This is a spot where theists are supposed to stay out of it. That rule is just saying it out in the open so people don't get their little panties in a wad (though they do anyway, obviously) when their posts get deleted.

I can't fathom why people have such a hard time with this rule. It's a rule, on a forum, they can't post here, and? "You can't just do whatever the hell you want, you don't own this forum" and? What is there even to discuss? It seems like there is a new thread on this every week at least. "Why can't I waa waa waaa, my little pussy is all sore, waa waa waa"

I really don't get it.

 Yep.  At least one a week, it seems.

Explorers instinct? Seriously?

This does nothing to validate someone being a ninny baby because they just can't seem to grasp the idea that there is a *single* area on a *vast* forum that they can't go into.

Cry me a river.

But this is the single triumph and universal folly of man. He will forever try and expand and explore, you hold him from a place and suddenly that place becomes a goal. Have you never been barred from something? By a shallow lock or rusting fence, yet still you went there anyway? Have you ever been some where where you weren't supposed to be? Did it not thrill you? Was there not a gentle feeling of satisfying accomplishment? Truely?

This is not about faith or the strength drawn from lack of it. It's about being human.

"Cry me a river."

Never on a first date. You know the rules. Big boy.

To clarify, I know what you mean when you say explorers instinct. I understand that this would be one very interestingly poetic way to describe someone who just cannot deal with rules. I'm sure some folks are comfortable with "yah man, I'm just honing in on my explorer spirit dude, the single triumph and universal folly of man" as an excuse for not being able to follow a rule... a very simple... reasonable rule. I, for one, need more of an explanation for justification.

So no need to explain what this concept *is*. My puzzlement was about how it in any way excuses someone from being a wussy bitch for not getting their way in regard to a rule someone else has made about their own play area. Childhood is a good excuse for being a wussy bitch for not getting your way. Explorer spirit... is not.

I'm not sure I know what you're talking about here. I didn't intend to imply that faith is an issue. Just people being whiney bitches because they can't get their way ALL OF THE TIME.

[EDIT: Though it would seem to coincide with the theistic air of entitlement.]

I don't get the reference.

when i discuss religion, i take the stance of an agnostic. i have absolutely no respect for organized religions, but i am open to the idea of planes of higher existence, and this comes from a very sound basis in science.

we all remember in science class when we were taught about 3 dimensional space- length, width, height. then science added a 4th dimension-time. now, modern physics operates on the basis of 13 dimensions. parallel universes are not only theroized, but needed to make our universe work properly. 20 years ago, black-holes were a myth, a theory nobody really believed. now we recognize that our galaxy revovles around a super-massive black hole, it's gravity the only thing keeping our star from hurling through space randomly.

with all the new discoveries that science has made, i'm open to the idea that maybe our consiousness goes on after we die. however, i do NOT believe that a bunch of drunken bronze-age peasents had a direct line to god. i do not believe jesus was the son of god, no more than mohammad his prophet. i believe both of them were just men, men who were trying to give there people hope under a crushing and brutal empire, rome. i'm pretty sure that st. john of revelations fame was fond of funky mushrooms.

i hope i fit the bill of someone who is more interested in questioning and looking for answers than finding a dogma and following it relentlessly. just as religion needs to accept science, athiests need to recognize that a belief in life beyond death has been part of human belief systems since we gained self-awarness. whether it's 72 virgins in heaven, the fields of alysium, or the flying spaghetti monster, it's a basic need to believe that our consiousness goes on. that we really are more important in the cosmic-scale than a cockroach. 

np answering your questions.

to begin with,  i have no formal religious belief. i like to watch christians faces fall when i tell them i've never been baptized, and i have no plans to be, i took a shower today, thats good enough.

that being said, i have studied every major religious text, from the bible to the yi jing. the tao te jing has been a major influence on how i live my life, and i have the utmost respect for the dhali lama. however, i do NOT follow they're models for an after-life. the most important thing that the dhali lama teaches his followers is that what will happen will happen, no matter what your belief is. the best way to cover all the bases is to live a life full of love and laughter.

at the same time, i combine religious text with hard science. stephen hawkings is another hero of mine. i have a thirst to learn about cutting edge physics, as well as astronomy, geology, and natural history. i am very aware of the true history of the modern religions, such as the truth behind thomas aquinnas, where the christian concepts of hell came from, as well as the history of the area's the religions came from.

second, as i said in my earlier post, i am agnostic. i don't claim to have a fixed idea of what happens after you catch a slight case of death. i have no clue what happens after you die, and i don't think a single living person on earth can make that claim, neither priest nor physicist.

in referance to "higher planes", maybe not the best choice of words, maybe i should have used "alternate planes". there are some very important things that science has yet to prove, such as what came before the big bang, what happens when you break the event horizen of a black hole, what are gravity waves, and what are their effects on the natural universe.

and finally, on the human need to believe life goes on, i'm going to ask you to look at human history. every culture since we lived in caves had a belief in an after-life. be it early shamanism, egyptian, chinese, greek poly-thiesm, every human culture believes in some kind of after-life. this isn't a need based in biological neccestity, but in our own hubris. humans have an almost hard-wired belief that we are better than nature. that we are some creator's favorite being, and that all of nature should bow to our will. it's part of the reason we're in the evironmental mess we're in.

in the end, all i can say is that i'm not sure of a damn thing, and i won't be until i've croaked. i'll continue to live my life questioning any and all dogma's. for me, the search is far more important that the answer. i've exposed myself to many different beliefs, and i'm a better person for it. i've had close friends that cover the spectrum, from consevative christians to hindus to wiccans to athiests. i've asked all of them to give me solid, 100% incontributable proof and none have been able to. until then, i'll keep my mind open to all possiblities. it kind of gives me something to look foward to, hehe.

Hmm... even "alternate planes" is still a problem to me. It implies something intrinsically different to our current Universe, an alternate 'reality'. whereas the parallel universes envisaged in some theories are still thought of as just as 'physical' as our current observable universe, possibly with slightly different 'constants'. Even a larger 'metaverse' within which our Universe and any parallel Universe reside is still thought of as an extension of our current physical theories.

In a sense, anyone truly professing to embrace science must be an 'agnostic' about all aspects of reality, since we can't 'prove' any (non-deductive) propositions absolutely. So, in practise, we treat concepts that seem to be likely to be true to a very high (but not 100%) level as true, without continually reminding ourselves and others that we must be 'agnostic' about it.

Asking anyone to provide "100% incontrovertible proof" for their position is not an appropriate approach for anyone who has understood the nature of science and the limitations of all 'knowledge' should demand of anyone. You are definitely on the wrong track here.

You should instead be asking people to describe the reasons and evidence for their belief or lack of belief, and try and assess the relative merits of their argument, by asking them to clarify them, if possible, and get as much relevant independent evidence as possible.

There are some things where the uncertainty is way low enough to treat it as a fact in all but the most esoteric speculative discussions. Like the fact that the Earth goes around the Sun, and will continue to do so for a rather long time, which is slightly less certain. So it is not enough to simply say we can't be certain about anything - d'uh! You need to think in terms of the degree of confidence we can have in any given idea.

I don't think you can justify using the label 'Agnostic' purely because you think that we cannot prove 100% there is no God. You need to assign some sort of qualification, such as a 'significant' possibility that there may be a God. Or simply that you have not enough information for basing an assessment on, that is OK. But the inability to 'prove 100%' whether there is or isn't a God is not a good reason for claiming  Agnosticism.