NOT Obama, but bring your popcorn.

[The Third Man]

I find this interesting because it is published in what was widely percieved as an arm of the former Soviet (athiest) State. Now we have the NYT, widely percieved as an arm of the Obama Administration. My how ironic.



Atheism mathematically impossible

The scientific method is used every day in forensic science to determine whether an event in a crime scene was an accident or by design and intention. Mathematical probability is a scientific argument and is frequently used in determining many issues of scientific inquiry.

The scientific method cannot be used to prove events which occurred outside of human observation. No one observed the origin of the universe by either chance or design, but scientific evidence via mathematical probability can be used to support either a chance or design origins for the universe.

If you went to an uninhabited planet and discovered only one thing, a cliff carved with images of persons similar to what we find on Mt. Rushmore, you cannot use the scientific method to prove that these images came about by design or by chance processes of erosion.

Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe.
The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 65th power. That's just one protein molecule! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of them.

Protein molecules are made of smaller molecules known as amino acids. In order for a protein molecule to work the amino acids have to be together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. If they are not in the right sequence then the protein molecule won't work.

It has been shown that the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acid molecules, can come into existence by chance, but it has never been shown that these basic building blocks can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.

Once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic code (or program) and biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells with their own DNA and protein molecules. The problem is how did DNA, proteins, and life come about when there was no already existing directing code and mechanisms in nature.

It seems that the cell is irreducibly complex. For example, without DNA there can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there can be no proteins, and without proteins there can be no DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.

An amazing fact is that there are left-handed and right-handed amino acids. In life all the protein molecules have to be made up of left-handed amino acids as well as be in the right sequence. If a right-handed amino acid gets into the mix the protein won't work.

DNA, the genetic code, also is made up of various smaller molecules (nucleic acids) that have to be together in a precise sequence in order for the DNA to work. There are left-handed and right-handed sugar molecules making-up nucleic acids. In order to get a working DNA molecule the various nucleic acids have to be not only in a precise sequence but they also have to contain only right-handed sugar molecules. If a nucleic acid with a left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then the DNA won't work.

The great and well-known British scientist Frederick Hoyle showed that the probability of the simplest form of life coming into being by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power. You don't have to be a theologian to respect such numbers!

In the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened.

All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.
If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

What about natural selection? Natural selection cannot produce anything. It can only "select" from what is produced. Furthermore, natural selection can only operate once there is life and not before. Natural selection is a passive process in nature.

Even the recent news of artificial life is not creation of any life. In artificial life, scientists, through intelligent design, build a DNA molecule from "scratch" and then implant that DNA into an already living cell. Genetic engineering and artificial life projects all happen by intelligent design - not by chance. Just ask the scientists behind the projects!

Science cannot prove that we are here by either chance or design, but the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other.
It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory. No one is being forced to believe in God so there's no real violation of separation of church and state.

But, when all the evidence is presented it should show beyond all reasonable doubt that life didn't originate by chance but by design.
The Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org (http://www.icr.org)) offers excellent articles, books, and resources from Master's or Ph.D degreed scientists showing how true science supports creation.


http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/27-09-2010/115095-atheism-1/

[TLAM Strike]

I saw Pravda
...
I :haha:

[antikristuseke]

Their argument about the probability of a single protein molecule coming up by chance being so improbable that it might as well be said to be impossible is true ennoguh, but it is irrelevant, because only a moron would claim that only random chance was involved. The rest of the article is the same creationist dribble that has been debunked countless times. Just go to ****ing www.talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org) and learn what real science says about abiogenesis and evolution, which actual cited sources from peer reviewed papers.
As for the source, anything written in Pravda should be taken with either a huge grain of salt or disregarded as complete horse**** form the start, they have about as much credibility as a source of information as Sunday Sport did.

Edit: and what the **** did any of that have to do with atheism in the ****ing first place?

[razark]

The rest of the article is the same creationist dribble that has been debunked countless times.
Yeah, that.

Edit: and what the **** did any of that have to do with atheism in the ****ing first place?
Because there are only two possible answers.
A. atheism
or
B. Goddidit!

Anyone who rejects B. must therefore be one of them evil atheists.

[The Third Man]

If Christine O'Donnell had dabbled in atheism would any one be laughing?

What about Nancy Pelosi, #3 for the most powerful position in the US? She is Roman Catholic, believing in the literal transmutation of bread and water into the body and blood of Christ, and must take her walking orders from the Pope, who is a former Hitler-Jugend, to be in good standing in her church.

PS VP Joe Biden is also Roman Catholic. It is only Barack Obama who is thought by 24% of the people to be muslim.

[antikristuseke]

eh?:doh:

[AngusJS]

If Christine O'Donnell had dabbled in atheism would any one be laughing?Huh? And how can you dabble in atheism?

What about Nancy Pelosi, #3 for the most powerful position in the US? She is Roman Catholic, believing in the literal transmutation of bread and water into the body and blood of Christ, and must take her walking orders from the Pope, who is a former Hitler-Jugend, to be in good standing in her church.

PS VP Joe Biden is also Roman Catholic.Huh?

And how could it be impossible for people to not believe in god, regardless of whatever tired creationist tripe "debunking" abiogenesis says?

