SeVeR

In what you quoted i said "probable truths" not "provable truths" as you said in your first post. How on Earth can saying probable truths' date=' a statement that directly establishes uncertainty, imply something that can be proven? I feel i've been taken out of context here. This is what i originally said: So what i meant was the complete opposite to what you've selectively quoted and implied. I don't believe anything can be proven beyond doubt, and I don't hold any beliefs that I am certain of.

I define religion as having faith that your beliefs are right. Thus, not everyone is religious. I am a skeptic, scientist, agnostic. I don't believe any Gods exist but i certainly won't say they don't exist, that would be unscientific. I don't have any faith in the beliefs i hold. All my beliefs are based on probable truths obtained through observation and logic. I don't have faith that my observations are correct, I don't have faith that I am right. I freely admit that i could know absolutely nothing. Am i religious?

Atheism is a religion because there is faith in God not existing. I don't see how agnosticism is a religion, because by it's nature it doesn't subscribe to any notion of faith. Please, the people who have said Agnosticism is a religion, explain why?

Hah, very interesting article. The author makes the same mistake Dawkins is making. Despite vertical and horizontal parasites being an analogy that accounts for many more variables than simple diseases, it still fails to account for human choice and various other probabilistic factors that would dilute the results of any actual studies undertaken to verify their theories. I actually have a much better theory, and I'm beginning to think it's time to write a paper on it before someone else does.

What is the use of religion in society? How is religion a product of natural selection? Many people use the argument that religion is useful for providing absolute morality to people who would otherwise be unable to act for the good of society without it. I would reply that although religion is used in this way, it doesn't need to be used at all. Christians have become dependent on absolute religious morality, and although they may not be able to exist without it, they never needed it in the first place. The evolutionary development of religion is a question that i wish to delve into in the future, so i welcome your thoughts. At this stage I would say that religion has survived natural selection by providing strength through a uniting of thought among the weaker members of society at the expense of rational decision making. In the weaker members of society sacrificing rationality does not provide a disability sufficient enough to cancel out the benefits of collective thought, and so religion survives among the weak. Sacrificing rationality is an all-or-nothing gamble that can cost you everything, and the stronger members of society, with more to lose, will ultimately reject religion. This theory undoubtedly needs a bit of tweeking as i just spewed it out of my thoughts, but please chip in with your own thoughts.

Tigron, do you think it's possible for someone to know they know the truth?

The most exact meaning of the scripture died with the men who wrote it. You have identified the perfect example to illustrate my point. The quotes i gave earlier were interpreted by the Church to mean the Earth is flat and the centre of the universe, thus they disapproved of Galileo and Copernicus. Nowadays they interpret the scripture differently and have withdrawn their condemnation of Galileo. This is one example from many of how the interpretation of scripture changes. It's utterly proven and if you had studied any religious history at all you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous claim. (and i just gave you an example) The Church founders selected what books to use in the Bible, and made a great many edits to the original texts, which would be almost unrecognisable from the originals (neglecting language change). So the Church effectively decided what should be used as the basis for their religion and their definition of God. But i forget that you're the historical expert on these matters... A religion is only the sum of it's parts, and if all it's followers believe their God to be something, then that IS the Christian God. What you call the Christian God is probably not believed by Christians, so it's not the Christian God. If the Church has led people astray then the Church has changed the Christian God. To assert differently would be to assert that God definately exists and is not an idea fuelled only by our belief in him. So, do you believe in God? It doesn't matter if they believe the true Christian God because probably no-one does. The only true Christian was Jesus.

Time for a Nietzsche quote: "All things are subject to interpretation, whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." Tig, to claim that there are true followers of Christ you would have to assert that one particular interpretation of the scripture is true. Given that 95% of Christians may disagree with your interpretation of what makes a true follower, how can you assert that your interpretation is true? Christians will claim their interpretation is true which is why I thought you were a Christian when you mentioned this. This goes back to what we were discussing earlier about how we can't know anything.

No, God is an idea, and he is defined by whatever the current interpretation of the scripture is. Christians define their God, not scripture, because the interpretation of scripture will always change. If most Christians define their God as a spaghetti monster from Mars then they'll find a way to interpret the scripture into saying that. More realistically, the interpretation of scripture is influenced almost entirely by whatever domineering culture holds sway over the religion. In our age of Western equality we are finding the Bible interpreted to meaniing women are allowed to preach and homosexuals are allowed to live normal lives. Christians define God.

So you're telling me that most Christians don't actually worship the Christian God?

A paradox? I'm blaming the Christian belief in God, not my belief. As an agnostic, if the Christian God exists then he is to blame for hindering scientific progress because he is defined by Christians. And who wrote the scripture? Church founders perhaps? :roll: The Church does this in the name of God. The Christian God in his absence is defined by the Church, and either he is to blame for the actions of his followers, or he isn't the Christian God at all. OK, so we are talking about different Gods here. I am talking about the Christian God and you are talking about some entity that doesn't represent Christians. The Bible is interpreted by every society differently. You sound like a Christian when you talk about true followers. It's impossible for me to prove a negative. Now you're just being ridiculous.

