We all have faith in something: world views take faith.

Nope .. my policy .. be polite .. trust no one .. rely on my own knowledge.. skill and abilities ..
relying on others gets you a knife in the back or dead .. as to religion its a sham to oppress.. control and justify theft and murder over whose barbaric figment of the imagination is better ..

a reply to: Expat888

Ok

So what these are the answer I seem to have gotten from you is :

Is there a supreme being? No.

Where did the universe come from? What ever my knowledge skill and abilities says

What sustains the nature of the universe? No answer from you

Do humans have intrinsic value? If I say they do.

Who makes the rules? I do.

Do these rules apply to everyone? not sure where you stand on that.

So what I have gotten from you is the most reliable world view is for me to put my faith in you. Sorry but I just don't think that is the most reliable world view

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Ok so again for the third time you continue to avoid the questions in the OP...why?

If you have faith in things backed up by evidence lets take each of those questions and see if that is true of your world view.

I don't know if you missed it but I said I am not entirely sure what you questions are I then asked if you could rephrase them with numbers.

Is there a Supreme being? You have answered No. So what is the reality then? No God and simply Matter? What evidence do you have to support this? Or do you put complete trust in that idea?

OK well that is a plain question.

Do I believe in a supreme being: I have no belief in one.

What evidence do you have to support this: I have no evidence for or against one. There is a lack of evidence= No evidence no belief.

It is like asking do you believe pink unicorns orbit saturn.

There is a probability that there isn't but there is no evidence for or against it.

Again blind faith is silly. Who would want to believe in something with no evidence? So whenever you discuss faith with me its imperative you read it as complete trust when I write it otherwise you will misinterpret the meaning of my sentences.

When you put it that way then NO. I do not completely trust anything except maybe that I think therefore I am. What that "i am" maybe I can not be certain of because I cannot completely trust my perception of reality.

Is that deep enough for you?

I am trying to determine if you have faith in things only backed up by evidence, but you refuse to respond to the questions in the OP because I think you know they will quickly show you either put your complete faith in yourself or other ideas that cannot be backed up by evidence.

Yes to be basic in the matter I only believe in things which have evidence. The stronger the evidence the stronger the belief.

To be honest with you I had no idea where you were going wit it which is why I asked you to rephrase.

Seems I only believe in myself and my ability to take in and interpret data which is fine with me.

Now as I have said I put my faith in Christ. I think that is the most reliable person to put my faith in based on evidence not because I believe that blindly and its arrogant of you to assume that I blindly believe those things.

You think I am arrogant that I think belief in religion is blind faith...hmmm...what does that say about you?

I have not decided that you blindly believe whatever it is that you believe without first having a conversation with you, so why don't you extend me the same courtesy ?

I have extended you the courtesy. Maybe you can be clearer in your OPs that would go a long way don't you think?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheArrow

So basically you are telling me I cannot imagine a "creator of the universe" but thats entirely untrue. I can relate an external Supreme being to a Master Simulator and His Simulation. A being outside the system. That is not unfathomable and therefore is a legitimate philosophical concept. You have taken a very lazy approach and just like everyone else ignored the questions in the OP so that your own world view cannot be intellectually analyzed by other.

A Master and His Simulation defines the simulation in terms of the master, i.e. His simulation. It's circular and doesn't actually mean anything.

For something to be a simulation, there needs to be a model. What is the model being simulated? Is that also outside of the Master, or a part of Him? If either, it doesn't matter, because it is circular.

Good .. because I have no interest in being a leader or having followers.
I live my life on my terms not the terms of others .. I have no need nor use for any governments.. leaders .. religions .. all are outdated failed primitive concepts that humans cling to because they dont want to think for themselves.. they dont want to take responsibility for their own actions .. the majority still lack compassion for their fellow humans prefering money .. power and material things instead ..

a reply to: TheArrow

For something to be a simulation, there needs to be a model. What is the model being simulated? Is that also outside of the Master, or a part of Him? If either, it doesn't matter, because it is circular.

First it was an analogy. It was meant to portray a concept of a being outside the system. In no way is tha a circular concept.

The theological noncognitivist presents one of the very few true arguments from incredulity. They say because they can imagine a unicorn it is an actual philosophical concept but because they cannot imagine a Supreme creator of the system we find ourselves in they are not even actual concepts which is bologna, and lazy. Why dont you answer the questions in the OP?

a reply to: deadeyedick

Science fits the definition of religion.

I will not bother posting the definition here because the definitions of a religion are always changing. As a matter of fact the definitions have even changed a bit in the last couple weeks since i last looked but all in all the bottom line is that being a religion does not mean you have to have a central diety. Check out a couple of the definitions and see if science could be defined by any of those definitions.

That is not to sat that one can not better define science in other terms but that science does fit in the definition of religion. They are all matters of faith and science has changed and contridicted too much in the past to be considered complete.

Well you're not being helpful at all so I looked it up. BTW the definition is the same as it was last year and the year before I don't know when you think it was changed, So anyway lets follow this rabbit.

religion
[ri-lij-uh n] Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic. religious rites:

Number 2 may work so lets see what belief means.

belief
[bih-leef] Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction:
a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust:
a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:
the Christian belief.

With that number 1 may work lets look it up.

con·vic·tion
kənˈvikSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
a formal declaration that someone is guilty of a criminal offense, made by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law.
"she had a previous conviction for a similar offense"
synonyms: declaration of guilt, sentence, judgment
"his conviction for murder"
antonyms: acquittal
2.
a firmly held belief or opinion.
"his conviction that the death was no accident"
synonyms: belief, opinion, view, thought, persuasion, idea, position, stance, article of faith
"his political convictions"

Well lets see number 2 leads back to the definition of belief which can't work or we would be in circles so lets llok up Opinion.

o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/Submit
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Hmmm.... do you have a different dictionary somewhere because these don't work for it.

a reply to: Expat888

Ok friend but why is compassion and taking responsibility for ones own actions something people should strive for?

