer and you all are not.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 23, 2011)

> Being a magician helped me learn how we can intentionally fool the mind.


are you cris angel?


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 23, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> what i am very curious about is why cant atheists just let believers be, well at least myself? Why do they hold my beliefs against me?
> How is possible to be guilty by association?
> 
> I can bet that if we are very similar just that i am a believer and you all are not.


Dude, just listen to yourself. I just listed beliefs that can be discussed without invoking religion or god. You seem to be hung up on thinking this is about atheism or theism when it is pure epistemology. Let it go and join the discussion regarding other beliefs if you want. You seem to be the only one bringing up god.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 23, 2011)

i did bring up that other belief or superstition if you may...

when you take a shit, do you look at the paper after the first wipe?





mindphuk said:


> Dude, just listen to yourself. I just listed beliefs that can be discussed without invoking religion or god. You seem to be hung up on thinking this is about atheism or theism when it is pure epistemology. Let it go and join the discussion regarding other beliefs if you want. You seem to be the only one bringing up god.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 23, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I hate how people believe in karma, yet can't even explain the basic idea behind it. Shit really gets on my nerves..


I agree. Karma is the belief that the nature of our deeds determines the nature of our luck. The problem is that most people can not explain how the deeds turn into luck, nor have they tried. When they do try, they use science sounding language and cite thermodynamic laws and quantum theory, despite their explanations directly contradicting those laws. A variation of this idea has recently gained new attention with the release of the book 'The Secret', which was endorsed by Oprah. Now we have tens of thousands of housewives out there who believe that they can get their husbands to stop cheating on them if they just want it hard enough. My questions to you are; what do you suppose the harm in this sort of belief is, and why do you suppose it has pervaded multiple cultures and persisted for so long?



Hepheastus420 said:


> Have any of you smoked dmt?


I have not but I do accredit MJ and LSD for some of the early inclinations I had towards critical thinking. I remember tripping one time as a teen watching TV by myself and every commercial seemed to be saying "hey you, buy this product! You'll love it! This guy loved it! These people are happy! It's a fuckin great product!". I think a lot of teens who experiment with drugs have a tendency towards skepticism via their desire to rebel, they just lack the focus and wisdom to utilize it properly. 



mindphuk said:


> I find most conspiracy theories silly. Most of them need such a high level of cooperative silence on so many levels that just isn't possible. I think the ancient alien stuff is so easily refuted. The people that believe it, want to believe, they stretch the evidence to make it fit their beliefs while all of the time dismissing the more rational explanations.


Ah but the fact that so many people keep quiet on such a large scale is just indication of how grand the conspiracy is! But really, it is hard to believe conspiracies which require thousands and thousands of people to have had knowledge, but never produce one deathbed confession or one member who found Jesus and wants to come clean. All conspiracy theories have this in common, as well as the luxury of being able to turn any criticism of the theory into support for the theory, via the conspiracy. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and conspiracy theories provide nothing but an extraordinary lack of proof.




> Being a magician helped me learn how we can intentionally fool the mind. Misdirection takes many forms, including verbal, visual, auditory, time-based. Some of the oldest magic books have ideas in them that neuroscientists are now just confirming. People have known for a long time before science that the mind can be fooled and taken advantage of this. When done outside the stage and passed off as real, even those of high intelligence have been fooled. People still believe in witchcraft and shaminism and other sorts of magic. I find that credulous as well.


Yep magicians often demonstrate artful critical thinking skills. (with perhaps the exception of David Blaine) and some of them are quite vocal about promoting skepticism. Magicians demonstrate that it is possible, even when you are fully aware of the trappings of human perceptions and biases, to be fooled simply and completely right in front of your eyes. I am curious, as a magician and mentalist are you often fooled by other performers tricks when you first see them?

Another profession which produces a lot of critical thinkers is comedy, particularly stand ups. Writing stand up comedy often entails not taking things at face value and dissecting the reasons why humans do and think certain things. Comedians spend a lot of time thinking deeply about subjects like religion and political and emotional motivation. Interesting that so many of them have come to similar conclusions as skeptics, magicians and scientists. 



olylifter420 said:


> what i am very curious about is why cant atheists just let believers be, well at least myself? Why do they hold my beliefs against me?
> How is possible to be guilty by association?


Well Oly here you were given a chance to steer the topic away from theistic examination, and you seem to wish to persist, but fair enough, lets look at the reasons we think passive beliefs do or do not hurt society. I actually asked these questions a few pages back, but people were distracted. How about you take a shot at answering them from your perspective?



> If a person believes something and keeps it to themselves while tolerating other mindsets, is it possible for this belief to harm society? Do we automatically find fault in a persons conduct if we find fault in their beliefs? Is a belief really passive if you refuse to work with others unless the keep quiet about it?


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 23, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> mp, you cant be serious right? A thread posted in a spirituality forum is not for God believers and non God believers? Wow, this must be the new toke and talk.


this forum also pertains to sexuality and philosophy. would you also assume this thread is about sexuality? id say its more about philosophy if anything. its all about asking how you determine beliefs. religion is just one kind of belief. try choosing another


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 23, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I agree. Karma is the belief that the nature of our deeds determines the nature of our luck. The problem is that most people can not explain how the deeds turn into luck, nor have they tried. When they do try, they use science sounding language and cite thermodynamic laws and quantum theory, despite their explanations directly contradicting those laws. A variation of this idea has recently gained new attention with the release of the book 'The Secret', which was endorsed by Oprah. Now we have tens of thousands of housewives out there who believe that they can get their husbands to stop cheating on them if they just want it hard enough. My questions to you are; what do you suppose the harm in this sort of belief is, and why do you suppose it has pervaded multiple cultures and persisted for so long?


i think that may have to do with a sense of control. with that housewife scenario, the woman may feel like she has no control over whether her husband cheats or not. she may think he has made up his mind. but when they see this book, theres a chance for them to control the situation. they like the idea of changing the outcome in their favor, so they tend to believe it is true.

edit: forgot to answer your questions. i think the harm in this kind of thing is that people are 'distracted' from what is really going on. for instance, that housewife might start wishing or wanting her husband to stop cheating. because of that book, she is concentrating on that. but in reality, the real way to make him stop is by talking to him about it and hopefully working things out. she THINKS the best way to go about it is to do what the book says. but really, it probably wont affect the outcome much at all.

i think it is in most cultures because its a part of being human. when we believe in karma/luck, we tend to concentrate on the positive. we remember the outcomes that worked in our favor(supposedly coming from our own actions), and forget the ones that dont. with the ones that dont work in our favor, we tend to dismiss it for one reason or another. so maybe that belief in karma overrides the logical connection between two events.




> I have not but I do accredit MJ and LSD for some of the early inclinations I had towards critical thinking. I remember tripping one time as a teen watching TV by myself and every commercial seemed to be saying "hey you, buy this product! You'll love it! This guy loved it! These people are happy! It's a fuckin great product!". I think a lot of teens who experiment with drugs have a tendency towards skepticism via their desire to rebel, they just lack the focus and wisdom to utilize it properly.


i think commercials are odd too. seeing a person that loves a certain product say they love a product, isnt going to make me buy it. i will buy it if i need it, or the food looks good, etc. when watching commercials, im always reminded that they are actors just like in the tv shows i was just watching.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 23, 2011)

i believe in living life as simple as possible. Making life to complicated to me just slows everything down and makes you blind to what is really going on around you.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 24, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> i think it is in most cultures because its a part of being human. when we believe in karma/luck, we tend to concentrate on the positive. we remember the outcomes that worked in our favor(supposedly coming from our own actions), and forget the ones that dont. with the ones that dont work in our favor, we tend to dismiss it for one reason or another. so maybe that belief in karma overrides the logical connection between two events.


This is the answer I was looking for. You are describing two different errors here. The first is confirmation bias, which as you said causes us to remember the hits and dismiss the misses. The second is apophenia, which is the human tendency to see patterns in random data. Apophenia leads to a common fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc; Latin for 'after this therefore because of this'. Good job!


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 24, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> This is the answer I was looking for. You are describing two different errors here. The first is confirmation bias, which as you said causes us to remember the hits and dismiss the misses. The second is apophenia, which is the human tendency to see patterns in random data. Apophenia leads to a common fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc; Latin for 'after this therefore because of this'. Good job!


wooh! gold star for me! 
i didnt know about that apophenia 

i learned a ton about the brains decision making processes from this book. i learned about it from someone on this site, idk who though. its good shit
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/how-we-decide-jonah-lehrer/1100042900?ean=9780594012108&itm=1&usri=how+we+decide


----------



## karri0n (Aug 26, 2011)

What does it mean to question the beliefs you hold most true? 

This is a difficult question to quantify - the beliefs I hold most true are things like the fact that the sun will rise in the morning and set in the evening. If we're talking strictly spiritual beliefs here(which I don't think we are, since as an atheist you would hold few if any "spiritual" beliefs), Then to me questioning is the backbone of my beliefs. How are we to learn more if we never aks questions? I always question, always seek to learn and improve. I also deeply enjoy finding synchronicities between various belief systems, to compare and take note of how it is that multiple cultures approach something from drastically different directions and end up with similar answers.

How do you do it? Are there guidelines to follow? Is there a right or wrong way?

Everything should be approached with skepticism, and sources should be verified. If one source says something, and thought experiments, critical thinking, and other evidence(if available) show otherwise, then the problem needs to be researched further, and the claim must be put aside.

Why do you believe the things you do? 

Based on training, education, research, and my own experiences.

How do you know they're true? 

Nothing can be proven, but for me personally, the exact process by which things are evaluated to be true or false is based on quite a large number of variables. Evaluation of evidence is one way to put it simply, but that process in itself is quite complex, as is the criteria for what counts as "evidence".

If they weren't true, how would it change your life? 

I would be compelled to seek the truth, although I like to keep on the up and up, and it would be quite disconcerting to me if I found myself in a position of having zero understanding of the working of the world and laws of nature.

Would you be willing to change what you believe to be true for what actually is true, even if it meant it would shatter that which you held to be most true your whole life?

I'm not sure "willing to change what I believe" would be the right way to put this.... I don't feel that a person can "choose" what they believe(which has been covered and beaten to death in a previous thread). If I discovered something that was true, I wouldn't have a choice but to believe it. If it is in contrast with something that I have preconceptions of, it would be uncomfortable for me during the period between which the preconception was disproven and the new idea was established and proven, as I like to know what's going on.

What's more important to you, the truth, or your comfort and peace of mind?

I'm most comfortable and at peace if I know the truth.

There is no hidden agenda, no alterior motive.. None of that. This is just a thread from a guy who, dispite having a difficult time understanding, is interested in these things. Can't we have one of these conversations, just one time, where nobody argues or insults someone else? Can this thread prove it? I'd like to say it can be done, but my experience says otherwise, and I'm not saying I'm innocent of this either, but come on people, keep your composure, stay calm, relax, think. This stuff is not personal, don't make it personal. None of us know each other, what do you have to get upset about?

I'd +rep if it let me


So this is how we do this, I'm going to be score keeper, everytime someone bitches, moans, whines, cries or complains about something unjustly, the topic of the thread at the time will be paused, it'll be pointed out, and we will take a vote, if 5 people agree the bitching/moaning/whining/crying/complaining is unwarranted, the other side will get a point. There are two sides, believers, nonbelievers. This doesn't make us advasaries, it makes us partners, working together, to answer the same questions. 

I'm in.

I think this will be an interesting little addition to the normal stuff, so lets make it happen, do it the right way, follow the instructions, and if you have any more questions you are genuinely curious about, ASK THEM! 


[/QUOTE]

Cool thread idea.


----------



## karri0n (Aug 26, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> You mischaracterize the OP, you misuse and misunderstand the word bias, you are a complainer and a whiner and have added nothing of substance to this discussion. I think the only reason you are posting is to create these red herrings in order to derail this thread that you dislike. Forget about what Pad said, I think you are unteachable and I would prefer if you GTFO. Obviously you can stay if you want, it's just my preference as I rather have this conversation with people that actually reads and comprehends what others are posting.


+1

Oly, I'm not an atheist. I do believe belief in god as well as Jesus' actual teachings(as long as the other 90% of the bible is not heeded, or is at least approached realistically) are a good thing to live by.

However, I have spent the past hour reading this thread, and What I see is this: 

The Atheists following the rules and trying their hardest(commendably I might add) to have a decent conversation with you, and

You becoming both defensive and agressive, all the while complaining about a bias which, while it does reside in the hearts and minds of many of the people you are trashing in this thread, is neither inherent in the OP, the game the OP has presented, or even the replies which you have been given. I haven't once seen anyone in this thread defame your beliefs in any way, or even attempt to disprove your belief in god. 

What I HAVE noticed is that I'm needing to skip over large chunks of the thread as 90% of them are either by you or directed at you, and all consist of argumentation and are not at all helpful to the discussion. 

Please Oly, I implore you. When posting in threads such as this, do not bring up things such as "you had an attitude in this other thread I saw once". Instead, please just answer the questions in a non-argumentative fashion, and don't say things like "the question is biased".

I am interested in hearing your actual answers to the questions being posed, such as how you examine beliefs and what leads you to conclusions that you make.


----------



## karri0n (Aug 26, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> when you take a shit, do you look at the paper after wiping?


I do. Are you not supposed to? How do you know you are clean if you do not?


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 26, 2011)

karri0n said:


> I do. Are you not supposed to? How do you know you are clean if you do not?


have a friend check for you?


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 26, 2011)

karri0n said:


> What I HAVE noticed is that I'm needing to skip over large chunks of the thread as 90% of them are either by you or directed at you, and all consist of argumentation and are not at all helpful to the discussion.


I do not disagree with you, but I did notice that, until you came along, this discussion lost it's momentum as the antagonist stopped posting. It seems conflict is what drives these discussions.


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 26, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I do not disagree with you, but I did notice that, until you came along, this discussion lost it's momentum as the antagonist stopped posting. It seems conflict is what drives these discussions.


yeah lol after the arguing stopped this thread went dead for like 2 days.

i thought of this earlier. what is with the human fascination with clothes? are we genetically 'programmed'(bad word) to want clothes on? maybe we feel uncomfortable being naked in public because back in the day we would die without any. over time, this made us inherently want clothes on.
actually kids we tend to want to be naked. so maybe it is a learned social behavior.

thoughts?


----------



## wiseguy316 (Aug 26, 2011)

Another jewish fairy tale book thread....lol....really


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 26, 2011)

wiseguy316 said:


> Another jewish fairy tale book thread....lol....really


oly was the one who brought religion into this. its about beliefs in general, not just religion


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 26, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I do not disagree with you, but I did notice that, until you came along, this discussion lost it's momentum as the antagonist stopped posting. It seems conflict is what drives these discussions.


I does. But it also doesn't have to. Momentum is picking back up. I too had a post all typed up and mis-clicked something poof gone, I have gained alot from this thread, been thinking bout some of this stuff all week. I too am a poker player with some supertitions. Def less now than than last week.(only play on the weekends lately) It is a small example, but on that point, thinking about beliefs and the questions in the op takes time to digest sometimes. I always seem to go thru periods of understanding then re-evaluating over a number of weeks. Sometimes life happens and one doesn't always have time to just sit and reflect. And at the same time that very reflection helps life happen better. Not going anywhere and looking forward to add more to this thread.

The train keeps rolling....


----------



## wiseguy316 (Aug 26, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> oly was the one who brought religion into this. its about beliefs in general, not just religion


good that works much better for me. thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 26, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> yeah lol after the arguing stopped this thread went dead for like 2 days.
> 
> i thought of this earlier. what is with the human fascination with clothes? are we genetically 'programmed'(bad word) to want clothes on? maybe we feel uncomfortable being naked in public because back in the day we would die without any. over time, this made us inherently want clothes on.
> actually kids we tend to want to be naked. so maybe it is a learned social behavior.
> ...


Hrmm well I don't think fascination with clothes is inherit to the human experience. Some tribes don't seem to pay much attention to clothing, and Tarzan sure didn't put a lot of thought into fashion. Many people take a practical approach to clothes. They wear them for warmth, or even just for something to protect the dangley parts. Fashion is mostly about expression and status; one being genuine and the other pretentious. But I don't think the inclination to cover nudity in public stems from anything other than learned courtesy and/or shame.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 26, 2011)

I can't understand how some people could believe a creature like bigfoot exists. Wouldn't we have some kind of skeleton from a dead bigfoot by now?


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 26, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I can't understand how some people could believe a creature like bigfoot exists. Wouldn't we have some kind of skeleton from a dead bigfoot by now?


yeah i would think so. unless they bury their dead! 

i also think the loch ness monster is crazy too. theres a lot of people that have supposedly seen it, and the myth goes back in history for a long time. i think i remember hearing there are caves underwater in that loch. not sure if its true. that body of water is huge too. that would be crazy if it really did exist, just like bigfoot. somehow theyve been hiding all this time lol


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 27, 2011)

I think the only things we haven't seen on Earth are small animals you'd find in rainforests or sea caves, shit like that..


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 27, 2011)

& microbial life deep within the planet of course. <3


Padawanbater2 said:


> I think the only things we haven't seen on Earth are small animals you'd find in rainforests or sea caves, shit like that..


but you are correct.. deep sea & deep forest creatures.. (bigfoot included *thats for you pada) are probably all that has eluded us. ^_^


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 27, 2011)

Know what I just thought of?

So do creationists believe the animals we discover each year, somewhere along the lines of 300-500, completely new species', have actually been around since the beginning of creation and man is just coming across them now? They don't believe new species' can emerge in the animal kingdom, right? And they don't believe we've witnessed one species change into another species (flies), right?

So what's going on here? How do most of us think it's acceptable to just straight up be like "I don't agree with reality because of my religious belief"?


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 27, 2011)

Boggles my mind sometimes. I asked a very closed minded friend once why we can see the moon & why it shines @ night.. His reply was "because it's a star". from that point on, I realized everyone is not equal.


Padawanbater2 said:


> Know what I just thought of?
> 
> So do creationists believe the animals we discover each year, somewhere along the lines of 300-500, completely new species', have actually been around since the beginning of creation and man is just coming across them now? They don't believe new species' can emerge in the animal kingdom, right? And they don't believe we've witnessed one species change into another species (flies), right?
> 
> So what's going on here? How do most of us think it's acceptable to just straight up be like "I don't agree with reality because of my religious belief"?


