Official Off-Topic Thread

[ndchristie]

they come and go, particularly if you post fresh work.  I get spikes every few months, usually after holidays - the best thing to do if you're not interested is to politely decline.  Most often you will have enough going on in your life that if you even begin to explain you and your potential employers will realize how legitimate your reasons for not taking extra work are, but without the awkward "hey that's the dick who never PMed me back" thing.

[Dusty]

Ya I try to. Though I tend to see I got a new PM, read it and say I'll get back to it later(for some reason, I never feel like replying to a PM when I first read it), but sometimes I forget.

[ptoing]

[ndchristie]

hey look! a large group of people we don't generally understand, or even want to!  let's grossly overgeneralize them for a couple of lawls and pat ourselves on the back for pretending we're smarter for it!

[tocky]

That's pretty much how all humour works, though. Everybody makes fun of everybody. Probably doesn't need the "my name is religion" "my name is science" for the joke, though, it's a bit much.

The idea that irreligious people don't want to understand religious people sounds like overgeneralization to me.

[ndchristie]

whoever wrote the comic or sympathizes with it clearly doesn't, and those are the only people I attempted to characterize - there's nothing broad about that and it certainly doesn't include the whole of irreligious people.  I can assume that most irreligious people are not, in fact, total twats, in the same way that most religious people don't believe in dragons, or anything close to it.  What frustrates me is that rather than simply poking fun at one or two extremes, it decided to include both entire groups, and helps to perpetuate the attitude that the two are mutually exclusive.  My general sense of things is that many (the majority) of scientists practice some form of faith and that many (an equal or even greater majority) of religious people put full faith in science as well.

if I posted a joke in which a black dude said "fuck you" because I stole his chicken and grits, the entire forum would rightly call me a jackass, because it's not "cool" to harmlessly tease black people about food tastes, but it's apparently ok to characterize anyone and everyone who believes in any "Religion" as completely retarded.

[tocky]

Possibly we've made the same error, then. Your response hit a bit close to home, for me. But I doubt that whoever-that-guy-is-who-made-that is making fun of you, actually. It's crude, but it picks at these beliefs, specifically:

-Reverence for old ideas over new ones (as "I've been here longer than you...").
-Unwilingness to see the things you believe in actually tested.

Aaand thes are positions that are reasonably common, and at odds with scientific principles, and probably worth being a dick about.
 
But then, the fact is he's got a character called RELIGION who is completely unlikable and believes vehemently in dragons, and that's totally crass and and it's pretty clear why that would bug you. But I don't think this is truly an attempt to characterise all religious people as that guy. But yeah, my general take from this thing is "whoever made that is kind of a dick but he's got a point", not "haha religion is for jerks."

[ptoing]

Oh no, what have I done. Religious discussion

Anyway, it IS overdrawn, tho I would rather say that the dragons are more of a metaphor for things you have no proof for. Plus there is actually more crazy shit than dragons going down in the bible. I pretty much agree with tocky here I have to say.

[Conceit]

You're getting angry about someone with some half thought trough scribble because it characterizes two groups of people as being strictly one way or the other, and react by doing exactly the same...only you do it with very carefully premeditated thought.

I dont think that people should be forbidden from telling halfassed jokes, such as this one...I really doubt this was made and posted here to make the point that religious people is stupid, it's just a barely noteworthy statement that someone barely related to and felt like posting. You know, a joke.

You're not gonna educate anyone who actually thinks religion is stupid, and you're gonna turn off anyone who actually gets that this is not a wholly thought out joke, just a random scribble in paint...that probably was posted here without much thought either.

Allow people to say something you see as stupid, and then just say what you really think about it...if it's really so stupid you should be able to convince anyone who's actually permeable to what you got to say, not turn them off by pretending to stop people from being who they are.

[tocky]

Conceit, that whole post just now was worthless and dirisive.

[Conceit]

OKAY point taken, post edited with now 5%  less 'derisiveness'

I just really dont like it when someone goes for the control angle, where the whole arguement is about what he should be 'allowed' to be said, that's bullshit. if you think it's stupid call it out and be done with it.

I dont go into the whole how much of a boo-boo the comic is because I think that would be really really pointless.

I dont think anyone is truly interested in the matter of superstition in religion and science, since this discussion is all about one side vs the other, characterstic of the typical internet masturbatory action of using other people as cues for spouting your own monologues and then end the discussion with "I didnt even intend to change my oppinion anyway"

[JJ Naas]

The comic reminds me a bit of the metaphor Carl Sagan used in Demon Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark:


"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you.  Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself.  There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. 

I lead you to my garage.  You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely.  "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." 

And so on.  I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?

[Rydin]

[.TakaM]

http://www.konjak.org/index.htm

Well done konjak, a ton of fun to play

[Helm]

if I posted a joke in which a black dude said "fuck you" because I stole his chicken and grits, the entire forum would rightly call me a jackass, because it's not "cool" to harmlessly tease black people about food tastes, but it's apparently ok to characterize anyone and everyone who believes in any "Religion" as completely retarded.

A very big difference between the two is that someone is made black from the go but nobody is made Christian or Hindu or anything else (though religious fanatics would have you believe otherwise) and if they find that those beliefs are outmoded or anything else, they can drop them right then and there. You can't drop your skin color and all it entails. See, there is no 'racism' about ideas. Ideas are strong. They can take anything you throw at them. Their feelings don't get hurt. Don't get your feelings hurt in their place out of some sense of misplaced loyalty to an idea.

This isn't to say the comic is good or even very poignant for me and yeah I'm more interested myself in understanding religious people than painting a caricature of them most of the time (I know my black goat of the underworld posts I make sometimes might suggest otherwise, but I'm mainly just kidding). But, unlike by black people, I have been in my life mistreated and repressed by religious people and they've carried along world-wide atrocities in the names of their gods, so it's not 'sacred ground' for me. Crude, even completely tasteless jokes are fair play when children have died for your god. It's not the same as a completely coincidental skin color.

[ndchristie]

I see that a common belief here is that religion = dragons and that convictions are not a defining characteristic, nor something to be offended for when it is attacked, let alone something to defend.  The second is a point I am willing to drop, but the first is entirely false.

I also see that anyone who takes the minority position here will have his words twisted.  Reread my posts : nobody but the author of the strip and people who completely agree with it is included.  And no, anybody who talks about dragons or getting swallowed by whales or such things as defining a faith - whether they believe in these things or not - do not properly represent or understand "religion" (as a whole) so to assert such a viewpoint is to be misguided.  Further, I never said anything about who should be allowed to post what.  I am anti-censorship and pro-discourse; i merely find the views presented in the comic and supported by some members of the community to be flawed.

