Miles

The reward is in the search itself. As I search I learn new things, find new ways of looking at the universe and our existance, and broaden my mind to all the possibilities out there. I will have found purpose in that search, and hopefully can expose others to these new ways of looking at things. They don't have to agree, but if they can just open their minds and think a little about their beliefs from another angle, then I can feel that I contributed at least a little to the betterment of humanity in my own small way. The problem with you Christians is that you think that because a person is searching, then they are lost. I feel that the search represents the very nature of human curiosity that leads to exploration into a broadening of our minds. I hate to see this stifled by absolutes.

You really think that is what I base my beliefs on? I think that those things are the natural result of the divisive nature of religion, at least the intolerant part. Child molestation is simply a case of a sick fuck taking advantage of his authority. anyway--offtopic, but that is not why I don't believe in God. I refuse to jump to conclusions based on my fears and desires. Those are not valid reasons to believe in something. Would it be nice to believe in some all-powerful being who will protect me from the world's evils? Yes, that would be nice, but I have to face the fact that there is no evidence for the existance of God, least of which a book written around 2000 years ago, and I would only be diluting myself if I jumped to those conclusions based on fear and desire. It would also be nice to believe that I had an angel to give me money whenever I was short, but I'm not going to base my life on that. Enlightened.... I wouldn't go that far. Liberated.....yes. There's an old saying. "The truly wise man is one that realizes that he doesn't know anything". I have made many discoveries--personal ones. Whether or not they are original, I don't really give a shit. I am in the process of searching and learning. My statement is not that they happen. That is the obvious. But that they are the inevitable result of religion. Maybe you don't use Pascal's wager to scare others, you use it to scare yourself as demonstrated in your statement. Nor I you. absolutely 100% correct. People need to be riled from the comforts of their delusions or they will become complacent in their search. Actually I am pretty good, although not fully content. That is the fuel that drives my search. contentment leads to stagnation, which leads to no new knowledge and ignorance. I gain much satisfaction from the search. I've already said why I come here. There's very few people around me either open enough, knowledgeable enough, or interested enough to hold these kind of conversations. I use this site as a way for me to work out my beliefs, to hear other opinions, get feedback, and possibly learn new things. And no, I'm not content, as I stated above. Contentment is for fools who wish to no longer search for truth. That's your problem. Not something to prove, just something to learn. See I'm not so arrogant to claim to know the truth. I'm realistic enough to realize that I can only search and learn. It's too bad others cannot recognize their fallability.

But in order to truly advance as a species, we must be able to look forward into the long term. Religion forces people to look into the short term (there own short lives and the afterlife). "What can I do to ensure that I go to heaven?" What we should be asking is "what can I do to better the species". This causes stagnation, as humanity wallows in the comfort of it's own delusions, meanwhile not preparing, nor searching for the dangers and challenges that may face us in the long term.

What??? :- I said that logic is flawed by human interperetation. While I think there is an ultimate logic out there, we can never be sure that our perceptions are correct in providing the information to plug into logical constructs. I agreed with you that seemingly illogical things can exist in the universe. We certainly don't have a good enough grasp to claim anything as absolute. That's the whole point. But that doesn't mean that we can invent supernatural, illogical beings because we want to believe in them. Evidence is necessary, or it is just guesswork and wishful thinking.

The difference between me and you is that I only pose this scenario to play devil's advocate. To point some things out to those "weak minded" believers that their faith is based on nothing more than assumptions and wishful thinking. I'm not interested in heaven and hell, and I really don't care who thinks I will burn, nor who else is going to. These concepts are merely scare tactics conjured up by men who would control their followers, and I refuse to be frightened into a system of beliefs. Emotions are a pretty lousy tool for finding truth. They lead you to believe what makes you feel good, while the truth tends to be disturbing and awesome at the same time. Karl Marx was right on about one thing. "religion is the opiate of the masses".

Pleeeeease, not Pascal's wager. ::) In my scenerio, all the Christians will go to hell because they believe in Satan's word, whereas I search for the real truth. God will reward me and send the sheep to hell. Have fun burning for eternity. ;)

I missed nothing. I read your Quaran hypothesis and it is as valid as any other scenerio posted. This answers nothing. It is Just another theory. The fact is that whether the Bible was inspired by God, Satan, or Bob, there is no reason to hold any one theory above the other. Just because the Bible says it is inspired by God, doesn't mean that whoever wrote or "inspired" it didn't only say that to trap blind followers to serve their purposes. The religious are enslaved by those absolutes, and are incapable of looking beyond them to some more disturbing possibilities. Most don't even try. They just accept what is spoonfed to them by those "scholars", becoming slaves to their interperetations. This is an inevitability of religion, and what Satan, or Bob would be after in order to stifle human growth.

and why exactly is that?

