On Atheism vs. Christianity

[dguy6789]

You: If you don't believe in the tooth fairy, you're religious. If you don't believe in unicorns or dragons, you're religious. If you don't believe in God, you're religious.

Me: Sorry, but no.

This kind of argument has been done a million times but not once has a single person ever once answered this question: Why is it religious to not believe in something that has no reason to be believed in?

I don't believe in things without evidence. I don't hold a single superstitious or irrational belief. Everything I believe in has been tested and proven using tools available thus far by someone somewhere. If something proves that one of my beliefs is wrong, I'll instantly alter my beliefs to reflect the truth. That is NOT a religion, that is just common sense.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No you really didn't prove atheism as a religion at all. You assumed that atheists must hold faith based opinions on the origins of the universe, and that is simply incorrect. In order to brand atheism as a religion you created the false premise that atheists must take a conclusive position on the origin of the universe. In fact since atheists base their beliefs on evidence, this is the exact opposite of what an informed atheist would do, because we do not have sufficient evidence to make any judgment on the origins of the universe. I think both the purpose to life and the origin of existence are important, but I would never claim to have some sort of answer to them because the evidence simply isn't there. This is why atheism is not a faith based religion.

I have no idea if science will eventually figure it all out, it doesn't really matter. Science is the best tool that we have for figuring out what is true, and so I'll take what it can give me. Even if science completely fails in explaining existence it in no way means that made up crap that people decided explains the world is any better.

I believe that matter has probably always existed, and so an origin to the universe is unnecessary. It's certainly not an opinion that I hold strongly, and if evidence were to show my opinion to be incorrect I would change it immediately. It's simply a probability judgment that I've made. Probable does not mean true, and that's exactly why atheism isn't faith.

The whole 'atheism is just another religion' argument will never fly, I'm sorry but it's completely unsupportable.

The statement in bold above may be your faith based decision, my friend... you believe something that science does not support. That is your temporary conclusion to question of the origin of universe.

Sure your religion is inherently flexible and versatile but you still making a decision to believe something although no evidence supports it... that is just how humans work, we have to believe something.

So do you believe man has a purpose or reason for being alive in this world?

Same thought process that I asked Coin more or less.... is it wrong to kill another human? Why?

Edit:

Also... we need to clear up some definitions. An atheist is person who denies or disbelieves the existence of supreme or supernatural powers... God or a bunch of Gods.

You are not an atheist so I'm not sure why we are arguing. You sound more like an agnostic to me... in which case we simply see the world differently and like i said... we just aren't gonna see eye to eye.

But the questions about purposes of life still apply to agnostics.

This is a common misconception that attempts to define atheism out of existence. It's never possible to actually believe in the non-existence of something, because that would require you to know everything that's possible to know in the universe. The same way I can't actually be an atheist about the christian sky beardo is the way that you can't be an atheist about the flying spaghetti monster... but I assume you would consider yourself so. While this might be technically true, I find the existence of a sky beardo so unlikely that for the purposes of rational argument I am an atheist. Basically if I am not an atheist, then atheists do not exist.

As for me holding a faith based belief that evidence does not support... that's explained perfectly well by the rest of the paragraph and the rest of my post that you did not bold. I said it was a probability judgment and I specifically mentioned that there was insufficient evidence to actually know how the universe started. I'm basically saying 'I don't know how it started but if I were forced to give an opinion I would say [X]', and you are attempting to equate that to religion. That's silliness.

This has nothing to do with whether or not we see eye to eye, this has to do with you incorrectly branding atheism as having the same fundamental flaws as religion, primarily the belief in things without evidence. This is simply factually incorrect, and I honestly take offense at the idea.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
You: If you don't believe in the tooth fairy, you're religious. If you don't believe in unicorns or dragons, you're religious. If you don't believe in God, you're religious.

Me: Sorry, but no.

This kind of argument has been done a million times but not once has a single person ever once answered this question: Why is it religious to not believe in something that has no reason to be believed in?