[The Third Man]

Sorry if I confused. If you cannot observe the action directly the theory has no value. Einstien, and all real science depends on this. That which cannot be directly observed is not science,

Whithout direct observation science fails. Thus atheism fails unless it is itsself a religion.

[ETR3(SS)]

Sorry if I confused. If you cannot observe the action directly the theory has no value. Einstien, and all real science depends on this. That which cannot be directly observed is not science,

Whithout direct observation science fails. Thus atheism fails unless it is itsself a religion.By that argument religion fails on the scientific level as well.:O:

[razark]

Thus atheism fails unless it is itsself a religion.
No, atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in any gods.

Atheism makes no claims. It is merely a statement about belief. Atheism is not "There are no gods." Atheism is "I do not believe in any gods."

[The Third Man]

It is merely a statement about belief.

Sounds like religion. Christanity,Judaism, Muslim, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Sihkism, Cao Dai , etc; are all statements about belief.

[antikristuseke]

Sorry if I confused. If you cannot observe the action directly the theory has no value. Einstien, and all real science depends on this. That which cannot be directly observed is not science,

Whithout direct observation science fails. Thus atheism fails unless it is itsself a religion.

Atheism is a lack of faith in gods, it makes no positive claims, religions on the other hand does make positive claims without presenting positive evidence. Even if the theory of evolution was to be falcified it would not make creationism in any form any more true.
Also equating the theories of abiogenesis and evolution with atheism is a non sequitur.

[razark]

Sounds like religion. Christanity,Judaism, Muslim, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Sihkism, Cao Dai , etc; are all statements about belief.
Very well, then. Atheism is a religion.

And bald is a hair color. Not collecting stamps is a hobby.
:nope:

[The Third Man]

By that argument religion fails on the scientific level as well.:O:

But who said religion was about science? I surely did not. It is about belief and dare I say it faith in a power higher than man.

[gimpy117]

http://davidschwartz.com/photos/popcorn_10000.jpg

okay i brought my corn, whats up?

[The Third Man]

Very well, then. Atheism is a religion.

And bald is a hair color. Not collecting stamps is a hobby.
:nope:

I see you have difficulty equating belief with religion. OK. What do you think religion is if not belief.

[antikristuseke]

You need to take some logic courses. Just because all religions are beliefs, not all beliefs are religions.

[razark]

I see you have difficulty equating belief with religion. OK. What do you think religion is if not belief.
Religion is a set of beliefs regarding the nature of the universe, of a supernatural nature.

Atheism is a lack of belief.

Look up. You see that tiny little dot? That's the point passing way over your head.

[The Third Man]

Lets take the argument that atheism is not a religion. I think it is a religion.

The US Constitution protects its citizens from government intervention into religion, if athiests claim to have no religion, then what protects their 'non-religion' from being curtailed, if not persecuted within the law?

[antikristuseke]

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Persecuting someone because they are religious is the same as persecuting someone who isn't.

Edit: If atheism is a religion, what are its doctrines?

[The Third Man]

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Persecuting someone because they are religious is the same as persecuting someone who isn't.

Edit: If atheism is a religion, what are its doctrines?

'From' and 'of 'are two different words with two different meanings. You know it and everyone else does also. If the wrong folks come to power those who claim no religion are in trouble. Better to be agnostic.

Atheism is the laziest of all religions. Athiests believe in nothing but themselves and the non-existance of a God. How convienent! But like all religions they have no proof of the existance or non-existance of God.

Atheism is base on a faith that there is no God.

[razark]

Athiests believe in nothing but themselves and the non-existance of a God. How convienent!
I believe in quite a few things. None of those things are god, and quite a few of them are not myself.

And, atheism is not a religion any more than not believing in unicorns is a religion.

[antikristuseke]

'From' and 'of 'are two different words with two different meanings. You know it and everyone else does also. If the wrong folks come to power those who claim no religion are in trouble.

Atheism is the laziest of all religions. Athiests believe in nothing but themselves and the non-existance of a God. How convienent! But like all religions they have no proof of the existance or non-existance of God.

Atheism is base on faith.

Learn to troll.
http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn136/Basilb101/obvious_troll.jpg

[The Third Man]

[QUOTE=antikristuseke;1504329]Learn to troll.


Says you. If your argument fails name calling ensuse.

'Troll' cannot save you from poor logic.

[TLAM Strike]

Atheism is the laziest of all religions. Athiests believe in nothing but themselves and the non-existance of a God.

What about the analysis the the creation of the universe from a rational scientific perspective? I "believe" in that.

Not all Atheists care about the mechanics of it. But do all Christians care about the mechanics of their creation myth? When God "Created the Heavens and the Earth" was it by mechanical, physiological or telekinetic means? No they don't just as not all Atheists care whether or not the Big Bang was 0.0 x 10^00 Joules or 3.0 x 10^69 Joules or even if there was one to begin with.

[Sailor Steve]

Science cannot prove that we are here by either chance or design, but the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other.
The problem with that is that science doesn't try to prove that we are here by chance. Science only looks at evidence and creates postulates based on the evidence. Using science to support chance or design is no longer science, but belief.

