ok this may seem all over the place or in the wrong section... but i'm short on time and need to just get this out.

i encountered the 'rational response squad' on myspace. i think all in all it is a good thing to let a fellow human being know when you think they are lying to theirself. So, if you see someone 'falling asleep' in a sense, you do your best to wake them up. In my eyes, that is a good thing no matter how you cut it. People put the blinders on sometimes because they get comfortable with a situation or belief system.

Since I was about 18 I really took a strong rebellion to all religion. I was never really religious, but it was about that time that I began to take a very logical view at things... And I came to the realization that either ALL religions are true, or NONE of them are.

First of all guys... let me tell you a little secret.... when you REALLY get down to it, there are no facts. Everything is opinion. What you call rational, another person does not. Trust me I am ALL FOR you guys (verbally) bitch slapping people who need it... because alot of people do. But something isn't right about how you go about telling people things. Its like they are the enemy and you are the saviors who 'know' the 'way'. And that will usually result in resistance to your view. you can't expect people to just give up on 'god'. Sure some people think god is an old man in the clouds who controls everything and watches over everyone. I think thats crazy, i'm sure i'm not alone on that. But there are people who use the word 'god' for a lot of different meanings. Spirituality is a part of life and many people tie that to religion. So saying 'god' does not exist is way too simple when there are so many different meanings for god.

For instance, I don't believe... I know... that I am god. YOU are god. everything is god. it is in no way separate from me you or anything or anyone. maybe 'god' is the wrong word... whatever. its just a word. call it the force, life, the universe. ok I prefer the universe. it is flowing through all of us at all times, within and without. It is, I am, infinite. Eternal. There is no death. It isn't something one believes in or could believe in. The human 'mind' could never ever wrap itself around what we truly are. But everyone 'knows' deep down. Athiesm is still a belief fellas. And if you hang on to ANY one belief it is dangerous. I have my take on religion and why it all came from 'truth' then got twisted, fairytaled, and 'believed in'... making it dead. But i'm not getting into that here.

If you try and remove someone's sense of spirituality, you are fighting a war you cannot win. Show people different perspectives, help them evolve... that is a great thing. and i am sure you have helped many people look at the world in a different light, which is truly amazing.

ok more later this has been a bit of a ramble

falling is relative. everything is relative. its nice to compartmentalize reality, sit it steady on a contingent system, and its useful for your perspective (of course i'm falling. the world doesnt move)

but reality just doesnt work that way. limited reality, the perspective we hold in our muddled heads, this is concrete. falling is falling. you and i know it to be true. but..where is down? could you show me if you couldnt point to the ground?

given a defined frame of reference (and this we have) we may say things like i am falling

but such assertions don't sit well over the expanse of the universe. 'i am not still' might work, but you certainly are relative to something. a body is accellerating, at least relative to itself. there is a fact in there somewhere, but pointing to it and expecting to be right is just arrogance.

everything isnt an opinion. everything is a fact. the opinions sit in the interpretation. and since you can't hold onto fact any more than the rest of us, what you have is the warm comfort of interpretation.

all perspective is interpretation.

i stand by all three of those statements. the one about 'fact', i think, could stand to have the word 'truth' thrown in for what you (and i, of course) cant hold onto. facts are manufacturable given perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity
The principle of relativity...essentially states that to all observers in constant motion, regardless of their position or velocity in the universe, all physical laws will appear the same...it follows that an observer cannot determine either his absolute speed or direction of travel in space.

now you can talk about closed systems like planet earth and limit the universe to a particular frame of reference. this helps to establish many facts where facts previously did not exist. it also helps to establish conversation. however, the framework of reality that we see and the framework that actually is...they are very different things.

however, 'falling from a building' is not, in my opinion, the sort of truths that were being discussed in the post-in-question. ultimately, i will grant you, bodies get crushed. fact.

there are facts, but they are few, far between, and almost totally meaningless. im falling. what an assertion.

now i read that sentence a lot better with the word 'truth' replaced for 'fact'. there are tons of facts of varying accuracy given frame of references and on and on. truths, on the other hand, are not so abundant or maleable....or understandable.

the point of all the nonsense being that you cant deliniate the truth from the observed and be correct on any worthwhile scale. i call it 'the uncertainty principle of truth'. everybody believes something and is wrong by an immesurable amount in an unknowable direction.

further, even if what you believe is exactly in accordance with all that humans know about existence and reality you have covered almost nothing and not even done a very good job about it.

im not sure if this is meant to suggest that religion inherently relies on argument from ignorance, but allow me to assure you it does not any more than life itself dictates such action for every individual. the amount of ignorance one chooses to employ is the decision of the individual, conscious or otherwise. and circular logic...well. i dont know what to say about that, except it is a difficult thing to escape given the fact that we live on a bunch of matter that just sort of is here.

also, no one is bringing up any particular god. our ancestors said a lot of different things about god and the world. some of them are useful, some of them are true, some of them are bad, and some of them are false. they are probably other things as well.

we will be ancestors someday, and our statements will be much the same and no more helpful. truth is a personal venture. thats what i believe, anyway.

Then can we test that by tossing you off a building?

The axiom of existence is relative?

You sound like someone who read a page from a chapter from a book on postmodernism written 35 years ago.

The axiom of existence is the fact that we can't deny that we exist. The fact that something exists is - undeniably true.

To try and deny the axiom requires that you first agree that it exists.... so you end up refuting yourself. We can therefore say that the axiom of existence is necessarily true.

Not 'relative'

Yes. The axioms of existence, identity and self consciousness are necessarily true.

Bingo! No theist claim is necessarily true. And the axioms of existence and identity are more 'basic', fundamental, then their god claim.

necessity is not really my argument. the axioms of existence and identity are truisms, and i don't argue with truisms, but i dont think much of them either.

somewhere back there someone asked how i knew that objective reality would be so different from my subjective reality. science has shown me that there are layers and aspects to reality that...yknow...we just dont understand. it would be difficult for me to imagine that my vision of something actual that i just cant understand would be accurate at all. however, it is possible. i might have just accidentally nailed it, but i doubt it. its just far more likely that i dont know.

and so, interpretation to physical reality is very open. yes ok ok already. you can go throw someone off a building to prove your point. there is a building, and that building is itself. i just also happen to believe in an underlying direction in time and space. underlying direction that got us to 'here' and 'now', accepting that any other 'here' and 'now' could have happened, but instead: this one. i also happen to find the fact that 'any other' includes about infinity that would have pretty much ripped a universe in half out of the gate. or collapsed its fatass back onto itself.

and so, whatever. take it how you like.

Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, p41

that must be the paragraph you were talking about
but its essentially what ive been attempting to say since i got here.

That is no excuse for beliefs based on blind Faith in the naked assertions of our ancestors. That is no excuse for Faith as the bible defines it...

I think you would be happier as a theist who worhsips the God of philosophy than the God of the bible.

You are all philosophy anyhow averyv...

Is the bible unsatisfactory for you in your philosophy of God?

