If you are asking why there are so many atheists on the sift, I'd probably have to say that it's been my experience that more technologically literate people tend to be of no faith, or at least not of any organized religion. That's not to say that there aren't religious computer geeks out there, but perhaps it's a sign of the information era since people can get opposing viewpoints from a number of different sources on this newfangled internet, instead of only having the one religious viewpoint hammered into their heads from parents or clergymen.

Of course there are plenty of intelligent, religious people here on the Sift, and some great discussions have been had, but I tend to find that the majority of people who really stick to their faith, like my parents, aren't lurking the message boards, and are instead busy with one-sided media that tells them what they want to hear, and doesn't question what they already believe, like Fox News.

Logic dictates that the most one can be is agnostic, since you can't disprove the existence of God, but that's really a cop out since it asks a question that shouldn't necessarily be there in the first place. Which is where the Spaghetti Monster and such come from, i.e. I can't disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster so therefore I'm agnostic when it comes to His Noodliness. But if man hadn't invented the FSM, or God, then I wouldn't even be atheist, I'd just be me... Or something like that. So I reject the notion of a supernatural creator being altogether, so thus I become an atheist.

Anyway, that's my humble point of view. I'm sure someone more eloquent than myself has another. As for that beer, I'll get the first round.

No, you're not alone in your agnostic beliefs I have a certain set of beliefs, but they have no bearing on anything that is written down or preached about. Basically as far as i'm concerned, if you live your life giving as much of yourself to others, being unselfish and doing what you can for the people around you, then you don't have to worship anything to gain everything.

Everyone is entitled to think what they want and believe what makes them happiest. As long as they don't push their ideals onto other people, it's all good. Healthy debate is what makes the world go round, and at the end of the day, who the hell knows what is right or wrong and fuck it, who cares!

To answer your query:
Come on. No, of course you're not the only one who has any belief, neither here on the Sift, nor in the world (duh).

Regarding myself, however: for past couple of years whenever my stream of consciousness produced a string with 'I believe' in it, I used to stop and correct myself so as to exclude it - "I don't believe", I'd tell myself, "I assume based on evidence/logic instead".

This might sound a little too extreme, maybe, but I haven't used that word when referring to myself in quite some time: months, a year perhaps. And I don't really plan on restarting it. Call me a militant atheist or a rationality-freak (I kinda am both - and in part I have the Sift to thank for that), but I honestly think that lack of religious belief is the only way forward for humanity.

Like Sketch, I am also technically an agnostic, I call myself atheist, however, because I feel most agnostics have put the cart in front of the horse when it comes to the god-question. Like the horse is supposed to pull the cart, the believers are the ones with a case that should be made. They are making a claim ("there must be/I think there is a god), I am not. I'm simply observing that there isnt a shred of evidence anywhere to support this claim, and thus I see no reason to believe in said claim.

and am i the only person that has any belief?

I am not without beliefs. I believe in things like democracy, free speech, human to human morality, I believe animal cruelty is wrong, I believe in the concept of science and reasoning, and much, much more.

Another thing to consider about the sift, which is true in atleast my case, is that the sift is global, and many countries (like mine) are not that religious.

I believe in science and reason. I believe in myself. I don't see where a god comes into play. For everything else, it's better to hold an idea than a belief, ideas are more malleable.

I'll be back with a hard-liner atheist response, when I'm done with my daily toils in the programming mine.

S.O.B. i knew i would write something that would come back to bite me in the ass..the internets and making people look like asses one at a time.. thanks EDD for the reality check that everyone has beliefs...George Carlin said it the best; he was catholic till the age of reason... which i follow the same path being that Catholicism to me seems bat-shit crazy..being that i was manipulated for 8 years from K-7th..So i understand the evils of organized religion oh and no i was not an alter boy it cut into my power rangers in the morning one had to give....In reference to what i am getting from this thread is there is no God and this is all just one big cosmic coincidence? Now how much belief does that take? In the context that you put it sketch, FSM could be as real as Zeus, Apollo, Mars, or itchy and scratchy..That they are all manifestations of men but God is much more then that existence that being it interconnects everything within the universe. i am sure this last sentence will come back to me but oh well...What about a one celled micro-organism how does it live? or better yet how does it have life? i am guessing the logical answer would we don't have the technology to explain this phenomenon but i don't think that we will be able to ever produce the technology ....though as you can see this is not the first or the last time i will be proved wrong.... Sketch: where do i got to go to collect on that beer?

