Religion

You know how there's some people who always want to sound right no matter what?

And they'll start arguing almost any point and even start making up shit just to sound right?

>>1
Sounding right doesn't necessarily mean being right.

>>1
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

>>3
UM, THE WHOLE WORLD?  THAT'S HIS FUCKING PROFIT.  THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD, YOU FUCKING MORON.  TRADE 1 SOUL GET 1 WORLD.  AT THE END, YOU HAVE A WORLD.  IT IS PROFIT AS YOU HAVE ALL THE SOULS IN THE WORLD MINUS YOURS.  SO STFU+GTFO.

>>4
Well if you don't have a soul, you don't exist, just the empty shell that once supported your soul. If you lose your existence you lose everything.

>>5
that's assuming there's such a thing as a soul.

>>6
gb2 late 19th century london and take your pipe and magnifying glass with you

>>4 = Is verification of the origonal post. He took the hook like a billfish.

>>5
 you dont have a soul, how are you typing?

>>9
Sentience may or may not be a soul.

>>9
Electrochemical signals in my brain, being shot through a network of neurons, causing a chain reaction which moves my fingers according to a pattern the various parts of my brain decided on, based on reason, memory, and reflex.

Souls are in the same category as all other paranormal and supernatural things such as aliens, monsters, ghosts (similar to souls, depending on who you ask) and deities.  The category where you're retarded if you believe in them.

Does it need to be pointed out again that scientists have already modeled an entire rat brain and have actually created a working one of limited scale with full artificial animal brains scheduled for 4 years from now, and a working, lab constructed human brain within 9?

Face it people, we are intelligent chemical machines.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but you're a fool to delude yourself into thinking there's more to universe than there is, based on a fictional book written attempting to explain the world in a time when few people had any sort of education and death was a daily concern.  If you're not satisfied with the current understanding of the world, DO something about it - become an astronomer to study the heavens, a physicist to study the workings of the universe, or a biologist to study the workings and history of life.  At the very least, pick up a few textbooks and educate yourself a little.  Don't just buy into this religion crap like the unwashed, uneducated, masses of the Dark Ages.

well, perhaps computers have souls, and maybe that's because it comes naturally with being a complex system. It is part of the nature of a complex system to have a soul.

Here is the problem I have with nonexistence. In order to experience anything, something must exist. If nonexistent, something would spend no self-observed time experiencing nonexistence (an extrapolition I made from observing that when asleep and not dreaming, no time seemed to pass, while time passed in the outside world - in effect, I had "lept over" something like 5 and 3/4 hours by sleeping 6 hours, with 15 minutes spent dreaming). Now, when someone dies, nonexistance may well occur. However, how the heck is he or she supposed to have a next experience? He or she doesn't experience time passing, or doesn't observe time at all; the next existence would necessarily bring the next experience, be it 1000 years from now or 10 years from now, be it as an amoeba or a star or a computer or an extraterrestial. But this raises an ADDITIONAL question: if there is no soul, how does existence pass from point A to point B? However, science has failed to prove the existence of any such thing as a soul. In other words, I dunno why I'm me, or what occurs in one's own point of view when one dies, or why I'm not some other person, or why I AM anyhow. Experimental science and experience don't match. So how do you propose reconciling the two viewpoints?

Face it people, we are intelligent chemical machines.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but you're a fool to delude yourself into thinking there's more to universe than there is, based on a fictional book written attempting to explain the world in a time when few people had any sort of education and death was a daily concern.  If you're not satisfied with the current understanding of the world, DO something about it - become an astronomer to study the heavens, a physicist to study the workings of the universe, or a biologist to study the workings and history of life.  At the very least, pick up a few textbooks and educate yourself a little.  Don't just buy into this religion crap like the unwashed, uneducated, masses of the Dark Ages.

FUCKING SIGNED - << ULTRA WIN >>

lol religion

If you take all religious beliefs as metaphors for stuff that couldn't/still can't be explained by science then it isn't so bad. "Soul" == consciousness. For example, many (most?) things that religions forbid are things that would be detrimental to the survival of the human race. At the time there was no way to scientifically explain it, so people just went with "god will smite you".

>>13
You wouldn't have a next experience because you would be dead. Your brain would no longer function so you wouldn't observe anything. You're talking about reincarnation, with death being a period of "sleeping", but reincarnation hasn't been proven to exist.

I think atheists who scream at the top of their voice "YOU ARE JUST MACHINES!!!!!1eleven" are bullshitting because clearly I am currently thinking and perceiving so that proves I am sentient.

I think religious people who scream at the top of their voice "I KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS IM WITH GOD AHAHA" are arrogant ignorant retards to think they can know all the answers and not have to prove any of it.

