Religion

[Mr.6502]

Evolution, macroevolution, has NEVER occured.  You can't have on species become another species.

Microevolution, or the slight genetic differences that change over time, but stay the same thing, is definitely true. Genetic diversity is not the same as macroevolution.

I'm not sure if you realize but this does not really relate to what I said at all.

Research into theories of evolution is scientific because it follows the scientific method.  They form hypotheses, test them, and draw conclusions based on the results of those tests.  

You said evolution is not scientific and that is factually wrong.  

An issue already mentioned in this thread is the bad teaching and reporting of science to people.  There are people that think evolution is a cut and dry topic that just happened a specific way because that's what the evidence says.  I believe the evidence has not uncovered the most important parts of evolution and I really hope to be alive long enough to see what they eventually figure out.  

Also, to address the new topic you've started here,  micro and macro evolution are terms that not every scientist agrees with.  Some think there's interesting work to be done looking at micro vs macro, others don't.  The main division I see is that scientists looking at the biological mechanisms of evolution believe the only difference between the two is the timeframe you are examining.  That's because the biological processes that are responsible for the micro evolution you believe in are also largely responsible for the macro evolution that you say can never happen.

[timw4mail]

In theory I would agree with you. But realistically, there are two viewpoints,

Evolution Or Creation.

And these influence the interpreting of facts. Facts by themselves mean nothing. The interpretation of the facts is what makes the difference.

For mundane scientific procedures, that viewpoint doesn't matter too much. But for larger theories, and newer discoveries, this really comes into play.

I'm not ignoring evidence any more than you are, I simply come from a different viewpoint, and interpret the evidence differently.

An unbiased human does not exist.

[megarat]

Actually, I don't think I missed the point ... I wasn't trying to equate a "faith-based scientific approach" with "faith-based science".  Rather, I was just trying to provide an illustration that (a) sometimes the practitioners of science can provide the illusion of doing science a disservice*, and (b) this unfortunate fact can make science advocates seem hypocritical.  

*I said "provide the illusion of", which shows my perspective, while others believe that that this is an illusion at all.  Personally, when scientists have a strong belief that their pet theory is correct, and this theory drives their science, I believe it can provide a good scientific service in that those scientists will dig as deep as they can before exhausting the possibilities relevant to such a theory.  If you get enough people with their own pet theories, one of them is bound to be correct (or more correct than the others), and progress is made.

This is what leads to specialization, which seems to be required these days, especially in complex fields like physics and immunology.

[timw4mail]

Also, to address the new topic you've started here,  micro and macro evolution are terms that not every scientist agrees with.  Some think there's interesting work to be done looking at micro vs macro, others don't.  The main division I see is that scientists looking at the biological mechanisms of evolution believe the only difference between the two is the timeframe you are examining.  That's because the biological processes that are responsible for the micro evolution you believe in are also largely responsible for the macro evolution that you say can never happen.

Really? Then where does the additional genetic information come from for the large timeframe evolution?

Out of chance? Again, the probability of such an occurring ONCE is outside the realm of plausibility.

If I drop a bunch of loose legos on the floor, am I going to get a structure? No, I'm going to get a messy pile of legos.

This is why I state that I don't believe the Theory of Evolution is possible. Even in 4.3Billion years, you still don't have enough time to make the probability of one life form, let alone the countably innumerable number of species of life known.

[Mr.6502]

I think 'Evolution or Creation' is the wrong way to even say it.

Its scientific vs non-scientific.  There could definitely be people out there that want to believe in a particular theory of evolution regardless of how well or poorly a foundation of real world observations have been laid down for it to be built on.  

So to be clear, I think evolutionary theory should only be referred to in a strictly scientific sense.  Evolutionary theory itself is scientifically valid.  

I think what you are referring to is more pop culture's take on evolution than anything.

[wellington1869]

No, I have no problem agains testable, provable science.

no, but you seem to have a tenous understanding of what those words mean and have meant...

you dont seem to know either the history of the church itself or the how the scientific method works, both its limits and its authority; and you seem to have little interest in investigating those things on your own.

you seem mostly interested in 'begging the question' (a classic missionary tactic) as was mentioned in this thread before.

well, thats fine, prosletization is a constitutionally protected right I guess, but you shouldnt be too surprised if you bring up biblical literalism in what is, in effect, a science and tech forum, and be greeted by enthusiastic criticism and counterpoint.  Your tactics might play better on a humanities forum I think (where suspicion of 'science' and poor understanding of the scientific method can often be found in spades; so they're often vulnerable to missionary arguments about the 'equivalence' of belief and theory).

