Trying to find my way!

[ashes_to_ashes]

The point though, is that there is no reason to think that this is the case.

No reason? Come on, now, don't hold other people's viewpoints to different standards. Making a comment like that means that you have abandoned everything science stands for! We may as well throw out any other scientific hypothesis along the way. I will not follow a set of hypocritical beliefs, and personally, you shouldn't either.

I've said earlier in other posts that even science has to make at least one assumption before it can get started: That observed reality is real.

Again, if science can make an assumption, so too can all other belief systems/philosophies/theology in the world around us. How about I make an assumption? Reality isn't real. See? It just becomes my word against yours.

And until there is some evidence that this is not the case, why would one think otherwise?

Well, there is plenty of evidence. Physics is no longer good enough? Besides, I can play the "there is not enough evidence" card on any view of reality one can conceive. At the end of the day, we have to realize and embrace the fact that anything is, however unlikely, possible.

 

[jarofthoughts]

No reason? Come on, now, don't hold other people's viewpoints to different standards. Making a comment like that means that you have abandoned everything science stands for! We may as well throw out any other scientific hypothesis along the way. I will not follow a set of hypocritical beliefs, and personally, you shouldn't either.

Why don't you falsify that hypothesis for me? Because unless you can falsify it, its not a hypothesis and its not science.

Again, if science can make an assumption, so too can all other belief systems/philosophies/theology in the world around us. How about I make an assumption? Reality isn't real. See? It just becomes my word against yours.

Actually, no. Seeing as observed reality is all we have and all we have ever had it is an assumption we all have to make. Those people who don't tend to end up in a psych-ward, and for good reason. Observed reality is all we see, so that's what we have to go on.

Well, there is plenty of evidence. Physics is no longer good enough?

Care to elaborate on what you mean by this?

Besides, I can play the "there is not enough evidence" card on any view of reality one can conceive. At the end of the day, we have to realize and embrace the fact that anything is, however unlikely, possible.

Science works on probabilities. So what do you think fares best; observed reality or some stuff that you just made up?

 

[Jacksnyte]

So I'm at a point where I'm not sure what religion is best for me anymore. I grew up as Roman Catholic, and later converted to Buddhism, and have been such for 7 or so years now trying to find a certain school of thought that fit me.

Recently I was in a debate at the bar...I don't know how so many random guys started debating religious beliefs...but oh well, and someone mentioned their belief that every religion is in some way right.

From what I remember him saying, all religious beings, afterlives, etc are manifestations created through the will of humans on the cosmos (for a lack of better term).

I'm not really sure if I'm at the point where I'm not a Buddhist anymore, but what I heard from this guy just seemed to strike me as an answer to many questions I've had throughout my life, and I'd really enjoy reading and studying religions based (at least somewhat) around these ideals. All I really know is that I spent a long time between Catholicism and Buddhism, so reading on anything and everything that might fit is absolutely no problem for me, I like to take my time when trying to figure out if my beliefs are changing, or if it's just curiosity.

Also, if anyone would like more information on anything specific that I'm at crossroads about to help with the search for a belief system, I'd be more than happy to answer.

Thanks for any help,
Pyre

[youtube]wezp1W2HKlU[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wezp1W2HKlU

 

[ashes_to_ashes]

Science works on probabilities.

Exactly. But just because something is probable, does not not mean that it will always happen.

So what do you think fares best; observed reality or some stuff that you just made up?

Observed reality or stuff I just make up? Honestly, I'd choose neither.

Those people who don't tend to end up in a psych-ward, and for good reason.

You are obviously not a licensed clinical psychiatrist like I am.

 

[science_is_my_god]

Seeing as observed reality is all we have and all we have ever had it is an assumption we all have to make.

That, my friend, is what you would call a complete antithesis to outside-of-the-box thinking. You are just as narrow minded as any religious fanatic.

 

[Orias]

So I'm at a point where I'm not sure what religion is best for me anymore. I grew up as Roman Catholic, and later converted to Buddhism, and have been such for 7 or so years now trying to find a certain school of thought that fit me.

Spirituality is most...conducive when one is able to comprehend their own spirit.

Do not seach, let the fabric of existence consume your mind and body, and spirit will come unto you.

Recently I was in a debate at the bar...I don't know how so many random guys started debating religious beliefs...but oh well, and someone mentioned their belief that every religion is in some way right.

Do you agree with this?

From what I remember him saying, all religious beings, afterlives, etc are manifestations created through the will of humans on the cosmos (for a lack of better term).

All labels, definitions and perceptions are indeed human fabrications.

