Why religion is invulnerable:

[DetlefK]

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/5807106.Iain_M_Banks

“Most people are not prepared to have their minds changed," he said. "And I think they know in their hearts that other people are just the same, and one of the reasons people become angry when they argue is that they realize just that, as they trot out their excuses."

"Excuses, eh?" Well, if this ain't cynicism, what is?" Erens snorted.

"Yes, excuses," he said, with what Erens thought might just have been a trace of bitterness. "I strongly suspect the things people believe in are usually just what they instinctively feel is right; the excuses, the justifications, the things you're supposed to argue about, come later. They're the least important part of the belief. That's why you can destroy them, win an argument, prove the other person wrong, and still they believe what they did in the first place." He looked at Erens. "You've attacked the wrong thing.”

― Iain M. Banks, Use of Weapons

[ExciteBike66]

1. I am flabbergasted!

This is the first time I have ever seen anyone quote/mention Iain Banks on any website that was not a SciFi or Banks fan site!

Banks was my favorite SciFi author, I actually shed tears when I read his post about his illness.

[muriel_volestrangler]

112. We've mentioned him a few times here:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=iain+banks+site:democraticunderground.com

He's not that well-known here, but there are several of us who admire him. I have used his Ship names on other forums.

[gibraltar72]

2. Oh never mind

I thought you said insufferable!

[Farmer-Rick]

3. It is so comforting to think of an afterlife and a god

It means death is not real. People believe in relgion because it feels good to them. They will see all their loved ones when they die. They will get what they deserve not now but after they die. It is such a warm fuzzy that it is difficult to force yourself to see the truth.

Unfortunately for me, I would rather face the truth. I can only believe religion for short periods and then reality comes crashing down.

[brush]

78. It also constantly re-enforces itself with the teaching that Christ will come back again...

you just have to have faith, and of course keep coming church and add to the offering plates so you will be one of the chosen when he comes back.

[Cartoonist]

4. Belief

Iain M. Banks, meet Mark Twain:

"Having faith is believing in something you just know ain't true."

The whole myth of religion is so fucking unbelievable that even it's most ardent followers know deep down inside that it is all bullshit.

You can see it in almost every thread here. As the discussion plays out, the believers run out of excuses and fall back on empty platitudes.

[yallerdawg]

5. You have no proof or knowledge of what happens to our "self" after death.

Just - "a belief."

Your "leap" is to declare that billions of people "believe in something they know just ain't true."

That again falls under the realm of "a belief" since you have no facts to back up such an outrageous claim (satirists excluded, of course ).

[Cartoonist]

6. No one has proof

Therefore no one knows the truth. The difference between theists and atheists is that the former will believe something that he knows isn't proven while the latter just can't accept BS at face value.

[yallerdawg]

7. And yet you believe something you can't prove.

So what's the difference?

[Cartoonist]

8. My proof is your lack of proof

Since you can't prove the afterlife, then you know you can't prove that what you believe is true. You know that, yet you still believe. That's just what Mark said.

[yallerdawg]

10. Here is your circular argument.

The essence of faith is in the absence of proof.

Your "faith" is based on the believers lack of proof.

Without your faith, YOU have nothing, either - by your argument.

[Cartoonist]

11. Wrong word

Your "faith" is based on the believers lack of proof.

A believer's lack of proof is a certainty. That is undeniable. It is probably the truest thing in the universe.

[SCantiGOP]

12. One absolute that needs to be remembered:

You can never prove something that is not true. There is no way to 'prove' that there is not a deity any more than you can 'prove' that unicorns don't exist. Unless you could simultaneously inspect every square foot of Earth you could not say that you had proven that there are no unicorns.
The burden of proof lies with the person asserting that something does exist.

[yallerdawg]

14. Wrong again.

A believer's faith is where it starts.

But they find absolute proof in how that faith manifests all around them.

You just don't believe in the causality or the relationship. That is the difference.

[Cartoonist]

16. Show me

Where is this absolute truth?
You got nothing and you know it.

[yallerdawg]

18. Do you have any kind of insurance?

Are you familiar with the term "Acts of God?"

That is about as indisputably real as it gets!

[Cuthbert Allgood]

19. So metaphoric language is your proof.

That's hilarious. You probably didn't even realize the irony.

Tomorrow is Odin's day and the next day is Thor's day. They must be real, too.

[yallerdawg]

23. Yes.

"Metaphor."

What an interesting "word."

“We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.” - The Call of Cthulhu, by H.P. Lovecraft

https://literarydevices.net/metaphor/

[Cuthbert Allgood]

28. You do know Lovecraft was an atheist.

Right?