I'll throw a possibility out there: You'd need to be an existing drug-user in order to buy from the government, and a test would be used to determine drug use. This in theory should cut the number of new users to almost zero. Obviously some people will still find a way to get drugs (possibly from existing users who WILL be able to buy from the government), but the beauty of this theory is there would be no drug-dealing business left to get new users addicted; so you can place massive constraints on anyone who isn''t already a user. Any drug-dealer trying to get new users addicted would just lose their customer to the government instantly as they'd become an existing user. As for shops not wanting to sell, i was always going to suggest government clinics sell the drugs, as they could do the necessary checks and offer the appropriate help. Remember i'm talking about non-profit here. The aim of the whole process is to reduce the cost of drugs so much that drug-dealers would find it impossible to compete, thereby removing the drug-trade. Thus, the government would need to be the dealer.

You wouldn't be able to take drugs and drive' date=' which would be the same as alcohol... which i'm guessing is something NBV is happy with. I think NBV would pay more taxes currently for the "war on drugs" and keeping all these drug-users in prison.

Yup, that would be NBV's first point answered. Missed that one, mb. I quoted this article before, but: "A former senior civil servant who was responsible for coordinating the government's anti-drugs policy now believes that legalisation would be less harmful than the current strategy. Julian Critchley, the former director of the Cabinet Office's anti-drugs unit, also said that his views were shared by the "overwhelming majority" of professionals in the field, including police officers, health workers and members of the government." http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/au...ed=networkfront

These pirates should dress up like the real thing and fly the traditional skull n' bones. They might actually get some support that way.

Do it in 5 years and not today. The Obama Presidency does not need to become pre-occupied with prosecuting Bush based on differing idealogy. It would dominate his Presidency and ruin his chance to do what many of us put him in power to do. The media would have a field day, the right-wing cynics would make Obama look like a bitter vengeful waste of a President who is trying to divert attention away from failed policy by pandering to liberal calls for Bush's head... etc etc. Obama shouldn't let this dominate his time in office.

In a country where money has become more important, people are finding more ways to get ahold of it. I blame unchecked capitalism, in much the same way i blame it for the banking crisis. We are finally hearing how the laws that came after the Great Depression were silenty removed, and how the critics were silenced altogether. It's ridiculous how all this comes to light now when the damage is already done. Hopefully the economy will recover and these laws will be put back into place to stop it happening again... at least for another 75 years. The banks had to get involved in the credit bubble whether they liked it or not, otherwise they would have fallen behind. This is why we need laws in place to stop abusers of the system from facking it up for everyone else.

Suicide is insanity, so i say yes. Help insane people die if they want to.

We need to get back to traditional family values! I want to keep mah gun in mah truck and for people to be fine with it cos we be hunting in ye ol' woods out dum there. How can ye stomach these dang liberals, or liberachis, when they act like we can't trust no body! Yeehaw!

Replace brick with alcohol intoxication. I guess you don't have a problem now? Or at least most people don't. There would still be laws against driving intoxicated (drugs/alcohol). Non-profit means you still cover your operating costs with sales..... Don't see how making drugs legal makes this worse TBH... Well i didn't need 8 pages for that did I.

What the law considers criminal and what the public considers criminal are different things entirely. If the judges were to make murder legal then the public would still see it as criminal. I'm talking about dispelling the notion that drug-users are criminals, and making drugs legal would help to convince people.

It's an important step towards making all drugs legal and dispelling the notion that drug-users are criminals. The people who seek to profit by getting people addicted to drugs are the only criminals.

I wasn't saying more immigrants will help or that them leaving should be sad... They come and go as the demand dictates.

I don't need a semantic argument here because it's all interpretation. A logical one will suffice: The Christian God is defined by the Church. The Bible is interpreted as God's word by the Church. Thus the Church has used God's word to hinder science. Another interpretation might have yielded results more favourable to science, but that wasn't the case. Thus, for not using an interpretation that could be properly understood by the Church, the Christian God has hindered science. If his greatest followers cannot interpret his words correctly then this is God's fault, it's especially God's fault when you realise that an omnipotent being would know the future (which he is by the Christian definition of God being infinitely powerful, and so my argument is irrefutable given your criteria and the Christian definition for an infinite God). On the infinity argument you were so vague that i decided to just go on what i thought you were saying. Please tell us what you meant when you said: "And if you want me to prove to you the existence of such a being, then I ask you to first prove infinity." Existence isn't finite?? Be less vague and explain what you mean. An understanding of the truth is not knowledge, but like you say (and i would agree), it is wisdom to possess a great number of logical deductions from your seeking of the truth. Knowledge really is defined as justified true belief, which is why i can't claim to have any knowledge. Perhaps what i said in the last post was slightly wrong. Let me rephrase what you quoted me as saying to: I seek knowledge and the closest I've come to knowing something, from the total regression of all the unproven justifications for the beliefs i hold, is that it is impossible to know anything. So this isn't something i hold to be true. Its just the closest i can get to truth in my opinion. To believe that possessing knowledge is impossible is therefore the closest thing to knowledge i possess because it relies on the most observations. So i am not all-knowing. I guess you could say that i have a logical outlook on most things as a result though.