God/Religion. Why?

[Elise]

I was actually against building that Mosque in ground zero. A mosque is just a freaking building, if it's going to bring unhappiness to so many people then why build it? Find another location. Besides, that attack has already messed up the image of Muslims all over the world, it was the day when my religion was hijacked, and I already explained in the other thread that it has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, and then when the world finally starts to understand the truth; some 'idiots' want to build a mosque there, don't they see that their actions were so wrong in many ways. And it created what you see in the picture above, and I don't blame these people very much... it is their natural reaction, even if they are ignorant.

I honestly did not know that - thanks for informing me!

I agree, i was just using Catholicism as an example because i'm not 100% sure if other Christians fully agreed with everything i said. Didn't want to misrepresent other Christian groups. Your friend makes a good point. You and i both believe in a loving God and ultimately that makes us like brothers and sisters turning to the same creator for guidance. Aside from a few traditions and rituals, Muslim and Catholic/Christian followers are very similar. That, and we follow the words of two different prophets.

Oh there are tons more! But I think I shouldn't go deeper because some people may call me a preacher. Generally speaking though, I agree with Christians about all matters concerning Jesus except his divinity and crucifixion, yes everything about him is unique; his birth, his life, his miracles, but to me these are evidences for the majesty of God, not the divinity of his prophet.

I love what you wrote in the second part =)
Sadly most people forget that humans are far more important than ideas and opinions.

[Alpha]

I was actually against building that Mosque in ground zero. A mosque is just a freaking building, if it's going to bring unhappiness to so many people then why build it? Find another location. Besides, that attack has already messed up the image of Muslims all over the world, it was the day when my religion was hijacked, and I already explained in the other thread that it has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, and then when the world finally starts to understand the truth; some 'idiots' want to build a mosque there, don't they see that their actions were so wrong in many ways. And it created what you see in the picture above, and I don't blame these people very much... it is their natural reaction, even if they are ignorant.

Well.. fair enough, and it was bad of me to make an assumption.

But the 'mosque' 'on/in' 'Ground Zero' was nothing of the sort.

It was to be an interfaith community centre, which included a space for Muslims to pray. From Wikipedia: "The proposed multi-faith aspects of the design include a 500-seat auditorium, theater, a performing arts center, a fitness center, a swimming pool, a basketball court, a childcare area, a bookstore, a culinary school, an art studio, a food court, and a memorial to the victims of the September 11 attacks."

And it was two blocks from Ground Zero.

All this is beside the point though. I'm trying to establish that the differences we suggest exist are largely imaginary. They are borne from misunderstandings, ignorance, and intolerance. The 'Ground Zero mosque' is the kind of thing we need post-9/11.

[Heartless Angel]

dont need proof to deny something. Its actually quite logical. Would you just default to beliving me when I say I have an invisible penguin in my hand? No, you would say 'I dont believe you, prove it'. Theres nothing illogical about that, its common sense to require some form of evidence to believe it. Faith is not evidence, it is a blind belief. Its also an example of the double standards held by those who believe in the existence of a god by the simple fact that I cant prove my invisable penguin just like they cant prove their god, yet they would still call me stupid or silly or my argument is dumb etc.

If someone says to me to prove their god doesnt exist, I cant do that. That doesnt give them more reason to believe he does exist. An atheist will respond to claims that a god does exist. Im sick of people trying to shift the burden of proof which will always be on them since they are the ones making the claim.

You're confusing two very different things here. In the abscence of evidence for conclusion 'X', not accepting X as true is common sense and is completely logical. Saying X is false because of that lack of evidence is not. In fact it's so illogical, it's been defined as a formal logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantium. This is where we make the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. Atheism DOES make the claim that there is definitely No God. ~X is every bit as much a claim as X. If you say there is No God, the burden of proof is on YOU just as much as it is on the theist. Agnosticism makes no claim of knowledge, agnosticism is the only position which never has the burden of proof.

However, i would like to ask a question to everyone out there (regardless of religious beliefs) - what values do you intend to pass on to your children?

The only values I really care about, are those of critical thinking. I reject the concept of morallity in its entirety. I'll teach my kids to learn about the world around them and to make their own informed judgements. I'd actually rather my kids didn't just blindly accept whatever I tell them because I'm their dad. I want them to accept only the things that truly make sense to them. All I can do is help them understand the rules of logic, so that they can make sense of the really difficult concepts and come to an informed opinion of their own. If those opinions happen to agree with mine, awesome, if not, awesome. I'll be much happier knowing they think and understand things on their own, and will go on to function as intelligent, critcally thinking individuals in society than I would knowing they had all the same beliefs as me.

Because the divine being is not a physical matter, and philosophical materialism cannot answer this. The continuous expansion of the universe implies that if it could go back in time, the universe would prove to have originated from a single point. A physical matter that has zero volume and infinite density, these concepts are used to explain the meaning of nothingness, science can easily explain it, but it is beyond the limits of human comprehension. This zero volume matter exploded, the Big Bang happened, and created the universe. God is not a physical matter that can apply to physical laws and certainly not to human comprehension, thus I don’t think the circular reasoning you are suggesting is valid. This reason also explains why I don’t believe in Jesus as God or his son or the holy trinity, in any form Christians may suggest, because what is non-physical cannot be brought down to physical means in any way.

A materialist could never accept a divine being unless is was understood to have a material existence, so of course materialism couldn't answer that. However, my statement doesn't rely on the idea of materialism. When I say a universe that needs no cause, I wasn't refferingspecifically to our known universe, simply to whatever state all existance was initially in. We understand that state to be a single point of 0 valume and infinite density. The question still stands, why is it Okay to assume that there is a divine being which was just there, but not that there was a point of infinite density and no volume that was just there? It isn't. Either belief requires we accept something was just there. What it is is irellevant, either way we have to accept that there is one first link to the causal chain that has become our reality. That doesn't help us identify that link in any way.

I understand where Rowan is coming from buuut even if it is common sense to need proof to believe something none of us actually totally live like that.

I do actually. Which means I really don't 'believe' anything. I percieve what I undrstand as reality, I interpret and comprehend it in whatever way I can, but the thought is always at the back of my mind, that I have no true logical basis to believe anything at all. My eyes can see facts, but they can not grasp one single truth. We base much our lives on understanding of evidence, never true absolute proof.

[Hero without a Name]

After seeing this thread...to be truly honest I'm surprised no one has become a troll and say something really stupid...everyone has been really cool with everything, I've read everyone's post. Props to everyone.

As for myself, I would call myself a Christian. I believe there is a God, he had a son name Jesus who died on the cross for our sins and those who believe in him and ask him into our hearts we shall have eternal life....granted during the road with God, I've had my setbacks, I have sinned...multiple times in different ways, but the bottom line is I have God pulling at my heart strings many a times just reminding me to love the world and to spread the good word.

That's just my opinion. Am I wrong? Am I right? I really can't be sure because even if I say anything, I'm going to start an unwanted fight. So I'm gonna end my post by saying this

"We all have different beliefs in God, religion, etc. What is right and wrong, I cannot say nor do I have the right to judge anyone for I am only human. My only hope is if you find something, you may find peace in your heart and you can spread love to everyone around you"

Love is the strong emotion, if you have that in your heart, I think you're good

[Elise]

A materialist could never accept a divine being unless is was understood to have a material existence, so of course materialism couldn't answer that. However, my statement doesn't rely on the idea of materialism. When I say a universe that needs no cause, I wasn't refferingspecifically to our known universe, simply to whatever state all existance was initially in. We understand that state to be a single point of 0 valume and infinite density. The question still stands, why is it Okay to assume that there is a divine being which was just there, but not that there was a point of infinite density and no volume that was just there? It isn't. Either belief requires we accept something was just there. What it is is irellevant, either way we have to accept that there is one first link to the causal chain that has become our reality. That doesn't help us identify that link in any way.

Do you think mankind will ever reach an absolute knowledge of nothingness before space and time came to exist?
Well I don’t, but from my understanding it seems to me that it’s the only way you will ever start to believe or disbelieve. The science we know now based solely on the human experience, science cannot explain everything, and you are stopping at the limits of the scientific evidence, which I agree with its fundamentals, but, in my case, my faith comes afterwards. The human brain is not that great to grasp all the science and logic in the world, not mentioning the 99% that are still unknown. Faith is an extension of science, and I believe they go together and complete each other. Neither science nor religion is able to stand alone, so my philosophy goes in having them both.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I think our argument is bottomless as you don’t acknowledge faith as data. However, I’m very interested in your opinion, because to be honest this is the first time I encounter someone with that (referring to your response to Rowan) definition of agnosticism. If I ask you; how did everything begin? What was the beginning of it all? You will answer me that you refuse to use the mental definition of our universe and everything in it to explain a beginning, or that we cannot prove the past with our present information, right? Then my question obviously would be… how?! Your logic itself requires faith. Are we circling around with no beginning and no end? Everything must have a beginning, even a circle. Or are you implying that there is a moment that shares a beginning and an end, and they circle around, but isn’t that a part of a bigger circle?? Having a beginning is essential.

Love is the strong emotion, if you have that in your heart, I think you're good

[Heartless Angel]

Do you think mankind will ever reach an absolute knowledge of nothingness before space and time came to exist?
Well I don’t, but from my understanding it seems to me that it’s the only way you will ever start to believe or disbelieve.

I'd like to think we will, however I have no real evidence to support the claim that we will. Until we can know as an absolute, I choose to believe nothing, the only conclusion a lack of evidence can ever support.

The science we know now based solely on the human experience, science cannot explain everything, and you are stopping at the limits of the scientific evidence, which I agree with its fundamentals, but, in my case, my faith comes afterwards. The human brain is not that great to grasp all the science and logic in the world, not mentioning the 99% that are still unknown. Faith is an extension of science, and I believe they go together and complete each other. Neither science nor religion is able to stand alone, so my philosophy goes in having them both.