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory. No one is being forced to believe in God so there's no real violation of separation of church and state.
Evolution theory is based on an appraisal of the evidence, and what it shows. Any decent scientist knows that his favorite theory might be proved wrong at any time, and most are ready to start over again should that happen.

Intelligent design is based solely on preconcieved belief based on "Sacred Scriptures", and is solely intended to back up what the Bible says. No believer in Intelligent Design is willing to admit the remotest possibility that he might be wrong. His sole purpose is to see his belief taught no matter how many times he has to change the name or how underhanded he has to be to prove his "truth". The argument presented here, as with most Intelligent Design arguments, isn't based on any real evidence, but on "proving" that the theory of Natural Origin is false. They seem to believe that if they can just do that then the only alternative left is the one they devoutly believe.

I've met (and read the works of) hardcore atheists who do indeed treat their belief as if it were a religion. They are loud but relatively rare. Most atheists are, as described, people who don't see evidence so don't believe. Show them some real evidence and they just might surprise you.

Unfortunately there isn't any.

[antikristuseke]

Atheism is base on a faith that there is no God.

AS it has been allready explained to you twice, no it is not, repeating the same falsehood will not make it true. Atheism is a lack of faith in a god or gods, it makes no claim that there is no god.
It is obvious that you are trolling, the only reason I am replying to your nonsense is because I have nothing better to do at work.
So far you have not even used logic in your arguments, all you have are a bunch of non sequiturs. And of course if the wrong people come to power and turn the US into a theocracy atheists will be in trouble, that goes without saying, but so will people who are the wrong denomination or religion.

[Diopos]

And to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes:
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be God.”

Religion is about belief.
Science is about corroboration.
These are two different hobbies! :)


.

[Moeceefus]

Ah religion. The oldest scare tactic of kingdoms past. Code of law for the masses. Salvation for the subservient. :yeah:

[The Third Man]

What about the analysis the the creation of the universe from a rational scientific perspective? I "believe" in that.

Not all Atheists care about the mechanics of it. But do all Christians care about the mechanics of their creation myth? When God "Created the Heavens and the Earth" was it by mechanical, physiological or telekinetic means? No they don't just as not all Atheists care whether or not the Big Bang was 0.0 x 10^00 Joules or 3.0 x 10^69 Joules or even if there was one to begin with.

Again faith is not bound by science as atheism wants its faith to be. The original post shows how flawed the scientific model of their belief is.

When confronted with that reality denial of science ensues to be replaced by 'belief' which is also abandoned when it is pointed out religion is the same as belief.

This makes me think they are agnostic, not atheist.

[antikristuseke]

I'm both, an agnostic atheist.

[The Third Man]

I'm both, an agnostic atheist.

Sorry you cannot be both because one denies belief in a certain, if any philosophy and the other shows a belief/philosophy. That is why there are two different words.

[razark]

This makes me think they are agnostic, not atheist.
Gnosticism and theism address different subjects.

Gnosticism addresses knowledge, theism addresses belief. You can have a gnostic or an agnostic theist, and you can have a gnostic or agnostic atheist.

[The Third Man]

Gnosticism and theism address different subjects.

Gnosticism addresses knowledge, theism addresses belief. You can have a gnostic or an agnostic theist, and you can have a gnostic or agnostic atheist.

I said agnostic not gnostic. Agan two different things.

[The Third Man]

Atheism is a belief/philosiphy that God doesn't exist, as such it is a religion. No less than the belief/philosiphy that God does exist is a religion.

[razark]

I said agnostic not gnostic. Agan two different things.
Yes, you did. Are you familiar with the concept of root words and prefixes?

Gnostic means knowledge. Agnostic means without knowledge. They're related terms.

Atheism is a belief/philosiphy that God doesn't exist, as such it is a religion.
Are you really that dense, or are you just having fun?

Theism is the belief that a god or gods exist. Atheism is a lack of belief that a god or gods exist. Quite different from the belief that no gods exist. (That would be gnostic atheism.)

...the belief/philosiphy that God does exist is a religion.
That's not religion, that's theism. Theism comes in several flavors. Those are religions.

[Takeda Shingen]

This argument is, on occasion, presented by my fellow Christians in an effort to devalue the scientific community, and then somehow place additional value on themselves. Really, there is no need; science and religion need not be mutually exclusive. Evolution does not countermand the existence of God, and the line of discourse is antithetical to the elevation of faith.

The argument that science equates with faith is a poor one. A fundamental examination of epistemology yields a differentiation between knowledge and belief. Traditionally labeled as 'justified true belief', knowledge must be extrapolated from the observable. Belief, by contrast, relies on the existential claim for validity. As such, the two remain exclusive, as one may present the observable phenomena and hold truth in the supernatural, while another may present the same phenomena with an absence of the supernatural. Accordingly, unfaith and faith are not interchangeable nomenclature. To do so is to attempt to label standing as 'unsitting'. While superficially true, it does not account for the varia of other positions and activities that would also be relevant.

[The Third Man]

Yes, you did. Are you familiar with the concept of root words and prefixes?

Gnostic means knowledge. Agnostic means without knowledge. They're related terms.