What does that micro-organism do that makes it alive? Is that what you're asking? Well, quite simply, it reproduces (most likely asexually). I'm pretty sure it doesn't believe in a god. Nor does it have a consciousness. It is, however still a part of the universe. Just as much as you or me. It just doesn't have the capability nor the need to ask these questions. We do.

Belief in unreasonable things is a weakness of the mind. Faith is by definition belief in something that does not demand any form of evidence, it is therefore also a weakness of the mind. The reason that Atheism "runs rampant" on the sift, is quite simple: as intelligence rises, faith usually subsides. And videosift is a quite intellectual group of individuals. It's not that all atheists are automatically smart, it's that all smart people usually are atheists.

Established religion is for the most of it wicked, for lack of a better word. It is indeed an evil upon the world; Earth's cancer. And for the human race to survive and flourish we need to heal it, somehow. As it is an intellectual cancer the best way is usually education, which is why religion is the only thing that has "forbidden knowledge" - keep the people stupid, and you keep them in control.

Individual "beliefs" are basically (usually) moral values. If you get a hundred people in a room that claims to have some form of belief and question them individually, you'll always find a hundred differing beliefs. No one agrees on everything, especially on morals.

God is nowadays just a label we put on anything. "God is love", "God is everything", "God is the universe", "God is a big fat piece of crap", but it's all bullshit. God is God, love is love. If you redefine the word, then you will have to explain your redefinition. Every single time someone makes a clear definition of God, you can refute it. Every time you refute any given God, the believers subside and change their definition, "What God actually is, is..." which is just intellectual cowardice.

Many people say that Agnostic is the only way you reasonably can go - Bill Maher said the "doubt" is the only way, for instance - but I don't think that is correct. While we can never be sure of anything really, we always weigh the evidence and base our conclusions on that. Agnosticism basically says that "I can't know, therefore I don't commit". This assumes an either/or answer, "either God exists or it doesn't" and chooses to not assume an answer. This is a bad position, because it's not at all a 50/50 choice. Every single piece of credible evidence points towards the non-existence of any form of God character, therefore it is the most reasonable position to be a non-believer.

I am as sure of the non-existence of God as I am that I am a thinking human being; that the sun rises tomorrow; that water is wet; that water freezes at about 0 degrees celcius; and so on.

"I will either have sex with you tomorrow or not" <-- Which is the reasonable assumption, yes or no? It's the same type of question as the existence of God. Not 50/50 at all.

Life is simply the animation of cells. Each cell reproduces based on DNA, multiple cells make out complex forms of life. That's it.

The gospel according to gwiz sure is boring.

edit: and condescending

Did someone mention beer? Where and when? I'm up for it!

It is what it is, the truth is not here for your amusement.

>> ^rasch187:
The gospel according to gwiz sure is boring.

It's midnight (Germany) so i will think tomorrow long and hard of my rebuttal (gwiz) while you all slumber away....dreaming of you blackness at the end of the tunnel...

God is a nerd.

^ Now I have this image of God getting pantsed in a school hall by bigger jock deities ala some '80's movie.

Atheism isn't really about stating that no god(s) exist, it's about recognizing that no evidence of god(s) exist. Our existence may have been created... maybe we're in a computer simulation. It is possible, but it is not currently testable.

If a belief cannot be observed, tested, or confirmed, then what is the merit in that belief? Why is it believed? God(s) may exist, but if they do not interact with our reality in any recognizable way then there is no way to know if beliefs in them are correct or way off.

Agnosticism: There is no way way to prove or disprove the existence of a creator.
Atheism: There is no reason to believe in something that cannot be observed. For practical purposes, treat gods as if they do not exist until we find a way to measure or observe them.


I like the atheist videos... it's nice to see growing acceptance of people who leave superstition behind. When I see people promoting rationality over unsupported beliefs (faith) then I can't help but upvote.

>> ^NobleOne:
In the context that you put it sketch, FSM could be as real as Zeus, Apollo, Mars, or itchy and scratchy..That they are all manifestations of men but God is much more then that existence that being it interconnects everything within the universe. i am sure this last sentence will come back to me but oh well...


Well, you are exactly right. We are all atheists where it comes to gods such as Zeus, etc. The problem with the idea of the interconnection of everything in the universe is that it's unsubstantiated, mystical, wishy-washy nonsense. People like to feel like they are connected to everything because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but that doesn't make it real.