I actually go well beyond science. I delve into philosophy, breaking down each and every belief I and anyone else could ever have before finally reaching the most fundamental. Most people try to work forward only with logic, I on the other hand go back to the beginning. It's at the beginning I realize that our most fundamental beliefs are based upon nothing but faith. And we build our entire understanding of reality around that first act of faith. Faith comes not at the end, but at the beginning, from there I attempt to build an understanding of reality based only on the things I have faith in the significance of, logic, reason, science, and empirical data. I may be wrong, we all may be wrong. We can't really know, at least not as we are now. However, to function, we must have that fundamental belief to build our understandings of reality around. Faith however, is not logic. It can't fill in the gaps in the evidence to create certainty. As long as we must rely on faith, we can never have certainty. When it comes to metaphysics I'm interested only in absolute truths and certainties, so I remove all but the most fundamental and essential faiths from my system of beliefs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I think our argument is bottomless as you don’t acknowledge faith as data. However, I’m very interested in your opinion, because to be honest this is the first time I encounter someone with that (referring to your response to Rowan) definition of agnosticism.

Actuallly, most any argument is bottomless if you get as far into it as I do with this one. But yes, faith is not evidence, nor is it an acceptable substitute for it. However, it's literally impossible to base any beliefs about anything purely on logic, at the most basic level of a system of beliefs, one must have some small measure of faith. However, since I know that faith does not function as proof, I attempt to restrict it to the absolute minimum required, once I've done this, I refuse to use any more of it, relying instead on logic.

Agnosticism by definition is the belief that we do not or can not posess ultimate knowledge, particularly wth regards to the question of whether or not there is a God. Which actually is an epistemological claim which would have the burden of proof in the context of an epistemological debate, but since it makes no metaphysical claim, in the context of a metaphysical debate, the agnostic makes no claim, and carries no burden of proof.

If I ask you; how did everything begin? What was the beginning of it all? You will answer me that you refuse to use the mental definition of our universe and everything in it to explain a beginning, or that we cannot prove the past with our present information, right?

Anything that could cause a beginning to the universe would have to exist outside of it. We however have no certainty that the universe was caused, or that anything does exist beyond it. In the abscence of that knowledge, all we can really do is guess (including the guess that there was a beginning at all). Those guesses bring us no closer to knowledge, unless we can actually test them, but we can't. So these guesses really don't acomplish much of anything. We can concievably know back as far as the very instant time began (assuming time DID begin, which I don't believe), that would then fall into the jurisdiction of science. But the moment before it remains unknowable. Unknowable to science, unknowable to religion, unknowable to logic as well as faith. We can guess, but never know. We can't even know there WAS a beginning.

Then my question obviously would be… how?! Your logic itself requires faith.

That's the very conclusion I came to, which changed me from an adamant atheist to an agnostic. That is the fundamental belief which can never be proven, and this is why. Say we finally solve the ultimate question with our logic as our evidence, this leaves on final belief to prove "Prove your logic is accurate/true/correct." The very instant we try by applying our logic, we start using circular reasoning and auto-fail. Circular reasoning is the fundamental basis of all beliefs. Until we prove that logically, which is impossible, we can go no further logically, we can learn and understand absolutely nothing. The only way around that is the fundamental leap of of faith, which let's us just assume that conclusion is right so we can move on and build off of it. Unfortunately, the only building you can build on an imaginary foundation, is an imaginary one. Until we can KNOW that fundamental answer, we can't really know anything else.

Are we circling around with no beginning and no end? Everything must have a beginning, even a circle. Or are you implying that there is a moment that shares a beginning and an end, and they circle around, but isn’t that a part of a bigger circle?? Having a beginning is essential.

Actually as far as I'm concerned, we don't have any real beginnings. Matter can never be created or destroyed, only changed. The same is true of energy. That's scientific law. Before I was me, I was a single cell using energy to build more cells. Before I was that cell and that energy, I was two other cells and chemical potential energy. Before that, I was energy which was used to build those cells, and food which would later be digested to store that chemical potential energy. Before that... we can keep going back forever. All that is, in some way as far as we know has always been, and will always be. It has been and will be in innumerable different forms, but it has always in some way been. There's no logical imperative for anything to have had a beginning, in fact based on what we think we know, it's closer to being a logical imperative that nothing COULD have had a beginning. Yes, what we call our universe would have started somewhere, but whatever it's made of must have been there even before it.

We don't KNOW anything, to claim otherwise is illogical, that's why I'm agnostic.

[OnOneRyder]

You're confusing two very different things here. In the abscence of evidence for conclusion 'X', not accepting X as true is common sense and is completely logical. Saying X is false because of that lack of evidence is not. In fact it's so illogical, it's been defined as a formal logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantium. This is where we make the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. Atheism DOES make the claim that there is definitely No God. ~X is every bit as much a claim as X. If you say there is No God, the burden of proof is on YOU just as much as it is on the theist. Agnosticism makes no claim of knowledge, agnosticism is the only position which never has the burden of proof.

We are after all debating a topic which ultimately cannot be know either way. So when one side is making the claim to have knowledge of truth on the matter they are making an EXTREMELY bold claim of truth. I think because of that extremely large leap of faith towards knowledge, that it isn't so illogical to look at their proposition and accept that being a unknowable concept of man with zero evidence, the unlikeliness of it is overwhelming and going one step further from not adopting that belief yourself to rejection is a reasonable stance to take. We are talking about something which cannot me measured in any way, shape or form here...by your reasoning, rejection of any concept which cannot be disproved is illogical?

[Heartless Angel]

We are after all debating a topic which ultimately cannot be know either way. So when one side is making the claim to have knowledge of truth on the matter they are making an EXTREMELY bold claim of truth. I think because of that extremely large leap of faith towards knowledge, that it isn't so illogical to look at their proposition and accept that being a unknowable concept of man with zero evidence, the unlikeliness of it is overwhelming and going one step further from not adopting that belief yourself to rejection is a reasonable stance to take. We are talking about something which cannot me measured in any way, shape or form here...by your reasoning, rejection of any concept which cannot be disproved is illogical?

It's not just one side who makes bold claims of knowledge. To say there is definitely No God is also a bold claim of knowing the truth of the matter. If you say there is reasonable evidence that the claim is false, we're not talking about zero evidence anymore, in which case adopting the atheist stance becomes logical, however in the complete abscence of evidence one way or the other, both claims are equally illogical. Unfortunately the existence of the unknown isn't really something we can calculate the odds of, so you'd have to have a pretty good argument to be able to say that the existence of a deity is unlikely. Arguments can be made to support this position, but like almost any metaphysical argument eventually does, they generally rely on some form of circular reasoning and prove nothing.

When there is no evidence, taking either side is illogical. When evidence suggests one conclusion, inductive logic would lend credibility to one conclusion over the other, however induction can never establish certainty. I'm only really interested in certainty. In addition, the strength of inductive evidence in this particular debate is extremely subjective. There is some form of evidence for creator being, atheists generally don't accept it as strong relevant evidence, similarly there is evidence for a lack of a creator, which theists also place little or no value in.

[OnOneRyder]

The lack of certainty has given me my reasoning for recently changing my stance towards agnosticism. However, I for one see the obviousness of theism being a concept designed my man as a form of evidence to the lack of a creator. Maybe that's stepping too far and even in a way is based on faith.

[Heartless Angel]

Main problem with the explanation posed by Freud, though extremely well thought out and well posed, it's still only an explanation. An explanation only suggests how a conclusion couldbe true and lead to what we know, it starts with the conclusion arather than working to establish it. If everything the bible said was absolute truth, it would also explain people's belief. Unfortuantely neither of these explanations proves a conclusion. Explanations tend to be very attractive to people looking for answers, but one must keep in mind, they don't prove the conclusion, they rely on it.

[Alpha]

You guys always tackle religious discussions from a 'let's look at the beginning of the universe' perspective.

Do you really think people ascribe to a given religion because they think it offers certainty as to the origin of the universe?

I think you're both eminently more sensible than that, but what do you think of religion--without taking 'religion' to mean 'cosmogeny'?

Although maybe this is beyond the scope of the OP... is it, Rowan?

[Heartless Angel]

Outside of answering the big questions there isn't really that much point to religion to be perfectly honest. As you suggested in a thread of your own not that long ago, sports fill most of the same functions in society. There are alot of other ways for people to find the sense of belonging religion offers. Aside from attempting to provide answers to the ultimate questions, religions really aren't anything more or less than any other organization people choose to be a part of. Actually, I'd much rather be at an Eagles game than sitting in a room with a bunch of other people listening to someone preach about things I believe.

If you don't feel the need to have a religion to answer those questions, there's not really any reason to have one at all as far as I'm concerned. Maybe there's more to it I'm missing, and have been missing since the days when I actually was religious, I don't know.

[Elise]

I'd like to think we will, however I have no real evidence to support the claim that we will. Until we can know as an absolute, I choose to believe nothing, the only conclusion a lack of evidence can ever support.

Again, I don't believe mankind can reach a stage of perfection in knowledge, and like you I cannot prove it 100%. I don't believe that absolute certainty exists on its own anyway. Even scientific theories that have been proven are still called theories and the option of error is still considered. Pythagorean Theorem is one of the simplest things ever that can easily be proven and we did it countless times in schools, yet we still call it "theorem". Science does not have 'certainty' in its dictionary.

I actually go well beyond science. I delve into philosophy, breaking down each and every belief I and anyone else could ever have before finally reaching the most fundamental. Most people try to work forward only with logic, I on the other hand go back to the beginning. It's at the beginning I realize that our most fundamental beliefs are based upon nothing but faith. And we build our entire understanding of reality around that first act of faith. Faith comes not at the end, but at the beginning, from there I attempt to build an understanding of reality based only on the things I have faith in the significance of, logic, reason, science, and empirical data. I may be wrong, we all may be wrong. We can't really know, at least not as we are now. However, to function, we must have that fundamental belief to build our understandings of reality around. Faith however, is not logic. It can't fill in the gaps in the evidence to create certainty. As long as we must rely on faith, we can never have certainty. When it comes to metaphysics I'm interested only in absolute truths and certainties, so I remove all but the most fundamental and essential faiths from my system of beliefs.

Actuallly, most any argument is bottomless if you get as far into it as I do with this one. But yes, faith is not evidence, nor is it an acceptable substitute for it. However, it's literally impossible to base any beliefs about anything purely on logic, at the most basic level of a system of beliefs, one must have some small measure of faith. However, since I know that faith does not function as proof, I attempt to restrict it to the absolute minimum required, once I've done this, I refuse to use any more of it, relying instead on logic.

