“Thus atheism just count as a group to categorize people under, people who has no beliefs.”
That is an invalid statement. If you want to use hard logic, then you must use some other statement. There is no such condition or mental state for a person to have “no belief.” To chose to have no beliefs is a belief onto itself. It is a choice and requires a mental process.
“I believe in: Positive, Nothing, Negative, or a Combination?”
Which one is the correct answer? That is up to the individual and as such results in a belief.
An Atheist as you so described, chooses to believe with the material items and material facts at hand.
That is logic.
“Is not believing a belief?”
I do not believe in gods.
I believe in the absence of gods.
I do not believe in facts that have no physical material to them.
I believe in the physical material facts laid out before me.
I believe in the absence of belief.
“When you have a choice and don't make it, that in itself is a choice.”
- William James
Do you believe in God?
No, I do not believe in God.
Why?
Because I believe I am right.
An analogy:
A jury of a court of law decides on whether a person is guilty or innocent based on the evidence or lack thereof. This decision of theirs is based on what they believe is to be right.
Lemonade Example:
Your lemonade example has its flaws. First that the lemons would run out, which is not so of religious beliefs. Ever since humans were around, religious viewpoints have kept on going. So the flow or harvest of lemonades is always around. The second point is, there is no correlation of the person drinking the lemonade. There are three items: lemons (lemonade), the glass and the person drinking the lemonade; but only two, the lemons and glass are described. If a human is the glass, the lemonade is religion, then what is the person who drank the lemonade?
Flying Dragons Example:
Person A does not believe in flying dragons with three heads, but does believe in clear skies (the absence of flying dragons).
Person B does believe in flying dragons with three heads, but does not believe in clear skies.
Person C does believe in flying dragons with single heads, but does not believe in three heads or in clear skies.
Person D does believe in flying heads, but not believe in the bodies of flying dragons or in clear skies.
Person E does not believe in Person's A, B, C, or D's belief, rather believes in the power of self and of clear skies.
It simply makes person A not believe in flying dragons with three heads.
Or to say it in another way, This simply makes Person A believe in the absence of flying dragons with three heads.
“Now we'll go on to cover some differences between some religions and atheism (and don't ye say that not all religions are like this or that, if you can't cover 'em al and write a book about each religion. I'm fully aware of buddhism without gods, and other minor religions which may differ strongly from what stated here.)”
This is only a comparison of belief systems, which I could do the same with forms of similar belief systems, including Apatheism,versus Physicalism, Humanism versus Neurotheology, Agnosticism versus Materialism, Pantheism versus Panentheism.
Each of these are forms of Atheism, in which people believe that certain ones are correct, or more correct than others. Just as with Christianity, having is multiple forms, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Baptism, etc.
Some other religions to consider are Spirituality, Wicca, Scientology, New Age, of which do not fit the mainstream mold of religion as so listed.
(Oh, and by the way, flying dragons with three heads would have been really cool xD)
It would indeed.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Since this thread is going waaayyyy off topic, I'll put as much of an end to this atheism debate as possible.
You can't logically prove a negative. Asking me to prove that I have no belief is the same as asking me to prove that there's no tooth fairy. If belief exists, then you should be able to prove it no problem. Unfortunately for you, I don't feel that you've gotten there yet. You may be able to prove that atheism is an extreme form of agnosticism, but that's still not a religion in any common use definition of the word.
Now back to the gay marriage thing. Please give me a logical, secular argument as to why it's any of the government's business.
Since this thread is going waaayyyy off topic, I'll put as much of an end to this atheism debate as possible. You can't logically prove a negative. Asking me to prove that I have no belief is the same as asking me to prove that there's no tooth fairy. If belief exists, then you should be able to prove it no problem. Unfortunately for you, I don't feel that you've gotten there yet. You may be able to prove that atheism is an extreme form of agnosticism, but that's still not a religion in any common use definition of the word. Now back to the gay marriage thing. Please give me a logical, secular argument as to why it's any of the government's business.
Tax benefits.
But the govt. wouldn't care anyways since finicialy speaking the 'couple' is the same as a married one. (well technically it would be two people who both have a statiscally higher income due to being male, a few very logical and non-sexist reasons for that though so lets not go there).
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
Did he lie about the court's position? Read it and judge for yourselves. Hint: Yes.
Well so much for playing nice, short lived it was. Very well.
Where did I lie?
Shall I outline it? Lie through omission. You specifically trimmed the quote to remove the context. The full quote reveals the context, which is that they are discussing Atheism in the LEGAL sense, which is to say that it deserves the LEGAL protections that are afforded to religion and other similar, non-religious philosophies. Since you trimmed the first sentance of the paragraph to remove any mention of that context, it was a deliberate lie through omission.
As for playing nice, you broke that when you decided that misquoting was a good way to make an argument. Deceptive tactics deserve direct response. I know you're going to hide behind the butthurt 'you are persecuting me' nonsense, but you are the one lying, you've been caught, it's not an 'attack' to call an apple an apple, an orange an orange, a lie a lie. You lied. This is not an attack. If I say that the sun rises in the North, it's not 'attacking me' to say 'This is a falsehood.'
Atheism is considered a religion in the legal sense, that is a fact. To say otherwise, involves "nonfactual" or "illogical" reasoning.
If we are referring the legal system of the United States of America, true. Of course, we were not speaking in a legal system, then the legal system takes the most liberal view of religion possible, by necessity. Defining 'what makes a religion' in the legal sense has been very difficult.
...To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.
To prove a soul exist is not possible in scientific terms, and therefore not a fact or by cold logic; but yet there are people who believe in it, and for some experienced it. Atheism is a belief system and has the same legal right as other forms of religions. A belief system is the political correctness version of religion.
Correct, the concept of a soul is about as meaningful as the boogyman in the closet, so is about as equally well treated scientifically.
As for a belief system being the political correctness form of religion, it's funny how you can try and tag a term with a buzz word and hope that will change the definition. Hint: It doesn't. See above.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
“Thus atheism just count as a group to categorize people under, people who has no beliefs.”
That is an invalid statement. If you want to use hard logic, then you must use some other statement. There is no such condition or mental state for a person to have “no belief.” To chose to have no beliefs is a belief onto itself. It is a choice and requires a mental process.
“I believe in: Positive, Nothing, Negative, or a Combination?”
Which one is the correct answer? That is up to the individual and as such results in a belief.
An Atheist as you so described, chooses to believe with the material items and material facts at hand.
That is logic.
First: To choose to have no beliefs is not a belief. As stated by you, that's something to chose. However you don't choose to have none beliefs, that happens by itself when you, trough your own logic, or way of thinking, reach a certain conclusion. You can of course, continue proclaiming that you believe something, but don't actually do so. (Or you can reach a conclusion that believing something would be the right thing, and just continue to do so.)
"An atheist as you described..."
I don't choose to believe something, I chose to draw a conclusion from the material at hand. There is a difference. Believing is when you can't draw a conclusion from the material at hand (NOTE: A full conclusion. This might also be a little bit hard to understand, but I couldn't get it down in another way. Since I had an idea in my head, not a paraghraph in my head.)
Conclusion; You don't simply choose to believe in something or to not do so.
“Is not believing a belief?”
I do not believe in gods.
I believe in the absence of gods.
I do not believe in facts that have no physical material to them.
I believe in the physical material facts laid out before me.
I believe in the absence of belief.
“When you have a choice and don't make it, that in itself is a choice.”
- William James
You seem to mix up choosing and believing.
You seem to not get the idea of absence of something. "I do not believe"
"not believe" as in 0 believing. Absence of it.
Absence of absence would be back where it started. But it's just one absence and thus, no believing.
