Arvestaked

This doesn't even deserve a response. Now you're just making up a bunch of nonsense, being rhetorical and twisting language. Religion implies belief in the supernatural. Period. You are doing here what I have seen many do with the words "belief" and "faith" but on a much more absurd level.

Something that is always very common in these discussions is religious people saying "Well then how do you explain this." This is completely illogical. Science doesn't claim to know everything. Science is the process by which you come to know. (It's religion that tries to be absolute.) So there are always going to be things that science doesn't know. That does not validate the ideas that religion presents. The statement is illogical because it implies the following attempt at a proof: science doesn't know therefore religion knows. That is a terrible attempt at a justification. Secondly, this type of argument by the religious is called "worshipping the gaps" by the non-theists. Finding gaps in the knowledge of the scientific community (which is, philosophically speaking, inevitable) and claiming that that place is where god lies. This is an extremely weak and meaningless position especially given that through out history such instances defeated the religious position as science gained knowledge. Religion was born from the human discomfort of not having all of the answer. How convenient: you arbitrarily decide what the answers are and voila! you suddenly know everything you ever needed to know.

I don't believe that non-religious people are automatically more intelligent than religious people (though there are studies that show religious people to be less intelligent on average). There are plenty of religious people out there that are more intelligent than I am. It's not entirely an intelligence issue. The issue is that religious people have either had their minds raped and stolen by religion at a young age or they have succumb to their fears and sentiments, neither of which being necessarily linked to intelligence. It is easier to make a mess than it is to clean it up. Why do non-theists express their beliefs? Because the religious do and it is our right to react. There is no golden rule that says religion deserves more respect than the lack there of. Every cross worn round the neck or displayed in public, every WWJD bracelet, every bible in a hotel, every "Jesus Saves" bumber sticker, every aspect of media that takes the idea of the supernatural for granted, every time the effects of prayer on medical conditions is mentioned, every peice of currency that says "In God We Trust," every instance where law is derived from religion etc. etc. etc. counts as someone telling someone else that a god exists. And we have every right to react to that and say "Wait, you're wrong for all of these reasons." And don't talk to me about conversion. There has been religious proselytizing for for millenia. It's about time the other side do some recruiting if only to feel that reason and the potential of man isn't deteriorating.

If one presents an idea as knowledge of the nature of the universe, it must be proven through logic reason and the scientific method. Otherwise it cannot be considered true. It connot be considered a fact. It cannot be considered knowledge. At best, it is a guess in which there is no reason to believe.

You may not be satisfied with this response but unfortunately you are asking me to reproduce many volumes worth of study. I can only summarize by saying that the evidence I mentioned is that which shows there is no logical reason to believe in anything supernatural and evolutionary biology, statistics, and logic reveal this. That said, this evidence is actually rebuttal evidence because the burden of proof really lies with those making the original assertion which in this case is all supernatural assertions.

You can be sure I did.

The mere act of undermining logic with supernatural beliefs in a greater population opens doors to corruptible religion. People do not stay completely silent because beliefs such as those are escorted by passion and irrational beliefs in conjuction with passion is dangerous. And hypothetically, whether or not something is harmless has nothing to do with its "truth value" The greatest issue here education vs. delusion. Is x true? There is only one process to go through to answer such a question.

I can agree that children should not be exposed to certain things before a certain age in their development. However that is still not a case for general moral implications.

One person who was fence-sitting. And I have raised doubt in peoples minds. Anyway, it is not only to convert but to gain respect for the perspective.

I have no problem answering your questions. I can't see why you are acting as though it has not been so.

Because I don't see religion as only being wrong; I see it as a bad thing. There is no higher order of organism than humans on the planet and yet I can only describe my feeling as embarrassment. I think it holds us back and causes hatred and pain and death and is yet another instution of a corruptible nature. And let's not forget that it is wrong.