I don't believe in things without evidence. I don't hold a single superstitious or irrational belief. Everything I believe in has been tested and proven using tools available thus far by someone somewhere. If something proves that one of my beliefs is wrong, I'll instantly alter my beliefs to reflect the truth. That is NOT a religion, that is just common sense.

Okay... so you are not an atheist... you are agnostic. I never called agnosticism a religion.

But as an arguing point... a lot of people would say that plenty of evidence already exists... I am one of them.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No you really didn't prove atheism as a religion at all. You assumed that atheists must hold faith based opinions on the origins of the universe, and that is simply incorrect. In order to brand atheism as a religion you created the false premise that atheists must take a conclusive position on the origin of the universe. In fact since atheists base their beliefs on evidence, this is the exact opposite of what an informed atheist would do, because we do not have sufficient evidence to make any judgment on the origins of the universe. I think both the purpose to life and the origin of existence are important, but I would never claim to have some sort of answer to them because the evidence simply isn't there. This is why atheism is not a faith based religion.

I have no idea if science will eventually figure it all out, it doesn't really matter. Science is the best tool that we have for figuring out what is true, and so I'll take what it can give me. Even if science completely fails in explaining existence it in no way means that made up crap that people decided explains the world is any better.

I believe that matter has probably always existed, and so an origin to the universe is unnecessary. It's certainly not an opinion that I hold strongly, and if evidence were to show my opinion to be incorrect I would change it immediately. It's simply a probability judgment that I've made. Probable does not mean true, and that's exactly why atheism isn't faith.

The whole 'atheism is just another religion' argument will never fly, I'm sorry but it's completely unsupportable.

The statement in bold above may be your faith based decision, my friend... you believe something that science does not support. That is your temporary conclusion to question of the origin of universe.

Sure your religion is inherently flexible and versatile but you still making a decision to believe something although no evidence supports it... that is just how humans work, we have to believe something.

So do you believe man has a purpose or reason for being alive in this world?

Same thought process that I asked Coin more or less.... is it wrong to kill another human? Why?

Edit:

Also... we need to clear up some definitions. An atheist is person who denies or disbelieves the existence of supreme or supernatural powers... God or a bunch of Gods.

You are not an atheist so I'm not sure why we are arguing. You sound more like an agnostic to me... in which case we simply see the world differently and like i said... we just aren't gonna see eye to eye.

But the questions about purposes of life still apply to agnostics.

This is a common misconception that attempts to define atheism out of existence. It's never possible to actually believe in the non-existence of something, because that would require you to know everything that's possible to know in the universe. The same way I can't actually be an atheist about the christian sky beardo is the way that you can't be an atheist about the flying spaghetti monster... but I assume you would consider yourself so. While this might be technically true, I find the existence of a sky beardo so unlikely that for the purposes of rational argument I am an atheist. Basically if I am not an atheist, then atheists do not exist.

As for me holding a faith based belief that evidence does not support... that's explained perfectly well by the rest of the paragraph and the rest of my post that you did not bold. I said it was a probability judgment and I specifically mentioned that there was insufficient evidence to actually know how the universe started. I'm basically saying 'I don't know how it started but if I were forced to give an opinion I would say [X]', and you are attempting to equate that to religion. That's silliness.

This has nothing to do with whether or not we see eye to eye, this has to do with you incorrectly branding atheism as having the same fundamental flaws as religion, primarily the belief in things without evidence. This is simply factually incorrect, and I honestly take offense at the idea.

Look... you are the one the typed your response... you said you believe that matter has always existed and that is your present explanation for the origin of universe. That's silliness, bro. That is not a scientifically proven theory nor is supported by any evidence. you believe that on faith and that is what allows you to give little credence to the exist of a God, because you have an idea that you think has more credence... although no evidence supports your decision.

I see that clearly as a decision of faith. I think I have demonstrated why i think this falls squared in the category of faith.