[wellington1869]

Actually, I don't think I missed the point ... I wasn't trying to equate a "faith-based scientific approach" with "faith-based science".  Rather, I was just trying to provide an illustration that (a) sometimes the practitioners of science can provide the illusion of doing science a disservice*, and (b) this unfortunate fact can make science advocates seem hypocritical.  

re: (a), agreed, but I guess I was just concerned that in (b) you were too closely equating "personal motiviations of individual scientists" with "science as a social process" (and its the latter which, to my mind anyway, is relevant and decisive as far as science's contemporary authority goes).

However I see now that you intended to say something more nuanced, thanks for the clarification.

As for individual scientists often being hypocritical or simply obsessed asses, I know a bunch of them personally, and you're absolutely right about that.

[ch_123]

How many millions of years old would the carbon14 dating show you are?

You are taking the piss, right? You do realize that if someone radiocarbon dated you that they would probably get an age that was within an acceptable degree of accuracy? You do realize that scientists aren't that stupid and wouldn't rely on something if it was that innacurate?

Again, even if it was proven to be inherently flawed, it would prove that and that alone, not the existence of God. And if you want to come up with fairy tales to fill in the blanks in the meantime, you have to accept that your fairy tale is no more valid than the flying spaghetti monster, or the guy who sees green pixies after having one Gin too many...

[Mr.6502]

Really? Then where does the additional genetic information come from for the large timeframe evolution?

Out of chance? Again, the probability of such an occurring ONCE is outside the realm of plausibility.

If I drop a bunch of loose legos on the floor, am I going to get a structure? No, I'm going to get a messy pile of legos.

This is why I state that I don't believe the Theory of Evolution is possible. Even in 4.3Billion years, you still don't have enough time to make the probability of one life form, let alone the countably innumerable number of species of life known.

Chance can be a part of evolutionary theory.  Offspring contain a random sampling of the genetic material of their parents.  This is part of the reason why the genetic make up of a population fluctuates over time.  Also, there are elements of chance in what members of a species survive long enough to reproduce.

Also, natural selection itself can be random.  Which direction a species changes in favor of can be random based on changes that happen to occur in their environment.  When the industrial revolution began and species of white moths evolved to become black to blend in to the blackened birch trees in a particular area of Europe, it was the result of chance.  There was nothing in their genetic makeup that suggested they would change to be almost all solid black in just a couple of generations.  

Chance is one reason why evolution does not have to be positive.  It describes the genetic change in species over time, not necessarily any genetic improvement.

[JBert]

Really? Then where does the additional genetic information come from for the large timeframe evolution?

Out of chance? Again, the probability of such an occurring ONCE is outside the realm of plausibility.

If I drop a bunch of loose legos on the floor, am I going to get a structure? No, I'm going to get a messy pile of legos.

This is why I state that I don't believe the Theory of Evolution is possible. Even in 4.3Billion years, you still don't have enough time to make the probability of one life form, let alone the countably innumerable number of species of life known.

I find statistics combined with faith a funny thing.
If God wanted it to take less time, the calculated probability is flawed.

[wellington1869]

I find statistics combined with faith a funny thing.

I find science combined with biblical literalism to be a funny thing, a schizophrenic way to live.
Apparently some of our fellow techies or science folk live that way though. There are missionary doctors too, after all.

because on the one hand, the 'book of nature' is telling you one thing. And on the other hand 'the one book to rule them all' is telling you something opposite.

I think you have few choices when that happens:
a) you ignore the contradiction and pretend nothing has happened (what I think most people do. Its too much work to do otherwise).
b) you pretend there is no "inherent" conflict and "resolve" such contradictions with creative re-reading of the bible ("circles" become spheres, "curtains" become sky, and all is back to normal). ("rational theology")
c) you conclude the bible is wrong and so is a fallible document. so even if you think there is a god, you cant know him with certainty (the classic christian existential crisis).
d) nature is wrong, is a myth, a solipsistic screen projected in front of you by god to test your faith (classic revivalist position).

in all cases you are committed to "equating" theory and belief.