Helm's post I will address separately, and not the arguments, which I found grounded, but the concept of religious murder : People who murder men and children in the name of god are filthy, filthy people who should not be identified with all other religious people because they violate the will of god in doing so, and twist it - I neither defend nor associate with such.  The Sixth Commandment as well as a myriad of other passages strictly forbid it*.  The USSR and China though were "atheist" states; my only point - let's not try and take a tally, and let's not say all religious people are crusaders and terrorists in the same way that I haven't suggested that all atheists are soviets.  On either "side" as well you'll find philanthropists, educators, civil protectors, and other people whose work has a certain expectation of good will (as well as those properly possessed of it).  And again, most of these people on one side are also the people on the other side because there are no sides to begin with between science and faith unless someone says there are.
However, you are right.  Religion is a choice and must be a choice else it is self-defeating.  A more appropriate comparison would be a comic which characterizes all police officers as wife-beaters.

*we can discuss the first book of Samuel, Angels in the House of Lot, and other less-than-comfortable passages from the bible in another place, if you desire.

[Ben2theEdge]

To say that the comic is a flimsy allegory is giving it a lot of credit. The message is "Haha religious people are stupid because atheists know EVERYTHING ABOUT THE UNIVERSE EVER!"
This isn't even a halfway decent contribution to any discussion of atheism versus theism. It's more like the fat little kid who jumps in the middle of that conversation and just starts kicking everyone in the balls. It's the sort of thing that could only be concocted in an age of internet trolls.

[Helm]

I see that a common belief here is that religion = dragons and that convictions are not a defining characteristic, nor something to be offended for when it is attacked, let alone something to defend.  The second is a point I am willing to drop, but the first is entirely false.

Please keep in mind that when discussing matters such as these words such as "entirely false" stand to incite more a drastic reaction than thoughtful reply. Nobody can say for sure what is right and what is false in the issues of morality and ultimately religious ontology and what have you. So for someone that is saying his words get twisted around please try to keep a tighter reign on your words. That is, if you are interested in a civil discussion and not in just carving a circle around you and stating the interior to be your ground. I for one, give you your ground willingly, don't call it right and what other people say false. There are on the point, very many people that self-identify with their deity on the level of the magical invisible dragon so who are you to sweep them under the rug because you happen to disagree in your more spiritualist (? I am assuming here) version of faith.

I also see that anyone who takes the minority position here will have his words twisted.

On that note please stop persecuting yourself, you're not being more misunderstood than anybody else but actually telling people they should work harder to understand you is a surefire way to get them to react even more. If you are really misunderstood why don't you try "I'm sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough and I'll restate" instead of "read my posts again"? It puts the burden of being clear on you - where it rightly belongs imo. You're not writing a book where the reader can do nothing but re-read if he doesn't understand something, you're just discussing.

Reread my posts : nobody but the author of the strip and people who completely agree with it is included.  And no, anybody who talks about dragons or getting swallowed by whales or such things as defining a faith - whether they believe in these things or not - do not properly represent or understand "religion" (as a whole) so to assert such a viewpoint is to be misguided.

There are many ways to look at religion.

Helm's post I will address separately, and not the arguments, which I found grounded, but the concept of religious murder : People who murder men and children in the name of god are filthy, filthy people

Actually shouldn't we be more compelled from a christian point of view - such as yours - to understand and ultimately forgive these people for their actions? Isn't that the central idea of your faith? No human being is my enemy no matter what he was ever done (and I'm not even Christian) and I try to not call people filthy or wrong, although sometimes poking fun at them is sanity-saving.

who should not be identified with all other religious people because they violate the will of god in doing so, and twist it - I neither defend nor associate with such.

Perhaps you should spend more time associating with them and not judging them before you defend your Christian faith so fervently on the internet.

let's not try and take a tally, and let's not say all religious people are crusaders and terrorists in the same way that I haven't suggested that all atheists are soviets.

Please consider this argument:

1. Not all theists are murderers.
2. Not all atheists are murderers.
3. The motives of theists for murder might be spiritual or not.
4. The motives for atheists for murder are always not.

Therefore the spirituality of the theists might not account for all their murdering but it certainly accounts directly for some of it, and that some is plenty. Millions in fact.

I posit that a human being that has had to question divinity to the point where they no longer espouse any sect or established faith is less likely to murder for such abstract ideas. This is a relatively unfounded position and as such I'm willing to argue it, but let's not 'not keep a tally' please.

However, you are right.  Religion is a choice and must be a choice else it is self-defeating.  A more appropriate comparison would be a comic which characterizes all police officers as wife-beaters.

Yes that comic would be a ridiculous one. Probably funny though!

*we can discuss the first book of Samuel, Angels in the House of Lot, and other less-than-comfortable passages from the bible in another place, if you desire.

I'd rather not. My problem with God is not with how misunderstood his words are. It is an epistemological and ontological one. The universe I experience doesn't seem to allow for uncontrolled, eternal, super-powerful entities that create themselves and are not subject to thermodynamic laws so it's been many many years since I played the "let's pretend there is a God, then the book is wrong where it says....". The notion of a God, as it has been explained to me by those that seem to believe in him, is completely absurd. Their desires to believe in him are not and I sympathize because the world is really scary.

[JJ Naas]

I see that a common belief here is that religion = dragons and that convictions are not a defining characteristic.

Political stances and tastes in art are also a defining characteristic of a person and for some reason it's allowed to criticize those, but not religion. Anything man made should be allowed to be criticized. Often in discussing religion there's no polite way of saying that have you been considering that you may have wasted your life believing in nonsense, but I don't think that should stop anyone discussing religion. If someone finds it offensive, so what?

I'm an agnostic myself because if I said I were an atheist it'd be reasonable to ask me to prove that God DOESN'T exist, which is impossible, so for practical reasons I just consider the existence of God to be very unlikely, simply because the universe seems to be operating perfectly well AS IF there was no God.

[Ben2theEdge]

I'd rather not. My problem with God is not with how misunderstood his words are. It is an epistemological and ontological one. The universe I experience doesn't seem to allow for uncontrolled, eternal, super-powerful entities that create themselves and are not subject to thermodynamic laws so it's been many many years since I played the "let's pretend there is a God, then the book is wrong where it says....". The notion of a God, as it has been explained to me by those that seem to believe in him, is completely absurd. Their desires to believe in him are not and I sympathize because the world is really scary.

Helm correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying you'd find the concept of God more believable if he were subject to the laws of the system he programmed. If God exists and he created the physical universe (which I am a strong proponent for) then he would have to operate within a far bigger system than the physical universe. Otherwise everything would be God, or nothing would be God. So God could exist outside the universe and still effect it just as a computer programmer exists outside of an operating system.

