An atheist converted! I've seen the light!!

[9215]

In the my wanderings I have contemplated lifes whys and hows and my atheistic ways I now question. For how does one know there is no god?

How does one prove a negative? I think there is no god, but I cannot prove it.

So I am "converting" to agnosticism for the sake of argument, and only for the sake of argument. There are far more important things to discuss than religion.
BTW: An atheist believes there is no god, an agnostic believes the question of divinity is unknowable, and a deist believes there may have been a god but that (s)he does not intervene in the affairs of Man. As someone said once a deist believes that the earth is like a clock that god wound up and then let it tick away.



ON RELIGION:

"The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion."
-- George Washington
Contained in an essay on the Treaty of Tripoli: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5



The not-so-Christian founding fathers

http://realmagick.com/articles/13/13.html
Benjamin Franklin notes that during the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a motion to pray was voted down with only three or four members of the Convention voting for it. I think we can be assured that Biblical Christians would vote for prayer while drafting the Constitution of their newly formed republic. We can easily conclude that out of all the members of the Constitutional Convention only three or four were Christian.

Looking at the writing of the founding fathers, we can see that they had little regard for Christianity.

Ben Franklin was a member of the Hell-Fire Club. Franklin wrote to Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale, saying he doubted the divinity of Christ, although he believed in his moral teachings. Franklin in his disdain for Christianity once said that "Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

George Washington, a professed Deist, refused either to take communion or to kneel in church. Washington stated that "The government of the United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian religion. The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan nation."

John Adams, The second president of the U.S. once said "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity," Adams once speculated, "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it."

In 1802 Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the Constitution, wrote "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." During the eight years of his Presidency, Jefferson refused to issue a Thanksgiving proclamation. Jefferson later declared, "Calvin's religion was demonism. The God of Christianity is a being of terrific character-cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust. The Christian God is a hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another Cerebus, with one body and three heads."

Jefferson relates a story about the drafting of the Bill of Rights: "Where the preamble (of the Bill of Rights) declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words Jesus Christ, so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion"

The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination."

James Madison, fourth president of the United States stated "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." Madison added, "In no instance have...the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."

A vast majority of the men who founded the United States were essentially Pagan. This is not surprising. Monotheistic Gods inspire totalitarian governments. Polytheistic Gods inspire democratic governments. As democracy matured and the founding fathers' influence began to wane, Christians began to institute blasphemy laws. The laws used the power of the state to protect the church from criticism and derision. The laws were used sporadically until 1968 when the supreme court finally declared them unconstitutional.


Seperation of Church and State topic at DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=704411&mesg_id=704435&page=

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be ... The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe."
The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and engrafted
into the machine of government, have been a formidable engine against
the civil and religious rights of man." - Thomas Jefferson


"I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature."
-- Thomas Jefferson

from <http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc550.html><http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc550.html>

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the Word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world ...

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. , in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."
Thomas Jefferson


"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
Thomas Jefferson


"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by it to this filthy book ."
Thomas Paine


"For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate error so long as reason is free to combat it."
Thomas Jefferson


"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God."
Thomas Jefferson


"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
Thomas Jefferson


"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."
Thomas Paine


"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."
Thomas Paine

"They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point"

-Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835

[trotsky]

1. Weak vs. strong atheism.

Weak: I do not believe there is a god.

Strong: I believe there is no god.

See the difference?

[9215]

2. Yer not trying to convert me

back to atheism are you? hee, hee. :bounce:

[rucky]

4. Either way, it comes down to a matter of what you believe

or don't believe.

Athiests have not cornered the market on logic & objectivity... and feeling, belief & subjectivity isn't exclusive to theism.

[Mr. Wookie]

25. How do you expand the threads.

I don't like clicking on each reply to read it. How do you expand the replies so you can read them all at once?

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

36. At the topic name listing at the top of the page

click on view all.

[mulethree]

50. Any way to do it for just a sub-thread?

When I do view-all I get all the posts of the original thread in order of some message number. any way to do view-all like just the reply's to the current-message?

Thanks

[9215]

53. Welcome to DU Mr. Wookie

:toast:

[carabinewaltz]

34. Religion is, by definition, illogical and subjective.

So your comment here is really off base.

[rucky]

37. by definition?

yours maybe.

but don't let subjectivity get in the way

thanks for proving my point, btw.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

5. even stronger

"I could not care less whether there is a god or not. It has no effect on my ethics or behavior."

[BurtWorm]

7. That's where I am.

:hi: I'm a person who doesn't need to know if there is or isn't a god.

[rucky]

17. I don't expect to know

but trying to find out is one hellova ride.

I think that's closer to the point than the point itself.

[Solomon]

40. Ahhhh. Rucky. This is where I am.

Well said.

[stepnw1f]

106. Same!

[handywork]

3. I used to claim agnostic

but then I realized I was just uncomfortable with what the word athiest made people think. That is when I made a point to tell people I was an Athiest and to stop thinking of that as a bad thing...

[historian]

6. I tell the local religious loonies

that im an atheist then stare them down. Works wonders.

[handywork]

8. Yeah when I was living in TN

I would tell people I was an Athiest and one of their eyes would go this way and the other would go that way and smoke would come out of their ears. They just could not comprehend what I was talking about. I actually enjoyed that reaction.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

10. give you another one that flabbergasts them

When they come to proselytize to me I ask them what they are offering. Invariably they answer "eternal life." I tell them what I think, which is that I find the concept of living forever hideous, selfish, frightening and just plain ungrateful-why not be happy with the life you have? It never fails to bring a stricken look to their faces.

[9215]

12. That's a good one, LOL

[9215]

11. I tell em' I'm an agnostic and they don't know what it

means, hee, hee. And they are to embarrassed to comment.

[handywork]

13. It is funny to me

that they would not know the term. I find that a lot. I'm like you believe all this yet you do not take the time to read about other religions or other philosophies. I think that is such a sad reason to believe in something.

[handywork]

15. I find I know more about their religion than they do

[Az]

22. But they believe more about their religion than you do

And that makes the world of difference.

