The Religion subforum.

[The Devil Inside]

nobody has, at yet, ruled out the supernatural as to how life came to be on this planet.
as a matter of fact when i look around at the rest of the solar system it is easy for me to conclude that life is un-natural, therefor something supernatural must have spawned it.
god, if there is such a thing, is not a being or an entity but a process.

you have hit on a fundamental truth here.

 

[euphrosene]

If this thread is still about keeping the religion sub-forum, I'd like to vote to keep it.

Sure, there are some unpleasant (ie juvenile) comments, but those aside, spirituality or mysticism is a/the precursor to physics (or scientific 'proof'), in my view.

Naturally, there is the difference between religion (formalised dogma to make it easier for followers), spirituality (an awareness of the divine spark) and mysticism (the divine relationship - often as difficult to comprehend as a normal human one).

Anyone read 'Quantum Questions' edited by Ken Wilbur?

Scientists who believed (in God) include: Heisenberg, Schreodinger, Einstein, de Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli and Eddington.

Personally, it's neither here nor there whether there is proof (shades of Job) but I can empathise with the need for concrete evidence. You'll have a long wait...

Religion is useful in opening the door (to mysticism). The problems arise when devotees refuse to step through it. After all, it is the unknown and sometimes the prop of dogma is insufficient.

 

[Cris]

eiphorosene,

Thanks for the comments.

Important correction though - Einstein was a pantheist, but as far as Christanity is concerned he was an atheist as he stated in a letter he wrote.

 

[Cris]

Woody,

"My" cosmological argument is a classical philisophical argument that's been around for ages, before either of us were born. "Dubious claim" you call it. There really is no dialogue here.

But Woody the interesting thing about a philosophical discussion is that there are usually no conclusions. Your position has been and is quite different to a mere philosophical preference. You have taken the position of asserting that it is true, and that leads us into something more than an intellectual philosophical debate which is what you are trying to claim here, instead we enter the far more murky waters known as religion.

I learned that I get nowhere with you, period.

Odd, I felt I was making progress.

Have fun with your so-called religion forum. It won't change.

It has changed several times over these past 6 years as different personalities come and go, I’m sure it will change again since it is entirely dependent on the contributors.

I'm done with my feedback. Adios.

Is that final?

 

[euphrosene]

eiphorosene,

Thanks for the comments.

Important correction though - Einstein was a pantheist, but as far as Christanity is concerned he was an atheist as he stated in a letter he wrote.

I don’t think he was a pantheist, Cris. I should be working but have found these in my notes:

Albert Einstein:

"But there is a third stage of religious experience …, even though it is rarely found in a pure form.: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to eucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the unlimitable superior who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

If nothing else, he had a mystical connection over and above what I would call 'mere' pantheism.

Cheers Euphrosene

PS He was Jewish not a Christian

 

[Woody]

Woody,

Is that final?

Yes, with you it is. No hard feelings.

I've provided feedback, it agrees with others, and I really don't expect anything to change, but even if it did change I have found other interests.

If you can not or do not want to understand it, that's ok.

I can't decide which is more confusing the science of religion or the religion of science. I'm sure you can sort it all out for yourself, and don't need me to think for you.

Perhaps there should be parody religionforum.com with a science sub-forum -- everyone could discuss the failures of science to meet spiritual needs.

I wouldn't be interested in it though because I'd rather move forward.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I think I'm using in exactly that way. Where's the discrepancy?

Alright, after reading your post again I realize what you are saying. But it doesn't invalidate my point, because what it turns the discussion into is a debate over preferential things, like saying that religious beliefs have no use other than the subjugation of the masses, which religious people will tell you is not true. They get many other uses out of believing these things, even if those uses are purely internal.

What I am saying is, basically, that you cannot, in any ultimate sense, show to be false the foundational axioms of one philosophy with another. Sure you can overthrow a philosophy in favor of something that you think is better, but that has nothing to do with that philosophy's inherent truth or falsity. My point throughout has been that Sciforums is not the real world. It doesn't matter what people believe here, and therefore that it is unneccesary, and rude, to viciously attack the beliefs or musings of one person whom you disagree with instead of simply discussing their beliefs. And that's what that small cadre of atheists on this board do in the religion forum. It's like you're waging a war on the only battlefield in which you have the advantage in numbers, and on which the referee's are on your side.