[JJ Naas]

So God could exist outside the universe and still effect it just as a computer programmer exists outside of an operating system.

That's another claim that can't be proved or disproved. However, if that were so, how would you know if he was God and not just a very highly evolved alien species? And who created the Creator?

[huZba]

I don't see why there should be a requirement for a creator. If an infinitely unlikely event can watch upon itself, then it will.

[Ben2theEdge]

So God could exist outside the universe and still effect it just as a computer programmer exists outside of an operating system.

That's another claim that can't be proved or disproved. However, if that were so, how would you know if he was God and not just a very highly evolved alien species? And who created the Creator?

This is where we get into claims of God revealing Himself which gets messy because that's where the real controversy is. If God exists we can only define him by experiencing his existence, and experiences can't necessarily be scientifically proven or disproven, but if you have had such an experience it is impossible for someone else to scientifically prove to you that you didn't.

As for who created the creator, we all have to accept that at some point the law of cause and effect was broken, whether you believe in God or not. What created the matter that created the big bang? And what created whatever made that matter? And so on and so on. Or, if you can accept that cause and effect can be traced infinitely backwards with no beginning, then surely God could be traced infinitely backwards as well, especially if the laws of cause and effect don't apply to him.

[huZba]

Time is only required for our existence and the reason for it going forward is yet to be found (something to do with differences in the density of space and all kinds of things i don't understand), but we evolved into a forward moving time so that's why we experience it moving forward. In a sort of ouroboros sort of time axis everything exists in every possible form and we are a grain in that endless sea of possibilities. We sort of have no choice but to be.

A play on that thought would be like so: let's imagine that our universe is a pulsating one, it'll collapse on itself eventually, and that time does not end. That means our universe will "execute" itself in every way possible forever.

This is where we get into claims of God revealing Himself which gets messy because that's where the real controversy is. If God exists we can only define him by experiencing his existence, and experiences can't necessarily be scientifically proven or disproven, but if you have had such an experience it is impossible to scientifically prove you didn't.

We are physical beings without a doubt, if something can have an effect on us, it can be measured. The experience of god can be internal and caused by none other than yourself. With enough time i can make myself believe that all cars are in fact transformers because that is a thought stampped into my mind in early childhood.
Also our happiness and fulfillment and such are very chemical reactions, our brains blessing us with some dopamine injections. It seems cold but I'm open to even displeasing information, not just things that feel profitable or good to me.

[Ben2theEdge]

Time is only required for our existence and the reason for it going forward is yet to be found (something to do with differences in the density of space and all kinds of things i don't understand), but we evolved into a forward moving time so that's why we experience it moving forward. In a sort of ouroboros sort of time axis everything exists in every possible form and we are a grain in that endless sea of possibilities. We sort of have no choice but to be.

A play on that thought would be like so: let's imagine that our universe is a pulsating one, it'll collapse on itself eventually, and that time does not end. That means our universe will "execute" itself in every way possible forever.

Then you agree that "who created the creator" is a red herring.

We are physical beings without a doubt, if something can have an effect on us, it can be measured.

If you say your grandpa asked you to buy a loaf of bread seconds before he died, can I scientifically prove otherwise? Even if I could would you believe me over your own experience?

[JJ Naas]

On a side note I must say Ben raised excellent points and arguing with him is a pleasure. That's how it should go. I enjoy this whole God-science -argument and never feel a need to get offended... except when someone else uses the "offensiveness card" in order to stop the conversation.

If God exists we can only define him by experiencing his existence, and experiences can't necessarily be scientifically proven or disproven, but if you have had such an experience it is impossible for someone else to scientifically prove to you that you didn't.

Personal belief through personal revelation is fine by me. I have no issue with that as long as it remains personal and doesn't manisfest itself in the form of an organized religion or trying to justify ones actions by it. But if someone says this is so or this is how it must be done because God said so, all I can say is "Evidence please". Let's first establish the actual existence of a phenomena before we start discussing its merits.

[ptoing]

We are physical beings without a doubt, if something can have an effect on us, it can be measured.

Without a doubt? You sure? For all we know we could be a digital simulation. Think about how many simulations are running on our planet atm, run by men. It is concievable that we are the same on a grander scale. Just saying.

[huZba]

Physical as described by the system we live in and where we collectively agree on it. So by physical i mean something that exists in the possible simulation and adheres to it's rules.
That's the words of my math teacher from high school when i asked something about why some equation is the way it is. Because of convention, because we agree that 1 = 1 and not something else.

If you say your grandpa asked you to buy a loaf of bread seconds before he died, can I scientifically prove otherwise? Even if I could would you believe me over your own experience?

It's measurable when it happens, after that I'd have to go with my memory, or if you have some research data that would suggest that my grandpa didn't say anything to me, I'd mark the memory as compromised with the possibility of being untrue, providing you're a trustworthy person. To avoid extremes, I rather go with likely and less likely.

I have no reason to be skeptical for something like that really. Also if you swore you had a religious experience, I'd believe it must have been real for you, but look for the cause from something other than a god, since a lot of the time odd experiences have more reasonable causes. Also a skilled person can cause religious experiences in gullible people.

[ndchristie]

If a person is not filthy, how can he be forgiven?  There's a difference between an acknowledgement of evil, or an alignment in support of evil, and the forsaking of it.  When I damn for their actions, you may critique the decision : that has not happened.

our only real experience is through observation and thought, which can equally substantiate the idea that physical reality is the only thing just as easily as the idea that physical reality does not exist.  We know only that our minds "are," physical or not, and from there it's conjecture based on experience (which may or may not be self generated etc).  Truth may exist clearly and physically, or it may exist only in our desire for it to.

in my perception of reality (lol), I believe in God.  People who believe in God are Religious.  I do not murder.  I do not believe in dragons or miracles.  Therefor, if someone says that religious people murder and believe in dragons and I do not, they are mistaken, the issue of dragons does not define religion as a whole and to say so is false.  From where i stand (and it may be subjective) that looks like math.

The issue at hand for me was never the idea that select Religious people worship dragons and say no to science, but the idea that we all do, and that it is central to a belief in God for all who feel themselves to be have such.
And I won't pretend that jokes about religion and science can't be funny : an hour ago my literary studies professor digressed to a poster of "darwin versus god" claiming the big showdown between a televangelist and a gorilla was to happen sunday sunday sunday at the staples center.  He thought it would be better with gabriel versus the monkey because gabriel has a sword and can fly.  I found the whole thing hilarious, mostly because it involved monkeys and a parody of WWF, because it didn't tell me that my faith necessarily involved a belief in televangelists or that gabriel would use his sword on a monkey.  A joke about Noah leaving behind the dinosaurs and unicorns is also funny, because it doesn't come out and say that I and all religious people believe firmly that Noah lived with dinosaurs.  In fact, if the players had been "I am science" and "I am a Biblical Literalist who believes in stories to which there definitive, contradictory evidence," I might have laughed.