[handywork]

35. But how are they going to

believe in something they don't even understand...I end up arguing with people about Christianity and explaining to them what they believe. They have no idea

on edit: spelling error

[Az]

43. Beliefs

come from social interaction far more than they do from the written word. Since what we believe is based on emotional value of experience for most the interpersonal relations found within a religious structure will form the basis of their belief system rather than a literal reading of a text (that was some sentence). Simply put their beliefs about religion are more real than the words you tell them.

[9215]

49. Yep, see my post #24.

People just trying to find a place to belong. It really is sad that the need to belong forces so many to give up their individuality. When I busted up this church/cult alot of the people who left called me up asking me what to do now. I used to just tell them to do whatever they want. The church itself marked me as an imp of Satan. That largely had the opposite effect the leader wanted and caused a further schism. The more strident the preacher and his cabal of zealot lieutenant recruiters became the more people left. Then they called me a schismatic, which was the first thing I heard from the pulpit that approached honesty.

I wasn't a schismatic in the truest sense because I was not trying to ride herd on my own flock. I was trying to help deprogram people. This I saw more in retrospect than at the time. My instinct told me to fight the bastids.

[handywork]

54. yeah people respond to me similarly

they ask me well if I don't believe in a god then what do I believe in... I just have to tell them that if I don't believe in a supernatural being I don't have to replace my belief in something else... There are lots of things I believe in just none of them are supernatural.

[handywork]

51. Ok I can see that...

But if they are not going to take the scripture into account, can they really call themselves christians (or whatever other religion)?


Nice sentence by the way

[SemperEadem]

148. a certain level of intentional ignorance is necessary to blindly believe

after all, the bible calls those that follow its teaching "sheep", and sheep are some of the dumbest animals on the planet

[9215]

149. LOL!

Nice one! Short and to the point.

:bounce:

[9215]

24. Good point. It really, ...well,.... makes you

think.

What you point out is indicative of how mind numbing religion can be. "Belonging" is more about conforming to group norms of speech and behavior than being knowledgeable of the subject matter. I once entered a church and sabotaged its recruitment program by simply asking questions, and questioning answers. People started leaving the church over a couple of months until the pastor, a real asshole, threw up his hands in disgust as his flock went to wandering in the wilderness.
I wrote a paper for college on the experience.

[handywork]

27. Good for you

I think religion is really detrimental to society

[9215]

58. Check out what Franklin says at the beginning of my

original post. He has no quarrel with the moral teachings of Christianity; it is the Christ is divine part that bothers him.

I feel the same way.


I have alot of respect for Martin Luther and the Reformation when he, in his own way, threw the money changers out of the church. He was pissed off because the clergy had turned the Catholic Church into little more than a scam ripping off the people with "indulgences" etc. The clergy had largely forgotten the moral principles they vowed to uphold.

Luther had a great sense of humor too. When asked about a certain clergyman who was about to give a sermon Luther replied: "He could know more teach us about God than an ass could play a harp".

He almost got himself fried at the stake for it.

[9215]

30. I forgot. The religious people

often lump agnostics and atheists together. Simply discussing this as a topic makes them think and sabotages the dumbing down process the "overseers" are trying to impose. Differentiating requires some level of thinking.

[9215]

137. Fundies are fools......

and follow anybody with a good BS line.

[info being]

98. Actually "Agnostic" might be more accurate

At least by the wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

[ScreamingMeemie]

114. I think this is why a lot of people end up calling themselves agnostic.

It has been drilled into their heads that atheism=bad. But then I am forced to think of it deeper. If one were to be afraid of calling oneself atheist because it is a bad thing...then wouldn't one almost be guilty of believing in something?

Just playing Devil's advocate. I'm at a point in my life where I don't know what I believe. :hi:

[NeonLX]

9. Seen on a bumper sticker:

"God is too big to fit into one religion".

That pretty much sums it up for me.

[Arugula Latte]

55. I like this one:

"Lord, save me from your followers."

[Az]

14. Ask yourself this

Do you actively believe in a god or gods.

Now consider the meaning of the word theism. A theist is someone that believes in god or gods.

The prefix 'a' means without. Thus an atheist is simply someone without a belief in god or gods.

The word gnostic means to know. This is in a very strong sense of the word. Gnostics know something is true. Belief and knowledge are two different things. As Descarte suggested, the only thing we know is that we doubt.

Thus an agnostic is simply, again with the prefix 'a', someone without absolute knowledge of a thing.

From this we can see that a person can, in theory, be any combination of these 4 labels along their varying axises.

Gnostic Theist: Someone that believes there is a god or gods and has direct knowledge of them.

Agnostic Theist: Someone that believes in god or gods but does not have absolute knowledge of their existance.

Gnostic Atheist: Someone that does not have a belief in god or gods and has absolute knowledge of existance.

Agnostic Atheist: Someone that does not have a belief in god or gods and acknowledges that they do not know the entirety of existance.

Some of these combinations are more likely that others (gnostic atheists probably do not understand logic too well). And some may be mistaken about their own nature (gnostic theists may have mistaken a nuerological phenomena for communing with god). Thus most fall into the agnostic category in one way or the other.

[9215]

18. Plus I likes converting

from one areligous group to another like religious people do from one religion to another. Diversity is fun, he.

Maybe start the "Innernon-faith alliance"!

[kaitykaity]

19. Nice list.

Maybe I'll finally find a phrase that describes me.

I think that whatever words we use, the idea of god is too big for us to grasp or even know. That there's something there, but humans are too limited to wrap our words around it. The minute you use a word or phrase, the thing shifts and you're back to what it's not.

Please tell me that makes sense.

[Az]

20. Yes it does

But then I may be looking at the problem diffently than you are.

[kaitykaity]

23. If it makes sense, how are we coming at

it differently? (The yes/no character of the post confused me.
Sorry.)

[Az]

29. It was deliberately vague

I look at the various attempts to understand the nature of god to be people trying to come to terms with their own nature as expressed in a endless series of descriptions of god. Where you and others attempt to undertand god, I (and other atheists) attempt to understand human nature. In the end we are working on the same problem, but we are currently at different solutions for it. Who is right is still up for grabs.

