Religion has no place in politics!

[WIP]

Nobody has been able to prove that God doesn't exist. That is a faith truemetis;atheism. Different than my faith, but a faith nonetheless.

Many atheists would not say there is proof that God does not exist, but would contend that the existence of God does not have any unambiguous evidence to support it.

You believe the earth created itself from nothing, even though you cannot explain how something can come from nothing. It's hard to believe that this earth and everything on this complicated earth sprang into being one day for no reason whatsoever.

The problem is that if you ask 'how' did the Universe come into existence, you are not answering that question by stating that you know 'who' created the Universe -- God. Even if that's true, all that we have is one mystery (the origins of the universe) being added to by another mystery (God) that has no explanation for where it came from or how it created a universe.

This answer may seem satisfying at a superficial level because in our everyday world everything works by cause and effect, and we don't observe anything being created out of nothing. But our cause and effect bias probably does not apply when answering such big questions, since what we consider common sense is how things work in what physicist call the 'world of middle dimensions.' If we go to the grand scale, we have to incorporate General Relativity, which has effects such as curvature of space-time, and time slowing down on objects approaching the speed of light -- and at the other extreme, at the level of subatomic particles, virtual particles pairs transmit forces of attraction by popping into existence from the spacetime fabric for a brief period of time, before they come together and annihilate each other. There is no cause and effect involved, just as there is no cause and effect relationship in the transitions of particles from one energy state to another -- it just occurs on the basis of probability.

If particle events don't work by cause and effect, and virtual particles are uncaused, the implications for physicists are that there is nothing stopping an entire universe from being an uncaused creation. Science philosopher Mark Vuletic has put together some explanations of some difficult concepts in his argument for a real Creation Ex Nihilo It mostly boils down to those uncertain probabilities that occur at the subatomic level in the fabric of spacetime, where random probability can lead to an uncaused emergence of energy called a vacuum fluctuation. How would a universe grow from that tiny fluctuation? Vuletic quotes a nice brief explanation from Stephen Hawkings "Brief History of Time" to explain how a universe can grow out of "nothing": "The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."

It's a bizarre concept to try to grasp, but essentially the balancing of positive mass energy with its negative gravitational fields means we have a big universe made out of NOTHING! It's worth keeping in mind that our sense of tangible objects is another one of those illusions of the senses that help us navigate our world -- but have no connection in the underlying physics. It's one more reason why we can't use our notions of solidity and cause and effect to describe the Universe and try to figure out where it came from.

When I was in Junior high I was taught the Big Bang Theory. A huge cosmic explosion that created Earth. Isn't it miraculous that out of this explosion, Earth ended up just the right distance form the Sun that allows it to sustain life. Any closer and it would be too hot; any further away and it would be too cold. Earth's atmosphere is not replicated on any other planet. From that big bang we have huge living diversity. That seems too much a miracle to have happened by chance.

There are other amazing coincidences that are used to support an anthropic principle, such as our solar system was likely created closer to the middle of the Milky Way Galaxy because we have a higher content of heavy elements than the stars that are located in our local group; and if our solar system stayed there, the high radiation levels would have prevented life from forming, but it was somehow kicked out to its present location of relative calm -- and just as amazing, our solar system's orbit around the Milky Way is in perfect sequence with the spiral arms of the Galaxy. This is also lucky for us because if we went through those spiral arms of hot, radioactive gas, we would be fried.

There are also many amazing coincidences at the subatomic level, such as the ratios of the four basic forces being just right to allow the formation of stars, planets, galaxies etc. The problem with anthropic explanations for these coincidences is that if they didn't happen, we wouldn't be here to ask 'why not'. It's possible that life could have arose under different conditions that would have led to something else besides us.

I disagree with atheists. There are 2 types of atheists. One type of atheist doesn't believe in God, but is not offended by those who do. The other type of atheist is nothing more than an anti-Christian BIGOT. Bigotry can come in many different styles.