I only remarked to your remark to todangst remark :

I guess I was missing your earlier points averyv. I will re-read the thread. Sorry.

i appreciate your thoughtful reply

agreed

this is an interesting statement, and one i hadnt really considered. to me, personally, i had always considered my religion (again, extremely personal thing, imo) an aspect of my philosophy. when you set it in comparison, i can see where you are coming from. i dont agree with the sentiment, however.

i also am not (in particular) looking to bring anything externally associated with god to a table. at least any tables that arent organized around talking about things of that(this) nature. as far as anyone else is concerned, it would be my hope that it is thought what i do is what i do because i do it like that, tho this is not possible and its not of any real consequence either way. my religion holds bearing on me personally. it offers direction at times, not to say the same actions could not be taken without a belief in god. certainly they could and to exactly the same effect.

i make many of my daily decisions and structure my beliefs around my conception of the universe. not everyone would put it in those exact terms, tho i think that it is a fair statement for pretty much everybody, granted that 'world' or some other generic term might need to be subbed in for universe.

anyway, if you truly think that, as you state in the quote above, all theists have nothing to bring to the table on these matters, i take that as you are directly dismissing the whole of my opinion on existence. i take issue with this, as i am fairly well convinced you do not have any better an idea than i do what reality looks like, and i have read my share of string theory.

it may happen that we end up bringing the same thing to the table. i have no problem with that. but to say that the thing i brought is nothing because i do not want to definitively (and totally prematurely) align my perspective with what a textbook tells me is actual factual objective reality...well, thats just not fair.

organized religion can...institution can...but the issue is not the belief in god.

when it comes to trouble makers wanting power, belief in god is almost entirely inconsequential. additionally, theism doesnt protect anyone from anything, and dont be fooled by anyone who tells you otherwise. pervasive, culturally dominant religiosity protects the power structure, but something will whatever it is. any problem in government control is ultimately solvable by direct action of the people against or toward the governmental system.

the minority theist does have an impact. the solution is to educate them on public policy and why their demands are both utterly ridiculous and societally detrimental. we have a public education system, after all. teach good, solid political theory and let them kiddies see what should and shouldnt be in the classroom.

first, i obviousy agree that we will definitely understand more than we do now. however: anyone is welcome to spin their personal wheels as much as they like. additionally, i do not need to find god. i found already did.

its just a thought. if its not verifiable, as im sure you will agree, id hardly consider it a lie. additionally, i think that a true third person/first person amalgamation (one aspect of the god concept, in my view) is a very apt representation of love.
but the stuff between my ears is ultimately the same stuff thats in me and my surrounding environment. feel free to extend that box as large as you like. and in that case, i dont disagree with you at all.

i would not appeal to a number of people for much of anything over a thought. i would certainly grant all interpretations equal, insofaras a chair might as easily be sat on it side as its legs. however, observation and personal experience will show that chairs have at least one particular useful function when sitting on their legs, and so i leave them upright...particularly because i like to sit in them. i would not tell someone they were wrong to sit a chair on its side if they had found a use for it, however...especially if its their chair to deal with.

i dont hate reality. i think society is incredibly ridiculous for such a large number of reasons dating back so very far that to limit it to one particular item just doesnt do the thing justice...unless that item is overarching norms, and i feel this pretty much sums up the unifying issue. and i see people. they do a lot of really stupid things. additionally: god is not irrelevent. i find god relevent.
i cant personify god like that. i cannot parse this sentence. god serves exactly gods function.

agreed. this is why i think they should start teaching about the hbar and the planck constant in elementary school.

if "should be" does come from each one of us (and i agree), and i say that "should be" includes believing in god, tell me how i have not fulfilled what you said.

first of all: our worst enemy is having an enemy. to the rest of the statement:

god does not coddle any more than the universe does. all actions that are possible are possible under god. god does not offer sanctuary for my offenses in his name no matter how often it is done.

i have difficulty believing that thought of a god would make that much difference in encouraging meaningless public debate for political and capital gain. in other words, ignorance and apathy are tools of institutions, whatever institutions might employ them (anybody want to go vote?)

matter matters. knowing is mostly impossible, though gathered insights are at least entertaining and can even be useful.

however, i do agree with what you said: the more we know, the more we have to feel and think about it.

but... if its not ok to find out a bunch of stuff, think and feel on it for a while, and then came up with the conclusion of 'there is a god'...then im not sure why you would go to the trouble of thinking about it.

the statement does not imply, in my mind, that values should be static. in my reading, i took it to state that values are defined externally, by experience. meaning is acquired by interpretation of experience. direction is, as far as i am concerned, universally defined. i am not arguing for ultimate determinism. i like to say the word 'metadeterminism' to attempt to describe the trendline a body experiences experiencing time and space.

where the direction comes from and is going to is a very difficult thing to discern. i have very little to do with both the expansion of the universe and the direction of time, however.

i think theism is not dynamic because it is a boolean attribute. however, interpretation of personal theism is as dynamic as an individual's personal belief structure, given that some are more rigid than others.

no sweat. but, i wonder if you disagree with me or if you believe that i am flat out wrong in a fundamental, irreconcileable, defined and definite way because i believe in god. disagreement i have absolutely no issue with. i disagree with tons of stuff. im no stranger to the subject.

as a related comment, i believe that demanding a unified base to an individual idea or opinion breeds fundamentalism/fanatacism/groupism/fascism/lots of other really bad 'vibes', if you will (i tried not to..). in any event, i really think overarching norms to be the problem

In rare kinds of theism..maybe, so your complaint is irrelevant. . Holybooks that spawns religion is the problem. "God says" is a big problem and holybooks are all about "God says".

Not so. With the majority of religion is all about "God says" That is dangerous. People should shut up about "God says" until they can prove him. People should not act on "God says" until they can prove it and God.

No. The power structure at times uses religion to get what it wants from peoples fears, prejudices and hopes that religion has inculcated into us. That and the minority religions tries to get what it wants from the powerstructure likewise.

Yes. But the people do not care about real issues that has to do with the planet or humanities potential. That is because of theism. Religion especially. The government loves that. Church loves that. They allways will.

Thanks to the bible they have Faith and are unreachable for your solution. No. Debunking religions holybooks and perhaps God is the solition for getting rid of one of our big problems which is Faith in "God says" Maybe we need theists who try to convince other theist to throw away thier holybooks, quit church and search for God on thier own. Instead you just make up excusses for the bible by pretending some metaphorical interpretations where there aren't any. God should speak for himself to us all with a consistent message and humans should never say again "God says" If anti-theists take care of the problem thier way before theists do, I will not shed a tear. I do not care either way.


And we have the right to mock Faith and theism. And you have not even proven God to yourself. You just assert. If you can prove it to you you can prove it to others. Logicaly and with evidences. I am not just talking about a creator I am also talking about a personal God. Also, Gods that holybooks make claims about.


