Atheism and God (Was: Re: Ask an Atheist Anything)

[Mathim]

As an atheist personally, my thing is, if there is a god, then that god is absolutely nothing like what anyone alive or who has ever been alive, actually thinks it is. My belief in the non-existence of such a being is based on the idea that this cause behind the creation of everything need not be supernatural. It can be a natural phenomenon we simply do not understand. Why go beyond the boundaries of the tangible and create a religion based on non-sensical ideas that actively trample on good, scientific evidence-backed concepts? There are so many religions, how can anyone claim theirs is true? It's the same nonsense worldwide.

The atheist mindset (in my opinion) is, and should be, that evidence be demanded for claims that are illogical. It doesn't mean they can't be proven, we simply want to see it and have it explained. If god could be proven to exist I would have no choice but to accept that or my entire worldview would shatter and my brain might explode.

[Serephino]

To me, Science and Religion are two very different animals.  Spiritualism is something you feel, not something that can be measured with scientific instruments.  I have felt it, which is why I believe what I do.  And I take great offense to religion being called nonsense.  What someone believes is their choice.  And the fact that pretty much every culture in the world has some sort of religion should mean something.  If there was a pattern like that involving something more scientific it would be studied.

Also, like 200 years ago there was no proof that micro-organisms like bacteria existed.  Does that mean they didn't exist back then?  Somehow, I don't think so.  That just means that the technology at the time couldn't detect them.  Science is constantly evolving and changing.  Things people knew to be true a hundred years ago have since been proven false.  Hell, people mocked the person who first declared the earth was round.  The Greek dude who claimed the earth revolved around the sun was laughed at, ostracized, and even put to death I think.  But sure enough, they were both eventually proven right.  I half remember reading something about Einstein's theory of relativity might be wrong.  So just because a theory can't be proven yet doesn't mean it's not true.  And vice versa; just because current technology proves something to be true doesn't mean there won't eventually be technology invented someday that will prove it to be wrong.  How can someone base religious beliefs off of a system like this?

[Doomsday]

Here's my thoughts.

Let's say god created reality. Everything around us.

I hate it when religious folks have to fight against science because it doesn't agree with their bible. If the world around us is God's work, and the bible is just man's interpretation of God's word, why do these people choose to believe an ancient book rather than the world around them?

[Brandon]

From my point of view, science and spirituality can be two sides of the same coin rather then constantly at odds with one another. Science is the explanation through proof that we understand while faith is the affirmation of truths that we can not perceive. That doesnt mean that science or scientific theories dont have a place though. The theory of evolution is a big one here. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that god does exist but part of his plan was to let all life evolve to the challenges they meet.

Just because you can explain something through science doesnt mean that theres not a context beyond our understanding.

Now that my point of view is out of the way, I do have a bit of a hatred for Atheists. Mostly due to some assholes Ive met now and then. For example, two? years ago during christmas several local churches in my hometown were vandalized one night by destroying the nativity scenes that had been placed out. The guys were caught and admitted to doing it before they were even in court, their reason was because they believed god didn't exist and religion was the problem with society (they also admitted to drinking before doing any vandalizing). On top of that some atheists have been trying to get the military to abolish religion because they say it "conflicts with the seperation of church and state". We all have a right to worship whatever we want, if Atheists want to choose to not believe in anything then thats great but they have to accept freedom to worship for others

Its these kinds of things that make me hate Atheism overall because for a good amount of people it seems like a license to be a jerk. Ive seen more bad come from Atheism then good but maybe my view is a bit biased.

[Serephino]

Oh yes, I seriously dislike jerks.  I don't go around claiming all Atheists are retards... therefore, I'd rather they didn't go and call me delusional.  Maybe I am, but I'm happy and not hurting anyone, so what business is it of theirs?  But maybe I'm right.  I can't prove it so I don't go shoving it down other people's throats though.

I can't answer why someone would follow an old book because I don't.  I think it's a bunch of bullshit, but many others believe it, and they have every right to.  I've said it a million times; the only way to prove who is right is to drop dead, so why argue about it?

I don't completely discount Science.  I think God made things the way they are and we figured a lot of it out.  There is evidence of evolution, but the Bible says the earth was created in 7 days.  Well, what if for God time moves differently than it does for us?  What if 7 days for him is 7 million years for us?  He could have created the earth and tweaked with things until they were of his liking.  No one can really figure out what happened to the dinosaurs.  Maybe God decided he didn't like it and wiped them out.  He could've caused the meteor or whatever.   That's my theory.  I can't prove it, but it makes sense to me and that should be all that matters.  I like to keep my mind open to all possibilities, not just what Science can prove.   

[Kate]

Phew.

Firstly I identify myself as more spiritual than religious, and more theist than anything else

I see a few stumbling points both sides are making, where sometimes the other side gets it sometimes they loose it again.

Those existing in god doesn't mean existence in the Christian god.Those existing in the christian god doesn't mean they believe in the literal interpretation of all sentences in any particular edition of any bible or book - many truths were taught in allegories at the time, also even if the original book was truth, interpretations, translation issues would be something that is troubling. The message prophets would have wanted to instill at the time shouldn't be isolated from the environment at the time and the levels of literacy and attitudes prevailing at the time. If a "second coming of christ" occurred now his message may be very different.

Anything "ridiculous" is very subjective to the observer/reader, including the individual who is reading it their mood and intention at the time.
The belief that if there was a god it would have moral's and ethics that are understandable "knowing the mind of god" crud is possible but impossible to really have surety on. such an entity would like have alien perspectives unless it itself was a designer who guided souls to share his philosophy - the chances it values emergent variations from its own beliefs systems is possible (if it did exist) - this assumes "it" actually cares- we all have created things we care little of after creating them - remember that strange lego construction you made X years ago - you go "huh ? I can't even recall phps i did but well ... Im interested in other things now"

Knowledge vs faith vs beleif vs proof

A big one. Can we be sure of anything ? Can science prove anything at all ? No it can't, it is a tool that gives some statistically relevent trends - it doesnt provide proof the world isn't a dream and your in a coma hallucinating all of it. Math ? Not really either, math has premises ... math starts with ... if this and that and that and this and this and this (virtual reality) then it follows that this and that and that. Proof the premises relate to the "real word" is usually sort by look for times where its conclusions or trends occur in the "real world" (ie subjective reality of the one with the intention to find its relevance). What it does have is followers of a belief that the tool is so useful for describing increasing trends in reality, that faith that the current view of the tools findings should dominate arguments of "objectivity".

Several problems exist with this methodology, firstly scientists doubt science more than others do. Many discoveries concerning science is when a scientist who believes in at least the partial use of the the scientific method revisits something already deemed "explained" by science - time and time again new discoveries and insights are made into reality which previously science was not aware of or outright dismissed as even possible scientifically. Quantum mechanics vs Einstine is one of many of these instances.

Also anyone quoting superstition as an example of the beliefs a theist such as myself would be predisposed to entertain (thor etc) must remember scientists has a long history of false beliefs that prevailed also... one isn't more ridiculous than the other - it can be said that superstition could be less ridiculous than false science (ie science that turns to be inaccurate) for the superstition would have formed a purpose such as to entertain and succeeded - where the science was an attempt to describe reality objectively using subjective views - and failed.

Also science itself has wings that also do give "the power of belief" some empirical releavence.

Placebo effects in medicine imply believe in something changes probabilities of it emerging.

Researches into the power of the mind have conducted tests to see if people can change the probability of things occurring - sometimes these findings result in "statistically relevant" sometimes its "not statistically relevant", each and every one presumes one thing - they didn't trust previous findings enough for them to have the matter resolved from an angle or approach they themselves are interested in conducting. Always the consequences of scientific studies - its implications - themselves are outside the scientific method and artistic license is granted to interpretation (Enstines cosmological constants, his "faith" that black holes do not exist as "god" wouldn't create such an abomination ... and faith that quantum mechanics was really an endeavor of those liking probabilities and too slack to find root causes "god does not play dice" ... etc).

It turns out the findings of studies done on the statistical relevance of the power of belief seem to have outcomes of the beliefs of the one that is conducting the experiments....this could be true from several perspectives, one of which - they keep on doing a few more tests until the statistics are more like what they are comfortable with ... or two their own power of belief change the probabilities of the outcome (they choose different test subjects - or subconsciously choose tests where its existence is harder to show - it doesn't matter.

Quantum mechanics also know the act of observation changes outcomes, independent observer doesn't exist from a scientific perspective.

Science has backbone its called "statistical relevance". Now when applied to the existence or non-existence of god a few complications occur
This also is its weakness. Trying to make sense of things where repeatable results are not easy or even possible makes matters really hard for science. Miracles is a big one - without controlled conditions where the outcomes are predictable making heads or tails of it is more grasping for explanations on why people believed it happened and what non-"paranormal" occurances could have been involved.

remember paranormal means something that is very different to normal - defies "normal" explanations that are circulating at the time, nothing less nothing more - those that believe in the paranormal often believe that science one day MAY explain it - until it does or not they believe in the existence of the paranormal (That things that do not have normal explanations occur and not due to spontaneous hallucinations, deliusions or outright elaborations for attention or money)

a) If god is not deemed separate to life and is more the "everything united" in ways beyond our fathoming proving such an entity exists that is outside the test apparatus is doomed due to a false premise that if it did exist its "outside" or an "else" that something testable can prove its lack of statistically. Problem, "testable" for a non existence conducted in this manner assumes that it is constantly "acting" in a way that is not congruent with "natural" phenomena (or phenomena already explained through other means).

If god is part of reality and pervades it, knowing where god "isnt" is required as a comparative control - which can't be created. No control - nothing exists outside the test - if the energy of reality increases ten fold (Say everything moved ten times as fast) for whatever reason - but we can only detect comparative differences - there is nothing to compare the test to - so its invisible to us.

b) The people conducting the experiment will be objective and unbiased (remember Quantum mechanics also know the act of observation changes outcomes, independent observer doesn't exist from a scientific perspective.)