You should hardly expect me to care if i give you offense when you have regularly insulted my beliefs (i.e. Sky beardo). But for what it is worth, I am sorry for offending... in the end our arguing is going to get neither of us anywhere so I'm done here.

All the best to you.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
You: If you don't believe in the tooth fairy, you're religious. If you don't believe in unicorns or dragons, you're religious. If you don't believe in God, you're religious.

Me: Sorry, but no.

This kind of argument has been done a million times but not once has a single person ever once answered this question: Why is it religious to not believe in something that has no reason to be believed in?

I don't believe in things without evidence. I don't hold a single superstitious or irrational belief. Everything I believe in has been tested and proven using tools available thus far by someone somewhere. If something proves that one of my beliefs is wrong, I'll instantly alter my beliefs to reflect the truth. That is NOT a religion, that is just common sense.

It's just common sense to have common sense but you say that faith = nonthinking as if you drove a nail in it. That is, I think, because you have faith that thinking is superior to faith. I think you are expressing a value judgment that your view in this is somehow superior because it's common sense and that, I think is faith, faith in assumptions you make that are unexamined. What people are conscious of as themselves is that part of them they can put into words. That would be the consciousness of the talker, the left brain. But the right brain is conscious too but does not talk in words and it knows without thought what you on your left side do not. Thought is a fragment of the self thinking itself the whole but thought is always of the past. God is in the now. You can't know God unless you can change your state. To think you have to master language. To know God you have to stop time. You believe in language but you know nothing of the science of stopping time. You are blinded to that science by the lack of awareness that such a thing could even exist. There are reasons for that. To allow the now is to open a door to suffering.

 

[Shallok]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
The statement in bold above may be your faith based decision, my friend... you believe something that science does not support. That is your temporary conclusion to question of the origin of universe.

Sure your religion is inherently flexible and versatile but you still making a decision to believe something although no evidence supports it... that is just how humans work, we have to believe something.

In reality there is no reason that someone who lacks belief in religion can not have faith in other things. Religious belief is only an example of having faith. Having faith in other things does not equate to having religious belief. Religion is more than just having a belief in the way the universe was created.

So do you believe man has a purpose or reason for being alive in this world?

No, there is no spiritual purpose or reason for man's existence.

Same thought process that I asked Coin more or less.... is it wrong to kill another human? Why?

Yes. One example of such a reason is the negative effects that murder has upon society. There are other reasons why murder is wrong. I suggest you research them.

A question back to you: If your God climbed down from Heaven and declared that it was supposed to be 'You shall murder' would you set out on a killing spree?

Also... we need to clear up some definitions. An atheist is person who denies or disbelieves the existence of supreme or supernatural powers... God or a bunch of Gods.

A rather poor definition. Atheism is really the lack of belief in religion, signified by the prefix 'a' meaning without, so, taken literally, atheism is without theism--theism being belief in the existence of a god or gods. Just as other words with the prefix a are handled, agnostic being an example (gnostic being that you have knowledge, agnostic being that you do not), amoral being another example.

You are not an atheist so I'm not sure why we are arguing. You sound more like an agnostic to me... in which case we simply see the world differently and like i said... we just aren't gonna see eye to eye.

But the questions about purposes of life still apply to agnostics.

Atheism and agnosticism are inherently linked. The absence of knowledge naturally leads to the lack of the belief.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Can we change the topic title to"Atheism vs. Gullibility" now? I think I have the basic "truth" of this question.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No you really didn't prove atheism as a religion at all. You assumed that atheists must hold faith based opinions on the origins of the universe, and that is simply incorrect. In order to brand atheism as a religion you created the false premise that atheists must take a conclusive position on the origin of the universe. In fact since atheists base their beliefs on evidence, this is the exact opposite of what an informed atheist would do, because we do not have sufficient evidence to make any judgment on the origins of the universe. I think both the purpose to life and the origin of existence are important, but I would never claim to have some sort of answer to them because the evidence simply isn't there. This is why atheism is not a faith based religion.

