Even though i am "christian" i don't believe in the idea of "god" but of a higher power.
But i celebrate christmas.
I knew this topic was going to come up sooner or later.
First off, I will say that I am totally in favor of people believing in whatever they may choose and I believe that each person has the right to do so without discrimination.
The issue I have with some religions is it creates a hierarchy where non would have existed before. For example, I do not like how, in the christian religion, there is an all mighty Pope that has so much power over millions of people because of the religion, even though there is no mention of them in the bible. I just feel that religion has become to "man-made" in a sense that over the years it has been changed to a way that benefits some ( monetarily, power, ect.. ) while providing nothing but hope to others.
I believe morals are created through evolution. Those primitive people who would murder or steal etc. are ostracised from that society; people are naturally selected to be morally superior in order to survive. I'm pretty much agreeing with Alex, I guess, just flipping it round; good morals do not make a good society but rather a good society maintains good morals to survive. I also believe that societies based on evil morals can thrive; good does not have to conquer evil, here. I just want people to be free and happy because, well, it makes me feel good. 'Do onto others' and all that (I'm pretty sure the sentiment is older than the verse).
I definitely agree that an atheist doing a good deed has more 'weight', if you like, than a theist doing same, if they believe they're doing it for their god. I know plenty of religious people who do fantastic work for charity, or other people, with no thought given to their faith. Personally, I prefer thinking of it in the classic 'Good people do good things, bad people do bad things but to make good people do bad things, you need religion' terms. That only works if you broaden the scope of what religion is, in fairness; a better way to put that would be 'People will be who they are, if they're allowed to'. Religion is a very effective way of turning people against their instincts, for better or worse.
I also like to think the 'is there a god?' question is long over and the answer is a resounding 'NO'. Ethicly, biologically and cosmologically, man has proven without a shadow of a doubt that there is no reason to believe in any kind of god. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't believe in god; only that, if you choose to, you should understand that your belief is an illogical one.
The whole 'there's flaws in science, too' argument will be dead before too long. We have answers to everything a believer could ask; the only problem is that sometimes we have several answers and we're not sure which is the right one. The difference is that science does not demand an answer. Science sets up circumstances and is shown an answer by testing and observing. If any religion or belief in a higher power were tested under scientific circumstances, it would fail (and has done, many many times). The answers that science gives us are as irrefutable as anything we see with our own eyes and is the only way we can see the world.
Anything is indeed possible. Not terribly likely, but possible.
If one of us was visited by a being with technology far more vast in scope than our own, it is indeed possible that person could be turned into a dragon when he or she walked out the door. Do such beings exist? I think the odds of mankind being the only sentient life in a universe as large as ours is infinitesimally small.
Take any one of us, load us up with the best high tech we have, take us back a few thousand years or so and you, too, could be thought of as a god. How would an early Egyptian have reacted to moving images projecting from screens we can hold in our hands? A chariot that requires no horse, and is made of unheard-of armor? Hell, even a simple, never-before-seen magic trick could be enough - read up on the history of Jean Eugene Robert-Houdin! He used what we'd consider parlor tricks to defuse a situation between an African tribe on the verge of revolt and the French government.
I'm agnostic - it translates to something along the lines of "doesn't know". I don't completely rule out the existence of a god, or several gods, or even aliens from another world being the source of all human life on this earth. But unless I can see proof pointing in that direction, I'm not entirely inclined to believe it 100%, either. When I was in the Army, some of my fellow recruits had a hard time wrapping their heads around the concept - they automatically assumed I was atheist and didn't believe in God. Even after explaining it, they still considered it an alien concept, something they just couldn't figure out. Most of them were God-fearin' children from various parts of the American Heartlands.
I'm open to all possibilities, and not willing to firmly believe in that which can't be proven. There are few things I have faith in, and all of them are secular in nature. And I'm even willing to alter my faith, should evidence arise to prove contrary to what I have faith in. I have faith that five pennies equals a nickel in value. I have faith that two plus two does indeed equal four. I have faith that my girlfriend loves me very much, and that I love her as much as she does me. I have faith that most standard US poker decks has fifty-two playing cards, plus two jokers, and often an ad card or two.
Faith in deities, I have trouble with. Especially when the people organized to worship these deities commit violent and evil acts either in the name of their faith or against the teachings of their faith. I'm with Alex on the morality thing - doing unto others as you want them to do unto you makes for a lot of societal stability and is a concept completely independent of religion.
The beliefs of Zen Buddhism are easier for me to grasp and understand - and that's largely because Zen Buddhists don't necessarily worship a deity. They believe that Buddha was a very wise human being who achieved a state of nirvana over the course of his lifetime. But he was still just a human being, and any human being is capable of achieving that same state of nirvana. No gods, no higher powers, just you, existing in this very moment, not worrying over a future that may never occur, not looking back on failures and pain of the past - just existing in the present, doing what is necessary in that moment. Which is not to say that they don't save up money for a rainy day! But they don't worry about possible bad outcomes or even possible good outcomes of a given situation, all but one of which will never come to pass.
Many martial artists who practice aikido, such as I, come to learn about Zen while many Zen Buddhists come to learn about aikido because the two are extremely similar in nature as far as one's mental and emotional states and basic concepts.
