Brovo said
That's beside the point. You and you prove it by . Regardless of who or what you are, you have an opinion, you engage in conversation, and so on.There is no evidence of the of any kind of deity. Therefore, it does not exist.That's as brutally simple as I can put it for you.

I didn't ask for proof of my existence, I asked for proof of my humanity. Try again.

If any Religious person is reading this, please answer this question:
If you found out your God didn't exist, would you now go out raping and murdering people?

What if I told you that upon finding out my God didn't exist, absolutely nothing would change in my day to day life?

Grizzle Bear said
What if I told you that upon finding out my God didn't exist, absolutely nothing would change in my day to day life?

Then I'd tell you that you already saw my response but chose not to quote it which was:

Magic Magnum said If not then you just proved that you don't need Religion to be a moral human being.

We already went over that, So Boerd, and Brovo answered well. Go look in that post.

What I think happened was that I wrote myself into a corner. I rambled way too much to rebut a very simple fallacy, and Brovo used that as an opportunity to show off his cleverness. He answered all of the points I cared about in a very satisfactory way, but the rest he seemed to be kind of an asshole about, especially the "answering every question" thing. So, I was torn. One the one hand, I was satisfied, because there had been a satisfactory clarification of his original point. On the other, I was pissed, because the post had an air of elitism and "how could you possible not know these things, you peasant?"

As too often happens, pissed won out, because the only option for satisfied was "Thank you for clarifying. Goodbye." The problem with that was, despite his cleverness, he still did not convince me on any of the points beyond the statement I made about cosmic intelligence. So, I was pissed and incoherent, I did a bad job of saying things, and I misconstrued legitimate argument as intentional inflammation. I've already apologized for both.

Here is an actual rebuttal of each of those points:

Math - I was unclear. There are lots of different kinds of math, and I was referring to the "math as the language of the universe," not the arbitrary math we use in everyday life. I brought up the golden mean as an example, because we did not create the mean; we discovered it. We have discovered formulae and created mathematical theories that describe the manner in which the universe works, and the point is that those relationships existed before we discovered them. We did not create that kind of math. It's always been there, the underlying order of the universe, just waiting to be expressed.

As for physics, well, we don't generally discover that everything is wrong, I mean, much of Newtonian physics is stil followed today, like his stuff on thermodynamics and motion. Neither relativity nor quantum mechanics have said "the laws of thermodynamics are wrong", because... They aren't. They still work. We've always been moving towards getting the biggest possible picture, and we may have rejected some of Newton in favor of the two new kids in town, but not all of it. And math will always be there, waiting for us to catch up.

Math being different in other dimensions - Again, I should have been more clear on the kind of math I meant. Arbitrary number systems =/= math in its entirety, I'm sorry for not clarifying. What I should have said was, "Is the speed of light different in other dimensions?" or "Does relativity apply in other universes?" In a nutshell, are we truly unique, here in our expanding bubble, or is there a grand order that spans all possible aspects of existence? I don't really have an answer for this one, it's kind of high concept, and obviously there's not yet any method of traveling to other dimensions to test such things. I'm just indulging myself.

Existence of other dimensions - Pretty straightforward, though to me, if you can't prove it one way or the other, that's all that I think should be said. We will eventually prove it one way or the other, and until then we just don't know whether they exist or whether they influence our own dimension or universe in any meaningful way. :) So, semantics aside, we're basically on the same page.

Is there truly any past or future? - You say yes, and my only rebuttal is the fallibility of memory and the imperfection of prediction. With your utilitarian view, it probably doesn't matter whether they are actually real or not, because as we perceive them they are useful tools for living as best we can and not going insane. Fair enough. Just because the universe could have only been created last week, it doesn't mean that really matters all that much in the grand scheme. I can dig it. If that is not what you would argue, please let me know.

What is time, and why does it exist? - Hmm. Again with the "arbitrary creation by humans" thing. Again, I was unclear, and I apologize. Just as a side-thought, though, in the imperial system the idea is that things are measured in real-world terms, and they were eventually morphed into standard measurements. The "foot" is about the length of a human foot. The "yard" is about the length of a stride or pace, three feet. Miles and inches and the like, though, I have no idea. Overall, I agree that metric is probably better for things like measuring distances between places, or large things like buildings or what have you, but on very specific, mostly human-scale measurements (height, for one), centimeters have never cut it for me. I love feet and inches. Anyway, sorry, that's a tangent.

