A Must Read!

[Thorne]

How do we know there is or is not an afterlife, many many people "feel" that an afterlife exists and is just as real and tangible as anything else. Science certiantly doesn't know, though sometimes it claims to know even when it doesnt, so how does the atheist claim differ any,,,a belief, based upon an assumption with not enough data to support it. Sounds just like most religions to me.

No, science claims only that there is no evidence for an afterlife. EVERY religion claims the existence of an afterlife without any evidence. Science's sole claim is that a lack of evidence for the existence of something is NOT equivalent to evidence FOR it's existence. How do we know there are no dragons? (Apart from the Kimodo variety.) How do we know there are no unicorns, or centaurs, or any of zillions of other made-up creatures and places? Can we prove that Burroughs' Barsoom does not exist on Mars? There is no way to prove that any of these things do NOT exist. But that doesn't make them real, regardless of how many people "feel" they do.

Basically, when a theist says, "There IS an afterlife" he's saying that he BELIEVES there is an afterlife, despite the fact that there is no actual evidence of it. When a scientist, or an atheist, says "there is NOT an afterlife", he's saying that there is no rational reason to accept the existence of something for which there is no verifiable evidence.

Religion has always fluorished in ignorance.

So has science.

Not even close. Religion flourishes in the perpetuation of ignorance, keeping the believers away from any knowledge that contradicts dogma. Science flourishes by fighting ignorance, relishing knowledge, even if (one might even say, especially if) it contradicts scientific dogma.

What is it but a collection of stories and claims to explain the mysteries of life — wherever there is something we don't understand, that we lack real knowledge about, there is a priest ready to rush in and fill the gap with a story.

Or explain a tried and true well tested tradition.

With a story! Regardless of how old or how well known the story is, it's still just a story! And when facts intervene and contradict the story, the historical reaction of most religions has been to slay the messenger, to perpetuate the story. Tradition may be nice for maintaining the status quo and molding conformity. But sooner or later you have to finally stand up and say, "The Emperor has no clothes!"

And it's always a story that gives the answer people want to hear.

Hardely, more often than not it gives an answer that is not what people want to hear...it is most certiantly not all cookies and cream.

I'll grant you that. But it still tells them that there will be an afterlife, even though there is no evidence for such a thing. To some people, even an eternity in hell might seem better than complete oblivion. To some people, an eternity in the Catholic heaven (the one I'm most familiar with) would BE a hell.

It's not what they made up, it was what was passed down to them through generation after generation.

Passed down from someone who made it up to begin with! Again, just because it's an old story doesn't mean it's accurate. The world is not flat, the sky is not a carpet with little lanterns hanging from it. The sun is not a glowing chariot being driven daily across the sky.

The historical accuracey for some of which is confirmed more and more everyday

Such as what? Have they learned that there really was a census in Palestine near the time of Jesus' birth? Have they found eyewitness accounts of his life, aside from those purported to be written by his followers? Have they even found any archeological evidence that hundreds of thousands of people spent 40 years wandering through Sinai? Not that I've heard!

and it isnt as if they didnt understand some of these things, so much as used language and traditons to represent it as a force in our lives.

Oh, I see. So demons inhabiting our bodies were just euphemisms for bacterial infections? They actually knew how vast the universe was, but only wanted to make it sound like the Earth was all there was? Please. Language and tradition only go so far. Perpetuating those traditions and stories in the light of real evidence is no different than believing in fairy tales.

There is a really good reason why so many people do believe in an afterlife

Yes, there is, and this article explains it. It's COMFORTABLE. It's far less frightening to believe in an afterlife than not. It's far more exciting to believe in flying saucers than not. Neither is a valid reason for holding such beliefs.

and just becuase science has difficulty measuring something doesnt mean it doesnt exisit

Quite true, but the longer we look for evidence of something without finding anything, the less likely it becomes that it DOES exist.

and stories of people who have died etc and returned are actually amazingly consistent and have been around for a very long time, which how some works like the Tibetian Book of the Dead came into being.

So you're saying that Muslims who have near death experiences see the same things as Christians? Do Buddhist's with those experiences catch glimpses of the Islamic Paradise? In fact, the things which people claim to see during near death experiences are remarkably similar to what they expect to see, in the vast majority of cases. If everyone saw the same, or even similar, things, then all of the religions would preach about the same, or similar, afterlife. They do not.

Which in all leads me to believe the author has never held someone's hand and spoke to them as they died

What difference does that make? You are confusing an emotional issue with a purely subjective one. Someone who is dying is not necessarily a reliable source of information, nor is someone who is saddened by a loved one's death. These are the very kinds of emotional responses which religions are notorious for exploiting.

nor really read or studied the religious texts and dogma he so vehmently wishes to decry as false.

I would venture to guess, based on things I've read elsewhere, that Myers is far more versed in the religious texts and dogma than the average fundamentalist believer. Certainly far more versed than I am. I freely admit my lack of in-depth knowledge. But then, I don't know all that much about ancient Oriental fairy tales, either.

So why is he argueing at all if its so obvious then wouldnt everyone just naturally follow such a defeatist path of thinking, roll over and die then since we have no purpose?

He's arguing because religious leaders are constantly trying to force their poisonous bile down our throats. He's arguing because millions of people around the world die needlessly due to religious intolerance and hatred. He's arguing because he knows, as I do, that people would rather believe what feels good than what is right.
And who says we do not have a purpose? Just because I don't spend my life on my knees telling some god how great he is, just so I can go to heaven and spend eternity doing the same damned thing, doesn't mean I don't have a purpose. I have a family. They provide a purpose. I have a life to live, and that provides a purpose. It's the only life I will ever have, and I want to live it as much and as well as I can. That's a purpose. If your purpose is to be good and die and go to heaven, why don't you just let yourself die so you can be with your god? After all, isn't that your sole purpose?

Coughs,, excuse me, most religions do not just offer paradise, if anything its more the other way around.

Ultimately, religions provide a path to follow which, supposedly, leads to some form of salvation or life after death or some way to continued existence. Whether you want to call it paradise or not, it's the easy way out. The belief that something of us will go on, despite there being no evidence for such a belief.

If all we had to go on was belief, (why, in fact thats the only thing any atheist is going on...belief. )

Why is it that theist can't seem to understand that atheism involves a LACK of belief. NOT believing in something is not the same as believing that something is NOT.

Then why use every bit of sophistry imaginable to misconstrue and attack that which you do not obviously really understand?

sophistry - 1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
- 2 : an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid
I fail to see where the sophistry is in claiming that religions have no verifiable evidence to support their claims of a divine being or an afterlife. I realize it's hardly fair to fight fantasy with truth, or to counter wishful thinking with facts. But that's reality. Live with it.

I am deeply religious and I believe as do most of the deeply religious people I know that reality is paramount and matters a great deal but again I am going to point out sophistry when I see it and the author is attempting yet again to use it to convience us all that atheism is somehow superior becuase it has something or lacks something that religion cant possibley have a grasp of,,,when in fact it does.

And here we have real sophistry, claiming the author has said something which he has not actually said. No one claims that atheism is superior to faith. In fact, he says quite plainly that faith has far more comfort to offer people than atheism. What he IS saying is that reality, cold, hard, brutal reality, trumps wishful thinking every time. No amount of faith or religious dogma will allow you to jump off a ten story building and float gently down to the ground without suffering a single injury. Why? Because gravity is real and it's predictable and it can kill you. A good, scientifically designed parachute might save you, or a soundly engineered parafoil. But hand-waving and magical incantations won't help you worth a damn.

In fact, I can't even offer anyone soothing words and the promise of consolation, because there are none. We stand naked before the universe, a product of its rules, and one of the facts of our existence is our eventual obliteration. Running away won't help.

That feeling just proves that atheists exist at God's mercy too and can sence our smallness by comparrison just like the rest of us.

Oh, I can definitely sense our smallness. Just looking at the universe around us, the vast emptiness of space, how hostile and dangerous even the world on which we have evolved can be, makes me fall small and afraid. And God has nothing to do with it.

Believeing in a religion is not hiding in fear,,if anything it sometimes takes more courage than not believeing.

Oh? Ask a Muslim whether or not he's afraid of recanting his faith. Even if he wanted to, his religion would demand his death! How many women honestly believe they are only property, as so many religions preach? And how many of those women are afraid to speak out against those preachings? How many non-believers are hiding in churches, afraid to proclaim their non-belief because of the fear of ridicule and ostracism which they will most likely incur? And sure, it works both ways, no argument about that. The point is that it takes far more courage to state the truth when it directly contradicts the perceived truth of the masses. And believing in an afterlife, despite a total lack of evidence for such a condition, is simply hiding, from fear of obliteration.