Are you really that dense, or are you just having fun?

Theism is the belief that a god or gods exist. Atheism is a lack of belief that a god or gods exist. Quite different from the belief that no gods exist. (That would be gnostic atheism.)


That's not religion, that's theism. Theism comes in several flavors. Those are religions.


Round and round. You just don't want to say atheism is a religion. Fine, by every definition it is . I pray when you grow up you find Him.

[razark]

Round and round. You just don't want to say atheism is a religion.
And you want to say a fig is an olive. Claiming that two different things are the same does not make them the same.

I pray when you grow up you find Him.
You pray for me, I'll think for you.

Found him when I was young. Then I grew up and realized I didn't believe anymore. Then realized I didn't need to believe, either. I'm much freer now, and quite happy that way.

[The Third Man]

This argument is, on occasion, presented by my fellow Christians in an effort to devalue the scientific community, and then somehow place additional value on themselves. Really, there is no need; science and religion need not be mutually exclusive. Evolution does not countermand the existence of God, and the line of discourse is antithetical to the elevation of faith.

The argument that science equates with faith is a poor one. A fundamental examination of epistemology yields a differentiation between knowledge and belief. Traditionally labeled as 'justified true belief', knowledge must be extrapolated from the observable. Belief, by contrast, relies on the existential claim for validity. As such, the two remain exclusive, as one may present the observable phenomena and hold truth in the supernatural, while another may present the same phenomena with an absence of the supernatural. Accordingly, unfaith and faith are not interchangeable nomenclature. To do so is to attempt to label standing as 'unsitting'. While superficially true, it does not account for the varia of other positions and activities that would also be relevant.

My point wasn't to diminish science. But that science doesn't have all the answers. Unfortunately I was attached for upholding my beliefs.

I'm glad you responded Takeda Shingen. For some reason many moderate their positions when you arrive. I don't, but many do.

[The Third Man]

And you want to say a fig is an olive. Claiming that two different things are the same does not make them the same.


You pray for me, I'll think for you.

Found him when I was young. Then I grew up and realized I didn't believe anymore. Then realized I didn't need to believe, either. I'm much freer now, and quite happy that way.

I'm envious (my sin) because the Lord looks upon you with the mercy I can only imagine.

[Castout]

God that's something you need to seek and find out yourself. Perhaps it may start with believing but what good would it be unless the words in the bible come alive to you in your life and you come to know God yourself.

There are already too many religious people who don't know God.
I once posted in a local Christian forum(Catholic actually) and it was one of the most rude place/site I ever visited . . . . .Many of those who called themselves Christian mocked and insulted me but a PM from a Muslim who has been reading the bible made my day :-). He told me my testimony on death and its references to the bible is also recorded in his Koran. He was't trying to convert me or anything. I think he was trying to find out the truth by comparing his Koran and the bible.

My post was about death or the condition of death where the dead no longer remember themselves, no longer remember God and not able to register the passage of time.

The first two are there in the bible but for the last it's only written explicitly in the Muslim Koran something like when the dead are resurrected on judgment day they will think they had only been sleeping for a day!

:o. Now I'm sure that was written by somebody who was wise and who had knowledge. I suspect king David or Solomon or a person who knew God then. I couldn't even get to that or conclude that myself even after knowing that the dead are unable to register time at all. There has been rumors that some things in the Koran were copied from early Christian holy texts. Of course this would offend most if not every Muslim who consider their holy book to have come from God.

[antikristuseke]

My point wasn't to diminish science. But that science doesn't have all the answers. Unfortunately I was attached for upholding my beliefs.

I'm glad you responded Takeda Shingen. For some reason many moderate their positions when you arrive. I don't, but many do.

Well no **** science does not have all the answers, if it did, it would stop. And no, you were not attacked for upholding for your belief, your position on science was attacked and shown to be in error to which you replied with logical fallacies and then a word redefinition attempt.

[Stealth Hunter]

Round and round. You just don't want to say atheism is a religion.

Right, because it is not a religion. It is a lack of belief- not a belief in disbelief. Religion requires beliefs of some kind or faith of some kind; Atheism is not composed of either.

Fine, by every definition it is .

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_belief) in the existence of deities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-0) In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-RoweRoutledge-1) Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"Inclusively" means "includes", for the record. Again: a lack of belief- not a belief in disbelief.

I pray when you grow up you find Him.

What the Christ is this kid smoking? Because the stupid... it burns. It burns like Mustard Gas. Just stop posting already. Goddammit this gets annoying.:nope:

If it isn't politics with you, it's religion. Congratulations, you're a hybrid mix of SUBMAN1 and WasteGate. Hopefully, just like the both of them them, you'll disappear from this slowly degenerating forum (more like SUBMAN, actually, who got tossed in the brig for his nonsensical shenanigans, threw a fit about it, and then just left; Waste was keelhauled for his... although I wouldn't mind it if we did that to you as well).

[Sailor Steve]

An attempt to clear up the definitions, using a dictionary.