I shouldn't have said in my previous post that faith comes "afterwards", because I believe and I mentioned this earlier, that religion is an extension of the natural self humans are born with, you can read back, I agree with you that there is faith in the beginning, also in the middle, the end, and it and science intertwine throughout. We agree that it is impossible to base any beliefs purely on logic, then why do you still look at faith and religion from a logical perspective? Of course faith cannot achieve certainty if you look at it like that, not because faith is lacking, but because everything in science is never certain. For me faith does fill the gaps of science because I don't look at it from one perspective. Faith and science together create absolute certainty.

Agnosticism by definition is the belief that we do not or can not posess ultimate knowledge, particularly wth regards to the question of whether or not there is a God. Which actually is an epistemological claim which would have the burden of proof in the context of an epistemological debate, but since it makes no metaphysical claim, in the context of a metaphysical debate, the agnostic makes no claim, and carries no burden of proof.

I actually agree with your explanation of agnosticism. All the agnostics I met so far don't share your philosophy and I see them closer to non-practicing believers than your case. I think the belief that carries the most burden of proof is atheism, because atheists deny the existence of God and only rely on science as a proof, and science cannot reach absolute certainty. If they think that they don't need proof, or there isn't enough, then this would simply be agnosticism.

Anything that could cause a beginning to the universe would have to exist outside of it. We however have no certainty that the universe was caused, or that anything does exist beyond it. In the abscence of that knowledge, all we can really do is guess (including the guess that there was a beginning at all). Those guesses bring us no closer to knowledge, unless we can actually test them, but we can't. So these guesses really don't acomplish much of anything. We can concievably know back as far as the very instant time began (assuming time DID begin, which I don't believe), that would then fall into the jurisdiction of science. But the moment before it remains unknowable. Unknowable to science, unknowable to religion, unknowable to logic as well as faith. We can guess, but never know. We can't even know there WAS a beginning.

That's the very conclusion I came to, which changed me from an adamant atheist to an agnostic. That is the fundamental belief which can never be proven, and this is why. Say we finally solve the ultimate question with our logic as our evidence, this leaves on final belief to prove "Prove your logic is accurate/true/correct." The very instant we try by applying our logic, we start using circular reasoning and auto-fail. Circular reasoning is the fundamental basis of all beliefs. Until we prove that logically, which is impossible, we can go no further logically, we can learn and understand absolutely nothing. The only way around that is the fundamental leap of of faith, which let's us just assume that conclusion is right so we can move on and build off of it. Unfortunately, the only building you can build on an imaginary foundation, is an imaginary one. Until we can KNOW that fundamental answer, we can't really know anything else.

Actually as far as I'm concerned, we don't have any real beginnings. Matter can never be created or destroyed, only changed. The same is true of energy. That's scientific law. Before I was me, I was a single cell using energy to build more cells. Before I was that cell and that energy, I was two other cells and chemical potential energy. Before that, I was energy which was used to build those cells, and food which would later be digested to store that chemical potential energy. Before that... we can keep going back forever. All that is, in some way as far as we know has always been, and will always be. It has been and will be in innumerable different forms, but it has always in some way been. There's no logical imperative for anything to have had a beginning, in fact based on what we think we know, it's closer to being a logical imperative that nothing COULD have had a beginning. Yes, what we call our universe would have started somewhere, but whatever it's made of must have been there even before it.

We don't KNOW anything, to claim otherwise is illogical, that's why I'm agnostic.

I perfectly understand your point. Scientifically speaking, assuming there is in fact no boundaries, no beginnings to time and space, because of an imaginary time cutting vertically through the real time at the point of the beginning of the current universe, by this I mean the point of the Big Bang, it still remains only a hypothesis, I agree that according to reason and logic we wouldn’t really know, although it is a possibility, but why would you then use the word 'believe' when talking about the 'no beginning'? Spiritually speaking, what would you say about all the holy books, all the prophets? It seems to me that the only holy book most people around here are familiar with is the Bible, the one(s) that are known today. There are over 73 religious sects within Islam, yet we all have only one exact book. You said that religion cannot know for sure, just like science. Religion is a matter of personal conviction, but it also has its own perspective that anyone must look through if they are trying to understand it.

The Quran mentions some scientific facts that science only discovered in the 20th century. The Quran is over 14 centuries old, still mentions the fact that the universe has been expanding, the age of the universe (and it disagrees with Christian Creationists), how the level of Oxygen decreases when ascending in the atmosphere, the benefits of some foods like honey, the movements of the planets, night and day, there are more, but my point is; when a 21 century old science offers me a hypothesis at its best and religion offers me scientific facts that once didn’t exist according to science, I would, by reason, understand that there is a superiority to religion in a way. Of course I still don’t know everything, no one does, but the evidence given to me by religion is enough for me to trust it. It is my choice, you may disagree, but we all take responsibility for our personal choices. There are many other aspects, like historic, literature, but since we are discussing science the scientific examples are the ones I am mentioning.

I believe in miracles. People don’t believe in something like religion and prophets unless they see extraordinary actions that defy the laws of the universe. The list of miracles is endless in all Abrahamic religions and they all go back to the same source. You may argue with me saying that you personally haven’t seen it with your own eyes, again that is a pure scientific logic, the cycle is endless, I would think of myself as stubborn if I keep insisting on incomplete evidence looking at the subject matter from only one perspective. Moreover, the practice of any religion or faith brings incredible spirituality and peace of mind that creates the evidence in how you feel rather than what you see. We have more than our eyes to understand our universe with, because eyes and logic and science are all limited. Religion is not just an organisation of preachers, I don’t really know what you are referring to, but I believe that God is the only judge of me, if I don’t want to be preached it’s my choice, religion is not an organisation, it is your set of spiritual beliefs inside your heart, if you have them. I already explained the logic behind having different religions, I agree with you that some are created by man, but the Abrahamic ones are not, they all go back to one source, again it's not about labels, but the idea of belief.

I will stop for now, I'm tired.

[Diyala]

I am a believer , I am a Muslim . I believe in One Incomparable God (Allah) and his Messenger who brought the proof (Quran).
As for why I believe , I would say because when you just look around you or look at yourself, you will know for sure that some kind of great power is behind all this creativity and precise system which a human can never do nor a coincidence.

My faith comes from certainty , and I have never ever doubted that my beliefs could be questionable . I disagree with you when saying

You hear something, you believe it hoping or fully believeing its true, even though there are no grounds for your belief. Its like saying an elephant just ate a man. Theres a chance your right, but the chances of you being right are 0.01% at the most.

For those who talk about logic and grounds … I can say we are being logical and reasonable when we discuss religion because our faith is basically based on proofs like messengers God sent for humans along with miracles .

In fact the need for religion is innate which means humans are normally born believing that they are insufficient on their own that's why they present immolations to things they think they are great or sacred.for example when people are sick or in need, they pray for God to fulfill their demands and they get them, who could give , heal and help if there was not a god!

A human being is not just a brain which only seeks facts, a human is a soul and a brain. When people are surrounded by just materials and science they feel empty inside, that is why when they believe there is a God who gives, helps and cures, they feel certain and sure therefore they can live peacefully and find happiness .

The Quran mentions some scientific facts that science only discovered in the 20th century. The Quran is over 14 centuries old, still mentions the fact that the universe has been expanding, the age of the universe (and it disagrees with Christian Creationists), how the level of Oxygen decreases when ascending in the atmosphere, the benefits of some foods like honey, the movements of the planets, night and day, there are more, but my point is; when a 21 century old science offers me a hypothesis at its best and religion offers me scientific facts that once didn’t exist according to science, I would, by reason, understand that there is a superiority to religion in a way. Of course I still don’t know everything, no one does, but the evidence given to me by religion is enough for me to trust it. It is my choice, you may disagree, but we all take responsibility for our personal choices. There are many other aspects, like historic, literature, but since we are discussing science the scientific examples are the ones I am mentioning

I totally agree with you .
And To support the facts that you have mentioned, here is a video clip I'de like you to watch:
Who created the universe - YouTube

[OnOneRyder]

I actually agree with your explanation of agnosticism. All the agnostics I met so far don't share your philosophy and I see them closer to non-practicing believers than your case. I think the belief that carries the most burden of proof is atheism, because atheists deny the existence of God and only rely on science as a proof, and science cannot reach absolute certainty. If they think that they don't need proof, or there isn't enough, then this would simply be agnosticism.

Atheism does carry burden of proof when it makes the claim of knowledge "there is no god", however not all atheists adopt this position. The choose to reject the premise of a god which has been proposed by another individual, and burden of proof is something that always resides with the individual making the claim. Even dictionary's have differing definitions of atheism..so I can't agree it's that black and white.

The Quran mentions some scientific facts that science only discovered in the 20th century. The Quran is over 14 centuries old, still mentions the fact that the universe has been expanding, the age of the universe (and it disagrees with Christian Creationists), how the level of Oxygen decreases when ascending in the atmosphere, the benefits of some foods like honey, the movements of the planets, night and day, there are more, but my point is; when a 21 century old science offers me a hypothesis at its best and religion offers me scientific facts that once didn’t exist according to science, I would, by reason, understand that there is a superiority to religion in a way. Of course I still don’t know everything, no one does, but the evidence given to me by religion is enough for me to trust it. It is my choice, you may disagree, but we all take responsibility for our personal choices. There are many other aspects, like historic, literature, but since we are discussing science the scientific examples are the ones I am mentioning.

The Qur'an also supports a flat-earth theory while Eratosthenes a greek centuries earlier, had estimated the circumference of the earth with a great deal of precision. I cannot debate the points you made as I'm not very knowledgeable on the Qur'an, but my point is scientific knowledge in an archaic society is not evidence to divine inspiration. Do not forget that the middle east was once a thriving academic playground prior to the dark age of intellect that Islam plagued that area of the globe with.

[Elise]

The Qur'an also supports a flat-earth theory while Eratosthenes a greek centuries earlier, had estimated the circumference of the earth with a great deal of precision. I cannot debate the points you made as I'm not very knowledgeable on the Qur'an, but my point is scientific knowledge in an archaic society is not evidence to divine inspiration. Do not forget that the middle east was once a thriving academic playground prior to the dark age of intellect that Islam plagued that area of the globe with.

