Trying to find my way!

[jarofthoughts]

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.

I understand it, but I do not share your views. Both empirical sources and personal experience tells me that personal perception is subject to illusions and can easily be faulty, which is why I do not trust merely my own observations when determining what I consider reality.
Of course, you could argue that those sources again are dependent upon my perception, but if they are illusionary then I am indeed mad and there is nothing I can do about that.

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

See above.

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

But that is faulty logic. The only reasonable thing is to place the onus of evidence of the one making the claim. I am not making a claim. I am contesting one.

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

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

Almost all atheists I've met subscribe to the definitions I posted earlier, and so do I.
As for agnosticism, please read this: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/resources/102356-agnostic-vs-atheist.html

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

No, I do not. Science makes falsifiable claims that can be checked by anyone willing to make the effort and it bases its conclusions on the best available evidence.
Religion just makes claims.

Difference.

I must be missing something...

What evidence provides such claims?

Prove that something does not exist and you'll see why this is an exercise in futility.

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.

I don't disagree with any particular point, except to add that beliefs are often false and must to qualified through evidence. Without evidence there is nothing but blind faith, and that is never a good position.

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".

Again, the difference is that science backs its claims up with evidence whereas religious claims are tantamount to mere opinion.

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.

It is perception based on nothing but personal experience. See above for my take on that.

 

[Orias]

I understand it, but I do not share your views. Both empirical sources and personal experience tells me that personal perception is subject to illusions and can easily be faulty, which is why I do not trust merely my own observations when determining what I consider reality.

Trusting in anything else would just lead you to madness.

The totality of man's perception justifies being, which is more conducive to him than that of a single habitat of destruction, or faulty illusion.

Of course, you could argue that those sources again are dependent upon my perception, but if they are illusionary then I am indeed mad and there is nothing I can do about that.

Ha, indeed.

But that is faulty logic. The only reasonable thing is to place the onus of evidence of the one making the claim. I am not making a claim. I am contesting one.

Contestnment is Opposition, which means in your dissonance you are making a claim of the Opposite.

The logic is only as faulty as the one who consider's an onus, when truly the point of your presence here is that of ontological purposes.

Almost all atheists I've met subscribe to the definitions I posted earlier, and so do I.
As for agnosticism, please read this: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/resources/102356-agnostic-vs-atheist.html

I never disagreed with you.

You are alike most atheists I have discussed with, which is why it is so hard to reach a more in depth observation with the universe.

Let's just call it a lack of spiritual aesthetics.

No, I do not. Science makes falsifiable claims that can be checked by anyone willing to make the effort and it bases its conclusions on the best available evidence.
Religion just makes claims.

Difference.

This must be a falsifiable claim. It makes no difference if you put a word to describe a word in front of another descriptive word. Religion makes claims that have been falsified, that is why so many exist.

Yes "science" differs on the scale of practicality. But all theories do is suggest ignorance.

Prove that something does not exist and you'll see why this is an exercise in futility.

Labels exist. What is anything without a label?

I don't disagree with any particular point, except to add that beliefs are often false and must to qualified through evidence. Without evidence there is nothing but blind faith, and that is never a good position.

Your giving the word "faith" a horrible stench. Evidence this, evidence that, that's not the point, not at all.

You require all of this "evidence" to justify the subjective assumption that religion is meant to be taken literally at all. Perhaps instead of looking for a way to condemn a spiritual side of man you should look for a way to not condemn yourself.

I'm not saying the practice of religion is true, I'm saying the totality (totality consists of all of man's perception not just religion) of it's reasoning and perception is always overlooked when searching for flaws, because when you search in specification for one thing, you miss the rest of what you are observing.

Again, the difference is that science backs its claims up with evidence whereas religious claims are tantamount to mere opinion.

I agree. But I don't see it as a difference, I just see it as you agreeing with me since religion can back up it's claims with "evidence" and science are tantamount to mere opinion. I'm not saying this out of mockery, I'm simply providing the side that religion is (a) science, and theists out number the non-theist.

