Belgian justice accuses Scientology of being criminal

[Audiostave]

Scientology is just as legitimate to me as christianity, and all spirituality is a legitimate thing. one can not and should not condemn others for beliefs that defy what we know about science, because spirituality is, as a whole, unquantifiable, and therefor science and traditional logic and reasoning do not apply. This is a common western misconception. although, I tend to dislike the idea of organized religion, because those types of beliefs can not be shared, and trying makes no sense. spirituality is a personal thing, and no two people beleive the same thing.

Oh pray tell me, why doesn't traditional logic and reasoning apply to spiritual matters? I can tell you're well versed in theology, because your senses have been dulled to the point that you're unable to distinguish the false dichotomy of faith and reason from the obviously correct antithesis of reason and irrationality. The words spiritual and faith are nothing but a clever semantic trick of the religious to try to hide their irrationality, which obviously would be subjected to the scrutiny of the rigors of logic and reason if it were identified as such. By setting up a false dichotomy between reason and faith, you try to escape from that.

But if you meant that christianity is just as irrational as scientology, than I agree with you, but I doubt you meant that.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Scientology is just as legitimate to me as christianity, and all spirituality is a legitimate thing. one can not and should not condemn others for beliefs that defy what we know about science, because spirituality is, as a whole, unquantifiable, and therefor science and traditional logic and reasoning do not apply. This is a common western misconception. although, I tend to dislike the idea of organized religion, because those types of beliefs can not be shared, and trying makes no sense. spirituality is a personal thing, and no two people beleive the same thing.

Oh pray tell me, why doesn't traditional logic and reasoning apply to spiritual matters? I can tell you're well versed in theology, because your senses have been dulled to the point that you're unable to distinguish the false dichotomy of faith and reason from the obviously correct antithesis of reason and irrationality. The words spiritual and faith are nothing but a clever semantic trick of the religious to try to hide their irrationality, which obviously would be subjected to the scrutiny of the rigors of logic and reason if it were identified as such. By setting up a false dichotomy between reason and faith, you try to escape from that.

But if you meant that christianity is just as irrational as scientology, than I agree with you, but I doubt you meant that.

I'm not religious and don't believe in following such irrational concepts, and I also think scientology is foolish, albeit only as foolish as christianity, but just because I choose not to believe them doesn't mean I don't see where they are coming from. It's actually a constant failure of concept in western philosophy that thinks all things must be quantifiable. The idea of the spirit is metaphysical, sir, and therefor not considered within the realms of logic. That makes it distinct from the rules of common logic, which most intellectuals can tell you is only limited to human capacity, and therefor not all encompassing. Things can and DO exist outside the realm of human knowledge, and for all we know, one of those things could be the human soul.

Don't try to 'logic' the metaphysical, its a lost cause.
And that doesn't mean it is inferior, only the most foolish of us feel that limited human logic truly defines the absolutes of the universe.

Even then, the spiritual following has a certain credence of its own, due to its innate ability to not be disproved, and it fits well within the constraints of absurdist meaning, so that even the most devout atheist and skeptical nihilist should be able to appreciate the ideas behind ones relative goals and beliefs in life.
Now on that same note, like i said before, the idea that spirituality can be shared exactly between multiple people is a fallacy, since one can never fully explain their philosophy to another person due to its obvious lack of tangibility. Spirituality is personal, and no two people beleive the same thing.

Personally, I follow a unique system of life, one that I could argue is very spiritual, but non-religious and doesnt leave the constraints of science. I have an obsession with existential chaos, and I live life as an admirer of the beauty of destruction and creation and everything in between. Theres nothing more to it, because it doesn't make sense, and I know it, so I simply rely on my forward momentum to define the meaning of going forward. It is circular logic, and foolish, and I wouldnt trade it for anything. I love life. I love the absurdity of it. I love death and birth and pain and pleasure and every petty little nuance. I love the fact that I am not logical, imperfect, wrongfully arrogant, I have a pointless sense of integrity, I care for other people, I hurt people sometimes.