ATHEIST: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

AGNOSTIC: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Round and round. You just don't want to say atheism is a religion. Fine, by every definition it is

RELIGION: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

It's possible to percieve atheism as fitting that description, but religions are usually considered to involve organization and standardization of worship, and atheists don't usually meet to worship. On the one hand some atheists, not all, do treat it like a deep faith, but most just feel the way they do and don't worry about it.

[Skybird]

Creationism did exist at the time of the cold war, yes. What's the surprise? Today, it is rising even more in Polland, Russia, and especially - in the Islamic world. There it has been dressed in slightly different symbols to make it compatible with Islamic commandements and rules, but in principal it is the very same like amongst Christian fundamentlaists. It was copied from them, to be precisely. Some Turkish writer has made a fortune by writing according books and publish them in the Muslim world, but the phenomenon goes far beyond him.

Richard Dawkins makes a distinction between atheism and antitheism, which in ordinary language usually is ignored. The one means the conviction that gods do not exist, the other means to simply not be interested and not caring for whether gods exist or not.

If you are looking at religions precisely, you cannot say that Buddhism is just one religion amongst others - D.T. Suzuki for example would point out that indeed Buddhism and the attitude it teaches, should be seen as the inevitable basis of all true religion (and I agree). For just one simple reason: if you strip it of all folkloristic ballast and institutional distractions and rites and habits (Buddhism was not immune to get distorted by these things like for example Jesus' teachings as well), then what you are left with, is simply this "teaching": "see things yourself, decide yourself, do not believe becausue something is said, is hear-say, is written down on old pergaments, is said by older men. Examine things yourself, your mind, and how it works, the way you perceive the world and experience your life. What is it that is looking through your eyes, and thinks of what it sees as "me" ? " Buddhism, in it's essential form, is the most radical empirism you can get to. In principal, belief and traditonal teachings and books have no room in it. But I admit that many Buddhist schools and traditions and representatives seem to have forgotten that, allowing it to get covered and hidden by rites and rituals like in any other religion, and superstition and earthly interests of influential priest's hierarchies and church-like institutions. But this is not what Buddha has taught. It'S also not what Jesus has taught.

In principal, atheism's sceptical attitude and Buddhism's empirical attitude and the methodology of science all three go very well together. None of these three compares to religious traditions like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or to political-religious systems like Islam, or economic-criminal systems like scientology, or purely political systems like facism or forms of democracy.

On the "competition" between science and religions, just this. Responsibly run science will never claim to know the last, the final, the ultimate answers. Science does not produce eternally lasting truths - only temporary theories. It does not explain the WHY of the universe, it focusses on examining and explaining the HOW, and it does so by principles that basically have not changed much since the ancient Greek have brought them up. Religion does not examine neither the WHY nor the HOW - it nevertheless just claims to have the uiltimate and final answer to the question of WHY, in modern days leaving the answer of the HOW to science (sometimes more sometimes less willingly). That's why from a standpoint of mental economy, for people like me believing in religions does not give us anything we think we need. It does nothing for us and does not help us a bit. If we stay within the realm of science, we will not know the WHY, and if we stay within the religions' realms, we still do not know the WHY - we just do not admit it and hide our lacking knowledge behind some arbitrary random fantasy that has not been checked, cannot be checked and never will be checked. But this unavailability of it for analytical examination does not make blind belief a virtue, nor does it turn it into more than what it is: just an arbitrary claim thought out by human minds, designed to take away a bit the horror humans feel in the face of their mortality and the big dark abyss at the end of our life. And what makes us think of it as darkness and an abyss that we fear, is not so much our knowledge about what manifestates that status as "darkness" and "abyss", but right our lack of knowledge about what it is.

Which brings us back, in a way, to the question of WHY.

[Sailor Steve]

Richard Dawkins makes a distinction between atheism and antitheism, which in ordinary language usually is ignored. The one means the conviction that gods do not exist, the other means to simply not be interested and not caring for whether gods exist or not.
That is an interesting choice of words. I would think an antitheist would be one who goes out of his way to attempt to prove that there is no god.

As for the bulk of your post, it's a good explanation of the realities of science, and the realities of religion.

[Diopos]

In physical sciences "theory" is just a "mind - game" until it is corroborated by empirical facts. A well developed theory not only points to to the "observables" that will corroborate it, but also states (explicitly or implicitly) the conditions under which it can be "falsified". No religion allows for its falsification. Science and religion therefore don't mix. Using principles of the former to consolidate a view within the context of the latter (or vica versa) can lead to only one of two things: poetry or bulls**t. In this case choose your words carefully and hope/pray you're a poet...


.

[DarkFish]

Sorry if I confused. If you cannot observe the action directly the theory has no value. Einstien, and all real science depends on this. That which cannot be directly observed is not science,For something to be science, you don't have to be able to directly observe it. Take Quantum Mechanics, nobody has ever seen electrons and such. Or maths. Ever "seen" a function? Nope, the most you see are some characters or a graph describing one.
Science is witnessing events, and then developing a theory behind it. It doesn't have to be able to be directly observed.

Whithout direct observation science fails. Thus atheism fails unless it is itsself a religion.Of course not. Atheists witness the same events as believers. They only have different explanations for things. Believers think "I can't explain X so it must be caused by a god", whereas none-believers think "I can't explain X so I'll wait until I can".