"I do not believe in facts that have no physical material to them."
It is not a fact if it does not got physical material (if that means proof) to it.
Do you believe in God?
No, I do not believe in God.
Why?
Because I believe I am right.
Do you believe in God?
No, I don't.
Why?
Because there's no evidence of him.
An analogy:
A jury of a court of law decides on whether a person is guilty or innocent based on the evidence or lack thereof. This decision of theirs is based on what they believe is to be right.
But that is not from the person itself. An outside view cannot be entirely true to the view of the person, which is the best one to look upon when it is about something mattering with the person.
(Of course, that's just true if the following conditions is met:
The person ain't crazy.
The person is honest.)
Lemonade Example:
Your lemonade example has its flaws. First that the lemons would run out, which is not so of religious beliefs. Ever since humans were around, religious viewpoints have kept on going. So the flow or harvest of lemonades is always around. The second point is, there is no correlation of the person drinking the lemonade. There are three items: lemons (lemonade), the glass and the person drinking the lemonade; but only two, the lemons and glass are described. If a human is the glass, the lemonade is religion, then what is the person who drank the lemonade?
Lemons? I was speaking of a single glass of lemonade.
A person drinking is not really a matter with the example either.
I guess it did have it's flaws.
Okay, imagine the glass to be the human, the human has none belief anymore, because of the person drinking the lemonade (just imagine the person drinking the lemonade to be some sort of inquisition. Inquisitions have worked before, properly done, they'd work again. (No I don't think inquisitions are good.(An example of an inquisition would be the Norse religion.)))
The matter was really the absence of lemonade ( religion) would the absence of lemonade be a glass of lemonade? No. Would the absence of belief in something be a belief? No.
(I guess that's what could be called a principle.)
Flying Dragons Example:
Person A does not believe in flying dragons with three heads, but does believe in clear skies (the absence of flying dragons).
Person B does believe in flying dragons with three heads, but does not believe in clear skies.
Person C does believe in flying dragons with single heads, but does not believe in three heads or in clear skies.
Person D does believe in flying heads, but not believe in the bodies of flying dragons or in clear skies.
Person E does not believe in Person's A, B, C, or D's belief, rather believes in the power of self and of clear skies.
It simply makes person A not believe in flying dragons with three heads.
Or to say it in another way, This simply makes Person A believe in the absence of flying dragons with three heads.
(Okay, I laughed at Person D xD)
Person F is the non-believing. He would not belief in dragons or heads if he was not shown proof, and he would not believe in the absence of it either unless proof was shown.
(Is it proven that you've got a life? ( Please don't think of life as the internet version of it, where people have become notorious for not having lives.) Yes it is.
Is it proven that you die? Yes it is.
Is it proven that you've got a soul? No it isn't.
Is it proven that there existsan afterlife? No it isn't.
Conclusion would be: We live then we die.
“Now we'll go on to cover some differences between some religions and atheism (and don't ye say that not all religions are like this or that, if you can't cover 'em al and write a book about each religion. I'm fully aware of buddhism without gods, and other minor religions which may differ strongly from what stated here.)”
This is only a comparison of belief systems, which I could do the same with forms of similar belief systems, including Apatheism,versus Physicalism, Humanism versus Neurotheology, Agnosticism versus Materialism, Pantheism versus Panentheism.
Each of these are forms of Atheism, in which people believe that certain ones are correct, or more correct than others. Just as with Christianity, having is multiple forms, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Baptism, etc.
Some other religions to consider are Spirituality, Wicca, Scientology, New Age, of which do not fit the mainstream mold of religion as so listed.
I said in my text about that, that it was a partly quote, and that the site it was taken from had it's flaws.
The main form of Atheism is without a belief. I may not be sure, but I think the sub-forms thus speaks about what to do with your one life, and that again, is also up to each invidual person.
It's the same as comparing believers in Christianity (See, I had a show of respect!)
You have thoose actually nice believers, who try to live a virtuous life.
You've got thoose who just say they are Christian, but don't do anything.
You've got extremists, who (in my eyes) are idiots.
You've also got people who just needs something to blame for their bad deeds.
(Don't ask me for the logic behind this, I can't remember it, but I did see the logic while I wrote it, and thus I let it stand.)
(Oh, and by the way, flying dragons with three heads would have been really cool xD)
It would indeed.
Sidenote: Writing inside stuff in such a way is remarkably easy ^^
A gay marriage is not the governments business any more than a normal marriage is.
Record it, write it down, send them a bill and give 'em some rights.
I believe you're right about atheism being a religion, after all atheists believe there is no supreme being but that in itself is a belief and such a "religion", but its not a system. The only thing atheists have in common is they don't believe in such a figure.
And that is a good way of putting it.
I believe in gravity. So does the group of people around me.
Oh, so now you are redefining the lie to a lie of omission.
You say I am being deceptive, however you also stated, "If we are referring the legal system of the United States of America, true." Then you make your own spin by "... then the legal system takes the most liberal view of religion possible, by necessity," which is an opinion not a fact.
I can say the same of you, since you like to omit scientific information if it does not support your cause.
So try again.
"Correct, the concept of a soul is about as meaningful as the boogyman in the closet, so is about as equally well treated scientifically."
This coming from a personality who says Control Groups are not science, but statistics. You claim to be of a scienifitc mind, but yet disregard historical information or proven information which goes against your beliefs. That history has no importance, yet with any scientific assessment, past history is accounted for; except for yours. Your science is politically driven and only exists if it can be physical. 'If I cannot see it, it does not exist.'
Why is it that people who are sick and have others praying for them, recover faster than those who have no prayers onto them? Oh that can't be true, it is not scientific. They are just religious driven studies based only on biased statistics.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
I believe you're right about atheism being a religion, after all atheists believe there is no supreme being but that in itself is a belief and such a "religion", but its not a system. The only thing atheists have in common is they don't believe in such a figure.
And that is a good way of putting it.
I believe in gravity. So does the group of people around me.
Clearly gravity is a religion, amirite?
i think that means you believe gravity is real ...... I dont see how thats a valid analogy
Playing: EVE Online Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2 KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
I believe in gravity. So does the group of people around me. Clearly gravity is a religion, amirite?
Is Gravity a god?
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Oh, so now you are redefining the lie to a lie of omission.
*blink* Apparently you have to redefine lie to lie of omission? I suppose referring to a red apple means you've redefined the term apple too. That's not an apple! That's a RED apple!
I've seen some really convoluted logic, but this is top 10 material.
You say I am being deceptive, however you also stated, "If we are referring the legal system of the United States of America, true." Then you make your own spin by "... then the legal system takes the most liberal view of religion possible, by necessity," which is an opinion not a fact.
No, it's a fact based on multiple rulings on the first amendment which have determined that it is very hard to factually describe religion in a manner consistent with that intended by the founding fathers without unfairly excluding groups, and that the founding fathers wished the right to be an inclusive right. This leads to a very liberal definition of religion, since essentially any philosophy is religious.
I can say the same of you, since you like to omit scientific information if it does not support your cause.
So try again.
"Correct, the concept of a soul is about as meaningful as the boogyman in the closet, so is about as equally well treated scientifically."
This coming from a personality who says Control Groups are not science, but statistics. You claim to be of a scienifitc mind, but yet disregard historical information or proven information which goes against your beliefs. That history has no importance, yet with any scientific assessment, past history is accounted for; except for yours. Your science is politically driven and only exists if it can be physical. 'If I cannot see it, it does not exist.'
