Religion

Now I agree that the whole religion holding science back thing is another bad subject to bring up. Religion has caused the scientific community a great deal of harm over the centuries but really we have the Dark Ages, an era dominated by a lack of knowledge entirely (with the Church actually representing the faction -preserving- past knowledge) to blame for any slow progress.

Moving on from that I disagree with any attempt to equate morality or conscience with religion. I believe the argument is a dishonest attempt to secure religion a place in the public arena.

Religion has never dictated morality, merely reflected the morality of the society in which it was developed. If by chance that morality can be brought to a less enlightened part of the world it should be celebrated. If however it lags behind the society in which it finds itself then it should be disgarded, remembered and not forgotten.

Religion is the assertion of knowledge without proof, peer review, or criticism.
Science is the search for knowledge already curtailed by the need for proof, peer review and criticism.

Science is already held in check by the morality and conscience of mankind, not of religion. Just as too often the evil deeds of evil people are blamed upon religion, the good actions of good people are too often attributed to religion.

Religion did not make people many years ago act the way they did. The way people acted many years ago made religion the way it is.

Religion is always going to be flawed. It's man, telling the rest of man what to do, with the threat of the wrath of a Divine Being. It's a form of crowd control, but we already know this.

The problem is now, is that too many people put too much emphasis on the Bible. Some Christians themselves take it to extremes, yet equally, Atheists attack certain parts of it fiercely. Both parties need to understand that the Bible is a book of it's time, yes, it condoned Slavery and condemned Gay Sex, but that's not due to the Religion itself. It's due to the Society which the Bible was written in. Educated minds wrote the Bible, yet compared to us, hundreds of years later, they had severely under developed senses of morality. They just used what they thought was common sense, and this echoed onto the Religious Teachings.

Slavery was a massive trade, why crush it? It was normal. So the Bible echoes that.

Gay Sex didn't reproduce, and spread unusual and new diseases, it was abnormal for the era. So the Bible echoes that.

Heck, the Bible tells Us not to eat Shellfish. You know why? Because it was unclean and disease ridden. Just plain common sense.

Yet that doesn't mean that hundreds of years later, in a far more developed world, we can't clean and prevent being harmed by Shellfish. That We, can't understand that Gay Sex is just as normal as Straight and that Slavery actually is highly immoral. We live in a different world, you can't compare the two. You cannot possibly pick up the Bible and live according to every regulation therein. Thus you can't criticise a Religion for something that is out of date, you can criticise the Followers that aren't intellectual enough to evolve and form their own opinions, but the Religious Text itself, isn't at fault.

Furthermore, the New Testament was written for audiences, certain Gospels were literally written to recruit or convince certain types of people, Gentiles for example. So for the love of God, don't take it too seriously.

Yet my main problem is that when people attack Theists, they're not really attacking them. They themselves can't truely deny the possibility of a Divine Being, but what they dislike and attack is the flaws of man made Religion. I think it's important that so called Atheists rethink what they believe, is it God they detest, or Religion? Nine times out of ten, it's Religion and mostly for the reasons above. They can't appreciate that Biblical Teachings are out of date, then again, so can't some Christians.

Quickly on the topic of Science, despite all the amazing things it has brought us, like the computer I am using this very second, it's still just as flawed and not at all the answer to every problem in the world, infact, it's the making of alot of them. Global Warming for example, the use of fossil fuels, is only really down to Science making uses for them and us becoming reliant on them as a Race. Cars for example. Religion didn't have anything to do with that, so where Eowale stated that Religion was the base of all Evil, think about the "scientists" who treat Animals with random chemicals so a new type of mascara can be released. (Note; I'm "Speciesist" popularized by Peter Singer and proud in some respects.) Furthermore, think about Carbon Emissions and Nuclear Warfare, Chemical Warfare and Weaponary beyond Swords. But I'm going off on a tangent.

