one under god,

Something about bars measuring days? Dude, you're way off. Bars are not measure of time, they are a measure of pressure. And they're not an SI unit anyway, so the Pascal unit is generally preferred.

Dear Poirot,

I have developed a certain sensitivity to notice whether the source of a particular thought of mine comes from God or from my own ego. It is not 100% bulletproof, but it helps. If while reviewing my posting I find a word, a sentence or a paragraph that comes from my ego, I delete it... well, at least on my good days. The "Why can't I think for myself" was of course relative to its context, as opposed to the alternative of regurgitating other people's ideas. It was not meant to convey anything else.

Pericles,

While atheism is a respectful choice, your desire to destroy religion does not stem from atheism, but from a competing and militant new pseudo-religion, namely humanism. Humanism does not openly claim to have a god, but in practice it believes in one - man.

Like many pseudo-religions, humanism attempt to address the existential angst and provide a false sense of security by relying on numbers: "if I die, nevermind - humankind continues ; If my life has no meaning, nevermind - the human race has a meaningful purpose unto itself ; if I keep failing and can't do any good, nevermind - the human race is goodness itself".

Understandably you prefer your competition to be primitive, so you can defeat it easily and gain grounds yourself - it must be annoying to find that the days of "father figure" are nearly over, thus the selling-slogan "my human god is better than your father-figure" no longer works.

A prayer, such as "Our father who art in heaven", is not intended to convey factual information (as if there actually was a father up there in the sky - utterly silly). That's simply not what it is for. If you try to understand it literally, then you missed the whole point (but you wanted to, because you have a competing agenda). A prayer is a powerful incantation that helps to tune the heart in the direction of God.

A true atheist does not hide behind numbers.

Crabsy,

Basically... what Pericles said.

Although I will add that you seem to be attempting to pass-off the retreating, 'ducking for cover' and 'sheltering from criticism' that I mention as simply "maturing". However, until you can demonstrate that your notion of God is any more closely aligned to reality than the bearded old man in the sky, I’d say my theory is much closer to the mark. Simply obscuring and mystifying a childish concept - without any rational justification or evidentiary support - doesn’t make it more mature.

The rest of your post doesn't really addresses anything I said, so I think my points still stand. You seem more interested in conjuring some alleged underlying motives and fixations and addressing those instead.

Yuyutsu,

Like Crabsy, you have missed my points entirely. I suspect deliberately too.

<<Just as science is constantly being refined, then why not theology?>

I didn’t say you couldn’t or even that you shouldn’t.

The refining of science and theology is similar in the sense that they tend to correlate with our increasing knowledge of reality. More important to my point, however, is the difference. And that is that as our knowledge improves, we learn more about science, yet when it comes to any of the alleged Gods, it’s the complete reverse.

That, to me, speaks volumes.

<<...finally the west is catching up with what has been known in the east for thousands of years.>>

Known? None of you know any of this! You’re just making it all up as you go and that was one of my points in my original post.

Sorry Yuyutsu, but anything more I could add in response to you, I’ve already said in my original post.

somehow the illiterate rizler..has turned my words[even a dead clock is right twice a day]..into siome further nonsense

i know i should ignore ignorant off topic trolls
but cant resist quoting back the ocolite's words

""Something about bars measuring days?
Dude, you're way off. Bars are not measure of time,""

i would try getting your free web acces via a cioffee shop
you sitting in bars..thats not working well for you nmate

""they are a measure of pressure.""

yep i can feel your wind from here
either wind or wind up..but then drunks never do make much sense

""And they're not an SI unit anyway,
so the Pascal unit is generally preferred.""

all great stuff..but making up your own destractions..cause you got no input to topic..[well jesus was right..by your deeds are you revealed]

have a nice life mate

A.J. Phillips,

"they tend to correlate with our increasing knowledge of reality"

Yes, but it seems that your concept of reality is limited to the objective realm of existence. I wouldn't underestimate the importance of that realm: it's the abode of science and it is critical for our survival as human-beings. However, just because it is necessary for our human-survival does not make it any more of a reality. Being blind to anything but this illusory part of reality, no wonder that you claim that there is no increase in our knowledge. Your disbelief that anyone may ever had any knowledge other than of the objective realm simply speaks of your blindness.

What a pity, because this knowledge of the realm of existence is only needed for a limited period of time, perhaps 100 years, then it is lost.

Yuyutsu,

Knowledge may be a subset of belief, but there is still a difference and until you start acknowledging that difference, we’re just wasting each other’s time here.

<<...it seems that your concept of reality is limited to the objective realm of existence.>>

That depends on what you mean by “subjective realm of existence”. Given what you’ve said so far, I can only guess as to what that is. But if, like in most cases, this is just another way of alluding to proof of God through personal experience, then no, my concept of reality is not limited to the objective realm.

The difference between you and I, however, is that regardless of my personal experiences and subjective feelings - when all is said and done - I never lose sight of the fact that applied reasoning based on logical absolutes is the only reliable method we have for arriving at the truth, given what we currently know, and anyone cares who about the truth of their beliefs; anyone who wants as fewer false beliefs as possible, should never lose sight of this.

<<Being blind to anything but this illusory part of reality...>>

Here you go again. You just make this stuff up. Illusory reality?!

When we talk about reality and anything that is real, the only way we can have any dialogue is if we talk about what’s real to both of us and/or demonstrable. Anything that doesn’t fit into that category doesn’t deserve to be described as “real”, in my opinion. It’s more just an esoteric experience.

You scoff at my insistence on evidence, yet what’s my alternative? To just buy into everything you guys are saying like a mindless drone staring blankly at the monitor and drooling? By what mechanism am I supposed to be able to determine the truth value of any of your claims?

If we were discussing anything else - anything at all - you would think me a fool to just buy into what I was hearing without an expectation of evidence or reasoning and yet you make an exception here for religion.