No, I was calling your demand for control groups and your definition of them unscientific and unnecessary. Also, you are personalizing this. You COULD NOT address the global warming science in the global warming thread. If you wish to return to that thread to attempt to muster some sort of scientific defense, please do so. Your failure there and subsequent dragging it into this discussion is obnoxious, off topic, and is just going to bring up more and more failures.
Oh wait, that's a personal attack.
Now, back ON TOPIC: I do not believe 'what I cannot see, does not exist.' I believe in Occam's Razor - do not unnecessarily multiply entities. Everything we observe through everything we see of human existence can be explained materially. The soul is an unnecessarily multiplied entity - no evidence, no explanatory power, no reason at all to think it exists.
Now if you want to submit some 'proven information' that would suggest any evidence for the soul's existence, be my guest. I have a feeling that I'll be seeing more silly stuff about how people are 'absolutely sure' they have a soul or testimony from people who saw flashing lights and UFOs and other nonsense. If I get anything at all besides more silence on the concept of FACTS.
Why is it that people who are sick and have others praying for them, recover faster than those who have no prayers onto them? Oh that can't be true, it is not scientific. They are just religious driven studies based only on biased statistics.
But hey, feel free to provide some 95% confidence interval studies that had zero repeatability done by grad students. I mean 95% confidence interval means its going to fluke, and there's been a lot of studies done. I'll provide studies that show prayer is hurting people, 95% confidence interval if you wish. I guess God is killing off those people bugging him
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
"First: To choose to have no beliefs is not a belief. As stated by you, that's something to chose."
It all comes down to the interpretation of the word, “believing.”
And I think both of us can keep on going round and round with this. So I'm willing to agree to disagree with you. We each strongly think in being right and essentially a philosophical discussion, “What is to believe or not to believe?”
You: A person who makes a decision by what facts are presented or experienced, is not considered to have a belief.
I: A person who makes a decision by what facts are presented or experienced, is considered to have a belief.
"An atheist as you described..."
By the way for clarification, to let you know I wasn't saying that you are an Atheist, with that statement, rather as you had described what an Atheist is.
“Is it proven that you die? Yes it is.
Is it proven that you've got a soul? No it isn't.
Is it proven that there existsan afterlife? No it isn't.
Conclusion would be: We live then we die.”
Well you see, that is why I put “experienced” in those lines above. Certain things cannot be proven until proven by self experience. Some things cannot be proven by hard logic, they can only be experienced. Which is why I don't mention them, since there is no proof through electronic means and can easily be discredited by assumption (photo-editing, video manipulation, staged, story-telling, etc).
Some people claim to experienced the after-life, is that true in the sense of the actual experience or false in that such an event was the result of the chemical reactions of the brain shutting down? If taking the chemical reaction response, how can that be proven and/or the answers classified due to the ranges people have provided (bright light, music, darkness, nothing, cold, warmth, past events/life, voices, etc)? Perhaps we do not have the proper technology as of yet to explain this.
An example would be of dreams. Science cannot prove that dreams are in the full color spectrum, we can only know for certain through our own experience (full colors, limited colors, absence of colors, or the brain's attempt at putting colors together; do colors in dreams result in some different brain activity). If I stated my dreams have no colors, but I have colored vision, can that true? Could there be some sort of emotional or logical response for that reason?
"A gay marriage is not the governments business any more than a normal marriage is.
Record it, write it down, send them a bill and give 'em some rights.
Ain't that basicly what it does?"
Tell you what, if Marriage stays in the Religion arena, and the government offers a Flat Tax (no marriage benefits), would that work?
(By the way, I do object to the Federal Government being involved with legal issues of marriage.)
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
God is not what makes a religion a religion. there are many, MANY religions that have no god, such as buddhism.
Ok, in your terms, define religion.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Im not gay and I rly dont know but a couple of gay people and the ones I know probably would never consider marrying lol if homos want to get married I say let them... not like they are doing sociality any great moral deed anyway, if they wanna trade butt darts or carpet licks who am I too stop them.
"Apparently you have to redefine lie to lie of omission? I suppose referring to a red apple means you've redefined the term apple too. That's not an apple! That's a RED apple!"
Ok then, oh high and righteous one, why did you just lie when you stated, "I was calling your demand for control groups and your definition of them unscientific and unnecessary," when I was not the one who made that statement in that thread. Just as silly as with your attempt.
And on that particular thread, I asked you a question of which you ignored. Since you ignored it, I figured you were done.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
"Apparently you have to redefine lie to lie of omission? I suppose referring to a red apple means you've redefined the term apple too. That's not an apple! That's a RED apple!"
Ok then, oh high and righteous one, why did you just lie when you stated, "I was calling your demand for control groups and your definition of them unscientific and unnecessary," when I was not the one who made that statement in that thread. Just as silly as with your attempt.
Because frankly you decided to take up the mantra and normally I honestly don't pay too much attention to who posted what. If you don't hold that opinion, sorry for confusing you with another person. I normally don't do these childish personal crusades, but if someone is banging on your door with a torch...
And on that particular thread, I asked you a question of which you ignored. Since you ignored it, I figured you were done.
Um, you asked me about the credibility of a website. I do science, not blogs. Looked like a giant pile of advertising mumbo-jumbo to me. Is there some actual facts there? I'm sure there's probably a few. Also, I don't play 20 questions. This 'before I go further' nonsense is just silly. State your point or don't state your point (I bumped the thread, just for you). Now, do you want to discuss your evidence for a 'soul' of which you have none? Or your evidence that prayer is anything more than a way of making yourself feel useful in situations where you're actually useless, a way for people to give themselves an illusion of control.
P.S. Questions have '?'
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
It all comes down to the interpretation of the word, “believing.”
I think my logic works with principles. If something can be applied to one thing, then it can be applied to all things of such a matter.
A pear, a religion, the pear, the religion, pears, religions....
Can you eat the pear? Yes you can.
If you eat the entire pear, would it still be a pear? No it wouldn't, it'd simply be nothing.
In the same way:
Can you have a religion? Yes you can.
If you remove the whole religion ( call it what you want, become a non-believer, etc. etc.), would it still be a religion? No it wouldn't, it'd simply be none religion. (Thus absence of one.)
If you disagree with this logic, for any other reason than "a pear and a religion is to far away from each other to be comparised," please tell me why.
"An atheist as you described..."
By the way for clarification, to let you know I wasn't saying that you are an Atheist, with that statement, rather as you had described what an Atheist is.
That took me some seconds to ponder since we haven't included everything that's been said here
“Is it proven that you die? Yes it is.
Is it proven that you've got a soul? No it isn't.
Is it proven that there existsan afterlife? No it isn't.
Conclusion would be: We live then we die.”
Here you forgot to include the first sentence.
:"Is it proven that you've got a life? ( Please don't think of life as the internet version of it, where people have become notorious for not having lives.) Yes it is."
That probably happened because I had accidently managed to put brackets on the sentence.
Well you see, that is why I put “experienced” in those lines above.
I'm always honest, if possible, and thus I think I might be a bit naïve. (Other than when discussing.)
(That's in answer to manipulating and such^)
Some people claim to experienced the after-life, is that true in the sense of the actual experience or false in that such an event was the result of the chemical reactions of the brain shutting down?
Let's see... With experiencing after-life I think you refer to near death experiences.
I'll here use the same logic as is proven to be applied to alcohol (I saw it in an informative movie once. It was about alcohol, so just trust it =P).
Alcohol (etanol of course, not all those other thingies that kill you) has it's effect due to the strong expectation that it will behave thus and thus. Alcohol in itself is a poison, and in the same movie as mentioned, it was stated that if you had none expectations to alcohol, you would only become tired. (The brain's power is amazing!) If you think you'll become social trough alcohol, you will, if you think it'd make you cool, you'd behave as if it was cool etc. etc. etc. and etc.