There are problems here. First, I'm not robbing anyone of anything because people can always chose to ignore me or chose, despite the evidence, to hold onto their faith. Many do. Secondly, that presume people are always going to be better off with religion and that is not true. Thirdly, it presume that religion is always benign which is also not true. Lastly, we are talking here about epistomology. About gaining knowledge. Often people who have supernatural beliefs tout them as knowledge but it is immoral to present something as knowledge when in fact it is a concession to assumption, fear, and sentiment. The question here is not whether someone is consoled but what the truth value of a statement is. Wanting something to be true and it being true are not the same thing. Furthermore I have no moral obligation to abstain from showing people that that is in fact the way it is. Such a thing is a fallacious argument. I did not quote people you must read. I answered you questions. I through in a quote to further illustrate my point. That is different. I do believe that adultry is immoral and I explained why that is so. I don't know why you missed that. Keep in mind, you never actually asked me a specific question and I responded as concisely as I could. There was no reason for me to go into detail about family counseling because that has nothing to do with religion and morality. And in terms of loving one person while having other sexual partners, I don't believe that on its own is immoral. As I had suggested, it would only be immoral if one was betraying anothers trust in that regard. If two people agree to have an open relationship I cannot consider that adultry -- or if by a definition it is adultry, I would consider it an amoral instance of it. I don't think there is any accepted scientific evidence to support those ideas. They seem to be either assumed from fallible observations or adopted to justify you pre-existing sentiments. However, assuming the such a thing is true, it would still not be a moral concern.

You are not a firm believer and yet you have improper things to say about my agenda? Strange. Adultry, is a form of betrayal of trust. The morality of trust, as with other things, is a product of evolution as it relates to human social structure and society. Nothing can preserve untainted the genuine principles of morals in our judgment of human conduct, but the absolute necessity of these principles to the existence of society. -David Hume Murder is obvious and plays into the same ideas. Human society evolved from pack and familial relationships and killing for anything other than survival and food is immoral out of necessity. There is nothing wrong with pornography. Sexual freedom and activity are basic animal rights. People can do with their bodies as they wish as long as they do not encroach on the rights of others. Same goes for prostitution. As a matter of fact, there would far less of both if religion did not create sexually repressed societies. Hatred. I don't really know what you want me to say about hatred. All I can say is that the human mind developed a certain structure that allows for hatred. Beyond that I would consult psychologists, preferably one with an anthropological bend. I'm not afraid to divulge that I have nothing much to say on the subject because I don't believe an infallible argument for the supernatural is somehow hidden within the nooks and crannies of hatred as an idea. There is a lot of literature out there on the subject of animal behavior and evolution. I have found that in the puruit of self-education in evolutionary biology you learn not only answers to questions you have but many things you could not even have thought of to quetsion. It is beautiful.

I don't care. Some may be and some may not know that they can be. It is on my personal agenda to promote non-theism. With such an agenda I do not expect to be respected/welcomed/understood/appreciated in every environment.

I agree that people have the right to believe what they wish. But I don't think they should believe in the supernatural. These are entirely different things. Religion is not benign though many believe it is.

I had a natural and active interest in science and logic and early on felt quite isolated by my views on the subject of the supernatural since in America only 5-10% of the population in non-theistic. That along with curiosity drove me to seek out things that would keep me from feeling entirely alone. There are two hurdles to overtake: knowing where the info is and getting oneself to pursue it. I take the bus to and from work and I read on the trip. I also read during breaks and lunches. Sometimes I run searches on the internet. I've gotten into debates/discussions with people which alows you to refine your perspective and discover what knowledge you're lacking. And I have been interested for years. If you have a genuine interest and you understand that the knowledge is available to you time will guarantee that you develope a strong understanding. www.talkorigins.org is a good website with an archive of religious arguments and their responses. I would say "The God Delusion", "God is Not Great", "The End of Faith" and any of Michael Shermers books on the subject would serve as good introductions. Then you can pursue the biological route further with "The Blind Watchmaker" (very fascinating). And all of these books cite other books and studies thereby illuminating other paths that you can take at your discretion. "The Portable Atheist" is an anthology of exerpts of literature on the subject written throughout history, helping to identify all the key players and thereby -- again -- illuminating other paths that you can take at your discretion. It'll probably be cool to do YouTube searches on Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer etc. giving talks. Also, someone I met recently at a meeting named Bruce A. Smith wrote a book called "The Path of Reason: a Philosophy of Nonbelief." I have not read it yet but he spoke about it and it also seems like a good step by step philosophical process to go from being very religious (which he was) to very nonreligious (which he is).