Well then lets acctually be honest then for a change instead of manipulative and decietful.

I thought I was being honest. I'm not trying to be manipulative. I'm trying to tell the truth. However, if you can provide any real evidence for an afterlife, or even for gods, of any stripe, I'm sure that I'm not the only one who would be delighted to see it. Calling someone a liar just because they don't happen to agree with you is not providing evidence. Claiming that your particular belief system is the one true belief, despite all the belief systems in existence today and throughout history, is not proof either. And claiming something must be true just because 99% of the people in the world believe it to be true is not proof. Provide facts and evidence. Or propose an hypothesis which can be tested with proper procedures and practices. I'll wait.

[denuseri]

No, science claims only that there is no evidence for an afterlife.

Now you speak for all Science? Didn't think so, some scientists are exploring such things.

EVERY religion claims the existence of an afterlife without any evidence.

The evidence is right there in front of your face everytime you open your eyes.

Science's sole claim is that a lack of evidence for the existence of something is NOT equivalent to evidence FOR it's existence.

Actually science can't by your definition claim anything about god one way or the other becuase it lacks the ability at present to make a proper experiement.

How do we know there are no dragons? (Apart from the Kimodo variety.)

We dont.

How do we know there are no unicorns, or centaurs, or any of zillions of other made-up creatures and places?

They actually know where the unicorn myths were drawn from, and we even have some today though they are not horses with horns.

Can we prove that Burroughs' Barsoom does not exist on Mars?

Not until we go there with more than a few robots.

There is no way to prove that any of these things do NOT exist. But that doesn't make them real, regardless of how many people "feel" they do.

It also doesnt make them just a fantasy or made up story or any other derogative associative adjetive you want to use.

Basically, when a theist says, "There IS an afterlife" he's saying that he BELIEVES there is an afterlife, despite the fact that there is no actual evidence of it.

Or he or she is saying that they know there is and you simply refuse to accept their conviction.

When a scientist, or an atheist, says "there is NOT an afterlife", he's saying that there is no rational reason to accept the existence of something for which there is no verifiable evidence.

And yet they allways seem to resort to being unreasonable and unrational themselves when debating it and again as for evidence, no amount will suffice to convience them otherwise.


Not even close. Religion flourishes in the perpetuation of ignorance, keeping the believers away from any knowledge that contradicts dogma.

Then why is it, that religions promote learning and wisdom?

Why is it all that lost knowledge about math and science and such from the classical era was preserved by the theologians (both muslim and christian) when it would have otherwise been lost to us?

Science flourishes by fighting ignorance, relishing knowledge, even if (one might even say, especially if) it contradicts scientific dogma.

Religion also flourishes in bringing people from the darkness of ignorance into the light of understanding. Even/ especially in some cases: if it contradicts current dogma's be they religious, scientific or philosophical in origins.


With a story! Regardless of how old or how well known the story is, it's still just a story! And when facts intervene and contradict the story, (and sometimes they confirm it) the historical reaction of most religions has been to slay the messenger, to perpetuate the story.

Nice excuse but hardely holds up to actual historical records, despite popular opinion the victor doesnt allways write the history.

Tradition may be nice for maintaining the status quo and molding conformity. But sooner or later you have to finally stand up and say, "The Emperor has no clothes!" Or the egg-head as no clue!

I'll grant you that. But it still tells them that there will be an afterlife, even though there is no evidence for such a thing. No evidence according to you perhaps.

To some people, even an eternity in hell might seem better than complete oblivion. To some people, an eternity in the Catholic heaven (the one I'm most familiar with) would BE a hell.

And to others hell and heavan both exisist within the duality of human kinds existence and the afterlife is an illussion of time displacment that occurs from our perspective for an eternity. And then there are those guys running around the history channel proving ghosts exist, go figure.

Passed down from someone who made it up to begin with! Again, just because it's an old story doesn't mean it's accurate. The world is not flat, the sky is not a carpet with little lanterns hanging from it. The sun is not a glowing chariot being driven daily across the sky.

No its quite obvious that ancient discriptions and explanations for some things were metaphorical.


Such as what? Have they learned that there really was a census in Palestine near the time of Jesus' birth? Have they found eyewitness accounts of his life, aside from those purported to be written by his followers? Have they even found any archeological evidence that hundreds of thousands of people spent 40 years wandering through Sinai? Not that I've heard!

Obviously we go to different sources for not only our news, but our science and theology as well.

And please respectfully but wtf is up with the fixation on jews and christianity, they are not the only religion or philosophy in the world that the author and other atheisits seem to think is their mission in life to destroy through any means possible insulting any religious adhereants at every turn as often as possible whenever they get a chance.


Oh, I see. So demons inhabiting our bodies were just euphemisms for bacterial infections?

Appears so yes.

They actually knew how vast the universe was, but only wanted to make it sound like the Earth was all there was?

All they had to do to see how small they were was look around and due to their planet bound perspective it did take them a long long time to figure out otherwise.

Please. Language and tradition only go so far. Perpetuating those traditions and stories in the light of real evidence is no different than believing in fairy tales.

Please. Language and tradition are just as important as anything else, if not more so, without them we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes as our ancestors. And perpetuating a dogma of belief (which is exactly what atheism is) without expounding upon its morality in fact divorcing the two, is perhaps the only fairy tale here.


Yes, there is, and this article explains it. It's COMFORTABLE. It's far less frightening to believe in an afterlife than not. It's far more exciting to believe in flying saucers than not. Neither is a valid reason for holding such beliefs.

I find nothing whatsoever comfortable about it in the slightest. And again, you, like the other atheists sem to allways insist on being derogatory...why is that I wonder?


Quite true, but the longer we look for evidence of something without finding anything, the less likely it becomes that it DOES exist.

In some peoples opinions maby but not all. After atheism kills religion it will go to work on Love itself perhaps?


So you're saying that Muslims who have near death experiences see the same things as Christians? Do Buddhist's with those experiences catch glimpses of the Islamic Paradise? In fact, the things which people claim to see during near death experiences are remarkably similar to what they expect to see, in the vast majority of cases.

Which ussually involves many many simularities, such as a feeling of timelessness, being outside of one's self, floating, being in a tunnel of some kind, experiencing euphoria, or anguish and despair etc etc.

If everyone saw the same, or even similar, things, then all of the religions would preach about the same, or similar, afterlife. They do not.

Becuase they interpet the experience differently is all.


What difference does that make? You are confusing an emotional issue with a purely subjective one. Someone who is dying is not necessarily a reliable source of information, nor is someone who is saddened by a loved one's death. These are the very kinds of emotional responses which religions are notorious for exploiting.

Or "explaining". And the human being is a creature of emotions, not a machine. Exclude part and the whole will suffer.

I would venture to guess, based on things I've read elsewhere, that Myers is far more versed in the religious texts and dogma than the average fundamentalist believer.

He may be, but his argument didn't sound as if it came from anyone so well versed in such topics, in fact it wasn't any better than your own, imho it sounded about the same in every regard except you strike me as being more honest.

Certainly far more versed than I am. I freely admit my lack of in-depth knowledge. But then, I don't know all that much about ancient Oriental fairy tales, either.

Fairy tales have nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Please do stop trying to be so derogative its certiantly not helpful in any way shape or form to your argument.


He's arguing because religious leaders are constantly trying to force their poisonous bile down our throats.

Funny, I don't see religious leaders running hilly nilly around the nieghbor hoods with funnels and jars of religious bile.

He's arguing because millions of people around the world die needlessly due to religious intolerance and hatred.

Far more die over money and resource aquistion by far. Even in our current war on terror.

He's arguing because he knows, as I do, that people would rather believe what feels good than what is right.

Which is why aethism is so appealing to some I guess, it feels so good to them to think they are the only ones out of so many to have gotten it so right in their opinion.


And who says we do not have a purpose? Atheists by their own definition beg the question.

Just because I don't spend my life on my knees telling some god how great he is, just so I can go to heaven and spend eternity doing the same damned thing, doesn't mean I don't have a purpose.

Who said that was mankinds purpose? I never heard any such thing put forth as mankind's sole purpose, not even as my time as a lutheran. Again I ask,,,why constantly resort to being derogative? Is it in the aethiest handbook somewhere to resort to sophistry or be derogative when logic alone fails?