He is speaking from an empathetic viewpoint, seems to me this man is psychologicaly and sociologically inclined in the art of perception

I'm not really sure if I'm at the point where I'm not a Buddhist anymore, but what I heard from this guy just seemed to strike me as an answer to many questions I've had throughout my life, and I'd really enjoy reading and studying religions based (at least somewhat) around these ideals. All I really know is that I spent a long time between Catholicism and Buddhism, so reading on anything and everything that might fit is absolutely no problem for me, I like to take my time when trying to figure out if my beliefs are changing, or if it's just curiosity.

I understand.

I never grew up being religious, most of my family actually was indifferent in the matter spiritual aesthetics.

So at a young age I discovered Satanism...and from there....well it turned into much, much more.

This man you were speaking to sounds like a Pantheist or a Panentheist. Hell, he might even be Satanic.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Exactly. But just because something is probable, does not not mean that it will always happen.

I'm pretty sure that is the difference between probability and certainty.

Observed reality or stuff I just make up? Honestly, I'd choose neither.

Right.
That means that I cannot in any conceivable way trust you.
Who knows what you will make up next...

You are obviously not a licensed clinical psychiatrist like I am.

No, I am not, but in general we consider people who make up their own reality delusional.

 

[Breathe]

Hey PyreBorn, did you finally settle on something to call your own?

 

[Gaura Priya]

[youtube]wezp1W2HKlU[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wezp1W2HKlU

Hahaha... I second that!


And all that Quantum Physics went right past my head! :sleep:

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Nowhere Man what you said about Buddhism being like Hotel California, that is so true. In my own life it's been true.

 

[jarofthoughts]

That, my friend, is what you would call a complete antithesis to outside-of-the-box thinking. You are just as narrow minded as any religious fanatic.

Nope. I'm just making sure I'm not so open-minded that my brain falls out.
I, as all adherents to scientific evidence, am in fact very open-minded indeed.
Just provide empirical scientific objective peer reviewed evidence for your claims and I'll change my mind.
Simple, no?

 

[Orias]

Nope. I'm just making sure I'm not so open-minded that my brain falls out.
I, as all adherents to scientific evidence, am in fact very open-minded indeed.
Just provide empirical scientific objective peer reviewed evidence for your claims and I'll change my mind.
Simple, no?

Scientific evidence...lol.

One would assume that you would know what "evidence" to look for, rather than testing silly theories.

One who lacks in faith simply carries no meaning of being open minded. It's just a facade.

I find it funny when people ask for objective evidence, and then use a subjective stance to deny God.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Blind faith is credulity. Jesus faith was not 'blind' but Jesus had a well-rounded biblical education, and Jesus used his education logically by referring to or quoting corresponding or parallel verses or passages to his statements. Jesus often pre-faced his statements with the words, "it is written" . Written where but in the Hebrew OT Scriptures.
So Jesus had reasons, not credulity, for his beliefs.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Blind faith is credulity. Jesus faith was not 'blind' but Jesus had a well-rounded biblical education, and Jesus used his education logically by referring to or quoting corresponding or parallel verses or passages to his statements. Jesus often pre-faced his statements with the words, "it is written" . Written where but in the Hebrew OT Scriptures.
So Jesus had reasons, not credulity, for his beliefs.

Considering only what you have written above, Jesus would still have credulity because his sources were unsupported by evidence. That just means that he had blind faith in his sources.

There is no more reason to think that the Torah is correct than it is to think the New Testament is correct.

 

[Orias]

Actually religious faith is the opposite of having an open mind.

Of course, only if you follow one book.

Religious, that is to say, blind faith means that one has stopped looking for answers because one thinks that one has already found it.

And you would be as so conceited to them they are wrong?

And on what grounds?
Nothing more than "I think this should be so" or "I've decided that this is so".

And on what grounds are you anymore right?

Also, I've never claimed that there is no god. I've just done what all decent atheists do; point out the utter and complete lack of reasons to believe that there is one.

The label "Atheist" claims there is no God.

Decent "atheists" don't ask for objective evidence when taking a subjective side.

I'd say people are atheists simply for lack of reason.

"Evidence" is subjected to how people chose to see it.

Pft... You've GOT to come better than that.

Is that it?

Atheists were meant to combat the supernatural, not the pragmatic.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Of course, only if you follow one book.

Which includes the vast majority of religious people.

And you would be as so conceited to them they are wrong?

I have no idea what this sentence means.

And on what grounds are you anymore right?

Not sure what you mean here.
My position is merely that there is no reason to think that there is a god or gods.
All I have to do is point to the staggering lack of evidence to show why this is so.

The label "Atheist" claims there is no God.

No.
The label "Atheist" means that I do not believe in a god or gods.
Not that I claim that there is none.

Decent "atheists" don't ask for objective evidence when taking a subjective side.

I ask for objective evidence whenever someone makes a claim about reality.
And claiming that there is a god is most certainly a claim about reality.
What the heck do you mean by a "decent" atheist anyway? :sarcastic

I'd say people are atheists simply for lack of reason.

