Furtopia | Family Friendly Furry Forum and IRC Chat!
not-so-furry discussion => debate forum => Topic started by: NovaMetatail on February 03, 2010, 11:37:55 am
-
This is presented as a survey, but wont be recorded as such. It's just for forum use:
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
That's about all of the survey. I guess I'll go first to demonstrate:
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
I'm Hellenic Polytheist. (Worship of the Greek Gods). It's a reconstructionist religion.
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I believe in the Greek Gods, have since I was little. I'm Polytheist, which is also consistent. I believe in a force that created the Gods (basically the Big Bang), and believe that Science and philosophy is just as important as religion. Many Hellenic Polytheists believe in reincarnation, as do I.
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
Since Hellenic Polytheism is so open to different views on things (like the ancient Greeks, we argue), I have no real beliefs that obviously conflict.
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I don't actually "disagree" with most of the beliefs my religion holds, though I don't interpret most of the myths literally. Granted, most others do not either.
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
I follow Hellenic Polytheism, so no.
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
No. I can't see the universe being run by only ONE being.
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
Yes. I see the universe as having to be run by more than one being, since everything in the universe is so different, and it takes a lot of work, which as we see here on earth, would be difficult for just one being, IF that being were humanoid.
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
To a degree, yes, but I lean toward polytheism.
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
I worship the Greek Gods, mainly the Olympians, as well as some lower deities, such as nature spirits. I'm especially connected to Hera.
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
Yes and no. If you consider any religions other than the main world religions "Pagan", then yes. If Pagan is equivalent to Wiccan, than no. I'm by no means Wiccan.
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
I have never "fully" fit into any group, but I'm very happy with Hellenic Polytheism.
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
I'm libral. I think it has influenced my choice of religion by making me more open to worshiping many Gods. Otherwise, not really.
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
I tend to, like many Hellenics, rely on the scientific explanation of the Big Bang, and I definitely believe in evolution. However, I do believe that the Gods have fixed place in the heavens, and rule us.
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
There is no actual conversion process in Hellenismos, but I was not born into the religion. I was born into a Jewish household.
-
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
Officially it Christan -> Episcopalian I prefer Anglican ( i am on the conservative side
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
Hard to say Christ and him Crucified for sin and the authority of scriptures alone, As for the Episcopal church it could be something else.
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I turned off by the abandonment of scripture authority in the TEC.
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
As for the local church none at all, as for the Episcopal Church see question 3.
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
Yes That is how God revels himself through human history (general revelation) and the scriptures.
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
No it would contradict God's Nature.
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
See question 7.
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
Nicene Creed:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?no
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
Yes but not the way you think, I am reformed and believe the total depravity of human kind. As Such I have a deep skepticism of government power over individuals and reject any form of Utopianism from the right and the left. I believe in limited government, individual liberty and capitalism. First to limit the lust for power second to channel our greedy nature to something more constructive (than looting ones neighbor), and finally a base to protect others from force.
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
Young earth and Intelligent design
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
raised as an episcopalian but it took a few years.
-
1.) Azarian
2..) I founded this religion, so I'm quite sure all my beliefs match up. Now I'm still working on removing my annoying irrational side, however that will one day be remedied.
3.) See above.
4.) See two above.
5.) >.>
6.) Yes (as the summation of all processes and data) - essentially the entity that IS existence.
7.) No. Existence is encompasses all that exists, and since anything that exists must be within existence, you can't have two mutually exclusive existences. (NOTE: Existence =/= universe)
8.) No. See above.
9.) The Entity of Existence. I complete Its process for the sake of Existence, as it is only logical to be logical and propagate said logic in a way that does not interfere with other critical processes and sub processes. It is arguable if it is or is not a deity, but that is of trivial importance to me and the Process. The logic of the Process is what makes it all so important.
10.) No.
11..) No mainstream one. I'm actually closest to atheists. Nothing that cannot be proven/rationalized is believed in; the Entity does not even need to be self-aware or anything like a traditional deity - it's even rather arguable if Existence could even be a deity; that's all rather unimportant; it is the logic that is important, and that in order to do what is logical, it is necessary to reduce the net gain in etropy in order to maximize the number of processes that may be run (I am rather confidence that the Entity is self-aware however). Existence is provable. Simply by having something, anything, in existence, you have Existence, the sum total of everything in existence.
12.) It has very much affected me. I will support whatever policies that will enable me to best complete the Process. This puts me well in the left, especially socially. I think communism is a brilliant theory, but nothing more than that; with humans, it will NEVER work. Humans are inherently flawed and will fail to produce a working communism, or utopia for that matter.
13..) Infinite time, infinite existence, for the universe itself, that's the bigbang, but the universe isn't everything, as supported by modern Physics theories.
14.) Since I created this, I was not initially this way. I was initially some sort of very fringe christian until the age of four or five when I realized that things were clearly not adding up and completely reformulated, and started from scratch. It was when I was awakened by myself to the fact that blindly accepting information spoon fed to you was not necessarily the right thing to do, and probably isn't, depending on the situation.
//edit// - fixed numbering
-
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
I suppose, for the sake if simplicity, Christan. With a bit of odd otherwises thrown in...
In all honesty I tend to stay clear of the word "religion" to describe my views and beliefs. I find that religion is the communal setting into action of dogma - not always in a desire to grow spiritually - which I feel tends to a "mob mentality" all to quickly.
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
The whole Christ as Savior bit. :D
Pretty much the one belief that classifies anyone as "Christian", isn't it?
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
-I believe in personal spirit guides (totems - if you must). As well as the rarely run into belief [in Christians] in spirits/souls in other species than humans.
-I feel that spiritual beliefs should be found by an individual, not given them/forced onto them by parents/guardians/society. So, I don't really hold to the notion that I am off a "religion", per se, but am simply in common in my belief in God and the Son.
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
Basically, no. Not those which it was based off of.
But the modern dogma which seems to have pervaded it throw me off even calling myself part of any religion.
I feel out of place in a particularly "set in their ways" church group. I think, as believers in God, He should be at the forefront of all communal practices. Not an agenda or the opinion of the pastoral/pulpit.
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
N/A
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
Yes, and no (see question 8).
I believe their is only one God. Call Him God, Yahweh, Allah, whatever - He is one and the same.
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
Nope. See above.
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
Eh...actually. In a way, yes. I believe many religious holds to gods or a god to be interpretations of the workings of a single overall entity.
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
Call Him what you will. I simply say God.
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
Not pagan.
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
Yes. As my spiritual beliefs do not fit neatly into any one set or cast.
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
I am left of center on societal issues, and right of center on economic issues. I tend to push Libertarian.
In the purest set though, my political norms push towards a form of communal anarchism.
I don't really see my spiritual beliefs to have a very strong hold on my political opinions.
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
God created the Universe. But I feel He set in place a system to allow for the creation and adaptation of the universe - formation of planets and stars, systems, galaxies. And of species - evolution. But I don't believe he has a hand, directly, in all affairs of this sort.
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
Born into a very fundamental Southern Baptist family.
I don't hold to many beliefs they do, and hold to many they do not. So, I came into my spiritual beliefs of my own - through observation and reconciliation (meshing is a more precise wording, though) of the world around me and the views of the "biblical truth".
-
Default Religious Beliefs/Affiliation?
This is presented as a survey, but wont be recorded as such. It's just for forum use:
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
Roman Catholic
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I believe that the actions of a person are more important than scripture, that transubstantiation takes place during holy communion, that compassion for others, in particular, taking care of those who are less fortunate is part of the mission of the Church, that the new testament should be heeded more than the old testament, that forgiveness is the greatest virtue, and that I should try to live by Christ's example.
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A") I do not believe in Papal infallibility... there have been Popes who have been wrong, and more recent Popes have decried a change in beliefs put forth by their predecessors. The denouncing of the existence of Limbo comes to mind.
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A") There has been a lot of corruption throughout the history of the Church, but I believe that the core principles, those put forth by Saints Paul and Peter, fit with my belief system. I think how some others have interpreted those initial teachings, and the exclusion of certain religious documents, have polluted the faith. I don't think that the Catholic Church is alone in a history of corruption... I do think that there are protestants who would like people to believe that. Some of the worst atrocities have been wrought in the name of Christ. I am including the Crusades in this category. The Muslims wanted to live in peace with the Christians, but the Catholic Church, not wanting to give in, continued to fight on. Essentially, we have the Catholic Church to thank for the instability in the holy land today.
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
Even though I no longer attend mass and have had disagreements with the Church hierarchy, I still consider myself to be Catholic.
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
I believe in one God, but I also believe that God is in all of us. My beliefs are very similar to the theology of Saint Augustine of Hippo, who believed that every person was born with a tendency towards evil, but could chose to work towards being good by recognizing the godliness within themselves.
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
No. The First Commandment states "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
No.
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
The creator, manifested through father, son and holy spirit.
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
The Catholic Church is greatly influenced by Paganism. Saint Francis of Assisi was a Pagan, and brought forth the value of environmental stewardship to the teachings of the Church. We also celebrate Christian holidays when we do because the Catholic Church conformed its own calendar to celebrate holy days on some Pagan holidays as a means of bringing Pagans into the fold.
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
Sometimes I feel this way, because I have been heartbroken over actions by those in the Church hierarchy. These are things that I find to be in contradiction with the teachings of the Church. For example, Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl of Washington threatening to cancel Catholic provision of services to the homeless and poor if the D.C. City Council were to pass a law giving equal rights to homosexuals. I think those who know me best, know that I live my faith and devote a great deal of my time to helping disadvantaged people. For an Archbishop to go against the mission of the Church as a means of coercion is obscene.
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way? Being from the home state of Fighting Bob La Follette, I can honestly call myself a Progressive. I usually tend to vote for Democrats, because when it comes to issues such as poverty, environmental stewardship, and diplomacy, that is the party that has a better track record. I know that the political right likes to lay claim to moral issues, focusing the majority of its efforts on abortion, a non-voting issue. The right wing had six years of majority during the Bush years, and was able to place more conservative judges on the Supreme Court and Roe Vs. Wade was still not overturned. When it comes down to it, it never will be since the majority of people in this country would be furious. If the decision was overturned, what then? Would women who have abortions be tried as murderers? This leads us down a slippery slope, and essentially, even if the decision were overturned, women would still have abortions. That is why I say it is a non voting issue. If one believes it is wrong to have an abortion, then the right thing to do is to not have one, and support real prevention of abortions including birth control. It is not like the Church has never supported contraceptives... it supports the use of condoms in South Africa where AIDS is a pandemic. But this is exactly why I don't fall in lock step with Papal infallibility.
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
I believe in evolution, just as Pope John Paul II had. I believe the book of Genesis was written as a poetic.
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
I was born into this faith. That isn't to say that I didn't explore others. The priest at my parish encouraged all of our class to do so prior to confirmation. I wish I could just go to the United Church of Christ and be happy with a faith that has more open-minded leaders, but that is not my faith. There are days when I am very sad, because I feel that my faith has been stolen from me by a few in the hierarchy who are committing abominations in Christ's name. Recently, a priest in my community who preached nothing but hate and intolerance (especially against Jews, but also against racial minorities) had passed away. When my mother told me of his passing, I could only say, "bet it is hot where he is now." Maybe I shouldn't have said it, but I doubt anyone in this town would have disagreed with the statement. There was a petition that went to the Bishop of the Diocese of La Crosse that called for his excommunication. That is how bad he was. He decided to retire when that happened. Overall, that is the bad thing about any religion. Any jerk can come along and commit terrible deeds in the name of God or some other deity. Religion is belief based. If there was an absolute truth, then maybe that would be less likely. Despite this, I still consider myself religious in that I do try to live by Christ's example and hope that others do to.
-
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
Atheist, not religous
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
N/A
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
N/A
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
N/A
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
I don't follow any religeon, I'm an atheist. I don't have any supernatural or spiritual beliefs, and I don't have any ideas that I wouldn't be open to evidence against.
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
No, I'm atheist
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
No, Atheist! >.>
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
Nope. Atheist.
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
None. Atheist.
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
No, atheist
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
Belief in an invisible man/men in the sky seems a bit rediculous. I've never witnessed any so called "acts of god" which suggest otherwise, never seen any varifyable miracles, and never seen any religous people who are happier than everyone else.
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
Liberal, and I believe there is no god, so if we want a good life, WE have to be the ones to make it better for each other, not count on some greater power to make it happen.
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
Yes, The Big Bang >.>
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
I'm not in a religeon, I'm atheist!
I was raised atheist, forced to believe in primary school to the point of being affraid of saying god doesn't exist(this supposedly wasn't a religous school), I don't think ANYBODY should be put through that.
I also have to say that...here in the UK, I know hardly anyone thats religous. The idea of so many people practising rituals in the name of some supposed deity, people believing that if they do certain things considered socially or morally unacceptable that they'll automatically be sent to some kingdom of fire and brimstone, and the number of people who genuinely believe that they'll see the second comming of Jesus within their lives is truely strange. (Mainly talking about christianity there, but you get the idea.)
-
Let me answer a couple of these all at once:
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
Atheist
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
Most of my political standpoint isn't relevant to the thread, but I can tell you that I have virtually no tolerance for social conservatism that has its roots solely in religious doctrine.
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
I suppose I was born into it - my parents expressed no religious beliefs at all as I was growing up, and I guess atheism is the default state of man, right?
-
Does this really belong in the debate section?
"Arbutus, I don't believe you're an atheist. Cite your sources!"
-
Does this really belong in the debate section?
"Arbutus, I don't believe you're an atheist. Cite your sources!"
I suppose the reason for it being here was to avoid any potential flaming/etc...
Anyhow, we can debate on it being in the debate section, so I say it works. :D Case closed. ;)
oh dang... now it might not be... but then we can debate it! ... >.> ... potential paradox?
-
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
Unitarian Universalist
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I follow along with the 7 UU Principals, which are
* The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
* Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
* Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
* A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
* The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
* The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
* Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
None, really.
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
Not Really
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
I follow Unitarian Universalism.
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
Yes, but God as we know God cannot be defined as one being, but as many. I believe that the many names for God, and various religiousjn scripture across the world are all aspects of the same being.
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
I guess that seems to go aklong with my answer to Question 6
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
I a manner of speaking, in that I feel a sense of kinship with the world at large, but that is about the extent of it.
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
I consider myself to be liberal. My religion wholeheartedly endorses same-sex marriage. In fact the first legal same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts was performed by UUA President Rev. William Sinkford
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
Yes, I subscribe to the Big Bang Theory.
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
I was born into Unitarian Universalism.
-
I'm not sure why you chose a survey format, but I must say I greatly dislike it. It makes most of the thread hard to read.
So... for that reason and because most of the stuff doesn't apply anyway, I'm not going to use this format.
I have no religion. I was raised in a Christian household, and so not surprisingly I used to be a Christian. If fact, I had extremely strong faith with my Christian beliefs. But through studying the Bible I came to discover that the God I was raised to believe in, which is loving and just, is far from the God depicted in the Bible. I found that many of the teachings within the Bible are just outright atrocious, and yet we somehow ignore or twist things to make them seem better. On top of that, there are many areas with contradictions or that are logically and/or factually wrong. Like the whole creation story.
There are stars that we know to be billions of light-years away. This literally means that it'd take billions of years for the light to reach us. Since I know enough about how these distances are measured, I know there is no way the calculations could be so off as to allow for the timeframe presented in Genesis 1-1. So how could the light from the stars have gotten here? Maybe, I thought, God placed the light en-route. This sounded plausible enough that I accepted this idea for years. And one of the things that helped to open my eyes is realizing that I was excepting this without evidence. The only reason I had for even proposing the idea was to allow myself to explain a discrepancy between known fact and what the bible says. To put it simply, it was a "patch" to help hold my beliefs together. And it was only one of many such patches. And as I pealed away these patches, I found that the beliefs could no longer stand.
So... I went through a period of time where I still believed a God, but was unsure exactly what to believe beyond that. However, this happened during a time in my life when I moved away from home to go to college and had was finally coming to grips with my sexual orientation. (learning what the bible really says about homosexuality was one of the things that sparked the more in depth study.) So, as you might imagine, it was a very stressful time for me. In fact, I ended up going through a period of depression at least partially due to the immense stress, though there were likely other factors that I won't get into here. The point is, I realized that being on the verge of breakdown (as I often had suicidal feeling during that time) for my own health, I needed to put it aside.
I decided to put it aside and focus on finishing college. I could work through my religious beliefs after that was over. But, those sorts of questions have a tendency to linger in the back of your mind. So I would notice things. Like in art history class when they spoke of the role of the Church in art and architecture. Churches, cathedrals in particular, are designed to have such grandeur as to make the person feel insignificant. It's designed to give the person a feeling of otherworldliness with the way the light plays through the high stained glass windows. It's designed purposefully with this intent... by people. Of course I also learned more about the Bible. Now that I was no longer giving it this unreasonable status, I could begin to see how it was written. How clearly it is influenced by the time period it was written in. All the contradictions and atrocities and inaccuracies, easily explained when you realize that it was written by men in a rather barbaric culture, and that is not the work of, or inspired by, any god.
In the last year of college while walking home and thinking to myself, I realized something very important. I had for a very long time been waiting for God to give my life meaning and direction. I waited. And now here I was nearly through college, independently living on my own. I had made great steps towards getting my life really started. And it was not God that did this. It was me. There is not one step along the way that it would be reasonable to attribute God my success. No, it was completely my own success.
During my last quarter before graduation, I took a class called "Biomechanics". One of the things taught in the class is how evolution works. I had never really understood it before. I now know that what I heard about it before was usually misrepresented. There are a lot of common misconceptions about evolution (which I'd be happy to discuss with anyone that's interested.) Now, I would not say that learning about evolution led me away from God, but I would say that it gave me an understanding of how we got here. And it was this lack of understanding that kept me still clinging to that last little bit, that bit that said "well, there must be a god or where did everything come from?".
In the years since, I have grown further away from religion. In fact, I've come to see faith as mind poison. It is a vale that keeps you from searching for the real answers. So since then, I have become a very big proponent of critical thinking. I've always been big on logic and reason, and yet still this poison clouded my mind. So now I challenge everyone to always question everything: If you value truth, then in questioning there is nothing to be lost and much to be gained. If you question your beliefs and find them to hold up to scrutiny, then your beliefs become stronger. If you question your beliefs and find they do not hold up, then you can discard them since they are faulty. Both cases get you closer to true beliefs.
I think this hits most the questions except my political views. I believe that an individual's rights should only be limited by the rights of others. Because the sole purpose for rules, laws, morals and so forth, is so individuals can coexist. (wow, that was a lot longer than I originally intended.)
-
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
I am a follower of Christ.
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I believe that Jesus died so that people can have etertal life.
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I also believe that there is a lot more that goes on onboard this planet than science or the church covers. I believe in ghosts, guardian spirits, and a host of other supernatural occurrences.
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I don't believe in hell. I don't call priests "father", nor anyone but the creator. The man who raised me with my mom is my dad, a proud title to earn (almost any male can be a sperm donor). I disagree with a lot of Paul's teachings, and I also don't think that Christ is the only way to the Father.
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
I follow the example set by a man who walked the earth over 2,000 years ago. I believe in the promises he made, but I also believe that nature and life exists much deeper than trees, bacteria and animals. I believe in spirits and the like, and that the interaction of them on the material world has very real effect.
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
Yes. One, all powerful, perfect creator makes much more sense than a collection of gods with limited powers and flaws. They way all aspects of nature work flawlessly together makes me believe that there is only one commander of creation.
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
No. See above.
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
Not so much monolatry, but I do believe that, like a personality, the creator shows us different sides of himself as appropriate. IE: Nature is very unforgiving, yet when it comes to wrongs against him he is much more merciful.
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
People call him many things: Jehova, the Father, the Mother, the Great Spirit, Allah, mother nature, but they are all the same.
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
Not pagan.
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
I don't fit any particular group because I seek the truth, and that often takes me on my own path.
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
Libertarian. I believe that unless an individual is harming someone else government keep their big nasty mitts out of their personal life. I believe that God is the only source of freedom and liberty. He gave us free will, and I think we should be allowed to use it without persecution as long as it does not harm others.
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, possibly through the big bang, and that he shaped and formed life through evolution.
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
I was raised to think for myself. My parents encouraged me to believe in something as a basis for morality, but other than that I was left to seek my own path. This is what I have chosen.
-
I really want to answer.
1.) Closest religion to my beliefs is Wicca. It does not close away science.
2.) Honoring nature and rede "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
3.) N/A
4.) That there is two higher spirits, god and the goddess. Thankfully, Wicca let's me choose, I don't have to believe in them. I'm not sure about the afterlife either.
5.) Look up.
6-7.) Kinda and not... This thing what I believe, might be just different form of a god(s) My Mother Earth is not a god, she/he/it is just a lots of things/spiritual power together, nothing intelligent. Hard to explain.
8.) See above. It's the three blind man and an elephant, we comprehend world from our own experiences.
9.) I don't count Mother Earth as a god. I worship the nature.
10.) Totally.
11.) I think I fit in just fine.
12.) I'm not sure. I have some interest politics, but nothing major. I want to help others, my vote goes for those who really are trying to help society.
13.) Not really. I had theory about white holes creating new material, such as this universe.
14.) Nay. My first religion was Christian (Lutheranism).
-
Not sure, but I think this a necro... (it's july 17 today)
ummm... I can't count. and I fail at basic math (but I can do advanced math!) >:(
-
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
Christian.
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I believe in one all-powerful god, in heaven and hell, and the basic christian "rules".
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I don't believe in Adam and Eve. While that story holds some basic value, I think it was just made to teach things and not to be believed; like a faerie tale with a moral at the end. I also don't think god minds if you're not a christian. (see question 8)
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I don't think church is required to be a "good christian".
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
I do (somewhat) follow a religion, so this question is irrevelant to me.
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
Yes. I consider myself that way because it's true. I believe in Jesus, but Jesus is not a god.
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
No, see above.
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
Yeah, I suppose. I believe god makes things the way you believe they are. If you are christian, you go to heaven(or hell, depending on how good you are). If you believe in reincarnation, god will reincarnate you. If you are an atheist, you die and that's it.
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
Hmmm, how do you explain when you call the god 'god'?
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
I'm not sure I understand Pagans enough to answer. I looked it up, but it was too confusing.
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
I already explained that I am a christian.
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
I am a democrat. Part of my decision comes from how republicans tend to be big-business types, and I say big business=corruption. So I guess it is.
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
Big bang. Before the big bang there was nothing, and then there were planets and stars and all the things you find in textbooks. That is when I believe god was created, and god began the creation of creatures and plants and life.
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
I was born into this religion.
So, there's my info.
-
Not sure, but I think this a necro... (it's july 17 today)
No. The last post before Tuulikel had posted was from Varg on Feb. 13th. Add 6 months to that and the 6 month cutoff date woulda been about August 13th. Therefore, what Tuulikel had posted is fine.
-
Not sure, but I think this a necro... (it's july 17 today)
No. The last post before Tuulikel had posted was from Varg on Feb. 13th. Add 6 months to that and the 6 month cutoff date woulda been about August 13th. Therefore, what Tuulikel had posted is fine.
:D
See? I fail at basic addition.
Ok, sorry about the confusion
-
Yeah, I suppose. I believe god makes things the way you want. If you are christian, you go to heaven(or hell, depending on how good you are). If you believe in reincarnation, god will reincarnate you. If you are an atheist, you die and that's it.