The points you have just made about choosing the axioms that you follow were good, but they still rely on those axioms, and I'm not saying that makes them wrong or stupid because no one can escape the axioms upon which all of their other beliefs rest, but what I am saying is that there are still things which atheists take for granted as true, which make them assumptions (however well founded they are), and, being assumptions, they have no more or less legitimacy than the assumptions of the religious. That's what bugs me, because the assumptions upon which all of your beliefs rest cannot be proven or disproven, and neither can the assumption of a supernatural realm. They are equally unprovable, and so should be treated equally in a philosophical sense. In terms of practicality, your assumptions are more immediately useful and so I do believe they should take precedence in decision making, and for the most part they do in our society, but when in a philosophical discussion they do not enjoy the same kind of supremacy.

I will add a caveat, and that is, in a philosophical discussion, the foundational axiom of a supernatural realm is legitimate, but of course that does not mean that knowledge derived from this axiom is necessarily legitimate, and so is subject to criticism and dissection, just as any knowledge derived from the foundational axiom of empiricism (which is the philosophical root of science, and which is the basic trust in your senses) is subject to criticism and dissection. My position this entire time has been in relation to the attack upon the axiom of a supernatural realm (which I do not believe in), and not in relation to attacks upon specific religious beliefs, which I will not defend. I figured it'd be useful to make my overall position known.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

the interesting thing about a philosophical discussion is that there are usually no conclusions. Your position has been and is quite different to a mere philosophical preference. You have taken the position of asserting that it is true, and that leads us into something more than an intellectual philosophical debate which is what you are trying to claim here, instead we enter the far more murky waters known as religion.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, but I don't think that you realize the full implications of what you are saying. It becomes frustrating and unfair when a theist asserts that their philosophical position is true, but it is equally frustrating and unfair when an atheist asserts that their position (essentially opposed to the theist's) is true, making them guilty of hypocrisy. No one is perfect, I understand that, but the thing is that atheists love to point out how intolerant, stubborn, and dogmatic theists can be, when they are guilty of exactly the same crime themselves. You said yourself that, in philosophical discussions, there are usually no conclusions, but I think that when you said it you were only directing it at the beliefs of theists and not your own, which you should. No conclusions should be reached about either philosophy's truth or falsity.

 

[S.A.M.]

I think you've hit the nail on the head, but I don't think that you realize the full implications of what you are saying. It becomes frustrating and unfair when a theist asserts that their philosophical position is true, but it is equally frustrating and unfair when an atheist asserts that their position (essentially opposed to the theist's) is true, making them guilty of hypocrisy. No one is perfect, I understand that, but the thing is that atheists love to point out how intolerant, stubborn, and dogmatic theists can be, when they are guilty of exactly the same crime themselves. You said yourself that, in philosophical discussions, there are usually no conclusions, but I think that when you said it you were only directing it at the beliefs of theists and not your own, which you should. No conclusions should be reached about either philosophy's truth or falsity.

Yes, one thing I did learn on this religion sub-forum is that religion is not a requirement for intolerance, narrow mindedness or abusive behavior. Many atheists here display the same characteristics they claim to abhor. Perhaps it is the impersonal nature of the forum but it would appear that they express the thoughts that dominate their minds regarding theists. It is impossible to have a discussion on philosophical grounds, because a discussion would first require a desire to interact and learn about the other's point of view. Few atheists that I have come across have this desire and most of the discussions degenerate into rants and invective. To enter a discussion where the other is convinced that you are stupid, irrational or lacking in mental faculties does not bode well for any debate. There is a flavor of intellectual elitism here among atheists, which is provocative and insulting and the result of course is a quid pro quo, with both sides attempting to outdo the other in meaningless rhetoric.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Yes, one thing I did learn on this religion sub-forum is that religion is not a requirement for intolerance, narrow mindedness or abusive behavior. Many atheists here display the same characteristics they claim to abhor. Perhaps it is the impersonal nature of the forum but it would appear that they express the thoughts that dominate their minds regarding theists. It is impossible to have a discussion on philosophical grounds, because a discussion would first require a desire to interact and learn about the other's point of view. Few atheists that I have come across have this desire and most of the discussions degenerate into rants and invective. To enter a discussion where the other is convinced that you are stupid, irrational or lacking in mental faculties does not bode well for any debate. There is a flavor of intellectual elitism here among atheists, which is provocative and insulting and the result of course is a quid pro quo, with both sides attempting to outdo the other in meaningless rhetoric.

Well, I already know that it's rather fruitless to point this type of thing out because the vast majority of people are completely unwilling to alter their behavior. The reason for this is simple: if you believe that your position is the correct one, with absolute conviction, then it is likely that you believe whatever actions you take as a result of this belief must also be justified. This is not just a trait of religious people, it is a trait inherent to all people.