I would like to finish on this note, Religion completely aside, think about this. How can anyone be so supremely ignorant, and arrogant, to truely one hundred percent, believe that there is absolutely no possibility that there could be a divine being of any sort beyond ourselves. I don't think anyone really can be, so in my eyes, everyone is agnostic. You can have Faith in something existing, but you can't have Faith in something not existing. Just because God, not that I would call this Divine Being "God", doesn't respond to prayers, or leaves the world with evil within it, means very little in the grand scheme of things. My "God", is everywhere, a lifeforce, not a conscious acting being. Religion might be flawed, but there is nothing flawed with your own personal interpretation on the spiritual world.

TD;LR- Religion is man made, thus flawed. Yet don't beat down on the Bible, it's out of date, deal with that. Beat down on the people that still take it's word as law and refuse to adapt and evolve the teachings with their evolved ethical minds.

Science is just as flawed and evil as Religion, just more modern.

That aside, everyone is an Agnostic, and Spirituality is the way to go.

While I agree with the statements there, Gene, I do like to take out one line:

Geneviève wrote:
Religion is the assertion of knowledge without proof, peer review, or criticism.

It almost sounds like a negative, perhaps intended, perhaps not. But this very argument has often been wielded by scientists as proof that religion is bullcrap.

To see such a thing as a negative, is, in my opinion, an error. Especially from a scientist, you'd expect there to be more respect for this. Because it is this very program, this ability to make decisions without proof, review or criticism that made us what we are, and is a fundamental building block in defining a whole lot of species. Without this, we probably never evolved into scientists.
An ant doesn't understand "short path". An ant doesn't understand a strategical search for food. It can't even see the food from a distance. It doesn't set out based on proof that there is food out there. Yet, by a simple program ... call it "faith" to make it more fun... it sets out to find things and as a community this system works. It's no different from the Human mind trying to solve a puzzle for which no theory exists.

Of course, this is a dangerous analogy. Such a comparison could, all too eagerly, be abused by any form of power trying to justify its dominion over subordinates. "Obedience will make this community work". But then again, history has proven two things:
1) Powers (political, religious, financial), indeed, tried to use faith to 'enslave' subordinates. I can't think of any state or culture that didn't have religion.
2) It worked. Despite all the contempt we may have for our history and the deplorable ways of the past... I dare say we ended up with a motherfucking big society.

Faith... A dangerous thing. It is perhaps not religion, but I do think "faith" is important to soldiers too. You could judge that better than me, perhaps, Gene so please do speak up on this. Is it not a degree of faith that makes a soldier fight for his country? Faith that he is doing the right thing? Faith that it will help his country and family at home, and indeed, all families at home? Faith that, should it ever come down to it, the self sacrifice of the individual may just save the community at home?

Nygarth wrote:That aside, everyone is an Agnostic, and Spirituality is the way to go.

Ahh yes.. I think that would apply to me at least.

Nygarth wrote:
Quickly on the topic of Science, despite all the amazing things it has brought us, like the computer I am using this very second, it's still just as flawed and not at all the answer to every problem in the world, infact, it's the making of alot of them. Global Warming for example, the use of fossil fuels, is only really down to Science making uses for them and us becoming reliant on them as a Race. Cars for example. Religion didn't have anything to do with that, so where Eowale stated that Religion was the base of all Evil, think about the "scientists" who treat Animals with random chemicals so a new type of mascara can be released. (Note; I'm "Speciesist" popularized by Peter Singer and proud in some respects.) Furthermore, think about Carbon Emissions and Nuclear Warfare, Chemical Warfare and Weaponary beyond Swords. But I'm going off on a tangent.

While science did provide the means for everything you just listed, it itself isn't at fault. Science provided us with the steam engine and further inventions that make use of fossil fuels but it was human greed that made us reliant on them.
It isn't science's fault that we use animals to test new types of mascara. Greed is once again to blame as there is profit to make.
Weapons provided by the advance of science? Blame greed for their widespread use.