I have no idea if science will eventually figure it all out, it doesn't really matter. Science is the best tool that we have for figuring out what is true, and so I'll take what it can give me. Even if science completely fails in explaining existence it in no way means that made up crap that people decided explains the world is any better.

I believe that matter has probably always existed, and so an origin to the universe is unnecessary. It's certainly not an opinion that I hold strongly, and if evidence were to show my opinion to be incorrect I would change it immediately. It's simply a probability judgment that I've made. Probable does not mean true, and that's exactly why atheism isn't faith.

The whole 'atheism is just another religion' argument will never fly, I'm sorry but it's completely unsupportable.

The statement in bold above may be your faith based decision, my friend... you believe something that science does not support. That is your temporary conclusion to question of the origin of universe.

Sure your religion is inherently flexible and versatile but you still making a decision to believe something although no evidence supports it... that is just how humans work, we have to believe something.

So do you believe man has a purpose or reason for being alive in this world?

Same thought process that I asked Coin more or less.... is it wrong to kill another human? Why?

Edit:

Also... we need to clear up some definitions. An atheist is person who denies or disbelieves the existence of supreme or supernatural powers... God or a bunch of Gods.

You are not an atheist so I'm not sure why we are arguing. You sound more like an agnostic to me... in which case we simply see the world differently and like i said... we just aren't gonna see eye to eye.

But the questions about purposes of life still apply to agnostics.

This is a common misconception that attempts to define atheism out of existence. It's never possible to actually believe in the non-existence of something, because that would require you to know everything that's possible to know in the universe. The same way I can't actually be an atheist about the christian sky beardo is the way that you can't be an atheist about the flying spaghetti monster... but I assume you would consider yourself so. While this might be technically true, I find the existence of a sky beardo so unlikely that for the purposes of rational argument I am an atheist. Basically if I am not an atheist, then atheists do not exist.

As for me holding a faith based belief that evidence does not support... that's explained perfectly well by the rest of the paragraph and the rest of my post that you did not bold. I said it was a probability judgment and I specifically mentioned that there was insufficient evidence to actually know how the universe started. I'm basically saying 'I don't know how it started but if I were forced to give an opinion I would say [X]', and you are attempting to equate that to religion. That's silliness.

This has nothing to do with whether or not we see eye to eye, this has to do with you incorrectly branding atheism as having the same fundamental flaws as religion, primarily the belief in things without evidence. This is simply factually incorrect, and I honestly take offense at the idea.

Look... you are the one the typed your response... you said you believe that matter has always existed and that is your present explanation for the origin of universe. That's silliness, bro. That is not a scientifically proven theory nor is supported by any evidence. you believe that on faith and that is what allows you to give little credence to the exist of a God, because you have an idea that you think has more credence... although no evidence supports your decision.

I see that clearly as a decision of faith. I think I have demonstrated why i think this falls squared in the category of faith.

You should hardly expect me to care if i give you offense when you have regularly insulted my beliefs (i.e. Sky beardo). But for what it is worth, I am sorry for offending... in the end our arguing is going to get neither of us anywhere so I'm done here.

All the best to you.

You are once again attempting to equate my expressly stated probability based judgment with religious faith. The dictionary definition of faith is 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof' in both Merriam Webster and the OED, which is generally considered the definitive source. In my post I have specifically stated that my belief in a theory is not firm. In fact it was in the sentence immediately following my 'faith based' decision that you bolded. Therefore by definition, that idea is not faith. If you have a problem with this your argument is with the dictionary, not me.

Furthermore you have once again put arguments in my mouth that I have never made. My belief that matter has probably always existed in no way enables me to disbelieve in a god or creator. Proving matter has always been here does not disprove god, and disproving that matter has always been here does not prove god.

