revelthedog wrote:

Every 'religion' is based on trying to prove the previous one was a load of nonsense.  Science is the most interesting one so far, as its getting us back to being very interactive with what we believe in.  The most passionate religious people I've ever spoken to are the atheists. If religion is based around belief then their God is a powerful one.

I think you might want to look up the definitions of religion and atheism!  The only way you'll prove to me that "God" exists is if you simply rename quantum matter and energy "God". But that's just moving the goal posts, something religion continues to do. From where I sit, Christianity, Judaism and Islam force people to essentially apologise for existing. They're based entirely on the continual use of guilt and fear to create subservience amongst their followers, to allow those who wield the power to profit either by egotism, political power amongst their church, or in monetary terms. I have to admit to having a fondness for eastern teachings in Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. But I don't consider those to be remotely theist. Gautama Buddha, Lao Tzu and Confucius were men. Indeed, Buddhism was originally formulated as a reaction to the theist nature of Hinduism and it's use of the caste system to keep unworthy people in power while the populace suffered. I'd class them as "really nice ways to behave". A far eastern Don'tfuckthingsupism, if you like.

Gonzo wrote:

Where some of the antigodfreaks go wrong, and where they can be said to have faith, is to seek to replace the void of God or religiosity by some kind of replacement monolithic principle, usually around the idea of rationality, or reason, governing human endeavour. There is a tremendous amount of scientific work now coming out to show how wrong that is. I read recently The Social Animal, by David Brooks, that uses a lot of this sorta research. Reason and rationality cannot be given too great a role in human endeavour, because so much of it would break down if rationality were indeed a requirement for every decision.

I've come to my own conclusion. That we're completely insignificant and without purpose. A small, short lived, self destructive contaminant on the surface of an insignificant planet circling a mediocre sun towards the outer rim of an unremarkable galaxy in a universe full of billions of similar galaxies. Once you get over that fact, life seems to make more sense : )

Thats kinda depressing

Ali wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

Every 'religion' is based on trying to prove the previous one was a load of nonsense.  Science is the most interesting one so far, as its getting us back to being very interactive with what we believe in.  The most passionate religious people I've ever spoken to are the atheists. If religion is based around belief then their God is a powerful one.

I think you might want to look up the definitions of religion and atheism!  The only way you'll prove to me that "God" exists is if you simply rename quantum matter and energy "God". But that's just moving the goal posts, something religion continues to do. From where I sit, Christianity, Judaism and Islam force people to essentially apologise for existing. They're based entirely on the continual use of guilt and fear to create subservience amongst their followers, to allow those who wield the power to profit either by egotism, political power amongst their church, or in monetary terms. I have to admit to having a fondness for eastern teachings in Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. But I don't consider those to be remotely theist. Gautama Buddha, Lao Tzu and Confucius were men. Indeed, Buddhism was originally formulated as a reaction to the theist nature of Hinduism and it's use of the caste system to keep unworthy people in power while the populace suffered. I'd class them as "really nice ways to behave". A far eastern Don'tfuckthingsupism, if you like.

I agree about organised religions. I'm not saying I believe in Organised Religion I never have.  Religion is based around beliefs systems - A belief system itself doesn't necessarily have to be spiritual either. Hence why I made my statement about Atheism as well. There are those that believe in it so strongly, it would be hard to tell them and a religious zealot apart.

djchump wrote:

Also, while revel is looking up the definitions or "religion" and "atheism", he should have a read of the definitions of "faith" and "theory" (throw in "dogma", "hypothesis" and "scientific method" as well for good measure).

I still don't see where you are coming from, except to sit and the sidelines and not join in.

I want to hear more about Higgs Bosom please.

revelthedog wrote:

I still don't see where you are coming from, except to sit and the sidelines and not join in.

I'm not going to bother joining in until you bother to use words correctly to mean the things they're supposed to mean.

djchump wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

I still don't see where you are coming from, except to sit and the sidelines and not join in.

I'm not going to bother joining in until you bother to use words correctly to mean the things they're supposed to mean.

Not stopped anyone else. And I think everyone else has the just of what I mean as well.

LittleFranklin wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

I'm not going to bother joining in until you bother to use words correctly to mean the things they're supposed to mean.

Not stopped anyone else. And I think everyone else has the just of what I mean as well.

Now you're jist taking the piss.

You're both taking the gist.

I'm very disappointed that on a Friday afternoon a thread in a small video game forum has failed to prove/disprove the existence of God.

Paul the sparky wrote:

I thought we did? His name is Peter Hughes.

Okay but who's the Devil then?

Nice reply there Mod, I've just ran us a bath, bubbles and everything. Don't be too long x

Right I'm off. Might be back later. Might have popped out of existence instead.

I'm not at all religious by the way, just to clarify.

Face'll be up in about 5 hours, make the most of it.