Religion? Faith? Anything?

[mnbvcxz]

Re: Religion? Faith? Anything?

[floridaorange]

Re: Religion? Faith? Anything?

I'll just leave this here

http://mashable.com/2012/01/05/swede...-file-sharing/

[kassios]

Re: Religion? Faith? Anything?

Atheists are hypocrites. Generally their argument is "how can you prove there is a God?" Well "How can you prove there isn't?"

Agnostic or simply believing in some kind of higher being make much more sense to me.

So you are saying the majority or most of humans on this earth are stupid (Atheists and religious).....can you please explain to me the difference between atheism and agnosticism?

Is this a new kind of trend of categorizing people depending on their religious beliefs?

You are wrong mate very wrong , your missing the point of agnosticism ....agnostic and atheism are so related that you might not even understand the meaning of the words..you either believe but have no knowledge about it...or like you claim you don't believe but have knowledge about religion which makes you an agnostic atheist...but then at the end you said believing in some kind of higher being ....make up your mind mate

[Illuminate]

Re: Religion? Faith? Anything?

Imho I think as existent in a humane society you have the right to believe and practise as you please. I personally don't care if you think file sharing to you can be classified as a religion. I went back and tried to understand why humans solace in religion, as I came across some strange answers, and surprisingly the best I found was from this blog:

Saturday, April 21, 2007

The Purpose of Religion


Many of my students cynically think that the purpose of religion is to scare people into oppression. The powerful created this huge myth as a means for social control. While I don't deny that some people have used religion for such a purpose, I do not regard that as the original intention of religion.

Religion is powerful, and so it will be abused, unfortunately.

So, what is the source of the power of religion? What is its real purpose?

Surprisingly, I think I've found answers to these questions.

The purpose of religion is to help us deal with our pain, suffering, and grief in ways that stop it from continuing to damage ourselves or others. The purpose of religion is to help us learn to "end suffering within" (I think that is a quotation from Thich Nhat Hanh).

I have this image of pain and suffering bouncing around the universe like ping pong balls. You see one coming at you, and the temptation is to bat it away. But doing so often makes it hit someone else and hurt them too. So they pick it up and angrily throw it back at you. Or maybe they miss and hit someone else. Etc.

To end suffering within is to catch the ping pong ball and paint it pretty colors and hang it in the window and show it off to your friends.

The power of religion then is redemption.

It really is possible to stop and hold your pain and suffering and grief instead of flinging it back on others. It really is possible to rework it in ways that make you a better person: stronger, more insightful, more compassionate.

We are artists, creators. The material we have to work with is our life experience. Just because we may not like some of the colors we are given does not mean that we cannot mix those colors with others to create beautiful art. The colors that are our experiences of pain can add depth and richness to the paintings we produce. Added artfully to our canvas, they can bring out the brilliance of the colors we do wish to emphasize.

Our world today, in general, does not do a very good job of teaching us how to do this. Our world today does not even do a very good job of reminding us that we should be trying to figure out how to learn this. Instead, when we are hurting, our culture tells us to find someone to blame -- as if blaming or punishing others will ever really prevent future suffering or help us to heal from our wounds.

Looking for blame misses the point. When we are wounded, it is our wound that needs attention. When we are wounded, we need healing.

The point of life is not to escape all suffering. That is naive and impossible.

Once we realize that most suffering does not destroy us, we can establish a new relationship with it. How can we meet life's challenges in ways that make us better people? How can we learn how to transform the pain and suffering that comes our way into strength, courage, compassion, and insight?

How you answer these questions describes your religion.

I choose to have a belief in agnosticism, hence I choose not to believe there is nor isn't a form of deity.
However, where Religion becomes controversial for me is when it's being stuffed down my throat or abused for fiscal advantages, more importantly subjectively degrading individuals or communities e.g: homosexuals, females etc.

In reference to Nikoa, in a confusing way you do make a point about the contradiction of Atheism, but this contradiction; isn't this what Atheism is in its manner?

[mnbvcxz]

Re: Religion? Faith? Anything?

---

[Localizer]

Re: Religion? Faith? Anything?

I prefer to think that the majority of people on Earth are misguided, not stupid.

Atheism is very much different to agnostic. Atheism is believing something unconditionally, whereas agnostic people recognize the fact we cannot truly be sure.

To address your last comment, gravitating towards a certain ''explanation" is completely different to saying something is fact. I appreciate people have opinions and I think that's great. I love to hear new thoughts and angles, it's exciting! I don't push them away.