This isn't one of those religion discussions where people are arguing about two different unprovable views on the universe, we're arguing about the definition of words. Right now your confusion as to what the word 'faith' means is leading you to believe that atheism is just another form of religion and I can show you why you're wrong.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true"
I put that in quotes cuz I'm sure I read that over at Moonbeam's house.. But there we go again... the old mind at work again.
It seems to me... truth requires knowledge... or it is nice to have some knowledge to determine something is true. Belief is far more liberal... ya don't have to dissect the frog to believe it has a frog heart but if you went ahead and did that you would know it to be true.. you'd have gained some knowledge.
So how does that apply to God...
Well.. what is God... or what criteria would we assign to God... ah.. a miracle... ok.. God has to defy what we generally accept to be a law of the universe... say Gravity... Here floats this rather old looking person... just floating there.. Is that God? Take another example... I see this rather bearded fellow spouting all sorts of love to folks he don't even know... Is that God?
Now if you had a choice which of the two would you pick to be God... ? Well you figure the proof is in the miracle... and discount the guy filled with love...
To me the one who fits my criteria would be both the floating guy and the hippy. But if I had to choose... I'd choose the hippy... How on earth could I make that irrational choice... Well... for one I can't use earthly criteria... but more importantly Love is good the hippy loves so the hippy is good... the floating guy... is only floating but I'll accept he is doing something science will have to work on for awhile... In any event, they'll probably never accept either as God.. wouldn't be prudent.

Period, motherfucker. Learn it. Use it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
snip

Umm...you don't really understand the nature of probabilities and evolution.

I do...

No, you really don't. Events with ridiculoulsly small statistical probabilities happen all the time. Do you want to try to calculate the probability of the location of every subatomic particle in your bedroom at one moment? It'd make your "probabilities" of evolution look like silly. But gee, there they are. It must be a miracle.

and more to the point, the dudes that published the peer review article did.

Which article is this? I don't remember seeing it linked in this thread.

So answer my series of questions?

I did. You didn't answer mine.

Where did all the mass and energy in our universe come from?

I'm not convinced that it "came from" anywhere.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
I had one additional question for CoinOperatedBoy:

You stated:
Questions like "Why am I here?" might sound philosophically titillating, but they are intellectually weak.

I ask you why is such a question intellectually weak? And if it is so weak why have so many great minds contemplated and discussed this very question? The entire realm of philosophy basically began trying to answer this question.

It's weak because there is no meaningful way to answer it, and the intent of the question itself is vague to the point of absurdity. The answer, if one exists, would be different for every man who asks, and only he could provide it. I will leave the empty generalizations to the philosophers you admire, and concern myself instead with the purposes I choose for myself.

There is no meaningful way for you to answer it... it is perfectly simple question for any religious person to understand and answer.

So do you believe man has no purpose or reason for being alive in this world? If your answer is no, then why is wrong to kill another man? If they have no purpose in being alive what is the crime in killing them, then? Their existence... pointless. Their lifetime and work... meaningless.

I, of course, believe we have purpose so our lives, our planet, etc. are inherently valuable due to that purpose.

No, a religious person does not know the answer to the question "Why am I here?" They might assume, for no reason that I can fathom, that the answer is "To love God" or some other vague purpose. I guess it's written in a book somewhere.

My belief is that there is no external driving force that assigns meaning to human life and our actions. It's we who assign that meaning, on a personal and societal level. How do you not understand that? Why do obtuse theists like you always come to the conclusion that atheists find life completely devoid of value or meaning, and we godless heathens are on the verge of killing sprees and suicide? Do you really think that if there were no God to assign worth to things, to tell us what is right and wrong, that we would be unable to deduce these things and function in the world?

Yours are honestly some of the most facile, aggravating, malformed and insulting arguments I've heard. Your PhD does not speak highly of the institution you attended if your critical arguments are this poor.

 

[LunarRay]

To whom the shoe may fit...