Where are you getting your God concept? Also, if God is love and is perfect in his ways then God can not logically do anything that contradicts that. That means the world would look very different than it does in reality. Vagness only makes short with theists. It is disgusting that people think of God as love when the world looks the way it does. Don't blame it only on humans either, there are very painful and lethal things to us that is not our doing. Natural hazards that happen to children and adults alike. God is not love. It is a logical fact. So yes it is a lie that selfhish people tell themself for falsecomfort.

No. You have done no real testing to even truly prove to yourself that God exist. You just assert. Prove God. Prove him. If you have REASON to believe than so can we. Prove him logically based on evidences.


This is a dodge to my question. A non-sequiter or red herring. This has nothing to do with my concerns. Some methods are dangerous and it is the fault of ignorance and sometimes willful ignorance. But you are selfish. Your addiction to a fantasy is more important to you than reality.


Interpretations of reality are not so open like you want them to be.You are running away from what I said. "I don't hate reality" That is no rebutal to my concerns and the rest of what you wrote here is irrelevant to what I said. Theists should keep God to themselves, just themselves until they can prove him. That would make the world better for everybody. Because most people don't like differences when it comes to God or "God says".


And no one can prove what that function is and so, no more statements like God is love. You can'tan't have your cake and eat it too. If God really existed God is not anything like a Father. A parent.


They are too young to be able to learn those things silly. Knowledge as in what humanity has as well as individuals. This does not address in any way my statements that the more you know the more you have to feel and think about. From your post "One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations." Kind of like the heart wanting to give to charity, but without knowledge of the charities character we might give money to crooks instead of the needy.
That is a case of direction. asperation is a strong desire to achieve something high or great b : an object of such desire. The goal was to give to cherity, but crooks are not charity. Asperations can change based on knowledge. Kind of like a kid that thinks putting a metal piece from a toy into a light socket. Knowledge and real understanding of reality can change aspirations.Kind of like knowing that race is an illusion, but because of the visual differences and irrational prejudices we string them up and hang them...like some people used to do. Asperations can be good or bad and a better grasp of reality can help us decide better who we aspire to be friends with. We might cheat ourselves out of a good friend and treat them badly due to a bad grasp of reality.


Only through an honest logical search of what reality is and experience that comes from that will we have the most beneficial "shoulds" God is not proven to exist and so logicaly you should leave God out of "should" if you want the most beneficial "shoulds". Don't be selfish and think only of your self, ( God belief ) when "God says" is killing us and hurting science as well as politcs and ethics. "God says" is hurting peoples persuit of happiness and liberty. Don't be selfish by making religion and holybooks respectable.


I said God belief. Theism. You prove God first until then stop playing around with my statements.

Good theists rarely if ever rebuke the bad theist. And that is because Faith is involved on both sides is why good theists are silent. Good theists can't fight bullshit with bullshit. You can not bring a person of faith to reason using faith. All theists have faith that they should read the bible a certain way and act on those understandings. Good theists do act as a shield for the bad theists, and it is because of them that we have a hard time criticizing the real problem which is theism and especially holybooks/religion. "God says" from the theist control freaks and government playing on the hopes, fears and prejudices that comes from holybooks, where "God says" This is the problem.

Theists are the majority voters and they are the problem.

Wrong. If that were so we would not be able to survive at all. We have food on the table through "knowing" We have nice technology through "knowing" Medicine? Goodness, averyv you are a headles chicken! You go on and on about that, but have been shown that that is wrong.

You are playing with words. We can know a lot of things.

Its ok to guess and try to prove our guesses right, but until then no one should ever say "God says". Ever. But you yourself know nothing about a God other than gut feelings, which can be wrong and what our culture has inculcated into you...the idea that there is a God. There is no proof for God.


"One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations." This is what I had a problem with. Knowledge changes the way you feel about things. That is my experience. It makes sense too.

We do not know a lot of things yet. So what? You can not prove God or a sentient universe, and so logically you have nothing to prompt belief outside of your delusions. You are either right and sense God some how or you are deluded and there is no way for you to prove even to yourself which is true, but we do know that delusion exist, but not God.

God is perfect" Why change "God says" when God is perfect. Religion tries to keep "God says" static. So do individuals. The bible will always be the word of God to Christians and the bible is an irrational work of human beings. That is what I was thinking and I did not clarify.


No. I would want to know if God exists, even if God is not what I would like it to be. What I have been told of God all my life is a lie. Since there is no proof and even if there was a God he is not like a parent. God is not like a Father to us at all. What we see in the world proves it, well with all this I am an apatheist. There is no proof. If God could be love then that would change things. But that is logicaly impossible.

Well, you are no stranger to the art of dodging and using logically fallacious argumentations. You are no stranger to running away from what atheist concerns are. I suck at debate because I have no patience for the type of theist you are. I have more patience with bible believing Christians. Much more. To me, you have no excuse.
So we will agree to disagree. I will let you have the last post. I think you get your fun making us do most of the work in discussion.

I agree depending. But not all opinions are equal no matter what you say. A logical argument if sound is not an opinion. There are objective facts. There are inescapable axioms.

i was going to let all this go, but re-reading this post made me want to say a couple more things. wouldnt want you to have to do all the work.

granted. this is not to say that god is not a useful construct. philosophy doesnt need logic, logic is an aspect of experience, and therefore an aspect of philosophy. however, it is only an aspect, and therefore philosophy need not rely exclusively on logic, as neither does experience.

this is a strawman, since we like to name fallacious arguments around here. you are assuming to know the purpose and method of god. you dont. so to attribute what god should do and then complain when it isnt done is kind of arbitrary.

ok, not willfully blind to the problems of religion, and that is a totally ignorant statement. ive mentioned more than once the possibilities of religions doing harm. i have said it is so with all institutions.

i am not willfully blind about the bible. i have a different perspective on it than the one you so righteously command.

and 'addicted to the god idea'? give me a break. youre addicted to an idea of absolute truth which cannot be fulfilled without striking omissions and egregious (possibly totally unknown) errors in thinking.

it is this sort of simplification that proves to me government will never turn around. 'god says' is completely arbitrary. its been used before and being used right now. if the concept of 'god s ays' were to go away tomorrow, 'the state says' would immediately take its place.

i am not a religionist and i do accept my own reading of everything to be my own reading of everything, the bible included. your interpretation on anything is useful to me in that it might be assimilated by my view, but the view of another will never fit directly for me. and so, i find it best to just decide for yourself on every instance and do everything possible to make sure all other individuals have the same opportunity.

99%? you read that in a book? are you the judge of 'real thinking'? anything anybody says about anything is 'fallable human being says'. even to the things which the government decrees outside of god there is no 'real thinking' done on behalf of the following masses.

i would just like to point out that there are no less than 3 beliefs in that sentence. i would like to point them out:

1. you are not a theist.
...ridiculous. between the two of us, id say this one is probably more a question for me. tho this does point out your insistance on pushing your worldview out as opposed to my tendency to simply take in.

2.If you give the bible any kind of respectabilty then you are a part of the problem.
your ill defined problem could be explained in less specific and more accurate language. additionally, if you do anything at all any time youre a part of some problem. finally, your problems are not mine. my respect for the bible has only ever caused me annoyance...well, right now. ironically, my annoyance is again caused by individuals who make sweeping assumptions and then demand all assume them correct, which is much the same as the reason i dont typically go to church.