You gave a small, half a sentence analysis on the time I wanted to refer to, and you said that it exists beyond flawed human measurements... Which is just what I'm going to say as well. Time is a force that gives form to space, one cannot meaningfully exist without the other, and to me it smacks of some kind of grand natural order to the universe, even if it isn't an intelligence in the traditional sense. A creation force, a force of order that generated space and time and determined the speed of light and the Fibonacci sequence, and the relationships between the elements, all of that. It isn't too far-fetched, I think, and before you start, it also has nothing to do with the patriarchal Abrahamic God. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a possibly unintelligent force, some kind of cosmic power that's embodied by these things. Maybe it has consciousness, maybe it doesn't...

But is it more likely than spontaneity? I will wager yes. Does it matter, in a utilitarian sense? No, but at the very least it's an interesting thought.

Morality is rather subjective. People can and have spent lifetimes arguing over what is and isn't morally just. I'll put it this way though, I do not need religion to be a good person. I do need it to be the best person I can be.

Grizzle Bear said
Morality is rather subjective. People can and have spent lifetimes arguing over what is and isn't morally just. I'll put it this way though, I do not need religion to be a good person. I do need it to be the best person I can be.

Grizzle Bear, you're treading old, old ground. We've already been over this, earlier in the thread. It was resolved. People were happy.

Imperfectionist said
Grizzle Bear, you're treading old, old ground. We've already been over this, earlier in the thread. It was resolved. People were happy.

Fair enough, it's a long thread and I admit I only skimmed bits of it. Personally I believe there is a hole more to the atheism vs religion discussion than does or doesn't God exist. But if that's all just rehashing the same old junk for you guys, my apologies.

So Boerd said
I didn't ask for proof of my existence, I asked for proof of my humanity. Try again.

Why in the world would I bother trying to prove your humanity, when most concepts of humanity are intangible, or not exclusive to the human race?

Even if we're talking specifically "prove you are a human being"... Why? Why should I prove that you are a human being? You are the entity in question, you prove whatever it is you are if you want, or don't, it makes no difference to me. The only thing that matters is that you exist, and you prove it by existing, where as deities do not exist, and prove it by not existing. Which is the only point I was making.

Grizzle Bear said
What if I told you that upon finding out my God didn't exist, absolutely nothing would change in my day to day life?

Then I'd say you're pretty moral and I have no quarrel with you.

Imperfectionist said We already went over that, So Boerd, and Brovo answered well. Go look in that post.

To be frank this thread is stoopid big. I don't blame people for not reading.

Imperfectionist said What I think happened was that I wrote myself into a corner. I rambled way too much to rebut a very simple fallacy, and Brovo used that as an opportunity to show off his cleverness.

Uh oh. Here we go again.

Imperfectionist said He answered all of the points I cared about in a very satisfactory way, but the rest he seemed to be kind of an asshole about, especially the "answering every question" thing. So, I was torn. One the one hand, I was satisfied, because there had been a satisfactory clarification of his original point. On the other, I was pissed, because the post had an air of elitism and "how could you possible not know these things, you peasant?"

*Pushes up snobby glasses* Advanced role player. It happens. *Sips tea* Swear I'm not that bad though. *Sits on throne made out of the skulls of player's hopes and dreams*... No, really.

Imperfectionist said As too often happens, pissed won out, because the only option for satisfied was "Thank you for clarifying. Goodbye." The problem with that was, despite his cleverness, he still did not convince me on any of the points beyond the statement I made about cosmic intelligence. So, I was pissed and incoherent, I did a bad job of saying things, and I misconstrued legitimate argument as intentional inflammation. I've already apologized for both.Here is an actual rebuttal of each of those points:

Okay. Here goes.

Imperfectionist said Math - I was unclear. There are lots of different kinds of math, and I was referring to the "math as the language of the universe," not the arbitrary math we use in everyday life. I brought up the golden mean as an example, because we did not create the mean; we discovered it. We have discovered formulae and created mathematical theories that describe the manner in which the universe works, and the point is that those relationships existed before we discovered them. We did not create that kind of math. It's always been there, the underlying order of the universe, just waiting to be expressed.

Yes, and? The universe has rules, we're figuring them out. While quite extraordinary, that's no evidence or prerequisite for a supernatural explanation, leave alone one involving a deity.

Imperfectionist said As for physics, well, we don't generally discover that is wrong, I mean, much of Newtonian physics is stil followed today, like his stuff on thermodynamics and motion. Neither relativity nor quantum mechanics have said "the laws of thermodynamics are wrong", because... They aren't. They still work. We've always been moving towards getting the biggest possible picture, and we may have rejected some of Newton in favor of the two new kids in town, but not all of it. And math will always be there, waiting for us to catch up.

