How sure are you of your belief/non-belief in a god?

[limpid]

Which came first, the teapot or the tea? and what about the milk? and the sugar?

and what kind of tea?

We could each have our own, personal religion. Just like having a personal god.

[Sie]

Which came first, the teapot or the tea? and what about the milk? and the sugar?

and what kind of tea?

We could each have our own, personal religion. Just like having a personal god.

No. You will drink the tea that grew in The Garden of Teaden, as it is written on the holy milk carton. All other teas are false prophets.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

There's nothing arrogant in being incredibly proud of everything humans have discovered about reality. We know a considerable amount about reality. Really, a lot.

We only give meaning and understanding to a reality which we percieve.

That's the big flaw right there, it is what we see. Granted, we understand a lot and give plenty of reason and logic to the world around us, but that doesn't make it true.

It's like tuning a guitar, you can tune it so it is in tune with itself, and you can play songs and not find too much wrong, but that doesn't mean it's tuned to C or D, does it?

Religion provides **** all and I hate it with a passion, it too is merely mans understanding of the world only from a different time period.

As with 'God' i have no feelings, for I don't believe that he/she/it/thing exists.

I don't hate the monkey dancing on the table because there is no monkey dancing on the table, but i **** hate those pretending the monkey is dancing on the table to help provide cheer to their sorry ass lives.

[Sie]

There's nothing arrogant in being incredibly proud of everything humans have discovered about reality. We know a considerable amount about reality. Really, a lot.

We only give meaning and understanding to a reality which we percieve.

That's the big flaw right there, it is what we see. Granted, we understand a lot and give plenty of reason and logic to the world around us, but that doesn't make it true..

Yep, thats the psuedo-philosophical crap I'm talking about also known as the TAG argument dealing with logical absolutes. It's apologetics and a more complex form of "ahh but science doesn't know anything!".

Of course we only give meaning to the reality we perceive - how else are we supposed to measure reality? If we have to consider that we can't percieve a reality that we must also measure to find truths (rendering it unmeasurable) then we might as well just give up investigating anything right now as a species. Truths are relevant to our existence and a concept outside of that, one that has zero impact on anything due to being conceptual, is irrelevant to the argument. It's merely a diversionary tactic to avoid the argument at hand - a religious person being defeated when arguing God's existence in reality and then going on the backfoot, jumping to God's existence outside of time/space/reality to try and completely dismiss the reach of human science. It's moving the goalposts to protect the God hypothesis.

As far as we're concerned, shared, observable reality is all that can possibly matter to us when it comes to the argument of truth. To give credence to the thought experiment that reality is an illusion is asinine because we don't exist in that "other reality" (whatever that is) and so it becomes irrelevant.

What you have attributed to a flaw is actually a diversionary tactic. We don't live in The Matrix.

[Sie]

It's like tuning a guitar, you can tune it so it is in tune with itself, and you can play songs and not find too much wrong, but that doesn't mean it's tuned to C or D, does it?

Your analogy doesn't work because C and D are merely labels we have attributed to certain naturally occurring frequencies that are still measurable quantities within the total range of sound frequencies. The frequencies between the ones we have attributed labels to such as 428Hz (a few Hz below A if you're wondering) still exist within reality and we can quite easily give them labels if we want (instead, we refer to micro-tuning)

I do know what you're getting at though but like I said in my last post, it's irrelevant if we are out to find truths evident to us.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

It's merely a diversionary tactic to avoid the argument at hand - a religious person being defeated when arguing God's existence in reality and then going on the backfoot, jumping to God's existence outside of time/space/reality to try and completely dismiss the reach of human science. It's moving the goalposts to protect the God hypothesis.

I don't see the relevance to my arguement? I don't believe in God nor am I religious.

I am saying that what we think we understand can be just as false as religion, people place such blind faith in religion and science that they are reluctant to accept that their faith is all in vain and they dont like it one bit.

We won't understand our existence any time soon because we aren't evolved enough. In a few million years maybe we can, but it'll take a lot of thinking from far outside the current box which limits us into measuring and applying reason to a reality which our mind creates for us.

There is more power within our minds than we give it credit for, unfortunately religion limits billions of people from delving into the depths of their minds, and science fools us into thinking we are on the right track.

We don't live in The Matrix.

What makes you so sure?

[villadude]

We don't live in The Matrix.

What makes you so sure?

Would you take the blue pill, or the red one?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Would you take the blue pill, or the red one?

Red, my penis works fine.

[Sie]

I don't see the relevance to my arguement? I don't believe in God nor am I religious.

I know, I'm merely speaking about the 3rd person, not you specifically. I know you're a non believer like myself.

We won't understand our existence any time soon because we aren't evolved enough. In a few million years maybe we can, but it'll take a lot of thinking from far outside the current box which limits us into measuring and applying reason to a reality which our mind creates for us.

What are you using to form the basis of this statement? What you are doing here is sewing a conceptual seed of doubt. A doubt just as baseless and unmeasurable as someone asserting the existence of God. Ideas existing in the mind do not supersede reality existing outside of it when it comes to determining truths. If we are to assert that they do then we merely fall down the rabbit hole and get nowhere.

If someone wants to assert the existence of a God outside of our reality then that's fine but what relevance does that have to us? None as it is the same as not existing when it comes to establishing truths in our shared reality.

Reality is not reliant upon on a mind to perceive it and is measurable outside of the mind.

[El Zen]

Reality is not reliant upon on a mind to perceive it and is measurable outside of the mind.

Yep.