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 27, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Boggles my mind sometimes. I asked a very closed minded friend once why we can see the moon & why it shines @ night.. His reply was "because it's a star". from that point on, I realized everyone is not equal.


even someone 1000 years ago would facepalm at that lol


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 27, 2011)

lol, see, stuff like that is funny but deep down, it's very sad.. How much knowledge does it honestly take to disprove that theory? What's that tell you about the amount of thought put into it? I wish creationists could see this. When they say things about the theory of evolution that has already been addressed a million times before, or having a basic, high school level education could debunk, it just shows everybody else who does understand it (not to mention most of us that get it are also actively involved in the creationist/science debate) where they're at on a scientific level of understanding. When someone says to me they don't accept the theory of evolution, I automatically think they must not have given it enough thought, this stuff seems so completely obvious to me in so many ways, there is no other logical reason. Then, as most of you know, as the story goes, that person who denies it proves my point in the pages that follow...

Show me a smart, rational, logical person who denies the theory of evolution. I'll send some +rep your way.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 29, 2011)

if those strange fish exist in at the deepest depths humans have been at, why is it not possible that big foot or that other thing dont are not out there?





Luger187 said:


> yeah i would think so. unless they bury their dead!
> 
> i also think the loch ness monster is crazy too. theres a lot of people that have supposedly seen it, and the myth goes back in history for a long time. i think i remember hearing there are caves underwater in that loch. not sure if its true. that body of water is huge too. that would be crazy if it really did exist, just like bigfoot. somehow theyve been hiding all this time lol


----------



## Apathy One x (Aug 29, 2011)

Didn't read this whole thread but here goes, Science likes theory, theory is not the same as fact, for the record, and theory's in Science are only good until a better one is thought up. Evolution I would consider more fact than theory, simply because we can see it happening even today. Hell we an see it happening on this very forum, look at how they breed strains. However that don't mean there could not have been a creator, just not a creator that fits into the description, most people find comforting. Time is relative, right? Meaning that depending on certain factors it could be faster or slower. So Why does a day to us have to be the same time as a day to God? If God could travel 1000 x the speed of light, that would mean 1 day could be a zillion years (my math could be a bit off) Well you get the picture. So God took seven days to create the world, or did he... What we see as evolution could simply be the method used by the creator to achieve his goal. I mean if a cave man came across the empire state building, he would at first not know how it was made, then he would figure out they used bricks and cement and then eventualy find out why the architecture allows it to stand and so on and so on. So I think thats what evolution is, God didn' just snap his fingers and poof there was man ( well maybe, depending on how long it takes for God to snap his fingers) he evolved him, and all the animals, until he was satisfied. 

Thing about Science is that its just like religion in many ways and people don't realize it. We get told things by some guy in a white coat and without any evidence are expected to believe them, ( I watch CSI sometimes and think to myself, these people are just making this shit up, lol) Remember Weed is more harmful than cigarettes, scientist say so, lol. Yeah right, Anyways, Religion gets blamed for deaths of millions, but the scientists who made the atom bomb, chemical weapons, steel, gun powder, automatic weapons, air planes, armored vehicles, C4... come now, science isn't innocent.

At the end of the day, people kill people, not science or religion, they just scape goats.

For interest sake here is what the american council for drug education states as "Fact" about weed
http://www.acde.org/common/Marijana.htm


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 29, 2011)

Apathy One x said:


> Didn't read this whole thread but here goes, Science likes theory, theory is not the same as fact, for the record, and theory's in Science are only good until a better one is thought up. Evolution I would consider more fact than theory, simply because we can see it happening even today. Hell we an see it happening on this very forum, look at how they breed strains. However that don't mean there could not have been a creator, just not a creator that fits into the description, most people find comforting. Time is relative, right? Meaning that depending on certain factors it could be faster or slower. So Why does a day to us have to be the same time as a day to God? If God could travel 1000 x the speed of light, that would mean 1 day could be a zillion years (my math could be a bit off) Well you get the picture. So God took seven days to create the world, or did he... What we see as evolution could simply be the method used by the creator to achieve his goal. I mean if a cave man came across the empire state building, he would at first not know how it was made, then he would figure out they used bricks and cement and then eventualy find out why the architecture allows it to stand and so on and so on. So I think thats what evolution is, God didn' just snap his fingers and poof there was man ( well maybe, depending on how long it takes for God to snap his fingers) he evolved him, and all the animals, until he was satisfied.
> 
> Thing about Science is that its just like religion in many ways and people don't realize it. We get told things by some guy in a white coat and without any evidence are expected to believe them, ( I watch CSI sometimes and think to myself, these people are just making this shit up, lol) Remember Weed is more harmful than cigarettes, scientist say so, lol. Yeah right, Anyways, Religion gets blamed for deaths of millions, but the scientists who made the atom bomb, chemical weapons, steel, gun powder, automatic weapons, air planes, armored vehicles, C4... come now, science isn't innocent.
> 
> ...


Why would you expect someone to consider your posts if you are not willing to read the thread? Your post reflects an ignorance of what science is. Before you start waxing poetic about what science does and doesn't say about creation, evolution, and weed, you should educate yourself, and use better sources than CSI. 

Science is a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. What part of that is comparable with religion? Is it being systematic? Being careful and thorough? Or using consistent valid logic? Name one thing science has ever asked you to believe in without providing support. All of the examples of misused knowledge you cite have a useful and legitimate side as well. It is a lazy mind that blames the acquirement of that knowledge instead of the application. I suggest you learn a little more about what science is and how it operates before you make posts in this section pertaining to it. Half baked commentary based on misconceptions and ill education just wont cut it.

"If an outsider perceives 'something wrong' with a core scientific model, the humble and justified response of that curious outsider should be to ask 'what mistake am I making?' before assuming 100% of the experts are wrong." - David Brin


----------



## tyler.durden (Aug 29, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Why would you expect someone to consider your posts if you are not willing to read the thread? Your post reflects an ignorance of what science is. Before you start waxing poetic about what science does and doesn't say about creation, evolution, and weed, you should educate yourself, and use better sources than CSI.
> 
> Science is a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. What part of that is comparable with religion? Is it being systematic? Being careful and thorough? Or using consistent valid logic? Name one thing science has ever asked you to believe in without providing support. All of the examples of misused knowledge you cite have a useful and legitimate side as well. It is a lazy mind that blames the acquirement of that knowledge instead of the application. I suggest you learn a little more about what science is and how it operates before you make posts in this section pertaining to it. Half baked commentary based on misconceptions and ill education just wont cut it.
> 
> "If an outsider perceives 'something wrong' with a core scientific model, the humble and justified response of that curious outsider should be to ask 'what mistake am I making?' before assuming 100% of the experts are wrong." - David Brin


All right, some discord! We're back in business


----------



## tyler.durden (Aug 29, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Boggles my mind sometimes. I asked a very closed minded friend once why we can see the moon & why it shines @ night.. His reply was "because it's a star". from that point on, I realized everyone is not equal.


Yeah, this type of thing is both funny and sad. A couple of years ago, I was at the park with my young son. He was playing with a group of children he had just met, when it started to drizzle. One of the children asked my son if he knew why it rains, and my son started in with water vapor rising and condensing, etc.. The kid interrupted my son with, 'nuh-uh! Mom, why does it rain?' She didn't miss a beat exclaiming, 'It rains because Jesus is crying'. I was stunned, but my son just rolled his eyes. After a minute or so, I asked the mother if she really believed that. Her reply was, 'of course not, but it's easy for children to understand'. I told her that my son (about the same age) had no trouble understanding the simple physical process of rain, and she stated, 'yes, he seems very bright...' I then asked her if she knew the process, and she replied, 'not really'. True story. I often think back to a Simpson's episode where Lisa finds the angel skeleton and seeks to explain it scientifically, when Flanders shouts, "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 29, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Yeah, this type of thing is both funny and sad. A couple of years ago, I was at the park with my young son. He was playing with a group of children he had just met, when it started to drizzle. One of the children asked my son if he knew why it rains, and my son started in with water vapor rising and condensing, etc.. The kid interrupted my son with, 'nuh-uh! Mom, why does it rain?' She didn't miss a beat exclaiming, 'It rains because Jesus is crying'. I was stunned, but my son just rolled his eyes. After a minute or so, I asked the mother if she really believed that. Her reply was, 'of course not, but it's easy for children to understand'. I told her that my son (about the same age) had no trouble understanding the simple physical process of rain, and she stated, 'yes, he seems very bright...' I then asked her if she knew the process, and she replied, 'not really'. True story. I often think back to a Simpson's episode where Lisa finds the angel skeleton and seeks to explain it scientifically, when Flanders shouts, "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"


that shit is really gonna harm those kids in the future. if your son was already that far ahead at that point, imagine when hes 25


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 29, 2011)

Heh, I was taking it easy on him because he is new. 

Back to the topic that no one cares about, another example of irrational behavior even skeptics are prone to is discussed here.

The idea is that once we pick something like a brand or sports team we eventually incorporate that into our identities. We then defend those icons when they are attacked as if someone was attacking us personally. Think about all the mac vs PC fights on the net. Occasionally if our brands really let us down, we then claim the brand has betrayed us, and justify loyalty to a new brand.

How many of you are sports fans that feel elated when your team wins, and take it personally when your team looses?


----------



## tyler.durden (Aug 30, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> that shit is really gonna harm those kids in the future. if your son was already that far ahead at that point, imagine when hes 25


Right! He is an amazing kid. We raised him free of mysticism: no Santa/Fairytales, no Disney, no gods. Heavy on the science and skepticism: he loves physics, esp. cosmology and biology. He wants to work toward biological immortality, at least greatly retarding the aging process. His reasoning is that it would be the greatest value ever offered: if we didn't age. we would have time to discover everything else. I let him know that I think most theists wouldn't want this product as they have their afterlife, to which he replied, 'That's okay...' Who's the proud papa?


----------



## Apathy One x (Aug 30, 2011)

ok science guys, explain to me how matter is created. Science says energy to matter conversion and visa-versa is possible but creating matter or energy from nothing is not. If that scientific fact is true, where does everything come from


----------



## tyler.durden (Aug 30, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Heh, I was taking it easy on him because he is new.
> 
> Back to the topic that no one cares about, another example of irrational behavior even skeptics are prone to is discussed here.
> 
> ...


I just found myself doing this exact thing! I have always LOVED the Samsung brand, irrationally so. Most of my electronics are Samsung, and they really are all great quality products. But I found myself touting the brand (I get no commission from this) and debating it's qualities against other brands. That is until I bought a Samsung Moment smartphone. POS!!! It's made my life so miserable for the last year, I actually did feel betrayed by Samsung, as if we had some long standing alliance. Ridiculous...

And that's nothing compared to my utter devotion to the Bulls in their heyday: In the 90s my week was literally made or broken by their wins and losses...


----------



## tyler.durden (Aug 30, 2011)

Apathy One x said:


> ok science guys, explain to me how matter is created. Science says energy to matter conversion and visa-versa is possible but creating matter or energy from nothing is not. If that scientific fact is true, where does everything come from


That's the Big-Bizang! A small fraction of a second after the bang, many kinds of particles and their anti-particles, in equal amounts, roamed about and collided with each other immersed in tremendous heat. In this hot cosmic furnace, many different types of particles were being cooked, not necessarily the familiar quarks (the constituents of protons and neutrons) or electrons. As the universe expanded and cooled, a sort of Darwinistic selection mechanism not only biased the creation of quarks and electrons over other types of particles, but also generated the excess number of particles over anti-particles. Surviving the annihilation with their antimatter cousins, these excess particles organized themselves into more complex structures, until eventually atoms, mostly hydrogen, were formed when the universe was about 300,000 years old. And so on. We still have a lot of details to fill in, but it's a good start...


----------



## Apathy One x (Aug 30, 2011)

Ah yes the big bang, and did the big bang have an energy source? or was it just an explosion from nothing that was so powerful it created all energy and matter?


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 30, 2011)

Apathy One x said:


> ok science guys, explain to me how matter is created. Science says energy to matter conversion and visa-versa is possible but creating matter or energy from nothing is not. If that scientific fact is true, where does everything come from


The laws of thermodynamics are not facts, they are expressions of phenomena we observe to always be the same under certain conditions. Apparently at the beginning these conditions were different.


----------



## Apathy One x (Aug 30, 2011)

Nice save! Science only works under the right conditions. So then what pray tell changed right in the beginning? What external force changed the well established law of science sufficiently to render it moot?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 30, 2011)

Apathy One x said:


> or was it just an explosion from *nothing* that was so powerful it created all energy and matter?


as hard as it is to believe the universe energy total= zero

we know that even when we create a vacuum particles will appear then dissipate back into nothing..

the universe as we know it is in the process of dissipating, one point in the very very distant future there will be a point where everything has faded away leaving a timeless void. Nothingness rdy for the next fluctuation to spring into existance

it seems bonkers no doubt but theres also a deep beauty in its simplicity the people who deny this stuff are missing out on just how amazing reality really is..


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 30, 2011)

[video=youtube;uQSoaiubuA0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQSoaiubuA0&feature=relmfu[/video]


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 30, 2011)

Apathy One x said:


> Nice save! Science only works under the right conditions. So then what pray tell changed right in the beginning? What external force changed the well established law of science sufficiently to render it moot?


Science works under any conditions that are of the natural world. Science is a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. Do you see anything about that statement which puts limits on conditions? The only limit is, the phenomena has to be of nature. 

Scientific laws are precise codifications of observations. Thermodynamic laws deal with the total energy of a closed system. We do not know if the universe is a closed system, or if it was always a closed system. In any case, the big bang theory does not say that there was a time when the total energy of the universe was different than it is now. It may have been, in which case your argument would hold weight, but you would be arguing against something other than the big bang theory. The idea that the universe came from nothing is in fact contradictory to the theory, which stipulates a singularity; far from 'nothing'. 

Of course this is over simplified but even a cursory read of the models should reveal your misconceptions.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 30, 2011)

2 hours of well spent time 

[video=youtube;FXliM19h6YI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXliM19h6YI[/video]
[video=youtube;rQ8rd7AkMmY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ8rd7AkMmY&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 30, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I can't understand how some people could believe a creature like bigfoot exists. Wouldn't we have some kind of skeleton from a dead bigfoot by now?


I realize I am preaching to the choir, but this was an early question of mine when I discovered skepticism. At first I was fascinated by paranormal claims. I was an avid fan of sightings and any sort of weirdness I could read about. I then had the fortune to work with a guy for several years who was the absolute authority on all things fringe. He spent most days filling me in on all sorts of things I had never heard of: Illuminati, known alien species, mysterious creatures, JFK, alternative medicine, you name it. I used to be impressed because he amassed all this knowledge without ever having used the internet. Now I realize he simply listened to Art Bell once a week. At some point I started to realize that although I was fascinated by all these things, none of them really convinced me to the point of belief. Most of it seemed untrue, which had a lot to do with the sort of wacky people it came from. But still, there were serious researches and what not dedicated to finding answers. So my fascination then became, why do people believe there is something to answer? 

Much of the paranormal world is in no way confined to mental illness. Take ghosts for example. Ghostly experiences are something that transcend culture, geographic location, era, and upbringing. From Inuits to native Americans to ghost hunters of today, all are describing similar experiences. If ghosts are not real, then why do so many different people from different backgrounds see them? Why do so many people report seeing Bigfoot when we have no definitive evidence that they are out there? Why do so many people feel they have psychic powers and even demonstrate them to a degree if there is nothing to it? Why does science deny UFO sightings when they are worldwide and evidenced by hundreds of videos?

The answers to those questions are both complicated and, to most people, mundane. As I have said many times, it can mostly be boiled down to certain mistakes that are inherit to the human experience. Mistakes of perception, logic and memory all play a part, as well as hoax and deceit. Also pointed out, these mistakes take educational training, vigilance, and practice to spot.

In the case of Bigfoot and Nessie we certainly have many hoaxes and mistakes of perception, but perhaps the most driving motivation is a mistake of logic known as the appeal to ignorance. For some reason humans are really impressed by what we do not know, and twist that impression into support for a belief. Because water is concealing and we have vast oceans largely unexplored, it's easy to believe that _anything_ could be down there. Forests used to be unknown territory that could be hiding anything. Couple that inclination with a report of a creature, and that report automatically seems to have credence. Once that report gets into the public consciousness, it gets duplicated more and more often. Our brains tell us that the more people confirm something, the more true it becomes. This isn't necessarily wrong. What we get wrong is what the reports are actually confirming, which is mistakes of perception and gullibility for hoaxes. Add to this the idea of modern science and some people who do not understand how to properly follow the scientific method, and we get Bigfoot and ghost hunters. This is then made worse by those who forget a basic rule of science; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I never tire of examining why people believe weird things but it can be a dry subject for most people. Which is unfortunate because the subject dictates the very fabric that makes up their personal experience of reality.


----------



## Apathy One x (Aug 30, 2011)

wait so what you saying is that science works only with natural laws, does that mean the condition that changed the law in the beginning was super natural? As to the virtual particals mentioned before, I do believe that they can only come into being if the laws of physics are in existence, which is hardly nothing.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 30, 2011)

Apathy One x said:


> wait so what you saying is that science works only with natural laws, does that mean the condition that changed the law in the beginning was super natural? As to the virtual particals mentioned before, I do believe that they can only come into being if the laws of physics are in existence, which is hardly nothing.


goto 25 mins in
[video=youtube;rQ8rd7AkMmY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ8rd7AkMmY&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 30, 2011)

Apathy One x said:


> wait so what you saying is that science works only with natural laws, does that mean the condition that changed the law in the beginning was super natural?


I am saying science is a study of the natural world, so it's only limits are reality, and then I said you don't understand what the big bang says, which is why you think thermodynamic laws were violated and thus needed to be changed.


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 30, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Right! He is an amazing kid. We raised him free of mysticism: no Santa/Fairytales, no Disney, no gods. Heavy on the science and skepticism: he loves physics, esp. cosmology and biology. He wants to work toward biological immortality, at least greatly retarding the aging process. His reasoning is that it would be the greatest value ever offered: if we didn't age. we would have time to discover everything else. I let him know that I think most theists wouldn't want this product as they have their afterlife, to which he replied, 'That's okay...' Who's the proud papa?


sounds like a great kid man!


