[quote=T.Rex;181919]I'm an atheist: I'm sure that there is no God and I'm intolerant of people believing in God because I think they are dangerous for my liberty.[/quote]

I think that [I]anti-theist [/I]would be a more fitting description for this position. Even though I am also strongly anti-theist, I'm trying to teach myself (with moderate success) to think a little more like an [I]apatheist[/I], i.e. someone who sees a god's existence (or non-existence) as entirely, completely, utterly, wholly, totally, irrelevant.

Many people who believe in the supernatural just want to be left alone, so it's not necessarily the 'believing in god' that makes people a threat to our liberty; it's people who threaten our liberty, who threaten our liberty (redundancy intended), regardless in which way their delusions manifest themselves.

Cheesehead, e.g. might be an anti-theist, but he's every bit as dangerous as all the other nincompoops, who think other people shouldn't be allowed to decide how to live their lives themselves, for fear that these other people could make superior decisions.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;181972]Even though I am also strongly anti-theist, I'm trying to teach myself (with moderate success) to think a little more like an [I]apatheist[/I], i.e. someone who sees a god's existence (or non-existence) as entirely, completely, utterly, wholly, totally, irrelevant.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, that's part of what I believe. To me it really doesn't matter whether or not God exists. I think it's irrelevant. But, what's most important is that people are civil to one another and tolerate other people's views. In that regard, I am an adherent to the moral framework of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism"]Cosmopolitanism[/URL].

[QUOTE=flouran;181960]I am not sure how many people on this forum are believers in/have heard of Brane Theory, but essentially, the collision of hyper-dimensional membranes caused the Big Bang. [/QUOTE]

Which begs the question: "How did these hyper-dimensional membranes, or what ever you want to call the stuff that went BANG during the Big Bang, come into being? What or 'who' created them?"

[QUOTE=petrw1;181982]Which begs the question: "How did these hyper-dimensional membranes, or what ever you want to call the stuff that went BANG during the Big Bang, come into being? What or 'who' created them?"[/QUOTE]
Not sure about this, but I think Brane theorists do theorize the origin of these membranes. I just forget... I think, not sure, that the branes go in and out of activity during their life cycles. These branes also create other branes and so forth. I have forgotten most of my string theory (it's been 5 years almost that I last picked up a book about string theory), so I am an unreliable source. But Google it; it's a pretty interesting theory!

[quote=flouran;181974]Actually, that's part of what I believe. To me it really doesn't matter whether or not God exists. I think it's irrelevant. But, what's most important is that people are civil to one another and tolerate other people's views. In that regard, I am an adherent to the moral framework of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism"]Cosmopolitanism[/URL].[/quote]

From wikipedia:

[I]Philosophical cosmopolitans are [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism"]moral universalists[/URL]: they believe that all humans, and not merely compatriots or fellow-citizens, come under the same moral standards.
[/I]
Unfortunately, moral universalism denies that morals (like every thing else concerning lifeforms) are subject to evolutionary optimization. Specifically, it excludes the possibility that different systems of morals can lead to distinct, but nevertheless optimal solutions, with prohibitive cost for a transition between locally optimal solutions.

The existence of[I] Cosmopolitans[/I] simply emphasizes that believing in god/UFOs/ghosts is not a necessary condition for being an idiot.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;181985]From wikipedia:

[I]Philosophical cosmopolitans are [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism"]moral universalists[/URL]: they believe that all humans, and not merely compatriots or fellow-citizens, come under the same moral standards.
[/I]
Unfortunately, moral universalism denies that morals (like every thing else concerning lifeforms) are subject to evolutionary optimization. Specifically, it excludes the possibility that different systems of morals can lead to distinct, but nevertheless optimal solutions, with prohibitive cost for a transition between locally optimal solutions.

The existence of[I] Cosmopolitans[/I] simply emphasizes that believing in god/UFOs/ghosts is not a necessary condition for being an idiot.[/QUOTE]
Well, then I guess I don't partake in the moral universalist aspects of Cosmopolitanism. Jeez, then I guess my own beliefs do not have a name yet!