Just because people can think of things doesn't make them real. You know, like pink unicorns, teapots orbiting Mars, guy who rises from the dead after 3 days. The cool thing about imagination is that it isn't hampered by reality and the laws of physics/chemistry. But just because you can think up something doesn't make it real.

[marylandblue]

34. So proof of a loving God

Comes from a writer of fiction about horrible creatures?

[yallerdawg]

37. This OP is regarding an SF writer and "fictional" quotes.

I'm just trying to stay on theme!

But also pointing out metaphorical language that says one thing but can be "interpreted" to mean another. Although I think Lovecraft meant to be literal. Which is why I sampled him.

Similarly, "Acts of God" seems to be legally quite literal.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

46. No, it is not literal

The law does not make you prove that "god did it."

[marylandblue]

48. Acts of God is definitely not literal in the legal sense

If it were, then an atheist would have no standing to invoke an "Act of God" if an earthquake prevented him from fulfilling a contract.

[yallerdawg]

51. "Acts of God" are legally defined.

Ask your insurance company.

[marylandblue]

52. Correct, but the term itself is metaphorical for natural disasters

It does not imply that you or your insurance company believes in God.

[yallerdawg]

58. As everyone knows...

precise use of words and language is not an element important to the legal profession.

When you arrive at the Pearly Gates try, "I thought you were a metaphor?"

[marylandblue]

60. When you are cold and dead

try, "Hey where is that bright light I was promised?"

[yallerdawg]

61. Faith offers hope and love.

You offer nothing.

"Why religion is invulnerable."

[marylandblue]

64. Atheism will never be as comforting as religion

Which puts it at a decided disadvantage. I'm okay with that. I don't really have a problem with people believing things that comfort them. I just have a problem with the more conservative and nasty forms of religion, when a man's comfort means keeping his wife subservient or peeking in his neighbors' bedrooms.

[Doodley]

152. An atheist cannot offer love? Are you kidding me?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

62. OK. Just to be clear.

You think that "Acts of God" in a contract literally means that those that wrote the contract believe in a god that actively causes things like earthquakes, storms, volcanoes to happen? That is your understanding of how the law uses that term?

[yallerdawg]

63. Everyone - EVERYONE - knows what "Acts of God" means!

It has nothing to do with what any individual personally believes.

It's a term found in "common law." Common in that it applies to EVERYONE.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

65. So it's a yes or no answer, and you didn't give either of those.

It's simple.

Do you think that "Acts of God" in a contract literally means that those that wrote the contract believe in a god that actively causes things like earthquakes, storms, volcanoes to happen? That is your understanding of how the law uses that term?

Yes or no?

[yallerdawg]

67. These are acts not attributable to 'human agency.'

The implication by law described as an 'Act of God' seems quite clear.

As in all legal matters, my personal opinion is of no consequence.

Neither is yours.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

71. You are the one who used the legal term to support your position.

A brief recap:

Post #14

A believer's faith is where it starts.
But they find absolute proof in how that faith manifests all around them.
You just don't believe in the causality or the relationship. That is the difference.

Post #16 in response to that by Cartoonist

Where is this absolute truth?
You got nothing and you know it.

Post #18--Your response

Do you have any kind of insurance?
Are you familiar with the term "Acts of God?"
That is about as indisputably real as it gets!

So YOU were using the LEGAL usage as proof the faith manifesting all around us. So...one more time because it is important since YOU use it to defend your claim:
Do you think that "Acts of God" in a contract literally means that those that wrote the contract believe in a god that actively causes things like earthquakes, storms, volcanoes to happen? That is your understanding of how the law uses that term?

Yes or no?

[yallerdawg]

76. I gave you an example...

of real world application when YOU said "you got nothing and you know it."

It doesn't matter what I think or you think - the insurance companies and the law knows what an Act of God is. Period.

Argue with them!

Y'all keep trying to squirm out of things with semantics and words and nitpicking, obfuscation and distraction.

I would never argue with someone who believes professional wrestling is real. It doesn't matter. We'd both be right and we'd both be wrong.

One thing for sure - I can go down and see professional wrestling. Hard to argue with that!

[Cuthbert Allgood]

114. I fully realize the insurance companies know what an Act of God is.

They define it in each of their contracts.

My point is that you are using THAT PHRASE as proof for your point about the existence of God (and, pro tip, no insurance company uses that phrase to literally mean that God did something--it is metaphoric). So I don't need to take it up with the insurance companies since I am fine with their usage of it. It is you and your misapplication of that phrase I have a problem with.

And you can show me all the pictures you want of someone exhibiting their belief in a god. That does not make that god real. Any more than today being named after Odin's Day or tomorrow after Thor's Day means that Odin and Thor exist.

[yallerdawg]

120. Unless you can show me billions worshipping the days of the week...

I consider that irrelevant.