Just as religion was (and still is) used to exploit others for personal gain, the fruits of science are used to exploit people even now. If there is profit or personal power to be had from exploiting something, people will exploit it.

Truly if there is evil in this world it lies in the heart of mankind

Both religion and science at their heart are pure and only meant for the betterment of mankind. It's the human nature that twists them to something that can be considered "bad" or "evil" or "corrupt".

I'm very pro-science myself. I believe Humanities only hope is to throw as much into scientific advancement as possible so we can spread ourselves out from this rock because it is almost mathematical certainty, that as long as we stay on one planet we are doomed. Too much happens in the Universe and eventually similar will happen to us, our Sun WILL die, an asteroid is very likely to hit our planet, hell even a planet sent wildly off orbit could come crashing into ours.

We then have the issues arising within our own planet, climate change, whether man made or natural is an almost certain doom for civilisation as we know it, and I don't think humans can survive without civilisation any more. Think that within a short time (Universe wise, not in our very short and pathetic sense of time) the poles are going to shift, North will become South and South will become North, this is usually accompanied by Earthquakes, Volcanoes ad other lovely natural disasters, we do not stand a chance of being here, on Earth forever.

So I am a big believer that science should be pursued at almost any cost, except one, and that is my belief that we should never actually lose our humanity, our compassion for each other and other species we share our planet with. Sadly we sometimes forget that one, and do things that I would consider against our Human values that are what IMO make it important we keep ourselves going.

Is Religion to blame for the ills of our world-wide society, not at all, have atrocities been committed in the name of religion? Yes. Has good been done because of religion? Yes. Would humanity be better had we never invented Gods and religion, not at all, we'd still be over developed Apes never even attempting to work out how to harness fire or create tools. It was that level of intelligence that caused us to want to know how things worked, with limited understanding it seemed like magic, as though it was done by a higher power, hence Gods came about. To our understanding then it made a lot more sense. With Gods came rituals to make sure they continued to do their work, in time these rituals became a religion.

Over time we have made God less needed in our understanding, slowly but surely what was considered miracles are easily explained and proven to be a simple matter of Chemistry, Physics or Biology (or mixtures of all three.) We've created our own magic at times, technology so seemingly advanced very, very few really know how it works, and sometimes even that's more because we know it does rather than knowing the complete how.

Does this mean that there is no God? Definitely not, anyone who can honestly sit there and say with 100% certainty that there is no God, is as crazed as the fanatics who believe the World was created a few thousand years ago in seven days and Man was made from dust and Women from a rib. All we can do is have our beliefs, whether you believe there is a God, and subscribe to a certain religion, no matter how seriously you take it. Or, like me, you believe there is little to no chance of a God and in time Science will explain everything IF we get the time to do so, and to get that time we need to make sure Humanity get's a lot, lot longer yet.

However I do not belittle people who have a religion, so long as they realise they have no more proof of theirs than I have my belief that a God is very unlikely. And no God would want us to kill each other, it would make no sense, so stop insulting him by using his name as a reason for violence. At the same time, Science won't mean a thing if we continue to treat it as a way to invent new and inventive ways to kill ourselves and each other.

After all this, I would like to say I believe humanity is screwed and only has less than a hundred generations left before our time is up. And it has nothing to do with Science or Religion, but the simple fact we spent far too long arguing over those things instead of actually trying to live.

Firstly, Nygarth.

I do think there are very many people at all who believe God does not exist as a positive assertion. I for example do not believe God exists, but that does mean I believe he doesn't exist. It's late and I'm probably explaining this poorly but here is an attempt.

If something is not symmetrical it is asymmetrical. The 'A' -prefix from the latin means 'without'.

Theism is broadly belief in a God or Gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in Gods.

However as JeanPierre says, most atheists would agree that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Therefore a prefix or suffix is nessecary.

Gnosticism/Agnosticism relates to claimed knowledge of something.