See there I went switching explanations halfway and almost contradicting myself.
It's just life, don't take it so seriously

 

[Audiostave]

Scientology is just as legitimate to me as christianity, and all spirituality is a legitimate thing. one can not and should not condemn others for beliefs that defy what we know about science, because spirituality is, as a whole, unquantifiable, and therefor science and traditional logic and reasoning do not apply. This is a common western misconception. although, I tend to dislike the idea of organized religion, because those types of beliefs can not be shared, and trying makes no sense. spirituality is a personal thing, and no two people beleive the same thing.

Oh pray tell me, why doesn't traditional logic and reasoning apply to spiritual matters? I can tell you're well versed in theology, because your senses have been dulled to the point that you're unable to distinguish the false dichotomy of faith and reason from the obviously correct antithesis of reason and irrationality. The words spiritual and faith are nothing but a clever semantic trick of the religious to try to hide their irrationality, which obviously would be subjected to the scrutiny of the rigors of logic and reason if it were identified as such. By setting up a false dichotomy between reason and faith, you try to escape from that.

But if you meant that christianity is just as irrational as scientology, than I agree with you, but I doubt you meant that.

I'm not religious and don't believe in following such irrational concepts, and I also think scientology is foolish, albeit only as foolish as christianity, but just because I choose not to believe them doesn't mean I don't see where they are coming from. It's actually a constant failure of concept in western philosophy that thinks all things must be quantifiable. The idea of the spirit is metaphysical, sir, and therefor not considered within the realms of logic. That makes it distinct from the rules of common logic, which most intellectuals can tell you is only limited to human capacity, and therefor not all encompassing. Things can and DO exist outside the realm of human knowledge, and for all we know, one of those things could be the human soul.

Don't try to 'logic' the metaphysical, its a lost cause.
And that doesn't mean it is inferior, only the most foolish of us feel that limited human logic truly defines the absolutes of the universe.

Even then, the spiritual following has a certain credence of its own, due to its innate ability to not be disproved, and it fits well within the constraints of absurdist meaning, so that even the most devout atheist and skeptical nihilist should be able to appreciate the ideas behind ones relative goals and beliefs in life.
Now on that same note, like i said before, the idea that spirituality can be shared exactly between multiple people is a fallacy, since one can never fully explain their philosophy to another person due to its obvious lack of tangibility. Spirituality is personal, and no two people beleive the same thing.

Personally, I follow a unique system of life, one that I could argue is very spiritual, but non-religious and doesnt leave the constraints of science. I have an obsession with existential chaos, and I live life as an admirer of the beauty of destruction and creation and everything in between. Theres nothing more to it, because it doesn't make sense, and I know it, so I simply rely on my forward momentum to define the meaning of going forward. It is circular logic, and foolish, and I wouldnt trade it for anything. I love life. I love the absurdity of it. I love death and birth and pain and pleasure and every petty little nuance. I love the fact that I am not logical, imperfect, wrongfully arrogant, I have a pointless sense of integrity, I care for other people, I hurt people sometimes.

See there I went switching explanations halfway and almost contradicting myself.
It's just life, don't take it so seriously

I agree with you that the human mind will (probably) never be able to fully encompass everything, because we are, at the moment, too limited. Arguing otherwise would be extremely arrogant...

But that's a bit besides the point here. My point is that the things we as human beings do conjure up or come up with, such as religions - which are entirely man made-, CAN become the object of our logic and reason. f you don't agree, then think of this: you make up a religious or spiritual claim (the basic premise here is that all such claims ARE human, so they all have been made up at some point), and after that you say it's outside of reason because it is a spiritual matter. If you look at it that way it is not only fallacious because of it's circular nature, but also extremely absurd.

So because matters of faith are products of man, they can become the object of logic and reason and be identified as irrational. All metaphysical claims are human claims and can therefore never truly belong to the "faith magisteria". That's why I said that the reason/faith dichotomy is a false one and that it overlaps with the opposition between rationality and irrationality.

We can only ever really make metaphysical claims if they were to be revealed to us. But, if the point ever comes that a matter of faith becomes visible and tangible, it suddenly becomes a scientific matter -and hey presto- is excluded from the faith realm! Faith is void.

