Do you believe?

[violetgem]

Katie_21 I want to know!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sounds like you have a good story to tell, maybe one I should read first thing in the am so I can try not to think about it before I go to sleep!! But now you got me wonderin...hmmmmm

[JimmyJump]

"Impossible" is a word that I seldom use, as in the past a lot of things deemed "impossible" later suddenly became possible (flying, going to the moon...).

A French king once said that it was impossible that rocks came falling from the sky "simply because there are no rocks in the sky"... Yet rocks DO fall from the sky...

I do believe in the existence of "ghosts", certainly since I've read an article about a science project that found out that every human being that dies, whatever his/her age or weight, loses exactly 21 grams at the moment of passing away...

So maybe there are "ghosts", but maybe most of us just can't see 'em...


JJ

[Flaming_Redhead]

I'm a Christian, so I believe in angels and demons. They are all around us and affect people in different ways. I personally have never seen anything but I have felt a presence that I believe to be angelic. I don't know if that is true or just my "feel good" mood at the time however.

I don't believe in ghosts. I believe that angels and demons can appear in any form they choose. I have felt both a malevolent presence as well as a benign presence at different times in my life, but I have never seen anything.

[slave327-834-200]

As a kid growing up on an isloated island we made our own fun and many of us were attracted to doing ouija boards and channeling, my older brother and his friends were heavily into it and i joined in for fun, being to young to really understand it all. I went through around a two year period where i did these things nearly daily and a great many things happened that make me believe in a connection between planes, thinking about it now makes my eyes well as I remember it all.

To answer the question about ghosts... I don't know if I believe in the dead, but I definitely believe in astral projection and that many who try it are... clumsy.

The one experience i could never explain was a night where we spoke with a friend of my brothers - "P", while he was "sleeping" on his couch at home, 10 miles from where we were. This time i was not with my brother but three of my friends who were as equally freaked out as I was. We never spoke of it again, not trusting that one of the others werent faking it.
About 7 years later after i have moved away from the island i was home and at a dance and i bumped into "P". We spoke for a bit, catching up on the gossip and such when he turned round and said he was surprised that i had never ever mentioned the time we had spoken on the ouija board, I was so shocked i nearly started to cry. I said that i hadnt really believed it had happened or understood how it could have and he explained he had been practicing "astral projection" and as we were using a board he himself had used many times he could channel to it.

I have spoken with family members that had passed, seen objects move and felt the presence of another inside myself. I look back and feel i was foolish to "play" with such things as a child and i have no desire to do so now or again in the future as it is not something to do, properly, lightly.

As for actually seeing a ghost, I never have and always wanted to, though now i dont think i could handle it.

[violetgem]

wow slave327-834-200 that is crazy, it gave me goosebumps just reading it!!!

[slave327-834-200]

wow slave327-834-200 that is crazy, it gave me goosebumps just reading it!!!

I have totally freaked myself out thinking about it all again too, looks like im sleeping down on the couch tonight!
~sprinkles livingroom with salt before getting a blankie out~

[Warbaby1943]

Salve that is some story and I can see why you wouldn't want to do it again. I know I wouldn't want to do it in the first place.

[buzzy]

TO OZME52, I would hope if you truly use a tarot deck you have more commitment and honor then to use them for sexual pleasure. maybe your just kidding around I don't know?? I don't know if others looking might make decisions based on your comments.

[JimmyJump]

The same can be said about any religious faith. Which is how I view the belief in ghosts, or not believing in them. If believing in them provides some sort of comfort for you somewhere, then good. If you don't also good.

V/R
ID

For some reason, ghosts, or other 'non-human entities' always seem to draw-in a religious flock, as if those religious folk have all the wisdom and/or sole authority when it comes to the recently (or longer) departed...

People are not religious by nature, but only become thus through outside influences... Religion has nothing to do with the possibility of the existence of ghosts... In fact, speaking in simple terms, God himself is an apparition (a burning bush, anyone?) and could be called a ghost...

I am inclined to believe that ghosts or spirits exist in another dimension, but that there are ports in-between dimensions that are 'accidnetally' used by otherwordly spirits or ghosts or whatever you want to call them...