[kaitykaity]

32. Vague?

Only slightly, but that's okay. :hi:

I always thought of it as perception, interaction, andrelationship between consciousness and the world at large. But then I get into the Cartesian trap of making the mind the center of the universe, and I know that's not right either, it leads to the massive dysfunction of artificial dualisms (sacred/profane, male/female, etc.).

It isn't so much I'm trying to understand god necessarily. I differentiate between religion and spirituality, between my personal relationship with the universe and corporeal organizations that pretend they speak for what is ultimately unknowable.

[FrankBooth]

33. Agnostic Atheist

I used to use that term to describe myself but stopped because, well, it kind of sounds pretentious and nobody ever had any idea what I was talking about!

But I love your clarification, I think I'll go back to it.

I think it was in one of Robert Anton Wilson's books where I first heard the term.

[starroute]

91. Don't leave out the Gnostic Agnostics

Kef was asking in a thread a couple of months ago whether you could be both. Sure you can. A gnostic agnostic is someone who believes in the truth of higher knowledge but isn't willing to draw any conclusions about where that knowledge comes from (one or more gods, a world-soul, the collective unconscious, holistically-guided intuition, etc.)

For me, the whole does-God-exist question is pretty irrelevant -- a remnant of prehistoric times when there was less science and more need to fall back on the supernatural. The real issue is not where the universe came from, but the fact that human beings regularly experience a sense of a higher power at work in their lives.

I believe the validity of that experience needs to be accepted (that's the Gnostic part), but that its source is unknown and probably unknowable (that's the Agnostic part.) If calling their inner voice "God" makes it easier for some people to take it seriously, I don't have a problem with that -- but, over the course of history, almost everything else about the God-business has tended to be demeaning and destructive.

[Az]

95. The fulcrum

Is based on the intersection of belief and knowledge. They are different things. Belief is a binary factor (though it can vary wildly over time). Knowledge is a gradient.

Gnostics exist at the extremes of the variable scale of knowledge. Theits and atheists exist as the binary opposites on the belief factor. Belief is simply a recognition of the current balance of ideas within the mind. At any given moment a person either does or does not believe in god or gods.

[starroute]

131. In that case, I'm with Schroedinger's Cat

I often suspect that true enlightenment lies in being able to believe and disbelieve at the same time -- or at least to perch on the razor's edge between them. I haven't gotten there myself, yet, but I'm working hard.

[Az]

132. Figure out

the nature of how you believe then. There are occaisions where you can find yourself diving deeper into your concepts and oscilating back and forth between positions at a wild pace. But to believe two opposing things you would have to have two identities.

[starroute]

135. Play transcends belief

In play, you can both be and not-be something at the same time.

In play, you can immerse yourself totally in the assumptions of the game, at the same time that you know they're not really "true."

Treating all of existence as play makes it possible to see it from a vantage point beyond petty questions of belief and disbelief.

Perhaps in your terms, that does amount to having two identifies -- call them the mundane self and the higher self. Is that a problem?

Actually, I think we have many more identities than that. Consider how many different selves we experience in dreams:

- There is the dreamer who is lost in the dream and takes it as real.

- There is the lucid dreamer who recognizes the dream for what it is but is still powerless to alter it.

- There is the dream-maker who creates the dream, plays all the roles, constructs the sets, and does its best to keep the story line more or less coherent.

- There is a self which is deeper than ordinary dream, but which makes itself known occasionally in dreams by projecting bizarre philosophical insights or nightmarish violations of the ordinary constraints of reality.

- And there is a deeper self yet, which lies at the still center of all things, and which enters our dreams only in the form of sudden moments of inexplicable beauty and serenity.


Reality has many levels, and that which is characterized by ordinary matters of belief and disbelief is only the lowest. Anything that helps you hoist yourself out of it -- whether it's Zen koans or the sort of paradoxes that make tv robots fry their fuses -- is only to the good.

[Az]

136. Imagination

Is indeed a strong tool. But belief overrides it. One can imagine one can walk through walls. But when you take the step towards the wall you will expect to hit it.

[starroute]

138. Walls are about as stubbornly materialistic as it gets

You really can't expect a wall to respond to what you imagine of it. No matter what you may think, it's still just going to sit there and be a wall.

Human bodies, on the other hand, are partly material but also partly imaginal. You can do a lot of harm or a lot of healing through imagination and expectation alone. Sex is also based as much on imagination as on physical fact.

The human mind is predominantly imaginal. Not 100% -- brain chemistry does play some role. But on the whole, when it comes to character and creativity, we can be whatever we imagine ourselves to be.

And the spiritual realm, if there is one, must be purely imaginal in nature. (But who can say if such a realm actually exists, or if we only imagine it?)

The conclusion I draw from all this is that belief applies only to material objects. You believe in a wall after you have bumped your nose on it. You can believe in a more tentative way in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster, if you assume that solid physical evidence will eventually be able to prove if you are right or wrong.

But how can you believe -- or, for that matter, disbelieve -- in a god? Gods are not something you're ever going to bump your nose on. They are purely imaginal in nature. I can imagine there being a god. I can imagine there being many gods. I can imagine there being no gods. I can imagine there not being a god. And I can even imagine all these things being true at the same time.

Fundamentalists have no capacity for imagination. That is why they regularly try to reduce religion to the level of mere belief. From Intelligent Design to "The Passion," they display a literal-mindedness and a misplaced materiality that are completely antithetical to the true spirit of religion. But why should the rest of us let them drag us down to their level of imaginal blindness?

[Az]

141. Gaps

You suggest a god is something you are never going to bump your nose into. And yet history suggests an evolution of claims about deities constantly moving them further and further away from our reach. Even Christianity and Judaism are saddled with claims of god being "bumpable". From seeing god's flanks (Ex.33:23) to face to face conversations with individuals (Ex.33:11).