" ... " is a form of punctuation called Ellipsis.

An ellipsis can also be used to indicate a pause in speech, an unfinished thought or, at the end of a sentence, a trailing off into silence which is referred to as an aposiopesis as I recall, anyhow...

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: LunarRay
"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true"
I put that in quotes cuz I'm sure I read that over at Moonbeam's house.. But there we go again... the old mind at work again.
It seems to me... truth requires knowledge... or it is nice to have some knowledge to determine something is true. Belief is far more liberal... ya don't have to dissect the frog to believe it has a frog heart but if you went ahead and did that you would know it to be true.. you'd have gained some knowledge.
So how does that apply to God...
Well.. what is God... or what criteria would we assign to God... ah.. a miracle... ok.. God has to defy what we generally accept to be a law of the universe... say Gravity... Here floats this rather old looking person... just floating there.. Is that God? Take another example... I see this rather bearded fellow spouting all sorts of love to folks he don't even know... Is that God?
Now if you had a choice which of the two would you pick to be God... ? Well you figure the proof is in the miracle... and discount the guy filled with love...
To me the one who fits my criteria would be both the floating guy and the hippy. But if I had to choose... I'd choose the hippy... How on earth could I make that irrational choice... Well... for one I can't use earthly criteria... but more importantly Love is good the hippy loves so the hippy is good... the floating guy... is only floating but I'll accept he is doing something science will have to work on for awhile... In any event, they'll probably never accept either as God.. wouldn't be prudent.

Period, motherfucker. Learn it. Use it.

Shouldn't that be "Period, motherfucker: learn it; use it."?

In any event, I won't make any reference to your carnal knowledge of your progenitor.

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Can we change the topic title to"Atheism vs. Gullibility" now?

:thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: babylon5

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Can we change the topic title to"Atheism vs. Gullibility" now?

:thumbsup:

What? You're recommending a faith in doubt over a faith in belief? Wouldn't that shade into a tendency to doubt oneself over believing in oneself especially if God and Self are intimately connected? One could almost imagine a certain bitterness in your tone as if these poor fools who believe are costing you something. Maybe you giggle at the cargo cultists forgetting that they've seen real planes.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: babylon5

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Can we change the topic title to"Atheism vs. Gullibility" now?

:thumbsup:

What? You're recommending a faith in doubt over a faith in belief? Wouldn't that shade into a tendency to doubt oneself over believing in oneself especially if God and Self are intimately connected?

Not really.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: babylon5

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Can we change the topic title to"Atheism vs. Gullibility" now?

:thumbsup:

What? You're recommending a faith in doubt over a faith in belief? Wouldn't that shade into a tendency to doubt oneself over believing in oneself especially if God and Self are intimately connected? One could almost imagine a certain bitterness in your tone as if these poor fools who believe are costing you something. Maybe you giggle at the cargo cultists forgetting that they've seen real planes.

Cargo Cultists come closest to having a genuine religion, real manna from the sky in real airplanes, their dogma is just a little off. The belief that building replica planes will lure real ones down from the sky.

Do I feel bitter? Would you feel bitter watching some one drop their mail in a trash receptacle rather then the adjacent Mail Box. They just waste my sympathy.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: babylon5

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Can we change the topic title to"Atheism vs. Gullibility" now?

:thumbsup:

What? You're recommending a faith in doubt over a faith in belief? Wouldn't that shade into a tendency to doubt oneself over believing in oneself especially if God and Self are intimately connected?

Not really.

But faith, they say, can move mountains. What's the word on what doubt can do?

 

[Moonbeam]

W: Cargo Cultists come closest to having a genuine religion, real manna from the sky in real airplanes, their dogma is just a little off. The belief that building replica planes will lure real ones down from the sky.

M: Interesting! That opinion wouldn't rely by any chance, now would it, on the fact that you too have seen planes?