Another reason why I am inclined towards believing, is the fact that we, humans, cannot invent something that cannot exist, for the mere mentioning of something, makes it exist...

A washing machine, for example, was not 'invented' but was 'discovered'...

Just like Columbus did not invent America, but discovered it... It was not because no-one yet discovered the American continent, that it did not exist...


JJ

[TomOfSweden]

People are not religious by nature, but only become thus through outside influences... Religion has nothing to do with the possibility of the existence of ghosts... In fact, speaking in simple terms, God himself is an apparition (a burning bush, anyone?) and could be called a ghost...

I am inclined to believe that ghosts or spirits exist in another dimension, but that there are ports in-between dimensions that are 'accidnetally' used by otherwordly spirits or ghosts or whatever you want to call them...

Another reason why I am inclined towards believing, is the fact that we, humans, cannot invent something that cannot exist, for the mere mentioning of something, makes it exist...

A washing machine, for example, was not 'invented' but was 'discovered'...

Just like Columbus did not invent America, but discovered it... It was not because no-one yet discovered the American continent, that it did not exist...

JJ

This a logical fallacy BTW:
"People are not religious by nature, but only become thus through outside influences... "

It's called Post hoc ergo propter hoc in logic. B just doesn't follow from A. There's no logical connection between them.

Logical fallacy number 2:

"Another reason why I am inclined towards believing, is the fact that we, humans, cannot invent something that cannot exist, for the mere mentioning of something, makes it exist..."

You say in the same sentance that humans can make something exist from nothing, (mentioning X -> creates X) while you at the same time deny it.

Who says that we didn't just make up religion to explain how our world works in scientific models that where understandable to the minds of early humans? There's no proof against it and you claim it as fact.

It is encouraging that you at least atempt to justify your beliefs. There's not a whole lot of that going on in this forum. Something I find more than just a little bit unsettling.

take care
-Tom

[ElectricBadger]

We have a limited understanding of things going on in reality; we also only interact with a very small number of dimensions (scientific proofs demonstrate the existence of at least several times the ones we see -- more in the 20's at least -- with the possibility there are in fact an infinite number). Each dimension sees things happening incompletely and imperfectly. Imagine removing our understanding of time, in the middle of a ball game. In a stopped image, we would see a ball hovering midair, and would be forced to conclude that gravity does not apply to small, white balls. Personally, I think we have the same view of the universe: things happen we cannot understand or explain -- and there are a great many things going on that we can't explain at all -- because we have imperfect information. My father in law firmly believes that humans span all these other dimensions, and our actions here -- and existence, or end thereof -- are only a small part of that which is Us. I find comfort there, and afterlife aside I have to admit that current science does solidly confirm we're interacting with reality in ways we have no idea about. So there is room for clairvoyance, telekinesis, and apparitions in all our mathematical models.

Personally yes, I have had at least one real experience: we're quite sure that my father in law's house is "haunted." On several occasions, various people have heard a woman open the door and enter, and call out a greeting "I'm hoooome!" I didn't believe it personally, despite several people hearing it on several occasions, one without knowing the story at all, until I heard it myself. Sitting on the back porch talking to the family, I heard the greeting very clearly -- enough to say, "I think that's Jenny" and go greet my sister in law, who I thought it was. On all these occasions -- including my own -- the dogs were the first ones to react, jumping up and racing straight to the front door barking greetings. So there's definitely SOMETHING going on, although random hello's don't seem terribly ominous.

[TomOfSweden]

things happen we cannot understand or explain -- and there are a great many things going on that we can't explain at all -- because we have imperfect information.

Me not being able to explain things is not the same thing as nobody can explain it. Not being able to explain something only means just that. That's why Universities have physics departments. Anybody believing firmly in anything while there are several simultaneous plausible theories with the exact same amount of proof, (or non-proof) suporting them is not very bright. I despise any closed minded fanatic making certain claims based on hearsay, (insert anti-religious rant).