The belief and the results of that faith in God is manifested in our everyday lives in ways we take for granted. You can't drive anywhere in America without seeing a steepel. You can't go anywhere in a Muslim country without hearing the Call to Prayer. Where in India can you escape Hindu belief?

You say THIS is not proof of anything. That is YOUR belief.

I just don't get why the vast majority of human beings annoys you so rabidly?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

122. I am not annoyed by what the vast majority of humans believe

I am annoyed that you, and others, think that just because a lot of people believe something to be true doesn't make it actually true. There is not a god just because a lot of people believe that (unless you are in a Neil Gaiman comic/novel).

I can show you billions of people using Thursday. That, by your logic, is proof that Thor exists. We celebrate his day every week.

[Lordquinton]

135. TGIF!

I hate Mondays.

[Voltaire2]

109. And there it is again, the threat from a theist that the horrible unbelievers are going

to burn in hell for eternity at the command of this "loving god" they worship.

[yallerdawg]

113. It does seem to particularly annoy some people who profess complete disbelief.

"How can you have a faith that identifies consequences?"

"How can you have a faith that is obviously not literal in its thousands of years old histories?"

"I'm going to burn in hell? Oh my!"

[Voltaire2]

126. It isnt annoying it is comically appalling.

Nice god you got there pal

[guillaumeb]

73. Good luck.

It is difficult for a soloist to compete with a choir. The voices, even if not as in tune, will drown out a single voice.

[yallerdawg]

74. I hear ya!

Discussing the faith of billions, they always want to work it down to that single "soloist" and attack the messenger.

If we don't stand for tolerance and inclusiveness, who the hell are we?

[guillaumeb]

75. Agreed. But the definition of tolerance often does not extend

to tolerating other opinions. Thus those who cry intolerance become what they preach against.

Religion has accompanied humans since they walked upright, for over 300,000 years by some sources, but some fervently believe that one day humanity will miraculously evolve beyond faith.

[marylandblue]

83. It's actually easier to talk to those billions of reals believers

than either of you. I've done it many times. They don't defend some abstract religion in general where all beliefs are equally valid and all words mean whatever you want them to mean. They state their own beliefs unequivocally and provide direct answers to direct questions.

[guillaumeb]

85. I was called a "creationist" today by a non-theist.

I have also been accused of supporting Nazis, and of defining Christianity for everyone. So when you speak of people who apparently have their own personal definitions of words, are these non-theists included in the group?

[marylandblue]

86. I only know of my interactions with you

And you told me straight up that you believe that word definitions are personal and arbitrary. So I don't see a problem if someone thinks you are Nazi. According to their definition you are a Nazi, and according to yours, you are not. Problem solved.

I don't think anyone else on DU thinks that way, but it is a feature of postmodern philosophy, and I think most postmodernists are atheists. You are the first postmodern theist I've encountered.

[guillaumeb]

89. So you support people making up their own words.

A contradiction to your earlier comment. But if atheists are as you have defined them, I understand.

[marylandblue]

90. No I don't support it

But since that's your position, it shouldn't matter to you if someone calls you a Nazi. But it seems to bother you a lot, so maybe that's not your actual position?

[guillaumeb]

91. My actual position is easily researched.

But that is exactly the point.

[marylandblue]

96. Yes, I've heard many times that your position is clearly found somewhere else

But I've looked and found that to be untrue. Instead I found a series of shifting statements always pointing to something or somewhere else. Whatever someone writes, the answer always reinterprets the text so as to be a nonanswer answer. Very postmodern indeed.

[guillaumeb]

99. Your research skills need some work.

But none of us is perfect.

[marylandblue]

100. No, my research skills are quite good and always have been

If I can't find information I am looking for, it's either non-existent or well hidden.

[guillaumeb]

101. Perfection is the ultimate goal.

Congratulations

[marylandblue]

102. Now that's an irrational belief

[guillaumeb]

103. No, really. Congratulations.

[marylandblue]

104. So this is just another redirection?

[Lordquinton]

138. No one ever called G-man that

The twists and framing that he did merely to be contrarian to someone who was asking a straight forward question landed him in an awkward position. He never back tracked, nor did he he answer the question. It's all very well documented. The hope that people forget what happened is fleeting, and I intend to quash it when it comes up.

Truth hurts when you try to hide it.

[guillaumeb]

143. Still preaching the same sermon to the same tiny congregation.

Old, but following the pattern.

[Lordquinton]

150. You certainly are

Too bad the truth is clearly documented.