And that's my two coppers...
when you mention faith you did not use it right, you dont have faith on any of those things except that your girlfriend loves you. you know 2 + 2 = 4 and such. Faith is believing something with out proof.
Also, based on your definition, I would class you an agnostic and an atheist. Agnosticism is the conclusion that we cannot know for sure. Atheism is the statement 'I do not believe in a god'; it is NOT 'I believe there is not a god'. Those are very different positions.
I would also define my position as an agnostic atheist. I'm also an anti-theist i.e. I believe religion is bad for the world.
Religion is bad when it influences your actions over another person. In other words, Evangelicals demanding that Evolution be taught alongside Creationism. Likewise, the fact that portraying Mohammed, the Islamic prophet, is so taboo when there really should be nothing taboo about it. If you don't believe in a religion, you should never, under any circumstances, be forced or even encouraged to follow their rules.
Anything that has ever been stated or encouraged in any religious text should never, ever, be made into law for the sole purpose of it being a religious necessity.
Religion is great, however, at soothing those who are capable of believing. It's also great at creating organization in third world societies. It has no place in the western world on a grand level at all, but there are plenty of places and plenty of people that should embrace it if they can.
However, the embrace should be on a personal level. It sickens me when I see missionaries take advantage of grief and tragedy to sway the masses affected.
In sheer simplicity - not a single death in the world has ever been on the account of Atheism. Quite easy to decide which side to take.
It's a very positive way that religion influences a person's actions with regards to their fellow person.
There is one way I can think of religion being good when it comes to influencing your actions over another person. Most religions teach of forgiveness, of helping the downtrodden, etc. Granted, you don't have to be religious to do any of these things, but the faithful of those religions do so as a show of their faith. It's a very positive way that religion influences a person's actions with regards to their fellow person.
Lol I see some Hitchens in you Kanped~
-_- One shouldn't read the bible for fact and knowledge... they shouldn't read the bible for morals and justice... and I certainly wouldn't read it for fun. The one good reason to read the bible is so you don't sound like you live under a rock your whole life in a conversation.
there are too many people that "think" they know a lot about religion
if your thought life is not pure then how can your actions be pure?
this will go no where. i say i know what i believe and unless i couild truely talk to you about it i feel this will go no where
How could you say such a thing? Not only are Catholics Christians they were the first first Christians. Who do you think brought us the New Testaments. Not King James I assure you. You are entirely entitled to your own opinions but please check what you say to evaluate for validity. Not only was your statement wrong, it was insulting to the Catholic faith.I knew this topic was going to come up sooner or later.
First off, I will say that I am totally in favor of people believing in whatever they may choose and I believe that each person has the right to do so without discrimination.
The issue I have with some religions is it creates a hierarchy where non would have existed before. For example, I do not like how, in the christian religion, there is an all mighty Pope that has so much power over millions of people because of the religion, even though there is no mention of them in the bible. I just feel that religion has become to "man-made" in a sense that over the years it has been changed to a way that benefits some ( monetarily, power, ect.. ) while providing nothing but hope to others.
real quick wanted to say that is catholic not christian, big difference. im christian, i do not classify myself in a certain division but i do go to a baptist church.
How could you say such a thing? Not only are Catholics Christians they were the first first Christians. Who do you think brought us the New Testaments. Not King James I assure you. You are entirely entitled to your own opinions but please check what you say to evaluate for validity. Not only was your statement wrong, it was insulting to the Catholic faith.I knew this topic was going to come up sooner or later.
First off, I will say that I am totally in favor of people believing in whatever they may choose and I believe that each person has the right to do so without discrimination.
The issue I have with some religions is it creates a hierarchy where non would have existed before. For example, I do not like how, in the christian religion, there is an all mighty Pope that has so much power over millions of people because of the religion, even though there is no mention of them in the bible. I just feel that religion has become to "man-made" in a sense that over the years it has been changed to a way that benefits some ( monetarily, power, ect.. ) while providing nothing but hope to others.
real quick wanted to say that is catholic not christian, big difference. im christian, i do not classify myself in a certain division but i do go to a baptist church.
No need to tell me to calm down. Just expressing as are others. He says quite cleary "Catholics are not Chistians." No mention of the Pope. Your struggle with faith is not, as you know, unusual for a human being. St. Paul stated "Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the beleif in things unseen." Two things that are not of our concrete preferences. I do not put down anybodies beleif. I love to have talks with Muslims, Jews, Zorastrians and anyone who practices faith. I do however, need to jump in when someone says something incorrect about the Faith I practice and study.How could you say such a thing? Not only are Catholics Christians they were the first first Christians. Who do you think brought us the New Testaments. Not King James I assure you. You are entirely entitled to your own opinions but please check what you say to evaluate for validity. Not only was your statement wrong, it was insulting to the Catholic faith.I knew this topic was going to come up sooner or later.
First off, I will say that I am totally in favor of people believing in whatever they may choose and I believe that each person has the right to do so without discrimination.