First of all, about the illogical nature of black holes, it only proves what I tried to say to emprworm in our discussion on the ontological argument for God. The usefulness of logic is limited by human perceptions and definitions. I think the fact that black holes are "illogical", yet are all but proven to exist, only shows our limited ability to comprehend true logic.---- That was more for emprworm if he is still around Anyway, back on topic. God might exists. I don't think that anyone on this site has argued otherwise, I could be wrong, but the difference between God, black holes, the tooth fairy, and evolution is a matter of evidence. Does he exist? maybe, but jumping to the conclusion that he does just because we can conceive of him because we decide that it is possible for illogical things to exist, is foolish.

damnit, I leave for a few days and the only topic I find interesting gets locked. Well, I'm going to open this thread to finish what was being discussed before it veered off topic. If this is against the rules, then I guess it'll get locked, but damnit it was not my fault it got off topic. >:( Anyway, Gunwounds, I really expected a better response from you. You seem to be the "scholar", but your response of "well it would leave a house divided" dissapointed me. There are two ways to counter this.....rebuttal? 1. First of all, Satan doesn't give a shit if we like of worship him. He hates humanity, so in order to get us to destroy ourselves, he is willing to take the role of "evil" one in order to avenge himself on God. The "good" parts of the Bible, that you said Satan would never put in the Bible are merely camoflouge for the true intentions of the Bible-- to cofuse us, to set us against each other, and to blind us from truth. Of course he has to make it look "good" or we would never have believed in it. Perhaps your "house divided" is exactly what he wants as it creates chaos. 2. Perhaps Satan did not write the Bible, perhaps it was Bob, the true evil one. Maybe Bob maintains all the characteristics of Satan as we know him, but because he doesn't want to look like the bad guy, he changed the name of the figure in the Bible to Satan. You act as if you know Satan and how he would act, but you only know the Bible's description of Satan. If Bob or Satan wrote the Bible, then you only know what he wants you to know, and described to scare you into the Biblical trap. The whole point of this is to show you that all that "truth" you people spout off is no more credible than this scenerio. Nor is it any more credible than any of the other religions out there.

Can a document not have truth mixed with lies Edric? You look at this from a far too black and white perspective. Nor did I say that in this "religion" the Bible true. I only meant that Satan would certainly have given it some appearance of truth in order to trick the masses into following it. I see no contradiction.

But they still put their own biases into how they interperet it. Words, even in their original text are highly succeptable to individual interperetation. It seems to me that an omnipotent being would have found a more efficient way to get his message across.

I don't possibly know how you could feel that you did not insult me, but ok, whatever. I would MUCH more readily accept that way of thinking than the common form of religion. As I said, I accept theism as a natural condition of humanity, even though I disagree with it. However, don't confuse voicing my opinion with mindless, and pointless christian bashing. You mentioned that you wonder why Acriku spends so much time posting on religion if he is atheist. I can tell you why I do, and this is only one of four sites I go to, so I DO often debate with those religious "scholars". I don't find much opportunity to discuss my beliefs with those around me. Most either don't care, or are so brainwashed that all I get is "you are going to hell!". So my refuge for working out my thoughts is on the internet. I learn from hearing other people's opinions, giving mine, and getting feedback. It helps me to get a wide variety of opinions to consider in my search for truth. So, even though I don't have any reason to "bash" your ideology, I might still debate for the sake of learning yet another point of view. If we could keep it civil, I think it could be somewhat enlightening since I have never heard of non-denominational christianity. I'll do that, but not tonight. I think my wife is getting impatient with how long I have been down here. ;D

No, I have no problem with theism. I don't agree with it, but I accept it. The problem lies when people believe in absolutes, and those that profess to know them. As you do. The problem comes from the fact that most people around the world would prefer to be sheep than to be thinkers. Most are those "weak" christians that you put yourself above. Those "bad apples" merely use this blindness inherent in religion to their own ends. This goes straight to my scenerio. What if the Bible was truly written by Satan? What if he used this energy for his own ends? The religious, even you, are enslaved by the absolutes of the Bible. How could you possibly respond with anything to disprove this?