Alright. Okay. I agree. I don't think I ever disagreed with this.

Imperfectionist said Math being different in other dimensions - Again, I should have been more clear on the kind of math I meant. Arbitrary number systems =/= math in its entirety, I'm sorry for not clarifying. What I should have said was, "Is the speed of light different in other dimensions?" or "Does relativity apply in other universes?" In a nutshell, are we truly unique, here in our expanding bubble, or is there a grand order that spans all possible aspects of existence? I don't really have an answer for this one, it's kind of high concept, and obviously there's not yet any method of traveling to other dimensions to test such things. I'm just indulging myself.

Well as I said before, we can't ever prove other dimensions exist or do not exist under the premise that they're beyond our physical realm, so... I guess your interpretation of how time works would imply whether or not there are other universes, but until such a thing can be physically proven, through skepticism, I'll go with "no".

Imperfectionist said Existence of other dimensions - Pretty straightforward, though to me, if you can't prove it one way or the other, that's all that I think should be said. We will eventually prove it one way or the other, and until then we just whether they exist or whether they influence our own dimension or universe in any meaningful way. :) So, semantics aside, we're basically on the same page.

There's no evidence they exist, either, so until there is some, I don't believe they exist. It'd be fascinating if they did, but until there's evidence... Ehhh'...

Imperfectionist said Is there truly any past or future? - You say yes, and my only rebuttal is the fallibility of memory and the imperfection of prediction. With your utilitarian view, it probably doesn't matter whether they are actually real or not, because as we perceive them they are useful tools for living as best we can and not going insane. Fair enough. Just because the universe have only been created last week, it doesn't mean that really matters all that much in the grand scheme. I can dig it. If that is not what you would argue, please let me know.

Sure... Kinda? Because, yes, Solipsism is a thing, and it's not entirely unreasonable considering, again, if you go far enough into the philosophical rabbit hole, you really can't prove anything is real beyond your own mind. However, back to my core principle: Skepticism. If the universe was created last week, I have no physical evidence to prove that, and a mountain of evidence against that (ex: carbon dating), so... I don't believe it to be true. Now could I be wrong? Certainly, I could also be wrong about kobolds with their cute little shovels and candle-obsessed ways, but as it stands... No evidence, so I don't believe it.

Now to take a quick break from answering to explain why we can't see eye to eye on the same topics, even if we see the same evidence.

See what we have here is a plain difference in how to view the universe and it's why we clash. You view it as possibility: If it might exist, and it seems plausible, then you can't say it isn't real. I view the universe under the scope of pure skepticism, I don't use faith in general: If there's no evidence for it, I don't believe it exists, even if I know that, as a theory or concept, it's plausible in some manner. However, if something does have a plausible theory (ex: the Earth is round), and I have methods by which to verify that theory (ex: Travel the globe, take pictures from space, measure the circumference using shadows on a sun dial, etc), I can test it. If I can test it, I can see if it holds true or not. If it holds true after a repeated battery of tests, take it to peer review. If it survives the gauntlet of peer review, it's a scientific theory. If it's a scientific theory, then it's the closest we have to the truth of how the universe functions, and I believe it confidently until something comes along to disprove it or change it..

So when you say something like "doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things" based on a possible scenario (ex: universe created last week), my answer is "well it does matter, because I can't verify the claim, there's no evidence put forth for it, so..."

It's not that I'm trying to disprove your interpretation of the universe. It's more that I'm trying to show my interpretation of the universe doesn't use faith anywhere, it uses reason, and fact, and sometimes the facts can be wrong, or misinterpreted, but I don't take that as a bad thing--I think it's a good thing. It means whatever I thought I knew was wrong, and I can learn something that is more likely the truth instead of the error I once knew.

Essentially: What I can agree on is the idea that a deity might exist, or elves might exist, or planet X might exist, or alternate universes might exist... However, they are all on the same shelf of being unverifiable claims. Which means that, as it stands, I have to reject them all under the same principle that I reject Santa Claus and the Philosopher's Stone. HOWEVER! I don't judge people for believing in these things. What a person believes is... Ultimately... Irrelevant, to who they are. So if someone believes that the universe is the byproduct of a child's imagination, but is otherwise a good person who donates to charity and is kind to his neighbours and so on... I will treat them as being a good person who donates to charity and is kind to his neighbours: With respect, and admiration, even if I think his belief about the origins and state of the universe is silly.

That should... Maybe make things clearer in a less "asshole"-ish way, right? Because I'm serious I do have a hard time reading tone in text.