I have a family. They provide a purpose. I have a life to live, and that provides a purpose. It's the only life I will ever have, and I want to live it as much and as well as I can. That's a purpose. If your purpose is to be good and die and go to heaven, why don't you just let yourself die so you can be with your god? After all, isn't that your sole purpose?

See above. Religious people have allmost all of the same self declared purposes you just expoused.


Ultimately, religions provide a path to follow which, supposedly, leads to some form of salvation or life after death or some way to continued existence. Whether you want to call it paradise or not, it's the easy way out. The belief that something of us will go on, despite there being no evidence for such a belief.


Ultimately, religion, like philosophy, or any other belief system (yes such as science or athiesm) is what it is, and one gets out of it, what one puts into it.


Why is it that theist can't seem to understand that atheism involves a LACK of belief. NOT believing in something is not the same as believing that something is NOT.

Shrugs Logic 101 is my guess.

If A is in opposition to B

And A represents belief in god.

then B (regardless of how it is worded in its expression of the opposite) still expressess the opposite which is a lack of or a dis-belief or refutation of A.


sophistry - 1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
- 2 : an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid
I fail to see where the sophistry is in claiming that religions have no verifiable evidence to support their claims of a divine being or an afterlife. I realize it's hardly fair to fight fantasy with truth, or to counter wishful thinking with facts. But that's reality. Live with it. There you go, there is your sophistry for you.

And here we have real sophistry, claiming the author has said something which he has not actually said. No one claims that atheism is superior to faith. In fact, he says quite plainly that faith has far more comfort to offer people than atheism. He didnt have to say it specifically , nor do any oth the other aethiests, not when they imply it every chance they get with derogatory remarks and sohpistry. What he IS saying is that reality, cold, hard, brutal reality, trumps wishful thinking every time.

No what he is really saying is that only Aethists have any clue as to what the world is really like and the rest of the planet is stupid or child like or not as superior as the aethists think they are. And fyi I never said I and you both wouldnt use sophistry from time to time.

No amount of faith or religious dogma will allow you to jump off a ten story building and float gently down to the ground without suffering a single injury. Why? Because gravity is real and it's (fairly for the most part) predictable and it can kill you.

Its not ussually the fall or the gravity itself that kills, so much as the sudden impact with the ground.

A good, scientifically designed parachute might save you, or a soundly engineered parafoil. But hand-waving and magical incantations won't help you worth a damn.

But many a person who has fallen and survived when such scientifcally sound contraptions have failed them can recount having said a prayer on the way down, and who knows, that may have helped them all the same. You certianly don't know for certian that it didn't.


Oh, I can definitely sense our smallness. Just looking at the universe around us, the vast emptiness of space, how hostile and dangerous even the world on which we have evolved can be, makes me fall small and afraid. And God has nothing to do with it.

Or he or she, or it had Everything to do with it!


Oh? Ask a Muslim whether or not he's afraid of recanting his faith. Even if he wanted to, his religion would demand his death! How many women honestly believe they are only property, as so many religions preach? And how many of those women are afraid to speak out against those preachings? How many non-believers are hiding in churches, afraid to proclaim their non-belief because of the fear of ridicule and ostracism which they will most likely incur? And sure, it works both ways, no argument about that. The point is that it takes far more courage to state the truth when it directly contradicts the perceived truth of the masses. And believing in an afterlife, despite a total lack of evidence for such a condition, is simply hiding, from fear of obliteration.

It isnt what your saying it is eaither though, which is my point. Where you see a resonable aethists making a well thought out logical dissicsion I see an individual who has been assualted with dogma and then makes a consious choice to dis-believe or not believe based on what they are told is a total lack of evidence, I see, some people making a speculative at best conclussion based on no actual science thats got less of a foundation to stand on than the religions it so desperately wishes to replace.


I thought I was being honest. I'm not trying to be manipulative.

I didnt say you were, at the time I was refering to the author or the article you linked.

I'm trying to tell the truth.

As you see it. I obviously see it otherwise.

However, if you can provide any real evidence for an afterlife, or even for gods, of any stripe, I'm sure that I'm not the only one who would be delighted to see it.


I have all the evidence I need allready. But if you can come up with any actual evidence that I am wrong, I will be more than happy to conceed the point. And saying you cant prove a negative is no argument btw. its just an admission of inability to deliver the goods.

Calling someone a liar just because they don't happen to agree with you is not providing evidence.

Then why call all these non-atheists liars?

Claiming that your particular belief system is the one true belief, despite all the belief systems in existence today and throughout history, is not proof either.

Then why do the aethists do it too?

And claiming something must be true just because 99% of the people in the world believe it to be true is not proof.

It may not be proof, but it sure seems strange that the vast majoritry of the world population seems to think its real to them.

Provide facts and evidence. Or propose an hypothesis which can be tested with proper procedures and practices. I'll wait.

Yes, please do provide some actual facts or evidence to support your own claims it would be so very nice for a change.

The burden of proof isnt on my shoulders anyway, Im not the one promoting some relatively new conceptual hypothisis (which is what aethism is a theologial hypothisis just like every other religion) . I believe what I believe becuase it feels right to do so, just like everyone else who believes in somthing, or a lack thereof believes.

and btw here is a nice link about the topic if anyone is interested in knowing what it is and is not by definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[denuseri]

The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.

The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.

The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God. St. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulated this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists. Which basically means god exists when he/she/it wishes too.

The argument from degree, a version of the ontological argument posited by Aquinas, states that there must exist a being which possesses all properties to the maximum possible degree.

Quatum physics tends to agree.

Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as Morality (Argument from morality), Beauty (Argument from beauty), Love (Argument from love), or religious experience (Argument from religious experience), are arguments for theism as against materialism.

The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.

The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.

The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' way to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).

The argument from reason holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all of our thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then we have no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground.

Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it—or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause—and we could not even suppose it, except by a fluke.

[denuseri]

Judaism asserts that God intervened in key specific moments in history, especially at the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments in front of all the tribes of Israel, positing an argument from empirical evidence stemming from sheer number of witnesses, thus demonstrating his existence.

The argument from the Resurrection of Jesus. This asserts that there is sufficient historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection to support his claim to be the son of God and indicates, a fortiori, God's existence. This is one of several arguments known as the Christological argument.

Islam asserts that the revelation of its holy book, the Quran, vindicates its divine authorship, and thus the existence of a God.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormonism, similarly asserts that the miraculous appearance of God, Jesus Christ and angels to Joseph Smith and others and subsequent finding and translation of the Book of Mormon establishes the existence of God.

Hindus argue that one of the proofs of the existence of God is the law of karma.

In a commentary to Brahma Sutras (III, 2, 38, and 41), a Vedantic text, Adi Sankara, an Indian philosopher who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta, a sub-school of Vedanta, argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can super sensuous, non-intelligent qualities like adrsta — an unseen force being the metaphysical link between work and its result — by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain.

The fruits, according to him, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being.

A human's karmic acts result in merits and demerits.

Since unconscious things generally do not move except when caused by an agent (for example, the ax moves only when swung by an agent), and since the law of karma is an unintelligent and unconscious law, Sankara argues there must be a conscious supreme Being who knows the merits and demerits which persons have earned by their actions, and who functions as an instrumental cause in helping individuals reap their appropriate fruits.

Thus, God affects the person's environment, even to its atoms, and for those souls who eincarnate, produces the appropriate rebirth body, all in order that the person might have the karmically appropriate experiences.

Thus, there must be a theistic administrator or supervisor for karma, i.e., God.

The Nyaya school, one of six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, states that one of the proofs of the existence of God is karma; It is seen that some people in this world are happy, some are in misery. Some are rich and some poor.

The Naiyanikas explain this by the concept of karma and reincarnation.

The fruit of an individual's actions does not always lie within the reach of the individual who is the agent; there ought to be, therefore, a dispenser of the fruits of actions, and this supreme dispenser is God. This belief of Nyaya, accordingly, is the same as that of Vedanta.

[denuseri]

Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly large probability though not absolute certainty.

A number of obscure points, they say, always remain; an act of faith is required to dismiss these difficulties.

This view is maintained, among others, by the Scottish statesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetière, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes.

Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot?

[denuseri]

Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of certain witnesses, possibly embodying the propositions of a specific revealed religion.

Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.

The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages.

A variation of this is the argument from miracles which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.

The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God's existence.

(And is just as valid an argument btw as any of the others, at least according to those who make it their business to study such things as theology and philosophy, science etc)

An argument for God is often made from an unlikely complete reversal in lifestyle by an individual towards God.