Please show me where the Quran supports the flat-earth theory? How stupid do you think I am? You admitted that you are not very knowledgeable in it, so what gives you the right to make assumptions? Please show some respect. I mentioned in my post that you quoted that the Quran explained the movement of the planets, don’t you think that includes the fact that the earth is round?!!

Also, please don't make historical claims. I know the Middle East inside out, if you want to start a historical debate you are more than welcome, but it will lead to lots of politics that will drift off topic. For your information the Middle East was at tribal ethnic wars before Islam came. Have you even heard about the Islamic Golden Age in the Middle East? Do you even know that Islam encourages education and the pursuit of knowledge? Do you know that modern scientific books use Islamic sources as references?! Do you know that Baghdad was the Capital of Knowledge?! Damascus? Basra?! These are the simplest facts anyone should know before making any historical claim. Your argument is the stereotypical western theory that I have encountered many times and is in fact very insulting!

[Heartless Angel]

Again, I don't believe mankind can reach a stage of perfection in knowledge, and like you I cannot prove it 100%. I don't believe that absolute certainty exists on its own anyway. Even scientific theories that have been proven are still called theories and the option of error is still considered. Pythagorean Theorem is one of the simplest things ever that can easily be proven and we did it countless times in schools, yet we still call it "theorem". Science does not have 'certainty' in its dictionary.

Precisely. As long as the most fundamental beliefs we have can't rely on logic alone, no other beliefs we have can. Proof is definied as logic establishing that a given claim is absolutely certain. WHat this ultiamtely means is that nothing can be proven until faith is completely removed from the equation, which given the limits of human knowledge is impossible. In the abscence of certainty, one can not claim to truly know anything. Well, I suppoose we can kow one thing. Socrates summed this up nicely by saying, "All that I know, is that I know nothing".

I shouldn't have said in my previous post that faith comes "afterwards", because I believe and I mentioned this earlier, that religion is an extension of the natural self humans are born with, you can read back, I agree with you that there is faith in the beginning, also in the middle, the end, and it and science intertwine throughout. We agree that it is impossible to base any beliefs purely on logic, then why do you still look at faith and religion from a logical perspective? Of course faith cannot achieve certainty if you look at it like that, not because faith is lacking, but because everything in science is never certain. For me faith does fill the gaps of science because I don't look at it from one perspective. Faith and science together create absolute certainty.

Faith at the beginning is required. It is absolutely essential to have faith in our fundamental beliefs as human beings. After that, it's no longer required. All beliefs can be built on top of that fundamental foundation with logic alone. And as far as I'm concerned, that's the best way to do it. Faith in an argument is the weakest link, which is why those based most on logic and least on faith tend to be the stronger ones. I have chosen to eliminate all but that most fundamental faith from my system of beliefs to reach the pinnacle of logical strength. Faith is used to fill the gaps logic leaves, but it can not take that logic's place. Faith is very much lacking. Faith fills the gaps in logic in the same way that air would fill in a gap in a bridge. Yes, that space is technically no longer empty, but you're still going to fall through as if it were if you try to cross it. Faith can only reach a false feeling of certainty, true certainty can only be acheieved in the form of absolute logical proof. This is unattainable, therefore true certainty is also unattainable. Humans can never know, we can only believe. Belief is not equivalent to knowledge, and it never will be.

I actually agree with your explanation of agnosticism. All the agnostics I met so far don't share your philosophy and I see them closer to non-practicing believers than your case. I think the belief that carries the most burden of proof is atheism, because atheists deny the existence of God and only rely on science as a proof, and science cannot reach absolute certainty. If they think that they don't need proof, or there isn't enough, then this would simply be agnosticism.

The burden of proof lies on whoever asserts their belief as truth. Equally. Science very much functions as evidence, but not absolute proof. Neither side has absolute proof. They can rely only on induction, the strength of evidence for which, as I said earlier, is entirely subjective.

I perfectly understand your point. Scientifically speaking, assuming there is in fact no boundaries, no beginnings to time and space, because of an imaginary time cutting vertically through the real time at the point of the beginning of the current universe, by this I mean the point of the Big Bang, it still remains only a hypothesis, I agree that according to reason and logic we wouldn’t really know, although it is a possibility, but why would you then use the word 'believe' when talking about the 'no beginning'?

If I were a perfectionist, technically speaking, I should replace pretty much any instance of the word 'know' in anything I say with 'believe', since we can't have absolute certainty of anything. I can say I only believe there is no beginning, because I can only believe the premises I use to argue that conclusion. As much as I can only believe the premises on which those premises rely, all the way back to that fundamental level of uncertainty. Speaking scientifically and ignoring that fundamental uncertainty, I could say I 'know' there was no beginning, but philosophiocally speaking, I'd know I'd only be speaking a half-truth with the awareness of that uncertainty at the back of my mind.

Spiritually speaking, what would you say about all the holy books, all the prophets? It seems to me that the only holy book most people around here are familiar with is the Bible, the one(s) that are known today. There are over 73 religious sects within Islam, yet we all have only one exact book. You said that religion cannot know for sure, just like science. Religion is a matter of personal conviction, but it also has its own perspective that anyone must look through if they are trying to understand it.

In my case, spirituality is a meaningless term. I have no awareness above and beyond the five senses and my logic. I don't beleive anybody else does either, they simply percieve things they can't understand using them, and imagine another sense to help themsleves try to make things fit in a way that makes sense to them. Only logic can create certainty, other things like faith, and perceptions may offer an illusion of certainty, but it's only an cheap imitation of the real thing. Illusory knowledge brings me no comfort, no happiness, no sense of understanding, so I do away with it.

The Quran mentions some scientific facts that science only discovered in the 20th century. The Quran is over 14 centuries old, still mentions the fact that the universe has been expanding, the age of the universe (and it disagrees with Christian Creationists), how the level of Oxygen decreases when ascending in the atmosphere, the benefits of some foods like honey, the movements of the planets, night and day, there are more, but my point is; when a 21 century old science offers me a hypothesis at its best and religion offers me scientific facts that once didn’t exist according to science, I would, by reason, understand that there is a superiority to religion in a way. Of course I still don’t know everything, no one does, but the evidence given to me by religion is enough for me to trust it. It is my choice, you may disagree, but we all take responsibility for our personal choices. There are many other aspects, like historic, literature, but since we are discussing science the scientific examples are the ones I am mentioning.

There was actually a great deal of scientific knowledge in imes long past. Most of it was destroyed by an age of stupidity caused by some religions. Particularly christianity, who supported the flat earth geocentric universe long after people knew they were full of shit, but being religious leaders, they slowly but surely drew people back into believing nonsensical beliefs that we'd outgrown long ago. But religion isn't really to blame for that, just the ignorant, fallable human beings running them. Hell, Imhotep figured out more about modern medicine in the 27th century BC than we knew thousands of years later after the age of stupidity hit. After that, we spent ages just trying to get back to where we were. So I mean the scientific knowledge was there long before many of the religions practiced today, it only makes sense that a few of them happened to remember it.

I believe in miracles. People don’t believe in something like religion and prophets unless they see extraordinary actions that defy the laws of the universe. The list of miracles is endless in all Abrahamic religions and they all go back to the same source. You may argue with me saying that you personally haven’t seen it with your own eyes, again that is a pure scientific logic, the cycle is endless, I would think of myself as stubborn if I keep insisting on incomplete evidence looking at the subject matter from only one perspective.

I've never witnessed anything that defies the laws of the universe. Pretty much any time in recorded history which people can actually say they KNOW happened, anybody who thinks they have go back, look at things more closely and objectively, and find out that our understanding of the laws of the universe were simply incorrect, and that the 'miracle' was just something we didn't know about, but makes perfect sense and is completely normal now that we do. I don't believe in miracles. You'd think if they really happened all that often, at least one would've happened near somebody with a video camera by now, wouldn't you? Also, the fact that the frequency of 'miracles' plummeting coinciding with the expansion of scientific knwoledge and the invention of the camera seems to be a bit more than coincidence to me. The strength of evidence is ependant solely on the credibility of that evidence. If we don't know if a premise is true or not, we can't infer any truths from it. Until a miracle occurs in a way that is clearly observable, testable, and nobody can deny its occurence, we have no logical basis for believing they happen at all.

Moreover, the practice of any religion or faith brings incredible spirituality and peace of mind that creates the evidence in how you feel rather than what you see. We have more than our eyes to understand our universe with, because eyes and logic and science are all limited.

Spirituality, peace of mind and emotions are all well and good, but they do absolutely nothing in the way of establishing truth or knowledge. They don't function as evidence of any strength at all. In any logical argument, they are completely and utterly irellevant. Gold is limitted. We have more minerals than gold in the world too, however tin and iron are not of equal value. The same is true of logic and the senses. Our senses and logic have the highest 'value' in terms of establishing truth, whereas faith, spirituality, and peace of mind have virtually none. Both can be equally fulfilling, and can help people live good fulfilling lives, however only the senses and logic are valuable in arguments.

Religion is not just an organisation of preachers, I don’t really know what you are referring to, but I believe that God is the only judge of me, if I don’t want to be preached it’s my choice, religion is not an organisation, it is your set of spiritual beliefs inside your heart, if you have them. I already explained the logic behind having different religions, I agree with you that some are created by man, but the Abrahamic ones are not, they all go back to one source, again it's not about labels, but the idea of belief.

I will stop for now, I'm tired.

I'm assuming that bit was referring to my last post, which was more an attempt at answering Alpha's question of what religion is outside of a means of answering the big questions. Outside of that, it really isn't much of anything. Stripped of beliefs which answer the big questions, all religion's left with is preachers, buildings, and labels. None of hich do I see any significance in. This why when talking about religion, I'm only interested in the cosmogeny.

[OnOneRyder]

Please show me where the Quran supports the flat-earth theory? How stupid do you think I am? You admitted that you are not very knowledgeable in it, so what gives you the right to make assumptions? Please show some respect. I mentioned in my post that you quoted that the Quran explained the movement of the planets, don’t you think that includes the fact that the earth is round?!!

