The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I seem to agree with DS on a surprising number of points, considering he is an atheist and I am not. </font>

There's a reason for that. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

<font color="blue"> I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. </font>

We don't need proof. We're just saying there is no compelling reason to buy the fact that there's an invisible man upstairs that no one can see. If you want to convince rational people to believe that there is, then YOU'RE the one who's gonna need the proof. Not us.

If I tell you my dead aunt's ghost visits me every night and guides me through life, why would you accept that was true without any proof? More importantly, why should I become agitated with you just because you can't prove she doesn't visit me?

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

What proof could he possibly need? His position is correct, it's the same one you use for alien abductions and elves and people walking through walls ... "until you have proof, your claim is unproven and I have no reason to treat it as true."

Why would your claim be granted some special status and be accepted without evidence being presented.

If you make specific physical claims, such as age-of-earth etc, then an atheist may say he has evidence you are wrong.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Earth is likely about 4.5 billion years old, though I'd be willing to modify that belief in light of new evidence. My religious beliefs do not contradict that. A lot of people don't know this, but Catholicism and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

We do not have evidence that atheism is correct, nor do we have evidence that it is incorrect. As a result, some choose the route of agnosticism, and in some ways that is the most philosophically sound route to take. However, I choose to have faith in something that I do not have evidence for or against. Logically there is nothing wrong with that. Strong atheists are essentially doing the same thing; they have faith in nonexistence even though they have no proof.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> I seem to agree with DS on a surprising number of points, considering he is an atheist and I am not. </font>

There's a reason for that. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

<font color="blue"> I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. </font>

We don't need proof. We're just saying there is no compelling reason to buy the fact that there's an invisible man upstairs that no one can see. If you want to convince rational people to believe that there is, then YOU'RE the one who's gonna need the proof. Not us.

If I tell you my dead aunt's ghost visits me every night and guides me through life, why would you accept that was true without any proof? More importantly, why should I become agitated with you just because you can't prove she doesn't visit me?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not angry because atheists can't prove their position; I get angry when an atheist thinks he CAN prove it though. Clearly many do not believe they can prove that, so no hostility there.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
We do not have evidence that atheism is correct,

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean you believe in thor? wow.
Atheism is correct because if you don't believe in thor or yahwah or whoever, you are an atheist, by definition .. it HAS to be correct.

Explain how it is incorrect.

I may be an atheist because I am an agnostic ( they are not contradictory positions they deal with different topics).

luckyme

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We do not have evidence that atheism is correct,

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean you believe in thor? wow.
Atheism is correct because if you don't believe in thor or yahwah or whoever, you are an atheist, by definition .. it HAS to be correct.

Explain how it is incorrect.

I may be an atheist because I am an agnostic ( they are not contradictory positions they deal with different topics).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not believe in Thor, but I do not have evidence that Thor does not exist. I also don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even though I don't have any evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did not create the universe. I cannot tell Pastaferians that I can prove that they are wrong, even though I'm pretty confident that they are wrong. Your claim that atheism "has to be correct" doesn't make sense though, because you seem to be presupposing that you are correct in order to prove that you are correct.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Your claim that atheism "has to be correct" doesn't make sense though, because you seem to be presupposing that you are correct in order to prove that you are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

What choice do I have. If I don't believe in a god, I'm an atheist. ( that's what my "by definition" pointed out). When someone hasn't proven their claim, my non-belief is the only place I can stand.
How can it not be correct?

luckyme

[Lestat]

I guess anyone can be a nut. But I don't know of any non-believers who claim they can prove there isn't a god. We might try to prove that it's more logical to hold the position there isn't one however. I for one, claim this and believe I can show it to be logically correct. I would never claim I could prove there isn't a god. Everyone should know you can't prove a negative.

[carlo]

What you believe is highly relevant here. Do you believe in hell?



[ QUOTE ]
To the extent the soul world is the abode of man immediately after death, it is called the region of desires. The various religious systems that have embodied in their doctrines a knowledge of these conditions are acquainted with this region of desire under the name “purgatory,” “cleansing fire,” and the like.

