actually, science came out of the philosophical tradition opposite of apriorism, which is empiricism. science is based on making observations and deriving generalizations from those observations: induction, not deduction. in practice, it's always a mixed bag.



it is absolutely NOT easier to be an atheist. you have to go against the mainstream. you have to arrive at your ethics instead of simply regurgitating what's preached at you. you still have to do everything else to survive, but now there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow urging you on. and yes, you still need faith, even if it's not faith in god. i personally put my faith in people: that we're all basically good, equally capable of change and growth, and deserving of a fair chance in life. can you imagine how difficult it is to believe that people are basically good when i'm confronted with so much depravity, ignorance and shallowness in the world? it most certainly is not. if anything, i'd say it's easier to believe in god: he probably won't ignite a bush in front of you to challenge your beliefs (though, it's been, what, 5,000 years? maybe he's overdue).

if you're kind to others, have a gentile spirit and a warm heart, i admire you. but please don't assume you've got it so much harder because you've picked one belief over another; it's kind of offensive to those of us who've thought at great length and pain to discern who we are against the normative grain.

The funny thing about random number generators is that even though they are random enough for the task set to them they are not truly random at all. There is always a pattern eventually it just happens to be as complex as the program that generates the pattern which is usually complex enough to seem random even though it isn't. So maybe you are right and it is like a random number generator but that doesn't mean there isn't a pattern just that its too complex to discern with any reasonable amount of time or effort.

One common issue raised by religious people is that science cannot prove everything, that ultimately a higher being is responsible. But that's not the goal of science. Science wants to extend our knowledge as much as possible. But knowing everything will be impossible, because unfortunately one cannot describe a system with the means of the system itself. Logically it all falls back to Gödel's incompleteness theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems).

Now there are the following options:
1) A higher being does not exist
2a) A higher being does exist within our universe
2b) A higher being does exist outside our universe

Case 1 is no problem.
Case 2a is solved easily: Since the higher being would be part of our universe, it follows the same rules and thus is not a higher being.

Most problematic is case 2b. But then again we have to view it from a broader angle: See our universe as subset of the universe of the assumed higher being. Two cases:
i) He can and does influence our universe. Due to that we can deduce information about his universe, reducing it again to case 2a.
ii) He can't (or doesn't) influence our universe. Same as case 1, unproblematic.

Conclusion: Higher beings either do not exist. The universe just is, it did not get created.

[quote]The funny thing about random number generators is that even though they are random enough for the task set to them they are not truly random at all.[quote]

That's the definition of a pseudo-random number generator.

However, there are some true random number generators. You could for example measure resistor noise in a circuit. To predict its behavior, you would have to know the exact state of the universe, which obviously isn't possible.

Alternatively you could measure radioactive decay or the generation of virtual particles in a vacuum, just to name some examples.

It is actually a detriment to understanding the Torah using english. In hebrew the word many english speaking people read as God or He is actually one of many words, one of the most common being Elohim which is plural for goddess/gods. Another is Eheyah sp? which was at least originally if not still the only word in the hebrew language that was not masculine or feminine or any particular tense past,present, or future. It basically means I who exists although it can be transliterated as I am that I am or any number of other not quite right concepts.The one most accurately translated to He is El which was also the name of the dominant caananite god. A big bull whos son baal was agolden calf. If you know the story of moses these facts are of special importance and show how at least some beliefs of conquered neigbors where assimilated into the belief structure for cultural reasons and control of a populace and then later supressed for the same reasons. My point is that the passage of time and the proselytizing (active spreading) of the books (it's more than one) to so many different people has irreversably changed the meaning and context which it was created. Whether this is good or bad I don't know but it definantly changes the whole paradigm involved. Not being a follower of any of the Big Three that sprang from the middle east I really don't care much about any of this for my personal beliefs but it strikes me as odd how few of the followers of those religions actively seek out the history of their religion or at least try to obtain a copy of some of these books in their earlier forms in the original (or close to it) language they can. I am not saying ever Christian should go to a seminary college but many that I have known do not even know anything about Judaism which is according to tradition where Christianity sprang from. I would assume the same would hold true for the other two big religions of the world these days. Perhaps if more than a cursory understanding of their competitors was obtained there would be less conflict all around.