Near death experiences is known to vary depending on the person's belief. Some people become calm, other's might think they are going to heaven (Oh, I've never read about a near death experience where the person headed straight to hell xD).
Belief here may thus be as the expectation to alcohol. It appears to do thus and thus because you think it will.
An example would be of dreams.
Science also works by gathering evidence and comparing it. Most dreams are in colours (mine are at least) and thus they can draw the conclusion that dreams are in colours.
"A gay marriage is not the governments business any more than a normal marriage is.
Record it, write it down, send them a bill and give 'em some rights.
Ain't that basicly what it does?"
Tell you what, if Marriage stays in the Religion arena, and the government offers a Flat Tax...
No marriage benefits, neither to heterosexuals, nor homosexuals would be equal, fair, and thus square. ( Okay, I think I'll have to go back to normal language ...)
If this seems entirely un-relevant I probably didn't understand the flat tax part.
I have to say I agree a bit with upallnight.
Women were seem worthless (often due to religion) and they revolted.
Blacks were seem worthless (again often due to religion. I think. Just had some doubts about that. I think, however, that I've read that some religions states black people to be worthless, and thus I'll stand by that,) and they revolted.
Homosexuals seems to me to be seen upon as worthless (or less worth...)and they will probably revolt too.
Im not gay and I rly dont know but a couple of gay people and the ones I know probably would never consider marrying lol if homos want to get married I say let them... not like they are doing sociality any great moral deed anyway, if they wanna trade butt darts or carpet licks who am I too stop them.
God is not what makes a religion a religion. there are many, MANY religions that have no god, such as buddhism.
Ok, in your terms, define religion.
Many religions with no gods.....I'll have to check on this one.
Checked, and what I thought confirmed. (Yes I used wikipedia xD and it confirmed what I though xD Thus I have two sources xD)
In buddhism gods exist.
The difference is that gods are, if I do not remember incorrectly, lower than humans.
Only humans can acquire Nirvana.
While the realm of gods ain't a bad one, the human one would be better, since you can then acquire Nirvana. (Which, I think, is peace of mind.)
Common misception, buddhism don't got gods.
It had to be said, and I said it. Applause, anyone?
Almost, attaining Nirvana meant that when you died, you were not born again like everyone else, and instead achieved a "higher state of being". This is just about the only religious group on Earth that doesn't desire a second chance at life.
On the other hand, the gods in that particular religion as I understand it are more holdovers from its Hinduistic roots than anything else, Hinduism has hundreds of the things. Buddism does not have gods in the sense that they have a particular being or beings they worship, or even offer a great deal of respect. The only worship here is that of a concept, an ideal.
Not trying to step on any toes here, by all means if there is a follower of either on board, please correct us ignorant yokels.
In any case, back on topic. Frankly, love is a wonderful thing. The connection between two individuals in love is a concept that our entire society is molded around. If two individuals honestly feel that way towards each other, they certainly should be able to admit it to the world without being reviled and discriminated against. This is particularly true of the men and women who are truly gay, and not simply bisexual/bicurious. A fair percentage of the world's population are physically and mentally incapable of forming a romantic connection with the opposite sex. The people who would ban homosexual activity entirely are asking them to die loveless and alone simply because they are different.
Frankly, the current issue primarily hangs upon the fact that many consider the concept of marriage itself sacred. So, since a bunch of desert nomads thousands of years ago decided they would ban gays along with pork, seafood, and allowing a woman to be around anyone or do anything during her time of month... (we managed to get rid of most of the rest of the BS in Leviticus, what happened? The damn thing was written for Tribal life, not modern times.)
I think the quickest way to resolve the issue, legally if nowhere else, would be to allow such marriages to take place, but call it something else. Call it a civil union if you must, but these men and women are still human beings, regardless of their taste in lovers, and they have the right to the same priveledges us "normies" enjoy.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
First I'll start off with a negative negative makes a positive, and thus you have stated that I have read your post, which I did.
Second I'll re-state my previous statement, since you haven't commented it at all:
My statement was based upon the five (or six) realms of buddhism.
Naraka (Translated as hells)
Animals (who share space with humans, but are another kind of life (Nirvana thingie)
Pretas
Humans
(Asuras (Inside brackets, as this realm ain't recognized by all schools of buddhism))
Devas (Often translated as gods)
Now, if I am not wrong this makes 3 (or 4) worlds.
Since pretas interact with humans, I place them in the same world as humans, this may or may not be right.
So you have the hell world.
The earth world (or whatever to call it)
(The lower deity world)
And the world of Devas (gods).
Now, from this, we can derive that the gods do not interact with humans, and that hell-beings do not ineract with humans. (I also put lower gods into this non-interact.)
Thus we have animals, and humans and pretas (which I couldn't quite understand what are) in one world.
Of course, a human can be reborn as a deity etc. etc. Or a pig a deity, since a human can be reborn a pig.
Gods cannot interact with humans, nor vice versa.
Thus you don't believe in gods.
But the realm is in buddhism, and thus gods are in buddhism.
Besides it's a discussion, not a link-a-page contest.
Originally posted by zeyth First I'll start off with a negative negative makes a positive, and thus you have stated that I have read your post, which I did. Second I'll re-state my previous statement, since you haven't commented it at all: My statement was based upon the five (or six) realms of buddhism. Naraka (Translated as hells) Animals (who share space with humans, but are another kind of life (Nirvana thingie) Pretas Humans (Asuras (Inside brackets, as this realm ain't recognized by all schools of buddhism)) Devas (Often translated as gods) Now, if I am not wrong this makes 3 (or 4) worlds. Since pretas interact with humans, I place them in the same world as humans, this may or may not be right. So you have the hell world. The earth world (or whatever to call it) (The lower deity world) And the world of Devas (gods). Now, from this, we can derive that the gods do not interact with humans, and that hell-beings do not ineract with humans. (I also put lower gods into this non-interact.) Thus we have animals, and humans and pretas (which I couldn't quite understand what are) in one world. Of course, a human can be reborn as a deity etc. etc. Or a pig a deity, since a human can be reborn a pig. Gods cannot interact with humans, nor vice versa. Thus you don't believe in gods. But the realm is in buddhism, and thus gods are in buddhism.
Besides it's a discussion, not a link-a-page contest. Make your own statement, or don't bother.
I won't comment on the insane philosophy, people always seem to take it the wrong way (woo woo).
But seriously, links are appreciated, because outside sources are by definition the only way to prove factual statements on the internet. I can make a convincing argument based on the 'fact' of bacterial life on mars, but I better damn well have a link to show that there actually IS bacterial life on Mars, capiche?
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Comments
“Thus atheism just count as a group to categorize people under, people who has no beliefs.”
That is an invalid statement. If you want to use hard logic, then you must use some other statement. There is no such condition or mental state for a person to have “no belief.” To chose to have no beliefs is a belief onto itself. It is a choice and requires a mental process.
“I believe in: Positive, Nothing, Negative, or a Combination?”
Which one is the correct answer? That is up to the individual and as such results in a belief.
An Atheist as you so described, chooses to believe with the material items and material facts at hand.
That is logic.
“Is not believing a belief?”
I do not believe in gods.
I believe in the absence of gods.
I do not believe in facts that have no physical material to them.
I believe in the physical material facts laid out before me.
I believe in the absence of belief.
“When you have a choice and don't make it, that in itself is a choice.”
- William James
Do you believe in God?
No, I do not believe in God.
Why?
Because I believe I am right.
An analogy:
A jury of a court of law decides on whether a person is guilty or innocent based on the evidence or lack thereof. This decision of theirs is based on what they believe is to be right.