[timw4mail]

I find science combined with biblical literalism to be a funny thing, a schizophrenic way to live.
Apparently some of our fellow techies or science folk live that way though. There are missionary doctors too, after all.

because on the one hand, the 'book of nature' is telling you one thing. And on the other hand 'the one book to rule them all' is telling you something opposite.

I think you have few choices when that happens:
a) you ignore the contradiction and pretend nothing has happened (what I think most people do. Its too much work to do otherwise).
b) you pretend there is no "inherent" conflict and "resolve" such contradictions with creative re-reading of the bible ("circles" become spheres, "curtains" become sky, and all is back to normal). ("rational theology")
c) you conclude the bible is wrong and so is a fallible document. so even if you think there is a god, you cant know him with certainty (the classic christian existential crisis).
d) nature is a wrong, is a myth, a solipsistic screen projected in front of you by god to test your faith (classic revivalist position).

in all cases you are committed to "equating" theory and belief.

You mention "creative" re-reading. I guess you fail to realize that text can have a dual meaning, both the literal, and the figural. What about this do you think I pretend?

What's schizophrenic is attempting to find purpose while participating in a nihilistic culture. This leads to philosophy, and the assumption that there is meaning to life, despite the continual cultural suggestion that there isn't.

Step back and think about why you rationalize evolution.

[wellington1869]

You mention "creative" re-reading. I guess you fail to realize that text can have a dual meaning, both the literal, and the figural. What about this do you think I pretend?

i'd be all for reading the bible as figurative. but then it no longer has literal truth. Yea, I'd be for that.  Thats not what you're doing though.
What you're doing is opportunistically switching back and forth between the literal and figurative based merely on your particular needs. So you "figuratively" re-read circles and curtains as referring to literal physics. Just like I can "figuratively" re-read the new testament to show it predicted the coming of the spaghetti-prophet (PBUH).
In other words, if you're going to read the bible as figurative, then dont additionally claim it has literal-truth value. I can accept circles and curtains as having a poetic or aesthetic value, but they're certainly not referring literally to a round earth in an expanding universe. Or more to the point - you can read it any way you want, but you'll need evidence to enforce it on others if you're living in a democracy. If you're living in a theocracy, of course, anything goes.  You can fight to project your particular interpretation on everyone else and its just a straightforward brutal power struggle.

What's schizophrenic is attempting to find purpose while participating in a nihilistic culture. This leads to philosophy, and the assumption that there is meaning to life, despite the continual cultural suggestion that there isn't.

by "meaning" you mean only one thing: salvation. But salvation isnt inherently meaningful anymore than any other consolation of philosophy.
Philosophers may not offer salvation, but they have the consolation of being - and wanting to be - internally consistent and honest. Unlike theologians.

Step back and think about why you rationalize evolution.

Again, your equating theory and belief. This is one of the central issues, your refusing to acknowledge the relevant differences between theory and belief, refusing to acknowledge how they work differently, much of which has already been mentioned in this thread. Like I said, so you return to 'begging the question' and thats that.

[timw4mail]

Are you really that thick that you can't see faith with reasoning behind it?

[wellington1869]

Are you really that thick that you can't see faith with reasoning behind it?

with "reasoning" behind it? sure. With scientific method behind it? absolutely not, by definition. faith does not require proof. and it eschews doubt.
Now, are you really so thick that you think faith can be justified by the scientific method?

[wellington1869]

You gotta admire timw4mail. Here's a hate-mongering fanatic who goes out of his way to prove he's an idiot. +1 for brainwashing.

well, when one condemns the majority of humanity to hell, one cant help but come across as a little hateful. so much for christian love.

i give him credit for standing and fighting. its important to be able and willing to do that sometimes, and one can learn a lot that way, too.  Though its hard to say if tim is the kind who will use conflict as a productive personal resource.

I learned a lot from my clashes with my evangelical gf. For one thing they helped me clarify my own thought, which was enormously helpful. But they also changed my thought sometimes. For instance I learned a lot more about the internal diversity of opinion among evangelical sects, and that helped me to take a less reductive view of religion (and even of the political right) as such.