[JJ Naas]

 We know only that our minds "are," physical or not, and from there it's conjecture based on experience (which may or may not be self generated etc).  Truth may exist clearly and physically, or it may exist only in our desire for it to.

Would you say that an answer to the question "Does God exist?" is either "yes" or "no" or would you say it's subjective?

[Helm]

Helm correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying you'd find the concept of God more believable if he were subject to the laws of the system he programmed.

The only comprehensive definition of a 'God' I've been offered so far (and I've asked a lot) is the one where he is infinite, created himself, is all-powerful, omnipotent, ever-present, benevolent creator watches over humanity, so forth. If you strip him of these abilities he's just a 'strong dude that made shit happen' with which I don't fundamentally have any thermodynamic differences, but he's not a divine entity, he doesn't offer answers to the primal questions (how it all starts, why it did, where do we go when we die etc). By making a 'God' entity more plausible you're just stripping it of its Godliness and therefore you're just inventing 'strong dudes' around in the universe. It's not as a big problem as inventing 'all-powerful dude #1' but it's still doesn't seem to be needed as it answers no questions. Your god that is the programmer to this operating system, who made him? Shouldn't we worship him instead if he exists? And if he does exist, is *he* all-powerful? Just an infinite regress towards... what?

If God exists and he created the physical universe (which I am a strong proponent for) then he would have to operate within a far bigger system than the physical universe.

Just saying... looking at how the universe operates, there doesn't seem to be any call for an external system in which it rests, of which the rules are alien and unfathomable. I mean, you can make this claim but it just over complicates things. Overcomplication isn't a demerit in itself, but we have to ask, for what? Quantum Mechanics are overcomplicating an Aristotelian physical understanding of the universe but there's a reason for them. What's the reason for shattering all physical laws to create a God, though? So you have a divine shoulder to cry on? I mean at some point we have to look at the motivation behind giving birth to these all-powerful deities... your father and your mother told you of this 'God' and it helps you in some ways in your life. If you were to examine how he helps you and also what assumptions you're bringing into the physical universe by invoking an all-powerful figure... you might end up more unsettled than you started with as an agnostic! I mean sure okay God loves me and I'll go to heaven when I die... but it also means if God exists that the universe is a simulation (?) of a much bigger, unfathomable laboratory (?) where a being calls all the shots whose motivation is a psychotic desire for powerless little humans to love him (?) This shit creeps me out even more than the nothingness after death.

Examine the motivation behind your desire for a God to exist, is what I am saying.

As for who created the creator, we all have to accept that at some point the law of cause and effect was broken, whether you believe in God or not. What created the matter that created the big bang? And what created whatever made that matter? And so on and so on.

Perhaps it's more settling emotionally to accept that you don't know right now, how these things started and that not knowing is fine also. You don't have to invent a thermodynamically obese superbeing to fill in the blanks. Not knowing is fine, letting go is fine. Words are just words, experiences are not words etc etc

If a person is not filthy, how can he be forgiven?  There's a difference between an acknowledgment of evil, or an alignment in support of evil, and the forsaking of it.  When I damn for their actions, you may critique the decision : that has not happened.

What a choice of words though! Filthy? That just sounds sanctimonious to me. I thought forgiveness meant perhaps a bit of humbleness towards the mysteries of another human being, a bit of silence and acceptance perhaps. Not 'I DUB THEE FILTHY SO I MAY YET CLEANSE YOU'. It just rubs me so wrong. Nobody's filthy, we're just all trying to exist and fulfill our base desires.

in my perception of reality (lol), I believe in God.  People who believe in God are Religious.  I do not murder.  I do not believe in dragons or miracles.  Therefor, if someone says that religious people murder and believe in dragons and I do not, they are mistaken, the issue of dragons does not define religion as a whole and to say so is false.  From where i stand (and it may be subjective) that looks like math.

I will put aside completely how you say you believe in God but yet not in miracles, although there's a question begged there. I'm not interested in the answer, so I'll go to the source of what you're saying: Yes it is your personal math and in your personal math book it adds up but it is not a real conversation because you're not risking anything, you're just expounding on your personal definitions of good and evil and that's really not what I'm looking for when I discuss morality. I'm looking for expression but also understanding, taking some risks putting things out there one is not certain about so they may be inspected and not just judged. In short, whereas I'm sure you spending time with yourself is a good thing in your phase (creating a personal lexicon and whatnot), it is really not what I want out of a moral or ontological conversation at my phase. So your falsehoods and truisms are overshared. I don't mean this in a bad way, I don't want to insult you. We started out discussing your reaction to a comic that was about religion at large and nonbelievers at large, not about the religion in your person where every other religion in any other person that doesn't cohere with your vision is false.

I mean to say perhaps: you should study the philosophical field of Epistemology to some degree, it will help you see the burdens inherent in theories of knowledge and perhaps nudge you on a different path to what the point of a conversation might be and what promises one makes when one enters one and how best to fulfill them without just going on repeating how 'in my world, that is true and that is false'. I say this because I went through the exact same thing.

The issue at hand for me was never the idea that select Religious people worship dragons and say no to science, but the idea that we all do, and that it is central to a belief in God for all who feel themselves to be have such.

I'm sorry to say I can't understand these statements. 'but the idea that we all do' what? Worship dragons and say no to science? 'for all who feel themselves to be have such' what?

[Ben2theEdge]

Just saying... looking at how the universe operates, there doesn't seem to be any call for an external system in which it rests, of which the rules are alien and unfathomable.

There are certain questions that science is afraid of, such as the question of why physics even exist. Most atheists seem overly comfortable accepting that our universe is bound to unbreakable laws without ever questioning where those laws came from and what enforces them. Who decided 1+1= 2? I think this is an important question because science is built on it. If the universe is not rational then we can't hope to rationally dissect it. But if the universe IS rational, that raises all sorts of questions.

