Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You obviously don't understand evolution. Changing your mind does not mean you evolved. And to say with certainty that you are not wrong, I must now say prove it.
Prove what? That I know myself? Come back here in 10 years time and I will still be an atheist. I'll bet you money on that fact.
Religion is for the unevolved mind who cannot possibly consider he or she is an autonomous being not chained to the constructs of dogma. Humans have been brainwashed to believe there is a higher being who judges or loves or does whatever. I don't believe that. We as an individual chart the path of our life, we just have to realise it and embrace it.
It has been said, "The proof of the pudding is the eating".
And such is the "eating" when it comes to Theism, and specifically religion.
I submit...there is NOTHING that has EVER influenced mankind, for good or bad, to greater degree than religion.
THERE is your "proof"!!!
Spout all the "not empirically proven", "epic fail", "that's a logical fallacy", "you are deluded", and all the other spew you want...but at the end of the day...NOTHING has more "mojo" than religion.
It's like a suitcase full of $100 bills. It may just be a lot of "paper and ink" that "represents" value...but as long as the majority of the world accepts it as having that value...you're rich!!. And THAT is all the PROOF you need that it DOES have that value.
Atheism OTOH...is like the same suitcase full of paper covered with ink...but NOT currency. It's notes that are very lightly recognized as having any "value". So it's really, in effect, just about worthless.
Don't like that?...oh, well...better learn to deal with it...because, THAT'S THE WAY IT IS!
Prove what? That I know myself? Come back here in 10 years time and I will still be an atheist. I'll bet you money on that fact.
Religion is for the unevolved mind who cannot possibly consider he or she is an autonomous being not chained to the constructs of dogma. Humans have been brainwashed to believe there is a higher being who judges or loves or does whatever. I don't believe that. We as an individual chart the path of our life, we just have to realise it and embrace it.
Can you prove that all people who are religious or spiritual are unevolved? I will need empirical evidence.
And to clear something up, not all religious and spiritual people are christian, islam or jewish.
Religious people are no less intelligent than anyone else. Simply becoming atheist does not suddenly make someone smarter. It is simply a different state of thinking. If you give 100 atheist and 100 spiritual people the same book, then test them on it, the outcome will be about the same. Atheists are no smarter than spiritual people.
You are absolutely correct that we chart our own path of life and that we need to embrace it. Nobody is out there pulling our strings or setting our life before us. It unravels as we go along in every moment. The future does not exists and the past is gone. All that is left is this moment.
Since all that matters is this very moment in time, why does it matter what you spiritual or non-spiritual beliefs are? Why does it matter what other believe?
GldnRule: I am surprised at your 'might makes right' argument (the argument from popularity). I'm even more surprised that you, of all people, have as much as admitted that it may all well be smoke and mirrors, but as long as it's overwhelmingly popular, a tyranny of the majority exists.
raison d'etre: I would never state that religious people are less intelligent than anyone else. (After all, I used to be religious.) Perhaps my early conditioning was less strong than that of some others, and my life experiences made it possible for me to shed it. I know some very intelligent religious people. I just don't/can't buy it personally.
Actually, there are three things that I can think of that has influenced mankind more. Money, power, and the biggest one of all... knowledge.
Knowledge is what drives mankind. Knowledge has brought more destruction and peace than anything.
Raison...Money-Power-and the knowledge of how to best manipulate/exploit people to get it...that is at the root of much of organized religion.
Even today...Offer people money to blow themselves up on a suicide bombing mission, and they'd tell you all the money in the world isn't enough. Ask them to do it as a martyr for their God...and they beg for the opportunity. The FALSE knowledge that it will please some vengeful God...influences and motivates them.
GldnRule: I am surprised at your 'might makes right' argument (the argument from popularity). I'm even more surprised that you, of all people, have as much as admitted that it may all well be smoke and mirrors, but as long as it's overwhelmingly popular, a tyranny of the majority exists.