The issue I have with some religions is it creates a hierarchy where non would have existed before. For example, I do not like how, in the christian religion, there is an all mighty Pope that has so much power over millions of people because of the religion, even though there is no mention of them in the bible. I just feel that religion has become to "man-made" in a sense that over the years it has been changed to a way that benefits some ( monetarily, power, ect.. ) while providing nothing but hope to others.
real quick wanted to say that is catholic not christian, big difference. im christian, i do not classify myself in a certain division but i do go to a baptist church.
Eggman, relax, please. I think he's referring to "Christianity" as the large number of Christian faiths/sects that don't consider the Pope as their earthly religious authority figure, while Catholics do. Yes, it is indeed true that Catholics are Christians in that they believe in Jesus Christ, but I think he's just pointing out the whole Pope issue. Some Christians think this makes them somehow better than Catholics, some don't, some have no opinion on the subject at all. And (shock and awe) some are tolerant of whatever faith you call your own.
I get the feeling that this whole "evil thoughts" issue is a little extreme. It was probably meant along the lines of intentional thoughts, like actually plotting the murder of someone with the intent of carrying it out. It would be like the religious equivalent of a "conspiracy to commit" charge or something along those lines. Simply put, we don't have control over every random stray thought that pops into our heads, and we probably only act on maybe 1% or less of them anyway. Intent makes a difference; lack of intent is just mental canoodling and amounts to nothing. If we were all guilty of whatever we think of, I'd probably be in solitary lockdown in a supermax prison somewhere in the Midwest, despite being a generally mild-mannered and easygoing guy. (Either that, or I'd be working for the CIA...)
So much of any religion's fundamental texts gets interpreted in such divergent ways, it's like asking four people what color a traffic light is at any given moment and getting four different answers: red, green, yellow and chartreuse. Ask a fifth guy and he'll say something like black. There are Christians to this day who believe in and practice things like slavery and sexual assault/rape of minors, and they have the same Bible (though perhaps a different translation) as the people who sit in St. Patrick's Cathedral or Westminster Abbey praying for an end to the suffering in this world. Name any religion, I practically guarantee they have similar issues. The American military wouldn't be fighting jihadis in Aghanistan is this wasn't true about Islam, and nor would the Russian military have had to before them. More Muslims talk of the Qu'ran as being a text instructing people in peaceful, harmonious ways to live than in calling every outsider with modern ideas an infidel worth little more than a bullet to the head or the edge of a sword to the throat.
It's little wonder why someone like me finds it difficult to follow and have faith in any religion or theology. I don't rule out the existence of any god, because I don't have proof of the non-existence of such, but nor do I automatically rule in the existence of such higher powers because I lack proof there as well and refuse to simply take it as a matter of faith.
roman catholicism is a branch of Catholics, something like the Jesuits which I believe are still around would be another form. They are not interchangable. Yes Catholicism was basicly the start of christianity but other religions which are christians split because they didn't believe some of the same things as Catholics or agreed that the Pope was the greatest religious athuority over them.Some validity in what you said. Martin Luther disagreed with the Pope but Martin Luther also had ulterior motives. Many splits from Catholicism did not come from theological differences but power grabs. Think Henry the 8th. No doubt, the Catholic Church had become, in parts, corrupted at the time of Martin Luther. There was a call at the time by people who today are considered Saints of the Church to reform the Church from within as they, as Catholics, saw the need for reform. The Catholic Church has had many problems throughout its history, they were not created by the Church, but by man. If one would care to do the research rather than focus on the unfortunate and terrible scandals that have taken place in the Church most specifically what has happened recently, one would see that throughout its 2,000 years of history, the Catholic Church has been the greatest provider of humatarian service in the world, bar none. Some say, and I beleive it to be true, one of the main reason the Catholic Church is bashed so frequently, the acceptable prejudice if you will, is because for 2,000 years the Church has remained a thorn in the side of humanity with a consistent viewpoint on morality that clashes between "the flesh and the spirit."
The Catholic Church has been the greatest provider of humanitarian aid?! RECENT scandals? You really want us to bring up the past scandals? The inquisitions? The crusades? I mean, I'm not in favour of raping children by any means but I'd certainly prefer to be associated with that than the activities of the RC church in any other period in history. No, they are not the greatest provider bar none because I could simply call 'other' a category. Plus, I would strongly question just how 'humanitarian' much of that aid actually was. Mother Theresa's hospices were nothing but a cult worshipping suffering whose only goal was to keep people ill, in pain and faithful, for one popular example.That shows pure ignorance. God bless. I always expect that response as it is a very standard one from the ignorant. No Catholic denies the problems and the scandals. On the other hand, you apparently have not studied the Inquisition one bit. Do you know how the Spanish Government took it over to root out dissendents. I bet you do not even know where Spain is so how could I ask you such a question. Anyway, I do not want to go back and fourth, I guess we both have better things to you. Although your post was quite malicous and directed at me, I do of course forgive you, bare you no ill will and wish you a Merry Christmas.
dissendents
I must admit, had I know that Alex and Kanped would respond like this I never would have posted. I do not try to convert, I do not try to stir controversy so I apologize if I upset you guys. I guess this is not the time to talk theology. My bad.