But at the end of the day she couldnt convince me to give up rational thought and personal agency in favor of an ideal of pure servitude. (Of course she missed the irony about how much work and agency and interpretation and effort she was putting into imagining herself as passively obedient to gods will).

christians arent very good at catching irony. part of the training I guess.

[o2dazone]

[timw4mail]

You gotta admire timw4mail. Here's a hate-mongering fanatic who goes out of his way to prove he's an idiot. +1 for brainwashing.

One could just as easily say that the media and public school system is a form of brainwashing.

Go ahead and think of me a brainwashed idiot. I know where I stand.

[ch_123]

One could just as easily say that the media and public school system is a form of brainwashing.

You sound like the Catholic priests in Ireland - they said education and the media were the tools of the devil, and people believed them. Here is but a short summary of some of the more well known consequences of that.

[wellington1869]

One could just as easily say that the media and public school system is a form of brainwashing.

have you been in academe lately? yes,  humanists are constantly saying exactly that. now more than ever.

isnt it nice of them to be able to self-critique systematically like that?

[wellington1869]

I know where I stand.

I cant think of anything more fatal to religion than declarations like that.

there are other ways of being religious you know. tho they have less hubris and more consistency and modesty.

"There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds."
 — Alfred, Lord Tennyson

[huha]

Okay. Let's just do some very rough calculations just for the fun of it. I'm excited to hear about your response.
Let's assume the earth is a perfect sphere with a radius of 6378 km (equatorial radius). The volume of water on earth not already in the oceans, which we shall call Vw, is about 1.606 * 10^7 mi^3 [1], which equals 6.694 * 10^16 m^3 (we're using SI units here).
That's all we need, really. We know how to calculate the volume of a sphere from its radius, which is what we'll be doing now:



After some easy calculations, we arrive at the following cubic equation:



Wolfram Alpha wouldn't be good for anything if not calculating the solution. If you want to try it yourself, here's the input:
w^3 + 3q w^2 + 3 w q^2 - (3 V)/(4 pi) = 0, q = 6378*10^3, V = 6.694*10^16

w is what we're looking for (rW), q is rE and V is Vw.

Wolfram Alpha gives us, by virtue of mathematics, the real solution of w being about 131. We ommitted dimensions from our input values, but they're all in meters. The calculation seems to be correct, but what does it tell us?
Well ... assume we'd take all the water currently not in the oceans already, extract it from the air, melt the ice etc. and dump it in the ocean--how much would the water levels rise? The answer is: About 131 meters.

Nice global flood, isn't it?


(More on radioisotope dating later)

-huha

[1] http://www.lenntech.com/water-trivia-facts.htm (About water quantities, #7). These figures look okay to me, Encarta's value for water content in oceans is slightly higher, but the order of magnitude seems to be right: http://encarta.msn.com/media_461547746/The_World's_Oceans_and_Seas.html

[ch_123]

Has anyone considered that maybe timw4mail is a Master Troll?

[itlnstln]

Has anyone considered that maybe timw4mail is a Master Troll?

Yes.
 
I have seen this in a few threads. Either that, or he can be the most self-centered, pompous a*s I have seen on the 'board. Usually, when that's the case, that person is a Master Troll.
 
*slaps self for openly talking sh*t about others*

[ch_123]

This really should be settled with a duel...

[o2dazone]

Wait, what, is someone challenging my title??

Show Image

hardly


From my previous experience of the internets, I've yet to see a good troll on this forum.

[wellington1869]

In religion, the father syndrome is domesticated and kept alive. .

there's also a kind of stockholm syndrome going on. Cuz you're supposed to love The Father, and if you dont, Father is going to kill you for eternity in gruesome ways, so presented with that choice, "cake or death", well, you're going to choose to cake, because gosh darn it, no one likes to be beheaded.  So you wind up 'loving' your captor while he holds a gun to your head. Stockholm syndrome.

[Mr.6502]

Has anyone considered that maybe timw4mail is a Master Troll?

It's a safe bet.  Its really a shame.  I do want to understand how the bible ends up interpreted, how human slavery is addressed, which of the creation myths are considered legit, what parts of the old testament can safely be ignored because they don't count any more.