Well, you are entitled to your own opinion obviously.
That doesn't make it so though.

"Evidence" is subjected to how people chose to see it.

Sure, but it should be reproducible and open to anyone, in the same way that your experiments should be repeatable. This is why the plural of personal anecdote is not data.

Is that it?

Atheists were meant to combat the supernatural, not the pragmatic.

"Combat the supernatual"? :sarcastic
Dude, no-one has yet shown that there even is such a thing as the supernatural.
Perhaps we should do that before we "combat" it...

 

[Dezzie]

So I'm at a point where I'm not sure what religion is best for me anymore. I grew up as Roman Catholic, and later converted to Buddhism, and have been such for 7 or so years now trying to find a certain school of thought that fit me.

Recently I was in a debate at the bar...I don't know how so many random guys started debating religious beliefs...but oh well, and someone mentioned their belief that every religion is in some way right.

From what I remember him saying, all religious beings, afterlives, etc are manifestations created through the will of humans on the cosmos (for a lack of better term).

I'm not really sure if I'm at the point where I'm not a Buddhist anymore, but what I heard from this guy just seemed to strike me as an answer to many questions I've had throughout my life, and I'd really enjoy reading and studying religions based (at least somewhat) around these ideals. All I really know is that I spent a long time between Catholicism and Buddhism, so reading on anything and everything that might fit is absolutely no problem for me, I like to take my time when trying to figure out if my beliefs are changing, or if it's just curiosity.

Also, if anyone would like more information on anything specific that I'm at crossroads about to help with the search for a belief system, I'd be more than happy to answer.

Thanks for any help,
Pyre

I am in the same situation as you. I went from Mormon, to Wiccan, to Unitarian Universalist, to Buddhism, to well... nothing. I decided that I don't need a Religion in my life to live and have fun! I figured that I would just sit back and enjoy the ride instead of worry about my fate. If I died and God was standing before me, well... I will explain to Him why I did what I did. If He doesn't take my answers... oh well... I did the best I could to be a kind and helpful person. If that wasn't enough for Him, so be it.

 

[Orias]

Which includes the vast majority of religious people.

Indeed it does. But to narrow down faith and generalize religious people as being narrow minded I think is a very big irrationalization.

Of course, I do realize you are speaking from your experience here on these forums from religious people. So I can understand your viewpoint.

I have no idea what this sentence means.

Excuse my impertinence, I tend to get carried away.

What I meant by that is...what makes you any more right. Just because someone finds comfort in a faith, doesn't give you a reason to go an tear it away from them.

Not sure what you mean here.
My position is merely that there is no reason to think that there is a god or gods.
All I have to do is point to the staggering lack of evidence to show why this is so.

I was implying that the said argument could be used against you as well.

And on what grounds?
Nothing more than "I think this should be so" or "I've decided that this is so".

No.
The label "Atheist" means that I do not believe in a god or gods.
Not that I claim that there is none.

Atheism= The disbelieve or denial that there is no Gods.

The label you take upon yourself insinuates that you pre-deny Gods. If this is not the case then do not call yourself an "atheist".

I ask for objective evidence whenever someone makes a claim about reality.
And claiming that there is a god is most certainly a claim about reality.
What the heck do you mean by a "decent" atheist anyway? :sarcastic

Define what reality is, then I can give you objective evidence of something greater than you.

And I have no idea what I mean by "decent atheists", your the one who said it.

Well, you are entitled to your own opinion obviously.
That doesn't make it so though.

As are you.

But it does, simply because Life is subjected to ignorance.

Sure, but it should be reproducible and open to anyone, in the same way that your experiments should be repeatable. This is why the plural of personal anecdote is not data.

Then I fail to see how anything else is.

"Combat the supernatual"? :sarcastic
Dude, no-one has yet shown that there even is such a thing as the supernatural.
Perhaps we should do that before we "combat" it...

Then why does it exist?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Indeed it does. But to narrow down faith and generalize religious people as being narrow minded I think is a very big irrationalization.

Of course, I do realize you are speaking from your experience here on these forums from religious people. So I can understand your viewpoint.

Look, I know that there are probably thousands of ways of being religious (if not more), but in these discussions, unless specified otherwise, I am talking about the majorities of groups. I'll just have to deal with the exceptions as they come up.

Excuse my impertinence, I tend to get carried away.

What I meant by that is...what makes you any more right. Just because someone finds comfort in a faith, doesn't give you a reason to go an tear it away from them.

But that's not the reason I'm doing it, if that is in fact what I am doing. The "deconversion" statistics aren't looking good, but then I never expected them to.
The reason I am opposing and arguing against a religious view of reality is that there is no evidence that any of that is correct or even real.
I'm not diametrically opposed to people being comfortable. That would be rather absurd. Rather I am opposed to people making stuff up and then presenting it to others as if it was true, a claim that is sorely lacking in evidential backing.