Paul of Tarsus, a persecutor of the early Christian church, became a pillar of the church after his conversion on the road to Damascus.

Modern day examples abound but are often given the somewhat derogatory term of Born again Christians.

The Scottish School of Common Sense led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by us without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse.

That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that we accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges us to accept them.

The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"; that it is similar to statements like "I see a chair" or "I feel pain". Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither provable nor disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.

In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that our reason is able to perceive the suprasensible.

Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding.

Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to our consciousness and unites them to one another.

God's existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be felt by the mind.

In Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when our understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of our hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly to us the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.

The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher, who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which we feel religious truths.

According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.

Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher's footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished us by inner experience, feeling, and perception.

Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God.

According to them we can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the divine dormant in our subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself to us.

In condemnation of this view the oath against modernism formulated by Pius X says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of creation, as the cause is known through its effects.")

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

[denuseri]

Several authors have offered psychological or sociological explanations for belief in the existence of God. Many of these views have been sought to give a naturalistic explanation of religion, though this does not necessarily mean such views are exclusive to naturalism.

Psychologists observe that the majority of humans often ask existential questions such as "why we are here" and whether life has purpose.

Some psychologists have posited that religious beliefs may recruit cognitive mechanisms in order to satisfy these questions. (if some Noetic scienticts are right we may make god every time we think about god)

William James emphasized the inner religious struggle between melancholy and happiness, and pointed to trance as a cognitive mechanism.

Sigmund Freud stressed fear and pain, the need for a powerful parenteral figure, the obsessional nature of ritual, and the hypnotic state a community can induce as contributing factors to the psychology of religion.

Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained" (2002), based in part on his anthropological field work, treats belief in God as the result of the brain's tendency towards agency detection.

Boyer suggest that because of evolutionary pressures, we err on the side of attributing agency where there isn't any.

In Boyer's view, belief in supernatural entities spreads and becomes culturally fixed because of their memorability.

The concept of 'minimally counterintuitive' beings that differ from the ordinary in a small number of ways (such as being invisible, able to fly, or having access to strategic and otherwise secret information) leave a lasting impression that spreads through word-of-mouth.

Scott Atran's "In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion" (2002) makes a similar argument and adds examination of the socially coordinating aspects of shared belief.

In "Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion," Todd Tremlin follows Boyer in arguing that universal human cognitive process naturally produces the concept of the supernatural.

Tremlin contends that an agency detection device (ADD) and a theory of mind module (ToMM) lead humans to suspect an agent behind every event.

Natural events for which there is no obvious agent thus may be attributed to God.

Again, the purpose of the above few posts, is not to provide evidence, but to bring information that we should all be able to agree upon to the table. The burden of proof or disproof doesnt rest on the shoulders of the believers of any pre-established faith...it rests soley on the shoulders of those who wish to tear down that faith and replace it with their own.

[Thorne]

Again, the purpose of the above few posts, is not to provide evidence, but to bring information that we should all be able to agree upon to the table. The burden of proof or disproof doesnt rest on the shoulders of the believers of any pre-established faith...it rests soley on the shoulders of those who wish to tear down that faith and replace it with their own.

A lot to explore there but, from what I gather of it, it's basically many different ways in which people have said, "I can't explain how anything can exist without God, therefore God must exist." I reject this statement. I prefer to state that, "Just because I can't explain how anything can exist without God does NOT mean that gods MUST exist, only that gods MAY exist."

One can have faith in anything, logical or not, realistic or not, and no one can prove that faith to be wrong. That does not, however, mean that your faith MUST be right. If you want to assert that your Faith is the truth then you must either provide evidence that it is true, or provide evidence that all other faiths, or lack of faith itself, is not true. If you want to assert that your Faith is a personal choice, I have no problem with that. Just keep it personal. Don't force it on those who don't believe as you do. That's all I, and most atheists I know, ask.

Religious institutions, on the other hand, are less about faith and more about conformity. They cannot survive unless all of their followers believe the same things. And in the worst such institutions, denying such dogma can result in death.

So please, keep your Faith, especially if it's the only thing keeping you from committing heinous act upon your fellow humans. But look very closely at the religious institutions and leaders which claim to be the true arbiters of faith. I'm quite certain that what you will find there will not in any way resemble the gods of your faiths.

[Thorne]

Now you speak for all Science? Didn't think so, some scientists are exploring such things.

Exploring, perhaps. But they have not yet found any such evidence. And much depends upon what kind of scientists. I don't know, myself. I have seen many "scientists" claim many things which seem to support a religious viewpoint, only to discover that: a) they are not really scientists, their degrees coming from diploma mills or theological colleges; b) they are scientists, but their fields of expertise are in areas different from that which they are claiming; or c) they are simply lying. An interesting example is the reported "discovery" of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat. The same "scientists" who discount use of carbon dating to show that the world is older than their 6000 year Creationist dogma, now claim that carbon dating puts the remains found at the proper age for the Biblical Ark. You can't have it both ways, though. Either carbon dating works or it doesn't. It cannot work only when you agree with the results.

The evidence is right there in front of your face everytime you open your eyes.

Sorry, I don't see it. I see the natural world, nothing supernatural about it. I certainly don't see any evidence for an afterlife.

Actually science can't by your definition claim anything about god one way or the other becuase it lacks the ability at present to make a proper experiement.

Not true, actually. There have been many experiments done to try and show that there is, in fact, some form of a god. ALL of them have failed. That is why I say that there is no evidence for a god, and therefore no rational reason to believe in one.

They actually know where the unicorn myths were drawn from, and we even have some today though they are not horses with horns.

They also know where the god myths were drawn from, but believers don't like to be told that their religion is a myth.

It also doesnt make them just a fantasy or made up story or any other derogative associative adjetive you want to use.

Calling a story a story is not derogatory. It's telling the truth. The Judeo/Christian?islamic belief systems are based upon stories, originally told through word or mouth around the campfires of desert nomads. They were made up in an effort to explain things these nomads did not understand. It's no different than someone making up stories about Harry Potter. They're descriptive, they're fun and they might even have a moral. That still doesn't make them real.

Or he or she is saying that they know there is and you simply refuse to accept their conviction.

Oh, I can accept their conviction. But that's not evidence! It's not proof. It's a personal feeling.

And yet they allways seem to resort to being unreasonable and unrational themselves when debating it and again as for evidence, no amount will suffice to convience them otherwise.

Is it irrational for us to demand tangible evidence? Is it unreasonable to want verifiable proof? And who are we hurting by not accepting your "feelings" as proof? I'm not saying you must not believe something without proof. I'm only saying it is wrong of theists to force their beliefs upon others.

Then why is it, that religions promote learning and wisdom?

Again, sticking to the J/C/I religions, since those are the ones I am most familiar with: What is the original sin, the one which condemned all of mankind to misery and death for eternity? When I was growing up they tried to tell me it was the sin of disobedience, but what kind of god punishes all of mankind because one or two creatures disobeyed? No, it was the sin of gaining KNOWLEDGE which condemned Adam and Eve, and all of their descendants, to torment and death. And the Christian religions, in particular, have a long reputation for suppressing and destroying any knowledge which contradicts their own preconceived dogma.

Why is it all that lost knowledge about math and science and such from the classical era was preserved by the theologians (both muslim and christian) when it would have otherwise been lost to us?

Most of that knowledge was only lost to Western Europe because the Catholic Church ordered it destroyed. Yes, Muslims saved some, but other areas of the world had also developed their own sciences and maths, such as the Chinese, the Indians, the Mayans and the Incas. It was the suppression of science and learning in general which plunged the Christian world into the Dark Ages.

Religion also flourishes in bringing people from the darkness of ignorance into the light of understanding. Even/ especially in some cases: if it contradicts current dogma's be they religious, scientific or philosophical in origins.

I would love to see where religious leaders have embraced evidence which contradicts dogma without having to be forced into it by circumstances beyond their control.

And to others hell and heavan both exisist within the duality of human kinds existence and the afterlife is an illussion of time displacment that occurs from our perspective for an eternity. And then there are those guys running around the history channel proving ghosts exist, go figure.

So which heaven, and which hell exist? Yours? Islam's? Mayan, perhaps? Which one is right? Or is it a matter of numbers? The religion with the most believers gets its version of paradise and hell for eternity?
And I have yet to see any proof of ghosts, either. I see a lot of people running around TRYING to prove ghosts. I don't see any proof, yet.

No its quite obvious that ancient discriptions and explanations for some things were metaphorical.