----------



## Apathy One x (Aug 30, 2011)

Ok, so first you say

The laws of thermodynamics are not facts, they are expressions of phenomena we observe to always be the same under certain conditions.

then 

Science works under any conditions that are of the natural world. 

So is that any condition or certain conditions, because as far as I know there is only the natural world/universe

Which still leaves the question, where did matter and energy come from? Who made up the laws of physics? Science discovered them, they didn't invent them, show me the guy who invented gravity, anyone?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 30, 2011)

Apathy One x said:


> Which still leaves the question, where did matter and energy come from?


Nobody knows for sure, as already stated in the thread, if you are looking for absolute certainty, I'm afraid you are going to be very disappointed.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 30, 2011)

Apathy One x said:


> Ok, so first you say
> 
> The laws of thermodynamics are not facts, they are expressions of phenomena we observe to always be the same under certain conditions.
> 
> ...


"Science" is one term, which I have twice defined as a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results.

"Law" is a second term, and in the context of science means an expression of phenomena we observe to always be the same under certain conditions.

You conflate the two terms in your response. You could have easily figured this out if you had given careful thought to what I wrote and/or looked up the terms yourself. The critical eye should always look inward before it looks outward. For example, I considered that your misunderstanding could be a result of my failure to adequately explain before I concluded that you are lazy minded and obliviously ignorant about the subject.



Apathy One x said:


> Which still leaves the question, where did matter and energy come from? Who made up the laws of physics? Science discovered them, they didn't invent them, show me the guy who invented gravity, anyone?


The birth of matter/energy and the origin of universal truths are questions science is trying to answer. Science has relatively very little answers at this time, but the answers we do have came from a evidential view of reality supported by multiple independent fields of study. Do you somehow think that scientist believe they invented the laws of nature and now you are informing us that they were instead discovered? Well lets get you a cookie! 

The questions you are asking are valid questions that I actually encourage; how else are we to cure ignorance unless we seek knowledge. What I find distasteful is the arrogance your attitude suggests, an arrogance that's derived directly from your ignorance.


----------



## Apathy One x (Aug 30, 2011)

If I'm ignorant then you're confused dude, you seem to nicely miss out the problems/contradictions within your logic, as I have previously stated. However I am glad we are finally getting somewhere, Science cannot explain matter creation, which I knew already but need some confirmation from the atheists here. So now my next question, why is it impossible for there to be a creator, a being or energy that not only created matter but all the laws that science is discovering. 

Funny you should mention arrogance, humans are an arrogant species aren't they? Who else would presume to say that they speak for God, or that there is no God based on no evidence.

btw Heisenberg, I really do value your opinion regardless of what you may think of me*https://www.rollitup.org/members/heisenberg-229726.html*


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 30, 2011)

Apathy One x said:


> If I'm ignorant then you're confused dude, you seem to nicely miss out the problems/contradictions within your logic, as I have previously stated. However I am glad we are finally getting somewhere, Science cannot explain matter creation, which I knew already but need some confirmation from the atheists here.


I accept the possibility that I am confused. I am aware of the logical problems with the origins of reality. If before there was something, there was nothing, and if nothing means there was no spacetime, how did this nothing even exist. Was it less than nothing? This is obviously counter intuitive and would indeed violate the laws of thermodynamics. What I am confused about is the contradictions you speak of in this context. Since the big bang doesn't say there was 'nothing' or that energy at one time didn't exist, it is not contradicting any laws. Your posts seemed to indicate that the big bang, or some other scientific consensus, indicates nothing before something or describes energy being created, so where did I get confused? All explanations regarding the origins of reality are in the early theoretical stages, and so there is no consensus. There is a sort of consensus about the big bang, but not simply because of the (very few) answers it gives us. It's because the theory was constructed by building on other sound scientific discoveries and has been significantly backed up by independent testing. It makes predictions which have been confirmed via methods such as particle acceleration. None of this stuff makes it the right theory, but it is enough to give us a consensus on the early model. The big bang describes a singularity, not a nothing, and does not require the total energy of the universe to be a different sum than it is now.



> So now my next question, why is it impossible for there to be a creator, a being or energy that not only created matter but all the laws that science is discovering.


 It's not impossible, not at all. Science does not say it is impossible, skepticism does not say it's impossible. Atheism does not say it's impossible. 



> Funny you should mention arrogance, humans are an arrogant species aren't they? Who else would presume to say that they speak for God, *or that there is no God based on no evidence.*


We have spent entire threads trying to explain this, so please consider what I am about to say. Yes, there are some people who say there is no evidence for god, therefore god does not exist. Those people by default are atheists. Atheists are not by default those people. An atheist is simply someone who is not convinced by the theists argument. The theist has not provided enough support neither evidential or logical to draw the conclusion of a deity. Atheism is an answer to the question, "do you conclude that there is a god". The question of "do you conclude there is no god" is a completely separate issue which requires it's own support. Most rational skeptics will answer no to both questions. The current knowledge of the universe as understood by humans makes it impossible to say one way or the other with absolute certainty. We can only say, we have no evidence of god and none is likely to be forthcoming, but if evidence was to be discovered and was sufficient, we would then have no choice but to believe. The scientific method dictates we follow evidence wherever it leads. So in short, those atheists who claim there is no god do so in addition to and outside of atheism, skepticism and science.

The idea that our current state of understanding does not allow us to make any conclusions about god's existence is not agnosticism. Agnostic people are answering a different question, which is "do you believe god is knowable". The distinction is, agnosticism can be applied to both and an atheistic and theistic view. You can be unconvinced of a deity and your reason could be that you don't believe the matter is knowable. That would make you an agnostic atheist. You can also believe there is a deity, but believe some or all aspects of him are unknowable. That makes you an agnostic theist. Agnosticism is an opinion about comprehension, not about god's existence.



> btw Heisenberg, I really do value your opinion regardless of what you may think of me


I have not formed a solid opinion about you, but you will find me much more civil to those who take a humble approach to ignorance and questioning, rather than brazenly submit assertions which are disguised as questions and based on misunderstanding. If I misjudged you then I apologize.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 30, 2011)

Apathy One x said:


> However I am glad we are finally getting somewhere, Science cannot explain matter creation, which I knew already but need some confirmation from the atheists here.


lol I could smell that a mile away... not very subtle..



Apathy One x said:


> So now my next question, why is it impossible for there to be a creator, a being or energy that not only created matter but all the laws that science is discovering.


Quote the atheist who said it was. 

This atheist is saying show me the evidence that says there is. 



Apathy One x said:


> Funny you should mention arrogance, humans are an arrogant species aren't they? Who else would presume ... that there is no God based on no evidence.


Who else would assume there is a god based on no evidence but an arrogant person?

Who would be so arrogant as to say "your science can't explain the beginning so my unexplainable theory WINS! Game over!". You sir, have yet to explain this beginning entity that created existence. He would have to be just as complex as the entire universe itself, would it not? How would you presume an entity like that would simply 'Pop!" into existence? 

You can always ask the question "how is matter/energy created if there isn't a creator?" but I can always counter with "well, what created the creator?". This gets us nowhere, in either situation we fall into an infinite regress situation. Neither of us has an answer for what ultimately started creating things, so both arguments are rendered moot.

...and that is the end of that argument. What else do you have?
 


Apathy One x said:


> btw Heisenberg, I really do value your opinion regardless of what you may think of me


Although that was directed at Heis, I'd like to return the comment your way. I appreciate this kind of conversation, regardless of opinions. You're doing a great job at keeping it impersonal. 

+rep


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 30, 2011)

Apathy One x said:


> Which still leaves the question, where did matter and energy come from? Who made up the laws of physics? Science discovered them, they didn't invent them, show me the guy who invented gravity, anyone?


 This is called begging the question and is a logical fallacy. You are assuming there is a "who" in the questions. It could just as easily be a what. Why do you think the natural laws were created by a who or a guy? Have you considered the possibility that the laws of nature might end up being explained naturally? 

14.7 billion years ago, our universe was very small and there was no matter, it was a seething, hot point of pure energy. For some reason this hot, dense point of energy began to expand rapidly. As it did, it cooled off enough to allow matter to form from energy, something that can be replicated in the lab today. There is nothing that says this small, hot universe didn't always exist or that it couldn't have formed by a natural process. Introducing an intelligent creator begs the question of how did such complex intelligence arise in the first place? No one knows of any example anywhere in the universe that complexity, let alone intelligence can arise spontaneously.


----------



## tyler.durden (Aug 30, 2011)

Apathy One x said:


> Ok, so first you say
> 
> The laws of thermodynamics are not facts, they are expressions of phenomena we observe to always be the same under certain conditions.
> 
> ...


I'm not intending to be mean, but there is definitely such things as silly questions. Just because one takes English words and puts them together with a question mark at the end doesn't mean it's a legitimate question (i.e. what is the color of jealousy? or, why is the floor on the bottom and the ceiling on top?). You ask who invented the laws of physics and who invented gravity? These are not legitimate questions, and they presuppose that a person created these things. How could a person, formed under the laws of physics create said laws? How could someone invent gravity when already subjected to it? These guys are cool to answer your questions, but really you could simply Google questions of origin and start learning these basics on your own...

P.S. Positing a creator of the universe answers nothing, but instead creates a much larger problem than the one your attempting to explain. However difficult it is to answer a given problem, it's a far greater problem to answer the origins of an omniscient, omnipotent advanced being...


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 30, 2011)

check out this site i just found http://pdg.lbl.gov/

click on atomic nuclear properties and particle listings. tons of info. i like how you can choose a bunch of different compounds on the bottom of the nuclear properties page

here is the answer to the big bang questions haha http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-bbang-cosmology.pdf


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 1, 2011)

they are blind to that fact bro...





Apathy One x said:


> If I'm ignorant then you're confused dude, you seem to nicely miss out the problems/contradictions within your logic, as I have previously stated. However I am glad we are finally getting somewhere, Science cannot explain matter creation, which I knew already but need some confirmation from the atheists here. So now my next question, why is it impossible for there to be a creator, a being or energy that not only created matter but all the laws that science is discovering.
> 
> Funny you should mention arrogance, humans are an arrogant species aren't they? Who else would presume to say that they speak for God, or that there is no God based on no evidence.
> 
> btw Heisenberg, I really do value your opinion regardless of what you may think of me*https://www.rollitup.org/members/heisenberg-229726.html*


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 1, 2011)

arrogance? who made you some perfect being? that is some straight up arrogance right there, but i will be wrong, only because you say so.





Heisenberg said:


> "Science" is one term, which I have twice defined as a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results.
> 
> "Law" is a second term, and in the context of science means an expression of phenomena we observe to always be the same under certain conditions.
> 
> ...


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 1, 2011)

> If I misjudged you then I apologize.



i never got an apology


----------



## karri0n (Sep 5, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Heh, I was taking it easy on him because he is new.
> 
> Back to the topic that no one cares about, another example of irrational behavior even skeptics are prone to is discussed here.
> 
> ...


I've read some interestng things on the phenomena of brad loyalty as well, and one thing I found particularly interesting is that the same areas of the brain have been observed to be activated when someone is talking about a brand they are loyal to, as when someone is talking about their religion. The same has been observed when either the brand or the religion is challenged, as well.


----------



## karri0n (Sep 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> This is called begging the question and is a logical fallacy. You are assuming there is a "who" in the questions. It could just as easily be a what. Why do you think the natural laws were created by a who or a guy? Have you considered the possibility that the laws of nature might end up being explained naturally?


 Setting aside the fallacious assertion that a creator or deity would necessarily be something "unnatural"....

The common modern understanding is along lines that you are bordering on here. By this model, the true essence of deity is indeed a natural force, and really can't be described as a "who" or a "guy". It is essentially described as the creative force; that which inexplicably causes a near infinite set of variables to arrange into patterns that support the existence of matter, planets, and eventually life. This concept can be seen in some older systems as well, and be described as "order" as opposed to chaos, which would seemingly be the result if all of reality were subject only to random chance. 

While the the existence of a singular being, creator, or intelligence cannot be scientifically ruled out, it seems to me that a more likely model would be something of a collective - similar to an ant colony, where while any single member has little to no autonomy or self awareness, as a collective, masterworks of engineering including heating, cooling, and ventilation systems that not only rival but far surpass those that man is capable of making are designed, built, and put into use:


[video=youtube;tyBf3GcGX64]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyBf3GcGX64[/video]
.
http://quotations.hubpages.com/hub/Intelligent_Ants


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 6, 2011)

karri0n said:


> Setting aside the fallacious assertion that a creator or deity would necessarily be something "unnatural"....


It's not fallacious, it's part of the claim that's made when using the term god or deity. Transcendent and outside of nature are minimum attributes that belong to god(s). If not, then we aren't really talking about god. 




> The common modern understanding is along lines that you are bordering on here. By this model, the true essence of deity is indeed a natural force, and really can't be described as a "who" or a "guy".


look again at what I wrote. The assumption that there is a "who" is exactly what I said was incorrect. You appear to be agreeing with me. 



> It is essentially described as the creative force; that which inexplicably causes a near infinite set of variables to arrange into patterns that support the existence of matter, planets, and eventually life. This concept can be seen in some older systems as well, and be described as "order" as opposed to chaos, which would seemingly be the result if all of reality were subject only to random chance.
> 
> While the the existence of a singular being, creator, or intelligence cannot be scientifically ruled out, it seems to me that a more likely model would be something of a collective - similar to an ant colony, where while any single has little to no autonomy or self awareness, as a collective, masterworks of engineering including heating, cooling, and ventilation systems that not only rival but far surpass those that man is capable of making are designed, built, and put into use:



_*Pantheism* -- the identification of "god" with nature -- is a well known instance of naturalistic theism. But the pantheist (or any alleged theist who wishes to describe his god soley in naturalistic terms ) is open to the charge of reducing his god to triviality. If god is take to be synonymous with nature or some aspect of the natural universe, we may then ask why the term "god" is used at all. It is superfluous and highly misleading. The label of "god" serves no function, except perhaps to create confusion), and one must suspect the naturalistic theist is simply an atheist who would rather avoid this designation. _
~George H. Smith, author _Atheism - The Case Against God_​
Or another take on it 
*Pantheism Is Confused Atheism*


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 6, 2011)

Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism
- Richard Dawkins


----------



## karri0n (Sep 6, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> _*Pantheism* -- the identification of "god" with nature -- is a well known instance of naturalistic theism. But the pantheist (or any alleged theist who wishes to describe his god soley in naturalistic terms ) is open to the charge of reducing his god to triviality. If god is take to be synonymous with nature or some aspect of the natural universe, we may then ask why the term "god" is used at all. It is superfluous and highly misleading. The label of "god" serves no function, except perhaps to create confusion), and one must suspect the naturalistic theist is simply an atheist who would rather avoid this designation. _
> ~George H. Smith, author _Atheism - The Case Against God_​




If the creative force that I have referenced above is indeed a known law of nature, I would love to read about it. Just what is it that is responsible for the innumerable interactions and coincidences that are necessary precursors to even to the possibility of matter existing? 

The difference between pantheism(and other modern spiritualities such as modern polytheism) and atheism is in he understanding that deity is something that we humans have access to in more of a capacity than just being subject to the outcomes of this random chance. In addition, a modern polytheist understands that deities as most would describe them are personifications of this underlying force that can be more easily related to and worked with.​


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 6, 2011)

karri0n said:


> If the creative force that I have referenced above is indeed a known law of nature, I would love to read about it. Just what is it that is responsible for the innumerable interactions and coincidences that are necessary precursors to even to the possibility of matter existing?
> 
> The difference between pantheism(and other modern spiritualities such as modern polytheism) and atheism is in he understanding that deity is something that we humans have access to in more of a capacity than just being subject to the outcomes of this random chance. In addition, a modern polytheist understands that deities as most would describe them are personifications of this underlying force that can be more easily related to and worked with.


What coincidences? Many physicists believe that the universe is infinite. Just because something seems improbable doesn't mean that it actually is when taking into account the time and size of our cosmos. It sounds like you might have fallen victim to the appealing fine-tuned universe argument. We've discussed that before too. Why does the natural creative force get to be called a deity? Why not still call the sun a god? Just because there are things that we haven't figured out doesn't mean the explanation is going to be something that people will feel like describing it as a personification which is nothing more than anthropomorphizing.


----------



## karri0n (Sep 7, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Why not still call the sun a god? Just because there are things that we haven't figured out doesn't mean the explanation is going to be something that people will feel like describing it as a personification which is nothing more than anthropomorphizing.


Polytheists do regard the Sun and the Earth as gods. Both provide the necessary components for life.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 7, 2011)

karri0n said:


> If the creative force that I have referenced above is indeed a known law of nature, I would love to read about it. Just what is it that is responsible for the innumerable interactions and coincidences that are necessary precursors to even to the possibility of matter existing?


there is and simply put its Chance

its us humans obsessive tendencies to try and see patterns where there aren't any, that make simple chance more important than it really is


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 7, 2011)

karri0n said:


> Polytheists do regard the Sun and the Earth as gods. Both provide the necessary components for life.


At some point the word "god" loses any substantive meaning.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 7, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> At some point the word "god" loses any substantive meaning.


And often people like Deepak Chopra are more than happy to be misunderstood when the common man equates this version of god with one that offers salvation and listens to prayers. People see it as scientific evidence of God and it sells lots of books.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 7, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> And often people like Deepak Chopra are more than happy to be misunderstood when the common man equates this version of god with one that offers salvation and listens to prayers. People see it as scientific evidence of God and it sells lots of books.


Yep, Chopra. They don't call him, 'The Profit' for nothing. I especially hate when he starts speaking in the language of quantum physics! I love watching him get owned in debate, here's one where RD calls him on his BS:


[video=youtube;Z-FaXD_igv4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4[/video]


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 8, 2011)

> At some point the word "god" loses any substantive meaning


 
really? where? Just because your beliefs tell you so that means that it is now widely accepted?


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 8, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> really? where? Just because your beliefs tell you so that means that it is now widely accepted?


How about if you follow the line of discussion rather than take my words out of context?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 8, 2011)

That's deep man.(generally speaking)


----------



## Brazko (Sep 9, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism
> - Richard Dawkins


fallacious opinion, nothing more...



mindphuk said:


> Why does the natural creative force get to be called a deity? Why not still call the sun a god? Just because there are things that we haven't figured out doesn't mean the explanation is going to be something that people will feel like describing it as a personification which is nothing more than anthropomorphizing.