Wait... are you implying that atheists want there to be no afterlife? Sorry, but no. As an atheist myself, I'd like the idea of getting to continue living after I die, but the evidence just doesn't support it. I'm more concerned with what's actually true than what's comfortable to believe. No offense, but this sounds like a belief born strictly out of some poorly thought out attempt to make everyone happy. Poorly thought out because it fails to do what it's designed to do. I'm not happy that once I die I'm gone for good, but that's what the evidence supports and I can't do anything to change it, so I just learn to accept that's how it is.
Not trying to knock you specifically, just that it baffles me that anyone would hold this kind of belief. But it's not the first time I've encountered it.
-
Yeah, I suppose. I believe god makes things the way you want. If you are christian, you go to heaven(or hell, depending on how good you are). If you believe in reincarnation, god will reincarnate you. If you are an atheist, you die and that's it.
Wait... are you implying that atheists want there to be no afterlife? Sorry, but no. As an atheist myself, I'd like the idea of getting to continue living after I die, but the evidence just doesn't support it. I'm more concerned with what's actually true than what's comfortable to believe. No offense, but this sounds like a belief born strictly out of some poorly thought out attempt to make everyone happy. Poorly thought out because it fails to do what it's designed to do. I'm not happy that once I die I'm gone for good, but that's what the evidence supports and I can't do anything to change it, so I just learn to accept that's how it is.
Not trying to knock you specifically, just that it baffles me that anyone would hold this kind of belief. But it's not the first time I've encountered it.
I worded it wrong. I meant that whatever you THINK is true, it will be that way. You've told yourself that there is no afterlife, so by consequence, for you there won't be. I can see why you'd think it's a stupid idea, but I have my reasons for believing what I do.
-
What would happen to someone who has never had a thought of what they would want there to be after death (or someone who was undecided), Spirit?
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
I am an atheist.
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I'll pass on this one.
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I'll pass on this one.
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I'll pass on this one.
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
I don't follow any religion, nor do I hold any religious beliefs.
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
Nope!
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
Nope!
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
Nope o.o
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
None
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
I'm not Pagan.
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
I do not belong to any religious group.
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
Well I guess that I just feel that religious belief should be excised from how Australia is run, which is clearly not the case currently. Otherwise it has no real influence on my political beliefs unless I'm in a childish, antagonistic mood :P
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
Only that which is the most convincing scientific model, I guess.
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
No idea. I don't even really know which religion my parents follow beyond the fact that they're various shades of Christian.
Heh, I missed a couple of questions so I fixed it up. Silly me x3
-
I worded it wrong. I meant that whatever you THINK is true, it will be that way. You've told yourself that there is no afterlife, so by consequence, for you there won't be.
That really doesn't make it any better. Whether or not someone -believes- something is true has no baring on whether or not it actually is true. For example, as a kid I bought into the idea that as long as you have enough faith, all things are possible (the bible does say that after all). As such, I used to believe I could fly, I used to believe that if I concentrated hard enough I could manipulate objects with my mind, I used to believe that I could walk through walls. But no matter how much I believed these things, that didn't make them true.
[Edited to fix broken quote block.]
-
That really doesn't make it any better. Whether or not someone -believes- something is true has no baring on whether or not it actually is true. For example, as a kid I bought into the idea that as long as you have enough faith, all things are possible (the bible does say that after all). As such, I used to believe I could fly, I used to believe that if I concentrated hard enough I could manipulate objects with my mind, I used to believe that I could walk through walls. But no matter how much I believed these things, that didn't make them true.
You seem to believe that it's all based on a belief that everyone should be happy. I do wish for that, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Besides, if when you die you die and that's it, how can you be unhappy once you're dead?
-
You seem to believe that it's all based on a belief that everyone should be happy. I do wish for that, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Besides, if when you die you die and that's it, how can you be unhappy once you're dead?
Saying "you'll get what you want to happen" does sound like it's about making everyone happy (even though in actually fails at this). Changing it to "you get what you think will happen" removes that aspect, but adds other problems as I pointed out in my last post.
-
You seem to believe that it's all based on a belief that everyone should be happy. I do wish for that, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Besides, if when you die you die and that's it, how can you be unhappy once you're dead?
Saying "you'll get what you want to happen" does sound like it's about making everyone happy (even though in actually fails at this). Changing it to "you get what you think will happen" removes that aspect, but adds other problems as I pointed out in my last post.
I already explained that I misworded it. And we're assuming here that god either is almighty or doesn't exist, from my viewpoint and yours respectively. I believe god has the power to do anything. You argue that you can't do some things no matter how much you concentrate, but you are not god. You can't walk through walls, but if god believed that he (yes, gender stereotyping, but I can't keep calling "him" god over and over) should be able to, he could.
-
I already explained that I misworded it. And we're assuming here that god either is almighty or doesn't exist, from my viewpoint and yours respectively. I believe god has the power to do anything. You argue that you can't do some things no matter how much you concentrate, but you are not god. You can't walk through walls, but if god believed that he (yes, gender stereotyping, but I can't keep calling "him" god over and over) should be able to, he could.
I'm sorry, but you seem to be completely missing what I'm saying.
I'm not saying God couldn't do things this way, I'm saying that this idea does not mesh with observable reality; there are NO real world examples of someone's beliefs affecting what's actually true. So there is no reason to think this should apply to an afterlife. Also, even if their were an almighty god, why would such a god run things this way? It makes no sense.
This system you are describing is one which rewards delusion and punishes those who go by what actually seems to conform to reality. So while I get nothing, a guy that deludes himself into believing that by killing enough "infidels" in this life, he'll get to be god-like when he dies, this guy gets massive rewards? Any god that would use such an unfair system is certainly not a loving god. But you didn't say you believe in a loving god, so maybe that fits into your beliefs.
-
This system you are describing is one which rewards delusion and punishes those who go by what actually seems to conform to reality. So while I get nothing, a guy that deludes himself into believing that by killing enough "infidels" in this life, he'll get to be god-like when he dies, this guy gets massive rewards?
It's not really punishment, because you're dead. How can you say "Darn, I really wish I could have gone on to the afterlife" once you're dead if you didn't? Plus, killing infidels? I already pointed out that I don't care what religion you belong to. If you murder somebody, any logical god would send you to hell. And this is all my belief anyways. I know there's no convincing you, and I'm really not trying to. I just wish you would at the very least understand my views.
-
Since this thread was actually started as a "survey" by having people answer 14 different questions, Perhaps it would be better if we continued as such. Therefore, please continue all debates via PM. Thanks.
-
Since this thread was actually started as a "survey" by having people answer 14 different questions, Perhaps it would be better if we continued as such. Therefore, please continue all debates via PM. Thanks.
Well, it's in the debate club section, but this is a survey no matter where it's posted. Okay. :)
-
If there isn't suppose to be debating here it shouldn't be in the debate section regardless of how it was started.
It's not really punishment, because you're dead. How can you say "Darn, I really wish I could have gone on to the afterlife" once you're dead if you didn't?
And likewise, they same could be said for people that believe in an afterlife and get nothing. That's a moot point, and fails to address the problem I was pointing out.
You are entitled to your beliefs, I'm just letting you know that what you are saying is not logically consistent. What you choose to do with that is up to you.
-
I am an individual a part of the Christian sect dubbed "Protestantism," specifically belonging to the loose denomination named "Non-Denominational."
But, to be honest, I hate Protestantism. I hate everything about it, and I wish with all of my heart and soul that I could escape this living Hell (and speaking of Hell, more on that later) of religious chaos that is the Protestant sect. What I want to truly be is Roman Catholic. I'd even settle for Eastern Orthodoxy or Islam. It is in those that my heart truly lies, and I love them very deeply. I would give anything in the world to be Catholic.
Alas, it is not meant to be.
But why do I hate Protestantism so much? Several reasons.
First and foremost, Protestantism is (to me) tantamount to religious anarchy. I have heard many people say on many occasions that they hate organized religion. In response, I always laugh heartily and ask them what about Protestant theology is organized. As a Protestant, I can believe almost anything I want, as long as I retain three basic tenants:
1) I believe that I am a sinner damned to Hell.
2) That Jesus Christ is the son of God.
3) That Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins, so that I may gain entrance to Heaven.
Other than that, as long as I can find evidence to support my beliefs, then I can believe almost anything I want. I have seen every kind of Protestant under the sun, and all of them will radically different belief systems from each other. You can a gay, pro-abortion, feminist and an anti-gay, anti-abortion, chauvinist sitting right next to each other in the same religious service, and both will claim that they are true-blooded Protestants who worship God and try to live out his tenants.
It doesn't make any sense to me. How can such a thing be allowed? Why can two people have radically different beliefs and still be happy and say they are part of the same organization?
It bothers me, obviously, and I hate it. I hate the disorganization. I hate that two Protestants can be part of the same denomination, part of the same specific church, and believe completely different things.
Which brings me to my next point: forgiveness.
I loathe the New Testament. The Old Testament God was a real god. He was harsh and unforgiving. He made people suffer for their wrongs. He made them scrape into Heaven by the skin of their teeth. He punished the Hebrews for their transgressions. He would slaughter them in mass. He made them suffer for things they had done. He damned Adam and Eve to mortality for disobeying him. He drowned a world for their sins. He denied Moses entry into the Promised Land for disobeying Him. He wouldn't let David built His temple because Daniel had blood on his hands. He made the Jews be conquered and enslaved for their wrong-doings.
This was a God who believed in punishment. This was a God who believed in justice.
Then comes Jesus, giving a new face to God. No longer does God believe in punishment and justice. Now, He preaches things such as "forgiveness" and "love." He wants you to have a loving, personal relationship with Him. He wants you to go out and love your fellow man with all your heart. If a man kills your family, you are required to forgive and love him. If a man mocks you and your beliefs (which is a regular occurrence for any Christian on the internet), you are not allowed to hold a grudge and hate him back.
We are obligated, as Protestants, to love and respect everyone around us, regardless of what they believe and do.
We must Love.
And I Hate it.
I hate this new God and this New Testament. I hate Jesus Christ and His message. I hate belonging to a religion that makes me do these things. Yet, people have the gall to say that my religion is so hateful and unforgiving. "Open-minded" people tell me on a regular basis that *I* am close-minded and adhere to a close-minded philosophy. I have Atheistic friends who mock God and Jesus and my religion right in front of me and tell me that my beliefs are stupid, and that I worship voices in my head, and that I am illogical and emotional, because a logical and rational person would never believe any religion.
And yet, my own religion requires me to continue to love these people and be their friend. Because God forgives us for our transgressions. We must forgive other people for theirs.
I had a Muslim tell me one time, "How can your paradise be so cheap?"
And its true. Heaven is cheap. A man can hate God and be an atheist his entire life and repent on his deathbed and be allowed entrance into Heaven. It's ludicrous. A man can kill an entire family and rape their corpses and beg God for forgiveness (and get it). Muslims and Catholics spend their entire lives wondering where they will go when they die. Yet, us Protestants can know for a fact that when we die, we will all go to Heaven, regardless of how we lived our lives.
Some of my same atheist friends who mock my beliefs tell me that they were Christian when they were younger, yet they all had some "intellectual awakening," and they don't believe it anymore. When they say this, I wipe my brow and breathe easy, because I know that, while they aren't Christian now, they won't be damned to an eternity of Hell when they die.
So, there you have it: my religious beliefs. I belong to a loving, kind religion where it is very easy to get into Heaven. I belong to a religion where its adherents aren't allowed to hate anyone, regardless of what they believe or what they do. I belong to a religion where I am allowed to have a personal and loving relationship with God, where I can live my life knowing that He will forgive me for any wrong that I do. I belong to a religion where I am required to love everyone and anyone and forgive them for whatever they may do to me. I belong to a religion devoid of the concept of "Justice," because it opts to believe in the concept of "Love."
And I hate it.
-
I am an individual a part of the Christian sect dubbed "Protestantism," specifically belonging to the loose denomination named "Non-Denominational."
But, to be honest, I hate Protestantism. I hate everything about it, and I wish with all of my heart and soul that I could escape this living Hell (and speaking of Hell, more on that later) of religious chaos that is the Protestant sect. What I want to truly be is Roman Catholic. I'd even settle for Eastern Orthodoxy or Islam. It is in those that my heart truly lies, and I love them very deeply. I would give anything in the world to be Catholic.
...
And I hate it.
Okay, I'll bite. Why don't you just convert to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy? With Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy you would still be in a Christian religion. I could understand not wanting to convert to Islam since it leaves Christianity, but why not go to one of the other two you mentioned? I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms.
-
Okay, I'll bite. Why don't you just convert to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy? With Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy you would still be in a Christian religion. I could understand not wanting to convert to Islam since it leaves Christianity, but why not go to one of the other two you mentioned? I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms.
It's not a question of acceptance. I'm sure that if I went to a Catholic church and spoke to the priest about converting to Catholicism, he would love to help me. Also, since there are more Catholics in the world than Protestants and Orthodoxes combined, the community would be larger. No, the question isn't about acceptance.
Twice, I've tried to convert to Catholicism.
Both times, I just couldn't do it. As much as I love Catholic beliefs, I cannot believe all of the things they believe. Their apologies and arguments are not sufficient enough to convince me that they do not have some erroneous beliefs. I've tried, though; I have an entire shelf of books about Catholicism and its theology and history. There are plenty of Catholic apologetic books that give very potent arguments, but they are still not enough to bring me over.
Therefore, since I cannot adopt all of Catholicism (and trust me, I've tried), I can adopt none of it. I will not simply tailor my belief system to accept things that are easy and convenient for me to believe. I will believe what I perceive is right, even if that is not necessarily what is easy to believe.
-
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
I consider myself a backsliding Christian.
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
For the most part, I follow the "treat people how I would like to be treated" rule. I try to be an honest, giving, helpful person.
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I do not like how (in my opinion) close minded religious people can be. I also do not atend church, I personally do things that I know most Christians look down upon... I use horrible language, frequent bars etc... Now, I really don't consider those things to be terrible, as Im doing them with no real consequences to anyone but myself.
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
See answer #2
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
Yes, I guess, I've never really thought about it though, I guess its just how I was raised... and it seems to be working so far!
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
No, but honestly, I really don't know too much about other religions.
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
Christ
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
Not pagan
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
I may, like I said above, Ive never really looked into it very much.
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
I originally wrote a HUGE paragraph, and then I reread it, and knew I would get flamed... so Im just gonna insert this little smily, K? Enjoy it. :)
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
I believe in a more scientific approach to creation.
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
I was born into a VERY strict Christian family. I have been disowned (sad but true) by several family members because they do not think I lead a Christian life. I think that there is a ton of good things about Christianity, but also a lot of bad ones. I tried to take the good points out, and apply them to my interaction with others, and left the bad ones behind.
-
Since this thread has arisen anew, I might as well add my religious views as well. However, I'm going to skip the survey format as most of the questions don't fit me. I'll hit the ones that do.
Religiously, I consider myself an agnostic. That is, I don't believe in any one religious paradigm and I truly believe that if there is something beyond this mortal coil, it is something us mortals cannot perceive or comprehend. That said, I lean towards being an atheist, but I'm open to the idea that there is something more.
I was raised Christian, Lutheran, to be exact, but I began to question the religion I was raised in during my late teenage years and in college. As a young teenager, I read the bible and studied my religion quite studiously, but as I got older, there just seemed to be so many inconsistencies between the bible and itself and the bible and reality that I no longer believed in Christianity.
I did look for a substitute for awhile and ended up attending a Unitarian Unversalist church for a time. It's a church with no dogma, just ethical principles, so they are fine with you being an agnostic, atheist, pagan, or Christian and being a UU at the same time. I enjoyed being part of the UU religion while I was there, but I eventually drifted away from it. More from the church I was attending changing then from changes in me.
Ironically, I would say that my early Christian views do impact my political views. I'm a proud Democrat, and it comes from the focus the version of Christianity I was taught placed on helping and looking out for others. Becoming agnostic has not changed my political views.
-
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship? Jesus Christ
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began? Big Bang theory. I don't believe that the universe was created by a "higher power".
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
I do believe in God, and I do have a Bible. But other than that, I really can't answer the rest of the questions because I don't belong to any particular denomination and I haven't been to church in a long, long time. It's not that I don't believe in anything. It's just that I haven't found a particular group I like. IMO, sometimes the best way to practice religion is in your own home. That way, you aren't offending anybody and can practice whatever you like. ;)
-
1. What do you consider your religion to be?
I sometimes go to the Unitarian Universalist church, but really my answer has to be that I'm spiritual but not religious.
2. What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group?
Unitarian Universalism has no creed beyond spiritual seeking. The beliefs of its members vary.
3. What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group?
See #2.
4. Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of?
See #2.
5. Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
Taoism, Buddhism, Native American spiritualism and some Earth-magic-based faiths resonate strongly with me. I don't see how one can improve on "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."
6. Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
Yes. I am a nondualist. I believe not only in one God/Tao/Cosmic Muffin/Whatever, but that we are all literally a part of It. "Thou art God," and so am I, and so is the Universe. To use a pop-culture example, it's not unlike The Matrix, except instead of an evil computer we have the Mind of God.
7. Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
No. See #6.
8. Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
I can see how it would be a useful symbolic system for breaking down certain arbitrary aspects of reality, but ultimately... no. I'll hasten to add that I'm not dissing symbols. I think they possess their own reality, and perhaps even their own awareness.
9. Which God/Gods do you worship?
I can't say I "worship" so much as acknowledge the Tao that cannot be told.
10. Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
Yes, I'm Pagan.
11. Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
I don't fit into any major Western religious group (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). They're too hidebound and dogmatic for me. In fact, I could easily be convinced that the Big Western Three are evil. "Ye shall know them by their fruits"? Well, they've borne some pretty rotten fruits.
12. What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
Left-libertarian, and in a sense it is. It's influenced by my sense of ethics and morality.
13. Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
About 14 billion years ago there was this big explosion.... but that only tells us about this universe. It says nothing about the multiverse, and as the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics seems to be catching on, that's where the real show is. Apparently, "when" and "how" are irrelevant. Time and causality are local phenomena. The Tao simply is.
14. Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
I was raised in a branch of United Methodism that was so liberal, it was practically indistinguishable from Unitarian Universalism. I don't believe most of that congregation even took things like Virgin Birth or Resurrection seriously, but as myths and metaphors. However, I threw off the last shackles of Christianity by the time I was twelve. I was basically an atheist until I was about eighteen, but then spiritualism began slipping back into my life. Some of that was a powerful moment of epiphany I had when I was twenty, and part of it was due to my realization of the... connectedness of reality. I have had experiences that were flat-out paranormal, except that I don't believe in the paranormal. It's all normal; it's just weirder than we think.
Apparently, random is not random.
-
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
Atheist.
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
N/A
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
N/A
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
N/A
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
No.
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
No.
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
No.
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
None.
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
No.
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
No.
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
Left-libertarian minarchist.
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
The bing bang, although I've read about J. Richard Gott's theory that the universe travelled back in time to create itself and it's... interesting.
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
Well, my parents are atheists, but I really think I'd still be an atheist even if they weren't.
-
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
Agnostic Atheist
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
N/A
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
N/A
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
N/A
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
That if we have so many good people on this planet suffering, there's one of two things going on with god. (Note: I don't capitalize god on purpose.)
1: Either he doesn't really care about all his children, and is in fact, the biggest troll ever.
or
2: He doesn't exist.
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
Kinda hard when I don't believe in any.
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
Nope.
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
Nope.
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
None.
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
Not.
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
Yes. Explained with a quote.
"Religion is a crutch, something there for those too weak to face life on their own."
-Kerry King (Guitarist for Slayer)
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
Democratic Party, if anything, simply because the Bible Belter's going around.
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
One day there wasn't. Then science happened. CERN is figuring it out.
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
I never really had much religion in my life. Every single attempt to get it to me resulted it in it being shoved down my throat. After so much, one gets fed up.
-
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
Nordic Heathen, with slight modifications
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
That sometimes violence is the only answer for a problem, and that there are times when diplomacy is more important then anything else.
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I have great respect, verging on worship for Gods from other Pantheons.
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
I will not preform animal sacrifice. Though I have been more then a little tempted to preform human sacrifice on occasion depending on who I'd use for the sacrifice.
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
N/A
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
Not a foxtroting chance
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
Of course there are more then a few Gods
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
No each God is power unto themselves
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
I worship the Old Viking Gods. Even though Odin is the All Father I focus my worship more on his wife Freya.
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
Um what do you think *Looks at above answers*
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
N/A
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
Left-wing Socialist with an added piece of Fascism. Yes my beliefs modify my political view point. Unlike many people who feel that capital punishment should be gotten rid of I feel its use should be increased. There is crime far worse then murder which is rape, I whole heartidly believe that rape should be punishable by death. I also feel that corpral punishment should be reinstated, cruel and unusual punishment should be the norm as without it no one will learn their lesson. Prison while having its own dangers is overly used for minor offenses which could be more easily be punished with a good caning. (If you want to know where my ideas came from that fit in so well with my religion read 'Starship Troopers' a book that should be taught in every civic class in high schools)
At the same time all people should be dealt with respect. The government has no reason to be involved with peoples personal relationships. While people may find same sex relationships distasteful it should be respected with the same status as any other loving relationship.
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
That is kind of hard for me to answer. You see that while I believe to some extent in the big bang, the legends of my faith show a memory that go back as far as the last ice age, even arguably as far as the first. In these stories man was molded from the ice and given life by the All Father. I have recently come to wonder that if the religion has memories that go back as far as the ice ages is it possible that more of the story is true.
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
I did convert in a winding way. First I was a rabid atheist who hated all religion. Later I became a bit of a spiritualist. After that I became a fluffy crystal waver Wiccan. Then I was on to following the Celtic beliefs (kept a few traditions from that one). When I realized that I had a more violent personality I changed to an Arthurian believing that King Arthur would eventually return to save man kind, which gave me the core values of Chivalry. After a while I gave up on that one as being to heavily influenced by Christianity. Now I have come to worship the old Norse Gods.
I will add my own question here as I feel that should have been put in at the beginning.
15.) What have you learned from other religions?
I can some up what I have learned from the Abrahamic Faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) in one word "HATE". I am not trolling on this one it just happens to be what those faiths have taught me over the years of dealing with too many of their believers who have wanted to burn me at the stake, stone me, or kill me in a variety of other horrible ways.
-
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
Atheist with borrowings from Laveyan and Objectivist philosophies.
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group?
N/A. But in terms of philosophies (religion is, after all, largely just philosophy with gods attached) -- Individualism, rational self-interest, etc
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group?
Again, in terms of philosophies -- irrationality, herd mentality, lack of individualism or intelligence.
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of?
N/A. Hence why I don't consider myself a member of any particular philosophical body -- it is of my opinion that no predetermined philosophical or religious framework can lead to man's fulfillment as individual self. Therefore and similarly, I do find contention not merely with the idea of following a singular preset philosophy, but also with some aspects of those philosophies I choose to borrow from. Every man is different, I believe in tailor-made ideologies.
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
I do not. My beliefs include the belief in a 'God' only insofar as a metaphor or state of being, or perhaps as some sort of (non-conscious) force. 'God' being a metaphor for a variety of things, such as the act of creation (therefore, when man is creating, he is becoming his own God), etc.
I do not believe in the supernatural and propose no God of the gaps arguments.
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
N/A
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
N/A
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
N/A
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
Intrinsically, my personal philosophy steers away from worship not merely because I do not believe in it, but because I believe it hinders man's development as an individual self (keep in mind that's in my case, I'm not generalizing. Religion in some ways, I think, if applied properly, can lead to greater personal development, depending on the person. Just not me.)
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
N/A. I consider myself as myself.
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
Yes. Reasons previously stated.