There was  case were captain cook dropped ankor near an island inhabited by a tribe that did not have big ships.
For days the shaman stared at the water fascinated by how the water acted very strangely around were the ship was - but he couldn't see the ship - then out of nowwhere this rowboat with men appeared and came aboard his island. Dismayed the shaman asked where did they come from - they seemed to "appear out of nowhere" the sailors pointed to the ship and said "there dude we are like you we just used this ship" "what ship there is nothing there"... to resolve this issue the shaman was rowed to the ship only when the ship took up a very large percentage of his vision did the scene miraculously change and it appeared out of nowhere.

The mind does a lot of pre-processing of sensors before it presents it to the consciousness - it screens out what it doesn't understand or make sense - and shows time and time again things that support your current beleifs, this is also VERY true behaviorally. For example, if you do not believe in aliens there is less a reason for you to stare at strange lights in the sky or look for lights in the sky in the first place... no look too deeply into conspiracy theories or research new cases of aliens abductions etc.

What is real is what we perceive to be real, faith in objective reality is just that ... faith.

Yes science is very useful for deducing many things - exploitable so, repeatability so - the same is true of spirituality (which you use a lot more than you think you do) how many times do parents use circumstances where a kid is being mean to talk about high level thigns concerning values and character etc, or saying "dont cut the toe of the cat - what would you think of a creature that cut your toe off ? If your want the cat to love you you can't be cruel - and think about it - do you wnt the cat to hate you and run away or do you want it to love you and crawl on your lap and purr when its cold" (crudely this is spirituality being exploitable useful).

a lot of development uses the scientific method albeit more loosely, for example if you run around punching people and none talk to you anymore and you get lonely over time you learn "hmm what happens if i try and not punch them but talk" over time statistical relevance of how to make friends emerges - which you exploit without knowing it... you learn to stop talking about x-s with your girlfriend because you find that statistically if you want to get along with her talking about something else has a high chance of mutually beneficial exploration

Religions and spirituality USE the scientific method also - the catholic church (after all the child abuse crap became releavent) worked out
denial or pretending it didn't happen didn't seem to do what they wanted it to do - so they changed tactic and admitted it and are going around saying sorry etc ( also popes do believe in evolution etc ... they dont have issues with needing to literally interpret every sentence from the bible like some do)

Scientists USE spirituality - they "feel" that the current explain for water doesn't feel right -and want to look into what doesn't settle with them neatly.

***
T: theist
A: Atheist

T: "Look around you - there is something - not nothing - that is god - WHY is god this and not something else ? is another question"

A: "Look around you - there is things that do not seem godlike nor divine to MY perspective of what divine would be, why do others need to believe this is a gods work and not something that just energy made"

T: "Um what makes you think energy isnt god"

A: "You beleive god exists outside reality because it created it - if it created it then whats in it isnt it - energy isnt god"

T: "my perspective of my god is ... well mine - not yours. Can something spontaneously form as a creator without a creator ? Perhaps virtual particles is something science believes in. Even if you do find the theory of everything that explains and predicts all phenomena - it doesn't explain away the existence of god to those who believe in god - they will just see your theory of everything as proof of god's magnificence. To me that theory is your god - and if you had it and understood it - yes I believe you would have a spiritual experience - your feeling of completion of perfection of grand design - wouldn't just be academician, it would be highly emotional, spiritual "

A: "You mean you believe I would experience"

T: "Well if you believe you wouldn't experience some spiritual moment then there is a good chance you will not be in a mindset to experience it - that is true. Try chatting up some girl when she has just lost her pet cat kind of thing. Have to be in a state to recieve it before you can I guess. when the student is ready the teacher appears kind of thing. because i believe it its real, I believe in it therefore it is true while that belief prevails, how needy or wanting we are to insist our beleif structures should suit others more than their own ... that's another question. Oh the sceientists that are trying to find the theory of everything - are presuming one exists - they have FAITH there is one - despites so many attempts to find it that fails ... weird huh .. I wonder why they feel so compelled in believing in it without evidence it  exists ? "

Reality is what you experience
Reality is subjective

Eisenstein had faith that black holes didn't exist and quantum mechanics was delusional.

Such faith in these thoughts made it such that his realiy did not experience anything outside these beliefs - when when "evidence" was compelling (from the quantum mechanics school of thought), he believed that those believing in these things were delusional.

His reality experienced delusional people, where others in the "same" environment with a different mindset experienced black holes and quantum effects that were amazing "godlike awing" to them, they experienced Eisenstein being dogmatic in his beliefs. Eisenstein experienced them being dogmatic in their delusion.

While science endeavors to explain reality, the subjective beliefs and intent of the subject who's reality is being analysised is more relevant than anything else

Does any reality exist outside the scope of an observer or consciousness that experiences it ?

Yes - to those that believe it does
No - to those that do not.
N/A - to those that believe that consciousness creates reality and is a preceding aspect (not a consequence) of anything existing in the first place

[Doomsday]

Now that my point of view is out of the way, I do have a bit of a hatred for Atheists. Mostly due to some assholes Ive met now and then. For example, two? years ago during christmas several local churches in my hometown were vandalized one night by destroying the nativity scenes that had been placed out. The guys were caught and admitted to doing it before they were even in court, their reason was because they believed god didn't exist and religion was the problem with society (they also admitted to drinking before doing any vandalizing). On top of that some atheists have been trying to get the military to abolish religion because they say it "conflicts with the seperation of church and state". We all have a right to worship whatever we want, if Atheists want to choose to not believe in anything then thats great but they have to accept freedom to worship for others

Its these kinds of things that make me hate Atheism overall because for a good amount of people it seems like a license to be a jerk. Ive seen more bad come from Atheism then good but maybe my view is a bit biased.

Well...

You know that Atheists can use the same sort of anecdotal evidence against Christians?

[Brandon]

Well...

You know that Atheists can use the same sort of anecdotal evidence against Christians?

Can they for Roman catholics? Wiccans? Jewish? Muslims?

Sorry but I dont buy that. I dont hate all atheists, I hate the ones that act like total pricks to anyone who has any kind of faith and would go so far as to vandalize private property on private property or try to take the right of worship away from people. Every society, religion, or philosophy has its jerks but from my point of view the decent atheists are few and far between.

This reminds me of the Pathfinder vs 4th edition arguments Ive been a part of and Im pretty much going to say the same thing here. I dont care what you want to believe, Im not going to storm into the atheists club room and demand to be accomadated but the same needs to go for Atheists.

[Jude]

"Feel" is a fuzzy word for observe, observation is what science is about.

Spirituality is just a false premise, this notion that there's another category of existence that can't be quantified isn't falsifiable.  It's circular logic at its best and really has no place when you go on a rigorous search for truth.

The Prime Mover argument is shown to be faulty by Occam's Razor; if you're going to assume that some being created the universe, the question eventually comes up, then who created this being?  That's just another example of the same quandary that the existence of the universe without a creator proposes.  Thus, by occam's razor just go with the simpler solution; the universe wasn't created by anything.  Why add an additional step?

None of this means god doesn't exist, I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic.  I can only use my mind to reason out the possibilities and apply logical principles to try and understand the world around me, unfortunately I'm only going to live 25-120 years (depending on how lucky I am, I'm already 25, so) and the universe is very old.  I'm never going to grasp the mysteries of reality and the only thing that I have against theists is that they think they can understand everything.

It's mindblowingly arrogant to think you've discovered the secret to everything and believe it with absolute confidence.

[Doomsday]

Can they for Roman catholics? Wiccans? Jewish? Muslims?

Sorry but I dont buy that. I dont hate all atheists, I hate the ones that act like total pricks to anyone who has any kind of faith and would go so far as to vandalize private property on private property or try to take the right of worship away from people. Every society, religion, or philosophy has its jerks but from my point of view the decent atheists are few and far between.

This reminds me of the Pathfinder vs 4th edition arguments Ive been a part of and Im pretty much going to say the same thing here. I dont care what you want to believe, Im not going to storm into the atheists club room and demand to be accomadated but the same needs to go for Atheists.

Yes, they can. All they would have to do is find one instance of a Catholic, a Wiccan, a Jew, or a Muslim being a douchebag and boom, anecdote that's just as valid as yours.

[Jude]

How about laws that prohibit Atheists from holding public office passed by Christians?  They're on the book in five states.

Did you know George H. W. Bush once said that Atheists shouldn't be considered citizens?  According to him you can't be a patriot if you don't believe in god.  Atheists asked him to renounce his comments many times, and he never did.  One time his publicist actually cursed at the person asking.

Under god is on the pledge and our currency, Atheists don't believe in god, guess who put it there (hint: it wasn't Atheists).

Rather than let Atheists put up religious signs on public property, many local states have banned religious displays on public property altogether.  Which I'm for, don't get me wrong, it's just that the Christians had been doing it for years and the moment that Atheists asked to do it they decided NOPE THIS ISN'T OKAY.

There are religious workers on the government payroll in some instances, such as hiring clergymen for the military.  This is ridiculous, by Separation of Church and State the government's not supposed to do anything to harm or help religion; how is paying the salary of some preachers remaining neutral?  One of the very things you used as an instance of Atheist bigotry and justification for your hatred is in fact a injustice done to them, Brandon.

It's not even legal to be an Atheist in many countries; typically not those in the western world, but still.

Atheists are one of the most disliked groups in America.

And that's not even getting anecdotal on you really, I can give you plenty of examples of people being jerks to me needlessly back when I was an Atheist, but it's simply not worth it.  The whole mainstream religions under attack thing is silly; they're gaining power if anything.

[Imogen]

To each their own.

As far as debates on religion go, I believe them rather pointless as an existance of God or any divine being can neither be proven false nor true. What I can debate is the reaction of the individual. I do not believe that all atheists are jerks, nor do I believe that all Jews are stingy, all Catholics friendly or all Moslims dangerous. Generalization based on religion is a slippery slope that should be avoided and people should be judged on their actions. Those who vandalize another person's property should be prosecuted, whether that property belongs to a Christian, Moslim, Jew or whatever.

And here we get to the point of the one thing that I do hold against many religions and that is the claiming of absolute truth when it comes to judging others on their Faith or lack thereof. Often brandished statements such as "atheists are jerks" or "atheists don't care for human life since they don't believe in God" or simply "the bible says...", used as a -sole- grounds for condemning another human being (for example, the gay community) feels short sighted and ill thought out in my humble opinion. Of course, my opinion is the opinion of an atheist, and as such it should be only natural that I advocate judgement of the individual based upon their actions rather than based upon a religion I do not believe in.

[Serephino]

How about laws that prohibit Atheists from holding public office passed by Christians?  They're on the book in five states.

Did you know George H. W. Bush once said that Atheists shouldn't be considered citizens?  According to him you can't be a patriot if you don't believe in god.  Atheists asked him to renounce his comments many times, and he never did.  One time his publicist actually cursed at the person asking.

Under god is on the pledge and our currency, Atheists don't believe in god, guess who put it there (hint: it wasn't Atheists).

Rather than let Atheists put up religious signs on public property, many local states have banned religious displays on public property altogether.  Which I'm for, don't get me wrong, it's just that the Christians had been doing it for years and the moment that Atheists asked to do it they decided NOPE THIS ISN'T OKAY.

There are religious workers on the government payroll in some instances, such as hiring clergymen for the military.  This is ridiculous, by Separation of Church and State the government's not supposed to do anything to harm or help religion; how is paying the salary of some preachers remaining neutral?  One of the very things you used as an instance of Atheist bigotry and justification for your hatred is in fact a injustice done to them, Brandon.

It's not even legal to be an Atheist in many countries; typically not those in the western world, but still.

Atheists are one of the most disliked groups in America.

And that's not even getting anecdotal on you really, I can give you plenty of examples of people being jerks to me needlessly back when I was an Atheist, but it's simply not worth it.  The whole mainstream religions under attack thing is silly; they're gaining power if anything.

Ummm.... George W. Bush is an extremist moron.  Why would you expect any differently?  He used God as a reason for a lot of stupid shit he tried to do, so of course Atheists were against this, and of course if you were against him you were un American.

Though the military hiring clergy isn't all that horrible a thing.  They're hired to meet the spiritual needs of the soldier.  If religious council helps the soldiers cope then I don't mind.  The only thing I want to see is them meeting the needs of all religions, which they're slowly starting to.  Other than that, yes, separation of church and state needs to be upheld.

[Doomsday]

Sparkling, he's talking about George HW Bush, the one who had an IQ above room temp.

[Xenophile]

Celsius or Fahrenheit?

[Silk]

Can they for Roman catholics? Wiccans? Jewish? Muslims?

Sorry but I dont buy that. I dont hate all atheists, I hate the ones that act like total pricks to anyone who has any kind of faith and would go so far as to vandalize private property on private property or try to take the right of worship away from people. Every society, religion, or philosophy has its jerks but from my point of view the decent atheists are few and far between.

This reminds me of the Pathfinder vs 4th edition arguments Ive been a part of and Im pretty much going to say the same thing here. I dont care what you want to believe, Im not going to storm into the atheists club room and demand to be accomadated but the same needs to go for Atheists.

'What exactly is sickening about Christianity?'

Christianity condones slavery (1 Peter 2: 18; Luke 12: 47; Ephesians 6: 5; & many more), Paul/Saul is sexist to the point of misogyny (1 Corinthians 14: 34-35). Above all however, the most sickening aspect of Christianity is its insistence that you can behave in the most psychotic & reprehensible way, but as long as you say sorry to your Arabian sky god you are unaccountable for your actions - that is truly vile. It turns my stomach.

And how about the religious that kill, torture, abuse, discriminate etc. It wasn't right of the atheists to go into there and do it, but neither is discriminating against homosexuals and deeming them as lesser beings against their sodomite because the grand pixie said so. Or how about his loving infanticides, or his loyal worshippers offering up their daughters to be raped by mobs to save a criminal. Or unruly children to be stoned to death. Or rape victims to be forced to marry the rapist. Or the condonement of slavery. There is alto of things wrong with that sacred texts, and you cannot pick and choose what parts you like and what parts you don't. Either take all of it or take none of it. Oh by the way, I tried to convert you away from Yahweh your god, better start throwing those stones! :)

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Perhaps people need to cool down.  Between jerk athesits and whatever that was, there needs to be a moment of reflection about where this thread is going.

[HairyHeretic]

I've said it before, and I expect to say it again, but politics and religion are two topics that can very quickly get out of hand. A difference of opinion is not necessarily a personal attack. Let's do our best to keep things civil, ok?

[TheLegionary]

Endorsed! The thread was very interesting until something went out of control. We are not talebans after all! LOL

[Kate]

Spirituality is just a false premise, this notion that there's another category of existence that can't be quantified isn't falsifiable.  It's circular logic at its best and really has no place when you go on a rigorous search for truth.

The Prime Mover argument is shown to be faulty by Occam's Razor; if you're going to assume that some being created the universe, the question eventually comes up, then who created this being?  That's just another example of the same quandary that the existence of the universe without a creator proposes.  Thus, by occam's razor just go with the simpler solution; the universe wasn't created by anything.  Why add an additional step?

- Jude.

I am quite versed in science and math and evolution etc, (Engineering degree - had to do a lot of math and science - which I gained A's for ) and still believe wholeheartedly in god's existence and I do find "logical arguments" like this a little strange. (btw many mathematicians and scientists are religious but thats a tangent we can let go)

I think things can get out of hand in these discussions when subjective views of what objectivity is attempted to be mandated
by atheists claiming math/science/logic methods imply its not existent or "seem to sit in an godless reality"

This is FAR from true for several reasons

a) Quantum mechanics attempted to define objectivity on the micro scale (the place reductionists seek fundamentals) and found "objectivity" (reality) ITSELF to be "subjective" - ie determined by the perspective of the observer - and not with determinable characteristics independent of observation or experience). This doesn't mean their findings are RIGHT. What it is sciences most popular (not right, not proven) view of "objectivity" at very fundamental levels of existence.

b) A "landscape of proof" exists which "logical" people agree to. This is not true. Remember no math or science can prove your not in a coma hallucinating your reality.

"Spirituality is just a false premise" - is a sentence that is itself a false and true sentence. Firstly the word "just" - is about as highly subjective as any adjective can be (which is technically a verb in this context as your acting by presenting a perspective with assumed authority ). Premise - declarative ? yes those who choose spirituality are declaring their perspective.

"It's circular logic at its best and really has no place when you go on a rigorous search for truth."

Circular logic is a legitimate deduction method. If it is self sustainable and describes your experience accurately, and better's it decisively from your own "judgment landscape". Then it has a very sound place for rigorous searches for SUBJECTIVE truths (see my previous post on subjectivity if your scratching your head about why I talk of subjectivity and objectivity). New maths form from circular logic.

"The Prime Mover argument is shown to be faulty by Occam's Razor"

To you there was a moment where you were "saw the light" where it was "revealed" to be faulty. Those like myself doubt such "religious" convictions for we don't share your faith in the Occam Razor tool being more "sacred" or "true" than the belief landscape its being used on. I trust not your tools you measure these beliefs by. Does Occams Razor have a place ? Yes ! Does it have a place in quantum world ? ... string theory ? ... multi-universal cosmology ? Everywhere universally unquestionably with anapproachable relevance ? Such faith Jude ! "Religious" you are :) Those seeking more statistical relevant tools adopt different laws for different landscapes - equations for fluid dymanics have a place ... but not universally useful everywhere. Alas this is true for OCcams razor. Remember you have heard many times "laws of physics break down around black holes - when things become infinate and equations are being divided by zeros etc ... things go nuts. Remember Math itself (algebra etc) has FLAWS - there are some operations that can not be done with algebra ... or maths we know - ones some want to do logically (ie there is no math for them ... yet that is common knowledge).

"if you're going to assume that some being created the universe, the question eventually comes up, then who created this being?  That's just another example of the same quandary that the existence of the universe without a creator proposes.

- Jude.

"If your going to assume YOUR right jude, the question eventually comes up WHO created this Beleif ? Um ... You did maybe as an adequate answer from my perspective ? which is true subjectively to me ?

The does reality exist without an observer thing appears again.

Remember ALSO judge that not only do the laws of physics fall to pieces around black hole singluarities etc (if they do exist, and they may ! This is important - a physical manifestation that is logically implied by many equations where math and logic and physics go out the window - including Occam's razor ) .. but they also fall to pieces around the big bag. Logic/time/space/math/causality makes less and less sense. even in the quatumn world outside of these extreme environments causality is very different to how your represent it (linear causality where occam's razor prevails in the manner of your logic does not exist in the currently accepted science landscape)

Thus, by occam's razor just go with the simpler solution; the universe wasn't created by anything.

This statement isn't true and is at the same time (quatum mechanics you should read about) removing your perspective is impossible when determining reality (experience) from your perspective.

Remember science explains experience - and uses a construct called "objective reality" to do so. The construct of "objective reality" is a tool much like Occams razor - it has a place. Faith in this tool being universally releavent.
Is one thing.
Faith.

Why add an additional step?

Why ?

Arguments that god doesn't exist because there is no need for it is interesting. Redunctionalism used in this context in this manner overlooks that "a what" is "a why" when viewed from a different angle.

Q "What are you thinking about ?"
A "I think im pregnant" ( a what from perspective I )

Q "Why do you worry about your tummy so ?"
A "I think im pregnant" ( a why from perspective II )

Also the concept of god not being needed or necessary to explain phenomena implying the lack of its existance by an atheist debating the non-existence of god is interesting. From such logic ...

Why do we have a universe at all ?

What makes you believe it is necessary ?

Perhaps it is necessary for an intention which is why it was made.
Perhaps something was percieved incidentally by a "observer" collapsing its waveform into a universe of "reality"
Perhaps a coherant logical universe that can be understood is unecessary, the fact that it MAY be is an assumption - which many have faith in believing even though evidence does not exist for this assumption to be true.

This the "religious" chase to deduce or find the "Grand unified theory of everything" which unites quantum mechanics with relativity.

The best way to seek "religious" person ? One who has unshakable faith in a view ?

Seek ye mathematicians and scientists of this world grasshopper - for they may not realize it, but they on the whole are devoutly religious. A god they seek using beliefs and approaches they have faith in... to this end many devote their lives, minds, values and perspectives and judgments of others actions and beliefs with.

Many of who feel an undying need convert others to their way of thinking :)

[Jude]

I am quite versed in science and math and evolution etc, (Engineering degree - had to do a lot of math and science - which I gained A's for ) and still believe wholeheartedly in god's existence and I do find "logical arguments" like this a little strange. (btw many mathematicians and scientists are religious but thats a tangent we can let go)

That's all a logical fallacy.  It doesn't matter what your grades were in math and science classes or even if you've taken them.  Nor does it matter if there are a lot of scientists that are religious.  Smart people can still strongly believe things that have no basis in evidence; being a scientist or mathematician doesn't make you invulnerable to accepting illogical claims.  Furthermore, if you're going to make the argument that what intelligent people tend to believe lends credence to that belief (which again I do think is a fallacy), atheists and agnostics are more intelligent than the general population statistically.

I think things can get out of hand in these discussions when subjective views of what objectivity is attempted to be mandated by atheists claiming math/science/logic methods imply its not existent or "seem to sit in an godless reality"

But we do seem to sit in a godless reality, you can't debate that, that's a fact.  The word seem is the operative word.  There is no substantial evidence that has been found in the entire history of human existence to prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that there is a god.  If we were to have a rigorous court-case on the existence of god, the Judge would pronounce god non-existent it's simply a fact.

This is FAR from true for several reasons

a) Quantum mechanics attempted to define objectivity on the micro scale (the place reductionists seek fundamentals) and found "objectivity" (reality) ITSELF to be "subjective" - ie determined by the perspective of the observer - and not with determinable characteristics independent of observation or experience). This doesn't mean their findings are RIGHT. What it is sciences most popular (not right, not proven) view of "objectivity" at very fundamental levels of existence.

That's not correct.  I've taken classes on quantum mechanics and they didn't find that things were subjective, just probabilistic.  If you're getting this information from "What the bleep do we know," that movie has been dismissed by mainstream scientists as absolutely ridiculous, because it is.

b) A "landscape of proof" exists which "logical" people agree to. This is not true. Remember no math or science can prove your not in a coma hallucinating your reality.

Just because you can't prove a negative doesn't mean you accept the positive though, that's not how rational thinking works.  I can't prove that there's not a lion outside my house right now that runs away every time I go to try and look at it, I can think of a rational explanation as to why that would occur (albeit a far-fetched one), but that doesn't mean there's a lion outside of my house that runs away every time I go to loo for it.

"Spirituality is just a false premise" - is a sentence that is itself a false and true sentence. Firstly the word "just" - is about as highly subjective as any adjective can be (which is technically a verb in this context as your acting by presenting a perspective with assumed authority ). Premise - declarative ? yes those who choose spirituality are declaring their perspective.

It's circular logic that isn't falsifiable that divides the world into two separate components without justification or reason.  That's clearly an irrational viewpoint.  There is no substantive reason to believe in the metaphysical at all when everything can be explained by the physical.  As much as people like to point to "wedge" experiences which are clearly subjective and invoke the failures of human observation and analysis (ghost experiences, subject religious experiences, etc.), they're failing to recognize the imperfectness of humanity as experiential beings.  Confirmation bias, distortion of memories, and evolutionary wiring can often send us blatantly false signals that we interpret as otherwise.  That's why evidence is held so high in scientific circles; without rigor you can't isolate for human failure and imperfection.

Circular logic is a legitimate deduction method. If it is self sustainable and describes your experience accurately, and better's it decisively from your own "judgment landscape". Then it has a very sound place for rigorous searches for SUBJECTIVE truths (see my previous post on subjectivity if your scratching your head about why I talk of subjectivity and objectivity). New maths form from circular logic.

Subject truth is an oxymoron.  If something is true, it's true objectively.  Otherwise it's an opinion.

To you there was a moment where you were "saw the light" where it was "revealed" to be faulty. Those like myself doubt such "religious" convictions for we don't share your faith in the Occam Razor tool being more "sacred" or "true" than the belief landscape its being used on. I trust not your tools you measure these beliefs by. Does Occams Razor have a place ? Yes ! Does it have a place in quantum world ? ... string theory ? ... multi-universal cosmology ? Everywhere universally unquestionably with anapproachable relevance ? Such faith Jude ! "Religious" you are :)

Lots of logical fallacies here, for starters you're comparing belief in a logical principles of high utility and belief in an unseeable, unprovable, and mostly unknowable ultimate reality.  Obviously those two are completely different, especially on the level of faith involved.  It's true that science does require faith in logic in order to work, but the difference between science and religion is that science does work.  It can be objectively shown to do things whereas religion does not.  When you get sick, if you go to the temple, you will die.  Hospitals actually save lives.

Those seeking more statistical relevant tools adopt different laws for different landscapes - equations for fluid dymanics have a place ... but not universally useful everywhere. Alas this is true for OCcams razor. Remember you have heard many times "laws of physics break down around black holes - when things become infinate and equations are being divided by zeros etc ... things go nuts. Remember Math itself (algebra etc) has FLAWS - there are some operations that can not be done with algebra ... or maths we know - ones some want to do logically (ie there is no math for them ... yet that is common knowledge)

Again, that's simply not true.  Math has absolutely no flaws, it can't have them by design.  Math is based on axioms which are assumed and everything else is drawn out from there, the only way a flaw can exist is if there's an error in the expository process, which is why Bertrand Russel and so many others put so much effort into making it airtight.

"If your going to assume YOUR right jude, the question eventually comes up WHO created this Beleif ? Um ... You did maybe as an adequate answer from my perspective ? which is true subjectively to me ?

The does reality exist without an observer thing appears again.

Remember ALSO judge that not only do the laws of physics fall to pieces around black hole singluarities etc (if they do exist, and they may ! This is important - a physical manifestation that is logically implied by many equations where math and logic and physics go out the window - including Occam's razor ) .. but they also fall to pieces around the big bag. Logic/time/space/math/causality makes less and less sense. even in the quatumn world outside of these extreme environments causality is very different to how your represent it (linear causality where occam's razor prevails in the manner of your logic does not exist in the currently accepted science landscape)

Occam's Razor has absolutely nothing to do with black holes.  Also I'm willing to bet that you really don't have the proper understanding of black holes.  Something as complicated as those objects are still on the edge of accepted science anyway and aren't based entirely on observation.  I'm fully willing to question areas of science which are poorly substantiated.

This statement isn't true and is at the same time (quatum mechanics you should read about) removing your perspective is impossible when determining reality (experience) from your perspective.

Again, I've taken classes on Quantum Mechanics and it honestly seems like you're basically imbuing your own opinions into it.  Quantum mechanics is strange and full of unusual phenomenon, so it's easy to read mystical things into it.  But that's not at all what the field proports.

Remember science explains experience - and uses a construct called "objective reality" to do so. The construct of "objective reality" is a tool much like Occams razor - it has a place. Faith in this tool being universally releavent.
Is one thing.
Faith.

All we have is experience.

Why ?

Arguments that god doesn't exist because there is no need for it is interesting. Redunctionalism used in this context in this manner overlooks that "a what" is "a why" when viewed from a different angle.

Q "What are you thinking about ?"
A "I think im pregnant" ( a what from perspective I )

Q "Why do you worry about your tummy so ?"
A "I think im pregnant" ( a why from perspective II )

Also the concept of god not being needed or necessary to explain phenomena implying the lack of its existance by an atheist debating the non-existence of god is interesting. From such logic ...

The lack of necessity for god does weakly imply that god does not exist, but it only implies it.  I'm not saying it's possible to prove god does not exist, I do not believe that god does not exist, but I do not believe that god does exist, and I know the evidence that we have obtained falls on that side.  I don't identify as an atheist but as an agnostic and I really don't care if people have religious points of view.  They're entitled to them and I don't even think they're particularly harmful as illogical as they are.

Why do we have a universe at all ?

What makes you believe it is necessary ?

Perhaps it is necessary for an intention which is why it was made.
Perhaps something was percieved incidentally by a "observer" collapsing its waveform into a universe of "reality"
Perhaps a coherant logical universe that can be understood is unecessary, the fact that it MAY be is an assumption - which many have faith in believing even though evidence does not exist for this assumption to be true.

This the "religious" chase to deduce or find the "Grand unified theory of everything" which unites quantum mechanics with relativity.

The best way to seek "religious" person ? One who has unshakable faith in a view ?

Seek ye mathematicians and scientists of this world grasshopper - for they may not realize it, but they on the whole are devoutly religious. A god they seek using beliefs and approaches they have faith in... to this end many devote their lives, minds, values and perspectives and judgments of others actions and beliefs with.

Many of who feel an undying need convert others to their way of thinking :)

It's a classic ploy of the religious to equate faith in the scientific method with faith in religion, but there are so many differences that you really have to squint hard to do it.  For one, as I've already said, Science actually accomplishes things.  The only good things that ever come about by religion could happen otherwise, and have more to do with religion motivating people to do good things to begin with.  You may argue with that but the only examples you can give will require faith to actually accept as what you claim they are.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I have seen you give absolutely none.  The point isn't that belief in god is wrong, note that nowhere did I ever say it was wrong, just that it isn't logical.  So much convolution has to be introduced into the process of thought to even have the god question brought up to begin with.

I don't ask that people who are religious don an atheistic or agnostic point of view, I believe everyone has the right to think whatever they want and I wouldn't want to harm their faith to begin with as long as it makes them a better person, I just merely ask that they recognize that their faith is not at all grounded in reason.  Because it's not.  If it was, a simple argument that doesn't have to jump through so many phenomenological loops could be made supporting the existence of god.

Belief in things that are illogical is not necessary wrong.  I choose to believe in friends who have betrayed me before because I want to give them a chance knowing very much that they will probably do it again.  I continue to reach out the olive branch to members of my family who I know are untrustworthy because they are members of my family.  None of this is logical, the logical thing to do would be to shut them off, but I can't accept that.

But, and this is the important part, when you realize your beliefs aren't grounded as firmly as you'd like to believe they are... That they ARE largely illogical and quite a gamble... You're far less willing to act on them in extreme, dangerous ways.  That is the main way in which religion does any harm to the world, and something which a little doubt could easily rectify.

[Brandon]

'What exactly is sickening about Christianity?'

Christianity condones slavery (1 Peter 2: 18; Luke 12: 47; Ephesians 6: 5; & many more), Paul/Saul is sexist to the point of misogyny (1 Corinthians 14: 34-35). Above all however, the most sickening aspect of Christianity is its insistence that you can behave in the most psychotic & reprehensible way, but as long as you say sorry to your Arabian sky god you are unaccountable for your actions - that is truly vile. It turns my stomach.

And how about the religious that kill, torture, abuse, discriminate etc. It wasn't right of the atheists to go into there and do it, but neither is discriminating against homosexuals and deeming them as lesser beings against their sodomite because the grand pixie said so. Or how about his loving infanticides, or his loyal worshippers offering up their daughters to be raped by mobs to save a criminal. Or unruly children to be stoned to death. Or rape victims to be forced to marry the rapist. Or the condonement of slavery. There is alto of things wrong with that sacred texts, and you cannot pick and choose what parts you like and what parts you don't. Either take all of it or take none of it. Oh by the way, I tried to convert you away from Yahweh your god, better start throwing those stones! :)

Just to point something out here Silk, I agree that discrimination of homosexuals, the condonment of involentary slavery, torture and pretty much everything you said is wrong and I never meant to imply that just because a faith says something is wrong/right doesnt mean it is. A person has to think for themselves. I may be Catholic, but I dont agree with 100% of what the church says, in fact theres a ton of it that I dont agree with

The difference in your apology logic, at least from a roman catholic point of view, is that if you arent truely sorry that you commited those sins then admitting your sins to god after death just isnt enough. Now I dont know how it is in other religions but intent means something in my faith. You have to be truly sorry for your actions to be truly forgiven

[Kotah]

Now, before I get into this... I'm going to give a brief history on myself and Christianity. I have read the bible several, several, several times. In fact, I can quote the bible quite a bit. In fact, I even have my name on a list from a challenge, reserving me the right as one of the most knowledgeable youngsters in my state after having won the christian equivalent of the scholar bowl. I would provide it, but I'm not giving you my name. Up until the time that I was 19, I had the intentions of becoming a nurse and joining the missionary.

So here it is, why I don't believe in god.

1. "if god rested on the seventh day he should have spent that time working on compassion." -patch Adams.

Seriously. Would a little bit of compassion hurt the world? Is it really so hard to look at the world and go "Shit.... I should really do something about this." I am -not- talking about the closed minded idea that "well if they found Christ there wouldn't be any problems". Forget that for a few seconds. Does the  crusades ring a bell?  Don't try to tell me that's not what god want's. Take a bit of time to read the old testament. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah, look at Moses, Ruth, Jericho, and any number of stories . Moses was banned from the promised land because he kicked a rock. Does that sound like some all powerful compassionate lord? No. It doesn't. God went to Moses to have him lead the Jews to the promised land, if god is all knowing, then God knew that Moses was going to kick the rock- long before he kicked the rock. God chose to use Moses. Which meant that god made the decision that while, yes Moses is going to lead my people out of slavery, I am not going to reward him the way I promised to.  If you have ever committed a sin.... you have clearly "disobeyed the lord".

Your god is not compassionate. In most forms of religion. Trying to force your beliefs on -anyone- is not cool. Right now you are reading this, you have the choice to "X" the window. You have a choice. Which if far more then most Christians give to little girls walking into an abortion clinic, and they scream murderer in her face. Real compassionate. Or how about these gay rights? what? god doesn't like homosexuals? I was lead to believe that god loved all his little children equally.

2. You can't prove he exists. You can't, that's it. "oh well the bible the bible". Most Christians these days claim they pick parts out of the bible, so you don't believe in it either. The bible is a book. Telling me to believe in god because of a book is like me telling you to believe in Krunk the duck because I wrote a book about him. Hey he -could- exists. You can't prove that he doesn't. Is it enough to build a belief system? no. But crunk the duck thinks that you should wake up, take you head out of the republicans and democrats ass's, pay action to what is going on in the world, and form a workers party.

On a side note, read Marxism in the U.S.A. by Alen Woods. Krunk the duck says you should.

"Well take a look around, do you think all of this could have just evolved?" Yes. It really did just evolve. Take the flu virus for example. There is no cure. Why? well it's not because the flu is some unholy virus. The virus evolves quickly, making it -impossible- for there to be a real cure. They have vaccines, yes... but that only makes it harder for the flu virus to develop in your system. Same goes for the "common cold". They are both evolving so quickly, that it wouldn't even be a good idea to try. Having exposure to the virus helps you battle the virus in the future.

3. People are alive. Stay with me here, this one might be a bit out there. People are alive. Now, if god loves us so much... Why are we alive? Why doesn't he just create us -in- heaven. Think about it a moment. "well... we have to accept god with our free will and stuff". What? free will? I thought this god knew everything. Now, if he knows -everything- why would he create you simply so you could go to hell? Seems a bit iffy to me. I would think it to be a far more simple thing to not create the terrible sinner in which to send to the gates of hell... rather then fill up this terrible place with people just so people that can go to heaven feel that much more special. Remember now, god knew you in the womb. He also loves you, but if you don't bow down a cough up your tithes... your going to hell so you can burn for eternity. Yes, I am being serious here. This story is in the bible. It goes a little something like this, this pair of people get together and conspire a plot. The bible law says that you must tithe a certain amount of your income. They decided, instead, they were going to tithe what they had after they pair taxes and such. Much like we do today. Peter prophesies it, and god strikes them down.

4. Love. "god is love". Right? Wrong. You like someone for their qualities, you love them for their faults. God throws you in hell for your faults. God is very much in like with you.

5. Faith. Christians like to talk about faith allot. "Faith this, faith that, you have to have faith." Forget faith. In the bible, god didn't seem all about faith. Considering- every time god stuck his hand down, and did a miracle. How about a burning bush? Do you really think that is faith based? sounds more like a bad acid trip. Jesus turned water into wine, where is the faith in that? Shit. If someone came to my house, and I watched them to my bath water into orange soda... I might believe in god, but only if I was in the bath tub.... anyway. Jesus also walked on water... calmed a storm... act. Where is the faith in that? this "you just have to believe" idea is a bit thin considering that god wasn't so stand offish in the book. In fact, he seemed quite happy to stick his hand in and intervene. Let's bring up Shadrack, Meshack, and Abendigo- they got thrown in a fiery furnace. How about David and those lions? Why doesn't he reach down now a days and save people that need to be saved. He parted the red sea. Jesus made a man rise from the dead. These are not faith based. Watching a man come back to life is not faith. That is watching it happen. It's fact.

6. The church. That's right. Fuck you guys. On another note, I don't understand people claiming they only believe in parts of the bible. The bible is the bible. All or nothing guys. It's your religious text. It's like saying you believe, but saying at the same time you don't really believe. At the end of the bible, it says quite clearly,  that it is all true, and let no man take away from the word of the lord. That means it's -all- true. All of it. That means you are supposed to stone your children, homosexuals, women that get raped (and don't marry the rapist), people with boils and sores, ect. It also means that slavery is okay. It, in turn, endorses the Spanish inquisition, as well as the crusades. Why? Because it does guys. You need to spend more time reading the bible.

7.  Several inconsistencies. I'm not going to walk you through them all, but I shall tell you where to find them.
Genisis 1.1 and 2.4- The creation story. I'll make you a list, in order, of the days of creation.
1.1
1. light
2. sky
3. land and vegetation
4. sun moon and stars
5. fish and animals
6. man
7. rest
2.1- that's right, creation stories back to back, careful now... some bibles have it edited out.
1. light
2. sky
3. land
4. sun moon and stars
5. MAN
6. fish, animals, and vegetation

And a little quote: Genisis 2.5 When the lord god made the earth and the heavens, and NO SHRUB OF THE FIELD had yet been formed, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the lord our god had not sent rain on earth, and there was no men to work the ground.

This is just the first, and most easy, one to name. Some other fun from the bible:
In Leviticus:
God hates shrimp. - yeah, look it up.
IF you touch something unclean, like a dead wild animal, even if you don't know- you have sinned.
Nadab and Abihu, Aaron's son's- They burned to death for offering an unauthorized sacrifice to god.
Read all of chapter 13, it's a fit of giggles. Pretty much, your not infectious unless the hair had turned white.
Oh, and if a woman has a baby, she is unclean for 7 days for a boy, two weeks for a girl. And if you can't afford a sheep, you are a sinner.

I think I'll stop here for now.

[Schwarzepard]

Krunk thinks you should get your head out of the communist party's ass.

[Kate]

Kotah your points are valid reasons for you not to have faith in a christian god, and your choice not to believe in a god at all is fine with me.

WHat impressed me about your statements is that your declaring your belief, and the inconsistencies that exist in the bible is a fair reason not to believe the book as sacred etc.

Also one thing I want to make clear. Although I do believe christ walked this earth I do not believe that he is super-human compared to what people can be with certain levels of spirituality.
I believe that budda etc may have been also been equally adapt and being highly spiritual.

Nor do I believe that the church is a sensible thing to put faith in (or any institutions for that matter)

What I dont get Kotah is that you find it hard to understand that some believe parts of the bible. Why not ? its just a book - a resource to me (not to some), there are some historical references which are useful ? - as a cross reference, not as an authoritarian view - ie when did so-and-so live ? Where did these things report to take place, who was emperor or Rome at the time etc.

***

Jude -

You mention that it doesnt matter what my grades were in math or science - to you perhaps some may view my faith in god as a sign of not being educated - this was to prevent some saying "hmm if you learned
some of the logical disciplines a little perhaps you would think otherwise"
I don't believe what intelligent people gives credence to any belief. Einstine beleived quantum
mechanics was delusional - I do believe in quantum mechanics relevance to accurately describing phenomena
(if i believed only in what i deem is the views of the most intelligent person i know i wouldn't believe what i do)


Jude I do agree with your use of "Seem" when your addressing my second quote FROM your perspective.
As far as what I seem to experience or others also - some seem to exist in a god-filled reality.
Some seem to exist in a godless reality. One believing others should adopt their perspective or not
is something that can be debated (we are). I am trying to convince you that you should beleive in god btw jude - I am saying that your perspective is not authoritarian concerning the experience of those
that do believe in god.

A court-case on the existence of god ? Well more believe in god than not, so depending on the jury
your certainty of the outcome is unfounded. Some very influential speakers for both sides could exist. And court cases also cater for "beyond reasonable doubt". Which is subjective to those who would be in the
jury.

I am not getting my quantum mechanics from what the bleep do we know, if you believe in mainstream scientists view of such things however your of the flaw similar to what you accused me of (that i believe in what intelligent people believe, which I dont, and later you mentioned mainstream scientists believe that that movie is ridiculous "because it is" - these are subjective opinions not authoritarian opinions)

If you beleive that the observer does not define outcomes in quantum mechanics than it is you who I doubt has read that much into the subject - it seems we are both passionate about our doubt of the others education on this matter. We can let it rest - or spin off another thread

Remember I am not claiming to represent reality from your perspective nor others which are "devout" atheists
:)

"There is no substantive reason to believe in the metaphysical at all when everything can be explained by the physical.  As much as people like to point to "wedge" experiences which are clearly subjective and invoke the failures of human observation and analysis (ghost experiences, subject religious experiences, etc.), they're failing to recognize the imperfectness of humanity as experiential beings.  Confirmation bias, distortion of memories, and evolutionary wiring can often send us blatantly false signals that we interpret as otherwise.  That's why evidence is held so high in scientific circles; without rigor you can't isolate for human failure and imperfection." - Jude

- Substantive reason to believe ? IS there substantive reason not to ?
IS others experience explained by the physical ? ghost experiences religious experiences or even drug induced hallucinations or emotions are not failures of human observation - nor failures in analysis if they are considered legitimate experiences. Failures to reproduce these experiences via emulation of suspected physical conditions triggers some to believe in mystical influences.

Will some of these phenomena become reproducible by science ? likely.
Will some previously explained phenomena become shown to be false ? likely.

"blatantly false signals". Falsely triggered neurons you mean ? We dont understand the mind enough to know when nurons are supposed to fire concerning religious experiences. Some diseases can be attributed to nerves firing inappropriately true, but an experience can change perspectives. "Should it have happened" - or shouldnt it ? If you believe in "grand unfathomable plan" then it should have happened, if you see everything as causational or probabilistic - then it also "SHould have happened". From a probabilistic perspective everything "should". When does statistics stop including new experiences to change its own probability landscape ? When SHOULD it ignore some readings (assuming the error is in detection methods not a trait of the media under scrutiny is dangerous - discoveries can come from what seems to be reading errors.

"Blatantly false signals" implies "an authoritarian landscape of "should"". If true this would effect atheists also - perhaps also at times concerning their formation of religious or non-religious views, the atheist isnt "more immune" to such things or nor the god-believer more prone.. this is of course if a "authoritarian landscape of should" that reality sometimes find itself in conflict with exists (which your statements seem to imply a beleif of)

"Subject truth is an oxymoron.  If something is true, it's true objectively.  Otherwise it's an opinion." - Jude

All truth is subjective.
True objectively ? observer less ? independent of observer reference frames ?

This comes over as faith in an objective perspective exists that spans all aspects of experience of all perspectives (which is a knowable and godless one) despite many of these perspectives claiming different "truths" than yours describe theirs.
Many would see this as evidence your wrong. Some would claim that is evidence that they are delusional.
Both opinions are correct... subjectively.

"When you get sick, if you go to the temple, you will die.  Hospitals actually save lives." - Jude.

Science is exploitable "workable" - yes I do agree. Mechanical clocks are impressive- I am not staying that science is delusional in its endeavors, I am claiming that belief also is exploitably workable and related.
Note the Placebo effect in hospitals (it is believe triggered - which causes the body to react differently)
the placebo effect is a case where the patient gets better by belief alone.
Hypnosis to "tell the body to get better" also has cases of success. Science and beleif or "faith" are exploitable tools that are not mutally exclusive.


"Math has absolutely no flaws, it can't have them by design." - Jude

TRy dividing by zero a few times accidentally. Oh there is a rule to state you have to avoid doing so as the math has flaws ? - Hmm... limitations ? Weaknesses ... some all powerful genie you are algebra :)
Also they have presumptions. if 1 + 1 = 2 and this and this then ... This is true while the "if's" remain true and unmutable in the landscape math is applied. If in its own landscape then its "circular logic" (which is useful eg factorials, fractals etc). Finding landscapes suitable for certain math to be applied (ie real world - reality) is an art.

When applied 1 + 1 = 3 sometimes 1 + 1 = 0 sometimes - if you assume 1 = 1 person.
does 1/2 + 1/2 a person make a person ? does 1 woman + 1 man sometimes make 1 man plus one woman plus a baby ? Does 1 solider plus 1 soldier sometimes resume in both dying ? "Oh wait lets adjust the math to cater for time or actions" wait that didnt work - lets refine it so it caters for ... yes until you have a useful MODEL what your representing mathematically (which itself is not real just a model).Bertrand Russel's efforts have not done away with this abstraction.


"Occam's Razor has absolutely nothing to do with black holes." - Jude.

From your perspective yes, some would disagree, myself being one of them.

"Also I'm willing to bet that you really don't have the proper understanding of black holes.  " - Jude

None do.
We experience them viritual objects with presumed characteristics. Much like we experience many things as virtual objects with presumed characteristics. albeit blackholes are "more virtual" than most.

"Quantum mechanics is strange and full of unusual phenomenon, so it's easy to read mystical things into it.  But that's not at all what the field proports."

This is not what the field proports to you Jude, its not what it proports to you. :)

(Remember I am not saying a believer in god's perspective explains your reality, I just don't have faith an atheist's views explaining mine)

"All we have is experience" - Judge

Yes Jude, yes. Views of it ? yes. Mathematical Models of it ? Yes. Scientific Models of it ? Yes. Perspectives of it ? Yes. Proof of it? No.
Do we need to proof it to others for it to exist from our experience landscape ?
No.

Atheists do not have to prove the lack of a god
Theists do not have to prove the existence of god.

The individual can experience either perspectives - whichever they choose best represents their perspective.

"The lack of necessity for god does weakly imply that god does not exist, but it only implies it.  " -Jude

To some god is a necessity. To some it is not. Some who believe it is not still believe one exists.

"It's a classic ploy of the religious to equate faith in the scientific method with faith in religion, but there are so many differences that you really have to squint hard to do it.  For one, as I've already said, Science actually accomplishes things.  The only good things that ever come about by religion could happen otherwise, and have more to do with religion motivating people to do good things to begin with.  You may argue with that but the only examples you can give will require faith to actually accept as what you claim they are." - Jude

See above re placebo effect.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I have seen you give absolutely none.  The point isn't that belief in god is wrong, note that nowhere did I ever say it was wrong, just that it isn't logical.  So much convolution has to be introduced into the process of thought to even have the god question brought up to begin with." - Jude

Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence ? Really ? to some this is a requirement. To some in order to value a certain opion it does. To some not believing in god of some-kind is an extraordinary view requiring extraordinary evidence to prove its grounds.

"I don't ask that people who are religious don an atheistic or agnostic point of view, I believe everyone has the right to think whatever they want and I wouldn't want to harm their faith to begin with as long as it makes them a better person, I just merely ask that they recognize that their faith is not at all grounded in reason.  Because it's not.  If it was, a simple argument that doesn't have to jump through so many phenomenological loops could be made supporting the existence of god." - Jude

From those who think like me it is your statements that are not grounded in reasons strong enough (from my subjective stance) to justify your convictions. We are both right in our choices of what is true to us. We both believe its unlikely we can make the other change their view on the subject. Talking of it helps us refine our opinion and debating skills even if neither do a u-turn.

"Belief in things that are illogical is not necessary wrong.  I choose to believe in friends who have betrayed me before because I want to give them a chance knowing very much that they will probably do it again.  I continue to reach out the olive branch to members of my family who I know are untrustworthy because they are members of my family.  None of this is logical, the logical thing to do would be to shut them off, but I can't accept that." - Jude

Jude - I disagree with may of your points but I have also felt the knife of betrayal. I do sympathize.
I am sorry to hear that. Logically though giving them another chance (at friendship or at least tolerance) is justified (character refining, making the best with what you have etc), but not in the landscape of "trust"

"But, and this is the important part, when you realize your beliefs aren't grounded as firmly as you'd like to believe they are... That they ARE largely illogical and quite a gamble... You're far less willing to act on them in extreme, dangerous ways.  That is the main way in which religion does any harm to the world, and something which a little doubt could easily rectify." - Jude

Most have a little doubt Jude, many times those who are theists doubt their faith.
I hope that things happen to you where you doubt your current one also, may such an occurance
fill your life with health, wealth, happiness, friends and the woman or man (or both) of your dreams.
... oh and a few paranormal abilities to boot !

[Silk]

Just to note kate,  there has been experiments regarding "Placebo effect" on patients, and the results were the opposite of your current belief, those who believed and knew they had people praying for them suffered more complications than the ones who didnt. I cannot currently find the peice for you however, when I'm back later I will find it unless someone can get it ahead of time for me. :)

Other stuff comes later but I'm currently busy

[Kotah]

Krunk thinks you should get your head out of the communist party's ass.

I'm not in the communist party, I seemed to have pointed out the labor party. LABOR party.

Thanks anyway.

[Jude]

You mention that it doesnt matter what my grades were in math or science - to you perhaps some may view my faith in god as a sign of not being educated - this was to prevent some saying "hmm if you learned
some of the logical disciplines a little perhaps you would think otherwise"
I don't believe what intelligent people gives credence to any belief. Einstine beleived quantum
mechanics was delusional - I do believe in quantum mechanics relevance to accurately describing phenomena
(if i believed only in what i deem is the views of the most intelligent person i know i wouldn't believe what i do)

Einstein was quoted saying "God doesn't play with dice."  A reference to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and how he believed everything should be a matter of yes and no, not chance.  His religious points of view specifically got in the way of him accepting a field of Science.  Thus anyone, no matter how intelligent they are, can make logical mistakes.  I just thought your prefacing things with what grades you got and your education was a non-sequitor.

Jude I do agree with your use of "Seem" when your addressing my second quote FROM your perspective.
As far as what I seem to experience or others also - some seem to exist in a god-filled reality.
Some seem to exist in a godless reality. One believing others should adopt their perspective or not
is something that can be debated (we are). I am trying to convince you that you should beleive in god btw jude - I am saying that your perspective is not authoritarian concerning the experience of those
that do believe in god.

And all I'm saying is that belief in god is not rational.  It's a matter of faith, not a matter of logic.  If you admit that you have no rational basis for your belief, that's fine, I can't touch you, and nor would I want to.  That doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong either.  I could believe there's a guy named Ted Jessica Thermopolis that exists right now in the world somewhere.  I have no rational reason to believe this, but I could be right.  My problem is with religious people who actually think they have an airtight basis for their opinions; they don't.  Personal experience is no basis whatsoever for any belief because human observation methods are so prone to bias.

A court-case on the existence of god ? Well more believe in god than not, so depending on the jury
your certainty of the outcome is unfounded. Some very influential speakers for both sides could exist. And court cases also cater for "beyond reasonable doubt". Which is subjective to those who would be in the
jury.

My point more or less was that the facts are not on the side of the religious.  They're not on the side of the non-religious either.

I am not getting my quantum mechanics from what the bleep do we know, if you believe in mainstream scientists view of such things however your of the flaw similar to what you accused me of (that i believe in what intelligent people believe, which I dont, and later you mentioned mainstream scientists believe that that movie is ridiculous "because it is" - these are subjective opinions not authoritarian opinions)

There's a difference between the two.  When you claim you should believe x because y says so, that's called an argument from authority.  Intelligent people are not an "authority" on everything, so you committed a logical fallacy.  Scientists are... obviously an authority on science, thus there is no logical fallacy in my statement.

If you beleive that the observer does not define outcomes in quantum mechanics than it is you who I doubt has read that much into the subject - it seems we are both passionate about our doubt of the others education on this matter. We can let it rest - or spin off another thread

The notion that the frame of reference of the observer determines our interpretations of physics is a pre-Relativistic idea.  It actually has more to do with measurements of values in respect to each other and not in terms of the subjective nature of reality.  There's nothing in Quantum Mechanics which states that reality is subjective however; it's a matter of probability not subjectivity.  We can argue this on another thread I guess, but it's a favorite of people arguing for religion to use false interpretations of quantum physics to justify their religious beliefs; I see it all the time.

Remember I am not claiming to represent reality from your perspective nor others which are "devout" atheists
:)

Reality does not change depending on the position of the observer unless you believe in a completely relativistic universe, in which case there's really no point in discussing the notion of "truth" at all.  That basically nullifies any purpose whatsoever for discourse.

- Substantive reason to believe ? IS there substantive reason not to ?

There are plenty of reasons not to believe that people have discussed, but that doesn't matter anyway.  I can't disprove that there's a goblin in my bathroom right now, but that doesn't mean I'm going to just assume that there is a goblin in my bathroom because I can't disprove it.  That's not how logic works.  Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and someone who says they don't believe in god is not making a claim.  Now if they said that they believed god does not exist, that's a claim.

IS others experience explained by the physical ? ghost experiences religious experiences or even drug induced hallucinations or emotions are not failures of human observation - nor failures in analysis if they are considered legitimate experiences. Failures to reproduce these experiences via emulation of suspected physical conditions triggers some to believe in mystical influences.

Easily explained in terms of confirmation bias, errors in human observation, and the complexities of human existence.  The problem is, people often encounter things that they can't explain and automatically attribute it to something supernatural instead of searching for other explanations.  When you observe something you can't explain, if you assume that means it was supernatural, you're making a gigantic error in logic.  Something being unexplained means it's unexplained, that's all.

As for ghost stories, did you realize there are haunted hotels throughout the country where people go all the time to have an experience with meeting a ghost?  Interesting, huh.  Reproducible, full of anecdotal evidence, numerous independent reports, but it's most likely nonsense anyway.  Why?  Because people who have worked there for years and years claim they've never seen anything.  Human beings have an incredible power to notice patterns, concepts, and ideas even when they're not there.  The placebo effect, confirmation bias, self-delusion; people trust their senses far too much--even memory is fallible.

Will some of these phenomena become reproducible by science ? likely.
Will some previously explained phenomena become shown to be false ? likely.

"blatantly false signals". Falsely triggered neurons you mean ? We dont understand the mind enough to know when nurons are supposed to fire concerning religious experiences. Some diseases can be attributed to nerves firing inappropriately true, but an experience can change perspectives. "Should it have happened" - or shouldnt it ? If you believe in "grand unfathomable plan" then it should have happened, if you see everything as causational or probabilistic - then it also "SHould have happened". From a probabilistic perspective everything "should". When does statistics stop including new experiences to change its own probability landscape ? When SHOULD it ignore some readings (assuming the error is in detection methods not a trait of the media under scrutiny is dangerous - discoveries can come from what seems to be reading errors.

You don't have to search deep into the brain to understand why people come to false conclusions.  Go to a magic show, watch as people are convinced that a guy who's simply good at sleight of hand summoned brightly colored tissue into existence out of no where.  Penn and Teller do awesome tricks where they literally fire live ammunition at each other and supposedly catch the bullet between their teeth.  Human observation is incredibly fallible.

"Blatantly false signals" implies "an authoritarian landscape of "should"". If true this would effect atheists also - perhaps also at times concerning their formation of religious or non-religious views, the atheist isnt "more immune" to such things or nor the god-believer more prone.. this is of course if a "authoritarian landscape of should" that reality sometimes find itself in conflict with exists (which your statements seem to imply a beleif of)

The difference is, most atheists don't base their beliefs on incredibly experiences or subjective feelings and situations.  They reason out that a god doesn't exist in a rational, sober way.  Sure, some of them come to think that god isn't real via emotional ways, and some of them hold opinions that aren't rational.  My point is, if someone asks you if god exists, the only way you can possibly respond with perfect accuracy, is by saying that you don't know.  Everything other response is someone being far too certain of an opinion without any solid basis.

All truth is subjective.
True objectively ? observer less ? independent of observer reference frames ?

You should read up on philosophy.  Every nearly religion in existence is a form of absolutist philosophy.  If you ascribe to any particular, established viewpoint you don't believe that truth is subjective.  Subjectivity deals with perspectives and truth deals with conditions; they're fundamentally different things.

This comes over as faith in an objective perspective exists that spans all aspects of experience of all perspectives (which is a knowable and godless one) despite many of these perspectives claiming different "truths" than yours describe theirs.
Many would see this as evidence your wrong. Some would claim that is evidence that they are delusional.
Both opinions are correct... subjectively.

Two ideas which are competing cannot be correct unless neither of them is.  That may mean that the ideas in play are not subject to the idea of correctness, i.e. an opinion.  But if two ideas which conflict with each other must either be true or false, then one of them is false (and perhaps both of them are).  If not, you're basically saying that x = 2, and x = 3, and somehow those "facts" can be consistent.

Science is exploitable "workable" - yes I do agree. Mechanical clocks are impressive- I am not staying that science is delusional in its endeavors, I am claiming that belief also is exploitably workable and related.
Note the Placebo effect in hospitals (it is believe triggered - which causes the body to react differently)
the placebo effect is a case where the patient gets better by belief alone.
Hypnosis to "tell the body to get better" also has cases of success. Science and beleif or "faith" are exploitable tools that are not mutally exclusive.

That's a misunderstanding of the placebo effect, only a part of it.  Animals and children who aren't capable of complex beliefs can also undergo a placebo effect.  Belief of the person experiencing it is a component, but not all of it.  Also the placebo effect isn't going to save you from anything serious.  Certainly not a heart attack or cancer.