But as our ability to examine the world around us increases, the explanations for factors attributed to god become increasingly tenuous. Thus the proverbial God of the Gaps forever recedes from places science examines. In the end leaving us with a god not so defined by what it does than by what we cannot yet delve into.

The nature of what we believe is variable. The strength of our convictions determines the likelihood of our view shifting at a given moment. Thus a person can see themself of many different views. But at the given moment the balance is of a given position.

A perfect balance between positions is theoretically possible. But so to is balancing a mountain on its peak.

[9215]

16. George Carlin really clinches it!

I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."

-- George Carlin

[prolesunited]

21. LOL!

That is an awesome quote! I think I'll have to save that one somewhere.

[nolabels]

143. Mr. Carlin must not have figured that intimate moments are often..........

between two, and three is often a crowd. Getting it from both ends all the time I think one would get rather tired anyway :evilgrin:

[Westegg]

26. This is a good and useful collection of quotes. Thanks!

Certainly proves that those who say the USA was "founded as a Christian nation" don't know what they're talking about!

[BigMcLargehuge]

28. SPLITTER!!!!!

:hi:

[9215]

64. Schismatic?

Check out my post #49.

Who is the guru type guy in that picture? LOL

[tom_paine]

31. Great stuff, dude...bookmarking this

:toast:

[9215]

44. Thanks, There are even a few quotes by Tom Paine

I need to go back and read Common Sense again.

:toast:

[tom_paine]

93. Me too

But I would suggest "The Age of Reason", which is his scathing treatise on religion, if I remember correctly.

[Heyo]

38. What term would you use....

.. to describe someone who is into science, physics and cosmology and stuff like that.. reader of Eisntein, Steven Hawking, as well as things like biology and earth sciences, and looks at the way nature and the universe works and believes that there is a higher and greater force that created it all... one that said person does not claim to understand the nature of..?

.. the belief that is not really Christiany or Judaism... not really going for the rituals and fables.... but more regognizing that there is a greater truth than can is being seen or understood...

A force or being or energy or God if you will.. whataver you want to call it... that you live by, and by live by I mean "Do the best you can to be the best person you can... be nice to people and try to do the right thing as best you can, even though nobody's perfect"

Is there a name for that?

Heyo

[9215]

41. Sounds like a

deist.

That is what George Washington supposedly was. Read about that in my original post.

[dave29]

48. I do believe Einstein himself was a Diest

was he not?

[9215]

65. GW was a deist.......

.....the first GW that is.

[PassingFair]

73. Pretty sure he was closer to an

atheist

[Az]

96. Einstein on the claims that he believed in god

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954

[info being]

100. Very interesting. To those who say the US was founded on....

Chrisitanity.

You could reply that it was founded by Deists. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deist

[Feanorcurufinwe]

142. Doesn't deism imply

that you believe in a higher being that has a consciousness? But I don't get that from Heyo's post.

[parkening]

39. One question:

Where is the logical fallacy in the following argument?

p1: everything that begins to exist has a cause.

p2: the universe began to exist.

c: the universe had a Cause.


If the premises are true, the conclusion is unavoidable. Who/What is the Cause? Comments welcome.

[9215]

42. The Big Bang?

[dave29]

47. Physicist Brian Greene

who is an expert in String Theory (and the new perplexing "brane" theories) recently said this about the Big Bang:

"It says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it ever really banged at all."

There is a lot of work left to do in physics and religion.

[9215]

52. It's like trying to get a grip on how big

the universe is. What is there a stop sign out there somewhere?


Or even, how small things can get. Will there be a continual process of finding new sub-atomic levels?

[dave29]

62. I doubt a stop sign

although maybe a restaurunt ;)

[parkening]

75. The elements that would make up

a Big Bang would have to have a beginning (see p1).

Something to remember is that there cannot be an infinite regression of events into the past. In other words, you can't trace time back infinitely into the past. (If time started an infinite time ago, we'd never get to today). Therefore the matter that makes up our universe did not exist infinitely in the past, it had to have been caused.

[Az]

76. See M-Theory

For a possible explanation. This is a subset of string theory. One of the factors it postulates is the notion of a multiplicity of universes. Each proceding from a previous universe. In the end the initiation would come from some initial void where linear time has no relevance. All multiverses would proceed from this and result in a virtual infinity of universes thus obliterating the call for anthropic explanations of the settings of this universe.

[parkening]

77. That all sounds just great

but you still are sitting there and telling me that something came from nothing, all by itself, a really long time ago. Pardon me for thinking that's a bunch of crud.

Even the theory you are presenting doesn't avoid the problem of First Cause, you say, "the initiation would come from some initial void where linear time has no relevance." You say something began to exist. Linear time or not, you can't start with nothing and get something without a Causer.

[Az]

79. And

Claiming god simply always was solves the problem?

M-Theory is a bit more complicated than that. You are thinking in a Newtonian fashion. You cannot think outside our linear time reference. We know that quantum fluxes do occurr in nothing. Void is nothing. It simply has properties. Thus something does in fact come from nothing.

[parkening]

82. Flux

is a change over time. You can't flux outside of time. We also know that we can't have an infinite regression of events (fluxes) into the past. So you're still stuck with a beginning and a First Cause.

[Az]

89. Sorry

I cannot provide you with a study in string theory and advanced particle physics. This is also probably not the best local to partake in a full debate on the existance of god. Religion certainly has a place in discussion but only as far as the social/political impact that goes along with various religious beliefs.

[parkening]

108. I don't really agree that

the discussion of religion should be limited to the social/political impact. We're talking about the very existence of all things. Every area of our lives are affected by this.

But if you're done, I'm done. Keep on searching for the truth.

[Az]

113. A discussion about the discussion

Agreed the quest for truth is vital. But we are dealing with factors here that are beyond this forums capacity. I have spent years debating this very subject. I do not back away because of discomfort. I do so out of respect for you and everyone else here.

The dismantling of a person's belief carries with it a great burden. It is the foundation upon which they view the world around them. It is the basis of how they deal with the stress and uncertainty of life. If you actively dismantle it you become responsible for the repurucussions of that action. Unless you can replace the entirety of their belief system as you remove the old one you are doing them a great harm.