I was implying that the said argument could be used against you as well.

Ah. But it can't.
Because my view of reality is based on objective empirical evidence whereas their's is, in fact, not.

Atheism= The disbelieve or denial that there is no Gods.

The label you take upon yourself insinuates that you pre-deny Gods. If this is not the case then do not call yourself an "atheist".

From the Oxford Online Dictionary:
"A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods."

From Wikipedia:
"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

definition of atheist from Oxford Dictionaries Online
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not make the positive claim that there are no gods.
I merely point out that there is no reason to think there is.

Define what reality is, then I can give you objective evidence of something greater than you.

Reality, as I consider it, is everything that we can perceive and objectively, empirically and scientifically show to be so.
Granted, this is a view of reality that changes over time as we discover more and more about the universe, but I do not see that as a weakness. Rather it is one of its greatest strengths.

And I have no idea what I mean by "decent atheists", your the one who said it.

Ah. Sorry, my bad. I'd forgotten that I'd used that phrase. :sorry1:
What I meant by that was that it is folly to make the positive claim that there are no gods because then the onus of evidence is upon whoever made that claim. Rather, it is better to contest the theist claim that there are gods, in which the onus of evidence is upon them.
This follows from the logical conundrum of proving the non-existence of anything, which is impossible.

As are you.

But it does, simply because Life is subjected to ignorance.

Not sure of the point you are trying to make here.
Could you elaborate somewhat please?

Then I fail to see how anything else is.

Depending on the branch of science we're dealing with there are many types of evidence, measurements and so on that count as data.
Personal anecdotes on the other hand is considered highly biased, unreliable, seldom reproducible and thus are not considered to be of much worth.

Then why does it exist?

Are you making the claim that the supernatural exists? :sarcastic

 

[Orias]

Look, I know that there are probably thousands of ways of being religious (if not more), but in these discussions, unless specified otherwise, I am talking about the majorities of groups. I'll just have to deal with the exceptions as they come up.

Very well then

But that's not the reason I'm doing it, if that is in fact what I am doing. The "deconversion" statistics aren't looking good, but then I never expected them to.
The reason I am opposing and arguing against a religious view of reality is that there is no evidence that any of that is correct or even real.
I'm not diametrically opposed to people being comfortable. That would be rather absurd. Rather I am opposed to people making stuff up and then presenting it to others as if it was true, a claim that is sorely lacking in evidential backing.

I see, and this helps a lot. From my view though, all perception is truth. And as ambiguous as that claim is, I know you are capable of understanding it.

Ah. But it can't.
Because my view of reality is based on objective empirical evidence whereas their's is, in fact, not.

All stances subject themselves to perception, it can be used against you.

It's much like, prove that God exists...well prove that he doesn't.

From the Oxford Online Dictionary:
"A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods."

From Wikipedia:
"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

definition of atheist from Oxford Dictionaries Online
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a·the·ist
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

atheist - definition of atheist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

It seems many definitions subject themselves to contradiction

I do not make the positive claim that there are no gods.
I merely point out that there is no reason to think there is.

Then consider agnostic a more proper label for you, along with a combination of other things.

Reality, as I consider it, is everything that we can perceive and objectively, empirically and scientifically show to be so.
Granted, this is a view of reality that changes over time as we discover more and more about the universe, but I do not see that as a weakness. Rather it is one of its greatest strengths.

Do you not agree that science is just as fabricated as any religion? That because it is human made, it just as fallacious?

This must be the core of our dissonance.

Ah. Sorry, my bad. I'd forgotten that I'd used that phrase. :sorry1:
What I meant by that was that it is folly to make the positive claim that there are no gods because then the onus of evidence is upon whoever made that claim. Rather, it is better to contest the theist claim that there are gods, in which the onus of evidence is upon them.
This follows from the logical conundrum of proving the non-existence of anything, which is impossible.

I must be missing something...

What evidence provides such claims?

Not sure of the point you are trying to make here.
Could you elaborate somewhat please?

I meant that every belief is so, because when you step back and look at every spiritual and non-spiritual flavor, you get the sum of what man is, the sum of what existence, nature is. We merely reflect the complexity of the Universe. Everything within and beyond it, simply because we are natural, we are nature.

Depending on the branch of science we're dealing with there are many types of evidence, measurements and so on that count as data.
Personal anecdotes on the other hand is considered highly biased, unreliable, seldom reproducible and thus are not considered to be of much worth.

People have ideas and spread them.

My point is that religious people and "scientific" people are the same, which means any experience is one of "unworth".

Are you making the claim that the supernatural exists? :sarcastic

Of course not, I simply stated that it is defined and characterized.

It is perception, as is everything else. Which makes objective stances bs, simply because we only know one thing, Life, and all that follows is man's subjective beliefs and desires.