But the ancient descriptions and explanations which confirm your beliefs were factual and valid? How can we tell the difference?

And please respectfully but wtf is up with the fixation on jews and christianity, they are not the only religion or philosophy in the world

As I've explained, I tend to focus on the J/C/I versions because that is my background. I am more familiar with Christian, particularly Catholic, faiths than others.

And perpetuating a dogma of belief (which is exactly what atheism is) without expounding upon its morality in fact divorcing the two, is perhaps the only fairy tale here.

So you want to claim that, as an atheist, I cannot be a moral person? That if I refuse to believe in a god I am a threat to society? And just whose morals and god am I supposed to adhere to? Yours? Someone else's? Is it immoral to eat bacon? Some religions say so. Is it wrong to kill my enemies? Some religions say it's not. How about enslaving my enemies? Some religions go along with that, too. Which set of morals must I abide by? Please, I want to know!

I find nothing whatsoever comfortable about it in the slightest. And again, you, like the other atheists sem to allways insist on being derogatory...why is that I wonder?

Probably because you theists always claim we have no morals.

In some peoples opinions maby but not all. After atheism kills religion it will go to work on Love itself perhaps?

Sorry, but religion is already doing that. After all, it's only love between a man and a woman (and only one of each) that is valid in the sight of the Lord!

Which ussually involves many many simularities, such as a feeling of timelessness, being outside of one's self, floating, being in a tunnel of some kind, experiencing euphoria, or anguish and despair etc etc.

These same feelings have been documented in drug users, people suffering from hypoxia and many other disorders. There have even been studies done showing which parts of the brain are responsible for these visions and sensations. In fact, it's quite possible (though I know of no way to prove it) that the earliest forays into religion were by shamans experimenting with mind-altering drugs.

Or "explaining". And the human being is a creature of emotions, not a machine. Exclude part and the whole will suffer.

There can be many "explanations". Not all of them, or even any of them, are necessarily right. And it is precisely because we are creatures of emotion that we must guard against letting our emotions determine what is true and what is not.

He may be, but his argument didn't sound as if it came from anyone so well versed in such topics, in fact it wasn't any better than your own, imho it sounded about the same in every regard except you strike me as being more honest.

I don't know about honest, but his knowledge of religion is far superior to mine. His presentation tends to be more strident than mine, though. But part of that comes from years of dealing with strident theists who condemn him for his statements without providing any valid evidence that he's wrong.

Fairy tales have nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Please do stop trying to be so derogative its certiantly not helpful in any way shape or form to your argument.

Would you consider the story of Santa Claus, as recounted in the US, (again, a personal bias based upon my own limited knowledge) to be a fairy tale or a belief system? I think most theists would agree that it is a fairy tale, at least the adults will. And how does that story differ from the J/C God? Santa is a bearded old gnome who lives at the North Pole, though we can't see his home, with elves to help him, though we can't see them, either, and who knows everything about us: who's been good, who's been bad. God (again, as depicted in the Western Christian faiths) is a bearded old man who lives in heaven, which we cannot see, with angels to help him, though we can't see them, either, and who knows everything we are doing, bad or good. So which is the fairy tale?

Funny, I don't see religious leaders running hilly nilly around the nieghbor hoods with funnels and jars of religious bile.

Look at the Texas School Board, attempting to force the teaching of Creationism, an unproven belief system, while denying evolution, a proven scientific theory. Look at the Christian (primarily) leaders who want us to believe that women cannot have control of their own bodies, or that two men cannot love one another. Look at the bilious crap that the Vatican promotes regarding condom use in Africa, denying the effectiveness of condoms in combating the spread of Aids despite the savage death toll of that disease. Look at the women in Islamic countries who suffer inhumane punishments simply for being women! You don't call that bile?

See above. Religious people have allmost all of the same self declared purposes you just expoused.

So you admit that religion is not necessary for someone to have a purpose?

Why is it that theist can't seem to understand that atheism involves a LACK of belief. NOT believing in something is not the same as believing that something is NOT.

Shrugs Logic 101 is my guess.

If A is in opposition to B

And A represents belief in god.

then B (regardless of how it is worded in its expression of the opposite) still expressess the opposite which is a lack of or a dis-belief or refutation of A.

Exactly! A LACK of belief (or disbelief) in God, NOT a belief in NO God.

Its not ussually the fall or the gravity itself that kills, so much as the sudden impact with the ground.

True. It's not the drop, it's the sudden stop. The laws of momentum. Science rules.

But many a person who has fallen and survived when such scientifcally sound contraptions have failed them can recount having said a prayer on the way down, and who knows, that may have helped them all the same. You certianly don't know for certian that it didn't.

You're right, I don't know. But are you saying that ONLY those who somehow survive are the ones who prayed? I would be willing to bet that the majority of those who jumped from the WTC prayed before the jumped. Why didn't their prayers do any good? Why is the prayer of a mother for her malformed child not answered, while the child of a drug-addicted prostitute is born normally? Which prayers are necessary to ensure an outcome that is good for me? On the other hand, aren't such prayers an attempt to deflect God's will? How does that jibe with faith that God's will is for the best?

Or he or she, or it had Everything to do with it!

Evidence, my friend! Evidence! Looking at the universe and "feeling" it must have a creator is not evidence!

I have all the evidence I need allready. But if you can come up with any actual evidence that I am wrong, I will be more than happy to conceed the point. And saying you cant prove a negative is no argument btw. its just an admission of inability to deliver the goods.

I have already admitted that I cannot provide evidence to prove that something does not exist. I can only provide evidence that shows that something PROBABLY does not exist. It would only take one piece of evidence, one verifiable data point, to prove me wrong.

If you have all the evidence you need, then your faith is strong. That's great, for you. It's not enough for me, however. Yet throughout history, people like me have been forced to toe the religious line or suffer the consequences. Now that we have decided to fight back and renounce those beliefs, we are accused of trying to destroy faith, to destroy religion. Yes, it's my opinion that the world would be a better place without religion. That doesn't mean I could, or would want to, destroy Faith. I just don't want to have to live by the arbitrary codes of ethics of those faiths when I can see the damage that they do to people. And in this modern world it's been agreed among most free-thinking people that I don't have to.

Then why call all these non-atheists liars?

I only claim that those who deny the truth are the liars. Like Catholic leaders who blame children for the pedophilia their priest commit. Or misogynistic religions leaders all over the globe who preach that women are morally inferior to men. Or smarmy televangelists who claim to know the mind of their god, and that god wants YOUR money, right now!

Then why do the aethists do it too?

And once more I must insist. Atheists do NOT promote a belief system! They promote the idea of critically examining belief systems and testing those systems against reality.

It may not be proof, but it sure seems strange that the vast majoritry of the world population seems to think its real to them.

The vast majority of the world's population once believed that the gods lived in caves on mountains, or that magical incantations could protect them from wild animals, or that sailing out of sight of land would cause one to sail off the edge of the world. It was real to them. It's laughable to us now.

The burden of proof isnt on my shoulders anyway, Im not the one promoting some relatively new conceptual hypothisis (which is what aethism is a theologial hypothisis just like every other religion) . I believe what I believe becuase it feels right to do so, just like everyone else who believes in somthing, or a lack thereof believes.

Sorry, but atheism is far from a "new" hypothesis. Once again, it is not a belief system, but a LACK of belief. And it is not atheists who are making extraordinary claims of supernatural beings arranging for a supernatural paradise in an unprovable afterlife. If you want to make the claims as if they were truth you have to provide evidence. Otherwise it is only a belief, a matter of faith, and your faith, which may feel right to you, is no better or worse than any other person's faith, which feels right to them.

and btw here is a nice link about the topic if anyone is interested in knowing what it is and is not by definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

And from that link:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Which is what I've been saying all along!

[denuseri]

Exploring, perhaps. But they have not yet found any such evidence. And much depends upon what kind of scientists.

Quantum Mechanics 101

I don't know, myself. I have seen many "scientists" claim many things which seem to support a religious viewpoint, only to discover that: a) they are not really scientists, their degrees coming from diploma mills or theological colleges; b) they are scientists, but their fields of expertise are in areas different from that which they are claiming; or c) they are simply lying. An interesting example is the reported "discovery" of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat. The same "scientists" who discount use of carbon dating to show that the world is older than their 6000 year Creationist dogma, now claim that carbon dating puts the remains found at the proper age for the Biblical Ark. You can't have it both ways, though. Either carbon dating works or it doesn't. It cannot work only when you agree with the results.

