Dear athiests and "scientists" [Spirituality & Religion]

@Kwek00 Yes, a tribe identifying itself by football team or music genre, possibly the best example of a group. Interestingly, group boundaries don't always seem to be fixed and can be crossed quite easily at times.

So, is heavy metal something you normally listen to? I admit to an appreciation of the genre.

@Bushranger I'm really not that far gone in Metal. I actually started out listening to 50s rock & roll (mostly American and British). My aunt had this show on the local radio, and she and my uncle were pretty much the only people in the family that listened to music. They gave me my first music albums as a kid. From that point I got fascinated by "Jefferson Airplane", I went from rock & roll, to Rhytm and Blues and Psychdelic rock from the 60s. That's also where I got fascinated by politics and the pscychedelic drug culture. From their on I fell in love with "Rage against the Machine" and "Meat Loaf". Then (because of group identity stuff) I refused to listen to annything electronic because I was into rock. I never was a fan of the extreme stuff, but I do have some heavy rock music in my collection. And during that festival "Iron Maiden", "Dream Theater", "Slayer", "Judas Priest", "Slip Knot" and "DIO" (the year before he died) were all performing. Annyway, during my student years I fell into a group that only listened to electronic music. And by now I have a serious collection of electronic beats that I love to listen too. I also got rid of most of my believes of what is good and what not just because of a "genre", so I try to listen to other stuff with an open mind. In ever genre I find things I really like and I find stuff that I find really bad. The french have a saying: "entre les gouttes et les couleures on discute pas" (we don't discuss colors and tastes). I kinda adopted that idea. It's just irrational to talk about colors and tastes as if there is some kind of absolute truth about what is good and what is not. Just listen to things and find it out yourself no matter what your friends like. Your friends don't know shit about this toppic, neither do I or you. An individual either "like" it or not. (You can develop tastes tough, which bourdieu tries to figure out how that happens. He did quite the extensive research on it in France)

@Kwek00 Being born in the early 50s, I grew up with some of the best music ever released, in my opinion. Jefferson Airplane was a fantastic band, especially "White Rabbit". I was heavily into folk music for a long time and still enjoy it, but I have to agree with you about genres, they are less important than individual pieces.

@QuixoticSoul


Clearly not. How else would you explain the utter devotion to certain concepts? How else would you explain of personal-cults? The only person that recognises "the concept" that people "believe" or "put their faith in" are those outside the group that is devoted to the concept. Since there needs to be an "outside" group that means there is an "inside group" and thus not "everyone" knows those are just made up.

And yes... I agree, believes are tremendously powerfull. As I said earlier, they will spawn more "ideas" because you use them as a basis for how the world works. Once you adopted a believe, it becomes part of your thinking. You just accept it as being true, so why not use this believe to build up rational thoughts. The problem is that the foundation wasn't correct to begin with because you used a limited dataset (which was the only one you had) and towards outsiders that see where you are wrong, the rest of the narrative that you build upon the flawed data becomes highly irrational. But for the person that used this flawed data, everything they say and do are totally in coherence and rational with the dataset they have. Part of the dataset is factual, but it's the non-factual part that can create problems if these non-factual parts are proven wrong.

Another great example... and probably one of the most important problems in philosophy and political theory is the natural state of man. How would a human be if they lived and grew up in a natural state (in nature), away from ideological preferences and man-made concepts and technology. It's a question that been raised a lot, and this idea has spawned "isms" all around. Hobbes for instance believed that the natural state of humans was a "war against all". Which means that humans (by nature) aren't friendly creatures. And we need to protect ourselves from our fellow man... according to Hobbes that's the reason why we need political frameworks from it comes his idea that we need a "Leviathan", a political institution (sovereign) that we need to be utterly devoted too and in return it will protect us from our human-natural-tendencies to kill eachother in endless war. The opposit of that thought is found in Rousseau who wrote: "Man is free, but everywhere he's in chains.". He believed that humans in their natural state are good, and that it's modernity and ideological frameworks that corrupted our childlike virtues. People also build on that idea, you find his ideas in really devoted communists and anarachists that blame all problems on ideological frameworks. Every aspect that happens in society that is seen as "negative" gets blamed on the fact that we are raised in a capitalist society or that there is hyrarchy.

Which side is correct? Well I hope we never find out. I think it's kinda cruel to dump a couple of babies in nature just to find out what would happen if they grow up with anny interfering from outside thought. But the answer to this question was given by philosophers, that looked at reality. Both Hobbes and Rousseau looked at the world, came to diffrent ideas, adopted them, and created an entire framework on this basic concept. It's a believe and it's not based on a correct answer. It's rational, because Rousseau and Hobbes both used the dataset they had to come to their answer. But they were both limited to the data that was lingering in their heads.