Debates my good man are one thing. This is something else. I think you know that. How is saying "Mother Theresa should burn in hell" a debate. What do I say?, "no she should not" and consider that part of a debate. How to one debate viewpoints like that.
No, you think you now something but you do not
Are you trying to take some kind of great opened minded high road? It is not, it is the exact opposite. Who do you think Mother Theresa thought she was, I can tell you, she thought she was a failed person. Anyone who considers themselves Holy, by the doctine of the faith is not. Secondly, this has nothing to do with Obama, I guess you were trying to relate something there to make it all seem cool. I spent a summer in India about ten years ago and I do have first hand experience with Mother Theresas Hospice. Anyway, I am not sure you know what a debate it is. Oh well, let us face it, this place is about cards. Why bother with this here.
So far, the only person here that has made a personal attack in this thread is yourself.
You missed it, I am not talking about Religion anymore. I was saying there was another part of this that was amiss. Look, this is going nowhere, passive aggresive is not an insult, it is a diagnoses. Probably not the only one. I am sure a shrink would have a feild day with me. See, I made fun of myself, a personal attack against myself, are we even Oh yea whom are free of psych diagnoses.
I think the intention is utterly clear; you can be punished for your thoughts. I have no idea why you would try to justify it with your own addendum.
I think the divergent interpretations are an offshoot effect of people actively disagreeing with what has been said but been so manipulated by a religious upbringing that they bend the text's intentions to fit their own good morals. I know lots of Christians who do that (and I'm very glad they do but to me it shows that they do have some doubts).
You can't prove the non-existence of something; proof doesn't work like that. It doesn't mean you have to give validity to something that may exist; by that reasoning, I could create any story about the creation and maintenance of the universe and you would have to say that it is just as valid as any of the major religions because there is no evidence for anything other than that this all could have happened without divine intervention.
dissendents
Dissidents. I think the passive aggressive 'I don't like you but I have to' approach is quite endearing, by the way.
While my post was a reply to yours and I'll admit, I do hold some malice for the RC Church, that anger is in no way directed at you or any other good people who are a part of it. I am aware of the history of the Spanish Inquisition (and yes, I know where Spain is. I've even been a few times). It wasn't the only inquisition, you know, nor was it the last. The Roman Catholic church killed 'heretics' right up until the 1920s, an 800 year run of blood on the church's hands. No comment on the crusades or Mother Theresa, then?
Look, I know this stuff gets my blood boiled quite a bit and I can be quite acerbic when I'm talking about it but you have to realize that from my perspective, the church has indulged and continues to indulge in appalling behaviour. Growing up in Northern Ireland, I have seen religious differences cause otherwise impossible hate and violence towards our fellow man and learning more about the world has shown me the terrible misdeeds that the church continues to perpetuate. It seems that much of their policy is designed in order to keep their followers suffering and faithful and you can't deny that they have made an extortionate amount of money from doing so. To my mind, as an atheist and simply as a human being, the RC church is probably the single most evil organization in existence and I make no apologies for saying so.
If you don't want to talk about it any more, that's fine; if you change your mind, I'm more than happy to continue.
This entire forum is about cards, that is what I meant. This is just a distraction for when people who get sick of talking about cards talk about something else and then go back to talking about cards. Look, I do not care if people hate Religion. You can say whatever you want about me, faith, baseball, fireflys, the Great Wall of China, mating habits of the Iranian mudskipper. I was just surprised about the level of ignorance included in your response and then stating it is a "debate". :-X Makes no sense. Anyway, what the hell, perhaps this particular thread is not about cards but as they say, "You do not go to a whore house to listen to the music." You need to review the posts or review your definition of a personal attack. Ignorance is not an attack, merley a way of looking at things. It has it's benefits. I choose to be ignorant about many subjects in life, especially Iranian Mudskippers.
religion= faith. faith is believing in something unknown. i have faith that a nuclear war will not happen tonight, however i could be wrong.
I never called myself a victim. I never called anybody ignorant. I called statements ignorant. You can think you are right all you want. That is fine. I make many stupid decisions each day, that does not make me stupid. Alex, I was simply surprised by your mother theresa comments. I am not condoning you for making them, you are free to do so. If you had bad experiences like kanap did and it left you bitter about something I understand (that happened to me with Jack Daniels) I was just surprised and did not expect you to come across like that. I see kanap and you are still taking the religous part of this, that is over for me, what you think is what you think. I was merely surprised at the tactics of the discussion. I guess I am not being clear enough.You missed it, I am not talking about Religion anymore. I was saying there was another part of this that was amiss. Look, this is going nowhere, passive aggresive is not an insult, it is a diagnoses. Probably not the only one. I am sure a shrink would have a feild day with me. See, I made fun of myself, a personal attack against myself, are we even Oh yea whom are free of psych diagnoses.
You may call yourself however you want, but you will not call other people "ignorant" and play the role of victim.
Again, I have no qualms with your beliefs. I see no reason you can't make a post in this thread about why I or someone else is wrong. Until then, I will assume I am right. That's how the world works, there is no use in fighting it.