[QUOTE=petrw1;181982]Which begs the question: "How did these hyper-dimensional membranes, or what ever you want to call the stuff that went BANG during the Big Bang, come into being? What or 'who' created them?"[/QUOTE]

Exactly! If I remember correctly, the cutting edge of String Theory suggests that strings (once thought to be one dimensional), upon close examination, become two dimensional membranes. However, there also exist higher dimension membranes in the folds of 11 dimension spacetime. But, these objects are still viewed as energy (in the case of strings). And energy is another form of matter, which still brings the law of physics that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. In this sense physicists seem to be breaking their own rules (or those that claim the idea of a higher power as folly).

[QUOTE=flouran;181984]Not sure about this, but I think Brane theorists do theorize the origin of these membranes. I just forget... I think, not sure, that the branes go in and out of activity during their life cycles. These branes also create other branes and so forth. I have forgotten most of my string theory (it's been 5 years almost that I last picked up a book about string theory), so I am an unreliable source. But Google it; it's a pretty interesting theory![/QUOTE]

You can take this discussion as far back as you want- but eventually one has to come to terms that there is an apparent violation of the laws of physics. On a side note, it is a VERY fascinating theory and one I thoroughly enjoy reading about.

[QUOTE=jasong;181652]We don't exist so that we can do awesome things, we exist to glorify God.[/QUOTE]
Says who? And whose God (or Gods) should we be spending all our time glorifying, precisely? Even if there is a God (or Gods), given that there are so many different faiths on earth, how do we decide which (if any) is "the right one", and what happens to all the poor buggers who spend their lives glorifying the wrong God (or Gods)?

[QUOTE]Would your parents have tried to conceive you if they thought that you would dishonor and disrespect them? No, your parents had you because they wanted to pass on their values, replicate what makes them who they are.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe it was a just a fit of drunken passion ... also, your (implied) definition of "values" seems exceedingly narrow. You think "glorifying God" (or Gods) is all that God (or Gods) wants us to do? Man, some some seriously insecure, egotistical deity (or deities) you've conjured up there, bro. I mean, what about all the other "good" things even your bible characters spend their time doing, good deeds, charitable works, et cetera? (We'll ignore all the serious horrible shit they spend their time doing for now.) What about kindness to one's fellow man, responsible stewardship of the planet, and so forth? Sorry, we're all too busy GLORIFYING GOD. (Or Gods).

[quote]There are people who are the best in their field, rich, famous, and are miserable. On the other side there are people that have nothing, they're in abject poverty, barely scraping by, that think God is the most awesome thing there is.[/quote]
What's your point? That being a self-delusional loser is admirable? After all, most of those abject folks are worshipping some other God (or Gods) than yours, so they *are* self-delusional, right? Also, you left out many other kinds of people, such as "best in their field, rich, famous and happy", "not exactly rich and famous, but still doing well for themselves and perfectly content", and failed to establish any kind of a link between these various states and belief in God (or Gods). If you were trying to claim that belief in God is a guarantee of happiness much more surely than success and wealth are ... well, I've heard of plenty of rich and famous "best in their field" televangelists who've tearfully confessed to chasing skirt, lying, cheating, stealing, etc - all things a "perfectly contented" individual would not do. They didn't sound particularly happy, even though they were convinced of God's (or Gods') "awesomeness".

[quote]And then there's me, at the age of 17 I began hallucinating.[quote]
And you haven't stopped...

[quote]I thought the TV was talking to me, that people were trying to kill my little brother, I heard voices and saw visions. Before that I was an atheist, someone headed down a very dark road. Most people would see this sort of thing as proof there is no God. I saw it as proof that if there is no God, that life isn't worthwhile.[/quote]
Most people would see this sort of thing as proof that you were/are in need of antipsychotic medication.