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
Fluid and situationally dependent, although admittedly left-leaning in many instances. Not influenced, as there is nothing there to influence me.
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
Big bang. Surprise!
As for where that big bang came from and all the little details, we don't really know. And we may not know for a very long time, if ever. But, as stated before, I don't believe in god of the gaps arguments. Almost every large scientific breakthrough was essentially unforeseen. Think: a heliocentric universe.
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
I don't believe any of those terms are accurate. But that's a whole other dissertation on a priori concepts, the development of beliefs, etc.
Although I do believe there is some sort of gene (or speculation as to) that governs or helps govern whether someone will believe in a god (empirical vs faith-based reasoning).
-
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
No religion but not an atheist
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group?
N/A
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
N/A
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of?
N/A
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
well I believe that any religion as well as scientific theories could easily be true or they could even be all wrong because I really can never know till I die
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
N/A
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
N/A
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
N/A
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
N/A
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
N/A
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
yes I can't really fit into any religious group that knows for sure that their right because even if you can provide evidence to prove it how do you know if the evidence is reliable
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
my political standpoint is not influenced by my religious beliefs
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
No
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
well my parents hardly ever talked about religion in general so I stayed very open minded and haven't changed
-
If there isn't suppose to be debating here it shouldn't be in the debate section regardless of how it was started.
It's not really punishment, because you're dead. How can you say "Darn, I really wish I could have gone on to the afterlife" once you're dead if you didn't?
And likewise, they same could be said for people that believe in an afterlife and get nothing. That's a moot point, and fails to address the problem I was pointing out.
You are entitled to your beliefs, I'm just letting you know that what you are saying is not logically consistent. What you choose to do with that is up to you.
Kobuk, excuse me for starting this up again, but I wanted to explain this and I figured out how to say it best. People believe different things, as we all know. Why do they think the way they do? Because they have proof enough for them that their religion of choice is correct. They have proof, no matter how faulty, and above that they have faith. I'm not the type to say "Oh, you're wrong because I think this and I'm always right". I think about all the people's viewpoints that differ from my own, and consider them. I am still a christian, but other religions do have their reasons for thinking what they do! So is it wrong and illogical to say "Maybe we're both right in a way"?
-
... So is it wrong and illogical to say "Maybe we're both right in a way"?
In the case of the particular thing I objected to, yes. However, I'll PM you more about it so as to not derail the thread.
-
... So is it wrong and illogical to say "Maybe we're both right in a way"?
In the case of the particular thing I objected to, yes. However, I'll PM you more about it so as to not derail the thread.
Excuse me, mods, but I have something to say about this thread:
I think that this conversation needs to happen in this thread.
Yes, the thread is a "survey", but it's in the debate section. What's the point of having a thread where we just extrapolate on our religious beliefs systems (or lack thereof)?
If the point of this thread is just to answer a questionnaire, then this thread does not belong here and should be moved to another section.
-
I'll just say this as I'm on a mobile. While religion has some positive aspects, it ultimately divides mankind and controls us. The least religious nations tend to be the ones that make more progress in the world. Compare that to the heavy religious MiddleEast. If you believe in a higher power (I do) that is perfectly fine, but organized religion is bad. Too much hypocracy. Saying only God can judge while constantly judging others by saying such rubbish as "you're going to hell for X" Personaly, I hope the world gets rid of it sometime in the future. Individual beliefs > Organized religion/Cults. The supreme gods in religion aren't all mighty if they require mear mortals graveling at their feet. Seems pretty pitiful to me. A real supreme being wouldn't need so much self gratification and have much more important things to do.
-
@al-Kateb: Before I move this thread, I'll contact the OP of this thread and ask if she'd like to keep it in this forum or have it moved to a different forum. ;)
-
I'll just say this as I'm on a mobile. While religion has some positive aspects, it ultimately divides mankind and controls us. The least religious nations tend to be the ones that make more progress in the world. Compare that to the heavy religious MiddleEast. If you believe in a higher power (I do) that is perfectly fine, but organized religion is bad. Too much hypocracy. Saying only God can judge while constantly judging others by saying such rubbish as "you're going to hell for X" Personaly, I hope the world gets rid of it sometime in the future. Individual beliefs > Organized religion/Cults. The supreme gods in religion aren't all mighty if they require mear mortals graveling at their feet. Seems pretty pitiful to me. A real supreme being wouldn't need so much self gratification and have much more important things to do.
In the past, some of the most sophisticated and technologically advanced nations were the Muslim empires of the age. They also had strong policies of religious tolerance that led to most of the populace in those empires being non-Muslims.
Surely, knowing things like this, you can't make broad blanket statements like the kind that you are making.
-
I hope you aren't implying I'm anti-Muslim. If so, you missed the point. The past is the past and when you look at the 2 wars going on and the religious tension between Islam (Radical Islam in the extreme case) and the other religion in that region - It's really hard to see this "tolerance" you speak off. I'm going by modern standards, not the ancient bronze ages. It's cool to believe in what you want. When it's "Us vs Them" then it's a problem.
-
I hope you aren't implying I'm anti-Muslim. If so, you missed the point. The past is the past and when you look at the 2 wars going on and the religious tension between Islam (Radical Islam in the extreme case) and the other religion in that region - It's really hard to see this "tolerance" you speak off. I'm going by modern standards, not the ancient bronze ages. It's cool to believe in what you want. When it's "Us vs Them" then it's a problem.
Of course I don't think that you're anti-Muslim.
But, the basis for your assertation that organized religion = bad is erroneous.
-
I guess I never liked it's appearence. Glossy and pretty on the top, but ugly once you dig deeper. I also never liked the my god is better than your god complex, either. Some people are geniune and practice what they preach. If only everyone could do the same. You don't need to be in a religion to be a righteous person, though. That's why I'm anti-religion, but pro faith. I believe that there is more to the universe than we'll ever know and I will not submit to a book written by man to be some merit of truth. That's just how I feel about the matter of religion. :3
-
But, the basis for your assertation that organized religion = bad is erroneous.
While organized religion isn't inherently bad, it goes that way -very- easily. The biggest reason for this, in my opinion, is that organized religion allows the religion to become it's own entity, and it's an entity that only really cares about itself, not the people in it.
-
As far as organized religions go one can NEVER ignore the wars, butchery, and other evils done in the name of "The Church" (Many different sects have done this so I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular). The men who led the slaughter of people are often considered holy men. Let's consider one of the worst I can think of without even having to think, St. Patrick who led the slaughter of the druids at was granted Sainthood for genocide. And don't give me any excuse that he removed the snakes from Ireland, the snakes were the Celts and his way of removing them was through murder. To many organized religions kill because people believe differently than they do.
-
Sigurd Volsung: "As far as organized religions go one can NEVER ignore the wars, butchery, and other evils done in the name of 'The Church'..."
<sigh>
In Reply #36 on the previous page, in my response to the OP's Question #11, I wrote, I don't fit into any major Western religious group (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). They're too hidebound and dogmatic for me. In fact, I could easily be convinced that the Big Western Three are evil. "Ye shall know them by their fruits"? Well, they've borne some pretty rotten fruits.
However, it seems to me y'all are tarring religion with a very broad brush. I'm hard pressed to come up with examples of Buddhists or Taoists behaving like that. Eastern people slaughter each other over ambition, empire and resources same as any human tribe, but I don't see as much over religion. But, maybe I only think that because I don't know Asian history as well as I know European and Middle Eastern history.
So I'm askin'. You tell me.
Anyway, I do know that neither Buddhism nor Taoism contains anything like the concept of "God's Chosen People." Judaism and its two retarded offspring, Christianity and Islam, do. Eastern spiritualism is more a matter of philosophy than of exclusivity or dogma. If it tells you anything it's that We Are One... and that includes your enemy.
Jesus tried to get that idea across too, but it didn't take. Instead, the noisiest Christians run around quoting Leviticus, Deuteronomy and other hateful Old Testament garbage. Uh, hello! Last time I was a Christian (about 40 years ago), I was taught that Jesus was a whole new deal. He's like the ambassadorial avatar of God, representing a radical revision of the Supreme Being's foreign policy, so tear that rotten OT off the Bible and throw it in a bonfire. Only keep it around for historians, who can presumably tell the difference between the myths of ancient tribes and the literal Word of GOD.
Ironically, if Jesus existed, it's likely that he was an enlightened master of the Eastern kind. Much of the stuff he said is consistent with that, but somehow it got lost in translation. He must've facepalmed a lot.
-
Regarding Buddism and the like. They are the only sorts of 'religion' that I approve of as far as organization goes. It's more a philosophy and about seeking enlightment. A religion that can legitimate claim to be a peaceful one. Unlike Islam... There is no slaugther in a gods name or judgemental threats such as "you're going to hell!!!"
-
Buddhists certainly have the capacity to be as intolerant as any other religious folk, y'know. Take for example the Sinhalese Buddhists in Sri Lanka who regularly protest and discriminate against other religious groups they perceive to be a threat to their religion and traditions.
-
Mooshi: "Unlike Islam... There is no slaugther in a gods name or judgemental threats such as 'you're going to hell!!!'"
Unlike any of the Big Western Three, you mean: all three great Abrahamic religions. In a sense, Muslims and Christians are brothers, parented by Jews. All three faiths contain the Torah: the five books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Read them sometime. They'll tell you all you need to know about why the Abrahamic religions are as violent and punitive as they are.
Sometimes I think the Torah should be considered a profane work. It certainly contains enough sex, murder, justification of immoral acts and profanity. I can't even describe everything it depicts in plain language here. If you really believe everything in it is to be taken literally, you have no choice but to accept that God is a sadistic, stupid bureaucrat.
In my darker moments, I sometimes think YHWH was a demon... or more properly a dæmon: a non-corporeal entity including angels and demons, without any implication of "good" or "evil" attached to the name. I'm half convinced that such non-corporeal entities exist and have been called various things in different places, including angels, demons, elves, fairies, djinn and perhaps even "alien grays." Not all of them are nice. Calling them is about as advisable as standing on a busy street corner in a bad neighborhood and yelling, "Hey, come be my best friend! I don't care who you are or what you've done! Here, I'll take you up to my apartment and show you where I keep all my stuff!"
I don't believe they're "supernatural." It's all natural. If it helps, think of them in terms of quantum physics, as extradimensional or extrauniversal visitors. Maybe YHWH was one of them. Or, more likely, maybe a handful of power-hungry pathological nutcases driven mad by the desert heat made Him up.
However, the more I dig into ontology the more I suspect that there isn't any difference. Thoughtforms are real enough. Just look at what they do.
Dusty: "Take for example the Sinhalese Buddhists in Sri Lanka who regularly protest and discriminate against other religious groups they perceive to be a threat to their religion and traditions."
Show me one good pogrom though, one good auto de fé. Give me something on par with the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition, because "perceive to be a threat" implies defense, not offense.
The Abrahamic religions have all, at one time or another and in more than one epoch each, become as offensive as they could possibly get.
-
I'm taking Ohare's side on this.
In one series of stories I am working on there is a bar called the Mystic Wolf where gods from all pantheons come to have a good time. There is only one god who would never enter out of fear and that is "that second rate, punk, patron god of self promoters, Jehovah" because if he did his mother, yes Jehovah had a mother by means of creative editing and rewrites to the Bible she went from being Jehovah's mother, then to his wife, then to his first created human cast out of Eden for refusing to submit to Adam, where she went to Hell laid down with Lucifer (which chronologically makes no sense since Lucifer was cast out of Heaven because he was jealous of man so he shouldn't have been in Hell yet) where she gave birth to all demons. The point being is that in the story Lilith is more the happy to wait for Jehovah to show his head so she can rip it off.
As I'm sure you can tell by this opinion I truly hate Judaism and it's two hate filled children Islam and Christianity. I feel that while many of the practitioners of these faiths may be good people, the faiths themselves are almost entirely evil. Even the sects that claim to be totally non-violent, such as the Amish, often hide dirty secrets including sexual violence as the gold standard. Friend of mine to a college sociology paper on the Amish and found that rape and child abuse are the norm, so much for them being nice people.
The original Western, Pagan, religions were a bit more peaceful and did not hide behind the idea that theirs was the only true church. The Viking Gods may have all been Gods of War but at least they didn't send their followers out to kill people because of their religion. Even the Romans weren't that bad considering the fact they kept adopting gods from different cultures. What happens the Catholic Church causes the fall of Rome not directly but it was the cause, and then starts stealing holidays of other religions to make their downfall all the easier. I pray that I live long enough for the Vatican and Jerusalem burn.
As I said the followers are not necessarily bad people, in fact I'm sure most are good hard working individuals but well see above
-
Dusty: "Take for example the Sinhalese Buddhists in Sri Lanka who regularly protest and discriminate against other religious groups they perceive to be a threat to their religion and traditions."
Show me one good pogrom though, one good auto de fé. Give me something on par with the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition, because "perceive to be a threat" implies defense, not offense.
Well there's the killing (http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2009/s2814960.htm) and detainment (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6676792.ece) of tens of thousands of Tamil civilians (who are predominately Hindu and Christian) over the last few years alone by the ultra nationalistic, Sinhalese Buddhist population and government.
-
Far be it for me to be a defender of organized religion, but I think there is too much generalization going on about the sins of the major religions. Yes, certain sects of all major religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.. have done atrocities in the name of their religion. However, there are other sects of these same religions that haven't. I guess if you want to say all Christianity is descended from the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox churches would challenge this argument, then you can say their sins apply to all. But at some point you need to focus on today and not the past. Today we have groups in each major religion that are violent and groups in each major religion that work on helping others and uniting people.
Perhaps it's best to say that organized religion is a powerful tool. One that can be used for both good and bad. Unfortunately, when it is used for bad, the results can be devastating. That doesn't mean all organized religion is tainted with a bad brush.
I'm certainly not a fan of organized religion, but since I left the area I grew up in, I got exposed to groups that have much more moderate views and at least in my mind, do much more good than harm to the world. Twenty years ago I'd be right in the thick of things saying organized religion (and Christianity) were the worst things that happened to the world. I guessed I've mellowed out on this topic. You still won't see me attending a church, but my animosity towards religion has toned down a lot.
-
Dusty: "...there's the killing and detainment of tens of thousands of Tamil civilians (who are predominately Hindu and Christian) over the last few years alone by the ultra nationalistic, Sinhalese Buddhist population and government."
That's not a religious conflict though. Read up on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War). It's a post-colonial thing that got rolling, really, the moment the British granted Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) independence in 1948. There were already ethnic tensions and some nasty politics over the national language (sound familiar, Arizona?) but in the end it came down to the Tamil (Tamils, Tamilians, whatever) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_people) wanting to secede from Sri Lanka.
Governments always go for that, right? They say, "Sure, go ahead and secede! Here, take this big chunk of land you didn't ask for, too!" Yeah, that's the ticket, just like the U.S. said to the South in 1861. </sarcasm>
If putting down a secession is "ultra nationalistic," just call the U.S. (and Israel, etc.) ultra nationalistic. Of course, I'd agree that they are, but that in no way concedes that the Sri Lankan Civil War was religious. The Sinhalese majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinhalese_people) did what any party in power would do. Surely you're not defending the Tamil Tigers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam), are you? It would seem they started it. They practically pioneered suicide bombing. There's blood all over their hands.
Anyway, my point is, that's not a religious conflict. Religious tension is probably part of it for some people (how much on each side I cannot say, although I can make an educated guess), but there's also ethnic tension, political tension, economic tension, nationalistic tension... in short, all those things that go into any civil war.
It is not a religious conflict. It's a civil war. In the final analysis, colonialism did it again.
-
1.) I'm a philosophistic Christian (a christian who believes slighlty different, like I don't believe being gay is a sin. though I'm not)
2.) I believe in the trinity, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit. Basically wat anyother Chrisian believes in
3.) I think that when we die we r judge by our heart, not our actions (as stated in the bible, but people take SIN to literally)
4.) I don't think a person who sins for the good of others has done anything wrong. God sees and knows y we do wat we do
5.) The philosophistuc side is my side that blends religions, like I follow Buddist beliefs that if u live everyday the best u can then u will have a good afterlife
6.) Yes, though its confusing (even for me lol) that 3 things make one person (Jesus, God, and the holy spirit = Lord an savior)
7.) No, I only have one God
8.) No
9.) The Christian God
10.) No
11.) Kind of, I beleive in Christianity, but I have my own set beliefs that switch around from other religious origion. I still stride to make my Lord proud though
12.) No, I believe when it comes to politics you do anything for the good of the people. Not for your own religious input
13.) lol long story but i believe god has always been and started something which lead to another thing. I mixed science and religion into one with my explenation
14.) Not really, there was a small time i didn't believe in God, but then I became a believer and now here i am today ;)
-
Rift: "...its confusing (even for me lol) that 3 things make one person (Jesus, God, and the holy spirit = Lord an savior)"
Read up on First Council of Nicea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) in 325 AD, and all will become clear: just more political mumbo-jumbo.* A bunch of powerful guys got together and said "This is how it will be." You can stop being confused. It was all about control.
*Added in Edit: Alexandre edited this post. I have re-edited it to something that more closely approximates my original meaning.
Alexandre, I have sent you a P.M. It is intended for all the board administrators, not only for you, so please share it with your peers.
-
As Kobuk said:
Since this thread was actually started as a "survey" by having people answer 14 different questions, Perhaps it would be better if we continued as such. Therefore, please continue all debates via PM. Thanks.
If this thread continues to go along those routes, we will need to close it. I'm okay with discussing beliefs in an understanding manner, but attacking someone's beliefs won't be tolerated.
-
Alexandre: "...attacking someone's beliefs won't be tolerated."
Attacking beliefs is not attacking the person. Attacking beliefs is what debate is all about. If this thread is to be held down to a dull list of survey results, perhaps it would be best if Administration moved it, locked it or deleted it, because it is not appropriate for the Debate Forum.
-
All right, I've sent a PM to the OP asking for clarification on whether this topic stays here or gets moved elsewhere. Until I get a reply back, KEEP THE DISCUSSION CIVIL, and members can continue to answer the original 14 questions as the OP had originally posted.
-
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
Judaism
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
Homosexuality, of course.
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
Obviously, homosexuality. Also, not using electricity during holidays. Its considered making fire, which is associated with work. Back then, people did not seem to know that fire and electricity are separate things, so it has been integrated into the religion. Along with that, The laws of נגיעה (Pronounced "Negiah"). To sum up, after bar/bat-mitzvah, at the age of 12 or 13, you are not allowed to touch a member of the opposite gender. Let me repeat. Not allowed to TOUCH, or have any physical intereaction with whatsoever. There are sexual exceptions, but I'm not going into that here (and only the mega-orthodox follow that particular law anyway.)
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
N/A I suppose. Not sure I understand..
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
Following Judaism, yes, I believe in one. Why? I'm not entirely sure.
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
Nope. Again, said above.
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
Again, no. Monotheistic here.
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
Yaweh, is the English pronunciation
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
Not Pagan.
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
Any religion that is not Judaism, I suppose.
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
It only affects my opinion on Israel as a whole, but I'm not in the mood to get into that here.
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
This is an interesting one for me. I hate to think that I'm not allowed to believe in science and religion at the same time. What if science and creationism happened together? Let me explain:
1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 - And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
^^This could be the big bang?^^
Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness. - (Already explained)
Day 2: Heaven - The atmosphere came into place, and the sky as we know it was now visible.
Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation. - The earth started to take form
Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars. Took form as we know it.
Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air. The first animals started moving around, and evolution as we know it started.
Day 6: Land animals and people. More evolutionary things
Day 7: God "rested". The world as we know it today started evolving and moving on its own.
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
Born Jewish, still am.
-
As to my Post # 65 further above, I have recieved word back from the OP of this thread. This thread can remain in this forum for members to debate if they choose. If you choose not to debate with anyone, then you can simply answer the original 14 questions as normal. You don't have to take part in any discussions if you don't want to. All rules and guidelines for debating in this forum will continued to be followed as mentioned here:
http://forums.furtopia.org/index.php/topic,36687.0.html
-
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?[/color]
This is an interesting one for me. I hate to think that I'm not allowed to believe in science and religion at the same time. What if science and creationism happened together? Let me explain:
1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 - And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
^^This could be the big bang?^^
Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness. - (Already explained)
Day 2: Heaven - The atmosphere came into place, and the sky as we know it was now visible.
Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation. - The earth started to take form
Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars. Took form as we know it.
Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air. The first animals started moving around, and evolution as we know it started.
Day 6: Land animals and people. More evolutionary things
Day 7: God "rested". The world as we know it today started evolving and moving on its own.
14.)
I didn't really answer that question fully, but that's exactly my thoughts.
-
Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness. - (Already explained)
Day 2: Heaven - The atmosphere came into place, and the sky as we know it was now visible.
Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation. - The earth started to take form
Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars. Took form as we know it.
Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air. The first animals started moving around, and evolution as we know it started.
Day 6: Land animals and people. More evolutionary things
Day 7: God "rested". The world as we know it today started evolving and moving on its own.
And you don't have a problem with the fact that according to this, the earth was formed and and had plants BEFORE the sun was formed? Even if you try to say, "as we know them now", sorry, but there was no major change in how the sun was between when plants formed and now. And that's just one problem, there are many. It seems obvious to me that this was just a tale made back when people didn't know any better. So you really have to twist it to get to even come close to what we now know actually happened thanks to science.
-
Alexandre: "...attacking someone's beliefs won't be tolerated."
Attacking beliefs is not attacking the person. Attacking beliefs is what debate is all about. If this thread is to be held down to a dull list of survey results, perhaps it would be best if Administration moved it, locked it or deleted it, because it is not appropriate for the Debate Forum.
Quite true!
But perhaps a little clarification is in order as to what 'attacking' means, so that people don't misinterpret this and go wild; attacking is /not/ going 'that's stupid' and leaving it at that, but rather using a logical, convincing and cohesive argument to undermine the basis of the other argument(s) by invalidating either the logic and/or premises used to generate the conclusions, and/or perhaps even the conclusions themselves, by bringing up evidence to the contrary.
-
Here is an alternative viewpoint. Ever think that religion itself is like some sort of trolling on a massive scale? Think about it seriouslly for a moment. The vague threats, great promises for killing in your gods name, the "my god is better than your god" complex, the childish attitude of "I'm right and you're WRONG" stance some people have and all the contradictions listed in the "holy texts" themselves. If there is a cosmic entity out there in the universe, it's loling over mankind's collective ignorance towards their own species! :D
-
Here is an alternative viewpoint. Ever think that religion itself is like some sort of trolling on a massive scale? Think about it seriouslly for a moment. The vague threats, great promises for killing in your gods name, the "my god is better than your god" complex, the childish attitude of "I'm right and you're WRONG" stance some people have and all the contradictions listed in the "holy texts" themselves. If there is a cosmic entity out there in the universe, it's loling over mankind's collective ignorance towards their own species! :D
That sure is one sadistic cosmic entity, if they had the power to do anything about it anyways. Anyways, yeah, not exactly the newest of thoughts, but perhaps the most creative way of putting it. ;)
-
Here is an alternative viewpoint. Ever think that religion itself is like some sort of trolling on a massive scale? Think about it seriouslly for a moment. The vague threats, great promises for killing in your gods name, the "my god is better than your god" complex, the childish attitude of "I'm right and you're WRONG" stance some people have and all the contradictions listed in the "holy texts" themselves. If there is a cosmic entity out there in the universe, it's loling over mankind's collective ignorance towards their own species! :D
I think this way of thinking becomes problematic. Some people honestly feel that way; however, others seem to be much more accepting of beliefs outside their religion.
