disco suicide wrote:I believe in God, not necessarily because I was told to, but because of personal evidence that I have gathered with my own perception and experiences...

This sounds like just what I was asking for. What is this evidence you have gathered?

on weekends i've seen steve press his head up to the railings at the local orphanage and whisper to the children that there is no heaven....

true dat.

kenoki wrote:what is proven i will believe as science. the supernatural can become science and not seem so unfamiliar anymore. how can the supernatural exist without a science? i mean, it exists right? humans aren't so defective that we are biologically completely out of tune with what rules all. the thread. right? all dogs eat grass? nor do i think i should have to make you believe anything since i don't believe in shit. what do i have to represent? other than a certain amount of tolerance, patience, and lots of discretion.

Okay... that's some pretty drunk/crazy babbling right there, and I respect that. Anybody who can avoid completing a sentence or making a statement of any kind for 200 words is okay by me.

there are a million things that the unknown can inspire, one being religion as i said... what i do think is necessary is that we allow that freedom for people to investigate what questions they do have, regardless of where they stem from, and not just vilify anything that may overlap with your precious study.

Right. Agreed. Don't villify me when I investigate why you believe in something nobody has ever experienced. That's my question. What makes someone believe in this supernatural stuff? What made you believe in it? There's so much I don't know, and I'd like to start there.

I know it isn't excluded from possibility. I know that. You keep calling it the unknown, and if it's unknown, it could be anything, and I suppose that could be supernatural. So what. That's a long way from deciding to affirmatively believe in it. How do you get from "It isn't absolutely impossible" to "This is what I believe?" What brought you to that position?

When did I say I believed in something? Please, quote me. And does "you" mean ME or "you" mean whoever? Because I can not understand how YOU would be asking ME. Yes, I call the unknown the unknown, because it is. It being, what? Ok?

Maybe we aren't even arguing eachother but rather arguing the made up eachothers. AND MAYBE IT'S SUPERNATURAL, and yet scientific. Why not?

kenoki wrote:When did I say I believed in something? Please, quote me. And does "you" mean ME or "you" mean whoever? Because I can not understand how YOU would be asking ME. Yes, I call the unknown the unknown, because it is. It being, what? Ok?

Maybe we aren't even arguing eachother but rather arguing the made up eachothers. AND MAYBE IT'S SUPERNATURAL, and yet scientific. Why not?

I like pudding.

When you say you believe in the supernatural, I think that you are putting your hands down and saying that the world is beyond understanding. But it's ok, because there's something else out there which does understand and everything is ultimately under control.

I understand this viewpoint and I sympathise with it. It is very comforting. However, I think that it is purely a function of the human mind to protect us from the somewhat bleak truth that faces us without faith in the irrational. I was lucky enough to be a (poor) student of Peter Atkins, who made very plain the direction that the Second Law of Thermodynamics takes the universe: an eventual, blank sheet of radiation. It's an elegant proof, if somewhat chilly.

A frequent exhortation I see from churches around here is to "Spread the good news", which I think is the main attraction. It would be very comforting to have someone watching over us all and making sure that eventually, everything turns out for the best. If you could excise all the unpleasantness in most religious texts (which seem to have been written at least in part by some slightly messed up men), then this would indeed be good news. I'd love to believe it. But nothing has ever indicated to me that it is anything other than wishful thinking. People who I love dearly hold to these concepts, they're probably smarter than me. But the times that we've challenged each other on this it has always come down to their feeling there's more. These feelings can be respected, but I think it's just an automatic process in our brains.

Regardless, Happy Easter!

(For anyone wanting to jump out and claim that the tendency to disorder stated by the Second Law contradicts evolution, here's why it doesn't.)

sunlore wrote:

steve wrote:

kenoki wrote:The unknown; being open to the idea of things that we may be unable to see, understand, nor verbally communicate at present, and certainly provide no hard evidence of to satisfy your mind...

If this stuff is all unknown, and there is no evidence of it, and we cannot see or comprehend it, why do you think it is there at all?