FYI, I've never really had any bad experiences (other than the threat of hell etc. that gets thrown into all Christians as kids), but I've seen the damage done to this country of mine and heard the hate, seen the hate. Never been a victim, though. I've also seen poverty, hate and misery around the world that I feel was caused by religion (and, I'm sorry but primarily from the RC Church and Islam; it's possibly just because they're the biggest).
@MrMagic, I'm sorry if you feel that your view won't be considered or I'll miss the point of what you're trying to say. I really do try my best to see things from other people's perspectives and understand what they're saying clearly (and ask if I can't). I hope if you have anything to say, you won't avoid doing so for that reason.
religion= faith. faith is believing in something unknown. i have faith that a nuclear war will not happen tonight, however i could be wrong.
No faith is believing in something without reason. mrMagic had a perfect definition of it earlier in this thread. You don't need faith that there won't be a nuclear war because there's plenty of evidence to suggest that there won't be.
@Sabbac, There could always be more sensitive measuring devices, flawed data etc. etc. any number of things. Does this mean that we cannot prove anything for sure, either? Kind of, but if we set up our test in such a way that any unknown element or anything we have missed does exist, it will be statistically insignificant and shouldn't affect the results.
If my invented creation story is as valid as any other, doesn't that devalue creation stories, generally? What if I made up a million creation stories? What if everyone on the planet made up a million creation stories? If they are all valid, this could continue until the chance of any one of them being correct is infinitesimally small.
One more thing I wanted to clear up with you; atheism is not a belief and is not contradictory to agnosticism.
If you can say "I don't think we can know for sure if there is a God or not', then you are agnostic. However, you can say that and still believe in god, making you an agnostic theist.
If you can say "I do not believe that there is a God", then you are an atheist. You may be both an agnostic and an atheist or you may be just an atheist ("I know there is no God").
As I said before, I am an agnostic and an atheist and by the sounds of things, it would seem that you are, too.
I guess I will try to explain before I bow out. I am a bit intolerant against intolerance. I think their was a bit of hate speach that came about after I posted my ideas about the Catholic Church. Their are 1.2 billion Catholics in the world and I guess I did not run into any here. I understand people have problems with Religion. I did at one point myself. In the end, many people hate the Catholic Church for what they think it is, few, if any, hate it for what it is. I did not attack anyone on a personal level nor do I feel I was attacked at a personal level. Dialouge and debate is of value to me, but when you say the basis of one point of view is evil, intelligent debate ends, unless he is talking about evil itself. I can admit I did become hot under the collar and spoke out of turn. If you refer to the start of this, I simply was brining up historical fact which was attacked. Again, I do not take this as a personal attack, even if it was inteded to be so. Since I am obviosly out numbered, I will give you all the final word. It has been nice talking with you, that is not passive aggresive, that is about 65% true. Alright, maybe 42%. Peace.
The ones backed by science have some sort of backing to them, but it wouldn't be the first time that things we took for granted as true turned out later to be in error...
Atheism is a belief - a belief that there is no god. Even if you believe in nothing, that, too, is a belief. Belief doesn't imply religion in any way, though religion in most cases implies a belief in something.
The atheist says: "A god or gods do not exist. This is what I believe."
The agnostic says: "A god or gods may or may not exist - I don't know for sure. I'm open to all possibilities, and I'm seeking which of them is true."
a) The difference is that science does not make assumptions and force the evidence or lack thereof to fit that assumption, it asserts and test and is impartial until the results are clear. I'll completely agree that mistakes and false positives can and will be made but I think that this is a better way to test for truth and until better findings are discovered, better evidence is presented, I will accept that as far as we CAN know, the results of this method of testing are true.
b) I'm sticking to my definition of what atheism is; it is the definition used by the Brights Movement, the Atheist Community of Austin, even Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris et. al. If you are an atheist, you must also be gnostic or agnostic (this is also true if you are a theist or a deist, or anything else). Gnosticism is asserting that you know, absolutely what is true regardless of what that assertion is; only a gnostic atheist says 'I believe there is no god'. An agnostic atheist, like myself says 'I do not believe there is a god'. Atheism is not a belief but a lack of a particular belief in a deity; this is the definition that is most commonly used.
here's the (contracted) dictionary.com entry;
"
Atheist, agnostic, refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine."
Those are not mutually exclusive; I deny the existence of a deity ("I do not believe in god") but I also accept that it is impossible to know anything a god, if there is one (I'm confident the 'creation' and in fact the notion of a creation can be explained by mankind and will be at some point, probably before too long).
Here is an interesting video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LkaH3hEmV3M# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LkaH3hEmV3M#)!
@Curt: That video proves that there are great religious people. This is a man who clearly knows how the world works. As someone who believes no religion created by man is a correct one, I have two choices: To believe what this priest believes (that to follow a religion is merely a way to get closer to God), or to assume God does not exist.
I chose the latter.
The facts are facts - no religion will ever be correct. The Trinity, Allah, Hashem - at best the Judeo-Christian teachings are a framework for a chance to immerse yourself in God in what few ways we can should one exist.
I mean, come on, the phrase "Everything in the Bible is true" is one I have heard very many people say. You have to be foolish to believe that. A real religious man or woman, who wants to do the work of God, would treat the Bible as a fictional story that helps him or her understand how to act in modern society. Consider it a basic guide to morals, if you will. Let it be the cornerstone of your ideas, so that when you don't abide by rules such as "stone to death any child that raises a hand to his father" you don't feel like a hypocrite.
