B.C. atheists deny taking umbrage with public menorah

[zensiert]

During this sojourn of life you are either with God or you're with Satan.

I live a good life, as morally and ethically as I can (which doesn't require religion, btw.). In this life, I do not pray to an invisible sky-god, nor do I believe that I will be forgiven for my "sins" (I take full responsibility for my own actions, and do not rely on that invisible sky god, or anyone else, to forgive me).

With that said, if there is a god, and that god requires me to believe in him in order to gain entrance into heaven (no matter what the quality of my deeds or the content of my character), then that's a god I really do not want to be in the presence of. I would rather go to hell, because at least there I will be accepted for who I am, and not for who someone else wants me to be.

Now if that god would accept me into heaven based only upon the quality of my deeds and the goodness of my heart (and not upon any belief of him or lack thereof), then that is a god I can be happy in the presence of. But until I can see that god with my own eyes (I am obsessed with reality, after all), I will live my life in the safest possible way: as if that god doesn't even exist, and that this life is the only one I'll ever have. So I'd better make this life a good and worthwhile one, because I only have this one chance to do it right. There are no retries, no respawn points. The Real World isn't that lucky, or that forgiving.

[zensiert]

Merry Christmas to everyone

even you Godless heathen types

I would put a certain twist on it: Merry Mythmas. Works for me.

I still celebrate the season (even with gifts beneath the tree and all), but the focus for me is on family, friends and the ties that bind us together and make us happy. For me, that's cause enough to celebrate.

[5VP]

During this sojourn of life you are either with God or you're with Satan.

I live a good life, as morally and ethically as I can (which doesn't require religion, btw.). In this life, I do not pray to an invisible sky-god, nor do I believe that I will be forgiven for my "sins" (I take full responsibility for my own actions, and do not rely on that invisible sky god, or anyone else, to forgive me).

With that said, if there is a god, and that god requires me to believe in him in order to gain entrance into heaven (no matter what the quality of my deeds or the content of my character), then that's a god I really do not want to be in the presence of. I would rather go to hell, because at least there I will be accepted for who I am, and not for who someone else wants me to be.

Now if that god would accept me into heaven based only upon the quality of my deeds and the goodness of my heart (and not upon any belief of him or lack thereof), then that is a god I can be happy in the presence of. But until I can see that god with my own eyes (I am obsessed with reality, after all), I will live my life in the safest possible way: as if that god doesn't even exist, and that this life is the only one I'll ever have. So I'd better make this life a good and worthwhile one, because I only have this one chance to do it right. There are no retries, no respawn points. The Real World isn't that lucky, or that forgiving.

Invisible sky-god??

God is in all things and everyone. His visible works here on this planet speak volumes for what he is.

While it's commendable to be conscious of one's actions; are you aware of the cause and effect your of actions on all others?

Even those you've never met? That's where the rubber meets the road...

I see a lot of concern here for what individuals want from God but in Exodus, God tells Moses that he would not be able to handle looking God in the face so seeing God with your own eyes isn't likely as long as you are living as a human.

It's easier to just have faith....

[averagejoe]

Merry Christmas to everyone

even you Godless heathen types

I would put a certain twist on it: Merry Mythmas. Works for me.

I still celebrate the season (even with gifts beneath the tree and all), but the focus for me is on family, friends and the ties that bind us together and make us happy. For me, that's cause enough to celebrate.

What do you mean by mythmas? What myth? It's Christmas. The day that is dedicated to the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.....Which is celebrated in all of the Western World.

[zensiert]

<snip religious babble />
It's easier to just have faith....

I have no faith. I do not trust in faith. Faith is the Great Deceiver. For once you have faith, you have then been led astray.

Seriously.

Faith is simply another term for "too stupid to think for yourself". Faith is blindly accepting what someone else says, no matter if it is right or wrong. Faith is ignoring the Real World, even if it is about to stomp you out of existence.

And frankly, I think for myself. I look outside, and see the majesty of a world that is 4 about billion years old and that exists in a universe that is about 14 billion years old, all of which is assembled by physical processes that need no "divine intervention" whatsoever. Granted, we are still figuring things out (and probably will still be doing so for some time to come, as we have just begun to scratch the surface of what is out there), but there is NOTHING in my universe which cannot be explained by a rational, logical and deity-free reality.