The lowest region of the soul world is that of Burning Desire. Everything in the soul that has to do with the coarsest, lowest, most selfish desires of the physical life is purged from the soul after death by it, because through such desires it is exposed to the effects of the forces of this soul region. The unsatisfied desires that have remained over from physical life furnish the points of attack. The sympathy of such souls only extends to what can nourish their selfish natures. It is greatly exceeded by the antipathy that floods everything else. Now the desires aim at physical enjoyments that cannot be satisfied in the soul world. The craving is intensified to the highest degree by the impossibility of satisfaction. Owing to this impossibility, at the same time it is forced to die out gradually. The burning lusts gradually exhaust themselves and the soul learns by experience that the only means of preventing the suffering that must come from such longings lies in extirpating them. During physical life satisfaction is ever and again attained. By this means the pain of the burning lusts is covered over by a kind of illusion. After death in the “cleansing fire” the pain comes into evidence quite unveiled. The corresponding experiences of privation are passed through. It is a dark, gloomy state indeed in which the soul thus finds itself. Of course, only those persons whose desires are directed during physical life to the coarsest things can fall into this condition. Natures with few lusts go through it without noticing it because they have no affinity with it. It must be stated that souls are the longer influenced by burning desire the more closely they have become related to that fire through their physical life. On that account there is more need for them to be purified in it. Such purification should not be described as suffering in the sense of this expression as it is used in the sense world. The soul after death demands its purification since an existing imperfection can only thus be purged away.


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


Above excerpt is from Steiner's "Theosophy".



In Hindu parlance this is known as Kamaloca. Read the "Tibetian Book of the Dead" and the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" and they offer hints as to the afterlife. The priest is speaking to the dead in order to help them in the way through the afterlife, prayer as speaking to the dead.The period in the "soul world" lasts about one third of a man's life on earth,i.e. Lives 72 years and travels through the "soul world" during a period of about 24 years. And yes there is more, much more, to the tune of about 900 years betweens incarnations. This of course is variable dependent upon the persons development.

This doesn't speak directly to "hell" but it can give some clarity to the present age's misrepresentation of the after life.

In consideration of "original sin" a perspective that it is our "heredity' which is this very first "original sin". All that passes from generation to generation via heredity is that very 'sin" in which man works in returning to the world from which he came which is the same world we return to in the after life. Only upon his "return" or "salvation" he is reborn anew into the spirit cleansed and purified and stands as a free spirit in that world. This is his work.

I will repeat the mantra that this can only be accomplished through reincarnation and karma.And yes, Christ is the Lord of Karma.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your claim that atheism "has to be correct" doesn't make sense though, because you seem to be presupposing that you are correct in order to prove that you are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

What choice do I have. If I don't believe in a god, I'm an atheist. ( that's what my "by definition" pointed out). When someone hasn't proven their claim, my non-belief is the only place I can stand.
How can it not be correct?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

One can choose to believe something in the absence of proof, as long as it has not been disproven. Not only are laypeople allowed to do this, but even professional mathematicians sometimes do this, and theirs happens to be the discipline MOST concerned with proof. For example, most mathematicians that I know choose to believe the Axiom of Choice, even though we have no proof for it. In fact, not only do we not have proof for it, but it has been proven that it is NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE IT. There happen to be a few troubling things about accepting the Axiom of Choice (like the Banach-Tarski paradox), but there are also some nice consequences (that every vector space has a basis, etc.). Actually that analogy worked much better than I expected it to...

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> As a result, some choose the route of agnosticism, and in some ways that is the most philosophically sound route to take. </font>

Most atheists are indeed agnostics. I certainly don't claim to know for sure there isn't a god. But I think it's so unlikely that I feel very comfortable dismissing the notion altogether. Thus to you, I guess I'd be considered an atheist.

You should also understand that there shouldn't even be a term for someone who doesn't believe in something. There's no anumerologists, or atoothfairyists, and there shouldn't be atheists either. I presume you yourself are an atheist with respect to many of the ancient gods who have been put out to pasture such as Zeus, Thor, Wotan, etc. What you describe as an atheist, is merely someone who lumps the God of Abraham into this same mythological heap.