Personally, my problem with this kind of spirituality is that it keeps people from bothering to look into proper astronomy, geology, archeology and biology to learn for themselves how truly amazing and wondrous reality actually is. Of course we don't have ALL of the answers to life, the universe and everything, and no scientist will ever tell you that we do, but science strives to find real answers to real questions, while spirituality seems to make up questions that really don't need to be asked.

I really don't get how most people here are virulently anti-religious, Most of the people I talk to, and all of my friends are also like most of you here, but perhaps a little less occupied with the subject (way less).
I especially do not understand the animosity from people who come from basically atheist countries. Were I live there is a 50 - 50 split, but most other European countries are clearly on the non-religious side, at least the economically developed ones.



On a different note, something Woody Allan said, that existence seems like grim joke. To me existence is utterly irrational, and the basic tenants of logic and reason resolve themselves into pure axioms, or worse paradoxes like infinite regress. So you are basically left with driveling pragmatism - which I dislike immensely. For me there has to be some element which saves reason from itself. I don't know what that element is.

>> ^gwiz665:
Every single piece of credible evidence points towards the non-existence of any form of God character, therefore it is the most reasonable position to be a non-believer.


I disagree with this statement. Science can disprove religious claims about the physical world (young earth, etc), but we currently do not have any methods for determining whether or not our existence was created.

That isn't a statement about religion. If our existence was created and that creator never interacted with the created reality then no religion would have any basis for determining the nature of that creator. While there wouldn't be any evidence directly related to a creator, that doesn't disprove the possibility.


One example: We will, at some point, have the ability to create virtual reality that is indistinguishable from the "real" world. How would any person, real or created, inside that simulation have any way of knowing that their reality was created? They wouldn't be able to prove or disprove its creation (unless they remembered being put into it).

There's no evidence that supports the idea that our existence was created, and hence no reason to actively believe that it was. However, that does not mean that the evidence points away from that possibility. There are plenty of situations that could both involve a creator and fit into our current scientific understanding.

I do not believe that our reality was created, but I do understand that the possibility does exist.

I believe we all live in the matrix.

Look am typing words to virtual people!




You disgust me.

*runs off*

>> ^Farhad2000:
I believe we all live in the matrix.
Look am typing words to virtual people!


You disgust me.
runs off


A matrix joke? Old. Very old.

In reference to what i am getting from this thread is there is no God and this is all just one big cosmic coincidence? Now how much belief does that take?

2 points here, firstly, How much belief it takes? well, to me, its not really a matter of belief or "faith", its a matter of evidence. Scientists have studied the universe for a long time and concluded, based on EVIDENCE, that the universe is expanding at an exponential rate. By comparing stars at various distances, we can look back in time, literally, and see how the early universe looked and behaved. Which brings me to point number 2: "cosmic accident" is a gross oversimplification of our current understanding of the universe.

We have deduced, based on evidence that the early universe was much denser and hotter and simpler than it is now. Brian Cox used a snowflake as a metaphor, this old, "frozen" universe is complex and interesting, where as the early universe, like a melted snowflake, would just be a dense , hot gass of sorts, ultimately with only hydrogen in it. As Carl Sagan said: This (meaning us humans, earth and every living creature on it) is what you get when you give Hydrogen atoms 14 billion years to evolve.

Right now, our Sun with its immense gravitational pressure fuses 700 million tons of hydrogen into 695 million tons of helium, EVERY SECOND. 5 Million tons of pure energy is released, equaling something like 200 million Hiroshima bombs EVERY SECOND. Yet these extreme numbers are peanuts compared to the events that shaped our universe. Our sun simply isnt powerful enough to fuse helium and create heavier elements. For that, we need bigger "Weapons of Cosmic Destruction Creation" Supernovae, red giants, galactic collisions and supermassive black holes, nebulae and gas clouds beyond all imaginations. From cosmic events like this, all the ingredients we take for granted here on earth, (like carbon etc) were originally created. Again when talking about grand stuff like this that I know little about, it is best to qoute Carl Sagan again:

We are the Stuff Of Stars.

I love that quote because it is literally true.

So thats the "accident" before life arose. The exact chemical reactions that gave rise to the first self-replicating molecule is not fully understood, but once that first barrier was crossed (achieving high-fidelity replication) Evolution by natural selection is INEVITABLE.It still took a good 2 billion years before cells start grouping into multi-cellular organisms, but when that revolution happened, we went from flatworm to primates in a measly 700 million years.