The belief systems we have in place in this day and age largely work. The vast majority of them are likely flawed or inaccurate. But they work. They get people through their life. While it may be morally superior to strive towards educating people about the truth of the world it is wise to proceed at a cautious pace. We must be aware of how the human mind hangs together within its belief systems. We must be cogent of society and how it is entwined with these beliefs. The careless destruction of the web that we are all involved in could be disasterous.

Countering belief is also problematic in and of itself. Belief does not come to us based on individual words or arguments. Our mind works in a very specific format to accumulate belief and understanding of the world around us. It is possible to use logic and reason to completely dismantle a person's beliefs before their eyes and yet they will hold to their beliefs. This is because the words are not more real to them than the beliefs.

Conversely the most ardent plea of compassion from a believer will be ineffective against a skeptic. The skeptic has leveraged their reliance on the learned tools of logic and reason to such an extent that such pleas cannot overcome their reliance on them. What a believer knows to be true from their own personal experience will be discarded as anecdotal evidence, flawed by subjective misinterpretation.

There are ways to engage is meaningful discussions on these topics. But confrontational arguements typically wind up talking past each individual involved. Each has their own way of determining what is true. Each has their own criteria for what they will accept. It is only by opening lines of dialog where in sharing of positions as means of introductions to positions rather than jabbing at each others cases is the means of creating progress.

[parkening]

120. Nice thoughts...

but you're full of crap!!!! Just kidding, just kidding. I appreciate your sentiments and hope I didn't come across as confrontational. You make some very good points regarding the mindset of the believer and the skeptic. It should be noted that the believer can have some pretty convincing logical arguments for his beliefs (the Cosmological Argument), whereas, the skeptic can have emotional reasons to support his/her skepticism (I can't believe in a God that let my child die).

My goal here was to present the theist side of the argument to get folks thinking. The thread was awful one-sided for a while.

[Az]

122. Of course

I am full of crap... be right back......... :hurts: .... much better now (humor is one of our greatest social tools {insert pun here})

Of course neither side is entirely logical or emotional. Our minds are far too complex to expect such a simple arraingment. In fact logic and reason are simply tools our emotional minds have developed in order to deal with our increasingly complex world.

[rman]

83. either something came from nothing OR it was there all along

both are somewhat difficult to comprehend.
but it must be either one or the other.

i don't see any alternatives - even if god created everything, then it's god that/who either has always existed, or he came to be after a time when he didn't exist.

[parkening]

92. I think that those are the only alternatives, too.

We've shown that material things could not have existed infinitely into the past. So we're left with either (a) everything that exists has an immaterial, timeless First Cause or (b) everything that exists sprang into existence, from nothing, uncaused. Alternative (b) illogical so we're left with (a).


you said: "or he came to be after a time when he didn't exist"

To say that the First Cause came into existence after the Effect is just saying that there was a different First Cause than we first thought.

[Az]

57. Who?

This argument is self defeating. It tries to leverage god in by demanding that everything has a cause and then insisting that god must have caused the universe. And when they are challenged as to what caused god the claim is made he always was, thus violating the very rule they used to set the stage.

There are a mutlitude of theories that readily explain the origin of the universe without necissitating god. But the possibility must also be faced that in truth we may not know at this time and we have to accept our limit of knowledge and not attempt to force comfortable explanations into the dark places that loom before us.

[parkening]

80. Self-defeating?

The principle of Causality demands that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. If we abandon this precept, we must discard all of science, it becomes meaningless.

Nothing that I said violates the argument I made. I simply stated that there needs to be an uncaused, timeless, immaterial, First Cause, a "Who/What".

[Az]

86. First cause

Examine your statement.

The principle of Causality demands that everything that begins to exist must have a cause.

Let this be the condition we seek to satisfy.

You postulate that the universe could not come from nothing. There for it must have come from god.

How does this satisfy the condition we are looking to answer.

It is guilty of numerous logical fallacies.

argumentum ad ignorantiam: Because you do not know the answer to the condition you cannot force another answer in its place.

petitio principii: Also known as begging the question. If you insist that everything has a cause then what caused god?

ignoratio elenchi: One thing does not necissarily follow the other. Just because everything has a first cause does not mean a god must exist.

Sorry you don't see it. But you have not aswered the question you sought to have answered by insisting god did it. You are still left with something that violates your initial claim.

[parkening]

101. You're misrepresenting my argument

I did not make the leap from First Cause to God. You made it. Whatever He/She/It/They are is another argument altogether. My argument, so far, stops at there having, necessarily, to be a timeless, immaterial First Cause.

Furthermore, my argument (well it's not really mine, it's been used for ages) does not commit any of the fallacies that you suggest.

argumentum ad ignorantiam: This does not apply. If you have no dispute with my premises (p1 and p2), you are not allowed, by the laws of logic, to dispute my conclusion (c). That is just the nature of the syllogism.

petitio principii: This does not apply. My argument is that "everything that begins to exist has a cause". The First Cause is, by definition, uncaused.

ignoratio elenchi: This does not apply. You're the one equivocating on First Cause and God. My argument, so far, does not make that claim.

I put it out there again. If you have no dispute with the premises then you must accept the conclusion. The next question remains. What are the properties of that First Cause?

[Az]

104. Not the place to further this discussion

Religion and its effects on socio/political issues is valid in this context. We are going too deep into the actual arguments and thisis probably not the best place for it.

[Donkeyboy75]

60. The fallacy is that

you are assuming time is linear. If time is not linear (and there's no proof that it is), then the term "begins" is meaningless.

[dave29]

63. bingo!

Time is the real last frontier.

[9215]

67. Great reply.

There were some particle physics experiments recently that suggest it is possible that time is non-linear. Something about particles being lost in the experiment and the conclusion was that they may have gone into a "parallel dimension". Wish I could remember the name of the experiment.

[parkening]

85. Whether time is linear or not

doesn't matter. Time must have started at some point and moved in a positive direction (linearly or not). The material universe must have started at some point (the same point at which time started). Those things began to exist. Something/Someone (that/who is timeless and immaterial) must have caused it.