[quote]
[quote]The funny thing about random number generators is that even though they are random enough for the task set to them they are not truly random at all.
It's not possible for me but thats not the same as impossible. And you also are assuming based on current knowledge that such natural phenomenon is truly random and not just undocumented. For most of your examples a better understanding and documentation of quantum mechanics would make those results more predictable. For an all knowing all seeing deity (going back to the original metaphor of chance=god) such results would be simple to predict.

dystopic;

You are correct that early texts do mention other religions and gods. However, the spirit and intent of the text is that Moses's people should reject the other gods (releigions) in favor of God.
You must also take into account that back then, Juddaism existed at a time when monotheism was fairly rare, so it would be implicit in its teachings to actively reject other religions (And transition to from polytheism to monotheism). That would make logical sense.

Again I'm refering to the western Civ's and Thier religions. Eastern civ developed differently and had different influences.

You did catch what I was going for the "we're right, you're wrong, and you're bringing everything down because of it" type mentality that permiates thorughout our (and other) cultures, especially when it comes to religion. I'm glad we are in general agreement about the deeper conflict between people's beliefs.

The thing is how much do we really know about the universe? Sometimes laws or rules we discovered now may get refuted later when more discoveries are made. Maybe, there's an higher being. However, since the whole universe consist of energy, maybe the god that you mention is also a form of energy that has gathered sufficient knowledge and memories and that, since we know not much about the universe, maybe there are some laws and rules that can be bend. Maybe this higher energy(i don't like to call him god though), know how to bend laws.

I realize that western religion and mid eastern religion loves to impose their beliefs onto others and keep preaching, interfering with science whereas eastern religion prefer to just keep quiet. Quietness is good. The rest are so noisy. Noise pollution. Should just shut up.

To those who said, the western world has more impact when it comes to discoveries and science. Oh well, that shows that you didn't know where did the paper come from? Where does gunpowder come from? Where does the world first rocket come from? Where does the world first compass come from? Where did the world first paper note (money) come from? Where did the world first printer come from? All from the east. Without all these, you guys on the west will still be writing and carving in stones, using rocks and rubbles as money, will still be struggling to navigate through the world. You guys will still be using swords to fight. With these inventions, will the west still be able to colonize Asia, navigate around the world? Most of your important inventions that starts later were jump started by the east and you guys didn't even show appreciation.

You guys also seem not to realize that most mathematical theories come from the Middle East. Without Middle East and East to jump start everything, the western societies will still be well, I don't know what they will look like.

To those who said that god was witnessed by people and was passed down. How long was that? more than 2 thousand years ago. Just like you say something now, do you think that the words that you said will still be the same 2 thousand years later after being translated into several other languages of that time?

How long ago? Well, since my denomination believes in a restoration of living Prophets, we have a continual flow of scripture. I can't give you an exact date that God last appeared to them, but the last time they gave Revelation to the Church was about two weeks ago.

Your argument is actually one of the things our Church is most proud of (we point it out all the time), because there are only two denominations that claim direct Apostolic authority and revelation from God: mine (which I mentioned in my last post) and the Catholics.

I think you are wrong Feud since I claim direct Apostolic authority and revelation from God. In fact an angel told me to dig in the yard last week and I found a golden tablet that informed me I was the newest Apostle since Elvis and that if I would only eat the moldy bread on my kitchen counter I would be able to speak directly to Jesus herself and she would tell me the path to enlightenment and righteousness. I also found out some interesting things about casseroles and that Saint Peter was a cross-dresser because he found the ladies knickers to be more comfortable and not because of any perverse sexual bent he may have had. I personally could not care less what Peter wore under his smock but the casserole recipes have been a lifesaver. Ok I appologize for the extreme sarcasm but I am leaving it intact because I think it will make someone else laugh.