What Gunwounds? You spit off a post of insults and that makes you the authority? ::) Refute the "what if's" then if you are the "Biblical scholar" Otherwise, I will lump you in with the other weak faithed christians. We see the results of this persecution everyday. Biblical "scholars" teaching that evolution is heresy and the work of Satan. Muslims killing infadels in the Jihad, parents warning their kids of the "evils" of heresy from those with different ideals, preachers telling their congreation to follow their truth ro go to hell, evengelists blaming homosexuals for the tragedies of the times, the list goes on and on. Intolerance runs rampant in the religious community. Realize too, that these "weak faithed christians" represent the masses. They are the true voice of their religion, and are easily influence by those "scholars". It's sad that you find it amusing since these are the ones who will propogate their weakness to the future generations.

Whether this thread should be locked or not, I don't know. I can tell you, though, that it has inspired some very interesting, and substantial dialogue. I'll tell you why. First of all, I don't want to speak for Acriku, but I think we are coming at this from the same angle. If I am wrong, please correct me Acriku. My purpose in participating in this thread was not to pose a valid belief system, but to point out the pitfalls of faith, the intolerances of religion, and the hypocracy of the faithful. No one here, with the exception of Arohk, recognized the significance of these proposals. Rather, they began vicously attacking them. Why? For the simple reason that they challenged their precious faith with the same reasoning that they use cling to their beliefs. Deep down, they all recognized this, and became very defensive. The hostility shown merely points out that the rationale of the spanish inquisition is still alive and well within the religious community. Even christians are not immune to the fanaticism demonstrated in Islam and the desire to silence heresy. Pascal's wager-- If we are right and you are wrong, then we will go to heaven for attempting to expose the truth, while christians will go to hell for their blind faith in Satan's word. I hope you all see now how ridiculous this statement is, and maybe a little of where we are coming from. I also hope you all see just how precarious of a position that your blind faith puts you in. You accept absolutes, and as a result become slaves to those absolutes. If those absolutes are challenged, and you are rattled from your comfortable truth, then you find yourself scrambling to silence those challenges, in some cases very aggressively. This energy of fear and blind faith are what have been used in the past for horrific atrocities--"burn the witch, hang the heretic, kill the infadels, silence the evolutionists--- lock the thread" ;) This is the danger of religion and the shackles that enslave you. Frank Herbert warned of this. What lesson do you think the "missionaria protectiva" is meant to teach you? I also want to point out that most of you immediately started pointing out the lack of logic and evidence behind these proposals. You used much of the same reasoning that we do for being atheists, yet adamantly criticise us for using. This is utter hypocrasy. Or a Bible? I hope you see the hypocrasy. :) Case in point.

So? I never said you did. My point was to the fact that politics and religion are inevitably intertwined. This is what satan in my scenerio is playing on. BTW, I never said so. I cannot speak for acriku, but my scenerio is of my own creation. Maybe someone else thought of it before, but that's not the point. I understand too. I merely observed the anger and fear it produced in them and found humor in their hypocrasy. Case in point-- see the post immediately below the one I am quoting here. The fanaticism is in the immediate dismissal of any new ideas without consideration. This demonstrates the closed mindedness of the religious, and the blindness that creates. Is there any logical reason that mine or acriku's assumptions are any less viable than christian ones?

First of all, I don't think I ever proclaimed that neandethal man was a direct ancestor. He would represent something more like a cousin, and in some senses, since he shows characteristics of ape and man, would show transtional features. That doesn't make him a direct ancestor. Yes. At one time I think all of science believed that it was likely that neanderthal man was a direct ancestor. We were prove wrong. So what? I think that what you are getting at is that the "faith" of evolutionists has been proven wrong, therefore it discredits evolution as a whole. Then you are attempting to broaden this to atheistic beliefs. I have no idea how you manage that leap, but I'll accept it for now. Science is not based on faith, as you so adamantly argue. That is why no explanations are accepted as anything but theory. Unlike fundamentalist theists, we recognize the fact that we do not have perfect knowledge, and always leave room for new discoveries that might revolutionize our thinking. This leaves room for progress, and true learning. Your point only shows the openness of science to admit it's fallabiltiy. This is a virtue, not a flaw.

Whether these things are the intention of christianity or not, they were an inevitable by-product since an energy source as powerful as religious ideology would sooner or later be used by one who saught power. It set the stage for the masses to be controlled by the one who controlled the word. Perhaps Satan saw this potential and subtly mixed the ingredients that would both look virtuous, and would give rise to evil consequences. This may be why we see evil coming from religion even though religion itself doesn't appear to be malicious in nature. The devil is much to smart not to cover his tracks well. I will try to make it more clear though, I do not believe in this hypothesis, although I do believe that it is just as logically valid as the Christian version. I am an agnostic atheist, so like Acriku, I need some evidence to believe in ANYTHING supernatural. I would like the rational ones here, like Hawat it seems, to notice how these revolutionary and creative ideas that Akriku and I have put forth get attacked so viscously. It demonstrates the fact that the desire to silence the heretics still persists as it did hundreds of years ago, and the closed mindedness of the christian fanatics.