There are ways to be religious, while maintaining logic. I wish more people would use them.
@Sabacc I probably could have worded it all better but that's my own imitations and trying to make what I was saying fit with the dictionary definitions.
Sp, 'I do not believe in god' and 'I believe there is no god' are not the same, as one is a belief and requires faith, whereas one does not. If you believe that there is no god, any possibility of one ever existing is eradicated in your mind. I am willing to be proven wrong, with sufficient evidence ('sufficient' would take an awful lot to achieve; the extraordinary requires extraordinary evidence). I'll say again; atheism is not a belief but a lack of a particular belief. Beliefs come from Gnosticism; claiming to KNOW something, without evidence. Atheism does NOT make that claim.
Regarding the gentleman who talks about Buddhist beleifs, I practiced the Buddha way of life for some time. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to live in China, be it only for a few months. While their, I spent a lot of time in monasterys and translating various texts. I followed the Dali Llama which is only one of many sects of Buddhist beleif. The Dali Llama does not like to refer to Buddhist beleifs as religion. He states it is more of a philosophy. I think what finally made me leave the Buddhist thought was reading texts of Tibetan Buddhist which stated belief in God is contrary to Buddhist beliefs. I learned later that several other sects of Bhuddist thought such as that practiced in Vietnam do believe in God. Although no longer a buddhist, I do still practice meditation which I learned and have a deep appreciation for the monks that taught me.
@Kanped - I get the impression now that while we use slightly different interpretations, we're basically of a similar mind on this. If I've got this right, you state the evidence thus far seems to lean towards the universe being godless, I state that the evidence shows neither the presence nor absence of any god, but beyond that, we're both agnostics awaiting proof one way or another. Correct?
:)
@Kanped - I get the impression now that while we use slightly different interpretations, we're basically of a similar mind on this. If I've got this right, you state the evidence thus far seems to lean towards the universe being godless, I state that the evidence shows neither the presence nor absence of any god, but beyond that, we're both agnostics awaiting proof one way or another. Correct?
:)
Pretty much; I do call myself an atheist by my own definition but I am unquestionably agnostic. I would personally probably go slightly further towards the anti-theism camp than you tend to lean and I might consider myself less non-committal than I gauge your position to be. To me, the evidence dictating that there is no reason to believe in god is as compelling as the evidence for believing in the existence of myself. The chances of there being a god, especially one we can comprehend, communicate with etc. is so vastly small that I choose to ignore it completely, in the same way that I choose to ignore the possibility that I don't exist. I can't say that possibility isn't there (it is) but there is nothing useful I can do with it.
I don't think I've ever put it like this before but while I will not say 'I believe there is no god', if undeniable evidence could somehow be found that conclusively proves that there was no god, my life and my outlook on it would not change at all.
Eggman, I just added your post to this thread since it basically covers what is being discussed in this topic.Alright, I deleted my post. I did not want to bring this thread back up as it became unproductive. Tnaks anyway.
For the newer members of the discourse, remember to keep with thread free of snarky comments and just state opinions and arguments for what ever your personal beliefs are.
I understand. I just wanted to start a new discussion based around some reading I was doing. Once I saw it moved to this thread I decided to delete it. Not a big deal.How did you manage to delete it? Did you just edit it and delete the text?
CBJ; converting atheists to theism; very difficult, almost never happens. Converting theists to atheism, on the other hand? Most of us were believers, once.I don't know I just think that there is some higher power that is above us, that you go somewhere when you die, idk but I think it is just that I don't really know what I believe, I just think that religion is a load of crap. When I acctually think about it though, I have no idea why I think there is a god, maybe it is just for something to turn to when you feel down, like an imaginary friend. But there really is no solid evidence about anything in religion. When I think about what I believe in, I just really don't know, I think what actually happens when we die will be so extrordinary that we can't even imagine it. Or we will just die and be done idk.
Since the topic's alive again; Aaron, why do you believe that there is a god?
CBJ; converting atheists to theism; very difficult, almost never happens. Converting theists to atheism, on the other hand? Most of us were believers, once.
(2125) Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."
My strong opinion mostly comes from my experiences in Brazil. Here in the UK, people are much more 'tolerant' about atheism. In Brazil, however, my experience is that people assume you are either Catholic or Protestant (protestant to them meaning any non-catholic Christian, mostly). Tell people that you are atheist and they are shocked and afronted, which I found to be most distasteful.
If things like the existence of God could be proven, it would have been. I mean, it's been thousands of years. Be realistic.
Living your life based on the remote possibility of someone that is neither proven nor disproven to be true is not healthy. It is paranoia, and it limits everything you can accomplish.To me, it's theists who are living like that, not agnostics. I always thought agnostics were just indifferent. It's not so simple as the idea of probability, because there either is or there isn't a higher-being.