I leave it for the particle physists and astronomers to explain the universe, because they are in a position to know where I, (or anybody else without the training) most certainly are not.

I used to be respectful of other peoples religions and not point out their problems because I thought it would make the world a better place. Now I've realised that, this is one of the major problems we have today.

[_ID_]

I used to be respectful of other peoples religions and not point out their problems because I thought it would make the world a better place. Now I've realised that, this is one of the major problems we have today.

Ok, not to challenge your point of view. However I don't know that by not pointing out the faults of others resulted in the worlds problems.

For if I understand some of the religious and political hot beds throughout history correctly. There are many that have been a result of disagreements to the point of conflict over who is more correct about a certian belief. I use the crusades as an example in this case. You can also cite the anti-abortion/right to life debate, which has a basis in religion.

Back the the thread of if there are or are not ghosts or an afterlife. Just because it can't be seen or proven doesn't make it not true even so. Lets take dinasoars for example. We find all these bones and such all over the planet. Does that mean they existed, or does that just mean that whatever benelovent being created the earth put them here to confound the scientists who refused to believe in a God of any kind? Who knows, and why doesn't anyone know. Cause no documentation has ever been found to state as much.

Do ghosts exist, do spirits exist, do souls of people and or things come and go throughout our existence? Don't know. I am not going to say they do or don't. I refuse to say they do or don't on the idea that if I claim such a thing, I must be able to show proveable evidence of such. I can't do that, so I wont.

V/R
ID

[Qmoq]

Interesting point Tom. I'm agnostic, but I do respect other's faith, particularly when it helps them through horrible or difficult circumstances. I remember reading of an American footballer who was paralysed, and his first reaction was "Thank you Lord for giving me this new challenge." Now, if he really meant that, how wonderful that his faith helped him through.

Where I agree with you, Tom, is the fundamentalism from all religions that causes war. I guess most holy wars might be about something else (e.g. Israel-Arabia is probably more about land than religion) but if people are using religion as an excuse for war, then that's clearly abhorrent. Does that mean that all religion is a bad thing? No!

It'd be like saying "cars are bad because they run over people and pollute the environment". True. But they also encourage people to travel and meet others and take people to hospital, school, etc. Don't judge all religion from a few dumbass fundamentalist psychos.

Here endeth the lesson.

Qmoq

[elyse]

i believe that ghosts exist, not in the world, but within us. We carry them in our memories and in our hearts, and they manifest, in our minds, at those moments when we are at our most open and vulnerable -- times of loss, times of emotional turmoil, when we find ourselves in unfamiliar surroundings, or when we are crossing the bridge between wakefulness and sleep.

[TomOfSweden]

I don't believe Christians have historically gone to war because of some inherant flaw in Christian morals. They might be the best guide that exist to live your life by. Who am I to judge? I think the Crusades where more down to politics than religion and is nothing Catholics/Christians today need to feel guilty about. Ethics is an interesting subject and is not my gripe with Christians or religions in general.

My gripe is the claims religious people make on the origins of our world, and the the bits about heaven, hell and angels. The supernatural stuff. When people are not able or willing to back up their claims there's no debate and it quickly turns farcical.

Not being able to prove that god doesn't exist is not the same thing as proving god exists. All you've done is opened up an infinite number of alternatives. It's just a mathematical head-game and is just silly. Nobody would ever even consider it in any other type of discussions. In logic it's known as "Arugment from ignorance". Link

We have so far never seen a shred of evidence to suport any form of supernatural force. Let's for the sake of argument assume there aren't any, until there apears some. Now we've radically changed the whole basis for suicide bombers, willing troops in the Crusades and a whole host of hate crimes. What all religious people need to understand is that by treating scientific evidence as a cute option in life they are giving nurishment to all the fundamentalists in the world. Humans are social creatures. We tend to believe things we are taught instead of thinking for ourselves.