You must know me by now catman...I call it like it REALLY is.
But you have something confused...I NEVER said "might makes right". I said, "might usually RULES"-"the majority usually RULES". I said that, because that is REALITY. Is it not?
Also, why would you be surprised at, "it may all well be smoke and mirrors, but as long as it's overwhelmingly popular, a tyranny of the majority exists"...when THAT describes "the REAL way of the world"?
What did I say that isn't so?
I don't "sugarcoat" anything. If it's "the way the world goes around" then that's the deal.
Not what I'd LIKE it to be, or you'd LIKE it to be, but WHAT IS.
Like my money analogy...currency IN FACT is just paper and ink...it has no intrinsic value...but it has PERCEIVED value...and because of that, it REALLY has value. What difference does it make if a $100 bill can't be EMPIRICALLY PROVEN to have any intrinsic worth?...as long as POPULAR OPINION is that it's worth $100...then it IS worth $100.
Same with religion...what difference does it make that "the faithful" can't empirically prove what they believe to be true...they DO believe it!
I've said it many, many times...and ALWAYS take "heat" for it: "Perception almost always defeats facts in the "arena of influence". Compared to belief/faith/perception...facts/proof/evidence are a very weak challenger...and will get trounced 9 times out of 10". I say that, because...that's the way it REALLY is.
All this talk about "REALITY"..."reality" to me is "real life", NOT necessarily "real truth"...it might be "real truth"...but whether it is or not doesn't really matter when all is said and done.
I won't walk down 125th St in NYC in an Armani suit, wearing a diamond ring and a Rolex watch, with $100 bills hanging out of my pockets, at 4am...because it's against "objective morality" and PROVEN to be against societal order, to mug someone. I face up to REALITY and act accordingly.
Plus...there is always the "Initiated Amusement" factor to my posts...that's REALITY too! But I cop to it.
So even though we can't physically measure the mind or digestion, which means that science actually cannot test it, you believe in it?
Since I never said you can't measure the mind or digestion this question makes no sense. I said you can't measure a pound of it, just like you can't measure out a foot of blue and show it to me or measure the sound of orange. Those kind of questions are a category error.
Try addressing what I actually said and stay on topic.
Quote:
And the soul, spirit, and God cannot be explained as a physical process.
Yep, I agree 100%. We just have different ideas about the implications of this problem.
Quote:
My point is that our scientific abilities are no where near what they will be 50, 100, or even 200 years from now. Just because we cannot find proof for something does not mean that it isn't plausible.
I thought your point was that because we couldn't do something now it must mean there's something supernatural about it. Seems like you're changing gears now.
Anyway, mere plausibility is a very low standard of proof - hopefully you're not suggesting that "not impossible" is evidence in any way.
Quote:
Well, I don't believe in a god in the sense say a christian would. I believe in a source or energy that everything is made of. In a sense, we are all "God" or source. So yes, I believe that this source interacts with the natural universe at it's basic level.
Sounds like you're just redefining the natural universe to be god. That's great, but we already have a perfectly good word for everything - it's "everything".
Anyway, how do you plan to test your idea? What evidence would show that this idea is right, and more importantly, what evidence would show it wrong?
Logic is not about absolutes. It is logical to believe that something is plausible.
That wasn't my question. You pointed out that god is plausible as if it had an effect on atheism. But it's perfectly consistent to believe gods are remotely possible but not believe they're real, so I'm struggling to see the reason why you brought it up in the first place.
So, "at the end of the day":
Absent "objective proof" from either side (that will satisfy the "other side)...all we have to go with, is the "majority rule factor".
Nope. Lack of absolute proof doesn't mean we get to ignore the preponderance of the evidence. Or total lack of evidence for the positive claim, as is the case here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) Perhaps my early conditioning was less strong than that of some others, and my life experiences made it possible for me to shed it. I know some very intelligent religious people. I just don't/can't buy it personally.