Looks like your faith in having no faith is intact then, you quite capable of twisting your reality anyway you wish and ignoring anything contrary to your belief system.


Sorry, I don't see it. I see the natural world, nothing supernatural about it. I certainly don't see any evidence for an afterlife.

If you actually had studdied any of what I presented you with above you would realize that when discussing God supernaturalism doesnt even have to be one of the factors for his/she/its existance.


Not true, actually. There have been many experiments done to try and show that there is, in fact, some form of a god. ALL of them have failed. That is why I say that there is no evidence for a god, and therefore no rational reason to believe in one.

I would love to see one just one such experiment?


They also know where the god myths were drawn from, but believers don't like to be told that their religion is a myth.

Just as atheists dont like to be told that their own religion (the religion of disbelief) is a religion.


Calling a story a story is not derogatory.

It sure as hell was the way you were doing earlier. And your attacks dont just target the Muslims, Chatholics , and Jews eaither...they target every single religion thats ever existed and all of their adhereants.

It's telling the truth.

No, its telling your belief.

The Judeo/Christian?islamic belief systems are based upon stories, originally told through word or mouth around the campfires of desert nomads. They were made up in an effort to explain things these nomads did not understand. It's no different than someone making up stories about Harry Potter. They're descriptive, they're fun and they might even have a moral. That still doesn't make them real.

You simpley do not know if that is how their theologies came into being. For all you know they happened exactly the way those people say they happened so long ago.


Oh, I can accept their conviction. But that's not evidence! It's not proof. It's a personal feeling.

Apparently reason and logic cant be accepted eaither.


Is it irrational for us to demand tangible evidence? Is it unreasonable to want verifiable proof? And who are we hurting by not accepting your "feelings" as proof? I'm not saying you must not believe something without proof. I'm only saying it is wrong of theists to force their beliefs upon others.

Again, I don't see anyone forcing anyone. At least not any where that I have lived (and I am fairly well travelled btw). As for whats happeneing in other parts of the world, you just might to reserve your judgements until you have actually walked among those people you wish to tar and feather and live amongst them yourself for a while, instead of clinging to media talking points.


Again, sticking to the J/C/I religions, since those are the ones I am most familiar with: What is the original sin, the one which condemned all of mankind to misery and death for eternity?

Go ask them. I have little care for examining any single religion in any detail, its pointless anyway for the purposes of this discussion, you attack all religions with your statement, so I am defending all religions with mine. And Ive even brought in the knowledge you say your lacking in so we can discuss it on a somewhat equal level of knowledge, though I guess that wasnt what you wanted at all, a rational discussion; was it?

When I was growing up they tried to tell me it was the sin of disobedience, but what kind of god punishes all of mankind because one or two creatures disobeyed? No, it was the sin of gaining KNOWLEDGE which condemned Adam and Eve, and all of their descendants, to torment and death. And the Christian religions, in particular, have a long reputation for suppressing and destroying any knowledge which contradicts their own preconceived dogma.

Just like they also have long reputation for preserving and protecting knowledge, even if it did seem to contradict their own belief systems dogma.


Most of that knowledge was only lost to Western Europe because the Catholic Church ordered it destroyed.

Absolutely wrong in every way. Any history book will tell you otherwise.

Yes, Muslims saved some, (more than you think, but so too did the chatholics) but other areas of the world had also developed their own sciences and maths, (and religions, and omg who would have thunk, even though these religions ans sciences are independently developed they shared the same basic qualities and foundations, I wonder who directed that into being ) such as the Chinese, the Indians, the Mayans and the Incas. It was the suppression of science and learning in general which plunged the Christian world into the Dark Ages.

Again, please do read a history book sometimes, the fall of the roman empire had allmost nothing to do with christianity and everything to do with resource aquisition dificulties and economic stangnation. And...has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


I would love to see where religious leaders have embraced evidence which contradicts dogma without having to be forced into it by circumstances beyond their control.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2009/11...ns-alien-life/ here ya go.


So which heaven, and which hell exist? Yours? Islam's? Mayan, perhaps? Which one is right? Or is it a matter of numbers? The religion with the most believers gets its version of paradise and hell for eternity?
And I have yet to see any proof of ghosts, either. I see a lot of people running around TRYING to prove ghosts. I don't see any proof, yet.

I believe its one place one spirit for all, and that the different religions simpley interpet what they see differently. And the fellows on the history channell sure seem to disagree with you about the proof of ghosts part.


But the ancient descriptions and explanations which confirm your beliefs were factual and valid? How can we tell the difference? You must know it in your heart.

As I've explained, I tend to focus on the J/C/I versions because that is my background. I am more familiar with Christian, particularly Catholic, faiths than others. And yet you attack all relgions and faiths and beliefs outside of your own.

So you want to claim that, as an atheist, I cannot be a moral person? I dont know are you?

That if I refuse to believe in a god I am a threat to society?

I dont know are you?

And just whose morals and god am I supposed to adhere to?

The ones that we as a society as a whole agree to adhere and abide by I supose.

Yours? Someone else's?

If you wish.

Is it immoral to eat bacon?

That depends on the traditions of one's culture more so than the faith of someones heart.

Some religions say so. Is it wrong to kill my enemies? Some religions say it's not. How about enslaving my enemies? Some religions go along with that, too. Which set of morals must I abide by? Please, I want to know! Again, your missing the forest for a single tree.


Probably because you theists always claim we have no morals.

I don't know if you do or not, thats between you and your own belief system.


Sorry, but religion is already doing that. After all, it's only love between a man and a woman (and only one of each) that is valid in the sight of the Lord!

According to? One small faction of a religion, wait a sec, thats right, this issue crossess religions faiths and cultures as well, and hence, isnt jermaine to any argument about the existance of or lack therof or dis-belief in a surpreme entity.


These same feelings have been documented in drug users, people suffering from hypoxia and many other disorders. There have even been studies done showing which parts of the brain are responsible for these visions and sensations. In fact, it's quite possible (though I know of no way to prove it) that the earliest forays into religion were by shamans experimenting with mind-altering drugs.

That is correct, they have also been measured and reported by astronuants and a number of other noetic scientists during several experiments. Its what people tend to see when they are dieing and its quite possible that its tied to our biology, which I do not find surprising in the least since so many other things conserning human spirituality are also directly tied to the natural world.


There can be many "explanations". Not all of them, or even any of them, are necessarily right. And it is precisely because we are creatures of emotion that we must guard against letting our emotions determine what is true and what is not.

Why, what are you affriad of?


I don't know about honest, but his knowledge of religion is far superior to mine.

Like I said, it doesnt appear to be from his little rant.

His presentation tends to be more strident than mine, though. But part of that comes from years of dealing with strident theists who condemn him for his statements without providing any valid evidence that he's wrong.

Maby thats becuase he isnt providing any evidence that he is right.



Would you consider the story of Santa Claus, as recounted in the US, (again, a personal bias based upon my own limited knowledge) to be a fairy tale or a belief system? I think most theists would agree that it is a fairy tale, at least the adults will. And how does that story differ from the J/C God? Santa is a bearded old gnome who lives at the North Pole, though we can't see his home, with elves to help him, though we can't see them, either, and who knows everything about us: who's been good, who's been bad. God (again, as depicted in the Western Christian faiths) is a bearded old man who lives in heaven, which we cannot see, with angels to help him, though we can't see them, either, and who knows everything we are doing, bad or good. So which is the fairy tale?

Again, I do not understand why you insist on being derogatory too all faiths.


Look at the Texas School Board, attempting to force the teaching of Creationism, an unproven belief system, while denying evolution, a proven scientific theory.

Yes odd how they lined up and put gun's to the heads of the teachers and students? Oh wait, they simpley wished to correct an oversite made with earlier laws by introducing a new one. And I am sorry honey child...nothing has been proven about the "theory" of evolution as of yet. Its a theory not a law.

Look at the Christian (primarily) leaders who want us to believe that women cannot have control of their own bodies, or that two men cannot love one another. Look at the bilious crap that the Vatican promotes regarding condom use in Africa, denying the effectiveness of condoms in combating the spread of Aids despite the savage death toll of that disease. Look at the women in Islamic countries who suffer inhumane punishments simply for being women! You don't call that bile?

Look at the aethists saying we are all stupid and imoral for our faith! Do not complaign of the splinter in your neighbors eye when there is a log in your own to begin with.


So you admit that religion is not necessary for someone to have a purpose?

See, I believe you have your own little religion,,, atheism despite your claims to the otherwise that you have filled the void in your heart with.