[Donkeyboy75]

111. No, that's also wrong

Let me put it to you this way. A dog does not understand the world the way humans do. They simply don't have the intellect. I, and many physicists believe, that the universe may be way too complicated for a species of our intellect to be able to fully comprehend. It is quite possible that "beginning" and "end" have no real meaning in our universe. These are concepts manufactured by humans to explain phenomena they experience everyday, but there's no evidence that the universe works according to OUR laws.

[Az]

117. Our only means of experiencing

is through our linear thought processes. Science continues to push our cherished notions off their pedestals. First it was an earth centered universe, then a sun centered universe, then our seperation from the animal species. Perhaps our linear bias is next on the block for a good prodding.

[parkening]

125. I, and many physicists believe

that the universe can be understood and studied with our physical senses. That it does have a beginning and end. And it works according to increasingly knowable laws. Unfortunately we are both arguing from authority and ad populi, so each argument is fallacious.

[dwckabal]

146. There is nothing that says time has to move forward

Stephen Hawking wrote something about that, I believe, that there is no reason why time couldn't move backwards or forwards, depending on the laws of physics in a particular "universe."

It's been a while since I've read it, so I'm not even sure which book it was in, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Az]

147. The trick is

how the chronological dimension is expressed in our particular multiverse. Time likely is not linear in the "original" void from which the rest of the multiverse expressed itself. Our particular set of dimenses simply has 3 spacial and one chrono dimensions. Our chrono dimension is linear in its epxression. Our concept of time is limited by our own experience of it. Time may well be completely nonlinear. But because of our nature we experience it linear.

[DrWeird]

71. p1

Why does everything have to have a cause?

[parkening]

74. Everything doesn't have a cause

Only things that begin to exist have a cause.

[rman]

81. what is the cause of the universe : science doesn't know (yet)

which by itself doesn't lend credibility to any of the explanations people come up with.

[parkening]

87. Science can't know

even if scientists came up with a great theory that explained naturalistic origins wonderfully. Even if they were able to run a test of this theory and create out of nothing a brand new universe. It would not prove that is actually what happened. The unobservable past is impossible to test (falsify), which is the cornerstone of science. Therefore, science, by definition, cannot prove the cause of the universe.

[Mattforclark]

128. Quite true, but...

"the unobservable past is impossible to test (falsify), which is the cornerstone of science."

Yes, it is not possible to test the unobservable.

So if there is something unobservable, there are several possibilities.

1) It does not exist.
2) It exists.
3) Some other possibility that I am not thinking of.

I can't find a reason to suppose that any one of these is or is not true.

"Therefore, science, by definition, cannot prove the cause of the universe."

Yes. And that doesn't mean that there is or is not a cause of the universe. Lack of evidence gives us no indication at all.

[parkening]

130. you're giving yourself too many options

by the Principle of Excluded Middle only two propositions are available: 1) the universe was caused or 2) the universe was not caused. There is no room for other options.

Science and logic can prove (and has) that the universe needed a First Cause. They just can't prove Who/What it was (the metaphysical part).

The next step is to examine what properties this First Cause must have. We've already mentioned timelessness and immaterialness (I think that's a word). Others can be deduced but we'll not go into that now. Folks smarter than I have discussed these in great depth here for instance.

Next the truth claims of different belief systems, i.e. naturalism, creationism, pantheism etc., can be compared to this model. We owe it to ourselves to be as truthful with the data as possible.

[blurp]

94. If God doesn't have a cause, then why should the universe?

[parkening]

105. The universe is made up of stuff

Stuff could not have existed infinitely far back in the past. Otherwise, as we've stated in this thread elsewhere, we'd never have gotten to today. Does that make sense? In other words, the universe and all its stuff must have started to exist at some point in the past. And if it began to exist, from nothing, it had to have a Causer. The universe could not have sprung into existence from nothing without Something/Someone causing it to.

[Az]

107. If you are honestly curious about the theories

Go read the book The Elegant Universe : Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375708111/qid=1080323621/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-0532194-2279339?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

That should give you some insite as to some of the theories running around out there.

DU is simply not the place to dismantle anothers beliefs. We can discuss the ramifications of those beliefs on our society. But dismantling them is beyond our call here.

[parkening]

110. With due respect...

Belief in God/Creator/Christianity gets regularly slammed and "dismantled" around here.

Thanks for the link.

[Az]

116. I do not support

the slamming of any particular belief. I may disagree with what you believe. But I think no less of you for doing so. There are unfortunately those that do react with discord on these issues and I do not agree with their tactics.

[parkening]

121. Just to reiterate...

I was really just kidding in the first part of post #120. You've been very thoughtful in this discussion and not reactionary.

[Az]

123. Urgggg

:hurts:


:D

[Mattforclark]

112. I dispute P1 and P2

p1: everything that begins to exist has a cause.

- No, everything within the universe has a cause. This means that we say that things within the universe has a cause because we find it useful in making theoretical models that describe the universe. We verify experimentally (are able to find) things that we call causes of things within the universe, but we are not able to find causes of the universe. A cause of the universe would be outside of the universe, by definition, and it is in the realm of metaphysics, not physics. But for the most part it is a semantic game.

p2: the universe began to exist.

- Really?

[parkening]

124. You're kind of right

you say: "we are not able to find causes of the universe"

That's true. But the universe had to have had a cause. This is support of p1. You also correctly state that the "cause of the universe would be outside the universe". And, yes, physics does not apply. Philosophy comes into play at this point. "What do I believe about the First Cause?"

It is not a semantic game. It is something real that happened and may have an impact on your life today. It is a subject that deserves more than a cursory inspection. If you're interested I can discuss it with you.

As for p2, "Really?" is not an argument. But I guess my answer is, "Yes!". We've shown in other posts here that the impossibility of an infinite regression of events dictates that the universe must have begun to exist at some point.

[Mattforclark]

127. That's good.

you say: "we are not able to find causes of the universe"

That's true. But the universe had to have had a cause.