Sounds like religion. Christanity,Judaism, Muslim, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Sihkism, Cao Dai , etc; are all statements about belief.Nope, Atheism is a belief, not a religion. As an atheist you do belief something (namely that there are no gods), but atheism can't be a religion because it has no god.
To get things even more complicated, I consider myself a religious atheist:O: (I'm a Germanic Paganist, but I don't belief the gods really exist as living beings).

[Takeda Shingen]

Nope, Atheism is a belief, not a religion. As an atheist you do belief something (namely that there are no gods), but atheism can't be a religion because it has no god.
To get things even more complicated, I consider myself a religious atheist:O: (I'm a Germanic Paganist, but I don't belief the gods really exist as living beings).

Technically, atheism is the lack of belief. Belief, as I had said earlier, is the reliance on existential claim for validity. Atheism, by definition, does not rely on such claims and as such is not belief. So, what you have said about atheism not being a religion is certainly true, but for different reasons according to philisophical taxonomy.

[geetrue]

The finite end of my camera lens (me) can not figure out infinite end of my lens (God)

[nikimcbee]

I saw Pravda
...
I :haha:

Sweet free popcorn:woot:

oh yeah, pravda:haha:.

If you want a real laugh though, you need to listen to thr voice of Russia.:D

[Skybird]

In physical sciences "theory" is just a "mind - game" until it is corroborated by empirical facts. A well developed theory not only points to to the "observables" that will corroborate it, but also states (explicitly or implicitly) the conditions under which it can be "falsified". No religion allows for its falsification. Science and religion therefore don't mix. Using principles of the former to consolidate a view within the context of the latter (or vica versa) can lead to only one of two things: poetry or bulls**t. In this case choose your words carefully and hope/pray you're a poet...

Even a theory corroborated by empirical findings, remains to be that: a theory. You nprobably have heasred of what is just called "the black swan" nowadays: that one has never seen a black swan, does neithe rmean that all swasn are white and that no black swans exist. An empirically folunded theory, btw, is just natural - if it is not emporically founded, it more is a hypotheis than a theory. A theory can be a well-founded one, a dominant one, it can be a theory that can explain things more completely or more elegant ("easier"), maybe it even becomes a theoryso influential due to these factors that it lasts for long time and becomes a paradigm that influences how future theories are being formed or searched for. But still it is a theory, and it never is more than this. So-called nature's laws also are a form of theories only, wereason that these theories have a general validity in all nature. But it still is all our mental construction, our way to arrange observations in a way that it makes sense to us.

The real essence of things is hidden behind the veil of Maya. It is like mistaking matter with something "solid" although matter for the most, if not all, is just empty space, like a fast moving propeller gives the visual illusions of being a solid, transparent disc like made of grey glass. We do not discover a final, a real, a one-and-only reality - we invent it by the way we add meaning to it and by the way we approach it and by the way we add our system of ordering phenomenons to it. It is systemtical how we do it, yes. But it still is - our invention. Pragmatic in value and allowing us remarkable technical magic tricks - but still our own mindgame indeed.

Coincidence: today, this interview with a German cosmologist was published, in German. In what he says, the man could be me: http://www.focus.de/wissen/wissenschaft/mensch/schoepfung-ohne-schoepfer-das-universum-verschwindet-in-einem-zeitlosen-nebel_aid_548936.html

Nope, Atheism is a belief, not a religion. As an atheist you do belief something (namely that there are no gods), but atheism can't be a religion because it has no god.

Atheism is no belief in that being atheistic is the natural state in which we humans, and probbaly all anaimals, are being born. We humans then get fed with an artifical thought, that is describging the ecistence of somethging that before we have not heared of: a deity for example. This then is a belief. That does not make not sharing that belief, another belief. It is the absence of belief, and the returning to or the remaining in a natural state. We also are born naked. And if we do not wear clothes later on, our nakedness by that dpoes not become juist another form of dressing. It remains to be what it is: a natural state, a lack of dressing, an absence of clothes. Nudity is no special form of cloathes. It simply is what it is: nudity.

"Die Realität wird weniger von uns gefunden als vielmehr von uns erfunden." (Paul Watzlawick).

"What we see, never is nature, but only nature that is exposed to our way of asking questions about it." (Werner Heisenberg).

[Sailor Steve]

The finite end of my camera lens (me) can not figure out infinite end of my lens (God)
Which means that you don't really know that the infinite end is God, or even whether it's infinite. If we can't figure it out, then we're just guessing.

[The Third Man]

Which means that you don't really know that the infinite end is God, or even whether it's infinite. If we can't figure it out, then we're just guessing.

It is called faith. Unfortunately many don't have it in their lives.

[Sailor Steve]

It is called faith. Unfortunately many don't have it in their lives.
Though I no longer have it, I believe faith can be a wonderful thing. Unfortunately it's not proof, nor even evidence, so it's still guessing.

[Stealth Hunter]

In physical sciences "theory" is just a "mind - game" until it is corroborated by empirical facts. A well developed theory not only points to to the "observables" that will corroborate it, but also states (explicitly or implicitly) the conditions under which it can be "falsified". No religion allows for its falsification. Science and religion therefore don't mix. Using principles of the former to consolidate a view within the context of the latter (or vica versa) can lead to only one of two things: poetry or bulls**t. In this case choose your words carefully and hope/pray you're a poet...


