I suppose we need one of these.

Edit (20-02-2014): maybe a more positive title will make some difference?

I suppose we need one of these.

A problem? Don't we all have plenty already? 

Isn't the occasional Bantay-esque poster part of some kind of tradition?

It starts already in a bad way. Why would be religion to "have a problem"?
I see no problem with religion but I can see a lot of them without religion...

We needed a thread here that I, personally, won't have much to do with-- same as the ones on the D&D. I know without even looking how the thread is going to run, so why bother? Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.

I suppose we need one of these.

A problem? ...

No.
THE problem. (IDK!)

Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.

Your words made me imagine the thread to be like an atheist bowling.
Non atheists acts like the pins at the end of the lane and atheists throws the ball...

It seems that they always fail...

.....It seems that they always fail...

Why, because their stupid enough.....







stupid enough to play their game.

Alright, alright, I should've gone with skyscrapers.

Isn't the occasional Bantay-esque poster part of some kind of tradition?

You forgot the loooooong copypasta from the discovery institute or some similar wretched hive of dumb and crackpottery, along with an unhealthy dose of fanboyism ( <crackpot> demolishes evolution! Survivors reduced to hiding in the cracks where they belong! )

It starts already in a bad way. Why would be religion to "have a problem"?

And why only one? 

I see no problem with religion but I can see a lot of them without religion...

Spoken like a True Addict.
I see no problem with heroin but I can see a lot of them without heroin...

We needed a thread here that I, personally, won't have much to do with-- same as the ones on the D&D. I know without even looking how the thread is going to run, so why bother? Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.

You think Bantay was a deep cover atheist? That would explain a few things. Poe's law certainly applies.

We needed a thread here that I, personally, won't have much to do with-- same as the ones on the D&D. I know without even looking how the thread is going to run, so why bother? Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.

Just because you are religious doesn't mean a non-believe is kicking you around by expressing their opinion. I think bible thumpers take things way to personally for no reason. Atheist don't seem to be affected by religious folks craming their point of view down their throats. Or maybe not as often?

The problem with religion is that it's misunderstood. But it's not religion's problem. For example science is also misunderstood. People misunderstand the purpose and scope of science and the same with religion. Big things are not easy to understand.

To me understanding is important. This has led me to religion, because religion helps to understand and cope with more things than science and philosophy combined ever could. Religion is not about faith for me, but about understanding, about knowing. Those who think religion is about faith and believing may well misunderstand me now. It's okay. Big things are not easy to understand. I don't understand religion completely either. For example I honestly don't understand the church-going part, the liturgy, congregational activity. But church-going seems to attract many, so it must be lack of understanding on my part.

I hope honest atheists also acknowledge when they don't understand things. With an honest seeker's attitude, some amazing answers open up.

Here's one insight into philosophy (religion is completely philosophical for me) for those who are interested. There's this word 'nothing'. But there's a serious difference between the physicist's nothing and the philosopher's nothing. The physicist's nothing means 'can't detect anything', but the philosopher's nothing is the true nothing, whose detection is a logical contradiction of terms by definition: 'Nothing' is that which doesn't ontologically exist. Then again, 'nothing' is conceptually there among the metaphysical categories -  in the category of non-existence. Existence is another metaphysical category that includes everything that exists.

The difference is subtle, so it needs further clarification: The physicist's nothing exists, but the philosopher's nothing doesn't. The physicist's nothing exists, because he has his instruments somewhere attempting to detect something, but when nothing is detected, the physicist says: "There's nothing there." So, for him, in that place (which exists) there's nothing. For the philosopher, however, if there's nothing, then even the place doesn't exist where to perform the experiment. The philosopher's nothing means true radical non-existence. If the place exists where to perform the experiment, then it's definitely 'something' for the philosopher, even when nothing is detected there.

There are some important corollaries to this. The (non-philosophical) physicist doesn't speak or think about things that don't exist. He only speaks and thinks about things that exist. Among things that exist there is empty space where "there's nothing there". So, the physicist speaks in terms of objects that can be detected. When it cannot be detected, it's 'nothing' for him.

The philosopher, on the other hand, is well aware of the category of non-existence and can freely speak about it. Non-existence is a whole metaphysical category which, by definition, cannot be empirically detected - even more, to talk about such detection is a logical self-contradiction. The other major metaphysical category is the category of existence. In this category, the philosopher places the physicist's nothing as 'things that cannot be detected'. The logically opposite class to this are 'things that can be detected'. Both classes of things exist, but one of them can't be detected.

The physicist, if he is non-philosophical and careless in logic, may easily equate existence with detection and, conversely, non-detection with non-existence. For him existence means the detectable objects. The common sense is on the side of the philosopher here: Yes, there obviously are things we don't know about yet. Among the reasons why we don't know about things we don't know about, non-existence is one, but it's not the only reason. Another reason why we don't know about some things is because we haven't detected them yet, just like a cautious physicist may suspect. 

