You're right of course. Though I do sometimes wonder if there's a certain state of... enlightenment, for lack of a better word, that can only be achieved by religious means. But that might just be plagued-by-the-mortality-of-myself-and-my-loved-ones me glorifying something I know nothing about.

If you're looking for an example of an individual descending into the pits of utter despair, and fighting its way out with the help of religion, you might wanna read T.S. Eliots poems "The Waste Land", "The Hollow Men", "Ash Wednesday" and "Four Quartets" in that order. I'm certainly not claiming that such a transformation isn't possible without religion, but I very much call bullshit on the suggestion that it has no place in our "scientifically enlightened and rational" society.

I hope you realize that Aquinas does deal with these topics in the Summa Theologica and that the First Cause is a summary argument. Also, it's nonsensical for there be a First Cause that doesn't interact with the universe at all, that's kind of the point of being the cause.

If you think he is using anthropocentric thinking, then you've misunderstood him. He is saying that final causality is evident wherever some natural object or process has a tendency to produce some particular effect of range of effects. For instance, striking a match reliably generates heat and light and not frost or lightning, so it is inherently directed towards that specific range of effects. Unless a cause were inherently directed towards an effect or range of effects, then there would be no particular reason why it should bring about that effect or range of effects. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is a statement that is self-evidently true. There's no reason to think that it is false or to expect that we ever will find reason to think it is false, so I see nothing wrong with building off the premise until we do. Assuming a particular theorem in quantum mechanics is correct, at most it tells us that there is something with no physical, but it unable to rule out the possibility of nonphysical intelligent causes. Considering that that is what Aquinas is setting out to prove, to assume there isn't one is begging the question.

Until 1995 you were born into the state church in Sweden if at least one of your parents was a member. Since state church membership was mandatory until the 1970s, this meant pretty much everyone.

Each year members are required to pay a not-insignificant church tax. Unfortunately, leaving the church is very awkward to someone like me: you have to enter a church and specifically ask for a form, and then snail-mail it. To me this is a rather awkward process, as my parents are good friends with the local priest and his family, and my mom is a practising (but not hardcore in any way) Christian. The priests are under an obligation of secrecy, but it's still kind of awkward. I suppose I can print a form online (not that it's available from official sources), but from what I read there will be a letter of confirmation sent, and at the moment I'm still officially living at my parents...

Faith in Sweden is considered a very private matter, and not something you flaunt without looking a bit weird. I can't imagine what it's like growing up in a heavily religious family and then finding you disagree with their faith. My brother got badgered enough by our grandmother when he let slip he was an atheist.

That does not sound fun at all. I wish I knew what to tell you, but I don't know anything about your relationship with your family, your age, or any of that. If it was me (Don't confuse this for "if I were you". I'm not you, you're not me, and I've made plenty of regretful decisions), I'd send the letter and hope I get lucky by being the one who picks up the mail when the confirmation arrives, but ultimately I probably wouldn't be so lucky and things could get very ugly. If my relationship and support from my family was significantly greater than the burden of the church tax, I might hesitate.

It's a very sticky wicket, and there's no wrong decision. There are just consequences you have to be ready and willing to man up to. You have to live with it either way, so unfortunately, that burden is something that must be placed entirely on you. :/

Enlightenment, self-realization or personal revelation might be good words (though i am not native english) for what i often think about. Then again I havent quite managed to decide where the border of religious and spiritual stuff actually goes.

I have to admit that I havent read a whole lot of poetry in a long time, with the exception of http://www.amazon.com/Great-Fool-Master-Letters-Writings/dp/082481777X

Religion is ofcourse very personal matter with great many shades, so yes - i do think youre correct with the last sentence. Its just shame, that many atheists have zero understanding for those who believe in something and vice versa.

It's not really as bad as it sounds - religion never comes up as a topic at home. At the moment I live about forty minutes from my parents, but I am heavily reliant on their support due to certain psychiatric diagnoses, and on a personal level I'd really prefer if this didn't have to come up between us, even if it's just my mind making it bigger than it is.