My point is simple: No one can be sure 100% - yet people claim they are (including atheists)

It's not about being 'sure.' It's about using the current evidence we have in the scientific realm which leads us to believe that the existence of something supernatural cannot exist. When someone says that there is some sort of supernatural being(s) watching over us, then it is up to them to provide the evidence that it exists, not the other way around. It is not up to us to provide evidence for what is NOT there. In contrast, we provide evidence for hypothesis and it gets peer reviewed. Granted the scientific community is not infallible, however, everything that we currently know works and it works pretty dam well.

You can make a claim that you are agnostic, but that is simply going on faith based on nothing more than stark assumptions. What you're committing is logical fraud--ad ignorantiam.

Also, 100% sure is not the stance of most atheists. The stance of atheists is 'evidence until proven otherwise.' It's really that simple. If I were you, I'd watch some of James Randi's videos.

[mnbvcxz]

Re: Religion? Faith? Anything?

---

[Localizer]

Re: Religion? Faith? Anything?

I completely disagree. Because that's the argument - people claim to be sure! Are you that naive to think that just because science can't "view" or "explain" something it's not possible something can or can't exist? Research the history of science and you'll soon see why this is the case. People put WAY too much faith in science, forgetting how primitive science actually is. Look at history because it's happened over and over and over again. Open your minds and be realistic.

It's about using empirical evidence to provide true or false answers. Those that make a hypothesis on parallel dimensions do so with mathematics and physics. Looking at a universe beyond ours is hypothesized and data is compiled to provide evidence from equations and from telescopes. This is the scientific method; this is how science works. So call me naive if you'd like, but I have no evidence that a supernatural diety exists or could exists. What we do have though are people with extraordinary imaginations.

In addition, you mention the history of science. Clearly it has evaded you that science has accomplished more in the last 200 years, let alone the last 100 years and will continue to do so in the future. That's what science does.

Also, you're asking me to 'open up mind.' My mind is open, but I don't believe in ESP, psychics, supernatural stuff, chi, or what have you. The burdon of proof is on the person making those extraordinary claims, and until evidenced otherwise, I cannot logically change my position on supernatural beings and supernatural powers.

Your theory does not stack up and I think like many people you're completely missing the point.

There is no point I'm missing. You said atheists are sure with their claims that a supernatural being or beings does not exist and that we are naive for doing so. In response, I told you that I go based on evidence I receive from the scientific community. I also told you that it is fallible, but science can self-correct.

Irrelevant and unrelated comment. At no stage did I question that science and how well it works. The theory of relativity is a work of genius and without it much of the technology we see today wouldn't exist. Science is extremely practical, but it's fact (the scientific community will agree) that the current accepted theory (General relativity and Quantum Mechanics) do not in any way explain the essence of the Universe at any deep level. In fact, each theory contradicts each other.

They're great accomplishments by mankind and are extremely practical, but they're just mind tools. Not true explanations.

Atheists use primarily science to validate their stance against theologians. (I don't think I've come across any atheist who doesn't use science as their foundation--ooo Isaac Asimov pun). Yes I'm aware that GR and QM go against each other, at least so it says in Hawking's book, and that bit of knowledge is probably accepted by astrophysicists and physicists (not the scientific community, ie. I do not know what chemists think of it, or biologists think of it, or geneticists). However, it does not mean that they are not reconciled in the future. That's what string theory attempted to do.

These are works in progress. They will be refined and the more knowledge that is gained, the more that can be explained. So your point is relatively moot.

Incorrect, your definitions are flawed. Sorry, but I suggest you read up on what difference between being an atheist vs agnostic.

I'm well aware of the difference between theologians, agnostics, and atheists and the notions that atheists can be agnostics and what have you. You're not the first person I've debated this with. However, let's keep in mind that your reference in all these replies is based on supernatural deities otherwise there's no point in comparing yourself to a theist vs. an atheist.

[mnbvcxz]

Re: Religion? Faith? Anything?

---

[88Mariner]

Re: Religion? Faith? Anything?

M-Theory. what happened to that label?

[mnbvcxz]

Re: Religion? Faith? Anything?

M-Theory. what happened to that label?

Jonathan Lisle has quit the music industry and now focuses on his legal career. Plus, Progressive Breaks died a long time ago

[Localizer]

Re: Religion? Faith? Anything?