Anti-theist would be a better description than anti-Christian, since atheists who believe that supernatural beliefs and religions are harmful, apply this as a general principle to all religions and concepts of God, souls, spirits etc.

I have no problem with non-believers. I am, however, disgusted at those bigoted atheists who ridicule Christians; calling them gullible; naive; ignorant; uneducated. I know many Christians who are doctors, lawyers, scientists...you name it. They are all well-educated.

The stories of atheists being smarter than religious adherents likely comes from some recent polls that may or may not be accurate, which contend that the higher a person's level of education, the less likely they are to believe in God or be an adherent. There are Christian academics and alternatively, atheists like me who only have a high school education -- these are supposed to be the exceptions, but it's worth keeping in mind that there may be a downside to being too skeptical or too prone to believe in the supernatural. Some recent psychological tests done on rational skeptics and intuitive believers by a Finnish psychologist Marjaana Lindheman (cited in Supersense by Bruce M. Hood) tested the subjects with the white noise snow patterns of an analog television screen. Faint patterns were displayed in the static, and what was fascinating was that the intuitive thinkers often saw patterns in the noise that did not exist, but the skeptics were not only less prone to see non-existent patterns, they were also more likely to miss seeing the patterns that were embedded in the noise. Being a skeptic prevents drawing to a lot of poor conclusions, but it is nevertheless possible that being too skeptical could mean missing a few clues along the way.

Too many confuse God with religion.

There are religions that have many atheists and agnostics, and believers in God who hate religion... a few of them are members of MLW.

[wyly]

Hitler fooled many people. His views on Christianity changed from the 1920s, when wyly quotes him,to the 1940s when the true, evil Hitler emerged. Hitler had to pretend to be a strong Christian to garner the support of the 90% of the German people who were Christians. Hitler was a master manipulator.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

none of those are verified as accurate or from Hitler...the quotes come from a book called Table Talk from steno notes were complied by Martin Bormann which Bormann edited and may have interpreted, Bormann was a staunch anti-catholic, the original german text was then mistranslated and fabricated into french and then into english...are you "familiar with the term "lost in translation" or "context"

quotes such as "I shall never come to terms with the Christian lie. . .", "Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity[/i"....German text of the table-talk does not include them, they were made up by François Genoud, the translator of the French version, the very version that English translations rely on...

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

2) The reliability of multiple translations, from German to French to English.

3) The bias of the translators (especially Genoud).

4) The table-talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

5) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his own brand of Christianity.

6) The "anti-Christian" portions of Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity.

as a historical document the book you quote from is worthless...just as your belief in god is based on faith, myth and unverifiable evidence....

Mien Kampf however is the real deal...thoughts verified as written by Hitler...

Hitler the Catholic Christian the greatest mass murderer in history...verified

[lukin]

none of those are verified as accurate or from Hitler...the quotes come from a book called Table Talk from steno notes were complied by Martin Bormann which Bormann edited and may have interpreted, Bormann was a staunch anti-catholic, the original german text was then mistranslated and fabricated into french and then into english...are you "familiar with the term "lost in translation" or "context"

quotes such as "I shall never come to terms with the Christian lie. . .", "Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity[/i"....German text of the table-talk does not include them, they were made up by François Genoud, the translator of the French version, the very version that English translations rely on...

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

2) The reliability of multiple translations, from German to French to English.

3) The bias of the translators (especially Genoud).

4) The table-talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

5) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his own brand of Christianity.

6) The "anti-Christian" portions of Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity.

as a historical document the book you quote from is worthless...just as your belief in god is based on faith, myth and unverifiable evidence....

Mien Kampf however is the real deal...thoughts verified as written by Hitler...

Hitler the Catholic Christian the greatest mass murderer in history...verified

Actually, nothing is verified. Hitler was a master manipulator. He would say whatever he felt was needed to mobilize the masses.Unfortunately he succeeded. His true feelings toward Christianity were later revealed.