Hehe :P I love christian fundie logic. :-* Fundie: God inspired the Bible. Me: oh yeah, how do you know? Fundie: because it says so. I know emprworm would appreciate that logic. ;) No, I point out the results. oppression, persecution, torture, intolerance, murder, ignorance, etc.... Hehe... ;) touched a nerve didn't I. Can you prove that your scenerio that God wrote the Bible is ANY more credible than mine that Satan did? This is merely a hypothetical, and it seems that whenever I pose it, christians get extremely defensive. What this very clearly demonstrates is the absolute refusal to see other possibilities and the hostility that is created when anything threatens their precious dogma. This is fanatical blindness, and the root of all religious or idealogical hostility, and is what they apply to the evolution/creation debate. Please notice that I never said that these were my beliefs, only "what if". Notice the personal attack from TMA indicative of any religious fanatic. Religion supresses creative thought, as is demonstrated in the hostility caused by my hypothetical. Fortunately, at least in western culture, this hostility is less likely to manifest itself into atrocities such as the spanish inquisition, the salem witch trials, or the many, other horrific acts done to suppress heresy(creative thought). However, the desire and intention to silence these threats still exists and manifests itself into legislation that forbids schools to require the teaching of evolution, or christians telling their young disciples that anything that does not fit with Biblical truth is spoken by Satan. They propogate their disease of misinformation and lies until it infects those not knowledgeable enough to see through the B.S. It's disgusting and is why I argue against it.

I have heard some say that the Devil's greatest accomplishment was to get man to believe that he didn't exist. Quite an accomplishment, granted. But I say, what if the Devil's greatest accomplishment was to make the world believe that he is God? What if it was Satan that spoke to Moses? What if Jesus was Satan emboddied? The Bible was then inspired by Satan, in which intolerance, persecution and enslavement to it's truth would result. Of course, people would not believe a totally evil document to follow, I don't think people would have followed a Bible that says kill 'em all (although fundamentalist muslims make me wonder) :P so the very clever and devious devil put subtle evils in his Bible, knowing that it's ambiguity would lead to misinterperetaion resulting in splits within Christianity itself, and great atrocities done as a result of honest misinterperetation. He knew that it would lead to intolerance, mistrust and hatred towards other denominations and other religions in which He created in other parts of the world. Keeping humanity from uniting and forming peaceful coexistance. He knew that by giving us his version of truth and threatening against questioning that truth, he would keep us from fulfilling our potential. Many would denounce science and any search of truth that did not fit into his nice little box. Through this he controls humanity, and inflicts his wrath on God. What if this is true? Is it any less likely than the faith that the Bible was written by a benevolent God?

I would also like to point out that I find it funny that Gobalopper keeps posting these excellent articles, including the one about bad reporting, and you all just let it fade away. Many of you want to claim that American reporting is biased, I think that article shows that you are right, American and other western media is biased. They seem to side with the America bashers. Yet, you take them at their word, then criticise us when we accept information that tells us of the good things happening. This seems hypocritical to me.

So what? evidence now shows that five years ago there was indeed some kind of collaboration between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein. It also shows that terrorist sites existed in Iraq. I think these put together make a pretty damn strong case. What's your point? Of course leaders, especially ones as paranoid as Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, surely would have contacted each other through diplomats or back-channel communications. Who knows? perhaps the intelligence they gained from those sources inside Iraq came under the agreement of anonimity. Or maybe some of the methods such as intercepting telephone communications or the details of special forces operations are sensitive to what we may wish to employ elsewhere. My guess would be that they had enough information to make a strong circumstantial case, but not to prove it absolutely, and that coupled with the knowledge of the oppression, murder and torture, as well as his defiance of both the UN and the US, along with the fact that he committed genocide in his own country with chemical weapons, and the hope that by installing a democratic government and improving Iraqi's lives, may cause some sort of dominoe effect in the middle east, all put together made our case for war. You focus too much on each and every piece of the puzzle, when the big picture shows us a clear pattern.