That's the things see. Proof. I have proof I am sentient, I know it has something to do with my brains, but I am not a computer, I can program myself and look for answers etc.. The only computerised part of my brain are the instinctive motor control and sensory input parts of the brain etc... The thinking part possesses different properties.

>>16
But one wouldn't observe time if one doesn't observe anything. If one doesn't observe any time, one spends infinity without observing it, which is like trying to divide by zero, which is ridiculous from a logical point of view, even if it doesn't sound so from a scientific point of view.

I believe science can explain most but not everything. Consciousness, thought, dreaming, mind over matter, how it all began, and souls. Not that its a proof but it is for these reasons that I believe in a higher power. I believe the metaphysical exists, even if many people erroneously attribute things to it. I believe God is up there but its going to let us live our lives and not help us out every time life gives us a boo boo. At most, God influences the world so slightly and subtle that we no one can tell.

See: Deism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

>>19

Yeah, we higher powers are out there. Yeah, we kinda like to be left alone. Even your human celebrities like to be left alone, so why not a God or Goddess? It's a nice Universe we have, and we're working hard at keeping it that way.

oh yeah, there are lifeforms on other worlds. And, yeah, it'd take forever for you to get there. We like diversity, too, and if animals from one of your zoo exhibits were to invade other zoo exhibits, you'd have less animals to enjoy, right? Likewise, we separate inhabited worlds by light-years, so that civilizations from each world have territories for themselves.

>>You know how there's some people who always want to sound right no matter what?

>>And they'll start arguing almost any point and even start making up shit just to sound right?

Atheists??

>>21

atheists and religion-fags

"My god is the more better god, it is the greater god, I'll kill you if you say yours is better!"

>>18
Did you spend infinite time not observing anything before you were born?

Deism? Heh.. I never heard of that before. I guess the popular fanatical religions do their best to drown out the quiet voice of reason. I don't know whether there is a god or not, so I would say I am an agnostic deist. I am not a nietzchean or a marxist who disregards morals completely, I realise that even though there are no consequences if I were to hurt certain people I recognise that they are sentient aswell and that there is space for altruism in like of this fact.

>>24
hooray, reason wins again! And you are absolutely right, by the end of the 18th century protestants launched an attack against Deism and pretty much made everyone believe that it was the same thing as OMG Atheism. So then it kind of died out, a shame since many of the founding fathers were Deist. Paine, Madison, and Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson at the very least shared some of its beliefs. If Deism would have stayed strong it is very possible that the world would be a little less insane than it is today, particularly in America.

Deism was ahead of its time, but I think it is gonna make a comeback. The combination of modern agnosticism and the free flow of information on the net really helps its chances. I had never heard of it either until I stumbled upon it on the internet, and it was basically just a name for what I believed. So I stopped using "a very loose lutheran" and started calling myself a Deist. And I think any sane person has to be agnostic to some degree. You can believe whatever but if you think there is no chance in hell that you are even a little bit wrong, that's willful ignorance.

>>12
you are basing this on what?

>>13

memetics. any sense of "self" that you have is just a jumbled mess of other people thoughts that have worked thier way into your memory via your environmental inputs (sound, sight, touch, smell, taste).
If somthing can be proven to exist though an experiment that can be repeated, then it exists.
You cannot proove that the soul exists, therefore, it does not exist.
If you still insist on assigning some useless value/reason to/for your existance, please consult a priest/rabbi/monk/theist- they will happily make up some bullshit for you.

>>17
you think that your mashup of atoms and energy is somehow special? how arrogant.
You are like a computer. You dont "program" yourself.
pfft...the "thinking part" of your brain? All of your memories/thoughts exist because of external stimuli. Your body is a complex chemical reaction. Your ability to just make up random crap is uncanny.

>>25
Great, let's use reason to consider something that had no basis in reality to begin with yay! Morality doesn't need to come from any sort of divine source if it's necessary for the species to prosper.

I do agree that deism is better than blind faith, though. Good on you for being halfway there. ;)

>>27
>>17 here
I never said it was "special".
So who programs computers?
From what I have hitherto seen thinking and sentience are distinct mathematical properties. This is not made up, it is a concrete fact which you are currently being exposed to as you try to think of a way to troll.

>>27
Wow, didn't know we had B.F. Skinner in here. What's next, running mice in mazes and attempting Walden Two?

>>17 "I think atheists who scream at the top of their voice "YOU ARE JUST MACHINES!!!!!1eleven" are bullshitting because clearly I am currently thinking and perceiving so that proves I am sentient."