Also, please don't make historical claims. I know the Middle East inside out, if you want to start a historical debate you are more than welcome, but it will lead to lots of politics that will drift off topic. For your information the Middle East was at tribal ethnic wars before Islam came. Have you even heard about the Islamic Golden Age in the Middle East? Do you even know that Islam encourages education and the pursuit of knowledge? Do you know that modern scientific books use Islamic sources as references?! Do you know that Baghdad was the Capital of Knowledge?! Damascus? Basra?! These are the simplest facts anyone should know before making any historical claim. Your argument is the stereotypical western theory that I have encountered many times and is in fact very insulting!

Wow, I'm not sure how you took anything I had to say as an insult...it certainly wasn't meant to be.

Look how many times the Qur'an refers to the earth as "spread out" and "like a carpet", either side needs to interpret what the Qur'an truly concludes as to whether or not they support a flat earth theory but there are verses which give a VERY strong impression of that being the case.

And I am very familiar with the wealth of knowledge that was available in the middle east, that is why I even mentioned it in my post. I am aware of the golden age, and am quite knowledgeable as to scientific history across the globe so do not make assumptions because my opinions differ from yours, that's not a very mature approach. I also realize the influence the Islamic world played on the scientific knowledge in Europe a the time so again, not not assume I do not understand the importance of the contributions of the area.

I should have specified in referring to modern science in Islam, which has not been received well. Just look how little the Muslim world has contributed over the last few centuries. We can sit here and debate as to the causes of this, but many including myself feel that Islam itself is a contributor. If you're unable to accept this a differing opinion without getting upset and think that only yours is the correct one then I'm sorry but you shouldn't be debating this then.

I'm leaving it at that, I'll be more than happy to continue this in PM's if you wish.

[Judge Magistrate]

Do you realise that you just displayed a moral issue that you have with your god?

This is because you disagree with me going to hell for not accepting him. As a decent human being will acknolwedge that someone who is caring and loving does not deserve eternal punishment for the rejection of a deity. So even you would agree that this god is not the moral figure you believe him to be. God also condones slavery, genocide, sacrifice and violence. I could reference passages in the bible, but only if someone disagrees with me.

Sorry for the delayed responce, I've displayed no moral issue. According to the Catholic faith God will not condemn someone who is not properly taught the Catholic faith. This is also clearly stated in the Bilble, and I will also be happy to provide some passages.

The reason he allows the things you mentioned is to test us. The world we now live in is only the testing ground for us. Our reactions and counter reactions to these trials are but only another one of Gods way to see if we are worthy of Heaven or Hell. I am not God, and whatever He plans to do with you is His business. I only gave you my opinion based on what I know about my faith.

[Diyala]

I must say I completely disagree with this

The Qur'an also supports a flat-earth theory while Eratosthenes a greek centuries earlier, had estimated the circumference of the earth with a great deal of precision.

Earth is absoulty mentioned in Qura'n as being Round and whoever believes the opposit must have been mistaken . there are so many proofs in the Quran that support this , and here is one of them :

Night and day moves with the same speed and they swim around earth due to earth rotation around itself, God says :( It is He who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.) (Sûrat Al- Anbiyaa- verse 33), you have to look attentively at (all swim along, each in its rounded course), as sun has its rounded course and moon has its rounded course , also there is a continuous and organized move for day and night as a proof that earth is spherical .

but my point is scientific knowledge in an archaic society is not evidence to divine inspiration.

Noble Quran's teachings are for all times and all places!

Honesly , things sound just funny !and you think it's not insulting , don't you ?

I'm living in the middle east and I'm a Muslim who reads the Noble Quran and believes in everything mentioned in it , but I assume I'm not an archaic , still living in the present and following the teachings of Qur'an that do me good and help me to know more about life and death and the universe around me ,It teaches me how to act nicely and gently with others , and above all ,it leads me to believe that Qur'an was basically sent from the divinity due to certain facts It tells and through which my faith gets deep whenever I see them(facts) real in life and that to only prove that it (Qura'n)is God's Greatest miracle that can defeat anyone who challenges it !

I do respect all other nations' religions but describing us as an archaic society was not civilized and more likely of someone who lacks strong proof !

Ask yourself why is Islam the fastest growing religion nowadays though as you assume it is considered as just archaic beliefs??
I believe because all these people found the truth and peace in it , they've never been preached by force and Islam never was by force ,but they found something that filled empty hearts , something that other religions couldn't offer , this is actually how some people described their feelings after converting to this religion, and the choice is yours to believe or disbelieve just put into your consideration that we must Respect others' beliefs even if we find them different or even don't believe in them !

The Holy Quran's teachings are for all times and all places! how ? I'll tell you .

All other previous prophets ( Noah , Moses , Solomon , Jesus peace be upon them ) were sent holding the same beliefs of Glorifying one Almighty Lord as Muhammad did. ! Like Jesus , Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is also a Prophet and Messenger. Muhammed is the last Prophet, though, and there is none after him. Hence, Islam is the last religion, complete, with the Holy Qur'an as the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, as God promised to preserve it till the last day for all of humankind, unlike sacred texts of other religions which have multiple versions and are "revised" periodically. God, or Allah in Arabic, is Divine and Supreme Being and Creator.

Do not forget that the middle east was once a thriving academic playground prior to the dark age of intellect that Islam plagued that area of the globe with.

Once again , this is when I say people judge before they even know what they're judging ! you have to know that the glory of Muslims' civilization among all other communities was only because of the Islam’s focus on learning and education.
In fact , the Islamic beliefs and teachings persuade many Muslims to achieve their destination in the fields of science, astronomy medicine ....etc
Islam did the middle east nothing but greatness , Islam has changed many bad things people were doing back before the message of Muhammad arrived and saved humanity.

PS:for not being misunderstood : I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong or the opposite , I just have answered some of your groundless accusation .

Peace !

[Elise]

Precisely. As long as the most fundamental beliefs we have can't rely on logic alone, no other beliefs we have can. Proof is definied as logic establishing that a given claim is absolutely certain. WHat this ultiamtely means is that nothing can be proven until faith is completely removed from the equation, which given the limits of human knowledge is impossible. In the abscence of certainty, one can not claim to truly know anything. Well, I suppoose we can kow one thing. Socrates summed this up nicely by saying, "All that I know, is that I know nothing".

Faith at the beginning is required. It is absolutely essential to have faith in our fundamental beliefs as human beings. After that, it's no longer required. All beliefs can be built on top of that fundamental foundation with logic alone. And as far as I'm concerned, that's the best way to do it. Faith in an argument is the weakest link, which is why those based most on logic and least on faith tend to be the stronger ones. I have chosen to eliminate all but that most fundamental faith from my system of beliefs to reach the pinnacle of logical strength. Faith is used to fill the gaps logic leaves, but it can not take that logic's place. Faith is very much lacking. Faith fills the gaps in logic in the same way that air would fill in a gap in a bridge. Yes, that space is technically no longer empty, but you're still going to fall through as if it were if you try to cross it. Faith can only reach a false feeling of certainty, true certainty can only be acheieved in the form of absolute logical proof. This is unattainable, therefore true certainty is also unattainable. Humans can never know, we can only believe. Belief is not equivalent to knowledge, and it never will be.

If there was no air around the bridge, people wouldn’t even be able to build or walk on the bridge itself. Just because you can’t walk on air or physically grab it, doesn’t make it a weak link. Your argument creates chaos without offering any solution. It feels like a post-atheist ideology, it claims to be in no-location, but it is still pouring into atheism. I personally feel that it’s an escape from having to carry a burden of proof. Decades ago everyone was relying on science to reveal the truth about the universe and proof the religious wrong or whatever, but all the advancements in science and the concrete data today points towards the direction of the God hypothesis. Your opinion does have a critical aspect to it, but you and I disagree on the nature of faith and its importance. Faith is not weak, yes indeed it cannot substitute knowledge, and I never said it would, but knowledge also cannot substitute inner faith. Besides, you are yourself stuck in a circle of proof, if you are certain on some level or no level you go back to attempting to proof that your logic itself is valid, and again to proof what you have just thought you proved. It's endless, and it's chaos.

In my case, spirituality is a meaningless term. I have no awareness above and beyond the five senses and my logic. I don't beleive anybody else does either, they simply percieve things they can't understand using them, and imagine another sense to help themsleves try to make things fit in a way that makes sense to them. Only logic can create certainty, other things like faith, and perceptions may offer an illusion of certainty, but it's only an cheap imitation of the real thing. Illusory knowledge brings me no comfort, no happiness, no sense of understanding, so I do away with it.

Reading this makes me feel so sad, I never want to reach a place like this, but that’s just me. I’m not going to assume, but I will ask, don’t you think that the lack of this “illusionary comfort” that you hate so much has created a culture of violence that prevails in many societies? A culture that drives people to chaos, depression, poverty and darkness? Sociologists agree that we need something from outside the chaotic culture to solve it. This world needs solutions more than anything else. Religious people are not stupid or brainwashed like many atheists or agnostics assume, far far from it! At least with their faith they are offering solutions and promoting the opposite of what this culture offers.

There was actually a great deal of scientific knowledge in imes long past. Most of it was destroyed by an age of stupidity caused by some religions. Particularly christianity, who supported the flat earth geocentric universe long after people knew they were full of shit, but being religious leaders, they slowly but surely drew people back into believing nonsensical beliefs that we'd outgrown long ago. But religion isn't really to blame for that, just the ignorant, fallable human beings running them. Hell, Imhotep figured out more about modern medicine in the 27th century BC than we knew thousands of years later after the age of stupidity hit. After that, we spent ages just trying to get back to where we were. So I mean the scientific knowledge was there long before many of the religions practiced today, it only makes sense that a few of them happened to remember it.

Thank you for saying that religion is not to blame for the destruction of knowledge, only people that their actions condemn them in being far from it, which the opposite of what they claim. I am aware of the scientific knowledge long past, in Egypt and Mesopotamia. However, this does not change the fact that the Quran brought scientific facts to us, you cannot prove that they are the same ones that got lost, you are implying that the Quran is written by men, I assume this is what you believe of course, obviously I disagree, and reading it will be far better proof to you than me telling you.