Imperfectionist said What time, and why does it exist? - Hmm. Again with the "arbitrary creation by humans" thing. Again, I was unclear, and I apologize. Just as a side-thought, though, in the imperial system the idea is that things are measured in real-world terms, and they were eventually morphed into standard measurements. The "foot" is about the length of a human foot. The "yard" is about the length of a stride or pace, three feet. Miles and inches and the like, though, I have no idea. Overall, I agree that metric is probably better for things like measuring distances between places, or large things like buildings or what have you, but on very specific, mostly human-scale measurements (height, for one), centimeters have never cut it for me. I love feet and inches. Anyway, sorry, that's a tangent.

That's fine. I like Metric just because multiples of ten make everything much simpler, but, hey, Imperial has worked for centuries, I still give out height and weight in feet, inches, and pounds, so. Can't totally knock it.

Imperfectionist said You gave a small, half a sentence analysis on the time I wanted to refer to, and you said that it exists beyond flawed human measurements... Which is just what I'm going to say as well. Time is a force that gives form to space, one cannot meaningfully exist without the other, and to me it smacks of some kind of grand natural order to the universe, even if it isn't an intelligence in the traditional sense. A creation force, a force of order that generated space and time and determined the speed of light and the Fibonacci sequence, and the relationships between the elements, all of that. It isn't too far-fetched, I think, and before you start, it also has nothing to do with the patriarchal Abrahamic God. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a possibly unintelligent , some kind of cosmic power that's embodied by these things. Maybe it has consciousness, maybe it doesn't... But is it more likely than spontaneity? I will wager yes. Does it matter, in a utilitarian sense? No, but at the very least it's an interesting thought.

Ah, and here again, the different world views come plain into the light. You see some form of intelligence or order where I see a mystery. I don't know why the universe operates the way it does. It's intriguing, but then, the universe to me looks more like a set or series of fundamental laws that, individually, are pretty simple, and wouldn't require some extraordinary, supernatural force to create. Yet, as you mix more and more of them, they allow greater complexities to arise, which creates more laws that are bound to the current fundamentals in play, and how much each one is influencing it. So for example, the universe is always expanding from its centre point--where scientists think the big bang occurred--which means energy, matter, and so on, is being eternally stretched thinner and thinner. Eventually we'll reach null point, that is, everything that exists, decays.

For example: Gravity as a concept is pretty simple. The more mass something has, the greater its attraction to other mass is, and the greater the force required to cause momentum. It's the difference between kicking a paper bag, and a brick. The brick is probably smaller, but has greater mass, so it requires a significant amount more energy to propel it anywhere than the paper bag does, which might get picked up in the wind before you can even kick it and sent off to choke a penguin somewhere.

Yet, take a look at that example. If you kick the brick and the paper bag, they'll probably only go about the same distance (assuming you have a reasonable amount of strength), and the greater the amount of strength you use, the further the brick will go in comparison to the bag. Why? Oh, other factors, like air resistance, terminal velocity, and so on. Suddenly it's not nearly so simple as "the heavier it is, the more force is required to move it". I mean, yes, it's true: It's much easier to move the paper bag than the brick, but additional force above and beyond what is necessary has a greater effect on the brick than the paper bag.

And this is just kicking a brick and a paper bag. The rest of the universe is immeasurable more complex than this and we've had a meagre five... Six... Seven thousand thousand years or so to figure it out really, the vast majority of that time spent by people attempting to enforce one world view or another as being universal truth. (True "science" as we know it hadn't really flourished until the enlightenment period.)

So I don't claim to know things like why gravity works the way it does, or why the universe exists. If anything, that's beyond the realm of science to figure out and science doesn't try to figure that out--science figures out the what of things, and the how, not the why. To me, though, in absence of any evidence of a supernatural reason for life or the universe or otherwise, I hold by a simple principle: The purpose to life, is to find the purpose to your life. Whether that's searching for the answer for why we're here, or searching for innumerable truths, or creating art, or helping your fellow human beings, or animals... To find what gives your life meaning and then pursuing it. That is the purpose of life. No matter if that purpose is ruling a country or playing every video game that has ever been released! Whatever goals you have, pursue them, endlessly, tirelessly, until you accomplish that which you want most out of life.

That way, regardless of whether there is or is not an afterlife or rebirth or otherwise... When you are on your death bed, and you are staring at the white ceiling, your vision fading you, you'll look back on all of your conquests, failures, victories. All of your friends, family, lovers, pets, adventures... Your happiest moments, most sorrowful moments, and you will die knowing you did what you loved most out of life, instead of dying realizing that you spent your whole life worrying about what happens after it's gone.