That account of the Cosmic accident is a far to brief, incomplete and rough draft of what happened, of course, I only mean to point out that this isnt some mad scientists guesswork. The processes and events above have been predicted, discovered, tested and examined and calculated and peer-reviewed and-- you get the point. They are our current best shot at understanding the universe, based on the available evidence. Naturally, much is left to discover, and thats what makes science interesting.

^you fix bikes.

NobleOne: Please do. I welcome a good rebuttal. Your tone indicates that you see atheism as a bad thing "blackness at the end of the tunnel", I completely disagree. There is no tunnel, there is no blackness. Live while you can, don't hope for an afterlife, because it's probably not there.

Rasch: I think you'll find it's called patronising. And I don't really care.

Psychologic:
"Science can disprove religious claims about the physical world (young earth, etc), but we currently do not have any methods for determining whether or not our existence was created."
And? The fact that we cannot test for it, does not mean that there is a God hiding in there. There could be anything where we can't test. Until we can perform some sort of analysis, there is nothing gained from injecting anything there.

"There's no evidence that supports the idea that our existence was created, and hence no reason to actively believe that it was. However, that does not mean that the evidence points away from that possibility. There are plenty of situations that could both involve a creator and fit into our current scientific understanding."
Ah, that is true. There is no directly evidence against a creator creating the universe, but this is only the latest god in the gaps. The fact that nothing points in the other direction does have some merit, but of course cannot absolutely disprove something. You can never disprove something. You can only look at the evidence and judge from that.

There have been plenty of evidence against the Christian God(s), because he keeps receding every time we look for him. My point is still this, if you define it, we can disprove it. If the definition is "God is the creator of the universe" then I can only respond, there has not been produce any credible evidence to that claim yet. Big Bang is more likely, given the amount of evidence. (I'm not too sure about that, I'm not an astro-physicist.)

I heard that Zeus was a real dick to Jahweh in high-school, which is why Jahweh was so abusive in the old testament. Poor guy, he's a victim.

>> ^Sketch:
^ Now I have this image of God getting pantsed in a school hall by bigger jock deities ala some '80's movie.

To answer your question, VideoSift might be more diverse if sifters weren't so very good at alienating religious people. Most sifters are cool, but sometimes they fall short of my expectations. Clever to moderately idiotic Atheist videos are lovingly sifted. All videos that portray religious people as idiots are fondly adorned with self-congratulatory comments as they make their way to #1. Religioius discussions rarely go anywhere before one or several people jump in and attempt to make the offending believer into mincemeat. If this cannot be accomplished, personal attacks are in order.

>> ^gwiz665:
My point is still this, if you define it, we can disprove it. If the definition is "God is the creator of the universe" then I can only respond, there has not been produce any credible evidence to that claim yet. Big Bang is more likely, given the amount of evidence. (I'm not too sure about that, I'm not an astro-physicist.)


I think we generally agree, but we're talking about two different levels of creation. You claim that the Big Bang is more likely than creation, but I would have to ask "is it impossible that the Big Bang was initiated by a previous intelligence?" I'm not concerned with specific religions.

I just feel that any assertion that there is no creator is as baseless as the claim that there is one. I can't even see a way to assign probabilities. The Big Bang could have been engineered, or we could be living in a computer simulation. Just because these are possible doesn't mean that I think they are supported or necessarily true. They're just possibilities.

I consider myself an atheist (or maybe a rationalist). My general habit is to constantly strive to disprove my own views, so anything that isn't supported tends to get thrown out. Either way, I enjoy the discussion. =)

Atheism isn't an absolute stance on the existence of god, its a predication based on available evidence. You can't say with absolution that a rock won't float upwards when released from your hand, but you are very confident given the available evidence.

You aren't agnostic with respect to rocks floating upwards, you are atheistic. The logic holds in a discussion of the existence of god.

In this example,

theism is predicting the rock will float, because you "feel" thats what rocks should do
atheism is predicting the rock will fall, because all rocks that have ever been observed have fallen.
agnosticism is not being able to predict whether the rock will float or fall

In most real-world usage, agnosticism is essentially synonymous with atheism.

>> ^Sketch:
Logic dictates that the most one can be is agnostic, since you can't disprove the existence of God

.

i have faith in the ecological bond between all living things.



oh shit i sound the hippie massage therapist who doesnt shave her pits.
...oh wait....