Why cant machines be sentient? You dont need to be organic to think and perceive. I also love how you said "proves" like you just discovered a law or somthing. Best of luck finding experimental data that supports the hypothesis "I have a *soul because I think!!!1"

*an autonomous immaterial agent that has the power to control the body but not to be controlled by the body

>>28

Things like a higher power, metaphysics, etc., will never have a "basis in reality" because they are theoretically outside of it. You will never prove or disprove it, so waiting for proof is stupid. However, reason and logic can be used to argue for a higher power's existence. Logical but unprovable is the closest anyone will ever come to give evidence of God. There has been a lot of work done on this stuff, its not just nutty scientists blowing smoke. I refer you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
Which is the main reason I believe in God. I don't care what you believe, but if you are going to be an Atheist than curb you arrogance. The only thing worse than a smug religious nut is a smug Atheist.

>>32
I love people who include a counter-argument in their own argument.

Too many people here seem to cling to the idea that being moderate in your beliefs somehow makes it magically correct. I'm atheist, don't believe in the metaphysical, and make no apologies for it. To quote Dawkins, "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."

>>33
When did I say anything remotely like that? It's what I believe, I have read extensively the arguments and the counter-arguments, and drew my conclusion. I never said I am magically correct. In fact, I already said that I am agnostic and think that everyone should be, because no one can even approach being 100% sure on a subject such as this.

dawkins is a moron when it comes to the concept of religion

>>32
wwwaait... you admit that the idea of "god" has no "basis in reality", meaning that there is no evidence to support god's existence whatsoever; and you STILL believe?

If told you that there was a teapot floating around in space, and we looked through a telescope for thousands of years looking for the teapot, never found the teapot, never found any evidence on earth of the teapot's existence, and traced the entire "space teapot exists" meme back to a book written in the 14th century that had been written by over 100 different authors, contradicts itself constantly, and doesn’t support its claims with any testable evidence?

You would find the thought that space teapot exists to be pretty darn irrational.

You would call anyone who insisted that space teapot existed, who killed in space teapot's name, who held back medical research in the name of space teapot, who killed in the name of space teapot (ironically, something that space teapot "forbids"), who brainwashed their children into being skeptical of everything that is logically presented to them in biology class (but don’t be skeptical of space teapot!!!) a

FUCKING RETARD

Don’t forget, there are different theories about what space teapot is. Some people think space teapot is an Ishing Teapot. Others believe that space teapot has a Rockingham glaze. Still others think space teapot is an iron Japanese tetsubin. Did I mention that the people who subscribe to these different ideologies want each other dead? They kill each other all the time. Because space teapot wants them to.

These people are batshit, fucking, crazy.

The evidence that science has found to support the existence of space teapot is zero. Now remember it is impossible to disprove anything; now all I need to know is, do you believe in space teapot?

If you are a rational human being with a fully functional brain, the answer is;

NO; I do not know if space teapot exists. When we find proof that space teapot exists, I will happily believe in space teapot.

You see, technically you would be a strong agnostic about space-teapot; but in practice, you are an atheist about space teapot; always playing the skeptic to encourage the search for the TRUTH.

>>35


just fyi, this guy is fishing. If anybody were to defend Richard Dawkins in this thread, the thread would become about how "Dawkins is your prophet".

Oh, creationist trolls.

>>36
"You would call anyone who ... a FUCKING RETARD"

Yes, I would, as I am against all of those things.

"You see, technically you would be a strong agnostic about space-teapot; but in practice, you are an atheist about space teapot; always playing the skeptic to encourage the search for the TRUTH"
No, I already said, I am an agnostic Deist. I believe in a higher power, not a teapot, not a smiling old man in a robe, but an omnipotent, omnipresent being that we as humans can't even begin to comprehend. What I am trying to say is that waiting for scientific proof or empirical evidence for a higher power is absurd. It would be like a two dimensional world trying to find something that was above them in the third dimension. They could make great advances in science and search every corner or their plane, but ultimately they would never be closer to finding this three dimensional figure looking at them.

I guess you could technically say that I am an atheist in practice, as I never pray, go to church, or alter my course of actions in any way because of the thought that God says I should or should not do things. And I think it is stupid when people do, especially to the extent of killing or violence.

And if you are going to make fun of religion, use Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn, they're much better.

>>38

basicly, you are saying that god made the big bang.

if thats true, who made god?

>>38
That’s fine but what you must understand is that your idea of god is not necessary, and if it’s not then it’s frivolous to search for proof or absence of. Believe it or not there are things that supersede "truths" they are called axioms and god is not a part of them, making the search for "god" useless. If you're only reason to believe in god is because scientific evidence (truths) will never be able to deal with such concepts, then, you need to search a little further into your beliefs and what your ultimate goal of this line of thinking is.