[quote]My intelligence, my knowledge, my physical appearance, they are 100% meant to glorify God. That is my purpose.[/quote]
Since I'm not particularly impressed with the former 2 qualities in you, how exactly does being willfully ignorant about a variety of topics (even leaving out faith) "glorify God"? Your God wants you to be a willful ignoramus, is that it? And WTF does your physical appearance have to do with "glorifying God?" Is your God such a shallow narcissist that he gives a rat's ass whether you are "beautiful" or not? "Dude, my God wants me to spend lost of time at the gym, getting all buff, and then on Sundays slather on the baby oil and do muscle-flex poses, to glorify Him." Are you a member of the First Church of Pumpitology?

[quote]Mind you, this doesn't mean I should abandon everything and read the Bible 24 hours a day. But, whatever I do, I am to do it for the glorification of God. If I learn a new skill, or read about the Intel SSDs that are supposedly coming out on Tuesday, I am to realize that those things exist because of the type of universe that God created. God wants to be discovered, He wants people to seek Him out in whatever way they can or want.[/QUOTE]
He also wants to take credit for other people's work, apparently.

[QUOTE]And that's why He tells us,"Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened." God will show Himself to anyone who wants to see him, if you don't want to believe in him than he won't show himself.[/QUOTE]
What if I want to believe in Him but He stubbornly refuses to show himself? I mean, the Bible God had no qualms about showing himself off in all sorts of not-so-subtle ways ... burning bushes, voices in the wilderness, television sets issuing dire warnings in re. little brothers, and such. Why so coy lately, God? (Or Gods).

I also confess that I find the "knock and the door will be opened" line slightly hilarious, because the biblical-era Hebrews (whose God you worship and claim to be quoting) lived in TENTS. (Or to a lesser degree in caves). So, um, when exactly did God say the "door" line?

---------------------

[QUOTE=Primeinator;181825]In the Gospels, Jesus is given the name "Son of Mary" because he did not have a mortal father- i.e. it was a virgin birth.[/QUOTE]
Don't know which gospels you're reading, but in the original (i.e. the Hebrew), there is NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER to a "virgin" birth - the word used to describe Mary translates roughly as "young woman", and lacks connotation of virginity. The "virgin" bit came in in the Greek (mis)translation of the original Hebrew text. So what you've just proved is essentially that entire religions can come into being as the result of a mistranslation of a single word. And unlike all the wild unsupported claims of the adherents of the various faiths, we have *proof* of the above mistranslation, by way of indisputably real authentic ancient texts. But hey, none of that matters, because "it's all a matter of faith", right? But which faith, exactly? The one written by a bunch of tent dwellers who obviously had a political agenda (e.g. philistines = bad people, we should slaughter them to glorify God and take their land), or the ones who can't even get the most basic facts about the tenets of their faith right? "Did we say 'virgin'? Sorry, our bad, we meant 'young woman' - but she's really a very *nice* young woman ... and rather attractive...."

[QUOTE]Also saying that many Biblical events lack historical evidence is true. But then, there is no evidence showing whether or not there is intelligent life on another planet. The events of the New Testament happened a long time ago- many documents can be destroyed or lost in 2,000 years.[/QUOTE]
But we do know there is intelligent life on *this* planet, that intelligent life (in the sense of human-like intelligence) is far from inevitable (on earth it appears to have been a result of asteroid-impact-happenstance), that there are other planets, that the number of same is likely exceedingly vast, but that the speed of light makes communication and travel between even neighboring star systems very cumbersome indeed, and even if *life* is common on other planets, intelligent life need not be, so we should perhaps not be surprised to not yet have heard from E.T. Most importantly, science has given us ways to use our intelligence to actual investigate and ultimately *answer* many of these deep questions, whereas all religion gives us by way of "answers" is false comfort (at least for all but the adherents of the possible One True Faith, whichever one that might be), unverifiable (and highly implausible) claims, and circular reasoning.

However, as a scientist I do find the question of "why did humans evolve a tendency toward religiosity?" to be interesting. Is that simply a side effect of the imaginative power of our complex brain, in the sense that the ability to imagine gives us a bigger survival boost than any possibly deleterious effects of the self-delusional side effects of that adaptation? Or does some degree of self-delusion (in particular of the optimistic variety) actually convey a survival benefit in its own right? This is where I differ with folks like Dawkins and Hitchens - I find "all religion bad" much too simplistic, and the question of "why religion?" eminently fascinating.