In all due honesty even though I respect your dedication to your religion even if I have absolutely no faith in it at all, I have to say that claiming that your religion and perhaps one other is directly descended from God's chosen few is the kind of tenant of faith that causes division. Do you believe that only your church is blessed by your god to teach the world about what is right and that all others are doomed? Is your way truly the only way to heaven? If I happen to be Southern Baptist am I going to hell or am I safe and do your Apostles have the authority to decide I am safe today and change their mind and yours tommorow? I see that these questions where not your point but they are relevant to what you said none the lesser. I do not believe there was an end to prophets or seers or any such thing either and from my understanding of the Christian texts I have read (Book of Mormon included) it seems to me that all who truly follow the teachings in them including proselytizing (witnessing is what I hear it most commonly called) would be considered Apostles and that the original number of twelve seems contrived at a later date than 1 AD. All that being said I still think its very convenient and dangerous for any religious group to consider itself the one true path and all others to be tainted, profane imitators. I think Jesus would agree with my last statement even if he turned me into a toad for the others.

I saw the report on the news about that new creation musium in America. And they were saying how offended the general scientific comunity was by it.

I was confused as to why they were offended? last i heard, the theory of evolution was still a theory??

so if somone puts forward an alternative theory, what right do they have to be offended?

I believe there is a God. Look at the balance of evidence between the existence and the non-existence of God.
On the one hand, there are many people throughout history that claim to have seen angels, even talk with God. There are people who claim to have come back from the dead and give detailed descriptions of the afterlife. There have been miracles in countless people's lives which are beyond modern science's ability to explain, and which are best explained by the intervention of deity. Finally, we have the earth, the universe, and life itself, which is so remarkable in complexity and organization that I find it hard to believe there isn't some grand, divine design behind it.

Offended? Most people I know found that hilarious.



That is incorrect. In fact, the study proved the opposite.

I have no problem with a Creationism museum per say but this particular incarnation of the belief is pretty darn far from any sort of known fact. Sure evolution is still a theory but the earth is proven to be far older than 6k years. Even written history goes back farther than that if you take into account Sumerian literature which is older than any biblical texts unless you consider that stories of Gilgamesh in Sumerian closely mirror similar stories about biblical patriarchs. I don't think its so much the idea of creationism that gets me upset its a mix of the biased way in which its presented and where it is being presented at. It is being presented by a literal interpretation of Genesis and although I probably believe more in Genesis than any non-christian I have ever met I do not believe that the majority of it was ever meant to be literal and there are more than a few biblical scholars who agree, so there are many different ways to take creationism and even though the theory of evolution as provided by Darwin is most probably flawed by the fact that since it has been proposed there has not been a single observed instance of a new species forming, it is still more logically sound and supported by the facts than a 6,000 year old earth. My other problem is where it is being built. I live in Kentucky which like other Southern states is considered to be educationally bankrupt. We have about a 40% adult illiteracy rate. We are 47th in the country when it comes to residents holding bachelors degrees. In the last ten years Kentucky has strived to improve its education and the particular area I live in actually has a much higher rate of literacy and degree holders but being the first to have a museum dedicated to the most unproven and uncomprimising form of creationism is not going to make us look any smarter and there is a real danger that schools around the area (honestly we have some poor counties out here) will toss out teaching darwins theory at all in favor of a christian secular curriculum which is fine as long as my taxes stop paying for their education but then again my states education suffers anyway. Bah time to move to Canada.

Sorry for the double post (or parts of it). I posted by accident before I had finished my statement. Here is the full reply.

I believe there is a God. Look at the balance of evidence between the existence and the non-existence of God.
On the one hand, there are many people throughout history that claim to have seen angels, even talk with God. There are people who claim to have come back from the dead and give detailed descriptions of the afterlife. There have been miracles in countless people's lives which are beyond modern science's ability to explain, and which are best explained by the intervention of deity. Finally, we have the earth, the universe, and life itself, which is so remarkable in complexity and organization that I find it hard to believe there isn't some grand, divine design behind it.
On the other hand, those who do not believe in a God have no evidence for God's non-existence other their own philosophy. I haven't heard of any witnesses for atheism, just a general lack of belief. Simply because modern science has a difficult time proving the existence of a God, doesn't disprove his (or if you prefer, her or its) existence. If God does not want to be discovered by some experiment, no mortal would be able to do so.
Of course, we could choose to believe that all the witnesses of God, angels and miracles throughout history are either all liars or all deluded. I myself find it easier to believe in the positive evidence that points to the existence of a God. I can understand people who are not sure that there is a God, but to actively assert that there is no God seems to going further than any evidence allows. Just because any of us haven't been witness to some miracle or communication from God, doesn't rule out the possibility that others have. We can either believe their claims or write them off as liars and nuts. My heart tells me, however, there is more to many of the claims than just lies and hallucinations.