Mind you, I used to be a Mormon missionary, and I can't tell you how many discussions I got into telling people I knew I was right. That's what we were taught to do. It was in the form of "bearing testimony," as we put it, but it was basically a way to say "I'm right and you're wrong." Unfortunately, that in and of itself caused discussion between people to end. It's annoying to look back on what I had done before and see that I was so closed minded... but, then again, that's what I had been taught to do.
Personally, even though I'm agnostic now, I see others' religions as beautiful things. A lot can be learned and gained from these groups. I just wish some of them were more tolerant of outside views.
(and also, sorry for the mass confusion I may have caused earlier in the thread; as Kobuk said, debate away :))
-
Alexandre: "...sorry for the mass confusion I may have caused earlier in the thread..."
You seem like a nice person, Alexandre. As with being a Mormon missionary, you were probably just doing what you were taught to do.
I think the anger comes in not because of differing beliefs, but because of the "God's Chosen" meme so prevalent in the Abrahamic religions. It was present in Judaism before Christianity or Islam were ever even a twinkle in anyone's eye, and it carried over. "I'm right and you're wrong because THIS BOOK SAYS SO and GOD IS ON MY SIDE!" is not a great way to win friends and influence people.
For anyone not intimidated by it, it's a great impetus to think, What a maroon! and walk away disgusted instead.
-
I think what Mooshi was saying was 'Don't take it seriously' (the 'trollish' aspect of religions that do that); there are more serious things to debate than the validity of wild claims, considering that wild, un-backed claims have no place in debating, and can simply be immediately discarded as invalid.
At least that's how I interpreted it.
What's a 'maroon' by the way? Maroon is a verb, not a noun, as far I know, so it's clearly either a term I've never heard of or a typo.
-
Avan: "What's a 'maroon' by the way? Maroon is a verb, not a noun, as far I know, so it's clearly either a term I've never heard of or a typo."
It's a noun when it refers to a color, but the way I used it was a reference to old Bugs Bunny cartoons. (Bugs meant "moron.") I didn't figure there'd be anyone unfamiliar with it on this board. :D
-
oh yeah... for some reason I keep thinking of colors as adjectives.
The reference I wouldn't have gotten though; never really watched TV.
-
Avan: "The reference I wouldn't have gotten though; never really watched TV."
Here's a five-second clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo). Even though it's on YouTube, it's really just a sound clip.
It's kind of famous, up there with "Th-th... th-th... that's all, folks!"
We now return you to... nevermind. :D
-
1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
None.
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
N/A
3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
N/A
4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
N/A
5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
Handled on a case by case basis after finding out more. I don't have a particular 'saying' or 'words to live by'.
6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
N/A
7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
N/A
8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
N/A
9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
N/A
10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
No.
11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
I don't. I am an independent thinker normally and don't like to prescribe to a certain set of beliefs. I don't want to sacrifice one of my own personal feelings about something in the name of fitting in to a "greater group" or something. I grew up forced in to religion (various Christian sects) and know how bad it feels for me and how conflicting it is on the way I handle ideas. It was, to put it bluntly, tormenting.
12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
I am registered to vote as a Republican (and at one point was registered to vote in Florida as a Democrat while being a Republican in KY at the same time - glitch in the system, I didn't abuse it and vote twice though don't worry). I don't have a true party though but I am registered that way to at least have a vote in some issues that not being attached to a party would deny me access to voting on that. I vote only when I know the candidates and issues. If I don't know about someone or something I simply don't cast my vote. The last major election I voted for both Republicans and Democrats that were on the ballot based on what I knew of each and who I thought would do the best job regardless of their party.
13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
The big bang theory seems to be the most logical though to be honest I really don't care since it doesn't matter. I'm only an animal existing here for a very short time. I need to live, and mate, and then that's pretty all I need to be concerned with.
14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
I was born and forced into Christianity. I was forced into baptism, forced to proclaim things in front of people in rowdy crowds, and forced to attend meeting after meeting after meeting. Even to this day I am still forced into prayers by certain family who would disown me if I didn't play along (them of course not knowing I'm just playing along). I avoid churches like the plague (pun intended) and I refuse to go near one for any reason (like how I skipped a family reunion because it was held on church grounds recently). I also tend to avoid people who are highly religious and don't even want to make friends with them usually since I usually feel like they are doing it out of a "duty" to be friendly and as a method of recruitment (been through it many times). I want someone as a close friend because they like ME only, and not because they live by a creed that says they HAVE to act like my friend and be super nice, etc. So I just make it easier on both parties and stay my distance usually. I also don't like being around people who are very anti-religion in the same. I am very well mannered and neutral in my behavior about it. I like to be respectful as long as the person isn't being forceful with me or others with me or causing a disturbance by making a scene (screaming at people calling them whores, throwing things, etc).
-
Well, Avan, by trolling I'm going by it's very definition. The sole intentent of provoking people. It doesn't take you very long to witness this both personally and the media. Religion 1 hates religion 2 - Religion 3 thinks both are wrong and that it's "god's chosen". Instead of pulling for the greater good of mankind, the heavily religious are basically trolling each other to get under each other's skin on who is right. And if you don't agree, you get a burn in hell threat, lovely. Sound familiar? "Yiff in hell furfag" "burn in hell sinner against GOD". We live on a tiny spec in one galaxy in one universe. Man should stop being so arrogantly stupid to honestly believe they are entirely right about everything. Religious addicts don't know and neither do Athiest when it comes to the absolute truth. With the vastness of the universes - we should shut up and get a clue that there is way more out there we'll never know. So stop pretending you know. Both extreme sides are annoying as hell..
-
We live on a tiny spec in one galaxy in one universe.
I know, right? :D Anyways, that's why I seek by my direct and indirect actions (as opposed to by my words) to be more than a tiny spec on a tiny blue speck around a small glowing yellowish speck in a speck made of many glowy specks in a cloud of specks in a universe that is likely a speck within many more in a multiverse that is likely a speck in relationship to the others. And if someone doesn't like what it is I do to achieve that end, too bad, since none of it involves causing trouble for other people, thus they would be unjustified in trying to stop me. I might be a LaughingMad MadHatter who comes across as a VisionaryVillain whos UtopiaJustifiedTheMeans (though then suberts the villainous side of both (not a BlatantLie which in turn is not a SuspiciouslySpecificDenial), making each a SubvertedTrope, BroughtToYouByTheLetterSRedundantDepartmentOfRedundancy which is the redundant department who brought you this message), but I'm not GenreBlind; oh no, I'm quite GenreSavvy, perhaps even DangerouslyGenreSavvy; I'm also clearly TropeOverdosed, both literally (in that it's ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin and the more trope-meaning-ness) and... literally (see the article).
... I should get an award for putting that many tropes in their WikiWord formats into one paragraph.
-
We live on a tiny spec in one galaxy in one universe. Man should stop being so arrogantly stupid to honestly believe they are entirely right about everything. Religious addicts don't know and neither do Athiest when it comes to the absolute truth.
You can't get from atheism to thinking you know everything about absolute truth. Atheism is a position on a single question: does a god or gods exist. Anyone that can't answer yes to that question is technically an atheist. However, I think most people that call themselves atheists arrive at this position through healthy skepticism; they require things be supported by sufficient evidence before believing them. In which case, such people wouldn't be claiming to know absolute truth.
-
Hmmm...lemme try to clarify. A thiest could say "God is gonna punish sinners like you and that is the truth." while an athiest could say "There is no god." Neither one has any solid proof to back their claim. I'd like to believe that man created god(s) to help organize their life to give an answer and later that became that god(s) created man. Before all the fields of science, some cultures (and some do today) believed a god was responsable for the sun rising and setting. We know now that it has to do with the position of the earth relevent to the sun. What I'm trying to say is that with the infinite number of unviverses out there, man can't be so foolish to believe he knows the absolute truth on existance itself. We can't get to our sister planet Mars yet let alone explore outside our own galaxy. Maybe one day man will know the truth that he seeks.
-
Mooshi: "A thiest could say 'God is gonna punish sinners like you and that is the truth.' while an athiest could say 'There is no god.' Neither one has any solid proof to back their claim."
Mooshi's comment brought to mind something I've always found curious. Perhaps this is tangential, but given that this thread started out as a survey, I think it's relevant: have you ever gotten into a discussion with a self-described atheist who on closer inspection sounded more like an agnostic?
As I see it, an agnostic admits to not knowing while an atheist claims certainty. And yet, the viewpoints of most of the atheists I've met come down to We Don't Know and You Can't Prove It. That's agnosticism.
Honestly, even though I've described myself as "spiritual" in this thread, at the root I am an agnostic. We don't know. We can't, although the purely subjective experience of self-awareness seems suggestive. What is the ghost in the machine? Really, I have no idea. All I know is that I am one, looking out through the twin cameras of a robot made of meat.
Far as I'm concerned, that's miraculous enough that anything goes.
I can't even say that about you. Y'all could be hollow men, putting on a show for the entertainment of the One Aware Creature In The Universe: me. But I am not a solipsist. I have faith that that's not how it is.
Anyway, does there seem to be some confusion about the terms "atheist" and "agnostic"? I don't even mean here on this board, necessarily. It's something I've noticed out in the Real World for quite some time.
-
Funny thing is, I was raised Catholic and stopped believing the moment I started questioning. All the inconsitancies and un-logical stories drove me away from religion. I later became and athiest and realize it's no different than religion. Sure you claim there is no god, but some are as millitant in their view that they almost preach about being an athiest. That turned me off too. There is nothing wrong with faith as it's present in our everyday lives
-
Funny thing is, I was raised Catholic and stopped believing the moment I started questioning. All the inconsitancies and un-logical stories drove me away from religion. I later became and athiest and realize it's no different than religion. Sure you claim there is no god, but some are as millitant in their view that they almost preach about being an athiest. That turned me off too. There is nothing wrong with faith as it's present in our everyday lives
I always hear this story from every anti-religious person I've ever met on the internet.
Elaborate.
-
There's nothing to elaborate on. It's a simple "It didn't make any sense to me." In my own personal case; virgin births (impossible), Fitting 2 of every animal on an ark (no matter how big an ark, it's impossible) punishing someone by killing SOMEONE ELSE (how does that even make sense from a moral standpoint? It doesn't.) Claims like "God loves us all" followed by verses where God wants us to kill those who oppose him. It's that simple. When something doesn't make sense, you won't believe in it. A quick google search of "Bible contradictions" explains it in more detail.
-
Mooshi: "I later became and athiest and realize it's no different than religion. Sure you claim there is no god, but some are as millitant in their view that they almost preach about being an athiest."
I can't see atheism as anything but a religion. Agnosticism is not. Agnosticism is reasonable, but by definition atheism has one of Western religion's prime features: absolute certainty.
Eastern spiritualism, incidentally, makes no claim of certainty. It clubs you over the head with imponderables until you realize, "Oh, we can't get it!" There is no certainty -- even if Bart Simpson can make the sound of one hand clapping. "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao...." You can't get much more succinct than that.
But I'm not sure Eastern spiritualism even qualifies as "religious." It's not, as we Westerners tend to think of it, anyway.
-
Y'all could be hollow men, putting on a show for the entertainment of the One Aware Creature In The Universe: me. But I am not a solipsist. I have faith that that's not how it is.
To me, this way of thinking is amazing. I have thought that perhaps I was the only one in my world that actually existed. I at one time thought of myself as the guy in The Truman Show. I've pondered over a lot of those possibilities.
I don't believe those anymore, Mr. OHare, but the possibility still exists. I don't think that's the case, but I don't have faith that it's not either. To me, it doesn't matter if I exist, how I exist, or when or where I actually exist. Would I be any happier if I actually knew any of those? Would I be able to be a good person in my own eyes if I knew I was the only being around? I don't think knowing any of those would make me happier at all.
This is the same reason I'm okay not knowing when it comes to religion (and, as Mr. OHare put it, being an agnostic). I don't want a simple belief to make me a good person; I want to be a good person (in my own eyes), regardless of what the truth may be.
-
Wow, so much wrong in the last few posts... sorry in advance for the length. I've tried to segment it for easier reading. Plus summed it up at the end in case of TLDR (Too long, didn't read)
-----
First of all, atheism is not a religion. It's not even close. Its a rejection of theistic claims. That's it. Theists make claims that there is a deity of some kind, where the atheist rejects these (usually because they lack sufficient evidence.) Rejecting a claim is not the same as asserting a claim of your own. Someone that says “I don't know” to the god question IS an atheist. Of course, someone that makes a positive claim that there is no god would also be an atheist. But rejecting a claim does not necessarily mean accepting the counter-claim.
For example: I flipped a coin, but didn't even look at the result. It'd be foolish to believe I got heads because you have no evidence (I don't even have evidence since I purposely didn't look at it.) But it would also be equally foolish to believe the opposite: that I got tails. I say again: Rejecting a claim does not require accepting the counter-claim.
-----
Next point:
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Gnosticism and agnosticism are about knowledge, whereas theism and atheism are about belief. If you claim you -know- there is a god, you are a gnostic theist. If you say you don't -believe- there is a god, but that you don't know, you are an agnostic atheist.
(As a quick aside: there are also a group that goes by the term “Gnostic”. I'm not talking about them, but about the root meaning of the word. Similarly, there is a group that calls themselves Agnostic which not only say they don't know, but that things are unknowable. I'm also not talking about them.)
-----
Another major error I see being made here is this talk about knowledge and absolute certainty. The concept of absolute knowledge is worthless. There is extremely little that anyone can know with absolute certainty. Therefore, instead when we talk of knowledge, it's generally meaning “a reasonable certainty”. Not absolute certainty, but a reasonable certainty.
If I say I know god doesn't exist, it's with the same certainty that I'd say I know that gravity isn't controlled by pixies, or that leprechauns are not really hiding at the end of the rainbow. Not only is there no evidence for these things, but for them to be true, our understanding of reality which is based on evidence would have to be completely and totally wrong. All claims require evidence, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
-----
By the way, for those that claim that atheists are as fundamentalist as many religious people, here's a HUGE difference: if you show me actual evidence, I'll change my mind. The time to believe something is when there is sufficient evidence.
-----
Which brings me to my next point: faith.
Faith is a mind poison. The very idea that it's okay to accept things as true without evidence (and worse, in the face of contrary evidence) is NOT a virtue. You might claim that everyone has faith in something... wrong. I have NO faith. I have reasonable expectations based on past experiences, but not faith. I think one problem here is that the word, like many, has multiple usages. When someone says they have “faith” that the sun will come up tomorrow, or that that they have “faith” that there friend will pull through some difficult situation, it's not the same meaning and someone that has “faith” that a god exists. (also notice that those that try to defend faith will always use these weaker versions which really don't mean the same thing.)
-----
It's possible that I may be the only one that really exists and that you all are automations. But I don't believe that. But it's not faith that I have, but a reasonable expectation. Everything about the world I experience tells me that you all are actually other sentient beings like myself. We are forced to live in this reality by the terms of this reality. If you don't eat, you will die. You cannot simply choose to believe that you can live without nourishment and have it be so. Reality doesn't work that way.
Even if it turns out that I am the only being and that everything is being piped into my brain, I still am forced to deal with the reality I'm presented with. That applies to -everyone-.
-----
Again, this is not faith. I experience reality through my senses, and they reaffirm each other. If I pick up a mug of hot chocolate, I can see the light bouncing off of it, and can feel the weight of it, I can smell the aroma of the chocolate. I can taste it if I take a sip. I can hear the sound of the liquid flowing into my mouth. The whole experience is multiple senses all telling me the same thing: I'm drinking hot chocolate.
Further, if I talk to others and find that they have similar experiences, that's more evidence that I'm perceiving reality correctly. And through life we gain more and more of these experiences to reaffirm that this is real. It's not “faith”. It's a reasonable expectation.
-----
Again, I apologize for the length, but there was just so much wrong I had to address.
So to sum up:
-Atheism is not a religion; it's lack of religion
-Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive
-Rejecting a claim does not require accepting the counter-claim
-Knowledge does not require absolute certainty (which is a worthless term)
-A skeptical atheist will change position given sufficient evidence and is therefore not fundamentalism.
-Faith (accepting as true without evidence), is a corrosive mind poison and is NOT a virtue.
-We are forced to deal with the reality we are presented with.
-Faith is not needed to accept the reality we are presented with: all our evidence supports it.
-
*applauds Vararam*
-
*applauds Vararam*
*also applauds*
-
"Someone that
says “I don't know” to the
god question IS an atheist." WRONG. That is what we call an agnostic. Athiest say god does NOT exist and hold this claim to the same certainty that a thiest would that there IS a god. You can't have it both ways and say you're not sure god exists and follow that up with god doesn't. "Agnostic Athiest" does not exist as both have very different view points. No one also said Athiest was a religion. It was pointed out that some Athiest are so adament on their viewpoint that they start to actually preach about how there is no god and that is religion like. To preach about your word to an audience who will listen. Want evidence? It's all over the place. Especially video sharing sites. If you're an Athiest and don't believe in god then cool whatever. But if you make loads of videos about it and other such things over and over how there is no god. You're just as preachy as a thiest is.
-
Hmm, I think I figured out how to elaborate alittle more. Was reminded of this conversation I had with my old friend Amber. (She's Christian - and we also dated many years ago) Forgot what we were talking about, but it turned into a religious disgusion. One of the things she said left a really nasty taste in my mouth. How no sin is too great. Of course I challenged her by saying so a mass murder who prays on children and the elderly is okay as long as they say sorry and accept Jesus. She told me if you accept Jesus in your life you will be saved. Told her that was a bunch a rubbish and is as moral as letting out rapist, muderers and child molesters out of prison for saying "I'm sorry" Sorry doesn't cut it! When you ruin someone elses life, little words and croc tears mean nothing. The whole concept of a "get out of hell free card" is a joke to me and a slap to the face to anything that's right or moral. With that view, a mass murdering child rapist that says 'I'm sorry forgive me Jesus" is more righteous than someone who is a decent human being that isn't religious. Things like that is what drives me away from religion. Btw Var, faith does exist in everyday life. You hear it all the time "I hope I got that promotion" or "I hope she'll be okay." Never forget the little things. Not all faith is religious based you know.
-
I challenged her by saying so a mass murder who prays on children and the elderly is okay as long as they say sorry and accept Jesus. She told me if you accept Jesus in your life you will be saved. Told her that was a bunch a rubbish and is as moral as letting out rapist, muderers and child molesters out of prison for saying "I'm sorry" Sorry doesn't cut it! When you ruin someone elses life, little words and croc tears mean nothing. The whole concept of a "get out of hell free card" is a joke to me and a slap to the face to anything that's right or moral. With that view, a mass murdering child rapist that says 'I'm sorry forgive me Jesus" is more righteous than someone who is a decent human being that isn't religious. Things like that is what drives me away from religion.
She's right, and it's a tough pill to swallow. Unfortunately, works-based salvation (like the kind that you want) doesn't really work.
But it's not just saying "I'm sorry."
You also have to feel sorry. Just having a 5-second prayer doesn't make the cut. You're just being a troll if you think that anyone can just say "I'm sorry" and that it'll all be okay.
And yes, a mass-murdering child rapist can get into Heaven. Yes, a man who does nothing but good deeds his entire life can go to Hell. Yes, Hitler can go to Heaven. Yes, Mother Theresa can go to Hell. That's because your works do not determine where you go when you die.
No, it's not justice, but Christianity doesn't have a damn thing to do with justice. Not. A. Goddamn. Thing.
In fact, our entire religion is based on love, which is the anathema of justice. Justice says 'eye for an eye.' Love says 'forgive.' Justice tells you that people who wrong you should be punished. Love says to forgive them. Justice wants equality; love wants sacrifice.
We have a religion in which the only perfect human being ever was murdered for things He never did.
No, I don't like it, either, but that's the way it is. I'm sorry that it makes you feel angry and bitter.
-
If that's the case, I'd rather burn with people like ghandi than to be in heaven with people like hitler. Since I think things would be reversed... >.>
Nomatter how many luxuries you can put in a room; if you have to share it with Hitler, then it's not luxurious.
Nomatter how terrible a place may be, if you'ge got good people to help eachother through it, it's not so bad.
Then again, a classical heaven & hell are both entirely speculative and there is no trustworthy/valid/legitimate evidence that they do exist.
-
If that's the case, I'd rather burn with people like ghandi than to be in heaven with people like hitler. Since I think things would be reversed... >.>
Nomatter how many luxuries you can put in a room; if you have to share it with assholes, then it's not luxurious.
Nomatter how terrible a place may be, if you'ge got good people to help eachother through it, it's not so bad.
Then again, a classical heaven & hell are both entirely speculative and there is no trustworthy/valid/legitimate evidence that they do exist.
You believe what you're going to believe.
I won't be able to change your mind. I'm not going to waste my time arguing.
We'll all be dead in a hundred years.
We'll see what happens, then.
-
I'm sorry, but that is just fundementally wrong on all levels. As is saying you'll burn if you don't accept Jesus into your life. So, a preacher who is stealing from the collection plate and cheating on his wife is more worthy to you because he preaches about the lord than a tribesman in the rain forest that has never heard of such religions? I don't buy that for a second. Accepting societies scum into heaven because they said sorry would make that a hell to me. It's like taking a piss on all the victims who suffered at the hands of that scum that was let in. If I had a daughter that was raped and murdered and the guy who commited that crime got a pass into eternal happiness, I'd seriously question my religion.
-
I'm sorry, but that is just fundementally wrong on all levels. As is saying you'll burn if you don't accept Jesus into your life. So, a preacher who is stealing from the collection plate and cheating on his wife is more worthy to you because he preaches about the lord than a tribesman in the rain forest that has never heard of such religions? I don't buy that for a second. Accepting societies scum into heaven because they said sorry would make that a hell to me. It's like taking a piss on all the victims who suffered at the hands of that scum that was let in. If I had a daughter that was raped and murdered and the guy who commited that crime got a pass into eternal happiness, I'd seriously question my religion.
It's okay, Mooshi.
I'm still your friend.
-
Vararam: "Someone that says 'I don't know' to the god question IS an atheist."
Mooshi: "WRONG. That is what we call an agnostic. Athiest say god does NOT exist and hold this claim to the same certainty that a thiest would that there IS a god."
My dictionary agrees with Mooshi. I'm not going to bother with a link; anyone can look up "atheist." I'm also not going to stand on a dictionary definition. Wikipedia covers its bases by providing both definitions in its opening paragraph on atheism:
In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
By Vararam's definition I am an atheist, because I do not believe in God. But, I do not disbelieve either. I flatly reject religious arguments. Those who like sausages, the law or religion should not see how they are made. In no way do I think it likely that the entity described in the Old Testament was in fact the Creator of the Universe.
However, I suspect there is a macro-level at which one might as well throw up his hands and say "It's all One" because I've seen how systems and patterns operate in nature. I don't believe it. The jury is out, but if my suspicion is correct you might as well call that master program "God." I prefer "Tao" myself; there are fewer preconceived notions attached to it, but you can call it a rose for all I care.
I do not, in point of fact, call myself an atheist. I'll cop to agnostic. I don't claim to know, and I don't believe anything except that the "I" exists. That much I believe. Everything else is up for grabs.
I'm not going to argue over the meaning of the word "atheist," but must point out that Vararam and I define it differently. That's cool. If its definition has become less precise over the last forty years, it wouldn't be the only word in the English language to which that has happened. I figure if you call yourself one, you are one.
I'll call myself an agnostic with spiritual leanings. I suspect the joke is, if physicists ever do cobble together a Theory of Everything, it'll explain the mechanics of Awareness and the shamans will be saying, "But that's what we were trying to tell you all along."