Lemonade Example:
Your lemonade example has its flaws. First that the lemons would run out, which is not so of religious beliefs. Ever since humans were around, religious viewpoints have kept on going. So the flow or harvest of lemonades is always around. The second point is, there is no correlation of the person drinking the lemonade. There are three items: lemons (lemonade), the glass and the person drinking the lemonade; but only two, the lemons and glass are described. If a human is the glass, the lemonade is religion, then what is the person who drank the lemonade?
Flying Dragons Example:
Person A does not believe in flying dragons with three heads, but does believe in clear skies (the absence of flying dragons).
Person B does believe in flying dragons with three heads, but does not believe in clear skies.
Person C does believe in flying dragons with single heads, but does not believe in three heads or in clear skies.
Person D does believe in flying heads, but not believe in the bodies of flying dragons or in clear skies.
Person E does not believe in Person's A, B, C, or D's belief, rather believes in the power of self and of clear skies.
It simply makes person A not believe in flying dragons with three heads.
Or to say it in another way, This simply makes Person A believe in the absence of flying dragons with three heads.
“Now we'll go on to cover some differences between some religions and atheism (and don't ye say that not all religions are like this or that, if you can't cover 'em al and write a book about each religion. I'm fully aware of buddhism without gods, and other minor religions which may differ strongly from what stated here.)”
This is only a comparison of belief systems, which I could do the same with forms of similar belief systems, including Apatheism,versus Physicalism, Humanism versus Neurotheology, Agnosticism versus Materialism, Pantheism versus Panentheism.
Each of these are forms of Atheism, in which people believe that certain ones are correct, or more correct than others. Just as with Christianity, having is multiple forms, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Baptism, etc.
Some other religions to consider are Spirituality, Wicca, Scientology, New Age, of which do not fit the mainstream mold of religion as so listed.
(Oh, and by the way, flying dragons with three heads would have been really cool xD)
It would indeed.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Since this thread is going waaayyyy off topic, I'll put as much of an end to this atheism debate as possible.
You can't logically prove a negative. Asking me to prove that I have no belief is the same as asking me to prove that there's no tooth fairy. If belief exists, then you should be able to prove it no problem. Unfortunately for you, I don't feel that you've gotten there yet. You may be able to prove that atheism is an extreme form of agnosticism, but that's still not a religion in any common use definition of the word.
Now back to the gay marriage thing. Please give me a logical, secular argument as to why it's any of the government's business.
Tax benefits.
But the govt. wouldn't care anyways since finicialy speaking the 'couple' is the same as a married one. (well technically it would be two people who both have a statiscally higher income due to being male, a few very logical and non-sexist reasons for that though so lets not go there).
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
Well so much for playing nice, short lived it was. Very well.
Where did I lie?
Shall I outline it? Lie through omission. You specifically trimmed the quote to remove the context. The full quote reveals the context, which is that they are discussing Atheism in the LEGAL sense, which is to say that it deserves the LEGAL protections that are afforded to religion and other similar, non-religious philosophies. Since you trimmed the first sentance of the paragraph to remove any mention of that context, it was a deliberate lie through omission.
www.google.com/url
As for playing nice, you broke that when you decided that misquoting was a good way to make an argument. Deceptive tactics deserve direct response. I know you're going to hide behind the butthurt 'you are persecuting me' nonsense, but you are the one lying, you've been caught, it's not an 'attack' to call an apple an apple, an orange an orange, a lie a lie. You lied. This is not an attack. If I say that the sun rises in the North, it's not 'attacking me' to say 'This is a falsehood.'
Atheism is considered a religion in the legal sense, that is a fact. To say otherwise, involves "nonfactual" or "illogical" reasoning.
If we are referring the legal system of the United States of America, true. Of course, we were not speaking in a legal system, then the legal system takes the most liberal view of religion possible, by necessity. Defining 'what makes a religion' in the legal sense has been very difficult.
...To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion
To prove a soul exist is not possible in scientific terms, and therefore not a fact or by cold logic; but yet there are people who believe in it, and for some experienced it. Atheism is a belief system and has the same legal right as other forms of religions. A belief system is the political correctness version of religion.
Correct, the concept of a soul is about as meaningful as the boogyman in the closet, so is about as equally well treated scientifically.
As for a belief system being the political correctness form of religion, it's funny how you can try and tag a term with a buzz word and hope that will change the definition. Hint: It doesn't. See above.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
“Thus atheism just count as a group to categorize people under, people who has no beliefs.”
That is an invalid statement. If you want to use hard logic, then you must use some other statement. There is no such condition or mental state for a person to have “no belief.” To chose to have no beliefs is a belief onto itself. It is a choice and requires a mental process.
“I believe in: Positive, Nothing, Negative, or a Combination?”
Which one is the correct answer? That is up to the individual and as such results in a belief.
An Atheist as you so described, chooses to believe with the material items and material facts at hand.
That is logic.
First: To choose to have no beliefs is not a belief. As stated by you, that's something to chose. However you don't choose to have none beliefs, that happens by itself when you, trough your own logic, or way of thinking, reach a certain conclusion. You can of course, continue proclaiming that you believe something, but don't actually do so. (Or you can reach a conclusion that believing something would be the right thing, and just continue to do so.)
"An atheist as you described..."
I don't choose to believe something, I chose to draw a conclusion from the material at hand. There is a difference. Believing is when you can't draw a conclusion from the material at hand (NOTE: A full conclusion. This might also be a little bit hard to understand, but I couldn't get it down in another way. Since I had an idea in my head, not a paraghraph in my head.)
Conclusion; You don't simply choose to believe in something or to not do so.
“Is not believing a belief?”
I do not believe in gods.
I believe in the absence of gods.
I do not believe in facts that have no physical material to them.
I believe in the physical material facts laid out before me.
I believe in the absence of belief.
“When you have a choice and don't make it, that in itself is a choice.”
- William James
You seem to mix up choosing and believing.
You seem to not get the idea of absence of something. "I do not believe"
"not believe" as in 0 believing. Absence of it.
Absence of absence would be back where it started. But it's just one absence and thus, no believing.
"I do not believe in facts that have no physical material to them."
It is not a fact if it does not got physical material (if that means proof) to it.
Do you believe in God?
No, I do not believe in God.
Why?
Because I believe I am right.
Do you believe in God?
No, I don't.
Why?
Because there's no evidence of him.
An analogy:
A jury of a court of law decides on whether a person is guilty or innocent based on the evidence or lack thereof. This decision of theirs is based on what they believe is to be right.
But that is not from the person itself. An outside view cannot be entirely true to the view of the person, which is the best one to look upon when it is about something mattering with the person.
(Of course, that's just true if the following conditions is met:
The person ain't crazy.
The person is honest.)
Lemonade Example:
Your lemonade example has its flaws. First that the lemons would run out, which is not so of religious beliefs. Ever since humans were around, religious viewpoints have kept on going. So the flow or harvest of lemonades is always around. The second point is, there is no correlation of the person drinking the lemonade. There are three items: lemons (lemonade), the glass and the person drinking the lemonade; but only two, the lemons and glass are described. If a human is the glass, the lemonade is religion, then what is the person who drank the lemonade?
Lemons? I was speaking of a single glass of lemonade.
A person drinking is not really a matter with the example either.
I guess it did have it's flaws.
Okay, imagine the glass to be the human, the human has none belief anymore, because of the person drinking the lemonade (just imagine the person drinking the lemonade to be some sort of inquisition. Inquisitions have worked before, properly done, they'd work again. (No I don't think inquisitions are good.(An example of an inquisition would be the Norse religion.)))