@Kwek00 Devotion is not really a required part of belief in a diety, and a person can have intense feelings about pretty much anything. And yeah, one of the things about non-religious ideologies is that everyone is quite aware that they're man-made and do not literally exist - insiders and outsiders alike. When people don't, we call them crazy. Or religious.

If you want, you can reduce everythibg to just neurons firing, and then any human thought is the same - but is it particularly useful?

Centuries of anthropology demonstrated pretty persuasively that the noble savage is probably a quaint idealistic dream.

@QuixoticSoul


That really depends on what that/those figure(s) want from you. Could be your God just wants you to be you... but in most religions, that's just not the case.


That is so not true. The in-group, those that participate, believe their ideas are really real. Maybe the person leading the group doesn't, but ideologies (that are man made) have the strength of creating extremely loyal folowers/believers. And these ideas drive people to do acts that they would see as "crazy" if they were part of the out-group.

- Nationalism
- Communism
- Fascism / Nazism

Are 3,5 man made ideologies that captured the hearts and minds and people acted on their premises. And as long as the believe sticked, none of them called themselves "crazy". It's also a toppic that troubled activists for a long time. Just read the 3 works mentioned by Carl Schmitt earlier in this toppic. And also "George Sorrel" on "Reflections on Violence" who was also looking for a "myth" to rally the people. You can also read Chantal Moufe and Ernesto Laclaus' work "Hegemony and socialist strategy".


And then we haven't talked about pretty much every conspiracy theory out there. Which are also "believes" that materialise as actions of people. These things are also only "crazy" for those that stand outside their world.

Another example are people that are just superstitious and neurotically do their ritual because else they believe they will fail in what ever they are going to do.


I can reduce everything to neurons firing in the brain. But nuance would totally go out the window then would it not? What I'm talking about is that "believes" have the same mechanisms for how they work. Doesn't matter if there is a "god" or not, because a "Believe" doesn't need a God.



As long as "probably" is in the text, people will keep argueing in favor it. And as long as this idea reproduces itself, then it won't go away. And as long as people believe in it, it will generate outcomes in the material world. We are talking about "believes", doesn't this threat illustrate that most believers don't give a dime for scientific papers? It's not because science prove something, that the believe evaporates and can be neglected (or that we can agree to disagree or something). What you know to be right, what is proven to be right, is worthless if a large majority believes the opposite (no matter how crazy it sounds to you).

@wildbill83 Yeah it is a bit funny when you delve into their belief and ask them for actual evidence. I just read an article today that said that there were slug like life forms on earth long before evolutionists ever thought bacteria existed. I wonder if they realize how that throws a kink into their feeble imaginings.

@hippyjoe1955 or the circular reasoning of their imaginary "geological column"

Q: How do you determine the age of fossils A: by which layer of rock/sediment we find them in

Q: How do you determine the age of rock/sediment layers A: by what fossils we find in them...

🤣

@wildbill83 Exactly. Someone who uses their suppositions as proof is the very definition of an evolutionist.

@SeadragonPrincess What are you trying to prove?

@SatanBurger I believe in something unproven least in this realm, or planet. Doesn't mean one has the right to say what I have faith in is dumb, or fake, or anything like that. Science is ever evolving, and to be stuck in pre writen past stuff is counterproductive especially when it involves entire species

@SeadragonPrincess Yep, your faith is valid to you and should be respected. The only concern I have is when that faith is taken to be the only one that is the truth and that any science that does not support that faith is considered to be fake.

@Axeroberts

But he really is just as valid as all the other claims about a creator out there.
That is the joke. The FSM-cult pult it out of their ass, asked for priveleges in society because they are a "religion"... that's the entire joke.

Why is one persons joke more valid then the others? That's the question the FSM raises.

@Kwek00 but is our existence real?

@Axeroberts

Great question! Start researching and find it out. Don't create a new concept that answers the question for you.

@Kwek00 It's really amazing how hard you people try to force your viewpoint down other people's throats. I mean, you won't even agree to disagree.

@SW-User Look Dan if you make a positive claim that people have to look for evidence in the bible. I don't think that it's wrong for me to point out that that maybe isn't such a good idea? And that there are better sources. Before someone gets the bible shoved up their throats.