 

[S.A.M.]

Well, I already know that it's rather fruitless to point this type of thing out because the vast majority of people are completely unwilling to alter their behavior. The reason for this is simple: if you believe that your position is the correct one, with absolute conviction, then it is likely that you believe whatever actions you take as a result of this belief must also be justified. This is not just a trait of religious people, it is a trait inherent to all people.

I beg to disagree. It is also possible to realise that since no one is, right now, in a position to know the whole truth, hence no one can claim that their truth is the right or even the only truth. Religion is too complicated to assess in black and white terms. You can have conviction in your beliefs and accept that the other person has the same right to have his own convictions whatever they are. Why is there a competition here? Can you make someone believe or disbelieve against their wish? I doubt it. But does that rule out listening to different systems of belief, or discussing them objectively? Of course not. I've done it with friends and acquaintances and I can only say it has brought greater understanding and friendship. Accepting that someone has a different belief is not the same as accepting that belief. In India we have distinct separate cultures and we allow everyone the freedom to follow their religion or customs as they see fit. It is not even a big deal to be agnostic or atheistic, since there is no disrespect of those who choose to follow their beliefs. I believe in freedom of speech, but I think it can be abused if there is lack of understanding and consideration of the beliefs of others.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I beg to disagree. It is also possible to realise that since no one is, right now, in a position to know the whole truth, hence no one can claim that their truth is the right or even the only truth. Religion is too complicated to assess in black and white terms. You can have conviction in your beliefs and accept that the other person has the same right to have his own convictions whatever they are. Why is there a competition here? Can you make someone believe or disbelieve against their wish? I doubt it. But does that rule out listening to different systems of belief, or discussing them objectively? Of course not. I've done it with friends and acquaintances and I can only say it has brought greater understanding and friendship. Accepting that someone has a different belief is not the same as accepting that belief. In India we have distinct separate cultures and we allow everyone the freedom to follow their religion or customs as they see fit. It is not even a big deal to be agnostic or atheistic, since there is no disrespect of those who choose to follow their beliefs. I believe in freedom of speech, but I think it can be abused if there is lack of understanding and consideration of the beliefs of others.

Oh, I never said it was impossible for people who have total conviction in their beliefs to be tolerant and understanding and interested in the beliefs of others, I just said that it was easy to justify being rude or inconsiderate for many people when they believe that they know the absolute truth on the matter at hand. It's simply a matter of humility. Few people around here have any, and I would include myself at times.

 

[Cris]

Jaster,

It becomes frustrating and unfair when a theist asserts that their philosophical position is true, but it is equally frustrating and unfair when an atheist asserts that their position (essentially opposed to the theist's) is true, making them guilty of hypocrisy.

If we were to take the theist perception of the atheist as being one who “believes there is no god”, then yes I would agree with you, but that is not the case with the vast majority of the current set of atheists who debate here. They really do understand the atheist position as being one who “disbelieves the theist claims”. And with that approach nearly all discussions come down to – theist: I make this claim; atheist: what is your evidence; theist: I don’t need any I use faith; atheist: that is irrational. Etc, etc. And the debates do not progress much past that. It is not that the atheist is offering unsupportable counter-claims.

No one is perfect, I understand that, but the thing is that atheists love to point out how intolerant, stubborn, and dogmatic theists can be, when they are guilty of exactly the same crime themselves.

No I disagree. The theist has a difficult obstacle to overcome to satisfy their claims of certainty. Now for those tentative-theists who take the more philosophical approach and treat religious positions as speculative then productive discourse does occur.

You said yourself that, in philosophical discussions, there are usually no conclusions, but I think that when you said it you were only directing it at the beliefs of theists and not your own, which you should.

And I believe I have been consistent my entire time here by not claiming to reach a conclusion, and many of the seasoned atheists here are equally consistent.

No conclusions should be reached about either philosophy's truth or falsity.

And that is essentially the argument atheists have been directing at the theists here for a long time. It has not been the case of you are wrong and I am right, it has been more the case that “you don’t know you are right so don’t be so stupid to make such claims”.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

If we were to take the theist perception of the atheist as being one who “believes there is no god”, then yes I would agree with you, but that is not the case with the vast majority of the current set of atheists who debate here. They really do understand the atheist position as being one who “disbelieves the theist claims”. And with that approach nearly all discussions come down to – theist: I make this claim; atheist: what is your evidence; theist: I don’t need any I use faith; atheist: that is irrational. Etc, etc. And the debates do not progress much past that. It is not that the atheist is offering unsupportable counter-claims.