IDC: You're just dead wrong about the dinosaur example. The bones are evidence of something. We know what types of animals create bones of the sort and we can deduce from this that dinosaurs actually did live at one point. Claiming they didn't is just being daft on purpose. We have no evidence any form of supernatural force ever has created anything on earth ever. Any form of energy exchange leaves traces. Considering all the worlds miracles all the time we should be able to at some point register any of these. But it's so far showed nothing. Claiming god covers all these traces up is...nice.... But why would that benevolent force do that? How can any of this make sense to anyone?

Playing head-games of logic just because you desperately want a god to exist is just deluded. There used to be good reason to believe a god existed. But science has progressed. Today we have other more plausible theories that doesn't necesarily involve anything supernatural. Let's move on. I find just laughing at the religous is a lot harder now when skyscrapers go up in smoke on Mahattan.

And there's religious and religious. Einstein was religious. He believed god was that first spark of life that set off the whole evolution and that first little bump that started the big bang. Today, that is a totally plausible explanation. We don't know any better theory. He did however not believe in heaven, interventions by god or any other supernatural force. So it isn't actually religion as such I'm against, only people who today believe in a supernatural entity interveaning on earth...and on top of that have the bad taste to teach it as fact to their children.

There is absolutly no conflict between being a faithful Catholic and being an atheist. You can follow all the moral comandments. Just don't make any claims on the existance of heaven. It might exist, maybe not. Let's just leave it at that and let some scientist mangage to prove it one day. Just don't count on it, like so many suicide bombers are doing. The church can have a major role as suport and help in our world even if we renounce this rediculous claim in the supernatural benevolent force. It doesn't take much to realise that it's the words in the Bible and Koran that help people, and have helped for all these years. Not some mythical god. The words can keep helping us in a secular world.

The miracle with the American footballer wasn't in god, but on his competetive nature. Would he really be happier by living a lie? God can easily be taken out of the equation. I don't believe we need to live in fear of god to behave against each other. It's a bad reason for faith.

My all time favorite quote is from Arthur C Clarke. "Magic is just what we call science we don't understand", I know the quote isn't exact, but it catches the essance of it.

edit: Denying that science is the best model for explaning how the world works is just plain stupid. Science is today in direct conflict with all of the major organised religions, (except Budhism). Science isn't optional.

[ElectricBadger]

What all religious people need to understand is that by treating scientific evidence as a cute option in life they are giving nurishment to all the fundamentalists in the world. Humans are social creatures. We tend to believe things we are taught instead of thinking for ourselves.

True, but be aware that science is not all there is to life. Giving up all emotion, belief, and feeling for cold logic may help some things, but is ultimately against that which really makes life worthwhile. Love is not logical or scientific. Beauty cannot be discovered by the scientific method. Joy isn't found in a beaker -- and our attempts to do just that have led to a lot more problems today. This means that yes, we have ugliness and unhappiness too, and hate, but these things, ultimately, are worth the greater experience. I would not surrender the world to pure logic for anything.

[TomOfSweden]

True, but be aware that science is not all there is to life.

ok

Giving up all emotion, belief, and feeling for cold logic may help some things, but is ultimately against that which really makes life worthwhile.

Why does giving up all emotion follow from believing in science? I believe in science and I am a very emotional being. Emotions is not a supernatural force.

Love is not logical or scientific.

Love is only illogical because we don't have all the variables. Love between people can be studied scientifically and that does not retract from how wonderful it is. Besides, I love reading scientific reports. So there.

Beauty cannot be discovered by the scientific method.

Quite correct. Aestetics is one of the very few scholarly branches that do not aply the scientific method. There are many more.

Joy isn't found in a beaker --

Depends if you're into drugs or not, isn't it.

and our attempts to do just that have led to a lot more problems today.

You're going to have to explain that one. Most food we eat today is the result of a wide variety of scientific processes. Not starving I would call a form of "joy". Using condoms allows us to have a lot more sex than otherwise, =science at work creating "joy".

This means that yes, we have ugliness and unhappiness too, and hate, but these things, ultimately, are worth the greater experience. I would not surrender the world to pure logic for anything.

So don't. There's no conflict. I'm not trying to be rude or anything but it sounds to me like you're making a case for the merits of ignorance? I just don't see it. Knowledge is always good, which religious people seem to agree on, or they wouldn't keep reading and analysing their books. The only difference between religious and scientific people is just that religious people have a very narrow selections of truths they are willing to accept, (aka =bad scientists).