Why does being polite matter?

You see you attaching meaning to your life but if there is no God life is ultimately meaningless, but that again contradicts my experiences in reality.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You see you attaching meaning to your life but if there is no God life is ultimately meaningless, but that again contradicts my experiences in reality.

I think you got it completely backwards.

IMO life without a god, afterlife...yada yada means life has more meaning it is the most meaningful thing. Life.

a reply to: Grimpachi

you claim i am not helpful.

not every definition is the same. there are hundreds of definitions of the word religion and yes some have changed since i last looked.

Your mind is made up and that is ok with me if you want to continue to ignore what is in your face.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You see you attaching meaning to your life but if there is no God life is ultimately meaningless

Where do you come up with this stuff?

a reply to: deadeyedick

When someone says something like it is there(the definition) but I am not going to show you that usually means they are BSing you.

Oh well I followed your rabbit now I am having stew.

This is playing with words.

Its like me saying that everyone felt god because god is love. God = love, everyone felt love, everyone felt god.

Same thing with faith. Faith = complete trust in something, everyone has complete trust in something, everyone has faith.

I have seen many Christians trying to downgrade science in the level of religion by saying that "you need as much faith in science as you do in religion".

Anyways, Ill say that I try to have as little beliefs in my worldview as i can. Lets go to the god issue. Is there a "creator"? I dont know but I dont believe there is one, why? I havent seen any evidence of one. Could there be a creator? sure, but I wont believe in one until I see good evidence.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheArrow

First it was an analogy. It was meant to portray a concept of a being outside the system. In no way is tha a circular concept.

What system? The system of the Master's creation. The system (universe) is the Master's (God's) creation.

It doesn't actually mean anything.

Imagine that "God" is a number, like the number 4.

What is the number 4? The number 4 in and of itself is meaningless unless it is modifying something. What does "God" modify? The answer is nothing.

The theological noncognitivist presents one of the very few true arguments from incredulity. They say because they can imagine a unicorn it is an actual philosophical concept but because they cannot imagine a Supreme creator of the system we find ourselves in they are not even actual concepts which is bologna, and lazy. Why dont you answer the questions in the OP?

Why won't I answer the questions of the OP? Because you won't even tell me what it is you are talking about.

What is "God"?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Life is short .. its also the most valuable thing a person has .. its not to be wasted or thrown away lightly .. theres already enough misery in the world .. dont need to add more to it .. better to do what can to make it better while here and help those who see that truly need help ..

a little politeness goes a long way and makes everyones day a little better ..

99% of the things people squable over are pointless and dont mean a thing in the long run of history .. not worth stressing over meaningless things ..

the reward is in growing as a human being and in knowing that you did something to help someone who needed it ..

a reply to: Grimpachi

I don't know if you missed it but I said I am not entirely sure what you questions are I then asked if you could rephrase them with numbers.

All of the questions in the OP are already listed. They are just as sweet and short as Is there a supreme being do I really need to rephrase? Go read the OP, as I am starting to wonder if you read it at all. There is a list of questions in the OP.

What evidence do you have to support this: I have no evidence for or against one. There is a lack of evidence= No evidence no belief.

Well simply put if you have no evidence for or against and I produce one piece of evidence for the existence of a God wouldn't it automatically become more reliable as you have no evidence to the contrary. And lets clarify here that I am asking for evidence that God does not exist not proof that God does exist.

Evidence for the universe being product of a Supreme Being:
Anthropic principle
Big Bang Cosmology
The rational human mind
DNA
The historical resurrection of Christ
The existence of Moral Absolutes
Life doesn't come from Nonlife in my observational experience

Seems I only believe in myself and my ability to take in and interpret data which is fine with me.

So what I am hearing is that ultimately all of your faith is in yourself and your minds ability to interpret sensory data. This is a faith that you are telling me is reliable. What evidence do you have that living this way will bring you to the best objective understanding of reality?

When you put it that way then NO. I do not completely trust anything except maybe that I think therefore I am. What that "i am" maybe I can not be certain of because I cannot completely trust my perception of reality.

Now you have made a faith claim here. "I cannot trust my perception of reality." I respect your intellectual consistency. If God is not real you are absolutely right, we cannot trust our own perception. Now is that world view consistent with how you live your life? Do you distrust your own perception of reality on a daily basis? I personally do not. So that world view would contradict the experiences i've observed.

a reply to: windword

Where do you come up with this stuff?

If no God exist then humans are essentially a cosmic accident. Cosmic accidents have no intrinsic value. As I said one could argue that there is subjective meaning to life, but objectively life is meaningless.

a reply to: danielsil18

This is playing with words.

Its not playing with words. I didn't make the definition of faith up. It is a literal definition of faith that I pulled from google.

I didn't ask you why you believed there was no creator I simply asked what is your world view? Is there a supreme being in that world view?

Then I asked questions about your beliefs about the universe and about morals and things of that nature I am not here to convince you of God but simply to have a conversation about our beliefs. The point that everyone has faith wasn't my main point, but the question of whether that faith is based on the most reliable thing possible.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You are correct. But let it be known that faith is not given to any principle or God as such, but to the humans who have promised it is true. That's where one's faith lies.

a reply to: Grimpachi

IMO life without a god, afterlife...yada yada means life has more meaning it is the most meaningful thing. Life.

Ok but with out God I could just as easily say I think its more meaningful to end life and try and bring about the destruction of all that is as quick as possible and objectively you cannot tell me otherwise. Therefore ultimately life has no objective meaning but only a false subjective illusion of our mind.