Was Stalin a Christian mass murderer? How abou Pol Pot? And Chairman Mao....all mass murderers. All had no use for God or Christianity.

[maple_leafs182]

God didn't create the Universe, God is the Universe. We are just gods experience.

[Oleg Bach]

Politics has no place in a real civilized society..all politicians are, are people who do the dirty work of un-elected power mongers who are parasites..these parasites have their own religion - and that is the consumption of human beings and resourses.

[maple_leafs182]

Politics has no place in a real civilized society..all politicians are, are people who do the dirty work of un-elected power mongers who are parasites..these parasites have their own religion - and that is the consumption of human beings and resourses.

I agree.

[Oleg Bach]

I agree.

Don't worship anyone but yourself. If there is a God _ I suspect that idoitry creates submissive restrictions on human potential..If you want to be a great artist - buisness person or politcian - there is no room for personal heros..or idols of any kink - YOU are the answer..YOU are the power_ You are in the image of the maker - and if God is the father of creation - as a father he expects you to surpass him-- or at leat try - but do not disrespect your earthly father or your cosmic one - respect is true religion and true empowerment for all..this is heaven - use it - live it - and do not tolerate the fools who make it hell.

[bloodyminded]

Was Stalin a Christian mass murderer? How abou Pol Pot? And Chairman Mao....all mass murderers. All had no use for God or Christianity.

True, but a couple of points:

first of all, it could be rationally argued that in the case of Stalin, he comes from a Christian/cultural tradition, and that this tradition is intrinsically a part of him.

But more to the point: of course there have been horrible atheist mass murderers. But atheism is not the bad guy here. Just as I don't blame wars, including the Christian and muslim atrocities of the Crusades, on religion; the murder happens with or without religion, though religion may be used to justify it.

Mass murder is always more a matter of the political than the religious. (Not that they can be 100% extricated from each other, mind you...but war and murder can never be solely, completely blamed on belief OR on lack of belief.)

[Ilie Vasiliev]

Doesn't matter if religious people make the majority of a state or not. As soon as it is a pluralistic society and the state respects the people's right to practice their religion, it should be a secular state.

[Bonam]

Don't worship anyone but yourself. If there is a God _ I suspect that idoitry creates submissive restrictions on human potential..If you want to be a great artist - buisness person or politcian - there is no room for personal heros..or idols of any kink - YOU are the answer..YOU are the power

A refreshingly individualistic and inciteful post. Oleg does come up with the occasional gem.

[Oleg Bach]

A refreshingly individualistic and inciteful post. Oleg does come up with the occasional gem.

Learned this stuff the hard way. Role models and heros are for chumps.I Remember being an accoustic guitar and piano guy. I admired and worshipped a great guitar player friend of mine..he was a brilliant electric player..he could soar and had chops that were like lightning. I believed that I could not do with out him that he would lift my recording sessions to great heights - which he did...but after giving up music for a long time --one of my kids handed me an electric guitar - instead of getting "unplugged" _ I got plugged in..with the power of electricity-- and taking the time to lay in bed to learn a few new scales..I found out that people like Clapton, BB King and my friend were no big deal..now I soar..You really should not make heros of anyone..until you give it a go..Heros cause intimidation and security - YOU don't need them.

[bloodyminded]

Learned this stuff the hard way. Role models and heros are for chumps.I Remember being an accoustic guitar and piano guy. I admired and worshipped a great guitar player friend of mine..he was a brilliant electric player..he could soar and had chops that were like lightning. I believed that I could not do with out him that he would lift my recording sessions to great heights - which he did...but after giving up music for a long time --one of my kids handed me an electric guitar - instead of getting "unplugged" _ I got plugged in..with the power of electricity-- and taking the time to lay in bed to learn a few new scales..I found out that people like Clapton, BB King and my friend were no big deal..now I soar..You really should not make heros of anyone..until you give it a go..Heros cause intimidation and security - YOU don't need them.