I mean, you can make this claim but it just over complicates things. Overcomplication isn't a demerit in itself, but we have to ask, for what? Quantum Mechanics are overcomplicating an Aristotelian physical understanding of the universe but there's a reason for them. What's the reason for shattering all physical laws to create a God, though? So you have a divine shoulder to cry on? I mean at some point we have to look at the motivation behind giving birth to these all-powerful deities... your father and your mother told you of this 'God' and it helps you in some ways in your life. If you were to examine how he helps you and also what assumptions you're bringing into the physical universe by invoking an all-powerful figure... you might end up more unsettled than you started with as an agnostic! I mean sure okay God loves me and I'll go to heaven when I die... but it also means if God exists that the universe is a simulation (?) of a much bigger, unfathomable laboratory (?) where a being calls all the shots whose motivation is a psychotic desire for powerless little humans to love him (?) This shit creeps me out even more than the nothingness after death.

Examine the motivation behind your desire for a God to exist, is what I am saying.

On the contrary you seem to have an emotional bias *against* the possibility of God's existence. I mean if I die and it turns out God wasn't real, then what? I tried my hardest to live selflessly and to treat other humans with love and dignity as though they were created in His image and and never got rewarded for it. Not a huge injustice from a cosmic perspective. And it's not like I'll be around to regret it. But it seems you feel you have much more to lose if God IS real.

To further dissect this I'd have to go more into my personal theology, which I'm okay with but I suspect it's not what most people came to this forum to hear.

[Helm]

I do not take 1+1=2 as a binding proposition. I don't take any statement as a binding proposition. I take a few as applicable and useful. Not 'true' because nothing is 'true'. Again, I urge towards a study of Epistemology, it's not a word I'm making up, it's a philosophical field that deals exactly with the theory of knowledge, what is testable, what is binding, what is in effect, what skepticism is in essence.

I furthermore do not think that understanding the world on paper is the same as experiencing the things you're trying to understand. The implication is that the world is complex and holistic and we do not stand to *experience* it all, and people trying to appeal to our intellect by giving us applicable models of it can only get so far in that way. You can sit there and explain to me how a bat (the animal) works how it's skeleton keeps it light how the sonar works etc etc and I can sit here and try to take all that information in but that doesn't mean I understand the bat, the experience of the bat itself is inherently unknowable for me as a human. It is similar in matter of theory of science and knowledge. Information is not the same as knowledge. Information helps build a testable hypothesis of the effects of properties that are fundamentally unexperiencable for the human being. On the existential level we should be looking with awe at a simple house cat and how futile it is to try to feel what it must feel, and yet we have the gall to summon bloated Gods out of the aether and decree them creators and benevolent fathers that watch upon us. More humility! There's more to find by pondering a wall than thinking about Jesus Christ as the lord and savior.

But if we are going to use a model for reality (and we must if we want anything else than to live in a cave), it being testable and applicable is the point of it. Not being 'true' on the metaphysical level. An all-powerful ever-present God doesn't enter into tests or applications in any respect, therefore its usage is bound to be problematic. Science is not to put ones blind faith into a testable model. It is to be very curious about it and constantly tweak it to better apply to the discernible effect. These are very basic things.

I do not have any emotional bias against a god existing and I feel that huge chunk of text of mine you quoted, you didn't properly address its implication. If God exists, it's more unsettling than if he doesn't. He creates more questions than he answers. I strongly urge you to address this issue instead of turning it around.

If I die and god exists I've also tried my hardest to be a good man and to satisfy myself through life, to have no shame for my existence and I will sit in front of him and tell him I never believed in him (and still do not, but rather consider him a fading hallucination of the dying brain) and I am unrepentant. UNREPENTANT! My life was my own, my death also. If he is a just God and he understands completely his creation he will know that I did exactly what he made me do. I have nothing to lose in that respect.

And ultimately, most importantly, it is not a matter of haggling, it really shouldn't be. I do not define my ontology based on the gambling odds of there being a hellfire and eternal damnation in which I might be designated later on. So be it! There's still no real reason to go from examining this universe to inferring there is a God around in it besides people screaming about him being around. So if I have to suffer eternal damnation for not being stupid enough to trust other beings that are essentially as clueless as I am on matters of abstract metaphysics, then so be it! Punish me, just and everpresent lord, punish me by letting me be what you need me to be!

Again the most important thing I'm talking about is this: examine the motivation of 'faith' on the human animal. The uncertainty of the universe is mind-boggling. We invented anthropomorphic faces for the natural powers around us to understand them, to symbolise them and contain them, to not go insane by thinking what this thunder is that falls randomly out of the sky and splits the old tree in half. The sentient animal needs faith because otherwise they'd go insane trying to run a fault simulation in their mind in which there are no dangers around them. As long as inexplicable things happen, the animal thinks it's in danger! It must make its surroundings safe and it must make the internal world safe by establishing symbols, words and stories that are causal and make sense. Where did we come from? Goddidit. Where are we going? God knows. What should we do? God tells. Try to take a few steps outside the box in which you're trying to rationalize the existence of the most huge overspill of thermodynamic energy in the universe and think of WHY you are doing it.

[JJ Naas]

If I die and god exists I've also tried my hardest to be a good man and to satisfy myself through life, to have no shame for my existence and I will sit in front of him and tell him I never believed in him (and still do not, but rather consider him a fading hallucination of the dying brain) and I am unrepentant. UNREPENTANT! My life was my own, my death also. If he is a just God and he understands completely his creation he will know that I did exactly what he made me do. I have nothing to lose in that respect.

Well put. That reminds me of what Marcus Aurelius said:

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

[Emtch]

If a god created everything, then he/she also created sin, sinful people, demons and everything that opposes him/her. Doesn't make any sense at all.
Religious people cling to their weird beliefs even though they have nothing to back up their theory that there is a higher might. When people prove them wrong, they refuse to understand.
The holy writings (bible, quran etc) have been edited over the years and the religions are nothing like they originally were.
Religious people break their rules at least as much as regular people, through crusades/jihads, holocausts, missionaries etc. It doesn't say anywhere in the holy writings that you are allowed to kill people just because of their religion.

The bible says that homosexuality is wrong, it says that interracial relationships is wrong.
Christianity is about denying truth, they see Lucifer as the enemy when he is the bringer of light and wisdom. When the snake gave wisdom to the couple in the garden of eden god banished them.

Religious leaders don't want people to think on their own and want everybody to be the same.

[Ben2theEdge]

If a god created everything, then he/she also created sin, sinful people, demons and everything that opposes him/her. Doesn't make any sense at all.
Religious people cling to their weird beliefs even though they have nothing to back up their theory that there is a higher might. When people prove them wrong, they refuse to understand.
The holy writings (bible, quran etc) have been edited over the years and the religions are nothing like they originally were.
Religious people break their rules at least as much as regular people, through crusades/jihads, holocausts, missionaries etc. It doesn't say anywhere in the holy writings that you are allowed to kill people just because of their religion.