That is a metaphysical axiom. I can't find any reason to suppose that it is either true or false.

This is support of p1. You also correctly state that the "cause of the universe would be outside the universe". And, yes, physics does not apply. Philosophy comes into play at this point. "What do I believe about the First Cause?"

Exactly. We are doing metaphysics.

It is not a semantic game. It is something real that happened and may have an impact on your life today. It is a subject that deserves more than a cursory inspection. If you're interested I can discuss it with you.

I can see that it (this metaphysical question, and/or metaphysics in general) is a semantic game. It could also be something more than a semantic game, but I can't find a basis for supposing that it either is or isn't.

As for p2, "Really?" is not an argument.

That is correct. There isn't argument for accepting or not accepting axioms. I can't find any particular reason for either accepting or not accepting your axiom, hence I expressed doubt.

But I guess my answer is, "Yes!".

Repitition of the axiom has no necessary connection to whether or not it is correct.

We've shown in other posts here that the impossibility of an infinite regression of events dictates that the universe must have begun to exist at some point.

If you accept that certain axioms can be applied to metaphysical questions, that would be so. It would not be so if you don't think that. And if you choose different axioms, then you might come out with the answer that the universe doesn't have to begin to exist at some point.

[parkening]

129. So what if it's metaphysical

it does not change the fact that the universe had a First Cause.

One technical point: p1 and p2 and premises not axioms. The premises are open to argumentation. The conclusion is not.

I'd be interested in what premises could be proposed that would lead to the conclusion that the universe did not begin to exist.

And, once again, I want to express that it's not just a metaphysical, semantical issue. We're talking about the real, actual universe that we walk around in and interact with. This issue has real ramifications on our everyday lives.

[Mattforclark]

133. If it's metaphysical...

it does not change the fact that the universe had a First Cause.

:) This 'fact' is not verifiable. It would be a metaphysical fact if it were the case (and if it also made sense to talk about whether or not it were the case, but that's another matter).

One technical point: p1 and p2 and premises not axioms. The premises are open to argumentation. The conclusion is not.

Yes, they are open to philosophical argument. This consists primarily of argument over intuitions, like: "It has to be like x" or "it has to be like y." The question of "does the universe have a cause" is different from "is that animal a cat." In the second case, you can check to see through observation that it is a cat. In the first case, on the other hand, you can't.

I'd be interested in what premises could be proposed that would lead to the conclusion that the universe did not begin to exist.

For one example:

p1: everything that did not begin to exist does not have a cause.

p2: the universe did not begin to exist.

c: the universe did not have a Cause.

And, once again, I want to express that it's not just a metaphysical, semantical issue. We're talking about the real, actual universe that we walk around in and interact with.

Is there any evidence supporting the idea that it is more than such an issue, or is this something that you have to just take or leave?

This issue has real ramifications on our everyday lives.

What would those ramifications be like?

[parkening]

134. We differ in that

I believe that we can, through direct observation and logic, deduce that the universe had to have had a First Cause. In that way, in my mind, there is no difference between "it's a cat" and "universe is caused". If you don't see that, that's fine. We can get comfortable hiding behind, "oh, that's just unknowable".

I appreciate you providing an argument of your own. Your form is flawless. Therefore, if the premises are true then the conclusion automatically follows. P1 looks great, I couldn't even begin to disagree with it. P2, on the other hand, (and I know you disagree) is demonstrably false. Therefore, the conclusion is not correct.

What ramifications are there on my everyday life? Who/What is this First Cause? What, if anything, does He/She/It/They expect of me? Questions worth researching (and knowable with reasonable certainty, I might add).

[dave29]

45. Accidentalism

"oops, now what do I do"

-God

[RebelOne]

46. Oh, please, don't backslide.

[9215]

68. hee, hee. I've seen the light brother/sister!

[Must_B_Free]

56. irrelevant -

the whole "god" - "no god" debate is merely a trick of semantics.

All that is important is that you know that you are here now.

[jonnyblitz]

59. another succumbs to the lure of mysticism.

sad.

[9215]

139. agnostic as mystic?

[JanMichael]

61. I'm an Atheist BECAUSE I'm Agnostic.

Ie. I'm not a Theist, thus A-Theist.

I don't know *Actually I think it's impossible to know.), nor care, if the god stories are true or not.

I've always considered the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism as this: One refers to a believe, or actually a lack thereof; the other simply refers to ultimate knowledge or actually an admission that there's just no way of knowing anything like that for certain.

Matter of fact I've never heard any Atheist say that they could prove the non-existence, falsify, of every god story. They, we, just don't believe them because we ultimately don't know.

That's OK though. Life is fine with or without.

[Kimber Scott]

66. I've just realized I'm a pantheist.

I look at the world and am awed by the power of nature. Is there A god, many gods, no gods? I think the universe is God. Is it a diety, in the traditional sense? I don't know. I don't think so, but that's just me. I feel a sense of communion with something larger than myself and when I see the pictures from the Hubble telescope it is mind-boggling to realize how small I really am. Even so, I still feel "a part of."

I wonder often about the meaning of life, or the meaninglessness of it. I think the meaning is in the wonder. Good luck in your quest, for when all is said and done, we are all really only searching for ourselves.

[goodhue]

69. makes sense to me

I too have moved over time from hardcore atheism to more open-minded agnosticism. I tend to believe more and more in the sacredness of natural systems, so I guess its kind of a gaian thing really, although I can't abide mother earth metaphors. Plus my father is hard core zen buddhist and my in-laws are hindu/jain, and I largely respect and support their belief systems (of course those systems don't posit a single god so are not inconsistent with agnosticism).

[rocktop15]

70. If there's no God, then why try to convince me there's not?

If you're so sure that a God does not exist, then why do you spend so much energy and time trying to disprove it? It should speak for itself. When I think of God, I think of nature and how it all interrelates. In my opinion, there is just no way that everything that exists today could come about w/o intelligent design. I don't read the Bible, and interpret it, word for word. I read it like all books, take the good out of it and apply it to my life, and leave the rest.