For me, throwing a deity into the mix is like adding a bunch of screaming, squalling children into one of the most beautiful symphonies imaginable. Not only is it annoying, but it also ends up being downright UGLY. Keep your god between your ears, and I won't disrupt your lurid fantasies with the Real World.

[Glacier]

I have no faith. I do not trust in faith. Faith is the Great Deceiver. For once you have faith, you have then been led astray.

Seriously.

Faith is simply another term for "too stupid to think for yourself". Faith is blindly accepting what someone else says, no matter if it is right or wrong. Faith is ignoring the Real World, even if it is about to stomp you out of existence.

It must take a lot of faith to believe this statement. I mean, I've had many debates with many different types of folks of many different walks of life on Castanet. Some of "faith" and some of none. Some put forward intelligent arguments and some not so much. Some seem to think for themselves others tend to regurgitate what they're told from suspect sources. I see no corellation between those of "faith" (or lack thereof) and those who "think for themselves."

Is there any sort of correlation between those who "think for themselves" and those who have "faith"? Unless you can prove your claim, then your statement above is a statement of faith (not that there is anything wrong with that).

[zensiert]

Merry Christmas to everyone

even you Godless heathen types

I would put a certain twist on it: Merry Mythmas. Works for me.

I still celebrate the season (even with gifts beneath the tree and all), but the focus for me is on family, friends and the ties that bind us together and make us happy. For me, that's cause enough to celebrate.

What do you mean by mythmas? What myth? It's Christmas. The day that is dedicated to the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.....Which is celebrated in all of the Western World.

Christmas is a myth, plain and simple. Every single aspect of it is dedicated to and derived from myths that have not been confirmed as true by any evidence known to Science.

Heck, there are even religious scholars who are now starting to suspect that Jesus himself (as told in the Bible) was either a fictional metaphor or an entire series of historical figures combined under one banner -- that "Jesus" was not one single man. And that is despite the fact that there isn't a single scrap of hard, physical evidence for his actual existence outside of the New Testament (and books are not proof... because otherwise I could easily make a book that said the opposite, and the universe would implode in self-contradiction).

Just because 2 Billion people around the world celebrate it, doesn't make it real. Case in point: Santa Claus. Or the Easter Bunny. Or the Tooth Fairy. Or unicorn farts. Take your pick. Belief does not result in truth; if that were the case I would be a multi-billionare by now, simply by believing I was one.

So, yeah. Merry Mythmas.

[zensiert]

I have no faith. I do not trust in faith. Faith is the Great Deceiver. For once you have faith, you have then been led astray.

Seriously.

Faith is simply another term for "too stupid to think for yourself". Faith is blindly accepting what someone else says, no matter if it is right or wrong. Faith is ignoring the Real World, even if it is about to stomp you out of existence.

It must take a lot of faith to believe this statement. I mean, I've had many debates with many different types of folks of many different walks of life on Castanet. Some of "faith" and some don't. Some put forward intelligent arguments and some not so much. Some seem to think for themselves others tend to regurgitate what they're told from suspect sources.

Is there any sort of correlation between those who "think for themselves" and those who have "faith"? I would say no, and unless you can prove otherwise, then your statement above is a state of faith (not that there is anything wrong with that).

I have no faith. I have no belief. I have the Scientific Method, which gives me the ability to examine and test all aspects of reality, to the point where I can trust them to act and react in a particular way under a specific range of conditions.

Case in point: Gravity. Do I believe what we know about gravity to be the whole explanation? No. Do I have faith in our current models of gravity to give all the right answers? Heck, no. In both cases, belief and faith would be under considerable strain right now, because all indications are that our current models of gravity itself (its true nature, what we know about it, and how we can rely on it) are about to undergo a major rewrite. And from the ground up, to boot.

Does that mean that planets will no longer circle the sun? That they will go flying off into space? No. It simply means that we have found a more accurate and more comprehensive explanation of gravity, so that we can trust that explanation to better describe what gravity will do to us and for us.