Therefore an Agnostic Atheist lacks belief in a God but maintains that it is impossible to know whether or not there is one. This is the catagory into which the majority of self described atheists and agnostics fall.

A gnostic atheist would believe that he knows there is no God.

A gnostic Theist that he knows there is a God.

An agnostic Theist that he believes in a God but does not know one exists.

In this regard I believe gnostic atheists and gnostic theists are equally irrational.

I don't beat on the Bible at all. That would be like burning Lord of the Rings because you don't believe in Sauron. Or don't like Sauron if you believe he's real. Or don't like the morality of hobbits putting their feet on the table at parties! *cough*

The Bible is an excellent piece of literature and very important historically and culturally. However, any claims that it is inerrant will recieve large amounts of criticism from me. And anyone who claims to derive their morality from the Bible some very stern questions.


As to you JP, I've already partly acknowledged our agreement regarding the 'bullcrap' thing. But I'm not sure which scientists you refer to, even Dawkins has made statements to the effect that he is an agnostic atheist.

My statement was meant negatively in that context. Proselytising religion as if it is fundamental and inarguable truth. I should also have stated in that post, and I hope I did in an earlier one, that my gripe is with organised religion, not individual faith in something greater. Indeed, any faith system based upon scripture. I've even argued with Satanists who in many regards have a written attempt at codifying my morality. But given history and the understanding I have that my own thinking is limited I am almost certain that in a few hundred years people will look back at todays society and my morality as primative, barbaric etc etc. I believe any attempt to codify morality is wrong because moral values do change as society progresses. There are always exceptions to attempted rules, lying to the Nazi's about hidden Jews is one of the classics. I beleive any attempt to codify morality is dangerous, especially when it is presented as the word of a greater power which somehow has the right to act immorally towards us just because it created us.

I tried to make my past threads clear that I don't judge all of religions contributions as bad. I'm very grateful to the Vatican as a political institution for it's contributions to Medieval society for example. There are other example I could give but it's unnessecary.

About soldiers and faith, not really what you asked exactly but I will get to your questions after a brief tangent. I promise.

I know very few Theists in the forces. Perhaps because age is such a limiting factor. I've never discussed religion with those higher than the rank of Major. And it's only above the rank of major that officers get old enough that it really makes a difference. In my platoon of fellow officer cadets I know only one Theist. That sounds shocking, it certainly was to me after we discussed it one evening a few years ago but I promise it is true. Soldiers, in my experiance, are slightly more theistic but still mostly atheist and of those who are theistic incredibly apathetic, religiously uneducated, and principally have never thought about it.

As it happens the one professing Theist is also one of my very best friends. Perhaps shockingly we share very similar politics. He's also not a wishy washy Theist at all. He knows scripture inside out, he knows what he believes and will argue it. We spend a lot of time on exercise on watch together, holding hands, staring at the stars and discussing the world and the universe. Covering everything, from day to day life, to politics, to religion. One thing we really disagree on is morality. We can really clash horns, and do so very quietly and intellecually whilst on watch. One of easiest disagreements to explain is homosexuality, which he holds to be repugnant and immoral whilst I live with two gay lads. Anyway, perhaps not nessecary but maybe interesting context and revealing a little more about me and my experiances.

Finally I get to your actual questions, JP. I did promise!

Soldiering does require a certain kind of faith. But I'd call it trust which I believe is usually a componant of the defenition of faith. We trust, hopefully justifiably in the man next to us. In our country. In the good intentions of the officers placed over us and of the politicians who ultimately command us and as out currency wonderfully puts it - Elizabeth Second, by the Grace of God, Queen and Defender of the Faith! *clears throat pompously before moving on* We have trust that it will help the country and our families, and indeed the country we are fighting in and it's people.

Maybe I place too much important on the disctinction between trust and faith but I do believe it's a great one.

I've waffled. It's late. I can't bear to proof read and edit right now. I welcome any further questions, requests for clarification, or criticisms. Or indeed downright mockery and ridicule. We are free to hold any belief we like but we have no right to expect that they be respected.