I understand choosing to be spiritual, it makes life bearable. It's nice feeling that someone is always watching over you. However, I don't know why that someone has to be some bloke who we can literally define and create images of.Ermm... you can't create images of Allah. Neither can you create images of the Prophets or Prophet Muhammad (i know you can't create images of Prophet Muhammad but I'm not sure about the rest, sorry)
I have read a bit on Islam. I find it very interesting and find wisdom in its writtings. I am familiar with the "ban" for lack of a better word on images of the prophet but I have a religous art work book that displays many paintings of the prophet. They were painted by muslims in the 1200's. I am not trying to contradict what you say as I know it is correct I just wanted to ask you why these paintings of the prophet were allowed at the time. They are definetly artists renderings of mohamed. I have a few muslim friends and I have yet to get a straight answer. I suspect it has something to do with different interpetations between Shia and Sunni. I ask this question with respect to your Religion. It is something I have been trying to figure out since I purchased the book. Any help would be appreciated.
People act like the Judeo-Christian God is neither proven nor disproven, which presumably means we should gamble on the idea of god being proven. This is entirely false.Christians do beleive that not only does God exist, but he has lived among us and told us a thing or two. Not arguing with your post, I see logic in your statements.
Any concept of god as defined by humans has been disproven logically, scientifically, historically and philosophically.
The concept of a higher being is one that is up for debate and is neither proven nor disproven. This is the only thing to consider in a religious debate.
If we lived in an infinite universe, then the probability of a higher being is infinite, which means that one has to exist. However, we live in a finite universe with finite probabilities.
We know for a fact that it is highly probable that sentient life more complex than ours can exist somewhere in the universe. This does not constitute a "higher being" since they are in no way related to our world. The concept of a "higher being" refers solely to a master being or a master race that has somehow affected the development of our world.
That alone is an insignificant concept. It does not affect our lives. For it to be a significant concept, you must attribute to this "higher being" the power of creating an afterlife for humans based off of our actions in the living world.
From this stems Pascal's wager. However, let me explain why agnosticism is completely and utterly pointless.
Can anyone here honestly tell me that there is an absolute 0% chance of you going to a beach and being trampled by an elephant? Is it completely out of the realm of possibility? No. It is conceptually possible, just like the idea of a higher being. It is not a circle-square, for example.
Now then, how many of you only go to the beach with an animal tranquilizer gun in hand?
Living your life based on the remote possibility of someone that is neither proven nor disproven to be true is not healthy. It is paranoia, and it limits everything you can accomplish.
Look, I'm sorry everyone but that's just NOT what the word 'agnostic' means; 'a' without 'gnosti' knowledge. I.e. there is no way to know for sure, absolutely 100%. Someone who is gnostic believes that they know 100% for absolute fact about something (it can be about ANYTHING).
There is the difference; 'I believe there is no god' is gnostic atheism. Anyone who is an atheist or theist is also gnostic or agnostic.
Thanks, that would be great. Yes, they are full portraits showing face. The Taliban destroyed a # of paintings but the Taliban would destroy a painting that had on it any image of a human (any human)
So I won't post all of my beliefs in detail here becauseI understand your point and you are far from the only person who holds it. It is easy to look at the world today and see how man suffers. If you look at this suffering in say, African countries, you will find much of this suffering is brought about by corrupt governments. Much of this is a result of the cold war when the US and USSR were using Africa as a play thing. Look at Mugabi, prime example of US playing games. That being said, much of mans suffering is brought about by man. If it is man caused, man has the ability to change it. If God fixed all these problems we would not have free will. The purpose is to use this free will we have been given the right way. During the cold war, the US and USSR sent weapons to every corner of the world. This means the also have the ability to send bread to every corner of the world. When you reflect upon it, Mao, Stalin and Hitler killed more people in their reigns than religion has in 2,000 years. Each of these men were Atheist and beleived themselves and the state to be the final ultimate power. I know people here say Hitler was a Christian. Yes, he was babtized Christian, but he left it behind and did what he did.
1) I don't think I should reveal everything on the web
2) I'm too lazy to write it all out.
But basically I don't think there is a god. There's many things that wouldn't work if there were one IMO. Also, why would he let all the people that destroy nature, pollute, have a lot of money to live in mansions... live perfect lives and not do anything to help all those suffering in India, China, North Korea, and Africa among other places. Why would the majority of hard-working americans do everything they can to live a decent life while the top 3% is just chilling, buying stocks and letting our economy crash by selling stocks. Why would a small group of individuals be allowed to decide the fate of our nation without a potential god doing anything. I'm too lazy to write some more right now.