There is no faith or belief in the Scientific Method, because both of those require a complete and utter suspension of critical thought. Conversely, there is also no trust that is automatically assigned, because trust must be earned. When I look at a ball flying through the air toward me, I can trust the many tens of millions of experiments that have shown that, without exception, that ball will follow a certain course unless acted upon by an external force. And better yet: I can challenge those tests myself, by testing for disproof.

Try doing that with religious texts, or the great sky-god. Good luck (irony intended, because I also don't believe in luck).

[zensiert]

Is there any sort of correlation between those who "think for themselves" and those who have "faith"? Unless you can prove your claim, then your statement above is a statement of faith (not that there is anything wrong with that).

Hmmm... Google search on "faith":

faith /fāTH/
Noun:

• Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
• Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

The former would not apply to the Scientific Method, because trust in the Scientific Method is not complete or absolute -- it extends only so far as tests have been able to determine the "boundary of reliability" of a Scientific premise. For example, I would not trust even the Universal Constants to be the same throughout the Universe, as there is now evidence that they may not be.

The latter is a complete summation of my statement. You're welcome.

[fluffy]

Where does science weigh in when dealing with something totally unknown? I would think that rather than discount a theory because it is unquantifiable/unmeasurable/untestable wouldn't it be better to remain open to all possibilities until a verifiable truth is uncovered?

[5VP]

<snip religious babble />
It's easier to just have faith....

So...

What religion are assuming here???

[zensiert]

<snip religious babble />
It's easier to just have faith....

So...

What religion are assuming here???

Yours.

[Glacier]

The former would not apply to the Scientific Method, because trust in the Scientific Method is not complete or absolute

I'm sorry, but the Scientific Method is absolute. To believe otherwise is folly. Why would I not trust in something that's absolute and complete? Do people come to wrong conclusions on occasion while using the scientific method? Of course, but this by no means precludes the absolute value of and trust in the method itself.

I'd like to know your thoughts on the difference and similarity between faith and opinion though.

[zensiert]

Where does science weigh in when dealing with something totally unknown?

It doesn't. Science has no domain over the unknown because no-one has any evidence for it yet. No evidence = nothing to test. Once there actually is evidence of existence, we can then start constructing tests to determine what it is.

I would think that rather than discount a theory

Are you talking about the Scientific definition, or the colloquial/common definition? Because there is a vast gulf of a difference between the two.

because it is unquantifiable/unmeasurable/untestable

Nothing that exists within the realm of reality exhibits these characteristics. NOTHING.

Granted, our current level of technological sophistication may not allow us to conduct certain tests at this time, but that is a technological limitation, not a limitation of the test itself. The test is still valid, our technology just isn't up to the task yet.

wouldn't it be better to remain open to all possibilities until a verifiable truth is uncovered?

There is a saying: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". And in Science, this is the rule rather than the exception.

If you want to talk about fairies, unicorns, Bigfoot or some psychopathic narcissistic sky-god, the rules are all the same: if you make wild, outlandish claims, you will have to back it up with massive amounts of hard, testable evidence.

In fact, there have been many times in the past where Science itself was put to that very test. Take, for example, Plate Tectonics. These days, it takes a particularly uneducated person to deny the existence of Plate Tectonics. However, at the turn of the 19th century, this was a very radical and (at the time) somewhat crazy idea. I mean, the continents did match up as if they were meant to fit together, but the earth moving? Some parts spreading and other parts eating itself? Simply said, it was an extraordinary claim, and very few people - even Geologists - believed it.

So, what happened? Well, 50 years of technological improvements, geological evidence and a world war (WW-II, which saw the first sonar mapping of the ocean floors) which uncovered the Mid Atlantic Ridge is what happened. Massive volumes of evidence was accumulated, including geomagnetic evidence and actual video recordings of the Mid-Atlantic ridge (and others like it around the world). Eventually, the evidence became overwhelming, and Plate Tectonics became the only logical, reasonable and rational answer around to explain why the continents look like they could fit together -- because they once did.

But until all this evidence reached a certain tipping point (where a more detailed, better description becomes more reliable and trustworthy than the old one), Science cannot treat it as viable.

And without any testable evidence at all, Science cannot even consider it.

[fluffy]

So if science cannot even consider it, then is its possible existence denied?

You seem to be going to great length to justify ignoring a possibility to which there is little or no evidence for or against. Isn't that a little close-minded?