We have properly identified Suns is why we don't call them gods. However when speaking in context of their influence over other things, discription of god-like nature is applicable in the provided concept of meaning. I understand the arguement but it is dumbfounded on asinine principles of just because instead of simply understanding it through conceptualized meaning. 

Like, all hell is about to break loose... Or he dogged his ass out... Or that ass was as sweet as heaven... 

Hell isn't breaking loose... but it provides meaning... 

A dog wasn't unleashed to bite someone's ass.. but it provides meaning..

Heaven don't exist and we know Ass isn't sweet.. but it provides meaning... 

It only gets confusing when in the grasps of emotional and sentimental bias that words become misfits and offensive to the nature of its actual context... 




mindphuk said:


> It's not fallacious, it's part of the claim that's made when using the term god or deity. Transcendent and outside of nature are minimum attributes that belong to god(s). If not, then we aren't really talking about god.
> 
> 
> look again at what I wrote. The assumption that there is a "who" is exactly what I said was incorrect. You appear to be agreeing with me.
> ...


Again more fallacious opinions, bias and clouded with sentimental disposition

This is Pantheism...

*Pantheism* is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Greek (_pan_) meaning "all" and the Greek (_theos_) meaning "God". As such, Pantheism denotes the idea that "God" is best seen as a process of relating to the Universe.[2] Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature

Not to be confused with Panentheism....

*Panentheism* (from Greek &#960;&#8118;&#957; (pân) "all"; &#7952;&#957; (en) "in"; and &#952;&#949;&#972;&#962; (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God personally exists, interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism is differentiated from pantheism, which holds that God is not a distinct being but is synonymous with the universe.[1]
Simply put, in pantheism, God is the whole; however, in panentheism, the whole is in God. This means that the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself. In the second formulation, the universe and God are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. 



Furthermore, its not a disposition for a God, its the disposition to the concept of God...


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 9, 2011)

The question is, if we redefine the term God to be synonymous with 'the universe' then why not just say, the universe, or nature? Why add a layer of metaphysical speculation to a reality that is fully explainable by naturalism? Furthermore, this metaphysical layer is arbitrary. Is there any way to verify that this mystical interpretation is any more valid than some other random interpretation? If someone says reality is ruled by the forces of nature, and in the essence of that reality is where we find god, are they really saying anything meaningful beyond the idea that nature rules all?

Where is the bias you speak of in this critique?

If we are speaking of spiritual pantheism we find even more assertions that are unjustified like reincarnation and collective consciousness. This is also where we most often find misuse of quantum theory, which makes the belief that much more suspect.


----------



## karri0n (Sep 9, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The question is, if we redefine the term God to be synonymous with 'the universe' then why not just say, the universe, or nature?


When talking about pactitioners of modern spiritual systems, these words are often used interchangably. Quite a large number of modern spiritual practitioners are ex-catholics and Christians, and much like many atheists, are inheretly bothered and offended by the term "god". As such, in classes and discussion groups, when someone is questioning or seeking on a certain matter, and utterance one might hear frequently is "meditate on the question and release your intentions out to the universe". In this context, you'd be just as likely to hear "release your intention to the gods", "release your intentions to the god and goddess", or "release your intentions to nature". 

It's a fundamental understanding that all gods are one god, and the source of this divinity is indeed a fundamental force of nature.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 9, 2011)

karri0n said:


> It's a fundamental understanding that all gods are one god, and the source of this divinity is indeed a fundamental force of nature.


It is a fundamental understanding that all blargs are one blarg, and the source of this blargness is indeed a fundamental force of nature.


Neither of these two sentence have any meaning by themselves. Both you and Brazko are talking a lot without saying much. You haven't answered the main objection to calling a force of nature god or divine and that is what do you mean? Knowing what one is talking about is of inestimable value in any dialogue. In any discussion with a theist, before he explains why we should believe in god must first explain what he means by the word "god." What is the nature of god, how do we identify it (or him)? The pantheist runs into the problem of substituting something that already has definitions and many times explanations. You ignored my response when you said that some polytheists do consider the sun and the earth gods. Sure, the sun is invaluable to life itself but it is not a god anymore than my belly button lint is god and using those labels to things so well understood immediately renders those idea of gods meaningless. It is up to you to supply the meaning and so far you have failed to do so.


----------



## karri0n (Sep 9, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> What is the nature of god...?


There are those who spend nearly every waking minute of their entire lives in meditation and study in order to understand the answer to this question. The supposition that you could learn the answer to this question from a stoner posting on the internet is indeed one of the major failings of atheism. Spirituality is not something that can be put into words, it is something that needs to be experienced. A writer, priest, spiritual guide, or poster on a forum cannot show you or explain to you these things, but they can provide you with the knowledge and tools for you to seek out the answers on your own. 



mindphuk said:


> *What is the nature of god, how do we identify it (or him)?*


Your issue seems to be in regard to clear definitions of terms. I've put these forth before, but as they're difficult concepts for people who don't study modern spirituality(and often for those who do), it didn't stick. For your sake, I will put forth these two important distinctions and from this point forward use the terms in this way:

Divinity - The creative force of the universe. It doesn't have a form and really can't be measured or quantified(yet). It is a fundamental underlying aspect of reality, and beings with consciousness have a strange and not well understood tie to it that allows them to interact with it at varying levels(mainly dictated by intelligence - i.e. a person can work with divinity more than a cat can), though for the vast majority of the time the only interaction is in our ability to draw off of it. Only as a collective or through very specific techniques can we directly cause a change. 

God - A specific aspect of this greater force, usually a personification, granted certain characteristics through the collective understanding and shaping by many minds, and in some cases, by aspects of the natural world in a way that we don't quite understand. An example of characteristics arriving from nature would be the Green Man or Horned God, who has been revered in nearly every hunter/gatherer culture across the globe, and always has aspects of the local flora and fauna. In Jungian psychology, he has been recognized as a deeply seated archetype in the minds of nearly all people, regardless of cultural bias.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 9, 2011)

This always seems like a scapegoat to me. "you'll never know until you try" - but you have to already know or else when you try, you won't recognize it? 

Same thing when people tell me "your mind is already made up, you can't accept Jesus". 

These are recovery statements, just like faith is a recovery emotion, just to save face no matter what happens. 

You can't prove faith wrong, because there's nothing to test, you can't prove God wrong, because there's nothing to test, you can't accept Jesus, your mind is already made up.. 

Seems to be a pattern that arises when you get a little deeper into it. The fail-safe of being unable to test the claims make the claims strong to the theist but render them useless to the nonbeliever. 

So when you say something like "spirituality is not something that can be put into words, it is something that needs to be experienced" I hear "here's more proof that you can't test, why don't you believe?!"


----------



## karri0n (Sep 9, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> This always seems like a scapegoat to me. "you'll never know until you try" - but you have to already know or else when you try, you won't recognize it?
> 
> Same thing when people tell me "your mind is already made up, you can't accept Jesus".
> 
> ...


I feel the need to quote myself....


> A writer, priest, spiritual guide, or poster on a forum cannot show you or explain to you these things, but they can provide you with the knowledge and tools for you to seek out the answers on your own.


Just like you won't understand the counterintuitive aspects of biology or physics, if you don't actively study and put forth quite a bit of effort, it can be excessively difficult, *especially* as a person who is not easily tricked or led and is naturally skeptical, to be able to understand the deeper aspects of spirituality. This is not dissimilar to the large number of physicists(which is growing ever smaller) who at one point in time have denied and rallied against any plausibility of the theories presented by Quantum mechanics. Without a proper understanding, of course it looks like nothing more than a bunch of garbage.

I was raised in a non-religious household, and in my high school years and and beyond, naturally leaned toward skepticism and atheism, and did my fair share of reading on subjects such as biology, physics, astrophysics, etc. My first foray into the world of modern spirituality was based on me arguing and attempting to disprove claims made by the person who eventually became my first spiritual guide/teacher/priestess. The more I learned, the more I started to see just how it is that these claims and theories make sense, even within a scientific understanding of the world.


----------



## jackoladd (Sep 9, 2011)

I believe everything comes down to chance. It is just chance that the building blocks for the universe were present ,it is just chance that there is life and nature.There is no reason for anything , I disagree with the idea of a creator who established order and created the laws of nature and physics and who punishes the wicked etc.etc., but that doesnt mean i dont have an inkling of a belief in a creator.My theory is that after the big bang everything was chance and still is but thinking before the big bang is where my mind gets fried. did an entity create the big bang? and if so are there other entities making other bangs?

I know this has come out pretty unclear and thats because my thoughts are unclear. I'm just having a bit of a ramble lol peace


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 9, 2011)

karri0n said:


> There are those who spend nearly every waking minute of their entire lives in meditation and study in order to understand the answer to this question. The supposition that you could learn the answer to this question from a stoner posting on the internet is indeed one of the major failings of atheism. Spirituality is not something that can be put into words, it is something that needs to be experienced. A writer, priest, spiritual guide, or poster on a forum cannot show you or explain to you these things, but they can provide you with the knowledge and tools for you to seek out the answers on your own.


Deflection. 
I'm not asking deep level spiritual questions here, just the basic, "why should I accept your claim that a god or gods exist?"

I can have a deep spiritual experience while pondering the universe and looking at the newest and relatively close supernova in M101 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/25/m101-supernova-update/

However that deep spiritual connectedness I might feel does not mean that there is more to our natural world than we can observe. 


> Your issue seems to be in regard to clear definitions of terms. I've put these forth before, but as they're difficult concepts for people who don't study modern spirituality(and often for those who do), it didn't stick. For your sake, I will put forth these two important distinctions and from this point forward use the terms in this way:
> 
> Divinity - The creative force of the universe. It doesn't have a form and really can't be measured or quantified(yet). It is a fundamental underlying aspect of reality, and beings with consciousness have a strange and not well understood tie to it that allows them to interact with it at varying levels(mainly dictated by intelligence - i.e. a person can work with divinity more than a cat can), though for the vast majority of the time the only interaction is in our ability to draw off of it. Only as a collective or through very specific techniques can we directly cause a change.
> 
> God - A specific aspect of this greater force, usually a personification, granted certain characteristics through the collective understanding and shaping by many minds, and in some cases, by aspects of the natural world in a way that we don't quite understand. An example of characteristics arriving from nature would be the Green Man or Horned God, who has been revered in nearly every hunter/gatherer culture across the globe, and always has aspects of the local flora and fauna. In Jungian psychology, he has been recognized as a deeply seated archetype in the minds of nearly all people, regardless of cultural bias.


 Of course definitions of terms is important. Otherwise, how else am I supposed to understand what you are trying to say? 

Okay, so we, in our human experience, tend to anthropomorphize things. How do we go from this underlying conceptual framework to one where you believe these things have any basis in reality? 

I can think of love as a cupid baby sporting a quiver of arrows but that doesn't make it a true representation of reality. 

You seem to want to have all of the trappings of religion and deities without being subjected to the criticisms. You appear to be creating a concept of god and divinity without the obvious problems that the theist has. This to me is no more than word games. God either exists or not. Is part of nature or not. Affects our lives or not. Interacts with us or not. 
Once you start allowing some characteristics, you begin to allow things that can be tested but then whine and say it can't be tested because not testing is part of the rules.

You either have a non-useful powerless but a feel-good deity or you have circular/problematic logic.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 9, 2011)

karri0n said:


> I feel the need to quote myself....
> Just like you won't understand the counterintuitive aspects of biology or physics, if you don't actively study and put forth quite a bit of effort, it can be excessively difficult, *especially* as a person who is not easily tricked or led and is naturally skeptical, to be able to understand the deeper aspects of spirituality. This is not dissimilar to the large number of physicists(which is growing ever smaller) who at one point in time have denied and rallied against any plausibility of the theories presented by Quantum mechanics. Without a proper understanding, of course it looks like nothing more than a bunch of garbage.
> 
> I was raised in a non-religious household, and in my high school years and and beyond, naturally leaned toward skepticism and atheism, and did my fair share of reading on subjects such as biology, physics, astrophysics, etc. My first foray into the world of modern spirituality was based on me arguing and attempting to disprove claims made by the person who eventually became my first spiritual guide/teacher/priestess. The more I learned, the more I started to see just how it is that these claims and theories make sense, even within a scientific understanding of the world.


 How would I study the deeper aspects of spirituality?

Why haven't you presented the claims that swayed your skeptical mind to the rest of us?? I'd be interested in hearing what they were.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 9, 2011)

karri0n said:


> My first foray into the world of modern spirituality was based on me arguing and attempting to disprove claims made by the person who eventually became my first spiritual guide/teacher/priestess. The more I learned, the more I started to see just how it is that these claims and theories make sense, even within a scientific understanding of the world.


Of course they make sense. That's what so much of this woo is designed to do, make sense within a modern framework that includes modern cosmology and quantum physics. It tries to appeal to intellectuals that have a basic understanding of science but not so much that real skepticism gets in the way. 

The question I have is one of truth value. How do what is and is not true about reality? Testable claims are all that I'm interested in because untestable means it's outside of useful knowledge. Of course nailing down actual claims seems to be a problem with this version of pantheism. _ We MIGHT be part of a multiverse with many different parallel universes. _​At this point in time it's interesting speculation but not testable, although that all seems to be changing.

This is the level I put your feel good, pantheistic claims. Interesting but not meaningful. Bring me something that is testable even in theory. Hell, I'd be happy if you would just formulate your claims so that they are consistent and understandable. I think the reason you have trouble solidifying them is because it benefits you to leave them sort of intangible as it allows you to move the goalposts to wherever the questioning leads. Seriously try it. Just write out a few positive statements about what you believe to be true about god without being self-referential as you were a few posts up. 

I would love to have been able to discuss this with your 'priestess' as we are here now. I think the fact that you initially were out there trying to disprove claims says a lot about the level of your cognitive skills back then. Skeptical, but like many smart pot-smokers allow your deep intuition to override true analytical, rational processes.


----------



## karri0n (Sep 9, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Deflection.
> I'm not asking deep level spiritual questions here, just the basic, "why should I accept your claim that a god or gods exist?"


You shouldn't. You should evaluate the evidence, and accept what exactly *entails* evidence to *you*.You have a mind of your own and spirituality will be to you vastly different than it will be to someone else. See:



mindphuk said:


> I can have a deep spiritual experience while pondering the universe and looking at the newest and relatively close supernova in M101 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/25/m101-supernova-update/





mindphuk said:


> Okay, so we, in our human experience, tend to anthropomorphize things. How do we go from this underlying conceptual framework to one where you believe these things have any basis in reality?


This is based on my own spiritual practice, and observed results. It's also based on various discussions I have had with similar minded individuals, and the results and experiences that they have shared in discussion. While I realize that neither *you* nor the *Scientific Method* can possibly count personal experience as evidence, I find that reality is not as rigid as theory and I am willing to accept *some* personal experience and allow it to sway my opinion, though I do not exclude it from scrutiny. My question to you is this: I am fine with the fact that you do not accept personal experience and human observation as evidence. Why is it that you have a problem with me accepting some of this as evidence?



mindphuk said:


> I can think of love as a cupid baby sporting a quiver of arrows but that doesn't make it a true representation of reality.


I don't believe that Thor exists on a physical level as a 200 foot tall giant with a hammer that calls forth lightning storms. In the realms of thought and meditation, however, this is the form he takes on. I've observed repeated results when petitioning the gods for various different outcomes, and I've watched as the various coincidences fall into place and create the desired reality that was requested. That is not to say this works 100% of the time, and I don't feel that any spiritual practitioner(who isn't out to get something from you)would ever claim that it does.



mindphuk said:


> You seem to want to have all of the trappings of religion and deities without being subjected to the criticisms. You appear to be creating a concept of god and divinity without the obvious problems that the theist has. This to me is no more than word games.


I'm not understanding. Please elaborate. For reference, I am a polytheist. I believe that counts as a Theist, so these "problems" should apply to me as well.



mindphuk said:


> God either exists or not. Is part of nature or not. Affects our lives or not. Interacts with us or not.


Exists, but not physically. I'm having trouble understanding your definition of "nature", but to me gods are well within the natural realm. Yes, the gods do interact with us and vice versa.



mindphuk said:


> Once you start allowing some characteristics, you begin to allow things that can be tested but then whine and say it can't be tested because not testing is part of the rules.


I love testing, and I've not whined.



Padawanbater2 said:


> How would I study the deeper aspects of spirituality?


I'd imagine you want to stay away from foofy crap, and given that you tend to be a bit on the cynical side, I suppose an ok start would be with Aleister Crowley, but there are plenty of other resources out there. You're intelligent and resourceful, and you know how to find information. I imagine if you were truly seeking, you could find something that appeals to you.



Padawanbater2 said:


> Why haven't you presented the claims that swayed your skeptical mind to the rest of us?? I'd be interested in hearing what they were.


I honestly cannot remember all of it, but suffice it to say a major portion of it comes down to personal experience, and noting how my personal experiences coincide and interact with what I was reading at the time. I wouldn't say any person's "claims" ever changed a thing in regard to my perspective. This is of course not conclusive evidence, and your response would be something along the lines of "what you think is happening is not what is happening in reality and cannot be proven."

The "cannot be proven" I would agree with.



mindphuk said:


> Of course they make sense. That's what so much of this woo is designed to do, make sense within a modern framework that includes modern cosmology and quantum physics. It tries to appeal to intellectuals that have a basic understanding of science but not so much that real skepticism gets in the way.


Hyper-Skepticism shows a lack of trust and is therefore a personality flaw.




mindphuk said:


> The question I have is one of truth value. How do_[we know]_ what is and is not true about reality? Testable claims are all that I'm interested in because untestable means it's outside of useful knowledge. Of course nailing down actual claims seems to be a problem with this version of pantheism.


I'm not sure if your continued claims that I'm preaching pantheism are antagonistic or innocent misconceptions. 

Regardless, the disconnect in this case once again falls into a difference in our personal preference of what entails evidence, and by that token, just what the meaning of "testable" is. You want something that can be repeated, and shown to repeat when controls for different variables are added. A claim or someone's thoughts and personal opinions hold no bearing. I settle for "take action A with desired result B, and end up with result B, or related, but sometimes better, option C".




mindphuk said:


> This is the level I put your feel good, pantheistic claims. Interesting but not meaningful. Bring me something that is testable even in theory. Hell, I'd be happy if you would just formulate your claims so that they are consistent and understandable. I think the reason you have trouble solidifying them is because it benefits you to leave them sort of intangible as it allows you to move the goalposts to wherever the questioning leads. Seriously try it. Just write out a few positive statements about what you believe to be true about god without being self-referential as you were a few posts up.