3.The bible should be mocked where it deserves it and debunked.
Not make up what ever you think is groovy as an explanation of what the bible is and says.
well who decides where it is deserved? is your interpretation the proper one? so ill just accept what you think about it instead of what the church thinks about it, and then thatll be way better, because i listened to you instead of another arbitrary third party. then im sure to be looking at it right!!

i have looked at life and reality, read the bible, contrasted the two and realized a meaning that i see as sensible. i never claimed it to be correct, i only claimed it to be personally reasonable. you have done the same, of course, unless you havent read it. which would be fine. you are still welcome to an interpretation.

now seems like a good time to bring up the word 'inculcated'. i do not b elieve in god because it was 'inculcated' in me. i had the concept of god available because the concept of god was shown to me. i have had a very open existence and, in many many facets ofmy life, i have just simply cast off my societal upbringing. my beliefs are based on my environment, to be sure, but i dont listen to arbitrary third parties. i hear them. theyre there. and if theyre saying something i see as worthwhile, ill listen and use it where i can see it to be worthwhile. otherwise, i see no reason to jump on bandwagons. theres usually enough going on along the road.

however, your attribution of my belief to pure ignorance exposes yours. not about belief, mind you, but about me. as i have stated before, my reasons for believing stem from various physical constructs. the work of planck and einstein, the explanations of greene, the writings of kierkegaard, even the writings of sarte and others who would be quite aggravated by it have all led me to believe that the concept of a god is a useful and proper universal construct. i could not possibly care less if you agree.

i am not much for labels, and have been annoyed with the amount o f times youve referred to mine. typically, it is not like me to label someone i am talking to, as it is fairly rude and usually based on exceptionally limited scope. however, the word 'fascist' has crossed my brain more than once in reading your replies.

i can, but i can also have my philosophy with any holybooks. how about what you can prove? show me beyond a reasonable doubt that god is not a useful construct in my personal life.

yknow, its really funny that you would tell me the correct way by which i can find my own understandings. you have a bare belief that i should accept your vision of truth. i have no respect for this, as it directly encroaches on my bare beliefs which i happily hold away from the people im around. not god cannot be proven any more than god.

further, as someone who has made up his own denomination and has an unabashedly unique approach to the bible (which extends to all reading, viewing of art, listening to speakers, etc), i find it very ironic that you would suggest at all that i should look to finding my own understanding, even while youre telling me that my own understanding is not ok to hold.

finally, i could not possibly care less whether you respect me or my beliefs. i am growing quickly to disrespect yours. however: i surely do not hold them for you or your benefit, and fail to see how they affect you in any way. if the question is public policy, i probably agree with some major portion of how you think things should be handled. i am a firm believer in the seperation between church and state, and think the constitution should probably be amended to remove the current ambiguity. im also an anti-federalist, so there will probably be a portion where we disagree there as well, as i have yet to meet another person who claims to be an anti-federalist.

ignorance is a part of our experience. unless somehow you can explain all of the things that all of the physics books i have read cannot. unless you can answer all of the questions that all of the philosophy books i have read have brought up. and in your infallible explanations you must be sure to examine every possible area where god is not. in short: you should shut up about what other people should do until you can prove it. prove it to me. i want a term paper. 500 words or less, and ill grade it A - F so you can understand exactly what i thought of it.

feelings are also a part of experience. you should know, as your annoyance at religion is pretty solidly based on them. blind frustration makes people say really intelligent sounding things.

i would never ever make a statement about the kind of god that i would want. the implications are far too great for any human to understand. i would agree that every christian, muslim, jew, individual has a different belief about what god is.

but i am sitting here telling you that it is. i use it, and its fantastically helpful to me. i have no doubt that it is not a good book for you or something. or in the hands of the wrong people, it is definitely not so good, or something like that. but blanket statements such as yours dont hold up with obvious empirical detractors.

people have suffered trying to be a christian as they are told that they must be, as they imagine that they must be, as they are commanded that the bible says they must be (this is to imply they are forced to believe the bible says a certain thing, not that the bible actualy does say a certain thing), and many many other very similar sentences.

people have also suffered trying to be wealthy, or the american dream. people have suffered trying to be a football star and a drama queen. suffering is pretty much standard fare on the course of life.

people have also used the philosohpy of christianity in casting off suffering, desire, greed, and pride. the use of a thing is left to the individual.

i would like to see your source on that. in fact, i would like you to show me one single pastor who would literally say that the bible addresses every possible problem a human being might run into.

i would agree that the bible does address the human condition in full. however, i would also agree that it does not cover every life problem in specific. that would be one big book.

my condolences to you and your mom. many groups misinterpret many words and force, accidentally or otherwise, large groups of people to believe in some (totally non-existent) 'mainstream faith' or some specific belief or action that has no actual backing. this can be detrimental to the individual. it may also stregnthen the individual if lessons are learned from experience. again i say, suffering is. it just is. what is done with it is left to the individual.

personally, i have never suffered because of christianity. i have suffered because of actions that i have taken, or actions that have been taken against me...tho even these were ultimately because i allowed myself to be affected by them. i have never been forcably tortured. in some of these cases christianity was arbitrarily involved. however, my suffering and my joy comes from me. christianity is not intended, in my mind, to subplant these things..but instead to help one realize that they exist in every action, and that they are as they are chosen to be seen. what is chosen to be done with circumstance is an excercise for the individual. belief is a personal metric.

the bible teaches nothing. the bible says many things, and many people learn from it. many people attribute 'teachings' to the bible, though every bit of learning acquired from it is in attribution. people have suffered much for attempting to be a christian as is attributed to them. when realized that the concept of christian exists primarily as an afterthought to the bible, however, the problem becomes less easily categorized, and more easily charicatured.

much prejudice is attributed to the bible, though i argue, as stated, the bible teaches nothing. you can take almost anything you choose to take from the bible with an ounce of imagination. it is a very obscure document, filled with exceptionally bizarre things. however, what a person does with what they have seen and heard is entirely left to the individual. one may read it as a story, and i know no one in a position to tell them absolutely they are wrong. one may read it as a defined precursor to manifest destiny. i would disagree, but i still know no one who can say definitively it is not. it has certainly been used as both and many others.

no belief is required to be justified to anyone. public action, to the contrary, is constantly under the scrutiny of the public. if actions are being taken that are somehow detrimental to an agreeable state of existence, those actions should be dealt with in an agreeable manner. however, no belief ever caused harm, even if the actions of individuals were based on some belief.

the thought that there is a burden of proof at all is left to you, the atheist. in my view, i have no burden. again, if you would like to speak on actions, as these are the things that define effect, i would be happy to justify any of my actions. many of my personal justifications will include god. this is not to say that the actions themselves are or are not societally agreeable. this is merely to say that it is my reasoning.

and as to your assertion that a god-belief has not aided in 'progress'. well..you cant know that. what thoughts, inventions, actions were taken or made or had as a result of, reaction to, or even a reaction against god?