It is perception based on nothing but personal experience. See above for my take on that.

Yes, personal experience as you chose to observe.

I'm not one for believing people find themselves, they create themselves.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Trusting in anything else would just lead you to madness.

The totality of man's perception justifies being, which is more conducive to him than that of a single habitat of destruction, or faulty illusion.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean...

Contestnment is Opposition, which means in your dissonance you are making a claim of the Opposite.

The logic is only as faulty as the one who consider's an onus, when truly the point of your presence here is that of ontological purposes.

Well, my only claim in that context is that the theist claim has no logical, empirical or scientific support and is therefore faulty.

You are alike most atheists I have discussed with, which is why it is so hard to reach a more in depth observation with the universe.

Yeah, I get that sometimes. See, the thing is, once you decide that an empirical and scientific view of the world is the only one that makes sense discussing various personalized notions that people have dreamt up becomes less easy, at least if one is supposed to take them as something real.
Sure, I'll gladly participate in thought-experiments and discourse about could-have-beens and the like, but I'm not likely to adopt them as part of my view of reality.

Let's just call it a lack of spiritual aesthetics.

Well, that depends on the definition of 'spiritual' you use.
If you think of it as "having a relationship based on a profound level of mental or emotional communion", which is one of the three definitions given by the Oxford Online Dictionary, then I do actually consider myself to be a spiritual person. I am, however, well aware that that is not necessarily what people mean when they say 'spiritual'.

This must be a falsifiable claim. It makes no difference if you put a word to describe a word in front of another descriptive word. Religion makes claims that have been falsified, that is why so many exist.

That again depends on the god/religion in question. For instance the Norse god Thor has been proven to be false, at least as described in the Norse myths. We know very well now how thunder and lightning come about and they do not involve an angry bearded man with a short hammer.
As for the deistic god, well that is another matter, and many theists have worked very hard to make sure their god is not falsifiable, lest he be proven to not exist.

Yes "science" differs on the scale of practicality. But all theories do is suggest ignorance.

Is that so? Then what do you suggest we use as our guide to what reality is then?

Labels exist. What is anything without a label?

How does that relate to the question I asked? Am I missing something here? :sarcastic

Your giving the word "faith" a horrible stench. Evidence this, evidence that, that's not the point, not at all.

Well, I care about what's true quite a bit, and thus far science and evidence has proven to be most effective in that regard. Religion, not so much.
Basically, in my book, it's evidence or bust.

You require all of this "evidence" to justify the subjective assumption that religion is meant to be taken literally at all. Perhaps instead of looking for a way to condemn a spiritual side of man you should look for a way to not condemn yourself.

That subjective assumption is not mine. Rather it is one held by many theists when they attempt to impose their beliefs on society.
Also, I do not feel particularily condemned.

I'm not saying the practice of religion is true, I'm saying the totality (totality consists of all of man's perception not just religion) of it's reasoning and perception is always overlooked when searching for flaws, because when you search in specification for one thing, you miss the rest of what you are observing.

Again, as long as the central claim of theism remains unsupported by evidence their religions have no value to me.

I agree. But I don't see it as a difference, I just see it as you agreeing with me since religion can back up it's claims with "evidence" and science are tantamount to mere opinion. I'm not saying this out of mockery, I'm simply providing the side that religion is (a) science, and theists out number the non-theist.[/quote]

And exactly how is religion a science according to you?

 

[Orias]

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean...

Hmm...think of everything. All of the labels, the perceptions, the mass of man's intellectual and spiritual development. Together, they define and describe what is perceived as existence and non-existence.

Of course common man only choses to walk one road, usually guided by a shepard.

Well, my only claim in that context is that the theist claim has no logical, empirical or scientific support and is therefore faulty.

Can you provide any examples?

I mean, God has no means to be supernatural, just common.