I would go as far as saying arguing otherwise is academic masturbation.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

What are you using to form the basis of this statement? What you are doing here is sewing a conceptual seed of doubt.

I am merely making a personal observation, deduced from what i see around me. We are a young, very very young species in comparison to other species on our planet and who knows what else out there. It is only natural to assume we have yet to evolve further as that is what all animals on this earth do, they evolve constantly yet steadily.

Do i have scientific fact to back my opinions? Well no, as I can't predict how much we will evolve and nor can anyone. But is it not fair to assume we will progress as a species and thus become wiser and more intelligent?

Yes I am casting a doubt, because that is what we should all do. We shouldn't take Science for face value just as much as we shouldn't take religion as face value. I accept that to believe in Science is far more logical than religion, and to an extent I agree. I will still turn to Science to prove/disprove the majority of problems I deal with in every day life as i respect the work humanity has put into developing a knowledge of the reality it finds itself in.

I understand that people take comfort in the knowledge that Science provides these cold hard statistics and gives rational and logical explainations for the goings on in the Universe, and a lot of them maybe true but the point I am making is that despite all this it could just be all bollocks and that one must be willing to accept that, just as a religious person must be willing to accept they be wrong.

But alas, i know this is not the case.

Reality is not reliant upon on a mind to perceive it and is measurable outside of the mind.

And how does one measure this reality that exists outside the mind?

[Sie]

Well, I had just written a long winded response but then I realised we're going to end up discussing TAG in all its full glory which is **** exhaustive so I think I'll leave it there.

So err, yeah, carry on thread!

[limpid]

I can't carry on, you subjugated my teapot belief system with your rationality and the teapot god went the way of the tooth fairy.

[Sie]

I can't carry on, you subjugated my teapot belief system with your rationality and the teapot god went the way of the tooth fairy.

What nonsense. Just move the goalposts for defining the Teapot God. Simple.

[regular_john]

What are you using to form the basis of this statement? What you are doing here is sewing a conceptual seed of doubt.

I am merely making a personal observation, deduced from what i see around me. We are a young, very very young species in comparison to other species on our planet and who knows what else out there. It is only natural to assume we have yet to evolve further as that is what all animals on this earth do, they evolve constantly yet steadily.

Do i have scientific fact to back my opinions? Well no, as I can't predict how much we will evolve and nor can anyone. But is it not fair to assume we will progress as a species and thus become wiser and more intelligent?

Yes I am casting a doubt, because that is what we should all do. We shouldn't take Science for face value just as much as we shouldn't take religion as face value. I accept that to believe in Science is far more logical than religion, and to an extent I agree. I will still turn to Science to prove/disprove the majority of problems I deal with in every day life as i respect the work humanity has put into developing a knowledge of the reality it finds itself in.

I understand that people take comfort in the knowledge that Science provides these cold hard statistics and gives rational and logical explainations for the goings on in the Universe, and a lot of them maybe true but the point I am making is that despite all this it could just be all bollocks and that one must be willing to accept that, just as a religious person must be willing to accept they be wrong.

But alas, i know this is not the case.

Reality is not reliant upon on a mind to perceive it and is measurable outside of the mind.

And how does one measure this reality that exists outside the mind?

I would imagine we'd evolve very little if we carry on as we are. Evolution doesn't just happen with the passage of time, it requires selective pressure to drive the process. As it stands, there is practically no selective pressure on the human race, apart from incredibly superficial things like certain desirable attributes

[Chindie]

I went for 3. On the evidence there is (i.e. none) I'm certain there is no deity. Of course, that would change if evidence proving beyond doubt it existed arose - however I'm certain that won't happen either.

It's not a particularly logical standpoint, but it's one of the few things that I tend to draw the line on don't make concessions on. If that makes me close minded on this subject, so be it. It's a subject worth being close minded to.

[Sie]

I would imagine we'd evolve very little if we carry on as we are. Evolution doesn't just happen with the passage of time, it requires selective pressure to drive the process. As it stands, there is practically no selective pressure on the human race, apart from incredibly superficial things like certain desirable attributes

That's not strictly true. Evolution is defined as change over time via mutations in the gene pool and nothing more. Evolution occures regardless of outside influence. Natural selection however, which is what your definition covers, steps in to determine what mutations are successful and which are not.

I would argue that there are indeed elements of selective pressure acting on humans today. They're mainly social and geopolitical rather than survival based but there's a case to be made as to how they govern what genes are more successful than others.

[Chindie]

Indeed evolution happens just by us having children, we don't need a selective pressure.

The example that springs to mind is our kidneys - they're in the wrong place for a bipedal animal, too low down where they're vulnerable. Gradually, very gradually, they're migrating upwards in the species to be fully protected by the ribcage.

EDIT - evolution in humans is unlikely to be that drastic other than things like resistance to diseases and so on though - we've rather nicely found our niche and fulfill it with glee, in our form we don't really need to change much. At a less obvious level we've things to change.

[bickster]

humans little toes are getting smaller too, eventually to disappear they think

[Si.]

Its gotta be 4 for me.

I find it hard to believe that a loving God would bring so much suffering to the world. That he would of wanted the Spanish Inquisition. That he would want his bishops and priests to abuse children.

Now, if you went to a Vicar and said that to him he would reply that it was a test of faith. But if God exists surely he would make us all believe in him so he wouldn't need to test our faith? Infact if God exists, he would already know what the outcome of this poll would be..

But now moving away from the Idea of a "God" what about an afterlife? Does anybody believe that we all go somewhere when we die? I find it very, very hard to accept everything "just goes dark" & thats it.