[marylandblue]

149. My point was that it shouldn't matter to guillameb if they did or didn't call him that

Last edited Wed Nov 29, 2017, 11:46 PM - Edit history (1)

If definitions are personal and arbitrary, then I can call you "green cheese" and you can call me "late for dinner" and we'd both always be right. I don't even have to tell how I define those words, I just have to tell you that my definition of green cheese happens to includes you.

But guillameb doesn't do that. He defines things however he wants but gets offended if you define "supporting Nazis" to include something he said.

[Lordquinton]

151. I agree with you on that

I just know how things can get legs around here, other ways of knowing, and erasing history, so I like to keep the record straight.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

117. You are a creationist

You have made that clear in here that you believe that God created the universe. Why are you backing off that label, then?

[guillaumeb]

144. Look up the word "creationist".

Now, defend what you clearly believe to be true with my comments regarding the Creator.

Good luck with that one CA, you will need it.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

154. Do you believe that there was a creator that created the universe?

Yes or no?

I'm neither saying you are a young earth creationist, nor is my question trying to get you to say that. Do you believe there was a creator that created the universe?

Answer that, and I'll go look up the word and continue the discussion.

[yallerdawg]

92. So this OP that drew our comments.

Not general? Not representative of billions?

We don't get to defend THAT?

It all has to be one lone voice in a tiny corner of the internet?

I just can't imagine why you would like it so.

[marylandblue]

93. The quote doesn't actually seem to be about religion

It seems to be about belief in general being irrational. But the implication is that the speaker, in realizing this fact, is not himself so irrational. If you want to argue that religion itself is an irrational belief, I don't think you'll get much argument here.

[yallerdawg]

94. "Why religion is invulnerable."

It's moot if the quote applies to irreligious beliefs.

Otherwise, it's another slightly veiled attack on religion and religious belief.

[marylandblue]

95. You have a point there

I don't know why the OP singles out religion when there are many types of irrational beliefs. Do you agree that religion is irrational?

[yallerdawg]

97. The "excuses," rationalizations, justifications of the irreligious...

not the "irrational."

You may identify them as such, but I certainly wouldn't.

[marylandblue]

98. Well for me, my agnosticism/atheism is a matter of lack of evidence

A scientific matter really. If there is little or no evidence for something it is likely not to exist. But I am not a New Atheist, so I don't see religion as any more irrational (and sometimes less so) than some forms of conservatism.

[Voltaire2]

110. do you tolerate nazi opinions?

I personally scorn those opinions and heap all sorts of abuse upon them.

[Lordquinton]

137. By some sources

[citation needed]

Also, this has to be in the top five most ironic things you've said.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

116. So the "hope god lets you in to heaven"

is tolerance and inclusiveness? Sounds more like in-group intolerant bullshit to me.

[yallerdawg]

121. That is not OUR rule.

Again, you would have to take that up with the Prime Rule Maker.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

123. So that attitude is showing respect and tolerance

for those that don't believe in the same "rule maker" as you?

[yallerdawg]

124. You are not required to believe.

You are free to make your choice.

You have the same information available to you that we all have.

Do you expect that if you turn left or right at an intersection, you'll end up in the same place?

No, choices have consequences. I understand exactly why some people don't like that.

[marylandblue]

131. That is where religion becomes intolerant

Sorry, God said no homosexuality. Not my fault you are going to burn in hell forever for it. Meanwhile, it's alright for me to discriminate against you, because I don't want my kids to get the idea that homosexuality is okay and end up burning with you.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

132. This. Right here. +1,000,000

That they can't see the horrible intolerance of this attitude speaks volumes.

[yallerdawg]

133. It's not intolerant.

It's judgmental.

And over time it has become less judgmental and much more open.

Just ask the Episcopalians: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/page/lgbt-church

[marylandblue]

148. The line between judgemental and intolerant is very fine

And yes some churches have gotten more liberal lately, but I attribute that to secular influence more than the religion itself. Christianity said for 2,000 years thatwomen should obey their husbands, then feminism came a long and, lo and behold, some churches decided it was time to ignore Ephesians 5:22.

[Lordquinton]

136. So you're saying that your arguments can't hold up

When you don't have a majority?

Interesting....

[Lordquinton]

134. Lovecraft was a massive bigot

Racist like no other. It influenced his writing. His works we're metaphors for racism.

So you're not wrong, but you probably want to choose a different example...

[Voltaire2]

108. So you believe that, for example, earthquakes are caused by gods?

[yallerdawg]

115. Insurance companies, lawyers and judges do - depending on policies.

If you want to call it "Natural Disasters" instead of "Acts of God" you're petitioning the wrong person. I didn't come up with this.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

118. Holy shit. NO THEY DON'T BELIEVE GOD CAUSED THOSE.

It's a phrase that is being used metaphorically.