It's not that scientists deny the possibility of the existance of god, they're just demanding some proof or even the slightest bit of circumstantial evidence before taking the leap. Doing your damndest to prove a theory as correct is bad science, just like the "Intelligent design" crowd are doing.

The universe is a magical, mystical and wonderful place even seen from the eyes of an atheist. Why fill it with obvious bullshit? Why not not gape in awe over the things that are true? The atheists world isn't a less beautiful place in any way.

[Moth]

for me, ghosts do not exist.
However ,if i see one, i will know i have been wrong all this time.

[TomOfSweden]

for me, ghosts do not exist.
However ,if i see one, i will know i have been wrong all this time.

ha ha ha. amen. I'm all with you on that one.

[àiteag]

a few years ago i had a lovely encounter with a hawk spirit but i had believed in this time of stuff long before it, i couldn't see the wonderful spirit but i could feel it when ever my hand would touch it

[_ID_]

Tom - As far as me being wrong on the dinasor thing. I was using an example that was said to me from someone who was deeply devoted to their faith. It is not something I claim to believe.

I respect peoples need and desire to have something to believe in. Believe in God, believe in science. Wherever you put your faith, don't let the logic or beliefs of another challenge you. For if you are content with the answers you get from what you believe in. Then I am happy for you

V/R
ID

[riverwindsong]

I personally have had too many encounters, too many things that can't be explained to not believe in them. When you can see the ghosts of people who have passed on, of people who have died decades before, it kind of makes you think. When you know something is going to happen before it does, after a while, you learn to listen. Sometimes, you're given warnings or messages for a reason, if you just stop and think.

I remember I had a dream of a bad auto accident happening to a co-worker on a Thursday night. I told her about it on Friday, and told her to be careful over the weekend. Monday came around and she looked horrible, pale as a sheet and obviously in pain. As she showed me the bruise on her belly from the seatbelt and steering column she told me that she totalled her truck that Saturday, and said she never wanted to hear another one of my dreams again. Another friend and I convinced her to go to the hospital because the bruises looked so ugly and she looked so pale. She ended up going in for emergency surgery to stop the internal bleeding that had been going on for two days. She survived, but it was a long recovery for her.

Now, while this may be turned over to coincidence, I personally don't think so. However, I do respect everyone's right to believe in their own way, be they Christian or pagan, or anything in between.

[ElectricBadger]

You're going to have to explain that one.

I was talking about the drugs; ex was initially developed for exactly this reason -- to stimulate "joy" as a chemical antidote to depression. Whether or not you agree it should be banned, I think it's fairly clear its led to alot of problems.

So don't. There's no conflict. I'm not trying to be rude or anything but it sounds to me like you're making a case for the merits of ignorance? I just don't see it. Knowledge is always good, which religious people seem to agree on, or they wouldn't keep reading and analysing their books. The only difference between religious and scientific people is just that religious people have a very narrow selections of truths they are willing to accept, (aka =bad scientists).

See, it seems to me you've chosen to disbelieve in anything that isn't proven according to your own understanding (and technically, all scientific 'proofs' are simply not proven wrong, not inherently proven right); an equally close minded point of view that leads to nothing but stagnation. I'm not arguing for any specific religion, and yes, I think faith should be subject to experience (shouldn't everything?) but to state so vehemently that all religion is wrong is just as obtuse and unfounded as stating it's all correct.

[TomOfSweden]

Tom - As far as me being wrong on the dinasor thing. I was using an example that was said to me from someone who was deeply devoted to their faith. It is not something I claim to believe.

I respect peoples need and desire to have something to believe in. Believe in God, believe in science. Wherever you put your faith, don't let the logic or beliefs of another challenge you. For if you are content with the answers you get from what you believe in. Then I am happy for you

V/R
ID

It's not a question of happiness. I also respect peoples need and desire to have something to believe in, but since when did that entail lying to myself or our children on purpose. I very strongly believe that there's intelligent life in space on other planets. That certainly is a sort of faith, but the difference is that there's no evidence against it. I'm not denying 3000 years of systematic study just to sleep better at night. Christians or Muslims have to. I'm a big fan of critical thinking. I wish more people where.

Other peoples beliefs are challenging me. I had two wait for two hours at Gatwick to board my plane because they had to go through wevery single bit of my stuff and scan my shoes. I couldn't even bring water to drink. That's a direct result of that we're pretending like science is optional because it doesn't have all the answers. Who does? Superstition from the dark ages is poisoning our world and much too few people see this.

Science as such is undeniable. You can refute various parts of science easily. Just just need some conflicting evidence. Religions is a completly different subject. They don't have an inbuilt system for questioning its own doctrines. So they don't. Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean it doesn't make a rock solid case for itself. It makes me sad that scientists still have to constantly battle outdated belief systems instead of doing what they do best, making our world a better place.

Here's a suggestion if you so badly need a religion. Convert to Budhism, Zoroastrianism, Pantheism or any of the religions who haven't made any claims of anything supernatural. Then I'm all with you. Using traditional belief systems or moral codes I have no problems with. It's when they are in conflict with me boarding my plane that I get pissed off.

[TomOfSweden]

I was talking about the drugs; ex was initially developed for exactly this reason -- to stimulate "joy" as a chemical antidote to depression. Whether or not you agree it should be banned, I think it's fairly clear its led to alot of problems.

Are you seriously making a case against science? There's no system behind happiness. What ever works for you is great. BTW not all drugs where developed in labs. Science wasn't developed into a method until 2620 BC under the rule of Imhoptep in Egypt. All people have since the dawn of man used drugs. This is probably the very first few generations in the entire history of man who aren't chronically off their rockers and doped up. Science have shown that early man where very much devoted to their drugs and being high/drunk.

See, it seems to me you've chosen to disbelieve in anything that isn't proven according to your own understanding (and technically, all scientific 'proofs' are simply not proven wrong, not inherently proven right); an equally close minded point of view that leads to nothing but stagnation. I'm not arguing for any specific religion, and yes, I think faith should be subject to experience (shouldn't everything?) but to state so vehemently that all religion is wrong is just as obtuse and unfounded as stating it's all correct.

That's just the thing isn't it. You're somehow comparing science to religion as they are some parellel belief systems. Science is just one of many systematic methods of finding the truth. Science is undeniable, it's its results you can have opinions about. Religion isn't even in the same ball-game...or sport. If you think scientists are closed minded I suggest you reading up. It's about training your mind to be open minded to the extreme, but also how to avoid wasting your time going down killed off routes. Link

Religions are about accepting a package deal. You get the set of moral codes, supernatural forces and a beach-ball. Science is about refuting all package deals if any of the components don't stack up. We know some of the Bible is arrent nonsense. Why not just accept that the Bible doesn't have all the answers? It might be a nice guide but no more. I can't understand why religious people have a problem with this. The result is that religions are dangerous. The MTV generation are turning to god in increasing numbers. Very bad. I've followed the creationist debate in Kansas. I hope you agree that it's an absolute joke.

[cariad]

I just don't see it. Knowledge is always good, which religious people seem to agree on, or they wouldn't keep reading and analysing their books. The only difference between religious and scientific people is just that religious people have a very narrow selections of truths they are willing to accept, (aka =bad scientists).

I would never describe myself as religious, but I do have a Christian faith which is pivotal to my life.

I would argue the opposite - that the discipline of science has a very narrow selection of truths which it is willing to accept. If something is not repeatable in an laboratory situation then generally within the scientific discipline it has to be ignored. If something cannot be 'proved' using accepted techniques then it has to be ignored. That is not a judgement of science, just a statement of its nature.

'Religious' people are willing to look beyond that and also embrace what they consider truths which have been discovered in other ways.

cariad

[cariad]

My gripe is the claims religious people make on the origins of our world, and the the bits about heaven, hell and angels. The supernatural stuff. When people are not able or willing to back up their claims there's no debate and it quickly turns farcical.

It is supernatural stuff, you are quite right. And to accept any degree of 'proof' you have to be prepared to the supernatural. It is a circular argument I know - but not farcical, unless you choose to view it that way. I suspect that if you were given such a proof your response would be either, that is nonsense since you are quoting the supernatural to prove the supernatural or that you agree you don't understand the proof, but since the supernatural does not exist, in your mind, it is merely a case of science not having developed enough to give a natural explanation.

We have so far never seen a shred of evidence to suport any form of supernatural force. Let's for the sake of argument assume there aren't any, until there apears some.

In other words, I am right unless you can prove that I am wrong... Is that not what you accuse 'religious' people of saying?

What all religious people need to understand is that by treating scientific evidence as a cute option in life they are giving nurishment to all the fundamentalists in the world.

I strongly object to the statement that religious people treat scientific evidence as a cute option. It is incorrect and potentially offensive.

Playing head-games of logic just because you desperately want a god to exist is just deluded. There used to be good reason to believe a god existed. But science has progressed. Today we have other more plausible theories that doesn't necesarily involve anything supernatural.

Smiles - I loved Tom! Follow your own logic.

1. There used to be good reason to believe a god existed. (Will not dispute this)
2. Science has progressed (Agreed - and it has not answered any of the fundamental questions which gave rise to why people believed a god existed.)
3. Today we have more plausible theories... (These are only theories, by definition there is no proof of them...dare I suggest you are playing head games here?)

Einstein was religious. He believed god was that first spark of life that set off the whole evolution and that first little bump that started the big bang. Today, that is a totally plausible explanation. We don't know any better theory.

I can go along with that.

He did however not believe in heaven, interventions by god or any other supernatural force. So it isn't actually religion as such I'm against, only people who today believe in a supernatural entity interveaning on earth...and on top of that have the bad taste to teach it as fact to their children.

I may be wrong here, in which case please forgive me, but I suspect you would guide your children to not believe in the supernatural since there is no scientific proof of it. As someone who does believe in the supernatural, although I would call it spiritual, I find such guidance equally misguided. Children are intelligent beings, they should be presented with the facts - i.e. this is my experience, this is why I believe it, other people say etc - and then left to discover the world for themselves.

Just in case you have not already guessed I do believe in spiritual entities which are alive and very active on earth. I am sorry you are against me because of that belief.

There is absolutly no conflict between being a faithful Catholic and being an atheist. You can follow all the moral comandments. Just don't make any claims on the existance of heaven. It might exist, maybe not. Let's just leave it at that and let some scientist mangage to prove it one day. Just don't count on it, like so many suicide bombers are doing. The church can have a major role as suport and help in our world even if we renounce this rediculous claim in the supernatural benevolent force. It doesn't take much to realise that it's the words in the Bible and Koran that help people, and have helped for all these years. Not some mythical god. The words can keep helping us in a secular world.

Why should everything left be scientists?

I agree the words in the Bible and the Koran and other spiritual books can help society - but that rather misses the point about faith. Christianity, which is my faith, and the one I know most about it, is primarily about having a relationship with God, not about following a code of conduct.

edit: Denying that science is the best model for explaning how the world works is just plain stupid. Science is today in direct conflict with all of the major organised religions, (except Budhism). Science isn't optional.

Science is not optional I agree. But you imply that it is the only discipline which should be used to explain the world works. Why?

cariad

[cariad]

Where I agree with you, Tom, is the fundamentalism from all religions that causes war. I guess most holy wars might be about something else (e.g. Israel-Arabia is probably more about land than religion) but if people are using religion as an excuse for war, then that's clearly abhorrent. Does that mean that all religion is a bad thing? No!

Speaking from a not well research standpoint, I suspect that the vast majority of religious wars are as a result of politicians using religion as a support for their own objectives. This means the use of the religion is wrong, not the religion itself.

cariad

[cariad]

I had not really paid much attention to this discussion when it started - but even the first post shows that it should actually be in the vanilla thread - so moving it there, although leaving a re-direct so it does not get lost.

cariad