Still. Talk about tangential ranting.

Grizzle Bear said
Morality is rather subjective. People can and have spent lifetimes arguing over what is and isn't morally just. I'll put it this way though, I do not need religion to be a good person. I do need it to be the best person I can be.

Eh'. If it helps you, good, I suppose. I've found skepticism has been a good enough methodology to form the basis of a good morality, but hey, so long as you're a good person, and you don't want to shove religion into science class rooms, I'm not much for caring what it is you believe, whether that's in a god or a spaghetti monster or nothing at all. *Has no argument really, because I have nothing against this position*

Grizzle Bear said
Fair enough, it's a long thread and I admit I only skimmed bits of it. Personally I believe there is a hole more to the atheism vs religion discussion than does or doesn't God exist. But if that's all just rehashing the same old junk for you guys, my apologies.

Well, eh'. Mostly it is just whether or not you believe god does nor does not exist. The discussion has evolved over time to include several other arguments, like evolution vs creationism and whether or not you can be moral without religion/god and philosophy and so on. At the end of the day though being atheist does not mean you also believe in evolution, nor does it mean you believe in subjective morality, or otherwise. (Though it may make you more predisposed to believing these things due to most atheists coming from rational skepticism prevailing over faith.)

At the end of the day, though, atheism is just not believing any deity exists. Technically you could be a Buddhist atheist, as there are sects of Buddhism that do not have any gods at all. Most nowadays use it in place of Freethought--which is the idea that I tend to follow: Unless you can physically prove it exists, you can't know it exists, so it probably doesn't. The amount of evidence required is also comparative to the "fantastical" quality of the claim: I can easily believe you have a friend named Susie due to there being many people and pets named Susie, so statistically, odds are good that you've met at least one thing in your life named Susie. Now if you claimed Susie has pyromania powers, or Susie could read my thoughts... That's a more fantastical claim, and requires more fantastical evidence as a result. Logical, right?

It's also why you find some of the more "upper tier" atheist blogs, channels, podcasts, and so on, tend to also call themselves "freethought" or "free thought". They're aware of the history of their movement and show it to those who also know it with a mere two words.

Imperfectionist said He answered all of the points I cared about in a very satisfactory way, but the rest he seemed to be kind of an asshole about, especially the "answering every question" thing. ____ On the other, I was pissed, because the post had an air of elitism and "how could you possible not know these things, you peasant?"

I seriously don't get your issue with the way Brovo make's his arguments. He's honest and straight forward, but does try to add some charm and humor to it. The charm/humor actually does help in people not getting defensive instantly.

Though really what I can say in this regard can just be narrowed down to this:

If you blunt honesty and/or humour in debates is enough to get under your skin then OT isn't exactly a good place. It requires a certain amount of thick skin to stay in without being driven up the wall.

Grizzle Bear said Morality is rather subjective. People can and have spent lifetimes arguing over what is and isn't morally just. I'll put it this way though, I do not need religion to be a good person. I do need it to be the best person I can be.

It is, but the fact that if you were to lose your religion you would still have morals would show that Religion isn't where your morals were coming from. If it was, the morals would leave when you lose your Religion. Which is what I was (rather poorly) trying to argue with that point.

And despite my constant debating/arguing against Religion, I have never hated individual Christians. My issue has always been with the system of Religion, though if you're a Christian who simply believes in God, doesn't try to condemn people, and doesn't try to get rid of science, then I'm not going to have any real issues with you. I might disagree with your motivation or reasoning in some things, but there's nothing that would make me actually have an issue or get into conflict with you.

Grizzle Bear said Fair enough, it's a long thread and I admit I only skimmed bits of it. Personally I believe there is a hole more to the atheism vs religion discussion than does or doesn't God exist. But if that's all just rehashing the same old junk for you guys, my apologies.

Me, Brovo and others have a tendency to go on a long amount on debates, especially where the topic is Religion.

And there's no need to apologize for bring up an old topic if you have something to add to it, the more minds working on something the better the end result is going to be.

Though I do need some clarification in what you mean by "Atheism VS Religion" having more holes than "God VS No God".

You're repeating yourself, Gwazi. You said the same thing about thick skin on the last page.

Also, I'm new at this, plain and simple. I haven't had a chance to acclimate to the styles people use. This stuff, all of it, is a learned skill, one that I'm just dipping into for the first time, and I'm not very good at it right now. I'll get better. I'll formulate better arguments, write longer posts, etc, but I gotta start somewhere.