Exactly! A LACK of belief (or disbelief) in God, NOT a belief in NO God.

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

True. It's not the drop, it's the sudden stop. The laws of momentum. Science rules.


You're right, I don't know. But are you saying that ONLY those who somehow survive are the ones who prayed? I would be willing to bet that the majority of those who jumped from the WTC prayed before the jumped. Why didn't their prayers do any good? Why is the prayer of a mother for her malformed child not answered, while the child of a drug-addicted prostitute is born normally? Which prayers are necessary to ensure an outcome that is good for me? On the other hand, aren't such prayers an attempt to deflect God's will? How does that jibe with faith that God's will is for the best?

You will like the rest of us, have to ask the surpreme diety that for yourself someday.


Evidence, my friend! Evidence! Looking at the universe and "feeling" it must have a creator is not evidence!

Looking at it and seeing that nothing else but God could have made it is more than enough evidence for me.


I have already admitted that I cannot provide evidence to prove that something does not exist. I can only provide evidence that shows that something PROBABLY does not exist. It would only take one piece of evidence, one verifiable data point, to prove me wrong.

So in effect you admit to having no evidence.

If you have all the evidence you need, then your faith is strong. That's great, for you. It's not enough for me, however. Yet throughout history, people like me have been forced to toe the religious line or suffer the consequences.

Not my fault.

Now that we have decided to fight back and renounce those beliefs, we are accused of trying to destroy faith, to destroy religion.

Fortunately there are not enough of you to actually pull it off yet, it will be a very sad day if that happens.

Yes, it's my opinion that the world would be a better place without religion. That doesn't mean I could, or would want to, destroy Faith.

Then why do you try so hard to do just that I wonder?

I just don't want to have to live by the arbitrary codes of ethics of those faiths when I can see the damage that they do to people. And in this modern world it's been agreed among most free-thinking people that I don't have to.

No one is forcing you too.


I only claim that those who deny the truth are the liars. Like Catholic leaders who blame children for the pedophilia their priest commit. Or misogynistic religions leaders all over the globe who preach that women are morally inferior to men. Or smarmy televangelists who claim to know the mind of their god, and that god wants YOUR money, right now!

Or like aethists that say their is no god?


And once more I must insist. Atheists do NOT promote a belief system! They promote the idea of critically examining belief systems and testing those systems against reality.

If it walks like a duck...


The vast majority of the world's population once believed that the gods lived in caves on mountains, or that magical incantations could protect them from wild animals, or that sailing out of sight of land would cause one to sail off the edge of the world. It was real to them. It's laughable to us now.

To you perhaps it is.


Sorry, but atheism is far from a "new" hypothesis. Once again, it is not a belief system, but a LACK of belief. And it is not atheists who are making extraordinary claims of supernatural beings arranging for a supernatural paradise in an unprovable afterlife. If you want to make the claims as if they were truth you have to provide evidence. Otherwise it is only a belief, a matter of faith, and your faith, which may feel right to you, is no better or worse than any other person's faith, which feels right to them.

"The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century.[7] "

Yep still waiting for your evidence, I presented mine and you casually glanced over it and rejected it piecmeal without even really looking at it.


And from that link:

Which is what I've been saying all along!

And from the very same link:

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR="pink"]Quantum Mechanics 101

I don't claim to understand anything about quantum mechanics. There are scientists who are studying quantum mechanics who don't know all that much about it. It's confusing, seemingly contradictory and exceedingly difficult to work with in the first place. What I do know is that anyone who claims that quantum mechanics "explains" anything about their belief system knows even less about it than I do. There's enough information about it that they can pick and choose bits and pieces of different hypotheses and claim almost anything they want, even if those hypotheses have not yet been tested or have even been discarded as unworkable.

Looks like your faith in having no faith is intact then, you quite capable of twisting your reality anyway you wish and ignoring anything contrary to your belief system.

See, this is where we have a problem. Anything I can say which contradicts what you want to believe is automatically wrong in your mind, while anything you say which attempts to explain your beliefs does not have the evidence which I think is necessary. We're running around in circles here.

If you actually had studdied any of what I presented you with above you would realize that when discussing God supernaturalism doesnt even have to be one of the factors for his/she/its existance.

We're basically talking about a being who is outside of the universe, is all-knowing and all-powerful, are we not? By definition, that is supernatural, or above natural. If god is actually a part of the natural world, then he is subject to natural laws, making him no more of a god than I am.

I would love to see one just one such experiment?

How about an experiment involving prayer? Would that qualify?
According to this study, which I understand is one of the best designed studies of its type, "Not only did prayer not help the patients, those that were told they were being prayed for experienced more complications."

Just as atheists dont like to be told that their own religion (the religion of disbelief) is a religion.

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
atheism is a disbelief in the existence of deity, or the doctrine that there is no deity.
religion is a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
Since atheism does not involve attitudes, beliefs or practices of any kind, much less religious, I fail to see why you insist on calling it a religion. Something else we are going in circles on. We must agree to disagree.

It sure as hell was the way you were doing earlier. And your attacks dont just target the Muslims, Chatholics , and Jews eaither...they target every single religion thats ever existed and all of their adhereants.

I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm merely pointing out that any system of beliefs, religious or not, which is derived from stories and parables which defy natural law and which have no evidence for their veracity, is hardly different from a belief in fairy tales.

You simpley do not know if that is how their theologies came into being. For all you know they happened exactly the way those people say they happened so long ago.

Unless evidence can be provided to show that such things could happen, in defiance of the laws of nature as we understand them, there is no rational reason to believe they are anything but stories.

Again, I don't see anyone forcing anyone. At least not any where that I have lived (and I am fairly well travelled btw). As for whats happeneing in other parts of the world, you just might to reserve your judgements until you have actually walked among those people you wish to tar and feather and live amongst them yourself for a while, instead of clinging to media talking points.

One of the reasons I rely so heavily on references to the Judeo/Christian religions is because I have NOT lived among people of those other religions or nationalities. But if you cannot see the religious suppression and infiltration going on all around the world then perhaps you should pay more attention to the media. Public schools in Australia are required to have religious classes, which apparently can be taught by anyone, whether qualified to teach or not. I've already mentioned Texas. I haven't the stomach to do so again. The lawyer defending that woman condemned to stoning in Iran had to flee the country in the hopes of getting his wife released from prison, where she was being held to force him to cave in to the religious courts. All over the world such religious atrocities are occurring, every day. It's the religions of the world who are doing the persecuting, not the atheists. We only wish to keep religion OUT of public life, and keep it in the churches, temples, mosques or whatever.

I believe its one place one spirit for all, and that the different religions simpley interpet what they see differently.

But who is actually seeing this? What evidence do we have that anyone has actually seen anything like the afterlife?

And the fellows on the history channell sure seem to disagree with you about the proof of ghosts part.

The owners of the history channel are putting forth shows which will sell advertising. Guys running around with infrared cameras and EMF detectors and running EVP tests don't prove anything. They can't even explain why ghosts should even register on IR or EMF, or show that what they are recording is actually ghosts and not something else. Have any of them actually come right out and said, "HERE is proof of the existence of ghosts"? Not to my knowledge! They hedge and say that such and such is a good indicator of ghostly phenomenon, which is not saying anything.

But the ancient descriptions and explanations which confirm your beliefs were factual and valid? How can we tell the difference? You must know it in your heart.

Which is why it's called faith! Belief without evidence.

And just whose morals and god am I supposed to adhere to?
The ones that we as a society as a whole agree to adhere and abide by I supose.

So you agree that society is the ultimate arbiter of morality, then. That's a step in the right direction, I suppose.

That is correct, they have also been measured and reported by astronuants and a number of other noetic scientists during several experiments. Its what people tend to see when they are dieing and its quite possible that its tied to our biology, which I do not find surprising in the least since so many other things conserning human spirituality are also directly tied to the natural world.

Well here, at least, is something we can agree on, though I'm still up in the air about Noetics. I'm not sure just what that's all about.

Again, I do not understand why you insist on being derogatory too all faiths.

And again, I don't see how I'm being derogatory.

And I am sorry honey child...nothing has been proven about the "theory" of evolution as of yet. Its a theory not a law.

Which shows your misunderstanding of the word 'Theory'. A scientific theory is one which has passed the test of demonstration and prediction. In science, a theory is as close as you can get to fact. Evolution HAS been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt. The mechanisms of evolution are still being argued, but the results can not be logically or factually disputed.

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

Exactly what I said. the rejection of belief, not a belief itself.