Chrystan wrote:
However I do not belittle people who have a religion, so long as they realise they have no more proof of theirs than I have my belief that a God is very unlikely. And no God would want us to kill each other, it would make no sense, so stop insulting him by using his name as a reason for violence. At the same time, Science won't mean a thing if we continue to treat it as a way to invent new and inventive ways to kill ourselves and each other.

Whilst I agree I thought I'd point out that by asserting that no God would want us to kill each other you are infact belittling certain people's religious beliefs and outright denying the existance of certain Gods which would make you a gnostic atheist. (100% believe a certain God does not exist)

Again I'll stress I do agree and that here I'm being a theological troll and pedantic. But one of the things with religion is you have to be incredibly careful. You may think you're conceding loads of ground and being really open minded and lovely and you couldn't possibly offend any reasonable person, what you're actually doing is exactly what you would do if you wanted to upset, insult, or ridicule certain people.

Anybody who believes a God would want them to do such things though is someone I'd WANT to offend and belittle to be fair, and I still have a belief that there is a chance (though minuscule and unlikely) that there is a God so I cannot be, as you say, a 100% atheist, because although I do not believe their God exists, i do believe a God could possibly exist....

Although yes I do see your point on that, and it;s more my bad wording than an actual point, probably better if I'd put "I do not believe any God would want us to....." But that's just pedantic finery ;-p

[quote="Geneviève"]

Chrystan wrote:
However I do not belittle people who have a religion, so long as they realise they have no more proof of theirs than I have my belief that a God is very unlikely. And no God would want us to kill each other, it would make no sense, so stop insulting him by using his name as a reason for violence. At the same time, Science won't mean a thing if we continue to treat it as a way to invent new and inventive ways to kill ourselves and each other.

Everyones an atheist, some are just a little more atheistic than others :3

I TOOK GOD AND THREW HIM ON THE GROOOOOOUUND
I'M NOT A PART OF THIS SYSTEM
I'M AND ADUUUUULT!

Gene, while I appreciate the analysis of the definitions of the terms I know
I misused, the point I was making by using the simple terms still stands. I still don't believe that anyone can be so arrogant as to completely dismiss the idea that there might be a minute chance that a Divine Being exists.

Ofcourse, you can still accept that and then choose not believe in It, but that would be a rather pointless action. You can sit there on your Atheist Highchair and bash God, bash Religion but you still can't deny the existence of a God 100% so be sensible, be logical, be agnostic.

Nygarth wrote:So be sensible, be logical, be agnostic.

Whatever you are selling, I'll buy it ._.

Even if there were a god, what would be the point of worshipping it?

In my humble opinion, religion has some harmful aspects. Religion is for a large part just a means of control. Religions monopolize the truth. Clergy tell you what is right and what is wrong, who is good and who is bad, who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. They tell you what food to eat, which clothes to wear, which opinions to vent, which customs to use. If you don't conform, you're basically fucked. Religion is a human invention, and because of that it's flawed and misused. Because, let's face it, human beings are nasty critters. God is just another excuse down a long line of excuses for human beings to kill each other.

Moreover, attributing the mysteries of existence to a god is just an easy solution. The concept of god is another way of saying "I haven't got the slightest clue and don't want to find out, so here's a bearded guy on a cloud who POOFED things into existence and we won't discuss it further". If things, how inexplicable they may be, get attributed to a god, you're basically making them nonnegotiable.

Geneviève wrote:Moving on from that I disagree with any attempt to equate morality or conscience with religion. I believe the argument is a dishonest attempt to secure religion a place in the public arena.

Religion has never dictated morality, merely reflected the morality of the society in which it was developed. If by chance that morality can be brought to a less enlightened part of the world it should be celebrated. If however it lags behind the society in which it finds itself then it should be disgarded, remembered and not forgotten.

Well, yes, you see the problem I have with this argument is that it is a direct negation of religion as a God inspired or divine given doctrine. This argument presumes that the religious doctrine is wholly based on societal norms and developments at the time it was written down. In other words, it is a complete negation of the possiblity any moral doctrine is divinely inspired. That's not an argument, that's just a negation. Dont get me wrong, this is a fine strategy and completely rational if you've already discarded the possiblity of divinely inspired doctrines in the first place, but it is not a way to convince someone who does otherwise. It is simple "Nuh-huh" to a "Uh-huh".

That doesn't mean I believe that the Bible is the direct word from God. It is still very much the word of God as interpeted by prophets and man. That much is obvious from the various arguments presented by people in this thread. The question remains though whether you believe in the possibility of Revalatory truth; that is, knowledge that is verified directly trough God and not a rational investigation. One can thing of a well known trichotomy of knowledge often thrown around:

• Rational / logical (deductional) knowledge
  
• Sensory / experiental (inductive) knowledge
  
• Revelatory knowledge

It seems most posters in this have already negated the possiblity of the third type of knowledge. This kind of makes any further debate on a significant level impossible, since you negate a claim that is essential for any religious sort of argument. As I said, its a simple back and forth "Nuh-huh" and "Uh-huh".

"Revelatory knowledge", just so I understand this right, is it the "An angel revealed himself to me" kind of thing?

Kristeas Sunbinder wrote:"Revelatory knowledge", just so I understand this right, is it the "An angel revealed himself to me" kind of thing?

That would be the symbolic / metaphorical way of putting it, yes.

Thelos wrote:

Kristeas Sunbinder wrote:"Revelatory knowledge", just so I understand this right, is it the "An angel revealed himself to me" kind of thing?

That would be the symbolic / metaphorical way of putting it, yes.

Isn't that a bit like the knowledge of the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, Elvis being alive and Aliens (disregarding what some consider photographical evidence). Out of the three kinds of knowledge, isn't this the worst one to use if you want to convince someone?
For the record, I believe roughly, equally much in each of those and a god.

Kristeas Sunbinder wrote: Out of the three kinds of knowledge, isn't this the worst one to use if you want to convince someone?
For the record, I believe roughly, equally much in each of those and a god.

Yes, it definately is. Even so, it is distinctly and troughoughly religious. I for one believe that any attempt to explain what is known trough revelatory knowledge trough one of the other two types is a hopeless endeavor, though I know there are many who disagree with me. St. Tomas of Aquino for example saw it as his holy mission to rationally explain the truth of Revelation trough philosophy. It would have been the ultimate triumph of Christianity (or any other religion, though as you might already be able to tell I am less familiar with those), if he had succeeded.

What can I really say about this matter? People believe in the lessons of the Bible not because it is rooted in rationally traceable evidence, but because in their heart they accept it as enlightened words given to us by God. God's gift to mankind, His mercy, what have you not. Though as I said I personally do not believe the Bible to be the word of God, but rather that of humans; I have not quite figured out for myself whether I will accept if said humans were divinely inspired though. I'll have to get back to you on that one. I am reminded of Tomas again in this, who made the distinction between:

• Eternal Law: or, His Providence, His plan and design,
  
• Natural Law: Said Providence as interpeted and deducable and therefore appliable by Humans,
  
• Human Law: The actual written laws in different states and societies, as written down by Humans,
  
• Divine Law: The truth of Revelation as directly granted to those Humans who would accept it.

The problem I have with all of this though is that said Divine Law depends on a very Christian idea of a God that has a very personal connection to each and every individual. I'm reminded of Corinthians 6:19.

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

This has always been a Christian axiom I have had tremendous difficulties with, and I know that I am not the only one. The whole "direct and personal line with God", and the whole tradition of directly praying and trying to commune with him, asking for His favor and whatnot all seems a bit sketcy to me. "God, are you here; its me, Jesus". If anyone is scratching their heads right now trying to figure out what my personal beliefs are, I guess you could say I am somewhat of a Spinozist or Pantheist, or something closer to the Stoics, in which one does not believe in a specific antromorphic god but rather in a certain cosmic order that may or not be benevolent (that is where faith in Its benevolence starts getting tricky). In this view, the entire idea of God talking or communing with Humans is inherently absurd, since we are part of Him. He shows his thoughts and intentions trough the laws of nature and more importantly the laws of Logic. If we know those fully, Hawkins once said, we will know the mind of God.

Now I'll cut myself short before I start rambling like Genevieve

I would agree with you, Thelos, that the argument requires that the existance of a God has not yet been proven. However, in the absense of proof a neutral position has to be maintained. The neutral position surely has to be non existance, innocence, incorrect etc.

Without a divine source of inspiration inspiration there can be no revelation.

To assume the latter exists, the former must first be proven. Unless we're heading into the messy businss of compounded assumptions. Which can lead very quickly to circular logic.

Divine Being > Divine Revelation > Inspired Scripture > Divine being.

Geneviève wrote:
To assume the latter exists, the former must first be proven. Unless we're heading into the messy businss of compounded assumptions. Which can lead very quickly to circular logic.

Divine Being > Divine Revelation > Inspired Scripture > Divine being.

Circular Logic isn't all that bad in some cases. Certainly not the insufferable intellectual sin it is sometimes made out to be. As long as you think hollisticly and have a more coherency based truth ideal that is. In this case, you either accept the entire circle, or reject it completely. That is to say, there either is a Divine Being, and a Divine Revelation, and Inpsired Scripture, and a Divine Being, or none of the above.

I don't see why proof is brought into this to begin with, since for many people such is quite obvious in many ways. The existence of life on this specific planet for example, positioned the way it is in this specific solar system, which in turn is positioned in this specific location in the galaxy, is for those people evidence enough. There would be no life on Earth, never mind intelligent life, if any of the above parameters were to be changed even in the slightest. This absolute precision, which is encountered in many others things such as the efficiency of the human body in many ways, can for them be no coincidence.

Thus, while some people define proof as the descend of a divine, winged entity from the skies, others see evidence all around them on a daily basis and some of those aren't even religious.

I'm not sure what you mean Mandui. We weren't really talking about proof for anything. In fact I was making a meta-comment about the nature of the discussion without saying anything ontological about the excistence or non-excistence of any gods. My entire point was that said discussion would be a meaningless back-and-forth between the Theists and Atheists, since one cannot properly explain that is known trough Revelation trough any other means.

Indeed, it is quite obvious to some, and not at all obvious to others, which makes it such a tricky debate, since both sides appear completely alien to the other.

Isn't that the joy of it though? The never ending debate.

To note though, Revelation is something I believe in. Yet even that is something that is dictated by Society. For example, where Bernadette in Lourdes saw a vision of the Virgin Mary, the same vision could appear to an Indian man who would see a different deity. Who is right? I'd say both.

Revelation itself, is entirely and solely personal which is why Thelos, yes it's really obvious to some and oblivious to others.

The only reason why I ever lashed out towards Religion is because my hatred for fanatics. The sort of fanatics that claims "If you don't do this and that, you'll get sent to Hell!", and me saying that Im skeptic makes me a horrible person. If I was a horrible person and God hates me for it, why am I not feeling like utter shit and why havn't I been smiten by God's holy wrath? Deism could be one thing. God created us then left us to handle ourselves, I think it was. Or, as I discussed during Religion class, that "God" was a bunch of highly intelligent beings from space, who created the Earth and us as an experiment and somewhere it went wrong at some point, so they left their failed experiment to its doom. Or, that Heaven and Hell are two alternative dimensions that your "soul" or whatever traveled to after death. Or, as my girlfriend put it (who's stuck in Skyrim), that there's small, invisible dragons flying around and breathing life into everything.

This is the sort of fanatics;


Also, on off-topic note, RIP Freddie Mercury. 20 years since his death.