I'm not saying that they are in the vast majority, but at least equal. Dreamers of dune, philosophy forums, physics forums (majority atheist, but a good representation of theists), and of course Christiansunite(obviously atheists are the minority). I'm not going to bother with looking up the polls that were done on some of them, but if memory serves theists were well represented. Sorry, Edric, I am not going to go back and read everyone's posts from this site. I don't recall ever discussing this with you, so I didn't know. I go by the posts that I have read in my discussions with you. I do not have time to surf all the threads of this board, nor the desire to. I judge you by our discussions. And religion is that great power that suppresses that crativity for it's own survival. So what are you saying? The Iraqi people were just biding their time while thousands to millions of their family members were tortured and killed? Foreign invasion was the only hope for the Iraqi people. Well, it is much different here in the "Bible Belt", and probably most of the rest of the country except for L.A. and New York. This is probably why I am so vocal against religion. I see the sheep up close and personal and it disgusts me. I will fight to keep my children safe from the brainwashing. No, I see atheism as having been a factor in some atrocities, not the prime motive. Religion on the other hand needs no other motives. No, as I said, atheism has been a factor. I admit that. But religion has been the cause. These are not equal. I really do agree with you. Unfortunately, most people find it easier to follow those who spout this right-wing fundamentalism than to think for themselves. Not only here in Kansas, but in other places around the world like the Middle East where they send their sheep out to kill themselves because their cleric claims it will get them to heaven. I would like to clear something up. I don't have a problem with theism. I don't agree with it, but many theists do keep a pretty open mind. The problem rests in organized religion. The masses following those who reveal the absolute truth to them. They become slaves to this truth, sheep for those who control the "word or God", refusing to accept any errancy in their "word" and attempting to brainwash others to their beliefs. These people are too easily controlled by their masters, and are therefore dangerous to humanity as a whole. Unfortunately, it seems, that some ruthless, murdering, asshole dictators saw this fact too, and decided to murder the sheep rather than educating them. This only strengthens the control of the masters, as their followers then come running back to them for protection. My purpose is not to convert theists to atheists, but to break the mindless fanaticism that comes with organized religion. To show people that the universe shows us much more amazing and fantastic things than any 2000 year old sheepherder could ever have imagined. If the masses could throw off this security blanket provided by their masters which blinds them from the outside world, and step out to discover what it really around them, then I see the possibility of humanity coming closer to it's potential.

[c] Yes, maybe we do go to different sites. Some will be flooded others won't. The point is that theists are well represented on the internet. ok. Are you a creationist? If so, creationism is religious fundamentalism at it's worst. I think those on this site can read your posts and see the truth in what I say. Accept for all those other America-bashing, peacemongering(peace at any price) fanatics. The purpose of those theme parks is not to brainwash the tourists to their beliefs. The same cannot be said for religious theme parks. If the shoe fits...... Freedom is a pretty damn good thing. Oppression, be it political or idelogical, suppresses human developement. We can never acheive our potential as a species as long as our creativity is squashed by the powerful who see it as threatening to their power base. I think the negatives of political oppression are pretty self-evident. It's too bad that you don't support the removal of politically oppressive regimes. Religious oppression can be far more dangerous though. Religion promotes stagnation. The religious sheep, most of them, take comfort in the truth that is spoonfed to them rather than actively seeking it out themselves. If it weren't for those that had the ability to think "outside" of religious fundamentalism, then we would not have the advances that we have managed thus far. The religous leaders attempt to stifle creativity because it threatens the base of control that they maintain with their "truth". Case in point-- evolution in Kansas is not a required topic in science classes because of the pressure from the religious fundamentalists. Becaue of this some of our kids are hamstrung as they go to college because they do not have full knowledge of one of the most basic principles of biology. Why? Because the religious fundamentalists see evolution as a threat to their "truth" and their grip on the masses. Islam tends to be MUCH worse. Just look at what is happening in Iraq. The clerics are using their religious control to vie for power in the post war government. Why? because if the culture becomes somewhat westernized, and free-thinking, then they will be exposed, as will the other Islamic governments in the region. Freedom is dangerous to those in power, but is essential to the developement of the people. Not in the U.S. they aren't. The Bible belt stretches long and wide. Don't be fooled by the messages you get from the east and west coasts. They represent the minority. Well, let's get one thing straight. I do admit that atheistic ideals did play some role, but never have they been the sole motivation. As with those you listed, it was more out of eliminating those who threatened your power. Pol Pot, and Stalin killed people simply on the basis that they had been exposed to western culture. They killed anyone who spoke out against them, as did Saddam Hussein. On the other hand, events like the crusaids, jihad, and ethnic clensing have been done on stricly religous grounds. I don't think the masses have ever been rallied behind an atheistic ideology. I admit that atheism has played a role in some atrocities, but not to the extent that theism has.