You will like the rest of us, have to ask the surpreme diety that for yourself someday.

LOL! That's not going to happen! If I'm right, he isn't there, so no one to ask. If you're right, there's no way I'll be getting close to him. After all, I don't think he's the greatest.

Looking at it and seeing that nothing else but God could have made it is more than enough evidence for me.

Nothing else that you can think of but God, perhaps. Still an appeal to emotion, though, not evidence.

Not my fault.

I'm not blaming you. I blame the institutions of religion. ALL of them.

Fortunately there are not enough of you to actually pull it off yet, it will be a very sad day if that happens.

Even if there were enough, we are rational enough to understand that everyone is entitle to their own beliefs. They are not entitled to force them on others. Keep religion in the churches and out of the government. And keep the government out of the churches.

Then why do you try so hard to do just that I wonder?

Is that what you think I'm doing, trying to destroy your faith? Is your faith that weak that I could have the slightest chance of doing such a thing?

I just don't want to have to live by the arbitrary codes of ethics of those faiths when I can see the damage that they do to people. And in this modern world it's been agreed among most free-thinking people that I don't have to.
No one is forcing you too.

Not yet. Plenty are trying, though.

[leo9]

I don't claim to understand anything about quantum mechanics. There are scientists who are studying quantum mechanics who don't know all that much about it. It's confusing, seemingly contradictory and exceedingly difficult to work with in the first place. What I do know is that anyone who claims that quantum mechanics "explains" anything about their belief system knows even less about it than I do. There's enough information about it that they can pick and choose bits and pieces of different hypotheses and claim almost anything they want, even if those hypotheses have not yet been tested or have even been discarded as unworkable.

I'm with you here. Quantum physics is the buzz-word now, as "vibrations" were to the Theosophists, because it sounds scientific without actually committing you to any testable facts. The most one can honestly say is that, for example, the theory of quantum entanglement might provide a physical mechanism for action at a distance without a known carrier. That's a long way from proving it happens.

We're basically talking about a being who is outside of the universe, is all-knowing and all-powerful, are we not? By definition, that is supernatural, or above natural. If god is actually a part of the natural world, then he is subject to natural laws, making him no more of a god than I am.

There's a grey area here. People have built what amounts to a religion out of Lovelock's Gaia theory, that the Earth is an organism, and speak of Her as worshippers do of their god. But I agree that gods as I and most people think of them are by definition outside physical laws; if "supernatural" sounds too like "superstitious" then let's say "spiritual".

How about an experiment involving prayer? Would that qualify?
According to this study, which I understand is one of the best designed studies of its type, "Not only did prayer not help the patients, those that were told they were being prayed for experienced more complications."

I can see a flaw in the design right there: if I were told I was being prayed for, I'd take it as meaning that my condition must be really bad, with consequent ill effects on my clinical outcome. They should have randomised which were told they were being prayed for, and which actually were. The better designed studies have been double-blind, and some have found positive results. Let's just say that more research is needed.

Since atheism does not involve attitudes, beliefs or practices of any kind, much less religious, I fail to see why you insist on calling it a religion.

I agree that's stretching the term. Let's just call it a belief system.

One of the reasons I rely so heavily on references to the Judeo/Christian religions is because I have NOT lived among people of those other religions or nationalities. But if you cannot see the religious suppression and infiltration going on all around the world then perhaps you should pay more attention to the media. Public schools in Australia are required to have religious classes, which apparently can be taught by anyone, whether qualified to teach or not. I've already mentioned Texas. I haven't the stomach to do so again. The lawyer defending that woman condemned to stoning in Iran had to flee the country in the hopes of getting his wife released from prison, where she was being held to force him to cave in to the religious courts. All over the world such religious atrocities are occurring, every day. It's the religions of the world who are doing the persecuting, not the atheists. We only wish to keep religion OUT of public life, and keep it in the churches, temples, mosques or whatever.

And I agree. But if that's all, why the vehement attacks, the reiteration that anyone who believes in an afterlife or a divinity must be motivated either by cowardice or venality?

But who is actually seeing this? What evidence do we have that anyone has actually seen anything like the afterlife?

There is an entire school of painters who insist that they can see all the colours of the spectrum in, for example, a blue sky: and they paint it to prove it. But it's only their perception, and the fact that their paintings look real to many other people isn't evidence, because that's only subjective too. So shall we call them all liars, as well?

If I'm right, he isn't there, so no one to ask. If you're right, there's no way I'll be getting close to him. After all, I don't think he's the greatest.

But maybe he doesn't mind?

Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say if he found himself in the presence of God, and replied "Lord, you did not give us enough evidence."

But I recall another story of a Zen master whose new student complained that he had not taught him anything. They were walking among lilacs, and the Master said "Can you smell it? There, you see, I haven't kept anything from you!"

To those who feel it, the world - and the glorious simplicity of science - are all the evidence we need for divinity. To those who are tone-deaf in that range, there is no music, and nobody can prove there is.

Still an appeal to emotion, though, not evidence.

You say that like it's a bad thing

[Thorne]

There's a grey area here. People have built what amounts to a religion out of Lovelock's Gaia theory, that the Earth is an organism, and speak of Her as worshippers do of their god. But I agree that gods as I and most people think of them are by definition outside physical laws; if "supernatural" sounds too like "superstitious" then let's say "spiritual".

I don't particularly have a problem with the word "superstitious". I personally don't see the difference between believing that knocking on wood will deflect evil or believing that praying will deflect evil. What we call superstition now was once a part of someone's religion. What we call religion now will someday likely be part of someone else's superstition.

I can see a flaw in the design right there: if I were told I was being prayed for, I'd take it as meaning that my condition must be really bad, with consequent ill effects on my clinical outcome. They should have randomised which were told they were being prayed for, and which actually were. The better designed studies have been double-blind, and some have found positive results. Let's just say that more research is needed.

I think I see your point. There should have been a fourth group. Those told they would be prayed for (and who were NOT.) I didn't catch that, sorry.

But I believe part of their explanation for the results in the third group was the same as your conclusion. The patients became stressed because they thought they were worse off than they really were. And they (and I) also agreed that more study is needed.

I agree that's stretching the term. Let's just call it a belief system.

How can you call an attitude that denies beliefs a belief system! Or is it just that believers can't seem to overcome the idea that everybody has to believe in something?

But if that's all, why the vehement attacks, the reiteration that anyone who believes in an afterlife or a divinity must be motivated either by cowardice or venality?

Maybe I'm seeing this from the wrong perspective, since both you and denuseri have claimed these "vehement attacks". I'm not attacking anyone for their beliefs. I'm attacking those who put forth their beliefs as truth, and especially those who attempt to force others to accept those beliefs.

There is an entire school of painters who insist that they can see all the colours of the spectrum in, for example, a blue sky: and they paint it to prove it. But it's only their perception, and the fact that their paintings look real to many other people isn't evidence, because that's only subjective too. So shall we call them all liars, as well?But maybe he doesn't mind?

I've seen people who see and talk with invisible fairies and who hear voices coming from the sky. Are we to accept their pronouncements as valid perceptions? Or are they just crazy. My signature line explains my position on this.

To those who feel it, the world - and the glorious simplicity of science - are all the evidence we need for divinity. To those who are tone-deaf in that range, there is no music, and nobody can prove there is.

Yet even someone who is deaf can feel the vibrations of the music, or see the effects of the sounds in an oscilloscope. Where are the vibrations of your divinity? Which instruments can we use to see the results of his (or her) efforts?

You say that like it's a bad thing

Unless you happen to be studying emotions, allowing emotions to affect your experiments IS a bad thing.

Just as a little test, take a look through that Pharyngula blog. I'm sure you won't agree with what he has to say, more often than not, but see how often he provides links to the religious blogs he's castigating. See how often commenters deny his claims and try to refute them. While he will ban people from commenting when they get too over the top, he has a list which explains the reasons for their banning.

Now go to some of those religious sites. They seldom provide links to sites which argue against their claims, and they even more seldom allow commenters to attack their claims. They almost universally tend to edit the comments out before they can appear on the site. I understand that some of this is to eliminate vulgarity, which is sadly all to prominent among some of the more adamant atheist commenters. But I myself have attempted to make comments which are not vulgar and which are, I believe, rational and reasoned, but which refute the religious claims being made. I have seldom seen any of these comments get past moderation.

For my part, I'm more inclined to trust someone who allows you to see the "enemy's" blogs and listen to the "enemy" comments, than I am someone who is afraid to even print the opposition's name!

Which would you trust more?