-
In the end it doesn't matter. When our time comes, we'll be dead and unable to tell the living if we were right or wrong. The best we have to go off of is faith that there is something greater out there. That we served a purpose for whatever time we were here on Earth. Religion aside, we are all people and we are all here for whatever reason. May as well spend that life being happy. (Or at least trying to) My views will never change and no amount of arguing will sway me. Same goes for those reading this. I won't sway you. I think it's wrong to take someone elses life away who has done nothing wrong. Can we at least agree to that?
-
In the end it doesn't matter. When our time comes, we'll be dead and unable to tell the living if we were right or wrong. The best we have to go off of is faith that there is something greater out there. That we served a purpose for whatever time we were here on Earth. Religion aside, we are all people and we are all here for whatever reason. May as well spend that life being happy. (Or at least trying to) My views will never change and no amount of arguing will sway me. Same goes for those reading this. I won't sway you. I think it's wrong to take someone elses life away who has done nothing wrong. Can we at least agree to that?
Yes.
I agree with you on multiple levels, more than you know.
-
Agh... where do I start?
"Someone that
says “I don't know” to the
god question IS an atheist." WRONG. That is what we call an agnostic.
Vararam is going by the literal definition, not by people's colloquial terms. Technically, Vararam is right, but you're right when you look at things from an everyday, common-speech perspective, if that makes sense. However, according to definitions, it's completely possible to be an agnostic atheist.
Then again, that's all semantics.
She's right, and it's a tough pill to swallow. Unfortunately, works-based salvation (like the kind that you want) doesn't really work.
I used to be Christian, and from what I understand of Christianity, works are essential to the religion. Looking at the Old Testament, the people constantly were involved with rituals and feasts in order to cleanse themselves. They were commanded to do so, and by doing those things, they were cleansed from sin. Those who committed horrible sins were killed; this represented a spiritual death, or the spirit going to hell.
In the New Testament, a lot of those rituals were taken away. However, baptism, a physical manifestation of a person's commitment to God, existed. As James taught, "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?... Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:14, 17). Also, "For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt frut; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes" (Luke 6:43-44).
I do realize that there are scriptures in the Bible that say the exact opposite; the Bible is confusing even for those who believe in it. However, more evidence points towards a combination of faith and works that leads to salvation.
-
I honestly don't have anything to say.
The problem that people are having is that they seem to want an entirely works-based salvation. A system where your placement after death is determined entirely by their vague determination of how "good" or "evil" you were in life.
What you've said doesn't really...contradict what I was saying. Ergo, I don't really have a response.
-
I think I can understand the view point alittle more and I'm sorry I was bringing up extreme cases. If I got it straight, you believe that just because someone wasn't the best on Earth, it doesn't mean they are entirely evil to be condemmed. If I got that right, I actually agree to the second chance thing. It's still hard for me to "swallow" on the more extreme things such as a charitable person can be bound for hell and Hitler can get into heaven - but I'm trying to be more openminded to the other stuff. Fair enough Mr. Hyena? ;)
-
I think I can understand the view point alittle more and I'm sorry I was bringing up extreme cases. If I got it straight, you believe that just because someone wasn't the best on Earth, it doesn't mean they are entirely evil to be condemmed. If I got that right, I actually agree to the second chance thing. It's still hard for me to "swallow" on the more extreme things such as a charitable person can be bound for hell and Hitler can get into heaven - but I'm trying to be more openminded to the other stuff. Fair enough Mr. Hyena? ;)
=D
Fair enough.
-
Maybe the world would be a better place if we didn't have any religion at all. All religion ever does is get people angry, create division, skeptisism, wars, intolerance, etc. :P
-
Maybe the world would be a better place if we didn't have any religion at all. All religion ever does is get people angry, create division, skeptisism, wars, intolerance, etc. :P
Maybe the world would be a better place if we all believed the same things and had the same attitudes. All individualism and personality does is get people angry, create division, skepticism, wars, intolerance, etc. :P
-
The problem that people are having is that they seem to want an entirely works-based salvation. A system where your placement after death is determined entirely by their vague determination of how "good" or "evil" you were in life.
In a Christian sense, you're probably right. It's impossible to tell a person's fate based on what we see; simply put, we do not know everything that's happened in a person's life. Job in the Old Testament was deemed to be a cursed individual, but he may have been the most righteous of his time. I think that's why the phrase "Judge not lest ye be judged" becomes useful -- others' actions have little to do with your own salvation, so it's not important at all to say whether someone will be saved or condemned.
I'm not Christian, mind you, but I think that we can probably agree with most of these things regarding Christianity. :)
Maybe the world would be a better place if we didn't have any religion at all. All religion ever does is get people angry, create division, skeptisism, wars, intolerance, etc. :P
You know... I've thought about this, Kobuk, and perhaps you're right. Religion does cause a lot of conflict. However, I feel it creates a lot of hope, as well. When I was a missionary, I saw people in the lowest moments of their lives (one almost killed because of drug-dealing incidents). What I taught gave some people hope in life and helped them become better people -- some people get pompous and proud from religion, but these people found happiness and hope.
I'm not in that religion now, but I have a hard time believing that what I did was wrong in any way. I wouldn't teach what I taught now, but I really did help some people.
-
al-Kateb: "Maybe the world would be a better place if we all believed the same things and had the same attitudes. All individualism and personality does is get people angry, create division, skepticism, wars, intolerance, etc."
That's a funny take on Kobuk's post, but isn't that part of the hope behind the idea of a Second Coming: that some agent far superior to mankind will show up and slap some sense into the infidels? (Or just flush them down the toilet.) Funny thing how true believers always claim a personal relationship with the "agent," too. It never seems to enter their heads that Jesus could come back, glance askew at them, shake His head sadly and say, "I never knew you." FLUSH!
I find such notions ridiculous. Whether the agent in question is Jesus Christ or benign Space Brothers, the subtext is always the same: "Mankind can't hack it." I think mankind can hack it, and that we have our stuff together precisely to the extent our Alphas want us to. Our Alphas do not want us united. If we were, they would be out of their phony-baloney jobs.
However, we're a young species. Measured against the calendar of geologic time, it's amazing we've come as far as we have in less than a quarter of a million years. I might sneer at Christianity, a manmade construct, but I don't sneer at the idea of the Christ Consciousness. Call it what you will, but there is in each one of us the knowledge that we exist, therefore others most likely do as well, so when you look into another being's eyes you're looking in a mirror. If that simple idea were truly held foremost in people's thoughts, then anger, division, skepticism, war and intolerance would become irrelevant... in fact, insane.
Our Alphas don't want that. But, as I said, we're a young species, still prone to a lot of chimpanzee behavior. We don't need a divine Alpha. (Meet the new boss...) We need to become our own Alphas instead. In another few thousand years, maybe the realization that nobody is coming to take the dirty job will start to sink in.
It's on us. Physician, heal thyself. Fortunately, we seem to have been designed with a built-in safety circuit. We just don't use it enough... yet.
-
Can we please agree on a definition to use here? >:(
I hate these 'natural' languages. So many words meaning multiple things, and so many words for a single meaning.
The world would be a better place if we were all mentally incapable of willingly harming/interfering with others & their lives without their prior willing consent. Basically how laws are supposed to work, but in a manner that doesn't actively suppress your free will, but rather passively blocks off parts of it.
That would make my job so much easier.
-
Avan: "Can we please agree on a definition to use here?"
You mean of "atheist"? Probably not. Here's what merriam-webster.com (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism) has to say about it...
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
...and so does the printed copy here on my desk, period, end of report. That's it, and you'll note that both definitions are actively negative. However, Vararam already said, "Someone that says 'I don't know' to the god question IS an atheist," and he said it to thunderous applause.
So no, we can't agree, but at least we can acknowledge that we're using different definitions. Proceeding from that premise isn't too difficult. At my age, I've seen so much semantic drift that I just can't get riled up over it.
Even our language is only a matter of opinion, and all opinions are equal. It says so right here in my Handbook of Political Correctness. I keep it right next to my copy of Webster's.
-
Maybe the world would be a better place if we all believed the same things and had the same attitudes. All individualism and personality does is get people angry, create division, skepticism, wars, intolerance, etc.
Sounds like the Borg Collective to me. :) Your individualism is irrelavant. Your personality is irrelavant. >:( You will adapt to service us. :D Resistance is futile.
-
D:
Stupid language.
-
Avan: "Stupid language."
No kidding. I'd love to go into the political reasons for semantic drift, but that's beyond the scope of this thread and not all of it is political. However, in the case of the word "atheist" I suspect the reason largely is political: the looser the definition, the bigger the tent.
There's also a rhetorical factor: one gets to slap True Believers in the face: "There is no God." SLAP! Few things in life are more satisfying than watching a Thumper gasp and make the sign of the cross and hiss, "Blasssssphemy," especially since he can no longer get you burned at the stake.
The best he can do is assure himself that his God will burn you. Oh, yesssss... burn you forever and ever and ever in a Lake of Fire... and you get to laff at his fairy-tale beliefs! Hey! Everybody wins! :D
-
Avan: "Stupid language."
No kidding. I'd love to go into the political reasons for semantic drift, but that's beyond the scope of this thread and not all of it is political. However, in the case of the word "atheist" I suspect the reason largely is political: the looser the definition, the bigger the tent.
There's also a rhetorical factor: one gets to slap True Believers in the face: "There is no God." SLAP! Few things in life are more satisfying than watching a Thumper gasp and make the sign of the cross and hiss, "Blasssssphemy," especially since he can no longer get you burned at the stake.
The best he can do is assure himself that his God will burn you. Oh, yesssss... burn you forever and ever and ever in a Lake of Fire... and you get to laff at his fairy-tale beliefs! Hey! Everybody wins! :D
Resistance is futile. Lower your shields and prepare to be assimilated.
Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own.
-
The importance to words is the meaning meant by those that use them. And I'm telling you, most atheists use the term to mean exactly what I said: it's a lack of belief in a god or gods.
And it makes logical sense. The "a-" prefix means "not". So the word literally means "not theist".
Why is this important? Quite simply because theists so very often try to shift the burden of proof. It's not on me as an atheist to show that god does not exist, it's on the theist to show that he does. The definition "one who believes there is no god" is one that is often put forth by religion to make the atheistic position seem irrational. When really it's not. Theists have time and time again failed to meet their burden of proof.
There is also this little problem with our language where if "believe" means "to except as true", disbelieve which literally should mean "to not except as true", is instead taken to mean "to except as untrue". Which is entirely different. Like I've said, rejecting a claim does not require accepting the counter-claim. Think about it: if you tell someone something and that person responds "I don't believe you", you'd take it to mean they belief what you are saying is untrue. When really it should just simply mean that they don't except that it is true (so they may simply have no particular position on it.)
Btw Var, faith does exist in everyday life. You hear it all the time "I hope I got that promotion" or "I hope she'll be okay." Never forget the little things. Not all faith is religious based you know.
Are you seriously telling me you can't tell the difference between faith and hope? Hope is not faith. To have faith means you believe despite having not having sufficient evidence. To hope simply means you want it to happen, not that you necessarily believe it will. As I've already said, the word faith is used in different ways, and they way I'm speaking out against is specifically this corrosive idea that destroys minds: that it's virtuous to accept something as true without evidence. And religions (at the very least the abrahamic religions) use the word in that way all the time, and then use the more innocuous meanings of the word as a coverup.
-
I don't see anything wrong with a person wanting to believe in and/or have "faith". If I want to believe in faith, then that's my right. And there's nothing that anybody can say or do to convince me otherwise.
-
I don't see anything wrong with a person wanting to believe in and/or have "faith". If I want to believe in faith, then that's my right. And there's nothing that anybody can say or do to convince me otherwise.
True, I can go and say, "I believe kobuk has cake and he's not sharing it with us" with utterly no valid evidence to support it & believe with all intent that it's true, but... isn't it kinda silly & pointless? I mean, you can go around having faith in arbitrarily made up randomness (like the cake), but there's no real point to any of it.
-
Vararam: "I'm telling you, most atheists use the term to mean exactly what I said: it's a lack of belief in a god or gods."
That's their prerogative. Far be it for me to tell someone else that their chosen label doesn't fit. However, I'll stick with the classical definition and refuse to describe myself as an atheist, even though I neither believe nor disbelieve in a deity, because in truth I am rather troubled by the fuzzying-up of the language that has been ongoing my entire adult life. It's gotten so bad that I can point right at a dictionary definition and hear, "That's not right."
Incidentally, you mean "accept," not "except." Four occurrences in a single paragraph are too many to call a typo.
-
Vararam: "I'm telling you, most atheists use the term to mean exactly what I said: it's a lack of belief in a god or gods."
That's their prerogative. Far be it for me to tell someone else that their chosen label doesn't fit. However, I'll stick with the classical definition and refuse to describe myself as an atheist, even though I neither believe nor disbelieve in a deity, because in truth I am rather troubled by the fuzzying-up of the language that has been ongoing my entire adult life. It's gotten so bad that I can point right at a dictionary definition and hear, "That's not right."
Incidentally, you mean "accept," not "except." Four occurrences in a single paragraph is too many to call a typo.
Yeah, I do that too, replacing homonyms. :/
I hate it when that happens. At least its usually fixable w/ search & replace
-
Avan: "Yeah, I do that too, replacing homonyms."
Oh, well. I committed a subject/verb disagreement. I caught it and corrected it, but by then you'd already quoted me. :D
-
:D
Don't worry. I'm not a grammar Nazi.
-
Avan: "I'm not a grammar Nazi."
Neither am I... usually... although one has to be very careful to avoid mistakes when arguing about language.
But regarding that subject/verb disagreement, I'm no longer sure I screwed up in the first place. Can "four occurrences in a single paragraph" be treated as singular? And what does it have to do with this topic, anyway? Nothin', that's what.
Nevertheless, it's times like this I wish I had married Ms. Grundy: "Honey, come here. Is this right?" I don't know everything, but I do know this: if God exists, this is why He made editors!
-
Avan: "I'm not a grammar Nazi."
Neither am I... usually... although one has to be very careful to avoid mistakes when arguing about language.
But regarding that subject/verb disagreement, I'm no longer sure I screwed up in the first place. Can "four occurrences in a single paragraph" be treated as singular? And what does it have to do with this topic, anyway? Nothin', that's what.
Nevertheless, it's times like this I wish I had married Ms. Grundy: "Honey, come here. Is this right?" I don't know everything, but I do know this: if God exists, this is why He made editors!
I'm positive that you did indeed have a subject/verb disagreement.
'Occurrences' was the subject, which is plural. 'Four' was describing how many occurrences there was. 'In a single paragraph' was a prepositional phrase, which obviously wouldn't affect what verb you use in conjunction with the subject.
-
al-Kateb: "'Occurrences' was the subject, which is plural. 'Four' was describing how many occurrences there was. 'In a single paragraph' was a prepositional phrase, which obviously wouldn't affect what verb you use in conjunction with the subject."
That's how I saw it. Perhaps the entire sentence should have read, "Four occurrences in a single paragraph are too many to call typos," although that hits my ear all wrong. It loses its punch.
Anyway, that's a subject for a different thread.
-
[/i]That's their prerogative. Far be it for me to tell someone else that their chosen label doesn't fit.
Then don't complain about them not fitting your definition! Otherwise you are being hypocritical. You specifically did so a few posts back. (one of those that led to my lengthy post)
As I see it, an agnostic admits to not knowing while an atheist claims certainty. And yet, the viewpoints of most of the atheists I've met come down to We Don't Know and You Can't Prove It. That's agnosticism.
Incidentally, you mean "accept," not "except." Four occurrences in a single paragraph are too many to call a typo.
Yes, so what? It was a mistake. Just because I'm arguing about the meaning of a word does not mean I can't make spelling/grammar mistakes. If you're really going to stoop to this kind of pettiness then there really is no point in even talking to you.
-
If you're really going to stoop to this kind of pettiness then there really is no point in even talking to you.
No need to be rude.
-
If you're really going to stoop to this kind of pettiness then there really is no point in even talking to you.
No need to be rude.
Exactly. And his statement was rude.
-
If you're really going to stoop to this kind of pettiness then there really is no point in even talking to you.
No need to be rude.
Exactly. And his statement was rude.
I'm talking to you, not him.
-
I'm talking to you, not him.
And I'm pointing out that I was responding to his rude statement.
And if this continues much longer, this thread will likely be locked.
So tying it back into my point: the importance of words is the meaning intended by those using the words. So when I goofed and said "except" it should be clear that I meant "accept" and it should be read as such. Likewise, when an atheist specifically defines the word atheism to be lack of belief, that meaning it how it should be taken.
-
I'm talking to you, not him.
And I'm pointing out that I was responding to his rude statement.
His statement wasn't rude.
He responded in a logical and rational fashion to your argument, then noted on the side that you have made a simple grammatical error. It, in no way, debunked your argument. It didn't even pertain to your argument. He was simply making a note of something that bothered him.
You responded by getting irritable and calling him a hypocrite, then proceeding to get upset and call him rude.
EDIT: Agreed. This should stay on topic.
And, being on topic, I have to disagree with you. People saying things incorrectly then railing behind the banner of "I meant something else" has caused a lot of fights. I'm sure you can agree. It is our duty to be as precise with our language as possible.
-
Vararam: "Then don't complain about them not fitting your definition! Otherwise you are being hypocritical."
Not at all. First, it's not "my" definition; it's Webster's. Second, I wasn't complaining; I was emphasizing that your definition and the dictionary's, with which I happen to agree, don't match. Third, I did not suggest that you correct your usage; I explained why I am unwilling to adopt it. I consider those points important because I wish to be understood. Clear?
Incidentally, you might want to look up "hypocritical," too.
-
Enough! >:(
And if this continues much longer, this thread will likely be locked.
No, the thread will not be locked. But members may lose their access to this forum if they cannot debate civilly and respect other's opinions without stooping to being rude, etc.
-
And, being on topic, I have to disagree with you. People saying things incorrectly then railing behind the banner of "I meant something else" has caused a lot of fights. I'm sure you can agree. It is our duty to be as precise with our language as possible.
But thats not what they are doing. They are saying, "we are using this word by it's literal meaning". And others (specifically theists) come along and insist that it's not that meaning. It's silly. But it's why it's important to define terms, and that's exactly what I was doing. (also definition 1 of Webster's can be taken to mean "lack of believe in a deity". Since it uses 'disbelieve' which has the problem I described earlier)
Enough! >:(
I completely agree
-
Vararam: "(also definition 1 of Webster's can be taken to mean "lack of believe in a deity". Since it uses 'disbelieve' which has the problem I described earlier)"
Not as I see it. "Disbelief" implies an action; "lack of belief," a vacuum. They aren't the same thing.
-
Not as I see it. "Disbelief" implies an action; "lack of belief," a vacuum. They aren't the same thing.
I'm not saying it must be taken that way, only that it could be. And I've already discussed the problem with the word earlier (which you perhaps missed despite me specifically referencing it in the quoted post.). It's really part of a bigger problem that people so often take rejecting a claim to mean accepting the counter-claim. That just isn't so.
-
Not sure why, but some people quoting other people's quotes seem to break the quote boxes... Very strange...
Or maybe it's just firefox. :/
=========================================================================================================
Seriously, the failings of this mode of communication are massively impairing our ability to effectively communicate what we are trying to say... So I think we need to get things figured out quickly before things get much more off topic. :/ (If we need a linguistics debate, someone can start a new thread)
-
Vararam and Mr. OHare, I'm afraid that this whole thing has turned into a discussion of semantics. Simply put, it might not be possible to agree on a single definition of a word. I'm afraid that those who consider themselves atheists may not view themselves with the definition given by an outside group.
That's the difference -- there's an inside group, and there are the outsiders. These two will rarely agree with what defines that group.
From my view, arguing semantics is as useful as an American trying to convince someone in the UK that "color" doesn't have a "u." In some uses, it does; in others, it doesn't.
Anyway, I remember someone said that the Eastern religions show that things "cannot be understood." I don't know much about those religions, unfortunately; would anyone be able to expand on that thought?
-
Vararam: "It's really part of a bigger problem that people so often take rejecting a claim to mean accepting the counter-claim. That just isn't so."
I realize that, and completely agree. My point rested entirely on the word "atheist" meaning disbelief in a deity, not an absence of belief in a deity. There is a difference. However, I've realized all along that you aren't dogmatic about it. That was what got me started on this subject in the first place: you're far from the first to hang the label "atheist" on himself then go on to describe what I think of as an agnostic.
This becomes especially confusing when you run into a real dyed-in-the-wool, actively disbelieving, certainty-claiming ATHEIST! I've met a few. One of my best friends is one, although I think he's a little nuts on the subject. ("One does not embrace Atheism," he often says, the capital "A" implied by his tone; "Atheism embraces you!") He is also a vegan. We remain friends largely by steering clear of those subjects.
That's why I consider the distinction important. There are those who actively disbelieve in a deity with religious fervor. At one time they could be differentiated from healthy skeptics by the choice of a word. Now it has become difficult to tell.
It's a bit like the difference between skepticism and debunking. The former is reasonable intellectual caution; the latter is a knee-jerk reaction. But, I don't think you're a debunker, Vararam. I think you're a skeptic.
In a debate like this one it's important for all parties to be clear on their definitions, though not necessarily to agree on them. If everyone's meaning isn't perfectly clear, you don't get a debate. You just get a muddy shouting match.
-
Alexandre: "...it might not be possible to agree on a single definition of a word."
You posted while I was writing the above, Alexandre. It might not be, but it is possible to acknowledge that those differences exist. I see that as essential for clarity's sake. It doesn't matter whether someone agrees with my definitions. I just want to be sure everyone understands what they are.
Alexandre: "I remember someone said that the Eastern religions show that things 'cannot be understood.' I don't know much about those religions, unfortunately; would anyone be able to expand on that thought?"
That was me. I was referring to kōans. Here's an article about them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kōan).
-
I was once a proud, card carrying (figuratively), rabid, religion hating, in your face Atheist. As I got older, namely when I became a teenager I realized that I found no comfort in my beliefs. As I said earlier I went through a series of transformations and am now a Norse Heathen. While I am more than willing to deal with Atheists I now tend to find them, in a sense, lonely individuals. Not lonely from lack of human companionship you see, but lonely in a deeper emotional way that they try to ignore. I remember the feeling, I covered up for that loneliness with anger and hate for all other religions. Now that I have found something to believe in I feel ore complete. I'm sure that the Atheists on this thread are going to through a fit over this but I am speaking from my own experience, I don't know what it is like for you.
-
That's why I consider the distinction important. There are those who actively disbelieve in a deity with religious fervor. At one time they could be differentiated from healthy skeptics by the choice of a word.
If by that you mean with the word "agnostic" then... well your usage of the word is a "fuzzy" version of it's original meaning. The very reason you claim to not like the definition of atheism as I stated it. Originally, the word meant a viewpoint in which things are unknowable. So it went well beyond the "I don't know" sort of meaning it generally takes today.
One thing I will say, is that although someone that is "on the fence" about whether a god exists or not is technically an atheist (because they do not claim belief), it's highly unlikely that they'd use that term to describe themselves. And I agree that in normal usage it's generally not too useful to include such people under the label. However, the skeptical atheist, that is one that arrived at atheism through recognizing that belief in a god claim is unjustified, should be included. Otherwise being what you seem to consider a "real atheist" would be an unreasonable position indeed. With the virtually unlimited number of different god claims, for someone to take a position that all of them are definitely false (rather than simply saying that they are all unjustified as I do), such a position is unfeasible simply because you wouldn't have -time- to investigate all the different god claims. Therefore as a mater of practicality, unless you are talking about a specific god claim, the definition you propose is useless.
For that and the reason I've stated earlier, the definition as I stated it is better. If you read the wikipedia article on atheism, it seems to me that what they call "explicit atheism" is probably the most useful meaning for general usage.
Something else to keep in mind is that the meaning of words comes from their usage. And for a very long time now, at least in america and europe, christianity has been dominate. And it has historically taken the position that you are not allowed to question it. Therefore, it's not surprising that it would specifically use the word to denote those they would consider enemies: those that actively deny the existence of their god. And BTW, these same religious people will often turn around and use arguments claiming that atheists are just angry at God, or some nonsense like that. Someone who is an atheist because of being angry at God cannot possibly be a real atheist; you can't truly be angry at something you don't believe exists. (in other words, even they don't stick to the definition of the word they promote)
(and BTW, if you really want to talk about it's classical usage, the word originally simply meant those that don't accept the dominate religion. So for example, as I understand the Romans used it to describe Christians since they didn't believe in the Roman gods.)
-
This thread is seriously starting to cause me to facepalm.. All I'm starting to see is an argument over the definition of the word "athiest" and not much else. Lemme make this really easy to understand for all those reading this. Gay, fag, faggot and queer. All 4 of these words are used to describe homosexuals. What makes this statement relevent is that each had a different meaning before people started changing their usage.; happy, cigerette, bundle of sticks and suspicious. For arguement sake and for a way to keep the thread organized - all Mr. Hare was doing was using the modern usages of the words to make them relevent. Whether you wanna agree or not, it's commonly accepted that athiest means "there is no god" and agnostic means "I don't know" It's not that hard to grasp. Stop bickering.
-
... all Mr. Hare was doing was using the modern usages of the words to make them relevent.
No, what he, and you, where doing is insisting that the word must mean this one thing since it's had that usage in the past (and not their original meanings either, not that that's important.) It'd basically be like people insisting that gay MUST always mean happy despite that usage now being rare.
Whether you wanna agree or not, it's commonly accepted that athiest means "there is no god" and agnostic means "I don't know"
Commonly accepted by non-atheists who can't seem to understand the position of atheism, and therein lies the problem. It'd be like someone who just can't understand homosexuality because they get hung up on the word "gay" not being used how they are used to. I'm adamant about the definition of this particular word because the "common" usage is a stumbling block to understanding.
-
-facepalms hard- Crack open a dictionary or even do a simple "Define atheist"/"Define agnostic" search sometime. Theist believe in a god or gods. Atheist reject the idea that there is a god. Agnostic is the view that there isn't enough evidence to support either claim that there is or isn't one. This information is literally everywhere and I can't believe we're actually arguing over terms that are already defined and in print both on and offline. Does it really offend you that bad to insist on arguing still? :l
-
I guess I'm slightly agnostic, but I feel there is more evidence for religion then against it. I could never say I'm positive that god exists, but I think he does.
-
I have seen an interesting demonstration here, although it's far from the first time I have experienced this: I had what I thought was a fact, confirmed it using a physical book (a dictionary in this case, not a Bible), and made an assertion. I acknowledged from the start that for some people, that assertion was not true. I provided links and quotes from reputable sources to support my position while granting the reality of the opposing position: in fact, the first link I provided did both. I explained why I hold the position I do, and concluded by saying, in effect, "Hey, folks! Just wanted y'all to know where I'm coming from here!" ...yet Vararam is still up there, frankly sputtering.
What's his point? "Noooooo! I'm right and you're wrong," I guess. Couldn't care less.
To hell with semantics. My point is, if an argument (I can't call this a debate; debates have judges) in which contemporary references have been cited cannot be resolved, what chance do we have of resolving an argument for which no objective evidence, outside of a few ancient documents dating all the way back to the Bronze Age, exists?
None, that's what.
Word of honor: I have asked fundamentalist Christians what evidence they could provide for their position that the Bible is the Literal Word of GOD, and they quoted scripture. I said, "What evidence from outside the Bible?" and they quoted scripture again. It's the Word of God, says so right there in the book! Well, who am I to argue with logic like that?
However, I have noticed that everyone has been respectful of the spiritual beliefs of others in this thread. There's that. Maybe it takes a good semantic free-for-all to get people stirred up these days. Or, maybe everyone suspects that the moderators wouldn't permit this much heat over something as personal as spirituality. I dunno.
Maybe I should call out Sigurd Volsung the Norse Heathen now. Actually I like him, but arguing with a Viking might be interesting.
:D
-
@J. March OHare: Ad homonyms now huh? yeah...
Honestly, I don't expect to convince you. You've already made it clear that your mind is made up. However, as I said, this "common" definition is the source of a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to the position that most atheists hold. So I'm speaking to make sure other people know, people that might be interested in actually understanding.
It's also rather silly to expect siting a dictionary as being the final word. That's not what dictionaries are for: dictionaries are a tool to help understand what people might mean when they use words. There is no guarantee that words will always be used the way the dictionary says. Few words have exact meanings, and meanings shift over time. Different people and in different situations may use them in different ways. That should go without saying. So in order for us (and I mean that in a bigger sense, not just us here on this board) to understand each other, it's important to understand how the words are being used. And when atheists use the word atheist, the vast majority of them use it in the way I've described. Hell, you even admit that's the case, and yet insist on arguing about it.
I've even stated, I think quite clearly, why the "common" definition you insist on does not work as a functional label: it requires a specific god claim (or set of god claims) to even be relevant. But more to the point is that it does not accurately reflect the group it actually applies to. Therefore this "common" dictionary definition is clearly wrong, or at the very least incomplete.
-----------
In case it'll make it more clear: One of the big problems I have with the "common" definition is that it is very often used as a straw-man against atheists. (sometimes unintentionally so)
-
Maybe I should call out Sigurd Volsung the Norse Heathen now. Actually I like him, but arguing with a Viking might be interesting.
:D
You'd be amazed at how quickly I can turn into a raving psychotic jerk if the right button is pressed, I kicked myself off of another forum for it, notice I said I kicked myself off I wasn't even warned by a mod. a friend merely pointed out to me what I was doing and I backed out. However since I get the feeling from you that you probably either support the GLBT movement, or at the least don't actively act against it, I doubt you could easily tick me off :-)
So feel free to call me out, I have nothing to hide for I am proud to worship Gods of War and yet I am against most wars for being fought over reasons that have no honor.
-
Sigurd Volsung: "...I get the feeling from you that you probably either support the GLBT movement, or at the least don't actively act against it..."
I support it. No politician that exploits culture war wedge issues will ever get my vote.
I don't think we have much to argue about, except maybe the war thing. I'm basically a pacifist. I think killing another human being, except in a split-second act of self-defense when somebody barges right into your territory, is insane: a denial of the simple reality of how it would feel if the tables were turned. However, I agree with Gandhi: I'll take an honorable warrior over a "pacifist" who's really just covering up for cowardice any day of the week.
-
What I mean by wars with no Honor is that no side has a truly honor bound reason to go to war. The last time the US was involved in such a war was WWII. We were in it to stop a psycho from doing his best to take over the world and wipe out groups of people based solely on religion and ethnicity (Not only were the Jews picked out, so were the Russians and the Roma, read Gypsy). We may not even have gotten involved if Hitler hadn't convinced Japan to attack us. Even Albert Einstien a noted pacifist said that as much as he regretted to say it War was the only way to save the world.
War should always be the last resort. People always harp on bringing the battle to the terrorists with Iraq and Afghanistan when in reality the proven ways to stop terrorism is law enforcement, had people listened to each other and actually looked at the evidence 9/11 would simply be a day like any other, instead because of failures at the top of law enforcement agencies it is forever burned into the consciousness of the US public.
As for Gandhi I would personally list him as one the most honorable of warriors who used peace and nonviolence as his weapons against hate. To this list I would also add Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.
-
I just reread one of your previous post OHare and I'm a little surprised by something you said in general when you could have easily picked me out long ago for something I said in my initial post in which I wrote
I will add my own question here as I feel that should have been put in at the beginning.
15.) What have you learned from other religions?
I can some up what I have learned from the Abrahamic Faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) in one word "HATE". I am not trolling on this one it just happens to be what those faiths have taught me over the years of dealing with too many of their believers who have wanted to burn me at the stake, stone me, or kill me in a variety of other horrible ways.
In a way I'm sort of surprised that you said that people have been respectful of others beliefs, when I am arguably attacking the faith of many people here in that post when I say that their religion taught me 'Hate'. So if you wish we could argue this point ;)
-
Sigurd Volsung: "In a way I'm sort of surprised that you said that people have been respectful of others beliefs, when I am arguably attacking the faith of many people here in that post when I say that their religion taught me 'Hate'."
You didn't attack anyone personally, though -- not that I'm aware of. Anyway, I mostly agree with you about the Abrahamic religions. Any Christian who quotes the Old Testament really needs to read the Old Testament. I'll bet most haven't. If, say, they use the Bible as an excuse to condemn gays, they really ought to check out how they're doing. I'll bet they would find out that they're equally damned... that they're damned even worse.
That OT is a nasty piece of business. The New Testament only mentions homosexuality once or twice. Paul of Tarsus might or might not have (scholars can't agree on the meaning of the word "arsenokoitēs"), and Romans 1:26–27 says something kind of lame compared to what's in the OT. That's it.
Jesus had nothing to say about it. Not. One. Word.
But that's just the gay thing. There's also the condoning slavery thing: the OT does that. It has God sending bears to rip children apart for calling the prophet Elisha "old bald-head." It has Him making a bet with the Devil and punishing a good man, Job, to demonstrate how much the poor sap will take. I could go on. It depicts a God that is not only amoral, but flat-out psychotic.
And that stuff is in all three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. To the Jews' credit, they seem to take it less seriously than the two younger offshoots. As Lewis Black said (paraphrase from memory): "To understand the Bible you have to understand the Jewish people, and what we Jews are really good at is..." Here he uses a common term meaning ungulate droppings.
You attacked an idea, not a person. I've repeatedly done the same thing, but as I pointed out earlier, that's what debate is all about.
-
... and Romans 1:26–27 says something kind of lame compared to what's in the OT. That's it.
But it's worth noting that the part in Romans is the only place in the whole bible were it includes women in such a passage. The rest of the bible has nothing that condemns lesbianism. Yet "anti-gay" christians today seem to include them with every bit of force as they condemn men with men.
There's also the condoning slavery thing: the OT does that.
So does the New Testament. Granted, not nearly as harshly as the OT. In the OT, the laws supposedly given by God instruct on things such as how to mark slaves by driving an awl through their ear. And it has a passage describing how if a master beats his slave, as long as the slave doesn't die within a day or two, there will be no punishment for the master because the slave is his property. While it doesn't state it with quite as blatant cruelty, slavery is still supported in the NT. For example, Jesus teaches "slaves obey your masters".
You attacked an idea, not a person. I've repeatedly done the same thing, but as I pointed out earlier, that's what debate is all about.
I disagree with "that's what debate is all about" because that makes it sound like it's the purpose of debate, which it should not be. The purpose of debate should be to advance understanding. However, ideas must be open to criticism for this to work. As I've said before: nothing should be off limits to rational consideration.
[edited to correct typos]
-
As much as I hate the Bible, truly hate the thing, I have not and can not read it. The can not part might confuse people so I will tell you why though it will strain credulity. Holding a copy of the Bible causes actual burns that look like severe sun burns, crucifixes, and holy water have about the same affect, I'm not even going to think of risking an audio file.
-
You mean the kind you get from rubbing poison ivy on your skin then eating a banana, wearing a blue shirt and running through a mosquito-infested marsh? (ok... yeah, I've seen someone get really messed up from poison ivy & mosquitos [they like to bite people who eat bananas and are attracted to the color blue])
That's gotta hurt. :/
But I sympathize with you man, even if I don't actually believe that it happens (and yes, I have touched one, and nothing happened.). You should try poking one some day. For Science.
-
While I'm completely and totally Atheist, I have read the bible many times. I like learning about religion, as a way to see what other people believe in. Also, my friends of scattered other religions enjoy having long debates about god and creation and such, so it's good to know what I'm talking about. My theory is that, for there to be something (god) then there must be something before it to create it. You can't make something out of nothing, and something can't always be there.
-
Sigurd Volsung: "Holding a copy of the Bible causes actual burns that look like severe sun burns, crucifixes, and holy water have about the same affect..."
Given that displaying the wounds of the cross has been reported, I'm not going to say it didn't happen. If it did it's almost certainly psychosomatic, but psychosomatic symptoms are REAL! The mind can affect the body in very strange ways. I'm not laughing.
I once tried making a fairly extensive study of Jewish mysticism and got deathly sick for almost a week. Felt like my head was going to explode. I tried resuming my studies, and started to relapse. My (now ex-) wife made me stop. "You're digging into things that are none of your business," she said.
I stopped.
-
oh!
/LOOKS LIKE SUN BURNS/ (I misread this)
:D
Now I see. Yeah, ok, now I know what you're talking about.
I've seen someone break out in rashes simply because they were told they had drunken something out of someone else's cup when really they had not. Fortunatly I was able to avoid having to For Science this one. I bet I would do the same, had I thought I had... eaten food that had touched food that had possibly been in proximity of food that was mouldy. In fact, I have. Mostly out of sheer squick-factor moldy food has to me.
-
While I'm completely and totally Atheist, I have read the bible many times.
Actually reading the Bible is a common path to atheism. That was a major factor that did it for me.
My theory is that, for there to be something (god) then there must be something before it to create it. You can't make something out of nothing, and something can't always be there.
I don't see how that could possibly work since we know of things that exist. These things either had to have been formed somehow or they had to have always been there. If you remove the possibility that something could have always existed, then that means everything must have been formed somehow. And if you insist that something must always have came from something else, the you end up with the problem of infinite regress. Note: a god isn't needed for any of this, nor does a god fix it.
-
Pretty much what I was saying with existence, yes. ;)
....
And then I just realized my post went poof!
I must've accidentally left the page too soon before the post got submitted. :/
-
I don't see how that could possibly work since we know of things that exist. These things either had to have been formed somehow or they had to have always been there. If you remove the possibility that something could have always existed, then that means everything must have been formed somehow. And if you insist that something must always have came from something else, the you end up with the problem of infinite regress. Note: a god isn't needed for any of this, nor does a god fix it.
I know that that doesn't work technically, I also believe in what I said. I don't know the answer to creation, but I do think about it constantly. I don't believe in a god that has just always been there, and I don't believe that the universe expanded from just a little dot in the middle of nothingness, because even something that small must have come from somewhere. I have no clue what to think about creation, so for now, I'll stick with finding out what I can.
-
While I'm completely and totally Atheist, I have read the bible many times.
Actually reading the Bible is a common path to atheism. That was a major factor that did it for me.
Indeed. Although for me, it was more a case of discovering that a lot of things that Christians say is in the Bible... isn't actually in there.
My theory is that, for there to be something (god) then there must be something before it to create it. You can't make something out of nothing, and something can't always be there.
I don't see how that could possibly work since we know of things that exist. These things either had to have been formed somehow or they had to have always been there. If you remove the possibility that something could have always existed, then that means everything must have been formed somehow. And if you insist that something must always have came from something else, the you end up with the problem of infinite regress. Note: a god isn't needed for any of this, nor does a god fix it.
You know what does fix it? Time travel!
-
Decided to poke into this thread out of curiousity. So, you're an Atheist, Var? That explains the going back and forth with the arguments. Anyways, wanted to say sorry if I got under your skin a bit. (: It's kinda like a tomato and a rabbit. Growing up knowing them as a vegetable and a rodent when modern day dicates they are a fruit and a lagomorph. It depends on perspective and which def. makes more sense to you I suppose.
-
I'm not sure where I stand on any of this. Some times I feel there is a higher entity but not quite sure who or what that might be. I believe in evolution as shown by science. That everything came from the one celled amoebas.
I live by the motto, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I treat others the way I wish others would treat me. Of course that doesn't always happen as man is man and not everyone lives by that motto. And of course, there are cases where I can't always be that pleasant to someone else, though I do try that first.
My biggest thing about churches, and this is just from my observations of going to different ones growing up and than as an adult, is that some members think that it is ok to do what ever they feel like doing during the week then go to church on Sunday/Saturday or what ever day they choose to go, and be forgiven for their sins. Then go home and do those same things all over again and return back to be 'forgiven' over and over. I just don't get that type of mind set. But that is just me. I couldn't be that way.
Some times I do believe there is a God as things that have happened to me when I first moved to Ohio I could only explain was from Him. Than other times I can't believe a God would allow such cruelty to happen to his 'children'. I don't believe that the parents of a child whose life was taken away while riding in a car that was hit by a drunk driver, should be told that their child was taken for a reason and only God knows that reason. The child died because someone had too much to drink and shouldn't have been behind the wheel of a 2+ ton vehicle that could be used like a weapon to take another person's life.
Or explain to a child how it was for a 'reason' that their parent(s) douse them with gasoline than light them up because the parent(s) just didn't want them any more for what ever reason. How does one explain to that child, if it lives, that "God has his reasons why this happened to you."
I also can't believe that a God would allow a child to grow up with a physical ailment that would limit their happiness in life. I'm sorry, I do try to think at times that it was for a reason. Perhaps to make that person, as an adult a better person, but I don't see how that works. If that person can't enjoy life to its' fullest like others are able to, then what would that purpose be?
I think about this stuff every day. Some times looking for answers. Some times just realizing nothing can be done and that is the life I have been dealt so I have to live with it. I question why. Why me? Why anyone with a disability, or growing up abused, or dying so young.
I guess as far as what I believe regarding religion, I don't think I believe in any particular sect but I also don't have a problem with others believing in what they believe in. I don't have the right to tell someone else that their belief is wrong or right. Just as I don't feel that others should tell me that I'm going to hell because of how I feel or believe. We were all created/evolved to have minds that allow us to make up our own minds about what WE feel/believe. That is why religion/or there lack of, is so widespread and diverse.
And since I wasn't there when the earth was created or evolved into what it is now or when man was created or evolved into what we are now, I have no right to tell anyone that what they feel or believe is wrong. None of us were there. All we can do is go by what we read in books, the bible, dictionary, what others tell us, parents, grand parents and down the line, etc. and make up our own minds from there.
I do believe in ghosts. Paranormal activities. So, it is possible for me to believe there is a God or some other being/entity that looks over us all. Will I truly believe in something before I die? Who knows. I'm still on the fence about it all.
-
Kada-Ru pretty much got it, couldn't have said it better myself. ;) The whole "God's plan" never sat well with me either whenever someone's life was taken away because of the actions of someone else. And she's right. None of us was there when everything was being created so truthfully, we don't have much of a claim for validity on our origins. PS: Thanks for the kind words in your PM, Kada! (:
-
As far as me getting burns. Several of my professors at my first college and many of my friends saw the results so whether it was psychosematic and bio-feedback I won't debate either way it hurts.
-
1.) None, as such, agnostic I guess. I mean, who am I, a tiny wee human being, to decide whether or not a god exists or how the universe was formed? I don't know... but I do lean towards scientificly proven things, although I realise there may be somethings science cannot explain, prove or disprove, at least at this time.
2.) N/A
3.) N/A
4.) N/A
5.) I don't follow a particualr religion and have no solid set in stone beliefs. I'd like to think we're all spiritually connected in some wishy washy Lion King circle of life spiritual thing, and I certainly feel a spiritual connection to nature, but that might be me being crazy :V
6.) No, I don't believe in one God, because I honestly can't believe there is some aware being watching over the planet who cares XD
7.) No, I don't believe in any Gods, because I honestly can't believe there is any aware beings watching over the planet that care :V
8.) No, because I don't belive in aware God-like beings in the first place.
9.) None.
10.) I don't consider myself Pagan, though some of their beliefs intrigue me. I can't say I follow any particular religion including Paganism.
11.) Agnostic mostly, if that's considered a 'religious group', but I guess I take some beliefs away from pagan religions and stuff, but nothing I could say I 100% believe in. I'm a terrible skeptic XD
12.) I guess my views on the world do reflect themselves in my beliefs spirtiually and politically, but I'd rather not go into all that here. Let's just say I'm terribly left wing :P
13.) Big bang sounds alright to me, certainly makes more sense than creationism.
14.) My mum who I grew up with probably influenced my spirtiual beliefs a fair bit but as we both have no official religion I wasn't really born into anything nor converted anywhere :O
-
And since I wasn't there when the earth was created or evolved into what it is now or when man was created or evolved into what we are now, I have no right to tell anyone that what they feel or believe is wrong. None of us were there. All we can do is go by what we read in books, the bible, dictionary, what others tell us, parents, grand parents and down the line, etc. and make up our own minds from there.
We may not have been there, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible find out about what happened through critically looking at the evidence. It's not the this "we weren't there" idea is completely irrelevant, but that it often gets way over used. The question isn't whether we were there or not, it's whether we have sufficient evidence. Of course, I also find a lot of people seem strangely afraid to admit when they don't know something, and instead will just go with the answer that sounds best to them regardless of how lacking in evidence it may be.
-
^ Think of it this way. It's like someone witnessing a crime vs observing the person who commited it. You can only gather so much 'evidence' by observing someone's day to day life. You might have seen the person as normal with a gun collection and form your conclusion based on that. Meanwhile, to the person who actually witnessed the crime - things appear much more different when compaired to Mr. casual observer. Actually witnessing something does have alot more credibility when pitted against assumptions. Always. My 2~
-
Actually, that wasn't the best of analogies given crime witnesses (or people witnessing something suddenly or are otherwise under some form of mental stress or other) have been shown to inaccurately report what was really going on, because the memories are not accurate.
Anyways, we can glimpse back & see what's going on thanks to the laws of physics. And it rules out 4000 year young earth creationism, that's for sure.
In writing fiction, its (usually) alright to take advantage of the schrodinger's world effect; if something hasn't been specifically said to not work with established canon, you can usually take advantage of its schrodiner'sness or its status as implicit cannon. Because nothing is there to disprove it. (Of course, it comes to the reader's suspension of disbelief whether or not to accept it). [If you are writing fanon however, try to pick targets you know /won't/ get canon-updates, thus jossing your story... or sinking your ships, if that's the fanfic that floats your boat. Sorry for the incredibly lame puns, but I'm a Troper, what can I say? :D]
I mean, fictional works in themselves lend themselves to a creationistic-esq world; afterall, the author is that world's creator [see my entry in 'Religion in a Furry World thread'], quite literally, and thus can add as many horribly contrived coincidences they feel they want to add, nomatter how utterly bizarre of a world it generates, where the less probability something has of happening, the more likely it is to happen. Unless of course, they actually care about writing something at least marginally believable, in which case they will either exploit people's emotions & irrational tendancies, and/or they will try to keep down on the level of contrived coincidences.
Not so in reality, where... trying to do that results in... fiction.
-
Curse you Avan! *Claw's voice from Inspector Gadget* You do have a point. I was refering to the exact moment in time of witnessing an event and not the post-dodgey interrogations. :D If we're truthful to ourselves, everything is a theory until proven with absolute certainty. Simply saying "It's in this book!" is not a valid arguing point. In that case, I can counter with Dr. Seuss and use the same argument on the existance of Who's. What? It's in a book isn't it? ;)
-
Mooshi: No problem! :)
Sigurd Volsung: I can't prove one way or another that I have seen and felt ghosts. But I have. Just as you have experienced your burns. There are just some things in this life of ours that can't be proven one way or the other.
Vararam: Lots of people have posted here THEIR evidence to prove to you why the believe the way they do. Just because THIER evidence doesn't match up with yours doesn't disprove their beliefs. Just means they have had different experiences than you have and have made up their minds themselves about certain things.
For me, the reason I stated that I wasn't there was because I wasn't and for me to have PROOF that God exists and he created heaven and earth, I would have had to be there to see it with my own eyes. Which no one alive today was there. As for information in books, those were all written by MAN. Man isn't perfect and as we can see today with so many different religious beliefs, different groups of religion get what they want out of the bible and other books. Does it mean they are all wrong? I have no idea because I wasn't there when the words were told so that MAN could write them down for the first time. I also wasn't there to walk in these peoples shoes/lives to have come to the same beliefs.
Hey, I think it is great that people are willing to post on this topic about how they feel about what they believe in. Religion is one of those topics that can pit people against each other. Why? Because a lot of people/groups say THEY are the only true believers and everyone else is wrong. Which group? Take your pick. Doesn't matter.
Believing in something that one can't see nor physically touch doesn't mean they don't exist. Just means that person (A) is telling person (B) they are wrong because person (A) isn't seeing what person (B) sees, so to person (A), person (B) is wrong. And the same goes for person (B). Person (B) could say the same thing about person (A). If everyone believed in the same thing this world would get boring really fast!
Also, person (A) can't say that person (B's) beliefs are wrong since person (A) hasn't been living the life of person (B). Many factors throughout our lives brought us to where we are today and no two persons are exact.
Vararam:
We may not have been there, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible find out about what happened through critically looking at the evidence.
What evidence?
It's not the this "we weren't there" idea is completely irrelevant, but that it often gets way over used.
According to who? I don't think it gets over used. It is a very valid point.
]quote]The question isn't whether we were there or not, it's whether we have sufficient evidence. Of course, I also find a lot of people seem strangely afraid to admit when they don't know something, and instead will just go with the answer that sounds best to them regardless of how lacking in evidence it may be.[/quote]
No man/woman/child knows EVERYTHING. Just like you, you don't know everything. Neither do I. Does that make me wrong? No. Does it make you wrong? No.
You can't say that another person is "just going with the answer that sounds best to them REGARDLESS OF HOW LACKING IN EVIDENCE IT MAY BE." This statement to me, just means you are telling that person how THEY feel. How THEY came to the conclusions they did. So what if a person considers them self an Atheist or whatever? How can you make that call? Perhaps, like another member stated, they felt they were 'such-n-such' because they take parts of many beliefs to make up their whole. It isn't your place nor anyone else's to tell that person they can't do that. What 'evidence' would you have to tell that person they can't do that? None. We are all individuals and have the ability to make up our own minds about what we feel, think and/or believe. No one else has that right to tell them they are wrong.
If someone doesn't like how another is using a word because it doesn't fit THEIR definition that is too bad. None of us has the right to tell anyone else what they can and can't call themselves. That is their prerogative,
As for "sufficient evidence", what would YOU consider to be sufficient evidence? Not everything you read is the truth and nothing but the truth. How does one know that the writings in the bible were actually the words of GOD? I don't know. You don't know. No one really knows. The only 'sufficient evidence' that I can see that we could have is to have been there when the words were spoken and written down. Unless of course one has FAITH that what was written was the truth. But no one can have sufficient evidence that faith even exists so there is no way to prove that it does. On the other hand, there is no way to prove that it doesn't.
Mooshi: by what I understand about people witnessing something, especially the same incident, is that everyone would have a different point of view as to what really happened. Even if they were standing right next to each other. So, who do you choose to believe? Well, all the authorities can do is investigate and hopefully come up with the most plausible solution because, as we weren't there when heaven and earth were created, the authorities weren't there to witness the incident themselves.
The thing is, no one can PROVE to me that what I may believe in is wrong nor can 'I' prove that what someone else believes in is wrong.
For me, there will never be enough evidence one way or the other to prove to me that as far as religion or anything else in this world, does or doesn't exist. Some things, and everyone is different, just has FAITH in what they believe or feel, especially when it comes to religion.
So, basically what I am saying is it doesn't matter what someone calls themselves. Or whether they have proof/evidence or not about what they claim. It just all boils down to that person just being whom they feel THEY are. No one can decide that for anyone else but themselves.
Religion to me, is a very personal thing and most of it can't be proven by scientific nor physical evidence. It just is. And whatever that IS, is according to ones own personal beliefs. Or, faith.
*steps off the soap box to give others a chance to speak".....
-
Mooshi: LOL
-
Except for Scientology. That "religion" is always wrong. >.> No sane person should take that cult seriously. I mean..it's a "church" built around a science fiction writer for crying out loud. Not only that, it also scams gullible people out of money to be "saved", is against medical care by doctors and says breastfeeding your children isn't good for them. Can we say coo-coo? :o
-
Here is what I have to say on those Scamologists.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChurchOfHappyology
-
@ Kada-Ru: I think you misunderstood what I was saying. First of all, I was talking generally and not referencing anything in particular. I wasn't trying to put down your position or anything like that. What I was pointing out is that not being present does not mean that it's impossible to find out about something. For example, through science we know a -lot- about how stars work, and yet we've never been there. In fact we wouldn't be able to survive if we tried.
As I said, a better question is "do you have sufficient evidence?". If someone was there, it's more likely that they'll have sufficient evidence. Keep in mind that personal experience does count as evidence, but only for the person experiencing it. For example, if someone claims to me that they've had a revelation from God, and that's why they believe. I can't argue with that. That's their experience not mine. However, this person should also realize that the evidence they have is insufficient for anyone else. So I won't be able to believe them because even if they may have sufficient evidence, I don't. That's the problem with using personal experience as evidence: it doesn't work for anyone but that one that had the experience.
According to who? I don't think it gets over used.
The "were you there" argument gets used all the time by young earth creationists arguing about evolution. Oddly, they don't seem to realize that this argument would apply to their own position as well.
You can't say that another person is "just going with the answer that sounds best to them REGARDLESS OF HOW LACKING IN EVIDENCE IT MAY BE." This statement to me, just means you are telling that person how THEY feel.
I can say it because I've repeatedly seen people who proclaim some such and such is true (especially things about religion), and when put to task to provide evidence of their claims, they are completely unable to do so. Worse, they often have beliefs that are contradictory. In other words: one or the other -must- be something that are accepting without sufficient evidence. If you have two contradictory beliefs, evidence for one would also be evidence against the other.
-
Except for Scientology. That "religion" is always wrong. >.> No sane person should take that cult seriously. I mean..it's a "church" built around a science fiction writer for crying out loud. Not only that, it also scams gullible people out of money to be "saved", is against medical care by doctors and says breastfeeding your children isn't good for them. Can we say coo-coo? :o
"Coo-coo" might be a little harsh. Honestly, I don't think Scientology is true, but members of that religion believe things for a reason. The Jews of the Old Testament believed in circumcision, and I bet they were criticized for it -- however, within the religion, it was symbolic of their need to be different, or separate. They were often called a "peculiar" people by the Lord of the OT because they were supposed to be different.
A lot of people call Jehovah's Witnesses crazy as well, especially because they believe blood transfusions are evil. From an outsider's perspective, it makes no sense. However, once you understand they believe that blood is the soul (or at least has a huge tie with the soul), you can understand that they wouldn't want to give part of that away (and, yes, they do have Biblical evidence for it).
I can hardly say that something that appears weird is something that's crazy. Rather, I like to understand why someone believes something.
-
Nuh, coo-coo was being as nice as I possibly could. Brainwashed dangerous cult is more accurate. Doesn't matter if you are pro religion or anti. We can agree that no religion makes you spend hundreds and thousands of dollars to hear their teachings. No religion sends a pack of lawyers after someone for critisizm. All these religious texts are debatable, but non of them were written by someone who is an established fiction writer who also mentioned something to the degree that the easiest way to become rich is to start your own religion. Hubbard's own bio was confirmed to be made up. It's a dangerious cult that brainwashes and kills. I can respect one's beliefs no matter how different. But $cientology is wrong It's even banned in some countries and recently the state of Texas for being a dangerous cult. www.youtube.com/watch?desktop_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DrCGP-0545EU&v=rCGP-0545EU&gl=US
-
*takes off my Admin badge while I make this post*
Var, Let me ask you something. Why throughout this entire thread do you feel so strongly that a person MUST have evidence for something, regardless of what that something might be, or that something MUST be defined a certain way? My next comment here is NOT an attack on you, but merely an observation after reading all your posts, posting style, habits, etc. You seem like a very "logical" person. It seems like everything MUST make sense and/or there MUST be a reasonable/logical explanation for something.
People can believe in whatever religious stuff they want, Even if that means that what the person believes in does or does not need to have any evidence or make any sort of logical sense. That's their right and their choice. I even have to agree with what Kada-Ru said here:
Religion to me, is a very personal thing and most of it can't be proven by scientific nor physical evidence. It just is. And whatever that IS, is according to ones own personal beliefs. Or, faith.
And as far as agnostic, atheism, and faith is concerned, It's whatever people want to believe in, choose, and define. To each their own.
What I'm about to say next is off topic and not about religion, but let me give you an example of something that I "believe" in. ;)
Back in July 1947, there was a "supposed" crash of an alien UFO near Roswell, New Mexico. For decades, the gov't covered up the crash (and probably still does to some extent) and said that what people saw were weather balloons and Army parachute dummies. A lot of witnesses did not believe this story. A lot of the wreckage that was found and recovered had very unusual characteristics that could not be explained. Too many witnesses said, heard, and done things and their stories/testimonies all seemed to collaborate one another's about what the wreckage looked like, What the alien bodies looked like, etc., etc., etc.
Now even though this "crash" has been covered up for decades and I myself have no "evidence" of it happening, etc., It still does not stop me from believing in it. Why? Because from what I've read, there were too many witnesses who saw and heard stuff and most of their stories collaborated one another's. That itself makes me suspicious that maybe the crash is true.
But what I'm really trying to say here is that even though I have no evidence that the crash happened, I believe in it. And nothing anybody can say or do is going to make me change my mind.
-
For some reason Kobuk's post makes me think of Bigfoot and "Nessie" in Scotland...D:
-
Oh hey, Kobuk just snuck in ahead of me with a very good post saying all the things I was going to say! But I'm going to post my response anyway, if only to reinforce the points Kobuk and Kada-Ru have made.
You can't say that another person is "just going with the answer that sounds best to them REGARDLESS OF HOW LACKING IN EVIDENCE IT MAY BE." This statement to me, just means you are telling that person how THEY feel.
I can say it because I've repeatedly seen people who proclaim some such and such is true (especially things about religion), and when put to task to provide evidence of their claims, they are completely unable to do so. Worse, they often have beliefs that are contradictory. In other words: one or the other -must- be something that are accepting without sufficient evidence. If you have two contradictory beliefs, evidence for one would also be evidence against the other.
Let me restate, in different words, something Kada just said:
Is it that important to you when another person on this forum holds what you feel to be "contradictory beliefs"? Is it that important to you when another person on this forum is unable to provide what you see as "sufficient evidence" for the religious beliefs they hold? Why is it so crucial to put a stop to people holding beliefs that do not match your personal worldview?
In related news, after receiving messages from several members, I'd like to post the following general message in beautiful Staff Yellow text as a reminder to all past, present, and future posters:
Religious beliefs are very personal things that a lot of people hold quite deeply, and they sometimes take courage to share with everyone. The religious beliefs of individual posters on this thread are therefore not open for debate. Please focus all discussions on the characteristics and implications of certain systems of belief, and not on the stated beliefs of individual Furtopians. Live and let live, please.
-
Except for Scientology. That "religion" is always wrong. >.> No sane person should take that cult seriously. I mean..it's a "church" built around a science fiction writer for crying out loud. Not only that, it also scams gullible people out of money to be "saved", is against medical care by doctors and says breastfeeding your children isn't good for them. Can we say coo-coo? :o
"Coo-coo" might be a little harsh. Honestly, I don't think Scientology is true, but members of that religion believe things for a reason. The Jews of the Old Testament believed in circumcision, and I bet they were criticized for it -- however, within the religion, it was symbolic of their need to be different, or separate. They were often called a "peculiar" people by the Lord of the OT because they were supposed to be different.
A lot of people call Jehovah's Witnesses crazy as well, especially because they believe blood transfusions are evil. From an outsider's perspective, it makes no sense. However, once you understand they believe that blood is the soul (or at least has a huge tie with the soul), you can understand that they wouldn't want to give part of that away (and, yes, they do have Biblical evidence for it).
I can hardly say that something that appears weird is something that's crazy. Rather, I like to understand why someone believes something.
Dunno about mooshi, but my gripe isn't so much the general belief system they are trying to teach (ie, see the Free Zone for those who are against the fraud, but follow the general idea, if I understand it correctly), but the actions that the primary 'religious' orgnaization is taking.
Multiple times this 'religion' has been caught perpetrating out-right fraud. At it's highest levels (it's leadership). You can read up on it on the other wiki. (wikipedia, for those who don't know the troper's parlance).
Not really crazy, despite... well, it isn't true, I mean, they are teaching blatant lies (E-Meters for example), but it's more the complete fraudulence & spitefulness of the leadership that gets me. They are literally committing criminal acts, and have been caught red-handed before. Simply going under the name of a religion should not exempt anyone from criticism. Especially if its done so to attempt to escape criminal persecution for legitimatly illegal acts. I think, if I remember right, France even banned them after a major scandal. Two countries even refused to awknowlege them as a religion from the get-go. (Australia being one of them).
Also, look up auditing process R2-47 ; Hubbard turned out /not to be joking/.
dunno about mooshi's reasons.
-
Religious beliefs are very personal things that a lot of people hold quite deeply, and they sometimes take courage to share with everyone. The religious beliefs of individual posters on this thread are therefore not open for debate. Please focus all discussions on the characteristics and implications of certain systems of belief, and not on the stated beliefs of individual Furtopians. Live and let live, please.
Ummmm... but isn;t there a danger of overlap? (say, believing in said implications?)
-
Ummmm... but isn;t there a danger of overlap? (say, believing in said implications?)
There's a difference between discussing particular religions in general terms, which is an acceptable subject for debate and has been accomplished quite well in many previous posts, and calling out individual members on their beliefs, which is something the staff has received several complaints about to date.
-
It's like Avan read my mind. The whole Xenu story and all that does seem weird. But one could argue no weirder than every other religious story. Those beliefs don't bother me because hey "to each their own". It's cool to believe in whatever you wish. In fact, it's your right too. My issue isn't what $cientoligist believe in, it's their dispicable criminal actions that leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. Using the veil of religion to get away with these things.
-
Arbutus has a point. There is something I've noticed in this thread, though. While I don't really see something as direct as "Arbutus, you're wrong for believing in such rubbish things!" (Just an example, mate. ;) ) I am seeing certain members reacting passionately as if a nerve was touched like it was a personal attack towards them. Even if it wasn't intended as such. As our mums have said "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!" This is a forum for debating. Of course not everyone is going to agree with each other. If you're going to take debate as personal attacks, don't view this thread. Simple as that. (:
-
...Especially if its done so to attempt to escape criminal persecution for legitimatly illegal acts.
Legitimately illegal? I think I know what you are talking about, but that wording seems strange to me.
-
...Especially if its done so to attempt to escape criminal persecution for legitimatly illegal acts.
Legitimately illegal? I think I know what you are talking about, but that wording seems strange to me.
I guess the legitimate was redundant, considering if something is illegal, it is already from a legitimate system of law, in this context. :D
As I always say,
"I am an Engineer, not an English Major"
(:
-
Var, Let me ask you something. Why throughout this entire thread do you feel so strongly that a person MUST have evidence for something, regardless of what that something might be, or that something MUST be defined a certain way?
Because I care about what's true, and I assume other people would as well. I mean, who actually WANTS the beliefs they hold to be false ones?
Given that, by far the best method to achieve that goal is through reason and evidence. It's for that reason that this is what science is all about: using reason and evidence to find exactly how things work as objectively as possible. Anyone who chooses to rely on anything less is doing themselves a disservice. And those that spread the idea that it's ok to accept things without sufficient evidence also do a disservice to everyone they spread it to.
My next comment here is NOT an attack on you, but merely an observation after reading all your posts, posting style, habits, etc. You seem like a very "logical" person. It seems like everything MUST make sense and/or there MUST be a reasonable/logical explanation for something.
Yes, I freely admit that I'm very logical. It baffles me that you'd think I could possibly take that as an attack. I -KNOW- I'm very logical. It's a good thing. It means I can do stuff that "normal" people can't do. Although I often get frustrated by the fact that others can't seem to get it. I mean, I can lay things out step by step why their position doesn't work, and still they cling to it. It just doesn't make sense.
Before return to the topic, I wanted to mention something, and seems like an appropriate time and place:
It has been brought to my attention that for many people, I come off as too harsh. So I'd like to apologize to anyone that feels I've been too harsh with them. But I'd also like you all to realize that I'm very rarely trying to be.
-
@ Kada-Ru: I think you misunderstood what I was saying. First of all, I was talking generally and not referencing anything in particular. I wasn't trying to put down your position or anything like that. What I was pointing out is that not being present does not mean that it's impossible to find out about something. For example, through science we know a -lot- about how stars work, and yet we've never been there. In fact we wouldn't be able to survive if we tried.
As I said, a better question is "do you have sufficient evidence?". If someone was there, it's more likely that they'll have sufficient evidence. Keep in mind that personal experience does count as evidence, but only for the person experiencing it. For example, if someone claims to me that they've had a revelation from God, and that's why they believe. I can't argue with that. That's their experience not mine. However, this person should also realize that the evidence they have is insufficient for anyone else. So I won't be able to believe them because even if they[may have sufficient evidence, I don't. That's the problem with using personal experience as evidence: it doesn't work for anyone but that one that had the experience.
BINGO! According to this last sentence, than no one can take what you say as 'sufficient evidence' because it only works for YOU. Not anyone else. But, according to you, it is ok for you to say that your experiences are SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE for you and because of that it gives you the right to tell everyone else that what YOU believe is true.
According to who? I don't think it gets over used.
The "were you there" argument gets used all the time by young earth creationists arguing about evolution. Oddly, they don't seem to realize that this argument would apply to their own position as well.
Except, you were implying that the members here use it all the time, like myself. Now you are saying it is a select few. Can't have it both ways. And why does something someone else believes mean THEY don't REALIZE? According to you, and your statements on this topic, no one here realizes that you are the only one that knows the TRUTH about what ever. But, that isn't true. You can use your example for yourself. You haven't provided to me, nor anyone else, with any 'sufficient evidence', to prove your position. According to you, since what one experiences is only sufficient evidence for that person, than why do courts use eye witnesses?
I see you want to show proof of YOUR TRUTH to everyone but wouldn't that only be 'sufficient evidence' for you and not anyone else.
You can't say that another person is "just going with the answer that sounds best to them REGARDLESS OF HOW LACKING IN EVIDENCE IT MAY BE." This statement to me, just means you are telling that person how THEY feel.
I can say it because I've repeatedly seen people who proclaim some such and such is true (especially things about religion),
But, isn't this exactly what you say others are using for 'sufficient evidence' and it only applies to them? So, it really isn't true at all to everyone else? Can't have it both ways. Can't say that what others have seen/heard/feel etc., is only 'sufficient evidence' for them, and then expect others to believe what YOU seen/heard/feel as 'sufficient evidence for them as well.
And when put to task to provide evidence of their claims, they are completely unable to do so. Worse, they often have beliefs that are contradictory. In other words: one or the other -must- be something that are accepting without sufficient evidence. If you have two contradictory beliefs, evidence for one would also be evidence against the other.
And what I see is you are unable to "put to task to provide evidence of your claims". You also have beliefs that are contradictory. You claim that what others have as 'sufficient evidence' is only evidence to them so it doesn't prove anything to you. Yet, on the other hand, with the exact same 'sufficient evidence' you expect everyone else to take what you say as proof as being proof for everyone else. I would actually like you to provide us with sufficient evidence that others 'beliefs that are contradictory'. The problem with this statement is that their beliefs being contradictory is only according to your beliefs.
evidence for one would also be evidence against the other This statement isn't necessarily true. Just because there is evidence for one argument doesn't mean that there is no evidence for the other argument. Just means that you don't accept the evidence for the other argument .
Because I care about what's true, and I assume other people would as well. I mean, who actually WANTS the beliefs they hold to be false ones?
Given that, by far the best method to achieve that goal is through reason and evidence. It's for that reason that this is what science is all about: using reason and evidence to find exactly how things work as objectively as possible. Anyone who chooses to rely on anything less is doing themselves a disservice. And those that spread the idea that it's ok to accept things without sufficient evidence also do a disservice to everyone they spread it to.
Because I care about what's true. The problem with this statement is that what is true is only according to you. I mean, who actually WANTS the beliefs they hold to be false ones? And who is to say their beliefs are false? You? And what 'sufficient evidence' do you have that gives you the right to tell them that what they believe in is false? It could be turned around as well. People could say that your beliefs are false as well. Do you have 'sufficient evidence' to the contrary?
Phew, that took a spell to write up. LOL
-
Given that, by far the best method to achieve that goal is through reason and evidence. It's for that reason that this is what science is all about: using reason and evidence to find exactly how things work as objectively as possible. Anyone who chooses to rely on anything less is doing themselves a disservice. And those that spread the idea that it's ok to accept things without sufficient evidence also do a disservice to everyone they spread it to.
reason Reason isn't sufficient evidence.
objectively as possible This isn't sufficient evidence either.
Anyone who chooses to rely on anything less is doing themselves a disservice. And those that spread the idea that it's ok to accept things without sufficient evidence also do a disservice to everyone they spread it to. Isn't reason, objectively inefficient evidence? Does this mean that the statements you are spreading without sufficient evidence doing a disservice to everyone else?
People don't need to have 'sufficient evidence' in everything they believe. That isn't possible. As your statements keep pointing out that what 'sufficient evidence' is to one person, isn't 'sufficient evidence' to you. You have your beliefs just as everyone else does. And one can't say that their beliefs are any better nor right, compared to someone elses' beliefs. I haven't seen any 'sufficient evidence' from your comments that what others believe are false or wrong. It just means that you don't believe in what they do. Which is fine. You don't have to believe in what others believe. But you can't say that what they believe is wrong or false. No one has that right. But what we all should do is just accept the fact that we are all different. What we feel. What we think. What we believe in.
Sure, I have had my experiences with other religions and they weren't good but that doesn't mean that what others believe in those sects is wrong or false. Just means 'I' don't believe what these sects believe. It isn't my place to tell them they are wrong. Just like it isn't anyone elses place to tell me what I believe is wrong just because I don't have 'sufficient evidence' for them. They have to find out for themselves what they believe.
-
The "were you there" argument gets used all the time by young earth creationists arguing about evolution. Oddly, they don't seem to realize that this argument would apply to their own position as well.
Except, you were implying that the members here use it all the time, like myself. Now you are saying it is a select few. Can't have it both ways.
Kada-Ru, I'm gonna warn you about a logical fallacy that's appearing here. Vararam was using a specific example here, not just saying that only creationists would use the "were you there" argument. From what I see, you misinterpreted what he said and attacked that misinterpretation. Unfortunately, this can be dangerous in discussions and lead to pointless arguing.
Also, you've exaggerated what Vararam has said in another statement:
According to you, and your statements on this topic, no one here realizes that you are the only one that knows the TRUTH about what ever.
From posts earlier on, Vararam has changed his view about some things. Because of that, it's clear that he doesn't believe he knows everything. Therefore, the statement you made is incorrect, Kada.