There's no doubt in my mind that God exists and is very alive today.

[goodhue]

72. I'm not trying to convince anyone that there is no god. n/t

[enki23]

78. there's that old saw again. yes virginia, you can prove a negative.

i can prove there's no beer in my fridge. it's a testable claim, and easy to prove. and it's "negative." see how silly that idea is when you apply it to real life?

the problem with "is there a god?" isn't that you can't prove a negative. there are a couple problems with it, however. one is that simply saying "there is a god" isn't really a testable claim. you can't prove *anything* about an untestable claim. negative, positive, whatever. it's speculation. if you ask me to prove there's no invisible, incorporeal beer in my fridge, then you're asking me to prove an untestable claim. i've no reason to think there's any such thing as invisible, incorporeal beer until i have some positive evidence that such a thing exists. (and that evidence, by the way, would have to include a method for discriminating between incorporeal beer and mere incorporeal ginger ale. unless you're just trying to prove the existance of incorporeality, not the yeasty version of it.)

another problem is that when theists make claims about god, they require MUCH higher standards of evidence to disprove their claims than are normally required. and much higher than they require of their own "positive" assertions. an example would be me opening my fridge door showing nary a beer in sight followed by the beer-theist's response, "how you do you *know* there's no beer just because you can't *see* any beer?" and then "maybe it's hiding in the broccoli?" when you show there's no evident beer in the broccoli, they'll usually fall back to the incorporeal beer story. others might instead choose to first try to prove, starting from "first principles," that my fridge could not exist unless it contained an omnicient, omnipotent, incorporeal, frothy, nut-brown creator which is present in all things refrigerator. such arguments never hold up under scrutiny, however, and so they will always have to fall back on the incorporeal beer which exists because their parents told them it existed.


anyway... god is merely speculation. where it's a testable claim, it fails on testing. most of it is untestable, and so the whole argument over "proving a negative" doesn't apply anyway. you can't prove something which isn't provable, because you can't test something which isn't testable. when they talk about god in that manner, they aren't talking about a real thing. they're talking about their own, often internally inconsistent, speculations on a thing. you can't prove their speculations do, or do not exist.

so... whatever. agnostic, atheist... they're the same thing. when i say "there is no god" i'm saying "there is no testable thing which has been called 'god'for which we have significant evidence." i mean the same thing when i say "there is no easter bunny." and i'm right on both counts.

[parkening]

84. All cute analogizing aside...

you cannot prove a negative. It is logically impossible. As silly as it sounds, you can't prove that little green men aren't hiding your beer and moving it out of sight no matter where you look. You take it on faith that that is not happening.

To paraphrase a wise person: "anyway... <naturalistic explanations of the origin of the universe> is merely speculation. where it's a testable claim, it fails on testing. most of it is untestable, and so the whole argument over "proving a negative" doesn't apply anyway. you can't prove something which isn't provable, because you can't test something which isn't testable. when they talk about <naturalistic explanations of the origin of the universe> in that manner, they aren't talking about a real thing. they're talking about their own, often internally inconsistent, speculations on a thing. you can't prove their speculations do, or do not exist."

[Az]

88. The difficulty in disproving god

Is that you need a definition of god to disprove.

The idea that you cannot prove a negative is based on the way logic flows. You cannot postulate a concrete negative conjecture and prove it. You can define abstract constructs and other systems that are self referentially definable. ie You can prove there are no square circles. But you cannot prove there are no smurfs.

The proper flow of logic is such that the claimant bears the burden of providing evidence for their case. In this case the positive claimant would be the theists claiming the existance of god. The skeptics or atheists would then present their challenges to the evidnece for god. If they are succesful and all participants were willing to abide by the flow of logic the claim for god would have to be discarded.

Unfortunately the possible claims for god are countless. Therefore atheists cannot perform a preemptive strike and disprove all claims for god. They can refute some obvious claims (god is that which makes all bricks float), they can challenge some established claims(god is that which made the universe 6000 years ago), or they can wait for a theist to present a case.

[parkening]

103. Very nicely put Az

[9215]

90. Are you the Enki from the Vreeland days?

:hi:

[info being]

97. Another proud agnostic here. Good decision.

Here's my take:

- If there is a God, we were designed not to understand God.
- It is arrogant to attempt to define / label that which were were designed not to understand.
- It would be insulting to any Creator that may exist to waste the capabilities / potential we DO have while we speculate about the unknowable.

I could go on...but that's my case for Agnosticism. I think God has something to do with the force of evolution...but that's another story.

[cheezus]

99. I've recently realzied I'm a Buddhist

and have even been considered becoming one formally. The belief and value system that i've come up with on my own just happens to coinside closely with buddhism.

[Az]

102. Same way I found out I was a Taoist

As I read Sun Tzu's Art of War and later Lao Tzu's Tao te Ching I realized that their ideas closely matched my own personal philosophies.

[Mattforclark]

109. But legalism and taoism are not at all the same thing...

Or do you mean that you think some of the things in each?

[Az]

115. Not really associating legalism into this

Not sure where you made that reference from.

May be something I missed.

[Mattforclark]

118. I thought Sun Tzu was a legalist

But then, I'm not an expert on ancient Chinese Philosophy. Certainly he wasn't a taoist though!?!

[Az]

119. Sun Tzu

Was a military strategist. He wrote what many consider to be a masterwork and the art of warfare. Though called the Art of War it would be better titled the Art of Conflict. It details sound tactics which though geared towards conflict in fact consider the need to actually draw a sword to be a loss. It is a philosophy of seeking to end the need for conflict before it rises to a condition that is harmful to all involved.

[Bandit]

126. I am

:shrug: Nothing else matters concerning this topic

[MAlibdem]

140. Deist over here...

at the moment...i swing around atheist, agnostic, jewish (literary reading of old testament), deistic jewish...ah to be young and philosophical

[bleedingedge]

144. Pardon my stupidity...sources?

9215,

>stupid request for sources omitted<

Erp - nevermind. Realized too late that you had given sources. My bad.

Phalange

[9215]

145. Welcome to DU.

:toast: