[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This is interesting. If you ask the question "Does god exist?" and answer "No." then that is the end of matters. If you answer "Yes." then it leads to a great many further questions. Is that what you mean about the simplicity of atheism?

No, basically I believe there is 3 forms of logic or thought process. Mathematical, scientific, and philosophical. Math is the most pure form and scientific is just a cross between philosophical and mathematical; As much as people throw the word "scientifically" around; people can't even seem to agree on what a good scientific method/approach is for every study... Research is constantly being debated whether or not it was done "logically" (ie climate change). For this reason I don't think science has much credibility in religious debate... That's not the purpose of science anyway. What I see is that the atheist perspective only looks at the math and scientific part, completely ignoring the philosophical; often belittling and denying that philosophy can even be logical. Well religion is a type of philosophy. They just say "hey, science can't prove it [ someone who's a scientist hasn't proven it for me] so it doesn't exist".

I apologise if you have detailed it before, but what led you to abandon atheism? Was there a particular 'eureka moment' for you?

There wasn't really a eureka moment. It takes some time for someone's entire perspective on things to change. There wasn't a day where I thought to myself "I have abandoned atheism". Some Buddhist lamas started teaching me philosophy. I found what they had to teach very insightful. Their way of thinking changed my life; made me very relaxed, happy; allowed me to understand the world and its events from a better perspective; I was less angry. Here was a group of people that made an oath to be the omegas in life and still find peace and content. And after a while that began my path to religion. I had been to church a few times growing up but The Christians I had run into didn't try to explain anything. Everything seemed like a ritualistic time killer. So I dismissed it as silliness. The Buddhists explained Christianity to me; and all other religion. Since I live in, and can relate to a christian society; that is what I choose. Obliviously I can't fully understand or experience Islam, Hindu or whatever if Im not born in that society. I have since found some really good churches that do explain things and seem to put more energy into thoughtfulness and self-sacrifices for others.
I do not believe there is 1 right religion and all others are wrong. That doesn't make any sense; and it's not biblical anyway.

I understand that particular sets of morals, rules and laws are associated with religions. I know that many modern countries derive their laws from the morals of one or more religions. The most important morals seem to be common to most religions. You will often struggle to find many atheists who disagree with the majority when it comes to the morality of murder or theft or fidelity. I think most people can agree on these and a few other core morals, regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

And this is where we disagree. I don't think I would struggle to find people atheist or religious who are fine with murder or theft. But I think the more godless someone is the more likely. When I worked for the government I'd get an unwanted feed on various gang activity. The worst thing I'd see is the gangs kidnapping babies and cutting them up or burning them to put on display for the town. The baby did nothing to them. They just do these things to scare people and establish dominance and/or move up in the gang. There are a lot of gang members; they commit torturous acts on innocent people they don't even know all the time; the American public never knows about it. I can give more examples if necessary of groups and entire societies of people who don't share the same moral standards as the majority within christian nations such as the US. And I attribute this lack of morals to a godlessness among the people. I attribute civility almost entirely to religious beliefs and foundation. Personally I believe there would be no moral standard without religion. We'd all just be like Somalia. This doesn't mean atheists are evil, it means atheists have gotten their moral system indirectly from a religious belief system even if they dont want to admit it.

I don't see that morality and religion are inevitably connected.

I do

but you don't need to believe in god to believe that murder or rape is wrong.

Are you sure? There are societies in the past where they used to have raping booths set up, people could choose either woman, man, boy or animal... And what about the demons worshiping societies that used to have human sacrifices, and blood fountains to please the demons. Their philosophy was "if we do really bad things it will please the demons and they won't hurt us". What about the USSR exterminating Christians because the christian moral system was incompatible with cast systems, government worship and killing the weak.

Most of these core morals can be explained in social or even evolutionary terms.

If that were the case animals would have morals too. The knowledge of right and wrong is a separation between us and animals. Animals always wolf their food down; they do this because if they don't it gets stolen. food is the currency of the animal world. Animals never worry about sharing other than with their cub or mate. They have no sense of pity or remorse. When animals fight they will fight to the death if they think they can do it without getting hurt. Its funny watching animals spar off peacefully establishing dominance, then as soon as one shows a weakness or trips the other runs over and kills it. I'm open to the idea that morals are the product of evolution but don't see any evidence yet that there is any evolutionary selection pressure for morals in any species. Even beautiful smiling dolphins are genocidal maniacs. Humans do all this stuff too; but humans also do altruistic things; animals only look out for themselves.

but I don't see why a sense of right and wrong would lead someone to believe in god or not.

The fact that right/wrong/altruism/evil exist, provides some evidence to me. Well I've gone on and on about morals, because thats a subject I've never covered before... it's not the end all and be all of religion. But in summation without religion I dont see a standard for morals in a society. Eventually everyone starts fighting over whats right for one person vs whats right for another and how its all just relative.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You are criticising me for not being scientific, and criticising me for being scientific in the same thread.

No, I am criticizing you for not being scientific, and calling it scientific.

Nothing in science is 100%. There is always a chance that you will discover new and contradictory evidence. Every theory, every model, every law and every conclusion is susceptible to this. They are only ever our best conclusions at the time.

All the more reason you should stop berating people for concluding differently.

According to you its bad science if I choose to pick a preferred answer, then its bad to be uncertain about it?
...
This seems to be in direct contradiction to what you said above, criticising my lack of certainty.

No, the opposite. You don't lack certainty, you lack a sense of certainty. What you lack is an evaluation of how much certainty you (should) have. You treat the slightest bit of certainty as complete certainty. You're like the Will Farrell character with voice immodulation syndrome. You have no degrees, you simply have "none" and "all," lacking any grades in between.

This is dreadful science. Shared opinions do not qualify as scientific evidence supporting those opinions. Even 4 billion of them. The number is irrelevant. Those people could have been tricked, brainwashed, bribed, poorly educated or lied to. These are opinions, not objective observations. It would be better science to investigate why these people hold such opinions. (Wait, what was my stated purpose for this thread again?)
My lie about the FSM won't get any truer if people start believing it.

I didn't say science, I said eye-witness. What part does eye-witness play in science? None. Can you think of any other context where an "eye-witness" and the believability of that witness might be more appropriate?

This seems to be in direct contradiction to what you said above, criticising my lack of certainty. You seem to have a real problem with the concept of logical conjecture. Do you know how many mathematical papers or theorems start with phrases like "Assuming that XXXXXX's Conjecture is correct, then it can be shown...."?

How many of them continue with "and that's why people who disagree with the hypothetical conclusion are dolts"?

What I object to is not your philosophy, it's your verbally abusive insistence that everyone else agree with you and confess that other philosophies are objectively wrong.

Saying "I don't know" and refusing to consider it any further is...

What you're arguing for is not to "consider," it's to "close the question." You said, "I could choose to leave the question open, but where does that get anyone?"
Leaving the question open means to consider, not one but many possibilities. Yet a person who continues to "consider" other possibilities "irritates you." If anyone is closing the doors of consideration, it's you. "I don't know" means you ARE considering options. To know means you are certain. I say "I don't know, but this is what I believe and you are free to disagree." That's considerate . Whereas what you say, "I don't know but if you disagree with my opinion it's going to make me irritated with you," that is just a disorder of having too much certainty.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Once I became a father, I understood with unconditional love actually was.

and at this point you should have then understood how much god unconditionally loves you.

I new then and there I would do anything for my child. I would sacrifice anything for his happiness and I would thoughtlessly lay down my life for his.

Life isn't about being happy all the time. i wouldn't want my family sacrificing 'anything' for my happiness. I want to experience the world and learn for myself, even if it brings a lot of suffering in the process.

He was my creation and his well-being became secondary to my own.

He's not your "creation", he's a partial replica of yourself. I don't like bringing this up here, but that is the primary reason most creatures, including humans have affection for their offspring. It's the love of thyself. Something that amazes me is when I see someone adopt a child and love it the same as if it were related to them; because that is true love (to me).

Of course I wanted my son to love me, but that we secondary to the reality that I loved him with everything I am. I made no demands on him, I was here to serve him, not the other way around.

This reminds me of when I countlessly hear people say that we should all have kids because kids brought meaning to their own life; and kids are the meaning in life. I really don't know what to make of your statement. You have just decided that "you are here to serve your son" and then decided that if there is a god he should be here to serve you... I honestly don't believe your purpose in life is to serve your son; and even if it was I don't see how it would make sense to believe that god should be serving everybody doing everything he can to make them comfortable/happy in life... before they die and go to some paradise where everything is happy and comfortable yet again.

I began to think about this in light of the god I had been taught about my whole life.

Maybe you were taught about a non-biblical god. I've been to many catholic churches that teach a similiar thing you're describing; how god demands worship and love etc. or your doomed to eternal damnation. this is non-biblical.

while he claimed to love me as a father loves his children, I saw a startling contradiction to my own experience. I would do whatever it took to protect my child from harm. The god that I was brought up to believe in let me father die and shatter my world.

That's a tragedy, but didn''t the god you were brought up to believe in also provided a "heaven" for people who die? And if that's what people believe then how did god allow your dad to be harmed, from his perspective? I'm disturbed when I hear of Christians turning on god when they realize the reality that people die. I'm disturbed when I hear anybody say that god should interfere with the world and eliminate suffering of any kind.

People have gotten used to an overly comfortable lifestyle. 300 years ago it was almost guaranteed that 1 or a few of your children would die before adulthood. Now days if someone's baby dies at birth it splits up families and they act like it's the end of world. Sometimes people need to realize that the lack of tragedy in their life is not the norm; it is a privilege not a right.

I loved my son and demanded nothing in return.

Easy to say as long as your son is somewhat caring for you and not trying to ruin your world. But until your son turns on you, denounces you as his father, breaks into your house repeatedly to steal stuff, gets involved in activity that puts your other children in sever danger, and tries your patients for years on end, you can't say you demand nothing in return. This has happened within my family, I can say that the once unconditionally loved kid is now most certainly less loved.

God demanded I loved and worshiped him and promised me damnation if I didn't love him enough.

No he doesn't. You have free will to choose to reject him or accept him. Thats all there is to it. There is no promise of damnation if you don't love him enough; where did you hear this?

I realized I was happier not trying to believe in something that completely contradicted my own life experience.

Well whatever works for ya. I not trying to convert you but I think you connected the dots all wrong in deciding there was no god.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What I object to is not your philosophy, it's your verbally abusive insistence that everyone else agree with you and confess that other philosophies are objectively wrong.

What you're arguing for is not to "consider," it's to "close the question." You said, "I could choose to leave the question open, but where does that get anyone?"
Leaving the question open means to consider, not one but many possibilities. Yet a person who continues to "consider" other possibilities "irritates you." If anyone is closing the doors of consideration, it's you. "I don't know" means you ARE considering options. To know means you are certain. I say "I don't know, but this is what I believe and you are free to disagree." That's considerate . Whereas what you say, "I don't know but if you disagree with my opinion it's going to make me irritated with you," that is just a disorder of having too much certainty.

Great explanation of why I don't discuss this topic very frequently around here. It isn't worth the abuse from the more closed-minded members.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I totally buy it when people say they've feel unexplained spiritual feelings when reading the Bible, like a feeling of God changing their heart. But I think the real source is psychological, and isn't specific to the Bible.

I'm glad you brought this up; this reminds me of another significant difference in atheist thought and many religious people. I don't really disagree with you on it being psychological but...

I have no faith in people at all. I'm disgusted my 90% of the things they do and write.
I don't think humans are capable of coming up with something that has the depth of the bible (and some other religious teachings) without divine help. From my perspective and experiences; everything humans do they screw up. Every time they try to fix / improve something they end up creating an even bigger problem. Everything that seems impressive on the surface has some dark under-layer that is required for it's existence. Religious texts are the only thing that gives me that "psychological feeling" you speak of.

By talking to atheists I get vibes that they find what humanity has accomplished is impressive; something to be proud of. People look at the iPhone and think "Wow so cool technology!" Well Im not the slightest bit impressed; I see the iPhone has degraded human intelligence and life in general (Come to think of it I see young people today living less fulfilling lifestyles; I dont see how they aren't absolutely bored to death in their ways). People look at a city skyline and think how impressive society has come; how civilized everyone is. Im not impressed; I see towers funded by financial scams, big oil and the World Bullying Organization, or should I say the World Exploitation Organization. I see homeless people; people pretending to be homeless people; people stealing, killing, raping, people mutilating their bodies to express themselves like a corral reef fish then pretending it makes them and individual. All this and it's funny because humans are the only animal that can discern right from wrong. Most humans know what good and evil is yet still can't resist being selfish and absolutely evil (just like the bible says they will). I'm not impressed by space flight, technology in general, government, airplanes, computers, the internets, fast cars or all the environmental destruction that is required for all these things. The only way I see humans successful is when god is considered in their solutions. This is our difference in perspective.

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I see the iPhone has degraded human intelligence and life in general.

Oh Gramps... you're such a square.

[screener]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I'm glad you brought this up; this reminds me of another significant difference in atheist thought and many religious people. I don't really disagree with you on it being psychological but...

I have no faith in people at all. I'm disgusted my 90% of the things they do and write.
I don't think humans are capable of coming up with something that has the depth of the bible (and some other religious teachings) without divine help. From my perspective and experiences; everything humans do they screw up. Every time they try to fix / improve something they end up creating an even bigger problem. Everything that seems impressive on the surface has some dark under-layer that is required for it's existence. Religious texts are the only thing that gives me that "psychological feeling" you speak of.

By talking to atheists I get vibes that they find what humanity has accomplished is impressive; something to be proud of. People look at the iPhone and think "Wow so cool technology!" Well Im not the slightest bit impressed; I see the iPhone has degraded human intelligence and life in general (Come to think of it I see young people today living less fulfilling lifestyles; I dont see how they aren't absolutely bored to death in their ways). People look at a city skyline and think how impressive society has come; how civilized everyone is. Im not impressed; I see towers funded by financial scams, big oil and the World Bullying Organization, or should I say the World Exploitation Organization. I see homeless people; people pretending to be homeless people; people stealing, killing, raping, people mutilating their bodies to express themselves like a corral reef fish then pretending it makes them and individual. All this and it's funny because humans are the only animal that can discern right from wrong. Most humans know what good and evil is yet still can't resist being selfish and absolutely evil (just like the bible says they will). I'm not impressed by space flight, technology in general, government, airplanes, computers, the internets, fast cars or all the environmental destruction that is required for all these things. The only way I see humans successful is when god is considered in their solutions. This is our difference in perspective.

Another one on the way to being an angry fanatic.
Not sure what came first, angry or fanatic.
Probably belief in whatever.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I have no faith in people at all. I'm disgusted my 90% of the things they do and write. I don't think humans are capable of coming up with something that has the depth of the bible (and some other religious teachings) without divine help. From my perspective and experiences; everything humans do they screw up. Every time they try to fix / improve something they end up creating an even bigger problem. Everything that seems impressive on the surface has some dark under-layer that is required for it's existence. Religious texts are the only thing that gives me that "psychological feeling" you speak of.

I completely agree, only thing is this totally applies to all religions. The bible was written by men, for men. This is why it is so laced with emotion and human feelings. An omnipotent being would not think in such terms. The bastardization, nay, humanization of faith is apparent in every modern religion. That's why there is this dude with a pointy hat sitting in a golden palace than is supposedly god's right-hand-man. It's ludicrous, and so easily seen for what it is, a power grab. Religious texts are nothing more than parables written by men to explain the unexplainable. Perhaps they had divine inspiration, but I am entirely certain the words and stories chosen were their doing, not god's.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

By talking to atheists I get vibes that they find what humanity has accomplished is impressive; something to be proud of. People look at the iPhone and think "Wow so cool technology!" Well Im not the slightest bit impressed; I see the iPhone has degraded human intelligence and life in general (Come to think of it I see young people today living less fulfilling lifestyles; I dont see how they aren't absolutely bored to death in their ways). People look at a city skyline and think how impressive society has come; how civilized everyone is. Im not impressed; I see towers funded by financial scams, big oil and the World Bullying Organization, or should I say the World Exploitation Organization. I see homeless people; people pretending to be homeless people; people stealing, killing, raping, people mutilating their bodies to express themselves like a corral reef fish then pretending it makes them and individual. All this and it's funny because humans are the only animal that can discern right from wrong. Most humans know what good and evil is yet still can't resist being selfish and absolutely evil (just like the bible says they will). I'm not impressed by space flight, technology in general, government, airplanes, computers, the internets, fast cars or all the environmental destruction that is required for all these things. The only way I see humans successful is when god is considered in their solutions. This is our difference in perspective.

You start this paragraph off well enough, and I agree on some points. But not impressed with space flight? Do you place faith and reverence above some of the greatest accomplishments of the human race? If this is what you meant then I am going to have to say that's the single most hard-headed comment I've ever heard regarding faith. I believe if it wasn't for people's devotion to what they think their god wants from them, and their societies, that's we'd be in a far better place right now as a species. People's devotion to their holy texts have stifled creativity and held humans back by creating an atmosphere of fear. God, if he exists, does not want us to grovel on our knees and cast judgement against our fellow beings, this is counter-intuitive to the advancement of our race.

I think the religious need to start getting their heads our of these stuffy ancient texts and start letting faith guide their actions, not the words of men.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

The only way I see humans successful is when god is considered in their solutions.

I... don't think I understand what this means.

It's odd, the rest is a certain cynicism I would equate with atheists, though I could see the perspective of Christianity it jibes with.

Edit: I see I'm not the only one that post stoked some activity from.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by sek929 

People's devotion to their holy texts have stifled creativity and held humans back by creating an atmosphere of fear.

Now now - let's not get on this track. It's been pointed out again and again around here that "religion" has also been responsible for many of humankind's great inventions, or that many of our great inventors have been religious in nature.

It has both helped and hindered. So we'll call it a wash....

[sek929]

Fair enough

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by screener 

Another one on the way to being an angry fanatic.
Not sure what came first, angry or fanatic.
Probably belief in whatever.

Nah Im one of the most laid back people you could meet. Not being impressed by people today or their creations isn't anger. I believe I understand many people's perspective. As the country has become a much easier place to live and survive in people have become more spoiled. They think somebody else should take care of them and provide their safety blanket. They complain over things that didn't used to be considered problems, if a problem occurs, they blame god or say it's evidence he doesn't exist. Their life revolves around facebook/internet/iphone/drugs/drinking. I just think to myself... some of yall are adults; grown men; act like it.

A lot of the hyper intellectual city folk dont produce much of importance but are extremely impressed by themselves. They say things like "cities are more efficient/superior than country living". Then when their world comes crashing down they run to the country to steal all the food from the supposed simpletons.

sek929

That's why there is this dude with a pointy hat sitting in a golden palace than is supposedly god's right-hand-man. It's ludicrous, and so easily seen for what it is, a power grab. Religious texts are nothing more than parables written by men to explain the unexplainable.

Did the guy with the pointy had write the bible? No, hence that is proof the guy with the pointy had didn't write it for a power grab.
Did the people who actually wrote the bible acquire any power? No
Have the catholic leaders used religion to acquire power at times throughout history? of course
Does the guy with the pointy hat have any real power today other than what people voluntarily give him? Of the organizations today I wouldn't call the catholic church one of the most powerful. Their existence hasn't had any effect on my life and I doubt it has on many other people who so much despise it.

I believe if it wasn't for people's devotion to what they think their god wants from them, and their societies, that's we'd be in a far better place right now as a species. People's devotion to their holy texts have stifled creativity and held humans back by creating an atmosphere of fear.

I think its a lack of devotion to their holy texts that's held humans back. I'm not sure what you're referring to but Ill take a guess at some examples... Evolution, Stem cell research, abortion, and gays? None of these subjects are addressed in the "holy texts"/bible. Jesus never said "Hate gays, fight evolution, stem cell research is evil". He said "don't judge" "don't hate the sinner". There is no word for gays in the bible anyway. So when religious fanatics get in a frenzy over these issues it's because of a divergence from the book; a divergence from god.

God, if he exists, does not want us to grovel on our knees and cast judgement against our fellow beings, this is counter-intuitive to the advancement of our race.

Isn't that what the bible says?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How many of them continue with "and that's why people who disagree with the hypothetical conclusion are dolts"?

Drop the word hypothetical and this line would be implied pretty much verbatim in most mathematical papers.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What I object to is not your philosophy, it's your verbally abusive insistence that everyone else agree with you and confess that other philosophies are objectively wrong.

I certainly haven't abused anybody in this thread. I don't think I am especially guilty of verbally abusing people elsewhere either.
If you want to check up on my past instances of verbal abuse, I hope you'll find that I tend to criticise peoples ideas, beliefs, thought processes and rationalisations rather than criticising the people themselves. This is because I realise that there are always reasons that people have these beliefs or ideas. Hence this thread which has generated some great conversations and some genuinely new insight where one or two assumed there would be none.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What you're arguing for is not to "consider," it's to "close the question." You said, "I could choose to leave the question open, but where does that get anyone?"
Leaving the question open means to consider, not one but many possibilities. Yet a person who continues to "consider" other possibilities "irritates you." If anyone is closing the doors of consideration, it's you. "I don't know" means you ARE considering options. To know means you are certain. I say "I don't know, but this is what I believe and you are free to disagree." That's considerate . Whereas what you say, "I don't know but if you disagree with my opinion it's going to make me irritated with you," that is just a disorder of having too much certainty.

Show me the evidence, and I'll consider anything. It has to be evidence that stands up to scrutiny. Eye witness accounts mean absolutely nothing as far as god goes. There are people who imagine, dream and hallucinate god every day and there has been for thousands of years.
Overactive imagination, physical or mental illness, brain damage, drug use, psychological disorders, fatigue, hoax, practical joke, (international) conspiracies are all more likely explanations for an eyewitness account of god, than god being real. I don't know if its possible to even quantify the odds, but I suspect it is nowhere near as high as one in a billion billion that god exists based on the "evidence" that most people offer. It therefore remains much more sensible, logical and reasonable if not scientific to assume that god does not exist until some better evidence comes along.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

By talking to atheists I get vibes that they find what humanity has accomplished is impressive; something to be proud of. People look at the iPhone and think "Wow so cool technology!" Well Im not the slightest bit impressed; I see the iPhone has degraded human intelligence and life in general (Come to think of it I see young people today living less fulfilling lifestyles; I dont see how they aren't absolutely bored to death in their ways). People look at a city skyline and think how impressive society has come; how civilized everyone is. Im not impressed; I see towers funded by financial scams, big oil and the World Bullying Organization, or should I say the World Exploitation Organization. I see homeless people; people pretending to be homeless people; people stealing, killing, raping, people mutilating their bodies to express themselves like a corral reef fish then pretending it makes them and individual. All this and it's funny because humans are the only animal that can discern right from wrong. Most humans know what good and evil is yet still can't resist being selfish and absolutely evil (just like the bible says they will). I'm not impressed by space flight, technology in general, government, airplanes, computers, the internets, fast cars or all the environmental destruction that is required for all these things. The only way I see humans successful is when god is considered in their solutions. This is our difference in perspective.

Sounds like you were impress with the 9/11 hijackers.

I mean those 9/11 hijackers were successful at their task by placing God in the plans, and took down man-made airplanes and man-made skyscrapers.

I'm sure those 9/11 hijackers believed that their God wanted it this way.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Sounds like you were impress with the 9/11 hijackers.

I mean those 9/11 hijackers were successful at their task by placing God in the plans, and took down man-made airplanes and man-made skyscrapers.

I'm sure those 9/11 hijackers believed that their God wanted it this way.

yes thats exactly what it sounds like... wow you are just so insightful. And your posts just add so much to any discussion.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

No, basically I believe there is 3 forms of logic or thought process. Mathematical, scientific, and philosophical. Math is the most pure form and scientific is just a cross between philosophical and mathematical; As much as people throw the word "scientifically" around; people can't even seem to agree on what a good scientific method/approach is for every study... Research is constantly being debated whether or not it was done "logically" (ie climate change). For this reason I don't think science has much credibility in religious debate... That's not the purpose of science anyway. What I see is that the atheist perspective only looks at the math and scientific part, completely ignoring the philosophical; often belittling and denying that philosophy can even be logical. Well religion is a type of philosophy. They just say "hey, science can't prove it [ someone who's a scientist hasn't proven it for me] so it doesn't exist".

If you go back far enough, philosophy and science were very closely related if not interchangeable. I might argue that science is practical or applied philosophy. Still its interesting that you see science this way.

Strictly speaking, it would be more scientifically accurate to say "there is no scientific evidence to prove it exists, therefore there is no reason to believe it does."

Would you say you distrust science or scientists? Do you feel any animosity towards science? (This is a genuine question, not an accusation just in case anyone fails to correctly interpret my intended tone.)

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

There wasn't really a eureka moment. It takes some time for someone's entire perspective on things to change. There wasn't a day where I thought to myself "I have abandoned atheism". Some Buddhist lamas started teaching me philosophy. I found what they had to teach very insightful. Their way of thinking changed my life; made me very relaxed, happy; allowed me to understand the world and its events from a better perspective; I was less angry. Here was a group of people that made an oath to be the omegas in life and still find peace and content. And after a while that began my path to religion. I had been to church a few times growing up but The Christians I had run into didn't try to explain anything. Everything seemed like a ritualistic time killer. So I dismissed it as silliness. The Buddhists explained Christianity to me; and all other religion. Since I live in, and can relate to a christian society; that is what I choose. Obliviously I can't fully understand or experience Islam, Hindu or whatever if Im not born in that society. I have since found some really good churches that do explain things and seem to put more energy into thoughtfulness and self-sacrifices for others.
I do not believe there is 1 right religion and all others are wrong. That doesn't make any sense; and it's not biblical anyway.

Were you tempted to stick with Buddhism at all?

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

And this is where we disagree. I don't think I would struggle to find people atheist or religious who are fine with murder or theft. But I think the more godless someone is the more likely. When I worked for the government I'd get an unwanted feed on various gang activity. The worst thing I'd see is the gangs kidnapping babies and cutting them up or burning them to put on display for the town. The baby did nothing to them. They just do these things to scare people and establish dominance and/or move up in the gang. There are a lot of gang members; they commit torturous acts on innocent people they don't even know all the time; the American public never knows about it. I can give more examples if necessary of groups and entire societies of people who don't share the same moral standards as the majority within christian nations such as the US. And I attribute this lack of morals to a godlessness among the people. I attribute civility almost entirely to religious beliefs and foundation. Personally I believe there would be no moral standard without religion. We'd all just be like Somalia. This doesn't mean atheists are evil, it means atheists have gotten their moral system indirectly from a religious belief system even if they dont want to admit it.

I was under the impression that many if not most gang members were believers. Surely most hispanic gangs are?

A taste for hacking people to bits remains common in many parts of the world to this day. It is not rare at all in Africa. I have certainly heard about it in the Philippines too. Muslims are well known for beheading people on the internet as well as cutting off people hands when they are caught stealing (I confess I do not know if this one is true or not). I don't know if you would consider them godless but all these cultures are theistic in the vast majority. Christianity may have outgrown these kinds of gory atrocities nowadays, but it has committed plenty of them in the past.

Do you believe morality specifically requires a judeo-christian god? Was morality justifiably different or simply absent in the past?

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Are you sure? There are societies in the past where they used to have raping booths set up, people could choose either woman, man, boy or animal... And what about the demons worshiping societies that used to have human sacrifices, and blood fountains to please the demons. Their philosophy was "if we do really bad things it will please the demons and they won't hurt us". What about the USSR exterminating Christians because the christian moral system was incompatible with cast systems, government worship and killing the weak.

Much of this is news to me, but surely if these people believed in demons, they also believed in god?

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

If that were the case animals would have morals too. The knowledge of right and wrong is a separation between us and animals. Animals always wolf their food down; they do this because if they don't it gets stolen. food is the currency of the animal world. Animals never worry about sharing other than with their cub or mate. They have no sense of pity or remorse. When animals fight they will fight to the death if they think they can do it without getting hurt. Its funny watching animals spar off peacefully establishing dominance, then as soon as one shows a weakness or trips the other runs over and kills it. I'm open to the idea that morals are the product of evolution but don't see any evidence yet that there is any evolutionary selection pressure for morals in any species. Even beautiful smiling dolphins are genocidal maniacs. Humans do all this stuff too; but humans also do altruistic things; animals only look out for themselves.

There are many examples of social behaviour among animals which can be construed as altruistic. Many social groups take turns keeping watch for predators. Meerkats co-operate within their packs to fight other packs. Wolves, dolphins and lions co-operate to hunt. Lions, elephants and many primates will guard each others young from dangers and some primates will nurse each others young.
It even happens between species. When an animal spots a big cat in Africa, it will sound an alarm call and any other animal in earshot knows there is a predator nearby. Birds and various primates will all shout alarm calls once one starts it off. (The blackbirds in my garden do this when my cat goes outside).
I'm sure most of this behaviour is unconscious, there are no good intentions behind it, it just helps perpetuate the species so its probably evolved behaviour, or more likely these species have evolved so that they are more likely to learn this behaviour.
Its certainly possible to see the roots of moral behaviour in these kinds of social examples. There was an episode of Friends where Phoebe was trying to perform a genuinely selfless act. If you take her thinking from that episode, its certainly possible to extrapolate from the altruistic behavioural building blocks to much of the human behaviours we consider moral or altruistic today.

[subego]

I thought math was all made-up.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Drop the word hypothetical and this line would be implied pretty much verbatim in most mathematical papers.

Dropping of the word hypothetical is a hypothetical. Don't you give any more weight to the real world than to the hypothetical one?

I certainly haven't abused anybody in this thread. I don't think I am especially guilty of verbally abusing people elsewhere either.
I tend to criticise peoples ideas, beliefs, thought processes and rationalisations rather than criticising the people themselves.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. You insist people agree with you, in an abusive way. Abuse towards ideas counts.

Of course, accusing believers of "mental illness, brain damage, drug use, psychological disorders, fatigue, and deception," with no evidence btw, pretty much constitutes verbal abuse of the people themselves, now that you draw the distinction.

Hence this thread

FYI, this thread sounds just like Salty's pre-coming-out threads. Just sayin'

Show me the evidence, and I'll consider anything. It has to be evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

Clearly not. There is no evidence on either side, you said so a dozen times, but you've still dug your heels in over it. So what exactly makes you so certain that disagreement actually irritates you?

It therefore remains much more sensible, logical and reasonable if not scientific to assume that god does not exist until some better evidence comes along.

You're not just assuming it, you're proselytizing it. The problem isn't that you have an assumption, it's that you badger anyone who doesn't share the same assumption.

It therefore remains much more sensible, logical and reasonable if not scientific to assume that god does not exist until some better evidence comes along.

That's not logical at all, you're just turning in circles. To reiterate, all you did was decide what you want the null hypothesis to be, then fail to gather any evidence, and declare the null hypothesis correct. The logical and reasonable answer any time you have no evidence at all, is that you don't know, even if you have suspicions. That's what people who are able to gauge degree of certainty do.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

There are lots of different beliefs about what god is, and this seems to be (one of) the only thing(s) they all have in common. Since this thread is about religion, all I have to go by are the gods people believe in, not the gods we can make up on the fly. IMO.

I would agree if this was a thread about religion in general, but this is a thread about why people believe what they believe.

You seem to be saying the only valid belief structures for discussion are the ones demanded by mortal institutions.

I don't know what you mean by "institutions" since I didn't mention any, so I'll ignore that word. If you're asking whether I think the only gods that are relevant to this thread are ones that at least one person actually genuinely believes in, yes I do. What is a god? There are two possibilities, either it's a concept invented and used by humans, or it's a concept given to humans by a god. If it's the former, then we don't really have the option to reinvent the term for the purpose of answering this question, that's cheating. If it's the latter, then the god who did that must have known about humans in order to communicate this concept to them, so that answers my question already. Is there a third answer?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

I thought math was all made-up.

It is made up. It's made up to explain the world in numbers, equations, and formulas... in a logical way.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

yes thats exactly what it sounds like... wow you are just so insightful. And your posts just add so much to any discussion.

You are just making blanket statements.

How has the involvement of God made things so much more impressive for you than it would be in the absence of God? Can you provide us with 2 or 3 examples of what impresses you?

iPhone - not impressive.
iPhone can store every version of the Bible in 100 languages - Impressive?

I'm not impress with your grammar. I'm just copying conservatives here picking on other's grammar.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You are just making blanket statements.

How has the involvement of God made things so much more impressive for you than it would be in the absence of God? Can you provide us with 2 or 3 examples of what impresses you?

Everyone seems pretty impressed with the US Constitution Declaration of Independence and the founding fathers. "We are endowed by our Creator..." "In God We Trust". "One nation, under God, indivisible...". The Sistine Chapel.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

iPhone - not impressive.
iPhone can store every version of the Bible in 100 languages - Impressive?

I think you are starting to get it.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I'm not impress with your grammar. I'm just copying conservatives here picking on other's grammar.

Wat?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I'm glad you brought this up; this reminds me of another significant difference in atheist thought and many religious people. I don't really disagree with you on it being psychological but...

I have no faith in people at all. I'm disgusted my 90% of the things they do and write.
I don't think humans are capable of coming up with something that has the depth of the bible (and some other religious teachings) without divine help. From my perspective and experiences; everything humans do they screw up. Every time they try to fix / improve something they end up creating an even bigger problem. Everything that seems impressive on the surface has some dark under-layer that is required for it's existence. Religious texts are the only thing that gives me that "psychological feeling" you speak of.

By talking to atheists I get vibes that they find what humanity has accomplished is impressive; something to be proud of. People look at the iPhone and think "Wow so cool technology!" Well Im not the slightest bit impressed; I see the iPhone has degraded human intelligence and life in general (Come to think of it I see young people today living less fulfilling lifestyles; I dont see how they aren't absolutely bored to death in their ways). People look at a city skyline and think how impressive society has come; how civilized everyone is. Im not impressed; I see towers funded by financial scams, big oil and the World Bullying Organization, or should I say the World Exploitation Organization. I see homeless people; people pretending to be homeless people; people stealing, killing, raping, people mutilating their bodies to express themselves like a corral reef fish then pretending it makes them and individual. All this and it's funny because humans are the only animal that can discern right from wrong. Most humans know what good and evil is yet still can't resist being selfish and absolutely evil (just like the bible says they will). I'm not impressed by space flight, technology in general, government, airplanes, computers, the internets, fast cars or all the environmental destruction that is required for all these things. The only way I see humans successful is when god is considered in their solutions. This is our difference in perspective.

I agree with you 99.999%

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I completely agree, only thing is this totally applies to all religions. The bible was written by men, for men. This is why it is so laced with emotion and human feelings. An omnipotent being would not think in such terms. The bastardization, nay, humanization of faith is apparent in every modern religion. That's why there is this dude with a pointy hat sitting in a golden palace than is supposedly god's right-hand-man. It's ludicrous, and so easily seen for what it is, a power grab. Religious texts are nothing more than parables written by men to explain the unexplainable. Perhaps they had divine inspiration, but I am entirely certain the words and stories chosen were their doing, not god's.




You start this paragraph off well enough, and I agree on some points. But not impressed with space flight? Do you place faith and reverence above some of the greatest accomplishments of the human race? If this is what you meant then I am going to have to say that's the single most hard-headed comment I've ever heard regarding faith. I believe if it wasn't for people's devotion to what they think their god wants from them, and their societies, that's we'd be in a far better place right now as a species. People's devotion to their holy texts have stifled creativity and held humans back by creating an atmosphere of fear. God, if he exists, does not want us to grovel on our knees and cast judgement against our fellow beings, this is counter-intuitive to the advancement of our race.

I think the religious need to start getting their heads our of these stuffy ancient texts and start letting faith guide their actions, not the words of men.

Where did you come to the conclusion in the sentence I bolded in you post?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I'm glad you brought this up; this reminds me of another significant difference in atheist thought and many religious people. I don't really disagree with you on it being psychological but...

I have no faith in people at all. I'm disgusted my 90% of the things they do and write.
I don't think humans are capable of coming up with something that has the depth of the bible (and some other religious teachings) without divine help. From my perspective and experiences; everything humans do they screw up. Every time they try to fix / improve something they end up creating an even bigger problem. Everything that seems impressive on the surface has some dark under-layer that is required for it's existence. Religious texts are the only thing that gives me that "psychological feeling" you speak of.