Still, there are more reasons for non-detection. Another reason can be a wrong presupposition. Some things don't exist as objects, yet they definitely exist. For example, there are qualities of things, such as shape or size that can be expressed numerically, but shape, size or numbers themselves do not exist objectively. They cannot be placed in the category of non-existence. They are indispensable in our analysis of detectable objects. In fact, those qualities are so important to us that we have an objective mode of existence for them - language.

So, there are modes of existence. Objective existence is not the entire existence. There are ways to explore the non-objective mode of existence, but this is out of reach of physics. As I observed in the beginning, the philosopher discerns a clear distinction between non-existence and undetectable existence. This distinction is indiscernible for the physicist, if he is not a careful enough thinker, but I suppose I have shown clearly enough how this distinction itself is important.

These kinds of distinctions are arrived at by means of logical and conceptual philosophical analysis. The metaphysical categories is an example of such analysis. It's a way to "detect the undetectable". There are even more ways, but when you are materialistically and atheistically bent, you would not be interested in those ways. Reductionist materialism does not admit logical and conceptual analysis as a valid form of proof. This is the problem of atheism: Simply not interested in the entire realm of existence. "When it can't be detected, it doesn't exist."

I note an ongoing constant in these types of discussions, which is one reason why I, a Pentecostal believer, choose as a general rule not to spar with the atheist community.

The atheist will, very often angrily, demand PROOF that God exists, and when the believer can't provide the proof that the atheist requires-- mostly because the atheist has "refuted" any proof that might go against his theory-- the atheist then claims that lack of proof is proof of lack, or words to that effect.

The flip side of the coin doesn't get much play here, but any atheist who is the least bit honest will admit he has a problem--- proving that there is, indeed, no god. The problem is that in order to provide such proof you would have to be in possession of all knowledge, and since you aren't in possession of all knowledge there has to be an admission that there might, possibly, just maybe, be a god out there somewhere. In claiming dogmatically that there is no god and not being willing to entertain any thought to the contrary, the atheist becomes just as religiously fundamentalist as the very worst fire-breathing bible-thumper he rails against in his anti-god tirades.

As long as this situation continues, I personally see little purpose to these kind of discussions beyond throwing dust in the air and shouting at the top of your lungs to get your aggressions out. It may vent your spleen but beyond that it seems to me to be pointless.

The atheist will, very often angrily, demand PROOF that God exists, and when the believer can't provide the proof that the atheist requires-- mostly because the atheist has "refuted" any proof that might go against his theory-- the atheist then claims that lack of proof is proof of lack, or words to that effect.

If there was any such proof we'd be unable to refute it

The flip side of the coin doesn't get much play here, but any atheist who is the least bit honest will admit he has a problem--- proving that there is, indeed, no god. The problem is that in order to provide such proof you would have to be in possession of all knowledge, and since you aren't in possession of all knowledge there has to be an admission that there might, possibly, just maybe, be a god out there somewhere.

The problem with this approach is that it applies just as well to every other deity imaginable, which renders your own position utterly untenable - in order to be consistent you'd have to believe in every one of them.

In claiming dogmatically that there is no god and not being willing to entertain any thought to the contrary, the atheist becomes just as religiously fundamentalist as the very worst fire-breathing bible-thumper he rails against in his anti-god tirades.

You're a dogmatic, fire-breathing, religiously fundamentalist unicorn denier. Or can you prove their non-existence?

I rest my case, Macallan having provided abundant proof that everything I said is on target.

I rest my case, Macallan having provided abundant proof that everything I said is on target.

Translation: lalalalala I can't hear you

Mjm, then why do keep returning to these threads then? To justify your Christian ways? Proof is a big deal here it seems.  I don't believe because I find it hard to believe in anything that's not visible to the naked eye. Seems more like an imaginary friend.  There comes a point where you have to accept that other's may not believe the same as you and just walk away if you can't handle the heat.

Oh wait, your creator says you must spread the gospel by taking the Bible and slamming it into any non-believers face until they conform.

Seems more like an imaginary friend. 

It's indistinguishable from one. Nobody ever managed to come up with a halfway sane explanation on how the voice in his head created the universe yet they trot out that particular piece of nonsense every goddamn time.

Nobody ever managed to come up with a halfway sane explanation on how the voice in his head created the universe yet they trot out that particular piece of nonsense every goddamn time.

Trying to explain the 'inexplicable' is part of human nature.
Besides, very handy if you can institutionalize a dogma turning it into an instrument of power.

To me understanding is important. This has led me to religion, because religion helps to understand and cope with more things than science and philosophy combined ever could. Religion is not about faith for me, but about understanding, about knowing. Those who think religion is about faith and believing may well misunderstand me now. It's okay. Big things are not easy to understand. I don't understand religion completely either. For example I honestly don't understand the church-going part, the liturgy, congregational activity. But church-going seems to attract many, so it must be lack of understanding on my part.