I figured since so many people look to the bible there must be something justifiable there.  But, it sounds like its acceptable to pick and choose what applies and what doesn't based on human morality.  Tim can say he doesn't approve of human trafficking, because he has the power to choose what parts of the bible he believes in.  And, simultaneously, he has made the choice to treat god's will as something above human morality by acknowledging that if someone dies a tragic death or suffers a horrible life they must have deserved it.  

But its impossible to claim god's actions beyond our judgement when it is our judgement that controls what we believe god does.

The end result is a circular train of thought that reinforces itself by distorting the interpretation of the entire world.  And, once someone's way of seeing the world is altered by religion this way, once they believe in a heaven and that the only reason to do good is because of religious morals that guide us on a path to that heaven, once life on the earth becomes the entrance test to enter heaven, that person becomes a true nihilist.

When this world only exists to serve man and man's greatest hope is to find happiness in an existance after this, this existance loses all value.  Forests can be leveled, sinners can be slaughtered, wars can be waged, because this is all meaningless outside of the completely internal, imaginary, and irrational drive to get ino a heaven that man invented.

I'll forego any more questions.  The lack of answers gave me my answers.

[wellington1869]

well said, 6502

[CX23882]

Religious nuts give religion a bad name:
http://news.uk.msn.com/world/article.aspx?cp-documentid=148950290

Neumann ("hello, Neumann"), who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, testified that he believed God would heal his daughter and he never expected her to die. God promises in the Bible to heal, he said.
"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," Neumann testified. "I am not believing what he said he would do."

When people think like this, there is no point in trying to have a rational conversation with them. It's incredible to think that people are institutionalised for believing they hear voices in their head, yet if that voice is "god", it's okay. Personally, I wouldn't live my life to the bible just as I wouldn't live my life to the stories in any book.

How does anyone know that the bible is not simply the biggest hoax in history - to get people to believe in a fiction book. Kind of like those scientology nuts.

[itlnstln]

(I didn't read the article) Is Neumann a Christian Scientist (and no longer Pentecostal)?

[wellington1869]

"Neumann ("hello, Neumann"), who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, testified that he believed God would heal his daughter and he never expected her to die. God promises in the Bible to heal, he said.
"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," Neumann testified. "I am not believing what he said he would do.""

wow, exactly like the guy from the flood allegory I mentioned above.

[erricrice]

 .

[patrickgeekhack]

I am Roman Catholic. But, I avoid engaging into religious discussions because it's a Philosophical question. We cannot say who is right and who is wrong. What I will say is I took a Religious Studies course last year "Jesus: Life and Legacy" and read "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?" book. The two combined together raised more questions than they answered mine.

Then this year, my wife, daughter and I went to visit our families and have my daughter baptised. My father's side has a lot of very religious members. Before leaving for the trip, I prepared a list of questions which could be traps for them, but when I got there, I just did not have the courage to have some fun. I guess it was the respect for the religion and the respect for anyone to believe in whatever he or she believes that led me to refrain from having fun.

[CX23882]

What's up with them?

I wouldn't know where to start. But I guess that they're not so bad in that I haven't seen any reports of deviant behaviour involving young boys, as there have been multiple times with some other groups. I was simply pointing out that to live your life based on a story book is no different to the scientologists following the writings of a science-fiction writer. To each his own I guess. Me, I take responsibility for my own actions and care about what the people around me think, not someone that I can't see (and if I could see "him" what would he look like - if he created the world, he surely can't look human, but I suppose he probably shapeshifts if you interpret something a certain way).

[Bollwerk]

I came across this thread and maybe it is sa mistake to mix in that discussion because religion is a very delicate topic.

In my opinion this topic is mere polemic.
No one has proof for god either existing or not.

Everyone will get that ultimate proof sooner or later but he or she won't be able to tell someone anymore, because dead people usually don't talk.

As long as everyone has just nothing more than estimations, there will be no justifing for anything catholic or atheistic.

Note: A growing tree is not a proof of god. He didn't write his name on it, so no one really knows where the tree comes from or who let it grow.

Just saying everything we don't understand or don't know yet must be god is just cheap and lame.

Thinking of someone supernatural protecting me is lame either, because there is no pattern for people with bad luck or without.

It is just action and reaction. If you are a bad dude, you won't acquire many positive things and there is always someone worse, who might be able to kick your ass. If you mess with people a lot, you create wrath and someday you are the one beeing messed with or you just have luck.