Seriously, what gives you the idea that there is something there? A hunch?

Man is religious, Steve. Most of my forefathers were. I bet most of your forefathers were, too.

I have seen people swap long drug-addictions for life-long Jesus-addictions. Is still a very powerful thing, this religion.

The dude who lived next door to me in the dorms last year swapped cocaine and speed for chain-smoking.

Is a very powerful thing, this tobacco.

sparky wrote:When you say you believe in the supernatural, I think that you are putting your hands down and saying that the world is beyond understanding. But it's ok, because there's something else out there which does understand and everything is ultimately under control.

I understand this viewpoint and I sympathise with it. It is very comforting. However, I think that it is purely a function of the human mind to protect us from the somewhat bleak truth that faces us without faith in the irrational. I was lucky enough to be a (poor) student of Peter Atkins, who made very plain the direction that the Second Law of Thermodynamics takes the universe: an eventual, blank sheet of radiation. It's an elegant proof, if somewhat chilly.

A frequent exhortation I see from churches around here is to "Spread the good news", which I think is the main attraction. It would be very comforting to have someone watching over us all and making sure that eventually, everything turns out for the best. If you could excise all the unpleasantness in most religious texts (which seem to have been written at least in part by some slightly messed up men), then this would indeed be good news. I'd love to believe it. But nothing has ever indicated to me that it is anything other than wishful thinking. People who I love dearly hold to these concepts, they're probably smarter than me. But the times that we've challenged each other on this it has always come down to their feeling there's more. These feelings can be respected, but I think it's just an automatic process in our brains.

Regardless, Happy Easter!

(For anyone wanting to jump out and claim that the tendency to disorder stated by the Second Law contradicts evolution, here's why it doesn't.)

Well said.

[puts fist to chest (thumb-first)]

Antero wrote:

sunlore wrote:

I have seen people swap long drug-addictions for life-long Jesus-addictions. Is still a very powerful thing, this religion.

The dude who lived next door to me in the dorms last year swapped cocaine and speed for chain-smoking.

Is a very powerful thing, this tobacco.

A commodity. And why the fuck not? At least smokers aren't pussies about it. They adhere to the ritual, for the hell of it. I do.

An interesting aspect of the Jewish faith is that basically you don't have to have faith in anything, just as long as you subscribe to the laws. Like a game. Pawns only move forward. Why? Because.

Maybe religions are just sets of rituals which function as rules for games people play, rules that establish communities. Maybe. You wouldn't hear it from a religious guy, the first rule of religion being the assessment that it refers to something real. Something superreal, in fact. You will never get a straight answer from a religious person, at least not where it concerns his religion. That would totally spoil his game. He is always going to refer to his favorite deity and to "evidence" that supports his "worldview". That's the game.

Religion is institutionalized lying. Especially christianity. Liars, all. Steve will not get a proper answer, not here, not anywhere. And he knows it, too.

sunlore wrote:You will never get a straight answer from a religious person, at least not where it concerns his religion. That would totally spoil his game. He is always going to refer to his favorite deity and to "evidence" that supports his "worldview". That's the game.

This is a foolish thing to say. So many of y'all anti-religious people need to learn that in your game (logic) there are very few rules, but probably the single most important one is that any statement used in a syllogism must be a generalization that applies to *ALL* of the group in question. Right here, you are basically saying that ALL religious people are playing a game, and that ALL religious people are incapable of giving straight answers. I will now make the generalization (with limited alternatives) that you are either lazy in choosing your words, or you really believe what you've written and you're a fool.

sunlore wrote:Religion is institutionalized lying. Especially christianity. Liars, all.

Actually, that answers the question right there. You're lazy with your word choices, AND you're a fool.

So very many of the finest people this world has known, the people who dedicate their lives to the greatest cause, helping people who need help, are religious people. But you think they're just liars and game-players. People who devote their lives to helping the sick or the homeless, at their own expense, these people are just liars. You're a fool, and it's sad. Grow up.