So, I'm starting here, unable to develop an adequate response to Brovo's post. The points are logical, and I have no real faults to point out.

I hope you die happy, Brovo. I really do. I'm just too scared to take on a mindset like that. Too untrusting of my own perceptions. Too fond of the irrational and the fantastic. I hope you die happy, and I hope I do too.

Imperfectionist said You're repeating yourself, Gwazi. You said the same thing about thick skin on the last page.

You mean you're just noticing repeats in this thread? :P

Imperfectionist said I'm new at this, plain and simple. I haven't had a chance to acclimate to the styles people use. This stuff, all of it, is a learned skill, one that I'm just dipping into for the first time, and I'm not very good at it right now. I'll get better. I'll formulate better arguments, write longer posts, etc, but I gotta start somewhere.

That's all fine, everyone start's somewhere. I'd try to give advice on how to help you do that, but I doubt you want to do it my way.
My way was basically having to deal with shitty people long enough I just snapped one day and went "I don't need to care what other people think or say to me" and it stuck.
Now to clarify, since that day (Grade 3-5 I believe) grew up enough to recognize other people are right about things and do listen to them if they can prove their point, but I still don't let negative remarks or opinions about me pressure me or make me feel bad like others do. In fact you could say, I feed off people's hostility towards me. I more often now find it a good thing cause it means I'm being honest/standing up about something rather than bending backwards to please people. :P

Imperfectionist said I hope you die happy, Brovo. I really do. I'm just too scared to take on a mindset like that. Too untrusting of my own perceptions. Too fond of the irrational and the fantastic. I hope you die happy, and I hope I do too.

Speaking as a former Christian this is honestly the main thing that I find prevents religious people from going atheist after being convinced their religion is false. Fear of dying, fear of simply not being anymore, and fear of that dead loved ones are in fact gone for good. I think I got off easy here because I just happen to be a very big advocate for the truth, despite how much it hurts. But for most people, this is often something that proves a massive challenge. One that never fully resolves and still lingers around and hurts people who accept that fact. But at the same time you do get cases like Brovo where there is a positive spin to it, being able to focus on your life now rather than worry for later. Or as say Richard Dawkin's puts it, this is your one time or chance on this planet so make the most of it. Or even as Carl Sagan puts it if you want more of a "I will continue to be something" sort of argument, we are all star stuff and when we die we simply return to the Cosmos. Our physical bodies are simply just temporary caretakers of the atoms and energy that composes of and creates us.

Well, I hope you're happy when you die as well, Gwazi.

:) And I'll be sure to look for you in the next life.

Even if we're talking specifically "prove you are a human being"... Why? Why should I prove that you are a human being? You are the entity in question, you prove whatever it is you are if you want, or don't, it makes no difference to me.

The form in which I exist is crucial. You can't say "So Boerd exists" without defining what "So Boerd" is. Are you telling me you don't believe any of us other posters are even human?

So Boerd said
The form in which I exist is crucial. You can't say "So Boerd exists" without defining what "So Boerd" is. Are you telling me you don't believe any of us other posters are even human?

So Boerd is an entity that is most likely human by statistical chance. Also Occam's Razor. Because it requires the least number of assumptions in comparison to, say, assuming you are an AI, or an alien, or a deity.

Also yes, I can say pretty... Easily... That So Boerd exists without defining what So Boerd is, because... You're talking to me. Is this cryptic? Am I talking in an ancient, dead language to you?

Again, the whole Susie versus Susie has superpowers thing in terms of how much evidence is required to believe a claim, but, hey, you'd rather keep riding this No True Scotsman right into the dirt, then rape the dead horse you rode in on, so... Be my guest. Enjoy your necrophilia.

EDIT

tl;dr: Unidentified entities and objects still exist, I've merely yet to identify them, because I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I know what everything is the moment I see it. Also No True Scotsman fallacy. Hardcore.

I'ma tread on old ground here, probably something that was already cleared up, agreed on, whatever, that I don't remember because I read this entire thread at one in the morning and I'm tired.

I was born and raised Catholic. The tenants of Catholicism were not driven into my skull with a hammer. During Mass, the younger children would go to a small class for the first half of church, and we would learn things in a simpler manner. Some of it would be bible studies, and other things would be just kids having fun. However, these little classes, along with Sunday school, helped in shape my morals. And, they also taught us to question things. They liked it when we asked questions. Especially my priests.