The matter was really the absence of lemonade ( religion) would the absence of lemonade be a glass of lemonade? No. Would the absence of belief in something be a belief? No.
(I guess that's what could be called a principle.)
Flying Dragons Example:
Person A does not believe in flying dragons with three heads, but does believe in clear skies (the absence of flying dragons).
Person B does believe in flying dragons with three heads, but does not believe in clear skies.
Person C does believe in flying dragons with single heads, but does not believe in three heads or in clear skies.
Person D does believe in flying heads, but not believe in the bodies of flying dragons or in clear skies.
Person E does not believe in Person's A, B, C, or D's belief, rather believes in the power of self and of clear skies.
It simply makes person A not believe in flying dragons with three heads.
Or to say it in another way, This simply makes Person A believe in the absence of flying dragons with three heads.
(Okay, I laughed at Person D xD)
Person F is the non-believing. He would not belief in dragons or heads if he was not shown proof, and he would not believe in the absence of it either unless proof was shown.
(Is it proven that you've got a life? ( Please don't think of life as the internet version of it, where people have become notorious for not having lives.) Yes it is.
Is it proven that you die? Yes it is.
Is it proven that you've got a soul? No it isn't.
Is it proven that there existsan afterlife? No it isn't.
Conclusion would be: We live then we die.
“Now we'll go on to cover some differences between some religions and atheism (and don't ye say that not all religions are like this or that, if you can't cover 'em al and write a book about each religion. I'm fully aware of buddhism without gods, and other minor religions which may differ strongly from what stated here.)”
This is only a comparison of belief systems, which I could do the same with forms of similar belief systems, including Apatheism,versus Physicalism, Humanism versus Neurotheology, Agnosticism versus Materialism, Pantheism versus Panentheism.
Each of these are forms of Atheism, in which people believe that certain ones are correct, or more correct than others. Just as with Christianity, having is multiple forms, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Baptism, etc.
Some other religions to consider are Spirituality, Wicca, Scientology, New Age, of which do not fit the mainstream mold of religion as so listed.
I said in my text about that, that it was a partly quote, and that the site it was taken from had it's flaws.
The main form of Atheism is without a belief. I may not be sure, but I think the sub-forms thus speaks about what to do with your one life, and that again, is also up to each invidual person.
It's the same as comparing believers in Christianity (See, I had a show of respect!)
You have thoose actually nice believers, who try to live a virtuous life.
You've got thoose who just say they are Christian, but don't do anything.
You've got extremists, who (in my eyes) are idiots.
You've also got people who just needs something to blame for their bad deeds.
(Don't ask me for the logic behind this, I can't remember it, but I did see the logic while I wrote it, and thus I let it stand.)
(Oh, and by the way, flying dragons with three heads would have been really cool xD)
It would indeed.
Sidenote: Writing inside stuff in such a way is remarkably easy ^^
A gay marriage is not the governments business any more than a normal marriage is.
Record it, write it down, send them a bill and give 'em some rights.
Ain't that basicly what it does?
And that is a good way of putting it.
I believe in gravity. So does the group of people around me.
Clearly gravity is a religion, amirite?
Oh, so now you are redefining the lie to a lie of omission.
You say I am being deceptive, however you also stated, "If we are referring the legal system of the United States of America, true." Then you make your own spin by "... then the legal system takes the most liberal view of religion possible, by necessity," which is an opinion not a fact.
I can say the same of you, since you like to omit scientific information if it does not support your cause.
So try again.
"Correct, the concept of a soul is about as meaningful as the boogyman in the closet, so is about as equally well treated scientifically."
This coming from a personality who says Control Groups are not science, but statistics. You claim to be of a scienifitc mind, but yet disregard historical information or proven information which goes against your beliefs. That history has no importance, yet with any scientific assessment, past history is accounted for; except for yours. Your science is politically driven and only exists if it can be physical. 'If I cannot see it, it does not exist.'
Why is it that people who are sick and have others praying for them, recover faster than those who have no prayers onto them? Oh that can't be true, it is not scientific. They are just religious driven studies based only on biased statistics.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
And that is a good way of putting it.
I believe in gravity. So does the group of people around me.
Clearly gravity is a religion, amirite?
i think that means you believe gravity is real ...... I dont see how thats a valid analogy
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
Is Gravity a god?
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Is Gravity a god?
God is not what makes a religion a religion. there are many, MANY religions that have no god, such as buddhism.
Oh, so now you are redefining the lie to a lie of omission.
*blink* Apparently you have to redefine lie to lie of omission? I suppose referring to a red apple means you've redefined the term apple too. That's not an apple! That's a RED apple!
I've seen some really convoluted logic, but this is top 10 material.
You say I am being deceptive, however you also stated, "If we are referring the legal system of the United States of America, true." Then you make your own spin by "... then the legal system takes the most liberal view of religion possible, by necessity," which is an opinion not a fact.
No, it's a fact based on multiple rulings on the first amendment which have determined that it is very hard to factually describe religion in a manner consistent with that intended by the founding fathers without unfairly excluding groups, and that the founding fathers wished the right to be an inclusive right. This leads to a very liberal definition of religion, since essentially any philosophy is religious.
I can say the same of you, since you like to omit scientific information if it does not support your cause.
So try again.
"Correct, the concept of a soul is about as meaningful as the boogyman in the closet, so is about as equally well treated scientifically."
This coming from a personality who says Control Groups are not science, but statistics. You claim to be of a scienifitc mind, but yet disregard historical information or proven information which goes against your beliefs. That history has no importance, yet with any scientific assessment, past history is accounted for; except for yours. Your science is politically driven and only exists if it can be physical. 'If I cannot see it, it does not exist.'
No, I was calling your demand for control groups and your definition of them unscientific and unnecessary. Also, you are personalizing this. You COULD NOT address the global warming science in the global warming thread. If you wish to return to that thread to attempt to muster some sort of scientific defense, please do so. Your failure there and subsequent dragging it into this discussion is obnoxious, off topic, and is just going to bring up more and more failures.
Oh wait, that's a personal attack.
Now, back ON TOPIC: I do not believe 'what I cannot see, does not exist.' I believe in Occam's Razor - do not unnecessarily multiply entities. Everything we observe through everything we see of human existence can be explained materially. The soul is an unnecessarily multiplied entity - no evidence, no explanatory power, no reason at all to think it exists.
Now if you want to submit some 'proven information' that would suggest any evidence for the soul's existence, be my guest. I have a feeling that I'll be seeing more silly stuff about how people are 'absolutely sure' they have a soul or testimony from people who saw flashing lights and UFOs and other nonsense. If I get anything at all besides more silence on the concept of FACTS.
Why is it that people who are sick and have others praying for them, recover faster than those who have no prayers onto them? Oh that can't be true, it is not scientific. They are just religious driven studies based only on biased statistics.
articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/31/science/sci-prayer31
www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_060330_prayer.html
But hey, feel free to provide some 95% confidence interval studies that had zero repeatability done by grad students. I mean 95% confidence interval means its going to fluke, and there's been a lot of studies done. I'll provide studies that show prayer is hurting people, 95% confidence interval if you wish. I guess God is killing off those people bugging him
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
"First: To choose to have no beliefs is not a belief. As stated by you, that's something to chose."
It all comes down to the interpretation of the word, “believing.”
And I think both of us can keep on going round and round with this. So I'm willing to agree to disagree with you. We each strongly think in being right and essentially a philosophical discussion, “What is to believe or not to believe?”
You: A person who makes a decision by what facts are presented or experienced, is not considered to have a belief.
I: A person who makes a decision by what facts are presented or experienced, is considered to have a belief.