 

[Sander]

But that's a bit besides the point here. My point is that the things we as human beings do conjure up or come up with, such as religions - which are entirely man made-, CAN become the object of our logic and reason. f you don't agree, then think of this: you make up a religious or spiritual claim (the basic premise here is that all such claims ARE human, so they all have been made up at some point), and after that you say it's outside of reason because it is a spiritual matter. If you look at it that way it is not only fallacious because of it's circular nature, but also extremely absurd.

You're making the mistake of judging irrational matters by rational means.
The fact that you insist on doing only shows that you do *not* understand faith or religion, and are missing the point of it. You value logic over everything else, which is fine, but judging illogical things with logical means is nonsensical.

 

[Audiostave]

But that's a bit besides the point here. My point is that the things we as human beings do conjure up or come up with, such as religions - which are entirely man made-, CAN become the object of our logic and reason. f you don't agree, then think of this: you make up a religious or spiritual claim (the basic premise here is that all such claims ARE human, so they all have been made up at some point), and after that you say it's outside of reason because it is a spiritual matter. If you look at it that way it is not only fallacious because of it's circular nature, but also extremely absurd.

You're making the mistake of judging irrational matters by rational means.
The fact that you insist on doing only shows that you do *not* understand faith or religion, and are missing the point of it. You value logic over everything else, which is fine, but judging illogical things with logical means is nonsensical.

But we can deem certain things as illogical by those standards, that's all I meant. You have to have a certain knowledge of logic to know when things are illogical...

 

[xdarkyrex]

But we can deem certain things as illogical by those standards, that's all I meant. You have to have a certain knowledge of logic to know when things are illogical...

you say the things you say based on faith.
faith in logic.
faith in science.
faith in your senses.
faith in your mind.
and last of all, faith that religions are man made.

don't make the absurd distinction that it is in any way different than faith in the metaphysical, because it is not. Tangibility does not prove reality, because all things are intangible prior to discovery.

Humans are creatures of faith, to do anything else is nihilistic and self destructive. It is also okay to be a nihilist, but it seems to be an empty sort of existence, unless you fall under the umbrella of 'functional nihilism'.

Life is absurd, sir.
Go read some early Albert Camus.

 

[Kyuu]

you say the things you say based on faith.
faith in logic.
faith in science.
faith in your senses.
faith in your mind.
and last of all, faith that religions are man made.

don't make the absurd distinction that it is in any way different than faith in the metaphysical, because it is not. Tangibility does not prove reality, because all things are intangible prior to discovery.

That is both true, and patently ridiculous.

There is a difference between believing in something you can experience for yourself and/or quantify, and believing in something where the only basis for belief is because someone says that these words written in this book are the words of some supernatural, intangible god.

Claiming that believing in science is somehow akin to believing in a religion is simply false. For example, a change in scientific thought is the natural result of the constant reexamination and reevaluation of accepted knowledge gained from experimentation and observable phenomena. Organized religion, on the other hand, is only undermined when it constantly has to alter its views in light of changing attitudes and physical evidence that outright contradicts deeply held beliefs.

Of course, I realize that you claim not to be a fan of organized religion, but the point still stands. You, and everyone else, has a right to their own, personal spirituality, but whatever that spirituality entails, it does not somehow equate to what is observable and verifiable, which is all that science is concerned with. Spirituality, by definition, is solely concerned with beliefs and personal feelings about the unknown or unknowable, the very opposite of science.

Also, pointing out the flaws of scientists themselves would be a false argument. I don't, and not many people would seriously try to, claim that people are perfect. Scientists are people. Their egos can get in the way. They can be stubborn, they can be desperate to salvage a theory or solution to a problem that they've spent their entire careers working on. They can be blinded by money thrown at them by governments or organizations that desire a certain result. They can be childish, malevolent, or just plain foolish. These are, however, as always, human problems, not problems with the scientific system itself. No matter what, an incorrect theory or result will be discovered, debated, and, eventually, discarded, even if it was held as incontrovertible fact just a few months before. Science presents us with the best view of the workings of the universe as our current tools and knowledge allow, and will probably forever be a work in progress.

'Course, it could be said that any good system of spirituality is always a work in progress as well.

Bah, here. The author of xkcd puts the matter fairly succinctly in this little webcomic.

Hah! Even as I type, God reached down from the Heavens and smote (froze) my computer so as to try to silence my Heresy. Twice. But the almighty Firefox restored my browsing session, complete with my entire post, in a glorious display of open-source software's triumph over the Creator himself! Lucifer would be proud.