You can be a good guy either but that won't protect you from beeing messed with. You'll just happen to meet more good guys, so your life has a chance to be better.

That is all. Doing good things merely for some religion, it is just dissimulation and in the end you do it just for yourself.
Doing something good for the sake of mankind is the real thing. Religious or not. Who cares?

[pex]

What god gives humans (generally) the faculties of logic and ethic and then expects them to believe the drivel found in 'the books' of the SEVERAL modern religions today?

Humans have been experimenting with religion as a functional institution for millenia, and at one point it might have served a less trivial purpose.  Suffice to say, humans still haven't got religion 'right'.  At one time when we were more confused, religion served the purpose of 'explaining the unexplainable' as well as serving as a vessel for the dissemination of morals on the idea they might create a managable community.  It's probably doubtless that religion was used for social control in distant history as it is today.

Today's religions will fail to survive as have the religions humanity has since discarded, because they do not have the appropriate mechanisms built into them to travel with us as we understand more about our environment.  When it appears that we learn something about ourselves or our environment that discredits an element of a religion, it must be either chalked up to the heresy/malfeasance of the transmittor or it will, with great magnitude, cripple the credibility of the religion.  After all, humans generally seem to like consistancy or the appearance thereof...

Sometimes, on the way to their destruction, religions harm us.  I am less clear about how some Eastern religions may be doing so, but I certainly am aware of how Abrahamic religions fail us.  I have to give it to the people who orchestrate these religions that they last as long as they do, in such a 'healthy' form, but they cannot ultimately last because there will be a point of cognitive dissonance which can no longer be overcome by self-delusion.  The fact is that religion to date appears incompatible with knowledge and so they are harmful to people (and their wish to advance.)

Someone just needs to create a new, more appropriate religion for us to follow, for the things we don't know today, to replace those more archaic and corrupt ones.  And why not?

[wellington1869]

Someone just needs to create a new, more appropriate religion for us to follow, for the things we don't know today, to replace those more archaic and corrupt ones.  And why not?

I nominate pex. Pex, what would your 10 commandments be?

[ch_123]

No one has proof for god either existing or not.

Ever hear of proving a negative? In this particular context it's a logical fallacy.

[Bollwerk]

Logical fallacy? We sure know some things going on in this world, but we really don't know a lot of things either and maybe there is really a supernatural force.

I mean, noone knows, what comes after death. This would be the ultimate goal for achieving knowledge. Maybe there are some very freaky weird things going on, we just don't know and the ignorant humans wouldn't even accept.

You'll never know, what is outside the cage if no one has ever seen anything behind the bars.

[pex]

I mean, noone knows, what comes after death.

No one knows what comes before life.  Why put any faith in a religion that discusses an unknown after but dismisses an unknown before?

[ch_123]

Logical fallacy? We sure know some things going on in this world, but we really don't know a lot of things either and maybe there is really a supernatural force.

Maybe there's a tiny purple monster that lives under my bed and hides things on me. If we accept that there may be a God on the basis that we can't prove otherwise, we might as well believe everything. Read some of my earlier posts about how human ignorance doesn't suggest the existence of a God.

I mean, noone knows, what comes after death. This would be the ultimate goal for achieving knowledge. Maybe there are some very freaky weird things going on, we just don't know and the ignorant humans wouldn't even accept.

You'll never know, what is outside the cage if no one has ever seen anything behind the bars.

Or maybe there is nothing after death. There's nothing to suggest it other than people's desire for immortality (heaven) and retribution (hell).

Whenever people talk about religion answering what happens after death, I feel like they are retroactively justifying their beliefs using a concept that their religion created.

[Bollwerk]

Who knows. Have you been there?

I don't sypathisize with some kind of religion.
I don't sypathisize with atheism either.

In my opinion atheism is just another kind or religion.

Whenever people think, they know what comes after death, I can merely laugh.

You just don't know, what comes after it. You can just suggest...

If you have already decides for yourself, that nothing comes after death, you are just believing in something like a religion.

[ch_123]

By your logic, agnosticism is another religion within of itself, because you believe that having opinions on these things is below you.

[Bollwerk]

Somewhere there has to be drawn a line. Considering options is just scientific.