I don't feel that I've made inconsistent claims, but if I have, please give me examples so I can look over this and revise my thought process. Understandable may be more difficult, as I would need to first figure out where the disconnect lies.

A few positive statements about god - OK:

All of the many different understandings of god are exactly that - different structures, ideas, and personifications put together by people to help understand and work with something that is inherently quite difficult to understand. 

The only true spirituality is the one that works best for the practitioner. As all the many spiritual systems have essentially the same goal and are linked to the same source, all are correct. "There are many paths up the mountain", so to speak. The only time that it comes to be that a particular system is _not_ correct is in one that holds fundamentalism at its heart. For example, one could worship Jesus and gain great fulfillment from this, and not really have any fundamentalist tendencies other than not working with other gods or systems. However, if their main path to "salvation" was to attempt to convert "sinners" through violence, coercion, or trickery, this is not a spiritual activity and is little more than lust for power and control.

Specific gods can be worked with, and have different affinities and aspects of reality that they interact with more than other things. If you want a bountiful harvest, it would be better to leave flowers and prayers to Aphrodite than to do a war dance to Ares.

That's all for now, but If you'd like specific answers go ahead.



mindphuk said:


> I would love to have been able to discuss this with your 'priestess' as we are here now.


You'd tear her apart. She holds much more traditionalist views and doesn't care to understand the underlying forces at work. To her, Gods have absolutely physically existed, at least at some point in the past. As far as religion and spiritual techniques go, it has been quite some time since I've had much to learn from her. She does, however, continue to be a teacher to me in other ways, such as learning about the true nature of people and how quick they are to stab you in the back if they have something to gain.




mindphuk said:


> I think the fact that you initially were out there trying to disprove claims says a lot about the level of your cognitive skills back then. Skeptical, but like many smart pot-smokers allow your deep intuition to override true analytical, rational processes.


Think what you will. I believe it says that I was a hotheaded 19 year old kid who liked to argue and had a problem with authority(she was my manager.). I feel that intuition often has a lot more to teach us than what we can learn by applying what we believe to be rationality. If modern science has taught us nothing more, it's that reality is much further from rational then we have ever imagined.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

> Why haven't you presented the claims that swayed your skeptical mind to the rest of us?? I'd be interested in hearing what they were.



dude, why is it that you continue to seek an answer that is inexplainable? I find it that you like to troll others with these "questions" to the "what is that you felt that i dont" type of stuff.


your beliefs have already made at least one person on here question their self worth and consider suicide... you all think your beliefs are so "safe" and the right way, if you go the wrong way, you are dumb no matter what you know.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

awesome post karrion... sadly, these atheists will not see it as a "valid" answer only because your logic is "hindered" by your beliefs... what a crock pot of slow cooking poop... + rep





karri0n said:


> You shouldn't. You should evaluate the evidence, and accept what exactly *entails* evidence to *you*.You have a mind of your own and spirituality will be to you vastly different than it will be to someone else. See:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Sep 9, 2011)

lol olly you need a slice of ...............


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 9, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> dude, why is it that you continue to seek an answer that is inexplainable? I find it that you like to troll others with these "questions" to the "what is that you felt that i dont" type of stuff.


Quit pretending that you know what a troll even is. Questions are the only way to gain knowledge, and asking someone if they feel something we are missing, is about the most respectful way to inquire about differences. It is simply expressing interest. Karri0n has stated that he enjoys being challenged and welcomes genuine criticism.



> your beliefs have already made at least one person on here question their self worth and consider suicide... you all think your beliefs are so "safe" and the right way, if you go the wrong way, you are dumb no matter what you know.


That person is just fine and seems to be far from suicide. You however seem to be as short minded and uninsightful as ever. As I said before, you consistently misconstrue others posts, and continuously confuse others with your posts. Before demanding improvement from others why don't you perform some quality assurance on yourself? You frame every response as if it is an attack, without taking even a second to consider the context of the conversation. When you take others words out of context and use them for ammo, that is true disrespect, as well as an indication that you have nothing intelligent to say. You contribute nothing to these discussions except petty unfounded conflict, conflict which doesn't even exist outside of your half-baked mind. These flaws reflect your sloppy careless conduct and are independent of your beliefs.

Quit trying to put others in their place unless you enjoy being put into yours.


----------



## karri0n (Sep 9, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Quit pretending that you know what a troll even is. Questions are the only way to gain knowledge, and asking someone if they feel something we are missing, is about the most respectful way to inquire about differences. It is simply expressing interest. Karri0n has stated that he enjoys being challenged and welcomes genuine criticism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oly, While I appreciate your support, I have to agree with Heisenberg on this. This thread is about discussion, and in regard to the correspondence between myself, Padawanbater, and Mindphuk, has been refreshingly free of conflict and personal attacks. In short, the only person trolling in this thread is you.

Once again, I do appreciate your support and recognition, but I would like to keep this thread on track.

Edit: I have no idea what this is all about, but if someone was genuinely considering suicide over something someone said on an internet forum regarding their religion, they have much bigger problems than something someone was saying on an internet forum.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

well, i see that you all hate people who are just trying to be fair...





karri0n said:


> Oly, While I appreciate your support, I have to agree with Heisenberg on this. This thread is about discussion, and in regard to the correspondence between myself, Padawanbater, and Mindphuk, has been refreshingly free of conflict and personal attacks. In short, the only person trolling in this thread is you.
> 
> Once again, I do appreciate your support and recognition, but I would like to keep this thread on track.
> 
> Edit: I have no idea what this is all about, but if someone was genuinely considering suicide over something someone said on an internet forum regarding their religion, they have much bigger problems than something someone was saying on an internet forum.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

> Quit pretending that you know what a troll even is.



professor, im sorry for disrupting your class. dude get a life... your view of the world is so construed that you see everything with one eye... yes i may sound retarded to you, but how bout you mind your own business... Last i remember you believed in God... hypocrite




> That person is just fine and seems to be far from suicide.



oh, he is fine? if he was fine then why did he post that thread? just cause you offered your "assistance" through pm makes you some great person? man you are so full of yourself heis....




> You contribute nothing to these discussions except petty unfounded conflict, conflict which doesn't even exist outside of your half-baked mind.



again, you think you are far better then me... just cause my responses are not what you want that does not mean they are not helpful... your are so blind to the fact bro... for a professional like you, i thought you would consider it. my responses can be seen by others and others can learn about proper etiquette you fool...


i just hate how you think you are some type of guru...


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

karri0n said:


> I am fine with the fact that you do not accept personal experience and human observation as evidence. Why is it that you have a problem with me accepting some of this as evidence?


because those things are very unreliable and there are many things that can affect the way the person sees the observation. not only will each person see it differently, but how YOU see it would depend on your mood, thoughts, beliefs, etc.

this makes it hard to confirm anything because who can we trust, and how? what makes your experience more real than the crazy bum that talks to himself and sees aliens?(no offense) if he sees them, they are real to him, right? they exist. but in reality, they dont.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 9, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> well, i see that you all hate people who are just trying to be fair...


Don't feel bad oly I don't hate you. They are set on their beliefs and you are debating against them. When there are about 3 against one you are most likely not going to help anyone have faith so just let it be. I say we smoke a bowl take a step back and just have faith in what you believe in and let others believe what they want to believe. 

And for others reading this post do not feel offended when I say they. I'm just referring to the people arguing against oly, which is not bad because you guys don't actually hate each other. (I hope)


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> well, i see that you all hate people who are just trying to be fair...





olylifter420 said:


> professor, im sorry for disrupting your class. dude get a life... your view of the world is so construed that you see everything with one eye... yes i may sound retarded to you, but how bout you mind your own business... Last i remember you believed in God... hypocrite
> 
> 
> 
> ...


nothing but unnecessary conflict...


3,000 POSTS! WOOOOOH!


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 9, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> professor, im sorry for disrupting your class. dude get a life... your view of the world is so construed that you see everything with one eye... yes i may sound retarded to you, but how bout you mind your own business... Last i remember you believed in God... hypocrite
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The only one who seems to think I am a guru is you. When have I ever referred to myself as professor? I could defend against each of your points, but as you are the only one with this opinion I trust the defense is obvious to others. You have derailed enough threads goading people into defending asinine assertions. It's time we stop providing you with this option, and simply respond by saying "Oly says the darndest things".


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 9, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> well, i see that you all hate people who are just trying to be fair...


Oly says the darndest things...


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 9, 2011)

Oly says the darndest things...


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

back to the topic?


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

i say the darndest things, lol


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

> Oly says the darndest things".



[video=youtube;RFZrzg62Zj0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0[/video]


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

hey thanks heph, i know it is a one sided debate, but i wont let these guys continue running their trash talk without sharing my trash talk as well... these dudes are so funny that they ask you for something, you give it to them, then they say, "oh, well that is this because of that" i like these guys cause they are funny....


i hate how they pick on you and then they act like they are your friend... what hypocrits


but thanks for the support bro






Hepheastus420 said:


> Don't feel bad oly I don't hate you. They are set on their beliefs and you are debating against them. When there are about 3 against one you are most likely not going to help anyone have faith so just let it be. I say we smoke a bowl take a step back and just have faith in what you believe in and let others believe what they want to believe.
> 
> And for others reading this post do not feel offended when I say they. I'm just referring to the people arguing against oly, which is not bad because you guys don't actually hate each other. (I hope)


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

[video=youtube;RFZrzg62Zj0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0[/video]





Heisenberg said:


> The only one who seems to think I am a guru is you. When have I ever referred to myself as professor? I could defend against each of your points, but as you are the only one with this opinion I trust the defense is obvious to others. You have derailed enough threads goading people into defending asinine assertions. It's time we stop providing you with this option, and simply respond by saying "Oly says the darndest things".


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

hey thanks for the first like from you bro, i really appreciate you making my notification get highlighted again...





olylifter420 said:


> i say the darndest things, lol


----------



## Brazko (Sep 9, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The question is, if we redefine the term God to be synonymous with 'the universe' then why not just say, the universe, or nature? Why add a layer of metaphysical speculation to a reality that is fully explainable by naturalism? Furthermore, this metaphysical layer is arbitrary. Is there any way to verify that this mystical interpretation is any more valid than some other random interpretation? If someone says reality is ruled by the forces of nature, and in the essence of that reality is where we find god, are they really saying anything meaningful beyond the idea that nature rules all?
> 
> Where is the bias you speak of in this critique?
> 
> If we are speaking of spiritual pantheism we find even more assertions that are unjustified like reincarnation and collective consciousness. This is also where we most often find misuse of quantum theory, which makes the belief that much more suspect.


 It's not needed to do so to claim Pantheism. I already explained the reason why some do in the examples I left. Tell me what you didn't understand about them? I mean, other than what people can mistake it to be, or what some people get off on others hoping to confuse it's meaning with. That can be said about any term whether defined or not. People will mistake/misuse them to mean something of their conception regardless. That stance of arguement isn't saying much. 

Pantheist include Buddism, Taoism, Native American etc... None of these religions of Pantheism need reference to a God... However, communication between all would be comprehended if the word God was used and interchanged when speaking in any form of context or, concept.. Could it be? Yes... but that lies soley on the cognitive functioning level of that individual... 

The only Metaphysics added are the mystical experiences provided by nature.. QP is observed under a microscope and through numbers.. The observance of the happenings, probabilties of existence and non existence, and the relation of interactions are mystical in aspect. It's mystical not because its metaphysical, but because it astounds and exists outside of scientific knowledge, absent the case being of unknown knowledge. Maybe this is where you may find discretion in old/ancient terms used to describe newly founded science. Whereas the words don't equate to the same meaning applied, however, the knowledge existing in that new science has been applied within the same principles before scientific confirmation.. A good example of this would be Acupuncture.. Whereas ancient knowledge/terms describe the same thing modern science confirms and are applied in the same manner.. There is only a struggle and conflict when one doesn't conform to the same language... That struggle to me isn't based in language, as much as it is in cognition.


"When the mind makes a generalization such as the concept of _tree_, it extracts similarities from numerous examples; the simplification enables higher-level thinking"

^^^^^Layers^^^^^ = higher-level thinking​ 

And to the question of forces of nature, yes.. Same meaning..

Nature of the Universe Rules All.. God rules All, The Tao Rules All.. 

Reincarnation and Consciousness falls under the same umbrella, but it's pointless to regurgitate when the same line of thinking is proposed to everything outside of defined terms of scientific confirmation. This lies in the cognitive ability of the individual. Everything that is needed to understand is presented within the religious philosophy or can be entertained and understood through cognitive scientific refinement that explains the basis of that primitive analysis.





mindphuk said:


> Both you and Brazko are talking a lot without saying much..


Much of which you failed to understand is the case. 

I'm sorry phuk but I can gather much of what you say even when what you're saying isn't much..

It seems you are more concerned with persuading someone to not use or say that word because it already has a defined meaning. So being unbias and unsentimental to your position of thought, I'm sure that you are petitioning to eradicate such use of terminology outside of its designated scope and meaning worldwide for the betterment of mankind. 

I'm sorry but true analytical thinking isn't a desirable trait unless you're trying to fuck calculators.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> these dudes are so funny that they ask you for something, you give it to them, then they say, "oh, well that is this because of that" i like these guys cause they are funny....


we do that because your explanation for why something happens is faulty, and we are providing a better explanation for why it happened. instead of complaining, why not refute our arguments with logic and common sense? prove us wrong and quit bitching. you are like a child


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 9, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> hey thanks heph, i know it is a one sided debate, but i wont let these guys continue running their trash talk without sharing my trash talk as well... these dudes are so funny that they ask you for something, you give it to them, then they say, "oh, well that is this because of that" i like these guys cause they are funny....
> 
> 
> i hate how they pick on you and then they act like they are your friend... what hypocrits
> ...


Yeah no problem bro, it was just a warning that they are just gonna keep stating the same things and going in circles to prove religion is bad, we can just as easily make a thread dedicated to all the negative attributes to atheism but of course they are just gonna disagree with it.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 9, 2011)

Hey oly I thought this would make you feel better and laugh. 
Hold on, ha iPod is being weird. Ehh for some reason I can't post a pic right now but it's like:
ATHEISM: the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self- replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. - makes perfect sense.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 9, 2011)

What is the distinction between naturalism and pantheism?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Yeah no problem bro, it was just a warning that they are just gonna keep stating the same things and going in circles to prove religion is bad, we can just as easily make a thread dedicated to all the negative attributes to atheism but of course they are just gonna disagree with it.


lets hear it https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/464095-what-negatives-atheism.html#post6253298
there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone. i disagree with you, but if you provide a valid claim that has substance, i may still disagree, but i will see that claim as valid and include it in my thoughts. we can both be right, while still disagreeing.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 9, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Yeah no problem bro, it was just a warning that they are just gonna keep stating the same things and going in circles to prove religion is bad, we can just as easily make a thread dedicated to all the negative attributes to atheism but of course they are just gonna disagree with it.


We say the same things because the defense of dogmatic religion is always the same:

Religion is true

Religion does good

Atheism does bad

We can demonstrate the flaws in each of those assertions quite clearly and conclusively. Once these topics are covered, their proponents have nothing left in their arsenal except petty attacks irrelevant of the facts and self delusion.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 9, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> What is the distinction between naturalism and pantheism?


Nothing besides one being an accepted Scientific term and forbids inclusion of any other term..


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 9, 2011)

> I'd imagine you want to stay away from foofy crap, and given that you tend to be a bit on the cynical side, I suppose an ok start would be with Aleister Crowley, but there are plenty of other resources out there. You're intelligent and resourceful, and you know how to find information. I imagine if you were truly seeking, you could find something that appeals to you.


 I'm sorry, I meant how do you study the deeper aspects of spirituality? 

As MP pointed out earlier, each of us can feel what someone else might consider a "spiritual" experience, but what does that constitute? Are there standards to follow or consider? Do they have to be consistent? An "experience" by its definition would seem to me to be something individual to each person, completely subjective, so that would exclude it from requiring consistent standards for evaluation. 

So basically, what the question really comes down to is 'How would I know what I'm feeling is actually something "spiritual" and not just my own imagination?', how do you distinguish between the two? This is a problem theists face that I've never got a rational explanation for. There doesn't seem to be a way around it, which explains the necessity of faith, in my mind. That's the slot that fits the void created by this logical problem. You insert 'faith'... "you've gotta have faith.." because you can't explain it any other way. 'Faith' is just a word that was created the try to answer an illogical question. 



> I honestly cannot remember all of it, but suffice it to say a major portion of it comes down to personal experience, and noting how my personal experiences coincide and interact with what I was reading at the time. I wouldn't say any person's "claims" ever changed a thing in regard to my perspective. This is of course not conclusive evidence, and your response would be something along the lines of "what you think is happening is not what is happening in reality and cannot be proven."
> 
> The "cannot be proven" I would agree with.


How do you expect people to accept that, given the enormous consequences atheists like me have pointed out like starvation, global conflicts that harm millions of innocent people, etc.?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 9, 2011)

Brazko said:


> Nothing besides one being an accepted Scientific term and forbids inclusion of any other term..


If there is no distinction then I accept the position as one which with I have very little conflict. However, judging by the 3 encyclopedic entries and 2 pantheistic websites I just visited, and going by conversations I have had with pantheists and pantheistic authors I have read, if you believe there is no distinction between naturalism and pantheism, I have to question which one of us misunderstands the position. The central distinction as I understand it is belief in a unity and that one can change ones state in relation to that unity. Of course unity can be explained away as the universe, and the state of relationship can be explained as your understanding of the universe, and at that point I have no problem with the position other than redundancy and superfluousness, which while being the most forgivable and understandable of mistakes, is a distinction.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

> nothing but unnecessary conflict..



funny how you blow shit away like it is nothing. says a lot about you and your so called beliefs


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

> each of us can feel what someone else might consider a "spiritual" experience, but what does that constitute?



you see that, i said that along time ago but it was not accepted, but now that an atheist says it, it is ok and acceptable... you all(atheists) are a bunch of hypocritical d bags that dont accept anything a believer says, even though you all follow their research like crazy


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

> and we are providing a better explanation for why it happened.



a better explanation? are you serious? you are trying to explain me better then what i experienced? man you all are fucking fooolish!!! what retard can say what you just said? only you...