.

Ultimately it comes down to being:

http://i51.tinypic.com/veox0h.jpg

[Diopos]

In science you are judged by your peers.
In religion by God.
Having "suffered" the first I would easily settle for the second. At least He is forgiving.

:)

.

[Skybird]

At least He is forgiving.
Who said I do? :O: I'm Klingon.


Aldous Huxley's Island is one piece of writing that I read and since then never have forgotten. In it, a little tractate is "qoted", called "Notes on What'S What" by the "old Raja". There is much wisdom in it.


Nobody needs to go anywhere else. We are all, if we only knew it, already there.
If I only knew who in fact I am, I should cease to behave as what I think I am; and if I stopped behaving as what I think I am, I should know who I am.
What in fact I am, if only the Manichee I think I am would allow me to know it, is the reconciliation of yes and no lived out in total acceptance and the blessed experience of Not-Two.
In religion all words are dirty words. Anyone who gets eloquent about Buddha, or God, or Christ, ought to have his mouth washed out with carbolic soap.
Because his aspiration to perpetuate only the "yes" in every pair of opposites can never, in the nature of things, be realized, the insulated Manichee I think I am condemns himself to endlessly repeated frustration, endlessly repeated conflicts with other aspiring and frustrated Manichees.
Conflicts and frustrations---the theme of all history and almost all biography. "I show you sorrow," said the Buddha realistically. But he also showed the ending of sorrow---self-knowledge, total acceptance, the blessed experience of Not-Two.

Knowing who in fact we are results in Good Being, and Good Being results in the most appropriate kind of good doing. But good doing does not of itself result in Good Being. We can be virtuous without knowing who in fact we are. The beings who are merely good are not Good Beings; they are just pillars of society.
Most pillars are their own Samsons. They hold up, but sooner or later they pull down. There has never been a society in which most good doing was the product of Good Being and therefore constantly appropriate. This does not mean that there will never be such a society or that we in Pala are fools for trying to call it into existence.

The Yogin and the Stoic---two righteous egos who achieve their very considerable results by pretending, systematically, to be somebody else. But it is not by pretending to be somebody else, even somebody supremely good and wise, that we can pass from insulated Manichee-hood to Good Being.
Good Being is knowing who in fact we are; and in order to know who in fact we are, we must first know, moment by moment, who we think we are and what that bad habit of thought compels us to feel and do. A moment of clear and complete knowledge of what we think we are, but in fact are not, puts a stop, for the moment, to the Manichean charade. If we renew, until they become a continuity, these moments of the knowledge of what we are not, we may find ourselves, all of a sudden, knowing who in fact we are.
Concentration, abstract thinking, spiritual exercises---systematic exclusions in the realm of thought. Asceticism and hedonism---systematic exclusions in the realms of sensation, feeling and action. But Good Being is in the knowledge of who in fact is in relation to all experiences. So be aware---aware in every context, at all times and whatever, creditable or discreditable, pleasant or unpleasant, you may be doing or suffering. This is the only genuine yoga, the only spiritual exercise worth practicing.
The more a man knows about individual objects, the more he knows about God. Translating Spinoza's language into ours, we can say: The more a man knows about himself in relation to every kind of experience, the greater his chance of suddenly, one fine morning, realizing who in fact he is---or rather Who (capital W) in Fact (capital F) "he" (between quotation marks) Is (capital I).
St. John was right. In a blessedly speechless universe, the Word was not only with God; it was God. As a something to be believed in. God is a projected symbol, a reified name. God = "God."
Faith is something very different from belief. Belief is the systematic taking of unanalyzed words much too seriously. Paul's words, Mohammed's words, Marx's words, Hitler's words---people take them too seriously, and what happens? What happens is the senseless ambivalence of history---sadism versus duty, or (incomparably worse) sadism as duty; devotion counterbalanced by organized paranoia; sisters of charity selflessly tending the victims of their own church's inquisitors and crusaders. Faith, on the contrary, can never be taken too seriously. For Faith is the empirically justified confidence in our capacity to know who in fact we are, to forget the belief-intoxicated Manichee in Good Being. Give us this day our daily Faith, but deliver us, dear God, from Belief.

Me as I think I am and me as I am in fact---sorrow, in other words, and the ending of sorrow. One third, more or less, of all the sorrow that the person I think I am must endure is unavoidable. it is the sorrow inherent in the human condition, the price we pay for being sentient and self-conscious organisms, aspirants to liberation, but subject to the laws of nature and under orders to keep on marching, through irreversible time, through a world entirely indifferent to our well-being, toward decrepitude and the certainty of death. The remaining two-thirds of sorrow is homemade and, so far as the universe is concerned, unnecessary.

"Patriotism is not enough." But neither is anything else. Science is not enough, religion is not enough, art is not enough, politics and economics are not enough, nor is love, nor is duty, nor is action however disinterested, nor, however sublime, is contemplation. Nothing short of everything will really do.