Rubbish!, even for those who do not believe in the power of prayor, it is common knowledge that the power of positive thinking is a healing force.




I will give your post some credit and say that yes some Christians can have a tendancy to overlook some basic facts. However on the other hand, i think there are probably quite a number of so called 'established facts' that perhaps are not quite as established as one might imagine!

First of all, what I said was accurate, no other denomination beside mine and the Catholics claimto have unbroken lines of Apostholic succession. It isn't a matter of beign high and mighty, it is a matter that as part of thier official doctrines they other denominations don't maker the claim. They say they are are a direct line from Peter, we say the line came through a restoration. No one else makes any such claim.

Don't blame me that they didn't do so, it isn't my fault that they don't claim it. Saying such would be akin to saying that I am being high and mighty for saying that only myself and three others claim to be born from my parents. The other church's certainly claim to have authority, but not in the smae manner that we do, they claim authority based upon being believers in Chriist, not on a line of authority.

As for what Church is "true", Christ taught that "straight is the gate and anrrow is the way" that leds to Heaven. It is the obligation of every person who calls Himself a Christian to search out all truth, and reject all error. If one's beliefs are in error, it is thier obligation to search for the truth, and embrace it when they find it.

As for our Apostles, they make the same claim to Authority and Responsability as did the Apostles of old. Take from that what you will.

You mentioned your reading of the Book of Mormon, then made the statement that you saw no evidnece of the Apostleship being set at twelve until "much later then 1 AD". I will first assume that your time frame is a mistake, since no one claims that, since the Savior would be less then ten years old at 1 AD, and no where near the age that He first begain his ministry. Further, the Book of Mormon makes the exact opposite claim, it specifically says that when the Savior first came to the America's that he called twelve the very first day. Further, the Four Gosepels of the New Testament clearly state that twelve were called, and Acts chapter 1 speaks explicitly of filling the vacancy that Judas left.

Now, many debate the Bible, I understand that. But what your conclusion about what you claim to have read in The Book of Mormon openly contradicts it's content, which leds me to believe that you either didn't read the whole thing, or have forgotten what it contains. In either case, I would urge to to reread it, as it is a great witness of the Living Christ.

As for "one true path", everyone will recieve some measure of reward for their deeds, both good and evil. I am quite sure that there are many Muslims, Baptists, Meathodists, Buddists, Hindu's, Jews, Catholics, and others who will enjoy a paradise much grander then some Mormons. However, in order to recieve ALL of the blessing s that our Father wants us to enjoy, we must be willing to learn and follow ALL of His teachings (doing the very best we can since we are certainly not perfect). As the New Testament says, "One Lrod, One Faith, and One Baptism".

In order for everyone to come to a "unity of the faith" (as Paul called it), He set up a specific structure and organization so that His truth can be taught to the people, and so they could gather and worship together in truth. That Church fell away, and was restored in 1830 through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

I would implore you to take the time to learn further about my Church, if for no other reason then the fact that you seem to have little to no understandign what we actually believe and why (which is by no means meant to be an insult, I'm still trying to understand more about Scientologists but haven't had a chance to sit down with a member and get direct answers to my questions). Misinformation leds to misunderstanding, and misunderstanding leds to conflicts and hurt feelings.

Your comments reminded me of somthing that happened to me a while back....

I was watching the news one day and the repoter was detailing some bad things that had happened to this family. As he reported the details a thought suddenly struck me like a flash of light,,, "their Christians". As the story continued, sure enough, it turned out they were Christians, and i knew it because of the bad things that happened to them.... scary eh?

That moment in my life has vexed me for many years, well especially since i am a Christian myself.

Mystikmind, I'm not sure I follow what you are saying above. Could you expand on this a bit? What made you think they were Christians? How does this relate to what I was saying?