This is where I disagree. First of all, not all suffering is man made. Many people are born into poverty. Most of the time because of the way the government functions, but often because of their situation. Have a child be born in the middle of the desert without any resources around him. Will he die? Yes. Will it be humanity's fault? No, because we didn't do anything to harm him in any way. Of course the government can help human beings, but utopia does't exist. There will always be some that will be more harmed than others and there will always be a group that will prevail. Unfortunately. You bring up the point of free will. Let's admit God exists. Now, as much as he supports free will, wouldn't he help, just a bit, to bring order or at least guide us to peace and calm? He did it in many instances in the Bible. Some people where being racist and killing others. According to the Bible, God helped them survive, and punished "the bad guys". Now, when we need him the most, why on Earth wouldn't he be here?So I won't post all of my beliefs in detail here becauseI understand your point and you are far from the only person who holds it. It is easy to look at the world today and see how man suffers. If you look at this suffering in say, African countries, you will find much of this suffering is brought about by corrupt governments. Much of this is a result of the cold war when the US and USSR were using Africa as a play thing. Look at Mugabi, prime example of US playing games. That being said, much of mans suffering is brought about by man. If it is man caused, man has the ability to change it. If God fixed all these problems we would not have free will. The purpose is to use this free will we have been given the right way. During the cold war, the US and USSR sent weapons to every corner of the world. This means the also have the ability to send bread to every corner of the world. When you reflect upon it, Mao, Stalin and Hitler killed more people in their reigns than religion has in 2,000 years. Each of these men were Atheist and beleived themselves and the state to be the final ultimate power. I know people here say Hitler was a Christian. Yes, he was babtized Christian, but he left it behind and did what he did.
1) I don't think I should reveal everything on the web
2) I'm too lazy to write it all out.
But basically I don't think there is a god. There's many things that wouldn't work if there were one IMO. Also, why would he let all the people that destroy nature, pollute, have a lot of money to live in mansions... live perfect lives and not do anything to help all those suffering in India, China, North Korea, and Africa among other places. Why would the majority of hard-working americans do everything they can to live a decent life while the top 3% is just chilling, buying stocks and letting our economy crash by selling stocks. Why would a small group of individuals be allowed to decide the fate of our nation without a potential god doing anything. I'm too lazy to write some more right now.
Don; you do not believe in god, therefore are an atheist. No matter how moderate your attitude may be, if you do not believe that there is a god up there, even if your answer is 'I don't know if there is or not', you ARE an atheist.
somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood
"I'm an agnostic concerning space aliens."
Def. Of agnostic
Def. of Gnostics (general)
Many Gnostic sects were Christians who embraced mystical theories of the true nature of Jesus and/or the Christ which were out of step with the teachings of orthodox Christian faith. For example, Gnostics generally taught docetism, the belief that Jesus did not have a physical body, but rather his apparent physical body was an illusion, and hence his crucifixion was not bodily
I'm taking it from the literal Greek meaning and the meaning used by the majority of philosophers that I have read on the subject. It makes perfect sense to me to use that definition.
As a matter of a fact, about 90% of my suffering was caused by myself.
Hitler wasn't an atheist. Throwing Mao, Hitler and Stalin into the mix is confusing the issue, anyway; the argument there is secularism vs totalitarianism i.e., the point is political, not religious. In fact, in the case of Stalin, the previous entirely religious position of the tsar was what allowed him to rule absolutely as he did (the tsars acted as a kind of pope; a channel to god). Were these good people? No. Did their religious beliefs have anything to do with that? No.
I guessed you rather missed my point. Still, I would rather hear what you beleive than what you do not beleive. It is the best way for me to learn about the ideas of other peoples faith or lack there of.
P.S I agree, coffee is great. I like mine with just cream. How about you?2% Milk and sugar(One measure of each). Cream is too rich for me. :P
Now, there's conflicting evidence and nobody really knows for sure whether or not Hitler was really a Catholic, or even a believer so it's pointless to labour the issue BUT I really don't think the Vatican comes out of the whole affair looking particularly good, either way.
...When you reflect upon it, Mao, Stalin and Hitler killed more people in their reigns than religion has in 2,000 years...
...a man made famine in China killed 10's of millions....
Don, the pope was never in the Hitler Youth. He was, however drafted by the German Army at a young age. He did not have much of a choice. His father left a civil service job as his family did not agree with what hitler was doing to the country. The Pope never fought in combat and never supported Hitler.
He was not a member of the Hitler youth. I can assure you that.
[size=125%][/size][size=100%]Joseph Ratzinger[/size][/size][/size] [size=90%][size=125%][size=125%][/size] | |||||||
[size=90%]Allegiance[/size]
|
There are some people, if they do not know, you just can not tell them. I will not bother posting proper resources. as I am getting tired of this thread. Time to discuss cards. Do some research on Wikepedia itself and you will learn a lot.
There are some people, if they do not know, you just can not tell them. I will not bother posting proper resources. as I am getting tired of this thread. Time to discuss cards. Do some research on Wikepedia itself and you will learn a lot.
It's easier to just say 'OK, you win', you know.
Reliability of Wikipedia
Are you or were you thinking about citing Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, in your memo, essay, report, or not to mention in your legal document, such as a brief? Hm, take a moment and think twice.
A New Jersey judge who allowed a lawyer to plug an evidentiary gap with a Wikipedia page has been reversed on the ground that the online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" is not a reliable source of information.
As stated in the ruling of Palisades Collection, L.L.C. v. Graubard, No. L-3394-06, 2009 WL 1025176 (N.J. Super. A.D. April 17, 2009),
t is entirely possible for a party in litigation to alter a Wikipedia article, print the "article and thereafter offer it in support of any given position," an appeals court held. "Such a malleable source of information is inherently unreliable and clearly not one 'whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned," such as would support judicial notice under New Jersey Evidence Rule 201(b)(3). Just one of many I would say you won if you did