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

i know, that is what is so funny to me... and they claim to stick to the rules of debate when they continually deflect stuff that is valid...

thanks again bro... it is good to know that we aint alone on herer





Hepheastus420 said:


> Yeah no problem bro, it was just a warning that they are just gonna keep stating the same things and going in circles to prove religion is bad, we can just as easily make a thread dedicated to all the negative attributes to atheism but of course they are just gonna disagree with it.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

i disagree with you just because you are an atheist, just like you will disagree with valid stuff we post all the time cause we are believers... stop your bitching and be productive





Luger187 said:


> lets hear it https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/464095-what-negatives-atheism.html#post6253298
> there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone. i disagree with you, but if you provide a valid claim that has substance, i may still disagree, but i will see that claim as valid and include it in my thoughts. we can both be right, while still disagreeing.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

funny, even though you told me you believe in God... what a hypocrite






Heisenberg said:


> We say the same things because the defense of dogmatic religion is always the same:
> 
> Religion is true
> 
> ...


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> funny how you blow shit away like it is nothing. says a lot about you and your so called beliefs


blow what away? what did you say that was important? i didnt see anything of substance in that post. just nonsense about how we are hating on you...again



olylifter420 said:


> a better explanation? are you serious? you are trying to explain me better then what i experienced? man you all are fucking fooolish!!! what retard can say what you just said? only you...


yes. experience is not the be-all end-all of reality(DUH!). just because you experience something DOES NOT make it real or 100% fact. there are people that literally see people or objects that do not exist. they KNOW it is real, but it is not. we have an explanation for why this happens. that explanation is better than the one of the persons, who says "its just there, dont you see it?!".

we know that the feelings you feel while in prayer are nothing but brain functions. you may feel a connection with god, but you are not. we can recreate this feeling with a device.

learn to think about things before you say them


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i know, that is what is so funny to me... and they claim to stick to the rules of debate when they continually deflect stuff that is valid...
> 
> thanks again bro... it is good to know that we aint alone on herer


show us something we deflected that was valid please



olylifter420 said:


> i disagree with you just because you are an atheist, just like you will disagree with valid stuff we post all the time cause we are believers... stop your bitching and be productive


disagreeing is not the issue, you dumbass. the issue is you guys dont provide 'valid stuff'. apparently you post it all the time, so please enlighten me and show me some.
who is the one being counterproductive here? lol


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 9, 2011)

oly, why are you even here? say something that has to do with the thread, or GTFO. there was a great conversation going immediately before you showed up and it turned to shit because you are here.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 9, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> funny, even though you told me you believe in God... what a hypocrite


Oly says the darndest things...


----------



## Brazko (Sep 9, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I have to question which one of us misunderstands the position. The central distinction as I understand it is belief in a unity and that one can change ones state in relation to that unity..


Ok, lets check our understanding....

Are you separate from the Universe?

Are you able to change your state of being in relation to your surroundings?

Are your surroundings separated from the Universe? 

Do the relations of your surroundings effect your state of being?

Does your state of being effect your surroundings?



edit: Could you please post your encyclopedia entries? The ones you are referring.

Also, could you please explain the redundancy and superflousness?


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

i see you like to deflect... nice

[video=youtube;doihYFkeWsQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doihYFkeWsQ[/video]





Heisenberg said:


> Oly says the darndest things...


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

still doesnt change the fact that you're a hypocrit






Heisenberg said:


> Oly says


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 9, 2011)

> there was a great conversation going




so you call a one sided discussion great? that is really stupid, why dont you GTFO?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 9, 2011)

Perhaps your delivery needs work? You say you already mentioned the same thing I did, OK, go find the post and quote it in its entirety so I can see the context. If that's the case, shouldn't you be standing by my side asking Karri0n the same thing? Instead you take the defensive and, again, pull the hurt card... Getting us nowhere. Can't you just get past the whole "they're all out to get ME!" attitude? Just stop man, right now, as you are reading this, THINK about this, why are you getting so damn upset? Compose yourself, stop acting like a child, answer the questions as asked and stop using logical fallacies every post you make. Study these things so you can better yourself, so you can avoid the mistakes they present. Stop taking things so personally.


----------



## karri0n (Sep 9, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I'm sorry, I meant how do you study the deeper aspects of spirituality?


Reading the right books, talking to people of various different spiritual systems, lots of meditation and pondering.



Padawanbater2 said:


> As MP pointed out earlier, each of us can feel what someone else might consider a "spiritual" experience, but what does that constitute? Are there standards to follow or consider? Do they have to be consistent? An "experience" by its definition would seem to me to be something individual to each person, completely subjective, so that would exclude it from requiring consistent standards for evaluation.


I disagree. I feel that everything should be subjected to the scrutiny of constant standards, but those standards are not the same for everyone, and must be developed on a personal level, mostly through trial and error. That's not to say there are no resources available to use as a starting point.



Padawanbater2 said:


> So basically, what the question really comes down to is 'How would I know what I'm feeling is actually something "spiritual" and not just my own imagination?', how do you distinguish between the two? This is a problem theists face that I've never got a rational explanation for. There doesn't seem to be a way around it, which explains the necessity of faith, in my mind. That's the slot that fits the void created by this logical problem. You insert 'faith'... "you've gotta have faith.." because you can't explain it any other way. 'Faith' is just a word that was created the try to answer an illogical question.


 A valid question. experienced teachers of things such as vision quests and guided meditations, message retrieval, and other various things that can be confused with imagination teach a fairly simple method of determining whether something is valid or imagined, and that's "are you able to consciously change what you are watching?"

"Imagination" as you put it, is also simply another aspect of our reality. The realms of thought and consciousness can and do have very real effects on the physical world, even if nothing more than an idea can be conceptualized and then brought into existence by hands working toward that goal. Beyond that, indeed, on a quantum level, it's been shown that there is little difference between reality and fantasy. Whether you choose to accept this or not has little bearing, as spirituality is not something that lies within the physical realm, and is generally something that lies within the psyche and the emotional body. In short, and "imagined" spiritual experience *is* a "real" spiritual experience. There is no distinction between the two. An "imagined" spiritual experience has measurable affects on the physical body from activation of different areas of the brain, to changes in brainwave frequency, heart rate, blood pressure, serotonin,dopamine, and other various neutrotransmitter levels, muscle tension, electrical resistance as measured on the skin, body temperature, etc.



Padawanbater2 said:


> How do you expect people to accept that, given the enormous consequences atheists like me have pointed out like starvation, global conflicts that harm millions of innocent people, etc.?


 a. I don't expect you to accept it, and I'm quite certain I mentioned that in my post. You asked why I haven't shared, and I said "because you wouldn't accept it".

b. consequences of what exactly? I'm relating my personal experiences. You seem to be once again equating all spiritual systems with those of fundamentalist regimes, ad the consequences you speak of are the result of politics and economics intertwining with religion. Make no mistake, I believe separation of church and state, and indeed the separation of spirituality from *any* form of institutionalization to be not only dangerous due to the possibility of large-scale politicization such as you are referencing, but also that as soon as it becomes institutionalized, it loses most if not all of its spiritual meaning.


----------



## karri0n (Sep 9, 2011)

This is directed at everyone except Oly:

*STOP RESPONDING TO HIM.
*
The forum needs some kind of anti-rep feature that makes a post count negatively toward their rep and post count. I recommend anyone who actually wants to continue discussion in this thread take your pick of some of his most "colorful"posts within it and report him.This would never be my approach under most circumstances, but it has gotten far out of hand. I'd also like to make it clear to any mod that there are at least two people who would prefer to not see this thread closed if it does come to a point that action needs to be taken.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 10, 2011)

Yo man you take this shit too serious bro... You got a problem with me, pm me. Dont be a little bitch a cry like one... Pad is the mod, he is all for the bashing of others religions and.beliefs, so i dont think it will get closed...

You believe these.discussions are so good when they aint! You all talk about the same thing over and over again, with atheists never accepting anything a believer says.

You and luger41 make a good couple, why dont you all mate and have a bunnch of oly haters





karri0n said:


> This is directed at everyone except Oly:
> 
> *STOP RESPONDING TO HIM.
> *
> The forum needs some kind of anti-rep feature that makes a post count negatively toward their rep and post count. I recommend anyone who actually wants to continue discussion in this thread take your pick of some of his most "colorful"posts within it and report him.This would never be my approach under most circumstances, but it has gotten far out of hand. I'd also like to make it clear to any mod that there are at least two people who would prefer to not see this thread closed if it does come to a point that action needs to be taken.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 10, 2011)

Atheists need their fun and to them, well


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 10, 2011)

karri0n said:


> Reading the right books, talking to people of various different spiritual systems, lots of meditation and pondering.


This is what I was trying to get at, if we do different things to try to study the different aspects of spirituality, wouldn't we reach different conclusions about it? 

You may have done this already before, but could you define exactly what you mean by 'spirituality' as specifically as possible? 



karri0n said:


> I disagree. I feel that everything should be subjected to the scrutiny of constant standards, but those standards are not the same for everyone, and must be developed on a personal level, mostly through trial and error.


What does a 'spiritual experience' constitute, and how do you know it's an authentic 'spiritual experience' and not just in your imagination? What is the difference between the guy who says he speaks to God and people who just have these 'religious experiences'? This is where consistent standards for everyone are important. 

You seem to have contradicted yourself "consistent standards", but not the same for everyone". Wouldn't those be _inconsistent_ standards? 



karri0n said:


> A valid question. experienced teachers of things such as vision quests and guided meditations, message retrieval, and other various things that can be confused with imagination teach a fairly simple method of determining whether something is valid or imagined, and that's "are you able to consciously change what you are watching?"


Yes, but I'd argue that most people are not very well versed in such techniques, so most people who experience these kinds of feelings (which are then reinforced by our society) automatically attribute them to their religion and mark it up to a 'religious experience' without any actual evidence other than the experience itself. That doesn't seem like a very good way to acquire knowledge to me. 



karri0n said:


> "Imagination" as you put it, is also simply another aspect of our reality. The realms of thought and consciousness can and do have very real effects on the physical world, even if nothing more than an idea can be conceptualized and then brought into existence by hands working toward that goal.


I'm not using the word 'imagination' in that context here. You can swap it out with the phrase "in my head" or "in my mind" if you want, the question still remains unanswered;

'How would I know what I'm feeling is actually something "spiritual" and not in my head/mind?'



karri0n said:


> ...spirituality is not something that lies within the physical realm, and is generally something that lies within the psyche and the emotional body.


What do you have to support that? What is the 'psyche and emotional body'? 



karri0n said:


> In short, and "imagined" spiritual experience *is* a "real" spiritual experience.There is no distinction between the two. An "imagined" spiritual experience has measurable affects on the physical body from activation of different areas of the brain, to changes in brainwave frequency, heart rate, blood pressure, serotonin,dopamine, and other various neutrotransmitter levels, muscle tension, electrical resistance as measured on the skin, body temperature, etc.


So the only standard you use to determine if someone is having a 'religious experience' (be it 100% made up in their own mind or not) is if it has measurable effects on their physical body? 

I'm sorry man but that just is not science. You can't simply say 'this subject believed he was being spoken to by God, we were able to pick up measurable differences in hormone and chemical levels, therefore, it must have been real'.. There is a distinction between something you think up and believe and something that actually is real. 

This seems to be a pretty common misconception contrasting between the two, science and religion. Personal experiences are paramount for theists, it essentally forms the foundation of their entire faith, but personal experiences don't amount to anything in science, they are not proof or evidence of anything because they are individual to the person having the experience. I cannot replicate a _feeling_ you had that changed your mind or strengthened your existing belief during something you experienced, so bringing it to the table won't mean a thing to me. 

The objective focus of science ensures the evidence get's analyzed without envoking emotional responses.



karri0n said:


> a. I don't expect you to accept it, and I'm quite certain I mentioned that in my post. You asked why I haven't shared, and I said "because you wouldn't accept it".


How could you yourself accept that?

I tell people this all the time, I'll tell you now... 

Even if I was 100% sure God existed, if it demanded obedience, demanded to be worshiped, gave innocent people terrible diseases, caused, or at the least didn't prevent things like famines, plagues, war, etc., basically, if the God of the Bible actually did exist, and I was 100% sure, I wouldn't follow it or worship it or any of that because all that stuff is wrong, it doesn't matter to me that God is in charge of it, it's still wrong. Deep down, I trust myself more than I trust any other person on the planet, I've thought long and hard about these topics, and I know that a being capable of creating existence, creating love, would not require such absurd things. It's that simple. If I stood before that God on some day of judgment at the end of my life and it asked me why I didn't worship it or why I didn't acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin, I would tell it because it's wrong. 



karri0n said:


> b. consequences of what exactly? I'm relating my personal experiences. You seem to be once again equating all spiritual systems with those of fundamentalist regimes, ad the consequences you speak of are the result of politics and economics intertwining with religion. Make no mistake, I believe separation of church and state, and indeed the separation of spirituality from *any* form of institutionalization to be not only dangerous due to the possibility of large-scale politicization such as you are referencing, but also that as soon as it becomes institutionalized, it loses most if not all of its spiritual meaning.


You're right, I didn't mean to generalize.



karri0n said:


> This is directed at everyone except Oly:
> 
> *STOP RESPONDING TO HIM.*
> 
> The forum needs some kind of anti-rep feature that makes a post count negatively toward their rep and post count. I recommend anyone who actually wants to continue discussion in this thread take your pick of some of his most "colorful"posts within it and report him.This would never be my approach under most circumstances, but it has gotten far out of hand. I'd also like to make it clear to any mod that there are at least two people who would prefer to not see this thread closed if it does come to a point that action needs to be taken.


Well we did a great job, 23 or 24 pages without incident, that has to be a record! That points system in the beginning seemed to detour people from the personal attacks, I think oly just couldn't contain himself, which is usually what happens when you still want to talk but don't have anything to say. 

I think he's the one that takes things a little bit too seriously...

I won't close the thread, we've got a good discussion going


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 10, 2011)

karri0n said:


> This is directed at everyone except Oly:
> 
> *STOP RESPONDING TO HIM.
> *
> The forum needs some kind of anti-rep feature that makes a post count negatively toward their rep and post count. I recommend anyone who actually wants to continue discussion in this thread take your pick of some of his most "colorful"posts within it and report him.This would never be my approach under most circumstances, but it has gotten far out of hand. I'd also like to make it clear to any mod that there are at least two people who would prefer to not see this thread closed if it does come to a point that action needs to be taken.


So you want to snitch on oly for stating his beliefs? Wow.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 10, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So you want to snitch on oly for stating his beliefs? Wow.


he isnt stating his beliefs at all. he is complaining that we dont find his evidence sufficient, when he provides no evidence. he complains that we all hate on him because we are atheists and he is religious, which we are not doing. these things waste our time and fill up the thread with useless nonsense, when we could be filling it with legitimate debate instead.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 10, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> he isnt stating his beliefs at all. he is complaining that we dont find his evidence sufficient, when he provides no evidence. he complains that we all hate on him because we are atheists and he is religious, which we are not doing. these things waste our time and fill up the thread with useless nonsense, when we could be filling it with legitimate debate instead.


 I believe he just wants you guys to be more open and accepting of his beliefs. Instead of the usual he's religious so he's crazy opinion.


----------



## karri0n (Sep 10, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> This is what I was trying to get at, if we do different things to try to study the different aspects of spirituality, wouldn't we reach different conclusions about it?


Ideally, if we were both following sound and correct processes of study, did not allow bias or preconceptions to pollute our process, and had thetime and ability to learn everything there is to know about the subject, our conclusions wold be he same.



Padawanbater2 said:


> You may have done this already before, but could you define exactly what you mean by 'spirituality' as specifically as possible?


 Essentially having a connection with the aspect of divinity set down by your particular spiritual system and living as close to in tune with it as possible. For a pagan, this would mean living their ife in tune with the natural cycles of the earth. For a Christian, this would mean living their life as closely to the way Jesus lived his as possible. 



Padawanbater2 said:


> What does a 'spiritual experience' constitute, and how do you know it's an authentic 'spiritual experience' and not just in your imagination? What is the difference between the guy who says he speaks to God and people who just have these 'religious experiences'? This is where consistent standards for everyone are important.


You seem to be implying "the guy who says he speaks to god" is crazy person, and in this case most likely schizophrenic. The difference is that that person's evaluations of _many_ aspects of reality cannot be trusted, as his brain does not work correctly.



Padawanbater2 said:


> You seem to have contradicted yourself "consistent standards", but not the same for everyone". Wouldn't those be _inconsistent_ standards?


Fair enough. This becomes an issue in terminology - I meant that a person should use the same standards they would use for evaluating anything else as they do for this. The standards are consistent in relation to other things the person may be evaluating, but not in regard to the entire population




Padawanbater2 said:


> Yes, but I'd argue that most people are not very well versed in such techniques, so most people who experience these kinds of feelings (which are then reinforced by our society) automatically attribute them to their religion and mark it up to a 'religious experience' without any actual evidence other than the experience itself. That doesn't seem like a very good way to acquire knowledge to me.


Which is why experts recommend that people take classes, workshops, or at least read books on the subject(also because they want their money, but there are honest people and shysters in most professions.).




Padawanbater2 said:


> I'm not using the word 'imagination' in that context here. You can swap it out with the phrase "in my head" or "in my mind" if you want, the question still remains unanswered;


"In our head" as you put it, is also simply another aspect of our reality. The realms of thought and consciousness can and do have very real effects on the physical world, even if nothing more than an idea can be conceptualized and then brought into existence by hands working toward that goal. In short, an "in our head" spiritual experience is a "real" spiritual experience. There is no distinction between the two*.*




Padawanbater2 said:


> 'How would I know what I'm feeling is actually something "spiritual" and not in my head/mind?'


Barring a mental disorder such as Schizophrenia, there's little distinction.



Padawanbater2 said:


> What do you have to support that? What is the 'psyche and emotional body'?


The psyche and the emotions. What do you mean by what do I have to support that? Is it not widely known(*especially* among atheists) that much of religion and spirituality is an aspect of psychology?