Poor Dan had to block me. Cause I was saying something his data-set just didn't permit. Because Dan has a closed mind, everyone else has to be open minded about data gathering and therefore they have to read the bible. But not Dan, he took the the bible for his ultimate data-set and everything that isn't agreeing with it has no right to even have a discussion with it. That's just how Dan's mind function after years of believing something really hard without question. And to stay ignorant, you can only remove the people that have a dissident voice and shed more light on the incomplete dataset believers use. Except for crossing the moral line of killing someone, Dan ain't better then those inforcers in Saoudi Arabia and Iran that have to keep the people free of doubt, Nazies' and Soviets that couldn't indure "opposition" in their political systems. It's the same mechanism.

Because, being ignorant is so much more convenient then taking the time and reevaluating your position. Comming to terms with the lie you indulged yourself in. Like I said before... Ignorance is Bliss, and everyone that doesn't agree has to be cut out. That's why it's not okay to "agree to disagree" because if groups like this get big enough, all the rest will have to answer to this kind of madness.

@Burnley123
It's not about religion, Burnley, it never has been or ever will be about religion. It's about a close relationship with God in heaven through Jesus Christ, by His Holy Spirit.

"There is only one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and the Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Ephesians 4:4-6.


God will never contradict Himself. He is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow.

7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
8 When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment:
9 about sin, because people do not believe in me;
10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer;
11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.
15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” The Gospel of John 16:7-15


There is only one one interpretation of the Word of God and that belongs to God alone and not man.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16 & 17

"Knowing this first, that no prophesy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophesy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20 &21

Yes, you forgive homosexuals because they were made in the image and likeness of God before they were consumed by the plague of homosexuality.

Please forgive my long post to you.

The question isn’t whether God exists surely as any intelligent person who doesn’t block their mind to the truth can see there is an intelligent designer to the universe. Atheism is a flight from reason and agnosticism means you can’t make your mind up and investigate the facts fully. The fact is that no one need to prove God as the atheist claim as the design of the universe is so obvious that the burden of proof must be on the atheist to prove there is no God. As science more and more points to the complexity of the universe and the fact that there is obviously a designer the atheist gets more and more frantic with his attempts to prove himself right@Burnley123

@MalteseFalconPunch In choosing none you are in fact choosing one. The wrong one but the choice is being made.

@newjaninev2 No Problem. It seems to be just a work that compiles diffrent ideas from around the globe in a study, so you have an overvieuw on what people are working on. The field is vast, and I guess this person wanted to sample it a bit. At least that's pretty much what I got from it by going over it. I didn't read it in detail. Not sure if it's a good thesis, but it does provide a lot of source material if you are intrested in this particulair toppic. Biology however, is intresting, but not my cup of tea.

I was more showing that if you look just a little bit, you find academic sources that will generate more academic sources on the subject. Saying that there is nothing out there is just lazyness and denial talking. If this field interest you (either because you think to agree with it or because you think it doesnt make sense) people should at least do the reading. When it comes to biology I just agree, it's not my subject. I'm more intrested in the political, sociological and psychological factors of humanity. If you want to have an understanding of those 3, there are enough sources to read without also delving in biology.

@Kwek00
That's fine... it's mine 👍️

@newjaninev2 Lol

If you ever read the 240 pages... let us know if it was anny good!

@Randy777

@QuixoticSoul that's actually common sense apparently not everyone has 😂

@QuixoticSoul Thanks for contributing your foolishness. Got any other gems you care to share. I am having a good chuckle over the last one.

@hippyjoe1955
ad homien GPS locates you in a cul de sac 😬

@hippyjoe1955 Like I said, you don't get it. Totally clueless.

@newjaninev2 And that's all the more reason to think that religious people are not necessarily more moral than anyone else. They tend to use either the devil or god as an excuse.

@SatanBurger
You're right which is why they need Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior like anyone else.

@GodSpeed63 🤣

@Bandit2398 Have you ever received Christ as your personal Lord and Savior or did you just go to church to be a good person? You see, I grew up in the Catholic church and was scare to death of God because I didn't know Him on a personal basis. Later on, I married my first wife and went to a Baptist church. Still didn't know God. I also went to a Mormon church and a Jesus Only Church but still didn't know God. After my divorce from my first wife back in '85, I was living back home with my folks when I met Jesus through other brothers in Christ, and asked Him into my heart and life. He's been there ever since.