TRy dividing by zero a few times accidentally. Oh there is a rule to state you have to avoid doing so as the math has flaws ? - Hmm... limitations ? Weaknesses ... some all powerful genie you are algebra :)

Inability to divide by zero isn't a flaw, it's part of the definition of how that operation works.  Saying you can't divide by 0 is a flaw is like saying that because I can't add multiply two even numbers together and get an odd number mathematics is flawed.  There are some things you cannot do in math.

Also they have presumptions. if 1 + 1 = 2 and this and this then ... This is true while the "if's" remain true and unmutable in the landscape math is applied. If in its own landscape then its "circular logic" (which is useful eg factorials, fractals etc). Finding landscapes suitable for certain math to be applied (ie real world - reality) is an art.

Yes, I mentioned the presumptions, they're called axioms.  Math is not based entirely on logic, Bertrand Russel came to that conclusion in the Principia Mathematica a hundred years ago.  Faith in math and faith in religion however, are hardly comparable.  No one who does math honestly believes that they are understanding the secrets of the universe or coming to moral principles through what they're doing.  math is a tool.  Religion is answer that encompasses insanely complicated questions like, "where do we go when we die" or "why do I exist."  Believe me, if people were trying to use math in the same I'd be calling them out there too.

I lost steam in the middle, don't think I'm gonna finish this post.  Quite frankly I can't follow your logic at all at this point, so I think I we should just agree to disagree.

EDIT:  By the way factorials are "recursive operations" not circular logic.

[Kotah]

What I dont get Kotah is that you find it hard to understand that some believe parts of the bible. Why not ? its just a book - a resource to me (not to some), there are some historical references which are useful ? - as a cross reference, not as an authoritarian view - ie when did so-and-so live ? Where did these things report to take place, who was emperor or Rome at the time etc.

Why is that so hard to believe? If you base your faith off a book, why wouldn't you base your faith off -the book-? Even if you simply use it as a resource, it's the book you are building your faith off of. I mean, really, the only thing in the world that claims god exists as a fact- is the bible.  You can claim all you want, but that's the fact of the matter. The bible is what tells people that god exists. Everything else in the world, has by now, been more or less explained. Christians claim there is other 'prof' but, unfortunately, none of them have been proven. It's all kinda... here and there really. Has the Ark really been found? If so, why isn't there a mass movement to go and see it? I mean, honestly, people are grasping at random straws, pointing at the bible, and calling it proven.

The bible is what tells you there is a god. The whole bible, not the parts that you like. Certainly not the parts you don't like. The bible is _the bible_ I don't take my nursing book, and pick out the parts that I like and say "this is what I shall follow". I have to know the whole book, and practice the -whole book-.

In my mind, someone tearing apart the bible to prove that their faith is good and right, is a person disproving their own faith. Blatantly so.

[Leonis]

Why not make a wager, all right? There either is a God or there is no God, and you can choose to either become a believer or not become a believer. So there are four possible outcomes to this:

If there is a God, and you are a believer, you will have a happy afterlife in Heaven, and all is well.

If there is no God, and you are a believer, then, well, there's nothing after death, but at least you lived your life with purpose.

If there is a God but you are not a believer, then you are damned to an unhappy afterlife in Hell, suffering agonizing torture for all eternity. The thought of it keeps me up at night.

If there is no God and you are not a believer, then nothing happens when you die, and life is meaningless either way.

You can't control whether there's a God or not, but you CAN control whether you are a believer or not. Living a life as a believer will give you either a positive outcome (Heaven) or no outcome. Living as a non-believer will give you either a negative outcome (Hell) or no outcome. Which of those two choices sounds better, now?

[Jude]

Why not make a wager, all right? There either is a God or there is no God, and you can choose to either become a believer or not become a believer. So there are four possible outcomes to this:

If there is a God, and you are a believer, you will have a happy afterlife in Heaven, and all is well.

If there is no God, and you are a believer, then, well, there's nothing after death, but at least you lived your life with purpose.

If there is a God but you are not a believer, then you are damned to an unhappy afterlife in Hell, suffering agonizing torture for all eternity. The thought of it keeps me up at night.

If there is no God and you are not a believer, then nothing happens when you die, and life is meaningless either way.

You can't control whether there's a God or not, but you CAN control whether you are a believer or not. Living a life as a believer will give you either a positive outcome (Heaven) or no outcome. Living as a non-believer will give you either a negative outcome (Hell) or no outcome. Which of those two choices sounds better, now?

False choice, there are more than 4 outcomes, in fact there are infinitely many.

It could be god is completely Draconian and was actually trying to weed out people who are gullible, and thus will punish people who believed in his existence without proper evidence.

It could be god will only reward people who took no stance on the issue since that's the only way you can't possibly be wrong.

It could be god does exist but did not create an afterlife.

The presumptions on which you base that logic are horribly flawed.

[Trieste]

If you're going to rebut a point, please put forth some discussion of your own.

Take a stance, or don't post. To do otherwise - to simply tear down someone else's post without actually adding to the discussion - is quite rude.

Thank you.

[Kane Gunlock]

look I'm not all that religious (agnostic) no one has ever disproved there was a god (I worship Cthulhu and Ormagoden In the same way alan moore worships Glycon) but really who is to say what is real or not? the late bill hicks stated that the world is just a ride we can make in to what ever we want, an old Assassin (of all people ) put it "nothing is true and everything is permitted " we make our own reality if some thing is real it is because we accept this or some one wants us to accept it.

[Kate]

Trieste was your comment directed at me ?

[Trieste]

It was directed at all, although it was Jude's post specifically that precipitated it.

[Kotah]

Why does life only have a purpose if you believe in god?

Couldn't my life purpose to be to take care of all those sick people that come through the doors where I work, and to raise two children the best I possibly can?

[Kane Gunlock]

did any one see my post ?

[Kate]

Kotah, it is not the bible or any book I base my faith on, I believe it because i do and see evidence of my belief everywhere.
To me everyone believes in things because they do (due to experience or education or just are of a nature with strong views on a subject - a apathy on certain subjects they are not interested in.) - but do see justification for their stance everywhere. I do believe in god but I do not believe in the god of mainstream Christianity. A Judgmental god who punishes anyone is no god of mine.


This subject is very interesting. Passionate views on it is expected.

Some here claim my understanding of the placebo effect is a false one. (The placebo effect is faith in a cure usually being told it is adrug that will heal them although it really is only sugar tablets or something that is neutral  - and some recieve benefits from it ).  The effect of prayer also has studies for and against its relevance (however this is different to the raw placebo effect but it is related. Prayer does imply a wish for another to grant, Placebo is a belief it is being granted)

Has there been cases where placebo effects or raw beleif / faith or indeed a spiritual influence have cured people of serious illnesses ? .  There are cases were people have spontaneously recovered from illnesses stumping the medical community.
For those beleiving in faith - yes.
For those believing in it as something of delusional power ? No, it must have been something else that was overlooked or not known separate to their faith / beliefs

Judge you mention that "Scientists are... obviously an authority on science, thus there is no logical fallacy in my statement."
I can see where we are getting frustrated now with each others stance. I do not believe that there is such a thing as objective authority. Mainstream science and scientists views of reality or science is not authoritarian as every year something new is discovered which invalidates existing stances, and scientific stances of these subjects evolve. This is the great benefit of science, but at no one time would a scientists be authoritarian on reality, nor would science itself be so. This may change, it may be a grand unified theory of everything is found and explains all phenomena in a predictable way elegantly, without exception. I believe if one was to exist the observers belief and intention would be a factor in changing outcomes - from quantum effects to macro scale stuff. This is my belief.

Gunlock - your summary reflects my stance on this issue very well (even though we are of very different faith landscapes)
This is why both people can interpret things in ways that are in line with their current beliefs, we all look for things that we already agree with and give what we agree with more credence than things we disagree with.

We dont trust what we dont agree with, its hard to have faith in such things.

If your a scientists and certain results come out that you agree with - you believe its proof your test harness is working ok.
IF your a scientists and certain results come out that you do not agree with ... most do not accept them - most try to repeat the experiment, assuming something went wrong - errors etc.

If 10 studies on "on visualization changing probability outcomes for random events" was conducted. 5 confirmed, 5 didn't.
The ones most take more seriously or quote are the ones that side with your beliefs ( generally - many who are apathetic on the issue would likely behave differently. Many who are interested in a subject are already bias, it is likely they have an intention. Eg ... lets study water for i believe there is more to it ... or "lets study water to put this motion that its magical to rest once and for all. Most scientific endeavor would have passionate people that have intentions which colour their interpretation as well as their approach to their work, thank "god" they do. Many good things come of them doing so.

I guess both atheists and theists are sick of those of the other camp assuming authoritarian views.

Faith and perspectives and what is sacred and magnificent or even true is a very subjective thing to ME it is (to you jude you have made it clear you believe otherwise - your entitled to your view). Separating the state and religion is very important because of this. I believe 100 percent religion should not influence any laws or views on life such as abortion etc.

Do I have belief that jude's view of logic and authoritarian is logical and authoritarian ? No
Do I NEED others to believe in what I do ? No.
Does experience, science and math all logically imply the lack of a god ? Subjectively true, subjectively false

Is the statement that "god exists" more extraordinary than "god doesn't ?" and the former needs more proof to justify it than the later ? Or the later has more compelling proof than the former ?  Does experience, science and math lean towards the later ?

Subjectively true, subjectively false.... both camps are true because they are "Real" (ie perspectives exist believing both) at the same time.

The concept that a belief should be imposed on others is something that does not sit well with me.
Yes some must exist while the society is at a low of maturity (eg try not to kill other citizens, try not to beat them up etc).
Ideally there are no rule but everyone is cared for by society, and we all act in harmony such that none would likely ever want to, until that is true some beliefs have to be "imposed". This should be very minimalistic at the behavioral level or use level only, but not at the conceptual level or expression or creation level

Jude both your notion of reality and truth are very different to mind. It may be best if we stop addressing each other comments as to me our disagreements with the strength of each others view is driven by more fundamental notions than the subject of this thread.