Padawanbater2 said:


> So the only standard you use to determine if someone is having a 'religious experience' (be it 100% made up in their own mind or not) is if it has measurable effects on their physical body?


No. I was pointing out one of the ways spirituality can be seen to affect people physically. I wouldn't use that to quantify a religious experience.





Padawanbater2 said:


> This seems to be a pretty common misconception contrasting between the two, science and religion. Personal experiences are paramount for theists, it essentally forms the foundation of their entire faith, but personal experiences don't amount to anything in science, they are not proof or evidence of anything because they are individual to the person having the experience.


Which is why science cannot quantify religion or spirituality. This comes down to my original discussion with MP where I pointed out that I can accept personal experience as being something real, and you cannot. I'm not a scientist by profession, but if I were, I would not attempt to use this reasoning in my work. 



Padawanbater2 said:


> I cannot replicate a _feeling_ you had that changed your mind or strengthened your existing belief during something you experienced, so bringing it to the table won't mean a thing to me.


I know. I said that as the answer to your original question.



Padawanbater2 said:


> The objective focus of science ensures the evidence get's analyzed without envoking emotional responses.


Religion/Spirituality &#8800; Science



Padawanbater2 said:


> How could you yourself accept that?


Repeated results. 


Padawanbater2 said:


> I tell people this all the time, I'll tell you now...
> 
> Even if I was 100% sure God existed, if it demanded obedience, demanded to be worshiped, gave innocent people terrible diseases, caused, or at the least didn't prevent things like famines, plagues, war, etc., basically, if the God of the Bible actually did exist, and I was 100% sure, I wouldn't follow it or worship it or any of that because all that stuff is wrong, it doesn't matter to me that God is in charge of it, it's still wrong. Deep down, I trust myself more than I trust any other person on the planet, I've thought long and hard about these topics, and I know that a being capable of creating existence, creating love, would not require such absurd things. It's that simple. If I stood before that God on some day of judgment at the end of my life and it asked me why I didn't worship it or why I didn't acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin, I would tell it because it's wrong.


Good on you. I agree 100%.

It's really only monotheistic religions that require worship of such a deity. Depending on your views, These things you referenced are simply parts of nature. Famine and disease are necessary to avoid overpopulation, war is a natural tendency of many different animals that build social structures in the conflict over resources and territory.

To a traditional or ancient polytheist, there would be gods who hold dominion over things such as disease, famine, and war. The gods of war were indeed worshipped, because while many people can see the ills of war, war was a very real part of life, and gaining the favor of a war god was one way of ensuring your tribe's survival. The gods who held domain over things such as famine and disease weren't worshipped, but appeased.




Padawanbater2 said:


> I won't close the thread, we've got a good discussion going


Cool. Congrats on your promotion to Mod by the way; I didn't notice that until Oly pointed it out.


----------



## karri0n (Sep 10, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I believe he just wants you guys to be more open and accepting of his beliefs. Instead of the usual he's religious so he's crazy opinion.


No. No one is disrespecting his beliefs and no one thinks he's crazy because he's religious. I don't think anyone actually thinks he's crazy, but many hold a negative opinion of him based on his nonsense, personal attacks, and attempts to derail a thread with unrelated posts and bullshit.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 10, 2011)

Brazko said:


> Are you separate from the Universe?


Yes and no. Probably no more so than yes. I believe we came from the universe and will return to it. In the meantime we have consciousness which offers the universe a way to know itself, speaking metaphorically. 



> Are you able to change your state of being in relation to your surroundings?


State of being meaning either to exist or not exist? I can stop being if I chose, or I can continue being, that's about it. I can change my attitude towards my surroundings.



> Are your surroundings separated from the Universe?


not that I am aware of.



> Do the relations of your surroundings effect your state of being?


My surroundings as related to what? To me being? Already answered that. My surroundings can affect my attitude, my mood, my well being (poverty). 



> Does your state of being effect your surroundings?


Does the fact that of my being as opposed to my not being affect my surroundings? I consume and destroy, as well as build and preserve. Does my mood or attitude (state of consciousness) directly affect my surroundings, no. Not if by surroundings you mean inanimate objects. My mood and the signals I give off can effect other living things, if they notice.





> edit: Could you please post your encyclopedia entries? The ones you are referring.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/p/pantheism.html



> Also, could you please explain the redundancy and superflousness?


Speaking about a naturalistic pantheistic view, which is IMO the least criticizable, I have the same problem as I have with any supernatural explanation. Where is the reasoning to point someone in this direction? Why look at the universe and decide it represents or is a manifestation of a unity that connects us all? Where are the evidential arrows? If someone can indeed change their state of consciousness in relation to this unity, how can we confirm that? How do we decide on the methods used to bring us to this special state of consciousness? How can we objectively know that those methods are effective? It seems to be rhyme without reason. It is more than is needed to explain; superfluousness. If we have no sound support for these ideas, then the belief must incorporate a degree of faith and suggests a degree of divinity. Assuming this is accurate, then what makes these ideas any more valid than the idea that the universe exists only to support Elvis and the rest of us are just failed embodiment's of the perfect state of being, Elvisness? We can strive to become better and improve our state of Elvisness in relation to Elvis, who is really the universe.

The redundancy is right there in the language. Everything is a unity, and the unity is everything. All is the universe therefore the universe is all. The only god is nature, and nature is the only law. To me it seems these statements are basically meaningless, and in order to give them meaning we must convolute and contrive practically every term used until it means something completely different.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 10, 2011)

karri0n said:


> No. No one is disrespecting his beliefs and no one thinks he's crazy because he's religious. I don't think anyone actually thinks he's crazy, but many hold a negative opinion of him based on his nonsense, personal attacks, and attempts to derail a thread with unrelated posts and bullshit.


Agree. I have stated several times that my problem with Oly is not his intellect or his beliefs. Hep has similar beliefs and we get along just fine and still have rational discussions. It's oly's conduct and his failure to think things through. It's his sloppy methods which seem to entail ignoring context, and his childish tendency to purposely cause grief. It's his lack of being self critical, as evidenced by the dumb sounding shit he says in almost every post. His words are disconnected and often devoid of any point or genuine expression. I don't think this is a result of someone who is stupid and unable to think intellectually, I think it is the result of a lazy uncritical mind that forgives itself every mistake and bias, including resentment.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 10, 2011)

dont i say the darndest things!!! 

funny that you are religious while having jack black as your avatar... irony at its finest






karri0n said:


> This is directed at everyone except Oly:
> 
> *STOP RESPONDING TO HIM.
> *
> The forum needs some kind of anti-rep feature that makes a post count negatively toward their rep and post count. I recommend anyone who actually wants to continue discussion in this thread take your pick of some of his most "colorful"posts within it and report him.This would never be my approach under most circumstances, but it has gotten far out of hand. I'd also like to make it clear to any mod that there are at least two people who would prefer to not see this thread closed if it does come to a point that action needs to be taken.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 10, 2011)

no, i could careless if they accept my beliefs or not... what i do care about is that they realize what type of hypocrites they are...





Hepheastus420 said:


> I believe he just wants you guys to be more open and accepting of his beliefs. Instead of the usual he's religious so he's crazy opinion.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 10, 2011)

Oly says the darndest things! Religious guy with a "nothing" avatar. A blank space so fitting.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 10, 2011)

Oly says the darndest things!!!!!


[video=youtube;VKVTmx1zos8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKVTmx1zos8&feature=related[/video]




Heisenberg said:


> Agree. I have stated several times that my problem with Oly is not his intellect. It's his conduct and his failure to think things through. It's his sloppy methods which seem to entail ignoring context, and his childish tendency to purposely cause grief. It's his lack of being self critical, as evidenced by the dumb sounding shit he says in almost every post. His words are disconnected and often devoid of any point or genuine expression. I don't think this is a result of someone who is stupid and unable to think intellectually, I think it is the result of a lazy uncritical mind that forgives itself every mistake and bias, including resentment.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 10, 2011)

[video=youtube;VKVTmx1zos8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKVTmx1zos8&feature=related[/video]





mexiblunt said:


> Oly says the darndest things! Religious guy with a "nothing" avatar. A blank space so fitting.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 10, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I believe he just wants you guys to be more open and accepting of his beliefs. Instead of the usual he's religious so he's crazy opinion.


thats not the opinion we have of him. we dont like him because he runs his mouth and does provide anything to the discussion. of course he wants us to just give up and let him be. he wants to believe without questioning anything. we are trying to show him that it is better to question your own beliefs to verify they are solid. but instead he says we are hating on his beliefs, which is ridiculous


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 10, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> thats not the opinion we have of him. we dont like him because he runs his mouth and does provide anything to the discussion. of course he wants us to just give up and let him be. he wants to believe without questioning anything. we are trying to show him that it is better to question your own beliefs to verify they are solid. but instead he says we are hating on his beliefs, which is ridiculous


 Can you explain to me how he would be a better person if he dropped his religion.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 10, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Can you explain to me how he would be a better person if he dropped his religion.


he wouldnt be posting things saying we are stupid atheists that hate him because he is religious. he would begin to see the universe and himself for what it is, a collection of atoms grouped in such a way as to cause thought and the ability to reason. maybe then he will begin to use them and fully realize that his spiritual feelings were nothing but his brain.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 10, 2011)

> he would begin to see the universe and himself for what it is, a collection of atoms grouped in such a way as to cause thought and the ability to reason.




i do see it for what it is and this was not a discussion about evolution, physiology nor chemistry, but about beliefs in God. dont confuse them son. you see, your atheists beliefs have hindered your ability to think properly.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 10, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Can you explain to me how he would be a better person if he dropped his religion.


It is not about his beliefs. Indeed your beliefs are quite similar yet you don't see unified disapproval among us for you. It is simply about conducting yourself with respect and tact.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i do see it for what it is and this was not a discussion about evolution, physiology nor chemistry, but about beliefs in God. dont confuse them son. you see, your atheists beliefs have hindered your ability to think properly.


dont act like im changing the discussion


----------



## karri0n (Sep 10, 2011)

I'm glad the thread title is "olylifter420" and not "Question my beliefs, but be prepared to answer for yours". Otherwise, we would be waaaaay off topic.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 10, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> thats not the opinion we have of him. we dont like him because he runs his mouth and does provide anything to the discussion. of course he wants us to just give up and let him be. he wants to believe without questioning anything. we are trying to show him that it is better to question your own beliefs to verify they are solid. but instead he says we are hating on his beliefs, which is ridiculous


So besides annoying you guys, simply by saying you are wrong just like you say he is wrong, how would this make him a better person? I'm sure he doesn't deny what his body is made of and understands he is made of atoms. So please answer my question.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 10, 2011)

karri0n said:


> Which is why science cannot quantify religion or spirituality. This comes down to my original discussion with MP where I pointed out that I can accept personal experience as being something real, and you cannot. I'm not a scientist by profession, but if I were, I would not attempt to use this reasoning in my work.


OK, I think I completely understand your position at this point. I appreciate the point by point reply, that really helps clear things up. That's the same style I try to use as I think it's easy to comprehend things when it's in smaller pieces.

I was wondering though, what is your opinion of organized religion, today, as seen around the world? And, what is your opinion of people who believe in organized religion? Why do you think, with so many people believing the seemingly positive aspects of their faith and discarding the negative ones, we face some of the problems we do? Do you think waging war is easier in a world with or without religion and why?

Thanks dude, I would +rep you again for that quote alone, but I have to spread it around first.



karri0n said:


> Cool. Congrats on your promotion to Mod by the way; I didn't notice that until Oly pointed it out.


Oh thanks, I figured I'm around often enough, and I enjoy the company of you good people  This is where I learned to grow weed the proper way, I'd like to help out anyone who wants it 



karri0n said:


> No. No one is disrespecting his beliefs and no one thinks he's crazy because he's religious. I don't think anyone actually thinks he's crazy, but many hold a negative opinion of him based on his nonsense, personal attacks, and attempts to derail a thread with unrelated posts and bullshit.





Heisenberg said:


> Agree. I have stated several times that my problem with Oly is not his intellect or his beliefs. Hep has similar beliefs and we get along just fine and still have rational discussions. It's oly's conduct and his failure to think things through. It's his sloppy methods which seem to entail ignoring context, and his childish tendency to purposely cause grief. It's his lack of being self critical, as evidenced by the dumb sounding shit he says in almost every post. His words are disconnected and often devoid of any point or genuine expression. I don't think this is a result of someone who is stupid and unable to think intellectually, I think it is the result of a lazy uncritical mind that forgives itself every mistake and bias, including resentment.


X's 3.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 10, 2011)

Oly, I and everyone else would appreciate it if you would stop posting things that just take the thread off topic, and stop posting anything negative or personal. Look at Hep and Karri0n as perfect examples of how to conduct yourself in the thread. If you feel offended by anyone, quote the post, it's as easy as that. 

Thanks man


----------



## robert 14617 (Sep 10, 2011)

one of your Q: what do i think of organized religion , it's great for the most part until it reaches a fanatic level, land grabs, persecution , the taking of life . people who just want to share their beliefs together peacefully should be allowed , as i wish to find out where i stand ready to be a believer if there were more proof until then i find myself in the non believer category


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 10, 2011)

robert 14617 said:


> one of your Q: what do i think of organized religion , it's great for the most part until it reaches a fanatic level, land grabs, persecution , the taking of life . people who just want to share their beliefs together peacefully should be allowed , as i wish to find out where i stand ready to be a believer if there were more proof until then i find myself in the non believer category


What do you think it is about organized religion that can allow people to reach the fanatic level?


----------



## robert 14617 (Sep 10, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What do you think it is about organized religion that can allow people to reach the fanatic level?


 for an example,,, i have not read the Koran (sp) but understand it does not condone killing as the radical groups that call themselves righteous, or the Christians weaving the bible spewing hate at a soldiers funeral its people getting away from the basic beliefs and allowing individuals power over them to make bad decisions


----------



## Brazko (Sep 11, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Yes and no. Probably no more so than yes. I believe we came from the universe and will return to it. In the meantime we have consciousness which offers the universe a way to know itself, speaking metaphorically.


While speaking metaphorically, you just contradicted yourself. This is a fallacy that the religious and non-religious make constantly. Thinking they are separate from the Universe. How are you possibly separated? You say your surroundings are not separated, but can you describe, or in other words point out what is the Universe and what's not? You've already told me that humans weren't, hopefully you take the consideration of what you're saying. 

You are no more separated from the Universe, than every cell of your body is separated from you. Needless to say the atoms that coalesced to form you are no different than the atoms of water, the sun, a tree, a rock, or a billy goat. Even the atomsphere you breath. Unless you are saying that manifestations of matter that spring forth, become separated from the Universe. I would, metaphorically speaking, have to agree with you.. 



> State of being meaning either to exist or not exist? I can stop being if I chose, or I can continue being, that's about it. I can change my attitude towards my surroundings.


I mean your state of being as to your mental, emotional, and Yes, physical self. In any case, alteration of any with relation to the next makes causality inevitable. 



> not that I am aware of.


And you shouldn't be able to show distinction, but I'll decide the case as it would've been addressed in the first questions above..



> My surroundings as related to what? To me being? Already answered that. My surroundings can affect my attitude, my mood, my well being (poverty).


Of course they do... 



> Does the fact that of my being as opposed to my not being affect my surroundings? I consume and destroy, as well as build and preserve. Does my mood or attitude (state of consciousness) directly affect my surroundings, no. Not if by surroundings you mean inanimate objects. My mood and the signals I give off can effect other living things, if they notice.


Yes, the effect on other living/animated things are noticeable. So since we cannot confirm in any valid manner our affect on inanimate objects. Can an inanimate object affect your state of being. e.g. camp fire, shadow on a wall, a cloud, horizon sunset, etc..

Could any of these inanimate objects affect your state of being? 



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
> http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/p/pantheism.html


Ok this was my mistake. I mistook you to be saying pantheism was concerned with the supernatural. I wanted to see where you read this. It is nowhere in those links, but I better understand the position you were taking. But you should've corrected your perceptions by reading further into your giving credible links, as the criticisms you assign falsely to pantheism are addressed. There is a wide gap that separates the actuality of the giving subject that differs from the construed assignment of personal opinion, which leans heavily towards preferred misconception. 



> Speaking about a naturalistic pantheistic view, which is IMO the least criticizable, I have the same problem as I have with any supernatural explanation. Where is the reasoning to point someone in this direction?


Once again its not a decision to point one in a direction, but a position to relate and express an idea.. That's it. Pantheism was an objection to the idea of God, not an idea of a God. The only distinction as I said before is the ability of one word to have fluid expression, while the other is rigid in and of formality. 



> Why look at the universe and decide it represents or is a manifestation of a unity that connects us all?


Its not a decision, its an observation..



> Where are the evidential arrows?


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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle#Dividing_an_atom

But like everything else, the objectified information is bound to interpretation. I find absolutely nothing wrong with being led. I also find nothing wrong with leading. Escaping mistake is inevitable either way, but fearful of being wrong isn't a mark of admiration, but displayed cowardice to not trying. I do not need to hide behind a method to forego failure when failure is ultimately inherited into any process by the simple application of it. 



> If someone can indeed change their state of consciousness in relation to this
> unity, how can we confirm that?


We have already identified through science that observation causes change in relation of that which is being observed..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)



> How do we decide on the methods used to bring us to this special state of
> consciousness?


How did we decide the absolute state of what consciousness is? At what point in time on the evolutionary ladder did we as human primates make a decision to catalog our consciousness as the ultimate state of existing? Did Bobo coin the term consciousness for us?

Consciousness is no more than a fictitious term used to describe the human condition of relating to the rest of the Universe. And if that is the case, has that conscious state of existing changed, or has it always been the same.

The decision that brings you to that state lies in the conscious decision to reside within that state. 



> How can we objectively know that those methods are effective?


To objectively know is to objectively understand and have absolute knowledge of every aspect of the Universe. But subjectively speaking, the effectiveness is demostrated in your state of being.



> It seems to be rhyme without reason. It is more than is needed to explain;
> superfluousness. If we have no sound support for these ideas, then the belief
> must incorporate a degree of faith and suggests a degree of divinity. Assuming
> this is accurate, then what makes these ideas any more valid than the idea that
> ...