We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way. In Pala, after three generations of Reform, there are no sheeplike flocks and no ecclesiastical Good Shepherds to shear and castrate; there are no bovine or swinish herds and no licensed drovers, royal or military, capitalistic or revolutionary, to brand, confine and butcher. There are only voluntary associations of men and women on the road to full humanity.
Tunes or pebbles, processes or substantial things? "Tunes," answers Buddhism and modern science. "Pebbles," say the classical philosophers of the West. Buddhism and modern science think of the world in terms of music. The image that comes to mind when one reads the philosophers of the West is a Byzantine mosaic, rigid, symmetrical, made up of millions of little squares of some stony material and firmly cemented to the walls of a windowless basilica.
The dancer's grace and, forty years on, her arthritis---both are functions of the skeleton. It is thanks to an inflexible framework of bones that the girl is able to do her pirouettes, thanks to the same bones, grown a little rusty, that the grandmother is condemned to a wheelchair. Analogously, the firm support of a culture is the prime-condition of all individual originality and creativeness; it is also their principal enemy. The thing in whose absence we cannot possibly grow into a complete human being is, all too often, the thing that prevents us from growing.
A century of research on the moksha-medicine has clearly shown that quite ordinary people are perfectly capable of having visionary or even fully liberating experiences. In this respect the men and women who make and enjoy high culture are no better off than the low brows. High experience is perfectly compatible with low symbolic expression.
The expressive symbols created by Palanese artists are no better than the expressive symbols created by artists elsewhere. Being the products of happiness and a sense of fulfillment, they are probably less moving, perhaps less satisfying aesthetically, than the tragic or compensatory symbols created by victims of frustration and ignorance, of tyranny, war and guilt-fostering, crime-inciting superstitions. Palanese superiority does not lie in symbolic expression but in art which, though higher and far more valuable than all the rest, can yet be practiced by everyone--the art of adequately experiencing, the art of being more intimately acquainted with all the worlds that, as human beings, we find ourselves inhabiting. Palanese culture is not be judged as (for lack of any better criterion) we judge other cultures. It is not to be judged by the accomplishments of a few gifted manipulators of artistic or philosophic symbols. No, it is to be judged by what all the members of the community, the ordinary as well as the extraordinary, can and do experience in every contingency and at each successive intersection of time and eternity.

Dualism. . . Without it there can hardly be good literature. With it, there most certainly can be no good life.
"I" affirms a separate and abiding me-substance; "am" denies the fact that all existence is relationship and change. "I am." Two tiny words, but what an enormity of untruth! The religiously-minded dualist calls homemade spirits from the vasty deep; the nondualist calls the vasty deep into his spirit or, to be more accurate, he finds that the vasty deep is already there.

[TLAM Strike]

Who said I do? :O: I'm Klingon.

But if you are one of the the Klingon Gods then you are dead, killed by your creation... (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Klingon_religion)

:D

[Oberon]

Oh, out-nerded, good call TLAM Strike! :haha:

But seriously though...Pravda? :har:

Oh, and not about Obama but mentions his name in the first two sentences... :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

In science you are judged by your peers.
In religion by God.
Having "suffered" the first I would easily settle for the second. At least He is forgiving.

:)

.
Have a look at Stealth Hunter's picture above. You say "He" is forgiving. How do you know this? How do you know "He" exists at all?

You don't. Everything you believe may indeed be true. But so may everything the Muslims believe. Or the ancient Greeks and Romans. Or none of it may be true. Do you have any evidence you can show?

At least science and reason can judge things based on what we see. You have to judge things based on what cannot be proven, or shown.

[Diopos]

Steve,
you probably missed my earlier post :03:

.

[Skybird]

But if you are one of the the Klingon Gods then you are dead, killed by your creation... (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Klingon_religion)

:D
I'm the new boss-god: communist, lesbian and a Klingon slut. ;)

[TLAM Strike]

I'm the new boss-god: communist, lesbian and a Klingon slut. ;)

Finally a Deity I can believe in! :O:

[Sailor Steve]

Steve,
you probably missed my earlier post :03:

.
That was you? I don't know what to say. Okay, I apologize. :sunny:

[Diopos]

[QUOTE=Sailor Steve;1505503
...I don't know what to say. Okay, I apologize. :sunny:[/QUOTE]

No need to! :)

.

[frau kaleun]

I'm the new boss-god: communist, lesbian and a Klingon slut. ;)

...Mom?

[Méo]

@ Stealth Hunter

Really cool picture! :DL

[Diopos]

Ultimately it comes down to being:

http://i51.tinypic.com/veox0h.jpg

Stealth,
The "Science" part is RIGHT ON! :up:
The "Religion" part needs to include:

a "Spread the faith" box
a "Judgement" box
"End" box must be replaced with some sort of "Eternity" box.
And for us of monotheistic origin where is the Paradise/Hell junction?.

Must be reworked.
Repent and contact your local pastor ...

.

[antikristuseke]

A supplemental image
http://mattcbr.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/break-the-cycle.jpg

[Méo]

The "Religion" part needs to include:

"End" box must be replaced with some sort of "Eternity" box.

It depends on YOUR faith. ;)

----

hehe another good one!