I've never witnessed anything that defies the laws of the universe. Pretty much any time in recorded history which people can actually say they KNOW happened, anybody who thinks they have go back, look at things more closely and objectively, and find out that our understanding of the laws of the universe were simply incorrect, and that the 'miracle' was just something we didn't know about, but makes perfect sense and is completely normal now that we do. I don't believe in miracles. You'd think if they really happened all that often, at least one would've happened near somebody with a video camera by now, wouldn't you? Also, the fact that the frequency of 'miracles' plummeting coinciding with the expansion of scientific knwoledge and the invention of the camera seems to be a bit more than coincidence to me. The strength of evidence is ependant solely on the credibility of that evidence. If we don't know if a premise is true or not, we can't infer any truths from it. Until a miracle occurs in a way that is clearly observable, testable, and nobody can deny its occurence, we have no logical basis for believing they happen at all.

I wasn’t talking about the miracles that happen every day. I am a bit sceptical on whether to call them miracles or not either. When I said ‘miracles’ I was referring to the ones God messengers were able to do in order to prove their message to the people. I’m sure you know them; Moses splitting the sea, the stick that turned into a snake, his miracles were “magical” because he was sent in a time where many were claiming to be magicians for entertainment and the people cared for magic. Jesus’ miracles poured more into the medical side and “creation”. The list is endless, but because the last prophet came 1400 years ago I said you didn’t see them, the Quran itself is a miracle according my beliefs and it challenged people to prove that its mistaken.

Spirituality, peace of mind and emotions are all well and good, but they do absolutely nothing in the way of establishing truth or knowledge. They don't function as evidence of any strength at all. In any logical argument, they are completely and utterly irellevant. Gold is limitted. We have more minerals than gold in the world too, however tin and iron are not of equal value. The same is true of logic and the senses. Our senses and logic have the highest 'value' in terms of establishing truth, whereas faith, spirituality, and peace of mind have virtually none. Both can be equally fulfilling, and can help people live good fulfilling lives, however only the senses and logic are valuable in arguments.

You are still addressing both concepts from one perspective. I think this is the third or fourth time we cross this point of the circle.

I have agreed with you on all concerning science. My faith does not contradict science, they complete each other, according to me. I agree on assuming that the scientific hypothesis have possibilities looking at it from a scientific perspective. But since we put different value in faith; this discussion is endless, like we agreed before.

I just want to ask one more thing; what is your understanding on terms like friendship and love? Human emotions, encouraged by religion, but they cannot be entirely scientifically proven or logically shown, it is one of the things you just know…

Wow, I'm not sure how you took anything I had to say as an insult...it certainly wasn't meant to be.

Look how many times the Qur'an refers to the earth as "spread out" and "like a carpet", either side needs to interpret what the Qur'an truly concludes as to whether or not they support a flat earth theory but there are verses which give a VERY strong impression of that being the case.

And I am very familiar with the wealth of knowledge that was available in the middle east, that is why I even mentioned it in my post. I am aware of the golden age, and am quite knowledgeable as to scientific history across the globe so do not make assumptions because my opinions differ from yours, that's not a very mature approach. I also realize the influence the Islamic world played on the scientific knowledge in Europe a the time so again, not not assume I do not understand the importance of the contributions of the area.

I should have specified in referring to modern science in Islam, which has not been received well. Just look how little the Muslim world has contributed over the last few centuries. We can sit here and debate as to the causes of this, but many including myself feel that Islam itself is a contributor. If you're unable to accept this a differing opinion without getting upset and think that only yours is the correct one then I'm sorry but you shouldn't be debating this then.

I'm leaving it at that, I'll be more than happy to continue this in PM's if you wish.

I did not get upset because you have a different opinion; everyone I argued with in this thread has a different opinion to mine, but non made accusations and groundless judgements about other people or another religion. And thank you for the comment/message that accused my comprehension of being unable to read your writing. Civilized indeed.

Whatever you are referring to is taken out of context by mentioning a single word. The things you might be referring to could be either the formation of the mountains and the rivers, or the stretching out of the tectonic plates.

Fine you understand everything, but please be careful when using the phrase “Muslim world”. The Arabs make only 20% of the Muslims around the world. Just because “many others” agree with you it doesn’t make it right. The common idea every simple Muslim person has is that if they work harder or study harder God is going to reward them; you can ask any of them. What about Turkey? Muslims make 96% of its population, it is in the Middle East and it is one of the strongest countries on earth today with one of the strongest economies. It is all about politics. Who do you think has been sucking resources out of the “Middle Eastern” countries in the past century? Who has been governing those countries in the past half a century when the world made its biggest leap? Dictators who poured the countries’ finance on themselves and the military, selling oil with cheap prices, while the people themselves suffer, not mentioning not having enough financial sponsorship to make the scientific advancements that your highness demands.

I am not looking for a reply, do if you wish, I don’t really care, I just want to defend what was falsely accused.

[Heartless Angel]

If there was no air around the bridge, people wouldn’t even be able to build or walk on the bridge itself. Just because you can’t walk on air or physically grab it, doesn’t make it a weak link.

That's actually an excellent analogy. The faith is required in our fundamental beliefs, the very air we breathe while we make our attempt at building and crossing the bridge. However, while nescessary, it can't take the place of the solid building amterials of an argument needed to cross from uncertainty into certainty. In the grand scheme of things, yes, the air is every bit as essential as the bridge for our goal of reaching the other side, but the air filling gaps in the bridge, is the bridge's weakest link. Faith is nescessary in the grand scheme of things, but in the arguments themselves it is the weakest link.

Your argument creates chaos without offering any solution. It feels like a post-atheist ideology, it claims to be in no-location, but it is still pouring into atheism. I personally feel that it’s an escape from having to carry a burden of proof.

To try to offer solutions when we don't actually have any that we know work is rather pointless. I also wouldn't offer you a solution to 1/0. This is because to the best of my knoweldge there is no solution. If I give you a number, I know I'm wrong. I've no reason and no desire to go out of my way to be illogical when I'm completely aware of the irrationality of doing it. Picking a number just to say you have a solutiuon solves absolutely nothing. The burden of proof is a wieght neither position can carry. I simply admit the fact and don't waste my effort trying to carry it anyways. At the fundamental level, the concepts I put faith into are logic, empirical data, reason, materialism and the like. These beliefs which I am forced to adopt to function are no more proven or conrete than ideas about faith and spirituality held by the religious. However, if I were to abandon them, I woul be completely lost. So like all men must do, I accept their truth without knowing it and build my reality around it. As a result, my personal, illogical arbitrary beliefs lean towards atheism, however I still ultimately do not accept that feeling as truth.

Decades ago everyone was relying on science to reveal the truth about the universe and proof the religious wrong or whatever, but all the advancements in science and the concrete data today points towards the direction of the God hypothesis.

I certainly can't see any scientific basis for any religious belief. You'll have to elaborate on that claim.

Your opinion does have a critical aspect to it, but you and I disagree on the nature of faith and its importance. Faith is not weak, yes indeed it cannot substitute knowledge, and I never said it would, but knowledge also cannot substitute inner faith. Besides, you are yourself stuck in a circle of proof, if you are certain on some level or no level you go back to attempting to proof that your logic itself is valid, and again to proof what you have just thought you proved. It's endless, and it's chaos.

Yes it is. It is utterly chaotic. Everyone is trapped in that chaos however. I am simply one of the few aware of it. I can prove nothing. Nobody else can either. We can suggest things, and support them inductively, and we can assume our beliefs are correct and claim to know they are true. However we can never prove it as an absolute truth. Wanting it really bad doesn't put it within our reach. Pretending I can reach is doesn't bring it any closer to me. The only truth pure logic can lead us to, is the existence of the circle. The awareness of this truth teaches us that we truly know nothing. Needing a solution does not create one.

Reading this makes me feel so sad, I never want to reach a place like this, but that’s just me. I’m not going to assume, but I will ask, don’t you think that the lack of this “illusionary comfort” that you hate so much has created a culture of violence that prevails in many societies? A culture that drives people to chaos, depression, poverty and darkness? Sociologists agree that we need something from outside the chaotic culture to solve it. This world needs solutions more than anything else. Religious people are not stupid or brainwashed like many atheists or agnostics assume, far far from it! At least with their faith they are offering solutions and promoting the opposite of what this culture offers.

I don't hate the illusion, I simply get nothing from it. The magician isn't nearly as impressive when you know how he did all of his tricks. Similarly the illusion isn't particularly conforting when you know that's all it is. My awareness of it has removed my desire for it, so I seek something better. This awareness I've found has saved me from sadness, from confusion. Violence is created by ignorant human beings. People never truly understand one another. Religion is as much to blame for conflicts in history as anything else. Chaos is the world we live in. Chaos is human nature. Foolish people disagree on things because they each believe their faiths and beliefs to be absolute truths, and are willing to defend them at any cost. My solution works well. If I no longer hold any beliefs as truths, what have I to fight over? What reason have I to perpetuate violence, why should I be depressed, why would I turn to darkness?

The religious are no more stupid or brainwashed than anybody else clinging to beliefs for the same reasons, which means pretty much everybody. Their "solutions", just like anybody else's, function only in their world, and within their own system of beliefs. Outside of them, they solve nothing and create more conflicts between people. IF all people subscried to one religion, yes, it would be a solution. However the same would be true if everyone subscribed to atheism or agnosticism.

Thank you for saying that religion is not to blame for the destruction of knowledge, only people that their actions condemn them in being far from it, which the opposite of what they claim. I am aware of the scientific knowledge long past, in Egypt and Mesopotamia. However, this does not change the fact that the Quran brought scientific facts to us, you cannot prove that they are the same ones that got lost, you are implying that the Quran is written by men, I assume this is what you believe of course, obviously I disagree, and reading it will be far better proof to you than me telling you.

Written word could never prove itself. I could just as easily say God is the one writing this post. No matter what argument I tried to offer to prove it, I'd be using ciruclar reasoning. Belief is all well and goo,d and by all means you're entitled to yours. But a persons's beliefs are worthless to those who do not share them.

I wasn’t talking about the miracles that happen every day. I am a bit sceptical on whether to call them miracles or not either. When I said ‘miracles’ I was referring to the ones God messengers were able to do in order to prove their message to the people. I’m sure you know them; Moses splitting the sea, the stick that turned into a snake, his miracles were “magical” because he was sent in a time where many were claiming to be magicians for entertainment and the people cared for magic. Jesus’ miracles poured more into the medical side and “creation”. The list is endless, but because the last prophet came 1400 years ago I said you didn’t see them, the Quran itself is a miracle according my beliefs and it challenged people to prove that its mistaken.

