Warning/Alert: English is my second language and I am a lousy typist. Sorry.

What could “logical definition mean” in contrast to dictionary definition?

Is it even important to invent the logical definition of certain key words for a given context?

Give some examples, if you wish.

What is the difference between brain washing and understanding?

How does it differ inside one's head? Give your best explanation.

Two person might say the same thing, for example: Electron has negative charge or US GDP is $13 trillion

One might be just spitting out a rote data and another person might be saying these with "understanding".

Both statements are coming out of respective heads. Then what is the differnece in the mind?

I am trying to show that many atheists have FAITH. They just do not have faith in god.

In this connection the Questin of Free Will is the most important one.

Do human being have any free will?

For example:

Drinking a cup of coffee

To kill someone

Deciding to get a college degree

Deciding to help someone

Slamming the plane into WTC on 9/11

Remembering to buy milk for the kids on the way back to home.

Or simply even to think anything for that matter.

Please tackle Free Will issue in two steps.

1. First answer it in Yes, or No only if you can

2. Then give your explanation

Bleh. Apparently a woman I know doesn't approve of the fact that I have read the Harry Potter books. I should rest assured, however, knowing that she is personally asking God not to hold it against me.

Some people...

Humans are not 'good for nature'. Many proofs could be listed.

The average Human is not intelligent. Let me say that: he is quite dumb.

Those two single points are sufficient to argument that religion can actually be useful in order to establish a "morality" in society and to prevent a lot of 'bad things' that evil and dumb people often tend to do. Politics and Law have replaced in many points religion, but i am still convinced that any effort of "freeing" humanity from Theism is not bound to make the world necessarily better. In a world without religion, people is not more intelligent, and someone will eventually find the way to use this lack of intelligence in order to take the power, with all the consequences we know. This is a form of blind faith, after all.

Of course, a lot of different religions exist, and some of them can be very easily used to make people PROUD of those 'bad things'. Just think about Chatolicism in middle ages, or Islam during all its history.

What is the point? Just imagine a world without religion. Law would be the only thing to establish 'moral order' in this world. And history teaches that Law can change very abruptly, very often in negative direction.

Also, are you sure that the 'average dumb human' really needs to be set free from Theism? If his religion is a good one, he will live with a moral code preventing him from doing foolish things, and in the joyful convinction that another life exists.

I said that Politics change too abruptly. On the other hand, religions change too slowly. Many of the irrationalities of religions are due to that. Islam want its followers not to eat pork. This is a good advice if you are in a desert with no igienic services and you are uncertain if eating or not a rotting pig. But this is no longer useful if you are in a supermarket.

So, i think that religion should work strictly on morality, spirituality and mysticism. So, Hinduism, Buddhism and all the 'philosophical-speculative-devotional' currents of the far east are the most suited. "Common people" will find solace in it, and "Educated Elite" will find a lot of elevated philosofical speculation.

You may think that my idea is "fight ignorance, befor fighting religion". And i mainly agree. But i have to admit that many peoples don't need (and don't want) to be particularly enlightened. Next time you buy some cow meat, realize that someone worked in a hay-field, someone else raised the cow and someone else again killed it. Thinkers as you and me live thanks to those people, but those people are a lot more ignorant. They dont want to know that religion is a bunch of fake statements. All they want is to live in peace and, if they believe in something, to make their god happy. So, it would be batter for him to have a good god.

I don't get shocked if i read that XX percent of YYYYians (put a random number in XX and a random state in YYYY) are ignorants. If they are good workers and happy persons, i surely prefer them to a million rational philosophers.

Another thread has touched on this.. and now.. I just want to take a general poll on the issue and how people go about defending the position-- or, if people even feel as if their position needs defense.

Can an omnipotent/omniscient God create a truly random process so that, while he would know that it was truly random, would not be able to predict it?

This question is similar to the "Can God create a rock so large that even he cannot lift it?"

However, I believe they might be different.. the latter deals with the interplay of one characteristic with itself (and therefore, suggesting a yes/no answer is appropriate is done in err.. purposefully so.).  However, the former.. deals with the interplay of two characteristics.

I have often heard from Christians that Jesus made the "ultimate sacrifice" by letting himself die in order for him to save humanity.  These same people argue that the sacrifice of oneself is the greatest sacrifice you can make.  I disagree.  However, before I get to talking about what I think is the ultimate sacrifice, I wish to ask both atheists and theists alike:  What is the greatest thing you could give up?  What, in your opinion, is the ultimate sacrifice?

I have been an agnostic/atheist for the last 35 years.

There are few questions for which I never got a good answer and it bothers me.