Sorry, a little over-the-top maybe, but I was pretty peeved when my computer decided to crap out on me. That's what I get for not writing it out in Notepad and saving periodically like I should with a long post, though.

Edit: Here's a couple of my favorite quotes on the subject. I like quotes, since I'm often not good at presenting my thoughts or arguments in a good, cohesive manner.

"The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not."
- Eric Hoffer

"You've got your phenomenon on one hand. Concrete and knowable. On the other hand you've got the incomprehensible. You call it God, but to me, God or no, it remains just that, the unknowable."
- Robin Green and Mitchell Burgess

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
- Richard Dawkins

 

[SuAside]

you say the things you say based on faith.
faith in logic.
faith in science.
faith in your senses.
faith in your mind.
and last of all, faith that religions are man made.

don't make the absurd distinction that it is in any way different than faith in the metaphysical, because it is not. Tangibility does not prove reality, because all things are intangible prior to discovery.

Humans are creatures of faith, to do anything else is nihilistic and self destructive. It is also okay to be a nihilist, but it seems to be an empty sort of existence, unless you fall under the umbrella of 'functional nihilism'.

Life is absurd, sir.
Go read some early Albert Camus.

you seriously need to go read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

he quite skillfully refutes everything you just said. (i.e. faith in science is not comparable to faith in god, humans without faith are not nihilistic or self-destructive at all, and of course Camus' fuckup of 'why dont we all commit suicide if there is no God')

all bullocks. it's kinda sad that you cant see through your own arguments on this front, ye know.

 

[Kyuu]

... humans without faith are not nihilistic or self-destructive at all...

Ah yes, I forgot to point out this little snippet of a false dichotomy. I really should read that God Delusion book... saw it at the book store a while ago, and nearly bought it. Soon as I'm done reading The Bourne Identity, I'll have to go pick it up.

 

[Zeal]

Tbh it causes me more confusion how a country like America, land of the free, one of the 1st democratic countries in the world, has on its money (the supreme symbol of the state) “In God we Trust”! Wasn’t the religious powers separated (in theory) from the state? Now when a state forces a religion into yourself, that worries me, because if I want I give money/believe in those scientologists, no1 forces me, but that’s not the case with other churches, since in some public schools, before classes, you are obliged to pray or live with religious symbols (in public places, paid with your tax money, and according with the constitution completely free of any religious innuendo)…

the whole uprise of religiousness in the american government has only been so for about 50 years. the founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves right about now.

"one nation under god"? amended late in the history of the USA.
"in god we trust"? added 50 years ago

no, the founding fathers actually signed a treaty saying that the country had freedom of religion, but certainly was not a christian nation (nor a muslim one i might add). funny how now presidents say that they dont even recognise atheists as being able to being good citizens. many founding fathers were deists, agnostics and atheists...

And when was this "added"? 50 years ago also?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg&mode=related&search=

check the state laws... STATE LAWS?! i wonder, are they true?!?! That really creeps me out...

but yeah, it gives me the feeling that the founding fathers were more liberal in that department.

 

[xdarkyrex]

you seriously need to go read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

he quite skillfully refutes everything you just said. (i.e. faith in science is not comparable to faith in god, humans without faith are not nihilistic or self-destructive at all, and of course Camus' fuckup of 'why dont we all commit suicide if there is no God')

all bullocks. it's kinda sad that you cant see through your own arguments on this front, ye know.

Err, maybe I'm having a 'special moment' and misreading what you're saying, but Camus never said that knowledge of absurdity leads to suicide. He quite strongly opposes that belief, a true absurdist mindset has no reason to commit suicide due to the fact that without meaning suicide has no real purpose and to want suicide is to ascribe false meaning to the world, which relies on an inherently existentialist and non-absurdist view of the world.


But for all intensive purposes, the basic practices of logic as we know it are simply a belief in our own ability to understand things.

They may be more inherent for us, but logic is hardly the defining law that binds reality. Ever heard of a *gasp* paradox? Or what about quantum mechanics, throwing the whole realm of math into a fit, especially considering that deductive logic is based on a fairly algebraic system.

It's all simply relative.
All of it.
Religion is no different.

Now, there re distinctions to be made between religion and science, but i feel strongly that they are all meaningless in light of the ultimate limitations of them both.

 

[Kyuu]

It's all simply relative.

Not everything is relative.

Now, there re distinctions to be made between religion and science, but i feel strongly that they are all meaningless in light of the ultimate limitations of them both.

Yes, but the difference is that science never claims to be the end-all-be-all of everything. It's simply a system that provides the means to form an objective, verifiable basis for the understanding of how things work.

 

[xdarkyrex]

It's all simply relative.

Not everything is relative.

We would have to agree to disagree on that unless you can give me ONE example of something that is not relative.

Remember- only one.
That should be easy, right?

Now, there re distinctions to be made between religion and science, but i feel strongly that they are all meaningless in light of the ultimate limitations of them both.

Yes, but the difference is that science never claims to be the end-all-be-all of everything. It's simply a system that provides the means to form an objective, verifiable basis for the understanding of how things work.

So based on that, the distinction between science and faith is that one may believe that there system is not the absolute truth? Thats a bit of a blanket statement in the direction of all metaphysical belief, isn't it? I've said it once and I'll say it again. organized religion and personal religion are not synonymous.

You may argue that point successfully against the majority of religious organizations, but that is to assume that all people of one organization can actually ever share the exact same beliefs, which is inherently impossible. You simply have no objective proof that any religion is 100% flawed, the best you can and will ever be able to do is make aggregate statements about trends in science, without really being able to deductively prove anything.

If science realizes its own limitations, then it also realizes the potential of other belief systems to be superior. As I said before, if all things are false until proven, what does that say for the intangible sciences which will be discovered in the future?

You cannot discount religion as wrong.
It is not humanly logical.
Unless you are illogical, and you have faith in empirical observation in light of all the things we have disproved of our own senses in the past..
In which case you fall into the same camp as the religious.

 

[Kyuu]

We would have to agree to disagree on that unless you can give me ONE example of something that is not relative.

Remember- only one.
That should be easy, right?

1 + 1 = 2. San Francisco has more restaurants per capita than any other city in the United States. Newegg does not send orders out for shipments on Saturday or Sunday (bastards). I have ten toes. Fish and Kevin Costner have gills. Just throwing things out there.

 

[xdarkyrex]

How very pragmatic of you, relying on the self-evidence of the obvious.

Regrettably though, this is a subject of tremendous amounts of debate among scholars for thousands of years (still continuing) for a reason.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

I was going to originally attempt to explain why I believe otherwise... but that is quite the chore. So I found a fairly good source which you can use to brush up on the various concepts of relativism, and also the value of what it teaches, flaws within it, and then some.

I'll be the first to admit it is impractical, but not all things must be practical to have value.

I would also try to pull some meaningful quotes from it, but taken as it is from its whole, most of that information becomes skewed.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#4.1
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#descriptiveperceptualrel
that might be of interest though, if you don't want to dig through all of that.

 

[Kyuu]

How very pragmatic of you, relying on the self-evidence of the obvious.

Pragmatism is one of my fortes.

I'll take a look at that stuff later... I'm freaking tired. Funny how you can seem the most tired when you're more inactive than you've ever been.

 

[xdarkyrex]

How very pragmatic of you, relying on the self-evidence of the obvious.

Pragmatism is one of my fortes.

I'll take a look at that stuff later... I'm freaking tired. Funny how you can seem the most tired when you're more inactive than you've ever been.

I feel you on that one, hence the link and lack of lengthy writing.
something about inactive heart-rates is my best guess.


Pragmatism is great when living day to day life, but a more open ended approach is needed to cater to all the whims of the everyman, ya know, so when it comes to laws and legal decisions, discussing of the validity of theological beliefs, or discussing something epistemologically, I take a much more complex and open approach to allow for the most possible freedom from all perspectives, regardless of the contrast in beliefs or the supposed values of each said belief between individuals. (Holy run-on sentences, Batman!)

See, we all have our own way that we structure reality around our perceptions and memories and, as some might believe (me included) our heritage, and that madness, chaos, and inability to see eye-to-eye is the source of all things good in the universe, art and beauty and silly little emotional pleasantries.

In a legal or international climate, the pragmatist often falls pray to natural ethnocentrism that all of us have to at least a minimal degree (although we all wish we were completely unbiased).

To get to the root of human knowledge you must understand the inherent flaws of the limits of human perception, and the most basic deductive facts we know about human reality: no two experiences can ever be shared.

Given such things, saying that x does not exist within the realm of y implies that you have an absolute knowledge of y.
We all know we aren't capable of perfection (pragmatically speaking), so what compels us to be able to quantify our own limitations?

All non-nihilistic deductive reasoning eventually defeats itself, and ends up in the same place. Human minds can not even grasp their own existence. We can certainly think, or at least I know that I can think, but past that, what can I quantify and define as an absolute, given the basic flaws of humanity?

nothing. nothing at all.

Everything is guesses and relative comparisons that all find essential roots in our own minds, and languages (in a more formal sense).

Um, in any case, I originally intended to keep this concise, but looks like I made a boo-boo.

To sum things up-
Nothing is absolute, life has no meaning, and we are all very likely the imagination of ourselves.
This of course, leads to the earlier works of Albert Camus, such as the infamous Le Mythe de Sisyphe (The Myth of Sisyphus), and the conceptualized views of how to live life without meaning.

It's amazingly simple if you try to wrap your head around it, and rather poetic if you give it a shot.

I'm not an absurdist, or even a true nihilist, but I am damn close, because truer and more humble words have never been preached.

Oh, and to round things off- a wiki link (lol,internet)

Many noted philosophers and theologians have espoused the idea that faith is the basis of all knowledge. One example is St. Augustine of Hippo. Known as one of his key contributions to philosophy, the idea of "faith seeking understanding" was set forth by St. Augustine in his statement "Crede, ut intelligas" ("Believe in order that you may understand"). This statement extends beyond the sphere of religion to encompass the totality of knowledge. In essence, faith must be present in order to know anything. In other words, one must assume, believe, or have faith in the credibility of a person, place, thing, or idea in order to have a basis for knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#Faith_as_the_basis_for_human_knowledge

 

[SuAside]

Err, maybe I'm having a 'special moment' and misreading what you're saying, but Camus never said that knowledge of absurdity leads to suicide. He quite strongly opposes that belief, a true absurdist mindset has no reason to commit suicide due to the fact that without meaning suicide has no real purpose and to want suicide is to ascribe false meaning to the world, which relies on an inherently existentialist and non-absurdist view of the world.

Camus once asked (while making fun i can only assume) why atheists didn't all commit suicide if there was no God and hence no afterlife. atheists have nothing to live for.

of course that thesis is terribly flawed for anyone with half a brain & i'm sure he knew that himself, but was simply proving a point.

You cannot discount religion as wrong.

and why not?

at the very least we can discount it as extremely unlikely.

in short: religion uses an extremely complicated God to explain our already complicated existence and the galaxy's. how does accrediting creation to a God solve anything? any entity able to create something so complicated must by definition be complicated itself. it only leads to the question: who created God? no one, says (most) religion, he was always there.

well, excuse me, but that's a cop-out.

i can tell you right here and now that the chance of there being an actual god as explained by human religions is nil.

It is not humanly logical.

cop-out. (and kinda even supports my thesis)

Now, there re distinctions to be made between religion and science, but i feel strongly that they are all meaningless in light of the ultimate limitations of them both.

that's a cop-out. you cannot in any way put religion on the same scales as science.

once again: READ DAWKINS! i cant explain it as well as he can, so i wont bother.
while i dont entirely follow him on each and every subject, he does paint a more than adequate picture of the average atheist and why we think the way we do. (the book can be rather harsh at times, but give em a chance)

 

[xdarkyrex]

Camus once asked (while making fun i can only assume) why atheists didn't all commit suicide if there was no God and hence no afterlife. atheists have nothing to live for.

of course that thesis is terribly flawed for anyone with half a brain & i'm sure he knew that himself, but was simply proving a point.

Camus was well known for his intense debates about both the failure of existentialism to explain purpose in life, and also his defense against attempting to rationalize suicide if life is meaningless. He explained over and over again that to commit suicide is to concede to meaning in life, and is inherently foolish.

You cannot discount religion as wrong.

and why not?

at the very least we can discount it as extremely unlikely.

Because to discount something as completely wrong, you must be able to deductively explain why, with an base premise that is 100% true, which you do not have. Inductive reasoning is a little more forgiving, but anyone who has studied logic and critical thinking knows that inductive reasoning only turns up probabilities, not absolute answers.

in short: religion uses an extremely complicated God to explain our already complicated existence and the galaxy's. how does accrediting creation to a God solve anything? any entity able to create something so complicated must by definition be complicated itself. it only leads to the question: who created God? no one, says (most) religion, he was always there.

well, excuse me, but that's a cop-out.

i can tell you right here and now that the chance of there being an actual god as explained by human religions is nil.

Exactly, we agree on most of that, except one thing.
The religious stance is one of humility and understanding that you simply can not know, and conceding to defeat before attempting to understand something clearly outside of the realm of human conception. The attempt to deny this as possible is a materialist arrogance. Both answer are possible, and both theories support their answers. The difference is that if you use logic, you are relying on human ability to find answers, and therefor should concede to the point that it is strictly outside of human capacity to know. On another hand, if faith is the backbone of your argument, you are inherently illogical and are not bound by the restrictions of logic to attempt to rationalize your beliefs. Neither is right, but the logician out to curb their arrogance and realize that as a logical being they simply don't, and can't, possess any grasp of the metaphysical.

It is not humanly logical.

cop-out. (and kinda even supports my thesis)

When discussing faith this is NOT a cop out, in fact it is the entire premise for the existence of both the supernatural, one that is inherently not provable or disprovable.

once again: READ DAWKINS! i cant explain it as well as he can, so i wont bother.

Perhaps I will, but it is not often that a book about something this controversial strikes me as profound in any way. They tend to repeat the same rhetoric over and over again, perhaps with more compelling arguments, but I strongly doubt there is an argument compelling enough to change my stance on this.

 

[SuAside]

Because to discount something as completely wrong, you must be able to deductively explain why, with an base premise that is 100% true, which you do not have. Inductive reasoning is a little more forgiving, but anyone who has studied logic and critical thinking knows that inductive reasoning only turns up probabilities, not absolute answers.

hence i said extremely unlikely?

The religious stance is one of humility and understanding that you simply can not know, and conceding to defeat before attempting to understand something clearly outside of the realm of human conception. The attempt to deny this as possible is a materialist arrogance. Both answer are possible, and both theories support their answers. The difference is that if you use logic, you are relying on human ability to find answers, and therefor should concede to the point that it is strictly outside of human capacity to know. On another hand, if faith is the backbone of your argument, you are inherently illogical and are not bound by the restrictions of logic to attempt to rationalize your beliefs. Neither is right, but the logician out to curb their arrogance and realize that as a logical being they simply don't, and can't, possess any grasp of the metaphysical.

humility? i see no humility in the vast majority of the human religions...

no, quite the opposite usually. "we're right, you're wrong", which eventually leads to much of the bad things in the world. very little motives for violence have as high a bodycount as religion.

as for your entire explanation, you defend religion, yet you yourself say man cannot understand God if there is one. as such, the accepted human religions are wrong by default.

When discussing faith this is NOT a cop out, in fact it is the entire premise for the existence of both the supernatural, one that is inherently not provable or disprovable.

indeed, but that doesn't mean you cannot try to weigh its probability?

i find it extremely extremely extremely unlikely for there to be a god resembling any kind of human religion, but at the same time there is no possibility to prove it false. as such, i'm an atheist.

but in the same lines, if i tell you that i have a pink pandabear in my basement that only i can see, feel, hear & smell; you're going to say it is possible, but extremely unlikely. why is this accepted, yet skepticism about religion is so often frowned upon?

Perhaps I will, but it is not often that a book about something this controversial strikes me as profound in any way. They tend to repeat the same rhetoric over and over again, perhaps with more compelling arguments, but I strongly doubt there is an argument compelling enough to change my stance on this.

as if you expected my arguments on this forum to persuade you?

no, obviously not.

we told you to read the book because it aptly reflects the way most modern atheists think (at least in rough lines, though we may differ in the details).