in addition, i think youre flat out wrong. as my primary example, i would cite einsteins desire to 'know the mind of god'. i would also include gutenberg's printing press as a possible candidate. what about respected philosophers whos assertions are based on a belief in god? has this not contributed to 'progress'?

prove it. this is just a belief. a reasonable one, i think, but a belief nonetheless. i disagree. i think that irrational asperations can lead to some fantastic discovery. if im not mistaken, google began as an effort by one of the wonder boys to download the entire internet. this is a different scope, i concede, but i feel the point remains.

god belief is not universal fact, it is belief. i will not even disagree that god belief causes confusion. i would disagree with the implied sentiment that this is a bad thing. confusion demands second guesses. second guesses aid progress.

god, on the other hand, may or may not be a universal fact. you cannot say definitively any better than i.

destruction and pain are not created from a belief in god. that is just ridiculous. they can be generated by actions which stem from a belief in god, but they can be generated by actions which do nothing of the sort.

ethics: totally personal. do what you want.
science: do what you can get funding for and have a desire to do.
politics: all actions of a politician must be justifiable to its consituency. every policy generated by politics should pertain specifically to the mechanics of public life. decisions that a politician may make will invariably incorporate their belief structure, tho it is most important that they are justifiable. otherwise, fire them.

ill say again that i am all for 100% the seperation of church and state. to the point of ratification. but you cant tell someone what to believe. you can. but its one thing im really pretty sure you really shouldnt do. i feel that it sets bad precidence and starts a slippery slope i dont even want to think about.

'burden of proof' implies that it matters to you at all what i believe. it apparently does. it really shouldnt. either im doing some thing good, bad, or indifferent. what im thinking along the way is none of your damn business.

i have not considered how important your atheism is to you, and have very little interest. progress in science and ethics is a reasonable enough goal.

i personally think quite lowly of progress. seems like a word that gets tossed around a lot hoping for funding a jet-powered bandwagon. i am much more interested in sustainability, community, and the individual. and setting bandwagons on fire.

religiosity is a threat to humanity's survival and happiness. religiosity requires theism. in this way, i can see where your point comes from. however, the abolition of theism is both fascist and impossible. additionally, as i have said, groupism is much more a threat than religiosity, as religiosity is a subset of groupism. north korea, for example, is officially an atheist state. i would argue that north korea is a greater threat to the survival of humans than, say, the vatican. china, primarily non-religious or atheist, is a much greater threat to happiness than the bible belt could ever hope to be. i argue again: theism is not the problem.

i dont care if you respect theism, theists, a theist, me, or anyone else for any reason. i do care that you are advocating fascism.

that is your position and i have no problem with that. your sense of respect is not an issue i have any opinion on.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
averyv : "i would never ever make a statement about the kind of god that i would want. the implications are far too great for any human to understand. i would agree that every christian, muslim, jew, individual has a different belief about what god is."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AntiFaith My Pastor has a good philosophy of God, ..mostly.., but our old pastor did not, yet they both used the same methods. Yours and thier method: irrationality...with an irrational book( the bible) ;which is not a method at all. There are consequences for faulty methods. People get hurt from faulty methods. Can't you see that this is an important fact.?

No wonder you tried to say that logic isn't good for everything,( it might not be as you say I don't know ) , it is so that you can sell your irrationality as ok. You want to sell people on the idea, as you did on pg 1 of this thread. You : " everything is relative." and "everything isnt an opinion. everything is a fact. the opinions sit in the interpretation. and since you can't hold onto fact any more than the rest of us, what you have is the warm comfort of interpretation. ...all perspective is interpretation...."

Through reasoning tools, universal facts is wanted when possible, we can avoid hazards.. avoid faulty methods. You are trying to muddy the waters by your pointless statements in regards:

"Rationality isn't an opinion either. There are objective facts. There are inescapable axioms.A logical argument isn't an opinion." You do it to try gain some respectability for your irrational belief in God and your irrational view of the bible."

You can't use an error riddled, logically fallacious, contradictory book written by primitives who have also venerated VIOLENCE, RACISM, and BIGOTRY as well, to prove your scripturely baseless opinion of how the bible is to be understood. SEE MY POST ABOVE THIS ONE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
averyv: : "but i am sitting here telling you that it is. i use it, and its fantastically helpful to me. i have no doubt that it is not a good book for you or something. or in the hands of the wrong people, it is definitely not so good, or something like that. but blanket statements such as yours dont hold up with obvious empirical detractors."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AntiFaith If that is so, then use your blog here at RRS demonstrating that it is helpful to you and drop a link in this thread to it. That should be interesting...make sure you are not skimpy on scripture to back up your assertion about how useful the bible is. I am not making blanket statement so long as many believe, which they do, that the bible is a Good Book for ethics and teaching what our roles are in the family and community and with others in general. It is a blamket statement to say that the bible is a good book without looking at the bad that is in it as well. The entire contents of the bible should not all be lumped together as "The Good Book". You said that the bible is not a good book in the hands of the wrong people. If that is so then people have the right to hear others tell of the bad parts of the bible. That way the bad people can't use the bible to say "God says" for thier own evil and or ignorant agendas.

Continued..

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
averyv : *silent*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AntiFaith : You forget this one. I thought you say that : "but i am sitting here telling you that it is. i use it, and its fantastically helpful to me."
How does the violence in the bible help or inspire you averyv?

If God did it and commanded it or even endoerse it it must be Godly.

PREJUDICE, VIOLENCE, and BAD ADVICE/COMMANDMENTS SHOULD NEVER HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH GOD. EVER.
God belief is too powerful for such concept attached to God. Look at Christianities history and Christianities present. Bloody. Google Christian in malaysia...other part of the world. There are parts of Christiandom that are just like Christianities past. Lethal. Oppressive. No secular laws to keep them from using scripture in the bible to say : " We must do something! We will do this...in the bible God says...."
( scripture from the bible )

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
averyv : "the bible teaches nothing. the bible says many things, and many people learn from it. many people attribute 'teachings' to the bible, though every bit of learning acquired from it is in attribution. people have suffered much for attempting to be a christian as is attributed to them. when realized that the concept of christian exists primarily as an afterthought to the bible, however, the problem becomes less easily categorized, and more easily charicatured.much prejudice is attributed to the bible, though i argue, as stated, the bible teaches nothing. you can take almost anything you choose to take from the bible with an ounce of imagination. it is a very obscure document, filled with exceptionally bizarre things. however, what a person does with what they have seen and heard is entirely left to the individual. one may read it as a story, and i know no one in a position to tell them absolutely they are wrong. one may read it as a defined precursor to manifest destiny. i would disagree, but i still know no one who can say definitively it is not. it has certainly been used as both and many others."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AntiFaith See my post Every scripture is inspired by God.. Stop hiding in your irrational claim of "everything isnt an opinion. everything is a fact. the opinions sit in the interpretation. and since you can't hold onto fact any more than the rest of us, what you have is the warm comfort of interpretation.all perspective is interpretation."
You have been shown that there are universal facts, people universaly having the same interpretations. It is not impossible are as rare as you try to say. Even though the bible is contradictory we can understand many thing from it universaly through a natural reading of the book. Not all the time but many thing. Besides the bible disagrees with you about different interpretations of the bible and people believe the bible because the bible is the word of God according to the bible. The bible is a problem and the irrationality of theism and faith with the bible is a Big problem. People just ignore it or minimalize it.