The bible says that homosexuality is wrong, it says that interracial relationships is wrong.
Christianity is about denying truth, they see Lucifer as the enemy when he is the bringer of light and wisdom. When the snake gave wisdom to the couple in the garden of eden god banished them.

Religious leaders don't want people to think on their own and want everybody to be the same.

Should we just take your word for all of that, then?

[Helm]

Ben2theEdge, why not address my concerns instead of easier targets?

[Ben2theEdge]

I will when I'm not at work, Helm. There's a lot there and I want to take my time with it. Don't worry I'm not avoiding it.

[Gil]

JJ Naas raises the most interesting point in the debate to me in terms of looking at your judgement day.

I, as a person, am always looking to answer these basic questions of faith and spirituality, as most people do I guess. Here's what I have come up with:

1. I am only certain of the existance of my own mind
2. I perceive a world, which stimulates my mind
3. Stimulating that mind is the only thing I can do as a being
4. If I refuse to be part of this perceived world, because I can not prove its existance, I become futile, thus I have live in it and accept its rules

These are the only principles I can believe in, as they are the only things that come forth out of my elementary existance. As I'm forced to stimulate this mind, I am forced to deal with this world. Having a strong sense of morality (one of the things that probably stimulates my mind the most), I try to live a just live, though I am failing right now. When one day I am forced to look unto my life, either through self-reflection or by meeting my creator, I hope to stand proud and say "I did all I could". I am quite sure that it will be enough to any benevolent god, though it might not seem enough to my own unforgiving mind.

I'll post more later once I get some more stuff in my head sorted out. Sometimes it's hard to explain thought processes in text.

[ndchristie]

Helm : just reread what I write perhaps.  I would respond to what you told me, but i just have no idea who you are talking to.  It's clear that you've been hurt by someone, or a group of people, or otherwise have a huge and important argument with them, but I personally am not sure who these people are and I'm frankly confused.  I never said i intend to cleanse someone and I certainly am not preaching here, nor do i pretend to live any sort of higher or more virtuous life.  If there are people you know who have condemned, who have passed judgment, who attempt to evangelize and to cleanse you, I apologize for how you feel about that but i want you to know that this is not me.  As for filthy, I apologize if that rubs you the wrong way - it's a very common word where I come from and i meant none of the things you've assigned to it.

I never said that other views of Religion is wrong, and I have stayed far away from defining my personal views of religion - I personally continue to feel that my definition of Religion is as objective as it can be :

n.

   1.
         1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
         2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
   2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
   3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
   4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Religion is defined first as a belief in a creator and governor of the universe.  This is the absolute core of it.  Everything else is secondary to that, with the exception of definition number four which I would consider a colloquialism.  Religion is not defined here by turning water into wine or david slaying a dragon (that actually is how it used to go, it got stricken for being TOO out there).  Different Religions may be further categorized by their specific beliefs and practices, but what makes a religion a religion is not those, but belief, as it says, in a creator and governor of the universe.

Beyond that, there's nothing I can say here.

I'm sorry to say I can't understand these statements. 'but the idea that we all do' what? Worship dragons and say no to science? 'for all who feel themselves to be have such' what?

sorry, that's a problem that stems from attempting to type while eating lamb and reading Tolstoy.  To your first question, yes, you got it, to the second - take off "to be" (so to have such - to have a faith in god).

(creating a personal lexicon and whatnot)

I have not done this, so I don't know how to respond.  I also have not brought a particular definition of good and evil other than to say that murder is evil.  That's technically subjective, but do you really want to be the one to fight it?

We started out discussing your reaction to a comic that was about religion at large and nonbelievers at large, not about the religion in your person where every other religion in any other person that doesn't cohere with your vision is false.

Religion at large includes all religions, including and I am speaking for many people I know here.  And I never said that other religions are false, only that God is what defines a religion, not whether it believes in dragons.

You have a way of always misinterpreting everything I say in extremely negative ways, and I just don't know how to avoid this.  I don't actually like explaining myself a dozen times hat I felt was clear the first.  If you weren't responding to what I said, and in particular getting it completely wrong when you respond, I would be pretty quiet.  But I see that you find yourself to be at a higher phase and that I talk too much, so in the future I will not take your questions and definitions as an invitation to discourse.

[Ben2theEdge]

I do not take 1+1=2 as a binding proposition. I don't take any statement as a binding proposition. I take a few as applicable and useful. Not 'true' because nothing is 'true'. Again, I urge towards a study of Epistemology, it's not a word I'm making up, it's a philosophical field that deals exactly with the theory of knowledge, what is testable, what is binding, what is in effect, what skepticism is in essence.

I'm familiar with epistemology... I don't claim to be an expert in it, and honestly I really loath the subject. It turns into long and painful rabbit trails that end in silliness. You may claim not to take 1+1=2 as a binding proposition, but you can only say that to support a philosophical argument. In the real world you depend on this proposition every day just to process the world around you, as do we all. When we stop talking and look at practical reality we find that truth exists. If you tried living your life liberated from the notion that 1+1=2, you would not survive.

I furthermore do not think that understanding the world on paper is the same as experiencing the things you're trying to understand. The implication is that the world is complex and holistic and we do not stand to *experience* it all, and people trying to appeal to our intellect by giving us applicable models of it can only get so far in that way. You can sit there and explain to me how a bat (the animal) works how it's skeleton keeps it light how the sonar works etc etc and I can sit here and try to take all that information in but that doesn't mean I understand the bat, the experience of the bat itself is inherently unknowable for me as a human. It is similar in matter of theory of science and knowledge. Information is not the same as knowledge. Information helps build a testable hypothesis of the effects of properties that are fundamentally unexperiencable for the human being. On the existential level we should be looking with awe at a simple house cat and how futile it is to try to feel what it must feel, and yet we have the gall to summon bloated Gods out of the aether and decree them creators and benevolent fathers that watch upon us. More humility! There's more to find by pondering a wall than thinking about Jesus Christ as the lord and savior.

I'm having a really hard time following you through this paragraph. Are you saying that since we can't transplant ourselves into other creatures' experiences, we don't have the authority to claim the existence of God? Not a challenge here, but a request for clarification.

But if we are going to use a model for reality (and we must if we want anything else than to live in a cave), it being testable and applicable is the point of it. Not being 'true' on the metaphysical level. An all-powerful ever-present God doesn't enter into tests or applications in any respect, therefore its usage is bound to be problematic. Science is not to put ones blind faith into a testable model. It is to be very curious about it and constantly tweak it to better apply to the discernible effect. These are very basic things.