I can't tell whether you are brainwashed but I know either I wasn't and that I investigated carefully the truth behind Christianity and realised it was true. Please don't involve us all on your own experience brainwashing. Some of us have actually thought things through. @Bandit2398

I was answering a question that was asked of me. @Speedyman

@Burnley123 I like you too, therefore I'll won't be angry at you if you don't read what I write. I'm cool with it. 👍️

@Kwek00 I kind of want to but it's just too much, even for me. I'm sure its good stuff but I already know a load of good articles to read LOL.

@Burnley123 That's really nice.
I got an entire closet full of books to read too.

But I'm not really writing anny of this for one person in particulair. And those that feel like reading my stuff, well that's nice of them. Those that don't feel like reading my stuff, that's cool too.

I do respect it when I reply to one particulair person, that they at least read what I tried to point out. But then the message is directed at someone. So you'll notice when I write to you. 👍️

@SW-User if only I could have just said this. Lol

@SW-User Alternative BA.

@Allthingscurious

Seems we agree then? Means we are cool?

Of course. @Kwek00

@Allthingscurious 👍️

@SeadragonPrincess Why write this to begin with then? I'm sure both Christians nor atheists or any scientists have read about any dragons outside Harry Potter. Anyways I was speaking generally because your post seems well in lined with fundie rhetoric.

@SatanBurger what is fundie? Well dragonkind is real, and i'm quite confused why people especially those of faith don't follow, for one, their own book mentions dragons...they follow their whole book to a T...but when it comes to dragons they love saying only that part is metaphor. Not to mention the hidden dragon story in the bible's backstory.

@SatanBurger
There is some truth there. The one's who get to me are the atheists who quote scriptures and only just the ones that suit their cause

@PervertedPrincessOfDeath someone took the crickets I was going to nom

@SW-User Find evidence.

@SeadragonPrincess

That's a different subject and they can argue atheism is the same, it's peaceful.. but There is a fragment of extremism in every ideology , and some wisdom.

The problem in Islam is that it has sects that are strongly opposed to positive changes. And the scholars constitute the majority. They strongly clash with secularism and liberalism.

Christianity (most of it), Buddhism(most of it), Judaism(most of it) are all progressive in nature. Not the case for Islam.

@Miram I don't get why people are bashing on me for being draconian in faith, yeah it's a bit more chaotic, but it's also free, and the hunts are for non human creatures...because we need to eat and it's more ethical than farmed crap but you got people being all "DrAgOnS ArE NoT rEaL"

@SeadragonPrincess

When Jesus was crucified he said "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." ..And so we have to be compassionate even towards those who are bashful.

@Axeroberts Does that last part mean that all the rest that I wrote you were okay with? And that you see now how wrong it is to compare a non-observable-being up to explain how the world works? In comparisson to observable things like emotions?

@Kwek00 not saying that

@Axeroberts that was my point.
You didn't say much else.

But that's okay, I hope you reevaluate your position.

@Randy777 LOL damn son. Put the bottle back in your mouth and go back and take a nap.

Feel free to return to the conversation when you can speak like an adult.

@Abrienda like you said where?

@Benarro A non-sequitur reply. That now means NEITHER of us have any idea what you are talking about. Now take your medication and stop bothering people. Thank you.

@Abrienda so this is: ''Now take your medication and stop bothering people. Thank you.'' the loving and polite discourse you were implying atheists were not capable of? - I sent you a message I'll reply honestly and fully to any questions you may have, at the end I don't doubt I can convert you away from your religion if you're willing to try and engage with me.

@Axeroberts I'm not angry
But I'm dissapointed that you make such a comment.

@Kwek00 well I am disappointed that you comment about churches when I am an individual and not a church or even religious for that matter. In other words you are barking up the wrong tree

@Axeroberts I'm just answering your post.


Maybe a public fora is bizar to you too, but that does mean people can answer your post

@hippyjoe1955

It's true hippy Joe, you are so right. It makes way more sense to follow a book that is 1000s years old and never revise it even if it causes massive harm to certain fellow humans in society. That's like, way more mature then reevaluating your position when it's proven wrong. 👍️

@Pikachu so use your reason and logic to prove love exists. Or does it?

@MalteseFalconPunch but their science is good in spite of their religion, rather than because of it.

@Hikingguy Sure. It’s a pretty stupid guide to the natural world, however.

@Hikingguy Faith is pretending to know something that we do not really know.

I'd rather not base my life on pretence.

@Randy777 oh that makes sense

@BobbyMcGee Yeah I realize mental illness wasn't actually a thing for half of human history. I mean people had mental illness but they didn't define it as such, rather through the use of "demons" instead. Then if you take things into account like women used lead makeup and that made them crazy also.