The day a prophet comes and splits the sea with somebody pointing a video camera, I'll believe it happened. Until then, I've no reason to do so. Nor does anybody else. People are free to believe whatever they like, but nobody can declare these beliefs as true knowledge without having proof.

You are still addressing both concepts from one perspective. I think this is the third or fourth time we cross this point of the circle.

Perspective has no effect on truth. Truth is absolute and universal and based in logic alone, no matter what angle you look at it from, you can't reach proof. Other illogical perspectives, much like faith can only offer a feeling of certainty, the baseless belief that we've reached true understainding. We still haven't, and at the rate we're going, never will.

I have agreed with you on all concerning science. My faith does not contradict science, they complete each other, according to me. I agree on assuming that the scientific hypothesis have possibilities looking at it from a scientific perspective. But since we put different value in faith; this discussion is endless, like we agreed before.

The most problematic part of this piece of the post would be the words "according to me". Once again leading to the conclusion that all beliefs are based on one's personal understanding, based on nothing but blind faith. The discussion is and will always be endless.

I just want to ask one more thing; what is your understanding on terms like friendship and love? Human emotions, encouraged by religion, but they cannot be entirely scientifically proven or logically shown, it is one of the things you just know…

It's not something I or anyone else knows. It's merely something we percieve. Human emotions existed long before Islam, and long before the religions that came before it. Love and friendship are entities entirely seperate from religion. We don't know what they are, only what they feel like to us.

[Elise]

That's actually an excellent analogy. The faith is required in our fundamental beliefs, the very air we breathe while we make our attempt at building and crossing the bridge. However, while nescessary, it can't take the place of the solid building amterials of an argument needed to cross from uncertainty into certainty. In the grand scheme of things, yes, the air is every bit as essential as the bridge for our goal of reaching the other side, but the air filling gaps in the bridge, is the bridge's weakest link. Faith is nescessary in the grand scheme of things, but in the arguments themselves it is the weakest link.

The bridge is worthless if there is no one there to use it. Air is required in building and crossing it. It’s illogical to examine the existence of the bridge solely by itself, no matter how magnificent and solid it is. Arguments are not floating in void, you need logic to establish them yes, but the reason they exist is to find a solution for a given problem. Shooting scientific facts alone doesn’t solve anything. Both scientific knowledge and faith are needed.

To try to offer solutions when we don't actually have any that we know work is rather pointless. I also wouldn't offer you a solution to 1/0. This is because to the best of my knoweldge there is no solution. If I give you a number, I know I'm wrong. I've no reason and no desire to go out of my way to be illogical when I'm completely aware of the irrationality of doing it. Picking a number just to say you have a solutiuon solves absolutely nothing. The burden of proof is a wieght neither position can carry. I simply admit the fact and don't waste my effort trying to carry it anyways. At the fundamental level, the concepts I put faith into are logic, empirical data, reason, materialism and the like. These beliefs which I am forced to adopt to function are no more proven or conrete than ideas about faith and spirituality held by the religious. However, if I were to abandon them, I woul be completely lost. So like all men must do, I accept their truth without knowing it and build my reality around it. As a result, my personal, illogical arbitrary beliefs lean towards atheism, however I still ultimately do not accept that feeling as truth.

What is materialism anyway exactly? Statements like “I am seeing with my eyes” does not really reflect true reality, it is all a mere reflection of light converted into electrical impulses making “copies” of what is already known on some level. The reality exists inside the brain and not outside. Objective reality is a shadow world of perception and all our senses are limited. I would be lost if I relied on these alone. Isn’t matter or material another name for illusion? We, as human beings, could be illusionary, are just a passing image. I would be lost without my faith in the existence of an absolute being; God. I simply refuse to accept that there is no world outside matter. Some people who comprehend this aspect of materialism regard their faith as the absolute truth.

My solution works well. If I no longer hold any beliefs as truths, what have I to fight over? What reason have I to perpetuate violence, why should I be depressed, why would I turn to darkness?

The answer is not by dropping all values, how could that be even reasonable?! It will only create one more reason for people to fight over.

You can never just know the answer before trying. 1/0 is not a human being or society. You respond according to your personal beliefs, I am talking about the chaos created in society with the absence of morality. Dropping all values create even more conflict. Religion emphasizes on society instead of the centralized solutions that only focus on the "I".

It's not something I or anyone else knows. It's merely something we percieve. Human emotions existed long before Islam, and long before the religions that came before it. Love and friendship are entities entirely seperate from religion. We don't know what they are, only what they feel like to us.

Yes of course human emotions existed long before religion, I only said that they are encouraged by religion like any other goodness which existed within humans since the moment they are born. Yes we don’t know what they are, only what they feel to us; so why not say the same about religion or faith? Faith is having a unique relationship with God, every religious person, regardless of which, can perceive it on some level, when praying, when in need, when sick, no one can explain it until they have experienced it themselves. If you are put in a very critical and dangerous situation, something inside you naturally screams for help from something out there. That is God. All rejection and denial is because you don’t physically see him? Then how would he be a God if you can see him with your illusionary eyes? What anyone perceives is not just a relative feeling, and the universe around provide more assurance that indeed there is a Creator. Yes it wouldn’t be wise if you pray and not do any actual work, and that is blindness, but understanding logic, reason and science in addition to having faith creates a perfect image.


I'm cutting my reply rather short this time because I am tired from the endlessness of the discussion, but I feel like I learned new things from a different perspective, so I should thank you.

[Heartless Angel]

The bridge is worthless if there is no one there to use it. Air is required in building and crossing it. It’s illogical to examine the existence of the bridge solely by itself, no matter how magnificent and solid it is. Arguments are not floating in void, you need logic to establish them yes, but the reason they exist is to find a solution for a given problem. Shooting scientific facts alone doesn’t solve anything. Both scientific knowledge and faith are needed.

Pragmatics and truth are two completely different things. Solutions can be found by logic sure enough, but that alone is not the function of logic. Logic establishes truth. whether there is anybody around to cross the bridge is irellevant in the context of truth. The truth is the truth whether anybody knows and understands it or not. The function of faith is entirely pragmatic, having no correlation to truth whatsoever. We need faith to make sense of our world. The world doesn't care whether we have faith or not, it doesn't care if we understand. In understanding our world, faith is vital. In seeking truth, faith is worthless. Truth is my only interest, so I try to eliminate faith wherever and whenevr possible. As a foundation, faith is important for us to have. But using it as a building material for the bridge weakens it. Faith has its uses, and there are definitely places for it. But where it is not needed, it is a weakness.

What is materialism anyway exactly? Statements like “I am seeing with my eyes” does not really reflect true reality, it is all a mere reflection of light converted into electrical impulses making “copies” of what is already known on some level. The reality exists inside the brain and not outside. Objective reality is a shadow world of perception and all our senses are limited. I would be lost if I relied on these alone. Isn’t matter or material another name for illusion? We, as human beings, could be illusionary, are just a passing image. I would be lost without my faith in the existence of an absolute being; God. I simply refuse to accept that there is no world outside matter. Some people who comprehend this aspect of materialism regard their faith as the absolute truth.

Materialism is no more and no less than the belief that all things that truly exist do so in a physical sense. Our perceptions only interpret those physical existences, they do not define them. Existence is concrete and absolute, it is our own minds, our own perceptions that are illusions. Regarding something as truth does nothing in the way of making it truth. The truth exists entirely independant of us.

The answer is not by dropping all values, how could that be even reasonable?! It will only create one more reason for people to fight over.

Not at all. Almost all conflicts stem from disagreement on what is true. If nobody holds their beliefs as absolute truth, they've no reason to engage in conflict. Removal of beliefs to defend does not create reason to fight, it removes them.

You can never just know the answer before trying. 1/0 is not a human being or society. You respond according to your personal beliefs, I am talking about the chaos created in society with the absence of morality. Dropping all values create even more conflict. Religion emphasizes on society instead of the centralized solutions that only focus on the "I".

One can know a great many things without experiencing them. Morallity is an artificial construct. It is logically impossible for any theory of morallity to even BE true. Ideas of morality are at best subjective, and at worst completely meaningless. If the idea of morallity were removed, much of life would go on just as it does now. Right and wrong are defined by those with the power to enforce their beliefs. Some need religion to hold their hand and be their guide to understanding right and wrong, but they aren't really a nescessity. I completely reject the concept of morallity, I'm a complete moral nihilist. In spite of this, I'm not a liar, a thief, a cheater, or a serial killer. Most who believe in morality at all would consider me an all around decent person in spite of my having absolutely no moral compass.

Yes of course human emotions existed long before religion, I only said that they are encouraged by religion like any other goodness which existed within humans since the moment they are born. Yes we don’t know what they are, only what they feel to us; so why not say the same about religion or faith?

Because those feelings and perceptions have no correlation with truth. What I feel is completely unrelated to what is. I'm concerned with what is. Pragmatics aren't exactly objective. My complete lack of faith an complete rejection of morallity work just fine for me, just as religion works just fine for the religious. Any theory can be pragmatically 'true', but this establishes nothing in the way of absolute correspondant truth.

Faith is having a unique relationship with God, every religious person, regardless of which, can perceive it on some level, when praying, when in need, when sick, no one can explain it until they have experienced it themselves. If you are put in a very critical and dangerous situation, something inside you naturally screams for help from something out there. That is God.

Every schizophrenic can percieve things on some level that nobody else does, that doesn't mean what they percieve is true, or really exists in any way. That people feel something establishes nothing. I've been in more than one critical situation. If there's no living breathing person to call out for help, I look not outside for some cosmic force, but within, to my own reason.

All rejection and denial is because you don’t physically see him? Then how would he be a God if you can see him with your illusionary eyes? What anyone perceives is not just a relative feeling, and the universe around provide more assurance that indeed there is a Creator. Yes it wouldn’t be wise if you pray and not do any actual work, and that is blindness, but understanding logic, reason and science in addition to having faith creates a perfect image.