I'm just pointing these out because this debate again is getting into a dodgy area. Vararam doesn't think that "reason" is 100% accurate; however, "reason" is his belief system (and probably one I'd subscribe to). Simply put, "religion" cannot be seen as any less of a reason to believe in something than "reason." They are both very important and can either co-exist or remain independent.
I will say that I don't think it's right to say that what someone believes is "wrong." Perhaps it's hard to understand, or perhaps it's poorly thought out. However, because beliefs often comes from what someone "feels," it's almost impossible to argue whether a belief system is logically sound or not -- simply put, debates and religion don't mix. That's why arbutus said the following (and, yes, I'm quoting for emphasis):
Religious beliefs are very personal things that a lot of people hold quite deeply, and they sometimes take courage to share with everyone. The religious beliefs of individual posters on this thread are therefore not open for debate. Please focus all discussions on the characteristics and implications of certain systems of belief, and not on the stated beliefs of individual Furtopians. Live and let live, please.
-
I think one reason why some people here have taken my comments as being too harsh, is that I expect the reader to come to their own conclusions. I'm not expecting people to simply accept what I say as though I'm an authority; I expect people to think for themselves. However, I also expect people to actually consider what it is I'm saying by it's own merit, and will gladly discuss why I have the position I do.
There is also another element here where people might be getting confused. I'm a very logical individual, and will often speak in a way that could easily be mistaken for authoritarian because I'm speaking form a logical prospective. And while it's rarely possible to use logic alone to show any particular belief as true, it IS often logically possible to show them as false. Therefore, you'll see me doing a lot of that. If someone presents an idea that logically just does not work, I'll point it out. It has nothing to do with my beliefs about it.
I think I should try to clear up some confusion on the term "sufficient evidence" which I've used many times in this thread. First of all, it is common for people to use the word "proof", as in "show me proof". But "proof" really only applies to things like mathematics where you can show absolute answers. In the real world, we can't have "proof" but instead must rely on evidence. Evidence of something does not mean that the something is true. Only that the something is more likely to be true. When you have enough evidence to show something is so likely to be true that you can call it knowledge, that is what I mean by the term "sufficient evidence". (note: As I've explained earlier in the thread, knowledge is not absolute. )
You claim that what others have as 'sufficient evidence' is only evidence to them so it doesn't prove anything to you.
They is not what I said at all. I said that personal experience can only be sufficient evidence for the individual that had the experience.
Because I care about what's true. The problem with this statement is that what is true is only according to you.
No, it's not what's true according to me. What is true is true regardless of whether I or anybody else believes it or not. What I was saying with that statement is that I want my beliefs to, as far as possible, match what is actually true.
I mean, who actually WANTS the beliefs they hold to be false ones? And who is to say their beliefs are false? You?
And what I was saying with this statement was that this is why I suspect other people also want their beliefs to match what is true. There is no value judgment here that you seem to be implying.
-
Here's something to sink your teeth into. According to the old Norse Edda (The legends of the Viking people a great read by the way) the Earth as we know it was formed when the Ice Giants of the North Fought the Gods of Fire of the South, for thousands of years they battled with great ice sheets ebbing and flowing as part of their battle. It was during this time that Odin brought humans into being now let's look at a little piece of evidence to show that the Vikings may have had some ancient memory from which the story came from. I present to you the Quaternary Ice Age which we have been in for the last 2.58 million years during which there have been times when almost all of the Eurasian landmass =was covered in great sheets of ice.
I am not saying that the Vikings had all the answers but it may be possible that they had a group memory that existed over a long period of time as the glaciers moved back and forth across the land finally retreating farther North. It's just something to think about.
-
I would have to say for me, that there are parts of many religions that I believe also. I would have to say that what I try to live by most are the 10 commandments. Would that mean I believe in God or the bible? I don't know. It is possible I guess. But to me the 10 commandments seem like the best way to live.
1. You shall have no other gods before me.
This one I think would come into play depending on one's beliefs as to whether they believer there are more than one God. For me, I would believer that there is only one.
2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Actually, I don't mind having nick-nacks of angels around. For some reason they make me feel safer. Strange? Probably.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
A lot of folks on these forums already know how I feel about the 'colorful' language people use these days. And I also feel bad using the Lord's name in vain. It just doesn't feel right to me.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
I really don't follow this one as I don't attend any church. Though I do feel that Sunday, why not another day I'm not sure, is a day of rest.
5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
I do believe in this though I have no parents.
6. You shall not murder.
I definitely follow this one. LOL
7. You shall not commit adultery.p/quote]
I follow this one.
8. You shall not steal.
I follow this one.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
I follow this one.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
I also follow this one.
To me these all just seem like common sense. Like the saying, "Say unto others as you would have others do unto you." I wouldn't do any of the above as I would be too afraid that others would do the same to me. I know I wouldn't like it. I'm sure others wouldn't like it either.
but, the above is where my true beliefs lie. I think these are the basic beliefs of all religions so in a way we all believe the same thing.
-
That's it. I'm gonna start believing in 3 goddesses because I can. A busty vixen (Fate) A busty bunny (Destiny) and a busty tanuki (Time) because these concepts are sound enough for me (especially time) Yep. Makes perfect sense. :3 (These goddess are actually part of a story I'm working with a friend xD) Raise a paw if you're up for my religion. :O Every Saturday is Rootbeer float day!
-
2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Actually, I don't mind having nick-nacks of angels around. For some reason they make me feel safer. Strange? Probably.
I hope you know that the "Angel" nick-nacks you collect are representations of some new idea of what angels look like. Angels of the Old Testament are scum that would kidnap and rape women because of their beautiful hair which is why women would always cover their heads so that Angels would be unable to see their hair.
-
That's it. I'm gonna start believing in 3 goddesses because I can. A busty vixen (Fate) A busty bunny (Destiny) and a busty tanuki (Time) because these concepts are sound enough for me (especially time) Yep. Makes perfect sense. :3 (These goddess are actually part of a story I'm working with a friend xD) Raise a paw if you're up for my religion. :O Every Saturday is Rootbeer float day!
roflmto!!!!!! sure, why not?
I hope you know that the "Angel" nick-nacks you collect are representations of some new idea of what angels look like. Angels of the Old Testament are scum that would kidnap and rape women because of their beautiful hair which is why women would always cover their heads so that Angels would be unable to see their hair.
Oh, I haven't collected any actually. We have a friend that does. I'm more into collecting animal nick-nacks myself. Perhaps it is a Goddess I think looks over us all? I don't know. hmmm
Really? Can you post a couple links for me to read? I am quite curious now about what you have said.
-
I hope you know that the "Angel" nick-nacks you collect are representations of some new idea of what angels look like. Angels of the Old Testament are scum that would kidnap and rape women because of their beautiful hair which is why women would always cover their heads so that Angels would be unable to see their hair.
Oh, I haven't collected any actually. We have a friend that does. I'm more into collecting animal nick-nacks myself. Perhaps it is a Goddess I think looks over us all? I don't know. hmmm
Really? Can you post a couple links for me to read? I am quite curious now about what you have said.
Ditto. I've read the Bible quite a bit, and I might know what you're talking about -- however, I would have considered that a mis-translation back when I was Christian. Simply put, I can't see how angels would ever be rapists.
But, yes, link us up, and I'll read it.
-
Drake Blackpaw
Since this thread has arisen anew, I might as well add my religious views as well. However, I'm going to skip the survey format as most of the questions don't fit me. I'll hit the ones that do.
Religiously, I consider myself an agnostic. That is, I don't believe in any one religious paradigm and I truly believe that if there is something beyond this mortal coil, it is something us mortals cannot perceive or comprehend. That said, I lean towards being an atheist, but I'm open to the idea that there is something more.
I have to agree with this point.
I have seen where it has been mentioned several times but I wonder if someone could clarify for me what 'organized religion' is? or what they perceive it to be?
Mooshi
« Reply #87 on: 08 08, 2010, 05:08: pm,17:53:57 »
Reply with quoteQuote Modify messageModify Remove messageRemove Split TopicSplit Topic
There's nothing to elaborate on. It's a simple "It didn't make any sense to me." In my own personal case; virgin births (impossible), Fitting 2 of every animal on an ark (no matter how big an ark, it's impossible) punishing someone by killing SOMEONE ELSE (how does that even make sense from a moral standpoint? It doesn't.) Claims like "God loves us all" followed by verses where God wants us to kill those who oppose him. It's that simple. When something doesn't make sense, you won't believe in it. A quick google search of "Bible contradictions" explains it in more detail.
I think this is where I am right now. Some things just don't make any sense. :(
Alexandre
« Reply #89 on: 08 08, 2010, 07:08: pm,19:25:55 »
I don't want a simple belief to make me a good person; I want to be a good person (in my own eyes), regardless of what the truth may be.
EXACTLY! That is the way I feel and this makes it much simpler than my other posts.
-
I hope you know that the "Angel" nick-nacks you collect are representations of some new idea of what angels look like. Angels of the Old Testament are scum that would kidnap and rape women because of their beautiful hair which is why women would always cover their heads so that Angels would be unable to see their hair.
Oh, I haven't collected any actually. We have a friend that does. I'm more into collecting animal nick-nacks myself. Perhaps it is a Goddess I think looks over us all? I don't know. hmmm
Really? Can you post a couple links for me to read? I am quite curious now about what you have said.
Ditto. I've read the Bible quite a bit, and I might know what you're talking about -- however, I would have considered that a mis-translation back when I was Christian. Simply put, I can't see how angels would ever be rapists.
But, yes, link us up, and I'll read it.
Why does everybody think that all I read is online? Much of what I read is written on dead trees, and I don't always look for it online.
That being said if I remember correctly it is in the Koran.
-
ah. what is the Koran?
-
A religious text.
If I remember... the old testament? I may be wrong... *has a splitting headache and is sleepy right now.. so yeah*
-
A religious text.
If I remember... the old testament? I may be wrong... *has a splitting headache and is sleepy right now.. so yeah*
Nope, it's the principal religious text of Islam.
-
ah ok...
I was close ;)
-
Major Holy books of Abrahamic Religions:
Jewish holy books:
Torah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah) - The books of the Laws of Moses (first five books of the Hebrew Bible)
Nevi'im (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevi%27im) - The books of the Prophets (next eight books of the Hebrew Bible)
Ketuvim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah) - The books of Writings (last eleven books of the Hebrew Bible)
Collectively, these are called: Tanakh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh)
Christian holy book:
The Christian Bible is divided into two parts:
Old Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament) - First part of Biblical canon (same as the Hebrew Bible)
New Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament) - Second part of Biblical canon (sometimes called "The Gospel")
Islamic holy book:
Qur'an (or Koran) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an) - Writings of the prophet Muhammad.
[source: Wikipedia]
-
So, the Hebrew books of the Jewish and the old testament of the Christians, are they the same?
I remember a long time ago, eons probably, that I read the bible, which I understood. Than another 'version' of the bible came out that was supposed to be easier to read, I don't remember the name of it, but that one I didn't understand.
The only thing I remember, from being told by some Jewish friends, was that they didn't believe in Jesus thus they don't celebrate Christmas nor birthdays. Other than that, I don't know much about them.
Mormons, been there done that and not there any more.
When my son was born I had him baptized in the Lutheran church his dad and I attended. After his first child was born he had his son baptized there as well. I was so surprised when I went to the baptism how the church looked. It wasn't the way I had remembered it. I noticed it was so much like a Catholic church. I told my son I didn't have him baptized in a Catholic church and I believe he told me that the Lutheran church was a 'break off' of the Catholic church. I was definitely confused there.
I have been to some Catholic churches. I have also been to some Baptist churches in Phoenix Arizona, where I just loved the people there and how relaxed and open they were. What I mean, is they were singing and having a good time in their church because they FELT the Lord there and within them. It wasn't all, how do I explain it, sit straight in your seats and don't make a noise. It was a much more relaxed atmosphere.
-
So, the Hebrew books of the Jewish and the old testament of the Christians, are they the same?
Other than minor differences such as the numbering of books, yep.
(some books, such as Kings, are considered one book in the Tanakh, but are two books in the Christian Bible.)
-
Keep in mind the most common Bibles omit quite a few of the texts if I remember correctly the King James ignores about half the books that were written for the Bible
-
You know what's funny that no one seemed to have mentioned? If a man or woman today made claims that they hear and see things that no one else can, they'd be called mad and diagnosed with some sort of mental condition that requires medication. :v Anyone ever once thought that possibly thousands of years ago, someone with those same symptons could have made the same types of claims? Except, you know, taken seriously instead of being perscribed "happy pills" like they may have today? In all honesty, it doesn't seem too far off that it could be a possibility. Just saying. >.>
-
I think we were too busy debating grammar and debating to even get to discussing the potential invalidity of religions beyond broad and general examples.
-
Other than minor differences such as the numbering of books, yep.
(some books, such as Kings, are considered one book in the Tanakh, but are two books in the Christian Bible.)
I find that info interesting. Thanks.
Keep in mind the most common Bibles omit quite a few of the texts if I remember correctly the King James ignores about half the books that were written for the Bible
Really? Where can I find info on that?
You know what's funny that no one seemed to have mentioned? If a man or woman today made claims that they hear and see things that no one else can, they'd be called mad and diagnosed with some sort of mental condition that requires medication. :v Anyone ever once thought that possibly thousands of years ago, someone with those same symptons could have made the same types of claims? Except, you know, taken seriously instead of being perscribed "happy pills" like they may have today? In all honesty, it doesn't seem too far off that it could be a possibility. Just saying. >.>
You are right. I never thought about that but you are right.
I do enjoy learning about other religions. That is the only way for me to decided for myself what I believe or don't believe.
-
Keep in mind the most common Bibles omit quite a few of the texts if I remember correctly the King James ignores about half the books that were written for the Bible
Really? Where can I find info on that?
A friend of mine informed me of them so I'll contact her about where to find them.
-
Ok, thanks.
-
Gah. I was gonna post a big reply yesterday, but I have no clue what happened to my time. x_x
Keep in mind the most common Bibles omit quite a few of the texts if I remember correctly the King James ignores about half the books that were written for the Bible
In all actuality, the books in the Bible weren't written for the Bible. The word "Bible" means "a collection of books," and many of them were written without the authors intending them to be put together in a specific order. The Bible itself was compiled of books that were considered most important; others were left out because either they were difficult to understand or suspected of being fake.
The Bible, as we know in most of the Christian world, contains what we call the "canon" of scripture. "Canon" simply refers to what's accepted by most Christians. A few Christian religions don't believe in everything in the Bible -- Jehova's Witnesses have removed a few verses throughout, and Mormons believe the Bible has several mistranslations and is therefore imperfect (they also consider the entire Song of Solomon a piece that was written without divine inspiration).
In addition to that, some Bibles have books that are not considered canon. The Catholic Bible is a notable example. These extra books are called "apocrypha." (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/index.htm) Some religions believe that some books of the apocrypha are true while others will only stick with the canon. I haven't really read any of the apocrypha, though I think I may try some day.
Anyway, the way I see it, the Bible was put together by men deciding, probably with the best interest in mind, what were the truest scriptures and bringing them together in a way that would symbolize what they believe. You can tell this happened because of the last few verses of the book Revelations, the last book in the Bible: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22: 18-19).
That scripture was written with only the book of Revelations in mind. However, by putting it at the end of the Bible, those compilers have caused many people to think that it applies to the whole Bible. Because of this, many people won't even consider the possibility of finding other inspired writings. I know; as a missionary, I found tons of them who thought this.
Hopefully that sheds some light on the Christian Bible and other writings.
-
This thread has been quite interesting. So if all this is accurate, it confirms the accusation that some religious folk like to pick and choose from the bible whichever bits sounds prettiest to them. Which in turn causes a severe a lack of credibility. If you're going to hold onto the belief that the bible is the absolute truth and word of God, follow the entire thing! >:O It seems alot of this is more geared towards Christians and related religions. If I said Muslims worship a pedophile for a prophet, would that make things more balanced? ;) I mean..technically Muhammad was. Wasn't his "wife" somewhere between 9-12? D:
-
Mooshi, picking and choosing in the Bible is a very touchy subject. I think I'm still perhaps a closet Christian because I know so much about it, but let me show something that has caused a lot of confusion for most Christians. I don't want to debate about homosexuality, but it's an example that shows why taking the Bible (especially the Old Testament) literally is dangerous.
The word "abomination," as used in the Old Testament, actually came from several different words, most of them having roots from shiqquwts and tōʻēḇā. Both of these words, when looked at, hold roots with terms that mean "to cross a boundary." So, "abomination" in the Old Testament is literally a crossing of a boundary.
Why would the writers and prophets talk about boundaries back then? Simply put, the Israelites were commanded to be a separate people. "And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine" (Leviticus 20:27). All throughout the Old Testament, the Israelites had to have reminders that they were not like other societies. This is why all the rituals appeared.
Why was eating shrimp an "abomination" back then? Simply put, shrimp live in the sea yet have legs. This was a mixture of two different things that God had separated in the Creation -- limbs to walk on land yet the ability to live in water. Other animals like crabs and lobster were forbidden for the same reason -- they crossed a boundary.
As you read through the Old Testament, many things, including homosexuality, were considered an "abomination" because of boundaries that were being crossed (the explanation of homosexuality is a bit graphic, so if you want to hear it, send me a PM). However, in the New Testament, something interesting happened -- Peter received a vision where he was commanded to eat animals that were considered "unclean" (Acts 10:13-15). Symbolically, this meant that the gospel could be shared with more than just the Jews. That "abomination" -- or crossing of the boundary -- disappeared.
So this brings up an important question -- since the symbolic reasons of the Old Testament's "abominations" had been abolished in the New Testament, how can those commandments be defended? I would argue that people should look towards Jesus's teachings as a source for what commandments should be kept and which ones should not. While the Bible definitely doesn't hold everything he said, his words are what I would consider the most important for Christians of today.
-
Wowie..so much confusion and "in fighting" among the seperate sects as well as how the bible should be interpreted..No wonder I done away with religion from my life. x.x Pick ONE story dammit! D< If we did take the bible literally (as well as other religious articles) the world would be far more destructive. Stoning your children, being a sin to wear clothes made of more than one materal (I forget the exactness of that one, but you know what I mean) Some extremist societies do take these things to heart and it's quite scary. Such as those who will cut off your hands for stealing! Stealing is wrong but give me a break! :o Yeah..imma slink out of this thread now. It's hurting my brain. ;.;
-
All I can say is that what was written the Old Testament and how it was interpreted by its followers, by comparison the Vikings were far more civilized. Yes all of my Gods are Gods of War but give me a break, stoning someone to death because they mix fabrics in their clothes? It would take a divine act of Loki to make a Viking to even think that was a good idea. Yes there was the concept of the Blood Eagle where you hack open someone's back and rip out their lungs so they look like wings, but that was almost certainly pure fiction made up to scare the tar out of people. The vikings didn't even beat their wives it would be nuts to do so since she was the one with the keys to the house, and as a wedding present you gave her an axe that was made in part for fighting, I should know, my wedding was based on historical references.
-
Yes all of my Gods are Gods of War but give me a break, stoning someone to death because they mix fabrics in their clothes? It would take a divine act of Loki to make a Viking to even think that was a good idea.
Again, separating fabrics was symbolic of the Israelites separating themselves from others, as I said in my last post. The actual act of mixing types of fabrics seriously meant nothing -- however, the symbolic nature was very important. These harsh laws appeared because, simply put, Israelites were stupid. If you look at the account in the Bible, right after they are saved from Egypt, they decide to worship other gods. Bad idea, Israelites.
Anyway, the laws in the Bible were definitely harsh, but the symbolic nature of the laws is what Christians should remember.
-
OK as everyone knows by now I am a devote Nordic Heathen I did something today that was slightly odd though. I went to church. But I have to say one thing it was a Unitarian Universalist Church so I think I'm okay :P
The main reason I've decided to go is so that I can take my son so he doesn't grow up hating other religions like I did. They mentioned something interesting during service today which was when they asked people to identify themselves by standing up by their religion how many non-Unitarians there were makes me feel welcome.
-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFI3A9ivxPc Disgusting.
-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFI3A9ivxPc Disgusting.
I fail to see how that video is relavant to this thread? This thread is about religion, not marriage.
-
You don't see the connection? The "prophet" Mohummad was a pedophile who had a 12 year old "wife" (well, waited till she was 12 to have sex with her) Muslims view Mohummad in the same light as Christians view Jesus. (Only on a much more extremist scale that literally kills) Islam promotes pedophilia and the ruining of little girls lives. It's a part of the dark side of what religious beliefs can do - its sick to say a girl is ready to get married and bare children the moment she hits puberty.
-
If you want to debate pedophilia, then you'll have to do it in the Adult Discussion forum as a subject like that isn't allowed in the open forums.
-
Actually, I think the bigger issue with that is the fact that in the culture of that religion, women are essentially property. Even if the girl were older, she'd still not likely be given much if any choice in the matter. In their religion, they think it's disgusting how in places like the UK or the US we let our women dress how they want. Like it's somehow a bad thing to give people equal rights.
However... I think this is going outside the scope of this thread. Particularly without having someone claiming or defending that position.
-
Well, religion serves a social purpose, despite the big tendrils of corruption and stuff that goes underground for some of them. The niche they fill is quite an important one that philosophers have pointed out. Even in psychology they've taught us that it is beneficial for some cases to have a strong belief system. However it has to be considered in each individual case.
I guess the "life purpose", "what happens when we die" and all those things would have a deeper impact on us if there wasn't some explanations, as little or much logical as their grounds may hold.
Again, if it's not hurting anyone, why bother them?
-
Again, if it's not hurting anyone, why bother them?
I completely agree with this. The problem is that in many cases it IS causing harm.
-
The niche they fill is quite an important one that philosophers have pointed out. Even in psychology they've taught us that it is beneficial for some cases to have a strong belief system.
Well, it depends on what a strong belief system is. Does it have to even be a stereotypical relgion (if a religion at all?)
-
Again, if it's not hurting anyone, why bother them?
I completely agree with this. The problem is that in many cases it IS causing harm.
I agree, and that's where I paint the line. If you want to sing like an unbridled and pray to the god of rubber and scratchy-smell cards, by all means, do it; but if in doing so you're sacrificing your neighbor's kid, then please cease at once.
Thing is, humans rarely know when to stop, and the more they gather into their acts, the stronger their belief in that will be, and the harder it'll be to get them to stop.
The niche they fill is quite an important one that philosophers have pointed out. Even in psychology they've taught us that it is beneficial for some cases to have a strong belief system.
Well, it depends on what a strong belief system is. Does it have to even be a stereotypical relgion (if a religion at all?)
No, I don't think it has to be a religion at all. If you notice, I've been using the term "Belief System", and that's exactly my point. SOME religions have VERY strong foundations, and then there's the pink invisible unicorn (which ironically has about the same substance as some other mainstream religions).
Some people are agnostics and they do follow some rites and traditions, and that could be a strong belief system if it's justified with actual thought. It doesn't have to be a religion, I think. The issue is, most people can't do it on their own, and religions offer the "pre-made starter deck", so to speak.
The scary thing is that even on a strong basis of a religion fanatics will happen. Fundamentalists, blind-faith people and overall the "sheep herd" (not a reference to christianism at all) will believe something just because it's easy, comfortable, or something that's been given to them without any consideration.
Think of it this way: How many people actually choose their religion, not because their parents or their community taught it to them but because they made an actual conscious choice? I deduce a slim margin of the population.
Yes, religion helps people, but it also harms them.
As always, think! Critical thinking could solve A LOT of issues in the world.
Thank you and good night.