>> ^thepinky:
To answer your question, VideoSift might be more diverse if sifters weren't so very good at alienating religious people. Most sifters are cool, but sometimes they fall short of my expectations. Clever to moderately idiotic Atheist videos are lovingly sifted. All videos that portray religious people as idiots are fondly adorned with self-congratulatory comments as they make their way to #1. Religioius discussions rarely go anywhere before one or several people jump in and attempt to make the offending believer into mincemeat. If this cannot be accomplished, personal attacks are in order.


Can you actually point out a worthwhile religious video that you think was unfairly ridiculed by comments? If I see one, I'd be more than happy to upvote. There are plenty of atheist videos on here because it's come to be that atheists are sick of supposedly secular governments ruling by the word of a particular religion. Amplified thanks to the Bush administration being in term for 8 years and making people who don't believe in religion feel like outcasts, we kinda feel the need to fight back a bit now.

I know that many fellow atheists can be very harsh, but it can be so, so, so hard to have a proper discussion with religious people because they always fall back on 'it's a matter of faith', or 'because God said so', and the discussion is over because they refuse to even look at the possibility that those things aren't true.

I would like some more videos which paint how religion can be a force for good... please point some this way.

>> ^spoco2:
I would like some more videos which paint how religion can be a force for good... please point some this way.


Seems like no-one ever notices those, both religious and anti-theist sifters - but there are plenty of those kinds of sifts.

>> ^gwiz665:
Life is simply the animation of cells. Each cell reproduces based on DNA, multiple cells make out complex forms of life. That's it.

If you think "that's it" then you're being very unscientific. Science should relish the question of what consciousness is, where it comes from, and where it goes, rather than bat it away (some scientists do work on that question, but most seem to dismiss it). In a solipsistic sense, consciousness is the one knowable truth of our lives, and all the empirical truths we know are a house of cards extending outward from it. That's why I don't like the "simply the animation of cells" cop-out; the honest response is, "We can't scientifically determine that yet."

I haven't been involved in religion whatsoever for 15 years, but I've seen it do some good in people's lives, so I see opposing religion as a fruitless endeavor, potentially even with negative effects. There are things religion does that atheism and science cannot do, for some people.

Also, I'm baffled that so many atheists use the word "evil." If you're serious about excising religion from your life, there's no reason to use that word anymore.

>> ^Lodurr:
I haven't been involved in religion whatsoever for 15 years, but I've seen it do some good in people's lives, so I see opposing religion as a fruitless endeavor, potentially even with negative effects. There are things religion does that atheism and science cannot do, for some people.


Of course. Personally, I know a lot of folks who embrace their religion and it 'helps' them a lot throughout their daily lives. But it's a sort of a grand "white lie", isn't it - religion mostly helps them by substituting for a babysitter/moral compass for their kids, allowing to tell dying people they'll be going to heaven just to make them feel better, having a "benevolent" god which "moves in mysterious ways" so that they can pin failures/accidents/toddler deaths on, etc. I am dead certain that if everyone were educated and possessed a level of scientific awareness that of the average scientist, these folks wouldn't need a "god" in their lives at all.

^Not a lot of people are educated or possess any kind of scientific awareness, though.

>> ^EDD:

Religion provides social connection for communities that might not connect with each other otherwise. Even individually, people get social interaction from religious activities. For recovering alcoholics, I've heard that nothing compares to the 12-step system which involves theistic belief. Regarding the "babysitter" function of religion, religion might help people avoid clinical depression following a traumatic incident such as the death of a loved one.

I'm not saying nothing could replace these things, but atheism and science in their present form don't offer replacements.

He asked for the definition of life, and I gave it all else is fluff. I do completely agree that things like consciousness are extremely interesting subjects, that should be studied scientifically. But they are not tantamount to life. Bacteria are alive too, but they have no consciousness.

I used the words wicked and evil, because they are ingrained me by my upbringing. My meaning is that religion does more bad than good from my point of view and is therefore a bad(wicked, evil etc.) thing.

>> ^Lodurr:
>> ^gwiz665:
Life is simply the animation of cells. Each cell reproduces based on DNA, multiple cells make out complex forms of life. That's it.

If you think "that's it" then you're being very unscientific. Science should relish the question of what consciousness is, where it comes from, and where it goes, rather than bat it away (some scientists do work on that question, but most seem to dismiss it). In a solipsistic sense, consciousness is the one knowable truth of our lives, and all the empirical truths we know are a house of cards extending outward from it. That's why I don't like the "simply the animation of cells" cop-out; the honest response is, "We can't scientifically determine that yet."
I haven't been involved in religion whatsoever for 15 years, but I've seen it do some good in people's lives, so I see opposing religion as a fruitless endeavor, potentially even with negative effects. There are things religion does that atheism and science cannot do, for some people.
Also, I'm baffled that so many atheists use the word "evil." If you're serious about excising religion from your life, there's no reason to use that word anymore.