Faith or Reason.
Catholicism expressly states: "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."

But it not denies the fundamental role of Faith: "In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. the human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful."

And it concludes: "This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error"

At my knowledge, Catholicism is the only religion that, in respect for Man's Dignity and Freedom, for being made at the "image of God" , recognizes both Reason and Faith to be valid and complementary ways to Man understand God.
Therefore, there's no surprise the historical leading role of Catholics on the developing of both Scientific and Humanist studies.

Here's one insight into philosophy (religion is completely philosophical for me) for those who are interested. There's this word 'nothing'. But there's a serious difference between the physicist's nothing and the philosopher's nothing. The physicist's nothing means 'can't detect anything', but the philosopher's nothing is the true nothing, whose detection is a logical contradiction of terms by definition: 'Nothing' is that which doesn't ontologically exist. Then again, 'nothing' is conceptually there among the metaphysical categories -  in the category of non-existence. Existence is another metaphysical category that includes everything that exists.

I haven't quoted the rest of your explanation that I consider very clear and rightful, for reasons of text shortness.
Just wanted to say that one can and should consider a third metaphysical category that encompasses both existence and non-existence as well as much more beyond human capacity of reasoning, which is God.

Reductionist materialism does not admit logical and conceptual analysis as a valid form of proof. This is the problem of atheism: Simply not interested in the entire realm of existence. "When it can't be detected, it doesn't exist."

However they seem to accept things as the demonstration of Pluto's existence, before it could be detected directly. Or, even more surprisingly, they seem to "believe" in mathematics...

The problem of modern atheism is being a sociological, cultural, psychological, usually urban and western, pop trend with no substance whatever. Nothing else.

Here's one insight into philosophy (religion is completely philosophical for me) for those who are interested. There's this word 'nothing'. But there's a serious difference between the physicist's nothing and the philosopher's nothing. The physicist's nothing means 'can't detect anything', but the philosopher's nothing is the true nothing, whose detection is a logical contradiction of terms by definition: 'Nothing' is that which doesn't ontologically exist. Then again, 'nothing' is conceptually there among the metaphysical categories -  in the category of non-existence. Existence is another metaphysical category that includes everything that exists.

The difference is subtle, so it needs further clarification: The physicist's nothing exists, but the philosopher's nothing doesn't. The physicist's nothing exists, because he has his instruments somewhere attempting to detect something, but when nothing is detected, the physicist says: "There's nothing there." So, for him, in that place (which exists) there's nothing. For the philosopher, however, if there's nothing, then even the place doesn't exist where to perform the experiment. The philosopher's nothing means true radical non-existence. If the place exists where to perform the experiment, then it's definitely 'something' for the philosopher, even when nothing is detected there.

The only insight this gives us is that you have either not taken or forgotten high school physics, and that you didn't bother to quickly check up on the subject matter before you decided to berate physicists. The lowest energy state, "nothing", is called a vacuum or the ground state. This ground state is more analogous to the noise between channels on your radio or TV than to the blank screen you get when you turn off your TV. I don't believe the word "nothing" even means anything in physics.

tl;dr Scratch everything your straw-physicist says and you're right on target.

I don't believe the word "nothing" even means anything in physics.

Indeed, it would not qualify as a proper scientific term, if the physicist would be able to keep purely to his own empirical domain. I remember school physics just fine, even though it was among my least favourite subjects. Atomism (particle physics) never made sense to me, so I clearly remember the pain of being forced to study it.

tl;dr Scratch everything your straw-physicist says and you're right on target.

One specific specimen of a physicist who has vocally committed himself to the mistake I describe is Lawrence Krauss. He is doing it in this discussion with your idol Dawkins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY1pDkP9Qxk and in a more gross form in his debate with religious philosopher William Lane Craig. Krauss quotes others in support of himself, so he is evidently not alone.

Just wanted to say that one can and should consider a third metaphysical category that encompasses both existence and non-existence as well as much more beyond human capacity of reasoning, which is God.

The first hurdle is to get people to admit that conceptual metaphysical categories and distinctions like this are meaningful in the first place. Then we can begin defining the concept of God in mutual consensus. It will be most convincingly right when it makes sense from the beginning to the end.

Logical proof is indispensable when talking about invisible but extant entities. Atheists acknowledge logical inference readily when they theorise a new planet or particle, but when discussing the concept of God, they quickly descend to denial of logic altogether. Quite unfortunate that it often doesn't get past the first hurdle.

I hope this thread won't get bantayed. Thanks for support, Belfrager

I hope this thread won't get bantayed.

I think you just did.

religious philosopher William Lane Craig