By talking to atheists I get vibes that they find what humanity has accomplished is impressive; something to be proud of. People look at the iPhone and think "Wow so cool technology!" Well Im not the slightest bit impressed; I see the iPhone has degraded human intelligence and life in general (Come to think of it I see young people today living less fulfilling lifestyles; I dont see how they aren't absolutely bored to death in their ways). People look at a city skyline and think how impressive society has come; how civilized everyone is. Im not impressed; I see towers funded by financial scams, big oil and the World Bullying Organization, or should I say the World Exploitation Organization. I see homeless people; people pretending to be homeless people; people stealing, killing, raping, people mutilating their bodies to express themselves like a corral reef fish then pretending it makes them and individual. All this and it's funny because humans are the only animal that can discern right from wrong. Most humans know what good and evil is yet still can't resist being selfish and absolutely evil (just like the bible says they will). I'm not impressed by space flight, technology in general, government, airplanes, computers, the internets, fast cars or all the environmental destruction that is required for all these things. The only way I see humans successful is when god is considered in their solutions. This is our difference in perspective.

I think this post is pathetically cynical. And you aren't impressed by modern civilization, but you think the "depth" of the Bible is beyond human beings?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Everyone seems pretty impressed with the US Constitution and the founding fathers. "We are endowed by our Creator..." "In God We Trust". "One nation, under God, indivisible...". The Sistine Chapel.

The words 'God' and 'Creator' are NOT in the US Constitution.

The Sistine Chapel is impressive. But is art any less impressive in the absence of God?

el chupacabra claims he is not impress unless God is involved some way.

I say something can be impressive whether or not it's inspire by their religion or belief in God. That was my argument. Not that something can't be impressive with God or Gods in it. I find statues of Greek Gods impressive. I find many religious art to be impressive. However, I find lots of impressive art and architecture that has nothing to do with God or inspired by God.

Speaking of Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo is quite an impressive artist. But there's a reason why he likes to sculpt and paint naked men.

[Athens]

Why debate it, its practically impossible to really debate. On one side you have free minds who can't grasp what it is to believe in religion because they never got indoctrinated into it, thus are not able to relate to it and another side indoctrinated from birth who know no other life of not having something to believe in and can not relate to those that who are free minds. Some exceptions for those that lost faith in life and freed there minds, and those that choose of free will from free minds to believe because for what ever personal reasons they needed to. I just don't see the point in trying to change the minds of those of either experience. Its just to deeply rooted into the make up of the person minus those exceptions above. But it isn't really fair to them to badger them on their choice either.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Psst. Try reading the thread first.

[hyteckit]

Speaking of renaissance artist, Leonardo da Vinci is quite impressive and inspiring. He is one of my idols. Math, science, and art.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Why debate it, its practically impossible to really debate. On one side you have free minds who can't grasp what it is to believe in religion because they never got indoctrinated into it, thus are not able to relate to it and another side indoctrinated from birth who know no other life of not having something to believe in and can not relate to those that who are free minds. Some exceptions for those that lost faith in life and freed there minds, and those that choose of free will from free minds to believe because for what ever personal reasons they needed to. I just don't see the point in trying to change the minds of those of either experience. Its just to deeply rooted into the make up of the person minus those exceptions above. But it isn't really fair to them to badger them on their choice either.

The freedom of one's mind doesn't come from belief or non-belief, but from understanding yourself. Just about all I see all day are people who are prisoners, whether it be by choice or circumstance; atheist, Baptist, Catholic, Jew, agnostic. They don't know who they are, much less have an inkling of their true will, they just wander in a fog, reacting to life instead of creating from it. It's very sad. They could be human beings, but they aren't.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The freedom of one's mind doesn't come from belief or non-belief, but from understanding yourself. Just about all I see all day are people who are prisoners, whether it be by choice or circumstance; atheist, Baptist, Catholic, Jew, agnostic. They don't know who they are, much less have an inkling of their true will, they just wander in a fog, reacting to life instead of creating from it. It's very sad. They could be human beings, but they aren't.

Most people don't have a choice. Like what was pointed out before, the language you speak is what your parents speak. Many people learn a second language but they never had the choice to learn the first one. Religion or being non religious is the same thing. Like language most people end up believing what the parents believed. And if the parents where not very active in religion at all, produce non believing children. Either way I think my point is valid its so deeply rooted in what a person is, its not a debatable subject.

What ever is said the other side will never agree. I think that's something we all can agree on.

[ebuddy]

I was born and raised Catholic, but I was also born and raised the youngest of 5 which gave me at least as much time with Rush, Iron Maiden, April Wine, and recreation not generally acknowledged as worship of the Christian God. We said grace before each meal and we went to church each Sunday. I was very close with my mother and these things were very important to her. My mother passed away when I was 17, I moved away from home, and stopped going to church altogether. I wasn't angry with God over the death of my mother or anything and there was no struggle understanding death as a natural part of life. I was simply indifferent towards any notion of a god or faith.

Having just started college and more regular employment, I began associating with people of many different world views and cultures and was privy to a wealth of various thoughts on reason and faith. I kept very busy physically and intellectually and while I found the conversations on the "deeper matters" stimulating, I hadn't yet given my own convictions serious consideration. I then met my wife. We lived together unmarried and in abject poverty with a Doberman Pinscher for renters' insurance and eventually my girlfriend and I were with baby. Slowly, my political views began to develop from personal experiences throughout this time and raising my daughter produced a sense in me that I had begun to live the first days of the rest of my life. I saw in the existence of my daughter a great deal of deliberation, purpose and potential, and the need for my stewardship of her growth as if I had never taken the time to stop and actually smell a rose before. After all, being master of your own destiny was one thing, contributing to the destiny of another is something quite different.

My yet to be wife and I discussed the possibility of church attendance... you know, some structure for the kid. All of a sudden, with this new prospect staring me in the face, it seemed perhaps I wasn't as indifferent toward faith as I thought. Right off the bat I was very opinionated about my distaste for any organized religion. Frankly, they all gave me the creeps. The thing was, my beef was never with God. I really started reflecting on some of the compelling stories my mother would tell me affirming her faith. It wasn't long before two of my siblings had begun accumulating some of their own. I was now more intimately acquainted with this possibility. I had enough familiarity with other religions/philosophies to know, generally, how they practiced, and what they thought of the... deeper, spiritual matters which of course includes the source of them and the relationship between the source and the subject. I was likely no different than most in also giving serious thought to the possibility there was no God at all, but over time this simply made less sense to me and I had begun to think perhaps those before me were onto something.