Black's Law Definition
Wikipedia Entry

They would NEVER define it as something that God did because then they would have to prove that God did it to get out of covering those things and they could NEVER prove that.

Stop using this as proof. It's ridiculous.

[Voltaire2]

125. I asked what you believe.

[yallerdawg]

127. I believe they call it "Acts of God" for a reason.

I don't personally know what they believe, but there is a strong indication they believe what they say.

[marylandblue]

22. Why do they start with faith instead of evidence?

If you start with faith, all you really have is confirmation bias.

[yallerdawg]

24. The scientific method.

It all starts with 'a question.'

"Why are we here?" would seem to be the most fundamental.

[marylandblue]

27. Fine to start with a question

But faith means you started with an answer.

[yallerdawg]

36. Why would you think that?

Each of us can form a question about why we are here and what we should do with our lives.

It has nothing to do with faith.

But the answer may require it.

[marylandblue]

57. I think that because that is my experience with believers

They start with the assumption that God exists, then look for reasons to back that assumption, and based on that "proven" assumption, they conclude that we are here because God exists.

What we should do with our lives is an entirely different matter. It's not an empirical question, but if you need an empirical answer, you can always get it from your favorite scripture.

[DetlefK]

77. Because a question is doubt. The opposite of faith.

Here's a challenge:
Start with the premise that maybe there is a God, maybe there is no God.
And now use that premise as a foundation for a belief.

It won't work: Faith means that certain things are not to be doubted. Ever.

[yallerdawg]

79. We question our existence and purpose.

When no answer is forthcoming, THEN we are open to faith.

If we had the answers, there would be no need for faith.

Faith THEN reveals the answers and the proofs we couldn't find.

[DetlefK]

82. Thank you for confirming that faith is based on confirmation-bias.

There are so many answers. The problem is not finding an answer. The problem is finding the correct answer.

Then, by faith, you pick one of those answers and support it with a religious proof (that of course may not rely on factual evidence, because faith depending on facts is no longer faith.)



These "proofs" you refer to: That's the "excuses" from the OP. Your faith tells you want you want to hear and suddenly you see "proofs" everywhere. It is noteworthy that you only refer to "proofs" that support your faith. You do not even entertain the possibility that there could be "proofs" that contradict your faith.

[yallerdawg]

84. Again, you want the proof before the faith.

When there is no proof - no answer - then we are open to faith.

The faith is confirmed not by bias but by the proof found in the acts of that faith!

The "proof" of YOUR faithlessness is confirmed by your "excuses" as to why it isn't possible. You reject faith while relying on it!

[DetlefK]

107. I feel like we should finally define the words we use in our conversation.

faith - accepting something as true, regardless of proof and counter-proof
proof - logical chain of objective statements that converges into one objective final state
an answer - one of several possible responses to a question

(I have seen this phenomenon very often with religious people: They take words that have one meaning, give them another meaning, and then use whatever meaning of the word they want at a given moment. "Waves", "energy"... a few centuries ago it was "heat".)



And now you have muddied our argument even more by bringing in "acts" of that faith.

"When there is no proof - no answer - then we are open to faith." - Agreed.

"The faith is confirmed not by bias but by the proof" - This contradicts what you just said. Faith is the absence of proof. Then how can you confirm a faith via proof?



It seems to me that you are really talking about two different kinds of proofs and mixing them up: One found by a method like science and one found via faith.
One kind of proof that is anathema to faith and one kind of proof that can only be found via faith.

[Lordquinton]

146. Amazing

You nail down definitions and the conversation stops!

[Mariana]

25. But they find absolute proof in how that faith manifests all around them.

I don't understand this at all. If the proof is so absolute, why are there so many religions, and so much variety within religions? I would expect absolute proof to lead to a fairly uniform faith among religious people, but this is not the case. Are people misinterpreting the absolute proof? Are all the different religions true, with each having its own absolute proof?

[yallerdawg]

30. As you know, there are many paths to truth.

If all people are diverse and multi-cultural, why would they all have a single uniform religion?

You keep wanting 'proof' and 'evidence' in a matter which requires faith.

[Mariana]

38. You used the word "proof", did you not?

You even described the proof as "absolute".

Can you describe an incident in which faith was manifested around you, that you took to be absolute proof that your particular religious beliefs are true? Maybe an example would help me to understand what you mean.

[yallerdawg]

41. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

We live in a world of people doing and acting upon faith - and it is manifested in what they do.

[MineralMan]

31. That is purely tautological.

It is because I believe it is.

That is only true in an imaginary reality.

[yallerdawg]

39. "They find absolute proof."

We live with this notion that there is an "objective" truth and reality.

Quantum mechanics is demonstrating to us that fundamentally we are wrong.

Truth can be found in what you are looking for.