Continued..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
averyv : "god belief is not universal fact, it is belief. i will not even disagree that god belief causes confusion. i would disagree with the implied sentiment that this is a bad thing."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AntiFaith :That is because you do not want to give up your mental addiction to God averyv. Addiction do funny things to rational thinking.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
averyv : confusion demands second guesses. second guesses aid progress
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AntiFaith : But below this statement of yours

YOU SAID :"i personally think quite lowly of progress." If you think so lowly of progress maybe you don't give progress much thought to know what you are talking about?

By trying reducing confusion in the first place we aid progress silly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
averyv : "god, on the other hand, may or may not be a universal fact. you cannot say definitively any better than i."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AntiFaith :It is a fact that God is not a universal fact. Atheists and many non-theists are not aware of a God, even after theists try to prove it, or say faith is proof. God belief is not a universal fact like humans need food and water to survive, or that the earth spins around the sun. You are simply a naysayer. I am wasting my time on you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
averyv :"destruction and pain are not created from a belief in god. that is just ridiculous. they can be generated by actions which stem from a belief in god, but they can be generated by actions which do nothing of the sort."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AntiFaith :You are a headless chicken. You just waste space in this thread. Just like I waste space even bothering with your nonsense. No wonder people here ignore you. You say nonsense and dodge our points.

People many times act on God beliefs, or try to get others to help them in their God belief and the actions from that can have painful and destructive conseqences. That is why we should avoid wreckless beliefs like theism. 9/11? Abortion clinic bombing? Crusades, Inquisition, Native American genecide encouraged by men of God and not just rulers or governemts. Witch burnings...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
averyv :"ethics: totally personal. do what you want."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AntiFaith Theists did do what they wanted and that was act on an irrational belief. God belief. 9/11? Abortion clinic bombing? Crusades, Inquisition, Native American genecide encouraged by men of God and not just rulers or governemts. Witch burnings...this is why the theist needs to justify their God belief. Theism is wreckless believing and people act on their beliefs. Enough is a enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
averyv :"science: do what you can get funding for and have a desire to do.politics: all actions of a politician must be justifiable to its consituency. every policy generated by politics should pertain specifically to the mechanics of public life. decisions that a politician may make will invariably incorporate their belief structure, tho it is most important that they are justifiable. otherwise, fire them."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AntiFaith :Since theism is irrational and require blind faith in their beliefs how are you going to bring them to your resoning here when they think that their irrational belief, God belief, should touch every aspect of their existence including ethics, science and politics? Plenty of theists do that. Too many. Enough is enough. I have asked you before how can you bring a person of faith to reason with faith? Can't always do it with reason either, not when they got faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
averyv : "ill say again that i am all for 100% the seperation of church and state. to the point of ratification. but you cant tell someone what to believe. you can. but its one thing im really pretty sure you really shouldnt do. i feel that it sets bad precidence and starts a slippery slope i dont even want to think about."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AntiFaith : Stop fibbing. I am not telling anyone what to believe I am demonstrating that theism and religion is wreckless believing and has problems. That many people do not care to justify what they want to do because they have faith , blind believing, in what they think are good actions. Actions comes from beliefs, not just instinc or knowledge. Beliefs must be justified in a rational, logical fashion when it effects others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
averyv :"'burden of proof' implies that it matters to you at all what i believe. it apparently does. it really shouldnt. either im doing some thing good, bad, or indifferent. what im thinking along the way is none of your damn business."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AntiFaith :Actions many times come from belief, if we are talking about most theists. You are a rare kind of theist, I am talking about the majority that you encourage to believe blindly. You encourage irrationality by endorsing the bible as a Good Book and endorsing irrational believing like faith. You encourage others to be irrational, because you endorse the bible as a Good book. And you believe in God in an irrational fashion...Faith...which is....blind believing. If you say there is a God then it is my business if you say it to me. If you want to make my country a theocracy then it is my bussiness. You encourage wreckless believing, Faith. Others who want a theocracy and to oppress people with different beliefs use Faith too, just like you. So, enough is a enough prove God exists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
averyv : "i have not considered how important your atheism is to you, and have very little interest. progress in science and ethics is a reasonable enough goal.

i personally think quite lowly of progress.seems like a word that gets tossed around a lot hoping for funding a jet-powered bandwagon. i am much more interested in sustainability, community, and the individual. and setting bandwagons on fire."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are irrational. You just contradicted yourself. Are you for real? I mean really. Also above you tried to show how confusion requires second guessing to aid progress...as if progress were important or something. When I say progress I mean what can do the most good for the most people. Humanity. That is what I mean. Theists are more predisposed to bandwagon, where as atheists Free Thought. That requires thinking. You are confused silly boy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
averyv : religiosity is a threat to humanity's survival and happiness. religiosity requires theism. in this way, i can see where your point comes from. however, the abolition of theism is both fascist and impossible. additionally, "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AntiFaith : Stop your blatant lies. We would like to change peoples minnds through debate...or for some through persuasion. It is not the same thing like the conservative Christians are trying to do, by making this country a theocracy. Not the same thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
averyv : as i have said, groupism is much more a threat than religiosity, as religiosity is a subset of groupism. north korea, for example, is officially an atheist state. i would argue that north korea is a greater threat to the survival of humans than, say, the vatican. china, primarily non-religious or atheist, is a much greater threat to happiness than the bible belt could ever hope to be. i argue again: theism is not the problem."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AntiFaith : I can see why people ignore you. You are irrational in thinking. Atheism is not anything other than lack of belief in Gods. Communism, and ideology has and/or has tried to coerce or force atheism. But atheism in and of itself is not an ideology like say what each bible writer wrote, or what communism have for ideas about governence. Atheism is a lack of belief in Gods and that is it. I don't think anti-theism or anti-religion is about force or groupism. It is about Free Thought, which values rational thinking to the best of our abilities, and in Free Thought people come together because through reasoning and life experience they became anti-religious, anti-theist, or neutral to theism or religion. Free Thinkers think about other things than just theism or religion also silly. Christianity unlike Free Thought is where people are seduced through appeals to emotions, like bribes of heaven and threats of hell. Bible. Faith is blind believing. Blind groupism. Religion is what you are describing not Free Thought.......if you don't like what people are doing here then blame Free Thought and not atheism.

to your point about my contradiction, using progress as a crutch in my argument, i did it all for you. you obviously appreciate progress. many do, and i do not disrespect this. 'inculcated' is a word you like. i tend to apply my points to the perspective i see in my talking buddy where i can. i am very very used to being so completely contrary to all aspects of a debate that this is almost a requirement.

progress is relative, as is all else.