Yeah, I get that sometimes. See, the thing is, once you decide that an empirical and scientific view of the world is the only one that makes sense discussing various personalized notions that people have dreamt up becomes less easy, at least if one is supposed to take them as something real.
Sure, I'll gladly participate in thought-experiments and discourse about could-have-beens and the like, but I'm not likely to adopt them as part of my view of reality.

Hence our different views on reality, obviously.

Well, that depends on the definition of 'spiritual' you use.
If you think of it as "having a relationship based on a profound level of mental or emotional communion", which is one of the three definitions given by the Oxford Online Dictionary, then I do actually consider myself to be a spiritual person. I am, however, well aware that that is not necessarily what people mean when they say 'spiritual'.

I would agree with that definition. But you and I are on totally different levels.

That again depends on the god/religion in question. For instance the Norse god Thor has been proven to be false, at least as described in the Norse myths. We know very well now how thunder and lightning come about and they do not involve an angry bearded man with a short hammer.
As for the deistic god, well that is another matter, and many theists have worked very hard to make sure their god is not falsifiable, lest he be proven to not exist.

Yes, but your missing the point that people still believe. It's not a matter of, "your God doesn't exist", it's simply a way of life.

And atheists alike claim that it isn't a predenial circumstance, yet the label itself claims disbelief, predenial, antitheism, and tend to steer religion in the Opposite direct of it's purpose.

Empirical evidence is just as much a tool as religion. I believe that understanding the capabalities of both of these things will be more conducive to man's development, simply because the label man insists us, perceivers, the keepers and developers of "knowledge". It doesn't have to have an enigmatic aura about it, just taken for what it is, a conceptualization.

Is that so? Then what do you suggest we use as our guide to what reality is then?

Where do you think science came from?

How does that relate to the question I asked? Am I missing something here? :sarcastic

Prove that something does not exist, labels define something as we perceive, without perception is nothing, nothing exists.

Well, I care about what's true quite a bit, and thus far science and evidence has proven to be most effective in that regard. Religion, not so much.
Basically, in my book, it's evidence or bust.

You are blinded by what you call "facts".

Evidence is justified by faith, in which you lack, and cannot clearly understand.

That subjective assumption is not mine. Rather it is one held by many theists when they attempt to impose their beliefs on society.
Also, I do not feel particularily condemned.

Impose?

Of course, here is where I gain the knowledge of man from a psychological, sociological, and spiritual perspective.

While imposing my will I gain a more clear understanding of the ties of man, not through agressive imposition, rather a passive and knowledge seeking way. Though, I do not necessarily impose my personal beliefs on anyone, I simply take the side of Opposition.



" So underestimate not your vision, or you will be taught, calculate your intuition, and you will teach."-Dimmu Borgir

Most atheists claim that they do not impose their beliefs on anyone, yet the best teacher is experience, by teaching others, you teach yourself. Consider it education, atheists love education

Again, as long as the central claim of theism remains unsupported by evidence their religions have no value to me.

Certain groups of people serve certain purposes I guess.

I agree. But I don't see it as a difference, I just see it as you agreeing with me since religion can back up it's claims with "evidence" and science are tantamount to mere opinion. I'm not saying this out of mockery, I'm simply providing the side that religion is (a) science, and theists out number the non-theist.

And exactly how is religion a science according to you?

Science is Latin for "knowledge", as I described as a human fabrication, much like religion.

Religion is commonly understood as a path to "the ultimate origins". Hence, through religion, observations and vague experiences doctrinate a way of life. What is understood as "knowledge" is labeled, perceived, and theorized, not always tested and not always testable, which makes science...as fallable as religion, though it goes with great merit.

"I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"

Have you ever thought that different religions tend to accomodate different sides of man?

Of course, all religions tend to have a consistant nature, many religions get their idea and "ideals" from others. It is obvious that not one religion is true.

 

[MissDiscerner]

I was raised Christian, but never really felt like I fit in with Christian folk.
I am on a journey to discover what I believe... I still struggle every day with
this little voice inside my head that says "you should believe (or that) because that is how you were raised."

It happens the same with me!