----------------------------

[QUOTE=flouran;181984]Not sure about this, but I think Brane theorists do theorize the origin of these membranes. I just forget... I think, not sure, that the branes go in and out of activity during their life cycles. These branes also create other branes and so forth. I have forgotten most of my string theory (it's been 5 years almost that I last picked up a book about string theory), so I am an unreliable source. But Google it; it's a pretty interesting theory![/QUOTE]

How unwittingly appropriate, to be discussing religion and string theory in the same thread. ;)

[QUOTE=__HRB__;181972]I think that [I]anti-theist [/I]would be a more fitting description for this position. Even though I am also strongly anti-theist, I'm trying to teach myself (with moderate success) to think a little more like an [I]apatheist[/I], i.e. someone who sees a god's existence (or non-existence) as entirely, completely, utterly, wholly, totally, irrelevant.[/QUOTE]It is unpleasant to be defined as being againt some other idea... atheit, anti-theist, apatheist : always "theist" is there... Awful.
I'm free of any foolish idea related to something who created me and related to the dream of a life after death.
"Free and Sound in Mind" ? "There by Chance" ? "Born to Die" ? "Wise" ?
We need another way for naming us...
T.

Education !!
 

[QUOTE=ewmayer;182114]However, as a scientist I do find the question of "why did humans evolve a tendency toward religiosity?" to be interesting. Is that simply a side effect of the imaginative power of our complex brain, in the sense that the ability to imagine gives us a bigger survival boost than any possibly deleterious effects of the self-delusional side effects of that adaptation? Or does some degree of self-delusion (in particular of the optimistic variety) actually convey a survival benefit in its own right? This is where I differ with folks like Dawkins and Hitchens - I find "all religion bad" much too simplistic, and the question of "why religion?" eminently fascinating.[/QUOTE]Hi Ernst,
Your discussion in this post is very interesting, very good !

About this last sentence, it is related to the questions I'm asking [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=181925&postcount=439"]there[/URL].
In my understanding, some religions were helpful for some tribes to survive and to kill other tribes and take their land. So, as a competition, some better/stronger religions helped some tribes to survive, because providing strong rules for living together and providing fear for those who would like to escape the tribe, and other things. These "strong" religions helped some tribes to expand, to grow. But this was long time ago. However, times have changed. And we no more live in small tribes. So, religions have extended from their original and natural land: small tribes, to large countries. And we know much more than at these old (bad) times. So, in my opinion, religions are dying. But, since they are parasites, they are still able to make men crazy. Mind about some grasshopper's parasite which leads it to commit suicide in water in order to bring the parasite where it can continue its life. Religions are parasite: what they want is to continue to live, without killing men too fast. Stopping the parasite is easy: prevent men to impose their own religion to their children. Let children learn about world and Sciences till 18. Then, let them choose.
I think that discussing with people fooled/parasited by religions is useless. The most useful actions is to push good non-religious education everywhere on the world, and to forbid people to have their children indoctrinated by their family religion.
Tony

[quote=T.Rex;182271]It is unpleasant to be defined as being againt some other idea... atheit, anti-theist, apatheist : always "theist" is there... Awful.
I'm free of any foolish idea related to something who created me and related to the dream of a life after death.
"Free and Sound in Mind" ? "There by Chance" ? "Born to Die" ? "Wise" ?
We need another way for naming us...
T.[/quote]

I think you mean something like this:

[URL]http://www.the-brights.net/[/URL]

Their goals:
[LIST=1][*]Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.[*]Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.[*]Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.[/LIST]
This is not an endorsement. Belonging to a troop of humans promoting an idea is a waste of time, because:

[I]1. Figuring out things for yourself is the only real freedom anyone has[/I]. -- Lt. Rasczak

[I]2. Nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.[/I] -- Oscar Wilde

[I]3. Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.[/I] --George Bernard Shaw