[MineralMan]

40. Like many, you appear not to understand what

quantum mechanics or physics is really about. References to it are often made by people who do not understand it.

There is an objective reality. Quantum phenomena are part of that reality. We do not have a complete understanding of that objective reality, however. That's to be expected, given our limitations in observation and comprehension. We learn more all the time, of course, but human beings will probably never completely understand the physical universe on any scale.

[yallerdawg]

42. And so "the God of the Gaps" marches on.

Your presupposition is that we will never know the answers to all the questions.

For people of faith, the presupposition is that we already know the answer, and the ongoing mystery just confirms it.

[MineralMan]

44. No, not really.

[DetlefK]

80. The "God of the Gaps" is simply a cop-out and intellectual capitulation.

Instead of saying "We have found the answer, therefore God." the believers say "YOU have NOT found the answer, therefore God."



Where does this answer come from that you see confirmed? What if there are OTHER ANSWERS that the ongoing mystery confirms as well?
(The "ongoing mystery", the fact that we can never 100% be sure about something, that's predicted by the mathematical laws of statistics. Accordingly, the "ongoing mystery" also confirms that the world is governed not by God but by impersonal laws.)

[yallerdawg]

81. "Why am I here and what purpose do I serve?"

You think science and mathematics and a microscope will answer those questions?

Your answer: "I don't know (The Gap) but there is no God."

That can only be assumed through your faith that there is no God.

[marylandblue]

88. The question presupposes a purpose

But if you don't presuppose a purpose, then you don't ask the question and don't need an answer.

[Mariana]

139. Why would you ask that question at all?

Do you feel some need to be serving someone else's purpose? Why not choose a specific purpose for yourself and fulfill it as best you can during the time you have?

But you do ask the question. What are your answers? Why are you here and what purpose do you serve?

[yallerdawg]

140. If I were a mindless protozoa, I might not ask that question.

It seems pretty obvious in all of creation (life on earth) WE are the only species to ask that question, and we can see the answers manifest in OUR creative activities all through history.

One answer: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”

There are many, many other answers. The question is what we have in common.

[Mariana]

141. Why are you here, and what purpose do you serve?

What answers have you found?

[yallerdawg]

142. I believe we need to be more inclusive and tolerant of each other...

in order to continue to move forward our progressive values which ultimately expand our individual rights.

Ostracizing, condemning, attacking broad groups of people makes us smaller and less likely to succeed.

That's why I am here, and that is my purpose.

[Brainstormy]

128. That's crazy.

Nobody's faith "manifests all around them" unless they choose to believe that's what's happening. That they're "seeing" and "hearing" manifestations of God. And that, boys and girls, is the link between religion and psychosis.

[yallerdawg]

130. I would think psychosis would be more attuned to...

meaningless nihilism and the notion that random molecular movement is the only purpose in life.

What a terrible "reality" that would be.

[guillaumeb]

145. A common error on your part.

You said:

A believer's lack of proof is a certainty.

It might be certain that you believe something, but that is the only certainty. Your lack of belief in a deity proves nothing, except to yourself.

[Cartoonist]

153. No error

Reread it carefully. Now name me one believer who has proof.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

17. Oh stop framing the theist position as equally valid.

It's the same as saying "There either is global warming or there isn't. One's no more right than the other."

Here's what we know. At some point the human body dies. Brain activity ceases and that causes all bodily functions to stop. We call that "dead." We will all die. There is no proof that anything happens after that. So I "believe" that when we die, we are dead and there is nothing. If you want to claim that there is this magical "soul" (or whatever you want to call it) that exists after what we know happens when we die, that burden of proof is on you. I have ZERO burden of proof so show that nothing happens. I am the null hypothesis. They are not EQUAL by any stretch of the imagination. You have the extraordinary claim that there is something after death (extraordinary because there is ZERO proof for it).

It's not a belief in the sense of a religious belief in the afterlife.

[yallerdawg]

20. No, we're talking about faith here.

You all are locked into proof and evidence prior to faith - which would negate the need for faith.

Global warming has a set of facts which are extrapolated scientifically warning us about the dire consequences.

"Global warming deniers" are taking a 'leap of faith' that these 'facts' and 'consequences' are wrong.

We DO have people who have met your criteria of death and report it isn't what you say. Just as "global warming deniers" reject 'facts,' you dismiss this evidence as unreliable or hallucinatory or agenda-motivated or whatever? Because it doesn't fit your paradigm?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

26. Those reports of what happens "after death"

have been explained by people that understand the brain and what it goes through as it dies.

But, hey, give me the proof of what happens after death and I'll believe. For the time being, we die and that's it. There is nothing to believe there.

[yallerdawg]

33. "Global warming" has been explained by those who deny it.