Religion is, when you've made your point already and I did not.

I can't make my point based on fantasy or just polemic arguments. If something cool happens... fine with me. If nothing happens and I just disappear, I wouldn't have the time to be disappointed anyway. Maybe something bad will happen... that would be uncool indeed.

It's just as simple as it appears.

[ch_123]

But do you not think that deliberately chosing to have no opinion is just an opinion itself? Obviously you have thought about this matter, and reached a conclusion on it. That is the definition of an opinion, no?

[Bollwerk]

Yeah. In my opinion no one can know the very truth so my opinion includes various scenarios. Even the unimaginable.

Others are just drawn to one scenario which is too norrow for my taste. Sometimes, having options is luxury or requires skill in foreseeing things. Neither of them applies here. You just have no other option but waiting for it. It is not that I am able to chose between those possabilities. So thinking of only one thing is quite lame and the cheap way.

[DreymaR]

In my opinion atheism is just another kind or religion.

Whenever people think, they know what comes after death, I can merely laugh.

I'm an atheist. It means 'a theos' - 'no god'. I don't believe that there exist any gods, nor anything beyond death - and I don't even find it remotely likely which is why I choose to call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic although I am that too - 'non-believer'. I never claimed that I can prove this logically or empirically; that's a straw man you're using there. Only the uneducated and/or overly boastful atheists would make such claims, and while they certainly exist just like fanatical pretty-much-what-have-you exist you shouldn't generalize based on the fanatics.

The way I've learnt to define the word 'religion' is that it deals with the afterlife (the exact definition of the word is of course troublesome and one of the major sources of flak in debates on the subject). You could in principle have religion without a god, but hardly without touching on the 'ultimate question(s)' of which afterlife arguably is the central one. Now, I don't believe in an afterlife nor any of those other religious dogma as far as I'm aware of, so saying that my atheism is another religion is pretty self-contradictory if you ask me. That's like saying that no beer is a kind of beer too because you're talking about beer when you define its' shortage! You're entitled to your opinion but I ask you whether you really find this productive and useful. I sure don't.

Atheism versus agnosticism is a really technical debate. It's mostly about how sure you feel, really, which is a completely individual exercise. I'm pretty sure there's no Cosmic Goat out there, and while I technically speaking can't disprove it that's uninteresting to me because the makers of such an in my opinion improbable hypothesis would have to convince me of its veracity and not the other way around. I can't give every single god theory on the market the time of day, as I simply can't be arsed and would run out of time of day as fast as nobody's business if I did.

My favourite atheism quote must be 'I will contend that a Christian too is nearly an atheist! I just happen to believe in one less god than him.', as it sums up the impossibility of disproving every single god hypothesis as well as the lack of necessity thereof in my opinion.

[InSanCen]

ah well, why not...

Staunch Atheist (Decided at 5yrs old, have seen no evidence to change my mid since, and I'm over 30 now), whose favourite hobby is annoying Mormons that try to "convert" me.

(The caveat being they try to ram it down my throat first, AND won't take a polite no for an answer... after that, game on! The other half literally runs when she sees one on a beeline to me:evil:)

[Bollwerk]

Well, if there are Religions to compare, you compare them by content and the fanatics are living up to that.

So who cares if there are atheism hardliners or doubtful ones. Those guys appear in every kind of religion.

Humans are born with the ability to believe in something they want, regardless whether it is true or not. Many people are living this way.

If someone believes there comes somethin or nothing after death... based on what? You cannot shoot a person and say, you just had the feeling it was neccessary.

Those feelings are somehow hideous, if you ask me.
They are biased, clouded thoughts and differ from person to person.

The option to nothing isn't just some kind of god. There are many possible ways we can't even imagine.
It doesn't have to be some dogma or so.

People are argueing whether there is a godlike something or not.
Beats me. I'm wondering where they're getting their arguments.

The conclusion is, neither of those fractions will come to an end of discussion because no one has the ultimate proof to show, just some feelings. You can't discuss based on feelings.

Atheism vs. Agnostics. Well, that's a bit tough, but in the end, it is the same. I have no proof of something either but I'm not claiming there will be a specific event after life or there even won't.

You can say this is a clouded future based on my believings but I say better clouded whatever than clear phantasms based on feelings or people's imagination.