Why?

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the power of prayer?

i'm sorry, the power of what?

often times, the success of prayer can be easily explained by four categories: coincidence, deceit, or failure. for instance, if you've ever prayed for someone that was terminally ill, they either got better because they were going to get better anyway, were never sick to begin with, or died despite your prayer.

it's honestly just a placebo.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

explain psychics?

Here is the long list of psychics who've won the lottery:

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can't know anything.

Fundamentally and scientifically, this is true. I mean, I highly suspect that this is true, as have many other philosophers, intellectuals, and scientists. No scientific study that answers important questions about the universe is 100% conclusive, but we still go ahead and say that something is a fact or that something is true.

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Knowledge is merely opinion.

And the reason we do this is because it would be really frustrating to have to say, "The likelihood of x being true falls within the percentile of 99.9-repeating." Just as it would be really frustrating to have to say, "I highly suspect that Uzbekistan is a real place. I've never been there, and I don't know anyone who's been there, but I think it is very likely that this place exists." We don't say that for a good reason - we just say Uzbekistan is a real place and that this is a fact. It is a part of human knowledge. It has transcended opinion and graduated to truth.

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Shakespeare said it first - "There are more things in heaven and earth than exist in your philosophy. Science is just how we're trained to look at reality - it doesn't explain love or spirituality"

First of all, Shakespeare never said this. This is a quote from a character in Tim Minchin's beat poem Storm who references Shakespeare. The original quote from Hamlet is as follows:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Shakespeare was right about philosophy, certainly. As Arthur Eddington said, "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The human body is a mystery, science just falls in a hole when it tries to explain the nature of the soul. Science is just how we're trained to look at reality. How does science explain psychics, auras, the power of prayer?

Things like love, spirituality, and the idea of a soul become more explainable at the level of the brain every single day. These things are being explained by neuroscience at this very moment while we sit here and play ForumQuest. Just because science doesn't have every single answer to everything in the universe yet doesn't have anything to say about how successful it's been in explaining reality to us so far. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for science. We owe everything to it, which is why it's our best indicator of truth. We can never know truth, but we can and must chase after it, and science simply provides us with the best compass for doing so. It is our true north, regardless of whether or not you or anyone else likes it.

[Samoht]

*three categories, oops

[Pokesan]

Shakespeare said it first - "There are more things in heaven and earth than exist in your philosophy. Science is just how we're trained to look at reality - it doesn't explain love or spirituality"

You're so sure of your position but you're just closed minded. I think you'll find that your faith in science and tests is just as blind as the faith of any fundamentalist.

[Troubled]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think you'll find that your faith in science and tests is just as blind as the faith of any fundamentalist.

Read that shit on a postcard?

[Clark]

You could always log into AOL instant message chatrooms and talk about weird shit. I sure don't wanna read this crap here though!

[Mandalore93]

The biggest destruction that religion could face would come as the result of three things.

1. Teaching children basic logic and rational skills.

2. Comparison of world religions in primary education. Hard to believe in one thing exclusively when they all seem to be copying off each other.

3. Taxing religion. For whatever reason people's faith has never seemed to coincide with their pocket book. It's how the Muslims took the Christian heartland and turned it into Muslim strong holds within a century or two. For the most part they were very easy rulers...as long as the money was paid. Convert or pay.

[Mandalore93]

Also, since I can't seem to find the edit button in my alcohol induced state.

I also think that most agnostics are atheists and vice versa or else functionally atheists (pantheists, spiritualists). I can't think of any atheists who are a 7 on the scale.

I'm curious where all these throat cramming atheists are coming from? Are they visiting door to door in your area? Is there an atheist church on every block where you are? Are we wielding our tax-exempt billions on forcing atheism as the new state religion? Oh...they're posting on the internet? Oh fuck! OH GOD NOOOOO. PLEASE LORD SAVE US FROM THESE MACHETE WIELDING MANIACZZZZZZ! THEY'RE GOING TO FLY PLANES INTO BUILDINGS!

Oh...that's religious people who do that? Nahhhhhhh.

But on a more serious note, grouping atheists together as a group is disingenuous at best. There are certainly those who have the same values but there's certainly not a central command structure in place such as the Catholic Church or the other sects' equivalents. Anti-theists would be a different matter though, imo.

[paulgiamatti]

Atheists who make it a point to declare their atheism are just obnoxious. I have no problem with non-believers who reject this word. If someone asks me specifically, then yes - I am an atheist. A very agnostic atheist, but an atheist nonetheless. The new atheist movement as far as I'm concerned is a waste of time. Theism is solipsistic, but so is going around shoving in everyone's face what you don't believe in. We don't need any of this - we don't need visibility, and we don't need to create an in-group/out-group mentality. Atheists are easily identifiable to one another without a movement or a banner to march under.

And w/r/t agnosticism, I still stand by my argument about knowledge having no clear distinction from belief when we're talking about theism. I don't buy the idea of an agnostic theist; this idea means the same thing to me as an intellectually dishonest theist. In other words, not actually a theist, but rather someone who merely identifies as one despite questioning their own belief or perhaps not believing at all. Ironically, an intellectually honest thing to do when you're not claiming to have god on your side.

You can't be an agnostic without lacking or, at the very least, questioning belief.