Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, exactly! With a question as big as this, and the implications surrounding it, we may never know the answer! And if we ever do find out (ie when we die), it may be too late. So whats the point in risking being "wrong"??? Ill tell you what the risk is, the risk is that you wont be able to tell people how right you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to think that saying that you believe in God and believing the God is the same thing. I honestly don't believe in God. Going around telling people I do isn't going to get me into heaven.
And this is cleary not a competition. I know people who "believe" that the Bears are definitely going to win the Super Bowl. They are retards, I don't care whether or not they end up being right.

[/ QUOTE ]


I can see that. Scienctifically, no, Im not 100% there is a God, spiritually/philisophically, yes, Im 100% certain.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't agree that atheists are making any sort of leap of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Everything I know about the world

[/ QUOTE ]

It's fine if you don't believe in the metaphysical (I happen to believe in a metaphysical state from a philsophic standpoint) but the fact that you need to be shown empirical proof of the metaphysical, before considering it a possiblity, is very much your leap of faith. (Unless you actually know mostly everything in the world in which case I retract my statement.)

-Al

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I see it as the complete opposite.

its the desire of mankind to explain the things that we do not know which has driven us towards science, exploring space, understanding how the human body works,creating great pieces of art and yes creating religion.

I also don't agree that people who are religious have grasped for the explanation that makes them feel the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this 100%. I would say then that the "flaw" would be accepting solutions to questions you have about life, etc. without questioning them to some degree, as well as failing to understand someone else's point of view on the same situation. I think that encompasses crazy religious people.

Being stubborn is, in some cases, a level of dangerous ignorance.

Also, I'm not saying "question everything" but simply take the time to understand it.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone who believes there is a God has a faith and someone who believes there is no God doesn't have a faith?

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't agree that atheists are making any sort of leap of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Everything I know about the world

[/ QUOTE ]

It's fine if you don't believe in the metaphysical (I happen to believe in a metaphysical state from a philsophic standpoint) but the fact that you need to be shown empirical proof of the metaphysical, before considering it a possiblity, is very much your leap of faith. (Unless you actually know mostly everything in the world in which case I retract my statement.)

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe that supernatural or whatever that is fine. Most Christians I know do not believe in these things. They make an exception for God.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone who believes there is a God has a faith and someone who believes there is not God doesn't have a faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe that earth has been visited by martians? If not, would you say that this belief requires faith on your part?

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't agree that atheists are making any sort of leap of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Everything I know about the world

[/ QUOTE ]

It's fine if you don't believe in the metaphysical (I happen to believe in a metaphysical state from a philsophic standpoint) but the fact that you need to be shown empirical proof of the metaphysical, before considering it a possiblity, is very much your leap of faith. (Unless you actually know mostly everything in the world in which case I retract my statement.)

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all relative (yay cliches!). It seems that we're placing some sort of quantitative value on our respective "leaps of faith" in one direction of the other. Sure, the metaphysical at this point in time seems to some of us to be a high statistical improbability, but people that choose a side are taking a leap, or a hop, depending on how you look at it.

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most.

Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day.

[/ QUOTE ]



IMO, if science and scientfically minded people, start getting comfortable with an end result of "dunno" when things start to brick out, I think humans as a whole, are going to start to suffer. I personally believe that science has progressed due to the simple fact that there are certain people who refuse to accept the "dunno".

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone who believes there is a God has a faith and someone who believes there is not God doesn't have a faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to be vague, but the faith I referred to is specifically the faith in there being a metaphysical being. As you'll see in my post above this one, I clarify this matter.

Edit: terminology

Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
 

Paluka - sorry not meaning to stray from your original point with possible diction issues: I'm defining "metaphyiscal" as anything beyond the physical world (anything spiritual that cannot, to-date, be proven with empirical, human measurements). This is an umbrella term and includes any "God". Not meant as "supernatural" - like ghosts or something.

So yes - Christians believe in a metaphysical state / presence and it is the underpinning of their faith. They don't make an exception for their God existence of the metaphysical is intergral to their worldview.

-Al