I tend to agree with this. Heroes are for children. That's not an insult; I mean they can be very useful to a child's development, someone too emulate, at least in a sense of moral righteousness or something.

But to hold on to them as an adult is to be emotionally stunted. Admiration is one thing; hero worship is foolish.

Witness people holding entire nations as "heroic" (an implausible and probably ridiculous way to think) and becoming insulted when others don't gaze dewy-eyed at said nation's magnificence.

Humbug, I say.

[Shwa]

I tend to agree with this. Heroes are for children. That's not an insult; I mean they can be very useful to a child's development, someone too emulate, at least in a sense of moral righteousness or something.

But to hold on to them as an adult is to be emotionally stunted. Admiration is one thing; hero worship is foolish.

Witness people holding entire nations as "heroic" (an implausible and probably ridiculous way to think) and becoming insulted when others don't gaze dewy-eyed at said nation's magnificence.

Humbug, I say.

And yet national myths and legends are alive and well along with cultural and religious myths and legends. (In the Catholic religion they call their heroes "saints.") And why is this? If the purely rational is supposed to be as all-powerful and righteous as its close adherents want us to believe, then why hasn't it taken over as the prima facie driver of nations and cultures? I mean really, it has had thousands of years to make it's case...

Perhaps a little hero here and there helps combat the stark existential outlook that people get when they peer into the face of their own demise. Perhaps there is a purpose after all.

[Oleg Bach]

DOUBLE HUMBUG>.When I saw white liberal girls weeping at the sight of the early Obama - as if he was the vision of the virgin mary on a fifty foot high piece of burnt toast..It was fanciful and very submissive - yes kids need instruction and should admire the good adults...as for religion in politics - soon as you get a "charismatic figure" You have a religion ...need I say more? - Humbug again.

[Remiel]

That's not how it works you don't prove something doesn't exsist, that's impossible, you prove it does exsist. Until it has been proven to exsist the default position is it doesn't exsist.

I think you are confused. If you have proven something exists, you have also proven the non-existence of its negation; and vice versa.

That aside, two things:

1) The default position is not that something does not exist. The default position is to with-hold judgement. At least, that is if you are a good little skeptic.

2) Very little is truly proven. This does not mean that logical implication and probability cannot lead to good decision making, but " proof " occurs in much smaller quantities than most people think.

On another note, I am skeptical of this quantum mechanical business where things supposedely pop in and out of existence. I believe there is a better scientific explanation of what is really going on. The fact that there is any order at all in how it works at that level indicates to me that it cannot be truly random/uncaused. Arguments for why to suggest it could be is absurd are as old as the Greeks. I have to cut this post short for now though, I must leave.

[Oleg Bach]

Ever travel from one dimension to the other - from the positive universe to the negative one and back again - from a world of goodness to a world of evil...well I have and now I am stuck with you jerks - and have wasted the fuel for the return trip attempting to save the world - what a mistake..

[Guest TrueMetis]

I think you are confused. If you have proven something exists, you have also proven the non-existence of its negation; and vice versa.

The point is you don't approach any problem trying to dis-prove something you try to prove something. Also just because you prove something doesn't mean you disprove the other theories, just because Natural Selection is true doesn't disprove punctuated equilibrium, and just because relativity is true hasn't voided Newtons laws.

1) The default position is not that something does not exist. The default position is to with-hold judgement. At least, that is if you are a good little skeptic.

So I should with-hold judgement on whether unicorns exsist then, after all no one has proven they exsist but that doesn't mean they don't. Even after hundreds of years. The default position is something doesn't exsist/ won't work this is the Null Hypothesis

2) Very little is truly proven. This does not mean that logical implication and probability cannot lead to good decision making, but " proof " occurs in much smaller quantities than most people think.

I'm confused as to why you're directing this to me.

[Remiel]

The point is you don't approach any problem trying to dis-prove something you try to prove something.

Generally, perhaps, but not entirely true. Sometimes the process of elimination is a valuable tool in trying to determine what one should be trying to demonstrate.

So I should with-hold judgement on whether unicorns exsist then, after all no one has proven they exsist but that doesn't mean they don't. Even after hundreds of years. The default position is something doesn't exsist/ won't work this is the Null Hypothesis

According to that Wikipedia article, the Null Hypothesis says nothing about assuming something does not exist. It is about positing no relatinship between two phenomena. And it also says that it is usually accompanied by n Alternative Hypothesis, that does posit a relationship. I am guessing that one is supposed to with-hold judegement as to which is right until one has done the experiment.

I'm confused as to why you're directing this to me.

Maybe I was mistaken in this part but I guess I was basing it on the thought that you were the sort of person who in their admiration of science confused what is an inductive exercise for a deductive proof. I have at least one friend in science who places too much faith into science without really caring about the philosophy that measures its value.

[Guest TrueMetis]

According to that Wikipedia article, the Null Hypothesis says nothing about assuming something does not exist. It is about positing no relatinship between two phenomena. And it also says that it is usually accompanied by n Alternative Hypothesis, that does posit a relationship. I am guessing that one is supposed to with-hold judegement as to which is right until one has done the experiment.

As it says in the wiki.

The null hypothesis, typically proposes a general or default position, such as that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena,[1] or that a potential treatment has no effect.

In this case the null hypothesis is that there is no all powerful god that created everything.

Maybe I was mistaken in this part but I guess I was basing it on the thought that you were the sort of person who in their admiration of science confused what is an inductive exercise for a deductive proof. I have at least one friend in science who places too much faith into science without really caring about the philosophy that measures its value.

I fully realize science can never prove anything 100%

[dre]

I believe in God, but I can't prove he exists. You don't believe in God and you can't prove he doesn't exist. We are both arguing from a faith position. How did you come by your faith?

This is absolutely horrible logical fallacy. You dont really buy this shit do you?

[Oleg Bach]

This is absolutely horrible logical fallacy. You dont really buy this shit do you?

Human logic is imperfect as is science - what is scientifically valid today will be a fallacy tomorrow - so there are no winners when it comes to God and atheism - I put my faith in the possiblity that God will favour and sustain me - at present mankind just wants to control me - I hate that.

[bloodyminded]

Human logic is imperfect as is science - what is scientifically valid today will be a fallacy tomorrow - so there are no winners when it comes to God and atheism - I put my faith in the possiblity that God will favour and sustain me - at present mankind just wants to control me - I hate that.

Fair enough. But along this strain of thought, it's only reasonable to consider the possibility of a malevolent God, one who also wishes to control you for nefarious purposes.

[Oleg Bach]

Fair enough. But along this strain of thought, it's only reasonable to consider the possibility of a malevolent God, one who also wishes to control you for nefarious purposes.

That would be like me having an ambition and over powering drive to control an ant... I have better things to do. I am sure that God does not give a damn about controlling us. HUMAN beings who think like ant wish to control others for nefarious purposes.

[ToadBrother]

"Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters."

--- Bob Dylan

Pretty much sums up my view on politics, religion and damned near everything else. This board alone is filled with people are basically teat-sucking hero worshipers, with little capacity to formulate an independent thought, or at the very least the courage to speak it.

[Oleg Bach]

Each man woman and child is a king - each is a messiah - and all are as important as the mass. The true definition of democracy was not born in the Greek mind but in the mind of a Judean rebel called the Christ.."I have not come to save the whole flock but to save the ONE single sheep that has fallen into the pit" TRANSLATION...when the rights of one individual are destroyed, the rights of all are destroyed! ONE person is as important as one million people . They myth of the "common good" or the greatest number being happy at the expense of the singular or few is pure evil.