My wife and I began irregular church attendance while seeking a place that seemed to best connect our personal experiences with our developing convictions. We eventually ended up at a very simple, non-denominational church that was most interested in a studious approach to Scripture. My wife and I began accumulating affirmations of our own faith and this new perspective drove a studious approach to many aspects of our lives including political, philosophical, and personal. With this perspective almost all things made perfect sense to me as if they had all just fallen into place. I was able to reflect on my life and see the deliberation and purpose in the timing of God's stewardship over my own life experiences and the potential this afforded me, personally. I've long-maintained that faith is not only very personal, but occurs on a continuum and while it continues to ebb and flow to some degree, it grows in myself and in my family.

In short; it started with a seed that was nurtured by my life experiences and associations, by my choice to engage it, and brought to bear upon me by God whom I now could not ignore if I wanted to.

[subego]

@ebuddy

People usually say "cool story" on the Internet as an insult, but that is, in fact, a cool story.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The words 'God' and 'Creator' are NOT in the US Constitution.

The Sistine Chapel is impressive. But is art any less impressive in the absence of God?

el chupacabra claims he is not impress unless God is involved some way.

I say something can be impressive whether or not it's inspire by their religion or belief in God. That was my argument. Not that something can't be impressive with God or Gods in it. I find statues of Greek Gods impressive. I find many religious art to be impressive. However, I find lots of impressive art and architecture that has nothing to do with God or inspired by God.

Speaking of Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo is quite an impressive artist. But there's a reason why he likes to sculpt and paint naked men.

A mistake in my post, I meant the Declaration of Independence.

More about el chupacabra's post: He is not impressed by man's accomplishments and impressed to higher degree only when man's accomplishments are driven by a desire or influenced by his creator.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Most people don't have a choice. Like what was pointed out before, the language you speak is what your parents speak. Many people learn a second language but they never had the choice to learn the first one. Religion or being non religious is the same thing. Like language most people end up believing what the parents believed. And if the parents where not very active in religion at all, produce non believing children.

Religion ≠ Language.

Originally Posted by Athens 

Either way I think my point is valid its so deeply rooted in what a person is, its not a debatable subject.

Your point is not valid and it is debatable.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

More about el chupacabra's post: He is not impressed by man's accomplishments and impressed to higher degree only when man's accomplishments are driven by a desire or influenced by his creator.

I can't for the life of me fathom that point of view.

[Railroader]

I understand your position.

[Railroader]

Maybe I am not understanding el chupacabra, but that is what I got out of it what he wrote. Maybe I am not expressing it well.

[The Final Dakar]

Is confusion a position? I suppose.

[subego]

I can't say I fathom the position either, but I'm deeply familar with the rationale behind his dismissal of technology.

See this tool? People do bad things with it. Therefore, the tool is bad or even morally questionable.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Religion ≠ Language.

It was a metaphor. A baby will not learn to speak only Chinese from English only speaking parents. A Child will not be Muslim with Christian only parents. The child will speak english and be Christian during its youngling years. It might go on to learn a second language or even buy into a different religion later on in life. But for most its what the parents taught them they become.

Your point is not valid and it is debatable.

So your telling me it is possible to change your mind about religion? But you also don't fit in to the typical religious person because you picked it on your own, found it for what ever personal reasons you had to move in that direction. So I suspect its not part of your core identity as say with Big Mac.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I can't say I fathom the position either, but I'm deeply familar with the rationale behind his dismissal of technology.

See this tool? People do bad things with it. Therefore, the tool is bad or even morally questionable.

I'm familiar with a disdain for "progress" but the best parsing of his sentence I could manage seemed to indicate anything done without considering god was at best neutral and at worst, offensive.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm familiar with a disdain for "progress" but the best parsing of his sentence I could manage seemed to indicate anything done without considering god was at best neutral and at worst, offensive.

That conclusion is based on a hardcore "disdain for progress" premise.

I think to understand that conclusion, one has to imagine themselves ascribing to the initial premise.

For me, that'd be a lot of work. Pretty much everything I've ever done belies an attitude which flies in the face of that premise.

[The Final Dakar]

Then obviously I'm not familiar with this type of disdain for progress. Do they want earth to be Amish or something? (I can't say I recall exactly what the Amish resistance to technology is)

[Athens]

The resistance to technology has to do with the human and social factor. For example, they allow some technology as long as it does not have a bad effect on the community and its social nature. You are allowed a phone but it can not be inside the house. It must be in a booth outside of the house. This limits its usage. They are allowed a mechanical machine to help with labor as long as it does not replace the job of a person. I admire the Amish so much for this way of living but despise them as much for the religious aspect of the community. If I could live in a community that was setup like the Amish but with out the religion I would in a heart beat.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Then obviously I'm not familiar with this type of disdain for progress. Do they want earth to be Amish or something? (I can't say I recall exactly what the Amish resistance to technology is)

With the Amish it isn't so much disdain for the technology, it's about wanting a specific social order more. Technology makes it difficult to impossible to maintain that order, so if that order is what you want, you have to give up the things which wreck it.

This is as I understand it. TBH, I just learned it yesterday.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

A mistake in my post, I meant the Declaration of Independence.

More about el chupacabra's post: He is not impressed by man's accomplishments and impressed to higher degree only when man's accomplishments are driven by a desire or influenced by his creator.

I understand what el chupacabra meant.

Speaking of the Sistine Chapel.

Michelangelo's 'The Last Judgement' was 'inspired by visiting gay saunas' | Mail Online

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The resistance to technology has to do with the human and social factor. For example, they allow some technology as long as it does not have a bad effect on the community and its social nature. You are allowed a phone but it can not be inside the house. It must be in a booth outside of the house. This limits its usage. They are allowed a mechanical machine to help with labor as long as it does not replace the job of a person. I admire the Amish so much for this way of living but despise them as much for the religious aspect of the community. If I could live in a community that was setup like the Amish but with out the religion I would in a heart beat.

There's a liberal Quaker community like that right outside of Oak Ridge. Almost identical in structure but much more relaxed in terms of religious observance.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Then obviously I'm not familiar with this type of disdain for progress. Do they want earth to be Amish or something? (I can't say I recall exactly what the Amish resistance to technology is)

As for the disdain part, being so distant from it, the best I've ever been able to come up with is sour grapes over something.

What do they want things to be like? I've always assumed sour grapes people want a sour grapes world.

None of this is particularly charitable, but it's the best I've been able to come up with on my own.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

There's a liberal Quaker community like that right outside of Oak Ridge. Almost identical in structure but much more relaxed in terms of religious observance.

I may have to take a vacation there