As for that study being rubbish, I couldn't possibly comment. Even as a lifelong atheist who has never once in my life prayed for anything, I was surprised to find that positive thinking -- in the form of prayer, anyway -- can have a detrimental effect. It does seem counter-intuitive, I agree.

I don't really have an agenda to promote in showing you that article, other than to say that what that Achronous mentioned was incorrect (unless, perhaps, he was referring to something else). For a person to doubt the veracity of the article or the study itself is perfectly reasonable -- we should all be skeptical, all of the time! But to say that it proved the opposite of what it did prove is, to put it mildly, dangerous and, sadly, just the kind of thing I expect from people with a religious or political agenda to push.

It is, nevertheless, difficult to believe, I agree.

I see that other people continue to call atheism a religion, which I must admit to finding a bit odd. Not offensive, really... just strange. Atheism is a philosophy, certainly, but it is not in fact a religion. No more so than, say, existentialism or conservatism are, for example. Atheism is to Religion as Anarchy is to Government... make sense?

I also find it amazing that some people continue to ask we atheists to prove that God does not exist, which is really rather ridiculous. Just as a Christian cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, I cannot prove that your God does not. How could I? Why would I? I think, from such questions, that some people are seriously misunderstanding the nature of atheism. Which is fine, I guess, but wikipedia is just a click away. If you want to criticize and/or debate atheists, I think you should do yourselves a favour and try to understand what exactly they are first.

I think people in this thread might also appreciate this story. It might even be interesting from a GalCiv2 perspective, too, amazingly enough

There are other Churches that claim an apostolic succession though not so direct as the two you state and often because their founders where ordained by the Catholic Church even though they are far from its grasp now. My comments about Apostles was based on the idea that Jesus had many more disciples than 12 and that many of them fulfilled missions for god equal to those achieved by the agreed upon apostles. There are many "gospels" omitted from your bibles that are not written by those twelve, and some of them describe miracles done by other disciples as well as "revelations" by other disciples. And as far as my date of 1AD I was placing his birth at about 18 BC to make up for the inconsistencies of AD dating in the first place since it was adopted 500 years after the date it reveres. There are also many texts omitted from your bibles that talk about Jesus' ministry starting as a child. The issue of our differences is not that I have not studied your religion it is more that I don't agree with many of its basic teachings. I say basic but to you they will seem secondary. I have no problem with living a good life focusing on family and heritage and trying to be healthy and as far as sects of Christianity go I would say Mormons know more about the origins of their religion than most any other average follower of Christianity. But the many books of the bible you hold so dear where written for many different reasons by many different people and the fact that those people claim divine inspiration and geneological descent from biblical patriarchs does not convince me of their intentions. Leviticus and Judges are good examples. Written by members of one tribe to control through a claim of orthodoxy the cultures of the other tribes and unite them under common rule. Cultural dominance 101.
I feel I need to point out once again that I am in no way Christian. I think it is a religion that has been mauled by the passage of times and too many hands in the basket. Your comments about everyone receiving their rewards doesn't really sit well in my gut, I was under the impression that your religion teaches that only those who are saved and believe in your doctrines will go to the highest heaven, is that wrong? Doesn't even the Jew have to accept Jesus as the Messiah in your belief system to be accepted into the arms of the all father? My fate according to your beliefs is that I will sit in purgatory for a good long while before Jesus comes and lets me out after I thoroughly am punished. Yeah sounds like the same stuff I was raised on with some added twists and it didn't make sense back then either. You are right though the book of mormon is in my trunk and I haven't read it in years. It was given to me by a nice gentleman standing outside of a Wal-Mart trying to convert the masses. I told him I thought that God was everything and everywhere and could I have his bible and he handed it over with a confused look. I will be sure to study your religion more if for no other reason than to try to figure out why you believe Apostolic succession is important and why you think rituals like baptism and commitment to a supposed avatar are paramount to a righteous life if you promise to read some of the gnostic texts like the gospel of st mary and the gospel of st thomas if for no other reason than to understand that even at its beginnings Christianity was not as cut and dry as it is made out to be.

Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
P.S I am not a gnostic either.

Hi!





Strange love I'd say.

I'm glad you belive your prayers are answered. But since you refuse to recognize you can't post an answer to this post with a prayer, I'm out of this "discussion". Good luck! You'll need it.

BR, Iztok

@ ghostwes that story almost had me converted to Atheism of all things lol. If only it hadn't had a god in it I might have bit the forbidden fruit.

Haha, I didn't post that in an attempt to convert anyone -- it's just a very cool story, in my opinion. Makes one think.

You know, when most people talk about "intelligent design", I tend to sigh, shake my head and stop listening. But that story almost makes me consider it as a possibility, albeit not in the way that most religious types mean it.

Anyway, it is a good read

I'm personally a Human   and proud of it. I don't care to be controlled or made to serve anyone or anything, and I advocate behavior as the litmus test of validity for anyone, or anything, or any religion, or any society ... etc.

Mythology opened my eyes to other Human's similar struggles across the globe and across time, when I took time to read some works by Joseph Campbell [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell]. Buddhism opened my eyes to the sheer unknowable immensity of God (the Void) when I found a text that wasn't too out-of-context for me to start to understand [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Heart]. Mysticism helped me understand how to start thinking in a larger framework and not to fear understanding things larger than myself that I was not capable of controlling. Christianity and related religions helped me understand the ultimate futility of pretending to be God.

I've said before and I'll always strive to achieve these goals - I don't care, literally, what culture or religion or group or sub-species anyone belongs to, as long as they are compassionate, honest, strong, courageous, intellectual, and responsible. I don't believe anything less will help us achieve peace and unity as a race, and I believe that's where things are headed eventually anyway, so I'll try and do my part.

I started reading this thread because I saw it was active for several days, though at first I mentally scoffed because it had the word 'atheist' in the title ... now I'm glad I did. I hope to read all the posts more carefully rather than just skim them, but wanted to toss in my 2cents worth, and thank you all for the insights you shared. Really gave me fuel for thought.

You seem to have a few ideas about us correct, and a few things misunderstsood.

Yes, we do teach and believe that in order to recieve the greatest blessing our Father has to offer that one must be a member of Christ's Church (this means accepting Christ, which the scriptures teach the Jews one day will, and in the mean while, we feel great empathy for them as fellow children of the covenant). Those not of our faith who are good people will be blessed in the afterlife for thier rewards. But, if they are not willing to learn and keep ALL of the commandments, they will not recieve ALL of the blessings (as I mentioned before). While this may not neccesarily sound too bad for these people, eternity is a long time to know that you could have had something MUCH better.

We do not believe in purgatory, we believe that those who have not accepted Christ in this life will have a chance to in the next. If they never had a chance in this life, such as those who lived and died with out ever learning about Him, they will have the opportunity to enjoy all the blessings that those who lived His gospel in life will enjoy. If they did have a chance, but rejected it in this life, then they will still have an opportunity in the next, but they will not be able to attain a fullness of blessings. Those who chose not to accept Him in this life and the next will have to atone for their own sins, and then enjoy some measure of blessings (but not nearly as many as the previous two groups.

The Bible makes the comparison of these three groups as the sun, moon, and stars. Just as the moon outshines the stars, the sun outshines the moon. I would provide a link that explains this a bit better but it seems the webstie is down ofr repair, sorry. As for "hell", the place where Satan resides, there aren't a whole lot that actually go to dwell with him. Basically, in order to recieve his punishment, you must commit the same crime, which is to have a sure knowledge of God, and willingly turn away from Him for evil. The example we use to illustrate how much is required for one to even be capable of this is by saying it is the spiritual equal to looking directly at the sun, and saying that it isn't shining.

A good resource if you do want to know more is this site: WWW Link

As for the gnostic texts, I have already begun learning about them, and appreciate the link you provided. Last semester in college I took a course on the early history of Christianity, and I was amazed and how many differant opinions and sects that existed, and how those differances can still be seen today (an example being the Cahtolic/Orthodox problems of today being an out growth of the Byzantine split, which its self was an out growth of the earlier Roman/Aryan differances). I will gladly give them a look.