They will accept no "proof" under any circumstances.

How about when "the crops are dying and the water is rising?" There's your proof!

We'll all be getting 'proof' in the end. Let's hope we guessed right while we lived.

[marylandblue]

32. Those people weren't actually dead

You can survive a few minutes after your heart stops beating. To really come back from the dead, you'd have to wake up after you've already started to decompose, and that hasn't happened, except in story books.

[yallerdawg]

35. You just confirmed...

that we know nothing, based on what you believe.

Billions choose to believe differently.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

47. Millions (I think) believe that immunizations cause autism

Doesn't mean that position isn't bullshit.

[MineralMan]

50. Beliefs are imaginary.

They exist only in the imaginations of those professing them.

I have knowledge, not beliefs. If I do not have knowledge of something, I simply do not know. I do not create a belief in my mind that can change that. Either I know, or I do not know.

There are many things I know. There are many things I do not know. I can try to learn about the things I don't know, but I do not form beliefs in my mind to cover what I do not know.

[yallerdawg]

54. "I believe I am going to pick up these dice and roll a 7."

When I do, is it just my imagination?

Or maybe, just maybe, did I experience the power of faith?

[MineralMan]

55. Yes. That is your imagination.

When you actually roll the dice, some number between 2 and 12 will be the result of the combination. The number will depend on probabilities, and may be affected by the manner in which you rolled the dice, but your belief will have no influence on the result. You are merely imagining the outcome.

You might believe you'll roll a 7. You might have faith you'll roll a 7. Sometimes, you actually will roll a 7. But, the number you roll will not depend in any way on your belief or imagination. If you do it long enough, you'll lose all the money you wagered, however. The odds favor the casino.

[marylandblue]

68. Unless yallerdawg cheats

Which is sort of how theistic arguments work sometimes. If I roll a seven, God answered my prayers. If I don't roll a seven, God answered no. In either case, I got an answer, therefore God exists.

[MineralMan]

69. Let me think about that for a moment....

OK, done. Nope. It's all physics, really. The physics of rolling dice are complicated enough that we can't predict outcomes. Too many variables involved. A few people can alter the frequency that certain numbers appear by careful manipulation of the dice in their hands, but that's rare, and isn't foolproof. Probabilities are still in play due to the complex basic physics involved.

Praying won't get your number up. God wouldn't be interested, assuming that any such entity exists. So, you roll the dice, and if you do it long enough, you'll see the same distribution of numbers randomly appear. Eventually, if you roll the dice long enough, each combination from 2-12 will show up with equal frequency.

No deities needed. No influence by the mind, either. You're just rolling the dice and seeing the results. I wouldn't bet on craps. Eventually, you'll lose. Chance is a fine thing.

[MineralMan]

59. Do You Believe in Magic?

The Lovin' Spoonful

Do you believe in magic in a young girl's heart
How the music can free her, whenever it starts
And it's magic, if the music is groovy
It makes you feel happy like an old-time movie

I'll tell you about the magic, and it'll free your soul
But it's like trying to tell a stranger 'bout rock and roll
If you believe in magic don't bother to choose
If it's jug band music or rhythm and blues

Just go and listen it'll start with a smile
It won't wipe off your face no matter how hard you try
Your feet start tapping and you can't seem to find
How you got there, so just blow your mind

If you believe in magic, come along with me
We'll dance until morning 'til there's just you and me
And maybe, if the music is right
I'll meet you tomorrow, sort of late at night

And we'll go dancing, baby, then you'll see
How the magic's in the music and the music's in me
Yeah, do you believe in magic
Yeah, believe in the magic of a young girl's soul

Believe in the magic of rock and roll
Believe in the magic that can set you free

Ohh, talking 'bout magic
Do you believe like I believe (Do you believe in magic)
Do you believe like I believe (Do you believe, believer)
Do you believe like I believe (Do you believe in magic)

[Missn-Hitch]

66. You need to get to Vegas ASAP.

[MineralMan]

43. Actually, no. Anyone who can report on "being dead"

was not dead. Those who are dead cannot report on that state. I died once, or so I'm told. My heart stopped for some period of time. I woke up later, after some heroic measures were taken. But, I was not dead, or I would not have woken up. I have no memory of this, since I was in a coma when it happened. I have no memory of my comatose period, but have memories of the time preceding it and upon returning to consciousness. But, for three days, I have no memories at all. It was during that period that my heart stopped beating for a couple of minutes.

Had I not been revived, I would not be here to report on my experience. However, I cannot report on my experience because I have no memory of it. I did not die. I was not dead. I recovered from my bout with viral encephalitis with zero long-term deficits. I am the same person as I was before that, and lack only memories of the time when I was comatose.