Mostly I'm venting because I only read up on this a few weeks ago and I realised how passive-aggressive the church is about allowing you to leave them. I feel a bit violated - in a very mild sense of the word - that I was never given a choice to join, only a choice to leave. It doesn't help that I was confirmed nine years ago with all the fanfare that it means. (I was always ill at ease with this).

Ah, I see. That "officially" part, I thought you were actually living with them in some capacity. I've had more than one friend who was beaten for coming out as gay or atheist, so I've never had all that much of an urge to get anything off of my chest to anyone. Yeah, like I said, I'd lean towards "not just shrugging it off" part mostly on principle. That's the kind of guy I am. Not funding something I have no interest in funding is just another significant factor.

I was born into religion, too. I got out at a very young age, though. I asked one too many questions one time too often in Sunday school, so it was decided that it'd be less complicated for everyone that I not attend anymore. After that, I still had a few years of church with my family on Sunday, but gradually I grew distant from my family and I just sort of stopped going without much disagreement. My parents never paid all that much mind to me, what with work and my other siblings. They never quite seemed to figure out that I didn't share their beliefs. They're not particularly clever, I honestly don't think it's ever crossed their minds.

I got off fairly easily, but a lot of it was forgetting. It's been a very long time, and I recall the time before I eased my way out of all of that was very painful. That and school. It seemed like an agonizing eternity that defined my very existence, and now it's an extremely faint memory. Time is like that.

This is not true, you could just phone them and ask them to send you the papers. You are not obliged to physically enter a church.

No he doesn't. Proving the possibility of something is not the same as proving the existence of something.

I meant beyond that, of course.

Design needing a designer _is_ anthropocentric thinking... or at least he's making a flawed analogy.

Yes there is reason to doubt that. You assume it because of your experience, but there is no reason to apply it to the whole universe. Just because something is one way in the known universe does not mean it's like that everywhere.

Sometimes being nice doesn't pay off. True! But why expect something in return? Good with no return is the best there is.

It still requires me to speak with someone physically, and does not get around that a confirmation will be sent to my registered adress. For such a large organization one would think they'd have something less unwieldy in place. I suspect I'm just making it more difficult than it is, but still.

I disagree. All that can be reliably said about something is that it exists. Anything more than that requires some sort of proof.

Blargh, hard to post on an iPod.

What you would accept as "some sort of proof"?

Today we can "prove" a lot of things right or wrong, which were "proved" the opposite say 100 years ago. Our age is no more special than any other age before - so in 50 years, 100 years and so on from today - there will be people who will certainly prove that we were actually wrong about many things and wonder just how we could even believe in the crap we do today.

Just think about reality. Mean what is reality? Is it really 3d or could it be something else? Today we take it for granted that "ofcourse reality is 3d + time added" - but who knows what the next 100 years will bring and how that will change our perception of reality.

We have a lot of more or less well educated guesses, but how much a proof that is in the end? Then again, its completely different discussion is objective reality really more important than agreed upon reality...

My mother is a devout catholic. I do not see any reason for the existence of a god since belief is an allusion to a pre-conceived notion and hence consider myself an atheist. My father understands that to an extent and is fine with it. We usually never discuss religion though. I am also a hedonist and believe pleasure is the only intrinsic good in life.
That what is right and true are merely vague ideas or conceptions if you will. We all lead our lives believing things that we consider as being 'right' and 'true' ; it is what we call our reality. However our reality could very well turn out to be an illusion...... Irrespective of whether you consider holographic theory or not. There is much that eludes our understanding. However we must continue to strive and improve our understanding of various occurrences and phenomenon for as long as we exist. And thus our knowledge would also evolve.

I mostly agree with what you said, but the last - well, I am personally kind of torn between reaching for something that you can never have and being content what you already have.

I suppose one should often ask, is the trip worth it if you never reach the destination?

Proof, in this case, means that you need to motivate why a first cause is axiomatic, and not merely an unnecessary extension of an existing axiom. Sorry, it's a bit tricky to keep your thoughts straight when it takes a minute to check what, exactly, was written. I'll have to look at it when I get home. Also, I'm not really into philosophy, so feel free to correct me if I make any mistakes.