Science and faith have very different roles. Not opposing. Complimentary. And separate. Failure to understand this is resulting in all sorts of confusion and chaos in our current society. Faith is not about the mechanics of the physical universe. That is clearly science's function. Faith concerns itself with the mechanics of one's existential experience, one's identity, ethics, morals, etc. The two have very minor implications toward one another and should at all times compliment each other, not be pitted against each other as though they were opposed. It'd be like choosing between my left and right foot. The purpose of pursuing God is not to understand how the mechanics of the physical universe operate. Those who believe in God such as myself believe that science is His provision for understanding His universe. My Holy Book is NOT a science book and attempts to use it as such are as appalling as using The Origin of Species to determine right from wrong.

I do not have any emotional bias against a god existing and I feel that huge chunk of text of mine you quoted, you didn't properly address its implication. If God exists, it's more unsettling than if he doesn't. He creates more questions than he answers. I strongly urge you to address this issue instead of turning it around.

Whether God's existence is unsettling depends largely on who you believe God to be, and who you believe yourself to be in relation to Him. Initially I found God's existence to be woefully unsettling. Now I find it quite precisely opposite. It does create a lot of questions, but so does anything else worth discovering. What I'm saying is it's not unnatural to be repulsed by the concept of God but that has little effect on his existence.

If I die and god exists I've also tried my hardest to be a good man and to satisfy myself through life, to have no shame for my existence and I will sit in front of him and tell him I never believed in him (and still do not, but rather consider him a fading hallucination of the dying brain) and I am unrepentant. UNREPENTANT! My life was my own, my death also. If he is a just God and he understands completely his creation he will know that I did exactly what he made me do. I have nothing to lose in that respect.

So if you saw God face to face you would consider him a hallucination? Are you sure you're unbiased regarding the possibility of his existence?

And ultimately, most importantly, it is not a matter of haggling, it really shouldn't be. I do not define my ontology based on the gambling odds of there being a hellfire and eternal damnation in which I might be designated later on. So be it! There's still no real reason to go from examining this universe to inferring there is a God around in it besides people screaming about him being around. So if I have to suffer eternal damnation for not being stupid enough to trust other beings that are essentially as clueless as I am on matters of abstract metaphysics, then so be it! Punish me, just and everpresent lord, punish me by letting me be what you need me to be!

Again... this is getting into personal beliefs which would be a bad turn for this discussion to talk. Although I'd be happy to dialogue about that privately. I will say that Christian concepts of afterlife, eternal judgment, etc. are some of the most complicated aspects of my faith and the grossly condescending and inaccurate cliff-notes versions that are commonly passed around are, for lack of a better word, vulgar and embarrassing.

Again the most important thing I'm talking about is this: examine the motivation of 'faith' on the human animal. The uncertainty of the universe is mind-boggling. We invented anthropomorphic faces for the natural powers around us to understand them, to symbolise them and contain them, to not go insane by thinking what this thunder is that falls randomly out of the sky and splits the old tree in half. The sentient animal needs faith because otherwise they'd go insane trying to run a fault simulation in their mind in which there are no dangers around them. As long as inexplicable things happen, the animal thinks it's in danger! It must make its surroundings safe and it must make the internal world safe by establishing symbols, words and stories that are causal and make sense. Where did we come from? Goddidit. Where are we going? God knows. What should we do? God tells.

There are points where supernatural attributes have been credited to natural occurrences, yes. Just as emotions were once thought of as stemming from the heart. Our understanding of the universe changes with time. But again, the fact that God's hands don't manipulate the sun through the sky has nothing to do with whether or not He could exist. The questions you ask, "Where did we come from?" - "Where are we going" - "What should we do?" - those of us who profess faith in God do not have such simple, trite answers to those questions as what you listed on our behalf. God is the launching pad for the long difficult journey of discovering the answers, not a cop out to avoid them.

Try to take a few steps outside the box in which you're trying to rationalize the existence of the most huge overspill of thermodynamic energy in the universe and think of WHY you are doing it.

Been there and done that. Self examination and faith are two things that tend to co-habitate. If you're searching for an ulterior motive for my advocating God's existence, you won't find one. My belief in God isn't so that He will like me... that's silly because if I didn't believe in Him it wouldn't matter whether He likes me or not. My belief in God isn't because it makes me feel better about life; in fact many times my beliefs has caused me to look at life quite harshly. My belief in God is not an act of will but a culmination of every experience and all the knowledge that I have obtained up until this point.

[Akira]

For me the most alarming thing about this comic was that Science obviously has no backpack. So just where did he get his flashlight?

[.TakaM]

religion has the answer

[Larwick]

For me the most alarming thing about this comic was that Science obviously has no backpack. So just where did he get his flashlight?

Ahah! So by understanding that we can assume they are actually inside his backpack!

[Gil]

Maybe he has an invisible backpack that created itself and can't be proven to exist. The backpack said "let there be flashlight" and so there was.

[Ben2theEdge]

Maybe he doesn't really want to know where the flashlight came from because he doesn't like the moral implications. When the batteries run out it will just be dark again and he's totally okay with that. 

[Panda]

A flashlight with batteries? Pfft.
Science would be carrying one of these:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/lights/875c/

And of course kept in a gadget belt!

[Helm]

Helm : just reread what I write perhaps.

Sure, I'll do that.

my definition of Religion is as objective as it can be :

You use 'objective' in a very strange manner. I guess it must be your personal lexicon. I will re-read what you write to learn your language some other time, perhaps.

You have a way of always misinterpreting everything I say in extremely negative ways, and I just don't know how to avoid this.

I'm sorry you feel that way. As to how to avoid this, you'd have to realize what a conversation is first. I'll keep re-reading until you do.

I don't claim to be an expert in it, and honestly I really loath the subject.

Well it's not very pleasant to realize that everything is inherently subjective and that there is no truth, is it?

You may claim not to take 1+1=2 as a binding proposition, but you can only say that to support a philosophical argument. In the real world you depend on this proposition every day just to process the world around you, as do we all. When we stop talking and look at practical reality we find that truth exists. If you tried living your life liberated from the notion that 1+1=2, you would not survive.

No, see here's what it is: Of course I will take 1+1=2 as an applicable model since I am sitting here in front of my computer which is made of this binary logic model. But inside of me I know to approach any 'handy' thing that rests on 'handy' truths with a boulder of salt because these things have been shown again and again to be mutable, to be evolving. There is no 'truth' because there is no objectivity of any kind, everything you experience is only what you experience, there is no way to be certain that it's exactly as other people experience it. This is not an academic matter for me, it has really helped me live better to approach reality with this existential humbleness. I think it's a very big neurosis of the modern human that he believes that because he made motor cars and computers and rockets, he now holds in his hands some ever-dependable axiomatic truths. It leads to all sorts of problems for him, this hybris. It's the other side of the God hybris, in a way.