I generally try to avoid personal attacks in comments (maybe with the exception of rasch187 *shakes fist*). But I have no problem giving a reasonable, if rough, response to these things.

While I agree that videos containing atheism are favored on videosift, I think that the reason is that they're on to something. Many religiously themed videos are just plain stupid, which is why they are eviscerated almost immediately. If a video with an atheist is being exceptionally stupid, or willfully ignorant, then as far as I know most of us are intellectually honest enough to recognize that and comment on it. Shit, I think I am, anyway.

>> ^thepinky:
To answer your question, VideoSift might be more diverse if sifters weren't so very good at alienating religious people. Most sifters are cool, but sometimes they fall short of my expectations. Clever to moderately idiotic Atheist videos are lovingly sifted. All videos that portray religious people as idiots are fondly adorned with self-congratulatory comments as they make their way to #1. Religioius discussions rarely go anywhere before one or several people jump in and attempt to make the offending believer into mincemeat. If this cannot be accomplished, personal attacks are in order.

*shakes fist back at gwiz*

"Reason. It is no more reliable a tool than instinct, myth, or dream. But it has the potential to be far more dangerous..."

^gwiz strikes gold yet again. The problem with the vast majority of proselytizing videos is that they're of an intellectual equivalent of a 6-year-old, whereas there may be a couple of rotten eggs in the anti-theistic videos crowd, but they're far outweighed by these.

>> ^thepinky:
To answer your question, VideoSift might be more diverse if sifters weren't so very good at alienating religious people. Most sifters are cool, but sometimes they fall short of my expectations. Clever to moderately idiotic Atheist videos are lovingly sifted. All videos that portray religious people as idiots are fondly adorned with self-congratulatory comments as they make their way to #1. Religioius discussions rarely go anywhere before one or several people jump in and attempt to make the offending believer into mincemeat. If this cannot be accomplished, personal attacks are in order.

Shut up you...you...you pretty girl!

I just fucking wrote for 30 mins and mozilla crashed....WTF! Ok to starting over.... I guess i don't know what my position really is on Atheism.... I see it as way to think out of the box and most of what you say i agree with but i still have belief in a higher power because humans are flawed by our own selfishness....what i was getting at with the one celled micro-organism was not it's reproduction nor it's conscience; but how does it have life? Why are they using the CERN to find the God particle? The only way to give a fair rebuttal would be for me to write a collegiate style research paper on atheism and that is not going to happen anytime soon....Humans maybe the dominant force on this planet but the whole universe?

Well, This seems to be as good a place as any to try to define my views –mainly for myself but I can share.

I am not religious, or at least the word and definition of “Worship” defies me. I don’t believe in hierarchies of any kind social, political, religious or other. I see everyone as an equal, regardless of personality type and all that goes with it. We all just serve different jobs.

My personal views are this: I am always searching for spirituality in every form. I believe it comes from within us. I believe there is a spark of that special something in all of us. Some chose to listen to it, some don’t. It doesn’t matter what label you put on it, be it Catholic, Pagan, Scientology, Greek Mythology, Pentecostal, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Sikh, Atheist, Agnostic or what ever. There is an inherent state of being in people. Some strive to embrace it more than others.

I have embraced the idea that spirituality is separate from religion. I would define my self and an Alchemist. I don’t see the world as separate pieces all with different labels. I see everything as one big whole. Named religions are just parts of what religion stands for. Religion in turn is just one facet of spirituality and spirituality is one facet of being. Our individual beings are facets of all life and live is a state among many states in this universe. In the end, the only true reality is energy. That which we are all made up of. Down to the smallest particle, energy is the building block.

So I don’t place significance on any one particular religion. Just that it is, and I accept it. I am a part of everything. A whole. No ego, or individuality. I am – and that is all.

As with everything, I have a lust for knowledge and creativity. I want to know if there is a truth and I am willing to listen. I see science leading towards, yet so far from, a clear path to our origins.

I understand the circular theory of the chicken or the egg. If there is a maker, who created the maker? One step at a time, though, start with our initial origin.