Now, when I started to get older, especially in middle and the early years of high school, I started to question things far more seriously. And I did it on my own time, through my own logical thought processes, and by reading the bible. And here's what I've come up with: You should not need any sort of religion to be a moral person. Morality, from what I've been able to figure, comes from how you were raised, who you were raised by, and who was around you. What you experienced growing up, how you experienced it. The school system did very, very little to show children anything about morals or what was good/bad. My parents and the church taught me that. And then when I got old enough to think for myself, I molded those ideals into what my moral standpoint.

Now, I remember somewhere on this thread, someone asked: If you were raised without any sort of outside stimuli until you were an adult, and then thrust into the world, would you have morals? I do not believe so, on the grounds that you wouldn't know much of anything. How would you know if something was right or wrong? I can say that I wouldn't, and I can say that I believe others would not.

I also want to say something about empathy. Empathy, the ability to feel what others feel, and emotional connection to the world, is an ideal that not everyone will join in on. My opinion is, if there no religious dictates or secular laws preventing many things, such as theft or murder, then what would stop people from doing it other than their own morality? If there were never any religious or secular laws preventing those things, where would the moral standpoint on it have come from? One man may feel bad because this other man had all of his things stolen from him, but it wouldn't be like anything wrong was done, because nothing would have dictated that it was so.

On to what I remember being said as: Proof that good can come out of Religion that can't come out of something secular, or something along those lines. In all honesty, I cannot say that there is. But, the same can be said for the bad things that come out of Religion. People have wars for religion, and people have wars for politics. A parent may feel that gay marriage is wrong because God said so, or they may believe it is wrong, simply because they don't practice it. Either way, it is still a bad opinion to have. The fact of the matter is, one man may do something bad because his religion allowed it, whereas another would do the same without the need for religion allowing it.

My whole point is: Religion is both good and bad, has good and bad, and will always have good and bad. Why is that? Because it was made by humans, and we have both good and evil in us. If you wish to believe that the entire structure of Religion is evil, that is your belief, but the way we were taught as children through religion was not what you (Magic Magnum) say (or at least seem to be saying, to my eyes) it is.

Since we are on beliefs: Brovo, your idea of seeing = believing is one that I can respect, even if I disagree with it. I was born and raised Catholic, and even though I've moved away from Catholicism in a lot of things, I still believe in a God of some sort, far more benevolent and passionate than the one Christianity champions. But that veers off into something Magnum said earlier about religion breaking off into more and more splinter groups. However, a belief in something that cannot be seen can help a lot of people, as it provides a sort of hope that they would otherwise be without. Yes, it can be detrimental to others, however that should not be used against those that it could benefit. Though I don't believe you were trying to persuade anyone into your way of believing, I just wanted to touch on that subject.

But, I feel I am ranting and I can barely follow anything I'm typing at this point, so I'm going to quit here, and hope that what I've wrote down doesn't just appear as a jumbled mess but as something that looks at least a bit coherent. If it is a mess, than I apologize for that and will blame it on my being tired as hell.

Not very jumbled at all, Pyro. It didn't exactly cover new ground, but hey, I liked it. And, you and I seem to see eye to eye, which is always nice (excepting the use of "one man, another man" as if it were some great universal thing that everyone can identify with... But that's just a pet peeve of mine).

My childhood was somewhat similar, just with Buddhism replacing Catholicism...

(Also, the "no outside stimulus" question was mine, from way back at the beginning of the thread)

I am glad to see more people agreeing that you don't need Religion in order to have morals. It always scares me when people say you do... it basically translates to "If not for my Religion I wouldn't have any morals".

I wouldn't exactly call the structure of Religion evil mind you, I think a more accurate word to reflect my standpoint would be improper or illogical. I have always admitted there are those that use Religion as a force for good and are not insane or bad people. I know several, one of which led a youth group I spent my High School years in.

But I find the general practice of regarding something as fact or gaining hope from something that cannot be proven to exist is simply flawed. Yes any evil or wrong with Religion would not necessarily be gone if Religion was gone but under the name of something else. But any good from Religion can also be found elsewhere as my OP tried to go over in detail. With that though you may ask "Then why not just leave it be? If both good and harm can be found elsewhere, why bother arguing Religion? Both will be present regardless?". And to that I'd answer, because it also simply leads a unhealthy and counter productive way to act and think. Instead of using proof, evidence and reasoning to determine your opinions and findings you allow yourself to adopt a mindset on the basis of faith (In other words, with no reason supporting it) and honestly people should always have some kind of reasoning or proof behind why they believe or think certain things.