I've already established that the axiom of a supernatural realm is beyond proof or disproof, and that you cannot attack the axioms of religion with the axioms of science. An axiom is simply something that you assume to be true, i.e. as a scientist you believe that you can rely on observation, or put more simply, that which you sense (or perceive) is real, or at least reasonably close to that which is real. This is still an assumption, and therefore cannot be proven or disproved. The existence of the supernatural, i.e. that reality is more than just what you are able to sense, is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make, as there is no way to prove or disprove it. All knowledge based upon this axiom is hard to support, of course, but it doesn't mean that the basic position of the theists is unreasonable. Now, saying that an atheist is "one who disbelieves the theists claims", is the same as saying that an atheist is "one who does not believe in god", since the claim of the theists is that there is a god.

No I disagree. The theist has a difficult obstacle to overcome to satisfy their claims of certainty. Now for those tentative-theists who take the more philosophical approach and treat religious positions as speculative then productive discourse does occur.

No, I disagree. The theist has no more a difficult obstacle to overcome to satisfy their claims of certainty than the atheist. Both positions are based upon an assumption that cannot be proven, and so both positions are speculative in nature. The thing that bothers me is that atheists don't treat their position as speculative, and they expect theists to do so when the foundation of both world views rest on the same philosophical level.

And I believe I have been consistent my entire time here by not claiming to reach a conclusion, and many of the seasoned atheists here are equally consistent.

Whoa. Am I going to have to look through the threads on this message board and quote you and the others' conclusions about the false nature of theists' beliefs? Not once have any of you asserted that the theists were "speculating". You and the other's have continually claimed that religious beliefs of the other members of this board are nothing more than wild, childish fantasy. That certainly qualifies as a conclusion.

And that is essentially the argument atheists have been directing at the theists here for a long time. It has not been the case of you are wrong and I am right, it has been more the case that “you don’t know you are right so don’t be so stupid to make such claims”.

It certainly has not. It has always been, and I can quote you personally, that theist claims are obviously false.

 

[The Devil Inside]

the religion forum is populated by a bunch of children, basically.

on one hand, you have a bunch of folks trying to evangelize the subforum, that get angry when someone says something contradictory to their book. (morally repugnant, and childish)
on the other hand, you have a larger group of folks that EXCLUSIVELY post in a subforum in which they profess disbelief in the foundation of the subforum's purpose. for what reason, if not to enflame group #1?(deliciously pointless, if the disbelief professed is true to even a minute degree..also morally repugnant).

i say get rid of the subforum. it serves no purpose other than the stomping grounds of mostly scripturally ignorant fools and braggarts (there are a few exceptions).

 

[Jaster Mereel]

the religion forum is populated by a bunch of children, basically.

on one hand, you have a bunch of folks trying to evangelize the subforum, that get angry when someone says something contradictory to their book. (morally repugnant, and childish)
on the other hand, you have a larger group of folks that EXCLUSIVELY post in a subforum in which they profess disbelief in the foundation of the subforum's purpose. for what reason, if not to enflame group #1?(deliciously pointless, if the disbelief professed is true to even a minute degree..also morally repugnant).

i say get rid of the subforum. it serves no purpose other than the stomping grounds of mostly scripturally ignorant fools and braggarts (there are a few exceptions).

Thank you. That's been my point all along. I'm afraid I've been dragged into a philosophical debate about religion in this thread when the purpose was to propose the idea of removing such a divisive and degrading subforum. As the administration can see by the debate that's taken place here, where it shouldn't have, the Religion subforum should certainly be removed.

 

[The Devil Inside]

at the least, there should be some very stringent rules applied to it, if it is to stay.
rule #1: NO extremism of any kind tolerated.

ive said it a thousand times, there need to be more mods, or more power given to the mods that exist.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

at the least, there should be some very stringent rules applied to it, if it is to stay.
rule #1: NO extremism of any kind tolerated.

ive said it a thousand times, there need to be more mods, or more power given to the mods that exist.

How about atheists who enter threads just to rant about how God doesn't exist and how stupid theists are are warned for preaching, in the same way that theists are warned or their threads locked when they start preaching?

 

[The Devil Inside]

those are both examples of extremism.

bannable offenses in "The Devil Inside Land"

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I agree. That's also how I would run it. As soon as one person starts any kind of preaching, be they a theist or an atheist, they get banned. At the very least banned temporarily.