I like to be creative. Maybe we were planted here by a superior race. Humans may not be indigenous to this planet. We may have been placed here to see if we could thrive. Dinosaurs may have been extinguished through viruses in order to make this planer more livable for us. Maybe we are technologically “tweaked” versions of apes. Maybe not. Jesus could have been a spaceman who came to guide us and put us back on track. Every religion has a root in creation theory. Maybe creation theory is really science fact. Who knows, I don’t and neither do you – but perhaps some day we might.

Until then some people will be driven mad with the riddle of religion and creation. Those creatively minded may believe and rationalize religion. Those with more orderly and compartmentalized minds will look towards science. Science has more chance to getting us there physically but religion is theory and although slow as molasses to evolve, theory is also a key to discovery!

In the end – we all like to make fun of extremists because they just no longer function to make any sense and end up turning in on themselves and ceasing to function as far as exploration goes. Science has it’s dead end theories as well.

We are all Evolution in action. Whether in physical or in theoretical, as a whole, our world of beliefs continue to evolve.

^EDD, except that of the two examples you link to, one is no longer there, and the other is just a 'hey, look, an odd church' kinda video.

I think thepinky is really looking for ones that defend religion as being able to be good, and that I haven't really seen many. I admit I haven't really looked, but then I haven't seem them drift to the top of the heap where many Atheist ones have.

It's called non-theist. I am one because I want nothing to do with any form of religion. It is of zero interest to me. And the historical record of religion on this planet leaves a bloody taste in my mouth.

There aren't any decent pro-religion videos here for exactly the same reason that christian rock sucks dog balls.

GOD CREATED ALL OF US.
The bible true. Thus you should ignore any and all so called advancements in human beings understanding of the world that doesn't correspond with the bible. This is easy to understand. You are being given utopia...heaven...after you die. All you have to do is do what I say throughout your life. "It's not for my benefit I'm working for God".

If you don't believe in God you should phone this number. It's a toll free number to Pat Roberson's 700 club to get a personal prayer

(800)759-0700.

(only $20 a month to join)
(btw...if you call the people reading your personal prayer are super nice)

As the Germans say: "Too clever is dumb".

A gallon of atheist cleverness doesn't equal one spoonful of religious wisdom.

Well, this is a video sight and some people have said they might be interested in a few religious videos. I've got one in my personal queue not on proof for God, but rather Reasons for God and another on belief in an age of skepticism, the latter I think being pretty pertinent to the discussion at hand. They're both talks by author Tim Keller (Christian apologist similar to C.S. Lewis) and over an hour in length.

^spoco2 Can you actually point out a worthwhile religious video that you think was unfairly ridiculed by comments? If I see one, I'd be more than happy to upvote.

I think this video: http://www.videosift.com/video/Sam-and-Esther

was unfairly ridiculed. I thought it was worthwhile because someone in need was getting help. But that's just me. I was a bit surprised that this story of hope received only two votes.

>> ^NobleOne:
Why are they using the CERN to find the God particle?


I'll move off-topic a bit in defense of CERN and the LHC. Sorry, I can't help myself.

In short: they're not. First of all, the "god particle" is a dumb hype name popularized by the media for the hypothesized Higgs boson, a scalar particle the existence of which is predicted by the standard model of particle physics. The misconception is that, if found, it would 'explain all of physics', which is, again, a major overstatement. Secondly, they're using the LHC for a variety of different purposes - you should read the wikipedia article, because it's a fascinating experiment and people are, for the most part, largely ignorant or misinformed about it.

>> ^EDD:

you should read the wikipedia article, because it's a fascinating experiment and people are, for the most part, largely ignorant or misinformed about it.


That's because most reporters either don't understand it themselves or they feel the need to dumb it down so the lowest common denominator may have an interest in it. I agree that "the God Particle" is a drastically, oversimplified and incorrect term. And to think it would explain all of physics is absurd, though it may give affirmation as to which direction to further continue our exploration!

Thanks Sagemind and EDD... lol...

>> ^quantumushroom:
As the Germans say: "Too clever is dumb".
A gallon of atheist cleverness doesn't equal one spoonful of religious wisdom.


Oh yes, thanks to the wonders of religious wisdom and steadfast prayer, our life-expectency has tripled, we no longer have to worry about polio and numerous other diseases, our standards of living have improved drastically, we can cross the Atlantic in airplanes, land people on the moon, and understand our origins in good detail. Religious Wisdom is truly useful in so many ways. Imagine what we could accomplish if those pesky secularists gave up all this "clever" science nonsense and put their minds to something useful for a change, like trying to work out the true, deeper meaning of transubstantiation, imagine how much better the world would be!