"An atheist as you described..."
By the way for clarification, to let you know I wasn't saying that you are an Atheist, with that statement, rather as you had described what an Atheist is.
“Is it proven that you die? Yes it is.
Is it proven that you've got a soul? No it isn't.
Is it proven that there existsan afterlife? No it isn't.
Conclusion would be: We live then we die.”
Well you see, that is why I put “experienced” in those lines above. Certain things cannot be proven until proven by self experience. Some things cannot be proven by hard logic, they can only be experienced. Which is why I don't mention them, since there is no proof through electronic means and can easily be discredited by assumption (photo-editing, video manipulation, staged, story-telling, etc).
Some people claim to experienced the after-life, is that true in the sense of the actual experience or false in that such an event was the result of the chemical reactions of the brain shutting down? If taking the chemical reaction response, how can that be proven and/or the answers classified due to the ranges people have provided (bright light, music, darkness, nothing, cold, warmth, past events/life, voices, etc)? Perhaps we do not have the proper technology as of yet to explain this.
An example would be of dreams. Science cannot prove that dreams are in the full color spectrum, we can only know for certain through our own experience (full colors, limited colors, absence of colors, or the brain's attempt at putting colors together; do colors in dreams result in some different brain activity). If I stated my dreams have no colors, but I have colored vision, can that true? Could there be some sort of emotional or logical response for that reason?
"A gay marriage is not the governments business any more than a normal marriage is.
Record it, write it down, send them a bill and give 'em some rights.
Ain't that basicly what it does?"
Tell you what, if Marriage stays in the Religion arena, and the government offers a Flat Tax (no marriage benefits), would that work?
(By the way, I do object to the Federal Government being involved with legal issues of marriage.)
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Ok, in your terms, define religion.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Im not gay and I rly dont know but a couple of gay people and the ones I know probably would never consider marrying lol if homos want to get married I say let them... not like they are doing sociality any great moral deed anyway, if they wanna trade butt darts or carpet licks who am I too stop them.
"Apparently you have to redefine lie to lie of omission? I suppose referring to a red apple means you've redefined the term apple too. That's not an apple! That's a RED apple!"
Ok then, oh high and righteous one, why did you just lie when you stated, "I was calling your demand for control groups and your definition of them unscientific and unnecessary," when I was not the one who made that statement in that thread. Just as silly as with your attempt.
And on that particular thread, I asked you a question of which you ignored. Since you ignored it, I figured you were done.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
"Apparently you have to redefine lie to lie of omission? I suppose referring to a red apple means you've redefined the term apple too. That's not an apple! That's a RED apple!"
Ok then, oh high and righteous one, why did you just lie when you stated, "I was calling your demand for control groups and your definition of them unscientific and unnecessary," when I was not the one who made that statement in that thread. Just as silly as with your attempt.
Because frankly you decided to take up the mantra and normally I honestly don't pay too much attention to who posted what. If you don't hold that opinion, sorry for confusing you with another person. I normally don't do these childish personal crusades, but if someone is banging on your door with a torch...
And on that particular thread, I asked you a question of which you ignored. Since you ignored it, I figured you were done.
Um, you asked me about the credibility of a website. I do science, not blogs. Looked like a giant pile of advertising mumbo-jumbo to me. Is there some actual facts there? I'm sure there's probably a few. Also, I don't play 20 questions. This 'before I go further' nonsense is just silly. State your point or don't state your point (I bumped the thread, just for you). Now, do you want to discuss your evidence for a 'soul' of which you have none? Or your evidence that prayer is anything more than a way of making yourself feel useful in situations where you're actually useless, a way for people to give themselves an illusion of control.
P.S. Questions have '?'
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
It all comes down to the interpretation of the word, “believing.”
I think my logic works with principles. If something can be applied to one thing, then it can be applied to all things of such a matter.
A pear, a religion, the pear, the religion, pears, religions....
Can you eat the pear? Yes you can.
If you eat the entire pear, would it still be a pear? No it wouldn't, it'd simply be nothing.
In the same way:
Can you have a religion? Yes you can.
If you remove the whole religion ( call it what you want, become a non-believer, etc. etc.), would it still be a religion? No it wouldn't, it'd simply be none religion. (Thus absence of one.)
If you disagree with this logic, for any other reason than "a pear and a religion is to far away from each other to be comparised," please tell me why.
"An atheist as you described..."
By the way for clarification, to let you know I wasn't saying that you are an Atheist, with that statement, rather as you had described what an Atheist is.
That took me some seconds to ponder since we haven't included everything that's been said here
“Is it proven that you die? Yes it is.
Is it proven that you've got a soul? No it isn't.
Is it proven that there existsan afterlife? No it isn't.
Conclusion would be: We live then we die.”
Here you forgot to include the first sentence.
:"Is it proven that you've got a life? ( Please don't think of life as the internet version of it, where people have become notorious for not having lives.) Yes it is."
That probably happened because I had accidently managed to put brackets on the sentence.
Well you see, that is why I put “experienced” in those lines above.
I'm always honest, if possible, and thus I think I might be a bit naïve. (Other than when discussing.)
(That's in answer to manipulating and such^)
Some people claim to experienced the after-life, is that true in the sense of the actual experience or false in that such an event was the result of the chemical reactions of the brain shutting down?
Let's see... With experiencing after-life I think you refer to near death experiences.
I'll here use the same logic as is proven to be applied to alcohol (I saw it in an informative movie once. It was about alcohol, so just trust it =P).
Alcohol (etanol of course, not all those other thingies that kill you) has it's effect due to the strong expectation that it will behave thus and thus. Alcohol in itself is a poison, and in the same movie as mentioned, it was stated that if you had none expectations to alcohol, you would only become tired. (The brain's power is amazing!) If you think you'll become social trough alcohol, you will, if you think it'd make you cool, you'd behave as if it was cool etc. etc. etc. and etc.
Near death experiences is known to vary depending on the person's belief. Some people become calm, other's might think they are going to heaven (Oh, I've never read about a near death experience where the person headed straight to hell xD).
Belief here may thus be as the expectation to alcohol. It appears to do thus and thus because you think it will.
An example would be of dreams.
Science also works by gathering evidence and comparing it. Most dreams are in colours (mine are at least) and thus they can draw the conclusion that dreams are in colours.
"A gay marriage is not the governments business any more than a normal marriage is.
Record it, write it down, send them a bill and give 'em some rights.
Ain't that basicly what it does?"
Tell you what, if Marriage stays in the Religion arena, and the government offers a Flat Tax...
No marriage benefits, neither to heterosexuals, nor homosexuals would be equal, fair, and thus square. ( Okay, I think I'll have to go back to normal language ...)
If this seems entirely un-relevant I probably didn't understand the flat tax part.
I have to say I agree a bit with upallnight.
Women were seem worthless (often due to religion) and they revolted.
Blacks were seem worthless (again often due to religion. I think. Just had some doubts about that. I think, however, that I've read that some religions states black people to be worthless, and thus I'll stand by that,) and they revolted.
Homosexuals seems to me to be seen upon as worthless (or less worth...)and they will probably revolt too.
Ok, in your terms, define religion.
Many religions with no gods.....I'll have to check on this one.
Checked, and what I thought confirmed. (Yes I used wikipedia xD and it confirmed what I though xD Thus I have two sources xD)
In buddhism gods exist.
The difference is that gods are, if I do not remember incorrectly, lower than humans.
Only humans can acquire Nirvana.
While the realm of gods ain't a bad one, the human one would be better, since you can then acquire Nirvana. (Which, I think, is peace of mind.)
Common misception, buddhism don't got gods.
It had to be said, and I said it. Applause, anyone?