That's fine. Such a position is equivalent to walking half way to the finish line. You stop their because you have no personal interest in going further. All I can tell you is that it is possible to go further. It is possible to have a deeper understanding of how people should and do acquire real knowledge. And that, although one has every right to choose to not educate themselves to that degree on this particular subject, I feel obligated to at least convey that they are not at the finish line; that it is not the terminus of an logical attempt to understand the universe.

I have sought reasons for one to be convinced that supernatural entities exist and there are no such reasons. All reasons given fail whether people chose to see that or not. Anyway, I am sure none of you have sought a god either. Chances are that god was handed to you at birth along with all of your stuffed toys and you just took it because you had no choice. And because humans are programed by evolution to trust their parents for survival reasons, it has become truth to you without due skepticism. The act if seeking god is meaningless and ridiculous. One can "find" a god anywhere as long as one wants to. Knowledge is not acquired through surrendering to ones fears and sentiments or to the rhetoric of others: it is acquired through logic, reason and the scientific method. Thus is the best way in which the narrow scope of human perception and understanding can draw truthful conclusions on the nature of the universe.

I suppose I can assume, as a result of you mentioning Ivan Karamazov, that "the problem of evil" is what keeps you from accepting any specific religious dogma while still not drawing conclusions on the truth value of a god belief. Right?

Well, most of that didn't make much sense. But I will say that: (1) I hate all religion and superstition equally because they are all equally unfounded and you can bet that Islam would show up many a time right next Christianity, Judaism, and all other religions in a discussion of corrupted morality. (2) I don't know what you mean by intolerant. I tolerate religion all day long because people who think like me are only 5% - 10% of the population. Most of my friends have some sort of religious belief. And I will fight for their right to believe it. But they are wrong. (3) Rhetorically relegating positions to a "freshman dormitory" has no epistomological merit. (4) The purpose of my position is not to come across as novel. I don't even know what you're trying to suggest with such comments. (5) Opinions on contributions in literary fiction in the last seven years are completely irrelevant to the nature of the universe. (6) If one takes his or her time to study the topic and read and understand the multitude of arguments posed by proponents of non-theism one will see that it is unavoidable for any religious or superstitious belief to be considered unscientific, unfounded, unreasonable and illogical. All arguments supporting faith have been completely and successfully addressed. All of them. It's now only a question of whether people chose to see it. And now I will let you get the last word. Enjoy.

That is gold right there. I'll let you in on a secret: I don't care whether you do or not. And I love the "You don't know me" position. It's a classic. Happens all the time on the internet in the absence of valid points. Don't respond to people if you don't want to have a conversation or an argument. People always end up saying "I don't want to have this conversation" when they realize that getting in the last word is not going to be as easy as they imagined it to be.

That's right. And the fact that it cracks you up demonstrates beyond doubt that you have not educated yourself on the subject whatsoever. You only decide that what you have been told by other "believers" qualifies as knowledge is enough. Consequently, this deludes you to believing you are educated.

Though agnostics in a sense do believe in the unknowability of gods it is a misconception that not caring is important to the concept of agnosticism. On the contrary, in its pure form it is actively concerned with epistomology, concluding that there is no reason to believe in the supernatural and the difference between it and what is called atheism now is negligible. (It is for that reason that I went from calling myself an agnostic to referring to myself as one who places his confidence in logic, reason and the scientific method.)

I'm actually rather surprised and pleased to see that six Armenians other than myself chose option three. (I would be more pleased if the results accurately reflected the general Armenian population, or people in general, for that matter.) Where are these Armenians during the day? I only see them in words on the internet. I would like to know whether people who believe this are speaking purely from natural skepticism of religion or whether they have also supplemented their beliefs through the reading of literature by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer and the like. (A quick list of recommended reading: The Blind Watchmaker, Letter to a Christian Nation, God is Not Great, The God Delusion, the End of Faith, Unweaving the Rainbow, The Portable Atheist... and Skeptic Magazine.) I must also say that to these Armenians, assuming you are not, that you should be more open and honest about you views on the nature of the universe -- tactfully of course. Many people probably do even see such thoughts as an option but would entertain them or at least respect them more as a result of increasingly frequent exposure. We need to maintain cultural identity while also rising above this disgusting neurological plague that has held humanity's true potential back for so long.

I never doubted it. However, knowing that doesn't help me any.