History of the universe:

nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing...BLAAAAM!!! PROTONS NUETRONS PROTONS NUETRONS ELECTRONS HYDROGEN Cosmic microwave background radiation HYDROGEN HYDROGEN HYDROGEN HYDROGEN HYDROGEN HYDROGEN Time HYDROGEN Early stars SUPER NOVAS HELIUM HELIUM HELIUM HYDROGEN HYDROGEN HYDROGEN HELIUM HELIUM More Super NOVAS Heavy Elements SOLAR SYSTEMS Black Holes PLANETS Man was created, dinosaurs were created, dinosaurs disappear life evolves on slightly radiated planet with an atmosphere, water, and a pleasant climate, life life life life life humans religion government war jesse ventura

Okay, I'm a very amatuer astronomer but that's pretty close from what I've read

oh, and it's not to scale

>> ^Fusionaut:
History of the universe:
.... nothing...BLAAAAM!!! PROTONS NUETRONS PROTONS NUETRONS ELECTRONS

.. that's pretty close from what I've read



Let me put it like this: I understand your concern.

The central point, which was the point of my earlier post, is the fact that, however unlikely, outlandish and ridiculous this all sounds, it is based upon, as far as ANY human being can tell, irrefutable evidence, and lots of it.

A famous example, and a favorite quote-mine among creationists is this sentence from Charles Darwin:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

What creationists always omit, of course, is that this sentence is a build-up and an introduction to an explanation of exactly HOW the eye COULD in fact have evolved by natural selection, an explanation that has, in large part, been confirmed by tests and evidence later.

Anyway, the point is this: I could admit, as Darwin partially did, that the ENTIRE theory of evolution, the thesis that every single animal has evolved from a 3 billion old ancestor and thus ALL life, from banana to bacteria to bonobo and even human, has evolved all from a common ancestor, seems freely to be ABSURD IN THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE DEGREE.

So why do I still accept it?

Because of the evidence. The evidence shows, with crystal clear precision, just like it shows that atoms are real, or that bacteria cause disease, that evolution happened, and that, in the grand scheme of things, we humans are more or less closely related to every living thing ever examined.

And this is also the case for the theories about "nothing...BLAAAAM!!! PROTONS NUETRONS PROTONS.........." Its not that scientists really want it to be this way, or that they have some "something out of nothing" fetish, this is what the EVIDENCE tells us. There simply is nothing in that evidence about a guide or god of any kind, and even if there was, we would have an entirely new, even bigger problem to begin with.

>> ^NobleOne: but how does it have life?

Notice that you treat life as an object, like hair, or toenails, something which an organism "has". We speak this way because our language has evolved in an environment where religious views, where deities "grant" life, were assumed to be true and our language implicitly makes these religious assumptions.

"life" like "god" is a word which is such an artifact, and its use colors our understanding, even when the old assumptions have been proven false.

"life" seems to imply deity, because the word was created with that implication, but that implication dose not have any bearing on the truth of the matter. Our amassed knowledge of biology renders life much more gray and arbitrary, but we still speak as though it is a feature of a thing.

I consider myself an Atheist simply because of the fact that I am not a theist.

A theist cannot simply be someone who believes in God, because there are so many levels to the God question. I decided to take a pragmatical approach and ask "Does it matter if God exists?"

When you restate the question that way, most all speculative philosophies all end up on the NO side. If you believe there is an intelligence at work in the universe (pantheism), you probably will conclude that this intelligence is so foreign to human existence that this "intelligence" plays no role whatsoever in human lives. If you take the Buddhist approach and say "Everything is God", then there is no separate entity controlling existence.

Ultimately, the only philosophy where God really matters, is Anthropomorphic Theism = God is a separate entity with human characteristics that watches over us and cares what we say and do.

Conclusion: If you believe in an Anthropomorphic God, you are a theist. If your idea of God is anything else, it is for all intents and purposes the same as not believing in God at all.

I have a love of science. Understanding the true nature of the world around me fills me with awe and wonder. There are many mysteries to existence, some so difficult we humans may not be capable of answering them, yet we thinking humans are still driven to find those answers, while the unthinking ones are content with slapping the label "God" on it and calling it a day.

I am a TAP agnostic. But I certainly do not entertain the thought of any of the organised religion's gods to exist, more so a form of univesial energy that is beyond us...for now.

Goddamn I love this thread.