to your point about me being 'confused' 'irrational' 'silly', i am all three of these things and many more. i am also 'sensible' 'reasonable' and 'serious'. if you are not confused by existence, you have not looked deeply enough into it. if you cannot be irrational, you are not human. if you cannot be silly, then you are no fun.

to your point about my abusing einstein, the double quoting was not intentional. the paragraph happened to be exactly the point i was attempting to make at the time (the scientific method cannot answer to human experience), and the 'mind of god' quote is a fine example of theism aiding in understanding. i was not particularly familiar with the word 'pantheism' before i saw you write it. i looked it up, and its actually quite a good description of an aspect of what i believe.

to your point about people ignoring me, well, whatever. either you deal with the extreme cases or you dont have a worthwhile point. i argue that an ability to use irrational argument to snub argument is valid proof that argument just aint everything. arguers snubbing me back is hardly unexpected, and barely noticed, as ive had more than enough people to talk to. if you dont want to talk to me: dont. that was hard.

i have sympathy for individuals who have suffered for any reason. therefore, i have sympathy for all individuals. however, i am well aware of the fact that that, above anything else, is life. deal with it.

i do not feel sorry for a group of individuals who allow their overbearers to continue overbearing. rise up. start a revolution. make it better, die trying, or shut up, ignore it totally(<-me) or just take it. those are your options. you can die of old age having never picked up a weapon of any sort, start a revolution, and still die trying, just to clarify. you can also start a revolution by simply ignoring the whole charade and letting the weak die of their own accord. the belief in god is not weak, and will not be dying anytime soon. the power structure could be toppled by its own heady weight.

to every scripture is god breathed: ok. so, that of course means that every verse was written to be taken literally and in order from the perspective you indicate and in the exact way that you claim. thats what youre saying that says, right? well, i disagree. it says that it was written intentionally this way. that is all. there is nothing about that which indicates the meaning is obvious or that you will look at it and know immediately what the whole of it indicates. i say again, the bible is not a document to quip at.

there is, as you argue, one solid truth to the bible. i am glad to know you recognize this. i do not know it, though i agree and believe mine is the way to find it. it would be far too difficult to view the whole through piecemeal.

my belief in god, however, does not rest so heavily in the bible, though i do hold it with regaurd. my belief rests in my understanding of physical constructs and personal experience.

one point of frustration for me that i would like to express:
you cannot claim free thought (especially capitalized) and then tell me that my conclusions are not to be held. free thought constrained is not free thought. i am not arguing through ignorance. i am well educated and have been quite successful in a wide range of academic endeavors. irrationality is an aspect of my thought. language breeds stereotypes, however, and so i would rather use the word 'sense' than 'irrationality' to indicate my preference for experience over some arbitrarily assumed objective state which completely ignores vital dimensions of the human experience. just because i dont agree with you doesnt mean im stupid.

jesus quotes scripture with the correct interpretation, and he makes it look easy. im not sure which part of that is supposed to surprise me, since he is the proverbial one, and as such had the stuff on auto-grok.

your use of corinthians is interesting, as it is a cultural specific document, indicating to me that use of culture to establish norms under christianity is acceptable. you, obviously, do not read or take it this way. you are the biblical scholar, of course, so we should take your opinion as fact and not think on it again. such is the way of Free Thought.

additionally:

this says to me that his words were of god, not that the whole of the mind and purpose of existence would be remotely understandable.

a couple of other points:

im not sure if you read that sentence correctly. allow me to help:
you can use the bible however you like. the word of god is flawless. those who seek refuge in the bible will always find it. always.

'prophesy of scripture' and 'scripture' strike me as different things. what do you think?

si. truth. i wrote already on the uncertainty principle of truth, and i stick by it. i never once argued that the bible was of men. instead i argued you cannot know full truth.

but, as said, the bible is no book to quip at. i appease with my response. i only want to please you.

no. i cant. people get hurt from actions. people get hurt from actions. people get hurt from actions. actions stem from belief, it is true, but a belief, a method, a thought, never ever once ever could never will actually or possibly hurt anyone. irrationality is not my method either, silly. my method is experience. experience can be irrational. it can also be dead serious. this is the way of things.

i successfully said that logic isn't good for everything because i use irrationality frequently to positive ends. my accuracy in my assertion is up for grabs. i could care less what you or anyone else take from what i say. however, i like to talk about these things. its interesting to see what people think on the subjects and its kind of funny to see people get so upset over a belief.

if i must have a product to sell (inculcated), then i choose this:

you dont know. i dont either. i think, you think (i think), and that is all.

man thats a good quote. allow me to delimit the doublespeak:

'everything is relative' would be better written as 'every thing is relative', as in 'each thing can only be in relation to each other thing'. it is a minute commentary on the theory of relativity, the laws of conservation, and the idea of a 'world of contingencies'

to contrast, 'everything isnt an opinion. everything is a fact', is exactly as it reads. that all things are is not an opinion. all things definitely most certainly are. this is a truism. and so, all things is a fact. and then 'the opinions sit in the interpretation', is fairly self explanitory. you do not have access to the world of 'all things'. you have an opinion based on perspective. you have the warm comfort of interpretation, same as me.

pointless...come on now...i have a point. mine is just a little rounder than the ones youre used to (inculcated...man that word is useful)

can too. see that? pretty impressive. stop yelling. now you could have said i 'should not' use a whatever whatever kind of argument from here or there. opinion and fact. not the same thing.

more seriously, all cultures have venerated blah, blah, and blah (pick your poisons). i argue that the bible explains them and warns against them. it has done so very effectively for me. you may claim that my interpretation is not based in scripture. a psalm once told me that god could be seen everywhere, so i stopped looking so closely and just watched, and i have found a very clear view. the brushstrokes are not the picture. and it wasnt written by primitives, it was written, as you argued, by god. free thinkers telling me i cant think like this. the truth is definitely in the opposites...

no. i am not here to convince you that the bible is The Good Book. i never said The Good Book and have only ever capitalized anything as irony or reference. it is a good book. its a fine read. its helpful to me, useful to me, beneficial to me, good to me.

the christian philosophy works very well for me. i believe in jesus and the whole nine yards. you dont? i dont care. i really really dont. i still cant figure out why you care so much that i do.

the apparent accuracy of a blanket statement does not affect whether it is a blanket statement or not. it is. you made a blanket statement. ill show it to you.

so lets go over this again. it does very well for me. your argument falls apart. great. can we move on?

no, that would have been an ignorant statement. the statement

would be a blanket statement. fortunately, no one here said either of those things. also, more to your (fallacious and totally irrelevant) point, i do look at and accept the 'bad' that is in it. these are part of life. why would the bible not include them?

uhhh....im pretty sure i never said otherwise....and if i did, you could smack me for it. say what you want. really. im pretty sure ive said that. say what you want. say what you think is right. do it as hard as possible. i dont give a shit. but dont tell people they cant believe something. that is fascist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Scope_of_the_word_Fascism

i take fascism so far as to be any indication of 'thoughtcrime'. to set out to abolish a thought is a fascist action. a thought will die when its time comes. nature never rushes, yet all is accomplished.

