it's really up to you how you delineate the term, that's kind of the point

Indeed, getting back to the original point, the Universe is a construct with no purpose but to give the option of purpose or destruction. I don't see how that negates the idea of a sentient being of some sort creating it, only that this creator is no longer involved in its processes.

we'll have to agree to disagree but i'm pretty sure we can do that :beer:

i don't buy into the whole stereotypical view of 'god' as some old dude sitting in a throne of clouds or some omnipotent source of light, but rather as a further extension of my self. personally i'm a huge fan of the duality you describe in accepting both science AND spirituality. i chose spirituality over religion because i don't believe my spiritual beliefs need to be organized or recognized by anyone else but me.

then again one of the last teachers i had also described me as 'an artist trapped in a programmer's head'. i refined it to 'an undefined within an absolute'. both are necessary elements (and the best description of the perpetual dichotomy of my thoughts).

as far as the whole idea of a conscience with power over the people. i call it ego. i define it as the reflection of the conscious mind of the culture and society i exist within. it physically manifests itself through the industrial and commercial aspects of our world and reflects itself within all of us with desires for frivolous material goods that serve no purpose but to further it through the guise of bettering ourselves.

I often have to settle for disagreements, but the road there can still be fruitful :)

I've studied evolution and believe how we behave and what we are capable of is finely tuned to promote the survival of our genes. This goes for desires for frivolous material goods, jealousy, by far most of our fears and desires. What you call our ego is something I believe to come from within ourselves and it pushes our gene-survival agenda, although perhaps unconciously and unaware of it's true purpose. That competition that started out with the molecules in the primeaval soup is not over yet. Sometimes people don't think it makes sense, but they often forget the very basics - such as the need to see humans not so much in the light of civilization which evolution has no chance of keeping up with, but as the "cavemen" we were some tens of thousands of years ago.

One of the reasons I said science and religion is a difficult explanation is that the two often contradict eachother as you're aware, often leading the believer to have to accept that parts of religion or science is not true. When something is obviously not true, you might still have to accept that other parts are true, but how do you then know they are? It might get messy and I think a lot of people find it hard to unite such beliefs. If you can believe in science and spirituality (not religion) in a way that it doesn't become contradictionary or paradoxal, that solves this problem effectively.

you have to either pick one really to believe in science or religion because if you are towards religion you cant believe in evolution and the big bang theory and such but if your into science you really have nothing to believe in because how can you prove that there is a god because everything has to have a begining right? scientifically or you can choose to believe that he has always been there, faith.

this quote sums it all up pretty well... "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none will suffice." You are no stronger than I for not believing in a religion. I can say you are weak for having no faith in something that isn't right in front of you. It takes strength to live a good life (not saying that I do) however that needs to be accomplished (with or without religion). Nobody in this thread is better or worse then anyone else for their beliefs. The weak mind is judgmental and critical of others, this is truth. The open mind that accepts all for who they are and what they believe is the stronger. If I allowed a person to change my beliefs based on their own opinions I would be weak but when I stand by my convictions I am strong, get it?

i get it

Aren't you being judgmental of the weak mind in your assessment of it? What you see as being judgmental and critical I see as rational analysis and critical think and what you see as open mindedness I see as the suspension of both those. Your logic in the last sentence is stupid too seeing as it takes strength to admit you were wrong - not to stubbornly stand by a point of view that's been beat down by an argument.

You can't argue faith sleepy. Some people have it and some don't. It just has to do with who you are as a person, what kind of commitment you want to make, and what environment you were raised in.

Pushing your beliefs down other people throat's is the worst you can do.

I didn't criticize him for having faith I criticized him for saying it made him a better person than me or anyone else on here who argues against religion in favor of a more skeptical approach.