Here it is.

Since there is no God, punishment/reward after death, hell, or heaven, or religious morality then why should one not steal money in a particular situation where he/she knows that he/she will not be caught?

Why should he/she hesitate to kill someone for large material gain if he/she is pretty sure that he/she will not be caught?

Same question can go for having sex or even rape and kill an underage if one knows he/she will not be caught?

Now, as we all know, the system of law which we are part of consists of the basic premise (or one of the basic premises) that you are innocent until proven guilty. How does this pertain to religious faith, and proof? That is where it is interesting....

The reason you have to prove someone’s guilt, instead of someone’s innocence in a court is because of a few crucial things.

Let’s take the example of a murder. Around the corpse there will be evidence that you can use to prove the guilt of the accused. This evidence can be refuted by the defense, but, assuming an impartial jury, if there is enough evidence the person will be found guilty (thus afferming the reality of the claim). If there isn’t enough, and the defense does a good enough job refuting it, he will not be punished, and will be exonerated. Now, I am not equating religion with murder (in this case) I am just using this example to make a point.

the reason the persecutor (or the person claiming to know the truth, or in other words, the person claiming the positive) is the one who has the burden of finding proof is because finding proof for a positive, for something that is real, or true, is much easier and more abounds than evidence for a negative (indeed many times evidence for a negative is none existent, as in the case of a murder. often times the persecuted would not have any people to witness his location at the time of the murder, but still not be guilty of the crime. if it was the defense who had to gather evidence of his innocence the person would likely be in jail, because they have no evidence for a negative, even though he’s not guilty.) because edvadince for a negative, is usualy nonexistant, which neither proves nor disproves anything.... which is the point. not being anble to disprove something is different than not being able to prove something.

So, the fundamental principal in finding truth is someone providing evidence for their claim, and then other people trying to either find evidence for the contrary, or to discredit the evidence presented by the claim maker. Here is where we start applying it to religion...

The typical argument between theists and atheists go something like this:

“You have no proof" (atheist)

Then the theist replies "neither do you".

While, both are right (well kind of, but that’s for another debate) only one is in the right during this circular argument. How did I determine this? By the thought pattern I just discussed. The initial (if not total) need to provide evidence should be done by the theist. Why? Because the theist is the one who is advocating the reality of something (i.e. the god). Since something is real there should be empirical, undeniable evidence for its existence (in the case of a murder, fingerprints, and blood samples would be such forms of evidence). The reason that the burden of proof shouldn’t rest initially (if at all) on the atheist because they are not advocating a positive as the theist is (they are advocating a NEGATIVE, which weve already established doesnt need to be proven, it needs to be disproven, just as your innocence needs to be disproven and not proven in a court). The atheist is much harder pressed to find contradicting evidence because; oftentimes the universe doesn’t give evidence to the contrary of something nonexistent. It’s like trying to find evidence against the flying invisible shark above your head which you can’t feel or hear. You can’t find any evidence against it, because there won’t be any, because it isn’t real. If it was real there would have to be evidence.

Some theists do present evidence, however not the kind which is needed. Mostly it is hearsay (god came to me in a vision), an improvable thought (I prayed for my cancer to go away and it did… of course the chemo had nothing to do with it….) or misinterpreting information (a great example is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A”). All of which are easily refuted, and aren’t the hard (or even reliable) evadince which would be used to convict people in court. in court they require reliable physical evadince, and we need the same standered applyd to debating/proving/disproving god.


However, theists don’t often accept evidence atheists can scrounge up! It is only because of the amazing, and baffling claims of theists that atheists can get any scientific evidence against them. If they would have stuck to things that aren’t disprovable(all of Jesus’ death and resurrection happening in the way which john describes, instead of the way Mathew and Luke described it) than even what evidence atheist can come up with would be null and void because it would be happening outside our realm. However this wasn’t the case, therefore atheists have some (if minute) irrevocable facts contradicting theists. In the history of the world, no one else has ever been believed when they claim they turned water into wine, except for Jesus(and the other gods, however that is irrelevent to the train of thought here). Atheists say that is impossible because of the laws of the universe (I won’t go into specifics here). Even this though theists often shrug it off as “a matter of faith”. Essentially theists are saying, “I want you to present evidence that my god is fake, so that when you do I can say I don’t care”.

My point is that, theists need to present evidence for their argument much more than atheists do, because it should be the theists who

A) Need to present irrevocable evidence, because of the argument already stated in the “innocent untill proven guilty” bit (in recap, the theist is preposing a positive, which needs to be proven to be believed, while the atheist is preposng a negative, and therefore needs to be disproven.