oh The Bad People. i forgot about them. hows about we just do away with positions of ultimate power and then we dont have to deal with shit like that anymore. no federal government, no federal government demanding your local schools do this or that. no federal government, no marraige issue, no drug war, no war in iraq, no this, no that, just people making it or not. the problematic issue is not a belief in god. instead, that power may usurp such a thought on such a massive scale.

i say again: take away god, it becomes 'the state', currently, and whatever arbitrary name for a power structure may arise in the future. you think an atheist central body would be less controlling than a theist one? puh-leeze. that is so laughable i could puke.

your concept of god being the bad thing is my concept of a man-controlled body in a position of massive power being the bad thing. except yours works as an example of mine, and mine has been exemplified by many other means. i say again and again and again: a belief never ever once and never ever can hurt anyone. action. action is the issue.

this is in reference to life in relation to this argument. not the argument itself:

youre fighting an imaginary war while im begging for change. youre creating division where none exists while i am trying to get you to see that god is not a or the barrier. there are better targets for your frustration. also ones that you might have a shot at hitting. ok, so there is another product for me to push:

dont chop the branches, hack the root.

ill continue later. there is beer to drink and a me to be drunk.

i will certainly post my understanding here when it is ready. i am still relatively young, and preeventuexisterminism has not yet the roots necessary to plant in public. however, these discussions give me a place to hone my target, define my allegiance, and understand better how to bring difference into agreance.

people probably do ignore me here. and with good reason. i turn words and make annoying points. i will not deny this, it is my m.o.

i, however, appreciate the commentary. it is good to have feedback.

educating individuals to take reasonable action is my advocacy. belief is entirely irrelevant. i will not stray from this. any action that may be possibly taken is possible independent of belief.

therefore, i say that persuading others to take reasonable actions is positive, whereas rehashing actions after the fact is prep for The Next Try. which will always come. i capitalized that of my own accord.

again, i admit fully that belief indicates and may even give rise to action. however, when belief is given center stage, belief is given significant strength. when action is given center stage, belief must be justified against it and, in this way, belief may be fully questioned. to the other side, there is no way to fight the battle that you have not already conceded the point.

to avoid the statement 'in my opinion' in ever sentence for the next bit, i would like to state without question that what i am about to say is purely opinion. not to say that everything that is written is not, but i do not take the word 'good' lightly, and im about to use it a lot.

discussing the effects of belief on action is good.
discussing the implication of belief on action is good.
discussing the effects of action is good.
discussing beliefs themselves is entertaining, and absolutely nothing more.
it is theater, it is pointless, and it is meaningless.

specifically, i say this because individual meaning is defined by belief. this is to say that, in my conception, a belief is defined by personal experience and individual understanding. to the contrary, actions are definitive and concrete, tho based on conception, which is in turn built on belief. effects of an action may be discussed in such a way that one cannot overlook those affected by an action, the underlying beliefs scrutinized by the nature of the conversation, rather than arbitary conversation itself.

at this point, the beliefs which lead to the action must scrutinized and either verified or denied. if they are reasonable, they will remain. if they are not, they will be destroyed. as i see it, there is no other way.

for clarification (as i do constantly pull legs, but try to keep things on solid ground), i do actually believe in god, i do actually believe in jesus, and i do actually believe in the bible, the first six verses of genesis and the story of jesus specifically and most importantly. the first of these(god) i find to be a highly useful construct given the correct lighting. the others i find to be personally appealing and accurate given my understanding. i am a very open person. if i am given compelling reasons, i will abandon any thought without thought. i set stake where i find value and leave barren land without consideration.

i will not disagree with your point, tho i think your language could stand to be refined. ignorance certainly causes harm. no argument there. ignorance is also an aspect of every individual's conception.

on the other hand, i feel harm stems more closely from misconception than irrationalism. additionally, irrationalism, in my mind, should not be demonized. i feel it has many positive avenues in art and literature, and has a very reasonable place in philosophy.

i think that the concept of the individual should be built up. i think that the concept of an exclusive group should be lightened. not done away with, but wrangled into recreational means, such as this site. there is certainly an exclusive group indicated by rationalresponders.com. however, i am here because the 'exclusive' in that sentence is bounded merely by desire to participate, rather than active effort at refusal.

i agree 100%. absolutely. however, i feel that one must enter the conversation with personal positive beliefs alone, and none excluding the ideas of others. i am as guilty as anyone of this. i have very strong aversions to many aspects of popular society. it is best, i think, to leave these things at the door and simply assert with as much dignity and as openly as possible the positive beliefs you hold true. in this way, i think, conversations may take reasonable middle ground in ways that will effectively and observably change the minds of all reasonable parties involved.

i think this is best because i have a firm belief in the uncertainty principle of truth. i feel this mode of conversation most likely to yeild positive results for all reasonable people involved. there are many unreasonable people. they should be ignored until there is no choice but to follow reason. popular fascism is not fascism to someone who does not know the difference. as i said, an idea will die when it is ready. to rush the process is to beg the offending idea to be overtaken by the power structure. or worse, for the offending idea to rise in defiance and take over the power structure.

and on and on. at any rate, whatever you thought of what was said over the past days, i have enjoyed it.

averyv. I think that you use illogic, to dodge any criticism of your philosophy, as well as using illogic to rebut any points made to you...not always, but enough to cause confusion. That is not an honest way to seek the good, or seek the wisdom that may exist in your philosophy, or your concerns about Free Thinkers and some of their ideas in regards theism and religion. Go to wikipedia and see what it says about Free Thought before you make any comments about it .

So, until you start a blog about your philosophy...you do have a blog here to use. Look under your UserName to your left and choose "create content" and start your blog.
until you start a thread with your concerns about this site being facist
until you start a thread explaining this: Your words ""but i am sitting here telling you that it (the bible) is. i use it, and its fantastically helpful to me." I do not think you know squat about the bible outside of commentary. You don't even know what all prophesy means.

...until you do these things and try to have a logical discussion about them, I will consider you a troll with nothing to offer. If your ideas and concerns truly have any good, or wisdom in them then you should be able to defend them logically, without dodging points made to you that you think are annoying, without double speak, without logical fallacies if you can help it....I have troubles being logical too....but the point is to try our best.

Test your ideas and concerns by working with others, which you have not done here, I saw the science thread you were in. Philosophy is bullshit if it is irrational. So are complaints that might be irrational. That is not just feelings that is pragmatism.

Being pragmatic and logical as human possible has never hurt humanity, but it has benefited humanity greatly.

Irrationalism. I see no examples of it being benefical to humanity but see plenty of harm that has come from it.

Do not bother rebuting this post in this thread expecting any more dialogues from me. I have better things to do like bugging Pikachu and others about logic. I am here to learn also and have no time for discussions with some one who is not interested in working together in discussion. I have read your post. ( I like some thing about Libertarian..there is a politics forum here BTW

Be well averyv.

-2 points for invocation of solipsism.