W: Do I feel bitter? Would you feel bitter watching some one drop their mail in a trash receptacle rather then the adjacent Mail Box. They just waste my sympathy.

M: You never look at things from a perspective of uncertainty, it seems. How do you know that the value of a letter may be in the writing and not in the delivery. And then there's the placebo effect.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: babylon5

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Can we change the topic title to"Atheism vs. Gullibility" now?

:thumbsup:

What? You're recommending a faith in doubt over a faith in belief? Wouldn't that shade into a tendency to doubt oneself over believing in oneself especially if God and Self are intimately connected?

Not really.

But faith, they say, can move mountains. What's the word on what doubt can do?

Ah... Moonbeam... everyone knows that answer... Doubt creates the mountains that faith can move...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
W: Cargo Cultists come closest to having a genuine religion, real manna from the sky in real airplanes, their dogma is just a little off. The belief that building replica planes will lure real ones down from the sky.

M: Interesting! That opinion wouldn't rely buy any chance, now would it, on the fact that you too have seen planes?


W: Do I feel bitter? Would you feel bitter watching some one drop their mail in a trash receptacle rather then the adjacent Mail Box. They just waste my sympathy.

M: You never look at things from a perspective of uncertainty, it seems. How do you know that the value of a letter may be in the writing and not in the delivery. And then there's the placebo effect.

To quote Moonbeam's Uncertainty Principle "One cannot deduce from the unknown the relationships of the suspected." "When one investigates the unknown 'IT' what they may find revealed is proof that they will never know if they found 'IT'." "Mankind revels in what it knows and doubts what it don't know."

Well, I'm sure I think that is Moonbeam's

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

What? You're recommending a faith in doubt over a faith in belief? Wouldn't that shade into a tendency to doubt oneself over believing in oneself especially if God and Self are intimately connected?

Not really.

But faith, they say, can move mountains. What's the word on what doubt can do?

Doubt preserves the mind. How many mountains have you moved of late?

 

[Tom]

As to the atrocities that "God" doesn't stop..

Has the world become a more tolerant, civilized place after the holocaust than it was before ? Certainly it's possible to make an argument that it has. Does that mean it's happening was directed by a higher power, as a lesson ?

Same thing could apply to the atrocities in Africa. The point of view that a benevolent god wouldn't let it happen, therefore that no benevolent god exists, doesn't hold water if it's up to us to stop it. It's certainly within our power to stop it, it's just easier to let it go because we think it's happening to someone else, not dealing with the reality it's all one world.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

What? You're recommending a faith in doubt over a faith in belief? Wouldn't that shade into a tendency to doubt oneself over believing in oneself especially if God and Self are intimately connected?

Not really.

But faith, they say, can move mountains. What's the word on what doubt can do?

Doubt preserves the mind. How many mountains have you moved of late?

Hey!... I saw Moonbeam move a mountain of boxes from one side of his garage to the other AND I doubted he could do it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
W: Cargo Cultists come closest to having a genuine religion, real manna from the sky in real airplanes, their dogma is just a little off. The belief that building replica planes will lure real ones down from the sky.

M: Interesting! That opinion wouldn't rely buy any chance, now would it, on the fact that you too have seen planes?


W: Do I feel bitter? Would you feel bitter watching some one drop their mail in a trash receptacle rather then the adjacent Mail Box. They just waste my sympathy.

M: You never look at things from a perspective of uncertainty, it seems. How do you know that the value of a letter may be in the writing and not in the delivery. And then there's the placebo effect.

To quote Moonbeam's Uncertainty Principle "One cannot deduce from the unknown the relationships of the suspected." "When one investigates the unknown 'IT' what they may find revealed is proof that they will never know if they found 'IT'." "Mankind revels in what it knows and doubts what it don't know."

Well, I'm sure I think that is Moonbeam's

Seems it's those unknown unknows that give people fits. It has always seemed to me to be easier to uncover the unknown unknowns if you don't know anything. They don't have anything to hide behind, that way.