Elvis is not the Whole, but part of the Whole.. However, you cannot not remove 1/4 from the whole without being left with 3/4.
4/4 = 1, no matter how you rearrange it.. Divinity lies in the relation to the whole. Being absent-minded to the whole renders your state of being to that which you have individualized it to. It doesn't change the reality of the total sum. Energy is Energy, you can describe it any way you want and it still remains the total sum... 

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



> The redundancy is right there in the language. Everything is a unity, and the
> unity is everything. All is the universe therefore the universe is all. The
> only god is nature, and nature is the only law. To me it seems these statements
> are basically meaningless, and in order to give them meaning we must convolute
> ...


 For some reason, I have trouble understanding the kind of puzzles you put together. What kind of puzzle are we trying to put together were the pieces don't go together to form a whole picture?

The terms are meaningless when trying to objectify everything into a precise meaning. I've stated already this is more a cognition problem, then it is a language problem. It is meaningless to you. We are in agreement.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 11, 2011)

Brazko said:


> While speaking metaphorically, you just contradicted yourself. This is a fallacy that the religious and non-religious make constantly. Thinking they are separate from the Universe. How are you possibly separated? You say your surroundings are not separated, but can you describe, or in other words point out what is the Universe and what's not? You've already told me that humans weren't, hopefully you take the consideration of what you're saying.
> 
> You are no more separated from the Universe, than every cell of your body is separated from you. Needless to say the atoms that coalesced to form you are no different than the atoms of water, the sun, a tree, a rock, or a billy goat. Even the atomsphere you breath. Unless you are saying that manifestations of matter that spring forth, become separated from the Universe. I would, metaphorically speaking, have to agree with you..


Yes, the contradiction was right there in the first three words and I feel the question was begging for it. At the atomic level there is little difference, but there is much difference between myself and a tree. There are similarities in the way everything is constructed, and the stuff we are constructed of comes from the universe. I don't think it's a big step to say we all share common makeup, I do think it's a big step to think that this unity somehow indicates something besides the obvious literal meaning.




> Could any of these inanimate objects affect your state of being?


Yes, a campfire or some such might affect my mood, then again it might not. It does not produce a repeatable, quantifiable effect or even a predictable one. There is nothing to suggest this effect means anything other than my regard for the object. An abstract idea or memory can affect my mood in the same way.



> We have already identified through science that observation causes change in relation of that which is being observed..
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)


In QM an observer does not need to have consciousness. It can be a robot, a sensor, or a piece of paper. The observer effect is more about how measurement affects the thing being measured. Even theoretical physicists can only guess at what this means. How can pantheism state that this has any bearing on our relationship to the unity, unless it is just speculation.

Well it's entirely possible that this is beyond my grasp, but I don't feel the links did in fact address the criticism as much as just throwing science and new age sounding words at it, words which expand their definition to mean almost anything. This is spooky language that is difficult to understand, just like quantum physics is strange and hard to grasp. The fact that they are both this way does not mean that they compliment or support each other. I regard pantheism as philosophical speculation, and nothing more. It does make sense on some levels, and I find the subject to be very interesting, but I am unable to find validity for this anymore than the idea that the universe is a simulation being ran on a computer of the future. Pantheism is an idea that takes it cues from reality, but allows itself to make any assumption or adjustment it needs to explain what it wants.

If pantheism is a way to reach the truth, then we must redefine truth to be subjective to the mind which holds the expectation. So I suppose pantheism offers a way to reach a subjective truth within yourself, in which case it has very little real world application.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 11, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I don't think it's a big step to say we all share common makeup, I do think it's a big step to think that this unity somehow indicates something besides the obvious literal meaning.


Then literally speaking what is the Universe if it doesn't mean unity?

The *universe* is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists,[1] including all space, time, matter, energy, planets, stars, galaxies, intergalactic space,[2][3] and beyond.

*unity* [&#712;ju&#720;n&#618;t&#618;]
_n_ _pl_ *-ties**1.* the state or quality of being one; oneness
*2.* the act, state, or quality of forming a whole from separate parts
*3.* something whole or complete that is composed of separate parts
*4.* mutual agreement; harmony or concord _the participants were no longer in unity_
*5.* uniformity or constancy _unity of purpose_


What else has been indicated for it to mean anything else? Is asserting that the idea/concept of God making this confusing and hard to understand. I'm sorry to sound like a broken record but thats a cognitive dilemma. 

You have assigned yourself a method of understanding that accommodates your cognitive reasoning, just as a believer has assigned a method of cognitive reasoning that accommadates their understanding. 

To fault someone with the cognitive ability to decipher the similarities into a rational understanding, regardless of the terminology/language applied, doesn't qualify or justify reasoning to say it doesn't have real world application. 



> Yes, a campfire or some such might affect my mood, then again it might not. It
> does not produce a repeatable, quantifiable effect or even a predictable one.
> There is nothing to suggest this effect means anything other than my regard for
> the object. An abstract idea or memory can affect my mood in the same way.


If I place a female in front of 10 males. 3 are attracted, 3 more become disgusted, another 3 thinks of their mom/sister/best friend, and 1 notices her shoes is dirty. What is the quantifiable or predictable effect here? I'll answer it for you, they all under went a chemical reaction. Your abstract idea or memory is usually accommadated by a visual, smell, and/or sound. You undergo a chemical reaction that was triggered by your surroundings, as is with any and everything else. 



> In QM an observer does not need to have consciousness. It can be a robot, a
> sensor, or a piece of paper. The observer effect is more about how measurement
> affects the thing being measured. Even theoretical physicists can only guess at
> what this means. How can pantheism state that this has any bearing on our
> relationship to the unity, unless it is just speculation.


When/where did I state the observer had to be conscious? If anything, that is what I am saying that any two reference points does induce measurement and change. And even within the defined meaning of what consciousness means to modern humans, the point of reference of that being observed will vary differently in conceived time and apppearance of it happening.

And how are you interpreting pantheism in its meaning to have consequence in altering the meaning of that relationship? Does atheism alter the meaning of that relationship? I think not. You are assigning false attributes once again to accommadate your misconception. 



> Well it's entirely possible that this is beyond my grasp, but I don't feel
> the links did in fact address the criticism as much as just throwing science and
> new age sounding words at it, words which expand their definition to mean almost
> anything. This is spooky language that is difficult to understand, just like
> ...


I agree and disagree with some of your opinions and assertions, but the validity to comparing it to the theory of a simulation program is akin to only your ability of understanding and comprehension, which is submerged in misconception.



> Pantheism is an idea that takes it cues from reality, but allows itself to
> make any assumption or adjustment it needs to explain what it wants.


Yes it's based on reality, but I don't understand what assumptions or adjustments it tries to make. Other than it's ability to adjust/translate terminology, eg. Nature = God = Tao. Yes, you are correct!! Its not a scientific term..



> If pantheism is a way to reach the truth, then we must redefine truth to be
> subjective to the mind which holds the expectation. So I suppose pantheism
> offers a way to reach a subjective truth within yourself, in which case it has
> very little real world application.


Who said Pantheism was the way to reach the truth? If the Univere is infinite, and possibilities are infinite. What method will give us the absolute truth, when the truth lies in infinite possibilites? It only makes sense that understanding the infinite cases of possiblities will bring us closer to the truth. If truth was anything but subjective, we would have already discovered the ultimate absolute truth. If objectively found truth only leads to objective truth, then what is the hold up? Is it not far reaching to say that truth has always been subjective to our minds? 

In any case, Pantheism is a idea/concept to the meaning of God, not a scientific method of determining if God is literally true. Because it accepts the word god into its language, it's categorically placed as a religion, but it does nothing more to the effect of simply explaining Nature as Nature. And as I said before its an idea, that many other religions are categorically placed.

Its acceptance to reasoning other terminology with the likes of nature seems to be the only thing causing you confusion. If so, it is best to not over analyze and stick with what accommadates your cognitive ability. 

It's not a scientific term!!


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 11, 2011)

man, you are the worst cry baby ever bro... im done sharing support with you...






karri0n said:


> I'm glad the thread title is "olylifter420" and not "Question my beliefs, but be prepared to answer for yours". Otherwise, we would be waaaaay off topic.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 11, 2011)

> but there is much difference between myself and a tree.



like what? You both use the sun for energy, consume water, grow in the dark and wilt during the cold... we function through cells within our bodies that are quite similar, react to stimuli... i really dont see much difference... I would think that your view on all this is skewed by that statement... 



> So I suppose pantheism offers a way to reach a subjective truth within yourself, in which case it has very little real world application.



then it is not so different from religion... this tis the hypocrisy i am talking about... you give credit to whatever this pantheism or whatever it is which to me its philosophy is quite similar to that of religion... i find it hilarious that you talk down about people who are not "religious nut jobs" and accuse them as such, while you can support that pantheism as a way to reach the "truth within yourself.""

i hope people will see your hypocrisy.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> like what? You both use the sun for energy, consume water, grow in the dark and wilt during the cold... we function through cells within our bodies that are quite similar, react to stimuli... i really dont see much difference... I would think that your view on all this is skewed by that statement...


Heis, do you really grow in the dark, and wilt during the cold?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Heis, do you really grow in the dark, and wilt during the cold?


Only parts of me


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> Then literally speaking what is the Universe if it doesn't mean unity?
> 
> The *universe* is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists,[1] including all space, time, matter, energy, planets, stars, galaxies, intergalactic space,[2][3] and beyond.
> 
> ...


So it seems the distinction boils down to ambiguous nuance and empirical induction.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> So it seems the distinction boils down to ambiguous nuance and empirical induction.


Check it out. It's heis's shortest post. Ha no offense heis.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> So it seems the distinction boils down to ambiguous nuance and empirical induction.


No, it is as I said before.. the distinction is that it permits the translation of vocabulary and concepts that involves spirituality, intuition, and metaphysics. These terms are unfalsifiable to the scientific method which is the sole basis of naturalism, which is a scientific term.

That's the distinction.

So yes and no. It does allow translation of ambiguous nuance terminology. But it is based on empirical induction by evidence observable to the senses.


----------



## karri0n (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Only parts of me


Best.reply.ever. Epic.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Only parts of me


^^win



Heisenberg said:


> So it seems the distinction boils down to ambiguous nuance and empirical induction.





Hepheastus420 said:


> Check it out. It's heis's shortest post. Ha no offense heis.



actually the post right above that one is his shortest


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 12, 2011)

At least you aint as dumb as brad pit





Heisenberg said:


> Only parts of me


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Either you are a chick or have lost the ability to get an erection






tyler.durden said:


> Heis, do you really grow in the dark, and wilt during the cold?


----------



## karri0n (Sep 17, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> OK, I think I completely understand your position at this point. I appreciate the point by point reply, that really helps clear things up. That's the same style I try to use as I think it's easy to comprehend things when it's in smaller pieces.


Agreed. I also like the point by point reply.



Padawanbater2 said:


> I was wondering though, what is your opinion of organized religion, today, as seen around the world?


I find that religion works best with as little "organization" as possible. The larger it becomes, the less and less meaning it has. Once you reach a point above 30 or so active members, things start to become more of a social club than anything resembling worship. I've watched this happen before my eyes in small communities more than once, as true worship of the gods gave way to stupid high school games and cliques.

My opinion on the idea of organized religion would be difficult to quantify because "organized religion" is such a broad term. I know of small churches that have nothing to do with the large, profit-minded organizations, and I've been quite close with pastors and reverends who truly want nothing more than to help the people who come to them for advice and worship. I've known yet others who do it because they like the power, and others who are in it for social status. There are still others who do it for a combination of these reasons. Everyone is human, and I wouldn't expect anyone to be perfect. 

On the other hand, I can look at the large organizations such as the Catholic Church, mainstream Judaism, Evangelicalism, and I'm disgusted. These are organizations with very obvious political agendas, that seek to control people, seize power, and gain profits. The leaders don't believe or follow a word of what they preach. They control people by spreading hatred and fear.They commit atrocities in the name of their lord, and depending on the organization we're talking about, act in he exact opposite of what is taught by this lord.



Padawanbater2 said:


> And, what is your opinion of people who believe in organized religion?


I think most people aren't very spiritual or religious. The vast majority of people use religion just to answer the question of what happens when we die. Very few have the time, intelligence, interest, or energy to look deeper than their every day lives, or to understand the patterns that make up their existence. I don't find this surprising, considering the fast paced world we live in, and just how many different directions our attention needs to be in at any given moment. Modern Organized religion gives these "normal" people something to hold onto, a break from their busy lives, and a way they can be spoon-fed the answers to the deeper qestions without actually having to go to the effort of finding it for themselves. I feel that the very few people who are deeply spiritual and interested in these things tend to become priests or nuns, or seek out meaning in one of the other many spiritual systems that allow for deeper exploration, such as shamanism or buddhism.



Padawanbater2 said:


> Why do you think, with so many people believing the seemingly positive aspects of their faith and discarding the negative ones, we face some of the problems we do?


I think it's just human nature that people kinda suck. We're selfish, petty, prejudiced, warlike, controlling, spiteful creatures. A religion is a type of "tribe" and people naturally distrust outsiders. A lot of this comes from the fact that up until quite recently, these were very necessary survival skills. I don't know how long these types of qualities will take to be bred out, but I'm also not sure if it would necessarily be a good thing for the species if they were. If for whatever reason no longer had the prosperity and modern conveniences that we enjoy currently(a scenario e are heading for if something isn't done about energy, food and water), these qualities would once again become quite useful for the survival of the species



Padawanbater2 said:


> Do you think waging war is easier in a world with or without religion and why?


I don't particularly think so. I think if "religion" didn't exist, people would have some other type of groups to form into, make up rules about how to conduct themselves, and figure out ways or reasons to hate the other groups.


----------



## karri0n (Sep 23, 2011)

Shameless bump - I took awhile to respond to your questions Pad, and wasn't sure if you had seen it.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 23, 2011)

karri0n said:


> Shameless bump - I took awhile to respond to your questions Pad, and wasn't sure if you had seen it.


Missed it the first time around, thanks for bumping it K, I'll respond this afternoon after work.

Thought this thread died!


----------



## karri0n (Sep 23, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Missed it the first time around, thanks for bumping it K, I'll respond this afternoon after work.
> 
> Thought this thread died!


Nice! I had suspected that you missed it, Oly managed to do a number on this thread and it sorta dropped off.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 24, 2011)

karri0n said:


> (on organized religion)


I agree with everything you said

Where is the line drawn from 'harmless belief' to 'dangerous belief'?

That's an interesting take on things, an evolutionary advantage to the negative social aspects of human society. 



karri0n said:


> I don't particularly think so. I think if "religion" didn't exist, people would have some other type of groups to form into, make up rules about how to conduct themselves, and figure out ways or reasons to hate the other groups.


What else can you think of that can influence people to wage war against another group of people they've never met on such a scale?

Sorry it's brief, I just agree with most of what you said..


----------



## grizlbr (Sep 24, 2011)

I was born into a large group 12 aunts and uncles. It was my family, still mess with me you might get away mess with my family you got a big problem. So you come in my church that is my family now. Come on in, while razing a friend/relative I lifted her off the ground just playing on the way to the car. So yes we are drawn to groups with like beliefs. All things decently and in order, and moderation. I think my choir sister might still be around if she had drank the glass of wine in the after noon, her funeral is Sunday after service. I already gave up both soaks and wife took my underwear baby due in month. Pregnant is fun: 61 deg and AC going


----------



## karri0n (Sep 24, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Where is the line drawn from 'harmless belief' to 'dangerous belief'?


Personally, I draw it at fundamentalism. Of course there are different levels, and obviously most Christians or followers of other mainstream religions would not say fundamentalism is inherently dangerous.

There's something called the "Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame"(ABCDEF) Which can be used to quantify and identify the various "dangerous" levels any particular following can fall into. It's pretty interesting to see just how far along the "dangerous cult" side of things the mainstream religions fall:
*The Advanced Bonewits&#8217; Cult Danger Evaluation Frame*
* (version 2.6)*​ *Factors:* 
*1* *Internal Control:* Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members. *1-9:* __*_

2* *External Control:* Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members&#8217; external political and social behavior. *1-9:* ___
*
3* *Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed* by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified or unverifiable credentials claimed. *1-9* ___ 

*4* *Wisdom/Knowledge Credited* to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts. *1-9:* ___*

5* *Dogma:* Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or&#8220;fundamentalism;&#8221; hostility towards relativism and situationalism. *1-9: * ___ *

6* *Recruiting:* Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones. *1-9:* ___*

7* *Front Groups:* Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden. *1-9:* ____ 

*8* *Wealth:* Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members&#8217; donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members. *1-9:* ___

*9* *Sexual Manipulation* of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners. *1-9:* ___*

10* *Sexual Favoritism:* Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups. *1-9:* ___

*11* *Censorship:* Amount of control over members&#8217; access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s). *1-9:* ____*

12* *Isolation:* Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers. *1-9:* ____*

13* *Dropout Control:* Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts. *1-9:* ____*

14* *Violence:* Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s). *1-9:* ____*

15* *Paranoia: *Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories. *1-9:* ___*

16* *Grimness:* Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). *1-9:* ___*

17* *Surrender of Will:* Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). *1-9:* ___*

18* *Hypocrisy:* amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group&#8217;s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain. *1-9:* ___



Padawanbater2 said:


> That's an interesting take on things, an evolutionary advantage to the negative social aspects of human society. [/COLOR]


I'm surprised if you haven't come across that before - it's been postulated by many social scientists that racism, nationalism, etc.(general distrust of outsiders) are remnants of "tribal" or "clan" type social structures. 




Padawanbater2 said:


> What else can you think of that can influence people to wage war against another group of people they've never met on such a scale?


Nationalism, sports, family rivalries, political ideologies, money, land, food, oil


[/COLOR][/QUOTE]


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 25, 2011)

grizlbr said:


> I was born into a large group 12 aunts and uncles. It was my family, still mess with me you might get away mess with my family you got a big problem. So you come in my church that is my family now. Come on in, while razing a friend/relative I lifted her off the ground just playing on the way to the car. So yes we are drawn to groups with like beliefs. All things decently and in order, and moderation. I think my choir sister might still be around if she had drank the glass of wine in the after noon, her funeral is Sunday after service. I already gave up both soaks and wife took my underwear baby due in month. Pregnant is fun: 61 deg and AC going


i never seem to understand your posts


----------



## karri0n (Sep 26, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> i never seem to understand your posts


I have to admit, I was also scratching my head at that.


----------

