All but two people think that I'm a Christian. I guess going to church every week doesn't really help that situation. I'm not very open with my agnosticism, simply because I don't think it's a good indicator of someone's characteristics.Genetic_Code

Personally I think it's a good indicator of charactor. It shows your free-thinking, yet not pretentious enough to beleive you understand the universe. Then again my perspective is somewhat biased.

[QUOTE="SimpJee"]

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]I don't really think much of philosophy generally, but I guess altruism but that's generally a religious philosophy.Genetic_Code

Oh noes, Objectivism's eternal foe ... altruism :P

Objectivism sounds interesting. I read about it when I was browsing the topics of the Church & State Union (of which I don't think I've ever posted). They have a user there that adheres to it. I forgot his/her username at the moment.

However, there seemed to be this one flaw. I think Objectivism is a bit self-centered, whcih I don't think is wise. I think, but I don't remember.

MarcusAntonius maybe? This doesn't really go from any knowledge of objectivism, he just seems to really like Ayn Rand and she's an objectivist.

Why is it so important for christians to push religion and science as compatible, when clearly they cannot be further apart! One obvious point is that the bible states the earth is approx 4000 years old and scientists have found that it is at least 3.5 billion years old.THUMPTABLE

Well, I'm an advocate for people taking the bible allegorically, because frankly, walking on water isn't scientifically possible. However, going to lengths seemingly impossible to earn the trust of a friend is. I see your point though. Young Earth creationists want to push on science to become compatible, when it should probably be the opposite.

[QUOTE="SimpJee"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

From my knowledge of the Bible the Earth is where he wanted man to be. My main point is, to me, religion is a longing for something greater than yourself or something more to this life. If life existed elsewhere I think this would cause a major thought process for most religions.

STWELCH

The bible is so vague in places, they could find verses that just even hinted at other life. This wouldn't be that great of a change.

This is the same with those stupid prophecies, and bible code people cite, I mean they are so vague you can find any major event in history and find some corresponding allusion to that event.

Ah, I take it you mean those premillenial dispensationalists....the Rapture folk.

They scare me too. Really, really bad.

My uncle's one of those types. He'll actuelly advise people against home insurance more than ten years long because he doesn't beleive the Earth will be around that long before the Rapture (he's a contractor), and he said he doesn't care much about his kids going to college for the same reason (he homeschools his kids). Otherwise he's a great guy.

[QUOTE="JLCrogue"]My family doesn't know my religious beliefs, especially when they've changed a lot recently. I can't join the Free Masons if I'm an atheist, so I've decided to label myself a pantheist.SimpJee

Why in the world do you want to join this society? Just to be able to call yourself a Free Mason? My grandfather was one. All they did was get together every week or so to play cards and drink.....

That's what he told you. [scary background music]

You guys have probably all seen this on OT but what the heck here it is again. This is the argument.

P1. There was an earliest physical event

P2. Every physical event must have a cause

P3. Every physical cause must be existent

P4. The earliest physical event is caused by something non-physical in nature (P1+P2)

P5. The cause of the earliest physical event is not necessarily existent (P3+P4)

The argument can definitely be refuted but I think it's difficult to do so while leaving the original cosmological argument intact. Pick it to pieces if you wish.

domatron23

I have a few problems with this argument, mainly in that the postulates it lays at the foundations are too absolute considering what we know of the physical universe (as far as I know, so don't rip me apart if I'm wrong on something). P1 I agree with, at some point there must have been a first cause, or a first "event" as we see it. P2 however is too absolute. It assumes we know the cause of everything. Say an apple falling from a tree is the event. Naturally the cause would be claimed to be gravity. but gravity is merely the theory we have for objects being attracted to each other, which itself is a physical event, and thus must be caused by something as well. As far as I know, the physical cause of this, the graviton, has not been found yet, so we can't be sure it exists (P3). Because of this ignorance, it remains a possibility that gravity is a cause-less occurance. Though all scientific evidence points torwards this not being the case, the fact that it could be the case makes P2 a postulate with a less than perfect foundation to try and explain the beginnings of the universe. What exactly causes the random vibrations of atoms? We don't know. This argument makes strong statements that really don't have enough backing.

(just realized that I didn't leave "the original cosmological argument intact", but I still think it's relevant to the discussion)