I'm having a really hard time following you through this paragraph. Are you saying that since we can't transplant ourselves into other creatures' experiences, we don't have the authority to claim the existence of God? Not a challenge here, but a request for clarification.

I am saying that since we can't transplant ourselves ANYWHERE but inside of where we are, we can only draw flimsy, empathic parallels between oneself and the outside world and that therefore words are not the way in which something like a 'God' can be approached.

And if he can only be approached through personal experience, then he is not something that should be talked about as if his traits are a matter of public consciousness.

Furthermore, a scientific model, which is useful for interpreting reality in comfortable ways doesn't seem to allow for the overspill of an endless God. The scientific model is not proof that God doesn't exist  as the model itself is highly debatable. It is just proof that if you enjoy working within this scientific model to interpret reality, whatever this 'God' being is, does not factor in. You can't have your pie and eat it too.

Science and faith have very different roles. Not opposing. Complimentary. And separate.

When it comes to the human psyche I posit that there are no 'COMPLEMENTARY BUT SEPARAAAATE' effects. I'm sure the part of your brain that deals with a faith in a higher being also deals with an enduring reliability that gravity will be in effect tomorrow. These things make you feel safe, and the search for safety in the animal is holistic, whether it is self-aware or not.

I dislike this often-said quote where science and faith are separate but equal. It seems to me that the people that say this have not looked into what epistemological weights science carries very carefully and are just saying 'MY kind of science, the docile and handy one, not that other one where God doesn't factor in'. I'm not saying you cannot pick and choose, your language is your own and do whatever you want with it, no shame etc etc. Just be honest about it. If the second law of thermodynamics exists in your model of reality, then there is no God. If your god is outside the universe, then he is useless and creates an infinite who-created-the-creator-regress.

So if you saw God face to face you would consider him a hallucination? Are you sure you're unbiased regarding the possibility of his existence?

Yes I am not biased because you see, the probability of a God existing is so small in a thermodynamic universe where if I were to sit face to face with him I'd have to consider all the other (and I mean ALL) more probable scenarios for what I am experiencing before I reach for the 'there is no conservation of energy after all!!' card. Do you understand this scenario I am presenting? I can restate it in such a way: I may take some drugs and see God in all his glory. Then I may come off of the drugs. Should I consider it more probable that I was hallucinating or that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't exist after all?

Also I must say I'd be very disappointed in my subconsciousness if it presented me with a God on the moment of death. I'd have strongly rathered it would present me with visions of carnal excess and happyness, so I may slip into nothingness without these burdens that a highly religious society has impressed on me at a young age. Shame on them for shaping minds in such a way that one may not enjoy their own deaths

Again... this is getting into personal beliefs which would be a bad turn for this discussion to talk. Although I'd be happy to dialogue about that privately. I will say that Christian concepts of afterlife, eternal judgment, etc. are some of the most complicated aspects of my faith and the grossly condescending and inaccurate cliff-notes versions that are commonly passed around are, for lack of a better word, vulgar and embarrassing.

I don't know how your personalized vision of the afterlife or hell looks like, but as long as unrepentant sinners feel some degree of uncomfort for all eternity in it, let me tell you that it's probably embarassing and vulgar for me too. But feel free to expound on some different sort of hell you have in mind.

There are points where supernatural attributes have been credited to natural occurrences, yes. Just as emotions were once thought of as stemming from the heart. Our understanding of the universe changes with time. But again, the fact that God's hands don't manipulate the sun through the sky has nothing to do with whether or not He could exist.

But as more and more is 'explained' (I stress the '' s because as I said I don't think science 'explains' anything, but it does provide a handy model) through science, then what use is your God anymore? Even if he exists, who should care? The use of a God is from my point of view clearly a psychological one, and I won't say it's BAD that people need the metaphysical shoulder to cry on, I certainly cry on different shoulders too from time to time. I just don't think these shoulders should be justified and agreed upon universally as to be existing before you can do your crying. Cry on your great great grandfather's ghastly shoulder, that's far less thermodynamically insulting. He won't mind. He will comfort you also. But a freakin' GOD? Creator of the universe? HE'S the one whom you summon? Isn't that the worst hybris in the world?

I've felt more comfort (not to mention awe) by looking at my little cat cleaning its fur than I've ever felt pondering religion, for one, so it's hard for me to understand where you're coming from, but if you can provide for me some other motivation for summoning the biggest thermodynamic fault you could ever in existence besides emotional support, I'd love to hear it. Cuz

The questions you ask, "Where did we come from?" - "Where are we going" - "What should we do?" - those of us who profess faith in God do not have such simple, trite answers to those questions as what you listed on our behalf. God is the launching pad for the long difficult journey of discovering the answers, not a cop out to avoid them.

You're stalling here and also

Been there and done that. Self examination and faith are two things that tend to co-habitate. If you're searching for an ulterior motive for my advocating God's existence, you won't find one. My belief in God isn't so that He will like me... that's silly because if I didn't believe in Him it wouldn't matter whether He likes me or not. My belief in God isn't because it makes me feel better about life; in fact many times my beliefs has caused me to look at life quite harshly. My belief in God is not an act of will but a culmination of every experience and all the knowledge that I have obtained up until this point.

here. You're telling me I'm wrong in my assumptions (fair enough) but you're not presenting the truth about why you need your thermodynamically challenged God. Those bits of personal information you're hesitating to present to me are what I'm ultimately interested in. I don't want to challenge your faith in the least, really. I want to understand you.

[SolidIdea]

I want to understand you.

You don't. Maybe I've misread you for the whole discussion, but you are not one to strive for understandment in this subject.
For one to understand a noesis must be capable of empathy on the matter, but as of now, it seems you question yourself before such could happen.
You don't need to accept and take as truth to know or at least judge something as it is on the realm of the possibility.
Although that too does not say or imply that everything must be true or real, just that everything is for the sake of being.

And if by any means I mistook you for any, please correct me so, english is not my first language so interpretations are somewhat of a trap to me.

[Helm]

I do not think understanding someone implies that I may do so fully and completely and dependably (or even reliably). If you'd rather I use a different word (one that is far more creepy!) I want to 'feel' the other side even a little bit. I want to feel it's naked bod-- uh, I want to achieve some empathy that isn't based on cheap cliches (whose sole use is that they're easy to empathize with) and for this to happen I want to ask the risky questions (why do you need a God?) and get an answer without any shame.

Your observation is an astute one however. I try to avoid this double standard you spot, and the way that I do this is by being humble about the limitations of my understanding and by being honest about what ends it serves. I'm not attempting science on Ben2theEdge.