I don't reject or deny, that would make me atheist. I do not accept, nor do I refute the idea, because there is no logical basis for either position. A blind man who claims to see anything is a fool, it doesn't matter what he claims to see, he doesn't see it. Similarly, I don't know anything, no matter what I claim to know, I don't know it. All of our feelings and perceptions, every single one is nothing more than a relative experience. It is only the ones experience by every single person, undeniably and invariably that we come to accept as facts. A perfect image, much like a system of beliefs I entirely subjective. What one sees as perfection may be hideous to another. Truth is not subjective, therefore anything that is subjective must not be absolute truth. That is reason, pure and simple.

I'm cutting my reply rather short this time because I am tired from the endlessness of the discussion, but I feel like I learned new things from a different perspective, so I should thank you.

Any time. And I should thank you for being one the few on your side who has been able to give be a good argument. I love arguing, so I'm always up for more should the mood take you.

[Rowan]

Okay guys, I need to interject here.
Throw away this notion of absolute certainty
Its absolutley useless knoweldge. Noone can be certain of anything. Most people would understand this and its not a practical argument for either side of the debate. If this is your argument, then every single person should be an agnostic.

Athiesm is the lack of belief in a god. please try to avoid using sub catagories (gnostic-thiest etc.) it just clutters up the issue. What we need to be discussing here is reasonable argument and why people choose to believe over disbelieve. H.A, dont tell me that thiestic logic differs, because it will only defer when it suits them and thats one of the problems I have with religion and some thiests. They will deny the baggage of reason/logic and evidence when it suits them and accept it on other terms.

I am an athiest. Lack of evidence brings me to the conclusion that I cannot accept the idea of any god. I am not saying that nowhere at some time a god has never existed, just as I would a leprecaun or a fairy, but in all practical terms I can say that I know theres no such thing as fairies or leprecauns just as I can say I know theres no such thing as god. From now on I would appreciate if people stopped refferring to absolute certainies as noone can be absolutly certain of anything. What it sounds like some of you are saying is that it takes more faith to be an athiest than it does to be a thiest. To this I would ask you, does it take more faith to disbelieve the claims about bigfoot than it does to believe them?

The reason for the thread is that we are seeking for reasons why people choose to believe. Origins of the universe are okay I suppose but I think we'd end up in the never ending cycle of "well if god created it , who created him?" and it will turn into a circular argument. Although science is the only way we would ever possibly be able to establish how the universe was created. Science is helpful in both theoretical and practical terms. Religion requires blind faith. By comparing the two I would be more inclined to believe what I can see, what has been proven to be functional, testable and reliable. That makes more sense. Religion is interpreted by many different people as many different things. Theres no solid ground for establishing what exactly one should believe or do and religious communities will always disagree to some extent on how one should worship a god and live their lives. Keeping in mind there are hundreds of different religions, how can you be sure yours is even the more 'correct' one? You cannot, but you will blindy follow it anyway and just have faith for the best. This is on the same grounds as someone who has a life threatening ilness and you have faith they will just get better by themselves without treatment. Science could save their life.

I got into an argument at work with 2 of my co-workers a few weeks back. Did you hear about the plane that crashed with the 42 members of the hockey team? all but 2 people (1 members of the team and an engineer) died. They said "It was just their time"

Excuse me?

What does that even mean? They then replied that it was gods will. They also stated that if its gods will, they must be needed in heaven (as if thers not enough people there already, amirite?). To this I replied "thats absolute nonsense, you couldn't possibly know that, assuming there is a god then how do you explain the death of all those people in 9/11? was ittheir time to die too? What about all the children and infants who die from fathers driving off bridges, or babies who die from SIDS. Is it just thier time too? Is it gods will?

Although I kept my cool, and let it slide. Because they are good people at heart. I didnt want to let something like that put anything between us. Its something important I've come to learn and made me ashamed of myself remembering the way I use to view beliefs. Of course I'd prefer people to want to know if their beliefs are true, for the most part people dont care because they have faith. But never again will I let it ruin a friendship or a possible friendship. The most important thing is to be respectful to one another and have an understanding that transends over personal beliefs.

[Heartless Angel]

I have to disagree with that definition of atheism. In philosophy (and also according to the first dictionary result for the word) atheism is defined as the doctrine or belief that there is no god. That isn't just a lack of belief in God, but a belief in the lack of God. Many people who identify as atheist don't nescessary believe that (much as some people who idenitfy themsleves as a part of a specific religion have differeng beliefs on some issues), but to the best of my knowledge, that is the definition of the word.

And yes, I think everybody should be agnostic, but that's a normative claim, which I don't intend to deal with, since normatives by their very nature can't be rooted in fact alone, and getting into a debate of that nature is pretty much pointless as far as I'm concerned. Consider it nothing more or less than my arbitrary belief.

If you're simply wanting to know why people choose to believe, you'd probably be looking more along the lines of people agreeing with certain ideas held by a religious doctrine, particuarly concerning morallity and ideas giving importance to an individual's existence. Some, as you can see in Elise's posts believe religions to be an essential pillar that supports civilized society. Often times people choose one religion over another based simply on the credibility of other believers, or the accuracy of other information presented in religious texts. For example, Elise refferencing some of the scientific facts mentioned in the Quran.

As demonstrated by the latter part of your post, others are religious simply because their beliefs help them cope with problems in life. For example, believing that somebody is called to eternal happy land diminishes the sadness one feels at someone's death.

[Alpha]

Keeping in mind there are hundreds of different religions, how can you be sure yours is even the more 'correct' one? You cannot, but you will blindy follow it anyway and just have faith for the best. This is on the same grounds as someone who has a life threatening ilness and you have faith they will just get better by themselves without treatment. Science could save their life.

No, a given person cannot know that they're correct. But certainty isn't why people choose to believe in and/or follow a religion.

As I said before, a religion isn't just a cosmogeny (theory of the beginning of the universe, of people, etc.). Religions are also world views. Take Maori spirituality. They believe that in the beginning, the sky father (Rangi) and the earth mother (Papatuanuku) were locked in an embrace that denied the earth the opportunity to thrive. Their children, led by Tane, the god of the forest, pushed their parents apart. The children of Tane (the biological entities of earth, including people) were then able to thrive.

That is a ridiculously shortened version of events (the equivalent in Christendom would be to give the first few days of Genesis and leave it at that), but hear me out.

Do you think anyone really believes that spiritual ancestors of everything pushed their physical parents and gods apart? That makes no sense. It could not have happened. It is not consistent with our understanding of the world in the slightest.

So if you now come along with your 'superior' 'logic' and tell them that this makes no sense, what then? You haven't just removed their creation myth, you've removed their entire world view.

Their creation myth states that the environment is literally our kin, and our ancestors (whakapapa). They have obligations to care for the environment (kaitiakitanga), which is considered a treasure (taonga), which a tribal elder (kaumatua) can recite the reasons for, and the obligations this creates.

Use your logic to strip away their gods, and you have done more than removed cosmogeny, but a system of society.

[Rowan]

I have to disagree with that definition of atheism. In philosophy (and also according to the first dictionary result for the word) atheism is defined as the doctrine or belief that there is no god. That isn't just a lack of belief in God, but a belief in the lack of God. Many people who identify as atheist don't nescessary believe that (much as some people who idenitfy themsleves as a part of a specific religion have differeng beliefs on some issues), but to the best of my knowledge, that is the definition of the word.

This is why I wrote the definitions in my OP, so I could pick, mwahaha. But seriously, It comes from princeton dictionary. And it was defined as the lack of believe in gods. I would call myself an athiest because at this stage in life, I would say theres no reason to believe in god based on lack of evidence. Are you telling me that im an agnostic?

[Heartless Angel]

know[/I] that they're correct. But certainty isn't why people choose to believe in and/or follow a religion.

As I said before, a religion isn't just a cosmogeny (theory of the beginning of the universe, of people, etc.). Religions are also world views. Take Maori spirituality. They believe that in the beginning, the sky father (Rangi) and the earth mother (Papatuanuku) were locked in an embrace that denied the earth the opportunity to thrive. Their children, led by Tane, the god of the forest, pushed their parents apart. The children of Tane (the biological entities of earth, including people) were then able to thrive.

That is a ridiculously shortened version of events (the equivalent in Christendom would be to give the first few days of Genesis and leave it at that), but hear me out.

Do you think anyone really believes that spiritual ancestors of everything pushed their physical parents and gods apart? That makes no sense. It could not have happened. It is not consistent with our understanding of the world in the slightest.

So if you now come along with your 'superior' 'logic' and tell them that this makes no sense, what then? You haven't just removed their creation myth, you've removed their entire world view.

Their creation myth states that the environment is literally our kin, and our ancestors (whakapapa). They have obligations to care for the environment (kaitiakitanga), which is considered a treasure (taonga), which a tribal elder (kaumatua) can recite the reasons for, and the obligations this creates.

Use your logic to strip away their gods, and you have done more than removed cosmogeny, but a system of society.

If the belief was rooted entirely in an assumption that was obviously complete and utter nonsense, is the system of belief really worth preserving? They could just as easily abandon the silly myths and care for the environment for a reason rooted in reality, such as the fact that the environment supports and sustains them, or that they simply like their environment and wish to keep it in the relatively good condtion it's in. You don't need ridiculous fairytales to motivate you to do something you want done. If you strip away the silly rituals and myths, what you're left with are the best parts of the beliefs, the ideology that has made people want to subscribe to the religion in the first place.

This is why I wrote the definitions in my OP, so I could pick, mwahaha. But seriously, It comes from princeton dictionary. And it was defined as the lack of believe in gods. I would call myself an athiest because at this stage in life, I would say theres no reason to believe in god based on lack of evidence. Are you telling me that im an agnostic?

By the definition I use the word to mean, and what I know of your beliefs from the discussions we've had, yes. I would call you agnostic. Like myself, an agnostic whose arbitrary beliefs and understanding of reality lean strongly towards atheism, but an agnostic nonetheless.

[Rowan]

I would never claim to be agnostic as that would sugguest Im open to religion and the idea of god, when I honestly think its utter nonsense. I dont think that I would be agnostic for knowing that if someone could prove god to me, I would believe. becuase I honestly believe that noone can. Im having trouble grasping your definition. I agree with a lot of points you bring to the table HA, but for simple reasons I would disagree with your definition of atheism. I dont think either of us is wrong its just i've a different understanding of how I would identify myself.

edit: you say that your beliefs lean toward atheism, for example, 99 percent atheist 1 percent agnostic, I would call you an atheist.