The Religion subforum.

[superluminal]

dont you dare assume to know anything about why i believe what i believe.

actually...by all means, do. it makes you look like a presumptuous tool.

Fine. Whatever. Im sure your reasons are so unique among humanity as to be classified a completely new mental phenomenon. Submit yourself for scientific study. I'm sure we'll all benefit.

Unless your reasons are indistinguishable from the handful of fundamental reasons that people do just about anything. That would make you an ordinary human being.

So, why don't you tell us why you "believe"? Let us discuss how your reasons differ from what I posted.

 

[The Devil Inside]

That would make you an ordinary human being.

arent you? i know i am.


ive been on this forum for awhile, and have explained my religious beliefs several times.
do your own homework.

however, the point was that you shouldnt be making assumptions about people you know barely anything about. dont you see the mistake in doing so?

 

[superluminal]

arent you? i know i am.


ive been on this forum for awhile, and have explained my religious beliefs several times.
do your own homework.

however, the point was that you shouldnt be making assumptions about people you know barely anything about. dont you see the mistake in doing so?

I'm not making assumptions about any specific aspect of your belief, just that your belief is probably founded on a few simple principles that most humans use to come to these sorts of conclusions.

And if you're not interested enough to give a brief sentence or two describing your reasons for belief, then neither am I.

 

[The Devil Inside]

I'm not making assumptions about any specific aspect of your belief, just that your belief is probably founded on a few simple principles that most humans use to come to these sorts of conclusions.

uh...there you go, making assumptions about someone's motivations for a certain action...without knowing much about the person him/herself. it is a mistake to assume anything about someone that you do not know.

And if you're not interested enough to give a brief sentence or two describing your reasons for belief, then neither am I.

it isnt that i am not interested in explaining my beliefs. it is that i am not interested in having them ridiculed by people that dont know the things that i have experienced in my life, and that are predisposed to unwarranted personal ad hom attacks on persons of faith. this is why i rarely get into specifics.

now, im not saying you are one of those people..dont get me wrong. you seem fairly reasonable. however, i have been the subject of the above noted behavior in the past on this forum, and find it generally pointless to go much farther into the subject other than to say that i am a very unorthodox follower of judaism.

sorry for the mix-up, if you dont understand what im saying here. it isnt meant to be insulting, or even remotely "moody". none of my statements toward you have been made with that intention. i apologize if you thought it, though.
lets just say that "the more you know about people, the less you know about people", when discussing the subject of spiritual beliefs..

sound good?

 

[superluminal]

lets just say that "the more you know about people, the less you know about people", when discussing the subject of spiritual beliefs..

sound good?

This is definitely the case in my opinion. I have never been more confused in my life than by the different ways that people "believe". This label of "spirituality" is extremely problematic for me. It's been applied to me when I speak of the mystery and awe-inspiring nature of the cosmos. Yet I find nothing "spiritual" about this in the classic sense. If this sense of mysterium tremendum is spirituality, then I'm full of spirituality. Attaching some form of intelligence to this idea (god) seems to me to be an extreme anthropomorphization of the universe. Yes, there is mystery. Yes, there is awe. But it is in the nature of our perception of the cosmos that these have their base. Why do most of us feel the need to imbue it with such a human concept as a father figure or guiding essence when there is not one shred of an objective reason to do so? This absolutely befuddles me.

Perhaps this is one reason why many of us atheists romp around in the religion sub. Theism is one of the bigger mysteries of the human mind. At least to me.

Blah, blah. Rambling.

 

[leopold]

i've said it before that i find it next to impossible to believe in a all knowing all powerfull all rightous being called a god, but there are a few things i have serious questions about.
1. scientists are not stupid, they know exactly what is needed for life to arise, why else would more than a few suggest that life originated elsewhere and was brought here by a meteor?

2. why is religion so widespread? every single culture i am aware of has their gods. this cannot be explained away simply.

3. the only way that evolution can explain the rich diversity of life on this planet is if it was already populated. if life arose at one place then evolution fails to explain todays diversity.

 

[leopold]

such a human concept as a father figure or guiding essence when there is not one shred of an objective reason to do so? This absolutely befuddles me.

how ironic.
there is absolutly no reason for you to believe that atoms become alive is there?
there is not one shred of evidence that supports your belief is there?

 

[superluminal]

i've said it before that i find it next to impossible to believe in a all knowing all powerfull all rightous being called a god, but there are a few things i have serious questions about.
1. scientists are not stupid, they know exactly what is needed for life to arise, why else would more than a few suggest that life originated elsewhere and was brought here by a meteor?