Ok, in your terms, define religion.
Many religions with no gods.....I'll have to check on this one.
Checked, and what I thought confirmed. (Yes I used wikipedia xD and it confirmed what I though xD Thus I have two sources xD)
In buddhism gods exist.
The difference is that gods are, if I do not remember incorrectly, lower than humans.
Only humans can acquire Nirvana.
While the realm of gods ain't a bad one, the human one would be better, since you can then acquire Nirvana. (Which, I think, is peace of mind.)
Common misception, buddhism don't got gods.
It had to be said, and I said it. Applause, anyone?
http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/buddhism_atheistic.htm
and like christianity there are many different kinds of buddhism, and some of them are in fact atheist.
Thank you for your support. Uhhhhmmmm, I think.
Butt darts?
--------------------------------------
Ok, in your terms, define religion.
Many religions with no gods.....I'll have to check on this one.
Checked, and what I thought confirmed. (Yes I used wikipedia xD and it confirmed what I though xD Thus I have two sources xD)
In buddhism gods exist.
The difference is that gods are, if I do not remember incorrectly, lower than humans.
Only humans can acquire Nirvana.
While the realm of gods ain't a bad one, the human one would be better, since you can then acquire Nirvana. (Which, I think, is peace of mind.)
Common misception, buddhism don't got gods.
It had to be said, and I said it. Applause, anyone?
Almost, attaining Nirvana meant that when you died, you were not born again like everyone else, and instead achieved a "higher state of being". This is just about the only religious group on Earth that doesn't desire a second chance at life.
On the other hand, the gods in that particular religion as I understand it are more holdovers from its Hinduistic roots than anything else, Hinduism has hundreds of the things. Buddism does not have gods in the sense that they have a particular being or beings they worship, or even offer a great deal of respect. The only worship here is that of a concept, an ideal.
Not trying to step on any toes here, by all means if there is a follower of either on board, please correct us ignorant yokels.
In any case, back on topic. Frankly, love is a wonderful thing. The connection between two individuals in love is a concept that our entire society is molded around. If two individuals honestly feel that way towards each other, they certainly should be able to admit it to the world without being reviled and discriminated against. This is particularly true of the men and women who are truly gay, and not simply bisexual/bicurious. A fair percentage of the world's population are physically and mentally incapable of forming a romantic connection with the opposite sex. The people who would ban homosexual activity entirely are asking them to die loveless and alone simply because they are different.
Frankly, the current issue primarily hangs upon the fact that many consider the concept of marriage itself sacred. So, since a bunch of desert nomads thousands of years ago decided they would ban gays along with pork, seafood, and allowing a woman to be around anyone or do anything during her time of month... (we managed to get rid of most of the rest of the BS in Leviticus, what happened? The damn thing was written for Tribal life, not modern times.)
I think the quickest way to resolve the issue, legally if nowhere else, would be to allow such marriages to take place, but call it something else. Call it a civil union if you must, but these men and women are still human beings, regardless of their taste in lovers, and they have the right to the same priveledges us "normies" enjoy.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
Ok, in your terms, define religion.
Many religions with no gods.....I'll have to check on this one.
Checked, and what I thought confirmed. (Yes I used wikipedia xD and it confirmed what I though xD Thus I have two sources xD)
In buddhism gods exist.
The difference is that gods are, if I do not remember incorrectly, lower than humans.
Only humans can acquire Nirvana.
While the realm of gods ain't a bad one, the human one would be better, since you can then acquire Nirvana. (Which, I think, is peace of mind.)
Common misception, buddhism don't got gods.
It had to be said, and I said it. Applause, anyone?
http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/buddhism_atheistic.htm
and like christianity there are many different kinds of buddhism, and some of them are in fact atheist.
Buddhism got gods.
They don't worship them.
They don't offer the gods respect.
The gods live in a different realm than humans.
Only humans can attain Nirvana.
Being reborn as a human would be better than as a god.
There still exists gods in the religion.
I just couldn't bother really typing it out last time.
Ok, in your terms, define religion.
Many religions with no gods.....I'll have to check on this one.
Checked, and what I thought confirmed. (Yes I used wikipedia xD and it confirmed what I though xD Thus I have two sources xD)
In buddhism gods exist.
The difference is that gods are, if I do not remember incorrectly, lower than humans.
Only humans can acquire Nirvana.
While the realm of gods ain't a bad one, the human one would be better, since you can then acquire Nirvana. (Which, I think, is peace of mind.)
Common misception, buddhism don't got gods.
It had to be said, and I said it. Applause, anyone?
http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/buddhism_atheistic.htm
and like christianity there are many different kinds of buddhism, and some of them are in fact atheist.
Buddhism got gods.
They don't worship them.
They don't offer the gods respect.
The gods live in a different realm than humans.
Only humans can attain Nirvana.
Being reborn as a human would be better than as a god.
There still exists gods in the religion.
I just couldn't bother really typing it out last time.
You haven't read my post at all haven't you? Not every part of buddhism believes in god, others don't, It's not all black & white.
www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm
Ok, in your terms, define religion.
Many religions with no gods.....I'll have to check on this one.
Checked, and what I thought confirmed. (Yes I used wikipedia xD and it confirmed what I though xD Thus I have two sources xD)
In buddhism gods exist.
The difference is that gods are, if I do not remember incorrectly, lower than humans.
Only humans can acquire Nirvana.
While the realm of gods ain't a bad one, the human one would be better, since you can then acquire Nirvana. (Which, I think, is peace of mind.)
Common misception, buddhism don't got gods.
It had to be said, and I said it. Applause, anyone?
http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/buddhism_atheistic.htm
and like christianity there are many different kinds of buddhism, and some of them are in fact atheist.
Buddhism got gods.
They don't worship them.
They don't offer the gods respect.
The gods live in a different realm than humans.
Only humans can attain Nirvana.
Being reborn as a human would be better than as a god.
There still exists gods in the religion.
I just couldn't bother really typing it out last time.
You haven't read my post at all haven't you? Not every part of buddhism believes in god, others don't, It's not all black & white.
www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm
First I'll start off with a negative negative makes a positive, and thus you have stated that I have read your post, which I did.
Second I'll re-state my previous statement, since you haven't commented it at all:
My statement was based upon the five (or six) realms of buddhism.
Naraka (Translated as hells)
Animals (who share space with humans, but are another kind of life (Nirvana thingie)
Pretas
Humans
(Asuras (Inside brackets, as this realm ain't recognized by all schools of buddhism))
Devas (Often translated as gods)
Now, if I am not wrong this makes 3 (or 4) worlds.
Since pretas interact with humans, I place them in the same world as humans, this may or may not be right.
So you have the hell world.
The earth world (or whatever to call it)
(The lower deity world)
And the world of Devas (gods).
Now, from this, we can derive that the gods do not interact with humans, and that hell-beings do not ineract with humans. (I also put lower gods into this non-interact.)
Thus we have animals, and humans and pretas (which I couldn't quite understand what are) in one world.
Of course, a human can be reborn as a deity etc. etc. Or a pig a deity, since a human can be reborn a pig.
Gods cannot interact with humans, nor vice versa.
Thus you don't believe in gods.
But the realm is in buddhism, and thus gods are in buddhism.
Besides it's a discussion, not a link-a-page contest.
Make your own statement, or don't bother.
I won't comment on the insane philosophy, people always seem to take it the wrong way (woo woo).
But seriously, links are appreciated, because outside sources are by definition the only way to prove factual statements on the internet. I can make a convincing argument based on the 'fact' of bacterial life on mars, but I better damn well have a link to show that there actually IS bacterial life on Mars, capiche?
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson