Despite much anticipation, Hosni Mubarak has disappointed protesters and news reporters alike who projected an announcement that he would step down today.

It seems to me, however, that he is finally beginning to crack at the pressure of the protesters, as today's speech appeared less composed and more divisive than the speeches leading up to this point, even though it addressed no actual differences in policy and announced no significant differences in government.

How do you think his downfall will play out? Will he play it out until the end of his term? Will there be a military coup? Will the region be thrown into a state of disarray? What do you think?

He will be killed by someone close to him. The world will (pretend to) be stunned and a group of Egypt's finest and brightest will draft a new constitution that will include term limits and give the people of Egypt more freedom.

In other words, they will be a 'more perfect' country.

I'm afraid the country will fall prey to islamic theocracy. That end result unfortunately is worse than Mubarak.

I'm sure he'd have fallen earlier (by outside forces) if Egypt had vast oil fields.

That's democracy for you. Anyone can stand for election and the one with the most votes wins.

Islamic theocracy is ok, if that is what they truly want, provided that they don't attack any other countries after that.

Common misunderstanding. Free elections are just one of the principles of democracy, and it's not even the core idea. The core idea, as the German constitution puts it, is that "all power comes from the people". Which is pretty hard to get right, and I don't think any such society exists currently. The goal is to create a situation where all the various minorities can live alongside each other peacefully, with each citizen equally entitled to a significant say in public affairs. It's about balancing fundamental rights against one another (my freedom of speech against your right of not being verbally attacked; my right to material property against my unemployed neighbor's right to basic healthcare; my right to own and use a car against future generations' right to a healthy environment; and so on).

In fact, as soon as there's a real majority, democracy is dead, because once such a majority has established itself, the rest of the population are just spectators without any real power.

Here's a few things that are needed to create a functional democracy:

• Freedom of speech and information. Without sufficient information, there is no way a population can exercise their democratic rights in any meaningful way.

• Public discussion. Just putting everything to a vote doesn't work. The best way is to reach a consensus wherever possible, and compromise on the rest. This can't be done without discussion, and it can't be done by representatives alone.

• Protection of minorities. If a majority situation cannot be avoided, special care needs to taken to allow the remaining minorities to participate in political processes.

• Separation of religion and state. Religion is based on faith and personal beliefs, it has no place in public affairs. If you think something should be done in a certain way, use arguments based on facts, or state it as your personal opinion, but using religion (any religion) as an argument is always wrong, and organized religions tend to indoctrinate people and give them an excuse not to think for themselves. The reverse, however, is important: Respect each others' beliefs.

• A culture of open-mindedness and mutual respect. You can't have a democracy without democrats; people have to value democracy higher than their own individual opinions.

• Education. Without sufficient education, people just aren't able to make well-informed decisions, or support their opinions in public discussion.

In other words, free elections alone don't make a democracy.

There have been several attempts to assassinate Mubarak over his 30 year reign. And that VP that he has "given" power to was somebody who prevented one of those assassinations in the past.

Has something happened recently or has the tension of the people against Mubarak been growing for a while? I know the revolution in Tunesia triggered events here, but I wasn't sure if there were recent actions of the government that offended the people.

He stepped down and left his duties to the military. Or at least that's what's all over TV now.

I don't think he stepped down. Even if he does he will run the puppet government.

As for a military coup, the media report they are supporting him, so that's not going to happen.

I've heard from the news that he's moved to Sinai peninsula and eventhough he's granted his powers to the vicepresident, he still has them too. What is more important he can revoke vicepresident's powers at will. Long story short, he still has a power.

EDIT: well, strike my last. Turns out you were right. All in all you're closer to Egypt than I am

Or the western exploitation

Append:

I wish it was understood in Israel..

Whatever happens, I blame Obama.

BAF you know if Matthew finds out you hacked his account you're in for some serious trouble

He hacking it long time ago, and accesses it just for promoting this statement here and there.

If he did hack it, I blame Obama.

I believe egypt will fall in chaos when Mubarak has gone. And on top of this the war with israel will be inflamed again.

The main problem with Israel is that they never stopped to invade the country around them. I don't know the problems with Egypt, but I can say with no regrets that if ever a neighbor country was to take a part of France I would send the rockets too.

It's a strange thing because when our German comrades wanted to annexe France it was a world war for saving France and Jews community.

Now Israel, the Jew country by excellence, is doing the same thing that they had to bear a few 40 years ago no one tells them it's bad.

Please note that I'm not antisemitic type of guy, nor the nazi one. I just can't understand.

And I can't understand it from the start. I would love to hear anyone from any country telling me that they would leave and give their own country to some guys just because they come with a religious book who tells it was their sacred town.

And I'm still asking myself if I should have posted all that.

Was it okay when the Jews had to leave Israel because they got conquered by Rome? And then was it okay when the Romans had to leave? And so on and so fourth until the palestinians are told to leave by their British conquerors.

If you answer that with yes then you should have no problem accepting that it is okay for them to leave because Israel is in control.
If you answer that with a no then you should understand that it is definitely much more complicated than how you put it.

If religions did not exist, there wouldn't be so many huge problems like this. The west supports all those dictators in the middle east because the west fears the spread of Islamic theocracy and an attack to Israel. Everyone thinks their religion is the correct one and wants to shut the other guy down because of that. What a pity for the human race.

If religions did not exist we would just be fighting over something else. (I'm atheist by the way)

No other thing causes such a hostility and division between people like religions do.

Then there wouldn't be Jews, nor Muslims.. And existence of first makes a lot of problems to themselves and often to those surround them. Same with the second, but they've their own lands. Although their expansion also makes problems, but oh well..

{"name":"603362","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/2\/32bcf9eb61027319a558e6ad8b5cd222.jpg","w":604,"h":451,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/2\/32bcf9eb61027319a558e6ad8b5cd222"}

Religion has always existed and will keep on doing so.
Reasons

>cough< nationalism >cough<

Ought to agree with Freud & Marx: religion is a mass neurosis reflecting reality.

Not really like religion.

But it's been very divisive in the past.

Usually with the aid of religion

Occasionally by using religion.

Implicit in any monotheistic religion is the principle that "since we are right, everyone else must be wrong" (and the latter, while bad in itself, usually leads to "and so they must be converted/conquered"). So yes, it is indeed divisive in nature.

What about Judaism? Quite a few of their laws are about staying separate from other cultures. There's no real drive to convert people. And I don't know of any attempts to conquer people (take territory, perhaps, but not conquer the people).

EDIT:

I'm not trying to say that religion never causes problems. I'm just annoyed by the mindset of blaming religion for all the world's problems.

Two secular nations have never gone to war against each other.

Does such a thing even exist?

Yes.

And nobody kills each other over fútbol matches either.

I've never seen any hostility between people regarding women.

Damn religion.

Name two

Bah, religion was a lot more divisive. Nations are a recent historical development.

Maybe you should stop living in the past.

You, being smart people, are forgetting that most of the people are somewhat dumb, and those dumb people need religion to survive the practical joke of cosmic scale that is life. There isn't or haven't been one secular country where the people aren't miserable or secretly practicing religion.

When I read the part of a practical joke I swiftly imagined anyone responsible for that joke saying: bazinga!

Ah no. Religion and ethnicity are a common excuse for hostility, but it all comes down to an "us and them" situation where one group suppresses the other. As long as religion remains what it is supposed to be - a very personal way of dealing with Life, the Universe, and Everything - and people respect each other and each others' beliefs, nothing bad happens. Only when religion is taken as an excuse for suppression, or as a distinguishing feature that determines whether someone can or cannot do something, in other words, when there is discrimination, only then will things blow up.

You can have a secular country full of people practicing all sorts of religions quite openly; you just need to make sure religion and politics are never mixed up, so that belonging to a religious group does not give anyone any material advantages or political power.

Once one is in heaven he will be very glad and thankful to the religion which brought him there. Because it must be far beyond our imagination.

You can't change material world. It is a criminal place. It has it's fun,too. But after all it is not really desirable to stay there forever. Think of it like a travel in a train. It is useless to worry about the circumstances in the train. Most important is were you come to. That should be heaven. And from all the five world religions Hinduism has the best advice to go there.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

I don't know of any society in history that didn't have discrimination based on religion. Even today, we (westerners) consider islamists inferior, for example.

The point is that without religion, there is one less strong factor for discrimination.

Speak for yourself. I love riding on the train. Choo choo!

The train is all about the journey, not the destination. If you want to get to some place with no fuss and fast, take a plane.

Hey, look, a religion thread.

Religion is used for discrimination because we as humans love to discriminate and it's the easiest way to do so. If you honestly and sincerely think discrimination would end or even tone down with the elimination of religion, you are clearly smoking the good stuff.

But axilmar's been told this before. Let me know when your forehead earns a crack in that brick wall.

I assume by "you", you mean "everyone in this thread who is an atheist"?

This is also implicit in every opinion, ever. Some people take it to greater or lesser extents.

Now I better leave before my smiley count reaches critical mass ...

Thanks for correcting yourself.

EDIT: Let me elaborate.

It's fine to remember that some war was started as a religious thing, or somebody died because of a religious zealot. What's not ok is to say religion is bad because Xhundred years ago there was a war about it. If you stole an Apple in 1st grade from your teachers desk, would it be fair to be subjected to full body scans and strip searches for the rest of your life every time you entered and exited a building? Because that's the same mentality "religion haters" use. Am I to blame for some medieval war because I practice a religion (in a completely different way) with the same label as those people? You can't stereotype like that, sorry.

Yes. You and Obama.

Ok, maybe for THAT war, but not the others...

(Blah blah logical arguments blah blah that your mind won't let in blah)

And there you have it. An atheist trying to start wars. OMG that's unpossible!

(he edited his post about how religion is UNACCEPTABLE)

Stop believing things that I don't believe in!

No! You stop not believing in things I do believe in!

Why don't you two just stop believing things in general.

Don't believe anything.

<Dont take me seriously I dont actually mean that>

Just because people use religious beliefs to justify their actions, does not make their beliefs any less valid. It makes the people that are misusing the beliefs bad.
That is, unless the belief system makes it okay to kill an innocent person (like a non-believer). Christianity doesn't justify killing innocent people... Islam on the other hand....

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. You could accurately say Jesus didn't kill anyone, but Muhammad did.

Other than that, the labels are really irrelevant. Religious groups under many names (including Christianity and Islam) have (and still do) kill people due to primarily religious intolerance. You can argue till you're blue in the face about what a "true" follower of Religion X is, but that really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Anyway, as I've said many times, evil people will use whatever means they can to do evil things. If religion is useful to them, they will use it. It's just another way of classifying us vs them.

Get rid of religion, and you still have to get rid of social classes, wealth, race, nations, property, possessions, etc if you want to get rid of war.

Bye bye bye Mr. Barrack.

It's more a mix between both, but anyway it's beyond my knowledge.

Now this is the problem with the western mindset. Those really fanatic Islamists see all infidels as legitimate targets and definitely not as innocent people. On the other hand westerner looks at all these infidels as people with different view on the world and therefore innocent, because you have a right to have a different beliefs.

And don't forget that in the past killing of innocent people in the name of Christianity took place. Not only during the crusades, but for example after the 30 years war in Europe, where Christians were killing and persecuting Christians just because they happened to be in other than Catholic church. Ahem...

<quote>
Am I to blame for some medieval war because I practice a religion (in a completely different way) with the same label as those people? You can't stereotype like that, sorry.
<quote>

Of course not. On the other hand, religions are used as tools to manipulate people, at all levels.

One big freakin' excuse will not exist then. Which would automatically meant that Jews, Arabs and Indians would need to find another excuse.

This is pretty significant in my book.

Which will take ten minutes, tops. Meet the new excuse, same as the old excuse.

Religions are problematic primarily because they require followers to not question them (i.e., to not think). I could go on about how that in itself is contradicting, but blah blah logical arguments blah blah.

The point is that people that aren't allowed to think need somebody to think for them. As we all know, power corrupts. Once you have people thinking for a group of others they inevitably will abuse their power, whether consciously or subconsciously. Think about it: when everybody looks to you for answers you actually begin to think that you have them, even when you don't. Pretty soon the followers believe the leaders' own personal beliefs. After all, they're not allowed to think and are powerless to question them. At the same time, the leaders can't really admit that they don't know what they're talking about: they would lose their power over the group, and besides they too aren't really allowed to question the religion.

That's what's fundamentally wrong with religion. People aren't allowed to think for themselves and so you end up with an army of mindless drones. It doesn't have to be that way and it shouldn't be that way. The most problematic religions disallow their followers from thinking.

Blah blah logical arguments blah blah.

complicated solution: make games and hope that eventually the craving for material possessions and power and all that crap will shift towards virtual worlds entirely, so all future conflicts will be purely simulated and nobody gets hurt... maybe we could even build a giant machine, where each human being only gets the bare minimum of nutrients injected necessary to survive and stimulate their brains with just enough pleasantries for them to be happy and satisfied

simple solution: blow up the whole planet (ok, admittedly that's easier said than done, since we have no hope of acquiring the materials needed for an explosion of that scale so why don't we each just try to blow up as many people as we can to make a start, oh wait, I guess they are already doing that all over the world so at least someone is already working on the solution (which is to just kill everyone))

alternate solution: just go about your own life without intentionally harming anyone else, acquire whatever you want, help those who need help and tell everyone else to do the same (and kill everyone who doesn't want to submit to this way of life )

Summing it all up: blah

I love people that start off their posts with false presuppositions, and everything else is an extrapolation of the bullshit. Just off the top of my head:

There's more like that, but I don't care enough to hunt them, mostly because I know my audience. You can argue away, but clearly we are, if nothing else, not "required" to not think. But then, we've already established that you've never read a page of a single holy book, so you may choose to be a little less eager to showcase your ignorance. Blah blah factual information blah blah ...

I just want to add: I had not seen bamccaigs last post while I was still writing mine. It is pure coincidence that there is a "blah" in my summary and that there are so many "blah"s in his post. My "blah" is not meant to express any form of agreement with whatever it is he wrote. Just in case you were wondering. Now where did I put this bomb...

BLAH!

Right. They never fight over territory.

I don't think there's anybody here who would support blind or fanatical religion.

Each religion definitely has its non-negotiable parts (else it wouldn't be anything), but outside of that, your statement is not categorical true. Don't babble on about your insignificant personal experience; it's not our fault that everybody you know is lame.

While it's true that some religious groups (or jobs, the military, etc) operate under the "do-what-I-say-without-question" banner, many "religious" people are individuals who ask questions and seek the truth just as much as any atheist. Just because they came to different answer than you doesn't mean they were somehow tricked into it.

Also, bamccaig, you can count me as living proof that religion does not require people to not think. I think often about religion. So often that I'm taking religious studies as my minor. I'm always thinking about how new information effects my religious beliefs.

The fact that this behavior was not only allowed, but encouraged at my church probably had a part in me accepting Christianity in the first place.

Pretty much anything a human being thinks is based on at least a few presuppositions, honestly. But we all have double standards in that regard and don't even see the blinders we wear when looking at our own core values and opinions. That's why posts like bam-bam's are so amusing.

It's probably not clear from my post, but I don't mean that you cannot question the "non-negotiable parts." If you do question them and find out that you don't agree with them, then you leave the religion.

I simply meant that obviously each religion has its core set of beliefs that everybody agrees with. But that doesn't imply that they have given no thought to them.

Or they suddenly realize they fought over nothing.

Their territorial dispute has a religious basis.

Do they really seek the truth? I don't know. They seek comfort, someone to hold their hand in the rainy days. Not the truth.

The thought they have given to them is guided by misconceptions, their own ignorance and many logical fallacies.

If I have the opinion that toast is great, that doesn't preclude me from thinking that bagels are also great. Neither does it mean that I think that people who don't like toast are wrong - after all, it's just an opinion.
When it comes to religion, however, that opinion is supposed to be an objective truth. And with monotheism, the only truth.
Toast is great, that's objective reality^[1]. Furthermore, toast is the only great bread product. People who enjoy non-toasted bread, bagels and scones are infidels.

Well, most major religions require "faith", which is defined as "belief that is not based on proof". The whole point is to go on believing no matter what. So despite it being bamccaig, he has a point.

A shame that this can't be tested, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree. A lot of my studies in the last two years have been into human nature in general, and the idea that human would never find something to fight over is insane to me. Hell, I just finished listening to a lecture measuring value systems and how they respond to different situations or interactions with other value systems. Lots of fighting? Naturally. Religion a factor? Of course. Lots of other equally violence-inducing causes? You bet your ass. Welcome to the planet, I guess.

Didn't you just say you didn't know? I think I might know better than you what I pursue, and it ain't comfort, chuckles.

That's one definition, but not the one encouraged by a lot of religions (despite what the atheists constantly assert). Lots of religious leaders, maybe ...

It might preclude you from thinking that plain bread is great. And as an aside, people who like ketchup on macaroni are just wrong, dammit! On the flip side, I know quite a few people who hold great respect for the teachings of various religions. Jesus, Buddha, Abraham, etc. If religion requires them to only believe in one truth, where do they fit into your theory? Is it possible that people can just have an opinion and that extremists can be found in any random group of humans?

Anyway, I'm bored at work; being between projects sucks. Time to go home soon ...

No test is required. There is plenty of evidence.

So, what is it?

Er, what? You have evidence that without religion, humans wouldn't keep fighting with equal fervour over some other excuse? Can I see how you would even attempt to prove that? How many religions even encourage the deaths of non-believers, anyway?

Truth, for openers. I stopped being an atheist after 24 years quite logically, thank you, even if you can't conceive why. Listening to you and bam and every other ignorant atheist lecture me on my beliefs and reasons over the last decade has been rather entertaining though.

/hears the bell

YYYYYYYYYYABBA-DABBA-DOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

/slides down the tail

What caused you to become a Christian, as, say, opposed to an agnostic or other religion?

What are the "benifits" (I guess)?

No, evidence for religions being a product of man's imagination.

Why do you feel that? I am not lecturing you on anything.

And why do you call us ignorant? how do you know we are so? if you know something we don't know, please share it with us. I'd like to be enlightened.

So, the reason you search for the Truth is ...Truth?

May I ask why do you seek Truth in religion?

The disconnect between question and answer is comical.

{"name":"Spaghetti_Monster.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/6\/36cc48784835c1fae159ef3c1eb5a22a.jpg","w":792,"h":612,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/6\/36cc48784835c1fae159ef3c1eb5a22a"}
'nuff said.

Or "complete confidence in a person or plan".

People who define faith as "belief that is not based on proof" are, in my experience, overwhelmingly non-religious. One could almost say that your belief in that definition is not based on proof.

I compliment your faith in your definition of faith.

Yeah, um, are we having the same conversation anymore, axilmar? O_o I repeat; remove religion and people would find a new excuse to fight. Because that's all religion is in these wars; a convenient, easy excuse. Remove it and the next most easy and convenient excuse will fill the void. It's called human nature.

I know what I think, which is what you're "lecturing" on. A comment like "They seek comfort" or "people aren't allowed to think for themselves" is inherently insulting to anyone for whom it isn't true, and I can speak with full authority on that being the case for me in particular. I know tons of atheists who disprove what you guys say atheists think all the time, but you don't see me telling you what you think. At least I don't believe I do. If I have, can someone point it out? Sarcasm doesn't count.

Is there a reason why I would automatically choose not to seek truth in any given location? That would be an excellent way to deny oneself insight, if one were trying to do that ...

Um ... free dental? Donuts on Fridays? "Avandra's Rescue" once an encounter? I'm not sure what you mean by "benefits" ...

{"name":"picard-facepalm.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/5\/256b6a8ff2b0c0edd797ae9391a8ae8a.jpg","w":700,"h":528,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/5\/256b6a8ff2b0c0edd797ae9391a8ae8a"}

Atheists don't gather every week to synchronize their beliefs (generally to a religious leader, as you so cautiously emphasized earlier). It's not in the least bit relevant. If there are any Christians or Muslims that intentionally and consciously don't attend these meetings and keep their beliefs entirely personal then let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

Neil Black's definition is the correct one. It's also the first one, not the one you feel like picking to conform to your own beliefs. Sorry.

Which makes it all the more amusing when they talk like they do. You're not paying attention to the spectacle, are you?

I'm a Christian, and I don't go to church. Going to church just makes you a church goer, which is not the same thing, not that there's anything wrong with going to church, and it doesn't mean that you're automatically fake either.

While we're on the topic of religion :

1) Neil Roy, the quote in your signature is out of context, and just plain wrong.

All it means is that you can't go back to heaven if you didn't come from there in the first place. Ergo, we all came from heaven to begin with.

2) The FSM is an abomination, and a mockery of all religion. Have some respect. You don't see me saying all the atheists are going to Hell, do you? Well, you might be, but that's up to God to decide. You all might as well get on his good side while you can.

Something based on fact isn't confidence. It's knowledge. Confidence seems to dictate a belief that is not based on proof.

According to dictionary.reference.com at the time of writing:

Confidence is defined as "belief in the powers, trustworthiness, or reliability of a person or thing". Belief is defined as "something believed; an opinion or conviction" (i.e., not factual). Conviction is defined as "a fixed or firm belief" (i.e., a closed mind).

This thread is beginning to remind me of a pet peeve. People that redefine words on the fly to support their beliefs or motives...

With all due respect, I would offer that that is a practical impossibility. Simple cause and effect; people don't think things for no reason. If they have real confidence in something, it's because they have a reason to. Maybe you'd like to interpret the definition as such, but that seems a little too academic. In reality, if someone has confidence in something, that confidence is based on something. If it weren't, they wouldn't have it. Is this not self-evident? Nothing you posted contradicts this, though you seem to be trying hard to make it ... and then complain that other people redefine words ...

It originated as a backlash against forcing "creation science" in the classroom. Have some respect.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

[EDIT]

It's similar to kissing Hank's ass

I, for one, think the FSM is hilarious. May he touch you with his noodly* appendage.

_{* One of the suggested "correct" spellings for noodly was "ungodly"... is that irony?}

Even if it was the misguided kind of so called 'creation science' that says the Earth is only 6000 years old, that's no reason to mock all religion together.

I will never have respect for blatant blasphemy. Why you would give respect to a mockery of all religion I don't know.

That's what I tell people when they ask me if I want a Coca Cola instead of a proper Pepsi Cola.

I just finished a Wild Cherry Pepsi. Coincidence? I think not.

Whats your opinion on Scientology? Note lots of powerful people seem to believe in it, and would strike you down should you say its a mockery or blaspheme.

I think it's a bunch of hooey. Hocus pokus. Malarkey. Gibberish. Sue me.

God wins in the end. I'm on his side. I'm not worried. The kooks can believe whatever they want to.

And a few million Muslims say the same about Allah.

We'll all find out who's right soon enough.

In my version, nobody finds out anything, much like I don't remember before I was born.

Uhhh... Happy nothingness then. Or something.

A happy now, while I'm still alive, since I don't have to follow a bunch of arbitrary rules about how my food was prepared, etc.

But then there's Leviticus chapter 11, which says which animals are clean to eat and are unclean to eat. I don't think there's much in the way of preparing food except not to drink blood.

Anyway, while you're still around, would you mind doing me a favor and testing out my latest Clipboard for Linux (instructions , latest source)? I'll even give you a Pepsi.
{"name":"46491-PepsiL.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/d\/6d2473131d20db534cc5d618159aabc6.jpg","w":300,"h":350,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/d\/6d2473131d20db534cc5d618159aabc6"}

I'm full of respect for people in search of explanations. However, any such explanation that trivially violates elementary logic deserves the fullest possible load of mockery, especially when it willingly and knowingly denies observable facts, like the Creationist movement the FSM was originally targeted at.

The FSM does not mock all religion, only the naive kind that is so ridiculously wrong that it can be mocked this way. It is a parody, designed to demonstrate the rhetoric and argumentative devices employed in organized religions; if this hurts your religious feelings, then chances are your religion does the same thing.

So, go ahead and mock my Atheism if you can. Don't worry, I can take it.

That's exactly how I think about pretty much every single naive theist religion ever invented.

On the whole faith discussion:
It doesn't matter how exactly you define the word "faith", but in my world, there is no way we can ever know anything for sure. Scientific method is the next best thing; it strives to explain as much of the world as possible with the smallest possible set of assumptions, and it has come a long way.
When we use the word "faith" in the context of spirituality and religion, we are usually talking about a belief that is not backed by scientific methods. There is nothing wrong with this, unless such the particular belief is provably false. There are countless examples of logical fallacies in religion, I won't go into this. Look them up yourself if you're interested.

Rolly eyes?
I'm not going to believe in a certain religion just because 'powerful' or 'popular' people do.

Good luck getting real psychological help from Scientology, Thomas.

Here's what I think about Scientology from a biblical perspective :

I never suggested that. I think you missed the point entirely.

All in IMHO

Religion sucks because it is about someone else's experience of gOd/union with the universe.

Really all that matters is one own experience or not of gOd.

Though most spiritual/mystical texts/traditions seem to agree at their core that the ultimate truth is that each and every one of us is our own gOd of our own universe.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. 23 Skidoo. And other such pontifications, and masonic illuminati sigils and signs.

Yes, I think I did. What was your point?

It doesn't just offend me, but I would say it offends God as well. He took the time to write his word so we would have a guide how to live in the flesh, and you spit on it by equating God with an abomination. God treats idol worship as if it were adultery. You want to cheat on God with your mistress the FSM and hurt his feelings, that's your choice. God divorced Israel, he might divorce you too.

If I was you, I would apologize to Him.

Based on elementary logic, it can be concluded that a God, as depicted in the Bible, cannot exist. An omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being that is also man-like and requires prayer and worship is logically impossible. Without Him, the world is just as explainable as with Him, but with fewer contradictions, so empirically speaking, the evidence is against Him. This is in no way meant to be offensive.

In case you find my picture offensive; guess what, I find pictures of Christian symbols offensive at times.

You cannot use Bible quotes as evidence unless you first prove all of the following:

• God exists

• God wrote the Bible (or He dictated it, and the humans writing it down did not make any mistakes)

• God did not make any mistakes while writing (or dictating) the Bible

• God was being completely honest with us while writing the Bible; He only put "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" in it

Unfortunately, the only evidence you produce for God's existence comes from the Bible, so we're kind of arguing in circles here:
You: "God exists"
Me: "How do you know?"
You: "It's in the Bible."
Me: "How do you know what the Bible says is true?"
You: "God wrote it."
(rinse & repeat)

Also, please note:

• I am not trying to convert anyone to any form of belief or disbelief. If you want to believe in God, fine with me. But you cannot use the contents of your religion as arguments in a discussion without backing them with real evidence.

• The Pastafari Church was designed as a silly, yet perfectly valid religion. The goal was to force the Kansas authorities to make a choice: Grant true Freedom of Religion and treat Pastafarianism and Creationism equally (making schools teach either both of them or none), or admit to religious bias and violation of one of the fundamental Human Rights.

• My challenge is still open. In fact, let's make it a bet: If you can mock my Atheism (or should I say, my non-theistic spirituality) in a way that really offends me, I'll attend a Christian service next sunday. I'll even pay attention and summarize the sermon for you. I'm serious about this. If you need more information about my beliefs, feel free to ask.

• It's spelled "Deuteronomy".

• The personal pronouns for deities are capitalized ("He", "Him", "His"); it is a customary sign of respect.

He can't. We're not married.

No. If you were me, you'd find it utterly silly to apologize to an imaginary entity.

I'm somewhat OK with what Tobias said :-p

• John verse 1 said:

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  John verse 10 said:

  He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.

  John verse 14 said:

  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

  Revelations 19:13 said:

  And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood : and His name is called The Word Of God.

  God's word is proof of itself. You can't say the Bible doesn't exist, and the Bible says that God is His Word. Whether you believe that or not is up to you. Jesus Christ is the Word of God, and there's historical evidence to support the stories in the Bible (King Solomon and his temple for one).

• Jesus is the Word of God, and his work and Word was documented by several of his apostles (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John).

• People can make mistakes. Saying God doesn't exist because the Bible isn't perfect is silly. Here's what Jesus has to say :

  Matthew 13:10-16 said:

  10 And the disciples came, and said unto Him, "Why speakest Thou unto them in parables?"
  11 He answered and said unto them, "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
  12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
  13 Therefore speak I to them in parables : because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
  14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive :
  15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
  16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

• I believe He put as much truth in it as we can handle for now. Some people handle it better than others, and some aren't ready for it yet.

No, it goes something more like this :
Me : "God exists"
You : "How do you know"
Me : "Because God's Word proves itself. Try reading the Bible sometime."
You : "Oh."

But all of this seems rather moot, because it's unlikely you'll ever take anything from God's Word on faith long enough to see the truth in it.

And you may never be with the way you act towards Him. See Matthew chapter 22 if you want to know about God's wedding plans. And don't get all weird, it's a spiritual marriage, not a sexual one.

I don't need to mock you, nor do I want to. Believe whatever you want, it's your life to spend as you see fit to do so.

Ouch; this thread tanked. >_< One thing in closing ...

Agreed completely. Of the six qualities you list, only 2, maybe 3 are true from a Christian viewpoint. So ... good job!

Wow. My stereotypes of the religious have been reinforced quite strongly by this thread. These threads are always a nice ego boost.

Your eyes see what you want them to see.

{"name":"1297784886","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/6\/f622077061fd76de3c7c930115f501fc.jpg","w":500,"h":400,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/6\/f622077061fd76de3c7c930115f501fc"}

Wow Edgar... just wow.

That's just silly. Even ignoring the fact that it's a circular argument, why would any non-believer take God's word as proof when they don't believe in God? From the perspective of non-believers, the Bible was written by humans. Until they are convinced that God exists and that God is trustworthy, they have no reason to seriously consider God's word.

etc...

Use a more modern translation. All the "speakest" and "gathereth" sounds so archaic, it's annoying (to me, at least). The ESV and the TNIV seem pretty good, at least for casual study.

Christian Garbage -> Topic derailed !

I'm a big believer of Bayesian inference, and rational belief. What I see in this thread has nothing to do with rational belief. As for the big bang: absolutely nothing to date has required the existence of God to explain it. By Bayesian inference I conclude that the probability of God existing is negligible. By the same argument, big bang probably won't need God to be explained either.

Ok, that's your religion and you're entitled to it.

It's not a religion, it's math. If you don't believe in math, then there's no help for you.

So you put your faith in man instead of a deity.

The most common and practical definition of religion is "a set of beliefs someone follows". I consider everyone (except maybe permanent vegetables with irreversible brain damage) to have a religion. Some atheists are the most religious people I know, in that they adamant about their beliefs, taking all measures to spread them and try to convert people.

What is it with some Christians that they are so fervent and unforgiving about their religion?

Alteration of scientific theories due to new evidence abound, such that some scientist says "Gee! I was wrong!" then never puts forth his outmoded view ever again. Of course, being human, they don't always do this.

OTOH, I've never heard of a religious or astrological viewpoint altered due to new facts, or even how these viewpoints were arrived at, they're just "given" as The Word or something.

You really don't know or discuss this with many people do you? I can only speak for the handful of Christians I've met, but most of them are Christian/Agnostic. Nobody claims to know everything. They just believe in something.

I don't agree with that definition. While everyone has beliefs (how can they not?), not all beliefs are created equal. Some beliefs are rational (subject to Bayesian inference, or its approximation) and some are not (all religious beliefs in my experience fall under this heading).

What makes a belief rational? The fact that you update your beliefs given new evidence in accordance with the Bayes' rule (a practical example of this would be Occam's razor).

What makes a belief irrational? The fact that you don't do the above, and stick to your beliefs despite new evidence, and despite other hypotheses being far more likely.

You need a really outlandish perspective, in my opinion, to consider belief in God rational given all the evidence available to date.

I used to believe in Santa Claus, but every year when we went to see him the grownups would stand around saying "Who is it this year? It looks like Adolph Balek again." It took a few more years to give up Yahweh as well.

When I took Intro to Religious Studies, we spent about half a class period discussing how to define religion. The working definition we came up with was similar to what Trent posted, except that we added something along the lines of, "which you are willing to sacrifice yourself or your children for."

It's still not a perfect definition. Going by that, nationalism would be considered a religion. But it's a hard thing to define precisely, because there's so much variety among religions.

I have a belief that next time I press the key 'i' on my keyboard it will result in the letter 'i' being presented on the screen. Is that a religion?

Your faith in the 'i' key is strong. But will you give your life for it?

If you expected the answer to Life and Everything to appear when you pressed the 'i' key, that'd be a religion.

Firstly... I wouldn't use the word faith. Secondly, no. I allow a small possibility of my key malfunctioning, so I wouldn't bet my life on it. I'd bet $100 though.

Not necessarily. It'd become a religion if you kept pressing 'i' and nothing of the sort happening and you still maintaining that belief.

And I, on the other hand, hear this routinely. Now look at our respective environments and wonder how it could possibly be otherwise.

I would. My keyboard stopped working on Saturday. I was faithfully tapping away at it ... nothing.

Unfortunately, you need to watch out for definition nitpicking here. I used to joke that I was one of the most nonreligious people here because, by the definition set forth by the atheists, I personally wasn't very religious at all. So really, the answer could be yes, the answer could be no, depending on how you wanted to go about framing it.

So you think we're just very lucky animals? Why is it that no creature on this earth has ANY of the amazing comforts many of us enjoy (ok, some pets do). Did evolution produce only one decent specimen?

They're ALL the correct definitions, since the word has more than one meaning. And whether it's the first definition or not depends entirely on which dictionary you look the word up in.

You're also just picking the definition that conforms to your own beliefs.

God's Word proves itself, but you actually have to read it with understanding first. They can feel free to read it, and tell me what isn't true about it. It's also a circular argument to say "I don't believe in God, so I won't take God's Word as proof that He exists".

I see that you have little (no) faith in God, but do you also have such little faith in me that you don't think I can decide for myself whether the Bible is true or not? To date, nothing I've ever read in the Bible has been proven to be false or a lie.

Christianity is founded on faith. If you don't have any faith, you will never understand Christianity, at least that's what I think. The just shall live by faith.

Except the reasoning isn't flawed. The Bible can prove itself, but you have to read it with understanding and be willing to take some things on faith for a while.

What evidence do you have that proves God doesn't exist? Hmmm?

Doubtless the beavers think that about their dams and lodges.

[EDIT]

Being unable to prove the lack of something isn't proof that something exists. I can say that since you can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting Saturn, it must exist.

He doesn't need to disprove anything. That's his religion.

Leave your door open for a day in the Canadian winter. See how many animals come inside.

You explicitly said that you believe it will work. It was implied that you had confidence that pressing the key would make an 'i' appear on the screen. That, good sir, is faith. At least, by the definition that I and all the Christians I know use for faith.

Yes... yes we are. Others pick the beliefs that conform to their definition (which is fine), and then try to force those beliefs on us (which is not fine) by saying that we believe the things that conform to the other definition.

I see no problem with using the definition of the word "faith" that best fits the understanding I have of faith.

Yawn.