Secondly since it can't actually be proved, it leaves a rather fragile condition to the good that comes from it. If someone gains hope from Religion, but then see's some science lecture that crushes almost any creationist argument... The hope is most likely to vanish. It's far more healthy to attach hope to a provable or concrete thing, rather than a belief that could be dismissed at any moment if you run into the right scientific proof.

-shrug- I just still think you've drawn the wrong conclusions, Gwazi. Not only are there good people, I've already told you of people who do, in fact, justify their faith through reason.

As for unhealthy and counter-productive, what kind of health are we talking? And the same for counter-productive. What would be produced that being part of a religious community stifles (and please don't say science, you know as well as I that there are a multitude of religious scientists in all fields). As a corollary, I would really like it if you could prove that it was absolutely the religious practice itself that causes people to be "counter-productive", and not other factors that are ascribed to religion.

Imperfectionist said As for unhealthy and counter-productive, what kind of health are we talking?

Mental Health mainly. Physical health technically counts for those who choose to avoid vaccinations or medical treatment for religious reasons. But since that's mainly just extremists, we'll leave it out for the sake of referring to the more casual religious person.

Imperfectionist said And the same for counter-productive. What would be produced that being part of a religious community stifles (and please don't say science, you know as well as I that there are a multitude of religious scientists in all fields).

Except science is the big one, just because some religious people are scientists doesn't dismiss it.
The idea of science is to find the truth, and draw conclusions based on the proof and evidence given. Religion bases itself on already having the answer despite proof and evidence, direct conflict of system and interests. A person can subscribe to a religion and still be a scientist, but that Religion is still promoting a type of reasoning and thinking that is not good for a scientific community.

The most universal criticism is basically that.
If we start delving into specific religions mind you the options open such as self-confidence. Putting yourself down as an evil sinner and that someone is infinitely better than you.
Compassion/Empathy if you follow scriptures such as women must know their place, homosexuality is a sin, black or Jewish people are inferior etc.

Note: Btw, the Jewish one does really puzzle me. All the time you see Christian groups attack Jewish people as this evil group of people, I even had a friend from school whose Jewish who had experiences of having to hide he was Jewish when around church goers to avoid discrimination. Now, Religion being hateful? Nothing new, why does this puzzle me?

Because if you bother looking at the Bible Jewish people are meant to be Gods chosen people. What the hell is it that makes so many people turn around and condemn the very people that God said were the best?

Imperfectionist said As a corollary, I would really like it if you could prove that it was absolutely the religious practice itself that causes people to be "counter-productive", and not other factors that are ascribed to religion.

Weather it's directly Religion or other factor's that Religion pushes doesn't really matter.

If all the positives from Religion are either circumstantial (ex: Hope) or gained elsewhere (ex: Morals), and the rest is either being used to weaponize negatives (ex: Homophobia, Racism, Anti-Medicine), or simply reinforce bad practices (Ex: Except something as fact with no evidence or proof, rather than use evidence and proof to find the fact) it's not exactly something that can simply be highlighted as something good.

I already grant that benefits are from Religion, that it's not 100% flawed or wrong. But there are enough negatives attached to it, that I personally don't agree with the system nor see it worthwhile. Especially when there is no benefit that only Religion is capable of providing.

Religion can be used to weaponize things such as homophobia, racism, and anti-medicine, however, the former two can be just from people who are intolerant of others. Any backwoods hick can be racist or homophobic without the use of Religion, if their upbringing was hateful against gays and colored people. The issue is, people like to hide behind the Bible and their Religion, because they need something to use as a symbol for their hate, or to find somewhere to find people who hold similar views. Now, where I come from, the Church does not give a damn what you are, the priests teach to love each other no matter what.

I simply do not see Religion, what it teaches, or how it teaches, as to be something to be considered bad. Someone raised in a religion, even fervently, can decide whether or not to continue being a part of it through their own logical reasoning. Unless their religion uses some kind of indoctrination process that essentially brainwashes them as children to never question their religion (in which case, that is something that should not be happening anywhere) then it is their choice to follow it, not anything the religion did to them. And if we did not have religion, it could easily happen somewhere else with something else (ex. political, social).

Believing in something with no physical evidence is not something that could be considered a bad practice, unless it is something that can prohibit everyone else on one or more regards. Believing in a higher power without any evidence, but not shoving it into people's faces or trying to hold back society with it, is not a bad practice. If one were to, however, use their belief in a higher power to force something onto someone else, or infringe on the rights of someone else, then that is a bad practice. However, the belief itself is not one, as the belief itself harms nobody, but things that stem from that belief because of the mentality of the believer may or may not be a "bad practice".