Because it's a possibility worth investigating?

2. why is religion so widespread? every single culture i am aware of has their gods. this cannot be explained away simply.

Because it's a natural outgrowth of the human need to explain things (curiosity) even in the absence of sufficient evidence? We're fanatical about that it seems.

3. the only way that evolution can explain the rich diversity of life on this planet is if it was already populated. if life arose at one place then evolution fails to explain todays diversity.

Pretty narrowminded on this one. Just a bit? If life arose at one place, in a sea rich with nutrients and no competition, well, you do know how fast bacteria can reproduce by the rule of geometric (or exponential) expansion, right? Once you have a sea crammed with proto-life, then natural selection clearly explains how all of the diversity you see arose. A proto-cell mutates to absorb the molecules of others. This mutation is highly advantageous and so becomes dominant in the local population. Elsewhere (far away) a proto-cell mutates such that it forms a more resilient proto-membrane, which is also advantageous since they survive better in the UV near the nutrient rich surface waters. The two "species" come into contact eventually, and the predator-prey competition is in full swing. Natural selection is blind and merciless.

And imagine this happening in thousands of different way, in niches with different environments, all over the young earth. It's really not too hard to imagine at all, and has enormous explanatory power, not to mention micro-fossil evidence.

 

[superluminal]

how ironic.
there is absolutly no reason for you to believe that atoms become alive is there?
there is not one shred of evidence that supports your belief is there?

Wow. If anyone has a clearer pet peeve, I don't know who it is.

There is plenty of evidence. There is a time in the fossil record (> ~3.5bya) before which there was no evident life. Then, we start to see micro-fossil evidence of very primative assemblages of molecules that look like life. What more do you need to make that the focus of your research and theories?

Life may have arisen elsewhere by similar chemistry and been carried here on meteorites, but there's no suggestion at all that life arose other than chemically, and much to suggest that it did. Your position is fruitless for anyone actually interested in finding answers because it provides zero direction and ignores the insights of modern biochemistry.

Fair enough?

 

[leopold]

Wow. If anyone has a clearer pet peeve, I don't know who it is.

There is plenty of evidence.

oops, my mistake, i should have said by natural means.

 

[leopold]

Pretty narrowminded on this one. Just a bit? If life arose at one place, in a sea rich with nutrients and no competition, well, you do know how fast bacteria can reproduce by the rule of geometric (or exponential) expansion, right?

okay, i'll concede this point. and yes, i guess i was being a bit narrow minded.

 

[superluminal]

okay, i'll concede this point. and yes, i guess i was being a bit narrow minded.

No prob leo. Of course you'll notice that I'm never narrowminded.

 

[Woody]

woody, you and i have had our differences.

im glad we have a consensus on at least one thing.
truce?

sure, no hard feelings DI.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

sure, no hard feelings DI.

It warms the cockles of my heart when people can agree to disagree, and no animosity reigns over a different view. It would be a dull existance afterall if we were all the same would it not?

 

[The Devil Inside]

i hate that guy.

 

[lightgigantic]

Wow. If anyone has a clearer pet peeve, I don't know who it is.

There is plenty of evidence. There is a time in the fossil record (> ~3.5bya) before which there was no evident life. Then, we start to see micro-fossil evidence of very primative assemblages of molecules that look like life. What more do you need to make that the focus of your research and theories?

Life may have arisen elsewhere by similar chemistry and been carried here on meteorites, but there's no suggestion at all that life arose other than chemically, and much to suggest that it did. Your position is fruitless for anyone actually interested in finding answers because it provides zero direction and ignores the insights of modern biochemistry.

Fair enough?

On the contrary - you say too much in the name of science with too little evidence

 

[Woody]

i hate that guy.

I don't hate anyone. I just forgive and move on. I ain't got time for resentment anyway. Sorry I poisoned your life, dude.

Besides I have my own music forum to administrate now.

I have to learn PHP programming. I already know HTML. Ahhh the challenges of life!!

I'm Learning guitar too. Always learning, always looking for a mental challenge -- that's me.

This place is like deadsville man, and mentally lethargic.

Here's a link to my sciforums unintelligible community forum:

sciforums unintelligible community

When you work up a good brain fart, just go over there and poot it up good!!!

 

[The Devil Inside]

i hate that guy.

its said with the utmost love, woody.
im sure you know that.