People who are capable of reporting what happened when they died did not die, actually. They had some sort of event similar to mine and were revived. Such things happen on a daily basis in hospitals all over the world.

[yallerdawg]

49. You died and remember nothing.

You have a subjective, personal belief based on your experience.

Other people describe something else entirely! Across every culture and faith!

An objective observer might say, "There's something going on here."

[MineralMan]

53. Uh, no. I have no "beliefs" about that at all.

I have no knowledge of that period of time. I don't need to create a belief to substitute for that lack of knowledge.

I have been told what the doctors did to me during that time. The result was that I lived. But I have no personal knowledge of any of that. I do remember opening my eyes at some point and seeing my mother, my wife at the time, and my wife-to-be standing at the foot of my hospital bed.

That's the first thing I remember after losing consciousness in a car in the Arizona desert. My coma lasted for four days. I also remember thinking, after seeing those three women standing there, "WTF? I can't deal with that combination right now." Then, I went back to sleep for a few more hours.

After that, I slowly recovered from my illness and resumed my life, with only about a one-month hiatus.

Had I died, I would not have posted over 100,000 times on DU, I can assure you.

[gtar100]

45. Something never changes to "nothing".

You have to believe in the miraculous to believe that. You frame your arguments from a materialistic viewpoint and yet it is matter itself that contradicts your assertion that there is nothing after death. It may not be exactly as pictured by human religions but even materialism recognizes that this universe is in the business of transformation, of the simple into the complex and then the breakdown of complexity back to primary components to be recycled into something else, ad infinitum. Consciousness or Mind is somehow supposed to be different than that? And yet it seems to be the rare flower this world goes out of its way to create. Or maybe it's the materialist's miracle, i.e., it all just happened by random chance, which itself is a mythological story of creation and meaning of life.

[marylandblue]

87. Your atoms will be around forever

But the particular configuration of atoms called "you" will not last forever, and the information called thoughts and memories contained within "you" will be irretreviably lost like a book burned in a fire.

[gtar100]

105. That's one theory.

There are countless generations and cultures of people who would beg to differ. Our education generally lumps our history (and prehistory) of ancestors into a box labeled "superstitious, ignorant people who knew not the truth of science". Were our ancestors fooled into beliefs of gods and non-corporial entities because they didn't know any better? Or did they arrive at their understanding through introspection, observation and a dedication to understanding reality? Based on some of the writings of past cultures I'd say it's the latter. Memory and consciousness are still great mysteries despite them being the daily sum total of our experience.

[marylandblue]

106. You argued that materialism supports that consciousness continues to exist after death

But it doesn't. Personal spiritual experience is an entirely different matter. For that we can affirm their real feelings without confusing it with a physical reality.

[Lordquinton]

147. You're confusing theory and hypothesis

That our bodies decompose and the atoms are taken and reformed into other matter is fact. Past that it's all speculation. Give a cultural hypothesis on what happens past that and we can test it.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

119. Of course it doesn't

The atoms and molecules from my body go back into the system.

I am probably breathing, drinking, and eating atoms that made up Mark Twain. And that makes me happy.

[guillaumeb]

72. Typically insightful.

[yallerdawg]

9. Way beyond "invulnerable!"

[SCantiGOP]

13. unaffiliated percentage will decrease?

That defies everything we have seen in the past few decades, everything we see going on today, and every logical assumption one can make about the future. It is very easy to prove that as education and knowledge increases the belief in the supernatural declines.

[marylandblue]

21. Doesn't defy every assumption

Unaffiliated have fewer kids, so that's going to hamper their growth. Places with high population growth also have low education levels and low incomes, so we can't rely on education.

[Voltaire2]

111. Yes unfortunately globally religiosity is increasing while in developed countries it is decreasing.

This trend is unfortunate indeed, and as the crisis of end stage capitalism worsens, religious fanaticism appears to be the ideological basis of social disruption.

[Cartoonist]

15. Religion as race

Those projections assume religion is genetic. While it is true that familial brainwashing makes the child follow the parents religion, I think we are seeing an increase in access to information and opinion that counters that and leads to a growing enlightenment.

Join the ride.

[Brainstormy]

129. Those projections do not assume that religion is genetic

rather that it is cultural. the rest of your statement is certainly true but the facts are that while religiosity is decreasing in developed nations it is NOT decreasing everywhere. Particularly in Muslim countries.

[saidsimplesimon]

29. "Excuses, eh?"

Thank you, DetlefK, excuses are just words of surrender. Surrender is not in my DNA. "We'll fight, you'll see".

[Iggo]

56. We're not gonna take it. NOOOOOOOOOO.

[rock]

70. Is it because it's so vulnerable?

Those who support it have the very thinnest skin imaginable.