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to to get at. Yes, of course science will be refined but the reality is they are tools for the mind, not deep explanations for the essence of existence and reality. These always evolve and change as a result of people not accepting the status quo. Something you seem to accept. Science is part the search, not the answer!

You're confusing an essence of reality or whatever other philosophical standpoints you have with theology. Atheists do not believe in god(s) or supernatural entities, hence a(none)-theist(god). You're making a claim that atheists are sure that there is no god which makes us naive. And I'm telling you that science uses evidence to show that there is no god. Whatever other philosophical endeavors you wish to partake are exempt from the discussion about atheists. Atheism isn't about arguing about the essence of reality--that's in the realm of skepticism. And I already mentioned some of those things in the forms of psychic powers, esp, etc...

Yes, string theory (more accurately M-Theory) is an attempt at a unified theory but the irony is they cannot currently perform any tests to prove any of the theory, it's just a very complex and elegant mathematical model. Does this mean it's not possible to be true? Of course not! But based on your logic it cannot be true. So do you completely reject M-Theory?

My logic dictated use of the scientific model, which was used by physicists in an attempt to provide evidence for string theory. Whatever other epistomological inquiries you have are between you and the understanding of string theory. Either way, this was a tangential embarkment from the god vs. no god vs. something is out there debate. You used this example against my use of science to explain the existence of supernatural entities before which I had told you that science is fallible and self-corrects.

None the less, it's still just a tool for the mind. Being Unified does not mean it inherently explains everything about the world. We're talking just about physics. Human consciousness in itself does not even come into the equation.

Not sure what you mean by Unified. And sure, if you'd like to think that science is a tool for the mind, by all means go ahead. I'm not replying to convince you otherwise. Again, you delve into human consciousness which is outside the meaning of theism and the meanings of theism. You're confusing a debate about god(s) and other philosophical domains.

Localizer, it's very clear you put all your faith in the currently Accepted/Mainstream Science. And if the scope of your view on the world is within those bounds then it's going to be very difficult to have a conversation with you so I'll part with this post.

I don't put my faith in much. And science isn't faith, it is a discipline that uses methodological steps in an attempt to explain our world and our universe (as you already know, but bears repeating). By providing evidence to support claims, faith is eliminated, otherwise everything would be considered faith and that itself is just a skewing of the definition. Either way, you already had trouble because you assumed that atheism is to mean something other than a lack of gods, which is what this thread was about, is it not (deity vs. possible deity vs. no deity)? If we're looking for other philosophical discussions on human consciousness or parallel realities, I'm sure we could agree/disagree on numerous things. However, one thing is for certain, evidence cannot be provided for beings that are capable of watching us everywhere at any one time while at the same time intervening in our affairs--and this is the crux of this thread.

[mnbvcxz]

Re: Religion? Faith? Anything?

---

[Highsteppa]

Re: Religion? Faith? Anything?

I considered myself agnostic for a pretty long time, but have recently have considered myself a bit more of an atheist, partly because of the views of Penn Gillette and Christopher Hitchens, as well as a few other peeps that have written on the subject - I came to the realization that my interpretation of agnostic was convenient for me as being a means of fence sitting philosophically, when deep down inside I pretty much knew I was an atheist.

However, I do respect various religions and people's choice to exercise their faith. For the most part I have no problem with organized religion, on the basis that it is not harming anyone and sticks to the core beliefs that the said religion claims to advocate - people that use their religion to advance agendas that promote their own prejudices and intolerance should, imo, be ex-communicated and marginalized from their own faith. Faith is not something that conveniently serves you and your needs whenever you need to justify something - it does involve hardship that goes a lot deeper than just trying to cry out to whichever deity you worship when shit gets tough. Faith also means keeping true to the core values of that religion and passing up on the opportunities that might be offered that might serve as temptation or possibly leading down the road to a corruption of your religious values. That does not necessarily mean that I think that anyone that practices religion must practice it to hard core orthodoxy lengths, just an understanding of what your religion advocates at its core and respecting those core values, as well as the people around you, including the non-believers that choose not to follow your faith. What you are following is a personal choice - offer the same respect to others as you would like to have afforded to you with that choice, regardless of what spiritual organization that they follow or even if they don't follow a religion.

If it works for someone and they find it a useful tool in getting through life, great - all the more power to them and I hope it helps bring happiness to their lives without having it occur at anyone else's expense. I would advocate that for anyone who chooses any kind of philosophical following.

[mnbvcxz]

Re: Religion? Faith? Anything?

---